About the author
More posts by Moderator
You are here:
On Easter Sunday, April 8, 2012, Bill Gothard sent out a mass email to his followers. It was entitled, “Let’s Celebrate Easter…by Doing the Impossible!” You can view a screenshot of the entire email here.
In the email, Gothard writes about how the 49 “commands of Christ” can be applied to the “seven stresses” of “anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy.” He then proceeds to write about how seven of these commands can be used to resolve the “stress” of anger.
In an attempt prove his point, Gothard uses a portion of the Old Testament account of David and Saul, particularly the account found in 1 Samuel 23. This is the narrative of when David encountered his pursuer King Saul sleeping in a cave, chose not to take his life, and ultimately confronted him about his desire to kill.
Upon reading the email, we found it to be an incredibly blatant misuse of Scripture. While this comes as no surprise to many of our readers, there are still many of his followers who believe that Gothard “rightly divides the word of truth.” We believe that this email illustrates the fact that Gothard has no qualms about taking Scripture and attempting to make it prove his own notions about spirituality and the Christian walk.
While we are certain that most readers will be able to quickly identify the errors and Scripture twisting contained within the email, we thought we would walk through the email and highlight the 20 most egregious fallacies.
Seven commands that relate to the stress of anger are to repent, rejoice, go to offenders, love your enemies, give perfect greetings, honor parents, and go the second mile. David had many reasons to be angry at Saul for trying to kill him, and Saul was angry at David because of his popularity. But when David carried out the essence of these seven commands, the impossible took place!"
We all sinned "in Adam" when Adam put his own intellect above God’s Word so he could decide for himself what he thought was right or wrong. Repentance involves turning from this prideful attitude and placing our intellect under the authority of God's Word.
When David learned that the Philistines were attacking the city of Keilah, he did not depend upon his own reasoning. He “inquired of the Lord . . . . And the Lord said unto David, Go, and smite the Philistines, and save Keilah.” This was irrational to David’s men, so “David inquired of the Lord yet again. And the Lord answered him and said, Arise, go down to Keilah . . .” (I Samuel 23:2–4)."
We are to rejoice in all situations, especially when others speak evil of us and say all manner of lies against us falsely for Christ's sake. “Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad,” because God is going to do the impossible through you and you will have great reward in heaven (Matthew 5:12).
When Saul heard that David was in Keilah, “Saul called all the people together” to kill David and his men. But David again inquired of the Lord and was told to flee. And “God delivered him not into [Saul’s] hand” (I Samuel 23:8, 14). This was cause for David to rejoice."
It is only as we go directly to our offenders that we can find out the reasons for their offense and make an appeal for reconciliation.
God arranged for David to have an unexpected “face to face” meeting with Saul when Saul came into the cave in which David and his men were hiding. While Saul slept, David’s men urged him to kill Saul, but David reminded them that Saul was anointed by the Lord, and he would not lift up a hand against him. David later spoke directly with Saul when he left the cave."
When we go to our offenders, they must see that we have a genuine love for them. We are not coming to them to accuse them or retaliate against them but to demonstrate our love for them.
An important aspect of loving our enemies is protecting them. This is what David did to Saul in the cave."
A "perfect" greeting is giving the same warm greeting to a stranger that we would give to our best friend. This means showing value and worth to every person whom we meet, including our enemies.
David embraced Saul "in the arms of his heart" when he called to Saul outside the cave and began his appeal by saying, “My lord the king” (I Samuel 24:8)."
Much anger stems from a wrong relationship with our parents. God promises that if we honor them even when they are hard to get along with, things will go well with us. (See Ephesians 6:2–3.)
Saul was David’s father-in-law. David honored him when David “stooped with his face to the earth, and bowed himself ” (I Samuel 24:8). After David’s appeal, the impossible took place: Saul repented of his wrong and blessed David: “Saul lifted up his voice, and wept. And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I: for thou hast rewarded me good, whereas I have rewarded thee evil . . . . I know well that thou shalt surely be king” (I Samuel 24:16–17, 20)."
Going the second mile is possible only after we joyfully complete the first mile.
After David spared Saul’s life and received a blessing from Saul, he went the second mile and promised that he would not destroy Saul’s descendants when he became the king. Now read I Samuel 23–24 for further rich treasures!"
While Gothard doesn’t define exactly what he means by “impossible,” in the context of the rest of the email and his decades of teaching, he clearly believes that living a life that follows the Law and the “Commands of Christ” is essential to successful Christian living. This is something that even Gothard acknowledges is “impossible” to do perfectly. If the purpose of the Resurrection was to give us the tools to “do the impossible,” it has been a miserable failure.
It’s hard to read this email and not wonder if Gothard is uncomfortable with a resurrection that is an avenue for sanctification apart from adherence to the law. Jesus taught that the law condemned us, and that he came to fulfill it. He implored those of us who are weak and burdened to take His yoke upon us, for His yoke is easy, and His burden is light (Matt. 11:30).
Do not misunderstand us here. We do not believe the freedom given by the resurrection is a “license for lasciviousness.” It is the power to walk in a new life free from the burden of the law of sin and death (Romans 8:2). It’s the power to follow after Christ and learn to let His ways become our ways. The Christian walk is not about a list of things to do, it’s about walking in a relationship with the living Savior. This is not a subtle difference. A popular Christian catchphrase states that “Religion says do,” whereas, “Jesus says done.” Maybe it would be appropriate in this case to say that “Gothard says do; Jesus says done.”
Easter is indeed a celebration of what Christ has DONE, not a time to be reminded of what we need to DO. It’s disturbing to see how Bill Gothard uses such a joyful time to remind his followers of all the things they need to do in order to achieve the “impossible.” This focus on doing has led many people to give up and walk away from the faith. That’s why we need a risen Savior. Easter is when we celebrate that Christ has already done the impossible when He conquered death.
Share this post:
Tweet this Share on Facebook Stumble it Share on Reddit Digg it Add to Delicious! Add to Technorati Add to Google Add to Myspace Subscribe to RSSMore posts by Moderator
Curious that you would bring up "Charlotte" becaus ...
By rob war, November 3, 2024I have seen the Amazon series, and I've seen the r ...
By JM, October 29, 2024Did you ever watch any of the Amazon series? The s ...
By rob war, October 25, 2024Yes, it does. Claims must be addressed because the ...
By JM, October 24, 2024I never claimed to work in finance, but I do have ...
By JM, October 24, 2024JM, What you're missing is that just because some ...
By kevin, July 31, 2024Good points Rob. There is also true irony in th ...
By kevin, July 31, 2024Jm, you must be a jack of all trades. For someone ...
By rob war, July 25, 2024Nope. Rob, you haven't properly evaluated Holly's ...
By JM, July 23, 2024Holly is a fraud herself. Her own son has come out ...
By rob war, July 22, 2024First off, it's "dam," not the other word. The spe ...
By JM, July 22, 2024Rob, This was MUCH BETTER! Thank you for findi ...
By JM, July 22, 2024I do have some training in science, but mainly in ...
By JM, July 22, 2024I hope it is soon. What is even more curious is th ...
By rob war, June 30, 2024Does anyone have an update on the expected release ...
By kevin, June 14, 2024JM, you wrote: "Bill and those who regularly wr ...
By kevin, May 24, 2024https://www.training-resources.org/music-in-the-ba ...
By rob war, May 16, 2024Copyright © 2011-2023 Recovering Grace. All rights reserved. RecoveringGrace.org collects no personal information other than what you share with us. Some opinions on this site are not the opinions of Recovering Grace. If you believe copyrighted work to be published here without permission or attribution, please email: [email protected]
Well written and critiqued. "Gothard says do, Jesus says done." I love that. I think I'll take the "old" approach to Easter, thanks anyway for the offer :-)
Don't knock something you haven't tried. The article would make good reading for the Pharisees in Jesus's day. I pity Christians who waste so much time critiquing other Christians instead of trying to carry out the commands of Christ that they are trying to critique. Like "Love your enemies"
Um... If you're talking about Gothardism, pretty sure we've all "tried" it, and that's why we're here. Although your intent is not completely clear from your comment.
Pretty sure loving enemies doesn't preclude calling them white-washed graves. Or brood of vipers. Etc. At least if they are hypocritical legalists. :)
According to the apostle Paul, 'loving your enemies' does not preclude speaking boldly about false teachings, naming false teachers, or rebuking Judaizers.
I don't understand your first sentence in light of the poison of error. Neither do I recommend tasting poison to see the effects of it.
Anyway, for the record, I spent 19 years in ATI while supportive of it for much of the time. I believe my experience provides a very solid basis for analysis. However, I am willing to consider it all dung in order to have Christ and Him crucified alone as my trust.
Now, I reject the foundations of the system (the IBLP principles) as a system of error due to the perspective of the book of Romans, the book of Job, the book of Hebrews, Galatians, and Colossians, for starters. As you soak in these and laying aside every weight, forgetting those things which are behind and pressing forward toward the high calling of God in Christ Jesus, you will likely increasingly understand the clear truth of the blessing of Jesus, promised to Abraham, and received by faith in the Scriptures apart from mere human efforts of the works of the law.
The basis for the ATI system and all of Gothard's teachings are a focus on the OT law as the answer to the human condition. To put it simply, according to Romans 4, this is error. Others in IBLP attempt to focus on the fact that the law is to drive us to Christ, however, these teachings are muted due to the endless lists and regulations that serve to redirect followers back into the OT law. It is a seemingly endless labyrinth of deferred hope leading to spiritual immaturity, disease, and death.
As you allow yourself to reflect on the past, you will likely see the contrasts for yourself. I found that looking into the law for hope and answers to the human condition provided merely a entangling system of distraction from the promises of Christ which are "yeah and amen!" (given and testified of (confirmed))
Attempting to apply select portions of the Psalms out of the context of the blessing of our revealed Christ leads to a dependence on the OT law for our hope. The disciples did not fast because Jesus was present with them. In the same manner, we do not pine for a coming Messiah to deliver from sin, he has come, equipped us fully with all power, and again, he will come in power and glory to put all things under His feet! In the present, we do not seek for steps to power--we receive it, freely, provided by Jesus made available to us upon request--the power of God the Holy Spirit.
I would think that if the apostle Paul was present today, that Gothard's name and his teachings would be included in his sermons and writtings without hesitation.
This is a good thorough article, and yet in my mind there is one glaring fallacy that trumps all the others. It's your last one, #20. Using Easter Sunday to saddle believers with extra rule-keeping, instead of celebrating an empty tomb, an empty cross, a risen Savior, is spiritual malpractice. There is certainly plenty of disturbing biblical mismanagement happening in Gothard's Easter letter, but how can you celebrate Easter without Easter? The focus here is squarely on our performance, not upon Christ's work---a common problem in Gothards approach, but especially so on Resurrection Day.
Easter without a celebration of the resurrection is like the Mona Lisa minus Mona Lisa (http://twentytwowords.com/2011/04/07/mona-lisa-minus-mona-lisa/).
Spiritual malpractice - classic! you should copyright that statement.
AMEN!!!! This is such a disturbing e-mail, and yet, back in the day, I would have been in full agreement. "Mr. Gothard got a new word from the Lord! Wish I was spiritual enough to get a new word. Maybe if I apply these 49 commands, and the 49 character qualities BETTER, then I can be as spiritual, and godly as he is!" And the sentence at the end
"On this Easter, let’s purpose to apply all of Christ’s commands so that we can experience the resurrection power of Christ and do the impossible!"
That made me furious! It is a blatant "rules and works" based statement, totally taking the power of salvation out of Christ's Work and makes it ours!! I hope this article wakes people up to the realization of what Gothard actually is teaching...
Sarah, I had the same reaction!
This Easter, one of my best friends wrote this:
"No good works. No promises to do better. No fear. No segregation or prejudice. No doom. No guilt. No regret. No sadness. No reason to look for meaning. That's some of the things Jesus, the Messiah, took away from us when He defeated death. Happy Resurrection Day! We celebrate freedom from sin's consequence (death in Hell) today -- may our songs, dancing, lifted hands, smiles, cheers, shouts, clapping, feasting, parties and happiness far surpass the greatest sports victory, concert, or personal milestone of our past. Today is about our future, our secure and fully paid for future. Thank you God for making a way for me, for us, for your church."
Then, I saw Gothard's message. Reading my friend's words, I was overcome with the sense that yes, the Gospel is, indeed GOOD NEWS!
Gothard's message, on the other hand, just reminded me of what it was like to be burdened with a load I was never intended to carry, yet did, for so many years, thanks to Gothard and his "teachings."
We are supposed to "protect our enemies"?? WHAT? Is this another way to let abusers or others who have commited crimes off the hook?
Couldn't read anymore after that. Maybe morbid curiosity will take over and I'll finish it later, or maybe I just won't have anymore load of *** with my breakfast. It doesn't mix well with the digestive juices.
that is *exactly* what i was thinking, hannah.
Bless your heart Hannah! Yes, please don't read Gothardism while you're eating breakfast anymore. =-) It's not healthy for you!
Lol
"And thou shalt celebrate Easter at the time appointed by the Council of Nicaea, and thou shalt pretend in thy mind that it is indeed biblical, and in no wise a pagan holiday adopted by the Roman Catholics." Hezekiah 4:13
Sorry, I can't help myself. ;-)
Galatians 5:1-12
1. It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by the law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit we eagerly await by faith the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.
7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you to keep you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 “A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion, whoever that may be, will have to pay the penalty. 11 Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
God has set us free!
I have friends who have become ensnared in legalism (not through ATI or Gothard), and I always think of this verse when it comes to them. They used to run so well! What made them stop believing the truth?
I am disturbed with the re-defining of sins as 'stresses'. This is not a small thing. This is an enormous, foundational issue. Thank you RG for promptly recognizing it and making a public correction. Stress is stress. Sin is sin. CHRIST endured horrific stress. He did not sin. And He obeyed the commandments perfectly, yet still had stresses. Stress and sin are NOT equivalent, are NOT necessarily connected, and certainly the terms are NOT interchangeable. Dangerous teaching! No matter WHO teaches it, this is a potentially damning heresy!
I couldn't agree more. And setting people up to think that if they feel stressed, they are sinning is incredibly dangerous and abusive. I'm curious what a trained mental health professional would diagnose BG with. It wouldn't be pretty, I think.
Thompson, you need to help yourself and drop the "snark", because those tired old arguments about how it's wrong to celebrate Christmas and Easter because of historical pagan associations is wrong. It demonstrates a lack of faith in the power of "light over darkness", as well a reactionary interpretation of the scriptural command to be "In the world, yet not of it".
I don't believe in you!
Not to mention the whole thing with relying on the genetic fallacy. :)
Easter Bunny!! You need to learn to tell the difference between satire and direct statements! It will greatly increase your enjoyment of reading Thompson's posts.
oh, I thought identifying himself as the "Easter Bunny" was to let us know that post was his own brand of satire. No?
Sorry, I've been hanging out with my friends Tooth Fairy and Santa Clause. There's nothing satirical or ironic "The Easter Bunny". Nothing at all.
Hmmm, y'know, in focusing on the sermon on the mount, Gothard left out the more 'possible' bits of the impossible requirements to surpass the works-righteousness of the pharisees...
like avoiding going to hell by not calling anyone unkind names, for example - not to mention the poking out your eye and cutting off your hand to make sure you get to heaven. ;o)
Y'know what, so long as we can categorize things in multiples of 7, we're good. Accuracy optional.
Is that a lesson from Mortenson math? :-)
So, now we have to keep the law to get Resurrection power? You've got to be kidding!
" anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy."
Wasn't this once a list of the Seven Deadly Sins identified by theologians and Bible scholars?
"doing the impossible" to me would mean raising the dead or something. NOT striving by formulas to overcome problems we made up. thanks for pointing out the obvious errors.
I still haven't been able to get through it. Two tries now. I don't know how many it will take.
But I did peek at the end, and see the utter misunderstanding of the "power of the Resurrection". I've seen this before on Gothard's twitter feed, and I wondered if the mga got it wrong. I guess not.
What Paul meant by "the power of the Resurrection", was the power of Salvation through Christ's work, and Christ's alone, in fact, it was in a passage denouncing works of human effort! It was certainly NOT something one could experience or bring about just by following steps of xyz.
Which I'm sure must have been covered beautifully in the article, had I managed to read it all.
This sort of taking-out-of context and misunderstanding of Scripture, even where it concerns basic issues of Salvation, are the sort of things that have given me serious pause about IBLP. Really, it's no wonder I thought the Christian life was all about works. So glad to have finally learned that it was all about Christ's finished work, from beginning to end!
Honestly,, I really do sometimes question bill's salvation, he seems to have very little right about grace, ressurection, stress vs. sin, etc.etc.
oops, add something else---the work of the Holy Spirit is to glorify Christ,,, who is the Alpha and Omega,The Beginning and the End,, all glory and honor is to be given to the Son,, and yet bill seems to give his "honor and glory" to old testament law---I see very little glorification of Christ in his writings,, i just sometimes wonder if bill is really saved.
I wouldn't go there, discussing who's saved and not saved. dangerous ground.
But think about it, grateful. He gets grace wrong, he even gets the power of the resurrection wrong. I cannot see another person's heart to know what their relationship to God is, but I certainly think it's a plausible question.
There have already been a few xers who have come forward with the confession that they really did not understand grace, and were not really saved during their years in ATI. They were trusting in their own works, instead. It would actually be an explanation that made sense to me. Thank you for provoking thought, Ted.
Thanks, RG, for taking the time to think this through. On Easter we don't need more guilt for all we're not doing right. Dwelling on 49 commands kills joy because I start focusing on myself and all I fail to do. Not only is such a performance impossible, but gratitude also, because I have to become my own savior and make myself holy before God. What Jesus did on the cross may be my ticket to heaven, but according to Gothard's article, it's not sufficient for holy living before God.
Fulfilling Christ's commands myself to overcome "stress"?? Even psychologists will tell a person under stress that the more pressure they put on themselves to "do better," the worse off they'll be!
Helping us do the impossible is not why Christ came, and it's certainly not why He died and rose again! HE DID the impossible! I'm forgiven, and the more I dwell on the irrational, extravagant, impossible love that made that sacrifice, the more I want to reject sin and become like Him.
Thank you, RG!
Yes! Yes! Yes!
I expected 21 fallacies. You know, in keeping with the whole divisible-by-seven rule that apparently signifies some sort of divine inspiration.
LOL, Sean. I don't think the Recovering Grace leadership team is spiritually superstitious like that. :-)
I would suggest removing Fallacy #13. If, as you say, Matthew 5:48 is "the conclusion and summation of Matthew 5:21-48," then not "saluting your brethren only" is obviously a part of "being therefore perfect." Thus, the concept of calling verse 47 a "perfect greeting" or "perfect salute" is a logical one. In the same way, one could call vs. 46 "perfect love." I see no implication from Mr. Gothard's email of the greeting being the exclusivity of perfection. The impartiality of a Christian's love to his neighbor is a truth that needs to be emphasized in the Christian Church today as Jesus did in the Sermon on the Mount.
Hello Robert, thank you for weighing in.
Here is how I see it:
Jesus gave an imperative to his followers to "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." The issue is not whether "Hello, Gertrude!" is a perfect greeting but whether followers of Jesus are behaving differently towards their enemies than they otherwise would. The sermon commands perfect people, not perfect greetings.
If the verse were giving various qualities of greetings, perfect greetings would be contrasted to imperfect greetings. But the passage is contrasting followers of Jesus vs. ethnikos (non-followers, Gentiles, tax collectors, sinners, other folks). That is why it would not be logical to build any significant teaching on the premise that Matthew 5:47 is a command to give a perfect greeting.
Mr. Gothard's exegesis here is of the creative sort where you would not reasonably expect two separate readers to state this as the point of the passage.
The more that you move the focus from what was expressly said, the more you risk losing the point. The main point of Matthew 5:43-48 is that followers of Jesus will love their enemies.
MatthewS, do you know what is cool about you? Love. It comes across in your replies to people. You love people. And that is very cool.
Thompson, you made me smile. Thanks, brother! :-)
Hey Matthew!
Jesus does command us to love our enemies. This is the main point of Matthew 5:43-48. Jesus explains that this involves more than just saluting our brethren. Giving a loving salute (i.e. "perfect greeting") to ethnikos is therefore clearly a part of Christ's command to love our enemies. Therefore, fallacy #13 is itself a fallacy.
By the way, to "salute" in the Strongs is defined as "to enfold in the arms" or "to welcome." Personally, the way Mr. Gothard explains a "perfect greeting" as "enfolding that person in the arms of your heart" has been a great blessing to me. You wouldn't believe the wonderful conversations and witnessing opportunities the Lord brings my way as I lovingly greet complete strangers at the grocery store or gas station and apply this command of Christ. People do need to see the love of Christ flowing through us, Matthew. And by the sound of Thompson's reply below, it looks like you are doing a good job of it. :-)
Just as a side note, I believe you were wrong in stating that "be" is an imperative verb in the Greek. When you get some time, I think you'd enjoy a little deeper study of the passage.
Just as a side note, I believe you were wrong in stating that "be" is an imperative verb in the Greek.
hmm, where did I state that?
Wow. Potshot at the end. No, Robert, you're technically right: it's a plural future indicative, but "The future tense echoes that in LXX Lev. 19:2 etc..; here, as there, it is best understood in context in an imperative sense." And thus all the translations translate it with English imperative. Your point was?
Robert, I can't tell if this is a case of real disagreement or more just talking past each other while essentially agreeing, so I will just give an analysis of passage under question and we can go from there.
Matt 5:43-48
The subject is introduced in vs. 43: Loving your neighbor and hating your enemy. Everything that follows revolves around addressing this subject.
Christ's thought on this subject is immediately given - love your enemy. This fact is emphasized by parallelism and contrasts:
- love your enemy
- bless those who curse you
- do good to those who hate you
- pray for those who persecute you
All of these are pointing to the same thing - don't hate your enemy but do the opposite. So in these two verses, Christ raises the issue and gives the proper answer.
Vs. 45 answers they "Why?" question. The why is found in the fact that
a. God does the same and regularly does good to his enemies (sending sunshine and rain are good things)
b. and by following this example we are being His children
Vs 46 and 47 are given as contrasts to how God operates. Even the unrighteous show love to those who love them so it can be no moral virtue to do what even the unrighteous do (thus showing why following God's example instead sets one apart as a child of God).
So, first of all, following the flow of logic in the passage we can see that subject of the passage is NOT about "greeting". To turn this passage into a discussion of "greeting" is to totally ignore the context and flow of logic in the passage. The subject of "greeting" is raised to provide contrast to God's mode of acting (loving not just those who love Him). Now, could we reason from Christ's logic that we should "greet" (really though, saluting is much more than "greeting" implies) our enemy? Absolutely. But to focus on "greeting" in particular is to detract from the rest - loving, praying, blessing, doing good. Its an aspect of what Christ is getting at but not the *subject* of the passage.
With that in mind, what does the command to be perfect as God is perfect refer to. Obviously to vs. 45. God does X (vs 45), publicans do Y (vs 46, 47), you should do X (vs 48). To read the final command as referring back to vs 47 instead ignores the interal logic of the passage.
I again want to make this distinction - I am not saying that vs 48 has no bearing on how (or who) we should "greet". Clearly it will. But it will have bearing on ANY sort of interaction with other people (particularly our enemies). But vs. 48 (and thus vs. 43-48) is not ABOUT "greeting". At the least, Gothard is unnaturally contracting the meaning of the passage to force a particular point out of it. Poor handling of Scripture at the very least.
Secondly, not only is the passage not about "greeting" (though some basic principles on "greeting" may be derived from it...along with some basic principles for just about any other aspect of interacting with others), it is most certainly not saying anything about the quality of one's greeting. "Perfect" refers back to quality of God's actions (ie. He shows love to both enemy and friend), NOT to the quality of one's greeting. While contracting the subject of vs. 43-48 may simply be a problematic rendering instead of a fallacy, this part is clearly a fallacy.
IOW, while it is not unreasonable to reason thusly:
1. God loves perfectly - that is, He shows love to both friend and enemy
2. We (as children of God) therefore should love perfectly - that is, we should show love to both friend and enemy
3. Showing love to our enemy includes "greeting" our enemy.
4. Therefore being perfect as God is perfect includes "greeting" our enemy
...it is a non sequitor to reason as follows:
1. God loves perfectly - that is, He shows love to both friend and enemy
2. We (as children of God) therefore should love perfectly - that is, we should show love to both friend and enemy
3. Therefore we should have a "perfect greeting"???
The non sequitor becomes even more evident when we see that Gothard means "perfect greeting" in the way it appears - that is, a greeting which follows a certain format.
Non sequitors are fallacious.
@Kevin and @MatthewS: My point was really "just a side note" but that I believed Matthew was incorrect when he wrote 'Jesus gave an imperative to his followers to "Be perfect".' Looking at the tense of the verb, I felt Jesus was actually saying something more along the lines of "and therefore you will be perfect" instead of "Be ye therefore perfect." Thank you for the further insight, Kevin! You're motivating me to "enjoy a little deeper study"! :)
@David: That's a thorough commentary on the passage.
My key disagreement is that the author of this post was wrong in stating that "there is no perfect greeting."
On the contrary, Mr. Gothard is correct in that Jesus does clearly command his followers through this passage to show perfect love in their greeting to not just their friends, but ethnikos as well (as @MatthewS said above). This is not the only point of this passage and Mr. Gothard makes no claim that it is the only point.
Mr. Gothard's explanation of a "perfect greeting" is in complete harmony with what Jesus said: "A 'perfect' greeting is giving the same warm greeting to a stranger that we would give to our best friend. This means showing value and worth to every person whom we meet, including our enemies."
Fallacy #13 should clearly be removed.
Thank you for explaining your thought about the imperative.
You were using grammar when you should have been using syntax. Grammar is the little pieces, syntax is how the pieces fit together to convey meaning. Two good books: http://www.amazon.com/Basics-New-Testament-Syntax-The/dp/0310232295/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335580883&sr=8-1 and http://www.amazon.com/Exegetical-Fallacies-D-A-Carson/dp/0801020867/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335580912&sr=1-1
Incidentally, I happen to like your idea about us becoming like our Father, such that this is a prediction rather than a command. That has a Dallas Willard ring to it. However, Kevin's note and the NET Bible note 56 here http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Matthew+5:48 seem pretty convincing.
While
a. we should treat everyone with love and respect b. and this should be reflected in our greeting,
c. it is fallacious to claim there is a "perfect" greeting, particularly when one refers to only vs. 47&48 to justify this statement.
The disgreement is not over whether we should greet everyone with love and respect (we should). The problem with Gothard's claim is that
a. it fallaciously narrows the meaning of the passage - being perfect is not about a greeting about about relating to others as God does. Yes, greeting others can be considered under this overall heading of relating to others but its not what the passage is about.
b. he references only 2 verses out of a larger context to make his claim thus implying that this concept of "perfect greeting" flows directly from these verses. This is certainly not accurate and is, in fact, a non-sequitor. To reach the "perfect greeting" application would require a look at the larger context.
We might quibble over whether this really qualifies as a fallacy, but what is clear is that it is, at the least, a very problematic teaching as presented. Taking verses out context and unnaturally resticting the context is bad Biblical teaching -> even if the final conclusion may be acceptable in some senses. <-
And this doesn't even touch on the fact that the label of "perfect" greeting seems to lean strongly to a legalistic and/or mechanistic view of the passage.
@MatthewS Thanks for the links! I will definitely check them out!
@David
Greeting others is what verse 47 is about. That's why God put it in the Bible. As you admit, this is clearly a part of being "perfect" according to verse 48. The statement in fallacy #13 that there is no "perfect greeting" is therefore very misleading if not completely incorrect.
I'm challenging your attack on this very important application of Scripture, not defending Mr. Gothard. However, I think your assumption that he is "fallaciously narrowing the meaning of the passage" by referencing two verses instead of five is absolutely absurd. Why? Because as you have admitted, Mr. Gothard has made an accurate application of the passage in context. This exact same application is easily reached whether you simply have a cursory reading of the two verses referenced or an in-depth study of the entire passage in context.
I suggest it not be removed. Therefore, your suggestion is neutralized by the counterbalance of my suggestion.
Hannah, that was perfect... thank you! ;)
Robert,
Please tell Mr. Gothard that I had a vision that at Big Sandy this week, he will meet a young girl, somewhere between the ages of 14-18. She may be a brunette, but most likely a blond. If there is not a strong father figure in her life, that’s probably a strong sign she’s “The One”.
This girl is destined to come to HQ and write an booklet on "Perfect Greetings in any situation". This is vital to the future ministry of IBLP of helping families, or at least the NT form of family, to have a victorious Christian walk, and learn the true meaning of the Resurrection.
He probably won't be alert to such a person, so please let him know to be on the lookout for this girl. He should test this girl, just like Abraham’s servant did in Genesis 24:1-23. Since presumably he won’t have any camels for her to offer to water, he should walk up to every girl he sees and ask her to bring him a coke. If she agrees and offers to bring him some ice cream and a pepperoni pizza as well, that will be a sign that she is The One. If she doesn’t offer this, but still looks like a cast member from Pan Am or Mad Men, she still should come to HQ anyway. (If she offers a Coke Zero or Diet Coke, it’s obvious that she wants to poison him with artificial sweetener, and she should be avoided.)
Whatever the details are, the Chosen One will have very "Bright Eyes" that comes from a life of never listening to music with rhythm.
Robert,
I agree with you.
1) this is the only Fallacy that's wrong, and it's also the most important one. It was good for you focus on this. It's not fault-finding if it's true, right?
2) We should greet people with a "Perfect Greeting", so we can have Victory in our Christian Walk.
3) It's about time someone pointed out that Jesus died on the cross, and was resurrected, so that we would have the power to greet each other with the "perfect greeting".
4) as there are so many different greeting situations, such as say a "Walmart greeter", if would be most helpful if Bill Gothard would write a booklet that outlines not only how to greet someone who's trying to kill you when they come in the same cave you are in, but how to greet in any situation. Examples would include walking into Walmart, when the housephone rings, when someone calls your cellphone when you are in a private place, a public place, etc, when the annoying co-worker drops by and distracts you from your vital work, etc.
Thanks for pointing out the Fallacy of the Fallacy.
roflol lol lol Easter Bunny, you slay me!
ok, so I am struggling with thinking clearly. If I had not been put into ATI in Jr. highschool, I would not be here today. It did save me from the bad place I was going. BUT!!! I really struggle getting past the teachings and not feeling guilty ALL the time! Please share 2 things: how do you stop feeling so guilty all the time and is there anything that you have studied with the Bible to help you re-think what the Bible is saying so you trully understand what it is saying? In a sense, re-learn all the "truths" that have been taught to me. Does that make sense?
Thanks!
Kristen, this is going to sound so cliche but one day at a time, friend. You've got the rest of your life and it's going to take a while. Thank God (seriously) for the good He's done in you through the experiences so far.
The Resources link on the menu above leads to a number of different categories of books. One thing you might do is click through there and see if one of those grabs you. Any of them will be helpful.
On one of the facebook groups for former ATI students someone was recently saying that Tim Keller's "Prodigal God" was helpful, and I know that's a great book. I've skimmed some of the Prodigal God study materials and we used it in our church's Sunday School recently.
Many people have benefited from "How to read the Bible for all it's worth" because it helps reorient you to actually taking the Bible as it was meant to be taken, getting you away from some of Gothard's creative and confusing (and wrong) interpretations.
A good church with a healthy view of grace can be a big help as well.
I think I'm sounding like a typical Mr. Fixit so I better quit but I'm cheering you on. Hang in there!
btw, if you are a former ATI student, feel free to email RG at [email protected] and they can put you in touch with some good facebook groups.
Kristen,
I agree with Matthew's suggestion: a grace-based church (preferably one where most folks have never heard of ATI) will help tremendously.
For me, I wrestled with the chronic guilt for years. I wrote about how I overcame that in a RG article called "Clear as Mud" (forgive the shameless plug, but maybe what God taught me about this issue will be helpful to you too?)
I also understand what it is like to have experienced something positive from ATI on one hand, and something debilitating on the other. In my case, I would not have met my wife but for ATI. But, if you'll permit this analogy, I could just have easily met her in Narcotics Anonymous, which if I had, I don't think anyone would say that our respective drug addictions were a good thing.
Thanks for your responses! I am thankful that you both have given me something to work on. I have been in a wonderful church for 3 years and it has done alot to open my eyes and I guess that is why I can see the need to grow in this new way. Thanks again!
Kristin, I'm sure the other guys' above advice is excellent, but I just want to throw in my 2 cents. I believe every Christian would benefit from setting aside a certain amount of time at some point in their life to read nothing but the Bible, as far as spiritual reading is concerned. For example, it may be a month, or a year, or whatever. Of course I don't know whether right now is the right time for you to do that; I'm just saying that I think it's generally something most Christians would benefit from doing at some point in their lives. I'm only saying it in response to your post because I've been thinking about saying it for a while, and your post seemed like a good place to throw it in. I didn't really do it until later in life, but I'm sure I would have been better off if I had done it when I was younger.
I believe the Bible is its own best commentary, and its own best dictionary, and that God wants us to really depend on and respect his word to a much greater degree than we do. It's my opinion that there are some really valuable things he wants to show each of us individually that are not hard to see, but are not as easy to see as they would be if we were not distracted by reading other people's take on what his word says.
And I'm not really talking about deep, hard to understand things. Sure, there are some things that are hard to understand and that take a lot of prolonged study, but I think there are a lot of very plain things that we see in the Bible all the time when we're reading, that are not mysterious and hard to understand, but we just gloss over them and don't pay them much attention because they don't line up with our experience, or with the traditions we're accustomed to, or with what everyone around us believes, or with what we've read that other people have written.
And by the way, I don't think doing what I'm talking about is dangerous, in the sense that someone is likely to read something that doesn't apply to our day, or that needs to be balanced with other scriptures, and then that person goes off on a tangent and starts to believe something that's incorrect or even heretical. Of course that's possible, but it's also possible to wind up believing things that are wrong when not going this route, as the existence of this website proves. I think probably everything I've ever believed in my life that later turned out to not be correct was not a result of my simply reading something in the Bible and misunderstanding it all on my own, but rather was a result of my following what some guy wrote or said, and placing my faith in that person rather than really just reading what the Bible says for myself.
I misspelled your name, Kristen. I'm sorry about that.
This is very wise advice, Thompson.
We can get a beautiful glimpse into the heart of Jesus by reading His passionate prayer for His disciples in the Garden of Gethsemane. What would purify them? "Sanctify (purify) them through thy truth, thy word is truth." (John 17:17).
What did Jesus say to the Jews that believed on Him? "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:31-32).
The Word of God is truth. Truth brings freedom. There is no substitute for studying the Word of God. (2 Timothy 2:15)
I agree with you to a point Robert. The problem is, that if all we do is study the Bible, then we miss out on the special revelations, or "rhemas" that God gives Bill Gothard to give to us. If all you are doing is studying the Bible, then you will miss out on the truth's and new interpretations the Bill Gothard is given directly from God to give to us. So the best strategy is to study the Bible next to the Red Textbook, and be sure to subscribe to Embassy University and purchase all of Bill Gothard's new booklets. That's the only way you can be sure that you are understanding the Bible correctly.
...for example, how would we ever have known that swimming in chlorinated water while pregnant leads to miscarriages without the Basic Care Bulletins? How did we know that only people with "bright eyes" can have success in life? How would we ever know that cabbage patch dolls lead to infertility and other demonic influences without Bill Gothard? Everyday I'm constantly worrying that I'm doing something wrong, or have a wrong item in my house, because I may have overlooked some special "rhema" that Bill Gothard has distributed to us, his "elite" chosen people.
Robert, thank you, brother.
No, I totally understand what you are saying. I am working on reading the Bible. But, I have tons of questions and it is a struggle for me b/c when I was at the training centers trying to read the Bible I would just sob and give up b/c even the Psalms would depress me. I know that men make mistakes, but my thought was if there was anyone who gained the ability to correctly reform their thinking, I was hoping to get their insight. I am working on correctly dividing the Word of Truth. If we can help each other, that is one way the fellowship of the believers is successful, even if it is online. so, thanks.
Hi Kristen, While Thompson is correct in saying it's good at times to read the Bible only, I think that there are other seasons of our lives where it may NOT be helpful. For instance, when someone has been spiritually abused, Scripture has been pounded into them with such a slant, they can't read it without seeing and hearing the words of those who have abused them, causing significant "triggers." In those cases, it's helpful to process with someone else (like a counselor experienced in Spiritual Abuse recovery) and to read other books dealing specifically with spiritual abuse, to help them learn to see past certain Scriptures in a different light. I found coming out of ATI that I desperately needed to change the translation I was using in reading the Bible. I couldn't read KJV anymore, and even NKJV or the NAS caused significant mental blocks as I tried to read certain passages. So I switched to the New Living Translation and camped out in that for a couple of years--until I could start seeing these passages differently again. "The Message" is also a great version to try, because it is SO different than what we grew up on, and doesn't contain the same "triggers" that other real translations might still have from passages that have been used to abuse us.
Another scenario I found myself in quite a few years ago shortly after leaving ATI is when I fell into grief-based depression for a year (I had lost 5 friends/family to death within 6 months). In my depression, every passage of Scripture that I read seemed to point a finger and accuse me--nothing comforted me. Looking back, I see now that I didn't have the grounding in Scripture that I needed to have because I had just left a spiritually abusive system. So for me, I set aside Scripture for quite a few months and simply listened to Christian music and let the words themselves minister to my soul. I have no regrets about that--God met me exactly where I was and still spoke truth into my hurting, breaking heart. And when I was ready again, I was able to go back to Scripture for my comfort--but not until I had emotionally experienced a comfort from God so great, the words of Scripture no longer seemed to accuse me, but instead gave comfort.
All that to say, there *are* scenarios in which one has to step away in order to get clarity. But God will meet you where you are--He is big enough to speak truth into your heart and life from many different avenues, and He is greatly compassionate and understanding of your "triggers" as He does so. :-)
I would agree with you, Beverly, on switching translations at least for awhile. I went to the ESV as my new church was using that, and what a difference it made in actually being able to read the Bible and not just be reminded of ATI's take on certain verses from having read them in the KJV for umpteen years.
And thankfully, our gracious God will bring people (and songs) into our lives to draw us toward Him, so we can start to see HIm for who He really is!
I totally agree with this! When the words of Scripture have been so twisted, and when a person "hears" the twistedness no matter where they read, it is time to take a break. Or get a different translation. Even good things can become toxic when some poison is added. Later, when some healing has occurred and a person can read Scripture without the twisting coming through, that is a good time to read just Scripture for a while.
I also agree with this. I am finding "new" things I never saw before in the Bible. Of course they were there all along. But when my mind is not quoting along with the verse and reminding me of how Bro. So-and-So explained the verse, it is so much easier to read it for what it actually says. That said, I'm still trying to grow my faith and I am very much seeing that I may need to find a more grace-based church (although my current church is much more healthy than the ones I grew up in) if I want to continue to grow- maybe even retain- my faith.
I would suggest removing Fallacy #1. Jesus did present clear-cut commands. And Jesus did present at least forty-nine of them. Notice that Bill did not write "only forty-nine commands" or even "the forty-nine commands." He said "forty-nine commands" in this email and "about 49 commands of Christ" on the IBLP website. Nowhere do we find any claim to exclusivity. Therefore, Fallacy #1 is a straw man argument by misrepresenting that Mr. Gothard would "have one believe" that there are only 49 commands.
By the way, to further separate Christ's general commands to all believers from specific commands to specific people, you will notice that Bill Gothard refers to his list of commands on his website as "49 general Commands of Christ."
John Piper writes about 50 of Christ's commands in his book What Jesus Demands from the World. Both he and Mr. Gothard encourage believers to learn and study the commands of Christ, yet I have found neither to claim exclusivity in the number of commands they have found.
Learning Christ's commands is essential to understanding the Great Commission in Matthew 28:20. Here Jesus commissions us to teach all nations "to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." In John 14:15 Jesus said "If ye love me, keep my commandments." That's a big statement! And He said again in John 15:10, "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." In fact, the Apostle John went so far as to write "hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments" (I John 2:3).
On a personal note, I have found my personal love for God and others deepen considerably as I have memorized and meditated on the commands of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Robert, if I am understanding the author of this post correctly, he is not taking issue with the commands of Christ nor the idea that Christ's teachings play a vital role in the discipleship of the believer. This issue is that Bill takes the teachings of Christ and tries to fit them into a system that is extra-biblical, such as aligning them with his 49 character qualities, or trying to apply them to his "seven deadly stresses."
I have a friend who was there when Bill said that the only appropriate method for the discipleship of believer is through the study of these specific commands of Christ, and that anyone who disagreed was not in "one-accord" with the ministry and should resign. He has built an entire curriculum around these specific commands, and even has a year-long email campaign devoted to them. And as the author noted, he found a way to make them fit his 49 character qualities which he has been teaching for decades. He sure seems to believe in this particular system, from all evidence.
Hey John!
Unfortunately, in taking issue with Bill, the author of this post has made some seriously incorrect assertions as I have been pointing out. Even worse, the author has indirectly attacked the "commands of Christ", which are beautiful nuggets of infallible wisdom from my Lord Jesus Christ. If you've spent time studying them in the Gospels, you know what I mean.
It isn't my place to comment on what you said your friend said Bill said. If you'd like, you can Contact Bill directly and ask him about it.
If you read even just a few of the articles on this site you will soon see that contacting Bill directly doesn't work. He runs from the truth.
I will verify that this was said. We were told that teaching the commands of Christ was the only proper way to disciple others. And if we didn't agree 100% with that, then we didn't belong in IBLP. This was said repeatedly, not just once.
Hello Eliza! An accurate, Biblical statement to remember would be more along the lines of, "Teaching the commands of Jesus Christ is the way that Jesus told us to disciple all nations in Matthew 28:20."
Robert, this is not a straw man argument. Gothard has seven groupings of seven commands for a total of 49 teachings of Jesus. Maybe he says 'about 49' to leave the door open for more rhemas, but the pattern in the Easter letter is one-seventh of the whole, correct?
I agree with you that we should pay strict attention to the commands of Christ, and agree that it can deepen our love for our Savior. Jesus is teaching us what Kingdom living should look like, and how his disciples should live out their faith. Great stuff, and so worth our time and energy. We are called to follow in the footsteps of Christ.
But do you really believe that Jesus came to teach us how to overcome seven stresses? And the necessity of 'giving perfect greetings'? Did he come to give us a self-help manual, or to point to HIMSELF as the solution for our sin?
Hey Kevin!
Fallacy #1 does use a straw man argument. For a moment here, take what Mr. Gothard wrote at face value:
“Jesus presented forty-nine commands during His earthly ministry" True or false?
True. Mr. Gothard studied the Gospels and found forty-nine general commands of Christ. That's a fallable number. But the statement is true. Jesus presented at least forty-nine commands.
"and commissioned His disciples to teach them to all nations. (See Matthew 28:20.)" True or false?
True. Obviously.
With the evidence given, there is no basis for concluding that Mr. Gothard says there are only "49 clear-cut commands as Bill would have one believe."
To answer your questions:
Do I believe that Jesus came to teach us how to overcome anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy? Yes, I believe that Jesus came that we might have life and have it more abundantly. (John 10:10 - That's my life verse by the way! ) And yes, I think that living the abundant life involves conquering anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy, not in my own strength but by the power of Jesus Christ and His grace working in me and through me (according to the "gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of His power" (Ephesians 3:7)).
Do I believe in the necessity of "perfect greetings"? Necessary for what? Do I believe that giving a loving, "perfect" greeting to an enemy is necessary to fulfill Christ's command for me to love my enemies as explained in Matthew 5:43-48? Yes, not in my own strength but by the power of Jesus Christ and His grace working in and through me.
Do I believe that Jesus came to point to HIMSELF as the solution for our sin? Yes! Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world.
Kevin, I am really glad that you value the commands of Jesus Christ so highly. I heartily agree with you that they are "worth our time and energy." Perhaps you don't agree with how Mr. Gothard is doing it, but let's you and I fulfill the Great Commission and start teaching them "to all nations"!
Robert, I understand what you're trying to say, but the context doesn't bear it out. BG is on record as breaking Jesus' teaching into 49 commands in seven groupings of seven. It's all laid out in a book that, conveniently, costs $49.
You're saying BG makes room for more than 49. If that's true, awesome. Can you give us an example? A command that doesn't fit the 7x7 grid? I'm sincerely asking; a printed example would be very helpful in understanding Gothard's systematic theology.
For instance, where is there room for commands that point not to a stress, but directly to himself? In other words, I am commanded to believe in him, to follow him, to trust him, and to do so NOT because I want to conquer fear or anger, but because I want to pursue a relationship with the Savior. Jesus is the means AND the ends. Does that make sense what I'm asking?
The BOOK costs $49.00?? Buahaha, too funny! What do you do with the tax, is that not "adding to Christ's commands"?! Lol!
@Robert
Fact: I spent $40 at the store.
Statement: I spent $20 at the store.
Statement: I spent some of the $40.
True or false: Both are true statements since I did in fact spend $20 and I did spend some of the $40 (logically, some includes all). However, in normal usage such statements are taken to imply "only $20" or "some but not all". While both statements are logically true in the strict sense, both are misleading.
Conclusion: A factually true statement is not necessarily sufficient to establish truth in the larger context.
Likewise, while it is factually true that there are 49 commands of Christ (in the same way it is true that I spent $20) and Gothard does avoid (strictly speaking) a logically fallacy, such a teaching ambiguous at best and tends to be misleading.
In addition, there are other aspects of this teaching which tend to strongly reinforce the idea that what Gothard means is that there are 49 (and only 49) commands of Christ. For one, he sets up an interlocking system of 7 sets of 7 commands which related to 7 stresses. Such a system can't help but give the impession that 49 represents the complete set of commands.
And what of the other commands which don't fit this system? The fact that Gothard seems to neglect even mentioning other commands outside of his tightly interlocking system doubly reinforces the impression that 49 is all there is. At the very least, it gives the strong impression that the 49 are the important ones.
So, yeah, I am totally comfortable with dropping the label of "fallacy" for this particular point...but this ignores the larger issue. --> By any reasonable standard of logic and analysis, it seems clear that Gothard gives (intentionally or not doesn't matter) the strong impression that there are 49 (and only 49) commands of Christ. 7 which is the bigger issue. Still, the first and easiest way to combat this larger problem is to demonstrate that the leading implication that there are only 49 commands (at least worth mentioning) is a misleading proposition in the first place. Hence, why its worth mentioning (even if the fallacy label is debatable).
One may ask, if I agree that one should show "value and worth to every person whom we meet, including our enemies" why would I have a problem with Gothard's point about having a "perfect" greeting?
Because the way in which the whole point is framed implies a mechanistics or legalistic standard at work. For one, it implies that having a "perfect" greeting fulfills the command to be perfect (as God is perfect). But the command to be be perfect is so much more than this - how we greet people is only one small aspect of it.
Secondly, the fact that Gothard seperates "love your enemy" and "have a perfect greeting" into two seperate points indicates that he is viewing them as seperate things. Instead, how we greet others is merely an extension of the larger command to love enemy and friend alike (as God does). These are NOT seperate commands - in fact, the greeting aspect is not even stated as a command but as a counter-example to illustrate the command. Making this sort of distinction that he does seems to further imply a legalistic way of looking at the passage. Its as if the inward view (love your enemy) and the doing (greet your enemy) are two distinct things. This is totally contrary to the thrust of the command to be perfect as God is perfect.
@Kevin Mr. Gothard's systematic theology is on his website: http://billgothard.com/about/whatibelieve Feel free to ask him about whether he thinks he had a divine revelation to come up with an inspired list of groupings or not. :) Whatever the case, it is true that if someone applies Christ's commands to their life, they are going to resolve their anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy.
What I really appreciate about Mr. Gothard is how he is pointing people to memorize, learn, and study the commands of Christ. His Daily Success email devotionals are free. His Pocket Guide is basically just a topical list of Scripture verses for memorization and meditation. His Memorization and Meditation Journal is pretty much just a blank notebook for someone to journal what they learned from studying the commands of Christ.
Each of Christ's commands reveal more of Christ Himself. He wrote "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). May the Lord abundantly bless you, brother, as you keep "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith"!
Robert, you said, "Whatever the case, it is true that if someone applies Christ’s commands to their life, they are going to resolve their anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy." If this is true, why did Christ have to come and die? If we could solve our own sins and issues by applying certain principles, why do we even need the gospel? Perhaps you didn't word it well, but the implication of your statement is that we can be our own saviors from our sins.
If someone could reach in and pull the resurrection completely out that system which you are describing, Robert, the system would keep standing just fine.
"It is true that if someone applies Christ's commands to their life, they are going to resolve their anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy."
This, I have a real problem with. Simply put, because it is a gospel of self-effort. "We" do not resolve these things. We can't. We are broken, helpless people. You are attributing to humans, something that only the Holy Spirit can do. As Beverly pointed out, if we could accomplish this by "doing" ANYTHING, Christ need not have died. He could just have taught us good teachings, whereby *we* could save ourselves.
And therein is the crux of the matter, isn't it? Do, or be? Save ourselves, or be saved? Earn God's favor, or favor unmerited?
Jesus has one all-important command: "Believe in the One [God] has sent."
Hello Beverly and Hannah!
I am so glad that you are not relying on good works for salvation! Salvation is "not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesiana 2:9). Meditating on, learning, and applying the commands of Christ to our lives is not about us at all. It's all about Him. He is the Living Word. He gave His commands of love. He is the One who gives us every breath of life. He is the one giving the free gift of His powerful grace. And if you love Him, you will "keep His commandments" (John 14:15). So, because Jesus loves you, and because you love Jesus, look up the meaning of the word "keep" and be a doer of the Word and not a hearer only. Faith without works is dead.
Somehow I am getting the impression that you are misunderstanding the commands of Jesus Christ. Are you familiar with them? Jesus' first command was to repent. (Matthew 4:17, Mark 1:15.) Paul continued to preach this to the world when he said that God "now commandeth all men every where to repent" in Acts 17:30. The next general command Jesus gave was that "Ye must be born again." (John 3:7). Peter continued to preach this command to the world and he wrote that believes are "born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever" (I Peter 1:23). Search the Gospels and start digging into the rich treasures of Christ's commands.
Jesus died to deliver us from the penalty of sin. Praise Him! But He also came to deliver us from the bondage of sin. And if you apply Christ's commands to your life, you will resolve anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy.
John 6:29 NLT
Jesus told them, "This is the only work God wants from you: Believe in the one he has sent."
Robert, what I hear you saying, is that we are saved from hell by Jesus' death. From eternal torment. But that after that, the quality of our Christian life, even our sanctification, our salvation from sin itself, in fact, any form of salvation going beyond the salvation from eternal hellfire, is up to us. And this is where I find a gross chasm of theological disagreement. It is not humanly possible for me to resolve my own guilt, bitterness, anger, etc. This is the work of the Holy Spirit. If we think we can do this through some magic formula, meditation on the words of a great teacher, self-flagellation (an extreme form of what you are advocating, but a form, nonetheless), we stand to be sorely disappointed. I speak as a weary soul who has been there. After I had worn all the navy and white, worn all the ministry smiles, performed all the services, even meditated on all the Scripture verses and done all the good works, whatever that entailed for me... I still stood helpless. Not only that, I was exhausted in addition. And no wonder, I was trying to do something only God can do! I was trying to transform myself from the inside out.
I honestly believed at that time, that initial salvation was by Christ's work, alone... But that sanctification, the living out of the Christian life, the perfecting of my person, was all on my shoulders. If you had challenged that understanding, I would not have comprehended the theological inaccuracy of that mindset.
I submit to you, that we are both saved and sanctified by God's unmerited favor, via the work of the Holy Spirit in a life.
Is "Ye must be born again" one of the 49 commands BG lists?
Robert,
This is what your formula looks like to recovering legalists:
1. Hear the commands of Christ
2. Go and do the commands of Christ
3. Bondage of sin defeated
This is a formula that those who are recovering legalists have adopted:
1. Hear the commands of Christ
2. Recognize that any attempt to fulfill these commands through our own effort (including memorizing the commands, meditating on the commands, our imagining ourselves dead like Jesus, etc...) will always fall short of perfect fulfillment.
3. Cry out to Jesus to have mercy on a sinner
4. Watch Jesus, the only one to fulfill the commands perfectly suffer the fate of one who someone who broke the commands.
5. Realize that Jesus fulfilled His commands for us because of His death on the cross.
6. Know that I am not condemned when I trust in Jesus to fulfill the law for me.
7. Out of gratitude for what God has done for me and out of love for Him, start living more like Jesus did - ergo start to obey more and more of the commands of Christ.
8. Hope for our future bodily resurrection to finally free us from the bondage of sin completely.
Those who are recovering grace do not focus on personal fulfillment of the commands of Christ, but rather on Christ Himself. They know that to focus on OUR fulfillment of the commands is focusing on the problem (e.g. Galatians 3:10). Focusing on the already finished work of Jesus is focusing on the solution. Recovering grace people generally do not find so much gracious motivation to do the works of God through creating pomp and procedures of the commands of Christ but rather through Christ himself.
To recovering legalists, it is you who appear to misunderstand the commands of Christ - by leaving out important steps in sanctification that help us to love God more naturally. The law of God brings bondage unless shared along with the new law of continual grace.
NM, found the list. Unbelievable! This is most certainly not a command and it approaches heresy to make it such.
1. Christ does not state this as a command. In fact, his further explanation makes it quite clear that he is not commanding this. Instead he is stating this as a conditional.
2. The analogy itself - that of being born - further emphasizes that this is not a command because no one can anymore accomplish spiritual birth than they can physical birth.
3. To make this a command turns the work of the Spirit alone into a work of man.
The more I see of this teaching of BG the more problematic it appears. This part is just downright dangerous.
Robert, forgive me if I am splitting hairs, but something you keep saying really, REALLY bothers me. And I have a feeling that I am not the only person who feels this way. In fact, I'll bet that this particular phrasing is generating a lot of the push-back that you've been getting.
You keep saying things like "...if you apply Christ's commands to your life, you will resolve anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy."
Now, I don't doubt that it's true that living according to Christ's teachings will resolve problems of sin in my life. BUT *I* cannot apply Christ's commands to my life any more than I can keep the 613 mitzvot of the Old Testament law. The whole POINT of the gospel is that *I* cannot DO anything. It is GOD who does it ALL.
When you keep saying "you apply" and "you" do this and that and the other ... it sounds an awful lot like works salvation to me. I have read your comments here and I know that you say you don't mean that. But it comes across that way very, very strongly. Especially to someone who was caught up in the works salvation ethos.
Perhaps if you will meditate on this thought and allow God to speak to your heart about how you may be unintentionally offending your brothers and sisters who have been deeply wounded by false teaching in this area, it will help you to understand the oppositional comments that you have been getting in this thread.
@Hannah
You are right that sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit! "It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure" (Philippians 2:3). I am so glad that you have come to the freedom of this truth! "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage"! (Galatians 5:1).
But be careful, for fear that you would use this liberty as an occasion to the flesh. (vs. 13) I beg you, sister, by God's mercy to yield the members of your body "as instruments of righteousness unto God" (Romans 6:13). Present your body as a "living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Romans 12:1).
If the Holy Spirit is at work in your heart, your life will bear the fruit of His Spirit (See Galatians 5). The fruit of your life will reveal whether you are a for real or just a pretender. (See Matthew 7:15-20.) Beware of many "Christians" who want you to hear the sayings of Christ but not do them. This is like building your life on sand. (See Matthew 7:21-27.)
The verse you quoted was beautiful. "Believe [have faith] in the One he [God] has sent." So is it possible to have faith without the work of the Holy Spirit being evident in your life? Read over Hebrews 11, the great "faith chapter." Notice how Paul's examples of faith in Abel's life, Enoch's life, Noah's life, Abraham's life, Sara's life, etc. is always manifested in what? Their works. I would encourage you, sister, to spend some time memorizing and meditating on James 2. Faith without works is dead. You "show me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works" (James 2:18).
Hannah, I cannot find any command of Christ about wearing navy and white. Once again, I encourage you to do what your Savior asks of you. Look up the meaning of the word "keep" and by the power of His Holy Spirit at work in your life, keep His commands.
I am sorry for sounding like I am promoting Christless human effort. I should clarify the statement you were concerned about: If you respond to the work of the Holy Spirit in your heart by applying Christ's commands to your life, you will resolve anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy.
@David It sounds like you need to be born again, my friend. I would encourage you to read the book of John.
@Wendy
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I spent a lot of time meditating on them last night (in between my little baby daughter's crys ) and I appreciate your perspective. Considering the works-cented background of many, I will be cautious about this in the future. Thank you again for your counsel!
I am very concerned, however, with the out-of-balance unbiblical ideas that are sadly in this article, several of which I have pointed out. There are many people who delight in the thought of no personal responsibility. There are many who want to think that choices do not have consequences. Wendy, you cannot combat out-of-balance error on one side with out-of-balance error on the other.
The Word of God is the plumbline. It is the only way to freedom. "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free ... Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (John 8:32, John 17:17).
Wendy, yes, God does it all. But that is only one side of truth. Have you read the New Testament? If so, I have a question for you. If God does it all, why does He specifically command you to do so much? Please don't answer until you've made a list of at least 20 imperitive commands of Jesus Christ that apply to you and are also echoed by the Apostles.
"If God does it all why does He specifically command you to do so much?"
Wendy, I hope you don't mind if I chime in with a few verses in reponse to what Robert has asked.
Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound - Rom. 5:20
What shall we say then? [Is] the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. - Rom. 7:7
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
- Rom. 7:13
But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
- Galatians 3:22
Robert, I don't think Hannah would contradict the fact that true faith shows itself in works.
You mentioned some faith examples from Hebrews 11. I would like to point out that many of the faith heroes did not show their faith in God by obeying all of the 613 Mosaic commands (for the names you mentioned in particular, none of them had even been given the whole law yet).
Rahab to some perhaps seemingly violated one of God's commands (to not bear false witness) but is still put forth as an exmple of faith. All these people did work that proved their belief in and loyalty to God. However, none of these people gained or proved their salvation by obeying all of God's commands to the letter (this would be humanly impossible). I think we need to remember that we should not necessarily assume someone is guilty before God because they seem to be sinning to us (Matthew 12:1-8, Romans 14:4).
Also, I would like to submit to you that David and Hannah are likely hero's of the faith and I think evidence to the contrary is sorely lacking.
Curious why you say that Robert.
FWIW, I have been born again. I am not at all saying that being born again is not necessary to salvation. I am pointing out that it is not a *command*. If I say to my unborn child "You must be born to see the sky." it would be silly to consider my statement a command. For one, the kid clearly has no ability to do anything about his being born. He doesn't even have anything to do with being in the womb in the first place. For another, my statement is given as a conditional, not a command. A command would be "Be born, kid."
So if being born again is not our work but the work of the HS, consider the implications of making this command. It implies, for one, that being born again is due (at least in part) to man's effort and power. We are commanded to believe and we are commanded to repent - those are things we do (though not in our own power). But not to be born again.
BG did miss a command actually. It is "But go and learn what this means: I desire compassion and not sacrifice, for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners." Matt. 9:13
Ironic, no?
Wow. I am completely astounded by the spiritual pride that abounds in your answers to me and to many of the other people who are discussing this article with you.
At the risk of drawing down a similar accusation upon myself, I will answer a few of your questions to me.
Yes, I have read the New Testament. Several times. And the Old Testament. And the Apocrypha. Furthermore, I was so committed to hiding God's word in my heart that I not only memorized all of the ATI-required Bible passages, but also 1 Cor. 13 and 14, Proverbs 31, Exodus 20, a significant portion of the book of Psalms, and part of the book of Ruth in English.
I memorized the first two chapters of Genesis and several Psalms in Hebrew. I memorized the Lord's Prayer and several Psalms in Latin. I memorized several of the creeds and traditional prayers in both English and Latin. I also memorized the Lord's Prayer in Old English, Spanish, and French. Oh, and I went to state Bible Drill at least four years in a row --- if you're not familiar with Bible Drill, it's a Bible study program for elementary and middle school kids that requires a large amount of scripture memorization and reading.
In addition, I have taken several college courses in various Bible subjects, including surveys of the Old and New Testaments, the Letters of Paul, and a basic hermeneutics course. In my post-collegiate studies, I have delved deeply into the works of the ancient and modern church fathers --- people like Augustine, Luther, Wesley, Edwards, Sayers, Lewis, and Schaeffer.
From your Facebook profile, I see that you are 29. That means that you weren't born when I went to my first Basic Seminar. When I was serving at Headquarters, you were about 11 years old. Trust me when I tell you that life will give you a much different perspective when you are 20 years further down the road. I only pray that you have less to regret than some of us do.
I remember my own zeal for God's best and my spiritual superiority complex from my time in the rarefied atmosphere of IBLP headquarters. I remember having little patience or compassion for those whom life had taught a more balanced approach. Like you, I accused them of wanting to throw personal responsibility out the window.
Let me be clear. I don't think ANY of us here is suggesting that there is no place for personal responsibility. Certainly I am not. I am most assuredly responsible to God for the choices that I make.
And the number one choice, the command on which Jesus said that ALL other commands hung, is the command to love. Love God with all your being, and love your fellow humans as you love your own self. When Jesus rose from the dead and came back to the disciples, He asked if Peter loved Him. The proof of that love, Jesus said, would show, not in Peter's good works, not in Peter's character qualities, not in Peter's following a carefully prescribed list of commands. No, the proof would be if Peter would feed His sheep. "Love and nurture my flock," said Jesus, "and that will prove that you love me."
So I see no need to make "a list of at least 20 imperative commands of Jesus Christ that apply to me and that are echoed by the Apostles." The only command I need is to love God, love my neighbour, and feed His sheep. As I submit myself to His leading, God will show me what that means in each situation, every day.
When it comes to overcoming sin, it's not up to me. It's up to God. It is GOD that works in me to conquer those sins. It is God who conquers my pride, my greed, my lust, or whatever other sin is trying to separate me from Him. Because it is only God who CAN. My role is simply to be WILLING. To say "Yes, God, kill that."
There's a really good illustration of this concept in CS Lewis's "The Great Divorce." A man has come to the foothills of Heaven with a lizard-thing that is clearly symbolic of some sin in his life. The ministering angel offers to kill it. The man is reluctant. It is not until the man says "Yes" and then whimpers "God help me, God help me" while the angel destroys the sinful thing that the man is able to become what God had intended him to be. The man could not do it on his own. But he had to be willing, and God would do the killing for Him.
And that, my friend, IS a NEW TESTAMENT concept.
Robert,
I remember back when I was a young bunny, about your age..20something I'm guessing? I knew everything about everything...just like you.
Your Sensei must be so proud. You have mastered the "spiritual pride" that he seeks to pass to all of his followers, very well.
Well done my friend, you have very cleverly masked your condescension and pride with fake positive language. I doubt anyone can sense your true arrogance. But you can afford to be arrogant. You are "enlightened". Your detractors don't get how wise you are.
Your Sensei has taught you well, young grasshopper.
Romans 8:2-4 "The Message"
The Solution Is Life on God's Terms
1-2With the arrival of Jesus, the Messiah, that fateful dilemma is resolved. Those who enter into Christ's being-here-for-us no longer have to live under a continuous, low-lying black cloud. A new power is in operation. The Spirit of life in Christ, like a strong wind, has magnificently cleared the air, freeing you from a fated lifetime of brutal tyranny at the hands of sin and death.
3-4God went for the jugular when he sent his own Son. He didn't deal with the problem as something remote and unimportant. In his Son, Jesus, he personally took on the human condition, entered the disordered mess of struggling humanity in order to set it right once and for all. The law code, weakened as it always was by fractured human nature, could never have done that.
The law always ended up being used as a Band-Aid on sin instead of a deep healing of it. And now what the law code asked for but we couldn't deliver is accomplished as we, instead of redoubling our own efforts, simply embrace what the Spirit is doing in us.
Bill's "new" approach to life slogan is a serious mistake in light of the fact that he emphasizes that this "new" approach isn't really "new" at all which is why it is in quotes. He has told us again and again that the requirements of God continue, indeed, to be the OT law. There has been a centuries-old conundrum over this specific position. Here's the problems with this stance:
1. God's requirements have indeed not changed.
2. God's character has indeed not changed. (Job's friends and those dedicated to strict cause/effect sequences to represent God's ways are indeed misrepresenting God's character, so we know from the Scripture that these are not a good way to understand God.)
3. God's provisions for our justification and sanctification HAVE CHANGED as the provision changes from OUR EFFORTS to fulfill the law to God's provision through Jesus' blood at the cross and His providing us with the Holy Spirit which we are commanded by Jesus to receive, period.
4. To reject God's provisions and continue to insist that we must receive righteousness by fulfilling the law in order to be found justified before God or in order to obtain sanctification IS the same error as the Judaizers. Why else would you be concerned with the regulations of circumcision or abstience in regard to spiritual matters, for example? These are two earmarks of a Judaizer! These were NOT supported by the apostles, and should provide fair warning to us today.
Sure, Bill attempts to say that the Holy Spirit's power is the power to fulfill the whole law and that it is impossible to do so without this power, however, he misses the entire point as he mentions the "passing of tests" as "qualifying" us for increasing portions of the Holy Spirit's power. At this juncture, Bill twists the free gift of Holy Spirit's power GIVEN by Jesus into an "earned degree" or "force" for individuals to gain instead of a "gift of the Holy Spirit as our personal comfortor, guide, and teacher to be received freely from Jesus upon request" as the Scriptures describe.
In short, Jesus gives the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church and instructs us to ask for and receive him personally. Bill, instead, instructs us that we must earn the power of the Holy Spirit which in turn help us to fulfill the whole OT law.
Due to Bill's attempts to indicate that Jesus' commands are indeed the OT law, he becomes one who would bring us back into Judaism as much as possible!
In my opinion, Bill Gothard is a dyed-in-the-wool Judaizer and will do anything he can in order to point people back to what he considers acceptable in God's eyes--that being the OT law in his estimation.
The problem is while Jesus removed the reign of the law by shedding his own precious blood, Bill Gothard does not consider this precious gift valuable enough to fulfill our debt or sufficient to equip us for our sanctification.
I actually held out hope that Bill might be coming out of the legalism that he had taught for years only to be increasingly frustrated yet again as I studied and meditated on his material alongside the Scriptures.
It was frustrating but eye-opening for me and was instrumental in leading me to reject the Gothard system including all of its materials in favor of the text of Scripture sans Gothard's input.
In other words, the law being for the Romans 4 purpose of revealing sin AND NOT ABLE TO MAKE JUST, Gothard attempts to align with Jesus' commands.
The other core problem Gothard possesses is his penchant for cause/effect in attempting to describe everything of spiritual nature. The problem here is that in Job 42, God is found in anger with Job's friends over that theology as it wrongly represents His nature. Gothard's message "just happens" to align very well with the theology of Job's friends which is NOT pleasing to God in that it misrepresents Him and is not representative of the plan of redemption which Job increasingly relied on for his justification.
Works of the law are not congruant to evidential works of faith and obedience to Christ and must not be substituted for or confused with such. To do so is an illegitimate, or at least an ill-informed, attempt to obviate the text and purposes of Scripture. If we find ourselves needing to explain away the clear meaning and implication of verses or portions of Scripture, that is a signal that we are not yet understanding or accepting the clear meaning of the text.
I would suggest another soaking in Hebrews to enhance ones understanding of the position of the believer in the new covenant of Jesus' blood.
If you can represent the "works" found in scripture in light of the new covenant (fruit of the Holy Spirit's manifestation in the regenerate heart), I don't have a problem with that.
Also, do not confuse Jesus' commands with the commands of the OT law. While there is some conjunction, they are not a single entity.
@Stephen
Brother, I believe you have totally missed the point of this discussion. All of the Scriptures you quote are about the Old Testament law. As Samuel Lundmark said, "do not confuse Jesus' commands with the commands of the OT law." When we are talking about Christ's commands, we are not talking about the Old Testament law given to Israel. This disucssion is about Jesus Christ's commands of love in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John that He has asked those who love Him to carry out by the power of His grace. (See John 14:15, 14:21, etc.)
@Samuel
I would also be very concerned with any false teacher that would say that Christ's blood was not "valuable enough to fulfill our debt or sufficient to equip us for our sanctification". However, I don't see that when I watch the Basic Seminar or read Bill's Daily Success email series.
@KariU
Beautiful passage! I was actually just reading Romans 8 this morning. I think the way "The Message" paraphrases this passage is really cool. Thank you for sharing!
@Wendy
I am sorry that I came across as spiritually prideful. I am sure there are many deep and beautiful Scriptural truths that God has give you during your many years of Bible study, and I would really enjoy learning from you!
My intent is to challenge you, sister, in your understanding of "God does it all." It is true that God does it all. But my question to you still stands, "If God does it all, why does He specifically command you to do so much?"
I agree with everything you wrote about loving God and overcoming sin. But I am a practical guy. The Christian life involves obeying as well as trusting. So, practically, how do you love God?
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (John 14:21).
"For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (I John 5:3).
"And this is love, that we walk after his commandments" (2 John 1:6).
Robert,
I take no issue that you are correct in what John writes in 1 John 2:3. However, Gothardism teaches that you should focus on following the "commands" of Christ. 40+ years of application by Gothard of this legalistic approach have revealed that it has a strong tendency to lead to a focus on outward appearance that does not focus on the "Heart". This results very often in increasingly deeper spiritual failures.
I submit that the focus should not be on "Following Christ Commandments", with these rabbit trails on "what they are", "how many" there are, and "who is right, Gothard, Piper or whomever", and just Love God. Suddenly, you look up, and you are following Christ commands, without even realizing it. I believe this is the actual interpretation of I John 2:3. First, know Christ. THEN you will BY NATURE keep His commandments.
Bill Gothard appears to understand this with his "Journey to the Heart" premise. But when you cut through the "exhorter-motivational-speaker" PR, it's still a formula-based, "here-are-your-seven-steps-on-how-you-can-know Christ". Who in the world has time to memorize and apply "49 commands of Christ?" I'm doing good to keep my family fed and up and out of the house on time. What if I miss one? Am I in sin? Will I ever be able to have a successful Christian life? This is just legalism with different clothes.
I disagree that "learning Christ's commands" are essential to understanding the Great Commission. There is only one "command of Christ" that you need to focus on. This is the command in Luke 10:27. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart...Love your neighbor as yourself". If you follow that command, then you can't help but fulfill the Great Commission, without even "knowing" what it is!
Jesus actually said this himself in John 13:35. "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."
Gothard is only halfway correct. Jesus does point out over and over that you do have to follow the law, and his "commands" in order to have fellowship with him. But then he points out the obvious that it's impossible for us to do so, but don't be disheartened, because he provided a way through the resurrection that we can have this relationship with Him, without the burdens that come from a constant focus on "following formulas" that are impossible to follow.
Gothard teaches that it's essential that you follow the Law, but that the resurrection "Gives you the power to do so". Balony. No one has the power or ability to follow the 100% of the Law 100% of the time. And Jesus said that to break one law is to break the entire law.
Sad thing is, the most important "Command of Christ" is the very one that ATI and other legalistic religious people fail to keep in very devastating ways. Rhetoric and teaching aside, people who fail to "measure up" to Gothard or a typical ATI dad's standards get ostracized and "sent to the desert" quicker than you can say "encouragement case".
Hey Patrick!
You need to make a very clear distinction between trying to obey all of the laws of Moses in your flesh on the one hand (impossible) and learning, meditating, and applying the commands of Jesus Christ by His power working through me (beautiful).
You said we should focus on one thing, loving God. You are right.
How do you love God?
"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (John 14:21).
Jesus proposes that you keep His commandments. If you don't like how Mr. Gothard is doing it, that's fine. Look up His commandments in the Gospels for yourself. Look up the word "keep" and whatever it means to you, do it.
By the way, I really like how you used John 13:35. You are right on with that. Showing love to your neighbor is one of the commands of Jesus Christ and it is the way that the world will know that you are a disciple of Christ.
“When we realized that there were about 49 commands of Christ, we wondered if there was any correlation between Christ’s commands and the character qualities that we have been emphasizing over the years. First we matched the obvious ones, then the ones that had a direct or indirect relationship. To our amazement, every command of Christ could be correlated with every character quality.”
"Jesus presented forty-nine commands during His earthly ministry..."
"These commands can be related to each of seven stresses..." (1. anger, 2. guilt, 3. lust, 4. bitterness, 5. greed, 6. fear, 7. envy)
"Seven commands that relate to the stress of anger..."
(1. repent, 2. rejoice, 3. go to offenders, 4. love your enemies, 5. give perfect greetings, 6. honor parents, 7. go the second mile. )
I haven't read Piper's book but I just scanned the TOC. I don't see emphasis on the number 50 itself, such as 10 groups of 5 commands that he discovered to his amazement just happen to line up. I see a straight-forward presentation of 50 things Jesus commanded. Things Jesus actually said, like "Your righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees" and "Believe in me", "Abide in me", etc.
You seem to be defending the idea that Jesus gave at least 49 commands. Granted, Jesus gave at least 49 commands. No problem. That is not what fallacy #1 draws attention to.
What's being sold in Gothard's email is a structure of 7 groups of 7 commands, where the 5th command is related to the "stress of anger" (anger being the 1st stress in a list of 7 stresses).
Sorry, but that's more Harold Camping than John Piper.
Hey Matthew!
Take a look at what was actually written:
"Jesus presented forty-nine commands..."
True. No exclusivity claimed. There is at least forty-nine.
"These commands can be related..."
True. They can be. No exclusivity claimed.
"to each of seven stresses that Jesus identified in the Sermon on the Mount..."
True. It's not the seven stresses. Jesus did talk about these things. No exclusivity claimed.
Mr. Gothard sees a line-up. He studied the Gospels and found forty-nine commands. He studied the Sermon on the Mount and found seven stresses. That's all his prerogative. It's an interesting point. He's fallible. Take or it leave it.
But no, Fallacy #1 says that Bill "is trying to twist Scripture" and "would have one believe" there are only 49 commands.
As I said, we have a silly straw man argument. I suggest Fallacy #1 should be removed.
I suggest it not be removed.
Really, where do you come off, telling someone else how to run their website?
BTW, that's a rhetorical question, not actually intended for an answer, as the answer is already implied in the question.
It's typical for believers who share the Christian faith to toss ideas back and forth, and to agree and disagree. Iron sharpening iron and all that. In that context, one might say "hey, I found 49 separate commands" and another one might say "I found 50, and they are different from yours." No big deal.
Those of us who were raised in the program know that Bill Gothard does not toss around ideas like that. He speaks for God. To disagree with Bill Gothard is to argue with God. Gothard does not say, "Hey, I have noticed 49 commands in the New Testament, cool!" He says, "I have discovered some underlying wisdom of the NT: it is laid out in a nice grid of 7 x 7 commands = 49 commands." And if you say, "I don't think that's really what Jesus meant", then those who support Bill Gothard will rise to his defense and say you have just "indirectly attacked the 'commands of Christ' which are beautiful nuggets of infallible wisdom from my Lord Jesus Christ."
They won't say this because they mean to be rude. It's just that they have learned not to distinguish honest disagreement with Gothard from bitter and rebellious attacks on God himself.
The point of disagreement here is not whether someone can name roughly 49 commands of Christ. The point of disagreement is that Gothard is not onto a hidden treasure of wisdom that somehow unlocks something meaningful about the NT with this grid of 7x7=49 commands, and that this section of the Sermon on the Mount presents the 7 commands related to the stress of anger, one of the commands being "give a perfect greeting", and that David managed to fit this exact pattern in his dealings with Saul. And that all this should be given emphasis over the resurrection of Jesus Christ at Easter.
That is substantive disagreement, not a silly straw man.
Actually if the sentence "Jesus presented forty-nine commandments" can be interpreted either exclusively or non-exclusively. Both interpretations would be plausible.
It could mean "Jesus presented forty-nine commands (and only 49 commandments)." Or it could mean "Jesus presented at least forty-nine commands."
Both interpretations are valid because the writing is not very clear.
If Gothard wasn't making a claim of exclusivity, why not write something more clear? Like "49 Commandments From Jesus," or "49 of Jesus's Commandments." This language doesn't carry with it exclusivity.
@Matthew
Actually, the point of disagreement that I brought up and on which this comment thread is based is the straw man argument that Bill claims there are only 49 commands of Christ. He doesn't. This is the way fallacy #1 is written and, therefore, I feel it should be rewritten or removed.
Furthermore, I feel that the way this article is written does undermine the Scriptural beauty of the commands of Jesus Christ and places them in a disparaging light. Notice the statement that Bill "clearly believes that living a life that follows the Law and the 'Commands of Christ' is essential to successful Christian living". Notice how the Old Testament law of Moses is brought in and linked to the Commands of Christ as if they were synonymous or as if Bill taught they were synonymous. If you remove the law, the statement would read "living a life that follows the 'Commands of Christ'", which is clearly a major part of Christ-like living according to Matthew 22:37-40, John 14:15-21, John 15:10, I Thess. 4:2-3, I John 2:3-4, I John 3:22-24, I John 5:2-3, and II John 1:6.
My concern is not about an honest disagreement with Bill but about sections of this article that are indirectly attacking the Word of God.
Hi, Robert. You're trying too hard to finesse each of your points, forcing them to fit, and there's a problem with each one. Let's look at the larger context, though. Gothard's amazing discovery was a one-to-one correlation of commands to character qualities...and he does more than imply a similar correlation between commands and "stresses." He's saying they are related in that manner.
I should also push you to admit that Jesus calls these sins, not "stresses." He died for our sin, not our stress. I feel that you believe that, and I would encourage you not to deny Him in that way. If you believe that Jesus died for our sins, you need to call them sins.
What strikes me as interesting is that you are having this conversation with "future yous." A number of the folks reading this, and some who are replying to you, used to be you. In a way. They would have argued the same arguments, with fervor, from their similar positions within IBLP. These are not people coming from left field and attacking you. Please give their analysis of Gothard's exegesis the consideration that it deserves.
Also, please read some of the other articles that aren't so scripture-heavy. I can tell that you care about people, and this will help you see into the hearts of some of those who went before you.
Thank you for reading and interacting. May Christ bless you abundantly as you serve Him humbly.
Hey Jay! Thank you for your blessing! I readily agree with you that the stresses mentioned are either sin (e.g. Lust) or a result of sin (e.g. Guilt). According to the dictionary, it is also true that they are stresses. I am so grateful that Jesus Christ died for my sins! He has taken the penalty and they have been paid in full. Erased by His blood. Gone forever. Praise the Lord! And I am so grateful that through the power of His resurrection and the free gift of His grace that we can all find freedom from living under the bondage of anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy.
It is my hope that each one of us reading this comment thread desires to be a Berean in searching out the truths of God's infallibile, timeless, unparalleled Word and then practically applying it to our lives as we allow Him to conform us into "the image of his Son." May God bless you, brother!
Robert, I'm surprised you're so seriously committed to defending Gothard's email letter. Did you ghost write it?
Also, you'll have to show me where any dictionary says sin = stress. If you're saying sin may cause stress, so we can use the words interchangeably, then you are trivializing sin.
If you want to do that, the closest I could come is trespass = sin. "Trespass" contains all the letters of "stress"...and it forms the anagram "Pa stress"...so I guess we could postulate that "Pa stress" = "Father's stress" = "God's stress" = sin. But now we're both being silly! :)
All the discussion on this thread led to another article about Saul: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/05/the-leader-who-lost-his-anointing/ Please feel free to comment there, too.
Hope all's well with your new one & that you're getting some sleep. Take care.
I agree with you here. This is not, strictly speaking, a fallacy since he does (technically) avoid ever making Christ's commands absolutely restricted to 49. Instead, this is "just" a misleading teaching since his lack of clarification and means by which he organizes and emphasizes these "49 commands" leads strongly to the impression that there are really only 49 commands.
So here is my question for him...What about the 50th command - where does that fit in and what significance does it have? At the very least, his making his system so tight (ie. 7 sets of 7 commands related to 7 "stresses") and his failure (as far as I can see) to give more than a slight nod to the fact that more commands exist (though not many since he does claim there are only "about" 49 commands), his teachings tend to relegate any additional commands to being of less significance.
So sure, I would be totally cool with changing the heading of that section from "Fallacy #1" to "Highly misleading and highly problematic teaching #1". :)
Robert, there is something missing in my comments to you. I do want to make my points here clearly. But what's missing is the personal touch. I would have killed to be in your shoes, close to Gothard, noticed by others, living the ATI dream. The closest I got was a sort of personal assistant to Nick Lancette in Moscow (I even got to carry a walkie, woo hoo!), and I still have plenty of respect for Nick. I clearly remember a particularly meaningful communion service that he led.
I don't don't know you but I suspect that I know something about how you think because I was there, in the sense that I took Mr. Gothard very seriously and I truly believed he was a godly man with godly wisdom. I don't despise you for your beliefs. I see myself in you.
When I first realized that the system was failing, I thought it was my fault and that I just needed to try harder. I eventually realized it was the system itself that was broken and I found out why in Galatians, Colossians, and elsewhere. I am passionate about this but sometimes I let my passion for the subject run ahead of my passion for people, so I wanted to verbalize this to you.
Thanks for the personal touch, Matthew. I'm glad you didn't kill anyone to be in my shoes. :) Your shoes are just the shoes that God has for you.
I am happy to hear how the Lord spoke to you through Galatians and Colossians. Colossians 3 is a personal favorite of mine. It's good to be passionate about truth! As a brother in Christ, Matthew, my only caution to you is to be careful not to become so zealous about one aspect of truth that you lose the balance of the entire Word of God.
@RobertS:
First, you are obviously well read, and sound like your educational background allows you to accurately judge BG's words (as you would any preacher's, I'd assume). That makes me concerned over why you would provide such a petty defense "He didn't actually lie" over the choice in wording that BG consistently uses to describe HIS system of organizing the commands of Christ.
Can you honestly sit here and tell me that BG, after teaching the "49 Commands of Christ" for decades, honestly believes that this is just 49 out of a possible more? That wouldn't sound very catchy, certainly wouldn't sound like he had it all figured out. And it's too long a title to put on a game or a book or pamphlet or email:
"The 49 Commands of Christ that I found, but there might be more, and because I want and need you to believe you can trust me explicitly because I want to sound like I've got it all figured out, you might not buy this if it sounds like it's not all-inclusive. I got to claim I got 'em all so you'll buy this panacea, and you might not buy it if it's not a 100% cure-all bottle of patent medicine that you're looking for to help you figure everything out." Whoosh, makes me dizzy just trying follow the logic, and would take up alot of ink on those old Heidleburg presses...
I remember a talk he gave once on a Sunday night meeting, on how to gain an audience with people. To summarize, he said you have be like Christ, who "spoke with authority." This means that you have to sound authoritative and decisive, and you will be believable to people who are used to things being coached in terms of shades of grey.
Analyze that and tell me the fallacy...
Furthermore:
Do you think it is possible to lie with the truth?
Do you think someone can mis-use scripture to manufacture guilt?
Do you think people can have a sincere desire to help, and choose an incorrect and dangerous way to go about it?
What would you say bout C.S. Lewis's work:
http://markconner.typepad.com/catch_the_wind/2011/06/the-apologists-evening-prayer.html
Matt
Everyone has their own interpretation of God’s Word and Bill Gothard has his own. There are a lot of truths to what he writes; however, there may be some things that he adds his own opinion. The only man that lived on this Earth that was perfect was our Lord Jesus Christ. If you were to have received his Easter email, read it as a man’s view or interpretation of God’s Word, not as God’s Word. Every one of us has our own interpretation of God’s Word and I’m sure that we are all wrong in a lot of areas. So I’m basically saying that we should not condemn a man for trying to do good, when all we can do is condemn or accuse him of doing wrong. May God bless you all!
Concerned Christian,
You are only partially correct. It's true that people view the Bible through the "filter" of their experience, and that we all will have our "own interpretations". However, keep in mind that Bill Gothard actually has a direct line to God that the rest of us do not have, and is able to "divine" new truths, that are not opinions, but are what he calls "rhemas". An example are his "non-optional Principles". Thus, he has a special ability to give guidance on a whole host of things that are not addressed in scripture, or which for the past 2000 years have simply been "matters of conviction". Since 1970, we now know that there are no "grey areas", and Bill Gothard knows the right steps in any situation. For example, how would we know, without Bill Gothard telling us, that pregnant women will have a miscarriage if they swim in a pool? How would we know that Cabbage Patch dolls were a demonic influence? How would we ever have known what the 'right' taste in music was without Bill Gothard? And how would we have known what the "godliest" look for a young lady was, without Bill Gothard? ("bright eyes", petite, blond with soft curls framing the face and tailored suits.) I hope one day he writes a pamphlet on which side of the nest to get out of in the morning. I'm so confused, laying there, worried that if I get out of the nest on the right or left side, I may be doing it wrong, and will invite some calamity into my life that day, such as being eaten by a fox.
And as far as accusing him of doing wrong, you are right that no one should do that. Bill Gothard is consistent. People don't like principled consistency. Even if he consistently does things that go against his own "Higher Standards", like refusing to follow state building codes and OSHA regulations (Respecting governmental authority), pawing on young women and asking them very personal questions (Defrauding), refusing to acknowledge hurts and offenses (humility and forgiveness), etc, it's wrong to point this out, because if HE's doing it, it's okay. (He may, Others May not). Also, as you say, he's only trying to do the right thing.
Besides, if you observe him doing any of these things, chances are you probably simply misunderstood, or saw wrong. And nobody's perfect, right? Otherwise you are just bitter, and most likely listen to rock music.
Thanks for this cautionary word. Accountability is only for the unenlightened.
Problem is, Concerned, Gothard usually takes his own interpretation as gospel. Hence the, "universal, non-optional principles". I agree that, if he shared it as his opinion, it would be a different story. He does not. He shares it as biblical, non-optional, then takes Scripture verses out of context to support his claims. If you argue with him, you are then seen to be arguing with Scripture. Which, is spiritual abuse at its finest.
If you are right, popes throughout history were all just trying to do good as were the Jewish leaders. Those Pharisees really were not all that bad. In fact, Bill recently said, "Without the pharisees, we would not have salvation today!" If you cannot see that error, you may be blinded to the truth.
False teachers only had flawed theology but good hearts. Where do I stop?? Why do we find the apostles confronting them by name along with their false teachings?
Dear Concerned Christian:
Your loyalty to BG and perhaps desire to "balance" out the good he has done with the harm, and give an overall assessment, is appreciated.
I used to do that. The longer I go along though, the more and more concerned I become with people and ideas that are "close enough" or "well-intentioned."
I as you the same questions I asked Robert S above.
IMHO, deliberately settling for "close enough" and "well intentioned" is the best proof that we're relying on our own wisdom.
I think BG put it best with his analogy of the clock. Which is more dangerous, the one that's 5 min off or the one that's 5 hours off.
1 John 3:22-23
"whatever we ask we receive from Him, because we keep His commandments and do those things that are pleasing in His sight.
And THIS is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment."
I count two. =)
Thank you, Will.
"And this is love, that we walk after his commandments" (2 John 1:6).
Consider reading through the Gospels and doing a recount. :)
Interesting comment from Robert above: "if you apply Christ's commands to your life, you will resolve anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy."
Actually, Gal 5 says:
When you follow the desires of your sinful nature, the results are very clear: sexual immorality, impurity, lustful pleasures, idolatry, sorcery, hostility, quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambition, dissension, division, envy, drunkenness, wild parties, and other sins like these. Let me tell you again, as I have before, that anyone living that sort of life will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
But the Holy Spirit produces this kind of fruit in our lives: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against these things!
This is a "fruit of the Spirit" passage. There are other "walk in the Spirit" passages, and still other "take off/put on" passages.
I see all of them as involving a cooperation of me being in relationship to God the Father, Son, and Spirit, and of the Holy Spirit producing fruit in my life that I am not otherwise capable of doing on my own. It takes resurrection power to produce love in my heart when I'd rather not love, for example.
It might sound like a small difference, the gap between "applying commands" and "fruit of the Spirit" but it's an important gap because it moves the focus off of relationship with the Spirit to my behavior and my effort.
Why there is such a need to ignore the fruit of the Spirit and to try to turn it into people applying universal principles?
Perhaps, because, when you put it that way, there is nothing I can "do" to gain more of God's favor, more of Christ? There is no "elite status", the ground is level at the foot of the cross, God loves this "sinner" next to me as much as he loves "super Christian", it simply makes no difference to God. That's frustrating from a human standpoint, because it takes the control out of our hands.
I love Galatians 5, Matthew! It's a beautiful passage. I agree that our focus should not be on self-effort. Trying to apply Christ's commands in self-effort apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in my life is futile. There is never a need to ignore the fruit of the Spirit.
Abiding in Christ is the key. "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:4-5).
I warn you, though, Matthew, to be extremely cautious about discouraging Christians from applying God's Word to life. If you eliminate obedience from "Trust and Obey", you have a lopsided view of the Christian life. As you are abiding in Christ and walking in His Spirit, He will give you clear instructions from His Word. His Word is full of loving commands to you. He won't force you to obey Him because love demands a choice. But if you choose to love Him, you will obey His commands. And, by the way, "if you apply Christ's commands to your life, you will resolve anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy."
Continue the John 15 passage, "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:7-10).
Robert, I commend you for mastery of "Strawman" debate tactics. Matthew in no way suggested that anyone "shouldn't apply God's Word to life", or "eliminates obedience". Yet you found a way to put him on the defensive by arguing a point he didn't make, putting doubt in the reader's mind about what he said.
Very good! It's classic Basic Seminar, except Bill Gothard will deftly make a scripture say something it didn't say.
What's really going on here is a difference of "opinion" about where obedience comes from. Gothard (You) teaches that it's a focus on outward appearance. We now believe that's wrong, and obedience comes from a heart attitude and relationship with Christ.
Carry on.
Michael, since Christ's commands are in God's Word, is discouraging someone from applying Christ's commands discouraging them from applying God's Word?
“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him” (I John 2:3-5).
I'm not sure where you came up with anything about outward appearances. I believe that obedience comes from a heart attitude and relationship with Christ. "This is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him." (I John 3:22-24).
I love you, brother.
I agree that our focus should not be on self-effort. Trying to apply Christ’s commands in self-effort apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in my life is futile.
This time we agree!
Question: is it possible to cite page numbers in IBLP literature such as the Basic and Advanced textbooks, or webpages such as billgothard.com where this truth is clearly taught? I never remember hearing that truth emphasized or even taught in any seminar, at HQ in Oak Brook, at Northwoods, at Indy, or in Moscow.
I won't be coy - I believe that one of the core problems with Gothardism is at this very point: I think participants in his seminars go home with a focus on self (often without realizing it) and a determination to try harder, rather than a restful and relational focus on the work of the Holy Spirit in their life. If I am correct that participants do tend to go home with a focus on self-effort, and a lack of understanding that "trying to apply Christ’s commands in self-effort apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in my life is futile", then they are doomed to fail, is that not correct?
Follow-up: If Mr. Gothard sells a business seminar (http://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=1041539), and that seminar is based on the commands of Christ, it would be doomed from the start if the participants were not informed that trying to apply Christ’s commands in self-effort apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in their lives would be futile. I see two possible options: 1) the seminar must either inform the participants that the whole thing will fail if done in their own strength apart from the Holy Spirit, or 2) it is not based on the commands of Christ. I'm curious: does the seminar inform the participants that the work of the Holy Spirit is entirely necessary? If you were to ask participants on their way out the door if they clearly heard this taught, would they be likely to respond that they had?
It may be somewhat redundant to repeat the question with regard to the Embassy Institute (http://www.embassyinstitute.org/about), but for the sake of clarity - The Embassy Institute page says, "The entire Embassy curriculum is built on forty-nine commands of Christ, which transcend all nationalities, cultures, religions, and political systems." If it transcends all religions, that might confuse someone into thinking it is something other than Christianity, but be that as it may, it's based on the commands of Christ and therefore it will prove to be a futile effort apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in each individual's life. Would it be possible for you to provide some page numbers in the resources offered under the umbrella of "Embassy Institute" where this truth is made clear? Thank you very much! I truly appreciate it.
Robert,
You made the comment above "if you apply Christ's commands to your life, you will resolve anger, guilt, lust, bitterness, greed, fear, and envy."
Is that the purpose of Christ's commands? And furthermore, are you saying that we resolve these issues, rather than God? The Holy Spirit may work to resolve these issues when we do follow Christ's words and commands, but that is not the central focus of such. The focus is on loving God, and growing to be more like him. As it says in 2 Peter: "But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ." The Holy Spirit influences us towards righteous and holy living, it is not by our works. I'm glad you say you don't mean that we earn God's favor, but often in Gothard's system, it comes across that way. Tis a subtle fallacy in Gothard's thinking, but one of huge significance.
In my understanding, both justification and sanctification are the the works of God that no man should boast. There is no system of guaranteed result outside the faithful dealing of the Holy Spirit. The direct and continual influence of the Holy Spirit is what we are given by Jesus to effect our sanctification.
Believe me, when Gothard comes up with a shining example, he boasts about the system's ability to "produce a student somewhere not quite in Heaven, not quite on earth, but somewhere in between." That is a quote made by a Russian contact at Knoxville in 1993 and quoted by Gothard many times. Whether she realized what she was saying spiritually or not, I do not know, but she sure seemed to inspire pride in Bill's heart over his effective system based solely on the number of times I've heard him quote that phrase about his system. I think she simply took advantage of a way to get his loyalty and committment to their joint venture in Moscow via a little public flattery. I see a lot of evidence that indicate that he fell for it.
Hello Don!
You are certainly right that it is the Holy Spirit that influences us towards righteous and holy living. It is not by our works. We can't earn God's favor. "As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me ... without me ye can do nothing" (John 15:4-5). As you continue to read John 15, Jesus explains that "if ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10).
I do believe that our focus should be on loving God and growing to be more like him. I believe that "Hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (I John 2:4). I believe that "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (I John 5:2-3). I believe that "this is love, that we walk after his commandments" (2 John 1:6).
Just to follow up on that - http://billgothard.com/teaching/commandsofchrist/whythebasicseminar/ This page explains:
Why the Basic Seminar Transforms Lives
What is so transformational about the contents of the seminar? I now understand that the seminar is effective because it explains several of the commands of Christ and how to apply them to daily living. Here are the commands of Christ that are featured in the Basic Seminar.
The seminar message has explained these seven commands of Christ—their rich foundations in the Old Testament as well as their practical application in the New Testament. The personal illustrations that are given throughout the seminar provide additional insight on how these commands can be applied to daily living.
I see Old Testament, and I see daily living. No talk whatsoever about how "trying to apply Christ’s commands in self-effort apart from the work of the Holy Spirit in my life is futile." This lines up with the complaint that is raised sometimes that Gothard leads people into slavery of OT Law and to focus on behavior.
oops, sorry, this was meant to reply to a different comment: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/04/bills-new-approach-to-easter/#comment-8313
Hi Robert!
First of all, thank you for taking the time to read and interact in discussion with us.
I am glad to hear you say that our focus is to be on loving the Lord, and that it is not done through our works, it is done through the influence of the Holy Spirit.
I also appreciate the fact that you try to base your beliefs on Scripture. However, one of your recurring themes seems to be a bit puzzling. As Mr. Gothard said once before, "use the Ten Commandments as a 'measuring stick' of our love for God." (WB 19) In some of your writings on here, you seem to imply the following: Keep Christ's commandments to prove our love for God. While that might sound like a true statement, shouldn't it be the other way around-like the following? "Because we love God, we keep his commandments." The way you seem to be saying it is putting the horse before the cart. It puts love for God second, and Christ's commands first.
Think for a minute how that sounds. If love for God isn't first, then what motivation would we have to keep His commandments? None, but because we are saved through the unearned, unmerited, love and favor of God, we keep Christ's commandments out of a heart of love for Him, and because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross.
I look forward to hearing from you. Again, thank you for your interaction.
Hello Don,
I'm sorry that you got the impression I was implying that keeping Christ's commands proves our love for God. According to John, keeping Christ's commands is loving God.
"This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments" (I John 5:3).
"This is love, that we walk after his commandments" (2 John 1:6).
"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him" (I John 3:22-24).
"He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him" (I John 2:3-5).
[...] the past few weeks, since Bill Gothard’s Easter Letter featuring David and Saul, I’ve been surprised as I revisited the book of First Samuel. When was the last time you studied [...]
[...] A “New” Approach to Easter: [...]
Jesus' work went so far beyond the capabilities of the law that it is resisting God to go back and attempt to obtain righteousness through following principles, commands, etc. These never were intended to free us.
The law can only reveal sinful ACTIONS. The Holy Spirit's sanctifying work deals with our motives, thoughts, and intents of our hearts--personally.
Seven steps or principles to avoid snake bites in the wilderness would DO NOTHING for those who were already bitten. They had ONE WAY remaining--to look at the serpent upon the pole--the provision of God.
Jesus is the provision of God for our sinful state. The Holy Spirit's presence and guidance is the provision of God for our sanctification.
Why accept less?
[...] example, his recent Easter email ignored the true purpose of Christ’s resurrection in an effort to distill this most important remembrance into simple principles. Instead of Easter [...]
Robert,
I think Samuel Lundmark has shared some pretty good stuff on this website. I would not mind an explanation from him regarding that last quote ("...do not confuse Jesus' commands with the commands of the OT law. While there is some conjunction, they are not a single entity").
I may not have the correct understanding myself.
I am coming from the viewpoint of Jesus being a teacher of the Old Testament law. The commands of Jesus seem to be the commands of the Old Testament plus more. Jesus advised the young man in Matthew 19 to "keep the commandments" and cited some of them; He then went on to add that the man would need to give away all his wealth if he really wanted to be perfect. Jesus commanded more than the Old Testament law. He commanded us to be perfect (Matthew 5:48). Such perfection is achieved by Christ's perfection imputed onto us; This is I believe an endgame of Jesus's instruction. It's as if Jesus is saying that if anyone thinks they can keep all of God's commands, they had better think again - the death of God's Lamb on our behalf is the only solution. He took on our penalty, we take on His perfection.
There are verses in the New Testament which seem to describe God's covenant as having changed. My issue is with Bill Gothard and company turning our obedience to God's/Christ's commands as a kind of onerous compulsion, similar to the bondage of the old covenant. This compulsion can foster fear as opposed to love and can quelch gratefulness, peace and joy.
While we are not under bondage to the Old Testament laws are we under bondage to New Testament laws or “Christ’s commands”?
I would like to suggest that this is false. First of all, Jesus was a teacher of the law and submitted himself to both. Galatians 5:14 defines “law” for us: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, [even] in this: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Both Old Testament laws and “Christ’s commands” fit under this description. Secondly, Christ’s law was more harsh and onerous than the Old Testament law (Matthew 5:27-32). If submitting to Old Testament laws is described as “bondage” (Galatians 4:21-5:6) how much greater bondage would one feel when trying to submit to all of Christ’s commands? How would we then explain a verse like Galatians 5:1 which says “stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage”?
A fourth reason to believe we are not under bondage to any law is that the psychological reaction to legal requirements in a person’s mind is similar with any command from God (regardless of whether it came through Moses or Jesus or Paul). Modern psychology understands that fighting thoughts/obsessions doesn’t work (e.g. if you tell a person to not think about a pink elephant for example, they will think about a pink elephant and not be able to help it). This principle is also in the Bible: fighting sin with written laws doesn’t really work. Since it says in Romans 7:9 that sin is revived through the law how can one escape from sin while still under bondage to commandments of any kind?
Jesus said that the one who loves him is the one who keeps His commandments. But what is the best the way to keep His commandments -
out of fear or out of love?
Hey Stephen!
I think meditating on Romans 7:1-4 may help you answer this dilemma.
----
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Easter? Bill, what's all this talk about Easter and Christianity? Easter, rather- Ishtar, has nothing to do with Christianity and is related only to the worship of the Babylonian pagan "goddess" Ishtar.
Nowhere in the New Testament are we Christians commanded to observe Easter, or for that matter- Christmas (Christ-mass).