Pure Grace: A Review (Part 5)
Concerning salvation, Clark Whitten, in his book, Pure Grace, fantasizes about God speaking to human beings in the following manner:
I will tell you what I am going to do…. I am going to do My part—and I am going to do your part too! Allow Me to repeat Myself, I am going to do My part, and I am going to do your part, too!” (77).
Fine. Then human beings are unnecessary and irrelevant. This arrangement is about like a chess champion saying, “I will make my moves and your moves, too. Actually, you won’t even need to get out of bed or show up for the contest. I’ll handle everything.” Whitten, in his book being widely distributed in this area, affirms that the “New Covenant is between God and His dear Son.” (77). This idea does not come from Hebrews 8:6-7, which states that the New Covenant is between God and man, with Jesus being the Mediator (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5).
Yes, Whitten emphasizes repeatedly that any human response would add to the salvation Jesus procured for us. He fails to distinguish between actions that some might argue would earn salvation and responses that are conditions of receiving salvation. But he cannot be consistent. So, after saying that God does it all he adds, “Our part is to believe and receive what Jesus died to give” (77). Whoops! Don’t those require human effort?
If our part is to believe, then we must put forth effort, and it is not all God’s doing. Believing requires brain power and the use of logic. On what basis do people come to believe in the One true God and in Jesus as our Lord and Savior? Elijah offered the people of his day evidence. The 400 prophets of Baal called upon their god most of the day to consume the sacrifice they had prepared for him. Nothing happened. Hmm! Then Elijah doused his altar and its sacrifice with copious amounts of water—and called upon Jehovah. Fire immediately engulfed his sacrifice, and the people rightfully and logically concluded that Jehovah—not Baal—was the true God.
Jesus likewise provided evidence for His Deity. He taught as no other (John 7:35). Furthermore, everywhere He went He healed people through the power of God (Mark 6:54-56). The people reasoned correctly concerning the evidence—except for the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the scribes, who wanted to put Him to death. Correct thinking requires human effort; so Whitten has already defeated his own principles. But it should further be asked what he meant by human beings must “receive what Jesus died to give.” Actually, it does not matter what he thinks about it; the truly important question is, “What does the New Testament teach is the way to receive Jesus?”
Receiving Jesus
First, one must reason correctly from the evidence that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. John said that he wrote his gospel to prove that very point (John 20:30-31). Second, can a person receive Jesus without repenting of his sins? Jesus answers, “No” (Luke 13:3). Knowing that Jesus is the Son of God means that we have an obligation to listen to and obey what He taught. “Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not the things that I say?” (Luke 6:46). What? Did Jesus expect His followers to put forth their own effort? Whitten denies it, but Hebrews 5:9 still proclaims that Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to “all those who obey Him.”
Yes, repentance truly requires human effort because we must change the way we have been living to the way we ought to live (which the author calls behavior modification). Third, Jesus expects everyone to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins, which is what Peter told the multitude to do on Pentecost when they asked what they should do? Whitten would have told them, “There’s nothing for a human being to do. God has done it all.” But Peter told them what to do: “Repent, and let everyone of you be baptized for the remission of sins…” (Acts 2:38).
If it be charged that baptism involved human effort, consider the facts: First, allowing someone to lower you into the water and raising you back up again is about as passive an act as can possibly be. The one being baptized is not the one acting; he is being acted upon. Second, it requires much less effort than believing or repenting. Third, God is the one taking the action; baptism is the working of God. We’re not earning anything; God is the one washing away sins—with the blood of Jesus (Acts 22:16; Rev. 1:5).
This description is the way the Scriptures describe receiving Jesus. Can this statement be proved? Yes! Just read the Book of Acts where we find descriptions of people receiving Jesus (although this precise phrase is not used). On Pentecost, those who gladly received the word were baptized (Acts 2:41). In Samaria, the people believed the preaching of Philip; “both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12). The eunuch from Ethiopia confessed Jesus to be the Son of God, and he was baptized (Acts 8:37-39). Cornelius and his household were likewise baptized “in the name of the Lord” (Acts 10:48). The jailer at Philippi was told to “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,” and he was baptized sometime after midnight (Acts 16:31-34). Saul of Tarsus was told: “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). “But none of these mentions ‘receiving Jesus.’” No passage in Acts does, but, as we have seen, they received Jesus by believing and being baptized, which is the same as “calling on the name of the Lord.”
Not one account of conversion asks anyone to: “receive Jesus.” No one is described as “receiving Jesus.” There is one text that mentions having received Jesus, and it is found in Colossian 2:6: “As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him.” Probably, this description of having received Christ referred to their humility. Just a few verses later, Paul writes: “Buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12). This is the way one actually receives Christ. God does not do these things for us. Jesus died to give us the opportunity to receive and obey the truth, but the decision is ours, which involves human effort.
“The Prison of Legalism”
Whitten never relents in calling names or insisting there is nothing that anyone needs to do to be saved (except believe and receive). So, he attacks the Scriptures when they disagree with his theology—the way he thinks God should have done it. He writes of what he calls “the prison of legalism—confession, repentance, and conviction” (88). Most people probably never thought they would hear a “Christian” minister pooh-pooh these Biblical concepts, but Clark Whitten does.
He says that the problem people have is when they hear the word confess, they always associate it with sin instead of confessing Christ as the Son of God. It is not an either / or situation. The New Testament teaches both definitions. One does need to confess Jesus to be the Son of God, as Peter did (Matt. 16:16) and as the Ethiopian eunuch did (Acts 8:37). Whitten did not mention either of these, but he does cite Matthew 10:32-33 and Romans 10:9-10, which are fine. Presumably, no one denies the importance of confessing Christ.
But Whitten does not like the concept of people confessing their sins. One verse that a Bible reader might think of is Matthew 3:6, which states that people came to John to be baptized by him, “confessing their sins.” The author’s response was that it related to John’s ministry “and is not referring to New Testament Christians.” Has anyone tried to use this verse to say that it authorizes Christians to confess sins?
James 5:16 is cited as “the first reference in the New Testament that refers to a confession of sin by a believer” (90). No, it isn’t. When Peter rebuked Simon the sorcerer, specifically telling him to repent, he asked the apostle to pray for him, which is tacitly an acknowledgment (confession) of his sin (Acts 8:22-24). Whitten seems to agree with the practice suggested in James 5:16, which involves confessing our sins one to another. What he strongly objects to is confessing sin to God! It’s all right to confess sins to one another—but not to God? What kind of logic is this? He thinks the way that the majority of the Christian world thinks on this passage is wrong, and it tends toward legalism. Yes, in fact, it “is the most abused, misinterpreted, and misapplied verse in the whole Bible” (91). Really?
1 John 1:9 reads: “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” One would need to be a theologian to misunderstand it. First of all, he says people often quote this verse because “there aren’t any others to quote” (93). We have already offered Acts 8, but even if it were the only verse, so what? How many verses do we need before we accept the truth taught in them: three, five, a dozen?
In order to make the passage agree with his theology, Whitten assures us that these verses are “not directed toward believers, but toward those who need salvation” (94). He invites his readers to look at the first eight verses of 1 John to confirm that idea. Although a few of John’s words might lend themselves to such an interpretation, the idea does not fit when taken as a whole. Nothing is mentioned about baptism for the forgiveness of sins as in the Book of Acts; nothing is mentioned about conversion.
John does not begin this letter by addressing the recipients—until he gets to 2:1: “My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin.” Who has ever addressed sinners as “my little children”? Clearly, John is writing to Christians. Why does it matter to Whitten which it is? He doesn’t want Christians to have to confess any sins to God. “He forgave all your sin—past, present, and future” (94). If that is true, what does it do to James 5:16? How can the Christian have any faults (most translations have “sins”) to confess to one another? Whitten tries in vain to distinguish between forgiveness and healing.
He continues: “He didn’t just forgive your sins up to the time you were saved, He forgave all your sins forever. … You are not required to confess your sin to God in order to be forgiven ever again” (94). Then why did Jesus teach His followers to pray, “And forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us” (Luke 11:4)?
Jesus died once on the cross for everyone’s sins, but not everyone will take advantage of His sacrifice in order to be forgiven. In fact, He said that the majority of the people will be lost (Matt. 7:13-14). Those who do become Christians continue to sin—not as before because they are trying to please their Lord Who bought them. But Christians do still sin (1 John 1:8, 10; James 5:16). Jesus’ one sacrifice for sins forever (Heb. 10:12) will cover those sins, but they must first be acknowledged (confessed) and repented of. Suppose a new Christian finds out, for example, that playing the lottery is an expression of covetousness. He must confess it in order to be forgiven—and cease doing it.
That is the value of confession. We humble ourselves to admit we are wrong—that our behavior has been wrong. We change the wrong behavior, and the blood of Christ continues to cleanse us of our sins. It makes no sense to tell Christians they do not need to confess their sins when it is the means of forgiveness for them. Will Whitten confess his sin of teaching error?