The hypergrace controversy: Heresy, maturity, or somewhere in between?

[michaelvpardo]

I listen to a local "christian" radio station that carries a wide variety of "christian" teaching. Recently they have shuffled program time slots around, did some deletions and additions, and I laud them for pushing their infomercials to less "prime time" slots. One new show, a call in one, features teachings on the basic doctrines of grace. The show's hosts are teachers that teach from the perspective that salvation is 100% God's work (and 0 % our own.) This is biblical and understood through the writings of the Apostle Paul.

On another show, also a call in one, that airs about two hours earlier, a certain teacher with some letters associated with his name, a doctorate of some sort, went on a week's vacation, but took the opportunuty to create some pre-recorded shows (eliminating the possibility of immediate rebuttal), and the topic was "hypergrace" or the "heretical" notion that all of our sin, past present and future, was "forgiven" through the redemptive price of God's own blood, through the crucifixion of His Son, even our Lord Jesus called the Christ, blessed forever. Amen

While this Dr. wasn't about to use the names of the teachers from the other show, he nearly quoted their teaching with respect to some passages from 1st John, and had no problem identifying it with "known heresy." I wouldn't call this a bold move as it seemed staged and somewhat cowardly. You could hear some indignation in his voice, but it seemed to be indignation at the rejection of his scholarship, rather than a genuine concern over doctrine. I am concerned for this man, first because he seems quite sincere in his desire to advance the kingdom of God, and second because he would rather accuse some teachers of heresy rather than confront them in public and open debate (perhaps he desires to do so, and the other parties refuse out of a desire for peace within the body of Christ. Only these parties and God know the reason.)

I am inclined to believe that these two teachers I've mentioned first have the more "mature" understanding of the doctrines of grace, though I certainly could be mistaken. If a man were able to come to a perfect understanding of scripture through "proper" exegeses and scholarly effort, it's unlikely that the Pharisees of Jesus' first appearing "in skin" so to speak, would have condemned Him. A "carnally minded" reading of scripture will never reveal all those things which the Spirit of grace has hidden for those who know Him, though what is explicitly stated of doctrine remains explicitly stated.

Now, the center of the "Dr.'s" attack on these "heretics" was about their interpretation of these verses:

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us. 1 John 1:8-10


The first two teachers explain this verse in context, contending that it is meant for unbelievers who were a part of the congregation(s) being addressed and effectively a "gospel" message, which then goes on to commend those who have already received the gospel.

Our indignant Dr. makes much of the original language and the use of the word "we" since it would apply to the author of the text as well (excellent scholarly point; he get's double credit.)
The Dr. really did make a strong point, why would the apostle identify with unbelievers? Were there believers who hadn't really understood and received the fulness of God's grace, not actually believing that it is God who alone saves us? Or perhaps, was John referring to God's sanctifying grace and trying to reassure those with immature understanding?

Being new to their ministry, I've called in to the show with a few questions, to try to evaluate the understanding of the first two teachers. All the parties involved have made what appears to be sincere confessions of faith. All believe that they are called to "the ministry" and demonstrate a desire to serve the Lord in the advancement of His kingom, though the first two have a gospel ministry and the latter an "activist" ministry. I don't have a problem calling any of them brothers, though one seems a bit petulant inspite of his age, qualifications, and genuine zeal for the word of God.

One aspect of the doctrinal argument, the controversy called "hypergrace," is the notion that asking for forgiveness after having already received Christ by faith is itself sin. I haven't heard the two teachers mentioned first say exactly this, but they stress the point that it is silly or pointless to ask for forgiveness from God, when a person has already accepted it: "The gifts and calling of God are irrevocable," etc. This arguement leads to the doctrine of the assurance of our salvation. Yet many teachers out there make the claim that a person can loose salvation, which flies in the face of most New testament scripture, including our Lord's own statement: “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24

There are a number of similar statements, all from the same gospel account, and all from the same author as that of 1st John. So why did John give us those "troubling" passages in his letter called 1st John?
Could it be that God is a little less concerned with our understanding of salvation, than with our relationship to and with Him?
He walked with Adam in the cool of the morning in the garden of Eden. He wants to walk with us now, instructing us through His Spirit and His word. He wants us to always be praying to Him, not just with requests and praises, but with discussion like a father conversing with his son over the issues of life, concerns, regrets, hopes, fears, etc. In this life, He is preparing us for eternity, for an ongoing and permanent fellowship. As a "good" Father, shouldn't He be concerned for our best (and isn't He?) Shouldn't He be steering us away from destructive behaviors and disciplining us when necessary?

I'm convinced that God has forgiven us of all sin if we have indeed received Him, but confessing our sinful actions to Him will certainly help us to "unburden" our conscience and be reassured of His love for us, in the confidence that He has already forgiven us in our adoption as sons. What does the scripture say? 22 Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. Romans 14:21-23

Now anyone who teaches a pure doctrine of grace opens himself up to accusations of being a libertine, and such was the case with the Apostle Paul. However, our sanctification is a process, and praise the Lord for His grace, because if any part of my salvation relied upon me, I would fail. Do you know a perfect man? I do, and His name is Jesus.

This is a discussion forum so feel free to agree or disagree, but let our stand be upon God's word and not upon our own understanding, and I pray that civility will be the rule if the rule of love is insufficient for such a divisive arguement. Let His Spirit reign in our hearts and in our mouths (or in our fingers as is the case now.) Amen

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Was this Dr. Brown by chance?

I don't agree with the two teachers that said 'we' refers to unbelievers in the congregation. Quite a stretch and contrived.

I do believe that all in GOD's congregation have sin (sinful nature), and to deny such is to deny the truth. This stain requires continual cleansing, which is accomplished by acknowledging it's existence and being cleansed by the spirit. That IMO is what 1 John 1:8-10 is referring to.

 

[Angelina]

One aspect of the doctrinal argument, the controversy called "hypergrace," is the notion that asking for forgiveness after having already received Christ by faith is itself sin. I haven't heard the two teachers mentioned first say exactly this, but they stress the point that it is silly or pointless to ask for forgiveness from God, when a person has already accepted it

I think the controversy comes from misunderstanding Christ's work on the cross. He took away the sin of the whole world. John 1:29. This sin was the consequence of disobedience in the garden. Romans 5:19. Death was the outcome of Adams sin. Romans 5:12. Christ's work on the cross broke that power of death over mankind and brought them back into right standing with God the Father. Hebrews 2:14, 15, 16, 17. 2 Corinthians 5:17, 18, 19, 20, 21. However, there is a clause - you must first believe what Christ did on the cross for us [ as an individual] and receive him as Lord and savior. This is a heart confession. Romans 10:8, 9, 10, 11.

Once we are reconciled with God the Father through his son by confession, belief and receiving Jesus as Lord and savior [salvation] the bible says that the Holy Spirit comes and makes his home in us. Ephesians 1:13-14. Then the sanctifying part of our walk begins. There are times when we can fail and times when we need to repent of personal sins that the Holy Spirit may be addressing...it is all part of the growing, maturing and changing into his likeness...1 John 2:1, 2 Corinthians 12:21, Galatians 5:16-17

Shalom!

PS: I personally think that 1 John 1:8-10 was speaking to the Hebrew followers among them who believed [as the Pharisees did - Judaic Jews] that they were without sin because they were Abraham's descendents by bloodline. John was addressing them as well as others who were saved by Grace through faith...JMHO
John 8:33, 34, 35, 36. John 8:39, 40, 41.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I do believe that all in GOD's congregation have sin (sinful nature), and to deny such is to deny the truth. This stain requires continual cleansing, which is accomplished by acknowledging it's existence and being cleansed by the spirit. That IMO is what 1 John 1:8-10 is referring to.

My rationale for stating this is the following. It is interesting that Jesus said (says) that the mere act of acknowledgment of one's sinful condition makes one sinless (in his eyes), and vice versa.

Jesus said to them, “If you were blind [i.e., having a humble attitude because of the awareness of one's sinful nature], you would not have sin. But now you say, ‘We see [i.e., having a self-assured attitude that one is righteous of one's self],’ your sin remains. John 9:41

I tell you, this [tax collector who acknowledged his sinful condition] went down to his house justified rather than [the religious, law-keeping pharisee who thought he was without sin]! For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:14

 

[Wormwood]

This debate has been prominent in Christian circles for some time. Some who side with the holiness movement (based on John Wesley's teaching) claim that a person is saved in order to be sanctified. If a person has received the Holy Spirit, then they should be becoming more like Jesus. They would claim that the evidence of a person receiving the Holy Spirit is the very real transformation of the person's life becoming more holy and more like Christ. They would ask, "How can a person claim to have received the power of the Spirit by faith in Jesus and not be changed in their daily actions and desires?" They would also focus on the responsibility of the believer to cooperate with God's grace in their lives.

Others would claim that this is too works focused and the only thing that matters is trusting in the blood of Jesus. How one lives is not a reflection of their salvation, because salvation is faith alone.

This debate often includes discussion on free-will and election as it deals with God's sovereign choice and the importance of human response when it comes to receiving grace.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Others would claim that this is too works focused and the only thing that matters is trusting in the blood of Jesus. How one lives is not a reflection of their salvation, because salvation is faith alone.

IMO this is the kind of faith James is referring to that cannot save a person.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

IMO this is the kind of faith James is referring to that cannot save a person.

Exactly. And moreover, the only time you see the phrase "faith alone" in the Bible is when James asserts that a man is saved by works and NOT faith alone.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Exactly. And moreover, the only time you see the phrase "faith alone" in the Bible is when James asserts that a man is saved by works and NOT faith alone.

But it does seem to be somewhat of a semantic paradox that only faith alone can produce the sort of works that save a person, but faith alone cannot save a person.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

But it does seem to be somewhat of a semantic paradox that only faith alone can produce the sort of works that save a person, but faith alone cannot save a person.

I'm fond of using Zacchaeus as an example of how inseparably works and faith are wedded. He climbed a tree to see Jesus, and when Jesus came to his house, he was filled with remorse and said, "half my goods I will give to the poor and if I've defrauded anyone, I'll restore it." To which Jesus replied, "Salvation has come to this house." It seems that many believe faith is a fuzzy feeling people feel inside. But James assures us that faith without works is dead, so faith is an action, not a feeling. It reveals an inner conversion of the heart, a penitent disposition, and a commitment to righteousness. Much of these debates about which came first, the faith or the works is much like which came first, the chicken or the egg. I don't think it's possible to have one without the other.

 

[williemac]

Once again I see a discussion talking about faith with language that places it as the qualifier for salvation. Faith does not save. Faith is merely the means by which we receive something from God. God saves. Faith is a method. But the qualification for salvation is humility. God gives grace to the humble.

In light of the op, I heard a teaching years ago that is similar to those who say 1John 1:8 is speaking to the unsaved. I agree with this. The "we" in that verse could well refer to mankind in general. One thing we must understand is that it is not unusual to explain concepts to the church. Another example of this is found in Rom.10:9,10. In that case, Paul is speaking to the church about how one acquires salvation. In vs.9, he uses "you",as in " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved". Weren't they already saved? Of course. No one argues that fact. Paul was merely explaining a concept. He wasn't telling them of something they needed to yet do. I never hear anyone saying that this is an instruction for the Romans to follow in order to get something they had not already received. Then why do people do that in the case of 1John 1:9?

The issue with 1John 1:9 is that it tells us how we get forgiven by God. When we accept this as an ongoing exercise that is repeated over and over in the life of the believer, we open up a big fat can of worms, and a variety of viewpoints about salvation and forgiveness.
Many will insist that it is beneficial to confess our sins to God on an ongoing basis, and I would not disagree with the reasons given for this...until we use 1John 1:9 as our reference. The fact is, that verse is about acquiring forgiveness of sin and cleansing from all unrighteousness.

If we are going to suggest that forgiveness from God is fleeting or temporary, then I have a real issue with that. This idea is contrary to many places in scripture that explain what happened at Calvary and how it applies to the believer. In fact this suggestion is contrary to the very next verse in 1John. In 1John 2:1, he tells them not to sin, but if they (we) DO sin, WE have an advocate with the Father (Jesus). In Him we HAVE redemption, the forgiveness of sin. Does the believer jump in and out of being in Him?

Here is the order that is presented: We acknowledge our sin and our need for a Savior. We confess this to God and are forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness. If we sin again, the High Priest is in position at the right hand of God to stand in the gap for us as our advocate. I mean really...how many times do we think we are cleansed from ALL unrighteousness?

In Heb.6, the author tells them why they need not revisit the foundation. He says it is because if one should fall away it would be impossible to come back to the repentance to salvation. Therefore the foundation is laid just one time. Therefore eternal life is a one time gift. Salvation happens ONCE. It does not repeat. Then why are people willing to believe that forgiveness is repeated over and over?

We are new creations (2Cor.5:17). We have the new man dwelling in an earthen vessel (2Cor.4:7). Who in this discussion will dare to tell me or us that this is a repeatable experience?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Once again I see a discussion talking about faith with language that places it as the qualifier for salvation. Faith does not save. Faith is merely the means by which we receive something from God. God saves. Faith is a method. But the qualification for salvation is humility. God gives grace to the humble.

That's incorrect, even from a cursory look at scripture, particularly the one I quoted where James says a man is saved by works and not faith alone. (2:24) But James further posits the question, "If a man says he has faith but not works, can faith save him?" (vs 14) The point being that faith apart from works does not save, but faith wedded to works does. But in this Calvinist "either/or" thinking, you phrase the debate as either God doing it all and man contributing nothing or God doing nothing and man striving for salvation on his own merit. It's unbiblical.


In light of the op, I heard a teaching years ago that is similar to those who say 1John 1:8 is speaking to the unsaved. I agree with this. The "we" in that verse could well refer to mankind in general. One thing we must understand is that it is not unusual to explain concepts to the church. Another example of this is found in Rom.10:9,10. In that case, Paul is speaking to the church about how one acquires salvation. In vs.9, he uses "you",as in " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved". Weren't they already saved? Of course. No one argues that fact. Paul was merely explaining a concept. He wasn't telling them of something they needed to yet do. I never hear anyone saying that this is an instruction for the Romans to follow in order to get something they had not already received. Then why do people do that in the case of 1John 1:9?

This is an old and tired debate about whether we are saved or being saved. But the Bible seems to grant assent to both points of view. Certainly we can't ignore 1Corinthians 1:18, 2Corintians 2:18, or Acts 2:47 all of which say we are "being saved". Nor can we disregard being told to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12) It seems again you fail to appreciate other dynamics in your either/or thinking. You attempt to simplify what really isn't simple.



The issue with 1John 1:9 is that it tells us how we get forgiven by God. When we accept this as an ongoing exercise that is repeated over and over in the life of the believer, we open up a big fat can of worms, and a variety of viewpoints about salvation and forgiveness.
Many will insist that it is beneficial to confess our sins to God on an ongoing basis, and I would not disagree with the reasons given for this...until we use 1John 1:9 as our reference. The fact is, that verse is about acquiring forgiveness of sin and cleansing from all unrighteousness.

If we are going to suggest that forgiveness from God is fleeting or temporary, then I have a real issue with that. This idea is contrary to many places in scripture that explain what happened at Calvary and how it applies to the believer. In fact this suggestion is contrary to the very next verse in 1John. In 1John 2:1, he tells them not to sin, but if they (we) DO sin, WE have an advocate with the Father (Jesus). In Him we HAVE redemption, the forgiveness of sin. Does the believer jump in and out of being in Him?

Here is the order that is presented: We acknowledge our sin and our need for a Savior. We confess this to God and are forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness. If we sin again, the High Priest is in position at the right hand of God to stand in the gap for us as our advocate. I mean really...how many times do we think we are cleansed from ALL unrighteousness?

It isn't forgiveness that needs to happen over and over, but rather reconciliation both with God and God's holy church. Paul makes clear that sin isn't a private matter when he addressed an incident of a man fornicating with his father's wife. Sin causes a break in both our vertical (God) and horizontal (church) relationships and both must be restored. I agree with you that salvation isn't turned on and off like a light switch that we fall from grace every time we make a mistake, but our fellowship with God and with our brothers and sisters needs to be restored when we sin which is why we repent, ask forgiveness, and reform our ways.



In Heb.6, the author tells them why they need not revisit the foundation. He says it is because if one should fall away it would be impossible to come back to the repentance to salvation. Therefore the foundation is laid just one time. Therefore eternal life is a one time gift. Salvation happens ONCE. It does not repeat. Then why are people willing to believe that forgiveness is repeated over and over?

You're mischaracterizing this passage. The author of Hebrews is addressing Jews being tempted to go back to the Old Covenant and keeping the law, which he says cannot save a person. It's in this context that he says a person who has partaken of the Holy Spirit and tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come cannot relapse into the insufficiency of the Old Covenant that was fulfilled by the one and singular Lamb that was slain to fulfill the terms of the Old Covenant. Going back to the Old Covenant is tantamount to putting Jesus back on the cross because the Old Covenant cannot save except by the fulfillment of Jesus Christ.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

If we are going to suggest that forgiveness from God is fleeting or temporary, then I have a real issue with that. This idea is contrary to many places in scripture that explain what happened at Calvary and how it applies to the believer. In fact this suggestion is contrary to the very next verse in 1John. In 1John 2:1, he tells them not to sin, but if they (we) DO sin, WE have an advocate with the Father (Jesus). In Him we HAVE redemption, the forgiveness of sin. Does the believer jump in and out of being in Him?

Here is the order that is presented: We acknowledge our sin and our need for a Savior. We confess this to God and are forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness. If we sin again, the High Priest is in position at the right hand of God to stand in the gap for us as our advocate. I mean really...how many times do we think we are cleansed from ALL unrighteousness?

What you are failing to consider is that our minds are continually soiled by the images of the world and the corruption of our fallen nature, and we need continual cleansing from these; just like what the bronze laver by the altar of burnt offering in the temple accomplished. This cleansing is accomplished by acknowledgment of this defilement's existence and its detrimental effect on our relationship with GOD. We have not committed sin, but our minds are certainly defiled by the presence of sin in our nature. And if it's not taken care of, it will hinder fruit growth, and can eventually lead to committing sin. If we say we don't have this sin (nature), we are lying and the truth is not in us.

 

[Angelina]

This debate has been prominent in Christian circles for some time. Some who side with the holiness movement (based on John Wesley's teaching) claim that a person is saved in order to be sanctified. If a person has received the Holy Spirit, then they should be becoming more like Jesus. They would claim that the evidence of a person receiving the Holy Spirit is the very real transformation of the person's life becoming more holy and more like Christ. They would ask, "How can a person claim to have received the power of the Spirit by faith in Jesus and not be changed in their daily actions and desires?" They would also focus on the responsibility of the believer to cooperate with God's grace in their lives.

Others would claim that this is too works focused and the only thing that matters is trusting in the blood of Jesus. How one lives is not a reflection of their salvation, because salvation is faith alone.

This debate often includes discussion on free-will and election as it deals with God's sovereign choice and the importance of human response when it comes to receiving grace.

This is interesting...
I am not from the holiness movement as they do not believe in the triune God. Not all Pentecostals are holiness believers. In fact most are not... However, I would agree here with their understanding of the process given in the first instance.

Others would claim that this is too works focused and the only thing that matters is trusting in the blood of Jesus. How one lives is not a reflection of their salvation, because salvation is faith alone.

I do not see it being work focused at all since Abraham himself acted upon his belief by faith...that God would raise his Son up somehow [when he was about to kill him] because he had already promised him future blessings through his line. Hebrews 11:17. We also act upon our faith by believing as Abraham did and receiving through salvation the promised Holy Spirit and [Ephesians 1:13] eternal life through Jesus our Lord and Savior. Abraham was not a perfect man but he believed God and walked and talked with him daily just as we do when we are walking by faith in Christ's word and talking with God daily with the aide of the Holy Spirit.

There seems to be a marked difference between a works based salvation, action by faith - salvation and the good works God has prepared for us to do beforehand. This is where I think some misunderstandings can be wrought .... :huh:

Once again I see a discussion talking about faith with language that places it as the qualifier for salvation. Faith does not save. Faith is merely the means by which we receive something from God. God saves. Faith is a method. But the qualification for salvation is humility. God gives grace to the humble.

That may be true...faith does not save however, the bible says:
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Blessings!!!

 

[williemac]

What you are failing to consider is that our minds are continually soiled by the images of the world and the corruption of our fallen nature, and we need continual cleansing from these; just like what the bronze laver by the altar of burnt offering in the temple accomplished. This cleansing is accomplished by acknowledgment of this defilement's existence and its detrimental effect on our relationship with GOD. We have not committed sin, but our minds are certainly defiled by the presence of sin in our nature. And if it's not taken care of, it will hinder fruit growth, and can eventually lead to committing sin. If we say we don't have this sin (nature), we are lying and the truth is not in us.

I am not failing to consider anything of the sort. What I am doing is examining a text to see what it means. And what I am disputing is that the text suggests that forgiveness is withdrawn when a Christian sins and the way that he gets it back is to confess the sin. This is the conclusion that is naturally reached when we use 1John 1:9 as an instruction to the believer. Such an application can be taken to its logical conclusion in order to test whether it is truth.

I am well aware of the soiling that we are bombarded with in this world. But I do not agree that continual or repeated cleansing is accomplished through confession of sin in the case of the believer. We have our instructions already. They include setting our minds on things above, abiding in Jesus, and abstaining from sin. If we apply 1John 1:9 into this, we are faced with the question of forgiveness, not just cleansing. Both are mentioned. We are washed and regenerated in one event called the new birth. . If you want to prove that confession of sin is required for continual or repeated cleansing, then show me another text. No doctrine should be formed on the basis of just one passage, especially without supporting passages. This is a safe and highly practiced rule of thumb.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

If you want to prove that confession of sin is required for continual or repeated cleansing, then show me another text. No doctrine should be formed on the basis of just one passage, especially without supporting passages. This is a safe and highly practiced rule of thumb.

I think that 1 John 1:9 does that very thing; forgiveness, not from GOD's prespective, but from ours. Only one thing cleanses: the holy spirit, which is the spirit of truth. If we confess the truth that we are defiled by sin we dwell in the spirit of truth, and receive the cleansing forgiveness that we need. Forgiveness heals whether it is for overt sin, or for the defilement of sin.

 

[williemac]

I think that 1 John 1:9 does that very thing; forgiveness, not from GOD's prespective, but from ours. Only one thing cleanses: the holy spirit, which is the spirit of truth. If we confess the truth that we are defiled by sin we dwell in the spirit of truth, and receive the cleansing forgiveness that we need. Forgiveness heals whether it is for overt sin, or for the defilement of sin.

That may be arguable in concept, but the problem is that 1John 1:9 is not taken that way as a rule. In fact, it is more important to understand the Holy Spirit's intention or the author's intention in what he is saying than to invent our own intention for what he is saying. If we look at that verse in light of the very next verse, we can see that our position with God is not in question. However, we have no explanation from John as to 1:9 meaning that there is a lessor kind of forgiveness or cleansing than that which is appropriated with redemption. Like I said, show me a supporting passage that indicates there is. I doubt you can. Therefore we are talking about a doctrine that is formed from just one verse. And formed from an opinion about that verse, no less.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

That may be arguable in concept, but the problem is that 1John 1:9 is not taken that way as a rule. In fact, it is more important to understand the Holy Spirit's intention or the author's intention in what he is saying than to invent our own intention for what he is saying. If we look at that verse in light of the very next verse, we can see that our position with God is not in question. However, we have no explanation from John as to 1:9 meaning that there is a lessor kind of forgiveness or cleansing than that which is appropriated with redemption. Like I said, show me a supporting passage that indicates there is. I doubt you can. Therefore we are talking about a doctrine that is formed from just one verse. And formed from an opinion about that verse, no less.

Well I was trying to get that across... I totally agree that our position is not in question. But the quality of that relationship is affected.

btw I live this every day. I am somewhat of an authority on it whether I can explicitly show you in scripture or not. I know the power...

 

[williemac]

Well I was trying to get that across... I totally agree that our position is not in question. But the quality of that relationship is affected.

btw I live this every day. I am somewhat of an authority on it whether I can explicitly show you in scripture or not. I know the power...

That's fine. I never said I was against such a relationship with God. But this op is about the use of a certain passage. And if we use this passage in regards to getting further, repeated, or ongoing forgiveness or cleansing from God, then the can of worms is activated and all kinds of opinions and applications and doctrines surface as a result. This is why I agree with the conclusion that 1John 1:9 is a one time event called redemption, salvation, new birth, and that it is a teaching about that which Christians already have experienced, just as Rom.10:9,10 is...even though these passages are in letters addressed to believers. This is information for our use and understanding rather than instruction for maintaining or regaining salvation, which it ends up being in many people's minds. My point to others on this thread is that if we are not using Rom.10:9 in that way, why would we use 1John 1:9 in that way?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Was this Dr. Brown by chance?

I don't agree with the two teachers that said 'we' refers to unbelievers in the congregation. Quite a stretch and contrived.

I do believe that all in GOD's congregation have sin (sinful nature), and to deny such is to deny the truth. This stain requires continual cleansing, which is accomplished by acknowledging it's existence and being cleansed by the spirit. That IMO is what 1 John 1:8-10 is referring to.

I didn't want to use the names of any of these brothers, as I respect what they're trying to do, so I'll leave that as a question mark.
I wouldn't argue that a constant cleansing wasn't necessary, but our salvation is accomplished when we believe and receive Jesus Christ by His Spirit. The constant cleansing is a part of our sanctification process and not of our salvation. The Jews under the old covenant had to bring yearly sacrifices to the temple to provide a temporary covering for their sin, this also amounted to a temporary cleansing and unburdening of their conscience. The process of "confessing our sin" over and over again is really only agreeing with God about what His Spirit is showing us. No who is saved is made perfect in the moment that they are saved, but they may put away some obvious sin that brought them to the Lord in the first place, such as drunkenness (for example). The Lord may take away the desire for alcohol from that person, and certainly gives them the sense that they are forgiven for their sin, but all of us continue to sin in ways that we don't recognize every single day of our lives. If you'd never read the scripture and accepted the Lord solely on a presentation of the gospel made alive by His Spirit, then there could be many things in scripture that you've never recognized as sin. Its only until you recognize those sins as sins that you can confess them. If you should die before you confess all of your sins, and pretty much everyone does, you still belong to Christ. What's the point of temporary cleansing? Well for one thing, there is sin which leads to death. If you don't recognize it as sin and continue in it, you will most likely die from it, but that doesn't mean that you stop belonging to Christ. He's given His Spirit which identifies those who receive Him as His own. Sanctification is a process, we grow in grace. That is, as we mature, we recognize increasingly our own sinful nature and the magnitude of God's gift to us. This makes us love Him more and greater love = greater obedience. We don't obey Him in order to gain His love, but rather we learn to obey Him because of the love that He has poured out upon us. John's gospel repeats a number of times that we pass out of judgment when we have believed the Lord. It doesn't make a lot of sense to say that we've passed out of judgment, but then back into judgment until we confess our sin again, then pass back out of judgment, over and over and over. That is a bit silly.

But it does seem to be somewhat of a semantic paradox that only faith alone can produce the sort of works that save a person, but faith alone cannot save a person.

That's probably because works never save anybody. The works are the result of salvation, not the cause. I don't think that James was confused on the matter, but was in complete agreement with Paul.

For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.Ephesians 2:10
I don't know what the original Greek says, but my translations say that we were created for good works, not that we are saved by them.


Paul says this in Philippians: for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Philippians 2:13 Since you have to receive the Holy Spirit through faith in Christ, you must be saved already in order to do His good pleasure; the works have nothing to do with being saved, but are salvation's result. First the tree has to be made good, then it can bear good fruit.

 

[jiggyfly]

All things concerning faith, fruit and life are the results of God working in and for us. Seems many teachings today make these things prerequisites and turning them into our works rather than God's.