REPENTANCE – the Hebraic Mindset

Having gain wide acceptance and appreciation for his Gospel of Grace messages through hundreds of TV broadcasts per week, and through his books, J Prince might feel undaunted by the negative comments towards his teachings. Staff might also have insulated him from being affected by blocking others from accessing his facebook pages etc so that he could focus on ministry matters.

Prayerfully, there would not be the boldness and brashness in attempting clever interpretations now that recognition has been attained.

Could this have been the case for his interpretation of Repentance as being a “change of mind“?  So many might be justified in observing that Prince’s understanding might be inadequate and incomplete, but still not false, and not flawed – only feeble (weak).

Prince is absolutely correct, as the original word for repentance is the Greek word “metanoia“. (What about the Hebraic equivalent?) This has brought much disquiet from detractors, whether theological academia or pastoral.

Personally I believe the understanding of scriptures is not just knowing what the single word means. Words have meanings only in the context of phrases and sentences, and in the milieu of the society and culture of the people. Or to put it in the context of Hermeneutics, the historical, grammatical, chronological, cultural, anthropological and EMOTIONAL context.

“Metanoia” cannot be explained in isolation.  The concept, not just the word is enveloped in a relational face-off with the Almighty Holy God, and a personal self-realization that one is wrong, and need changing.  This change would include many many dimensions, and is not limited to mental assent or agreement to fresh input or knowledge.  When I know I am lost, and am standing in the wrong spot, I don’t just turn my head, I change real-estate, and I move, or revamp and remove and overhaul any encumbrance that caused me to be lost!

So I believe the response and reactions generated from Prince’s teaching on “metanoia” is warranted.  Perhaps Prince should re-view this and examined how the people of the Bible understand the issue of repentance.

John Parsons have written extensively about Hebrew For Christians.  He wrote many articles on Teshuvah, the OT act of repenting and returning to Jehovah. Perhaps we may have a more comprehensive and complete teaching from the Hebraic perspective on Repentance. (I am appending snapshots of the article too, in case some cannot access the link)

Teshuvah, Metanoia and Strepho by John Parsons

Content With What I Have

Since my posting on the Sunday sermon on the 14th June, the issue weighs heavily on mind and heart. Since then, the word “contentment” infused and lingers in my mind. Evidently, there isn’t any passage in the NT which exhorts us to seek after prosperity (see my other postings “Health and Wealth – 3 John 2” (11/06/13) and “As your soul prospers” (11/06/13).

Yet, for three Sundays, the pulpit reached out to the congregation to pray for prosperity, drawing audible amens and agreement. The following scriptures negate the suggestion to pray for our prosperity. (see previous postings on “What the Bible Says About Money” (22/11/14)

“….be content with your wages.” (Jesus in Luke 3:14)

I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, … (Phil 4:11,12)

…. imagining that godliness is a means of gain. 6 But godliness with contentment is great gain, 7 for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. 8 But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. 9 But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. 10 For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs. (1 Tim 6:5-10)
5 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” (Heb 13:5)

 

If the scriptures are so clear, why would the pulpit convince, commend and compel believers to seek prosperity from the Lord?
Satan used scriptures to tempt and to seduce – first to cast doubt on clear teachings, then to distort by alluding to secular human wisdom (James 3:13-16) and then to deceive with satanic values and doctrines (1 Tim 4:1)

When the Sower went out to sow (Mark 4:1-20), the birds (satan) came to take the seeds away. (see posting on “Birds of the Air” (25/06/13)

And where the seeds sprouted and grew, the birds return (Mark 4:31-32). While the pulpit is expected to teach and uphold sound doctrine, the birds, within the church, would seek to introduce doubt, distort and deceive, displacing and replacing spiritual truth with secular and satanic values – to tempt and turn legitimate needs into lust, inconsistent with the heart and mind of Christ, and to seduce the bride of Christ.

I am constrained to post this, and most of all to direct the reader to an excellent midrashic video teaching on Revelation 8:1,2 and Zechariah 5, – of how the birds with displace and misplace the scriptural truth with satanic doctrines.

Watch Jacob Prasch, a messianic Jew, gravely warning believers to be aware, ie beware of satanic seduction

Which Promises Are For Me?

As mentioned in the previous post, I am reposting Jen Wilkin’s article on “Which promises are for me?”

Which Promises Are for Me?

Not many things are more comforting than a promise made and kept. And not many things are more hurtful than a promise broken. Knowing we worship a God who keeps his promises is a source of deep joy. But misapplied, this knowledge can also lead us to treasure-hunt Scripture for promises in problematic ways.
How can we know which promises are for us? How can we lay claim to the promises of the Bible without overstepping their application? Here are some common pitfalls to keep in mind as you study.
Common Mistakes
Confusing a promise with a principle. Promises are always fulfilled 100 percent of the time. Principles state general truths. The book of Proverbs is often mistaken for a book of promises, when in fact it is a book of principles. The principle of “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6) is generally true and wise to heed. But it is not a guarantee that every child raised with godly instruction will become a believer in Jesus.
Ignoring the context. We often apply a promise to ourselves before considering its original audience or its historical, cultural, or textual context. In some cases, a promise was made to a specific person for a specific reason and has no further application beyond its immediate context. In other cases, the application can only be properly made after the promise is understood in its original context. God’s promise to Abram of land and offspring (Gen. 12:1–3) cannot be taken to mean God will give me a house or children. It can, however, be applied to mean he will give me a spiritual inheritance through Christ.
Overlooking the “if.” Promises that contain an “If” require some form of obedience before we can expect them to come to pass in our lives. They are conditional. If we want to claim them, we had better be ready to act in obedience to what they require. God grants us wisdom if we ask (James 1:4). But we have to ask. Often “if” promises of blessing are accompanied by corresponding “if” warnings about disobedience. We tend to celebrate God’s promises of blessing and sideline his promises of chastisement, though both point to a faithful God. It’s tough to find a coffee mug that sports Hebrews 12:6. Which leads us to . . .
Choosing a promise selectively. We tend to favor those promises that appeal to our own best-case scenario. We quote Exodus 14:14 in a crisis: “The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still.” But we neglect to note that three chapters later in Exodus, Israel was commanded not to stand still, but to fight her enemies. In spiritual battles, sometimes we should stand still and sometimes we should fight. Better to ask God for wisdom as to which response is called for than to claim a promise that is not universally applicable.
Using a promise manipulatively. Sometimes we employ a verse as a promise because we want God to act a certain way. Probably the most abused passage in this category is “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am with them” (Matt. 18:20). Not only do we use it out of context, we also use it to try to coerce God into doing what we ask simply because we have gathered the requisite number of people to ask it. God’s promises to us should help us submit to his will, not bend him to ours.
Limiting a promise to your own understanding. Even when we rightly recognize a promise as intended for us, we often impose our own understanding of exactly how it will be fulfilled. Or we are tempted to impose our own timeline on its fulfillment. Yes, God does have a plan to prosper you and not to harm you (Jer. 29:11), but as in the case of the people to whom those words were originally written, that “you” is more likely a collective reference to the body of believers, and that plan may play out across centuries in ways we can’t possibly predict. To recognize this intent does not diminish the beauty of the promise at all. It actually enhances it.
Avoiding the Pitfalls
So how can we avoid these promise-claiming pitfalls? Our long-term strategy must be to move from spot knowledge of the Bible to comprehensive knowledge. In the short term, try these helps.
Do your homework. Before you write it on a note card for your fridge, before you post it on Instagram or shop for it on a coffee mug or declare it your life verse, make a thorough study of where your promise lives in Scripture and in biblical history. Make sure it’s a general promise, not a specific promise to someone else or just a general principle to observe. Check for any “ifs” that might change its application.
Check your motive. If a promise in Scripture appeals to you, ask yourself why. What fear or need underlies your desire to claim that promise for yourself? What security are you looking for beyond the soul security guaranteed by Christ? Does claiming that promise help you submit to God’s rule? Are you defining its fulfillment in terms of your own limited understanding? Would its fulfillment help you grow in godliness and humility?
And remember, the Bible is full of unambiguous promises from our triune God that we can celebrate with certainty. Here is a smattering of my favorites:
He promises to give us wisdom if we ask (James 1:5).
He promises to provide a way out of temptation (1 Cor. 10:13).
He promises that our salvation is secure, no matter what (John 10:28–29).
He promises to never leave us nor forsake us (Heb. 13:5).
He promises to finish the good work he has begun in us (Phil. 1:6).
He promises to come back (Luke 12:40)
These promises are sure and steadfast. Do you notice that they have much more to say about who God is or how he is sanctifying us than about a specific circumstance or outcome? We are not promised certainty in our circumstances, but we are promised certainty in the God of our circumstances. And that is an anchor for the soul.

Praying for Prosperity

For the third time consecutively in weeks, my pastor unapologetically dwelt on prosperity and said that he would pray for the members to prosper.

He used Jer 33:9 as his text

⁹ And this city shall be to me a name of joy, a praise and a glory before all the nations of the earth who shall hear of all the good that I do for them. They shall fear and tremble because of all the good and all the prosperity I provide for it.”

Somehow, I became worked up. After the church service I told my wife that I am both sad and angry. Since attending NCC, I have been extremely keyed up to know that my pastor has been at the forefront of preaching the gospel of grace, and according to him, bringing about a revolution of grace since the time of the reformation of the gospel of salvation by faith in God’s grace.  I had defended his teachings, enthused others to listen to him, and “marketed” and “promoted” him to others. When this revolution of grace has so much going, to reveal Jesus, to change lives, it has somehow been tainted by this streak of prosperity teaching.  I am saddened that this promised blessing of prosperity (not the prosperity gospel) has turned off many unbelievers, mainline denominations and believers from adopting the essence of grace message as preached by my pastor. Oh…., more would have considered this revolution of grace if not for the addition (adulteration?) in the teachings.

The legacy of the WOF persuasions remains. Don’t get me wrong. I am thankful, have personally been touched and received the Lord’s blessings in both these areas, but do not feel comfortable and convinced with the constant emphasis on health and wealth. There is so much our walk as pilgrims which we can learn about. (see previous posts eg “The Full Counsel of God”, 3 John 2, etc etc). But of course many like the prospect and promise of prosperity, not unlike the religious practices in seeking blessings from the idols, praying for success in career, lottery, life-partner, eg. Goddess of  Mercy temple in Waterloo Street.  But it is a distraction, a distortion of the present time message of the cross.

While the sermon did include a few preceding verses, I came home and read the preceding chapters.

When the book and the contextual circumstances of Jeremiah’s words are considered, I realise that the prosperity in Jer 33:9 makes more sense in terms of the context (relevance) and that prosperity is relative in and with different peoples and cultures.

How is this verse relevant to me?  The promise in v9 is directed for the return and restoration of people of Israel after their captivity and exile, and when the Messiah is revealed and begins to rule (in the millennium?)  To claim and proclaim that the prosperity is specifically for the congregation of believers today borders on presumption.

How do I define prosperity? WOF teachers would not deny that prosperity refers more to material and tangible quantitative possessions, as my pastor teased that if others do not want it, that’s ok, but he gladly wants this blessing.  But how much would be enough? Is it relevant at all to preach the blessing of prosperity to the average believer when Singapore and America ranks amongst the top ten countries in per capital income? And when our church building cost us about US$500M?  The local church indeed has prospered, and so have all believers, the moment we are in Christ.  Should we constantly get believers to be saved, to be “more saved”, or just remind them that they are saved, completely forgiven once for all and are righteous in Christ – saved by grace, standing in grace and strong in grace? So in truth, when believers are truly blessed in all ways always, isn’t the preaching on prosperity tantamount to tempting others to lust beyond what is needful? In the garden, mankind was tempted with legitimated concerns, and in the wilderness, Jesus was tempted – to stay alive (health), and with the glory and riches of the world (wealth).

While the WOF teachers have brought much to the church, there are aberrations. The pulpit can be a source of temptation – when scriptures are twisted, quoted out of context, manipulated to lure people to lust, and to be greedy for prosperity even when we are not destitute (at least not in America or Singapore).

How do I come to such conclusions? I have begun to read the Pentecostal theologian and scholar Gordon Fee’s classic on “How to Read the Bible” – in terms of exegesis and hermeneutics. I truly want to know Jesus, in Truth and Spirit.  I also want to be like a Berean.

Perhaps the following article in full in the next posting might also be of help.

In the article “Which promises are for me?” Jen Wilkin, cautioned that we can be presumptious and misled when promises in the bible are taken out of the context –

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/which-promises-are-for-me

Benedictions and prayers for members

At the end of each Sunday service all of us would rise with raised hands as our pastor prays for the congregation; and we would respond and rejoin with a heartfelt Amen. Practically always, it would be the Aaronic blessing in Numbers 6, which we echo and relish.

Last Sunday, it was similar and more – with an added prayer midway in the service. Pastor was explaining that indeed 3 John 2 is a wish and a prayer, a verse much extolled by WOF proponents, and went on to pray forcefully for the members, drawing a loud resounding and resonant “amen”, seemingly agreeing and appropriating for prosperity in our lives.

Indeed many would desire and delight in this blessing.  Thousands likewise throng the Chinese temple in Waterloo Street and seek for similar blessings for themselves and loved ones.  Apparently some churches are no different.

But what is the real meaning and context of 3 John 2?

http://www.ukapologetics.net/08/3john2.htm

And with so many other prayers in the New Testament, why pronounce 3 John 2 over the members when it was specifically addressed to Gaius with particular needs.

http://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/prayers/prayers-new-testament.php#.VVqlhfmqqko

So hopefully this may be the beginning of a trend where our pastor / pulpit would pray for us using the  prayer patterns in the New Testament, as in Ephesians; or in Colossians 1:9-12, where these prayers are more pertinent, relevant, and not just for the prosperity which might be a distortion of the scriptural intent and a distraction and deception by the evil one.

⁹ For this reason also, since the day we heard of it, we have not ceased to pray for you and to ask that

you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, ¹⁰ so that

you will walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, 

to please Him in all respects, 

bearing fruit in every good work

and increasing in the knowledge of God;

¹¹ strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, 

for the attaining of all steadfastness and patience; 

joyously

 ¹² giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified us to share in the inheritance of the saints in Light.

Posting edited on 22nd June.
Sigh …… My pastor preached on Prosperity for another 3 Sundays! Is this really a major theme and legacy for believers?

Honest Questions for Joseph Prince

http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/47995-some-honest-questions-for-joseph-prince

Recently I wrote about my issues with Dr. Michael Brown’s interview on our local “Impact Magazine” with regards to ‘Hyper Grace’.  – https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/12/05/hyper-grace-and-dr-michael-brown/

And yesterday, I read in Charisma Magazine that he has “Some Honest Questions for Joseph Prince”.  I must admit that this time round, I understand Dr Brown’s reservations on Gospel of Grace message as preached by Joseph Prince. I do concede I share and echo his concerns, as a member of Joseph Prince’s New Creation Church.

I wrote in Nov 2014 – https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/the-whole-counsel-can-we-really-be-complete-and-balanced/)   “JP has focused clearly and convincingly on the doctrinal foundation and outcomes of the finished work of Christ and His Grace upon Grace for the believer – our position in Christ, sealed and delivered.  I can fully appreciate his intense and resolute teachings to correct deeply entrenched fallacies of our faith….. However, in any pointed discourse, it would invariably be incomplete, and would have left out other aspects of the scriptures”

In fact, Prince, in the service on the 30^th Nov’s said

“Our sermons are not perfect …. never  …. so make sure we have the Lord Jesus in our sermons … at least He will purify the rest of the unclean elements in our sermons …at least in every sermon there is a human working, in every sermon there is a tradition … in every sermon there is a ignorance being manifested…..but when we put the Lord Jesus in it , He will purify ….”  

The Boiling Pot and the Poisonous Stew

Prince, in all intentions might not realize how in trying to restore the Gospel of Grace and the legacy of our position in Christ has also inflicted unexpected collateral damage on many others, focusing and emphasizing on the blessings and marginalizing the teachings on living out our faith as a son, servant, soldier and sower.  Admittedly, what he preached has corrected many of the errors of evangelical churches – especially those burdened by the “demands of discipleship”.

Prince’s calling, and the craft of his messages have shone the spotlight on the truth of our Salvation by Grace alone. But in doing so, the same spotlight has yet to illuminate the teachings and truth to work out our Sanctification by Grace alone

– https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/the-whole-counsel-can-we-really-be-complete-and-balanced/

and   https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/the-whole-counsel-of-god/ 

Michael Brown wrote:

(http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/in-the-line-of-fire/47995-some-honest-questions-for-joseph-prince)

“Without a doubt, his message of grace is liberating many from legalism, performance-based religion and a spiritual inferiority complex, and for all of this, I am grateful.

In 1992, God spoke to me to do a fresh study of grace, and the results of that study were eye-opening, to the point that one of the chapters in my 1997 book Go and Sin No More is called “It’s All Grace” while another is called “The Letter Kills.”

So as much as I have been known as a repentance and holiness preacher (which is correct), my preaching flows out of and into God’s grace as it is expressed most fully in Jesus.

It is because I am so jealous for God’s true grace (see 1 Pet. 5:12) that I wrote Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message, and while agreeing with many things that Pastor Prince teaches, there are strong areas of disagreement as well. (For the record, a mutual colleague of ours delivered a signed copy of Hyper-Grace to Pastor Prince, but I have been unable to secure a personal audience with him.)”

(Do read the ten questions posted to Joseph Prince in Charisma magazine)

I suppose Prince is only accountable to the church, and only address disagreements and challenges to his convictions from the pulpit.  While not facing off with comments and critiques directly, I do notice the progression from labelling others as ‘bible policemen’  https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/bible-policemen-or-a-berean/  to softening his teachings on tithing to an open admission that sermons are not perfect (https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/the-boiling-pot-and-the-poisonous-stew/) and acknowledging that there are small black spots  https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2015/02/15/tiny-black-spot-on-a-large-white-screen/.

 

Hopefully, Dr Michael Brown’s loving and honest questions for Joseph Prince will result in Prince not shrinking from “declaring to you anything that was profitable” (Acts 20:20); and not shrinking from “declaring to you the whole purpose of God”  Acts 20:27)

Tiny Black Spot on a Large White Screen

The tiny Black Spot on a Large White Screen

 

No leaders are perfect.

It is a huge undertaking to strive to fully proclaim the full counsel of God from the pulpit (https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/the-whole-counsel-can-we-really-be-complete-and-balanced/)  and (https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/12/08/the-boiling-pot-and-the-poisonous-stew/).

Either there will be a small blot or stain on the entire white screen, or it could be a few tiny holes.  Understandably it hurts the ego when flaws and faults in the teaching or ministry are pointed out (https://wwwpilgrim.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/bible-policemen-or-a-berean/).  So we can naively sympathise when a leader lament that he is being victimised over a tiny black spot in his teachings instead of ignoring the flaw and be concerned with the generally large white screen.

I wondered (during an actual scenario as above) – can we really gloss over such flaws when it pertains to doctrinal truth and teachings?  No we definitely cannot.  This morning, my pastor even pointed out how Martin Luther erroneously discounted the book of James from the Canon of Scriptures as Luther believed that it was not consistent and square with the Gospel of Grace.  However, my pastor rightly credited Luther as being a good man, as his comments on the book of James stemmed from incomplete and faulty interpretation.

Wrong teachings has to be exposed and explained.  The tiny flaw on the large screen has to be pointed out.

Pointing out errors in teachings must be upheld as the scriptures instructed.  And we cannot assert on being victimised for our errors because it is merely a tiny blot.  It might draw sympathy, but the support is misplaced.  In doing so, we have wrongly ascribed negative connotations (evil) to a good and positive initiative and response (to wrong teaching).  We have to be concerned, careful and circumspect not be minimise the black spots.

In a way, instead of admitting our error we have turned around and incorrectly suggested and alluded that the person who pointed out the black spot is the antagonist.   Pointing out the black spots (by being a Berean?) stems from a love for the truth, contends for the truth, and serves the body of Christ to be perfect in the knowledge of Christ.   To discredit those who points out the black spots is to attribute evil to good.  And while we deride those who nobly point out the black spot, have we not ourselves been guilty of pointing out (and wrongly) of the good intention (undeniably not a black spot) of the Bereans.

I will never forget how a group of believers in 2005 gave a 10 point response to the criticisms and critiques leveled against them.  The response has become a “template” for me in relating (not reacting) to those whose preferences, persuasions and convictions differ from mine.

I fully encourage all to read the classic response.  I must qualify that while I am so much taught by their example in responding to criticism, I do not fully support the persuasions and teachings of the Emergent movement.  A sample is appended below

First, we wish to say thanks to our critics for their honest feedback on our books, articles, speeches, blogs, events, and churches. We readily acknowledge that like all human endeavors, our work, even at its best, is still flawed and partial, and at its worst, deserves critique. We are grateful to those who help us see things we may not have seen without the benefit of their perspective. We welcome their input.

Second, we have much to learn from every criticism – whether it is fair or unfair, kindly or unkindly articulated. We pray for the humility to receive all critique with thoughtful consideration. Where we think we have been unfairly treated, we hope not to react defensively or to respond in kind, and where we have been helpfully corrected, we will move forward with gratitude to our critics for their instruction and correction.

Official Response to Critics of Emergent

 

 

Hyper Hyper Grace

‘Hyper Grace’ and ‘Hyper-Hyper Grace’?

Yesterday, I bought the Kindle E-book “The Jonah Complex: Rediscovering the Outrageous Grace of God” by Greg Haslam, senior pastor of Westminster Chapel, where previous pastors include Dr George Campbell-Morgan, Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones and Dr R.T. KendalI. Further browsing led me to another notable minister from Westminster – Dr Michael Eaton, a leading theologian, author (>60 books & commentaries) and teacher. Notable among his books is Living Under Grace: Preaching Through Romans 6-7.  A 50,000 word exposition of Romans 6-7.  This is part of a 400,000 word manuscript on Romans.  Originally produced by Nelson Word, 1994.

And from his “Notes and Scribbles” page, I chanced upon his view on Grace, and the current movement which is stirring up much consideration and consternation in the evangelical world.  I am reproducing his entire appraisal below:

 

http://www.michael-eaton.de/cms/front_content.php?idcat=112

I have spent much of my life trying to get people to trust in the amazing grace of God and discover their eternal security in Christ.  There was a time a few years back when some of us spent a lot of time trying to convince Christians of their eternal security in the Lord Jesus Christ.  We criticised ‘Once Saved, Maybe Lost’ teaching and insisted on eternal security rather than eternal insecurity.  We preached a lot of Romans 6-8 in some detail.  It was a great time and I for one enjoyed preaching the gospel.

There were many who discovered grace!  It was wonderful.  This is what the gospel is all about – the grace of God.  We are saved by grace.  We have a position in grace.  We stand in grace.  We are guarded by grace.  God’s grace is sufficient for us.  All of these statements may be found in Scripture.

Is it possible to exaggerate grace?  No, not really.  But it is possible to twist it.  It is possible to forget that ‘we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith’ (Romans 1:5).  It is possible to forget that grace reigns through righteousness (Romans 5:21), that it does not abound so that we may continue in sin (Romans 6:1), that sin does not have dominion us because God’s grace prevents it (Romans 6:14), that Christians behave in the world with simplicity and godly sincerity … by the grace of God (2 Cor. 1:12), that God’s grace has appeared ‘training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives’ (Titus 2:11-13).

`****

Then there came a time when we seemed to have won a victory and large numbers were rejoicing in the grace of God.  But then just at the point when we were rejoicing in a new grace-movement and were happy that legalism and eternal insecurity were being put down, suddenly we began to hear of people who seemed to be emphasizing grace in an imbalanced way, and moving from the frying-pan to the fire — a legalistic frying-pan to a licentious fire.  We did not need ever to confess sin (so was the rumour).  It was said that covenant-blessings are so automatic that we do not need to walk before God and be blameless (despite Genesis 17:1-2) to get the blessings.  I began to call it hyper-grace and felt the balance was going too far and that grace was being twisted.

****

But now it is getting worse still and I have invented a new term — ‘hyper-hyper-grace’ or ‘doubly-hyper grace’.  Recently I have come across four versions of it, and I think I’ll tell you about them.

Number one, I experienced in Australia.  In October 2010 I visited a church in Australia which called itself a ‘Grace’ church [the word was in its name].  I was on a few days’ holiday with my daughter and her family and on the Sunday went to the nearest charismatic church I could find.  There the word ‘grace’ dominated everything.  Every song was about God’s accepting us.  ‘God you accept me’.  ‘It does not matter what I do you take me as I am’.  ‘Lord, you love me so much, you give me a sloppy wet kiss’ — one song actually said that!  But not once was the name of Jesus mentioned!  Apparently – in the view of the worship-leader – God accepts us without Jesus, certainly without any mention of faith in a God who insists on sanctifying us practically as well as positionally.  It seemed that in the view of the worship-leader nothing has to be believed except that God takes us as we are — whether we are saved or not!  This was the dominant note of the worship throughout.  The preacher, a lady-elder of some kind, did not expound any Scripture; she mentioned the name of Jesus once or twice but there was no mention of Jesus doing anything except accept us as we are.  Any unsaved person would have got the impression that there was nothing to do in salvation except know that God receives us without our doing anything in our lives at all, and who encourages us to live however we wish in the assurance that nothing we ever did could possibly be disapproved by God.  We don’t need to call ourselves sinners.  We don’t need atonement.  I call this ‘hyper-hyper-grace’; it is false teaching.  It is a false gospel far worse than the old legalism!

Number two I have heard of in South Africa.  The idea seems to be going around that unsaved people may taken part in the Lord’s Supper.  Anyone who reads their bible knows how false this is.  The Lord’s Supper is for believers – any of them, all of them, but only them!  They are also to be invited to examine themselves and see that they come to the Lord’s Table with faith, and readiness to be restored.

You may remember what a battle Jonathan Edwards had over this very point.  His grandfather Solomon Stoddard began to be troubled at the question as to whether unsaved adult children of Christians may come to the Lord’s Supper.  He invented the idea of ‘the half-way covenant’ (as he called it) by which the unsaved adult children were welcomed and it was hoped that the Lord’s Supper might lead to their conversion.

Jonathan Edwards grew up with this system, pioneered by his grandfather.  But he came to see that it was wrong and destructive in the life of the churches.  It tended to produce dozens of nominal ‘church members’ with no experience of salvation.  So he changed his mind and in his exposition of Scripture began to publicly disagree with his late grandfather’s teaching.  But there were powerful nominal Christians in Northampton who were offended, and in the end Edwards was thrown out of the church in which he had been the main preacher in the most powerful revival the world had known.  It seems we might have to go through this conflict again – but Edwards was right and Stoddard was wrong.

*Number three, I learnt about while in USA.  It seems that there are now ‘grace movements’ which teach that everyone will be saved.  The early church discussed three possible views of hell: eternal tormenting (Tertullian, Augustine), punishment for as long as was needed followed by destruction (Justin, Athanasius, Arnobius) and universal salvation – with even the devil getting saved (Origen, Clement of Alexandia).  The first option won and Augustine’s teaching became orthodoxy within the medieval church and the Reformers maintained the same view.  The 2^nd option was always believed by a few and many evangelicals have gone that direction (John Stott, John Wenham, P.E.Hughes, many evangelical Anglicans – and Michael Eaton!).  I used to hear it said a few years back that if ‘Augustinians’ kept on insisting that evil and torment lasts for ever, it would lead to a back-lash and people would start turning to ‘evangelical universalism’.  Now it seems to be happening.  Of the three options, universal salvation has been universally condemned by bible-believing Christians as unscriptural.

   Number four goes like this.  It is said ‘We must not put guilt on people; we should not be given instructions; this makes people feel guilty’.  I think in a sense some of these comments are half-right.  We are not ourselves the judge of other people.  It is the Holy Spirit who convicts of sin.  Nor should we be dictatorial about matters where we are given a lot of freedom.  Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? — as Paul said referring to small matters involving different opinions (vegetarianism, holy days, wine-drinking).   We preachers need to be careful of the method by which we challenge and confront both the saved and the lost.

But the idea is being pushed much too far!!  It is true that we never need tell people who are clearly Christians that they might be rejected by God and lose salvation.  We have an unlosable position in grace.  OK, but does this mean that no one should ever be told that they are doing something wrong?   Is no word of warning ever to be given about anything?   Should we preachers throw out our doctrine of chastening.  Should we never say to Christians‘Because of these things the wrath of God is coming upon the sons of disobedience … Do not associate with them’.  If we are never allowed to speak about something that is wrong to a fellow Christians, then we shall have to throw away half of our New Testament.  What are all these epistle about if not trying to correct Christians who are making mistakes?  It is true we should not make people feel rejected and ejected without remedy.  But are we never to be ashamed of anything we might have done?  1 John 2:28 says that John’s little children are to abide in Jesus, so that when he appears they may not shrink back in shame.  Rejection?  No!  Shame?  Maybe!

When Paul asks the ‘Shall we sin that grace may abound?’ he gives the answer ‘No’.  We surely have to be careful that our message of grace does not give the impression that the answer is ‘Yes’.  Grace people are sometimes slandered as if they are antinomians.  It is inevitable that we should be misunderstood in this way, just as Paul was!  I have no sympathy with the slanderers — but we do have to be sure that the accusation is not true!  It is wonderful to discover grace but we do need to keep in mind that ‘grace trains us to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives’.

Are there no commands in the New Testament?  Of course there are!  They may not be Mosaic commands but there are still commands!   We do all things that the risen Lord Jesus Christ tells us to do.  It is all in faith but it will be the obedience of faith.

Can we never displease God?  Of course we can!  Whether we are expecting to be alive or dead when Jesus comes we make it our aim to please him.  We have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not to please man, but to please God who tests our hearts.  We ask and urge you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to live and to please God, just as you are doing, that you do so more and more.  No soldier gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to please the one who enlisted him (2 Cor. 5:9; 1 Thes. 2:4; 4:1; 2 Tim. 2:4)..

I am dubious about my hyper-grace friends, and horrified at doubly hyper-grace.  Let’s get back to balanced grace, biblical grace, the grace that is obviously there for us to save us and heal our wickedness, the grace we discover as in the presence of the Lord Jesus Christ we read and read and re-read our bibles.  This is the secret.  Let’s just expound Scripture and take it as it comes.  The bible is a balanced book!    we must not be mesmerised by our teachers – not by Michael Eaton, not by anyone.  Read the bible for yourself in large chunks– and see for yourself what impression you get.   (i) Do you get the impression of a God that will throw you out of his salvation if you are not careful?  Only if you read ‘salvation’ into every warning you find!   (ii) Do you get the impression of a God that will not throw you out of his salvation but still gives you warnings that there is much that could be lost?  Well, you tell me!  (iii) Do you get the impression that grace is so accepting that the way you live is unimportant and you can sin and let grace abound?  I rather think not!  But find out for yourself.  The bible is a balanced book.

Hyper Grace and Dr Michael Brown

The current issue of Singapore’s Impact magazine  (Vol 38 No 6 feature on “Hyper Grace”) carries a feature interview on “Hyper Grace” with the renowned and well-respected Dr. Micahel Brown, a Messianic Jew, known for his “Fire School of Ministry” and http://askdrbrown.org/; and a professor of Bible and Hebrew studies at many leading seminaries.

When I received and read the interview, I wrote to the editor of ‘Impact’ yesterday, somewhat along these words :-

I’ve great admiration for Dr. Michael Brown, and have followed him for some time.  However, his comments on Hyper Grace in Charisma magazine, his book, and now on ‘Impact’ does not reflect the same degree of scholarship as in his scholarly debates and his teaching ministry.  He has focused on the “partially empty cup” rather than the “FILLED cup” of this restoration of the original and pure Gospel of abounding and amazing Grace to the believers worldwide.  For times like this, we should glory in the filled cup, after decades of many believers worldwide missing and misunderstanding God’s Grace and find their lives indeed filled and fulfilled by our Lord Jesus Who came full of grace.

Michael Brown rightly observed that “there are people who are literally set free … because of the truths of the message”

Michael Brown’s reference to anecdotal experiences of pastors and leaders who “reached out to him”; and being “flooded with people telling me horror stories …” does not negate or invalidate the truth of the Gospel of Grace.  Equally there are anecdotal experiences of pastors and believers who are refreshed and released by the Gospel of Grace.

This awesome, abounding and amazing Grace of God cannot ever be ‘hyperise’ or exaggerated.  Rather I think it is under-rated and under preached for too long, far too long, and have been replaced, displaced and misplaced by discipleship issues, (I am not discounting the importance of discipleship, rather how it has neglected and discounted the power of His grace for our discipleship).

It is for such well-meaning believers who struggled with discipleship issues that the pure message of Grace brought freshness and fullness into our life in Christ, by grace and faith. Teachings on grace have been too “casual” rather than being exemplified embodied and incarnated in the Person of Jesus, His love and power! our legacy (Ephesians chapter 3)

Definitely, in the focus and return to the Gospel of Grace, there is unintended collateral damage, as no one is sufficient to address issues completely in a balanced manner – the full counsel.  Nothing amiss or awry about hyper grace, just that some leaders have yet to explain and expound Grace in His Fullness and fulfillment to sinners.  Definitely in due time as pastors and believers stand and be established in Grace.  I rejoice that for the countless who have been shackled by religious laws and works and discipleship, Jesus comes, “Grace upon Grace” while the law came by the servant Moses.

So there are issues with some people, just as the children of the Spirit and promise will be persecuted by the children of the flesh (Gal 4:28).  Different mountains, different mothers.  Coming from Michael Brown (and Impact) might also have collateral damage to those still pursuing santification by works rather than sanctification by grace (monogist <> synergist; the latter having many proponents with discipleship para-church groups)

The moment Michael Brown’s book on Hyper Grace was published, Dr Paul Ellis responded to clarify how the message of Grace has been so misunderstood, and so mixed up (ie. mixture). 

I suppose it would be fair that since Impact has featured Michael Brown, it would consider also featuring Dr Paul Ellis, or review his book the “Hyper Grace Gospel” (available in e format) :-

http://escapetoreality.org/author/pauldellis/

Thank you.

Be blessed in Jesus, Who is Great, Glorious, Good and full of Grace.

Saved by Grace, Standing in Grace, Strong in Grace

2Tim 2:1; Heb 13:9; 1Pet 5:12

Is there tithing under Grace?

Is there tithing under Grace?, or rather

As tithing has been done away with, is there still giving under Grace?

Finally, the sermon preached on 16^th Nov has been released on CD titled “Is there tithing under Grace?”  (see blog dd 16^th Nov)

Since I was at the first services on the 4^th Aug 2013 and 16^th Nov 2014, I can remember clearly and observe how my church develop along in this matter. My reflections may not be a big deal to the majority who have been blessed and benefited much in the teaching ministry of JP – especially in the essence of our position in Christ by Grace.

Prior to 4^th Aug 2013, terms like ‘our tithe’ and ‘tithing’ are not unknown before the collection bag is passed around.  The audio message on the church website “The Benefits of Tithing” bears this out. Yet there are others who believe that the tithe has been done away, according to Hebrews 7.  I felt it was not fair and discreet when the pulpit began to fault ‘grace pastors’ who do not believe in the tithe without defining and qualifying that ‘grace pastors’ referred to the Levitical system of tithing, and not to giving.  Is there an apprehension that members could be influenced and stopped giving altogether?

Personally I don’t believe the ‘tithing’ is sound.  Essential doctrines and teachings, seemingly ambiguous or vague in the OT are illuminated by our Lord Jesus and the apostles.  So do we see Jesus or the apostles teaching on the tithe?  (see again the entry for 4^th Aug 2013).  Our response of honouring the Lord with our substance has been restored to the examples of Abraham and Jacob before the law to tithe was given.  It was willing, wholehearted and the quantum was a personal decision.  In these cases, both chose to give ten percent.  Would the Lord reject or object if the amount was less, or more? The bible is silent on this.  The NT, when referring to our giving, clearly stated that it is to be according to our means.  If the church were to be legalistic, then a ‘taxation system’ not unlike that of secular governments would be a good analogy.  If we are well endowed, would it be possible to say that since we have given the ten-percent, we don’t have any more obligations to be generous (Mark 7:11).  Thus I find the principles in 2 Cor 8 & 9 are indeed a step-up to the restrictive and legalistic quantum of the tithe.  And if we are much challenged in our financial situation, the apostle Paul clearly said about giving “out of what you have. ¹² For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.” (2 Cor 8:11,12).

Since the sermon on the 4^th Aug, I observed that the terms ‘tithe’ and ‘tithing’ were not uttered (at least in the services I attended.)  Instead I often hear “you don’t have to give, you get to give”)

Based on the sermon of 16^th Nov 2014, there was the submission to the tithe being done away with.  But there seem to be a creative rationalisation to suggest that our offering is to be ten-percent – ie the tithe.  Well you need to listen to the message “Is there a tithing under Grace?”.  Wonder why the pre-occupation with the ten-percent?  It might not be a big issue with believers in Singapore who are generally middle-class, and definintely not with our church with much trumpeting about material blessings as our legacy.

Anyway, why the pre-occupation on the ten-percent? What about worshipping God according to what one has, whether much or little, according to one’s station in life?

How does the emphasis on the act of giving ten-percent fit in with the Gospel of Grace which our church proclaim as having no demands or expectation on our performance and works?

And aren’t there other more pressing, solemn and serious issues to focus on?  What about

Is there Discipleship under Grace?

Is there a devoted and dedicated life of prayer under Grace?

Is there disciplined personal and group Bible-study under Grace?

Is there practical outworkings of love and loyalty in the Community / Body Life under Grace?

Is there a life of personal witnessing under Grace?

……………..

……………..

Maybe we will hear more messages on our lives bearing fruit, our sanctification by Grace.