# Sanctification: Monergistic or Synergistic?



## Gator_Baptist

This is something that has been on mind a lot lately, and I wanted some guidance on the subject from other reformed folk.

I know that all reformed folk will agree that justification is monergistic. But what about Sanctification? I am starting to think that it is monergistic for a couple of reasons. I read this Q & A from another website, and found it to be very convincing. And it appears to me that Ezekiel 36:27 would also indicate that as well.

I wanted to put this idea out there and see if it would hold up to criticism, so let me know what you think.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I believe it is both. Sometimes God needs to override us in our sanctification. Here are a few passages for both.



> (Psa 23:3) He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.





> (Php 2:12) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.
> 
> (Php 2:13) For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.


----------



## Gator_Baptist

What do think of this argument that Philippians 2:12, 13 actually supports monergistic sanctification and not synergistic sanctification?



> Just so I'm clear -- I like John Hendryx. But, I don't find this a very compelling argument. In context, Paul is not saying that the saints at Philippi should work out their salvation in the absence of the God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit. Paul said that he was personally absent. The saints at Philippi were to continue in their work without Paul's immediate input. Being absent, Paul placed them in God's hand, who would cause them "both to will and to work for His good pleasure." Paul was not arguing for synergism. And, if it could somehow be proven that he was, then he was a very confused theologian, given all the statements above.
> 
> Also, notice how the verse is cited: "Phil. 2:12b,13." Why "12b"? Well, because 12a would reveal the true context, so it was conveniently discarded (as if partial thoughts can actually convey the original author's intentions). Here is what was actually written:
> 
> "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Phil. 2:12-13)
> 
> Just as they had obeyed Paul's teaching, they were to continue in the gospel in his absence, knowing that it was God Himself working in them both to will and to work according to His good pleasure. Given the clarity and weight of the verses listed above (which do not exhaust the New Testament passages on the subject), this one verse, out-of-context and truncated, does not make the case for synergism with any real force. Philippians 2:12-13 can just as easily be used by the proponent of monergistic sanctification, since it is ultimately God who causes the willing and the working. To form dogmatic statements on the basis of one verse that does not even directly address sanctification as a topic seems a bit tenuous to me.



Link


----------



## Peairtach

The beginning of sanctification is monergistic, being regeneration and definitive sanctification.

Progressive sanctification is synergistic with the regenerated soul co-operating with the work of Christ by His Holy Spirit in the soul.

The end of sanctification is perfection at death, which is monergistic.

All the glory goes to God because we would never want to co-operate in progressive sanctification without being monergistically regenerated.

Progressive sanctification is definitely not some kind of "Let go and let God" situation.


----------



## rbcbob

Richard Tallach said:


> The beginning of sanctification is monergistic, being regeneration and definitive sanctification.
> 
> Progressive sanctification is synergistic with the regenerated soul co-operating with the work of Christ by His Holy Spirit in the soul.
> 
> The end of sanctification is perfection at death, which is monergistic.
> 
> All the glory goes to God because we would never want to co-operate in progressive sanctification without being monergistically regenerated.
> 
> Progressive sanctification is definitely not some kind of "Let go and let God" situation.


----------



## KMK

If one does not like the term 'synergistic' in regards to sanctification, the word 'participation' might work. We participate in our sanctification in a way that we do not in our justification. I brought this up in a recent thread:

Even though God causes me to love righteousness that does not mean I do not actually and truly love righteousness.

Ursinus:



> Man's conversion to God consists in a change of the corrupt mind and will into that which is good, produced by the Holy Ghost through preaching of the law and the gospel, which is followed by *a sincere desire* to produce the fruits of repentance, and a conformity of the life to all the commands of God. _Commentary on the Heidelber_g, pg. 469


----------



## Don Kistler

This is one of those "both/and" things. As Philippians points out, we work out what He is working in us, and we only work out *because* He is working in us. But it is important to remember that none of the commands in the Bible are given to God. Every one of them is given to us.


----------



## EricP

Under the rubric that it never hurts to mention Puritan authors on the Puritan Board, the more you read of them the more you feel and see their pastor's hearts in dealing with the battle against the world and the work every Christian has to put into his sanctification. Law's A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, Brooks' Precious Remedies, Owens' Mortification of Sin etc all chime in well with the later likes of Ryle's Holiness--we are saved by the Father, under the accomplished work of our Savior, and we are assisted throughout our lives by His Spirit. He has given us the ability to respond to His call to fight for our sanctification to the death!


----------



## TaylorOtwell

Good question. 



> Question 75: What is sanctification? Answer: *Sanctification is a work of God's grace*, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, *through the powerful operation of his Spirit* applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, 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,* and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened*, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.


I'm struggling to see how it could be any less monergistic than justification. Though, perhaps I'm not understanding the nuances of the terms. For instance, if we say we co-operate through attending to the means of grace, is it not God who stirred up our hearts to attend to His means of growing us in spiritual life? Regarding justification, we willingly embrace Christ after our hearts have been regenerated by His sovereign grace; however, this does not cause us to call justification synergistic. In the same way, it seems that though we willingly participate in the means of grace, it is always God who stirs up our hearts to do so.

Is this not orthodox? I understand that sanctification is not a "let go and let God" situation; however, is not every growth in grace, at the root level, because God is working in our hearts?

*Edit* - It seems minds much stronger than my own differ with me... I'm willing to trust others judgment in divine things, but I'm still struggling with understanding how sanctification is not, at the root, monergistic. I checked Gill's Body of Divinity, and he seems to view sanctification in more monergistic terms, at least in its cause.



> It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that Divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he co-operates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Thus, while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits of resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists.
> 
> - A.A. Hodge


----------



## jayce475

TaylorOtwell said:


> Good question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 75: What is sanctification? Answer: *Sanctification is a work of God's grace*, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, *through the powerful operation of his Spirit* applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, 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,* and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened*, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm struggling to see how it could be any less monergistic than justification. Though, perhaps I'm not understanding the nuances of the terms. For instance, if we say we co-operate through attending to the means of grace, is it not God who stirred up our hearts to attend to His means of growing us in spiritual life? Regarding justification, we willingly embrace Christ after our hearts have been regenerated by His sovereign grace; however, this does not cause us to call justification synergistic. In the same way, it seems that though we willingly participate in the means of grace, it is always God who stirs up our hearts to do so.
> 
> Is this not orthodox? I understand that sanctification is not a "let go and let God" situation; however, is not every growth in grace, at the root level, because God is working in our hearts?
> 
> *Edit* - It seems minds much stronger than my own differ with me... I'm willing to trust others judgment in divine things, but I'm still struggling with understanding how sanctification is not, at the root, monergistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that Divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he co-operates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Thus, while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits of resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists.
> 
> - A.A. Hodge
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
 Fundamentally, does a mature believer say that he had a role to play in his sanctification as it was he himself who participated with the Holy Spirit, or is it purely by the grace of God that he was willing to participate in the first place? Shouldn't human responsibility and God's sovereignty logically work in the same way for both regeneration and sanctification? I've heard of definitive and progressive sanctification before, and it seems to make a whole lot of sense, but I'm not fully convinced scripturally. Do we have scriptures to back up this distinction definitively? Then again, is there ultimately any practical purpose to understanding if sanctification is monergistic or synergistic, assuming mature believers exhibit humility and do not boast of how sanctified they are?


----------



## student ad x

Richard Tallach said:


> Progressive sanctification is synergistic with the regenerated soul co-operating with the work of Christ by His Holy Spirit in the soul.


 
Is prayer the means of co-operation?


----------



## yoyoceramic

John Owen in _Mortification of Sin_



> The first is, that the choicest believers, who are assuredly freed from the condemning power of sin, ought yet to make it their business, all their days, to mortify the indwelling power of sin. ...do you mortify; do you make it your daily work' be always at it whilst you live;cease not a day from this work; be killing sin, or it will be killing you. Your being dead with Christ virtually, your being quickened with him, will not excuse you from this work.


_Full Text Here_


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> We should not lose sight of the fact that justification is by faith alone and faith is receptive by nature. In sanctification the other graces are wrought in the person but these graces are creative. Therefore, although God works faith with all other graces in the person, faith is given as the instrument of receiving Christ and His righteousness, whereas the other graces are given for the pupose of bringng forth a Christ-like character and behaviour. Distinction must be made between them to the effect that we can produce nothing as a part of our justification but we must make concerted effort to be productive Christians as a part of sanctification; and in both cases -- the ability to rest in none but Christ in justification as well as the desire to live for Christ in sanctification -- the grace is the inwrought gift of God.



This is big in my estimation. A lot of guys separate the the two when they shouldn't and make to many differences between when they shouldn't. Just my humble opinion. Many people do not understand Grace from the word Charis in my humble opinion. It is the word translated grace.

I wrote these two older posts a long time ago. 


> How do you define grace? I would like to understand what you are saying?
> 
> I do believe we need a good dose of law preaching. It was in the the law of God that King David encouraged us to delight in. It is meditating upon it that keeps us in the way and cleanses us. It is the law of the Lord that converts (revives) the soul.
> 
> Just for reference
> (Psa 1:2) But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
> 
> (Psa 19:7) The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
> (Psa 19:8) The statutes of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes.
> 
> (Psa 94:12) Blessed is the man whom thou chastenest, O LORD, and teachest him out of thy law;
> 
> (Psa 119:1) Blessed are the undefiled in the way, who walk in the law of the LORD.
> 
> (Psa 119:9) Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
> (Psa 119:10) With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
> (Psa 119:11) Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
> (Psa 119:12) Blessed art thou, O LORD: teach me thy statutes.
> 
> (Rom 7:7) What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.
> 
> (Rom 7:12) Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
> (Rom 7:13) Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
> 
> 
> The reason I mentioned the Titus text in reference to grace is that grace leads us into obedience. It uses the law to reveal God's will for the life of the Christian. We are free from the condemnation of the law but not our obligation as creatures to obey it. We please God by doing his will. And we need the light of the law to keep His will in focus. We still have indwelling sin to combat. We still have the world, the devil, and the flesh trying to keep us blinded and snared. We need good law preaching by the Grace of God.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe most of modern day Christendom has a deficient understanding of Grace based upon some some old definitions and scripture. If we had a better understanding of God's grace no one could conclude anything to be cheap concerning it. It's cost of imparting it was paid by Christ.
> 
> In Titus Grace teaches us.
> (Tit 2:11-12) For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
> 
> In 2 Corintians it is used synomously with Christ's power working in us.
> 
> (2Co 12:8-9) For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
> 
> The Greek word charis is translated grace. In the old Strongs greek dictionary there is a definition given which says, "especially the divine influence upon the heart, and it's reflection in the life."
> 
> The Puritans didn't believe grace meant just unmerited favor. God's grace is unmerited but it is much more than that. Charismata is the operation of God's Spirit working through man.
> 
> Grace is monergistic as it is also synergistic. It isn't both at the same time. Salvation by Grace is monergistic. Monergistic Grace is the Holy Spirit breathing life into our souls and quickening us into New Creatures in Christ. It is unmerited but it isn't just unmerited favor. That is where the semi Pelagians (Independent Baptists or Free Will advocates) greatly err. There definition of Grace is faulty. That is why their Grace is truly no grace at all.
> 
> Synergistic Grace is what Phi 2:12,13 is about.
> 
> (Phi 2:12-13) Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.
> 
> Just my two cents on the topic.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I accidentally deleted a post by someone that can be seen in my prior post.. It was by Reverend Winzer.


----------



## Gator_Baptist

TaylorOtwell said:


> Good question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 75: What is sanctification? Answer: *Sanctification is a work of God's grace*, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, *through the powerful operation of his Spirit* applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, 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,* and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened*, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm struggling to see how it could be any less monergistic than justification. Though, perhaps I'm not understanding the nuances of the terms. For instance, if we say we co-operate through attending to the means of grace, is it not God who stirred up our hearts to attend to His means of growing us in spiritual life? Regarding justification, we willingly embrace Christ after our hearts have been regenerated by His sovereign grace; however, this does not cause us to call justification synergistic. In the same way, it seems that though we willingly participate in the means of grace, it is always God who stirs up our hearts to do so.
> 
> Is this not orthodox? I understand that sanctification is not a "let go and let God" situation; however, is not every growth in grace, at the root level, because God is working in our hearts?
> 
> *Edit* - It seems minds much stronger than my own differ with me... I'm willing to trust others judgment in divine things, but I'm still struggling with understanding how sanctification is not, at the root, monergistic. I checked Gill's Body of Divinity, and he seems to view sanctification in more monergistic terms, at least in its cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must be remembered that while the subject is passive with respect to that Divine act of grace whereby he is regenerated, after he is regenerated he co-operates with the Holy Ghost in the work of sanctification. The Holy Ghost gives the grace, and prompts and directs in its exercise, and the soul exercises it. Thus, while sanctification is a grace, it is also a duty; and the soul is both bound and encouraged to use with diligence, in dependence upon the Holy Spirit, all the means for its spiritual renovation, and to form those habits of resisting evil and of right action in which sanctification so largely consists.
> 
> - A.A. Hodge
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
This is basically the way that I have understood it. And since justification and sanctification are pretty much inseparable, I think that sanctification has to be monergistic if justification is. But one way that I have heard it explained is that if there is an omnipotent being living in you, then He will get His way. Nothing will stop an unstoppable force from getting what it wants. And, so, if the Holy Spirit wants sanctification and holiness, then the Holy Spirit is powerful enough to obtain that and coerce my will to be subservient to His will. I know that may sound like quietism, but I am not saying that we should just sit back and wait. The way that I view it is that we should actively attempt to mortify sin, and then realize that it was 100% of the Holy Spirit apart from my cooperation.

With that view, it sounds as if that puts me at odds with a lot of people here, but that could be due to ignorance on my part, which is why I asked the question in the first place. For those who are advocating for a synergistic view on sanctification, where would you find this idea in scripture? I am not fully convinced that Philippians 2:12-13 really says that sanctification is synergistic because I have found the argument made in the article that I posted above to be very convincing. Are there are any other places in scripture where this idea can be found or does the whole idea rest on a certain understanding of Philippians 2:12-13?


----------



## Herald

Is sanctification synergistic? It depends on how you are looking at. If your view is from the horizontal plane, than yes, sanctification is synergistic. If the vertical aspect is considered then sanctification is vertical. Philippians 2:12, 13 has already been quoted, but something has been missing in the discussion of this text.



> *Philippians 2:12, 13* 12 So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.



Paul commands the Philippians to work out their salvation. Only exegetical gymnastics could misunderstand the responsibility the individual has in walking in a manner worthy of his calling (Eph. 4:1). But the ability of the believer to walk in such a manner is because of the work of grace in their life. _For it is God who is at work in you_. Not only is He at work, but it is according to His will. This will is as much the decretive will of God as is the calling of His elect unto salvation. God is the One who is ultimately at work; perfecting the faith of Christian (Phil. 1:6). There is no doubting our participation, but it's the result of God's will, not consubstantial with it.


----------



## Andres

Here is an excerpt from a J.I. Packer article:



> Regeneration was a momentary monergistic act of quickening the spiritually dead. As such, it was God's work alone. Sanctification, however, is in one sense synergistic - it is an ongoing cooperative process in which regenerate persons, alive to God and freed from sin's dominion (Rom. 6:11, 14-18), are required to exert themselves in sustained obedience. God's method of sanctification is neither activism (self-reliant activity) nor apathy (God-reliant passivity), but God-dependent effort (2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 3:10-14; Heb. 12:14). Knowing that without Christ's enabling we can do nothing, morally speaking, as we should, and that he is ready to strengthen us for all that we have to do (Phil. 4:13), we "stay put" (remain, abide) in Christ, asking for his help constantly - and we receive it (Col. 1:11; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2:1).



I agree with some of the previous posters that sanctification can be viewed as monergistic in that we could never be made holy in and of ourselves, however if the work were _completely_ God's alone, then would not every saint be perfectly holy?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jayce475

Andres said:


> Here is an excerpt from a J.I. Packer article:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regeneration was a momentary monergistic act of quickening the spiritually dead. As such, it was God's work alone. Sanctification, however, is in one sense synergistic - it is an ongoing cooperative process in which regenerate persons, alive to God and freed from sin's dominion (Rom. 6:11, 14-18), are required to exert themselves in sustained obedience. God's method of sanctification is neither activism (self-reliant activity) nor apathy (God-reliant passivity), but God-dependent effort (2 Cor. 7:1; Phil. 3:10-14; Heb. 12:14). Knowing that without Christ's enabling we can do nothing, morally speaking, as we should, and that he is ready to strengthen us for all that we have to do (Phil. 4:13), we "stay put" (remain, abide) in Christ, asking for his help constantly - and we receive it (Col. 1:11; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:7; 2:1).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with some of the previous posters that sanctification can be viewed as monergistic in that we could never be made holy in and of ourselves, however if the work were _completely_ God's alone, then would not every saint be perfectly holy?
Click to expand...

 
Been looking at Romans 8:29 (For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.) and wondering if it applies at all to this debate. Also, how about Rom 9:15-16 (For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.)? Is the whole of Romans 9 limited to purely regeneration, or is there some truth about sanctification to be glimpsed as well? If we view sanctification in the same light as regeneration, then the answer as to why not all are equally sanctified will be the same as that for why not all are saved. Namely, that God chooses it to be so according to His own good will. Does this take our view of God's sovereignty too far? I'm just throwing some suggestions around, as I'm kind of on the fence.


----------



## Peairtach

I agree that a better word than synergistic could be used for progressive sanctification, since we would never co-operate at all willingly with the Holy Spirit in progressive sanctification if we hadn't been monergistically regenerated in the first place.

So its down to the sole power of God (monergistiism) in 

(a) In bringing us to spiritual life from death in the first place.

(b) In the Holy Spirit giving our new natures, which now have some inherent will to co-operate with Him, the power to make progress in sanctification.


----------



## louis_jp

What if one doesn't cooperate in their sanctification? Can you be saved yet unsanctified?


----------



## Herald

louis_jp said:


> What if one doesn't cooperate in their sanctification? Can you be saved yet unsanctified?


 


> *Romans 8:29,30* 29For those whom he foreknew, He also predestined _to become_ conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.



Any cooperation by man is the result of the work of saving grace in our life. Yes, we do participate, or cooperate, in our sanctification. But we must be careful to understand that we can take no credit for obeying. The ability to obey God is also a work of grace. God still receives all the glory; just as He does in salvation. In fact, our sanctification is the working out of our salvation (Phil. 2).


----------



## louis_jp

Herald said:


> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if one doesn't cooperate in their sanctification? Can you be saved yet unsanctified?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 8:29,30* 29For those whom he foreknew, He also predestined _to become_ conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any cooperation by man is the result of the work of saving grace in our life. Yes, we do participate, or cooperate, in our sanctification. But we must be careful to understand that we can take no credit for obeying. The ability to obey God is also a work of grace. God still receives all the glory; just as He does in salvation. In fact, our sanctification is the working out of our salvation (Phil. 2).
Click to expand...

 
Sounds like the Roman Catholic view of justification/sanctification. Why are they wrong, but we are not?


----------



## Herald

louis_jp said:


> Sounds like the Roman Catholic view of justification/sanctification. Why are they wrong, but we are not?


You misunderstand the Romanist view of sanctification. The Romanist view requires human effort (works). Works are as efficacious as grace according to Rome. The Protestant view considers our part in sanctification as a result of justification. The Christian will become more like Christ because he is able to (2 Cor. 5:17). God is working in the believer (Phil. 1:6; 2:13), as opposed to man working independent but in cooperation with God.


----------



## jayce475

louis_jp said:


> What if one doesn't cooperate in their sanctification? Can you be saved yet unsanctified?


 
Certainly not. That's antinomianism. Sanctified to varying extents, yes, but no evidence of sanctification means absolute death. We may bear different amounts of fruit, but if there is no fruit, we will be cast into eternal damnation. As for who are truly those bearing genuine fruit, God alone will judge.
Matt 7:17-19 "Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire."
Which is why, there is at the very least some degree of monergism in sanctification, unless we bring that aspect of sanctification into our definition of regeneration in itself. This is where the idea of definitive sanctification comes in I believe, and much of this debate is to sort out how it fits into the whole picture of God's sovereign will.


----------



## Peairtach

louis_jp said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if one doesn't cooperate in their sanctification? Can you be saved yet unsanctified?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 8:29,30* 29For those whom he foreknew, He also predestined _to become_ conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any cooperation by man is the result of the work of saving grace in our life. Yes, we do participate, or cooperate, in our sanctification. But we must be careful to understand that we can take no credit for obeying. The ability to obey God is also a work of grace. God still receives all the glory; just as He does in salvation. In fact, our sanctification is the working out of our salvation (Phil. 2).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Roman Catholic view of justification/sanctification. Why are they wrong, but we are not?
Click to expand...


The Romanist view is that we are justified by faith plus works. According to Romanist teaching it's grace working faith and our good works in us that gets us to Heaven or purgatory. It's thoroughly synergistic.

The Protestant view is that we are justified by faith alone through grace alone. We contribute nothing to our justification. 

We are no more or less justified after years of progressive sanctification, or years in Heaven, than we were the moment we first trusted in Jesus , by God's grace.

Protestants make a clear distinction between justification (which includes adoption) and sanctification, although you never have true justification without true sanctification or vice versa.


----------



## louis_jp

I don't see the difference between what you guys are saying about sanctification and what Rome says about justificiation/sanctification (which they don't distinguish). They don't believe in "works" in the sense of unaided human effort. They conceive of it in terms of God's grace working in a person, and that person's cooperation with that grace. Which is what I hear you saying about sanctification. 

Moreover, if one has to be sanctified to be saved, then the distinction between justification and sanctification breaks down. Just like Rome, you are saying that we need to cooperate with God's grace working in our lives in order to be saved. Simply putting that requirement later in the process doesn't change the end result.

I don't mean to be dense, but this is how I am hearing it.


----------



## jayce475

louis_jp said:


> I don't see the difference between what you guys are saying about sanctification and what Rome says about justificiation/sanctification (which they don't distinguish). They don't believe in "works" in the sense of unaided human effort. They conceive of it in terms of God's grace working in a person, and that person's cooperation with that grace. Which is what I hear you saying about sanctification.
> 
> Moreover, if one has to be sanctified to be saved, then the distinction between justification and sanctification breaks down. Just like Rome, you are saying that we need to cooperate with God's grace working in our lives in order to be saved. Simply putting that requirement later in the process doesn't change the end result.
> 
> I don't mean to be dense, but this is how I am hearing it.


 
What you are saying of RC justification/sanctification is contrary to what I've been taught about it thus far. Yes, they believe in God's grace, but it is not conceived in terms of God's direct workings with the hearts of the believers, but rather works through the sacraments and the Catholic church itself. On the second part, no, one does not have to be sanctified to be saved, but a saved person will naturally bear fruits due to his regeneration, which is always accompanied by saving faith and justification. Sanctification is not a requirement to be saved, but rather, it is something which shows that one has true saving faith. It's nothing but a symptom of the marvelous regeneration of God, albeit a very important symptom that never ever fails to appear.


----------



## louis_jp

Jason,

We understand the Roman system differently. There is the sacramental aspect, but there is also this other. 

On sanctification in salvation: If you require human action in sanctification, doesn't that make sanctification contingent on something that was not present in justification? If so, then how can one define sanctification as being the inevitable fruit of justification? If justification is monergistic, and sanctification flows inevitably out of it, then sanctification would be monergistic too, no?


----------



## jayce475

louis_jp said:


> Jason,
> 
> We understand the Roman system differently. There is the sacramental aspect, but there is also this other.
> 
> On sanctification in salvation: If you require human action in sanctification, doesn't that make sanctification contingent on something that was not present in justification? If so, then how can one define sanctification as being the inevitable fruit of justification? If justification is monergistic, and sanctification flows inevitably out of it, then sanctification would be monergistic too, no?


 
Would you care to show from the RC dogma how there is also "this other"? I'm not well-versed in it at all, so please show me what the RCs really think if you will. 

Justification is monergistic, and sanctification flows inevitably out of it, so there is definitely at least part of it that is monergistic. The debate here is whether all of it is monergistic, or if it only takes place to a certain extent (with the idea of definitive sanctification) with the rest of it being synergistic. It's also not entirely clear whether this portion that is monergistic should accurately be called part of sanctification or be considered part of regeneration, though it is definitely not part of justification.


----------



## louis_jp

This would be a good place to start (skip down the page to get to the Roman doctrine):

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Justification


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I explain our "participation" in sanctification this way:

My child is growing up. She's not really "contributing" to that growth, but she does eat. That's "contribution," but you know she doesn't provide any of her own food, just stuffs it in her mouth. And the Lord of Providence does the rest.

She likes to be with mom. She may be standing on a chair in the kitchen, and sees mom stirring the pot. "Me help!" "OK,' says mom indulgently, "you may stir the pot." And she takes the child's hand, and places it on top of her own. Wow, is that kid proud. She's stirring that pot! Oh yea.

That's how we "contribute" to our sanctification. We believe the gospel. We look to the Lord, our Father and Savior, and we try to be helpful. And he brings us along.



> Galatians 5:22-25 (New International Version)
> 
> 22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. *25Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit.*


----------



## MRC

rbcbob said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The beginning of sanctification is monergistic, being regeneration and definitive sanctification.
> 
> Progressive sanctification is synergistic with the regenerated soul co-operating with the work of Christ by His Holy Spirit in the soul.
> 
> The end of sanctification is perfection at death, which is monergistic.
> 
> All the glory goes to God because we would never want to co-operate in progressive sanctification without being monergistically regenerated.
> 
> Progressive sanctification is definitely not some kind of "Let go and let God" situation.
Click to expand...


I also agree. I found the book _Possessed by God_, by David Peterson, immensely helpful in forming my theology of sanctification.


----------



## MW

(My earlier post was accidentally deleted, so I will repost.)

We should not lose sight of the fact that justification is by faith alone and faith is receptive by nature. In sanctification the other graces are wrought in the person but these graces are creative. Therefore, although God works faith with all other graces in the person, faith is given as the instrument of receiving Christ and His righteousness, whereas the other graces are given for the pupose of bringing forth a Christ-like character and behaviour. Distinction must be made between them to the effect that we can produce nothing as a part of our justification but we must make concerted effort to be productive Christians as a part of sanctification; and in both cases -- the ability to rest in none but Christ in justification as well as the desire to live for Christ in sanctification -- the grace is the inwrought gift of God.


----------



## jayce475

louis_jp said:


> This would be a good place to start (skip down the page to get to the Roman doctrine):
> 
> CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Justification


 
There's a whole lot of RC lingo being bandied around and I'm not sure if I get what they actually mean. Apart from the Pelagian (or semi?) assertions of man having active free will in salvation, and setting sanctifying grace as the formal cause of justification, I'm not sure if I understand much else. But these two points already seem to be damnable. Is there anyone around here who can take the RC dogma on this page apart?


----------



## Der Pilger

This is one of those posts that started out short but ended up being longer the more I thought about it. So, sorry for the length, but here are some thoughts to throw into the mix:



louis_jp said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> louis_jp said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if one doesn't cooperate in their sanctification? Can you be saved yet unsanctified?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 8:29,30* 29For those whom he foreknew, He also predestined _to become_ conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; 30and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any cooperation by man is the result of the work of saving grace in our life. Yes, we do participate, or cooperate, in our sanctification. But we must be careful to understand that we can take no credit for obeying. The ability to obey God is also a work of grace. God still receives all the glory; just as He does in salvation. In fact, our sanctification is the working out of our salvation (Phil. 2).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds like the Roman Catholic view of justification/sanctification. Why are they wrong, but we are not?
Click to expand...

 
If I'm not mistaken, the RC view is that our cooperation with "infused grace" is necessary for justification. They confuse justification with sanctification, making the former a lifelong process (i.e., not a one-time imputation of righteousness, as we believe) that is never certain until the day of judgment, when God either pronounces a person guilty or innocent on the basis of that lifelong cooperation. It has been a long time since I have discussed RC theology with anyone, so I could be hazy on some of this.

Christ paid all the price for all the sins of the believer, and it is his righteousness that is imputed to us at the time of faith. This twofold obedience that Christ performed is perfect. His work of taking away our sins is complete, and his obedience to the law on our behalf is perfect. It is on this basis alone that we are justified by faith. That is why justification must be monergistic: There is absolutely nothing we can add to it or do to improve upon Christ's work. As such, it requires no work on our part.

There are, however, things that we can, and must, do in sanctification: making use of the means of grace, watching and praying, drawing near to God, mortifying sin, denying ourselves, gathering together with other believers, etc. This lines up perfectly with Phil. 2:12-13 and, in fact, is even demanded by the text, in my opinion:

So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling;
*for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.*

In v. 12, Paul refers to their obedience and commands them to "work out [their] salvation with fear and trembling." Why would he refer to their past obedience as well as command them to work out their salvation if he thought that this was monergistic? Furthermore, the use of the phrase "with fear and trembling" seems to reinforce his focus on the Phiilippians' obedience. If I'm not mistaken, this phrase is adverbial in nature, modifying the preceding phrase, "work out." In other words, it tells how this working out is to be done. Would Paul teach that God should work "with fear and trembling"? Not at all.

The boldfaced part does not say that God does the willing and the working for us. It says that he works *in* us "to will and to work." I wonder if that little preposition "in" can tell us more than we suspect. It doesn't say that God works "in our lives," "in our works," or "to carry out our works," but rather simply that he works *in* us. Paul's view of this divine working in this passage, then, seems limited to the work that God does within a person spiritually. It is heart-work that Paul seems to have in view here, not deed-work.

Something else to consider is the use of the infinitive in the verbs "to will and to work." If I'm not mistaken, the use of the infinitive can indicate the purpose intended by a previous or antecedent action, as in the sentence, "I am going to the store *to buy* groceries." The infinitive "to buy" indicates the reason why the action of going to the store takes place. Similarly, perhaps this can be applied to this passage: "To will and to work" indicates the purpose for which God is at work in the Philippians. If so, then it must refer to the Philippians' work and not God's, since otherwise we would have the nonsensical translation, "God is at work to do his work."

Along the same line, I find it noteworthy that the word "work" appears twice, and in both cases it is the same Greek word, though in different forms. I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me that, in light of Paul's emphasis on both the Philippians' obedience and God's internal activity within them, the existence of two identical verbs would indicate separate actions: one carried out by God and the other carried out by the Philippians. Otherwise, again, it would seem redundant: "God works to work." That makes little sense. It makes perfect sense that the text means, God works so that the Philippians, in turn, would work. 

If the above is correct, then there is a clear distinction drawn between God's activity and ours. Therefore, I don't think this text calls for a monergistic interpretation. While it does hold up God's grace and inner working as the primary factor in our sanctification--the "efficient cause," if I'm using the terminology correctly--it does not rule out our own work and actions. This is something that I find very comforting about this passage. My flesh is weak and frail, and I am prone to wander, prone to leave the God I love, as the old hymn rightly says. God's grace and power are always there, though, persevering on my behalf, perfecting the good work he began until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil. 1:6), working in me to keep desiring, to keep willing, to keep working for his good pleasure as I work out--not for--my salvation.


----------



## louis_jp

Thanks, Jeremy!

I also found helpful this short article from Hodge and Warfield: 

Sanctification, by A.A. Hodge & B.B. Warfield


----------



## TeachingTulip

I have always been taught and understood sanctification to be monergistic.

The term "synergism" suggests to me co-operation of two equal sources of power. A partnership, if you will, between two volitional (free) persons, with the same goal in mind.

I do not believe sinners (and regenerate, justified believers, remain sinners) possess the powers and abilities to co-operate with God on any kind of equal basis. Christians are not "partners" with God . . . Christians are "vessels" of God; "servants" of God, in Jesus Christ.

Believers do not work along-side with the Spirit of God; rather the Spirit of Christ tabernacles in them, and their bodies and human spirits belong to God. (I Cor. 6:19-20)

The Christian submits his will to the Father and obeys God, not to gain "graces" or increase his sanctification, but to act in conformance with, and to manifest his love for, the Christ in whom he now abides. The Christian submits his will and obeys God, _because_ He is sanctified in the Son and newly desires to emulate the holiness of Jesus Christ.

Living sanctified, holy lives, is not really a "co-operation", but a willing subjection to the will of the Father and the grace of Jesus Christ:
*
"If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love." John 10:15*

Thus, any good work of willful obedience, faith, or repentance is caused by the abiding presence of the life and power of God. 

A sanctified and holy life is_ the effect of this cause._
*
"I have been crucified with Christ: it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I so not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain." Galatians 2:20-21*


----------



## Peairtach

> I do not believe sinners (and regenerate, justified believers, remain sinners) possess the powers and abilities to co-operate with God on any kind of equal basis. Christians are not "partners" with God . . . Christians are "vessels" of God; "servants" of God, in Jesus Christ.



It's the _regenerated _soul i.e. regenerated by God that co-operates with God the Holy Spirit in progressive sanctification as the junior partner. So all the glory goes to God that a soul that He has brought to life is now doing genuinely good works with His assistance. We are not passive in progressive sanctification, but at the same time we do not take any of the glory from God, because we would not be spiritually alive without His regeneration, and we would not make progress in holiness without His assistance.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Richard Tallach said:


> I do not believe sinners (and regenerate, justified believers, remain sinners) possess the powers and abilities to co-operate with God on any kind of equal basis. Christians are not "partners" with God . . . Christians are "vessels" of God; "servants" of God, in Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the _regenerated _soul i.e. regenerated by God that co-operates with God the Holy Spirit in progressive sanctification as the junior partner.
Click to expand...


"Junior partners?"

Christians are mere instruments of God, used to fulfill His purposes. What has happened to the doctrine of "adoption?"



> So all the glory goes to God that a soul that He has brought to life is now doing genuinely good works with His assistance.



"Assistance?"

Sorry, but such assessment reduces the power and purpose of God's saving grace. 

Grace is not a mere provision of assistance as the RCC, NPP, and FV try to sell. God's grace is the power of God that tranforms sinners to saints; spiritually dead souls to eternal life; guaranteeing the elect of God eternal life through the imputation of Christ's righteousness to their account, as well as sealing them with the very sanctifying presence of God the Holy Spirit.




> We are not passive in progressive sanctification, but at the same time we do not take any of the glory from God, because we would not be spiritually alive without His regeneration, and we would not make progress in holiness without His assistance.



Sorry, but my soul is offended by the language of "co-operation," "junior partners," and "assistance." 

I do not believe any of these terms are biblical or Reformed.


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> Sorry, but my soul is offended by the language of "co-operation," "junior partners," and "assistance."
> 
> I do not believe any of these terms are biblical or Reformed.


 
These terms have a biblical basis and may be used in a reformed sense. "Co-operation" and "assistance" are clearly implied in such passages as Philippians 2:12, 13; 3:12; where the finishing of the work of salvation belongs to the believer in a specific sense, on the understanding that his willing, doing, and apprehending is the result of God's working. "Partnership" is one of the ideas associated with "fellowship" and "communion" represented by the word "koinonia."


----------



## TeachingTulip

armourbearer said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but my soul is offended by the language of "co-operation," "junior partners," and "assistance."
> 
> I do not believe any of these terms are biblical or Reformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These terms have a biblical basis and may be used in a reformed sense. "Co-operation" and "assistance" are clearly implied in such passages as Philippians 2:12, 13; 3:12; where the finishing of the work of salvation belongs to the believer in a specific sense, on the understanding that his willing, doing, and apprehending is the result of God's working.
Click to expand...


So if the believer's works are the finish of God's sovereign purposes, where is the need to introduce contingencies ("co-operation" and "assistance")?

I do not find comfort or security in any mere or imagined _implications_ garnered from God's word . . . without further and better exegesis.




> "Partnership" is one of the ideas associated with "fellowship" and "communion" represented by the word "koinonia."




Fellowship between God and man cannot undo God's sovereign rule over His creatures.

in my opinion, in order for created mankind (even regenerated mankind) to become "partners" with their Maker, is an impossibility outside of union with Jesus Christ, achieved solely through the grace and power of Godly regeneration.

Only the uncreate Son was equal with His Father. The rest of the sons of God are adopted, and lesser than their Father Creator, and ever will be . . .even though, He, by His grace, has endowed them with His name, blessings, and promise of inheritance into His kingdom.


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> So if the believer's works are the finish of God's sovereign purposes, where is the need to introduce contingencies ("co-operation" and "assistance")?



While the fulfilling of God's purpose is not contingent on "supposed conditions" (WCF 3:2), it is nevertheless true that God's unconditional purpose is fulfilled by the contingency of second causes (WCF 5:2). As God requires us to work out (finish the work of) our salvation, it is obvious that God's purpose of final salvation is fulfilled by the contingency of a human effort which He enables.



TeachingTulip said:


> I do not find comfort or security in any mere or imagined _implications_ garnered from God's word . . . without further and better exegesis.



In this particular application the Word calls for "fear and trembling" rather than "comfort and security." One must be wary of an imbalanced reading of the Word whereby it is only fitted to minister to one side of human nature. The deceitful heart will imagine to itself a carnal security whereby the promises of God are turned into an excuse for non-compliance with the demands of God. The Word regulary addresses this imagination by stirring up the heart to maintain a watchful guard against its own wickedness.



TeachingTulip said:


> Fellowship between God and man cannot undo God's sovereign rule over His creatures.


 
I don't believe anyone has suggested that it can.


----------



## TeachingTulip

TeachingTulip said:


> Fellowship between God and man cannot undo God's sovereign rule over His creatures.


 


> I don't believe anyone has suggested that it can.



The suggestion of a legalistic "junior partnership" surely does, in my opinion.

The forensics that accomplished the salvation of the sons of God was "legal" solely in regards to the works of Christ, and the Covenant of Works was accomplished by Jesus Christ, alone.

Plus, the promises and applications given from result of same accomplishments, were solely familial in regards to "grace," via the election of souls by the Father.

God the Spirit, does not function, and will not deviate, from either the Son's forensic accomplishments of (Law) or the Father's familial provisions (elective Grace), established amongst themselves by the everlasting and Godly Covenant of Redemption.

Christians are adopted sons of God, according to grace . . .not established as legal partners ("Junior" or otherwise) with God, according to sanctification or works.

I find no Scripture or portions of the WCF that upholds such a legalistic view of working Christian "partnership".

Fellowship is not legalistic, but only familial . . . and for one to be named and considered an adopted Son of God, is purely the work of Godly grace alone . . . and not of works at all.

Sola Gratia!


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> Fellowship is not legalistic, but only familial . . . and for one to be named and considered an adopted Son of God, is purely the work of Godly grace alone . . . and not of works at all.



No person on this thread has suggested the fellowship/partnership is legal. You would have to read "legal" into the word "partnership" in order to have a valid basis for criticising the use of the term. I think all would agree that the relation we are brought into by grace is a familial one; and in this connection it must be maintained that there are responsibilities which attach to the familial tie. E.g., 1 Peter 1:14, "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance."


----------



## TeachingTulip

armourbearer said:


> You would have to read "legal" into the word "partnership" in order to have a valid basis for criticising the use of the term.



Which indeed I do.

A "partnership" is a (necessary) legal establishment of relationship that establishes agreeable contract between persons, which is not always familial or based upon rights of inheritance.




> I think all would agree that the relation we are brought into by grace is a familial one;



Indeed.




> and in this connection it must be maintained that there are responsibilities which attach to the familial tie.



All legal accountabilities, under God's Law, were performed and fulfilled by Jesus Christ, in order to validate and establish familial grace. Such is the definition of imputed righteousness.

Law and grace are distinct . . . there is no grace without lawful obligations first being met . . . and only Jesus Christ as Mediator and representative of elect humankind achieved and fulfilled all such contingencies.

There is no reason to impose any further contingencies upon the sons of God, who have been legally redeemed, justified, and sanctified by the powers and grace of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.




> E.g., 1 Peter 1:14, "As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance."



No dispute. The sons of God, by the grace of God, will manifest obedience to this command. Not because they are "assisted" to do so, nor because they are "junior partners" legally obligated to do so . . .but solely due to the abiding presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit of God who causes them to be willing and desirous to do so, to the glory of God and His grace, alone.

No contingencies imposed . . .

Sola Gratia!

Sola Fide!

Soli Deo Gloria!


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would have to read "legal" into the word "partnership" in order to have a valid basis for criticising the use of the term.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which indeed I do.
> 
> A "partnership" is a (necessary) legal establishment of relationship that establishes agreeable contract between persons, which is not always familial or based upon rights of inheritance.
Click to expand...


Then by your own admission you are reading "legal" into the use of "partnership." In response I would simply ask you to exercise more charity towards the words of others, and treat them with the same fairness you would desire your own words to be treated. The fact is, partnership/fellowship is a biblical concept represented by the word "koinonia." When the apostle speaks of the fellowship of Christ's sufferings he is indicating "partaking" of them. This is not legal, but a gift.



TeachingTulip said:


> There is no reason to impose any further contingencies upon the sons of God, who have been legally redeemed, justified, and sanctified by the powers and grace of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.



I'm not sure what you mean by "contingencies," but the fact remains that the Word of God continually calls upon the people of God to fulfil the responsibilities which are connected with their privileged position. Any challenge of that fact is a challenge to the authority of God's word.


----------



## Der Pilger

armourbearer said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but my soul is offended by the language of "co-operation," "junior partners," and "assistance."
> 
> I do not believe any of these terms are biblical or Reformed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These terms have a biblical basis and may be used in a reformed sense. "Co-operation" and "assistance" are clearly implied in such passages as Philippians 2:12, 13; 3:12; where the finishing of the work of salvation belongs to the believer in a specific sense, on the understanding that his willing, doing, and apprehending is the result of God's working. "Partnership" is one of the ideas associated with "fellowship" and "communion" represented by the word "koinonia."
Click to expand...

 
 I don't think that a fair reading of Phil. 2:12-13 could yield anything other than a synergistic view of sanctification. Good point about koinonia, too. That is a helpful angle.


----------



## TeachingTulip

Der Pilger said:


> I don't think that a fair reading of Phil. 2:12-13 could yield anything other than a synergistic view of sanctification. Good point about koinonia, too. That is a helpful angle.



I would differ, and so offer the following quotation, which explains and clarifies my views, better than I can compose for myself. I believe it will be edifying to the OP and others reading this thread:

" . . God works continuously in us to will and to do of His good pleasure. He not only regenerates us in principle, but He also continuously sanctifies us through the Spirit of Christ. That work of God in us is of such a nature that we consciously and willingly bear fruit unto righteousness. It is not true that God works our sanctification and that we work also, and that these two aspects of the work of salvation stand independently from each other or must be conceived as an irreconcilable contradiction. Nor is it true that God alone accomplishes sanctification and that He drags us along the way as stock and blocks, as is the presentation of the antinomians. Still less is it true that the relation between God's work and our work is such that we must work, and that if we work, God will help us, as is the view of the Pelagians.

All these wrong conceptions are repudiated by Scripture. Rather, the relation is always that we work out of the power of the work of God in us. God is first; and we follow. God is the fountain out of which we live. God works our salvation to will and to do of His good pleasure, and we work out our own salvation as the fruit of the work of God (Phil. 2:12,13). 'God is light' (I John 1:5), and we are always the light-bearers. God energizes us through Christ, and we manifest His energy as rational, moral creatures. He gives, preserves, and strengthens our life, and we live. He works and continues to work in us true faith, and we believe. He works in us continued conversion, and we turn. He gives us and preserves in us the love of God, and we taste His love and love Him. He works within us sorrow after God, and we call upon Him in penitence for the forgiveness of sins. He gives us true humility, and we walk in meekness of heart and life. He enlightens us, and we know. He leads us by His Spirit, and we walk. He makes us hungry and thirsty for the bread and water of life, and we hunger and thirst after righteousness. He calls efficaciously, and we come. He gives us power to persevere, and we persevere.

The power and operation of the power . . faith and believing, love and loving, hope and hoping, the eye and the seeing, the ear and the hearing, the understanding and the knowledge, the will and the willing, the power to fight and the fighting . . all in connection with gifts, talents, means, circumstances, and time . . are from God alone. He sanctifies us, and we walk in sanctification. Exactly from this relationship arises the possibility and the high calling of the people of God to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling, because this obligation does not violate the moral, rational nature of the sanctified people of God, but rather preserves it. We must not say, therefore, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, _but_ God must do it.' Still less must we say, 'Work out your own salvation, _then_ God will do it.' But according to Philippians 2:12,13 we must say, 'Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, _*for*_ it is God which works in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure.' Of Him, through Him, and unto Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever (Romans 11:36)." Herman Hoeksema, "Reformed Dogmatics"


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> I would differ, and so offer the following quotation, which explains and clarifies my views, better than I can compose for myself. I believe it will be edifying to the OP and others reading this thread:



The quotation from Rev. Hoeksema makes the very point which you have been criticising: "Nor is it true that God alone accomplishes sanctification and that He drags us along the way as stock and blocks, as is the presentation of the antinomians" (p. 527). As he had stated on p. 524, "Scripture also teaches that the people of God are called to strive after sanctification of life and to walk worthy of the calling wherewith they are called."


----------



## TeachingTulip

armourbearer said:


> The quotation from Rev. Hoeksema makes the very point which you have been criticising



The very point I have been criticizing is whether sanctification is synergistic. And Hoeksema specifically rejects a synergism in sanctification. I quote again:

"The relation between our walking in sanctification of life and God's work of sanctification must not be conceived in the Arminian or synergistic sense. God is first also in the work of sanctification. Without Him we can do absolutely nothing. Only when He works in us to will and to do of His good pleasure can we work out our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12,13)." "Reformed Dogmatics" Volume II, Page 128


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> The very point I have been criticizing is whether sanctification is synergistic. And Hoeksema specifically rejects a synergism in sanctification.


 
Rev. Hoeksema did indeed criticise an Arminian or synergistic idea of sanctification, and this Arminian concept has been repudiated throughout the thread; but as soon as he argued that the believer works as well as God he effectively stated a Reformed idea of synergy because synergy simply means "to work with." Further, you have repudiated more than the bare idea of synergy because you have withstood the idea that the believer is responsible to strive after sanctification, and this is clearly contrary to Rev. Hoeksema's express words.


----------



## TeachingTulip

armourbearer said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> The very point I have been criticizing is whether sanctification is synergistic. And Hoeksema specifically rejects a synergism in sanctification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Hoeksema did indeed criticise an Arminian or synergistic idea of sanctification, and this Arminian concept has been repudiated throughout the thread; but as soon as he argued that the believer works as well as God he effectively stated a Reformed idea of synergy because synergy simply means "to work with." Further, you have repudiated more than the bare idea of synergy because you have withstood the idea that the believer is responsible to strive after sanctification, and this is clearly contrary to Rev. Hoeksema's express words.
Click to expand...


I do not believe I have repudiated human responsibility to actively seek to obey God and live a holy life. I am rejecting and voicing sensitivity to language and terms used that create expectations that creatures can and should match the powers of their Creator; somehow achieving and maintaining their own sanctification. For instance, I do not believe Christians are obligated to "strive after sanctification." I believe Christians WILL desire to live holy lives, out of love for Christ, and because of the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ. Sanctification, to me, is not an achievement, but a blessed fruit. I revert to the Canons of Dordt and the Scripture in John, to clarify my thoughts:

". . . When God accomplishes His good pleasure in the elect, or works in them true conversion, He not only causes the gospel to be externally preached to them, and powerfully illuminates their minds by His Holy Spirit, that they may rightly understand and discern the things of the Spirit of Go, but by the efficacy of the same regenerating Spirit He pervades the inmost recesses of the man; He opens the closed and softens the hardened heart, and circumcises that which was uncircumcised; infuses new qualities into the will, which though heretofore dead, He quickens; from being evil, disobedient, and refractory He renders it good, obedient, and pliable; actuates and strengthens it that like a good tree, it may bring forth the fruits of good actions."  Canons of Dordt, Main Points 3 & 4, Article 11

"I am the Vine, you are the branches. He who abides in Me, and I in him, bears much fruit; for without Me you can do nothing." John 15:5

(Underlined emphasis, mine.)


----------



## Scott1

> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
> 
> A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification,330 yet they differ, in that
> God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ;331 in sanctification of his Spirit
> infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof;332 in the former, sin is pardoned;333 in the
> other, it is subdued:334 the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of
> God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation335 the other is
> neither equal in all,336 nor in this life perfect in any,337 but growing up to perfection.338






> Scripture proofs
> 
> [330] 1 Corinthians 6:11. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 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.
> 
> [331] Romans 4:6, 8. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.... Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
> 
> [332] Ezekiel 36:27. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.
> 
> [333] Romans 3:24-25. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.
> 
> [334] Romans 6:6, 14. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.... For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
> 
> [335] Romans 8:33-34. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
> 
> [336] 1 John 2:12-14. I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake. I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. Hebrews 5:12-14. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
> 
> [337] 1 John 1:8, 10. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.... If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
> 
> [338] 2 Corinthians 7:1. Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. Philippians 3:12-14. Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.


.


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> For instance, I do not believe Christians are obligated to "strive after sanctification."


 
And herein you explicitly contradict the statement of Rev. Hoeksema (p. 524), "Scripture also teaches that the people of God are called to strive after sanctification of life and to walk worthy of the calling wherewith they are called."

You have been shown wherein your view is unreformed; one whom you respect as a reformed teacher has clearly stated your view is contrary to Scripture; now I am formally asking you to cease advocating your unreformed view on this board.


----------



## TeachingTulip

armourbearer said:


> TeachingTulip said:
> 
> 
> 
> For instance, I do not believe Christians are *obligated* to "strive after sanctification."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And herein you explicitly contradict the statement of Rev. Hoeksema (p. 524), "Scripture also teaches that the people of God are *called* to strive after sanctification of life and to walk worthy of the calling wherewith they are called."
> 
> You have been shown wherein your view is unreformed; one whom you respect as a reformed teacher has clearly stated your view is contrary to Scripture; now I am formally asking you to cease advocating your unreformed view on this board.
Click to expand...


Dear Sir,

Please note the language distinguishing between "obligated" and "called." Which, in my opinion, happens to be the crux of the entire discussion. 

Your accusation and request seem a bit extreme. The OP asked a question of Reformers, and I as a Reformed Christian, have given one side of the two views.

But I will assuredly cease and desist in my conversation with you.


----------



## MW

TeachingTulip said:


> Your accusation and request seem a bit extreme. The OP asked a question of Reformers, and I as a Reformed Christian, have given one side of the two views.


 
Your view is neither Reformed nor Christian. This is a Reformed Christian board. It is only reasonable that discussion be restricted to Reformed Christian beliefs and that participants abide by the moderation which restricts discussion to Reformed Christian beliefs.


----------

