Pure Grace: A Review (Part 3)
“I am as righteous as Jesus!” proclaims Clark Whitten in his book, Pure Grace, which is distributed in this area (49). Probably no one would accuse the author of this book (which is under review) of being bashful. The Scripture cited is 2 Corinthians 5:21: “And He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.”
This very verse explains the difference between Jesus and us. He was (and is) righteous because He knew (knows) no sin. He is righteous based on His own merit. He would have lost that righteousness if He had sinned even one time. But since He retained it and died for our sins on the cross, He makes us righteous through the cleansing of our sins—if we believe and obey the gospel. So, we are righteous—but not based on our own merit—but based on Jesus’.
For that reason, we ought not to say we are as righteous as Jesus, which sounds like boasting. Not even the best of us could ever claim to be righteous on our own merit. We need our sins washed away to be holy in God’s sight (1 Cor. 6:11). Therefore, we become righteous when His blood washes our sins away (in baptism), but then we can only maintain that righteousness by walking in the light so that His blood can continue to wash away our sins (1 John 1:7).
We should keep in mind that 1) we are not righteous based on our own merit and 2) when we are made righteous, it is not a once-for-all-time situation, as demonstrated by the fact that we must continue to walk in the light. But didn’t Paul write that we are washed, sanctified, and justified (1 Cor. 6:11)? Yes, but he also wrote that the washed, sanctified, and justified brother could change and become sexually immoral, as had the man living with his father’s wife in 1 Corinthians 5. He could also become covetous, an extortioner, an idolater, a reviler, or a drunkard, which constitute reasons to withdraw fellowship from him (1 Cor. 5:11).
The church cannot “put away” from among themselves an evil person if he is not first among them. They cannot withdraw fellowship from someone not in their fellowship. But Whitten disagrees; he affirms: “If you are a true Christian…you are in right standing with God, and absolutely nothing can change that” (50). Paul says that each individual Christian could change his status with God.
Whitten also claims: “Righteousness is a state of being; it is not deed-oriented. Righteous is who I am—not what I do” (50). Then why did Paul command the church in Corinth to withdraw fellowship from a brother? Why didn’t he tell them that this “true Christian” was righteous before God because righteousness is not based on what Christians do but is a state of being? Paul did not say so because it is not the truth.
“It’s All About the Lamb”
In the Old Testament, the priest examined the lamb that was brought for an offering to make sure it had no blemish. It was about the lamb—not the person who brought it for a sacrifice. The author of Pure Grace insists: “The lamb is the point of the whole exercise, not the man” who brought it to be sacrificed (51). Yes, we are all flawed and need the blood of the Lamb, and all Christians strive to point the world to the Lamb, but that does not mean we have no responsibility to live righteously. We want the world to see the Lamb, but they are watching us!
Furthermore, Jesus taught that they would be observing the lives of Christians. For that reason, we are to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world (Matt. 5:13-16). If the world looks at us and does not see the light of the gospel shining forth, how will they ever see the Lamb we claim to be serving? For that reason, we change or modify our behavior when we become Christians—so that the world can see the light. If we fail to walk uprightly, the world will only see darkness in us.
Revelation 5:6-10 is quoted, which introduces the Lamb and His worthiness to break the seals that are upon the book. Immediately after the citation, Whitten writes: My name is in that book and it is sealed. So is yours if you believe!” (52). The Book of Life is referred to in the Book of Revelation (13:8; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27, and 22:19). But the scroll with the seven seals on it is simply referred to as the Book—not the Book of Life. Furthermore, nothing in Revelation says that once our name is in the Book of Life, it is sealed up and cannot be removed.
In fact, Revelation teaches quite the opposite. Consider Revelation 3:5 which is addressed to those in Sardis: “He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.” Are we to believe that the names of those who fail to overcome remain in the Book of Life, also, and that Jesus confesses their names to the Father? Of course not. What would then be the point in overcoming?
Consider also Revelation 22:19: “And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” Does this verse really need to be explained? A person’s name was in that Book, but it can be taken away. It can be written in the Book, but it can also be blotted out. We are at risk of losing our salvation—depending on our faith and behavior. Whitten thinks that a person who is cleansed cannot lose the righteousness he then has, but the Scriptures disagree.
Closing out chapter three, Whitten again affirms that understanding he is righteous has changed his life (54). The reader understands that he means he cannot lose his righteousness. He tells the reader that they have been cleansed and cannot, therefore, be unholy. And anyone who would teach otherwise is a Legalist. No, we are realists; the Bible teaches that we can lose our salvation, our righteousness, our holiness.
The Law
After Whitten quotes Romans 7:2-8, it is clear he does not understand the passage because he says: “Humankind was married to the law. We were all under the jurisdiction of the law at one time” (57). How is that possible—since the Law of Moses was only given to the Jews? Paul’s point is that the Law of Moses has died (been nailed to the cross, according to Colossians 2:14). Therefore, the Jews are free to be Christians. The apostle uses the comparison of a wife losing her husband. She is now free to marry another without being called an adulteress. The Jew, like the widow, has been released from the first covenant (due to its death) and is now free to be married to Christ (and His new covenant).
Compounding his error, Whitten adds to it by asserting that “the law can never die” (57). But that was exactly Paul’s point—the law did die. The first husband is the Law of Moses. She (Israel) was bound to this husband as long as he lived, but when he (the Law) died, then she (a Jew) was free to marry another (Christ). Paul had already talked about how any person (Jew or Gentile) gets into Christ in a previous section in Romans.
And it is through death—but not to the Law—that Paul is talking about in Romans 6:3-6. In that passage, the sinner dies, is buried, and is raised up. He does not die to the Law, however, but rather the old person is put to death.
Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.
In Romans 6, the sinner is dying to himself, being buried, and raised up in baptism to live a new life, having been born again. In Romans 7, the picture is that of the Law having died, so that the Jew can be married to another—namely, Jesus. What dies in these two passages should not be confused.
Therefore, it is appropriate to point out that all who come to Christ must die to sin, but it is wrong to say the Law of Moses could not die—because it did. But the real problem that Whitten has is law, period. We all know the shortcomings of the Law of Moses. The writer of Hebrews pointed out that “if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place should have been sought for a second” (8:7). In truth, Jesus is the “Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises” (Heb. 8:6).
The text does not say that Jesus’ covenant is not a law, however. If the first covenant was a law, then why would the second not be? But Whitten attempts to flee from anything that would be called a law because he can only see Legalism or grace. His advice for Christians is that their “law-keeping mentality is aborting that spiritual process over and over again. Law and grace do not mix!” (61). He asks, “Are Christians under the law? NO! We are in union with Christ…” (61). So, is Jesus a King in a kingdom without any laws?
Of course, Christianity has laws. And they are to be obeyed. Well, then, how is that different from the Old Testament? The difference is that they offered animal sacrifices that represented the Lamb to come, but Jesus had not yet died. The Old Law is called “the law of sin and death” (Rom. 8:2). Anyone who kept it perfectly (and Jesus is the only one who did) could live. But if a person violated it even in one point, he died. In the Christian system, sin still brings about death, but Jesus has paid the price for our sins. Grace has been extended to imperfect people who sincerely try to please God.
Is the New Testament a law? James thought so. He refers to the new covenant as “the perfect law of liberty” (1:25). Grace and law do mix. When he wrote to the Corinthians, Paul told how he tried to evangelize: “And to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law” (1 Cor. 9:20). As a Christian, Paul was no longer under the Law of Moses, as he wrote a number of times, but in order that the Jews might listen to him, he would not disparage the Law and even observe parts of it, if doing so did not violate his conscience.
But how did he act toward the Gentiles—those without the Law of Moses? “To those who are without law, as without law” (v. 21). In other words, he would not observe Jewish customs when with them nor insist that they do so, either. Was Paul, therefore, lawless? No, he states explicitly that he was not “without law toward God, but under law toward Christ” (v. 21).
The idea that we are under grace and have been made righteous—therefore, we need not be worried about our behavior—is false. Has Whitten never read what Jesus said in Matthew 7:21? “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.” God’s grace does not exclude obedience. Jesus saves only those who obey Him (Heb. 5:9).