The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Anyone familiar with "hyper-grace"?

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

While searching for a UR related book on Amazon this evening, the “people also bought” ads included several books on “hyper-grace”. I don’t ever remember seeing this term before so I did a little research. There were numerous search results condemning it and some praising it.

When I finally saw a list of hyper-grace preachers, almost all were unfamiliar to me except one. Clark Whitten of Grace Orlando church. He had been a guest speaker at my former church, Gateway Church in Dallas and I remember him well as probably the very best guest speaker they ever had there, not for his oratory skills but for the content of his message.

Since UR is arguably a form of hyper-grace, do any of you around here have any experience with what it is all about?

#2

Not reallyTrey but it looks like a typical bun fight developing with people taking what I like to call “Readers Digest” (ie light on in factuality) positions behind there barricades and slinging ill considered epithets at each other. I.e. much heat and no light!

#3

I have not yet made up my mind on these matters. That said, I think hyper grace isn’t exactly the correct message. Despite the fact (or belief) that no one will be punished forever, people still will be punished and some more severely than others. What we do matters in this life and if someone says “I don’t care to follow God, because he is going to save me anyway” is going to have difficult times ahead, both in real world consequences and the next life.

If MacDonald is right (and I believe he is) then all that person is doing is putting off the hard work until later. I’d rather obey now rather than later. So, again, even though punishment will have an end, only a short sighted person would look at that and say “I’ll do what I want” not realizing that everyone is going to have to go through the process at some point. Better to do it now.

When we want to be Holy for holiness sake, then we are in a position to move towards holiness. My position is definitely eventual salvation of all mankind, but that doesn’t mean people will skip the hard work… Everyone will be salted with fire. Everyone.

#4

I’ve never heard of the term before. Is it what we call here “ultra-universalism”? – no post-mortem punishment at all (and maybe no pre-mortem punishment either)?

#5

No, not really. Because hyper-grace still believes in ECT. Basically hyper-grace is this: Believe in Jesus and no matter what you do or how many times you fail, or no matter how addicted to something you are, basically it is ‘ok’ and forgiven. It sounds nice, and in some ways there is ‘some’ truth to it. However, it becomes a breeding ground for apathy over one’s Christian walk. It becomes a ‘who cares?’ type deal. Now, proponents deny this…

In my opinion hyper-grace was one of the ways Christian’s can quell their guilt when they read passages of scripture that seem to scare them. So, rather than believe in Universalism, they have accepted that Christ died for the penalty of their sins only, not the power of them. There is a lot of double talk. That said, non-grace people are even worse! This is why Universalism makes the most sense. We don’t have to come up with new ideas to explain away the scriptures we don’t like. They can all be taken at face value (provided they are translated correctly)…

#6

After doing a little more research, these so called hyper-grace preachers seem a mixed bag. One, Richard Murray is definitely a universalist. Several others I’m not sure. Clark Whitten seems to avoid the issue of hell while preaching a message that seems UR compatible.

The list I used was basrijksen.com/grace-preachers/

#7

This isn’t true for everyone, though. I think the “hyper-grace” message can be very liberating to people caught up in legalism/trying to earn their salvation, and who struggle with chronic guilt and chronic fear of punishment; and the result of those liberated is that they are free from the bondage of addictions and sin they were enslaved to. There is also exponential growth in their Christian walk, though, albeit, this doesn’t happen to everyone, and, I suspect what you said above is true about others.

I think this a “moving” example of someone set free from sin and trying to earn their salvation by the “hyper-grace” message:

This one was really good, too. It’s only a little over 4mins long:

I’m not certain who you are referring to here, but, I also know people whose lives has been radically transformed by the Calvinist Gospel of “repent of be damned.” Yet, at the same time, I am know of people (myself included) who has been damaged by this Gospel.

I think it is interesting how such versions of the Gospel, that I have found personally damaging, can be so liberating to others (even though the message may contain falsehoods). And, no matter how much I may loathe certain doctrines/beliefs, I can’t dismiss the help it has been to others.

#8

Yeah, I was speaking of generalities. I agree with you, but most of your ‘guilt and condemnation’ came from ECT, and an improper understanding of the Bible. That isn’t your fault.

This is another broad-sweeping statement, but doesn’t it seem a bit strange when Christian’s can read a warning (that is being written to THEM) and sweep it under the rug so easily with “It is covered under the blood” or “Doesn’t apply to Christians” or “Glad, God saved me and predestined me so that this warning no longer applies to me” or “I’ll ignore this”. Yet, these warnings are real. Now, take Christians who treat those warnings seriously and threaten them with ECT and you have the breeding grounds for spiritual terrorism.

Also, with the traditional viewpoint, those who believe in Jesus can be morally bankrupt in their lives and yet go to heaven, while one who does not know Jesus (yet) is going to hell… Doesn’t add up, IMO.

#9

This is another broad-sweeping statement, but doesn’t it seem a bit strange when Christian’s can read a warning (that is being written to THEM) and sweep it under the rug so easily with “It is covered under the blood” or “Doesn’t apply to Christians” or "Glad, God saved me

I think because they believe their past and future sins are forgiven therefore warnings don’t apply to them. Might be interesting to delve into the word “forgiven” to see what it really means.

#10

Ah, okay, good, thanks for the further info, Gabe (and others). :slight_smile:

I think the underlying gospel assurances themselves aren’t damaging, and are rather liberating, which is why converts from one side of Christendom to another truly do (sometimes) benefit in freedoms and spiritual growth by the switches.

One assurance comes down to: I don’t have to do anything to earn my salvation from sin, or even to earn the assurance of my salvation. I don’t have to convince God to save me, or to keep at saving me until He gets it done. God won’t give up on me, even if I sometimes give up on God. God’s faithfulness cannot be invalidated by my unfaithfulness, for God is better and truer than I am.

There are ways to misunderstand and pervert that, even so far as it is stated, much moreso when it comes to trying to explain how some kind of hopeless punishment or fate happens anyway. But it has solid theological roots, and coming to believe it can free a person from some kinds of oppression, especially the legalistic oppression of earning the favor of the judge.

The other assurance comes down to: I don’t have to wonder if God intends to save me from sin, and I don’t have to rely on my own feelings of being chosen or anything else that could in theory be a mistake or self-deception or even divine deception. God intends and acts to save everyone, regardless of who they are, and everyone certainly includes me and certainly includes everyone I love. God certainly doesn’t love them less than I do, and my love for them, especially my saving love for them, isn’t some kind of passable mistake which I may have to be corrected about.

There are ways to misunderstand and pervert that, even so far as it is stated, much moreso when it comes to trying to explain how some kind of hopeless punishment or fate happens anyway. But it has solid theological roots, and coming to believe it can free a person from other kinds of oppression, especially the legalistic oppression of a judge being “arbitrarily” (in the corrupted sense of that term) and immutably fixed against even trying to have mercy on set of persons whose identity will be revealed later and who because of the judge never stood any chance of being saved.

Both kinds of assurance, notice, can rightly inveigh about the other side having legalistic oppression, just of different kinds. :wink:

#11

Hi, Gabe,

Yeah, I understand you were speaking of generalities, although, some times many of our assertions come across like blanket statements, unless qualified. So, I try (though I often fail) to stay away from saying, for e.g, “Calvinism and ECT leads to xyz…” when, in fact, it doesn’t for everyone.

Yes, I do know of both types of Christians you described in your last post. However, in the church I came out of, a morally bankrupt lifestyle was evidence that you weren’t saved to begin with. They believed that if there was no growing love for God and hatred for sin, you could have no assurance that you were going to heaven. For me, this led to years of trying to earn my salvation, or, perhaps assurance, and therefore, I could understand why the “hyper-grace” message is sometimes so helpful to many in similar churches.

#12

I understand what you are saying, but you can charge the Bible with the same thing then - that it doesn’t always qualify it’s statements. I think broad sweeping statements are just fine, assuming people can understand that is what they are. Stereo-types, for example, would not exist if there were not truth in them. I think a blanket statement can be made if it is true of the majority. If the statement “Calvinism leads to ECT” is true for the majority (not saying it is) then it is an ok statement to make. But to say “Calvinism ALWAYS leads to ECT” would be untrue, since the statement is making an absolute claim.

The reason I bring this up, is because when I first converted to Ultra UR (As Jason puts it) I was mister no conflict, mister lets not upset people even if it is the truth they need to hear, etc… Conflict is not bad. Conflict for the sake of conflict is. Now that I am not longer an Ultra UR person, just UR in general, I can see that value in confronting, speaking in broad terms and many other things. In a lot of ways, it is freedom.

For example. when Christ said 'Woe to your Pharisees" wasn’t that a broad sweeping statement? I promise you there were some righteous Pharisees and people on the council. Therefore, Jesus himself used what you are condemning. It is only in our completely analytical black and white world where every statement must be qualified exactly… We may disagree on this, and that is fine. I just think you will severely limit yourself if you feel you must qualify everything down to exact “T”. It is basically like walking on egg shells.

To respond to your second paragraph, yes, I agree that it can be helpful. Which is why I said that it wasn’t “completely correct” in my opinion, because there are real warnings we must heed, or pay the consequences.

#13

Grace, hmmm, God loves you and forgives you of all your sins, past, present, and future, and revealed how much He loves you in the incarnation, life, death, burial, and ressurection of Jesus, Emmanuel, God with us! He forgives you because He loves you. I don’t know how preaching this can be considered “hyper”. And I think those critical of Grace need to rethink what it is that makes them right with God and others. Even judgment flows out of grace and delivers us from evil.

#14

And didn’t Paul get accussed of “hyper-grace”, “let sin abound so that grace may abound”.

#15

As we used to say: “Right on, bro!” :smiley:

#16

Romans 6:1,2 “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?”

Grace will always be greater than sin, but a message that preaches you can live your life anyway you desire isn’t grace. That is foolishness. All too often people want to pretend that love means never hurting anyone. Well, last I checked when God chastises me, it hurts. It is painful. Love does in hurt, and any love that is content to watch someone poison themselves is no love at all. As George MacDonald wrote “What lover would yield his lady to her passion for morphia?”

#17

Houston, we have a problem. Are you seriously suggesting that Paul said “Let sin abound so that grace may abound?” No, rather, he said Romans 5:20 “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” - That is merely pointing out the truth, not trying to tell people to ‘let sin abound’. Besides, Romans 6:1 expounds on this.

#18

I’m sure Sherman was referring to the way some people twisted the gospel of grace. Paul pointed out the fact that where sin increased, grace always increased more and more, and of course certain folks went to town on that. :smiley:

#19

No, I’m saying that people accused him of that, or at least that those who were legalistic did not like Paul teaching on Grace and would make the radical assertion that if we are truly saved by grace, not by works, not by our own righteousness, then we should just sin more so that grace can abound more.

#20

yep.