ECT True or False question (Billy Graham)
- Thread starter musterion
- Start date
genuineoriginal
New member
It is written about the hypergrace movement:
2 Timothy 4:4 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. |
musterion
Well-known member
What's that, Refutio? Never heard of it. Do instruct us from the ignorance-quenching deeps of your well of knowledge. |
musterion
Well-known member
That is a truly stupid question because it shows you have a narrow view of what "Christian" means and are imposing that meaning on the Text, as well as assuming others share the same definition. The truth is a little more complicated than that.
genuineoriginal
New member
Here is a good explanation:
What is Hyper-grace?
The term hyper-grace was coined by critics of a recent movement in Christianity that places an extreme emphasis on the role of grace. Hyper-grace teaches that God forgives one’s future sins the same way he forgives one’s past sins. Some even say that repentance and confession of sin are not necessary since Christians are eternally forgiven. Sin, according to some with a hyper-grace viewpoint, is bad only because it can be harmful to one’s life, and the only way to truly disappoint God is by not trusting his grace. The idea of progressive sanctification — that believers, with the help of the Holy Spirit, go through a process that gradually separates them from the evil of the world to be more and more like Christ — is dismissed by hyper-grace teachers as legalism. Instead, they believe that a holy life will be a byproduct of God’s grace.
Critics say that the hyper-grace movement teaches that believers are not bound by Jesus’s teachings or responsible for their sin, which it leads many followers to live lives of sin. According to Dr. Michael Brown, president of the FIRE School of Ministry, “In their zeal to exalt God’s grace, hyper-grace teachers often make extreme statements that lead believers to think that they are not responsible for their sins. After all, if we are always perfectly holy in God’s sight, we don’t really sin. Our bodies do! This is dangerous and unbiblical.”
The term hyper-grace was coined by critics of a recent movement in Christianity that places an extreme emphasis on the role of grace. Hyper-grace teaches that God forgives one’s future sins the same way he forgives one’s past sins. Some even say that repentance and confession of sin are not necessary since Christians are eternally forgiven. Sin, according to some with a hyper-grace viewpoint, is bad only because it can be harmful to one’s life, and the only way to truly disappoint God is by not trusting his grace. The idea of progressive sanctification — that believers, with the help of the Holy Spirit, go through a process that gradually separates them from the evil of the world to be more and more like Christ — is dismissed by hyper-grace teachers as legalism. Instead, they believe that a holy life will be a byproduct of God’s grace.
Critics say that the hyper-grace movement teaches that believers are not bound by Jesus’s teachings or responsible for their sin, which it leads many followers to live lives of sin. According to Dr. Michael Brown, president of the FIRE School of Ministry, “In their zeal to exalt God’s grace, hyper-grace teachers often make extreme statements that lead believers to think that they are not responsible for their sins. After all, if we are always perfectly holy in God’s sight, we don’t really sin. Our bodies do! This is dangerous and unbiblical.”
turbosixx
New member
Could you please explain how this verse applies to what we are talking about? The way I understand it, if they were never a part of them, then they were never Christians.
I agree 100%.
So are you saying once we become a Christian, Christ takes over and we can do no wrong?
Could you please explain what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor. 5?
I don’t understand how your marriage isn’t dependent on you. If you cheat on your spouse, will that not damage your marriage and possibly end it. Especially if it continues?
Then maybe you can help me see your way what I see as warnings. The following will be a good start.
I agree it’s important that we understand is it really talking about salvation. You say it isn’t. Could you please explain his point in the next chapter of the Israelites not making it into the promised land and how it is an example for us?
I agree, there are no perfect Christians. That’s why we need the blood of Jesus to cover our sins and also why we cannot earn salvation.
turbosixx
New member
Are they not Christians? If not, do you have any verses supporting that notion?
If they are Christians, then it's dividing Jesus. I don't see how that is in harmony with the rest of scripture.
If it’s not about salvation, please explain how a dead faith is any concern.
Also, what does he mean by justified here: “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.” It’s the same word used in Roman 3:28.
How exactly were the thief’s sins forgiven?
Again, I see many. I’m looking forward to understanding how you see them.
I see all scripture as true. I sure you don't base doctrine on a single verse? I look for harmony of scripture.
Sorry to hear about your father.
This is a really good example. Yes, I believe they were still married because I understand adultery and death as the only release from marriage.
Yes, he wasn’t keeping up his side of the relationship but was he doing all he could? He wasn't knowingly and willingly straining the relationship. I see it as your mother sticking by his side as a testament to her and his love for each other.
I agree.
I suggest it is. There is no question those who are/never were in Christ are lost. To deny Christ is worse than to have never known him.
21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”
MEE TOOO
turbosixx
New member
Please enlighten me.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes, but not like you and I, then. Hebrews is a VERY specific book. No Hebrew today would be able to follow it because he/she is not going to be tempted or drawn in by sacrificing animals. The priesthood is all gone andt they don't do it any more. Point? Hebrews 6:4-6 never was about loss of salvation. It was about an 'impossibility' that specifically is applied to a Hebrew.
James, written to Jews (James 1:1) is to Jewish Christians. Much of James can apply to gentile Christians as well, as far as I understand those scriptures, but again, for me, it cannot be talking about human works. Ephesians 2:10 Philippians 2:13 Proverbs 16:9 Romans 9:11,16,19,20 (I realize you are not a Calvinist, few are) Romans 14:4
:e4e:
Doesn't "christian" mean Jesus' follower?
Lon
Well-known member
Agree. It goes further explicitly: "IF" they WERE of us (Christian) they "COULDN'T" leave. Its huge. John is saying something huge. For me, it was about settled the day I read and consequently memorized. I did have to hold it up to other scriptures, but It holds true and exactly as stated. It is a theology changer, imho.
No. Rather this: 1 Corinthians 10:23 (just after 1 Corinthians 5). See also 2 Corinthians 2:5-11
The point: Romans 8:28 and Hebrews 12:5-13 *(again, some truths in Hebrews and James are universal, the others have to be understood in context and applied ONLY FROM that context and often strictly and uniquely Jewish - You've never sacrificed an animal a day in your life to the Lord for just one example).
No. At that point, my wife is empowered with that decision BUT it is a problem not every marriage is prone to deal with. Kathy Lee Gifford stayed in her marriage. It was BECAUSE of her, her marriage to Frank wasn't over. Why? Because it wasn't dependent on Frank at that point, but Kathy. Do you understand why in their case?
1 Corinthians 10?
1 Corinthians 10? See 1 Corinthians 10:23,24 then connect 1 Corinthians 10:23 with 1 Corinthians 10:33 In Christ, your sins are washed away, even the ones you might do. 1 Corinthians 3:15
Exactly. No MAD nor I are going to argue with you or anybody about a desire to want to be like the Lord Jesus Christ or 'desire' to love Him more. It is our heart cry, of all those who call the Name and are called by His Name. Rather, they and I are arguing about what you just acquiesced: "we need Him." It never stops, "We need Him." My sin is here with me UNLESS Christ removes it. We are supposed to live 'for' Him but it isn't a docket account with balance sheet. THAT is wholly fulfilled in Christ. The ink is all red AND His blood has soaked those pages. NOTHING remains to be seen. Rather what remains is all His work in and through our lives. That kid that came to Jesus by me? NOT me, it was RATHER Jesus in me. That kid came TO JESUS. It is why Paul says 'who is Paul? Who is Apollos?" Were ANY of you baptized in 'my' name? :nono: You've read this scripture before too: Luke 19:40 The REASON God isn't using rocks much (He does use them), is because He uses us. He is more than capable. NO work but Him is effective. Every last Christian (and even nonChristian) in my life love me because of the "JESUS" they see in me. Again, Ephesians 2:10. In Him -Lon
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, I'm not. I can see you refusing to address it, though. :think:
You think you are able to conform yourself into the image of the Son. I don't.
I have no doubt that He is able to keep me. My "enduring" has nothing to do with it. I'm resting, and a keen observer of His work in me.
God's ways are mysterious. He does a work in our heart when He saves us. The love of God is shed abroad on our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is given to us. And that work of HIS translates into our heartfelt desire. He spares us any temptation of being proud, by not allowing our right hand to know what our left hand is doing. That is how boasting is excluded by the law of faith. Then we merely look back at what GOD HAS done, and we thank HIM for how He managed to work that out. We thank Him for how He worked....not how we did some work for Him.
My will became to please Him from the moment of my salvation. "New creature...."
His work in us includes giving us the will, the desire, to trust in Him. No matter how you paint it, you are seeking to take credit for your salvation. Subtle, but not subtle enough.
I won't lose out because performs His good work in me....and He gives me the desire to please Him.
Lon
Well-known member
No, we CAN'T divide Jesus. That isn't what this point is. The point is, there WERE specific needs and specific NEEDED instructions to Jews coming out Judaism. They had two Divine paradigms. Hebrews conveys that one (sacrifices) is COMPLETELY over as well as informs them what else the Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled. They had to be told these things because they, specifically, were wrestling with familial ties and being 'Christians.' You and I don't have 'forefathers.' You and I never sacrificed animals upon an altar and were never made to do so. Hebrews were. Such was very needed because what they used to do that they had no choice in, and was actually 'good' now suddenly was no longer good. They needed clear instruction and warning in no uncertain terms, because they had to put their full trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. In a 'similar' way, Paul warned the Galatians not to be Judaised. Also, in a similar way, it is about 'earning/keeping' salvation vs. faith so by remote analogy and lessons learned, we can glean a lot from Hebrews, but we do have to read the book as specifically 'to' them to gather the RIGHT message. In a way, the warning to Hebrews not to return to sacrifices, is also a warning to us not to try and do the same: Do ANY works to try to keep our salvation or remove sin. The removal of sin is wholly monergistic. You and I can do NOTHING to remove sin as far as the East from the West. :nono:
Justified by whom? God? Justified before men? Justified by self, knowing God is working in me? If as you believe, then works ARE required for you to be saved. I simply believe they aren't 'your' responsibility, but God's Ephesians 2:10 I do have a 'desire' to do them, with this nature of Christ and fellowship with Him, but that is no longer a 'fret.' I 'want' to be like Him. Honestly, I've been told to 'follow Jesus better!" by those who seem to actually do WORSE than I do! :noway: I believe 'love' is the proper motivation. Sins taken care of then, would induce a greater love: Luke 7:47 You can't do better than the Lord Jesus for motivation. We are to 'encourage' one another Hebrews 10:24 (again, direct application to us gentiles as well). But what 'encouragement?'
Php 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
Php 2:3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus
See? It isn't motivation by 'you'll lose your salvation!' It is rather: Be like your Lord and Savior who loves us, exactly this same way!
You and I shouldn't spend much time doing fruit inspection or church discipline (if it HAS to be done, it HAS to be done but) but on encouraging one another on, toward love and good deeds. It is rather celebratory in scope and far less focused on discipline. Even Hebrews 12:5-12 has "those He loves" as the pure motivation. Note between 1 Corinthians 5 and 2 Corinthians 2, that 'delivering him to Satan' was not loss of his salvation. It had restoration and beneficial living as the objective, as well as a need to keep the whole body from such things, where all things are not profitable.
Same way you and I are: Through the blood of Jesus Christ.
I 'used' to see them too, but that was fear talking. 1 Corinthians 13 "and now I will show you a more excellent way..."
Are you sure I don't? I appreciate doubt. I had them and wrestled long and hard with 'warnings.' It didn't help to have hellfire preachers. Hell is hot, but NOT for the believer. That kind of sermon does no believer any favors.
thank you. I also think you are correct, there is a 'release' from marriage when one has broken the covenant, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily 'over.' I've seen a number of healed marriages. That deed is awful and a break with living married, but God can fix them.
Yes, but even in Kathy Lee and Frank Gifford's marriage, I see a beauty from those ashes. She didn't have to stay but she did, and for a number of good reasons. She said it was hard, but her church, kids, and even his walk with God, were important to her and she believed staying faithful was where God called her. It may not seem much like my mother taking care of my father, but it was. He didn't know he was married to my mom. He wasn't 'unfaithful' persay, but his mind was no longer faithful. He didn't remember her much of the time. For me, it 'helps' to see ailment from their marriage better because Frank Gifford's faith and marriage were also ailing. We want to blame Frank, and probably rightly so (I don't personally know Frank or Kathy), but it helps us to realize the far reaching forgiveness and healing of God to understand both situations, I think.
2 Peter 2:9 and to 'keep' those under defilement under judgment... These are not regenerate, and what they know of God is false. Remember Simon the sorcerer? Acts 8:9-24 As far as I grasp 2 Peter, it is like a guy who goes to a Billy Graham Crusade, and never does come to God, just hangs with Christians, never coming to the Lord Jesus Christ. These aren't and weren't and never were believers 2 Peter is talking about. It is rather a warning to beware of the them. I don't believe there is a salvation warning in 2 Peter.
:up:
turbosixx
New member
I never heard it put that way, thanks. I can see how some might see it as couldn't but it doesn't say couldn't and I don't see couldn't being in harmony with the rest of scripture.
For example:
1 Cor. 15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, 2 and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.
This reads as they could.
So if Christ doesn't take over we still have choice.
This doesn't help me see it from your viewpoint. This is how I understand 1 Cor. 5. I see it as a good example of believing OSAS if it were truth. They were proud of the fact that in Christ they can freely commit sexual immorality. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
If OSAS is truth, wouldn't this be a good opportunity to show the liberty of being in Christ. "Come to Christ and live as you want".
Yet that is not how Paul handled it.
5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. If OSAS was truth, wouldn't his spirit already be saved even though living in sin?
Excellent point. Kathy was longsuffering as is God but I believe both have limits. If Frank would have continued in his unfaithfulness I'm sure Kathy would have ended the marriage. It's how we live(walk) not our stumbles.
1 Jn. 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
It's what we practice not our short comings. Like Abraham and Moses, they walked with God but did stumble.
1 Jn. 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous.
Yes sir. What is Paul's point?
Lon
Well-known member
"Couldn't" is exactly the word 1 John 2:19 uses. "Would have remained" means 'Couldn't.' Especially when he puts it 'leaving demonstrates clearly that they weren't a part of us to begin with.' It clearly means could not else John is wrong about the demonstration. Again, I want to be faithful to what scripture says. I don't really care if I have to change my theology, only good would/will come of it. Rather, I want to read what it says and not what it doesn't. "Couldn't" imho, is implicit in the text.:think: "or else believed in vain. It gives you two point to wonder about: What did they believe and were they 'saved' in believing it. It is clear belief was 'in the words I preached to you.' Saved? :idunno:
Romans 9, He doesn't have to take over, Nothing is left from His charge Colossians 1:17. If EVERYTHING is sustained by Him, can ANYTHING happen without Him? :think:
One who is living in sin has no assurance of salvation, especially these habitual ones because he/she is caught. Hebrews 12 says such a one, if they belong to Jesus, are up for discipline from God. If not? Hebrews says 'not His.' Can such a one be saved? :nono: You can't be saved if you are not His. "never knew you." To me, it all syncs with scripture.
I've often wondered how David could fail with Bathsheba. He already had 300 wives. Worse? Killed her husband. If you were judging? I don't think David would have made it. Why was he spared and Saul not? My answer: Relationship. David belonged to God. He is a lesson in sin and righteousness. "You can't go on sinning and be a Christian." David is a case study of the opposite of that, as far as I understand scripture. It is NOT that I want to excuse any behavior. Rather I want to know Christ. James 3:2 If true? (is it true?).
That we should avoid sin. Is it ever, however, a salvation issue? I don't think any MAD (and I use them because they are often mischaracterized as 'embracing' sin and loving it) loves sin. That isn't their focus, rather the Savior is and a freedom that comes from being united from Him. They would treat sin in the church, very much as 1 Corinthians 5 says to do.
Being in Christ is not a license to sin. It is a license to follow Christ and be His without worry. That is different than desire for sin. Such is of no consequence in Christ. Sin certainly effects those around us and we need to be rid of it for those reasons. The question of Salvation, however, isn't part of that discussion. John W rightly said, as a believer, he can go kill someone without losing his salvation. He wasn't and isn't saying that such is wise or best. King David did exactly that. Rather, he is saying that one thing is secure: His relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
turbosixx
New member
I don’t understand how they are not our responsibility. So you are saying as a Christian, we have a choice in following Jesus’ commandments?
I agree it’s not a fret.
I agree we follow Jesus out of love.
Losing salvation isn’t the motivation but it’s the consequences of not loving.
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me.
Whoever does not love me does not keep my words
Agreed
I’m going to strongly disagree here. The thief was not saved the same way as you and I. When he died, Jesus hadn’t yet offered up his blood to God for the forgiveness of sins. He lived and died under the old law. So how do you suppose his sins were forgiven?
This raises a very good question. How does someone become a Christian?
turbosixx
New member
I’m going to disagree with you here. I see ‘would have’ as still having a choice of living for Christ and “couldn’t” as not having choice. Do you have supporting scripture for the idea that it is “couldn’t”.
Again, I want to be faithful to what scripture says. I don't really care if I have to change my theology, only good would/will come of it. Rather, I want to read what it says and not what it doesn't. "Couldn't" imho, is implicit in the text.
I’m going to be honest and respectfully point out that this is an excuse. You say you want to be faithful to what the scripture says. I would respectfully suggest to you this isn’t it.
When a passage reads in a way that disproves what some hold as truth, all of a sudden we have to question the meaning of words. Words that we don’t question elsewhere in scripture except in situations like this.
What did they believe? It’s right there in the text. the gospel I preached to you Where they saved? Again, it’s right there in the context. by which you are being saved
I agree its relationship. Relationships are two sided and granted we are the weaker side. I also agree with we can’t go on sinning and be a Christian.
I don’t understand your point.
If sinning doesn’t affect our salvation, then why should we avoid it? Because we love Jesus? Absolutely but if we love Jesus and he saves us because we love him and yet we can live the life we want and still be saved, isn't our soul what really matters? Yes sin can affect us and those around us but this life is temporary so in the big picture as long as our soul is saved, it doesn’t really matter. It might actually help convert many more people to Christ if they can continue to live the life they want and still be saved. So I'm not really getting your point.
We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer. 11 Now these things happened to them as an example, but they were written down for our instruction, on whom the end of the ages has come.
So these people being destroyed before entering the promise land is telling us we should avoid sin? How does the destroyed part apply to us?
Lon
Well-known member
We have choices BUT most important is what Jesus is doing with those things. Ephesians 2:10
Then it isn't a salvation issue? For me, that'd be fret. It seems such takes away from the actual beauty of doing things for God for love alone, to me. I'm convinced love is an incredible and much better motivator.
:up:
Er, I think that's counter-intuitive and incompatible :think: Not that your verse imho, isn't 1) a warning, nor 2) about the same kind of person. One does. The other, to me, never does. 1 John 4:18
Then you are halfway there.
It was happening as he went through it. Jesus died and the thief met him in paradise. There he preached to these captives. 1 Peter 3:19,20
2 Corinthians 5:17 John 3:3,5 Christ makes that one a new creation. Romans 9:21
If there is a question about whom He has chosen? Romans 10:13 for me.
excellent post.