The Hyper-Grace Gospel: A Response to Michael Brown and Those Opposed to the Modern Grace Message (13 page)

Grace preachers like to say, “God is
always in a good mood.” But Dr. Brown wonders, “Is He really? Was God in a good
mood when He drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden or when Cain murdered his
brother?” (my paraphrase of pages 152–3).

Dr. Brown frets
that “modern grace teachers want us to focus almost exclusively on God’s
kindness, as if there were no possibility that His severity could ever apply to
us” (page 152). He worries that we don’t wave the sticks that keep Christians
in line. We don’t warn believers about the possibility of being hacked off from
the vine and thrown into the fire.

Like most
mixed-grace preachers, Dr. Brown doesn’t seem to appreciate that in Christ we
are eternally unpunishable. Since God dealt severely with all our sin on the
cross (Rom. 8:3), He will never deal severely with us. Indeed, He cannot, said
Spurgeon, without acting unjustly:

How shall the Lord
punish twice for one offense? If Christ took my sins and stood as my
substitute, then there is no wrath of God for me …
[95]

You may ask, “But what about those Jewish
branches that were broken off because of their unbelief?” I know some people
use Romans 11:20 to say you can lose your salvation, but Paul was referring to
groups—Jews and Gentiles—rather than individuals. “I am talking to you
Gentiles” (Rom. 11:13).

The nation of Israel
was broken off, but certain individual Jews (like Paul himself) were grafted in
through faith. Conversely, the Gentiles as a group have benefited from the
kindness of God, although individual Gentiles may yet miss out through
unbelief.

Paul writes that
“some of the branches were broken off” (Rom. 11:17). That sounds like he’s
describing some sort of divine judgment. But the reality is that the Israelites
cut themselves off. “God did not reject His people … they stumbled … they were
broken off because of unbelief” (Rom. 11:2, 11, 20). And even though they were
broken off the Jews are still loved “on account of the patriarchs” and will be
immediately grafted in if they do not persist in unbelief (Rom. 11:23, 28).

So when Paul
says, “Do not be arrogant, but tremble. For if God did not spare the natural
branches, He will not spare you either” (Rom. 11:20b–21), he is not threatening
the secure believer. He’s speaking to the Gentiles
as a group
. He is
saying, “Don’t boast over the Jews. You Gentiles have a window of opportunity,
like they did, but it won’t stay open forever.”

The heading on
page 156—“A God of mercy and of wrath”—suggests that we need a more balanced
picture of God. We need the goodness of the modern grace message as well as the
wrath of hellfire religion. In other words, we need a
mixed
gospel
because the hyper-grace gospel is unbalanced.

It is certainly
true that grace preachers emphasize God’s goodness above His wrathfulness. But
so did David when he wrote, “For His anger lasts only a moment, but His favor
lasts a lifetime” (Ps. 30:5). The Lord was similarly unbalanced when, speaking
through the prophet Isaiah, He contrasted His “little wrath” with His
“everlasting kindness” (Is. 54:8, NKJV).

It is inaccurate
and unbiblical to try balance God’s love and wrath. The Bible throws its weight
on one side of the scales when it says, “God is love” (1 John 4:16). Everything
He does is an expression of His love for us, even His wrath. If the wrath of
God scares you, then you have the wrong picture of wrath because there is no
fear in love.

Page 159: Dr.
Brown writes: “My question to my hyper-grace friends is this: If you believe
God’s wrath is coming, why do you hardly ever (if ever) speak about it?”
Actually we do speak about it. I, for one, have written extensively on hell,
wrath, and judgment. Dr. Brown knows this for he challenges my claim that the
condemnation of hell has no place in the gospel. He writes, “Of course the
condemnation of hell has a place in the gospel of grace. In fact, it underscores
the gracious message of the cross, since we all deserved hell because of our
sins” (page 165).

A word about
words seems appropriate here.
Gospel
means good news. I know there are
some who think hell may be a place of refining, but many of us would agree that
hell, whatever it is, is bad news. Since by definition there can be no bad news
in the good news, the condemnation of hell has no place in the great and
glorious announcement of what Christ has done. Certainly, God has saved us from
something hellish, but as I explained in Part B (see Myth #11), what He has
saved us
to
is infinitely greater than what He has saved us
from
.

Marcion was a heretic who rejected the Old
Testament along with most of the Gospels. Marcion taught that the God of the
Old Testament was different from the God of the New Testament. Apparently “the
spirit of Marcion lives on” in those who preach the modern message of grace and
“follow the error of his ways” (page 182). This is a preposterous accusation.

Who, exactly, is
following Marcion? Which hyper-grace preacher is saying there are two gods? Dr.
Brown doesn’t say. Instead he vaguely refers to some “Christian leaders” who
make a contrast between the God of the Old Testament and the God of New Testament
even though they believe, unlike Marcion, there is only one God (page 167).

Since Dr. Brown
provides no evidence of hyper-grace preachers who teach a muddled, Marcionite
message, I see no need to respond to his baseless claim.

But while we’re
on the subject, what do hyper-grace preachers say about the God of the Old
Testament? We believe the God of the Old Testament is the same God who sits on
the throne of grace and who, out of the fullness of His grace, sent us His Son
Jesus. But while
we
know that the God of the Old Testament is our
heavenly Father, those living at that time did not know, and this is reflected
in their writings.

Andrew Wommack
writes:

In the Old
Testament, we see a picture of God that is incomplete. It is not incorrect; it
is just incomplete.
[96]

The Old Testament picture of God is
incomplete because the Old Testament was written by people who related to God
through a law-keeping covenant. They described God as the Creator,
El
Shaddai
, the Ancient of Days, and so forth, but none of them thought of God
as their heavenly Father. Before Jesus came, nobody referred to God as Father.
This is why Jesus said:

No one has seen the
Father except the One who is from God; only He has seen the Father. (John 6:46)

Until Jesus showed up, no one really knew
what God was like. The only person who can accurately explain God is God
Himself, and He did this by sending us His Son. Jesus is God explaining Himself
to the human race.

I am sometimes
asked, “How does the angry God of the Old Testament fit with the nice God of
the New?” This question makes it sound like there is more than one God or that
God has mellowed with age.

But the truth is
God never changes. God has always been our loving Father. The first man, Adam,
was called a son of God (Luke 3:38). The problem is not that God stopped being
our Father. The problem is we ran away from home. The so-called “God of the Old
Testament” is a fuzzy photograph taken with a telephoto lens by those who could
not appreciate what they were looking at. Moses, Elijah, and the other Old
Testament prophets had a revelation of God but they did not fully know Him.
[97]

Before Jesus came, nobody did (John 1:18).

Cornel Marais has
written, “What we think about Him comes from what we know about Him, and what
we know about Him determines how we relate to Him.”
[98]

This is why we
have it better than the righteous men and women of the old covenant. They did
not know who their Father was but we do. Because of Jesus, we get to relate to
Him as dearly loved children.

Pages 168–70: Dr.
Brown seems to be of the opinion that hyper-grace teachers have little regard
for the Old Testament. As we saw in Part B, this is a common misperception that
seems to confuse the Old Testament with the old covenant (see Myth #7).
Hyper-grace teachers agree with the author of Hebrews who described the old
covenant as obsolete and outdated (Heb. 8:13). We also agree with Paul who said
all Scripture is useful for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16). There
is no contradiction here for the old covenant points to Christ who is our
righteousness from God.

Page 172: Dr.
Brown observes that, in contrast with modern grace preachers, the apostles
often quoted from the Old Testament. What else could they do? The New Testament
hadn’t been written yet.

Page 173: Dr.
Brown’s claim that we’re not preaching the Old Testament is undermined by his
observation that the New Testament is packed with Old Testament references.
Preach the New and you
are
preaching the Old.

To be honest, I
don’t think Dr. Brown is worried that we are modern Marcionites. Nor is he
seriously concerned about how much of the Old Testament we may be preaching. I
suspect his real concern is that we are “ignoring many of the lessons and
warnings of the Hebrew Scriptures” (page 179). To some degree this is true. We
don’t preach the warnings and curses of the old law-keeping system because
“Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us” (Gal.
3:13). Using the warnings of the Hebrew Scriptures as sticks to motivate proper
behavior among those who have been justified by Christ is to insult the cross
and set aside grace.

Page 180: Dr.
Brown says if we deny and turn away from Jesus, He will deny and turn away from
us. This is a classic threat of the mixed-grace message but it’s not true.
Jesus’ warning about denying Him and being denied in return evidently didn’t
apply to Peter who denied the Lord
three times
. Nor does it apply to any
Christian. Saint, you are one with the Lord and He cannot deny Himself.

People are
fickle. We change our minds, we break our promises, and we regularly fail.
Fourteen centuries of the law-keeping covenant proves this. But God is not like
us which is why He made the new covenant with Himself. If the new covenant
hinged on our faithfulness, it would not be new. It would be just like the old
one.

Writing on 2
Timothy 2:12–13 Andrew Farley notes that:

Our faithfulness to
God is an
old
-covenant problem that is solved by the new. Under the new,
God has accomplished the unthinkable: He has taken us out of the equation. Our
salvation and our faithfulness are all about Him.
[99]

Have you ever wondered why Peter was not
lost on the night he denied the Lord? After all, that was a particularly bad
day for Peter. His faith grew cold, he drifted away, and he even called down
curses on himself. He was no longer standing firm, continuing in the faith, or
seeking to please the Lord. He was doing none of the things that mixed-grace
preachers say you must do. Yet Peter was not lost because the Son of God was
interceding for him. Jesus prays for you too (1 John 2:1).

If you are
worried about dropping the ball and losing your secure position in Christ, you
need to get your eyes off yourself and fix them on Jesus. You need to believe
the promises of God:

Being confident of
this, that He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until
the day of Christ Jesus. (Philippians 1:6)

Page 181: By quoting some of the promises
in the Old Testament, modern grace preachers are “virtually stealing them from
Israel.” Now I’m confused. Does Dr. Brown want us to mine the treasures of the
Old Testament or leave them untouched for Israel? And does he not know that all
the promises of God are ours in Christ Jesus?

For no matter how
many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. (2 Corinthians 1:20a)

Who would disagree with the title of this
chapter? Every grace preacher I know agrees with Paul who said “the law is
holy, righteous, and good” (Rom. 7:12). Yet an oft-heard criticism made against
hyper-grace preachers is that we are opposed to the law. As we saw in Part B,
this is a complete falsehood (see Myth #6). One characteristic of hyper-grace
preachers is that we esteem the law and the purpose for which it was given.

Dr. Brown writes
that hyper-grace teachers “think of God’s Law … as bad or defective” (page
184). This is simply not true. Even the hyper-grace teachers that he quotes,
such as Andrew Farley, say that the law is good. They even say it in the bits
he quotes! “There’s nothing imperfect about the law itself. It’s without
blemish.”

On page 185, Dr.
Brown alleges that Andrew Farley “denigrates the Law, along with the principles
of moral living.” He does? When did he do that? To denigrate is to criticize
unfairly. I read these pages several times and could not find Farley saying
anything remotely critical about the law. In fact, he says the opposite. He
says that the law is good and without blemish.

The only thing I
could see that Dr. Brown might take issue with was when Farley says “the law
has no place in the life of a Christian.” In other words, Dr. Brown disagrees
with the
application
of the law.

Like many
mixed-grace preachers, Dr. Brown seems to think Christians ought to live by the
law and Biblical principles for living. This becomes clear when he refers to
Paul’s exhortations as “specific commands” that must be obeyed (page 186). For
instance, in Colossians 3, “Paul gives a series of specific instructions
(commands!), including: ‘Wives, submit to your husbands.’” Oh boy. Do we really
want to go there?

A hyper-grace
teacher would say that Paul’s exhortations are not commands like the Ten
Commandments. Nor are they new covenant laws
you must obey
to be saved
or sanctified. Why do we say this? Because Paul himself says it in numerous
places (e.g., Rom. 6:14–15, 10:4, Gal. 5:18). If Paul says we are not under
law, why would he give us law to be under? It makes no sense.

If there is no
wisdom in insisting on rules for holy living, as Paul says in Colossians 2:23,
why would he then insist on rules for holy living? He would be contradicting
himself.

The instructions
and exhortations of the new covenant are not to be read as commands
that
must be obeyed
. So how are we to read them? Dr. Brown gives us a brilliant
phrase when he calls them “house rules,” on page 186. This is a most apt
description.

Perhaps you have
seen those “House Rules” posters that say things like, “In this house we love,
laugh, listen, help others, say ‘thank you,’ and that sort of thing. That’s
what Paul is giving us in his letters. He’s giving us the house rules for our
Father’s house of grace. He’s painting a picture of the new and wonderful life
that is ours to enjoy in Christ.

Just as you would
not kick your children out of your home or deprive them of your fellowship if
they neglected to laugh, listen, or say “thank you,” nor will God punish you
for failing to keep His house rules. That’s not the way to read them. The only
way you could interpret Paul’s Rules as commands to be obeyed is if you approach
them with a law-keeping mindset.

“But what about
when Paul quotes one of the Ten Commandments in Ephesians 6? Doesn’t that prove
Paul was in the command-issuing business?” Not at all. Paul was in the
grace-dispensing business which is why he selectively quotes from the old
commandments.

Look at what Paul
says:

Children, obey your
parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother”—which is
the first commandment with a promise—“so that it may go well with you and that
you may enjoy long life on the earth.” (Ephesians 6:1–3)

That is a wonderful promise lifted
straight out of the law. But what about the flip-side? What if we don’t honor
our father and mother? What happens then?

What
the law says will happen: “Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be
put to death” (Exodus 21:17).

What
Paul says will happen: “________”

Do you see? Under the law you got carrots
and sticks, but under grace, it’s just carrots, and carrots which Jesus paid
for.

While it is true
that Jesus quoted the curse associated with this commandment in Matthew 15:4,
He did so while talking to religious people and law-teachers living under the
law. You are not under the law.

Jesus and Paul
preached different parts of the same law to different audiences for different
purposes. There’s a wonderful symmetry here. One used the law to silence the
self-righteous; the other used it to illustrate a timeless truth.
[100]

Page 187: What
does it mean to have the law written on our hearts? Does it mean memorizing the
Ten Commandments as the Jews did? Does it mean God will miraculously write
those ten laws on our hearts like giving us the answers to a test? If so, I
think I’m going to fail the test. I’ve been a Christian for forty-plus years
and I’m not sure I could list all ten laws accurately and in the proper order.
Could you?

In his book
Grace
Rules
, Steve McVey gives what I think is the best illustration of how God
writes His laws on our hearts. Consider the laws governing the responsibilities
of parents. These laws are good and righteous. They serve a noble purpose by
helping to ensure children receive proper care and nutrition. Yet McVey
confesses that he and his wife have never been to the courthouse to read these
laws. There may be hundreds of laws governing parental responsibilities but
they haven’t read a single one. Yet he can confidently assert that they have
fulfilled every one of those laws.

In fact, we have
gone above and beyond what the law requires. Do you know why? It’s because we
have related to our children on the basis of love!
[101]

This is something every parent knows. We
don’t keep the laws to please the authorities and we don’t relate to our
children on the basis of these laws. We relate to them on the basis of love and
keeping the laws flows naturally from that love relationship. So why do we have
these laws? Because not everyone loves their kids. The laws are for those who
neglect or abuse their children. They are not for loving parents.

We also know that
the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels … (1
Timothy 1:9a)

The laws in the Bible were not written for
those who love Jesus. Contrary to what the legalist may tell you, keeping the
laws to earn what He freely offers is a sign that you don’t know the love of
God. A legalist reads the laws of the Bible and sees threats and warnings.
Keep
the laws or else!
But love makes no threats.

Pages 190–1:
Hyper-grace preachers will tell you that you are free from the commandments and
not obliged to observe Christian principles. Dr. Brown counters that choosing
to be moral is not at odds with living in the Spirit. But in a manner of
speaking, it is. If you are told you must “choose” to keep the commands to be
holy or to avoid dire consequences, you are neither free nor under grace. Your
choice is an illusion. You’re just a religious donkey getting whacked with a
stick.

You may ask, “If
you hyper-grace preachers say we are free from the law, aren’t you encouraging
immorality?” Not at all. We’re saying moral living is a fruit not a root. Walking
in the Spirit (living by faith in Christ) always leads to moral living just as
planting acorns leads to oak trees. However, the opposite is not true. Striving
to be a good Christian by keeping the commandments is trusting in self. It’s a
faithless way to live. Even though your intentions may be good, it’s walking
after the old way of the flesh.
[102]

“But don’t the
laws and commandments of the Bible show us how to please the Lord?” No, they
don’t. Do you need a rule-book to show you how to love and please your spouse?
Nor do you need a rule-book to love and please the Lord.

God does not want
you to love Him because you have to or because it’s written in the rules. He’s
not after your good behavior. He wants
you
.

If you don’t
settle this in your heart you may run from your husband Mr. Grace back to your
former husband Mr. Law (Rom. 7:1–6). Live by the rules and you’ll be cheating
on Jesus (to quote Andrew Farley). You’ll be walking in the footsteps of the
law-abiding but faithless Pharisees.

Page 192: Dr.
Brown writes: “Hyper-grace teachers create a false dichotomy between a
grace-filled relationship with God and an obedient, commandment-keeping
relationship with God.” I wouldn’t say we create a false dichotomy. I’d like to
think we dig a Grand Canyon between two incompatible types of relationship:

Old covenant:
commandment-keeping, law-based relationship

New covenant:
grace-filled, love-based relationship

A mixed-grace preacher says, “If you’re
living under grace, prove it by keeping the law.” But a hyper-grace preacher
says, “Don’t even try. It’s grace or it’s law but not both.” Mix the new with
the old and you’ll end up with the benefits of neither.

Page 192: Dr.
Brown quotes 1 Corinthians 7:19: “Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is
nothing,” to make the point that “Keeping God’s commands is what counts.” Is
Paul saying we need to keep the old commands? And if so, what about the old
command to be circumcised, which he says is nothing and doesn’t count? It seems
confusing. It seems to be a mixed message.

Circumcision is
the key to making sense of this verse. Circumcision was the hot issue of Paul’s
day. Some said you had to do it; others said you didn’t. Paul dismissed the
argument as irrelevant. “Circumcision was only ever a shadow, not the reality.
In Christ we have been circumcised and that circumcision was not done by the
hands of men” (Col. 2:11, my paraphrase). If you insist on living by the
commands, you’re living in the shadow and not the reality.

“But what about
when Paul says ‘Keeping God’s commands is what counts’?” Don’t you see? In
Christ we have kept and continue to keep the commands of God. Just as your
circumcision was not done by the hands of man, neither is your command-keeping.
It’s totally a God-thing.

Yet some people
won’t believe it. They think the hyper-grace gospel is just too good to be
true. “There must be something I can do to impress God,” they say. “There must
be
one
command I can keep.” There is:

And this is His
command: to believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ … (1 John 3:23a)

You need to believe that Jesus fulfilled
all the law on your behalf. You need to believe that because of Him, you are
free from the sticks and curses of the law.

Pages 193–4: Dr.
Brown takes issue with the claim made by some hyper-grace preachers, including
myself, that Israel basically asked God to give them the law-keeping covenant.
“Honestly, when I read statements like these, I wonder if we are reading the
same Scriptures.” Dr. Brown’s incredulity is not baseless. The Bible does not
actually say the Israelites twisted God’s arm into giving them the law-keeping
covenant. But neither does it say, as Dr. Brown does, that “God gave Israel His
laws … because He had given His promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and it
was all based on His grace and not their merit.” Both conclusions are inferred.

Dr. Brown says
God gave Israel His laws based on His grace. Since law and grace are mutually
exclusive, this is confusing. There is no such thing as a grace-based law. It’s
one or the other. It’s grace or it’s law. It’s more accurate to say that God
gave us the law so that we might appreciate our need for grace.

The covenant God
made with the Patriarchs was grace-based. God’s blessings to Abraham’s family
were based on His promises, not theirs. This can be clearly seen in the exodus
of Israel. On their flight from Egypt the Israelites complained and murmured
but God did not treat them as their sins deserved. Instead He gave them grace.

The Israelites
complained on the shores of the Red Sea and God blessed them (Ex. 14). They
murmured at Marah and God blessed them again (Ex. 15). They grumbled in the
desert and God blessed them
again
(Ex. 16). God did not bless Israel
because they were faithful (they weren’t), but because
He
is faithful.

However, at Sinai,
everything changed. The Israelites signed up for a law-based covenant where
God’s blessings now hinged on
their
faithfulness. They swapped the free
bounty of heaven for the carrots and sticks of the law. It was the worst trade
in history. On the day they received the law the Israelites sinned again, but
this time they paid a price and 3000 people died.