Pure Grace: A Review (Part 4)

“You will never meet a joyous legalist!” affirms Clark Whitten in his book, Pure Grace (66). Many (whom he would call legalists) would object. The author, however, should answer these two questions: “Is there a law against legalism? And if there is, must we obey it?” We can answer yes to both, but the author cannot. Of course, his definition of legalism is far too broad, covering anyone who does not agree with him.

When the gospel is presented to people, most every religious group points out that salvation cannot be earned, which is true. God was not obligated to offer us forgiveness of sins or eternal life. We have done absolutely nothing that would put God in our debt. We do not have the purity or the holiness to atone for ourselves. Only Jesus could do that for us. We cannot earn salvation by trying to do enough good deeds to offset the evil we have done.

God’s love toward us and His grace caused Him to help us when it was not possible for us to help ourselves. Jesus willingly became the sacrifice for our sins. All who have repented (died to sin) are immersed into His death (buried with Him in baptism). We then emerge from the watery grave to walk in newness of life, having been born again (Rom. 6:3-6). While we were under the water, the blood of Christ washed away our sins (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5). No one believes that baptism earns us salvation; it is not a work of man but rather “the working of God” (Col. 2:12).

Whitten says that after we tell people that they cannot earn salvation, “we turn right around and require Christians to earn God’s blessing. Insane!” (65). What Whitten fails to understand is that there is a difference between obedience to God that springs from the love and gratitude we have toward Him (for offering salvation to us)—and the concept of earning salvation. The fact that we must meet certain conditions does not negate salvation being a gift.

What God Has Given

Prior to their entry to the Promised Land, Israel faced off against two kings: Sihon, the king of Heshbon, and Og, the king of Bashan. God tells Israel, “I have begun to give Sihon and his land over to you. Begin to possess it, that you may inherit his land” (Deut. 2:31). The land was a gift from God. They did not earn it, but guess who had to show up on the battlefield (v. 32)?

The Promised Land on the other side of the Jordan was also a gift; God had already given them the land on the east side, and He would give them the land on the west side as well (Deut. 3:20). God had promised this land to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—to give it to them and their descendants (Deut. 1:8). It was a gift—just as salvation is (Rom. 6:23).

Conditions

But there were conditions to receiving it. First, they could not rebel against God, the giver. For their universal rebellion against God’s plan—not to mention that they were about to stone Moses, Aaron, Joshua, and Caleb—God deprived that generation of the blessings of the land. He told them they would all die in the wilderness for their complaints against Him; He further called them an evil congregation and told them they “would by no means enter the land which I swore I would make you dwell in” (Num. 14:27-30).

In other words, Israel had to try to live the kind of lives God wanted them to in order to receive the land. They had to trust Him and obey Him. When they did so, were they earning the land? No. It remained a gift. They still received the land by God’s grace, but they had to meet the conditions that God imposed on them.

So it is with salvation. We must first believe in God and Jesus, the Son of God. Does believing mean we merit salvation? No. We must repent of our sins—or be lost (Luke 13:3). Does our repentance mean that God now owes us salvation? No. We must be baptized into Christ in order to have forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). Does being baptized mean that we deserve salvation? No. These are conditions we must meet to receive the grace of God. The condition that applies after baptism is that we must live faithfully from then on. Whitten disagrees with that fact, also.

Being Intimate

“I cannot become intimate with anyone who constantly disapproves of me and requires changes on my part to have fellowship” (68). He says none of his family or friends treats him that way, yet many advocate that God Who shows perfect love does. What’s wrong with this comparison? First, none of Whitten’s family and friends created him (except his physical parents who created only his physical body—not his soul).

Second (and more importantly), all of those he mentioned are human beings—with the same frailties that he has. Two people cannot be friends based on perfect behavior. We overlook other people’s imperfections because we have our own. Thus, we either learn to tolerate flaws in our friends, or we find ourselves without any friends. Naturally, if a human being were to consistently disapprove of us and require changes, we would be miffed, asking “Who does he think he is to constantly criticize me?”

That kind of thinking does not work with God because He actually is perfect—perfect in grace, perfect in love, perfect in justice, perfect in righteousness, and perfect in holiness. We will always fall short of His character and His expectations.

But not his fellowship! His grace, love, forgiveness, and the blood of Christ allows Him to fellowship us even though we are imperfect in our daily living. Whitten needs to quit maligning God, as Satan did in the Garden of Eden. We have forgiveness because of God’s grace. He forgives our sins and encourages us to do right. He always serves as an ideal standard of behavior, as does Jesus. And for this we find fault with Him? The fact is that we can be intimate with the Father. Abraham could. He was called “the friend of God” (James 2:23; cf. 2 Chron. 20:7).

If human beings could be intimate with God under the old covenant, are they not even more likely to be intimate with Him under the new covenant, where the faithful are continually cleansed by His blood (1 John 1:7)? Even though God is holy and we are not, nevertheless He fellowships us because the blood of Christ washes away our sins and makes us holy. He needs no assistance in being holy, but we do. How can it be any other way? Would we want God to be as flawed as we are? Do we not appreciate that we have a standard to live up to?

Of course, God disapproves of sin, but His attitude toward iniquity is directed at the transgression—not the transgressor—unless he refuses to repent. God shows his love towards sinners by forgiving their actions, but He will not forgive the impenitent. Therefore, Jesus taught that except people repent, they shall all likewise perish (Luke 13:3). Does repentance constantly require changing? Yes. The Christian constantly attempts to move on to perfection, which is what growth requires (1 Peter 2:2; Heb. 6:1). To find fault with this system is to find fault with God.

Just what is wrong with seeking to improve oneself? Isn’t it a part of the Great Commission? Jesus commanded us, after we baptize earnest souls, to teach them to observe all things He had taught them (Matt. 28:20). The apostles fulfilled this request. After they baptized 3,000 on the Day of Pentecost, they taught them Christian doctrine. We read of the new converts that “they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers (Acts 2:42). They learned. They progressed. Yet they were already in fellowship with God, and they continued in that fellowship. If they begrudged needing to repent of something they did not previously realize was a sin, they gave no evidence of it.

God is patient with us. He does not, as Whitten implies, say to us, “I cannot have fellowship with you until you are perfect.” He constantly forgives us while we are learning to do better. God was intimate with Enoch. “And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him” (Gen. 5:24). Does Whitten think Enoch was perfect—and that he had to establish perfection before God would be intimate with him? When God required Israel to walk in His ways (Deut. 10:12), did He require the impossible? Solomon said God was intimate with those who walked before Him with all their heart (1 Kings 8:23).

“Regardless”

Clark Whitten claims that the security of our salvation is based on two unchangeable things: 1) the priesthood of Jesus, and 2) the unchangeable new covenant. If our salvation was secure, he would be right, since Jesus is clearly our high priest, and the new covenant will remain in effect as long as the earth stands. But the salvation of the Christian is never secure on this earth. Jesus Himself talked about those who fell away in the parable of the sower (Matt. 13:3-9, 18-23). One of His own apostles, Judas, proved what Jesus had taught in that regard.

Nevertheless, after Whitten affirms the truth that human beings cannot add anything to Jesus’ sacrifice, he erroneously concludes: “I am secure forever regardless of what I do or don’t do” (70). So, a person can know to do good, and not do it, yet be saved—even though that is called sin (James 4:17)? He could commit fornication or live with his father’s wife (1 Cor. 5) and be saved “regardless”? He can preach another gospel and be accursed (Gal 1:8-9) yet be secure in his salvation? Such a position is foolishness.

The author remains adamant regarding his position despite what the Scriptures teach. “We must never allow religionists and legalists to tag on addendums of human performance to this divine contract” (73). Whitten touts the book of Hebrews and the new covenant, but he does not mention Hebrews 2:1-4, which warns Christians not to drift away. Why be concerned about drifting away if our behavior is irrelevant? Consider what the writer says about a Christian’s bad actions.

For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful expectation of judgment and fiery indignation which will devour the adversaries (Heb. 10:26-27).

What does Whitten say about such passages? Nothing. He makes no attempt to refute them; he simply acts as if they do not exist. Walking in faith and trying to please God cannot be insisted upon because that would be human performance. “Any attempt to add human performance to the New Covenant must always be confronted aggressively and resisted with determination” (73). Complying with the conditions God set forth concerning salvation is trying to earn it, according to Whitten, and anyone who tries to do so is a legalist. Calling names, however, does not prove his point.

He affirms that a Christian can sin—but that sin is not laid to his account! (74). Really? Then perhaps Whitten could explain why Peter rebuked Simon the Sorcerer. When the magician wanted to buy the power to impart spiritual gifts to others, Peter told him: “Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you” (Acts 8:22). Why didn’t Peter tell him that he had sinned but it would not be charged to his account? Was Peter a legalist? Simon asked Peter to pray for him (v. 24). Would Whitten pray for him—if he was not accountable?