Now I see precisely the problem in Clyde Pilkington's mis-defining of grace. It's the mistake of substituting "unworthy" for "unmerited"—AS THE DEFINITION. Grace ought never be DEFINED as "favor bestowed upon unworthy people," or "favor granted to those who deserve the opposite." It so happens to FALL on these types of people, but it also falls upon Christ. So this definition is clearly unworkable. Grace, that is, the favor of God, cannot be merited by ANYONE—not the most worthy (Christ) and not the most unworthy (us).  

Thus, the definition of grace as "the unmerited favor of God" works. Even better to say: "the favor of God not based upon merit."

In so many places in Scripture, grace is played up against works and law. What are works and law? Merit-based considerations. What is grace? That which NEVER considers merit. These passages are definitive.

It is THESE CONTEXTS that define grace. Yet Clyde defines it by tossing into the ring what HE thinks we believe, that grace is, by definition, "favor given to unworthy people." This is a straw-man definition. All Clyde is doing, therefore, is attacking a straw man definition. Based on this false definition, Clyde points to Christ and says, "Christ is worthy!" Thus, Clyde deems the false definition to have been proven wrong (gee, Clyde, it's already wrong) and then says, "We need to change the definition of grace."

Clyde himself does not understand the TRUE definition of grace, which is the unmerited favor of God. If he knew this, he could easily apply it to Christ, for not even Christ can merit something that is completely not based upon merit.