After Bill Gothard was deemed disqualified from ministry by his Board of Directors in 2014, a number of theologians and church leaders called on the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) to evaluate the teachings that are “at least partly responsible for the recurring moral failures of Bill Gothard and other IBLP leaders.” This call was posted on a website named IBLPopenletter.com. IBLP leadership was made aware of the letter through direct contact.
The open letter states: “As fellow servants of the Lord Jesus Christ, we, the undersigned, challenge the acting President of IBLP and the Board of Directors and other ministry leaders, to biblically evaluate the core teachings and claims of the IBLP materials in partnership with a doctrinally sound and apologetically qualified seminary.” Anyone who agrees with this challenge is able to add their signature.
Since the posting of the open letter, Dr. Tim Levendusky officially assumed the presidency of IBLP. Yet President Levendusky and the IBLP Board of Directors have remained silent on this important challenge. They have not clarified IBLP’s stance on these points. Rather, they continue to let the disqualified Bill Gothard speak for them.
Here is Gothard’s response to the open letter, along with the signatories’ request for clarification from Gothard. We invite our readers to cite specific IBLP materials that state IBLP’s long-held stance on these teachings, and over time we will attempt to update this post with images of the various teachings.
| Response to An Open Letter
by Bill Gothard |
Response to Bill Gothard
by IBLPopenletter.com |
|
| Thank you for your concerns about the Biblical accuracy of my teaching. Although your letter was addressed to the current leadership of the Institute, I believe it would be appropriate for me to also give a response since I am the one who developed and taught it. I would be very pleased to receive from you any comments on what I have written because I want to make sure that I am Biblically accurate in what has been taught. | We thank you for your response. We understand that you are not representing the leadership of IBLP but have written solely as the individual who developed and taught most of the teachings which are in question. Although at first blush the paper you have sent sounds orthodox, in nearly every case the responses skirt the actual issue or question and in some cases is completely opposite of the official teachings in the books, booklets and verbally communicated in the seminars. These are issues which have been brought to your attention by Dr. Jay Adams, Dr. Earl Radmacher, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., and others over many decades without any actual repentance, retraction or anything other than cosmetic changes in the teachings or materials. Does your paper reflect repentance and retraction of the original teachings and is a following through of point 10 of the agreed upon 11 points of arbitration? (these are enumerated on pages 84-90 of A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life)?:
What follows from this point is our section-by-section response to your paper, utilizing your section headings: |
|
| 1. Umbrellas of Protection and Chain of Authority I believe that all authority comes from God and He delegates limited authority to government leaders and to parents (Romans 13:1-7, I Peter 2:13-14, and Ephesians 6:1-3). We are to honor these authorities but we are never to obey them in participating in evil. It is for this reason that Scripture puts the qualifier, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord” (Ephesians 6:1a). Those in authority must give an account to God on how they used their authority (II Corinthians 5:10). We in turn are instructed to use our power of influence by praying for all those who are in authority (I Timothy 2:1-3).When it comes to marriage and church leadership, a husband is to lay down his life for his wife (Ephesians 5:21-33) and elders are to be servant examples to the flock (I Peter 5:1-5). Jesus said, “whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (See Matthew 20:25-28). |
1. “Umbrellas of Protection and Chain of Authority” This is central and core to IBLP teachings and is described in the material and teachings as an umbrella of protection. If one gets out from under the umbrella they are in rebellion and rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft. A few questions arise here. First, do you believe this? If so, are you willing to submit to the authority of the Church which is the Body of Christ in a hearing by the local church or a Council of Churches, a hearing called for the purpose of examining the charges of ungodly behavior and contrary doctrine which are outstanding against you?Second, as Dr. Earl Radmacher stated so clearly in his 1983 Letter this view is unbiblical and disastrous:
|
|
| 2. Do We Merit Grace? In no way do I believe or teach that we merit the grace of God. God’s grace is free and unmerited. We cannot work for it or become worthy of receiving it. “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). Paul further affirmed this important point when he wrote: “But if it be of works, then is it no more grace…” (Romans 11:6b). |
2. “Do We Merit Grace?” IBLP materials and teachings define grace in the Basic Seminar as, “The desire and the power God gives us to do His will – joyfully.” In the year 2000 IBLP released the document, Definition of Grace which declared that “unmerited favor” is a “faulty definition.” It went on to state, “In the Old Testament, those who found grace possessed qualities that merited God’s favor. [Emphasis ours]” __ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or __ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| 3. Does Faith Come by Visualization? Faith does not come by what we visualize but by the Word of God. “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17).The words of Scripture are not understood by the natural man, “neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (I Corinthians 2:14b). Therefore, Paul prayed that God would give us, “the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling…” (Ephesians 1:17b-18). |
3. “Does Faith Come by Visualization?” To our knowledge no one has claimed IBLP teaches that “faith comes by visualization.” Rather we have claimed that you define faith as the activity of visualizing. It is immediately obvious that to define faith as any type of human activity automatically makes it a work, which not only destroys the biblical teaching about salvation, but also contradicts what the Bible says specifically about grace, since Paul wrote concerning salvation: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace,” (Romans 11:6).Biblical faith, on the other hand, is properly defined as personal trust in the truth of what God has revealed. Thus saving faith is personal trust in the facts of the Gospel. As J.I. Packer put it, it is:
Thus faith is something that passively receives. It is not an expending of human effort, but a confidence in the effort that God has expended for us. The act of visualizing, however, requires an expending of human effort. It is not the mere passive reception of a vision, but the human effort of forming a mental image. Defining faith in terms of this effort transmutes faith into a work. Thus your response skirts the issue and ignores the problem which is IBLP’s basic definition of faith in both the Basic and Advanced Seminar textbooks, as follows: Basic Seminar Textbook P. 150 “Faith: visualizing what God intends to do in my life.” Advanced Seminar Textbook P. 356, is “Operational Definitions. Faith: Visualizing what God intends to do.” __ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or __ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| The next topics are not “core teachings” of the ministry but I will respond to them: | ||
| 4. Is Circumcision A Moral Requirement for Christians? Circumcision is not a moral requirement for Christians. Circumcision was established by God with Abraham as a sign of His covenant, “between me and you and thy seed after thee…“ (Genesis 17:9-11).The fact that circumcision is not a moral requirement for New Testament believers was settled during the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15. A certain sect of the Pharisees which believed on the Lord said that it was necessary to circumcise believers and to keep the law of Moses. The counsel debated this teaching and rejected it (See Acts 15:5, 25-29). |
4. “Is Circumcision A Moral Requirement for Christians?” It may be true that these are not “core teachings” for IBLP but as it happens this particular one is a core teaching of the New Testament. This issue was point 9 in the 2002 arbitration meeting. The Basic Care Bulletin 11- How to Make a Wise Decision on Circumcision states:
According to this circumcision is non-optional for a Christian parent and those who might think about choosing against it “have no Scriptural basis to do so..” The booklet goes on to outline “The Basic Elements of a Scriptural Circumcision Ceremony,” which are: “1. Provide a Certificate 2. Schedule the Circumcision 3. Determine the Wisest Procedure 4. Invite Special Witnesses 5. Plan the Ceremony” It moves on to the “Suggested Procedure for a Scriptural Ceremony” which includes “1. Recognize the Guests 2. Tell How Circumcision Began 3. Recognize the Eighth Day 4. Emphasize Moral Purity 5. Explain Heart Circumcision 6. Pray for the Child 7. Sign the Certificate.” (see images below) At the end of the 2002 mediation meeting between IBLP, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. with Dr. Norman Geisler as the moderator and Modern Reformation Magazine as the neutral observer and reporter, this issue was also discussed and no retraction was made. At the end of the meeting you told Ron Henzel and Don Veinot that if a parent circumcises their new born son his future spouse will not get Cervical cancer and if we know the right thing to do and do it not for us it is sin. This again made circumcision a moral requirement for Christians for according to this view, not circumcising is sin. The Apostle Paul devoted an entire book, Galatians, to this particular issue. This was so “core” that in Galatians 5 the Apostle Paul that those who teach circumcision and the embracing of circumcision as a moral requirement and/or something to improve one’s spiritual life causes that believer to “fall from grace” and to “be severed from Christ”, that this puts the person practicing circumcision as a religious ceremony and moral requirement under “the curse of the Law” and the teacher places himself under the curse (Gal. 1:6-10). In Galatians 5 he went so far as to wish that those who were teaching this very thing would emasculate themselves. This one teaching alone should disqualify any teacher or organization from teaching in any confessing church! __ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or __ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| 5. Must We Obey Levitical Dietary Commands? The answer is “no.” The Levitical dietary commands apply to the law of Moses which was given to the Jewish nation: “I am the LORD your God, which have separated you from other people. Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean. And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the LORD am holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine” (Leviticus 20:24b-26). |
5. “Must We Obey Levitical Dietary Commands?” Your clear response of “No” to any requirements or demands of the Law of Moses is most refreshing. However, as it applies to the Law’s restrictions in eating pork products, your answer in this this paper is contradictory to a well-known forty year history of your tight restrictions against eating any pork products and your teaching and preventing other believers from eating pork products. Would you be prepared to explain the basis for your rejection of eating pork when served to you at special and private dinners where you were a guest of Area Chairmen or other events? (Area Chairman, Portland, Oregon). Would you be prepared to acknowledge as wrong and doctrinally confusing, your insistence for many years, that NO pork products should be eaten or served to your staff at headquarters in Oak Brook, that NO pork products should be served at any Area Committee meals/lunches during Seminar events?Would you be prepared to acknowledge as wrong, sinful, and damaging, your personal insistence and pressure to Tony G and his family, to cease raising pork because of it being unbiblical to both raise it and eat it? This request has been made to you often and recently again, with NO response from you to it. We would like to publish your response to this personal question put to you over the years.Bill, would you be willing and so bold as to offer some assistance to the Duggar family (which are close friends of yours) so they can also experience your (new) freedom to eat pork and allow others to do so? (See : “To Pork or Not to Pork, That is The Question “ and “Why don’t the Duggars eat pork? “) Of course, everyone is free to choose what they would or should eat but that is different than what has been the operating and teaching position of IBLP for over 4 decades on this issue. __ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or __ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| 6. Obedience to Levitical Marital Practices About forty years ago I pointed out some medical benefits of these laws. Since then, I have concluded that it is not my place to tell married couples how to run their marriages. Instead, I encourage them to study these Scriptures for themselves and come to a mutual agreement under the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit on how they should be applied. |
6. “Obedience to Levitical Marital Practices” This was point 8 of the issues discussed in the 2002 mediation meeting and the one which most shocked Eric Landry of Modern Reformation Magazine. If IBLP has since abandoned this teaching since 2002 and if this reflects public repentance and retraction of the original teachings and is a following through of point 10 of the agreed upon 11 points of arbitration that is welcome. __ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or __ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
|
| 7. Did Jesus Sin? If we say that Jesus sinned, we must also say that His Heavenly Father sinned because Jesus did nothing of His own will but only that of His Heavenly Father. He testified, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise…I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me” (John 5:19b, 30). Jesus was, “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15b). |
7. “Did Jesus Sin?” No one has suggested that you teach that Jesus sinned. As you are aware, the question is a tool which has been employed to test IBLP’s teaching on “Umbrellas of Protection.” It was mostly recently posted as the question “Is Jesus a Sinner According to Bill Gothard’s Teachings?“ which consistently applies the definitions and claims to the life of Jesus as taught in the Basic Seminar. It demonstrates that since Jesus isn’t a sinner then the teachings on “Umbrellas of Protection/Chain of Command” are unbiblical. __ Is this a cosmetic alteration to your previous teachings? or __ Are you repenting and recanting your previous teachings? |
Baton image copyright: Inspirestock International/123rf.com
