The essence of the hyper-grace error

After all that has been said, what is the essence of the hyper-grace error? If we wanted to pinpoint the major point of deviancy, what exactly is it? Hyper-Dispensationalism is obviously a problem, yet hyper-grace proponents do not emphasize Dispensationalism, although at least Prince explicitly uses the notion of dispensation as a prop for his theological propositions (Prince, Destined to Reign, 43, 92-3). It seems to me that the main error of the hyper-grace movement is its view of the problem of man, and the solution offered by Christ.

In Joseph Prince's book Destined to Reign, Prince dealt with what he thinks to be the major problem with mankind. According to Prince, the deepest root that causes all the destructive sin patterns is condemnation (Joseph Prince, 131). As Prince wrote,

That is why condemnation is the deepest root. It is a root that man cannot overcome through self-effort. Condemnation demands a payment for all your failures and sins, but without Jesus, there is no payment. For some time now, there has been talk about guilt and how it can cause various adverse symptoms to appear in the human body, but that is just skimming the surface of the matter. While experts may be able to identify guilt and condemnation as the sources, they have no solution to destroy them. ... (Prince, 133)

One can of course point out that Prince uses phychological analysis in part to determine the problem with Man, and that is correct. Prince sees the problem with mankind as one of condemnation. Satan and the Law seek to condemn people for their errors. The Gospel then, for Prince, is the removal of this condemnation; the "gift of no condemnation" (Prince, 164). Misusing Romans 8:1 as his central proof-text, Prince states:

My friend, the main reason our Savior's blood was shed was for the forgiveness of our sins. This means that the blood of Jesus also offers us protection from any form of condemnation. When you have a revelation that Jesus' blood has made you righteous and all your sins are forgiven, you are protected from condemnation from the accuser. It's imperative that you understand this because it will give you the confidence to come before the throne of God boldly and see Him as a loving Father. It will cause you to reign over that sin, addition or depression that is holding you in bondage today. (Prince, 159)

According to Prince therefore, the main problem with mankind is condemnation, and Christ came to remove the condemnation. Sin of course is not unimportant, but sin seems to be treated as external acts that stem from condemnation.

It is here that we see the main problem with the hyper-grace error. For if condemnation leads to sin, then the solution is to remove condemnation by naming and claiming Christ's righteousness as ours (Prince, 17-18). In orthodox Christianity, the problem with mankind is sin, in that Man has original sin, and commits actual sin daily. Man commits sin because he is sinful and thus violate God's Law regularly. The Gospel is the message that Christ has atoned for our sins so that we will be saved when we put our trust in him and rely on his righteousness. The orthodox scheme is this:

Problem: Sin; Solution: Propitiation, expiation and double imputation.

Whereas for Prince, as we have seen, the problem with mankind is condemnation that leads to more and more sin. The solution is the gift of no condemnation. This can be shown as follows:

Problem: Condemnation; Solution: Gift of no condemnation

It is at this point that we can see how the hyper-grace heresy develops. In evangelical theology, condemnation is the judicial consequence (not root) of sin. Romans 8 comes after 7 chapters dealing with the sinfulness of man and the Gospel of free salvation in Christ, and therefore the removal of condemnation is the consequences of actual salvation. In the Scriptures, no condemnation is the judicial verdict stemming from the Gospel, but it is not the Gospel. Prince redefines the problem and the solution in more psychological instead of forensic terms, and thus arose the hyper-grace error.

Due to its misdiagnosis and misprescription, it can be safely said that hyper-grace is a false gospel. By making the consequences of sin and salvation their respective roots, Prince and other hyper-grace preachers have created a false gospel which they are peddling to the masses. While there are some surface similarities between hyper-grace and the true biblical doctrines of grace, at its root the two are radically opposed to each other. Therefore, even as we must be against (true) Legalism, we must also defend and refute the hyper-gracers who might seem to be teaching something similar to us in some aspects, but are actually promoting a false gospel.

Hyper Grace: Sin and conviction of sin, sanctification

Brown's next charge against the hyper-gracers is that they deny that believers should confess their sins to God, with a focus on their denigration of 1 John 1 as being a polemic against the Gnostics. In this, Brown is absolutely correct that the hyper-gracers have invented from thin air a false context for 1 John 1, a text which in fact is directed to Christians, contrary to what the hyper-gracers say. Brown's next charge is that the hyper-gracers deny that the Holy Spirit ever convicts people of sin, and that the repentance demanded of believers is merely a change of mind (based upon the distortion of the meaning of the Greek word metanoia and cognates). To the former, evidently the hyper-gracers deny John 16:8-10 among other texts. To the latter, Brown basically threw the books (lexicons etc) at the anti-intellectual hyper-gracers, who pretend to be scholarly and use Greek words, while distorting the actual meaning of these words.

The next area of Brown's critique concerns hyper-grace's essentially perfectionist understanding of sanctification. Hyper-gracers are perfectionists, denying the need for progressive sanctification. Living the Christian life to them is "effortless," the subject of Brown's critique in chapter 9. Here, Brown's critique of the necessity of progressive sanctification, and of actually striving towards holiness (Brown, 91-148) is appropriate.

Perhaps the most disturbing within the hyper-grace camp is the radical and outright heretical conclusions some of the leaders are taking the movement. In his chapter "The New Gnostics," Brown detailed some of the even more heretical stuff that some hyper-gracers are promoting in order to preserve their perfectionism. According to one blog post written to counter Brown, and now cited by him, the author Michael Reyes claimed that he was not the one sinning but just his "flesh" (Brown, 229). Hyper-grace teacher Ryan Rufus is criticized by Brown for saying that Christians no loner have a sinful nature (Brown, 230). Even more disturbing is the mysticism of hyper-grace heretic John Crowder, who brazenly comes up with a version of union with Christ that has Christ replacing the believer and thus sinning is impossible for the believer, an error worse than that of Andrea Osiander and more akin to pantheism.

The last major error criticized by Brown lies in the hyper-Dispensationalism of the hyper-gracers. In this area, there might be some overlap with the anti-Lordship free grace camp. Andre van der Merwe attacked the Old Testament as being a book of confusion that shouldn't be added to the New Testament (Brown, 168), an assertion that is plain ridiculous and shows he has no idea how the canon of Scripture was formed. Van der Merwe made that statement because, like Marcion, he does not like the Old Testament's 'god of wrath.' Other hyper-grace teachers are less overtly Marcionite. Prince for example distorts 2 Corinthians 3 to claim a contrast between the Old Testament as being a book that brings death and thus not applicable in the dispensation of grace (Brown, 201; Prince, 43, 92-3). Hyper-gracers claim that the Mosaic Covenant is in essence a covenant of law (works) since the people rejected God's grace and wanted law (Brown, 193-6, Prince, 222-4). Thus, Christians can disregard most of the Old Testament since we are under the new dispensation of grace. All of these follow the path of the heretic Marcion and are to be rejected.

Hyper Grace: Sin and Forgiveness

One of the foundations of the hyper-grace message is that God has already forgiven all our sins, meaning past sins, present sins, and future sins. ... (Michael Brown, Hyper-Grace, 39)

Simply stated, there is not a single verse anywhere in the Bible that pronounces us already forgiven for our future sins (meaning, sins we have not yet committed). (Ibid., 43)

Dr. Brown's first critique against the hyper-gracers is their strident tone attacking those who reject their message as "legalistic" and "against grace" (Brown, 22-38). The accusations by the hyper-gracers would however be true if what they proclaim was actually true. In other words, Brown's complaint here would only be valid if the hyper-gracers are wrong. If however the hyper-gracers were correct in their understanding of the Gospel, then Brown's complaint would be invalid. Brown scored better in his second critique of speaking about the forgiveness of sins, but even then he fumbles.

The hyper-gracers believe that Jesus forgave our sins past, present and future. Therefore. there is no need to ask for forgiveness for sins committed in the future. Rather, the whole idea is to just declare one's righteousness and not think about sin (e.g. Joseph Prince, Destined to Reign, 17-18). Brown's critique is that Jesus has declared us righteous by faith, but that forgiveness is given only after sins have been committed, "applied as needed" (Brown, 43).

Both the hyper-gracers and Brown are in error on this point, although Brown is closer to the truth. The problem arises when proper theological categories and distinctions are not made. When the question is asked as to whether God forgives our sins "past, present and future," the whole manner of thinking is wrong from the beginning. The question tacitly assumes that the solution to sin is the forgiveness of God, which plays into the hyper-gracers distortion of the problem with Man, but it certainly is not how the Bible expresses itself on the way of salvation.

The orthodox manner of understanding the work of salvation is to distinguish between redemption accomplished by Christ, and redemption applied by the Holy Spirit. Christ fulfilled redemption for all time for all kinds of peoples on the Cross. He has paid the full price of atonement to propitiate the Father's wrath and expiate the penalties of our sins. God is now both just and justifier of believers in Christ (Rom. 3:26). The price has been paid for all sins that has ever been committed, past, present and future. The work of Christ is finished, a fact which Brown has gotten right.

The redemption accomplished by Christ is then applied to believers by the Holy Spirit, who calls, regenerates and applies the verdict of justification to believers, adopting them into the household of God, and then He sanctifies and finally glorifies them. This application of regeneration is applied in time to believers. Redemption accomplished is finished at the Cross, but redemption applied is ongoing throughout time and history.

When we think in this manner, then the question posed by the hyper-gracers can be seen as being imprecise and misleading. Does God forgive our sins "past, present, and future"? God has paid for our sins and thus the forgiveness of sins past, present and future, but the application of that forgiveness comes about by faith and repentance. As 1 John 1:9 states, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We are already forgiven, but yet we continually seek forgiveness for our sins. Thus, contra Brown, it is true that we are forgiven of our future sins, but contra the hyper-gracers, it is because we are objectively forgiven of our future sins that we seek forgiveness (subjectively) from God for any sins we commit.

This dynamic is clearly stated in the Bible. We are saved apart from works, so that we might obey God (Romans, Galatians). We are saved from salvation by the Law, in order to obey the Law (Gal. 5:13-14). We are saved FROM good works (contra Legalism) FOR good works (contra Antinomianism). This is the proper manner of understanding the Gospel and the Christian life, which we should take in contrast to both Brown but especially the hyper-gracers.

Michael Brown and Reviewing the Hyper-Grace movement

The charismatic apologist Dr. Micheal Brown has written a book in 2014 entitled Hyper Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Grace Message. In this book, Brown attempted to sound an alarm against a movement within charismatic circles that promotes a certain view of grace that he believes leads to licentiousness. For others looking in, parallels might be drawn between this and the older Lordship controversy between John MacArthur and the anti-Lordship movement by people like Zane Hodges (a mostly intra-Dispensational controversy), or the glowing embers of controversy around the radical grace movement between people like Kevin DeYoung and Mark Jones on the one hand, and mainly Tullian Tchividjian on the other (an intra-Reformed controversy), which died down somewhat after Tchividjian's disgrace and removal from ministry due to his sin of adultery. Having read up quite a bit on the Lordship controversy, and having some familiarity with the more recent controversy over Tullian's views, I certainly think there are points of similarity the hyper-grace controversy have with the other two controversies, but I do not think they are so similar such that one can take the "grace" position or its opposite across the board. It is fully possible that the biblical position might be to side with the Lordship position in the Lordship controversy, and yet to side with Tullian Tchividjian in the radical grace controversy. Each position in each controversy must be examined independently on its own merits, without conflating the controversies such that one side must be the default just because its analogue in another controversy is the biblical position.

It is on this note that I wish to review Dr. Michael Brown's book on the topic. I would love to also review a book written from who I think to be the main source of the Hyper-Grace movement, Joseph Prince, but that would have to be for another time.

Concerning the history of this movement, I have lost touch with the happenings within the charismatic movement so unfortunately I do not have a clear picture of the relationship between Joseph Prince and the various other preachers accused by Dr. Brown of being proponents of "Hyper-Grace." What I do know however is that most of the material by the other hyper-grace proponents cited by Dr. Brown are quite recent— all 2007 and after. As someone from Singapore, I do know Prince has been promoting the hyper-grace message as early or even earlier than 2000. Basically, there were murmurs about his teaching on grace already back then when New Creation was starting to become famous/infamous as it grew to become a mega-church. While I cannot say this with absolute certainty, I suspect that Prince was the original hyper-grace preacher, and he spread the movement through his various talks and conferences around the world, as well as his "outreach" through having branches of his own ministry abroad in place like America, where he has his own very religious TV channel appropriately named "Destined to Reign." In this light, it would be really interesting if someone would actually research and do a write up on the evolution of this movement, as well as the relationships Prince have with its other proponents like John Crowder, Rob Rufus and Clark Whitten.

The hyper-grace controversy began with certain preachers like Joseph Prince proclaiming what they believe to be the true Christian message of grace that had been obscured in the modern church. According to Prince, he received a new revelation directly from God to preach "grace," and his ministry has never been the same again [Joseph Prince, Destined to Reign: The secret to effortless success, wholeness and victorious living (Singapore: 22 Media, 2007), 272]. Dr. Brown's book is probably the first written blast against the movement that has metastasized within charismatic circles. Since Charismatism has never been known for great scholarship in general, I doubt there would be a flurry of books dealing with the controversy, as opposed to the number of books already written over a short time span between Tullian Tchividjian, Mark Jones and Kevin Deyoung. Rather, the hyper grace controversy would probably be fought over in informal settings like blogs, and we would have few books on the topic.

[to be continued]