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.
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. 
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.
yep.
Absolutely agree. Sin brings death, destruction, decay, to all one loves. The message of grace frees us “from” sin not “to” sin. Grace is the love of God for us revealed. And we love God because He first loved us. And the more we love God the more we naturally follow, obey God. Those who love God keep his commandments. And the more we know how much God loves us, the more we in turn love God.
So we share the Amazing (hyper) Grace of God, and we share as a warning how sin brings death and destruction. And since I’ve come to believe in UR, the passages on judgment and the devestation of sin now carry a much greater weight for me, personally. Before I believed in UR, I interpreted the judgment/warning passages as saved vs. unsaved. This nullified the power of these passages to call me (and other believers) to repentance. They didn’t apply to us, we the saved, but applied to the unsaved. But of course, the unsaved didn’t care what they said. So these passages didn’t really call anyone to repentance. Now that I’ve come to believe UR, the passages speak powerfully to me. In fact, most judgment/warning passages are actually addressed to the Children of God, warning us of the destruction that comes to us if we sin. “To whom much is given, much is required.”
We can only understand the hyper-grace of God if we understand the hyper-destructiveness of sin!
Excellent analysis, Sherman.
Amen Sherman!
UR and Hyper-Grace both get the same brush work… “all will be saved… so let’s live like hell”. But the truth is that’s not what most Hyper-Grace teachers teach that I follow. They have a very high view of sin and the need to walking in holiness as evidence of one truly understanding Grace.
I have never heard of this term, but it is clear to me that they don’t have a clue what grace actually is…how can you have a ‘hyper’ amount of something you don’t understand and then preach it with any competence?
The best description of grace I have ever seen in almost 40 years is as follows…“the divine inspiration of God’s spirit within us. leading, prompting us into situations where we are challenged, corrected and inspired to change our natures from Carnal to Christs.”
How do you hyper up that?
It isn’t extra extra forgiveness because forgiveness without change and accountability is of no real benefit to us. The flesh must die so we can put on Christ. That is the whole point to the journey. The grace of God leads us down the paths that bring the heat and the pressures and the trials and testings. Places we wouldn’t go willingly, but He knows that we need it to put off the old man. That’s my 2 cents on the matter. 
Watchman:
To my knowledge, the “hyper-grace” preachers do not use that term for themselves. It is a term that has been applied to them by their critics.
URPilgrim I just have a few questions re your last statement. You use two words which stand out: evidence and understanding. Evidence for whom? Understanding what exactly? and to what degree? My focus on this is more about judgment than about hyper grace but we continually find ourselves making judgments, mostly about others but also about ourselves. Paul said that he did not take much notice of the judgements of others and he hardly even judged himself. My thinking is that it is better for us to live in the WOW factor rather than the paralysis of analysis. That is my two penny worth on this one.
Well, Paul spoke a bit cryptic, because he also said this: 1st Corinthians 11:31 - “But if we judged ourselves rightly, we would not be judged.” Now, this is in reference to the Lord’s Supper. But, it still applies… We must judged ourselves, at least I believe that.
Sherman,
I see I misunderstood you, I apologize… It sure seemed like you were promoting a grace so sloppy that nothing we do in life matters, but your reply is spot on to what I believe. You are totally correct in that just because the message can get twisted, doesn’t make the message wrong. Anything can be twisted.
Chris and Gabe, may I suggest D. R. Silva’s book Hyper-Grace The Dangerous Doctrine of a Happy God. This book is a very good overview of the Grace Movement. Others that I would suggest to look at are Steve Mcvey, Wayne Jacobsen, Joshua Tongol and Phil Drysdale to name a few.
That is true, but yet the proponents of hyper-grace, think everyone is benefitted. That’s why it’s “hyper”; it goes beyond most peoples’ concept of grace. The position is that everyone’s sins are forgiven through Christ’s atonement: past, present, and future, with no need for repentance, acccountability, or enablement to live righteously.
Consider “hyper-Calvinism”. One could say that extra Calvinism would be no more effective than regular Calvinism, since the latter assures that the elect and only the elect can ever be saved.
But hyper-Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility. Regular Calvinism doesn’t. They believe that righteous living is necessary, and their doctrine, “the perseverance of the saints” indicates that the saints will continue to live righteously for they have been predestined to do so.
Hyper-Calvinists are actually as subset of believers in hyper-grace. I knew a hyper-Calvinist who frequently declared, “I sin every day,” and sounded almost proud of the fact. Then he declared, “My sins are forgiven: past, present, and future.”
My view is still that this is bun fight stuff and so I think I will not visit this tread anymore!
Chris - I’m a backwoods Oregonian:: is this what bun fight means:
British INFORMAL , HUMOROUS
1A tea party or other function, typically of a grand or official kind.
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
2A heated argument or exchange:
a public bunfight has arisen between the authors of the report
MORE EXAMPLE SENTENCES
For those who are still interested here’s a great response to those who would miss understand the message of Grace by Paul Ellis.
[size=120]Long live the grace revolution![/size]
[size=100]
Currently, my favorite radical grace teachers are:
Richard Murray - a Universalist. (This linked discussion on God’s nonviolent goodness includes his web site and FB page info.)
Steve McVey- a former Calvinist, whom I would identify as a “hopeful universalist”–although he eschews labels, and aligns most closely with “Trinitarianism” --à la Baxter Kruger and Thomas F. Torrance. In McVey’s article, "Should We Be Universalists? Trinitarians? Or Just Plain Nuts?," he says, “I have probably read more books by Christian Universalist authors than some who identify themselves as Universalists…In my opinion, Tom Talbott’s book, The Inescapable Love of God, is probably the best book on universalism that has ever been written.” The foreward for McVey’s newest book, Beyond An Angry God, was written by Wm. Paul Young, author of the international best-seller,The Shack.
Joseph Prince - a former Arminian who no longer believes a Christian can lose his salvation. And although still officially ECT, Prince simply doesn’t go there in his teachings. (The link shows his most recent video teachings, in reverse chronological order.)
Murray and Prince, like me, are charismatics. (But a lot of traditional boundaries are being erased by this gospel of grace, and IMHO, radical grace adherents are being inexorably moved toward the truth of UR. This was my own case.)
These grace teachers emphasize that our righteousness is a gift that does NOT waver based on our performance:
For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Romans 5:17.
So, knowing we are fully qualified by this gift, the emphasis stays on receiving (and sharing) versus achieving. Being instead of doing. We shoot ourselves in the foot by trying to earn anything from God: everything is free with Him (James 1:17).[/size]
[size=100] If we fail to learn to freely receive, we will lack power and authority to freely give:
Jesus summoned His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every kind of disease and every kind of sickness… As you go, proclaim this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven has come near.’ Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received; freely give. Matthew 10:1-8.[/size][size=120]***In a nutshell, radical grace teachings are all about how to successfully enter, and remain in, the Sabbath rest of Hebrews 4.***[/size]
[size=100]Blessings.[/size]
Is your question answered? The Christian site Got Questions, answered this question at What is hyper-grace?. Of course, Got Questions will respond from traditional Protestant, Biblical perspectives. I think the originators have been reading and reflecting on Quantum physics, Astrophysics, String Theory and Philosophical Theology, before coming up with the term (i.e. since it encompasses all past, present and future sins). And here’s a question for the forum. If hyper-grace is true, then does it extend to the health and prosperity gospel?
Tullian Tchividjian is Billy Graham’s grandson. He is a Calvinist but great to listen to in my opinion. He comes as close as he can without really saying that he believes all will be saved. Steve McVey is one of the first person I read when I started studying grace. I don’t think either of these would say that sin has no consequences, I just think that is the bad rap they get for preaching grace.