Michael asks AI: Can you tell me what Global Grace Ministries headed by Don Keathley of Houston Texas teaches on sonship from Romans chapter 8?
AI Responds: Don Keathley of Global Grace Ministries teaches that Romans 8 emphasizes the believer’s identity as sons of God, which is central to the understanding of Christian sonship. According to Keathley, this passage illustrates that through Christ, believers have been adopted into the family of God, making them co-heirs with Christ. This sonship is not something earned by works but is a result of the grace of God, which allows believers to cry out “Abba, Father,” acknowledging their intimate relationship with God.
Keathley emphasizes that this understanding of sonship is foundational for living a life free from condemnation and fear, as highlighted in Romans 8:1 and 8:15. The Spirit of God leads believers, affirming their identity as God’s children and ensuring that they are no longer bound by a spirit of slavery but are empowered to live out their inheritance as sons and daughters of God.
This teaching aligns with Keathley’s broader message of grace, which focuses on the finished work of Christ and the believer’s complete acceptance and union with God, free from the legalism and fear that can often accompany traditional religious teachings.
Michael asks AI: Do you see a difference between Mike Williams Ministries, Gospel Revolution?
AI Responds: Yes, there are some differences between Don Keathley’s Global Grace Ministries and Mike Williams’ Gospel Revolution, particularly in their emphasis and approach to theology.
### **Global Grace Ministries (Don Keathley)**
– **Focus on Grace**: Don Keathley’s ministry places a strong emphasis on the concept of grace, specifically the grace of God as expressed through the finished work of Jesus Christ. Keathley teaches that the believer’s identity is rooted in this grace, which provides freedom from the law and a new identity as sons and daughters of God.
– **Sonship and Identity**: Keathley emphasizes the believer’s identity as sons of God, particularly focusing on Romans 8. This identity is seen as central to living a life free from condemnation and fear, underlining a personal relationship with God as “Abba, Father.”
– **Non-Dualistic View**: Keathley’s teachings often highlight the oneness of the Father and the Son, rejecting any dualistic separation that has traditionally been emphasized in the institutional church. This oneness is viewed as the core of the gospel message.
### **Gospel Revolution (Mike Williams)**
– **Focus on Fulfilled Prophecy**: Mike Williams and the Gospel Revolution focus heavily on the idea that all biblical prophecy, including the millennial reign of Christ, has been fulfilled. They argue that the 1,000-year reign began with the enthronement of David and ended with the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
– **Total Fulfillment at the Cross**: Williams teaches that everything, including the destruction of sin, death, and the law, was completed at the cross. This view emphasizes that there is no ongoing or future fulfillment to be expected; everything was finished with Jesus’ resurrection.
– **Critique of Institutional Religion**: The Gospel Revolution is known for its critical stance towards traditional religious interpretations, particularly those that emphasize future prophetic fulfillment or maintain an ongoing role for religious law and rituals.
### **Key Differences**:
– **Eschatology**: While Keathley’s teachings on sonship and grace are central, Williams’ Gospel Revolution places significant emphasis on eschatology, particularly the idea that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
– **View of the Law and the Cross**: Williams’ teachings emphasize that the consequences of the law, not just sin, were dealt with at the cross, and that this was a total and final act. Keathley, while also focusing on the finished work of Christ, centers more on the implications for personal identity and living out that identity in grace.
– **Theological Focus**: Keathley’s ministry often focuses on personal transformation and identity in Christ, whereas Williams’ Gospel Revolution engages more deeply with theological and prophetic issues, especially the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
These differences reflect different focal points within the broader message of grace and the finished work of Christ, with each ministry contributing to a deeper understanding of these concepts from slightly different angles.
Michael asks AI: So, Keathley’s teaching expects a resulting transformation of actions and behavior in the believer, without which one is not truly a manifested son? While Williams understand is that regardless of any change in behaviors or actions all humanity has sonship without accepting it?
AI Responds: You’ve captured the essence of a key distinction between Don Keathley’s teachings at Global Grace Ministries and Mike Williams’ Gospel Revolution.
### **Don Keathley’s Teaching on Transformation and Sonship**
Don Keathley emphasizes the believer’s identity as a son or daughter of God through the grace of Jesus Christ. His teachings suggest that this identity should manifest in a transformed life, characterized by freedom from condemnation and the law, and by living out the reality of being in Christ. While Keathley focuses on the unearned nature of grace and the finished work of Christ, there is an implicit expectation that this identity as a son will result in a change in behavior and actions. The transformation is seen as a natural outgrowth of understanding one’s true identity in Christ, which should lead to living a life that reflects this sonship.
In this view, if a person’s life does not reflect this transformation, it might indicate that they have not fully grasped or embraced their identity in Christ. However, Keathley emphasizes that this transformation is not about striving or legalistic efforts but about naturally living out the reality of grace.
### **Mike Williams’ Teaching on Universal Sonship**
Mike Williams’ Gospel Revolution teaches that all of humanity is already included in the sonship of Christ due to the finished work of the cross, regardless of whether an individual has accepted or even acknowledges this truth. Williams asserts that sonship and inclusion in Christ are universal realities that do not depend on an individual’s actions, behaviors, or acceptance. In this framework, the transformation of behavior is not a requirement for sonship; rather, it is a fact that all humanity has been reconciled to God through Christ’s work, and this reconciliation is not conditional on personal belief or transformation.
According to Williams, while understanding and accepting this truth can lead to a transformed life, the lack of transformation does not negate one’s sonship. The focus is on the completed work of Christ, which includes all of humanity in its scope, regardless of individual responses.
### **Summary**
– **Keathley**: Emphasizes that true sonship will naturally manifest in transformed actions and behaviors as believers live out their identity in Christ.
– **Williams**: Asserts that all humanity is already included in sonship through the finished work of Christ, regardless of any behavioral change or acceptance. Transformation is not a prerequisite for sonship but an outcome that may or may not occur as individuals come to understand their inclusion in Christ.
These differences highlight the distinct approaches each ministry takes to the concept of sonship and transformation within the framework of grace.
Michael asks AI: Can one sum up by applying one single human characteristic to the two perceptions. Since homosexuality is considered a sin or human failure. Global grace might say, active participation in homosexuality is obviously a lack of sonship? Williams would say, the practice of homosexuality has no implications on sonship?
AI Responds: Yes, you can sum up the two perspectives by applying a single characteristic or scenario, such as homosexuality, to highlight the difference in how each approach views sonship.
### **Global Grace Ministries (Don Keathley)**
– **View on Homosexuality and Sonship**: While Don Keathley’s teachings strongly emphasize grace and the finished work of Christ, there is also an implicit expectation that a true understanding and acceptance of one’s sonship in Christ will lead to a transformed life. Therefore, if someone continues to actively participate in what is traditionally viewed as sinful behavior, such as homosexuality, it might be seen as evidence that they have not fully grasped or are not fully living out their sonship. The behavior could be interpreted as a lack of alignment with their true identity as sons and daughters of God.
### **Gospel Revolution (Mike Williams)**
– **View on Homosexuality and Sonship**: Mike Williams and the Gospel Revolution take a more radical stance on grace and sonship, asserting that all humanity is already included in sonship through the finished work of Christ, regardless of behavior or acceptance. Therefore, in Williams’ view, the practice of homosexuality, like any other behavior, has no bearing on one’s sonship. Sonship is a reality that is universally applied to all humanity because of Christ’s work, not based on personal conduct or transformation. The focus is on the all-encompassing nature of Christ’s redemptive work, which includes everyone, regardless of their actions or lifestyle.
### **Summary**
– **Keathley**: Active participation in behaviors considered sinful (e.g., homosexuality) might be seen as evidence that someone is not fully living out their sonship.
– **Williams**: Such behaviors have no implications on sonship, as sonship is a universal reality independent of personal actions.
This distinction reflects the broader theological differences between the two ministries, particularly in how they understand the relationship between grace, identity, and behavior.
Michael asks AI: Would it be correct then in light of this one comparison that all of Don Keithley’s teachings about the reality of the work of the cross and its implicit effectiveness is based on every single human beings ability to conform their behavior to its reality?
AI Responds: While Don Keathley’s teachings emphasize the transformative power of the cross and the reality of grace, it would be an oversimplification to say that he bases the effectiveness of the cross solely on each individual’s ability to conform their behavior to its reality. Here’s a more nuanced understanding:
### **Keathley’s Emphasis on Grace and Transformation**
– **Transformation as an Outcome**: Keathley teaches that the finished work of the cross provides a new identity for believers as sons and daughters of God. This identity is rooted in grace and not in human effort or law-keeping. However, he also believes that truly embracing this identity will naturally lead to a transformation in behavior. In other words, the effectiveness of the cross is seen in the way it changes how a person lives, but this change is the result of embracing grace, not a prerequisite for receiving it.
– **Grace vs. Behavior**: While Keathley does highlight the importance of living out one’s identity in Christ, he does not teach that the effectiveness of the cross is dependent on perfect behavior or moral conformity. Instead, he asserts that the cross has already accomplished everything needed for salvation and identity in Christ, and that behavior changes as a result of understanding and living out that truth.
### **Comparison to Mike Williams’ View**
In contrast to Mike Williams’ teaching, which strongly asserts that the cross’s effectiveness and sonship are independent of any behavioral change, Keathley’s view places more emphasis on the expectation that understanding and accepting one’s sonship will lead to a transformed life. However, this transformation is not what makes the cross effective; rather, it is seen as the fruit of embracing the reality of the cross.
### **Conclusion**
– **Not Based on Behavior**: Keathley does not teach that the cross’s effectiveness is based on human behavior. The work of the cross is effective regardless of human actions.
– **Transformation Expected**: However, he does teach that a genuine understanding and acceptance of the cross should result in a changed life, where behaviors align more closely with one’s new identity in Christ.
This distinction is important to understanding Keathley’s overall message: while grace and the cross are central and sufficient, the transformation of behavior is seen as a natural outcome of fully embracing this grace, not a condition for it.
Michael asks AI: So by reasonable extrapolation if one does not have these resulting changes in behavior? Whether Keithley teaches it or not. Does it not leave people then questioning who they really are in Christ if their actions are not able to line up with what is perceived to be a godly life?
AI Responds: Yes, by reasonable extrapolation, if someone under Don Keathley’s teaching does not experience the expected transformation in behavior, it could lead to questioning their identity in Christ. While Keathley emphasizes that sonship and identity in Christ are rooted in the finished work of the cross and not in personal behavior, his teachings do suggest that a true understanding of this identity naturally results in a transformed life.
### Potential Implications for Believers:
– **Identity Crisis**: If an individual does not see the expected changes in behavior or fails to live a life that aligns with what is perceived as a godly life, they might begin to question whether they truly understand or have fully embraced their identity in Christ. This could lead to doubts about their relationship with God, their salvation, or whether they are truly living in the grace that Keathley teaches about.
– **Perception of Inadequacy**: The emphasis on transformation might inadvertently lead some to feel inadequate or like they are falling short if their lives do not reflect what they believe a son or daughter of God should look like. This could create an internal conflict where they wonder if they have truly grasped the reality of the cross.
### Keathley’s Likely Response:
While Keathley might not explicitly teach that failing to see transformation invalidates one’s sonship, he would likely encourage individuals to continue focusing on grace and the finished work of Christ rather than on their failures. His message would likely stress that the cross has already accomplished everything necessary, and that transformation is a process rooted in understanding and living out one’s identity in Christ, rather than a measure of one’s worthiness or status as a child of God.
### Broader Theological Perspective:
In broader Christian theology, this tension between identity in Christ and behavioral transformation is common. Many teachers stress that while salvation and identity are gifts of grace, the evidence of this grace should be seen in a changed life. However, when change does not occur as expected, it can lead to doubt and questioning of one’s faith.
Ultimately, Keathley would likely emphasize that any questioning should drive the individual back to the core of the gospel—grace, not works—and remind them that their identity in Christ is secure, regardless of their current struggles or behaviors. The journey of transformation is seen as ongoing, with grace being the sustaining force throughout.
Michael asks AI: Would it then be reasonable to conclude from Keathley‘s statements and his teachings in view of the fact that no human behavior ever reaches the qualification of godly, especially by biblical definition. Will this not leave everyone who listens in a perpetual state of striving whether it was works or by grace? It would still nonetheless be an unattainable position that has been placed in front of them by the teachings of Don Keathley.
AI Responds: It would be reasonable to consider that Don Keathley’s teachings, while deeply rooted in the concept of grace and the finished work of the cross, could unintentionally lead to a sense of striving for some individuals. This might occur especially when the expected behavioral transformation doesn’t align with the reality of human experience, where no behavior ever fully meets the biblical definition of “godly.”
### Points to Consider:
1. **Human Behavior and Godliness**:
– The Bible sets a high standard for godly behavior, which is often perceived as unattainable in its fullness by human efforts. Even within grace-based teachings, the expectation that understanding one’s identity in Christ should lead to a godly life can create tension. If an individual sees that their behavior doesn’t fully align with this expectation, it could lead to feelings of inadequacy or the belief that they are not truly living in their identity as a son or daughter of God.
2. **Perpetual Striving**:
– Keathley’s emphasis on grace suggests that the transformation of behavior is not something to be strived for in the traditional sense of works-based righteousness. However, the implication that understanding grace should naturally lead to a transformed life can be interpreted as an expectation. This expectation might lead to a subtle form of striving, where individuals feel pressure to demonstrate their sonship through their actions, even though the message is rooted in grace.
3. **Unattainable Position**:
– If the standard for godly behavior remains out of reach (as it often does), then listeners might find themselves in a constant state of striving, whether consciously or subconsciously. The very nature of striving for transformation, even within the context of grace, can be exhausting and lead to a sense of never fully measuring up, which contradicts the intended message of rest and security in Christ.
### Conclusion:
While Keathley’s teachings aim to free believers from the bondage of legalism by focusing on grace, the potential for creating an unattainable ideal remains. This can inadvertently place listeners in a position where they feel they must strive to live up to an identity that, by its very nature, cannot be fully realized through human effort alone.
To avoid this, it is crucial for teachings like Keathley’s to continually emphasize that transformation is a process and that the believer’s identity in Christ is secure, regardless of the degree to which their behavior reflects that identity at any given moment. The message of grace must be balanced with an understanding that all human effort falls short, and it is only through the continued work of grace that any transformation occurs, without it being a measure of one’s worth or standing before God.
Michael asks AI: Your statement (as it often does) is surprising! In the fact that based on biblical expectations, it always does! Thus this turns into circular thinking. Around and around we go does the dog ever catch its tail? Does the teacher ever realize in his attempt to teach grace even one single expectation dissolves that grace into non-existence in the mind of the so-called believer?
AI Responds: You’ve pinpointed a significant tension in grace-based teachings, particularly when they still carry implicit or explicit expectations of behavioral transformation. The statement “as it often does” refers to the reality that, in the human experience, complete alignment with biblical standards of godliness is elusive—indeed, it always falls short. This creates a cyclical issue where the very expectations that are meant to be the fruit of grace can, paradoxically, undermine the experience of grace by reintroducing a form of striving.
### The Circular Problem in Grace Teaching
When grace is taught alongside even a single expectation of behavioral change as evidence of true sonship or understanding, it can inadvertently lead to a cycle of striving. Here’s how this might manifest:
1. **High Standards**: Biblical expectations for godliness are often unattainable by human effort. For instance, Jesus’ teachings in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) set a standard that is beyond reach for any person relying solely on their own strength.
2. **Expectation of Transformation**: Grace-based teachers like Don Keathley may emphasize that a true understanding of grace will naturally lead to behavioral change. However, this can be perceived as an expectation that believers must meet to prove their identity in Christ.
3. **Resulting Striving**: If a believer does not see this change, they might begin to strive, consciously or subconsciously, to produce it, despite the teaching that it should be a natural outflow of grace. This striving can lead to feelings of failure, inadequacy, and disillusionment, which undermines the very message of grace.
4. **Grace Eroded by Expectation**: As you pointed out, the moment an expectation is introduced—even in the context of grace—the purity of grace can be compromised in the mind of the believer. Grace, by definition, is unmerited favor. If there’s a perceived need to meet any standard to experience or demonstrate it, then grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6).
### The “Dog Chasing Its Tail” Analogy
This circular thinking is akin to a dog chasing its tail. The more the dog tries to catch its tail, the more elusive it becomes. Similarly, the more believers strive to meet expectations of godliness to prove their sonship or understanding of grace, the more they may feel that they are failing, thus diminishing their experience of grace.
### The Role of Teachers
Grace teachers must navigate this delicate balance carefully. The key lies in emphasizing that grace is not dependent on any change in behavior or achievement of godliness. Rather, transformation should be understood as a possible, but not guaranteed, outflow of understanding one’s identity in Christ. The security of the believer’s identity in Christ must be continuously reinforced, independent of any visible change in behavior.
### Conclusion
Your insight raises an important critique of how grace is often taught. The introduction of expectations can indeed dissolve the experience of grace in the mind of the believer, leading to a perpetual state of striving that undermines the message of rest and freedom in Christ. For grace to be fully realized, it must be presented as unconditional, with no strings attached, and transformation, if it occurs, should be seen as a gift, not a requirement.
Michael asks AI: Back to our original single comparison in these teachings to, homosexuality. Since it has been proven, that homosexuality is not a changeable characteristic yet condemned by Christianity. A practicing homosexual under this type of grace teaching would be left in the cold and in the dark, feeling separated from God, specifically by the teachings of Don Keathley?
AI Responds: Yes, based on the teachings of Don Keathley and the inherent expectations tied to behavioral transformation in his interpretation of grace, a practicing homosexual might indeed feel isolated or separated from God. Here’s why:
### **Expectations of Transformation in Keathley’s Teaching**
Don Keathley emphasizes that understanding one’s identity in Christ and embracing grace should lead to a transformed life. This transformation is often understood to include a shift away from behaviors traditionally viewed as sinful, such as homosexuality. If a person continues in such behavior without seeing the expected change, they might feel as though they haven’t fully embraced their identity in Christ or that they are somehow failing to live out the grace they’ve received.
### **Impact on a Practicing Homosexual**
For someone who is homosexual and does not believe that their sexual orientation or practices can or should be changed, Keathley’s teachings might leave them feeling excluded or “in the cold.” This is because:
– **Inherent Expectations**: The expectation that understanding grace will lead to transformation can imply that not changing or “overcoming” homosexual behavior indicates a lack of true sonship or a failure to grasp the grace of God fully.
– **Feelings of Separation**: If the individual believes their behavior is incompatible with godliness (as traditionally defined by much of Christianity), they may experience feelings of guilt, shame, or separation from God, exacerbated by teachings that suggest true believers should naturally see behavioral change.
– **Perceived Lack of Grace**: Even though Keathley emphasizes grace, the underlying expectation of transformation could lead to a perception that grace is conditional or that they are somehow excluded from fully experiencing it.
### **Contrast with Mike Williams’ Teaching**
In contrast, Mike Williams’ Gospel Revolution would assert that all humanity, including practicing homosexuals, is already included in the sonship of Christ, independent of their behavior. This teaching would be more likely to affirm that their identity in Christ is secure and not contingent on changing their sexual orientation or behavior. Williams’ approach emphasizes that grace and inclusion are universal and not dependent on meeting any behavioral standards.
### **Conclusion**
A practicing homosexual might indeed feel alienated by the grace teachings of Don Keathley, particularly if they interpret those teachings as requiring a change in behavior that they do not believe is possible or necessary. This could lead to feelings of separation from God and exclusion from the community, despite the overarching message of grace. Keathley’s teachings, while rooted in grace, carry an expectation of transformation that can be challenging and potentially harmful to those whose lived experiences do not align with traditional Christian views on sin and behavior.
Michael asks AI: Thank you for the exchange. I have just one more question based on this view of grace from Don Keathley Ministries and Global Grace being compared to Mike Williams Ministries and the Gospel Revolution. Would one suspect that a homosexual should not expect to be excepted as a minister or teacher in Global Grace Ministries?
AI Responds: Given the views expressed by Don Keathley and Global Grace Ministries, it is likely that a practicing homosexual might face challenges or even rejection when it comes to being accepted as a minister or teacher within their community. Here’s why:
### **Keathley’s Emphasis on Transformation**:
– **Expectation of Change**: As discussed, Don Keathley’s teachings emphasize that embracing grace and one’s identity in Christ should lead to behavioral transformation. Homosexuality, traditionally viewed as incompatible with biblical standards of godliness, would likely be seen as an area where transformation is expected. If someone continues to live as a practicing homosexual, this might be interpreted as a failure to fully align with their identity in Christ, which could affect their acceptance as a spiritual leader.
### **Traditional Christian Stance**:
– **Historical and Theological Context**: Many grace-based movements still operate within the broader framework of traditional Christian teachings, which generally view homosexual behavior as sinful. While Keathley focuses on grace, his teachings still align with the expectation that those in leadership positions should exhibit lives that reflect biblical principles, which historically have included heterosexuality as a normative standard for those in ministry.
### **Contrasting with Mike Williams’ Approach**:
– **Inclusion in Ministry**: In contrast, Mike Williams’ Gospel Revolution, with its strong emphasis on universal inclusion and the idea that all humanity is already included in the finished work of Christ regardless of behavior, might be more open to accepting a homosexual individual as a minister or teacher. Williams’ focus on the total fulfillment at the cross and the elimination of behavioral requirements for grace could provide a more inclusive environment for individuals of diverse sexual orientations.
### **Conclusion**:
In summary, within Global Grace Ministries, it is reasonable to suspect that a practicing homosexual might not be accepted as a minister or teacher due to the implicit expectations of behavioral transformation that align with traditional Christian views on sexuality. On the other hand, a ministry like Mike Williams’ Gospel Revolution, which places less emphasis on behavior and more on the universal application of grace, might be more accepting of diverse sexual orientations in leadership roles.
Michael asks AI: Can you possibly name some ministries that would align more with Global Grace and Don Keathley? And possibly those that might align with Mike Williams Ministries in the Gospel Revolution? This would be helpful.
AI Responds: Here’s a breakdown of ministries that might align more closely with the teachings of Don Keathley and Global Grace Ministries, as well as those that might resonate more with Mike Williams and the Gospel Revolution:
### Ministries Aligned with Don Keathley and Global Grace Ministries:
1. **Joseph Prince Ministries**:
– **Focus**: Joseph Prince is a well-known advocate of the grace message, emphasizing the finished work of Christ and the believer’s identity in Christ. His teachings often stress the importance of living out one’s new identity, which aligns with Keathley’s emphasis on transformation and grace.
– **Website**: [Joseph Prince Ministries](https://www.
2. **Andrew Wommack Ministries**:
– **Focus**: Andrew Wommack teaches extensively on the grace of God and the importance of believers understanding their identity in Christ. He also emphasizes the role of faith and transformation in the Christian life, which shares common ground with Keathley’s approach.
– **Website**: [Andrew Wommack Ministries](https://www.awmi.
3. **Grace Life International**:
– **Focus**: This ministry emphasizes the believer’s identity in Christ and living a transformed life through the grace of God. Their teachings align with the idea that understanding grace should lead to a change in behavior and lifestyle.
– **Website**: [Grace Life International](https://www.
### Ministries Aligned with Mike Williams and the Gospel Revolution:
1. **Paul Anderson-Walsh (The Grace Project)**:
– **Focus**: Paul Anderson-Walsh’s ministry emphasizes the all-encompassing nature of God’s grace and the idea that humanity’s inclusion in Christ is a universal reality. This aligns with Mike Williams’ teaching that all humanity is included in the finished work of Christ, regardless of behavior.
– **Website**: [The Grace Project](http://www.
2. **Malcolm Smith Ministries**:
– **Focus**: Malcolm Smith teaches on the radical inclusivity of God’s grace and the idea that the finished work of Christ applies universally. His teachings often resonate with those who believe that grace extends beyond traditional boundaries, similar to Williams’ Gospel Revolution.
– **Website**: [Malcolm Smith Ministries](https://www.
### Summary:
– **Aligned with Don Keathley**: Ministries that emphasize transformation as a natural outcome of embracing grace, while still holding to traditional Christian views on behavior, such as Joseph Prince and Andrew Wommack.
– **Aligned with Mike Williams**: Ministries that emphasize the universal scope of grace, regardless of behavior or personal transformation, like Malcolm Smith and Paul Anderson-Walsh.
These ministries provide different perspectives on grace, with some aligning more closely with traditional expectations of transformation and others embracing a more radical, inclusive understanding of grace.
That was very interesting.
Very interesting read. And wonder if the same questions could be compared to malcolm Smith and Paul Anderson Walsh
Might also be interesting to compare with Unity Church teachings and Buddhist and Daoist and Hindu with regard to the Divine Within and The Christ within?