A few Disagreements with Whitby on Grace
I have been reading through Daniel Whitby’s Discourses on the Five Points, starting with his view of grace. As I am reading, I am editing slightly, breaking up long sentences, creating paragraph breaks and sometimes updating archaic words and spellings. I started, just to read Jonathan Edwards’ opponent, to better understand were Edwards was coming from, but now I find myself interested in what Whitby has to say. As I read, I plan on posting his work here, and perhaps I will format it up one day.
I recently posted some of his thoughts on grace. That was the first of three chapters, within his discourse on grace. The focus of that chapter was defining the issue. I plan on posting his second and third chapters as well. In the second, Whitby argues for resistible grace. In the third, he defends against arguments for irresistible grace. I wanted to note a few differences between Whitby and myself before I continue.
Whitby is going to argue that God’s commands make no sense if grace is irresistible and obedience is either necessary or impossible. I half agree. Adam was able to keep God’s commands, but due to the fall, we are not. However, we live in a world in which God’s commands are kept, at least partially. Don’t get me wrong, unbelievers sin in everything they do. Their partial obedience is done for the wrong motives. It is right to not murder, but we should avoid murder out of love, thankfulness to God and awaiting Christ’s return, not out of fear or self-righteousness. So God’ commands are partially kept, even by the unsaved. How is it that people are disabled to good by the fall and yet the unsaved partially keep God’s commands? We live in a world flooded with grace. God’s grace enables obedience, both in part before conversion, and completely after conversion. On this much Whitby and I agree so it’s safe to say we agree on the big picture.
But we seem to slightly disagree on three finer points. First, can God justly punish us for something we are unable to do? Second, what’s the point of the law? Third, how does grace leading to salvation work?
Whitby argues that God can’t justly punish us for something we are unable to do. I disagree. God could have judged the world without providing grace. Whitby’s view seems to lead to a sort of “forced grace”, which logically conflicts with grace. Most of the time, God is working on everyone in some way shape or form. But in some rare cases (i.e. the hardening of hearts) we see the results of God withdrawing His grace. In such cases, the man must sin, but is still to blame for that sin. Now Whitby’s main point is that it makes no sense for God to plead with us, or threaten us or invite us to obedience if we are unable to obey. On this we agree. Much of scripture simply makes no sense if we are simply abandoned in a total depraved state.
The second point may be a matter of focus, rather than disagreement. The point of the law isn’t to get people to obey, but rather to show people that they aren’t obeying. The obedience of unbelievers is only partial anyways, and could never save. But when people see they are sinning they start to struggle under the law and begin to fear God. God them shows them that they need a Savior.
Whitby describes the grace leading to salvation as the illumination of the inward man. Because we reject the natural message (i.e. the preacher up there preaching the gospel) we require a special message (i.e. the Holy Spirit inside us teaching us the gospel). It’s the same gospel, but it’s presented in a supernatural way. So far so good, but Whitby says this is all we need. Now, based on what Whitby has said, he does hold to a robust doctrine of depravity. We need supernatural grace in order to believe. But I take it one step further. Not only does the message have to be special, we have to be special as well.
The Holy Spirit has to change our nature to enable faith. Before the Spirit’s work, we have a certain range of choices we are capable of. Faith in Christ isn’t within that range. The range of abilities is part of our nature. So the Holy Spirit has to change our nature to expand the range of things we are able to choose to include faith in Christ. When our supernaturally enabled nature meets the inward preaching of the Holy Spirit, ability meets opportunity and we can believe.
All things considered, these differences are minor, and I hope they don’t detract from Whitby’s main points.
I recently posted some of his thoughts on grace. That was the first of three chapters, within his discourse on grace. The focus of that chapter was defining the issue. I plan on posting his second and third chapters as well. In the second, Whitby argues for resistible grace. In the third, he defends against arguments for irresistible grace. I wanted to note a few differences between Whitby and myself before I continue.
Whitby is going to argue that God’s commands make no sense if grace is irresistible and obedience is either necessary or impossible. I half agree. Adam was able to keep God’s commands, but due to the fall, we are not. However, we live in a world in which God’s commands are kept, at least partially. Don’t get me wrong, unbelievers sin in everything they do. Their partial obedience is done for the wrong motives. It is right to not murder, but we should avoid murder out of love, thankfulness to God and awaiting Christ’s return, not out of fear or self-righteousness. So God’ commands are partially kept, even by the unsaved. How is it that people are disabled to good by the fall and yet the unsaved partially keep God’s commands? We live in a world flooded with grace. God’s grace enables obedience, both in part before conversion, and completely after conversion. On this much Whitby and I agree so it’s safe to say we agree on the big picture.
But we seem to slightly disagree on three finer points. First, can God justly punish us for something we are unable to do? Second, what’s the point of the law? Third, how does grace leading to salvation work?
Whitby argues that God can’t justly punish us for something we are unable to do. I disagree. God could have judged the world without providing grace. Whitby’s view seems to lead to a sort of “forced grace”, which logically conflicts with grace. Most of the time, God is working on everyone in some way shape or form. But in some rare cases (i.e. the hardening of hearts) we see the results of God withdrawing His grace. In such cases, the man must sin, but is still to blame for that sin. Now Whitby’s main point is that it makes no sense for God to plead with us, or threaten us or invite us to obedience if we are unable to obey. On this we agree. Much of scripture simply makes no sense if we are simply abandoned in a total depraved state.
The second point may be a matter of focus, rather than disagreement. The point of the law isn’t to get people to obey, but rather to show people that they aren’t obeying. The obedience of unbelievers is only partial anyways, and could never save. But when people see they are sinning they start to struggle under the law and begin to fear God. God them shows them that they need a Savior.
Whitby describes the grace leading to salvation as the illumination of the inward man. Because we reject the natural message (i.e. the preacher up there preaching the gospel) we require a special message (i.e. the Holy Spirit inside us teaching us the gospel). It’s the same gospel, but it’s presented in a supernatural way. So far so good, but Whitby says this is all we need. Now, based on what Whitby has said, he does hold to a robust doctrine of depravity. We need supernatural grace in order to believe. But I take it one step further. Not only does the message have to be special, we have to be special as well.
The Holy Spirit has to change our nature to enable faith. Before the Spirit’s work, we have a certain range of choices we are capable of. Faith in Christ isn’t within that range. The range of abilities is part of our nature. So the Holy Spirit has to change our nature to expand the range of things we are able to choose to include faith in Christ. When our supernaturally enabled nature meets the inward preaching of the Holy Spirit, ability meets opportunity and we can believe.
All things considered, these differences are minor, and I hope they don’t detract from Whitby’s main points.
Comments