Hyper-grace is a recent term given to the teaching of some preachers who emphasize the place of grace in the life of the believers so that—so it is often asserted—they "become soft" on sin and holiness in their lives, even to the point of antinomianism.
The first problem in discussing the subject of hyper-grace is that the term lacks a clearly formulated definition of what it consists of and what it does not. Statements are made here and there by different persons of differing view so that what we find now is a subject consisting of a few major assertions by proponents and a great deal of of "no, we do believe that" that provokes critics with "yes, they do." Away of this, we list here the two items that, whether proponents or critics, seem to agree lie at the heart of hyper-grace:
1. We are saved by grace, and no good works we do can add to or subtract from our salvation.
2. As a result, all our sins are forgiven. This includes the sins we will commit in the future as well.
Both of these items are standard assertions of reformed theology. What has triggered all the fuss over hyper-grace, it seems, comes from the question of what these implies. And here some preachers of hyper-grace have given the impression that it is alright if one sins as long as one remains in Jesus. As a child of God our future sins are already forgiven. Stay with Jesus and you will be alright. This is the sort of thing that leads critics to charge hyper-grace (rather than those specific preachers) with antinomianism, with opeing the door for their believers to flit with sin.
It is important to note that few critics, if ever, would assert that hyper-grace is a heresy. Not yet, at least. Critics assert that hyper-grace is soft on sin and sanctification. It is not unfair to say that they do have a point on this. Elyse Fitzpatrick's example of confession,"Lord, forgive me for my sin today. Thank you that you love me in spite of all my failures" (Give Them Grace) evinces little depth and substance of what repentance mean. Those who have ever attended churches espousing hyper-grace will testify that sin is seldom if ever a suject for their sermons. Whether their members live immoral lives or not (more than they do in other evangelical churches) as often charged is something we cannot commend on short of some clear statistics.But on sanctification, Tullian Tchividjian, one of the leading proponent of hyper-grace, e.g., complains that:
One of the insinuations whenever the doctrine of sanctification is discussed is that my effort, my works, my pursuit of holiness, my faith, my response, my obedience, and my practice of godliness keep me in God’s good graces. This, however, undermines the clear Biblical teaching that things between Christians and God are forever settled because of what Jesus has accomplished on the cross. . . . When we imply that our works are for God and not our neighbor, we perpetuate the idea that God’s love for us is dependent on what we do instead of on what Christ has done" (The Gospel Coalition).
One can hardly disagree with the first half of Tchividjian's assertion, but the second half lacks logical coherence—or a very narrow understanding of sanctification. Why can we not work for God because it pleases Him. A child who takes the initiative to pile the cut pieces of wood neatly to one side while his father is chopping them is not necessarily trying to stop his father from disowning him. He may simply be doing it for the joy it brings his father. To suggest that good works imply that "we perpetuate the idea that God’s love for us is dependent on what we do instead of on what Christ has done" is an idea borne of great insecurity, or a very superficial understanding of Christian spirituality. When I bring, out of the blue, a gift for my wife, it means (or can mean) that I love my wife and wishes her a smile and joy my remembering her brings her. Sure, some men do bring their wives a gift out of the blue because they are insecure in their relationships but it is not the only or entire story than can be told. It is, mostly I think, this kind of superficial thinking that brings out the ire in critics.
One can go on, but suffice it to point out one other short-comings of hyper-grace. This is their totally inadequete appreciation of the relationship between grace and law, both as a function of the relationship between the Old and New Testament but also in its expression as the "Law-Grace" discussion that has been going on since it became highlighted by the Reformation.
While hyper-grace, we conclude, is not a heresy, and it is right to emphasize the place of grace in our life as children of God, it has few strengths to recommend it, and far too many weaknesses to dis-recommend it. It certainly is not a recipe for a healthy balanced Christian theology or spirituality.
You may also wish to read
Joseph Prince.
Further Reading
Michael Brown, Hyper-Grace: Exposing the Dangers of the Modern Message. Lake Mary: Charisma House, 2014.
Paul Ellis, The Hyper-Grace Gospel. A Response to Michael Brown and Those Opposed to the Modern Grace Message. Kings Press, 2014.
Resources
Jerry Wragg, The New Antinomianism. Gracechurch.org, 2014. 75.27 mins.
Audio N (Open on Phone)
Wayne de Villiers, The Misleading Refrains of the Hyper-Grace Movement, Part 1. 54.57 mins. Gracechurch.org, 2014.
Audio N (Open on Phone)
Wayne de Villiers, The Misleading Refrains of the Hyper-Grace Movement, Part 2. 48.20 mins. Gracechurch.org, 2014.
Audio N(Open on Phone)
Paul Barker, "The Hypergrace of Joseph Prince: A Review of 'Destined to Reign,'". The Gospel Coalition (Australia), 04/04/2017.
html N 5-6 (Open on Phone)
©ALBERITH
121121lch