Pure Grace: A Review (Part 6)

Few are the doctrines of Christianity that nearly everyone agrees with, but Jesus being the Son of God is one of those; it\built built. Sure, a cult like Jehovah’s Witnesses may deny it, but it is fundamental to everyone else (Matt. 16:16-18). God’s grace and our faith are also required for salvation, and all groups claiming to be Christian agree with those Biblical concepts. Repentance is also universally considered necessary—almost. Clark Whitten takes issue with it in his book on Pure Grace:

Repentance is another concept that has been hijacked by the enemy and distorted in order to keep the sons and daughters of God in bondage to legalism (96).

Repentance…is a tool to be used to keep us in line and to prevent us from acting like the heathens we once were (97).

He adds that “behavior modification” is the goal of all legalists. So, was Peter a legalist? Was he inviting those on Pentecost to enter into the bondage of legalism (Acts 2:38)? When he told Simon the Sorcerer to repent, was he trying to modify his behavior (Acts 8:22)? It certainly seems so: he wanted not only a modification of behavior but a change in thinking as well.

What, therefore, is wrong with repentance? Whitten wrote that preachers are always calling on Christians to “repent of their sins” and rededicate their lives, but it does no good “because flesh is incorrigible and cannot be dedicated!” (97). Revivals are therefore worthless—“except to keep the preachers employed.” Right. When John the Baptizer preached, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” he was just seeking job security. John must have been a legalist because he told the people to modify their behavior; he told the Pharisees and the Sadducees: “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Matt. 3:8).

Just to show how preposterous Whitten’s false doctrine is, he would have to take issue with the preaching of Jesus, also. Jesus spoke as John did: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 4:17). According to Whitten’s definitions, John, Jesus, Peter, and the rest of the apostles were all legalists.

“Oh, but what about John, the apostle of love?” Does anyone really want to go there? He is as legalistic as anyone. He recorded Jesus as saying: “If you love me, keep My commandments” (John 14:15). Commandment-keeping? Really? Nothing is more legalistic than that. John has the audacity to repeat it: “This is love, that we walk according to His commandments” (2 John 6a). And then there’s the unforgiveable comment: “He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him” (1 John 2:4). Such legalistic thinking!

The Alternative

No, the problem is Whitten’s theology. He disagrees with the entire tenor of the New Testament. What does he propose that is supposed to be better than the way we all understand repentance? He begins with a definition of the Greek word translated “repentance,” pointing out that the word refers to a change of mind (which is true). But it is this change of mind that leads to a change of behavior (which he constantly takes to task).

For example, in the first century, many were idolaters. They worshipped Greek or Roman gods and goddesses. In Athens, they tried to worship just about every deity. They even had an altar to the UNKNOWN GOD (Acts 17:22-23). Paul told them we should not think the Divine Nature is gold or silver or stone (v. 29). He also preached to them that God commands all men everywhere to repent (v. 30). Did Paul want them to have a change in their way of thinking? Yes, he did. But wouldn’t that thinking lead to behavior modification—namely, that they would stop worshiping idols and begin worshiping the true and living God?

Paul spent about three years in the region of Ephesus. “And many who had believed came confessing and telling their deeds” (Acts 19:18). In particular, many of those in the area had practiced magic; they even had books dealing with such matters. But they brought them together and burned them—50,000 pieces of silver worth (v. 19). “So the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed” (v. 20). Had they had a change of thinking? Of course. Who could deny it? Did they modify their behavior? Obviously! Did that make them legalists?

Would the same not hold true with any other practice of the Gentiles? Perhaps some who heard the gospel were living sexually permissive lives. Would they not need to change their thinking which would result in a modification of behavior? If not, why not? Paul demanded that one’s behavior be modified; he wrote that brethren should not fellowship anyone called a brother who was sexually immoral, covetous, an idolater, etc. (1 Cor. 5:11). Whitten’s habit of charging those who obey God with legalism is reprehensible.

Whitten continues to harp on changing our thinking, which no one on earth has ever denied (this is called arguing against a straw man). At the same time, he continues to badmouth making changes in our lives, as though there is something wrong with doing so. One almost concludes that it is of no use to make any changes in one’s life for fear of being called a legalist. Paul writes that, since the Christian was raised with Christ, he must put to death old behaviors and adopt new ones (Col. 3:1-15). Whitten’s assault on repentance is totally unnecessary, as well as faulty. Furthermore, part of his explanation is erroneous.

The Holy Spirit’s Guidance

One of the most blatant errors that Whitten sets forth is trying to apply John 16:13 to Christians today. The first rules of Biblical interpretation are: 1) Who is speaking? and 2) To whom is he speaking? In John 14-16, Jesus addresses His disciples for the last time before His crucifixion. He will be arrested very shortly. While some of the verses have an application outside the context, most are directed at the apostles. For example, John 14:15 (“If you love Me, keep My commandments”) is true for everyone; the verses immediately before and after it pertain only to the apostles.

Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit to the apostles (14:25-26; 15:26-27; 16:12-13). The Holy Spirit would do certain things for the apostles with respect to inspiration. He would:

1. Teach them all things (spiritual truth).

2. Bring to their remembrance everything Jesus had taught them.

3. Guide them into all truth.

4. Show them things to come.

The Holy Spirit was not given to each follower of Jesus to guide them into all truth. The apostles received those words and revealed them all. Peter declares that God had given them “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3). They spoke and wrote through inspiration so that we could have all the revelation of God. This was a personal promise to the apostles—not to all Christians at all times.

Whitten erroneously concludes that the Holy Spirit “guides or coaches us in becoming like Christ in the way we think” (100). No. What God wants of us has been revealed in the Scriptures. He does not personally speak to us or inspire us, as He did the apostles. The inspired Word tells us all that we need to know (2 Tim. 3:16-17). By the way, what verse teaches that human beings have the same DNA as the Father (101)? Man is not in the physical image of God.

The Prodigal Son

The author of Pure Grace selects as an example of genuine repentance the prodigal son. No one can object to his choice or the fact that the son changed his thinking before returning home, but some of the conclusions Whitten draws are unfounded. First, he says that the “father did not require the repentant son to perform any sort of penance for his sin” (104). Such as what? The fact that he had returned home was an admission that he had been thinking wrongly. Only a person willing to humble himself would return home; it was an admission: “I was wrong.” He did not ask for more money. He acknowledged his sin against heaven and his father. He went so far as to say he was not worthy to be called his son (Luke 15:21). The father was overwhelmed with love and emotion—eager to embrace him. But what if this had been the third or fourth occurrence? Would it be true repentance?

If a person repents of being an idolater, does he still keep his gold and silver representations? If he repents of adultery, does he keep three girlfriends on speed dial? The father of the prodigal son does not expect his son to desert the homestead again. He was lost but now is found, dead but now alive (v. 32). The father does not, however, give him more of an inheritance. He tells the older, pouty brother, “All that I have is yours” (v. 31).

Whitten continually finds fault with penance—not because sometimes there is no way to undo the harm—but because only legalists require it. Then John the Baptizer must be a legalist to require that people bring forth fruits worthy of repentance (Matt. 3:8). Whitten says that true repentance is thinking like and becoming like Jesus. Would that be the same Jesus that taught behavior modification when He told the woman taken in adultery, “Go, and sin no more” (John 8:11)?

No Condemnation

Another surprising strain of thinking (Did the “Spirit” tell Whitten this?) is:

True repentance cannot be achieved by a response to condemnation. Condemnation has no part in a believer’s thinking. If it is present, you can rest assured that it did not come from the Holy Spirit (108).

Really? Did Jesus not condemn the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23? “Oh, but those are outsiders,” might be the response. “There is no condemnation in His Kingdom! (See Romans 8:1.)” (108). So, when Jesus told Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan!” was that a ringing endorsement? Did Peter condemn Simon when he told him, “For I see that you are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity” (Acts 8:23)?

Although Whitten cited Romans 8:1, he should have quoted all of it: “There is now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” Those who are in the kingdom, but still walk according to the flesh, do stand condemned (1 Cor. 5:11). Paul told brethren in Corinth that those turning the Lord’s Supper into a common meal were coming together for judgment (condemnation) (1 Cor. 11:34).

No Punishment

Not only does Whitten expect that God will never condemn him, but he also asserts that God will “never punish me” (110). If such were the case, God would not love him, for “whom the Lord loves He chastens” (Heb. 12:6; cf. Pr. 3:11-12). Did God love David? He punished him for his sin with Bathsheba, did he not? Did God love Moses? However, He refused to let him in the Promised Land because of sin. God punishes those in the kingdom today, also. And if they do not repent, they shall be punished forever: “The Lord will judge His people” (Heb. 10:30; cf. Deut. 32:36).