# Split from Modesty Thread: The Nature of our Sanctification



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 26, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > Check your reformed confessions and Scripture, because justification and sanctification are both acts of God's free grace, but sanctification is an infusion of grace by the Spirit (WLC Question 77). Sanctification is God's grace at work in us but it also requires works from us. Sanctification is always progressive and if it is not, then it is an indication that one is not justified by faith. Luther refered to the works in sanctification as the fruits of righteousness. I think you mistated the point when you said that the law has no part in our sanctification. The law certainly is at work in our sanctification. The third use of the law is the means of holiness. We are delivered from the law as a covenant of works, so that we are neither justified or condemned, but we are called to walk in holiness and continually put to death the deeds of the body. You have to make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification.
> ...



Robert,

I am incredibly concerned about this statement above in reaction to a prima facia, Reformed understanding of the nature of sanctification. I am actually considering issuing an infraction for your Strawman attack on Reformed sanctification as outlined by WLC 77. For you to characterize Stephen's synopsis that sanctification flows out of our justification and to compare the third use of the Law to an "on again/off again" view of God's favor or to "good performance" is either a sign of profound ignorance as to what every Reformed thinker taught about the third use of the Law or a purposeful mischaracterization of it. Either way, you have no business trying to teach here with such a profound misapprehension of what the third use is.

Consider carefully how you proceed. I like you Robert but what you think is wise above or accurately represents Paul's presentation of Galatians 2 is completely faulty as you attempt to pit our "reasonable service" against God's forensic justification.

You need to completely divorce this discussion from any discussion about how a scruple might have missed the nature of the third use and focus upon what the actual Reformed view is.

I _do_ care what our Reformed confessions teach on this because I'm convinced they are Biblical regarding how God saves us by declaring us righteousness but His act and purpose are singular in electing us to newness of life and giving us hearts that desire to live unto Him. If we do not bear fruit then we are dead. We are not saved by the fruit but the fruit is a sign of life and you are pitting the fruit against the fountainhead of life. Both are borne of God and Paul's polemic against the Judaizers is not aimed at an idea of sanctification that seeks to please God but is aimed at those that believe that effort began in the Spirit and is perfected by our effort.

Finally, whether you _like_ the term "infuseth" or not, it is the term chosen by the Reformers. They did not have a Roman Catholic understanding of the term but adopted and adapted the term to their own use. Rather than dumping all over men who you ought to respect enough to understand, you need to ask for clarification.

 You are warned Robert. Proceed with caution.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 26, 2008)

> But a believer does not need the 10 words in stone constantly presented to him in order for him to not murder or covet.



So how do we know that murdering and coveting are wrong? We know because God commands us not to do these things.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 26, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Stephen? What works are required of us that you speak of? What do's and dont's are we required to follow that Paul condemns in Col 2? Again I am not speaking of obvious commands of God. But a believer does not need the 10 words in stone constantly presented to him in order for him to not murder or covet. Michael and Bert Mulder have even gone beyond this and followed the traditions of the mishna and have lists of things that only burden others to even read about. This is my biggest gripe with this flavor of legalism. Do you find a roman catholic who prays the rosary foolish? Even when she says she is doing it to please God? Do you find an Amish person a false witness when they scream about not having their picture taken? Or what about the catholic who goes to novena? Is he not praying? Or the one who does not eat meat on wednesdays or fridays during lent? They all say they are doing it to please God, yet you call them heretics, believing a lie. Well I do not care if Ryle, WLC, Calvin, Michael, You, or anyone says that a list of required works has a part in our sanctification, it is against the Gospel. Especially when the list is a bunch of peccadillo things that do not matter at all.



Esteemed brother, 

I strongly object to this post.

First of all, I have hardly been involved in the conversation on this thread, and to the best of my knowledge have not imposed any legalist view on anyone in this thread, or any other.

Furthermore, if you are interested in my viewpoint, neither I, nor the PRC are the law upon law, precept upon precept types. We believe in the law of liberty, wherewith Christ has set us free. And this freedom entails not using our liberty for occasions for the flesh, but to live according to all the commandments of God. However, what I consider prudent for myself, may not be what you view prudent for yourself. You have to determine for yourself what Scripture commands you in this area. That, in my opinion, is what Christian liberty is all about.

All this being said, I believe that, considering freedom of expression, I have every right to express my viewpoint, never mind how much that conflicts with yours. I do not deride your opinion. I expect from you to also allow me my opinion. As stated, I am not shoving anything down anyone's throat!


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 26, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> > But a believer does not need the 10 words in stone *constantly presented *to him in order for him to not murder or covet.
> 
> 
> 
> So how do we know that murdering and coveting are wrong? We know because God commands us not to do these things.



John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

As I read the above quotations, this scripture came to my mind. 

One of the things I love about PB is these discussions force me to think more deeply about what I believe and to look at the Scriptures more closely. 

Unless I'm missing something, I can only "amen" what Rich said above. At the same time, I do understand where Robert is coming from, and I share his enthusiasm for the freedom found in Christ. 

I'm sure most of you have heard that the way they train banking people to find counterfeit money is to give them real money to work with. When someone puts counterfeit money in their hands, they detect it right away. In the same way, for those of us who spent years steeped in legalism, we can smell it a mile away. We know what it looks like, sounds like, smells like and yes, even tastes like. When we finally learn and experience love-for-God-driven obedience, rather than guilt-driven law keeping, we can hardly contain ourselves. We know the law, because as legalist pharisees, we studied it harder than many seminarians, but now we no longer worry about what we have forgotten to do or what we should have done, because the Spirit of God brings the law (that we've studied so hard) to our remembrance as we walk with Him day by day. We don't need lists and rules, because the law is engraved on our hearts, and we trust God's Spirit to bring it to our remembrance during the day. 

Does this mean we do not pray? Does this mean we do not study the Word? Does this mean we go out and sin and be lawless? As Paul said, "May it never be!" It means every breath we breathe is a prayer to God. It means we study the Word with passion, because His Word is a delight to our souls, and we long to meditate on it day and night. It means we wouldn't want to do anything that would displease our Lord, and when we do, we fall on our faces in repentence. 

As I see it, sanctification has everything to do joyously obeying Christ as His Spirit leads us moment by moment. Obedience is a pleasure rather than a burden. I found this to be true. May I never go back to jot and tittling again, and may I always live to please my Lord. 

NOTE: I wrote this post with fear and trembling lest I be misunderstood or that someone thinks I am pointing fingers. Also, I am not an expert on the finer points of sanctification. I am only trying to point out what I see from my perspective.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 26, 2008)

Christians also "love the law, and meditate on it day and night" as Psalm 1 tells us. People who have experienced legalism should beware that they don't go to far the other direction either. I know that as I have been continually reforming I went to extremes on some things and been reigned back in.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 27, 2008)

JBaldwin said:


> As I see it, sanctification has everything to do joyously obeying Christ as His Spirit leads us moment by moment. Obedience is a pleasure rather than a burden. I found this to be true. May I never go back to jot and tittling again, and may I always live to please my Lord.
> 
> NOTE: I wrote this post with fear and trembling lest I be misunderstood or that someone thinks I am pointing fingers. Also, I am not an expert on the finer points of sanctification. I am only trying to point out what I see from my perspective.



No need to be fearful.

Let me just "improve" what you wrote above because your view of sanctification states something that needs to be tightened up.

The Spirit does not lead us in an _immediate_ way. By that I mean to state that you are correct in stating that our sanctification is a result of a heart that should be transformed to love Christ and hate sin. But, it is also vitally important to note that the knowledge of what pleases God and what sin is is _mediated_ to us by the Word. It is the Word with the Spirit that teaches us what pleases God. I think this is what is throwing some for a loop here.

The problem that some are having understanding the third use is somehow interpreting this to mean that we read the Word on the surface and see a "Thou Shall Not" and conclude that we reach the end of righteousness by wearing a phylactery on our head. No. That is the way the flesh handles the Word and deceives itself to be righteous apart from Christ.

A man is set upright by the power of God to be saved by faith and live in newness of life. This new man is to be meditating on the Word, searching it, probing it, and as the Spirit illumines the Word to our minds, our consciences become more and more aware of sin and more and more aware of what pleases God. We become trained and wise to the things of God. We no long stop at the "Thou Shall Not" of Adultery but "get behind" the command to see in it what the positive command therein is to love neighbor and how we would please God and serve neighbor.

Romans 12-16 is very profound toward that end because it is preceded by our status in Christ but then proceeds to the "end of the Law" in Romans 12-16 where new hearts take on the things of God as their delight.

Thus, I think you've "got it" but I want to make sure you don't think that the "day by day being guided by the Spirit" is the modern, neo-Gnostic version of "being led by the Spirit". I'm not trying to insult you by saying that but I simply want to make sure it's explicitly stated that it is Word and Spirit and not merely Spirit _immediately_ teaching our hearts.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 27, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> Amazing Grace said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen said:
> ...





Rich:, My point was I do not care if these men or documents teach that peccadillo rules that some obey and try to earn God's blessing make one more Holy or sanctified. These are not the fruits of the Spirit which is the only fruit a believer must be concerned about. Is it not true that an unbeliever can do many of the works a believer can according to Law? The true and only distinction is Faith. I also am not trying to pit anything against anyone or anything. Paul is speaking about living a blood bought life, which entails more than forensic justification. It disheartens me that as a believer my last revelation of His word is the Law for my life. This just cannot be. AS I mentioned the book that was penned in 1692 by Marshall explains, the Gospel of grace is the fountain of the believers life and that and only that will bring true obedience.

As for my understanding of Paul in Galatians, I do believe Paul is talking about a sanctified life IN Christ alone. Let me ask you this, if I get a good stretch of obedience, let's say 30 years of perfection, does God look at me as more holy? Then what if I commit adultery, how many more 'good works' must I do in order ot regain His favor? This is what plagues me Rich. To me it is one good work, repent in faith. Not follow rules for a while to ease my guilt. I find a parallel between good performance to earn God's favor as the penetential system of the rcc. IF I am wrong about Michaels and Stephens thought, then Ill repent of my accusation. 

20I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

what does Paul mean by LIVE in the above? This is His life after being declared justified through faith by grace. He says he lives by faith. Walks by faith, which means sanctified by faith. 

You stated:_For you to characterize Stephen's synopsis that sanctification flows out of our justification and to compare the third use of the Law to an "on again/off again" view of God's favor or to "good performance" is either a sign of profound ignorance as to what every Reformed thinker taught about the third use of the Law or a purposeful mischaracterization of it.
_

Ok, then I need clarification. Bt I am CERTAIN i am not profoundly ignorant or purpsefully mischaracterizing it. Yet I know you used such characterizations of me in love. 

If our sanctification is only progressive, which I believe Stephen confesses, then he is in error. So I ask him to clarify.

Regarding WLC 77, I did not even touch on this, what I focus on is 78, perhaps that is left out of Stephen's copy. 

Question 78: Whence arises the imperfection of sanctification in believers?
Answer: The imperfection of sanctification in believers arises from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services, *and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.*

now am I profoundly ignorant to read these words plainly? if my best works are defiled and filthy rags in the site of God, then how could I ever imagine that perversions of modesty or any other peccadillo rule is not filthy? Can these defiled good works earn His blessing? Not for one second. 

For now, I stand by my convictions stronger than ever, and echo the words regarding Marhsall's truth in his book:

*The message of the gospel is that we do not become holy by doing, but by not doing – we do not work so that we may become holy, but we become holy by faith,* with the result that we begin to work naturally, from our heart. Sadly, many who recognize this truth in the matter of justification forget it when it comes to sanctification. But we are no more able for the latter than we are for the former, apart from the work of Christ in us.

It may be objected that such a teaching must result in license and lawlessness. But as Marshall demonstrates, *it is actually the teaching of a works-based sanctification that issues in lawlessness, for it throws the pursuit of holiness on the abilities of the flesh,* which can do nothing according to God’s law. The pursuit of sanctification by the gospel-truth of faith in Christ is the only means that can ever be successful.

This truth, when apprehended, produces some marvelous results: first, it gives all glory to God alone, for the whole process of salvation – without him, none of it is possible. Second, it serves to alleviate the tormented conscience, and makes the yoke of Christ’s law easy and refreshing indeed – *for it turns our eyes to him, when before they were fixed on the impossible weight of the law hanging over our weak resolve.* And finally, it actually produces true and acceptable holiness, where years of ardent efforts had left only failure and defeat – for it is only through gospel faith that Christ’s power flows through us because of our vital union with him.

The above is all I can say on the matter and give a heart Amen to it. If it denies the so called predominent view of the 3rd use, then so be it. I will not live the rest of my saved life under the burden of Law keeping in some synergistic thought of sanctification. I will not have my Lord die in vain. I will only have my savior carry me through the Law on His back, through faith and faith alone. Now I am assured that my works are not defiled becasue of Him, not because of my own efforts cooperating. I am monergistic all the way from beginning to end.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 27, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Rich:, My point was I do not care if these men or documents teach that peccadillo rules that some obey and try to earn God's blessing make one more Holy or sanctified.


This is not what Stephen stated or implied by referring to WLC 77. His statement clearly implied that sanctification flowed out of justification and that it is progressive even as fruit grows out of a tree. If there is no fruit then there is no tree.



> Question 78: Whence arises the imperfection of sanctification in believers?
> Answer: The imperfection of sanctification in believers arises from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services, *and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.*



And? Do you suppose to pit WLC 77 against 78? Nobody argues that our sanctification in this life is complete. Nobody argues that our sanctification saves us. Nevertheless, ALL believers _are_ sanctified and the believer that says he loves God and shows no fruit of it is a liar.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 27, 2008)

A simple way to put it is like this: we cannot perform any good works to either get saved or stay saved. Works are entirely removed from the act of justification, which is purely by God's free grace through the merits of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

However, after justification, we perform good works *because we are* saved. The good works that are performed by believers are both the proof that justification has genuinely taken place and the fruit of that justification. 

Good works (which are given to us by God) are a demonstration to ourselves and to others that we are saved. This is why sanctification is described as a process, not an act (like justification).

Justification takes place in a moment of time. Sanctification takes place throughout the rest of the believer's life until he arrives in Heaven.

Again, good works make absolutely no contribution to the believer's salvation, which is completely of free grace. But good works do confirm our salvation and bring glory to God.

Ephesians 2:8-10 is the crucial passage here:

_For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them._ (NKJV)

I sure am glad that I'm able to make absolutely no contribution to my salvation. And I am equally glad that the Holy Spirit prompts me to perform those good works - after salvation - that glorify Him and act as an assurance that I am saved. And, it's the combination of justification, and the sanctification that flows from it, that molds me into the likeness of my glorious Savior, in whom I will be perfected once I see His face in Heaven.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 27, 2008)

Yes, Richard, I agree. 

Let me expand on this a bit more for everybody's benefit so you all don't think I'm just completely missing Robert. 

Let me quote WLC 77 so people can read what is stated very elegantly:


> 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
> 
> ...



Notice how the Confession distinguishes so the reader can see how justification fixes a person's status in Christ so that the person may understand how he is also made holy therein. Here you will see how one complements the other:


Justification imputes the righteousness of Christ while in sanctification, the Spirit infuses grace into the believer and enables him to exercise righteousness.
In justification, sin is pardoned, while in sanctification sin is subdued (put to death).
Justification _equally_ frees all believers from the revenging wrath of God _perfectly_ in this life so that they will _never_ fall into condemnation. Sanctification is _not equal in all_, nor in this life is it ever perfect, but it still grows up toward perfection.

Whatever else one may say of this, it is impossible to lay at the feet of the Reformed position this idea: "...I get a good stretch of obedience, let's say 30 years of perfection, does God look at me as more holy?" Anyone with an elementary reading comprehension ability knows that this is a _gross_ mischaracterization. I will not abide this sloppy comparison again.

The question is whether or not when God purposes to save a man that He also sanctifies in between justification and glorification. It is indisputable that He does. The Apostle Paul (and especially the General Epistles), labor the point that we are justified by Christ and that, if we truly are, then our status as children has a transformative effect upon our entire lives.

When I began this thread, I very precisely cautioned all to divorce this discussion from the discussion on modesty. There are some people that are still confusing the two. I purposefully split this discussion off because Stephen had actually made an orthodox point about the nature of sanctification but it became associated with some "baggage" from the previous thread, fairly or unfairly and the discussion on the nature of sanctification with respect to justification deserved its own discussion.

I was (and remain) concerned that Robert had completely dismissed this vital connection between justification and sanctification and had inappropriately attached Arminian or Roman Catholic ideas of sanctification to the Reformed view, which was highly improper.

I've gotten some backchannel correspondence that is still causing some confusion in some people's minds about the nature of sanctification. Everybody is certainly right to be cautious to view sanctification as a process of infused habits that leads to an ontological change in human nature. The RCC view of infused habits merges justification and sanctification because of their idea that human nature itself needs to be changed and, on a scale of being, infused by cooperating habits until it improves itself to a level that is worthy of justification.

The Reformed view grounds our justification in a forensic declaration of justification laid hold of by faith alone. Human nature is not changed in its being but, rather, the unrighteous are declared righteous by God on the basis of Christ's righteousness alone. Humanity does not then improve in its constitutional being upward in a plane of metaphysical perfection but the transformation is ethical in nature. Men who were once enemies of God become His children and remain men, remain creatures but are united to Christ in His death and resurrection. They die to the Curse on the Cross and rise in newness of _life_ with Him. That newness of life is what we're trying to nail down: what does it look like.

Because they are children and receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, God reforms their consciences. Surely everyone must appreciate the idea that there are novices and elders in the faith. It's called spiritual growth. Spriritual babes just like real babes need their consciences trained in the same way the intellectually immature need the same. The process is not instantaneous and declarative as in justification but progressive as the believer grows in grace.

Just as a healthy child that comes out of the womb will surely grow if fed and nourished and loved, so a spiritual child of God will grow under the Word and the means of grace. To use an unfortunate analogy, if a child came out of the womb stillborn they would never grow - so someone who appears to have been born again (profession of faith) but never shows any spiritual vitality and growth is spiritually stillborn.

Justification is the beginning of life and the surety of life, sanctification is the inexorable maturation that occurs to those that have spiritual life.

Now, some will say: "Yes, we agree, that's what we've been talking about, we keep saying 'We live by _faith_ but some other guys keep talking about looking at the Law so they're going back to the Law to try to be justified by it.'"

I say that you're missing the point. Yes, there are people (like the Judaizers) that began in the Spirit and then get confused and think they are going to be made perfect and acceptable before God by the deeds of the Law. Paul calls this idea a false Gospel. I always think I'm explaining that and dealt with that but then it still comes up so I need to be more explicit I guess.

But, the solution to a Judaizer is not to ignore the Law of God. The Judaizers weren't approaching the Law as a third use, they hadn't ever been confronted by the Curse in the first place, never despised of their ability to save themselves, never fled to the Cross. Indeed, such men never receive eyes to see the third use. They are incapable of truly reading the third use of the Law because they're blind.

Those who simply say, "We now live by faith", as if _any_ use of the Law undermines that program, miss how Paul and the other Apostles go back to the Law to tell us to look anew at the Law with our re-created eyes. The Spirit does not just impress upon our minds the things that please God apart from the Word. I tried to warn against that above. Haven't you guys ever met people that talk about "...being in the perfect will of God..." as if the goal of "walking by faith" is to have an inner divining rod that gives the urge to go right or left, wear this shirt or that shirt, buy this car or that car, etc. If you're going to talk about "living by faith" apart from the Word then that's really just another version. It may sound more sophisticated and pious because you're not talking like a modern Charismatic or speaking in tongues but the error is essentially the same. It's always the Word and Spirit.

Rather, we really need to appreciate afresh how freely the Apostles could look back in the Law, after being freed from its Curse, and seeing the character of God therein. We need to understand how David could delight in the Law of God and meditate on it day and night. It certainly wasn't because he was delighting in the Curse but was delighting in his Savior because He was saved just like we are. I've said it over and over that the Law was not given to us to end in the "Thou shall nots" but the end of the Law is love of God and love of neighbor. That pursuit only begins when we become children of God (justification) and that pursuit never ends or is perfected while we're waiting for the hope set before us. But, Beloved, if you say you have faith but yet still look at the Law of God as a Curse then something is wrong.

Indeed, if you say you are born again and still only see the Wrath and Curse there then I urge you to consider whether you have first believed the Gospel. Indeed, beloved, can you understand how the author of Hebrews is able to say that our spiritual forebears fell in the desert because they failed to believe the Gospel?


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 27, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Question 78: Whence arises the imperfection of sanctification in believers?
> Answer: The imperfection of sanctification in believers arises from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them, and the perpetual lustings of the flesh against the spirit; whereby they are often foiled with temptations, and fall into many sins, are hindered in all their spiritual services, *and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.*
> 
> now am I profoundly ignorant to read these words plainly? if my best works are defiled and filthy rags in the site of God, then how could I ever imagine that perversions of modesty or any other peccadillo rule is not filthy? Can these defiled good works earn His blessing? Not for one second.
> ...



I understand your position very well, and acknowledge your perception of it (as well as mine) as being true according to my knowledge; no matter who disagrees with it. I have thought through both sides, and have come across what I think is the correct foundation. God is truly monergistic; both at all time and at all events. Yet, it appears synergistic to us from our perspective, for our wills must act by God's compulsion; and how else are we to account for that? 

The purpose of the Law of Moses is to point out what is sin and what is not sin. So, let us welcome such introspection into our 21st century lives; not so that it will condemn us, but so that it will scrape us and "find us out" in comparison to the perfection of Christ. 

Yet, above all of this, is the truth that we are saved because of the work of Christ! He is our substitute before the Father! He justifies us by his imputation! And, he sanctifies us progressively by his ongoing work within us! Our assurance lies upon his promise; and nothing less!!!

Sanctification is both progressive and irregular to many! Often believers see themselves going backwards when they are actually progressing forwards in the light. So, just because our sanctification does not appear to be present, does not mean that it is truly is not present. Sometimes, the only sanctification we receive is the conviction that we are not currently being sanctified externally very much! Yet, we may very well be despising our sin more and more; even though we do not know it very well; or perhaps we are not despising it near the degree that we ought to, yet we acknowledge it more clearly than we ever did! So, dare we to evaluate our sanctification so minutely??? 

Perhaps God will welcome upon us some season of time like he did to our brother David, when for nearly an entire year he did not recongnize his obvious lust and murderous heart before the Lord? Are we any more sanctified than he??? Remember Luther's words, for those who regard him, "a believer is being sanctified, although you may never see it." Sanctification appears as is reletive to our perception. And so, we must be careful as to how we evaluate the presence of such. For, it may very well be present, yet not accountable for.

Blessings!


----------



## regener8ed (Mar 27, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> I am monergistic all the way from beginning to end.


Amen!!


----------



## JBaldwin (Mar 27, 2008)

> Thus, I think you've "got it" but I want to make sure you don't think that the "day by day being guided by the Spirit" is the modern, neo-Gnostic version of "being led by the Spirit". I'm not trying to insult you by saying that but I simply want to make sure it's explicitly stated that it is Word and Spirit and not merely Spirit immediately teaching our hearts.



Thanks, this is why I mentioned the study of the Word several times in my discussion. Though I believe (in a hypothetical situation) that God's Spirit is perfectly capable of sanctifying a saint without the Word, that is not at all normative. I am thinking particularly of situations where there are saints and few or no copies of the Scriptures available.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 27, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Perhaps God will welcome upon us some season of time like he did to our brother David, when for nearly an entire year he did not recongnize his obvious lust and murderous heart before the Lord? Are we any more sanctified than he??? Remember Luther's words, for those who regard him, "a believer is being sanctified, although you may never see it." Sanctification appears as is reletive to our perception. And so, we must be careful as to how we evaluate the presence of such. For, it may very well be present, yet not accountable for.
> 
> Blessings!



I am not so sure David didn't recognize his sin. I am sure he was hiding and trying to escape the consequences of it.



> (Psa 32:3) When I kept silence, my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long.
> 
> (Psa 32:4) For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer. Selah.




Grant it David in the same Psalm understands justification.



> (Psa 32:1) <A Psalm of David, Maschil.> Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.
> 
> (Psa 32:2) Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.



There is another factor in this that is being left out I believe. It is the loving Father factor. He lays down his law in order to teach and guide us into what is right and wrong. It is not a matter of justification or setting us up as reconciled for eternal justification before him. That has been paid for by Christ's obedience and death on the Cross. But there is the fact that we can be displeasing to the Father and we can grieve the Holy Spirit by whom and in whom we are sealed unto the day of redemption. 

The law of God that Condemned us outside of Christ is the same perfect law that guides us into holiness and goodness. It warns us when we are in violation of Gods good and perfect will for our lives. And yes the Ten words are primary in this.

We don't need to fear the condemnation of the God's law but we do need to fear the hand that may hit the hinder part of our being, so to speak. We can be found pleasing to God as Abel was. 



> (Heb 12:4) Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.
> 
> (Heb 12:5) And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
> 
> ...



I love the ten words. There is life in them. They reveal God's holiness and Goodness.


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 27, 2008)

SemperFideles said:


> This is not what Stephen stated or implied by referring to WLC 77. His statement clearly implied that sanctification flowed out of justification and that it is progressive even as fruit grows out of a tree. If there is no fruit then there is no tree.



Yet, every justified believer WILL produce Gospel fruits, even if it is just one fruit of faith. I followed your direction and asked hium to clarify, yet he did not. 



SemperFideles said:


> And? Do you suppose to pit WLC 77 against 78? Nobody argues that our sanctification in this life is complete. Nobody argues that our sanctification saves us. Nevertheless, ALL believers _are_ sanctified and the believer that says he loves God and shows no fruit of it is a liar.



I never said that anoyone else has stated that our sanctification saves us Rich. I ask again that you and others stop hearing what i am not saying. I agree 100% that all believers are sanctified in Christ. Where I disagree is the definition of sanctification = becoming more holy by works. Hence I showed that those who penned #77 also penned # 78. And when I read 77 I see no reference to a growth in holiness by works. Can anyone show me where santification is defined as becoming more holy by works? I looked at the original and all I see is it equaling consecrated or set apart. Perhaps i am looking in the wrong area, but I cannot find morality in any definition of the greek or hebrew word. 

As another aside, why is Sanctification not mentioned in the 'golden chain' of Romans 8? I answer because all sanctification means is to be set apart in Christ, which is our election. John 10:36 states: 6do you say of Him, whom the Father *sanctified* and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'? Did Christ become more holy by works in His 33 years on earth? John 17:9: "For their sakes I *sanctify* Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. Did Christ make himself morally pure by works of Law? Absolutely not. He was without spot and blemish. 

1 Corinthians 1:2

Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them *that are sanctified in Christ Jesus*, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours: 


Growing in grace, mortifying the flesh, is never used to describe sanctification in the scripture. We are sanctified, we are holy, and all that means is set apart, consecrated to God by the power of the Holy Spirit through the redemption in Christ Jesus.


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 27, 2008)

> Michael and Bert Mulder have even gone beyond this and followed the traditions of the mishna and have lists of things that only burden others to even read about. This is my biggest gripe with this flavor of legalism.



Amazing Grace, especially as you are still following this thread, I DEMAND a response to my post on this statement by you, see above.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 27, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Can anyone show me where santification is defined as becoming more holy by works? I looked at the original and all I see is it equaling consecrated or set apart. Perhaps i am looking in the wrong area, but I cannot find morality in any definition of the greek or hebrew word.


For AG



> (1Th 4:3) For this is the will of God, *even your sanctification*, that ye should abstain from fornication:
> 
> (1Th 4:4) That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in *sanctification* and honour;
> 
> ...



Sanctification also has to do with your actions and works also.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 27, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > This is not what Stephen stated or implied by referring to WLC 77. His statement clearly implied that sanctification flowed out of justification and that it is progressive even as fruit grows out of a tree. If there is no fruit then there is no tree.
> ...


What are you talking about? When you trashed his post to begin with, you trashed WLC 77 from the very beginning. Nobody has stated above to the contrary. For you to _assume_ this is the case is improper. You must assume the above unless it is proved otherwise and not the other way around. You are not permitted to think ill of a Pastor until he has clarified. I saw nothing in that statment that expanded WLC 77 that indicated anything other than what I've been saying. What I did see was an unforgivable abuse of "reading into" the words of several ministers that you still have not retracted. Strike two.




Amazing Grace said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > And? Do you suppose to pit WLC 77 against 78? Nobody argues that our sanctification in this life is complete. Nobody argues that our sanctification saves us. Nevertheless, ALL believers _are_ sanctified and the believer that says he loves God and shows no fruit of it is a liar.
> ...



Nobody ever said that Sanctification is "becoming more holy by works". Strike Three.



SemperFideles said:


> As another aside, why is Sanctification not mentioned in the 'golden chain' of Romans 8? I answer because all sanctification means is to be set apart in Christ, which is our election.


Ah, well, _Robert_ answers this. Now it is settled. Interestingly enough, Paul presents the "golden chain" from Romans 5 through Romans 8. Romans 8 is the culmination of an argument that begins in Romans 5. Guess what occurs between Romans 5 and Romans 8? Romans 6! See you in a little while Robert. In the meantime, you can decide whether or not you want to participate on a Reformed board.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 28, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> > This is not what Stephen stated or implied by referring to WLC 77. His statement clearly implied that sanctification flowed out of justification and that it is progressive even as fruit grows out of a tree. If there is no fruit then there is no tree.
> ...



The only thing more I will say on this subject is read Berkhof, Murray, Reymond, Hodge, or any other systematic theology on this issue of sanctification. The New Testament does teach that the believer has been sanctified and declared holy. Noone in Reformed circles will dispute this. Sanctification is both definitive and progressive. Yes, we are sanctified and made holy in justification as Christ imputes to us His righteousness and declares us guiltless, but sanctification is also progressive where we are continually made holy as Paul instructs us in Romans 6 to daily put to death the deeds of the body. Growing in grace and walking in holiness is always described as progressive sanctification in Scripture. We become more holy as we obey Christ, but it is because we are in Christ and have been made new creatures. The WCF in chapter VIII states that those to whom Christ purchased redemption (the elect) He does certainly and effectually applies that redemption by making intercession for us.....and persuades them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and He governs their hearts by His word and Spirit... Chapter XIII sections 1-3 of the WCF outline that those who are regenerated are further sanctified, personally by His word and Spirit. The lusts that still remain are more and more weakened through sanctification and we are more and more strengthened in all saving graces.


----------



## SueS (Mar 28, 2008)

Augusta said:


> Christians also "love the law, and meditate on it day and night" as Psalm 1 tells us. People who have experienced legalism should beware that they don't go to far the other direction either. I know that as I have been continually reforming I went to extremes on some things and been reigned back in.






Traci, this morning I had a conversation with my daughter about almost the same thing that you and JBaldwin posted about. She is still trapped in the legalistic church my dh and I left almost two years ago - her dh is following the leader blindly and we are currently seeing in his life the fruit of three years of sitting under his teaching. I told Sarah that when we left the former Christian Centre I was so confused about the concept of obedience that I almost considered it a dirty word. Now that we are in a church where the Word of God is faithfully proclaimed and honored I am realizing more and more that obedience grows out of love for my Savior and what He has done for me. I love Him because He first loved me. Because of that love I want to obey His precepts and that leads progressively toward sanctification. It is all based on Christ's love for us. I think we that have come out of legalistic systems understand this in a unique way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 28, 2008)

SueS said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> > Christians also "love the law, and meditate on it day and night" as Psalm 1 tells us. People who have experienced legalism should beware that they don't go to far the other direction either. I know that as I have been continually reforming I went to extremes on some things and been reigned back in.
> ...



Beautiful!


----------



## BertMulder (Mar 28, 2008)

Thanks Sue.

Like you can take a horse to water but not make him drink of it, so we cannot force anyone to obedience, unless the Lord changes the heart.

Guess it is a matter of, that we can lead them to the Fountain of Living Water, but only Christ can make them drink of it.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 29, 2008)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Yes, Richard, I agree.
> 
> Let me expand on this a bit more for everybody's benefit so you all don't think I'm just completely missing Robert.
> 
> ...



Thank you, brother for clarifying the issue. You have summed up well what sanctification is, I could not have said it better.


----------



## moral necessity (Mar 30, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps God will welcome upon us some season of time like he did to our brother David, when for nearly an entire year he did not recongnize his obvious lust and murderous heart before the Lord? Are we any more sanctified than he??? Remember Luther's words, for those who regard him, "a believer is being sanctified, although you may never see it." Sanctification appears as is reletive to our perception. And so, we must be careful as to how we evaluate the presence of such. For, it may very well be present, yet not accountable for.
> ...



Thanks for the thoughts! I agree! I'm sure David knew that adultery and murder were sin.

Blessings!


----------

