As I’ve discussed with my parents various teachings I learned through the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) and through the homeschooling curriculum published by the Advanced Training Institute of America (ATIA), I’ve frequently heard from them, “We never taught you that!” They are sometimes defensive and sometimes horrified at the concepts I absorbed as a child. In some cases, I believe my parents were not aware of ideas that students were being taught at training centers. In other cases, I think they didn’t realize the extent to which we would take our understanding of the concepts presented to us. But, sometimes, they really did teach me exactly what I remember.
I recently found a paper I wrote at age thirteen on the subject of grace. The paper was simply titled, “God’s Grace,” and it was based on a writing assignment from one of the Wisdom Booklets. For this paper to have reached my file of completed homework, it would have endured at least two thorough revisions after my mom edited it for accuracy of content, grammar, and punctuation. If, at the time I wrote this paper, she had found a problem with the doctrine (which was taken directly from our IBLP materials), I think she would have corrected it.
How did I, as a young teenager instructed from the ATIA curriculum, understand the concept of God’s grace? Here is the first part of the paper:
God’s Grace
God gives two types of grace. The first type is saving grace. A common misconception in the world today is the belief that saving grace can be earned through good works. Frequently, however, the Bible states that grace is a gift of God. Saving grace can only be achieved through accepting Christ’s free gift of salvation. The second type of grace can be achieved through humility before God. To the humble, God gives more grace. The following facts refute the misconception of earning saving grace, while supporting the idea of achieving influential grace through good character.
If we cannot earn saving grace through good works, how then can we earn it? The simple answer is: we cannot. However, we can earn influential grace, which is mentioned in 1 Peter 5:5: “God resists the proud, but gives more grace to the humble.” Grace can also be defined as God’s influence in our lives, motivating us to do good. The Bible says this influential grace is a gift of God, which is given to the humble. By developing a Christ-like character, we will receive more grace, because Christ is humble. Through faith, reverence, and God’s mercy, we can receive influential grace. Although we cannot earn saving grace through good works, we can earn influential grace through faith, reverence, humility, and God’s mercy.
According to Romans 3:24, we are “justified freely by [God’s] grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” This grace is brought through Jesus, accessible through faith. Grace can also be defined as God’s influence in our lives, motivating us to do good. The Bible says this influential grace is a gift of God, which is given to the humble. God says that His grace is sufficient for all our needs. Acceptance, consolation, and hope are also received through God’s gift. Through grace, we can serve God with fear and reverence. Sin can no longer have dominion over us, because although we were once under the law, now we are under grace (Romans 6:14). When we are humble, God’s gift of grace truly is sufficient for our needs. Saving grace brings salvation, while influential grace brings peace, acceptance, hope, and consolation.
Good works cannot earn saving grace. In Titus 3:5, we read that it is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to [God’s] mercy He saved us.” Ephesians 2:8-9 states, “For by grace you have been saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.” According to 2 Timothy 1:9, “[God] hath saved us…not according to our works, but according to…grace.” All of these scriptures clearly prove that saving grace is not earned through good works. Grace is a gift of God.
In order for my paper’s thesis to work, I had to make a distinction between “saving” and “influential” grace. This distinction certainly never appears in Scripture. It’s easy to show that we cannot earn salvation because we are saved only through grace. The Bible states this idea over and over, especially in Paul’s writings. In order to argue for earning any kind of grace, I had to create an artificial distinction. Once I did so, I based my entire argument for “influential grace” on the misinterpretation of a single verse. Quoting from Proverbs 3:34, 1 Peter 5:5 emphasizes the fact that God resists or scorns those who are proud, so believers ought to clothe themselves with humility.
However, as I now understand, this humility is not to earn God’s grace by “developing a Christ-like character” (as I stated in my paper), but is, instead, to be ready to receive God’s grace as we recognize that we can’t live the Christian life on our own merit.
I concluded my paper as follows:
The misconception of earning saving grace through good works is refuted in the Bible, because not only are we told that we cannot earn salvation through good works, but we are also told that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ. Although we can receive saving grace only through believing in Jesus, not through good works, influential grace can be achieved by humbling ourselves in the sight of God and through developing Christ-like character. Both God’s saving and influential grace are necessary in a Christian’s spiritual growth.
If I could go back and talk to my thirteen-year-old self, I would tell her to read Galatians and Romans to provide full context for grace and sanctification before attempting to write a paper on God’s grace. I would also introduce her to rules for correct interpretation of Scripture by allowing context to control meaning. Finally, I would strongly encourage her to ask questions and study the Bible for herself instead of simply accepting everything one teacher (in this case IBLP through the ATIA curriculum) had to say.
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 RSS
Carolynn's family joined ATI in 1997. She attended a significant number of seminars and apprenticeship opportunities before starting college, where she began to carefully examine the teachings of the IBLP organization. Carolynn is currently learning what it means to be free in Christ.
More posts by Carolynn
Alfred denied directly to me she and Sacred Honor ...
December 4, 2024 When did Alfred or Holly deny that she was Mormon? ...
December 4, 2024 Facts are this JM, Alfred denied when directly con ...
December 1, 2024 Interesting you bring up the Jinger/Jill controver ...
November 25, 2024 Here is the facts JM, Holly is a Mormon, part of ...
November 20, 2024 Because she isn't a fraud. I'm sorry that bothers ...
November 18, 2024 JM, let me be very clear to you. Holly is a fraud. ...
November 13, 2024 I don't disagree that that action is what should h ...
November 13, 2024 I have a very long-term view of Bill and IBLP whic ...
November 12, 2024 Some would say the posts here are just spin and fa ...
November 12, 2024 Curious that you would bring up "Charlotte" becaus ...
November 3, 2024 I have seen the Amazon series, and I've seen the r ...
October 29, 2024 Did you ever watch any of the Amazon series? The s ...
October 25, 2024 Yes, it does. Claims must be addressed because the ...
October 24, 2024 I never claimed to work in finance, but I do have ...
October 24, 2024
July 31, 2024
JM, What you're missing is that just because some ...
July 31, 2024 Good points Rob. There is also true irony in th ...
July 31, 2024
YES! To Galatians and Romans. Why didn't I know those books of the Bible existed when I was "in" the system? I read through them for my faith journal - but NEVER NEVER NEVER saw the grace/freedom parts! Such conditioned reading! It's been mind blowing to read and re-read and re-read Galatians - WOW!
Thanks for sharing your story... As always, I can identify. Thanks for helping me put words to all that's floating around in my head/heart! It's definitely helping with healing...
I love all the stories posted. After examining Mr Gothard's teachings I came to the conclusion that he is a megalomaniac.
He demands that families follow old tribal customs. That men have absolute authority over there family's. This was ok when people lived in the ice thur the Middle Ages when most people lived in villages and on farms. But now we live in a modern society we need strong smart confident woman and men in society.
A great movie to see about how a megalomaniac takes over is Star Wars pat 1-6. The megalomaniac stats out as someone that wants to help the little guy. Like Gothard he trying to save kids and the family from diablo. As time goes on he gets more legalistic, courtship, clothing restrictions, using women as baby factories and no dancing ect. Then we get fokes for example like the Duggar's and Bates families that march in perfect Christian formations for Gothard.
As far as the Duggar's TV show goes I find there show kinda end less case of tinnitus.
Remember That Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Dan Granahan
"However, as I now understand, this humility is not to earn God’s grace by “developing a Christ-like character” (as I stated in my paper), but is, instead, to be ready to receive God’s grace as we recognize that we can’t live the Christian life on our own merit"
No offense to the writer as she is fundamentally correct . . . but this nuancing has always interested me. Scripture states not once, not twice, but three times that GOD GIVES grace to the humble and WITHHOLDS IT from the proud.
“God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore” (1 Peter 5:5-6) [Also Proverbs 3:34 and James 4:6] {the quotation above has "more" in front of grace, but this is nowhere in the text}
It is an act of *GOD* in response to the act of a person humbling themselves. Otherwise it would read, “The humble take God’s grace, but the proud won’t”. "Eisegesis alarms" should be going off.
“Humble” is Greek imperative, a command. Grace is no more earned or merited than a beggar’s meal given by to him by a rich man. However . . . if the rich man hates pride and refuses to do business with proud beggars, a smart beggar will find a way to overtly and emphatically “humble himself” before the rich guy. The ones that humble themselves get the chance to eat, the others – no more or less worthy – go hungry.
And . . . what is this “grace” that God gives to the humble? It is God’s help – willingly offered to all men - to repent, turn away from lust, live seriously, right, godly in this wicked world. Grace always moves a Christian firmly, quickly, publicly into a godly lifestyle. As opposed to - say - allowing us to continue to live as we choose and expecting us to tolerate others doing the same.
This being the case, pride instantly denies us the same. So . . . humility is the key to recovering grace . . . and I expect these web pages to be saturated with it.
Ack, Alfred, Grace is God's unmerited favor. And yes, God gives His favor to the humble but "resisting the proud" doesn't mean that He withholds His grace from them.
His favor is what brought us Jesus to die for our sins. And that is something that isn't withheld from anyone, pride or humble. It's the same thing.
Grace is NOT God's help, but BECAUSE of God's grace... God's favor to all men, he gives His help to repent, His Son, etc.
And these pages ARE saturated with humility. Nothing other than great humility could drive these people to dip into their hard memories and so graciously warn others of living a life in bondage to the very thing Christ has come to set us free from... a list of rules that comes from basing Christianity on our own works.
It's my understanding that the proud don't get grace because they don't ask. It's freely given, they are too proud to accept it.
It isn't earned. Nor is it the "power and will to do the will of God". It's a gift.
To answer your question honestly as I see it, I believe God pursuing us, is a part of grace. Humble, proud, otherwise. God pursues. Perhaps it is in process of this pursuit that he humbles us, himself, perhaps not. Either way, I believe it is all God from beginning to end. I respond, but I think God even enables the response (Romans 9).
And I kinda think Gothard's obsession with humility, is a bit like these medieval monks of the Order of Humility... and mighty proud of it, they were! The people I've known who were most preoccupied with humility, were the least humble.
One simple explanation of God giving grace "only to the humble," is that proud people are not willing to accept God's gift. Not that it isn't offered and available to all... But some will reject it. It is less a question of God withholding, but of the receiver refusing.
That is my simple, still struggling theology, not necessarily endorsed by Recovering Grace :)
I can't believe I didn't catch this the first time Alfred.
"Grace always moves a Christian firmly, quickly, publicly into a godly lifestyle. As opposed to - say - allowing us to continue to live as we choose and expecting us to tolerate others doing the same."
Biggest lie I have ever heard. Grace does not move us- God does not control us like robots, He gave us a freewill- allowing us to live as we choose! May I always preach "Grace as a license to sin!!!" Because that is exactly what kind of love God has given us, but He knows that we will be so amazed at this kind of wreckless love that we will be awed and humbled... well some of us... but He left us with that freedom.
Wendy, this is not to defend Alfred's comment at all because it shot through with problems. I love your enthusiasm! But I would push back against the idea of preaching grace as a license to sin. It is true that when you preach true grace, you will be accused of preaching grace as a license to sin, and if nobody could every construe your words that way, you probably aren't preaching the real thing. The apostle Paul had to deal with that. Authors like Swindoll (Grace Awakening), Jerry Bridges, Tullian Tchividjian, etc. will point out how daring the message of grace is, but they will also be careful to show that it is not a license to sin. This matters, because passages like Romans 8, 2 Peter 2, and Jude push hard against using grace as a license. God's love and grace are deep and wide, and we do nothing to earn them. God does not have any system of spiritual merits and demerits where he favors us more or less.
God gives us freedom from sin, not freedom to sin. The problem with legalism is not that it's wrong to push people away from sin, rather, it's a broken system that doesn't work. It hurts those it pretends to help. It can never change a heart nor set anyone free from sin. Of course, diving into sin headfirst isn't freedom from sin, either (not saying you were saying this, just talking it out). What's the solution? God's grace. He freely pours his favor out on us and changes us from the inside out. Legalism and libertinism will both disappoint in the end. The way of life and health (and love, joy, peace, and all that other good stuff) is made possible by God's grace, which is by definition free and undeserved by us.
You are absolutely right. I did get a little to excited. hahaha And I did actually mean that I want to be accused of "preaching" grace as a license to sin BY legalistic people. Because I feel that God has set us free from the law by giving us victory over sin.
Thank you so much for clarifying that for me. :) God bless!
Alfred,
You are right that there are three passages that reference this "grace to the humble" dynamic. However, the tone of the passages is not necessarily of a "this for that".
One doesn't need to avoid plain language in "getting" what God is communicating here as a "free grace". Jesus criticizes literalism in John 6:63 saying, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." Jesus tells us that oft we must catch the "spirit" (i.e. heart of God) in what is being communicated, rather than getting wrapped around the intellectual, surface reading of the words.
Consider the difference between a "proscriptive" statement and a "descriptive" statement.
You are assuming this passage is proscriptive or demanding a behavior with a carrot and/or stick.
However, the tone seems to be descriptive or showing that it is the person who humbles himself in recognizing their need before God that grasps and experiences the wealth of God's gracious gift. The proud says, I don't need that, I can earn favor. Thus, the passage describes the dynamic of his poverty in regards to experiencing God's grace because he never learns to meet the grace freely given in front of him.
God does not actively withhold his grace from the proud, but it is distant only in that His design is a gift that must be received responsively. Ironically it can only be grasped in letting go. This is akin to the legal definition of a gift which must not only have a giver's intent, and a point of transfer, but an active acceptance from the receiver. It takes humility to receive. Humility IS the receipt of God's grace, not the act to earn God's delivery of grace.
Good comment, and I particularly like these two important points:
+ prescriptive vs. descriptive passages. There is a lot of ignorance today (not just in IBLP circles) about the difference.
+ that the tone of the passages is not a this-for-that attitude.
As someone who grew up under IBlP teachings, let me explain how Gothard's teaching comes across.
You are proud. God resists the proud and gives grace to the humble. That verse is in a passage that mentions authority and submission. The key to humility is getting under authority. You need grace? It's simple to get, just go submit to someone over you.
The problem isn't the fact that God says He gives grace to the humble. (God often speaks very highly of a broken and contrite heart and of His delighting in those who through themselves on His mercy.) The problem is making it into a formula of exactly what steps to take to receive God's favor.
It leaves out the whole relationship with God that is at the heart of Christianity. Submitting to authority as a means to get grace is *not* the same as humility. And making humility a means to an end is missing the whole point.
AMEN Ileata,
And if you resist abusive authority, you are labeled proud and rebellious and told that God is not pleased with you and you are committing witchcraft and are worthy of death. This twisting of definitions is vital to getting control of the people, which is the goal of our enemy, who uses decieved people to further his cause. When we know the truth, we are set free, not in bondage.
ugh, your right. Instead of grace, I got shamed. I remember lectures and threats "I'll call your parents" for simple questions or wanting to wear pants at EXCEL. There was no grace in ATI in my life, ever.
Alfred,
First of all, thanks for chiming in and engaging in discussion.
However, grace is not God's help to live a Godly life. That is a byproduct, or a result of grace. It is indeed, a biblical manifestation of grace. But it is not grace, as Bill Gothard claims.
Let us think about Gothard's definition of grace for a minute. His definition is "the desire and power to do God's will." Let me ask, who has this "desire and power to do God's will?" We do, according to Gothard.
Therefore, if we are the ones who have this desire and power to do God's will, is not Gothard then making grace all about what we do vs. what God does? Which then would mean that Gothard is making grace all about works. In his eyes, grace is solely "the divine enablement for good works."
Chuck Swindoll in his book "The Grace Awakening" teaches that one of the most dangerous ideas regarding grace is the emphasis on what we do for God vs. what God does for us. Swindoll doesn't mince his words about it either-he calls it humanism.
I should point out too, as have some others, that grace is defined in most Bible dictionaries as at the core, God's unmerited favor. It's core is NOT "the desire and power to do God's will."
Alfred, I believe the Gothard error is to try to define something that is to be, quite simply, received. In fact, Gothard is so contentious about grace that his followers, even when starting in grace, demonstrate a strong pattern of falling from walking in it without losing the joy of it. Let's get past the hang-ups and receive the provision of God. Remember, this is so simple that even a child should not err in this way.
We do not earn what is a gift from God. There are not magical forces determining our fate. I believe in the one true and living God who loved us as His own--even when we were yet sinners. That said, there is only one way to be acceptable before God and pure--that is through the blood of Jesus Christ. Again, this is a gift--provided by Jesus Himself. The focus on "law" and lifeless definitions causes us to lose our focus many times on the simply fact that Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.
The book of Hebrews deals with the issue of Jesus, by his own blood, putting away the old covenant with Abraham and replacing it with the new one of His own blood, bringing us from the mountain of Sinai of impending and crushing doom to the great thronges in the Heavenlies having himself made our spirits perfect and presented us as just men before God.
I was told by someone dear to me who is a Gothard supporter, "I don't like the book of Galatians. You cannot tell people that stuff because they just take it to excess." Do you see the problem? We've become as the censors of the Catholic church--filters between Jesus, our High Priest, and the commoners who, in the dead nature, look only for excuse to sin. I have many questions from this: So, why did Christ condescend? For the spiritually sick or for the healthy? See, if my law-abiding efforts would provide the spiritual magic to bring success, would this not be another gospel? Even if delivered from an angel in heaven, should it not be cursed? Does the man, made perfect, still wish to live in sin or is the problem of desire to sin an indicator that the man has not been sanctified?
In light of Hebrews, and on the topic of the law and the IBLP system: Which is more original, Jesus' words or the OT law? I disagree that Jesus points back to the law as other than simply a frame of reference for his audience. I believe on the basis of authority, Jesus presents his new laws in light that the scriptures testify of Him and not that He must build on them. Is Jesus called the author and finisher of the law??--NO! Jesus is both author AND finisher of our faith. The law is not the central focus of the Scripture nor the pearl of great price--Jesus is BOTH. Hebrews details that Jesus by his own blood has put away the old covenant and established the new. We are warned to not go back to the fearsome way of impending death of Mount Sinai where a mere mistep would bring down God's impending wrath. We are not to serve God trembling under the weight of the law but with spirits made perfect, to serve God in reverence and holy fear. Hebrews 12
BTW, we don't do double-binds. Not anymore ;)
Oops, that was directed to Alfred.
Alfred, et al. "Humility" is not a hallmark of IBLP/ATI/Gothard followers.
In fact, over the years, one of the biggest and most common observations of the "outside Gothard" Evangelical community is that the typical Gothard follower has an unusually strong sense of "spiritual pride"that they posses unique "truth" absent from everyone else's understanding. This pride is continually reinforced with the language of elitism spread liberally throughout ATI literature and spoken from many podiums at conferences.
When a group of people, (American evangelicals, of which I identify with philosophically) who have a tendency to exhibit a prideful attitude toward others (The World), say you have a pride problem, you have a pride problem indeed.
I quite agree with Patrick. Spiritual pride is the hallmark of the IBLP mindset which seeks to have a complete belief system and superiority to the world. Human nature sneaks in to the believers life. By all means we want to believe the truth. By all means, we want to live a superior life. The trouble is in how we define it. The IBLP system creates lines that we can control and define. It makes it easy for pride to sneak in.
By contrast, the grace-filled life, is on that admits to God that one doesn't deserve or earn any aspect of the relationship. It does result in a constant renewing that develops and grows our understanding of truth. It does result in actual, abundant life, rather than a sense of a "superior" life. This is superior, this is what God created us for, but the emphasis is different.
What if spiritual pride IS lukewarmness? Jesus never says here, "You are "worldly"". Mr. Gothard defines this lukewarmness away from what he is calling you too. That is only natural. But I think he gets it wrong. Read this passage in a new light.
Revelation 3:
16 So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
17 For you say, I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing, not realizing that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked.
18 I counsel you to buy from me gold refined by fire, so that you may be rich, and white garments so that you may clothe yourself and the shame of your nakedness may not be seen, and salve to anoint your eyes, so that you may see.
19 Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent.
God is warning the believer and is speaking about the ongoing relationship, not salvation (speaking to the "churches" here). He who thinks he has it all together spiritually is in danger. If you develop a faith that is not needy before God in relational dynamic, you fall down the path of Laodicea. What if lukewarmness is a religious spirit that places systems above relationship (which, in a manner of speaking, is a very "worldly" way of doing things)?
Josh18, good thoughts.
I think he issue is totally about relationship. Jesus said "abide in me" and "apart from me, you can do nothing." Paul talked about walking in the Spirit, the Spirit growing fruit. The image of the "body" of Christ, and of "fruit" - these are organic images that indicate being connected and growing together. Jesus said the whole Law should be framed through loving God and loving your neighbor; in other words, relationships.
At headquarters, I kept finding myself confused trying to figure out how things are supposed to really work, because on one hand, a dad who tried to do everything right, yet his family rebelled, it would be said that he had a habit of speeding or listening to secular music, and on that one point of "failure" he lost his family, but at the same time, a secular, wealthy businessman would be praised for following God's principles, and "God is no respecter of persons." I remember getting a sick feeling in my stomach and thinking this just didn't seem right.
I can look back now and see what was wrong with it. That mindset is all about mechanistically following the principles, which can become more like appeasing the gods than like being in a love relationship with Almighty God. What's lacking is the invitation to relationship. Paul said that he was an ambassador, calling people to be reconciled to God (relationship). He was not a salesman, hawking "the secret" that would reveal 7 or 10 steps to success in life.
Without a delete button, I am really stuck. I see that the prior post took ALL of my citations . . . and erased them (being enclosed in angle brackets). So . . . I "humbly" ask forgiveness as I repost:
Gonna try and respond to everything at once. :-) I will pick on Wendy, since she was first . . .
[ “Ack, Alfred, Grace is God's unmerited favor.”]
How does this “grace” do defined differ from “mercy”, which is also “unmerited favor”? Or the food we eat, which is definitely “unmerited favor” from the hand of God? “I had unmerited favor for lunch”. I know the big boys focus on “charis”, which is a kin to “gift” . . . but to allow ourselves to stop there is foolish. Indeed, the substitutions become awkward at best . . . Jesus, “full of unmerited favor and truth” . . .
And ordinary Christians know better. The notion of “dying grace” . . . “grace for my trials” . . . “Lord, give me grace to overcome” . . . where does that come from? From Scripture, of course. And nobody who says that means, “unmerited favor”. Oh, I know they know it is unmerited . . . just that is not the definition that makes them choose that precious word. No . . . they are thinking of something synonymous with “power, given to me by God”.
[ “Grace does not move us- God does not control us like robots, He gave us a freewill- allowing us to live as we choose!”]
First of all, millions of godly believers along “reformed” lines would disagree with you. In fact “Hannah” in a companion post references Romans 9 to say exactly the opposite. Not that I believe in “robots” any more than you, but you are completely ignoring obvious verses that make it clear that God does move us – or not move us:
2 Timothy 2:25-26 “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”
Acts 11:18 “When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life”
Paul understood this “motivating”, moving, enabling power of grace, which, incidentally, is completely absent from “Mercy”:
“Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power. ” Ephesians 3:7
“Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us . . . “ Romans 12:6 See it? DIFFERENT GRACE FOR DIFFERENT FOLKS . . . given to us.
“And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work. ” 2 Cor 9:8 Because of grace – to believers – we have all sufficiency to every good work.
“But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. ” 1 Cor 15:10 This one is especially hard to ignore . . . read what it says . . . a Christian leader saying that his laboring is not him but God’s grace at work in him.
“I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.” Ephesians 3:7
“And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.” 2 Cor. 12:9 PRESENT Grace = strength . . . how else can you read this? Strength for what? For prevailing over a trial.
Power, power everywhere . . . such things are NEVER spoken of mercy, which is also “unmerited favor”.
[“May I always preach "Grace as a license to sin!!!" Because that is exactly what kind of love God has given us, but He knows that we will be so amazed at this kind of wreckless love that we will be awed and humbled... well some of us... but He left us with that freedom.”]
I saw Matt’s comments and your retraction – I suspected you REALLY didn’t mean that. But it bears noting, because others would not back down like that. The tracks you are on lead right up to that door and through it, which ought to give some cause to ponder.
That notion exactly what Jude warns us about:
“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness. ” Jude 1:4
The Greek word translated “lasciviousness” means “unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence” Teachers “turning the Grace of God into lasciviousness” teach others than that “God gives a license to sin” (exact root of “licentiousness”).
Here is what God’s crazy love and grace looks like:
“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world. ” Christ.” Titus 2:11-12
People recovering grace are taught – by God and others - to deny ungodliness and lusts . . . and focus on living seriously, right, and godly.
[“+ that the tone of the passages is not a this-for-that attitude.”]
Good to talk to you again, Matt :-) The passage tells us that God gives grace to the humble, then immediately commands us to humble ourselves because of that fact. That is about as close to “this for that” as you are going to find. I mean . . . how else would He write it if He really meant “this for that”?
[“Therefore, if we are the ones who have this desire and power to do God's will, is not Gothard then making grace all about what we do vs. what God does?”]
Not even remotely! Grace is God moving me . . . not me moving myself. Many read Eph. 2:8-9 (“For by grace are ye saved . . . not of yourselves, it is a gift of God”) to mean God forces His irresistible grace on people to be saved. The correct understanding is . . . that God’s grace, once received, IS irresistible. The “once received” part is where our will kicks in. The train comes, it moves . . . you get on, it moves you (“desire and power”), but you never get to boast about where you end up. And the train comes to our door only when we humble ourselves first. The places we go powered by the grace of God – just like Paul – would lead to the opposite of boasting. Here is how Paul said it, in the context of spiritual gifts:
Rom. 12:3 “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.” And all we did was humble ourselves before His mighty power, authority, holiness . . . the rest is all Him.
Alfred
I am detecting hints of Calvinsim in your response (Arminisim is also "wrong". The problem in your argument is that God wants all to come to repentance and that none should perish. God has afforded grace to everyone in the form of salvation but not everyone has responded by accepting salvation. I know Romans 9 talks abouts God's soveregn choice but Paul was speaking about Israel in his own mind wondering fashion. Grace has many dimensions to it, Grace of Salvation, growing in grace, the current time period of days of grace.
If I am anything, I am not a Calvinist, so rest easy. But . . . tell me what the verses about God "granting repentance" mean. Hebrews 6:6 tells us that there is a point where God judges a person, making it "impossible to repent". That does seem to suggest that God's grace has a "window of opportunity", which He expects us to accept with our "free will" . . . and then the window sovereignly closes.
Alfred, you have a big but. I don't mean derrier, I mean "yes, but." If grace were a 1,000 page book, you are focused on 1 or 2 pages out of the whole thing, to the exclusion of the rest of the book. Whenever someone tries to point you to any other place in the book besides your favorite 1 or 2 pages, you say "yes, but" and try to argue that because these 2 pages exist, therefore the entire book is limited to only those 2 pages. You simply can't let grace be grace. It's a much wider and deeper thing than you are willing to accept. Pick up a good book like Jerry Bridges' "Transforming Grace" and look through it, and I bet $100 (in monopoly money) that your internal dialog will be full of "yes, but" as you redirect and blunt the edge of what he's saying.
Well, allow me to flip it around. If there are these "2 pages" that contradict the assumed understanding of the other 98, do we get to ignore them? [I can fight you over the percentage, based on the copious verses quoted, but I will run with it] Deny them?
What does science do with those pesky "2 pages" of contradictions to accepted theories? When they finally validate them they find that they launch them into a much deeper understanding of how things actually work.
My problem is not a need to deny that grace is unmerited or "crazy" or that it involves an attitude embraces us wherever we are . . . my problem is leaving us there. If the grace of which we speak inexorably, firmly moves us to "deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world", I am there. Besides being a "gracious attitude", if it is also simultaneously a God-sourced “wind” in our sails that is increased when we humble ourselves, I am on board. If it isn't (take away 2 pages), it isn't grace.
It's not so much a matter of leaving you there, as getting you there, to start with. You have to get there, first. Grace, in its limitless and freeness, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that we fight it, with a constant, "Yes, BUT." You must first get there, before addressing the "but". As long as you are grappling, reaching for, "Yes, but," your mind still waits to be blown away by the grace of God. Acceptance requires a period. A pause, a rest. And once you are there, you can eventually get to the "but"s. The "but"s will come. But they are not first priority.
I believe we in agreement on the point that grace is unmerited, "crazy", involves an attitude that embraces us wherever we are.
On this -
"[Grace] is also simultaneously a God-sourced “wind” in our sails that is increased when we humble ourselves..."
Are you saying that the more we humble ourselves, the more grace we receive? This would be the same as saying that if we want more grace, we need to be more humble, correct?
Let me try this one, the difference between mercy and grace:
Mercy is a murderer or other criminal receiving a pardon, and being free to go.
Grace is a putrid beggar, stepping into the throneroom, and the king runs to embrace him, exclaiming, "My son, my son! Come, eat at my table!"
The difference is *relationship*.
But honestly, it is hard to talk to you about grace, Alfred. You are so worried about someone else misusing it, that you can't see the bounty in front of you. No one is asking *you* to sin, you're just worried that someone else will! Don't you think God can worry about whether his grace is wasted on sinful people? I mean, it *is* his, to squander as he chooses. So drink up, friend!
And truthfully, when you get hit with the fullness of grace... I mean, when you REALLY "get it"... your response is not to purposefully sin, anyway... It just isn't. It's a bit like falling in love... You just want more and more and MORE of this Person, and the last thing on your mind is to do anything that would hurt them. It's a curious dynamic, but a very observable one.
First of all, Mercy is something clearly desired and required by “saints”, along with Peace . . . and Grace. The following is the standard greeting for all of Paul’s letters, which would appear to preclude the “criminal” part as a definition:
“Unto Timothy, my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.” (1 Timothy 1:2)
Then we see that the throne of grace is there to give both mercy and grace, apparently interchangeably:
“Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16)
We are saved by His mercy – as opposed to works – JUST like grace:
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost” (Titus 3:5)
They are quite close cousins, in some contexts used interchangeably. In fact, if I may venture this thought: Mercy is particularly the “being unreasonably kind to the unworthy” part of grace, a subset . . . the “power” aspect is only referred to as “grace”, never mercy.
As far as the exhortation . . . thank you! Amazing Grace does spring from our relationship with the Lord, the "grease" of love and gratefulness . . . but it also first "taught my heart to fear" before it "my fears relieved". We need balance. If we can find that, I will be happy.
In my opinion, balance comes with time and maturity, as the HS continues to work in our lives :) But that is my opinion.
Not understanding grace as completely unmerited, kept me from growing in my Christian walk, for many years. I had "standards", and looked good on the outside, but within I was full of doubt and fears and self-wracking, in absence of any more than a cursory relationship with Christ. I believe I was saved, yes, but kept from genuine inward growth by the constant need to perform outwardly, to appear to others that I was experiencing the "desire and power". I was kept from relationship.
That is why I say that one must understand that grace is completely free, and camp there awhile, before you can get to the "balance", which James alludes to. Grace is most definitely free and unmerited, but the HS does change a life, as a gradual process, a process which includes taking away our desire to sin.
When God gives me the desire and power to do His will, that is an act of grace. I don't deserve it. But to make one thing that is an act of grace the definition of grace really, really limits (and misrepresents) grace.
Alfred, I suggest you read through all the texts on grace in the NT and put in BG's definition in place of the word "grace" and see if you still have a Biblical Gospel.
What would you call this "desire and power" that God graciously gives you? Here is Paul's words: "I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the ______ of God which was with me." What word would you choose to fill in the blank to describe this powerful "act of grace"?
You get my point . . . the Scripture calls this gracious power . . . just grace.
Alfred,
In one of your recent comments you made the statement "Grace is God moving me, not me moving myself."
I however, find that statement problematic. What is God moving us to do? Perform good works? If grace is solely about "God moving us" then again, it leads straight back to a works-based focus.
Is performing good works what grace is all about?
We would agree that the desire and power to do God's will IS a biblical manifestation of grace. That point is not in contention.
However, what is in contention is this:
Is grace solely the "desire and power to do God's will?"
This is the question we would like to have you answer.
As for the verse "I labored more abundantly," you're taking that a bit out of context...look at the first part of the verse. "But by the [unmerited favor] of God I am what I am. The second part lists the manifestation of that...not what grace itself is.
Try putting the "desire and power to do God's will" into Ephesians 2: 8-9 and you have "For by the desire and power to do God's will you are saved." Doesn't sound right, does it? Read it like this: "For by the unmerited favor of God, you are saved through faith."
[“If grace is solely about "God moving us" then again, it leads straight back to a works-based focus.“]
Here a million reformed folk would start to take issue. “God moving us” is all about *Him* . . . how could it be “works based”? Again, I reject the deterministic heresy that says that God picks some and rejects others before birth, damned without ever having had hope . . . but I do believe that that grace – extended to us to even trust Christ – while offered in one way or another to all, is completely under the sovereign prerogative of God. While the offering of God’s grace is fully His choosing, we also choose whether to receive it.
[“We would agree that the desire and power to do God's will IS a biblical manifestation of grace.
Is grace solely the "desire and power to do God's will?" ]
No, it is not! Thank you for saying what you did. Grace is at its core first God imparting to us stuff we have not earned, gifts. It is expressed – but not exclusively – in the “enabling ability” to even trust Christ, and then, after salvation, to live like a Christian.
[“As for the verse "I labored more abundantly," you're taking that a bit out of context...look at the first part of the verse. "But by the [unmerited favor] of God I am what I am. The second part lists the manifestation of that...not what grace itself is.”]
What does “yet not I” mean in the context, not of being saved at all, but of working harder than everybody else? He is saying as clearly as he can that *he* can’t take credit for working like a super-apostle, giving credit to “the grace of God which was with me.” The focus in on what is happening AFTER salvation . . . in Christian service.
[“Try putting the "desire and power to do God's will" into Ephesians 2: 8-9 and you have "For by the desire and power to do God's will you are saved." Doesn't sound right, does it? Read it like this: "For by the unmerited favor of God, you are saved through faith."]
This section fits exactly! Again, reformed folk love these verses as an expression of “irresistible desire and ability to be saved”, so this is a completely orthodox understanding without having to involve (*shudder*) Mr. G. You see, the section tells us that the whole thing – even faith – is a gift of God. We couldn’t even want to be saved but by that “enabling grace”. In fact, Calvinistic people the world over believe that you get “enabled” (made alive spiritually), then you trust Christ. While I allow that fundamentally, I again part company with them on the “bondage of the will” corollary, that I *have* to trust Christ, with no free choice acceptance on my part of that offered gift of salvation. He chooses to “open the door” to salvation to me when and how He wishes – I chose to accept the gift, the invitation, or reject it.
So, because of what we read there, none of us can ever boast that we “decided” to seek the Lord and then trust Him and His finished work on Calvary. He gave us the ability and the desire to trust. Because of grace, we say, “I am a recipient of 100% unmerited favor”.
I am a little surprised that you find this reading of Eph 2:8-9 to be acceptable: "For by the desire and power to do God's will you are saved..." I think most evangelical Christians would quickly back away from that.
This may be a helpful thing - I'm not sure, but this may help clarify an important distinction in beliefs. Clarifying the points of agreement and disagreement is a good thing in the interest of meaningful dialog; it helps give a map for how the conversation can move forward.
Clarification: I should have reworded the phrase "If grace is solely about 'God moving us'," to "If grace is solely about God moving us to do good works."
The Bible says, "It is GOD who worketh in you both to will and to do His good pleasure." Gothard says it is grace.
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of grace, but He isn't grace. He is a person of the Godhead.
Obviously, in the verse you quoted, God's favor enabled Paul. But the "force" that gives us the desire and ability to do God's will is God Himself.
God works "by grace". No argument there. Exodus 3:2 tells us that "The angel of the Lord" appeared to Moses in the burning bush . . . in verse 4 it says it was "God". The instrument is in the hand of the Master.
I would call "desire and power" for change (which IS an observable phenomenon in a believer's life), the work of the Holy Spirit. But not grace. Grace is a concept. The HS is a person, and he is the one who effects change.
"Grace to you" . . . I suppose it is a "concept" like "mercy" and "peace", but it is something we "have" or "get" . . . or not. He "gives" grace . . . He "gives more" grace (James 4:6) . . . Different amounts are given to different people (Romans 12:6). That certainly is treated like a "thing" instead of a concept.
I mean . . . "peace" is also something you have, or not, or have more, or have less, something Jesus gives and others can take away . . . is "peace" a concept or a "thing"? I need it, I want it . . . so I will treat it like a "thing"
Romans 12:6 NLT
In his grace, God has given us different gifts for doing certain things well. So if God has given you the ability to prophesy, speak out with as much faith as God has given you.
This says nothing about different people getting different amounts of grace??
I am not arguing whether or not grace is a "thing". So far as English language goes, it is in the category of a concept or an idea, as are mercy, peace, trust, etc. All concepts, and all very real. I am pointing out that the person who actually effects change, is the HS. This action is performed by a person, not by a concept.
Ok, I did think my statement there needed clarified. What I meant was "is grace solely about God moving us to perform good works?" I actually tried to add that comment, but for some reason, I couldn't.
You said "Grace is at its core first God imparting to us stuff we have not earned, gifts." Why would God do this? Would it not be because of His unmerited favor?
I agree with you that "the power and desire to do God's will" is one of many biblical manifestations of grace.
Here's the sticking point though: I don't believe that Bill Gothard believes that. Based on his writings, his website, etc, the only core definition of grace I have seen from him is "the desire and power to do God's will." It seems that he believes grace is solely that. So in light of what you have written about grace, it seems that you and Mr. Gothard would be in disagreement about grace-and that's no small issue, either.
If you don't believe that Mr. Gothard teaches that grace is solely the "desire and power to do God's will" then why is that the only core definition I've seen in his publications and such?
I am not Bill Gothard, nor do I speak for him. Here is his statement on grace: http://billgothard.com/teaching/grace/
Interesting comment by John Piper at the end on "grace".
I have heard him acknowledge that grace is a larger concept than just "desire and power". He has to. "Charis" is a "gift", graciousness, at its core. "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ" has to do with His graciousness to us . . . as I understand it.
My point is that the aspect of it being real "power" is largely missed, at least officially. Again, the common believer gets it, based on how we talk . . . really hard to get the theologians to talk to it. For that I am very grateful to Mr. Gothard.
Alfred,
First of all, let me start by saying I think we can agree that the "desire and power to do God's will" is a biblical manifestation of grace.
However, I still see a very problematic idea in your position. You said "grace is God moving me, not me moving myself." So therefore, in your words, God is moving us to do good works? Whilethat is a biblical manifestation of grace, is that solely what grace is?
Here is the question I pose to you: Is grace solely defined as "the desire and power to do God's will?"
Just as a thought too, in the book I mentioned earlier (The Grace Awakening), Chuck Swindoll defines grace at its core, as God's unmerited favor and love for us, as do most standard Bible dictionaries.
I think I responded to a virtually identical post above, so will not repeat. The only new issue raised is to point to "most standard Bible dictionaries" for the definition of grace. To which I repeat my observation that common believers instinctively find another definition when we say, "God give me grace for this trial", or talk about "grace to die". We never mean, "Give me unmerited favor for this trial", as unmerited as it may be . . . we are asking for power, strength. How that aspect, confirmed by the copious verses quoted above, can be left out of so many "standard Bible dictionaries" is, well, interesting.
"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Luke 10:21)
Perhaps I’m just naïve, but all this scriptural exegesis and eisegesis gobblety gook amuses me but also annoys me at the same time. Just love Jesus for what He did and who He is. Walk in Him and your life will never, never be the same. Too platonic … I suppose so … I just know what He has done in my life and it is only my reasonable service to Him that I offer my body and life as a living sacrifice.
I think most of us reading this agree with you, Grateful, but I'm glad to see the discussion going on. I don't feel qualified to comment on such involved questions. I believe the Spirit of God will lead those who are his children. Jesus did say "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me." And He will never lead us into sin, since we've been delivered from sin.
I guess I need "more grace" to be a better Berean ....
I have struggled against the ATI definition of grace, but recently looked up the Ephesians 2:8 definition in Strong's. It had this to say (among others): of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens, increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues. This seems to support the ATI definition. I don't want that to be true. Is Strong's broken?
Such definitions are part of the warp and woof of Church teaching for millenia. What does "irresistible grace" mean, as the Calvinists have it? What did John Newton mean when he described Amazing Grace as "teaching" his heart, "relieving" his fear, "keeping" him, "leading" him home? Those are terms of an active force, working on him.
Bill Gothard quotes Dr. Spiros Zodhiates: “Grace is like God’s power generator, and we are like the conduits which carry His power to its intended purposes by the Holy Spirit.” Zodhiates has been known as a friend to IBLP, but he was before that and remains a preeminent authority on NT Greek. [Citation: http://billgothard.com/teaching/grace/definition/ ]
God's influence in our lives is grace. But it is still unmerited favor.
The problem with Gothard's definition is that he makes 2 versions of grace. The unmerited favor and the merited influence.
Still baffled where the "merited" part of grace as God's power comes from. Unless humbling yourself before God's authority and power is a "work"? Is that it? IF that is the case, I am at a loss . . . I mean, Romans 10:9 says to call on the Name of the Lord to be saved (and believe in your heart). Is THAT a work for salvation? I know the Calvinists tell us that BELIEVING is a work . . . which you can't do unless you are first made spiritually alive . . . Is THAT where you are coming from?
Gothard teaches that it is merited. Didn't you read the article? Do you read the little Green book of character that he was passed around a few years ago where he states at the beginning that we get more grace as we pass tests. If you don't believe that grace is merited, you don't agree with BG. (Which is fine by me. :-) )
Or maybe it says that we earn the power of the Holy Spirit by passing tests. But since what he defines as grace most people would call the work of the Holy Spirit, it gets all confusing.
I don't have the book anymore because we cleansed our home :-) so I can't look it up.
Thanks for sharing this was a great article. I don't mean to be rude but I wonder if ATI has a dedicated person for responding to RG articles? Or if like Alfred they just take turns... "Hey your on RG duty this week."
They don't :-) Frankly, I gather than few ATIers that I know even know the site exists. I am personally not in contact with any that do, other than my son . . . who works at headquarters. And he gets most of his information from me.
So . . . my thoughts are my own and do not represent the views of anyone else. Fair enough?
Your thoughts may be your own, but your attitude is 100% ATI. Fair enough?
:-) I guess whatever that is that is indictment enough for a summary judgment, eh?
Alfred… Well, if your thoughts are "your own" I would definitely say you've at the minimum drunken the Kool-Aid. The following are a few observations:
From the following link or thread: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/03/a-matter-of-basic-principles-a-review/
You are interested in the truth.
Alfred Corduan April 1, 2012
{ I forwarded a pretty clear, strong statement made by Mr. Gothard to me personally on the matter. Are you saying that you know he is lying? This is really important to me.}
You say you’re loyal but you don’t like baloney.
Alfred Corduan April 2, 2012
{ I am loyal, but not as loyal as you might thing {think}. I hate baloney. }
As Wendy pointed out you’re trying to excuse every wrong that BG has done.
Wendy Blake April 2, 2012
{ I cannot understand you at all! Gothard's hand holding is twisted and creepy and you sit there and defend it. I doubt you would leave ATI like you said. ***You are going to take testimony after testimony and try to excuse it somehow.*** }
You admit IBLP and BG have had a profound impact on your life. You compare them to family.
Alfred Corduan April 4, 2012
{ I am supportive of Mr. G and IBLP. The ministry had a profound, life-changing impact on me in 1973 and beyond. As such I am loyal as my starting position, kind of like family, and not just because we are in ATI. }
You dismiss comments made by others or their experiences as a very minor percentage of those who have been with ATI/IBLP and under BG’s teachings.
Alfred Corduan April 6, 2012
{ Of all the families I have interacted with over 18 years, only one has had any serious issues. }
You admit BG is a father figure to you and has given you advice at key points in your life. Therefore you have an emotional connection that as you say “goes pretty deep.”
Alfred Corduan April 7, 2012
{ Growing up without a father Bill has been a bit of a father-figure to me, key advice at key points . . . so it goes pretty deep. }
You excuse BG’s teachings as changing his mind or worse forgetting what he taught. Wow.
Alfred Corduan April 13, 2012
{ Bill Gothard makes or implies many things that he ends up “changing his mind” on, or, I suspect, forgetting. }
You openly admit you have a son living at HQ. This means you have vested interest in maintaining the IBLP/ATI reputation.
Alfred Corduan April 23, 2012
{ I DO have a son who lives at HQ. }
From the following link or thread: https://www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/08/bill-gothards-tornado-that-didnt-happen/
You believe that a person sees what they want or are prone to see.
Alfred Corduan October 22, 2012
{ A person sees what they are geared to see. }
I understand you have vested interest with you son being an intrical part of the IBLP ministry and that you have a emotional attachment as BG is a father figure to you. I pray God opens your eyes and the eyes of those involved with IBLP/ATI. BG’s ministry is dying. How many training centers have closed down? I’d recommend getting out before the ship has completely sunk.
I have to think it would be very painful to read negative things being posted about someone who has been a father figure.
My thoughts ARE my own! :-) I like to think I can look anyone in the eye on any issue . . . I take challenges to the contrary quite seriously.
My current association with ATI (enrolled) and IBLP (son on staff) is well known, so thank you for pointing it out to those that may have missed it. If you want to find out more about me, click on my name. I am all over Facebook and count many of those who disagree with me as friends, including Don Veinot and Rom Henzel.
That being said, your perception of Kool-Aid influence will likely never be changed by anything I say. So it may be best to leave it at that.
Do give me a little bit of credit for being one of the very few who has the interest - maybe foolishness - to wade in to forums such as this. There is no-one to my knowledge from IBLP staff that does so . . . in fact, if I know Mr. G, he would prohibit it.
In 2000, Gothard wrote a paper entitled "A Definition of Grace." He says in his paper "In the Old Testament, those who found grace possessed qualities that merited God's favor." He later goes on to say "Two witnesses...confirm that additional grace is merited by a person's humility." Gothard also says that we can't grow in grace if God's favor is unmerited. He says "The favor of God is unlimited, therefore according to the term unmerited, there is nothing we can do to gain it or increase it. How then do we grow in grace?"
To me, this illustrates much of the problem with Gothard's definition of grace.
Guess we need to clarify "unmerited". To some "unmerited" means "it just happens" . . . like the Calvinists believe. You are dead, you can't even want to be right, then one day you wake up and you have a "Desire and Power" to get saved, because God has made you spiritually alive "out of the blue" . . . and you do get saved, because you can't resist that grace coming upon you. To them believing in Jesus is a meritorious act, hence happens AFTER God has given you grace. Is that what you believe "unmerited" to mean?
I think you maybe should study Calvinism a bit more.
Unmerited, to pretty much everyone means, "undeserved, unearned."
Gothard specifically teaches us how to earn grace. That is unorthodox is considered heresy.
And for the record, all orthodox views of salvation involve God doing something (an act of grace) to bring someone to a place of being willing to accept Him. I'm an arminian and in arminian theology, that is called Prevenient Grace.
The idea that you don't need God's intervention to awaken you to your need to him is called semi-pelagianism and was rejected by the church hundreds of years ago as heresy.
OK, good Arminian that you are, do you believe that a person is responsible for any step in the road to salvation? If so, what is that step?
We are responsible to respond to God. We don't initiate. We respond.
But God has to awaken us to the need of Him. He is the one who begins the work. He is the one who completes it.
Nothing we do makes us meritous of any part of salvation. "For by grace are you saved through faith, not of yourself, it is the GIFT of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest any man should boast."
There is nothing in any one of us that would desire to seek God without God's grace drawing us. He doesn't draw us because we deserve it.
According to Rom. 4:4 and 11:5,6, the concept of Grace is completely in contrast to the idea of meriting it, working for it, earning it, etc. Grace is unmerited, period. If you do something to get it, it's not grace.
So, even though God chooses to give grace to the humble, if you humble yourself in an attempt to get grace, you are trying to earn it and that is in the face of all that is humility and grace.
Back to baffle: "if you humble yourself in an attempt to get grace, you are trying to earn it and that is in the face of all that is humility and grace."
In what way is this any different than "We are responsible to respond to God." If we find out that are are not responding, and hence are not receiving His grace, but then decide that it is a life or death matter that we do respond, and so do, so we may receive His free gift, in what way does "responding to God" not fall into the same category as "humbling yourself before God"?
I agree with your statement. So, obviously, we don't have the same perception of "humbling yourself".
Gothard didn't teach us, his students, to "humble ourselves before God" to get grace. It was things like picking up garbage on the ground and obeying our difficult authorities that was considered "humbling yourself." I think if one really humbles themselves and cries out to God, that's different. But I'm referring to Gothard's formula for humbling yourself that makes grace earned. "Need grace, submit to an authority." Where's the actual relating to God in that?
Um...Alfred, I'm not a Calvinist. ;-)
Merit means you deserve something because you earned it. Unmerited means you did not earn it and therefore do not deserve it. That's simple dictionary terms.
Gothard defines grace solely as "the desire and power to do God's will." The problem with that is that it makes grace all about what we do vs. what God does.
Therefore, Gothard is Biblically wrong to teach that grace is merited, or deserved.
Forgive me, but that leads me back to my befuddlement. I too believe that all of God's grace is unmerited. A gift that we didn't earn. I believe we get more or less of this gift depending on whether we ask for it, and - essentially the same idea - whether we humble ourselves as needy before Almighty God. If THAT is merit, boy, I can't follow you there.
"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." (Hebrews 4:16) The implication is that if we do not come, or come boldly, we won't get it. Is THAT merited?
When I say, "unmerited", I am referring to grace being completely undeserved.
And I'm quite certain I've heard Gothard say, that if we want more grace, we just have to humble ourselves more. Implying that, we can control the amount of grace we receive via our own actions, apart from mere acceptance. Pretty sure he even told a story about how he looked for extra ways to "humble himself", so he could "get more grace". As though grace were a water valve that we, and not God, could open and close at will.
It's all about a formula to manipulate God. As are most of his teachings.
I agree . . . I really do. You can't manipulate God. God extends, THEN we receive. We cannot receive more than He extends.
Now . . . . we can get more grace by asking for it, right? “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” (Hebrews 4:16)
Alfred, I don't know where you are getting all these presuppositions about grace. Or maybe I do. In any case, the verses you are sharing, are not saying what you are trying to make them say. The above verse does not say that we get more grace by doing x. Maybe we do, and maybe we don't, but that verse does not specify. I believe we can come boldly to the throne of grace to find help in time of need. That's all I'm getting from that verse.
I hate that everything is bolded after a certain point in the comments section. Is that a glitch of the website?
It is me not closing off the html tag for bolding properly . . . if you enclose a "b" in angle brackets (which I can't type here because they mess everything up . . . over the , and . on the keyboard) at the beginning of a word or phrase, and put the same, but with a "/" before the b at the end, it gets bolded. If you get careless and mess up the closing code - like I did - the web software is oblivious and bolds everything from that point on. Which is why I put a "close" tag at the beginning of my next message to stop the hemorrhaging. Mea Culpa . . .
An important clarification needs to be made. For most of his ministry Gothard has *explicitly* taught that grace was merited. The most widespread example of this could be found on his website where he said, "“In the Old Testament, certain individuals ‘found grace’ in the eyes of the Lord” and “those who found grace possessed qualities that merited God’s favor.”
So, there can be no debate that Gothard once taught that grace could be merited. However, sometime in 2001 or 2002 this was changed. Now his the article on his website says that grace cannot be merited. So, previous to 2001 it is accurate to say that Gothard taught grace was merited. After that time though, it should be recognized that his explicit teaching is that grace is always unmerited and thus the worse that can be said is that much of his teachings still imply a merited grace.
Good point.
David, do you know if he has ever retracted that statement or corrected previous documents that reflect it? Many of us were in the program well before 2002, meaning we would have been raised with the older teaching. If it is the case that he more carefully worded it but does not admit that the previous wording was wrong then I'm not sure this reflects a change in content, just packaging, does that make sense? It is certainly right that we not criticize him for teaching things that he no longer teaches, if in fact he has made an actual change in what he teaches.
I think that maybe he took a lot of flack for some of his teachings that were highlighted in "A Matter of Basic Principle" and tried to at least present them as more orthodox.
Maybe someone who is still in ATI can let us know if he still teaches you "how to get grace" by humbling yourself. That would let us know if he really changed his view of grace or just repackaged it. Because you can say "unmerited" as much as you want, but if you are teaching people how to earn it, then you are playing word games.
"Doing X to get grace" is different enough from "meriting grace" that its not simply word games. Not at the level of theological discussion at least (though practically, it may turn out to be the same). After all, its the same "word game" that Calvinists and Arminians play over whether or not faith is a "work" and whether our response to salvation is "meritorious". IOW, it does allow enough of a distinction for his followers to reasonably claim "doing X to get grace" is not the same as "meriting grace.
Well, they way I was taught it was pretty much, "You need grace? Sumbit to authority." It made grace the payment for certain actions. That is not "unmerited favor."
How does this differ from "do X to be saved". X being pray a prayer, repent, ask Jesus into your heart, respond to the Holy Spirit, etc.? Does this mean that salvation is therefore the payment for certain actions?
If you make praying the sinners prayer a formula for salvation, you are missing it because salvation is by faith. Gothard's formula for getting grace leaves out relationship. It's just a formula.
I am just pointing out that salvation is often stated in the form of "do X to be saved".
- What must I do to be saved? Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.
- Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
- He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
- Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
So, if it is Scriptural to state salvation in "do X and you will be saved" it becomes difficult to find fault with holding that "do X and you will receive grace". Certainly, there is more to it than this, I am just pointing out the difficulty of faulting Gothard on the basis of his currently teaching that grace is merited.
What I have understood him to teach is what I heard back in 1973, i.e. God gives grace to overcome sin . . . more sin, more grace. There is never a reason we have to surrender to sin because we are too weak. Unless we get proud . . . then that grace is withdrawn. And we will be overcome by sin. Grace as applied to a person coming to Christ (NOT the grace gift of God in providing the invaluable death of Christ without cost) is related . . . Everyone gets the grace to come . . . unless they refuse to humble themselves before God first (repent).
I do not recall a specific link to submitting to authority. Maybe overzealous authorities have used this to get children to knuckle down. "Obey" and "Humble" are two different concepts. Peter was Humble when he defied the authorities who told him to quit preaching.
I cannot recall him teaching that grace is merited. If so, it is a good thing he changed his teaching. Kind of like John MacArthur teaching that Jesus became the Son of God at birth. *I* know what Dr. M meant and why he said it, but he later retracted those words because they were inaccurate. He affirmed that the Savior always was the Son of God.
So . . . let it be clear: Grace can NEVER be earned. Free gift, from beginning to end.
There was no retraction as far as I can find (ever, on any teaching that he has changed, for that matter). It simply was one thing at one point and then its opposite at another point. The old article was rewritten (in fact, split into two different articles) with no indication that he ever held any other position.
But, it should be understood that where the article used to explicitly state that grace could be merited, it now explicitly states that grace cannot be merited. Here is what he currently says about grace and merit:
"Grace is free and unmerited.
There is nothing we can do to earn or merit the grace of God. It is the free gift of God to us, apart from any works or effort that we can achieve. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast” (Ephesians 2:8–9)."
Now, whether this represents a *practical* change in what he teaches is debatable, but his *stated* belief about grace being merited is certainly different. It is the exact opposite.
I noticed that the current definition on his website is much more "grace-friendly," but honestly, if you know how this guy twists words and definitions, it's enough to make you read between the lines of everything he says, until you find the works-based mentality. And so far, I have always found it. It's as though he did nothing more than mellow the definition in the face of reaction from the evangelical community. Defining grace primarily as "the desire and power to do God's will," and only secondarily as "unmerited favor", to my understanding of the man and his methods, makes grace about works from the very beginning. Not unlike his definition of freedom: "Not the privilege to do what I want, but the power to do what I ought." Well, if you are not free to make the "wrong" decision, you aren't really free! So right there, we made freedom = bounded choice. And so on and so forth it goes, in the convoluted world of Gothard.
I have seen Gothard, even recently, try to defend his "desire and power" definition, by saying that it has been a foundational doctrine of the evangelical church, for centuries. However, upon actually reading the historical document he references to this effect, you find it to be saying quite the opposite, and Gothard has misinterpreted the wording (surprise, surprise), taking it out of context. Apparently, he does it with more than Scripture.
I think it is entirely possible that he simply has no clue what grace is.
In summary, I have found nothing, past or present, of Gothard's, to solidly indicate that grace is not about works to him. And plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Yes, his definition of grace is just as bad as it has ever been. The only real change is that he no longer teaches grace (not explicitly at least) to be merited. But grace being the "desire and power to do God's will" is no more Scriptural than it has ever been. At the least, it lends itself towards his followers acting as if grace is merited regardless of what Gothard may say to the contrary.
A major change in doctrine in 2001 or 2002 regarding grace as merited or unmerited. Yet no retraction.
Where's Alfred to somehow justify this?
Beats me.
Alfred,
Here's the problem I have with your using certain Scripture verses to justify Gothard's definition. You seem to be saying "Well, the 'desire and power to do God's will' sounds the most harmonious with this verse." We don't interpret Scripture by how we think it should sound (which is a favorite habit of Gothard), but by what it actually means.
BTW, I do appreciate your chiming in and discussing this. You are probably correct, Mr. G probably would not want the HQ staff debating with us.
Thank you for your friendly reply, Don :-)
OK . . . put everyone else's definitions aside. I am asking for an explanation of two clearly different aspect of grace as Scripture presents it, one that cannot be divorced from the idea of "power" or "ability" (Greek "charis", grace becoming "charisma", gift).
I believe grace has power... the power to save us. I think that's very powerful.
Grace is a gift. The desire and power to do God's will is a manifestation of that. But to define it solely as grace, which Bill Gothard does, is unScriptural, and is at the very least, poor hermeneutics.
The definition contained in Strong's of the word charis, all involve graciousness of manner or act, a gift, and yes, God's divine influence. But that "divine influence" is not a power that we have. It is, strictly speaking, God's influence on us to be gracious to others, I believe.
Some of your comments on different articles have left me scratching my head. You ask for proof of abuse, of sexually inappropriate activity, among other things. Do you honestly think that such things are easy to provide proof of? Let me assure you, they are not whatsoever. Abusers make sure of that! Therefore, all we can do Alfred, is to tell our stories. Why, because we may not have evidence always to support our claims, do you just totally dismiss them out of hand? Have you taken these issues to Mr. Gothard himself and asked him about it? Have you pressed him on it like you are us? FTR, I personally know the authors of some of these stories. For instance, Izek, the author of the story "Failed Protectors," is someone that I know very well, and that I know to be honest.
Just as a side note Alfred, I have noticed that you are a computer programmer.
I myself am learning some too, although I'm still a programming rookie... :-), and I am working on my degree in IT.
One thing I have learned with programming is that generally programmers strive to make their code as clear and concise as possible. Confusing or excessive code is known as spaghetti code, I believe.
It's the same thing with grace. God "programmed" grace in a clear and concise manner, and we as humans have this tendency to add in our own confusing code to that. IOW, we spaghetti code God's "programming."
Grace is not confusing. It is not complicated. God programmed it perfectly.
When I first read Gothard's definition of grace, 'desire and power to do God's will' my whole being sunk into despair because comparing myself to Paul or other people who do might works of faith I realized I had neither the desire nor power to do God's will. I had accepted Christ as my savior but what Gothard said exposed the true faults in my personality. Struggled with it for years and finally, not able to work myelf into the power or desire I had to come to terms that God would be the author and finisher of my faith and life. I think the way Gothard sets up the christian life and how to live it is pretty easy for someone with the type of personality who keeps things ultra neat and tidy, goes by a strict schedule and life style-if you are a single man. But for the rest of us, not so easy to live that way.
I know what you are talking about. When a message loses balance or perspective it can be harmful.
The whole point of grace is that it is a gift . . . and it carries you. If we have to work it up or carry it, it is not grace. IBLP/ATI can be like fertilizer on grass . . . a little is awesome, a lot will kill you. Balance, balance . . .
"Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb: And even to you] old age I am he; and even to hoar hairs will I carry you: I have made, and I will bear; even I will carry, and will deliver you." (Isaiah 46:3-4)
Alfred, maybe this is why as parents we are not as negatively affected by Bill's teaching as our kids who are drenched in the material via the Wisdom Booklets. We have so much more information in our brains and life experiences.
I agree. Then . . . dare I say . . . we have no more right to turn our children over to Bill Gothard for training, then blame him for the results, than we do with the school system. In either case, the buck stops . . . here.
True...but that makes the false teacher no less guilty.
Amen, David! That is THE bottom line in all discussions pertaining to Gothard, as far as I'm concerned. ;)
[...] time, I became one of them. I wrote papers on building Christlike character through my efforts, on understanding God’s grace as an earned entity, on clearing my conscience over little things that people were shocked that I even thought to [...]
You said that "through God's mercy, we can receive influential grace." But isn't the mercy of God undeserving? Unless, of course, you mean that we receive influential grace by practicing out God's mercy towards others. I'd love to know what context you're speaking in here.