# What is the whole union with Christ debate?



## jwright82 (Feb 5, 2012)

I have listened to the Reformed Forum's interviews on the whole union with Christ debate. I must confess I don't completly understand exactly what the whole debate is about? Is it just one more disagreement btween California and Philadelphia?

Here are the interviews for your enjoyment.
Union with Christ - Reformed Forum.
Union with Christ, A Response - Reformed Forum.
Justification and Union with Christ - Reformed Forum.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 5, 2012)

Some of these comments follwing the links might help clarify the differences...


"Definitive sanctification is a dangerous theological innovation of the 20th century. In a spirit of reconciling Horton and Tipton’s views I thought it was mainly a difference in language or emphasis but overall both were teaching the same doctrine. Now I’m seeing some real theological dangers in this doctrinal innovation of definitive sanctification. First of all Christ\s purpose was to pay the penalty for sin so that the sinner would be acquitted on judgment day. Against thee only have I sinned says David in the psalms, sin is first and foremost an offense against almighty God.that needs to be atoned for, and for this purpose Christ came into the world. Our sin is imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, the gospel is about imputed righteousness and not infused righteousness (sanctification). It’s not about both. When we start teaching that faith both justifies (imputes righteousness) and sanctifies (infuses righteousness in the believer) we are going down a slippery slope. We are taking away from Christ’s righteousness that comes by faith and adding our own righteousness as well, Once this has been admitted we will start asking the question, do I have enough infused righteousness? Am I sanctified enough? Is my faith genuine or I don’t have enough good works? And this is clearly unbiblical. I should only look to Christ’s righteousness as the object of faith, not at my own righteousness. So faith is the direct cause of justification, but it does not directly cause definitive sanctification. Now justification is the direct cause of sanctification. Once the sinner is unconditionally forgiven, this justification produces or is the antecedent cause of sanctification. Warfield was absolutely correct in ruling out sanctification as coming directly from faith.: Wesleyan holiness groups, pietism, roman catholics, and pentecostals have made sanctification by grace alone through faith alone the core of their doctrine. Joel Osteen’s church is full people that believe faith gives them power, for them faith means overcoming the corruption of the flesh as well as the penalty for sin. The right doctrine is that faith doesn’t look inside us (our own righteousness or corruption), it looks at Christ’s perfect righteousness, and it has Christ as its only object. Justification comes through faith. Sanctification comes through justification. Only when we grasp the seriousness of our offense, only when we grasp the depth of our sin, only when the sinner is aware that he is in danger of capital punishment and is heading to hell, it is at this point that grace can be grasped and Christ apprehended in the forgiveness of sins. Freed from the penalty of sin (justified) sanctification in the christian follows, the christian is sanctified by being freed from the law’s penalty, by being brought to a sate of grace. Faith removes the penalty of sin, it does not remove the inner corruption in man. Sanctification is the consequence of being free from the penalty of sin. Although the law is holy and perfect, far from being able to remove sin, it causes it to increase as Paul teaches in several passages. Christ by fulfilling the requirements of the Law, removes the penalty of sin. It is this removal of the penalty of sin apprehended by faith that produces sanctification. Grace can be defined as not being under the condemnation of the law, a man is either under the law or in a state of grace. Romans 7:8 – 7:11 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. Romans 8:3 – 8:4 3 For God has done what the law, )weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."


"I want to offer a few clarifying points and questions relative to your comments. I think you misunderstand the basic features of the doctrine of definitive sanctification as taught by John Murray, Richard Gaffin, and Lane Tipton. For a short description, you can read Murray’s article in his Collected Writings or listen to Lane Tipton at Union with Christ and Sanctification - Reformed Forum. I don’t expect you to agree with what they say, but we should at least be able to represent the view accurately. In short, definitive sanctification is the breach in sin’s power. Murray’s exegesis of Romans 6:1-7 is helpful at this point. If you reject this notion of the crucifixion of the old man, I’m curious how you interpret this passage. Some argue that justification mortifies the old man. Yet this understanding compromises the very forensic nature of justification. For justification would no longer be a forensic declaration that changes one’s state, but a transformative work that alters one’s condition. Although I greatly appreciate your concern to maintain the integrity of justification by faith alone, you are protecting against a faulty understanding of definitive sanctification. To argue that the Spirit breaks sin’s power in the believer’s life does not compromise the ground of justification in any way. The ground of justification always remains the imputed righteousness of Christ which is received by faith alone. Faith, works, infused righteousness, etc. never affect the believer’s status before God nor contribute or merit anything in any way. It also appears that you conflate faith with justification. Granted, faith is the instrument of justification, but it is important to distinguish the two. You write:
Faith removes the penalty of sin, it does not remove the inner corruption in man.
Faith does neither. Faith is the instrument by which the believer is justified. But it’s also the instrument by which the Spirit sanctifies (cf. Acts 26:18). How else would you be sanctified? Sanctification (definitive or progressive) cannot be identified exhaustively with good works. Sanctification is first and foremost the work of the Spirit to apply Christ’s death and resurrection to the one that has faith in Jesus Christ.
…the gospel is about imputed righteousness and not infused righteousness (sanctification). It’s not about both.
If the gospel is only about justification, then you have no “good news” for your indwelling sin. In that case, Christ has done nothing for you in terms of conforming you into his image or bringing you to consummation. But praise God that the gospel is about all the blessings we receive in Christ Jesus (Eph 1:3). It also includes the reality of our Spiritual resurrection already and the hope of the bodily resurrection to come. To be quite honest, I’m happy and relieved that His Spirit is working within me to put sin to death. Though I’m acquitted through my justification and accepted as a son through my adoption, I’d still like the Lord to continue to work in my life. I consider all of it the good news of the gospel."


"You ended your comments with, “To be quite honest, I’m happy and relieved that His Spirit is working within me to put sin to death. Though I’m acquitted through my justification and accepted as a son through my adoption, I’d still like the Lord to continue to work in my life. I consider all of it the good news of the gospel.” Up to that point I find myself in agreement (although what is defined as ‘definitive sanctification’, I think, is already included in regeneration). But in these words above you seem to be saying that ‘my loving my neighbor’ (as the Spirit works in me) is part of the gospel. Are you including our good works, i.e. progressive sanctification, as part of the gospel?"


"There are different ways “gospel” is being used here. Narrowly speaking, I would define the gospel in terms of what Paul said he delivered as of first importance in 1 Cor 15:3-7. The gospel is Christ’s life, death, resurrection, ascension, and session for sinners. In short, the gospel is the person and work of Christ (historia salutis). Yet people often speak of the gospel in a broader sense, that is, in the sense of the “good news” of what Christ has done, is doing, and will do for us. In that sense, the Spirit’s work in applying Christ’s death and resurrection to the believer is certainly part of the gospel (cf. WLC 75). The future bodily resurrection and glorification of believers is also part of the gospel. I consider it all part of the Spirit’s unified work in making us into the image of Christ—righteous and holy co-heirs (forensic, renovative, and filial aspects). Your question is very important, and I’m glad you raised it. Maintaining this broader view of the gospel in no way imports Spirit-wrought good works as meritorious. But, in the broader sense of simply “good news,” I would still consider believer’s good works as part of God’s overall plan for our conformity to the image of Christ (Eph 2:10) even while I affirm they are all filthy rags (Isa 64:6). The good works aren’t the gospel proper, but the fact that the Spirit is moving the believer to do good works is a function of historia salutis being applied (ordo salutis). Do you agree? I want to be as clear and precise as possible."


"Warfield saw the same dangers I just outlined From Warfield says Sanctification from Justification « For the Elect Alone
“Justification and sanctification are thought of as parallel products of faith. This is not, however, the New Testament representation. According to its teaching, sanctification is not related to faith directly and immediately, so that in believing in Jesus we receive both justification and sanctification as parallel products of our faith; or either the one or the other, according as our faith is directed to the one or the other.
Sanctification is related directly not to faith but to justification;
and as faith is the instrumental cause of justification, so is
justification the instrumental cause of sanctification. That which binds justification and sanctification together is not that they
are both effects of faith – so that he who believes must have both –
because faith is the condition of both alike.
Nor is it even that both are obtained in Christ, so that he who has Christ, who is made to us both righteousness and sanctification, must have both because Christ is the common source of both. It is true that he who has faith has and must have both; and it is true that he who has Christ has and must have both. But they do not come out of faith or from Christ in the same way.
Justification comes through faith; sanctification through
justification, and only mediately, through justification, through
faith. So that the order is invariable, faith, justification,
sanctification; not arbitrarily, but in the nature of the case.”
B.B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, p 362"



"(although what is defined as ‘definitive sanctification’, I think, is already included in regeneration)
This is very helpful. This is what I was describing in my previous response of a confusion between BT (Biblical Theology) and ST (Systematic Theology) as two distinct, yet interrelated methods of doing theology. What Murray is doing in making a distinction between “definitive” and “progressive” is using a BT insight to help explain a ST point — our sanctification (which is progressive as the WORK of God’s free grace, not ours) is grounded in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (already completed sanctification) in order to help explain that sanctification is monergistic not synergistic. But to then leave that discussion of “sanctification” and try to reinsert that mini-discussion (species) into the larger “ordo” (genus) gets confusing because the theologian then has to decide where to place “definitive” and where to place “progressive”. The confusion comes when “definitive” is then placed with justification in the ordo and “progressive then follows on its heels. You can see what happens when your BT method gets jumbled with your ST method and the two methods are not kept separate from one another. Of course, they can each give us help at getting at the one Scripture and theology, but they approach them differently. Here is the crux of the issue: in ST approach to “definitive” sanctification we are dealing with Christology – the work that Christ accomplishes as prophet, priest, and king. This is the category of what Murray would speak of as “Redemption Accomplished.” Traditionally, in regards to what Gaffin-Tipton mean by “definitive sanctification,” Reformed theologians have rooted in the pactum salutis, not the unio mystica. Christ is fulfilling the obedience to the Father through his active and passive obedience. But once we move to a discussion of the “ordo salutis” we are no longer in the category of Christology regarding the work of Christ – we are discussing Pneumatology or the application of the work of Christ by the Holy Spirit to the believer. “Definitive Sanctification” is not part of the “ordo” because it would be an illogical step to discuss – calling, regeneration, conversion, justification (which are applications of Christ’s work) TO THEN go back to Christ’s work in “definitive sanctification” AND THEN return to application to speak of “progressive sanctification. This is neither logical, nor chronological and because BT and ST are being confused it SOUNDS as if something regarding the restorative/transformative work of the Holy Spirit is being equated with the legal/forensic grounding of those gracious benefits. What is usually understood by “definitive” is what Christ does for us in His work and that work of Christ which fulfills the Covenant of Redemption is imputed to us as the grounding of all the benefits of Christ. As Calvin stresses, that work of Christ is no use to us as long as Christ is outside of us – but nevertheless that work is already completed. It is then Christ in us where we move the entire discussion to the “order of salvation” in the Holy Spirit’s application to the elect of the Father. At that point in our theological enterprise (ST) the “definitive” is no longer under direct study — that is already complete in our Christology. What then becomes the focus is what has now been called “progressive” which is grounded in our justification and can never be coterminous with justification. Thus the logical priority of the forensic ground of our sanctification."


"So, are you saying the comment about definitive sanctification being part of regeneration is an example of the method/category confusion you are concerned about? That seems to be the case because you later place definitive sanctification in a Christological category and regeneration in the ordo category with calling, conversion, etc. Just want to confirm that I am understanding."


"No, I actually don’t agree with definitive sanctification being a part of regeneration. I’m sorry. I meant to address that in my comment but forgot by the time I sent it. I think that would be equally confusing, even though Calvin spoke of regeneration as including the whole salvation applied, I think the later Reformed distinctions are much more helpful in what we think of the as the typical later Reformed ordo. My point of agreement with Jack Miller’s comment, is that “definitive” is already taken up and included BEFORE we discuss ordo issues. That was the full extent of my agreement. I prefer the Confessional ordo (calling, justification, adoption, sanctification) over these other unnecessary distinctions. BTW, to be fair in the debate on CTC, I don’t think Horton’s language of proclamation of Gospel as “justification” is helpful either. I understand what he is saying and in general agreement with the thrust of his argument but I think it is because we are not sticking close to confessional language in making theological points that so much confusion is going about. I do not think it is all about confusing language or misunderstanding of what is being said. After all, these are both professors at highly prestigious seminaries. They out to be able to communicate clearly and understand one another clearly. We saw this sort of sloppy analysis in the Norman Shepherd debates. Every time a point was made and disagreed upon both sides came to the table and claimed “oh, well he wasn’t clear” or “you just misunderstood what he was saying.” I think a lot of that approach is laziness, cowardly, and deceptive. I do believe we have two different approaches to the ordo coming out of Westminster West and East. We shouldn’t sugar coat it but investigate, study, and do the hard work to see who is coming up with the best theological understanding of the Scriptures and our Reformed tradition. It’s possible that both are wrong, but it is also clear that both can’t be right. It’s up to the ecclesiastical community to make that decision and for both of them to keep presenting their exegetical, theological, historical, and confessional arguments to help us in that ecclesiastical community to understand and decide which best expresses our Reformed Confession."


"Thanks for getting back to me. I do basically agree with what you wrote in your last comments above. Your initial words that I questioned seemed to put progressive sanctification in the “gospel proper” with the closing sentence, I consider all of it the good news of the gospel. I agree it is indeed “good news” that the Spirit is working in us unto conformity with Christ as God predestined, but not that it is part of the good news. The way I understand it is that the subjective (yet real) part of God’s work in the believer is distinct from the free promise which was kept and accomplished entirely by Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension, even though that subjective working is indeed connected as a sure and holy effect. That accomplishing of God’s promise in Christ is the glad tidings – the gospel – and it is that to which faith looks, is strengthened and finds salvation (Rom. 1:16). I think the term “gospel” can sometimes be used in too loose a fashion. By including everything of God’s working in it, the term loses meaning and focus, thereby confusing faith as to where it should to look. 
From Calvin’s Inst. 3:2.29 -
Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy. And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself."


Blessings


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 5, 2012)

Where are these quotes from?


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 5, 2012)

James,

They were under the 3rd link you put up. It seems that the issue is centering around this:

Faith leads to union with Christ yielding the fruits of justification and sanctification, versus, faith leads to justification, which in turn leads to sanctification. 
Union with Christ leads to A and B which are independent of each other, versus, A leading to B where B is dependent upon A.

Blessings!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW (Feb 5, 2012)

moral necessity said:


> "Definitive sanctification is a dangerous theological innovation of the 20th century."



I am sorry that I do not have the time needed to challenge this claim point by point. All I can really do is sound the alarm of its departure from the faith we confess. What do we confess the Bible teaches on this point? It is plainly stated in the Westminster Confession, chapter 13, section 1: "They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are *further* sanctified..." Initial sanctification is connected to the work of regeneration. Again, Larger Catechism, answer 77, "Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification..." The two are placed together in a distinct but joint relationship; one is not made the cause and the other the effect.

With regard to the debate as to which is more radical, union with Christ or justification by faith, the Catechism teaches in plain terms that justification, along with adoption, sanctification, and other benefits, are a manifestation of the elect's union with Christ. Answer 69, "The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of His mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with Him."

The connection of sanctification with the work of Christ is explicitly stated by the Catechism, answer 75, "through the powerful operation of His Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them."

On the "definitive" nature of initial sanctification the Catechism is also clear in its definition, answer 75, when it says by sanctification the elect are "renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts." There is a completeness of parts which gives scope to a potential growth by degrees, similar to giving birth to a baby that is whole but awaits development.

The Catechism does not hesitate to use the language of infusion in relation to sanctification, answer 77, "in sanctification His Spirit infuseth grace."

The question relating to the dependency of sanctification upon faith is answered by the Confession, chapter 14, section 2, "But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace." Note: saving faith rests on Christ alone for sanctification as well as justification and eternal life.

The doctrine of definitive sanctification is no novelty. Neither is the denial of the doctrine. The denial of the doctrine has its roots in the 17th century Antinomian movement which the Puritans strenuously opposed. They opposed Antinomianism because they saw, with that piercing insight for which they are well known, that a failure to appreciate the sanctifying element of salvation leads to a doctrine of fictitious justification -- a justification in which faith ever remains alone in the person justified; a teaching which is outrightly and righteously condemned in Scripture.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 5, 2012)

Mr. Winzer, are initial/definitive sanctification and regeneration simply two descriptions of the same thing? Or is there a difference between them?


----------



## MW (Feb 5, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Mr. Winzer, are initial/definitive sanctification and regeneration simply two descriptions of the same thing? Or is there a difference between them?



I would say that regeneration is the process of which definitive sanctification is the product. In regeneration God quickens us to newness of life. More particularly, He sprinkles clean water upon us, takes away the stony heart, gives a new heart of flesh, puts His Spirit within us, and writes His law upon our hearts. As a result of that process the regenerate are now separated/sanctified unto God.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 5, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > "Definitive sanctification is a dangerous theological innovation of the 20th century."
> ...



And, just to clarify, these were not my quotes, or those of which I was defending. Just one's that I was citing from both sides of the fence from the article, so the focus of the debate could be more clearly seen.

Blessings!


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 5, 2012)

I appreciate the responses but I am afraid that I still do not quite understand the problem. If I get it than it is this: one side is arguing that faith leads to justification and sanctification and the other is saying that faith leads to justification and then justification leads to sanctification? Is this right? And what is the problem with either side?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Feb 5, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> I appreciate the responses but I am afraid that I still do not quite understand the problem. If I get it than it is this: one side is arguing that faith leads to justification and sanctification and the other is saying that faith leads to justification and then justification leads to sanctification? Is this right? And what is the problem with either side?



Hi James,

As far as I understand it (and I probably need further explanation of it to me), the issue has to do with whether or not justification or union with Christ has priority in the _ordo salutis_. That is, does justification flow from union with Christ (Tipton et al) or does union with Christ flow from justification (Horton et al). That's an oversimplification, but from what I've been able to tell, that is the basic issue.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 5, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Winzer, are initial/definitive sanctification and regeneration simply two descriptions of the same thing? Or is there a difference between them?
> ...



Thank you, Mr. Winzer! I had never been quite sure of how best to categorize definitive sanctification.


----------



## itsreed (Feb 6, 2012)

James: I've been listening to this debate for about a decade and I still don't see why there is such a fuss.


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2012)

Is the gospel about justification only, or sanctification also? When He is called Jesus because He will save His people from their sins, does He only save from the guilt of sin (the "legal" element with which justification is concerned), or does He also save from the power of sin (the "real" element with which sanctification is concerned)? The issue is ultimately reduced to this question: can you have people who are "saved" merely in the sense of being justified? As the issue has come to be stated, union with Christ is made central because it is out of that union that justification (the legal) and sanctification (the real) are maintained as distinct but connected elements in the salvation of a sinner. Those who deny this point are concerned to keep justification at the centre of the gospel and to make the real element dependent upon it. There are numerous questions which arise out of the debate but this is the most basic issue.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 6, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> Is the gospel about justification only, or sanctification also? When He is called Jesus because He will save His people from their sins, does He only save from the guilt of sin (the "legal" element with which justification is concerned), or does He also save from the power of sin (the "real" element with which sanctification is concerned)? The issue is ultimately reduced to this question: can you have people who are "saved" merely in the sense of being justified? As the issue has come to be stated, union with Christ is made central because it is out of that union that justification (the legal) and sanctification (the real) are maintained as distinct but connected elements in the salvation of a sinner. Those who deny this point are concerned to keep justification at the centre of the gospel and to make the real element dependent upon it. There are numerous questions which arise out of the debate but this is the most basic issue.



Thank you very much, that clears things up. Is the Horton group really outside the mainstream Reformed world, or withen it?


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> As the issue has come to be stated, union with Christ is made central because it is out of that union that justification (the legal) and sanctification (the real) are maintained as distinct but connected elements in the salvation of a sinner.



I think Strimple would have agreed and he was a Westminster West guy. I am not sure how this issue involves the different Westminster seminaries.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 6, 2012)

The author escapes me, but "_Regeneration is a spiritual change; conversion is a spiritual motion_" seems on point. McMahon's little book is a recommended read. 

AMR


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Is the Horton group really outside the mainstream Reformed world, or withen it?



Are you asking in relation to this particular teaching or overall?


----------



## dudley (Feb 6, 2012)

moral necessity said:


> Some of these comments follwing the links might help clarify the differences...
> 
> 
> "Definitive sanctification is a dangerous theological innovation of the 20th century. In a spirit of reconciling Horton and Tipton’s views I thought it was mainly a difference in language or emphasis but overall both were teaching the same doctrine. Now I’m seeing some real theological dangers in this doctrinal innovation of definitive sanctification. First of all Christ\s purpose was to pay the penalty for sin so that the sinner would be acquitted on judgment day. Against thee only have I sinned says David in the psalms, sin is first and foremost an offense against almighty God.that needs to be atoned for, and for this purpose Christ came into the world. Our sin is imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, the gospel is about imputed righteousness and not infused righteousness (sanctification). It’s not about both. When we start teaching that faith both justifies (imputes righteousness) and sanctifies (infuses righteousness in the believer) we are going down a slippery slope. We are taking away from Christ’s righteousness that comes by faith and adding our own righteousness as well, Once this has been admitted we will start asking the question, do I have enough infused righteousness? Am I sanctified enough? Is my faith genuine or I don’t have enough good works? And this is clearly unbiblical. I should only look to Christ’s righteousness as the object of faith, not at my own righteousness. So faith is the direct cause of justification, but it does not directly cause definitive sanctification. Now justification is the direct cause of sanctification. Once the sinner is unconditionally forgiven, this justification produces or is the antecedent cause of sanctification. Warfield was absolutely correct in ruling out sanctification as coming directly from faith.: Wesleyan holiness groups, pietism, roman catholics, and pentecostals have made sanctification by grace alone through faith alone the core of their doctrine. Joel Osteen’s church is full people that believe faith gives them power, for them faith means overcoming the corruption of the flesh as well as the penalty for sin. The right doctrine is that faith doesn’t look inside us (our own righteousness or corruption), it looks at Christ’s perfect righteousness, and it has Christ as its only object. Justification comes through faith. Sanctification comes through justification. Only when we grasp the seriousness of our offense, only when we grasp the depth of our sin, only when the sinner is aware that he is in danger of capital punishment and is heading to hell, it is at this point that grace can be grasped and Christ apprehended in the forgiveness of sins. Freed from the penalty of sin (justified) sanctification in the christian follows, the christian is sanctified by being freed from the law’s penalty, by being brought to a sate of grace. Faith removes the penalty of sin, it does not remove the inner corruption in man. Sanctification is the consequence of being free from the penalty of sin. Although the law is holy and perfect, far from being able to remove sin, it causes it to increase as Paul teaches in several passages. Christ by fulfilling the requirements of the Law, removes the penalty of sin. It is this removal of the penalty of sin apprehended by faith that produces sanctification. Grace can be defined as not being under the condemnation of the law, a man is either under the law or in a state of grace. Romans 7:8 – 7:11 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. Romans 8:3 – 8:4 3 For God has done what the law, )weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
> ...



Amen to all you said brother....and you summarized a very important point..."The right doctrine is that faith doesn’t look inside us (our own righteousness or corruption), it looks at Christ’s perfect righteousness, and it has Christ as its only object. Justification comes through faith. Sanctification comes through justification."


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2012)

dudley said:


> Amen to all you said brother....and you summarized a very important point..."The right doctrine is that faith doesn’t look inside us (our own righteousness or corruption), it looks at Christ’s perfect righteousness, and it has Christ as its only object. Justification comes through faith. Sanctification comes through justification."



Both justification and sanctification come through Christ alone. 1 Corinthians 1:30, "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."

Westminster Confession, chapter 14, section 2, "But the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace."


----------



## KMK (Feb 6, 2012)

Thomas Boston:



> Though by the death and resurrection of Christ, the sanctification of his people is infallibly insured, as the corruption of all mankind was by the fall of Adam; *yet we cannot actually partake of Christ's holiness till we have a spiritual being in him, even as we partake not of Adam's corruption till we have a natural being from him.* And for the effecting of this union with Christ, he in the time of love sends his quickening Spirit into the soul, whereby he apprehends us; and thus there is a passive reception of Christ. And the soul being quickened, believes, and so apprehends Christ. Thus that union with Christ is made up by the Spirit on Christ's part, and faith on ours. *So the soul being united to him, lives by the same spirit of holiness which is in him, and takes of his, and gives to his members for their sanctification.* Works Vol II, Pg. 13



Were we born corrupt because Adam was guilty or because Adam was corrupt? We were born corrupt because our original parents were corrupt. In the same way, we are made 'uncorrupt' (holy), not because of Christ's innocence, but because of His holiness. Our sanctification does not flow from our justification before God by Christ's imputed righteousness (Rom 3-5), but from our being united with Him in His death, burial and resurrection. (Rom 6) Both justification and sanctification (as well as adoption) flow from union with Christ.

Am I paraphrasing Boston's argument correctly?


----------



## MW (Feb 6, 2012)

KMK said:


> Am I paraphrasing Boston's argument correctly?



I believe you are. The language of the Catechism is "sinned in him" (legal) and "fell with him" (real), and both equally presuppose his federal headship and "descending from by ordinary generation" (union).


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 7, 2012)

So, are we saying that Warfield is wrong, assuming his quote remained as his final stance on the issue? The conversation comes across as if we're rejecting all thoughts in this direction, that sanctification flows from our having been justified. Perhaps it would be helpful to add "definitive" or "continual" to our terms.

“Justification and sanctification are thought of as parallel products of faith. This is not, however, the New Testament representation. According to its teaching, sanctification is not related to faith directly and immediately, so that in believing in Jesus we receive both justification and sanctification as parallel products of our faith; or either the one or the other, according as our faith is directed to the one or the other. Sanctification is related directly not to faith but to justification; and as faith is the instrumental cause of justification, so is justification the instrumental cause of sanctification. That which binds justification and sanctification together is not that they are both effects of faith – so that he who believes must have both – because faith is the condition of both alike. Nor is it even that both are obtained in Christ, so that he who has Christ, who is made to us both righteousness and sanctification, must have both because Christ is the common source of both. It is true that he who has faith has and must have both; and it is true that he who has Christ has and must have both. But they do not come out of faith or from Christ in the same way. Justification comes through faith; sanctification through justification, and only mediately, through justification, through faith. So that the order is invariable, faith, justification, sanctification; not arbitrarily, but in the nature of the case.”
B.B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, p 362"

Blessings!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2012)

I found this somewhat helpful. 

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf



> The first of Wenger’s arguments stemming from this passage is largely semantic. He proposes that it is significant that Calvin twice described sanctification as “secondary,” suggesting that Calvin thus understood justification as the “primary” of the “double graces.” This argument runs into the following problems: (1)* it is not clear that Calvin intended to assign a relative worth to sanctification when he described it as “second” in order, as if justification were first in order of soteriological value and sanctification a rung lower in value; (2) Calvin did not describe justification and sanctification here as “double graces,” but as a “double grace (duplex gratia).” This is important to note because Calvin understood that the duplex gratia is received only by “partaking of him” in whom the benefits reside. When Christ is “grasped and possessed by us in faith,” we receive the duplex gratia of justification and sanctification; it is a two-fold grace, not two graces.*
> 
> 
> …* "Calvin’s understanding of the relationship between justification and sanctification, as Wenger has it, is one of cause and effect: sanctification is impossible if not founded on justification." *Wenger (35) “New Perspective” 323, 325
> ...


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 7, 2012)

I think there are two logically distinct questions.

1. Ontologically, what is the relationship between justification and sanctification?

2. Pastorally, how does the doctrine of justification contribute to the believer's ongoing sanctification?

I think that #1 is a fairly easy question, and has been spoken of much here. However, simply resolving #1 does not necessarily answer #2. One could, without logical contradiction, believe one the one hand that justification and sanctification are distinct benefits of union with Christ, and on the other hand that sanctification is greatly enhanced by the continuing experiential appropriation of justification. I think that is really the position that some Reformed people (Horton, Tullian T.) are taking, and it's an interesting one. I personally appreciate it, as long as the word "gospel" doesn't get reduced to justification and as long as appropriating justification isn't seen as the sole measure of sanctification.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 7, 2012)

CharlieJ said:


> I think there are two logically distinct questions.
> 
> 1. Ontologically, what is the relationship between justification and sanctification?
> 
> ...



The problem is that Horton, Tullian T etc do not seem to agree on #1 with those who take the union with Christ position seen in this thread. Because of this, there is a large dispute concerning #2. When one gets #1 wrong, then one can reasonable attempt to reduce sanctification to continuing experiential appropriation of justification.

CT


----------



## jogri17 (Feb 7, 2012)

moral necessity said:


> we are going down a slippery slope.


I don'tg find that to be an convincing argument especially since all of an argument hinges on it.


----------



## KMK (Feb 7, 2012)

I am not so sure Warfield would disagree with the confession on this point.



> Throughout Warfield's writings this [sanctification] is both assumed and argued. Sin's former power is broken in the experience of every believer. Every Christian has undergone a "repistination" of soul. This is more than sufficient to demonstrate that Warfield understood very well something of what Murray later called ":definitive sanctification." Murray worked this out more "definitively" than did Warfield, particularly in terms of the New Testament use of hagiazo and its cognates, and he gave fuller exposition to Romans 6 in this regard. *But Warfield saw very well that sanctification begins in the supernatural re-creative work of regeneration and that it is rooted in our union with Christ in his death and resurrection.* Fred G Zaspel; Warfield: A Systematic Summary; pg 492,3.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 7, 2012)

jogri17 said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > we are going down a slippery slope.
> ...



Again...just for clarity when this post is read 50 years from now...this is not my quote. It was a list of comments about the topic from the website in the OP.

Blessings!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2012)

ChristianTrader said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > I think there are two logically distinct questions.
> ...


I agree with CT.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 7, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Is the Horton group really outside the mainstream Reformed world, or withen it?
> ...



Yes I didn't think about that distinction, thank you for showing it to me. This teaching only. I have no doubts that they are over all Reformed. I know that in the interviews I mentioned that Horton sees the Lutherans and the Reformed teaching the same thing with regards to this teaching. I guess I would ask is that true?

---------- Post added at 06:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:31 PM ----------

Just thinking out loud here. So all the blessings of salvation are ours due to our union with Christ. So in this sense we receive justification and sanctification all the same. But in the _ordo salutis_ we make a logical priority of justification preceeding sanctification not an ontological priorty of one leading to the other. We also, contra Berkhof, do not use the whole objective/subjective justification scheme. If this is it than I understand this thing now.


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2012)

moral necessity said:


> So, are we saying that Warfield is wrong, assuming his quote remained as his final stance on the issue?



The quotation comes in the context of an examination of another writer's presentation. In order to understand what Warfield was saying one needs to know to what he was replying. He had just quoted Jellinghaus to the effect that "the New Testament does not (“mostly”) teach justification through faith and sanctification through faith, but
justification and sanctification through faith." Warfield's concern was with the conceptual conflation which was being made by what he calls "the mediating theology." This theology claimed that the New Testament does not make the sharp conceptual distinction which is made in Lutheran and Reformed theology. Warfield's response, then, must be seen as a concern to maintain this conceptual difference. His statement gives priority to justification. This is a just reflection of Reformed theology. Justification, adoption, sanctification, is the order of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. He then makes a statement, which he does not go on to explain, declaring that sanctification depends on justification. "Conceptually" -- the context of the statement -- this is true. Faith appropriates Christ's righteousness for justification as a matter of priority. Faith's appropriation for sanctification depends upon this "legal" priority. Nevertheless, Warfield does insist that faith relies on Christ for sanctification, that this is the same act of faith which relies on Christ for justification, and that salvation is unitary. His view is well summarised in what follows:



> For the main matter, however, Jellinghaus’ expositions of the Scriptural material are not only true, but both obvious and important. It is not exact to say that the New Testament makes no conceptional distinction between justification and sanctification. But it is true to say that it is absolutely impatient of their separation from one another, and uniformly represents them as belonging together and entering as *constituent parts into the one*, *unitary salvation which is received by faith*. The significance of Jellinghaus’ exposition of the Scriptural material is that by it it is made perfectly clear that *no support from the New Testament can be obtained for separating them and representing them as two distinct benefits which may be obtained apart from each other by separate acts of faith*.



With this affirmation Warfield parts company with those who are quoting him as an advocate of their justification-only gospel.


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> Yes I didn't think about that distinction, thank you for showing it to me. This teaching only. I have no doubts that they are over all Reformed. I know that in the interviews I mentioned that Horton sees the Lutherans and the Reformed teaching the same thing with regards to this teaching. I guess I would ask is that true?



On this teaching they have strayed from the Reformed faith. As noted in my first post in this thread, it is contrary to the Confession and Catechisms and has its roots in the Antinomian movement of the 17th century.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 7, 2012)

Calvin on Rom 6:2


> Who have died to sin, etc. An argument derived from what is of an opposite character. “He who sins certainly lives to sin; we have died to sin through the grace of Christ; then it is false, that what abolishes sin gives vigor to it.” The state of the case is really this, — that the faithful are never reconciled to God without the gift of regeneration; nay, we are for this end justified, — that we may afterwards serve God in holiness of life. Christ indeed does not cleanse us by his blood, nor render God propitious to us by his expiation, in any other way than by making us partakers of his Spirit, who renews us to a holy life. It would then be a most strange inversion of the work of God were sin to gather strength on account of the grace which is offered to us in Christ; for medicine is not a feeder of the disease, which it destroys.


6:5


> Ingrafted, etc. There is great force in this word, and it clearly shows, that the Apostle does not exhort, but rather teach us what benefit we derive from Christ; for he requires nothing from us, which is to be done by our attention and diligence, but speaks of the grafting made by the hand of God. But there is no reason why you should seek to apply the metaphor or comparison in every particular; for between the grafting of trees, and this which is spiritual, a disparity will soon meet us: in the former the graft draws its aliment from the root, but retains its own nature in the fruit; but in the latter not only we derive the vigor and nourishment of life from Christ, but we also pass from our own to his nature. The Apostle, however, meant to express nothing else but the efficacy of the death of Christ, which manifests itself in putting to death our flesh, and also the efficacy of his resurrection, in renewing within us a spiritual nature.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 7, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> On this teaching they have strayed from the Reformed faith. As noted in my first post in this thread, it is contrary to the Confession and Catechisms and has its roots in the Antinomian movement of the 17th century.


Thank you, that makes sense.


----------



## moral necessity (Feb 7, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > So, are we saying that Warfield is wrong, assuming his quote remained as his final stance on the issue?
> ...



Thanks for your reply, Rev. Winzer. Context of quotes is a necessity. I'll look into what you're saying here.

Blessings!


----------



## Jeffriesw (Feb 7, 2012)

armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes I didn't think about that distinction, thank you for showing it to me. This teaching only. I have no doubts that they are over all Reformed. I know that in the interviews I mentioned that Horton sees the Lutherans and the Reformed teaching the same thing with regards to this teaching. I guess I would ask is that true?
> ...



Thank you for the clarity on the issue Rev. Winzer. it sort of also would seem to tie back in somewhat to the Lordship debate that raged through the 80's and 90's.


----------



## KMK (Feb 8, 2012)

Charles Hodge, from "Discussions in Church Polity"



> As to the bond by which the saints are united so as to become a Church, it cannot be anything external, because that may and always does unite those who are not saints. The bond, whatever it is, must be peculiar to the saints; it must be something to which their justification, sanctification, and access to God are due. This can be nothing less than their relation to Christ. *It is in virtue of union with him that men become saints*, or are justified, sanctified, and brought nigh to God.


----------



## jwright82 (Feb 12, 2012)

I just found this. Monergism :: Union with Christ.
I hope it helps anyone, I know it has me.


----------

