Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 9
He challenges common evangelical language by defining grace (charis) as favor that is not always “unmerited,” arguing these gifts are “merited because of obedience” (repentance, surrender, letting Jesus be Lord), though not merited in the sense of choosing which gift you get. What tensions does that create with how you’ve been taught about grace, and what dangers or safeguards emerge from his definition?
Another way to ask: If grace and gifts are connected to obedience in some way, how does that clash with what you’ve been taught about grace? What risks or protections might come from thinking about grace that way?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The speaker’s definition creates tension with the common slogan “grace is unmerited favor,” because he says grace can be favor connected to obedience, repentance, and surrender—while still being God’s choice, not ours. The danger is turning gifts into earning or status; the safeguard is that obedience positions us to receive, but we cannot manufacture or choose the gift, and gifts must serve the body.
- He defines charis as “favor” and says it does “not necessarily mean unmerited favor,” citing Joseph finding “grace… in the eyes of Potiphar” due to “integrity and hard work.”
- For gifts, he says grace is “merited… because of obedience,” as we “repent… surrender… choose to follow… let him be Lord.”
- Yet it is “not merited” in another sense: “we don’t choose what is going to be given to us… God chooses.”
- He links gifts to Jesus’ promise of indwelling: obedience leads to God making his “abode,” and gifts are “part of himself… to be contributed” to the body.
- He repeatedly warns against pride and misuse: focusing on gifting without character becomes “improved means to unimproved ends.”