# The Definitive Nature of Sanctification - O To Grace How Great a Debtor...



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2012)

I am starting this thread with a bit of fear and trembling because I'm always nervous about the shape any discussion takes when the purpose is to have a discussion about the nature of sanctification in the Christian walk. It's going to be particularly difficult because I'm going to bring to bear a public dialog that has received some attention of late in Reformed circles. I want to point out this recent post by Rick Phillips and then encourage us to dialog respectfully without engaging in "verdicts" that have skipped past Ecclesiastical courts and already rendered judgment:
Oh to Grace How Great a Debtor -- A Reply to Tullian Tchividjian - Reformation21 Blog

Pastor Phillips points out that he is not trying anyone judicially but is attempting to stimulate useful thinking. That is often difficult in these dialogs due to the tendency of a party spirit on both sides of the equation to not only assume the worst in those with whom we disagree but to cheer, un-critically, any "points" we may score against those we think are not on our side. This isn't about condemning one side or vindicating another so that one comes out of the battle as the victor and the other the loser. The dialog is intended to provoke useful thinking. It is not because anyone believes that one party cannot think but because we believe we can think rightly by the Word that we hope to persuade.

I wrote an exegetical paper a couple of years ago on Romans 6:1-11: The PuritanBoard - Dead to Sin, Alive to Christ (Rom 6:1-11)

As I've grown in grace, I've come to many "A ha" moments in my Christian walk and believe those will continue as long as I'm being sanctified by Christ but studying the definitive nature of sanctification was one of those earth moving moments for me. Specifically, what comfort and assurance may the Christian learn from Romans 6:10 and the surrounding pericope?

Some thoughts:


> This is one of the most significant statements regarding the full meaning of Christ’s death – that Christ died to sin. “Without the assurance that Christ’s death was a once-for-all death, believers would lack the comfort they need for this and the future life.” (Hendriksen 200) The Apostle has already noted that Christians are forever freed from the bondage of sin and death and now presents it again to demonstrate that they are no longer subjects of its rule. He proves this by noting the purpose for Christ’s death – He died that He would destroy sin. Christ not only dealt with the guilt of sinners in a vicarious manner on the cross but also with the power of sin. Death ruled over him in the grave until He broke its power. “So sin may be said to have ruled over him in that his humiliation stat was conditioned by the sin with which he was vicariously identified. He was made sin (2 Cor 5:21) and sin as power must be taken into account in this relationship.” (Murray 225).
> 
> In other words, it is common to emphasize only the propitiatory nature of Christ’s death to put away the wrath of God for Sin. This is certainly central but another aspect of Christ’s death to Sin must be reckoned, which is essential to the understanding of the power of sin: Christ’s death on the Cross was purposed that He should put Sin as power to death on the Cross.
> 
> This truth, then, forms the basis for what is emphasized both in verses 2 and 11. “Because Christ triumphed over the power of death, those who are united to Him in in death died to the power of sin and become dead to sin (vs. 2, 11).” (Murray 225). Once again, the motivation and power of a Christian’s struggle with Sin is grounded in what Christ has definitively accomplished once-for-all.


That is to say that Paul is trying to note what Christ's death and resurrection means for the Christian believer. We are not merely spectators who have read or heard about the work that Christ performed on the Cross to pay for sin or how He rose again for our justification. It's certainly glorious that the wages of sin have been paid and so we no longer stand in judgment before a Holy God. It's certainly glorious that Christ has risen again and we too will rise with Him.

But Paul is saying much more. He is stating, firstly, that sin, as power, was put to death on the Cross of Christ. The doctrine of total depravity does not merely teach that men are in need of a Savior. It also teaches that men are slaves to sin. Sin has power over unbelievers. They desire unrighteousness because their wills are enslaved to its power. The Cross of Christ defeats that dominion of sin so that the believer who has been vitally united to Christ by faith is vitally united to the death He died to sin once and for all. We are no longer slaves to sin but slaves to Christ.

Now, what practical import does that have? Well, I believe your experience is similar to mine. I once believed that the only strength I had to resist sin in my members was gratitude for the work of Christ completed for me. That is certainly a good motivation but what does that also imply if I stop there? It implies that, within myself, I use the motivation and gratitude of the Gospel as the impetus to resist sin. If nothing has changed in me except gratitude then I am, in effect, using gratitude in my own strength as the means of my sanctification. On the other hand, if I agree with Paul that my union with Christ in His death means that the enslaving power of sin has been put to death then I may rightly appreciate that any resistance to sin is not only borne our of gratitude but that the real power to resist sin is because Christ has put the power of sin to enslave me to death on the Cross. That, beloved, is glorious!

There is something, therefore, really different about me and unbelievers. I am united to Christ and His power. They are not. Do I still battle indwelling sin? Of course. Romans 7 makes that clear. Yet, I understand as well that I am not enslaved to sin. I am not totally depraved, in the classical sense of the term, because to be totally depraved is to be enslaved to sin. Romans 6 tells me I'm not enslaved to sin. It doesn't tell me I'm perfect yet but it does teach me that I'm fundamentally transported in the Kingdom of the Age to Come and not a slave to the Kingdom of this Age.

What does Paul also teach about union with Christ? He teaches me that I'm united to Christ in His resurrection. I am united to the indestructible life of Christ and so am a slave to Christ and His righteousness. I'm assured that Christ's life is perfecting me in opposition to the temptations I experience that convince me I have no power to resist. Once again, if I never reflect upon these facts of Paul's "gospel" (as he repeatedly refers to the entire letter of Romans) then I'm missing out on an important truth that Christ has left in His Word to encourage and strengthen me.

Far from any notion of denying the Gospel and my utter need for grace by believing that Christ is improving me, I am given the assurance, through the Gospel itself, that I am vitally united to Him and all the power of the Son of God.

When I'm tempted to sin, the only victory I can be assured of is to pray a prayer like this: _Father, I know that sin as power has been put to death in Christ. I pray for the life you have given me in Christ to resist temptation._ It's a simple prayer but it's full of Gospel.

Consider what the Westminster Confession confesses about our Sanctification:


> Chapter XIII
> Of Sanctification
> 
> I. They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection,1 by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them:2 the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,3 and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;4 and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,5 to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.6
> ...



We ought not to be afraid of sanctification because of the errors of others who conflate sanctification with justification and claim that the verdict before a Holy God is based on our progress in sanctification. We are often victims of the excesses in our past and so think that we need to avoid thinking about sanctification until we purge the errors of our past. We believe, somehow, that the solution to one excess of our past (avoiding any real discussion of what Christ has done for us in our justification) is corrected by another excess (avoiding altogether any notion of our progress in sanctification). Christ has preached the Gospel into our hearts that we may fully embrace both and have no fear.

Consider what the Larger Catechism states about Christ as the mediator of the New Covenant.


> Q. 42. Why was our Mediator called Christ?
> A. Our Mediator was called Christ, because he was anointed with the Holy Ghost above measure,161 and so set apart, and fully furnished with all authority and ability,162 to execute the offices of prophet,163 priest,164 and king of his church,165 in the estate both of his humiliation and exaltation.
> Q. 43. How doth Christ execute the office of a prophet?
> A. Christ executeth the office of a prophet, in his revealing to the church,166 in all ages, by his Spirit and Word,167 in divers ways of administration,168 the whole will of God,169 in all things concerning their edification and salvation.170
> ...



In brief, Christ as Prophet converts our hearts through the powerful Word of God. Christ, as Priest, makes continual and perfect intercession for us. Christ, as King, conquers every hindrance to our full salvation! Is it not glorious to consider such things?!

In conclusion, I don't want us to degenerate in this discussion to believe we need to vindicate one combatant over another. We are all in this race together. There is no You, there is only Us and so I consider how I may spur you on in this race set before us. Let us, then, reflect and discuss what the Gospels teach about what Christ has done for us in His death and resurrection.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 7, 2012)

Rich I am glad that you have begun this discussion. I hope to contribute and acknowledge that it will require of me time to reflect and interact. May I suggest that we will make more positive and helpful progress if we generously grant that many of our true brothers in the Lord are speaking to the issue with a desire to make a helpful contribution. But, as it is a very deep theological matter, most (if not all) of us have rough edges to our expressions of this glorious doctrine. In other words if, when we think we see a weak link in a brothers best go at articulating the full orbed doctrine of sanctification, rather than blast him for a weak point we ought to come along side and say to him, "let me see if I can express that portion a little more accurately for you" which indicates that we see ourselves on the same team seeking to improve our grasp of the whole.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 7, 2012)

Well said Bob.


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 7, 2012)

The best explanation of sanctification I know of comes from Concise Theology, JI Packer, p. 170:



> "[Sanctification].... 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 [H]e is ready to strengthen us for all that we have to do (Phil. 4:13), we "stay put" (remain, abide) in Christ, asking for [H]is help constantly- and we receive it (Col. 1:11; I Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:17;2:1)."


----------



## Jack K (Dec 7, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Rich I am glad that you have begun this discussion. I hope to contribute and acknowledge that it will require of me time to reflect and interact. May I suggest that we will make more positive and helpful progress if we generously grant that many of our true brothers in the Lord are speaking to the issue with a desire to make a helpful contribution. But, as it is a very deep theological matter, most (if not all) of us have rough edges to our expressions of this glorious doctrine. In other words if, when we think we see a weak link in a brothers best go at articulating the full orbed doctrine of sanctification, rather than blast him for a weak point we ought to come along side and say to him, "let me see if I can express that portion a little more accurately for you" which indicates that we see ourselves on the same team seeking to improve our grasp of the whole.



Ooh, yes! I very much welcome a discussion in that spirit. I need it. Though I won't have much time to devote to it over the coming days, I hope it's still going next week.

The topic is indeed glorious. Every time I write about sanctification, I already know I'm leaving lots of good stuff out. That's before allowing for what I never even considered. I'm excited to think I could take part in the discussion without having someone come along and say, "You're so wrong! How could you leave ___________ out?"

Thanks, Rich and Bob.


----------



## Randy in Tulsa (Dec 8, 2012)

See Redemption Accomplished and Applied by John Murray and/or Saved by Grace by Anthony Hoekema. The PCA would be much better off if this generation would simply pass on what it should have learned from its elders (who were much wiser and more knowledgeable).


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 8, 2012)

Rich that is one of the clearest analyses of Rom 6 and its blessings that I've ever seen. Thank you.


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 8, 2012)

I plan to read Rich's _Dead to Sin, Alive to Christ_ today in order to help me stay focused on the task a hand. I look forward to our sharpening one another as we move along in this worthy task.


----------



## J. Dean (Dec 8, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> In brief, Christ as Prophet converts our hearts through the powerful Word of God. Christ, as Priest, makes continual and perfect intercession for us. Christ, as King, conquers every hindrance to our full salvation! Is it not glorious to consider such things?!
> 
> In conclusion, I don't want us to degenerate in this discussion to believe we need to vindicate one combatant over another. We are all in this race together. There is no You, there is only Us and so I consider how I may spur you on in this race set before us. Let us, then, reflect and discuss what the Gospels teach about what Christ has done for us in His death and resurrection.


Agree completely, and I wonder if the issue at hand isn't more of presentation or emphasis than it is actual content. Pastor Phillips makes some good points, as does Pastor T. Perhaps somebody needs to sit them down to have a face-to-face on this.




rbcbob said:


> I hope to contribute and acknowledge that it will require of me time to reflect and interact. May I suggest that we will make more positive and helpful progress if we generously grant that many of our true brothers in the Lord are speaking to the issue with a desire to make a helpful contribution. But, as it is a very deep theological matter, most (if not all) of us have rough edges to our expressions of this glorious doctrine. In other words if, when we think we see a weak link in a brothers best go at articulating the full orbed doctrine of sanctification, rather than blast him for a weak point we ought to come along side and say to him, "let me see if I can express that portion a little more accurately for you" which indicates that we see ourselves on the same team seeking to improve our grasp of the whole.


Sanctification is a razor's edge: if you walk too far to one side it turns into antinomianism, but the other side has legalism for a no less dangerous pitfall. Just like justification, it needs to be defined clearly. It needs to be made clear that sanctification is an inevitable part of the believer's walk, AND YET also must be made equally clear (perhaps more so!) that sanctification is in no way the basis for, nor does it in any manner contribute to, our justification. 

I wonder whether or not some of the issue confusion comes from our backgrounds and experiences. For example, those of us here who have grown up seeing a de-emphasis on sanctification to the point of Antinomianism probably remember those instances when a point like this comes up, and think about how good works might have been pushed into a little corner, rarely (if ever) to be brought up again. We see the people who take a lax view about matters such as drinking to excess, or capriciously using God's name either verbally or in gross and impenitent wickedness while professing Christianity, and we wretch at that, and rightly so. 

Others who have had a background in Arminianism or even semi-Pelagianism (as many Arminian churches are becoming, sadly) have seen the attitude of justification as "just being the first step" and then forgotten as a heavy load of "do more, try harder" is thrown on us and works are (whether intentionally or not) turned into the basis for one's salvation, robbing us of all assurance based on the finished work of Christ, and grace becomes nothing more than a buzzword to do more works, rather than an assurance for us to rest upon because Jesus really said "It is finished." (For the record, I think Pastor T has probably seen a bit of the latter happening, and might be reacting to that, and as I myself came from that background, I very much relate to his reaction against a perceived overemphasis on sanctification. So when he says "Yes, grace, but...." I can nod my head because that's the essence of the Arminian "bait-and-switch" grace, and I've heard it a great many times myself. So if I seem a little hostile toward an overemphasis on sanctification, it's because I've personally seen where it goes when not in accordance with the Bible).

But the point that both sides must be gracious and giving the benefit of the doubt is well taken. And that both sides are in this race together is equally valid. We must press on, and by God's grace we shall.


----------



## J. Dean (Dec 8, 2012)

Herald said:


> J. Dean said:
> 
> 
> > Sanctification is a razor's edge: if you walk too far to one side it turns into antinomianism, but the other side has legalism for a no less dangerous pitfall.
> ...



I think that's it at least in part.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 8, 2012)

I haven't been following the wider internet discussion, but have always greatly profited from the points Rich and others have made here about sanctification being a reality of death and resurrection in vital union with Christ in the Christian life. I read this recently in 'An Exposition Of The Apostles' Creed' by Caspar Olevianus:



> The second fruit of the death of Christ
> The second fruit is the mortification of sin. For by His death, He not only satisfied the judgment of God for sin, He also broke the power of the stranglehold that it had on us by the just judgment of God. I explain it this way: When Christ died, He died for sin, and did so once for all. By His dying for sin I understand not only that He satisfied the just judgment of God for it by His death, so that it might not be imputed to us, but also that He broke the power of sin, which was all part of the just judgment of God, by making perfect satisfaction for it. As a result it can no longer unleash its fury upon the body of Christ, which is the church, as it did before, but it gradually dies away (Heb. 9:14; 2 Timothy 1:10).



I understood something unclear to me before in reading this section: that the stranglehold sin has on us which Rich speaks of above is actually part of the judgment of God on sin. Christ, in doing away with judgment not only did away with the verdict of condemnation but also broke that stranglehold -- otherwise some aspect of judgment would remain on us.

He goes on to make very beautiful statements about Christ coming to destroy the works of the devil -- not simply to bear away a guilty verdict, glorious as that is, but to actually destroy sin. In the section on the resurrection, he points out that one of the fruits of the doctrine is 'vivification' in union with Christ:



> Therefore in Romans 5, Paul calls it "justification of life" and contrasts it with the offense that led to condemnation. He also sets up an antithesis between sin that reigns in death and the righteousness of Christ, with which those who receive it reign in life. This happens in such a way that not only does Christ bring about that new life in us, but also that Christ Himself is that life (John 14:6, Galatians 2:20).



I also found it very beautiful that he speaks of our very bodies already being members of Christ. Then it is not as if these glorious truths about the power of Christ's death and life in us are something we can only know in the life of the spirit, while we vainly struggle against the temptations that assail us by means of being in the body. I think I will always be able to find comfort in those words of _an apostle_ declaring himself a wretch as long as I am on this side of glory. But there is also so much comfort and hope for this life (how awful it is to struggle hopelessly against our sins) in already being even physically united to a power -- a Person -- death could not contain.

I think is easier for the small fry like myself to understand and profit from discussions like this, which are vital for every one of us & not just theologians, when they are meeker in purpose and tone. Thank you, Rich.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 8, 2012)

So, what are you saying, Rich?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Dec 8, 2012)

For those who haven't read the discussion between Tchividjian and Phillips, I've compiled the links and put up brief summaries and analysis here:

Roundup of Another Discussion on Sanctification | joelws.com


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 8, 2012)

Rich quoted John Murray in the OP from his commentary on Romans. Here are some quotes from Murray's chapter on Definitive Sanctificatin.



> It is a fact too frequently overlooked that in the New Testament the most characteristic terms that refer to sanctification are used, not of a process, but of a once-for-all definitive act.
> 
> We properly think of calling, regeneration, justification, and adoption as acts of God effected once for all, and not requiring or admitting of repetition. It is of their nature to be definitive. But a considerable part of New Testament teaching places sanctification in this category. [Murray goes on in a subsequent chapter to discuss Progressive Sanctification]


Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2:Systematic Theology


----------



## J. Dean (Dec 8, 2012)

rbcbob said:


> Rich quoted John Murray in the OP from his commentary on Romans. Here are some quotes from Murray's chapter on Definitive Sanctificatin.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I've understood it, there are two "types" of sanctification, as the term means "set apart." The first is that of God sanctifying us in our conversion; the other (progressive) is the working out of that through the mortification of sin in our lives. And the second is a necessary (and if you're a Christian, inevitable) result of the first.


----------



## J. Dean (Dec 8, 2012)

Herald said:


> In mainline Baptist circles I believe that is the default position. Fundamentalism views justification as a transaction. _Tetelestai_ is stamped on the transaction and a sometimes sophisticated form of antinomianism takes its place. It is my hope that there is a healthy dialog on this subject. This is not a sectarian issue. All of us have a stake in it.



I saw some of that in my youth as a Baptist as well. But in the Methodist/Wesleyan/Nazarene/Pentecostal wing (where I spent some later years) it's the opposite: justification is basically for the sake of getting in the door, and then it's all about the works after that. Grace becomes nothing more than the ability for us to do the work, and the work of Christ is for that one moment of conversion only, while the rest is up to you (with God cheering you on). And believe me, when you burden people with works like that, it kills people spiritually, either through making them realize that they cannot be perfect and thus walk away from the faith, or it turns people into self-righteous Pharisees who wear their external works as badges of merit (and I've seen both happen).

I get why people shudder at Antinomianism and the apparent minimizing of sanctification that Pastor T seems to make. But at the same time, I'm also seeing people in the Reformed camp jump to the opposite extreme of David Platt and Francis Chan who almost teach a form of "evangelical monasticism," i.e.-if you're not sacrificing everything material for the kingdom, you're not a good Christian-or perhaps you're not at all a Christian (I'm being a little bit hyperbolic, but from what I've read of the books _Radical_ by Platt and _Crazy Love_ by Chan they do at times give this impression). Is antinomianism a danger? Yes. _So is legalism._


----------



## rbcbob (Dec 8, 2012)

Herald said:


> rbcbob said:
> 
> 
> > Rich quoted John Murray in the OP from his commentary on Romans. Here are some quotes from Murray's chapter on Definitive Sanctificatin.
> ...



Bill, I believe that to summarize and simplify Murray's chapter on definitive sanctification it could be said that simultaneous with our regeneration we are instantly and definitively "set apart" from the world as God's holy child. We are therefore categorically "sanctified people".

Later, when addressing the matter of progressive sanctification, he says


> The exhortation, 'Put to death, therefore, the members which are upon the earth', is one that arises from the categorical propositions which precede. It is clear, as in Romans 8:13, that the activity of the believer is enlisted in this process. The implication is, therefore, to the effect that, notwithstanding the definitive death to sin alluded to in Colossians 2:20; 3:3, the believer is not so delivered from sin it its lust and defilement but that he needs to be actively engaged in the business of the slaughterhouse with reference to his own sins.


----------



## a mere housewife (Dec 8, 2012)

Covenant Joel said:


> For those who haven't read the discussion between Tchividjian and Phillips, I've compiled the links and put up brief summaries and analysis here:
> 
> Roundup of Another Discussion on Sanctification | joelws.com



Thank you for that.

Just from my small perspective (this is an area I have struggled a good bit with) it does seem perhaps that Rich's emphasis on sanctification as part of our _union with Christ _ in His death and resurrection is a significant practical help in the danger of viewing sanctification as an effort and attainment we can make that leads to less dependence on Christ? (Something I have fallen into far too often, and which is a very real danger.) If we can only make an effort against sin out of the power of union with His death and resurrection, and can only hope that sin in us is not going to be victorious because Christ in us has already won -- if being in Christ defines who we are and constitutes our only strength and hope -- then it seems we would be more and more, not less and less, hobbled to our Lord in learning to walk in His ways?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Dec 8, 2012)

a mere housewife said:


> Thank you for that.
> 
> Just from my small perspective (this is an area I have struggled a good bit with) it does seem perhaps that Rich's emphasis on sanctification as part of our _union with Christ _ in His death and resurrection is a significant practical help in the danger of viewing sanctification as an effort and attainment we can make that leads to less dependence on Christ? (Something I have fallen into far too often, and which is a very real danger.) If we can only make an effort against sin out of the power of union with His death and resurrection, and can only hope that sin in us is not going to be victorious because Christ in us has already won -- if being in Christ defines who we are and constitutes our only strength and hope -- then it seems we would be more and more, not less and less, hobbled to our Lord in learning to walk in His ways?



I think you're absolutely right. I think the union of Christ aspect came out more in the previous discussion between Tullian and DeYoung (and even Evans).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 8, 2012)

J. Dean said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> > In mainline Baptist circles I believe that is the default position. Fundamentalism views justification as a transaction. _Tetelestai_ is stamped on the transaction and a sometimes sophisticated form of antinomianism takes its place. It is my hope that there is a healthy dialog on this subject. This is not a sectarian issue. All of us have a stake in it.
> ...



I certainly understand, at times, the pastoral implications of some emphases. I grew up Roman Catholic and so my justification depended upon my holiness. I remember thinking, after Penance, that I could die right now without fear of Hell but that feeling was quickly eclipsed the next day when I sinned. I joined a Cambellite congregation where I first met my wife and, though the altar call for new converts always spoke about baptizing saving a soul, all the preaching emphasized my need to be sold out for God. I remember feeling, every week, I had blown it and needed to come forward for the altar call to re-dedicate my life to Christ but also was concerned about how it would look if the worship leader (me) was constantly re-dedicating himself for the feelings that my salvation wasn't really secure.

It wasn't until I read _Faith Alone_ a few years later that I understood the imputation of Christ's righteousness and wondered how I had never been taught that glorious Truth. I became a member of the PCA in 1998 and the definitive nature of my justification has always been a great comfort. I have to say, however, that I can't remember a time where any preacher, until the last few years, has emphasized how I'm united to Christ in my sanctification. I understood the fact that I was justified but union with Christ seems rarely taught even in our circles. Gratitude seems to be the key aspect of sanctification that is emphasized. 

I attended a Baptist Church in the Far East from 2005-2008 while stationed there and remember being very saddened by the preaching at the Church. I remember taking one of the Pastors aside gently and asking him if he believed justification was about faith alone and he said he did. Nevertheless, the sermons were always focused upon how we needed to be completely sold out to God. True, in itself, but lacking the Gospel of Christ's finished work, it left the congregation impoverished for what wasn't preached.

Having to fill the pulpit for almost a year, I began a series of sermons that hammered home the Gospel. The response was extraordinary. I remember a friend telling me that his wife's jaw dropped when she learned that God had loved us before we loved Him and that the full inheritance of salvation was based on nothing in us but in Christ's finished work. It was a building time in the nature of justification and so teaching about sanctification would have to wait until that foundation was laid and the texts that were brought to bear on that were emphasized. I can't say that I was blameless in my approach but I believed it was needed. I did talk about sanctification in some aspects as we were united to Christ but I still hadn't worked out many of the key aspects until a few years later.

Some have rightly noted that the problem with justification in many Evangelical circles today is that it is assumed away. The sermons emphasize our being sold out to God or social justice or a host of other things that the Law commands which are good in themselves. Yet, the Gospel of Christ's atoning sacrifice and the imputation of His righteousness is never clearly articulated from the pulpit nor is sanctification and the Law placed in the light of our being transported into new life on the basis of that same faith that clings to Christ. If you really ask some of the preachers of these denominations whether they believe in these Truths they will say they believe them. Nevertheless, insofar as they are neglected from the pulpit, the people in the pew never really learn that Truth. The formal Confession concerning justification that is in a Baptist Faith and Message is theoretical because the nature of the preaching, in neglecting to ever teach this truth, has the effect of creating semi-Pelagian or Pelagian views in the congregants. As Christian Smith has found, most Evangelicals believe in a Theistic, Moralistic, Deism because the content of the preaching has the effect of training people in that direction.

Could you then try, in an Ecclesiastical court, those preachers whose congregants have learned an anti-Christian doctrine based on the content of their preaching? It would be difficult because they would not formally deny the nature of Justification. It is the total neglect of the doctrine of Justification in the preaching or even an imbalanced emphasis on Law and Justice that is never counter-balanced that leads people to these views.

I'm vitally concerned about the loss of understanding of Justification and yet, as I've grown to love the understanding of my union with Christ, I'm also very concerned that the comforting and powerful teaching about sanctification is also being neglected or, rhetorically, seemingly spoken against. Neglecting to ever teach properly about Justification is not necessarily an offense that can be properly tried but it produces moralists. Sadly, I believe neglecting to teach about definitive sanctification is less about whether preachers need to be tried for having unorthodox views but the results it has in never helping people to understand what Christ has fully accomplished on the Cross impoverishes their growth in grace.

I believe the reason men tend toward poles in their views toward either legalism or antinomianism is because they have to do something with the fact that we are all sinning constantly. Even with the most balanced, Biblical view of sanctification and justification, we can see even in Paul's presentation in Romans an angst over indwelling sin. Who, under the attack of the enemy, never feels like he can't possibly have been loved by God since he continues to sin so regularly? Paul, in Romans 5, reminds us that Christ wouldn't cast off His friends when He went to so much trouble to save us while we were His enemies and that we have peace with God but that doesn't prevent him from returning in Romans 7 to this feeling that this war in our members is so desperate that we often cry out: "Who will deliver me from this body of death?!"

Consequently, if one is lacking in a teaching about Justification, he's going to tack to legalism as a way to deal with the sense of falling short. If one rarely, or never, really hears from the pulpit about our union with Christ in His death and resurrection but hears about Justification, he is likely to tack to antinominianism because he sees in himself a lack to deal with the sin that is battling within. Even though he is grateful for salvation, he has not sufficiently been encouraged to meditate on the full counsel of God about all that Christ has accomplished. I think it is key to look at all the places that Paul pauses in Romans to have us "consider" certain truths because all these are taken together to comfort us in the midst of all the many ways the Enemy seeks to make a beachhead on the way we think.

Thus, in the final analysis, I understand why even in my own life I have considered one Truth more strongly but, as I look back, I also wish that I had been given all the pieces to the puzzle togehter because each aspect was important but did not stand alone and I need all the truths of the Gospel to keep me from shrinking back from the race that Christ has set before me.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 8, 2012)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm vitally concerned about the loss of understanding of Justification and yet, as I've grown to love the understanding of my union with Christ, I'm also very concerned that the comforting and powerful teaching about sanctification is also being neglected or, rhetorically, seemingly spoken against. Neglecting to ever teach properly about Justification is not necessarily an offense that can be properly tried but it produces moralists. Sadly, I believe neglecting to teach about definitive sanctification is less about whether preachers need to be tried for having unorthodox views but the results it has in never helping people to understand what Christ has fully accomplished on the Cross impoverishes their growth in grace.



It has been very helpful to understand that Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life- and faith in that (Christ's righteousness alone) is what justifies us in God's sight. Our ability to rely on this in faith comes by the Spirit, as does our union with Christ come by the same Spirit.

And that will produce evidence of God's grace working in our lives that will become observable over time, because He has truly changed the constituent nature of a human being.

To not change, show no evidence of grace, proves out one was never a believer in the first place, because they never were really changed.

And that process is, as best I understand it, a cooperative one between God and man (using man's "secondary" causing in the Westminster COF sense).

It is the lifetime calling of the believer, indeed his duty, to appreciate what God has done for him, to the end of His Honor and His Glory.


----------

