# Sanctification



## CalvinandHodges (May 31, 2013)

Greetings all:

A discussion that I had with some friends of mine on Sanctification evoked some interesting thoughts. Therefore, I would like to see what you all think about this question:

Is Sanctification Monergistic or Synergistic?

Justification is Monergistic - it is solely the Work of God.

What about Sanctification? Is Sanctification solely the Work of God? or, is it Synergistic - the work of God and man?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Alan D. Strange (May 31, 2013)

WSC 35 puts it so well, no?

Q. 35. What is sanctification?
A. Sanctification is the work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.

It is God's work within us, and it enables us to work, to die more and more to sin and to live unto righteousnes (Phil. 2:12-13). It's not synergistic in the sense that God does His part and we do ours. As Edwards says, God does all (enabling the work of mortfication and vivification) and we do all (in working out that which has been worked in). All of salvation is all of grace. We believe and repent all due to His grace.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 1, 2013)

As I have said before, I have found this very helpful. 


PuritanCovenanter said:


> I found this somewhat helpful.
> 
> http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/51/51-3/JETS 51-3 543-558 Johnson.pdf
> 
> ...



At the same time I must say this discussion stems from other places. It is our Union with Christ that this stems from. After we are regenerate I believe that R. C. Sproul Sr. does a good job discussing this in relationship with the will of God in his booklet the will of God. It is both synergistic and monergistic depending on God's will. Sometimes he has to put the gas pedal to the floor on our behalf.



> (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.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 1, 2013)

Strictly speaking, the words "monergism" and "synergism" refer specifically to effectual calling, not directly to either justification or sanctification as such. The distinction to be made here is that justification is wrought FOR us (based on something outside us, not by anything in us) whereas sanctification is wrought IN us, and thus, though it is the LORD doing the working ("For it is God that worketh," [KJV]Php. 2:13[/KJV]), the working is done IN us such that our renewed minds and wills are actually engaged ("both to will and to do," same verse).


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jun 1, 2013)

While in more popular theological usage, monergism and synergism have come to have somewhat broader application and signification, you are quite right, Austin, that the proper meaning of the term has to do with effectual calling/regeneration. Given this correct historical usage, Calvinists are only and entirely monergists. 

Within that framework, it is the case that there are both forensic/declarative acts (justification, adoption) and sanitive/transformative works (regeneration, sanctification) that come to us by virtue of the work of the Spirit in applying the accomplished redemption of Christ. The Holy Spirit brings us to Christ and Christ to us so that we are united to Him and enjoy all the blessings and benefits of His merits and mediation.

Within this union and life, we work with all our might, by the empowerment and grace of God. There is something quite profound abouth this great salvation that we cannot comprehend. Neither, however, can we comprehend the blessed, Holy Undivided Trinity or the mystery of the Hypostatic Union. All praise be to Him for that which surpasses our understanding (Romans 11:33-36).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## sevenzedek (Jun 1, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings all:
> 
> A discussion that I had with some friends of mine on Sanctification evoked some interesting thoughts. Therefore, I would like to see what you all think about this question:
> 
> ...



Both? Because he works in both the willing and doing of it. Strictly speaking, it would seem to be the work of God because He is the Lord of our sanctification (thereby making it monergistic), but we do participate in it (thereby making it synergistic). He is the one who is making a people pure for Himself, but it is we who are purifying ourselves according to First John. I think would be error to overemphasize either monergism or synergism.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 1, 2013)

The regenerate soul co-operates with God the Holy Spirit's sanctifying grace. All the glory goes to God because it is His sanctifying grace, and because He monergistically regenerated us, making sanctification possible.

God also graciously rewards our good works - such as they are - done in Christ, even although we intrinsically merit nothing, as all our sanctification and good works must be traced to God's saving grace.

But in a real sense everything worthwhile that human beings do is of grace, either common grace or saving grace. But nevertheless it is right and proper that awards be assigned for work done and honour given where honour is due.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 3, 2013)

Greetings all:

I thank you for your input. I wanted to get a multitude of counselors before stating what I have found upon the reading of the Reformers and Puritans on the subject. I believe that both Austin and Alan have a point in terminology - that monergism and synergism are more appropriate when talking about Regeneration. However, they may be helpful in speaking about Sanctification.

In reading the Reformed and Puritans I have found that they regarded Sanctification as being "only a work of the Spirit of God." Thus, it seems to me that Sanctification, from a Reformed perspective, is monergistic not synergistic (the work of both God and Man). Thus, I do not believe that we co-operate with the Spirit of God in our Sanctification. I read it thusly:

God works Sanctification in our soul *afterwards* we respond in living a holy life. What we might call "Monergism."

The Roman Catholic/ Arminian position reads like this: God's Work + Man's Work = Sanctification. This is what we would call "Synergism."

I get the Reformed Perspective from this:

The Westminster Confession of Faith says that "Sanctification is a work of God's Free Grace..." If it is of Grace, then it cannot be by man's work.

Thomas Vincent, _The Westminster Shorter Catechism Explained from Scripture_, pgs 98-99:



> Whose work is the work of sanctification?
> A1. Though we be the subject of sanctification, yet we are not the authors and efficient causes of our sanctification; we can defile ourselves, but we cannot cleanse and renew ourselves. A2. Sanctification is the work of God, which is wrought by the Spirit. "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit," 2 Thess.2 :13.



Charles Hodge:



> All that the Scriptures teach concerning the union between the believer and Christ, and of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, proves the supernatural character of our sanctification. Men do not make themselves holy: their holiness, and their growth in grace, are not due to their own fidelity or firmness of purpose, or watchfulness and diligence *although all these are required,* but to the divine influence by which they are rendered thus faithful, watchful, and diligent, and which produces in them the fruits of righteousness. Without me, saith our Lord, ye can do nothing, _Systematic Theology,_ vol 3, 218.



J.C. Ryle:



> Sanctification is that inward spiritual work which the Lord Jesus Christ works in a man by the Holy Ghost, when He calls him to be a true believer. He not only washes him from his sins in His own blood, but He also separates him from his natural love of sin and the world, puts a new principle in his heart and makes him practically godly in life. The instrument by which the Spirit effects his work is generally the Word of God, though He sometimes uses afflictions and providential visitations "without the Word" (1 Peter 3:1). The subject of this work of Christ by His Spirit is called in Scripture a "Sanctified" man, _Holiness, pg 16._



John Owen, _The Mortification of Sin In Believers, Works Vol 6_, 7



> The principal efficient cause of the performance of this duty is the Spirit: "If by the Spirit." The Spirit here is the Spirit mentioned in verse 11, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of God, that "dwells in us," ... All other ways of mortification are vain, all helps leave us helpless; it must be done by the Spirit



Those who would argue for a synergistic view of Sanctification point out man's responsibility as necessary for one to be sanctified. They latch on to statements by the Reformers and Puritans that emphasize "Responsibility" or "Duty" or similar language that are fruits and necessary concomitants to Sanctification and conjoin it with the Work of the Spirit. The Puritans and Reformers rejected such a "Synergistic" view of Sanctification:

Hermann Bavinck:



> Sanctification, accordingly, is in the fist place a work of God (John 17:17; 1 Thess. 5:23; Phil 1:6), more specifically of Christ and his Spirit (Rom. 8:4, 9:11; 1 Cor. 1:30; Eph. 5:27; Col. 1:22) *If is precisely for that reason,* since God enables them both to will and to work, that believers must work out their own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12-13; 2 Peter 1:10). They must keep their entire spirit, soul, and body blameless in sanctification until the day of the Lord Jesus Christ, _ Reformed Dogmatics_, vol 4, 235.



John Owen:



> If this be the work of the Spirit alone, how is it that we are exhorted to it? - seeing the Spirit of God only can do it, let the work be left wholly to him,
> 1. It is no otherwise the work of the Spirit but as all graces and good works which are in us are his. He "works in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure," Phil. 2:13; He works "all our works in us," Isaiah 26:12, - "the work of faith with power," 2 Thess 1:11; he causes us to pray, and is a "spirit of supplication," Rom. 8:28; and yet we are exhorted, are to be exhorted to all these
> 2. He does not so work our mortification in us as not to keep it still an act of our obedience. The Holy Ghost works in us and upon us, as we are fit to be wrought in and upon; that is, so as to preserve our own liberty and free obedience. He works upon our understandings, wills, consciences, and affections, agreeably to their own natures; he works *in us* and *with us,* not *against us* or *without us*; so that his assistance is an encouragement as to the facilitation of the work, and no occasion of neglect as to the work itself, John Owen, _Works_, Vol 6, 20



Thomas Goodwin:



> I tell you, no man seeks grace in this manner I speak of, but he professeth to God and his own soul that he would not be saved by that grace unless it wrought holiness in him. It is part of the indenture he draws with God. I acknowledge that to be made holy simply upon the sight of the pure grace of God, it is a high and spiritual thing, and our hears are carnal. The law is holy and spiritual, the terms of free grace are holy and spiritual, and we poor wretches are carnal and sold under sin, and cannot come off to the motives thereof, to be acted by it continually, "The Object and Acts of Justifying Faith," _Works,_ vol 8:199.



Thomas Boston:



> Seventhly, I am to shew the effect of Sanctification. This is holiness. The fruit of this work of the Spirit is habitual holiness, that is, an habitual aversion of the soul to evil, and inclination to good; and actual holiness in all manner of life and conversation, in good works, which have God's word for their rule, his glory for their end, and are done in faith. Both which we have, Ps 45:13, "The King's daughter is all glorious within; her clothing is of wrought gold."



Sanctification, then, is solely a work of the Spirit of God. Our response in Holiness is a *result of* and not a *cause of* our Sanctification. The Spirit of God works Sanctification in our souls, and then we work out that sanctifying grace in our lives.

Thoughts?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 3, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Thus, I do not believe that we co-operate with the Spirit of God in our Sanctification.



If that were true in every sense of the word "cooperate," then it could not be said that by God's work in us, we both *will* and *do* of his good pleasure (Php. 2:13 again).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2013)

Rob,

You seem to keep missing the fact that every one of your quotes notes that the 'principal" or "first" cause of our Sanctification is the Holy Spirit.

One needs to harmonize the entire system of doctrine and not take quotes out of context:


> I. God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.





> I. They who are 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, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, *to the practice of true holiness*, without which no man shall see the Lord.
> 
> II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
> 
> III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, *the regenerate part doth overcome*: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.



This idea of sanctification being monergistic seems to arise from time to time here and it is typically proposed by those who read the Confessions speak to the issue of union with Christ and the power of the Spirit being the _grounds_ by which are sanctified and then missing the part where, in the same section, it speaks about our _response_ to that work within the same overarching treatment of Sanctrfication. 

Consider Owen on the Necessity of Mortification:



> If the Spirit Alone Mortifies Sin, Why Are We Exhorted to Mortify It?
> 
> Secondly, *if this be the work of the Spirit alone, how is it that we are exhorted to it?—seeing the Spirit of God only can do it, let the work be left wholly to him.*
> It is no otherwise the work of the Spirit but as all graces and good works which are in us are his. He “works in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13); he works “all our works in us” (Isa. 26:12)—“the work of faith with power” (2 Thess. 1:11; Col. 2:12); he causes us to pray, and is a “spirit of supplication” (Rom. 8:26; Zech. 12:10); and yet we are exhorted, and are to be exhorted, to all these.
> ...


From _OF THE MORTIFICATION OF SIN IN BELIEVERS_​, Chapter 3

Notice the Biblical system:
1. The Holy Spirit works in us.
2. Our act of obedience (resulting from the Spirit's work) is such that our liberty and free obedience is preserved.

Both are aspects of sanctification.

Now, if one wants to consider the _principal ground_ of our Sanctification, it is like every other evangelical grace. Everything comes through the Holy Spirit. If one wants to say that the ground of everything concerning salvation is the Holy Spirit and wants to call this _monergism_ then I won't quibble but to ignore that Sanctification, taken as a whole, does not include our willing then this is not true.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 3, 2013)

Greetings:

Thank you both for your input. I am still working through this idea - so forgive me if I am questioning too much.

Austin: I would not deny the term "cooperate" if used in the fashion that God's work of Sanctification is what Sanctification is really about, and, afterwards, we cooperate with the work of Sanctification in living a holy life. I would not agree with the term "cooperate" if it was thought to be the Arminian equation mentioned above: God's Work + Man's work = Sanctification.

Rich: I always thank you for your helpful posts, and your post above is helpful for me in thinking out this matter. You said that, "One needs to harmonize the entire system of doctrine and not take quotes out of context:"

I had thought that I addressed this point in the second half of my post above:



> Those who would argue for a synergistic view of Sanctification point out man's responsibility as necessary for one to be sanctified. They latch on to statements by the Reformers and Puritans that emphasize "Responsibility" or "Duty" or similar language that are fruits and necessary concomitants to Sanctification and conjoin it with the Work of the Spirit. The Puritans and Reformers rejected such a "Synergistic" view of Sanctification:



I think that my quotes from Owen, Bavinck and Boston point out that though we are responsible to walk a holy life, the work of Sanctification is the Work of the Spirit of God alone. Note:



> Owen writes: "1. It is no otherwise the work of the Spirit but as all graces and good works which are in us are his. He "works in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure," Phil. 2:13; He works "all our works in us," Isaiah 26:12, - "the work of faith with power," 2 Thess 1:11; he causes us to pray, and is a "spirit of supplication," Rom. 8:28; and yet we are exhorted, are to be exhorted to all these."



Owen's first point is that even though we are responsible to live a holy life, and we are to be exhorted to do it - that such is similar to all of the graces given by the Holy Spirit. We are Saved by Faith. Does that mean that it is our act of believing that is the cause of our salvation? Or, is it the fruit of our salvation. Living a holy life is the fruit of God's work of Sanctification.

Owen's second point actually is establishing his assertion that Sanctification is solely a work of God. Your highlighted portion reads, "...and no occasion of neglect as to the work itself." The duty of living a holy life is the necessary concomitant to the work of Sanctification in the soul. The "working out" of holiness in our lives is not the act of Sanctification in our hearts. God makes us holy in the Spirit's work of Sanctification, and then we practice holiness in our life.

To put it metaphorically: Those who argue for syncretism in Sanctification are confusing the fruit of the Spirit's work (the necessity of living a holy life) with the root of the Spirit's work (cleansing us from sin).

God Sanctifies us first, and then we respond in pursuing holiness in our lives. Thus, Thomas Boston:



> Seventhly, I am to shew the effect of Sanctification. This is holiness. The fruit of this work of the Spirit is habitual holiness, that is, an habitual aversion of the soul to evil, and inclination to good; and actual holiness in all manner of life and conversation, in good works, which have God's word for their rule, his glory for their end, and are done in faith. Both which we have, Ps 45:13, "The King's daughter is all glorious within; her clothing is of wrought gold."


Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2013)

Rob,

I understand that you are emphasizing the first aspect but you must still take into consideration that the WCF speaks about the fruit of the Spirit's work to be part of Sanctification as a whole. The willing and obedient response of the Spirit's work cannot be separated from the whole of sanctification.

Put another way, we need to think about that which is hidden from that which is historical. We could never say we are being sanctified if we never saw any fruits of that work. One of the reasons the Confessions enjoin us to look for the fruit of Sanctification is the notion that the _whole_ of Sanctification includes not only God making us holy but the outworking of that "being made holy".

When speaking of the graces of sanctification it must be obviously understood that our obedience or cooperation with the work of the Holy Spirit is not, itself, grace. The Author of grace is singular so, in that sense, there is no cooperation. The outworking of that fruit, however, is a voluntary act of our liberty. Thus, again, on the primary aspect of Sanctification, the Author is singular, but our wills are still involved and this is still part of Sanctification as a whole. If we had the former without the latter then we would not have any _historical_ or measurable sense of Sanctification. Sanctification, only seen in its first sense, would be a thing hidden as it would be the Sovereign, hidden work of the Spirit. Our response in real history makes it something we can actually see so as to say: "I am being sanctified."

If the Reformed Confessions intended to place our response to the evangelical graces of Sanctification outside of sanctification proper then the WCF (and other places) would not include the truth that 


Semper Fidelis said:


> the regenerate part doth overcome


That they place this under the heading of Sanctifcation speaks for itself.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2013)

I might add that this clause is actually very useful when preaching to the congregation:



Semper Fidelis said:


> II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.


One of the external evidences of Sanctification is this continual war. Weary sinners need to be reminded that the War is, in itself, part of Sanctification as a whole. This is very comforting because the War can sometimes feel as if the Saint is not really Christ's own. Yet the Scriptures confess that the War itself is evidence that Sanctification is at work.

I would also add that Christ is seen as a paradigm in Hebrews 5 where it testifies that He learned obedience through suffering. To divorce the suffering of the Saint from the work of the Spirit is to divorce the means that the Spirit uses from the ends.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 4, 2013)

Greetings:

Thanks, again, Rich. However, I do not see anywhere in the WCF of what you say, "...you must still take into consideration that the WCF speaks about the fruit of the Spirit's work to be part of Sanctification as a whole."



> Q. What is Sanctification?
> A. Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they, whom God hath 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 of 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, WLC



As far as the war is concerned. The WCF in Chapter 13, Sections 2 and 3 indicate that the war in this soul is not a result of human effort, but:



> 2. This Sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part: whence ariseth a continlual, and irreconcileable war; the flesh lusting against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh.
> 3. In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; *yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ,* the regenerate part doth overcome: and so, the Saints grow in grace, perfection holiness in the fear of God


The Westminster standards does not include the work of man in Sanctification. It is talking about the work of the Spirit that *enables* a man to work out his salvation. But the working out part comes after the working of the Spirit of God in Sanctification. You are confusing the fruit of Sanctification with the cause of Sanctification.

Also, I agree that the suffering of the Saint is not divorced from the Work of the Spirit. The suffering comes as a result of the work of the Spirit in the heart. There is no divorce of the two in this view of monergism concerning Sanctification.

Possibly you could point out in the Standards where the work of man is included in the doctrine of Sanctification? Specific quotes would be appreciated.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 4, 2013)

From the 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
> Q. 78. Whence ariseth the imperfection of sanctification in believers?
> A. The imperfection of sanctification in believers ariseth 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,339 are hindered in all their spiritual services,340 and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God.341
> Q. 79. May not true believers, by reason of their imperfections, and the many temptations and sins they are overtaken with, fall away from the state of grace?
> ...


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 4, 2013)

Greetings Randy:

Amen! But where in the Confession does it say that you have to work in order to be sanctified. What I am reading here is that the Holy Spirit enables one to mortify sin and vivify the true life in the soul. I am reading the granting of ability (enabling) but I am not reading the "working out" as a part of Sanctification.

The WCF is saying that the Holy Spirit gives the ability. It is not saying that the response of man is a part of Sanctification.

Thomas Vincent's Exposition on the Shorter Catechism was endorsed by John Owen, Thomas Manton, Thomas Watson, and 35 other Puritan pastors (many of whom were members of the Westminster Assembly). In his Exposition on Sanctification he writes:



> Whose work is the work of sanctification?
> A1. Though we be the subject of sanctification, yet we are not the authors and efficient causes of our sanctification; *we can defile ourselves, but we cannot cleanse and renew ourselves*. A2. *Sanctification is the work of God, which is wrought by the Spirit.* "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit," 2 Thess.2 :13.


There is no mention of man's work nor man's responsibility as a part of Sanctification. These come after God works in you to will and do of His good pleasure.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## puritanbooks (Jun 4, 2013)

This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ "is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption," (1Co 1: 30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 4, 2013)

Rob,

I already quoted the entire WCF on Sanctification where it is clear that the ground AND the response are considered under the header of sanctification. It does not treat the believers response as a separate category. If this does not fit your Procrustean bed then I cannot add more than I have.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 4, 2013)

Rob, I don't want to be ungracious but you are making this harder than it is. I guess there is no need for warring or growing in grace. Maybe you should spend some time with the writings of the Divines who wrote the WCF. I recommend Jeremiah Burroughs. There are plenty of others. The Confession is seen in the light of the Scriptures. Not the other way around. There is a continual supply of grace. If you neglect it you will find out where it leads. The confession shows that also as does the catechism. Yet, as I noted above, God puts the peddle down for us when the need arises so that we persevere. This isn't a let go and let God concept. Mortification is our duty. 

CHAPTER XIII.


Of Sanctification.


I. They who are 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, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.


II. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life: there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.


III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 4, 2013)

Greetings:

Randy: It may be that I need to read more of the Puritans on this matter. I find it odd, though, that you and Rich are unable to answer a simple question concerning the WCF - that is, Where in the Standards do you find the Work of man in Sanctification? You say you quote the whole Confession, but where in the Confession do you find the Work/Responsibility of man as a part of Sanctification. 

It seems to me that you are both arguing the Arminian/Roman Catholic position: God's Work + Man's Work = Sanctification.

The Reformed View *as stated by your quotations of the WCF* speak only and solely of the Work of the Spirit of God in mortification and vivification. God is the one who puts to death sin in our lives, and that is His work of Sanctification in the soul. We, in humble response to the workings of the Holy Spirit, then mortify the deeds of the flesh. The Westminster Standards are simply speaking about the Work of God. It says *nothing* about the responsibility of man.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## KMK (Jun 4, 2013)

Rob, do you repent of your sins? Or does the Holy Spirit repent of your sins?


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 4, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Where in the Standards do you find the Work of man in Sanctification?



It is self-evident. If man is not doing anything in sanctification, then he is not being sanctified. We are all agreed that it is God who works it all in us. What you seem to be missing is that he works it *in* us such that we both *will* and *do* of his good pleasure. This is all wrought by the Spirit of God and received from the fullness of Christ through our union with him, but the result is that we become progressively holy. You have acknowledged this, I know, but you seem to object to using the word "sanctification" to refer to the whole process of our becoming holy, but this is how the Scripture uses it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> Randy: It may be that I need to read more of the Puritans on this matter. I find it odd, though, that you and Rich are unable to answer a simple question concerning the WCF - that is, Where in the Standards do you find the Work of man in Sanctification? You say you quote the whole Confession, but where in the Confession do you find the Work/Responsibility of man as a part of Sanctification.
> 
> ...



I'm going to exhort you ONE MORE TIME to read the WCF on Sanctification. There are several clauses, which I have highlighted, that speak of mans response. Don't ignore them because you think that only that which counts is the work of God. You are so fixated that you not only refuse to read what I have given but you are now leveling impious accusations. 

I want you to look at the WCF on Sanctification and quote for me every clause that speaks of mans response. I don't care whether you think they are part of Sanctification or not. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 5, 2013)

Greetings all:

Rich: I mean no disrespect. You ask me to read the whole of the WCF concerning Sanctification, and I have. You have also asked me to show where the "response of man" is found in the WCF on Sanctification (I have posted the whole of WCF chapter 13 in post #14 above). I cannot find any such language. I have also respectfully replied to this idea of yours in a previous post. My post #11 addresses your concerns here:



> I think that my quotes from Owen, Bavinck and Boston point out that though we are responsible to walk a holy life, the work of Sanctification is the Work of the Spirit of God alone. Note:
> 
> Owen writes: "1. It is no otherwise the work of the Spirit but as all graces and good works which are in us are his. He "works in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure," Phil. 2:13; He works "all our works in us," Isaiah 26:12, - "the work of faith with power," 2 Thess 1:11; he causes us to pray, and is a "spirit of supplication," Rom. 8:28; and yet we are exhorted, are to be exhorted to all these."
> Owen's first point is that even though we are responsible to live a holy life, and we are to be exhorted to do it - that such is similar to all of the graces given by the Holy Spirit. We are Saved by Faith. Does that mean that it is our act of believing that is the cause of our salvation? Or, is it the fruit of our salvation. Living a holy life is the fruit of God's work of Sanctification.
> ...


The whole of Reformed Theology does not endorse the Roman Catholic formula of: God's WOrk + Man's Work/Response = Sanctification.

KMK: I cannot repent of my sins until the Spirit of God gives me Repentence. My repentance is not the cause of my Salvation, but a humble response to the Work of God in saving me.

Austin: What I am saying does not contradict what you are saying. In fact, I cannot respond to God's Work of Sanctification in my soul *unless* God works Sanctification in me. It is the Arminian interpretation of Phil 2:12,13 that our works are a part of salvation. Why don't we look at the passage using Sanctification as a metonomy of the adjunct of Salvation:

"...work out your Sanctification with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure."

Being a Calvinist: would you agree with someone who said that your work is necessary in order to be sanctified?

If you do not respond to God's work of sanctification in your soul, then it is clear that God has not Sanctified you. You cannot cleanse yourself until God has first cleansed you.

I hope I have made myself clear.

Blessings to you all, and my love for you in Jesus Christ,

Rob

I have not thrown out any impious accusations.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 5, 2013)

Rob, I think we are on the same page except that it seems you do not want to include the effect of God's work in us (the resulting action of our regenerate wills) as properly falling under the category of "sanctification". If you are willing to let the term sanctification include the fruit of God's monergistic work in us, then we are in full agreement.

Where Romanists are different from what I have said is that they give man an independent role that comes from man's will in addition to the Spirit's work rather than by the Spirit's work. The Spirit does something and man adds something different in the Romanist scheme. In Protestant theology, everything good the regenerate man does (believing, doing good works) is wrought by the Spirit of God alone. Not everything the regenerate man _doesn't do_, but everything the regenerate man _does_. He is still _doing_.

A further difference in the Romanist scheme is that they include the work of man in justification, which is not under discussion here anyway.


----------



## KMK (Jun 5, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> KMK: I cannot repent of my sins until the Spirit of God gives me Repentence. My repentance is not the cause of my Salvation, but a humble response to the Work of God in saving me.



The question was not, "Rob, what is the cause of your repentance?" The question was, "Do you, Rob, repent of your sins?" You should be able to answer this with a simple 'yes' or 'no'.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 5, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> It seems to me that you are both arguing the Arminian/Roman Catholic position: God's Work + Man's Work = Sanctification.


 If this is what you think we are saying you need to pay a bit more attention. Equals Sanctification? Categorically you are definitely missing the point Rob. You just exhibited that you are not listening. If sanctification is Monergistic and Synergistic depending on which categorical topic you are relating to concerning Sanctification, your formula is truly a misrepresentation as to cause, effect, and affect. The Roman doctrine does not hold to perseverance of the Saints as we recognize it. The Roman view ties it to Justification differently also. Rob, your assertions are out of bounds.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 5, 2013)

> I. They who are 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, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, *to the practice of true holiness*, without which no man shall see the Lord.
> 
> III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, *the regenerate part doth overcome*: and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.



Who is the subject of the bolded parts, Rob? I'm incredulous that I'm having to ask this.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 5, 2013)

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,(a) by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them ( b) the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,(c) and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified;(d) and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,(e)* to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.(f)*

(f) Heb 12:14    Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:

2Co 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.

These are the last two passages referenced for this part of Chapter 13:1.

The framers had our participation in sanctification in mind here if these are the two references.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 5, 2013)

Greetings:

KMK: Yes.

Austin: The fruits of Sanctification are a necessary concomitant to God's work of Sanctification in the soul. When God sanctifies you, then you necessarily respond. The response is not Sanctification, but a humble acknowledgement that God has Sanctified you. I believe the confusing part of this is that though the Spirit sanctifies the whole man - it is imperfect in this life. Maybe this will help:

The Spirit sanctifies you, then you respond. The Spirit sanctifies you more, then you respond, etc... Sanctification is an ongoing work of the Spirit of God that makes you holy. We simply respond in faith to the Sanctifying work of the Spirit.

The WLC states that Sanctification is a "Work of God's Free Grace..." If Sanctification is a work of Grace, then it cannot be a work of man (man's work/response follows afterwards) as Paul writes:



> For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast, Ephesians 2:8,9.



Randy: I do not believe the synergistic/Roman Catholic/Arminian view of Sanctification in the formula: God's work + Man's work = Sanctification.

I greatly appreciate all of your points, and I think this conversation is important.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 5, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> Randy: I do not believe the synergistic/Roman Catholic/Arminian view of Sanctification in the formula: God's work + Man's work = Sanctification.


Rob, You accused us of Roman / Arminian teaching. I was just responding to your accusation. Please learn how to listen when you read. No one was accusing you of this. You were accusing us.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 5, 2013)

It is God the Holy Spirit's work + the work of the soul that He regenerated monergistically.

All the glory goes to God.

*Rob*


> The Spirit sanctifies you, then you respond. The Spirit sanctifies you more, then you respond, etc... Sanctification is an ongoing work of the Spirit of God that makes you holy. We simply respond in faith to the Sanctifying work of the Spirit.



Scripture and the Confession tell us we are duty bound before God not to take a passive, quietist approach to sanctification. We are regenerate, after all.



> Chapter XVI, Of Good Works, III. Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure:yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.[14]





> [14] PHI 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. HEB 6:11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end: 12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. 2PE 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue. 5 And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge. 10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: 11 For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. ISA 64:7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities. 2TI 1:6 Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands. ACT 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews. JUD 20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, 21 Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 5, 2013)

Rob,

Do you understand the difference between definitive and progressive sanctification? It appears not. I'd advise that you read Owen on the Holy Spirit, particularly III.386-406.


----------



## KMK (Jun 5, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> KMK: Yes.



The Holy Spirit enabled you, Rob, to do that and then you, Rob, did it. Hence, you did not cause your sanctification but you participated in it. 




CalvinandHodges said:


> The WLC states that Sanctification is a "Work of God's Free Grace..." If Sanctification is a work of Grace, then it cannot be a work of man



In context, the WLC states that Sanctification is a work of God's free grace, meaning that it is a work caused by, and founded upon God's grace, but the subject of that grace actually exercises it.



> WLC Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
> 
> A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification of his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the *exercise* thereof...



You want to deny that the exercise of grace by the subject of that grace is a part of Sanctification. That is not only contraconfessional it is absurd. In what category do you suggest the exercise of grace should be placed if not in the category of Sanctification?


----------



## Jack K (Jun 5, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Justification is Monergistic - it is solely the Work of God.
> What about Sanctification? Is Sanctification solely the Work of God? or, is it Synergistic - the work of God and man?



Sorry for being late to the discussion, and maybe I have it all wrong, but...

Doesn't "monergism" refer just to the new birth? That's when we were unable to cooperate with God's work in us because we were dead in sin and enemies of God. But once we were born again, we became new creatures who gladly "play along" with God's work in us.

In that sense, even justification could be said to be synergistic. It includes our faith. We act. We repent and believe in Jesus, and so we are justified and adopted and made holy (in the definitive sanctification sense). These are wholly acts of God, but we played along. We wanted it. We chose it. As reborn people, we were _in sync_ with God. Hence, "synergism."

And so also we continue to work with God, not against him, in our progressive sanctification.

None of this should be taken to mean that we deserve any of the credit, nor that if we failed to hold up our end of the bargain God's work would be ineffective. All credit goes to him. He gave us new birth solely by his discretion and mercy, and in his sovereign providence he stregthens us today to continue to fight sin. In that sense, it's still all about God. But I do think we miss some of the wonder of the new birth if we fail to see what a radical change it is. We went from being completely opposed to God to willingly acting in synergy with his sovereign design for us.


----------



## au5t1n (Jun 5, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> The response is not Sanctification, but a humble acknowledgement that God has Sanctified you.



I think this statement captures the basic disagreement between you and others on this thread. We are using sanctification as a holistic term because by definition it includes our becoming holy, but you are restricting the term only to the cause at the back of it all. We appear to agree on what is happening but not on how much of it to call sanctification.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 6, 2013)

I ought not to have been so annoyed in some of my responses but your impious claim that any view posited here was Arminian or Roman Catholic was beyond the pale. You seem to have already decided what Sanctification means and so any demonstration that broadens the discussion beyond what you think it means is interpreted as man cooperating with grace to make it effectual.

As Jack helpfully pointed out, not even Justification is monergistic. Justification includes the instrumental act of _our_ faith to cling to Christ. One of the reasons Calvin used the word regeneration in a way that included the entire Christian life is because the life of Christ through the Spirit impels every act from repentance to faith to repentance again to faith to.... 

The way you define Sanctification, it would put the believer's continual repentance and faith outside of it. Why? Because even though you might grant that the reason the believer repents is the Spirit's moving, repentance and faith are still acts of our will just like obedience.

You've basically squshed Sanctification down to mean evangelical grace. That is to say that whatever the Spirit does to move or infuse us with the power of Christ equals Sanctification. Sanctification has always been intended to describe more of an entire "realm" after Justification where the believer is perfected by Christ. It is definitive on the one hand because the believer is united to Christ but it is progressive on the other because the whole of the beilever's life thereafter is on a trajectory to glory.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 6, 2013)

Greetings:

Austin: I fully agree with you.

Pastor Greco has accused me of not knowing the difference between difinitive and progressive sanctification. Passing over the accusation I will address his reference to John Owen:



> _Sanctification is an immediate work of the Spirit of God on the souls of believers, purifying and cleansing of their natures from the pollution and uncleanness of sin, renewing in them the image of God, and thereby enabling them, from a spiritual and habitual principle of grace, to yield obedience unto God, according unto the tenor and terms of the new covenant, by virtue of the life and death of Jesus Christ._ Or more briefly: _It is the universal renovation of our natures by the Holy spirit into the image of God, through Jesus Christ, John Owen, Works Vol 3, pg 386_


Such is Owen's operating definition. *This definition does not include the Works of man* but simply the enabling of the Spirit.

Owen's point is further substantiated later on in the section which Pastor Greco has pointed out. In this section he is answering all of your objections listed above, and I will let Owen speak for himself.



> But it will be said, "That if not only th *beginning* of grace, sanctification, and holiness be from God, but the *carrying of it on*, and the *increase* of it als be from him, and not only so in general, but if all the *actings of grace* and every act of it, be an immediate effect of the Holy Spirit, *then what need is there that we should take any pains in this thing ourselves, or use our own endeavours to grow in grace or holiness, as we are commanded.* If God *work all himself in us,* and if without his effectual operation in us *we can do nothing*, there is no place left for our *diligence, duty, or obedience*, pg. 394


I will stop here for a moment to point out that Owen is listing the objections to his doctrine of Sanctification. These are the same objections which all of you are trying to point out - especially Pastor Greco. I will let Owen answer:



> Ans. 1. This objection we must expect to meet withal at every turn. Men will not believe there is a consistency between God's effectual grace and our diligent obedience; that is, they will not believe what is plainly, clarly, distinctly revealed in the Scripture, and which is suited unto the experience of all that truly believe, because they cannot, it may be, comprehend it within the compass of carnal reason. 2. Let the apostle answer this objection for this once; 2 Peter 1:3, "His divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." If all things that pertain unto life and godliness, - among which, doubtless, is the _preservation of the increase of grace_, - be given unto us by the power of God, if from him we receive that divine nature by virtue whereof our corruptions are subdued, then, I pray, what need is there of any endeavours of our own? The whole work of sanctification is wrought in us, it seems, and that by the power of God; we, therefore, may let it alone, and leave it unto him whose it is, whilst we are negligent, secure, and at ease. "Nay," saith the apostle; "this is not the use which the grace of God is to be put unto. The consideration of it is, or ought to be, the principal motive and encouragement unto all diligence for the increase of holiness in us." For so he adds immediately, verse 5, kai auto touto de, - "But also for this cause," or, because of the gracious operatioins of the divine power in us, "giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue," as before. These objectors and this apostle were very diversely minded in these matters; what they make an insuperable discouragement unto diligence in obedience, that he makes the greatest motive and encouragement thereunto. 3. I say, from this consideration it will unavoidably follow that we ought continually to wait and depend on God for supplies of his Spirit and grace, without which we can do nothing. That God is more the author, by his grace, of the good we do than we ourselves ("Not I, but the grace of God which was with me"); that we ought to be careful that by our negligences and sins we provoke not the Holy Spirit to withhold his aids and assistances, and so to leave us to ourselves, in which condition we can do nothing that is spiritually good; - *these things, I say, will unavoidably follow on the doctrine before declared; and if oany one be offended at theim, it is not in our power to render them relief*, Works Vol. 3, 394-395.


Owen makes the distinction between Sanctification - which is a work of God, and holiness - which is the work of men. Owen goes on a little later:



> From what hath been proved it is evident that the work of sanctification is a _progressive_ work, that holiness is gradually carried on in us by it (Sanctification) towards perfection. It is neither wrought nor completed at once in us, as is regeneration, nor doth it cease under any attainments or in any condition of life, but is thriving and carried on, Works Vol 3, 397, parenthesis mine.


Owen would not be addressing all of your concerns if he was teaching your views of Sanctification.

KMK writes:



> In context, the WLC states that Sanctification is a work of God's free grace, meaning that it is a work caused by, and founded upon God's grace, but the subject of that grace actually exercises it.



I will let Puritan pastor and theologian Thomas Vincent answer your question from his *Exposition on the Shorter Catechism*, a Puritan Paperback published by the Banner of Truth, pg. 98:



> Though we be the subjects of sanctification, yet we are not the authors and efficient causes of our sanctification; we can defile ourselves, but we cannot cleanse and renew ourselves. 2. Sanctification is a work of God, which is wrought by his Spirit. "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit." 2 Thess 2:13
> 
> and,
> 
> Q7. How is our sanctification carried on? A. Our sanctificatioin is carried on by degrees, as God doth bless his providences, especially his ordinances, through them to communicate further measures of his Spirit and grace.


To answer your question: Our response to God's work of Sanctification in our souls is the living out of a holy life. My repenting of sin is a response to the work of repentance given to me by the Spirit of God.

I find the fact that Owen and the Puritans are answering all of your objections to be quite interesting. .

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob

Jack: I do not mean to be mean, but I think your reasoning is unsound. The instrumental cause of our Justification is faith, but that faith is not our own but given to us by the Grace of God - it accompanies Grace


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 6, 2013)

Greetings:

Rich L. writes:



> I ought not to have been so annoyed in some of my responses but your impious claim that any view posited here was Arminian or Roman Catholic was beyond the pale.


I think you have jumped to a conclusion that is not substantiated by my language. You say that "any objection" was argued by me to be "Arminian or Roman Catholic." I put forth two formulas. One I labelled "Arminian and Roman Catholic" the other I labelled "Reformed." If you are proposing a third formula, then my apologies I was not aware of it. Since I saw no such formula in your previous posts, then I mentioned that it *seems to me* that you are defending the Arminian formula. I did not say that you were, but that is how you presented yourself to me.

So, if I have offended in my language, then pardon me, I meant no offense. May we get on with the discussion and put down the accusations?

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 6, 2013)

Rob,

Demonstrate for me any Confession where "Evangelical Holiness" is treated as a separate header or outside the broad category of Sanctification.

Since Owen calls Evangelical Holiness the fruit of the Sanctifying work of the Spirit, are you saying that the fruit does not belong to the tree?

In point of fact, just like Owen, the WCF on Sanctification, includes _within the boundaries of what it is discussing under Sanctification_ the practice of holiness. Not every clause is limited to the _ground_ or _author_ of Sanctification nor does it only discuss _sanctifying_ but it clearly includes the practice of holiness in several clauses. 

Once again, above, you demonstrate that you limit to Sanctification the process of _sanctifying_ but deny that the fruits are part of Sanctifcation in general. All your quotes do is add misunderstanding upon misunderstanding. Though one may argue that Owen speaks about sanctification in particular, he does not _separate_ the practice of holiness as a separate heading but groups it under the broader discussion of holiness where God, is the _author_ and _principle cause_ of holiness (the Sanctifier - the one who makes holy) where we are those who respond and practice holiness.

Now, whether you want to argue that Owen (and others) when speaking of Sanctification speak pincipally about the _Sanctifier_ or _author of holiness_ being God, the WCF *INCLUDES* the *fruit* or practice of holiness within the boundaries of sanctification. It includes not only the author but its fruit. Sanctification, in the Confession, may be seen as the "ground and practice of holiness". You may wish to cast Evangelical Holiness into a separate Chapter of the Confession to maintain your neat Procrustean bed but the WCF speaks about the practice of Holiness within the Chapter of Sanctification and within the context of questions dealing with it for it is impossible to talk about being made holy without talking about its fruits.

I'm quite weary of you taking everybody's notes about the obvious treatment of the practice of holiness, putting it into the sausage grinder of what _you_ consider sanctification to merely consist of and then accuse ministers and others of not understanding what the Reformed writers are actually saying. 

Most careful thinkers are at least able to see what categories of thinking others are using and not come to the conclusion that they are completely mistaken in their thinking. You may want to argue the point that progressive sanctification should be called "progressive practice in holiness" but that's a difference in terminology and not in substance. 

What disturbs me throughout is that you think you're teaching everybody what the Reformed really thought. Let's say you're right for a moment. What would a mature teacher do in such a situation? He would recognize the places where others are conjoining "being made holy" with "the practice of evangelical holiness". What you believe the Reformed called Sanctification is clearly the former and all of us who need a good teaching by you are conflating the latter with the former and calling the grouping "Sanctification" where we ought to be sophisticated enough to ungroup them.

The mature teacher would see this. It would not even enter his mind that when ministers and elders were explaining to him that the Evangelical practice of holiness needs to be understood as part of Sanctificaiton as a whole that they were actually saying: "Oh no, Rob, like the Arminians and Roman Catholics, we believe that the author of our Sanctification includes God AND us."

Such would not even enter into the mature teacher's thinking because he would see that, where he's making a distinction, the other teachers are saying that the two need to be considered under the broader category.

Honestly, this hasn't been so much of a discussion as a thorough demonstration that you have a lot to learn. Assuming you may establish that Sanctification needs to be limited to the former aspect alone, you have very far to go in order to maturely instruct others. This requires that you understand what they are saying and not make errors _for_ them that they have not made for themselves. Only then (if you are correct) may you be able to help them see that they are in error and ought to see something more precisely the way you are seeing it.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 6, 2013)

Greetings Rich:

Answering your concerns one at a time. Own writes, from the quotation in 39 above:



> there is a consistency between God's effectual grace and our diligent obedience;



Where in any confession is "Evangelical holiness" included in Sanctification?

The fruit is not the Tree. The fruit is a product of the tree. The tree itself is Sanctification the fruit of it is our obedience.


Our diligent obedience is not effectual grace. God works effectual grace in our hearts, and afterwards from that Grace we obey.

The Confession says, "To the practice of holiness." The language is specific for a reason. It is indicating the enabling of the Spirit. The Spirit enables us "to the practice of holiness," the practice of holiness is not the doctrine of Sanctification. See Owen's display of it in the previous post.

I have never denied that I believe that Sanctification is solely a work of God. Scripture everywhere calls the Spirit of God - The Spirit of Sanctification.

I am sorry, but I accused Pastor Greco of nothing. I simply pointed out that his citation of Owen was arguing for the presentation of Progressive Sanctification that I am seeking to point out. It was Pastor Greco who accused me of mistaking Progressive Sanctification (I mention Progressive Sanctification in post #30 above). It seems to me that his accusation was not substantiated by his citation.

There is no meat grinder here. I am teaching what Owen, the WCF, and the Puritans taught on the matter. I did not expect to receive such wide, verbose, and acrimonious responses.

I am also tired of writing the same things over and over again. If you do not believe me, that is fine with me. I would only suggest that you all pray about this while reading the WCF. This was helpful for me in working out the Puritan doctrine.

Blessings in Jesus to you all,

Rob


----------



## KMK (Jun 6, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> To answer your question: Our response to God's work of Sanctification in our souls is the living out of a holy life. My repenting of sin is a response to the work of repentance given to me by the Spirit of God.



See Rich's post above. You still have not answered the question: Under what category does 'our response to the work of repentance' fall if not Sanctification?


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 6, 2013)

Now this is just getting silly. I cannot believe this thread has entered its second page.

Rob, I would direct you to Robert Shaw's exposition of the Westminster Confession, as he is frequently used as an authority around here for explaining the meaning and intention of the Confession:

_Sanctification is both a privilege and a duty. In the one view it is the work of God, and in the other it is the work of man, assisted by supernatural grace._ (See "The Reformed Faith," ch. 13)​
I can't imagine it getting much more explicit than that. _Of course_ Reformed theology teaches that God alone is the author and efficient cause of sanctification. Multiplying quotes which state the obvious does little more than repeatedly state the obvious, for whatever that's worth. The confessions declare a "monergistic" regeneration, because man is passive therein. Man cannot be said to "co-operate" in his justification, since justification is simply a forensic _declaration_ on the part of God (the topic became a little confused when justification was brought into the thread in this context). Sanctification is said to be "synergistic" ("sun" + "ergos" - "working with," "co-operate") because the Holy Spirit is the author and efficient cause thereof, and man responds thereunto and actively works to bring forth the fruits of that new life by faith in the power of Christ working through his Spirit in the Word and Sacraments. _Of course_ man cannot renew, purify or sanctify himself; but man co-operates in bringing forth the fruit of holiness which the Holy Spirit has wrought in him, and in working out his own salvation in fear and trembling. _This_ is the "duty" of sanctification in Reformed teaching.


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 6, 2013)

Gee, I miss Paul... <sigh>

Love you, brother. Hope all is well.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 6, 2013)

*Rob*


> Our diligent obedience is not effectual grace. God works effectual grace in our hearts, and afterwards from that Grace we obey.



As regenerate souls we obey before we receive fresh grace as well as afterwards.

The view of sanctification that is passive is associated with hyper-Calvinism and antinomianism, as well as "let go, and let God" Keswick theology.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 6, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Jack: I do not mean to be mean, but I think your reasoning is unsound. The instrumental cause of our Justification is faith, but that faith is not our own but given to us by the Grace of God - it accompanies Grace



Of course. I was merely pointing out that justification is something we are on board with as God does it (we are repenting in faith at the time), whereas regeneration is something God does for those whose hearts are still opposed to him.

At the risk of being simplistic... it does seem, Rob, that you are insisting on a narrow definition of "sanctification" that's bound to create confusion. I agree with Rich that most of us, when we speak of "sanctification," have in mind that our practice of holiness falls under that umbrella term. If you're going to use the word in a different way (even if that way is based on something from Owen), you're certainly allowed to do so but you should realize that people will misunderstand you and will think you're off your rocker. Perhaps some other term would serve you better.

Various ways to define the word "synergism" might also be part of the problem here. For example, I think of it as "acting in agreement and cooperation with God" but others may think of it as "requiring the work of both God and man." Those aren't quite the same thing. In short, I suspect difficulties in communication, more than differences in theology, are at issue here.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist (Jun 6, 2013)

> In short, I suspect difficulties in communication, more than differences in theology, are at issue here.


Jack's nailed it


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 7, 2013)

Greetings:

I do sincerely appreciate all of your comments - as they help me work out these thoughts on the doctrine of Sanctification.

I have seen it written many times that man's duty to holiness is a part of Sanctification - that man co-operates with the Spirit in order to be sanctified. Such language is prevalent in many godly men who are seeking to present the Biblical doctrine of Sanctification.

As I see it: Our duty to holiness is a fruit of Sanctification. To extend this metaphor: the fruit is produced by the tree. A factory, for example, produces a car, but the car is not the factory. God's work of Sanctification *produces* our humble obedience in holiness. I will reproduce the definition of Progressive Sanctification cited in John Owen, vol 3. pg. 386:



> Or more briefly: It is the universal renovation of our natures by the Holy Spirit into the image of God, through Jesus Christ.


Thus, I place the whole work of Sanctification as the renewing of our souls, and the enabling of us to walk in holiness. Our response, or duty, or work is a consequence of God's work of Sanctification in the soul. God makes us holy - we then act holy. In this I understand our salvation to be sola Deo, all of Grace, and not of any man's working.

If we are to "work out our salvation" it is because we are already saved. The working out of it is not our salvation, but the necessary fruit of it. God sanctifies us, we then work out this sanctification by sanctifying ourselves. This sanctifying of ourselves is not Sanctification, but the fruit of Sanctification in our souls.

If you want to think that your duty, response, or work of holiness is a part of Sanctification, then I will not stop you. It does not seem to me to be careful theology. Nor does it seem to me to be the teaching of the WCF, Thomas Boston, Thomas Manton, John Owen, Thomas Vincent, Thomas Watson, or 35 other Westminster Divines and Pastors who acknowledged Vincent's work as teaching the very doctrine of the Westminster Standards.

KMK: I have thought I answered you several times above. Our duty to holiness is our response to the working of the Spirit of God. So I will place the duty of it in the Christian's Walk with God. I hope this helps.

My love and blessings to you all as you walk by faith and not by sight,

Rob


----------



## Mushroom (Jun 7, 2013)

All my co-operations are as filthy rags...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Thus, I place the whole work of Sanctification as the renewing of our souls, and the enabling of us to walk in holiness. Our response, or duty, or work is a consequence of God's work of Sanctification in the soul. God makes us holy - we then act holy. In this I understand our salvation to be sola Deo, all of Grace, and not of any man's working.


Do you believe that Shaw (who comments on the Westminster standards) and others who insist that Sanctification needs to be understood as not only including the Root but the fruit as teaching anything other than that Salvation is all of Grace and not of any man's working?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 7, 2013)

Greetings:

Brad: Amen!

Rich: I will try to carefully answer your question so as not to seem to be an "immature teacher" to you. Or, that I have somehow entirely missed your meaning. Please be patient with me.

I am citing Owen correctly. Owen places the whole of Sanctification in the Work of the Spirit of God. The effects or fruit of this work of God is our holy obedience. If I am mishandling Owen, as some seem to insist, then I will be happily corrected by a citing of references. I think that the reading of Owen is also substantiated by the citations of Boston, Vincent, Bavinck, Hodge, Ryle, and Goodwin cited in post #8.

Consequently, we have a difference of opinion between godly men. I do not think I would accuse Boston, Goodwin, Ryle, etc... of misunderstanding grace?

It seems to me that if it is true - that Sanctification is solely a work of God in the soul, then to say that man's work is necessary for the work of Sanctification is not consistent theology. Since it seems that we all agree that man's work is an effect or fruit of Sanctification, then to include it *as* Sanctification does not seem right. The effect (man's pursuit of holiness) is not the Cause (the enabling of the Spirit).

Having read Shaw with much profit I would certainly say that he believes that Salvation is all of Grace, and not of any man's doing. However, I believe that he is inconsistent if he is teaching that man's work is a part of Sanctification.

I hope this answers your question.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2013)

Why do you suppose the WCF writers put the fruit of Sanctification within the chapter on Sanctification? Inconsistent to head the Chapter so as to confuse the issue?

By the way, you've been repeatedly shown how you are mishandling your sources. Demonstration and persuasion are not the same thing.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 7, 2013)

Greetings:

THis post was a second copy of my previous one.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Jun 7, 2013)

Greetings:

Rich L. writes (post #40):



> Once again, above, you demonstrate that you limit to Sanctification the process of sanctifying but deny that the fruits are part of Sanctifcation in general. All your quotes do is add misunderstanding upon misunderstanding. Though one may argue that Owen speaks about sanctification in particular, he does not separate the practice of holiness as a separate heading but groups it under the broader discussion of holiness where God, is the author and principle cause of holiness (the Sanctifier - the one who makes holy) where we are those who respond and practice holiness.
> 
> Now, whether you want to argue that Owen (and others) when speaking of Sanctification speak pincipally about the Sanctifier or author of holiness being God, the WCF INCLUDES the fruit or practice of holiness within the boundaries of sanctification. It includes not only the author but its fruit. Sanctification, in the Confession, may be seen as the "ground and practice of holiness". You may wish to cast Evangelical Holiness into a separate Chapter of the Confession to maintain your neat Procrustean bed but the WCF speaks about the practice of Holiness within the Chapter of Sanctification and within the context of questions dealing with it for it is impossible to talk about being made holy without talking about its fruits.


Having thought that I addressed this before (post #11) I will do so more cogently (by God's Grace):

First,the term "ground and practice of holiness" is nowhere found in the Westminster Confession of Faith. You have highlighted two phrases that you claim indicate man's work in Sanctification: "to the practice of true holiness" and "the regenerate part doth overcome."

The confession is saying that the enabling of the Spirit is ... to the practice of holiness. That is, that the practice of holiness is not a part of Sanctification, but the enabling of the Spirit. He enables us to practice holiness. It does not mean that our actual practice of holiness is a part of Sanctification.

"the regenerate part doth overcome..." but how is this possible? the previous clause reads: "through the continual supply of the Spirit..." The Confession is not saying "through the continual supply of the Spirit and the co-operating work of man." I will ask the simple question and mean no disrespect: Is that how you are reading the Confession?

Would it not be more logical for the Confession to state such an interpretation outright? "Through the enabling work of the Holy Spirit and man working out his Sanctification that man is Sanctified"? It seems to me that the Confession is far more careful in its language than is commonly understood.

After defining Sanctification as being "the universal renovation of our natures by the Holy Spirit into the image of God, through Jesus Christ," Works, vol 3, 389. Owen immediately states, "Hence it follows that our holiness, which is the fruit and effect of this work (of Sanctification)" Does not include our practice of holiness as a part of the work of Sanctification.

Blessings in Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2013)

Your explanation is unsatisfactory. The point is that the Chapter does not limit discussion to the root only. 

More pointedly, however, what causes imperfection in sanctification according to the WLC? How is it it possible for sanctification to be imperfect at all if it includes only the Root and has nothing at all to do with the will of man?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2013)

> Turretin adds that the gospel demands not only profession of the truth, but also (principally) the practice of piety and defends this view by noting that works can be explained in three ways, with reference to justification, sanctification, and glorification:
> 
> 
> 
> ...





> Sanctification, therefore, consists in two things: first, the removing more and more the principles of evil still infecting our nature, and destroying their power; and secondly, the growth of the principle of spiritual life until it controls the thoughts, feelings, and acts, and brings the soul into conformity to the image of Christ.
> 
> Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 3: Systematic theology (221). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.





> Sanctification therefore, according to this representation, consists in the gradual triumph of the new nature implanted in regeneration over the evil that still remains after the heart is renewed. In other words, as elsewhere expressed, it is a dying unto sin and living unto righteousness. (1 Pet. 2:24.)
> 
> Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 3: Systematic theology (224). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.





> In Ephesians 4:22–24, we are told: “Put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts; and be renewed in the spirit of your mind; and” put ye “on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.” By the old man is to be understood the former self with all the evils belonging to its natural state. This was to be laid aside as a worn and soiled garment, and a new, pure self, the new man, was to take its place. This change, although expressed in a figure borrowed from a change of raiment, was a profound inward change produced by a creating process, by which the soul is new fashioned after the image of God in righteousness and holiness. It is a renewing as to the Spirit, i.e., the interior life of the mind; or as Meyer and Ellicott, the best of modern commentators, both interpret the phrase, “By the Spirit” (the Holy Spirit) dwelling in the mind. This is a transformation in which believers are exhorted to cooperate; for which they are to labour, and which is therefore a protracted work. Sanctification, therefore, according to this representation, consists in the removal of the evils which belong to us in our natural condition, and in being made more and more conformed to the image of God through the gracious influence of the Spirit of God dwelling in us.
> 
> Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 3: Systematic theology (225). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.





> It is not, however, merely in such passages as those above cited that the nature of sanctification is set forth. The Bible is full of exhortations and commands addressed to the people of God, to those recognized and assumed to be regenerate, requiring them on the one hand, to resist their evil passions and propensities, to lay aside all malice, and wrath, and pride, and jealousy; and on the other, to cultivate all the graces of the Spirit, faith, love, hope, long-suffering, meekness, lowliness of mind, and brotherly kindness. At the same time they are reminded that it is God who worketh in them both to will and to do, and that therefore they are constantly to seek his aid and to depend upon his assistance.
> 
> Hodge, C. (1997). Vol. 3: Systematic theology (225–226). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.


You can scratch Hodge (or Turretin if you like) off your list.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 7, 2013)

Quoting Owen extensively here, you can see the manner in which he interchanges holiness and sanctification and uses them interchangeably. Notice, throughout, what he calls the "work of sanctification":


> 2. This work of sanctification differs from that of regeneration, as on other accounts, so especially on that of the manner of their being wrought. The work of regeneration is instantaneous, consisting in one single creating act. Hence it is not capable of degrees in any subject. No one is more or less regenerate than another; every one in the world is absolutely so, or not so, and that equally, although there are degrees in their state on other reasons. But this work of sanctification is progressive, and admits of degrees. One may be more sanctified and more holy than another, who is yet truly sanctified and truly holy. It is begun at once, and carried on gradually. But this observation being of great importance, and such as, if rightly weighed, will contribute much light unto the nature of the whole work of sanctification and holiness, I shall divert in this chapter unto such an explanation and confirmation of it as may give an understanding and furtherance herein.
> An increase and growth in sanctification or holiness is frequently in the Scripture enjoined us, and frequently promised unto us. So speaks the apostle Peter in a way of command, 2 Pet. 3:17, 18, “Fall not,” be not cast down, “from your own steadfastness; but grow,” or increase, “in grace.” It is not enough that we decay not in our spiritual condition, that we be not diverted and carried off from a steady course in obedience by the power of temptations; but an endeavour after an improvement, an increase, a thriving in grace, that is, in holiness, is required of us. And a compliance with this command is that winch our apostle so commendeth in the Thessalonians, 2 Epist. 1:3,—namely, the exceeding growth of their faith, and abounding of their love; that is, the thriving and increase of those graces in them,—that which is called “increasing with the increase of God,” Col. 2:19, or the increase in holiness which God requires, accepts, approves, by supplies of spiritual strength from Jesus Christ our head, as it is there expressed.
> The work of holiness, in its beginning, is but like seed cast into the earth,—namely, the seed of God, whereby we are born again. And it is known how seed that is cast into the earth doth grow and increase. Being variously cherished and nourished, it is in its nature to take root and to spring up, bringing forth fruit. So is it with the principle of grace and holiness. It is small at first, but being received in good and honest hearts, made so by the Spirit of God, and there nourished and cherished, it takes root and brings forth fruit. And both these, even the first planting and the increase of it, are equally from God by his Spirit. “He that begins this good work doth also perform it until the day of Jesus Christ,” Phil. 1:6. And this he doth two ways:—
> First, By increasing and strengthening those graces of holiness which we have received and been engaged in the exercise of. There are some graces whose exercise doth not depend on any outward occasions; but they are, and that in their actual exercise, absolutely necessary unto the least degree of the life of God: such are faith and love. No man doth, no man can, live to God, but in the exercise of these graces. Whatever duties towards God men may perform, if they are not enlivened by faith and love, they belong not unto that spiritual life whereby we live to God. And these graces are capable of degrees, and so of increase; for so we read expressly of little faith and great faith, weak and strong faith, both true and the same in the substance, but differing in degrees. So also is there fervent love, and that which comparatively is but cold. These graces, therefore, in carrying on the work of sanctification, are gradually increased. So the disciples prayed our Saviour that he would increase their faith, Luke 17:5;—that is, add unto its light, confirm it in its assent, multiply its acts, and make it strong against its assaults, that it might work more effectually in difficult duties of obedience; which they had an especial regard unto, as is evident from the context, for they pray for this increase of faith upon the occasion of our Saviour’s enjoining frequent forgiveness of offending brethren,—a duty not at all easy nor pleasing to flesh and blood. And the apostle prays for the Ephesians, that they may be “rooted and grounded in love,” chap. 2:17; that is, that by the increase and strengthening of their love, they may be more established in all the duties of it. See 1 Thess. 3:12, 13.
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Jun 7, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> After defining Sanctification as being "the universal renovation of our natures by the Holy Spirit into the image of God, through Jesus Christ," Works, vol 3, 389. Owen immediately states, "Hence it follows that our holiness, which is the fruit and effect of this work (of Sanctification)" Does not include our practice of holiness as a part of the work of Sanctification.
> 
> Blessings in Jesus,
> 
> Rob


You seem to be having trouble understanding both English and theology. The quote here from Owen says the exact opposite of what you think it says. "Holiness" is not "practice of holiness," or else Owen would have written "practice of holiness." Holiness is a state - not an action. You don't do "holiness," the work of sanctification _produced_ holiness. You have completely missed Owen's point, in an attempt to make him support you (which he absolutely does not).


----------



## KMK (Jun 7, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Our duty to holiness is our response to the working of the Spirit of God. So I will place the duty of it in the Christian's Walk with God.



So, would you like to see the WCF rewritten something like this?



> Chapter 13 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, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them.
> 
> ...


----------



## JimmyH (Jun 7, 2013)

Hoping that a view from the pew, by a layman, offering this sermon by Reverend D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones might be considered ;

When Not to Pray; but to Act | Sermons | MLJ Trust

If I'm not misinterpreting the substance MLJ addresses and clarifies this topic of sanctification and our responsibilites. He mentions John Owen's Mortification Of Sin towards the end of the sermon as recommended reading. As we know, MLJ was largely responsible for bringing back the writings of the Puritan divines. He knew the Scriptures as few do and is considered one of the greatest expository preachers of all time. Forty six minutes of your time will be well spent in hearing this sermon.

If you have the hard copy of volume six, Darkness and Light, of his Ephesians series the sermon, titled "When Not To Pray But To Act" begins on page 140. The verses exposited are Ephesians 4:22-24

22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;

23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.


----------



## MW (Jun 7, 2013)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Nor does it seem to me to be the teaching of the WCF, Thomas Boston, Thomas Manton, John Owen, Thomas Vincent, Thomas Watson, or 35 other Westminster Divines and Pastors who acknowledged Vincent's work as teaching the very doctrine of the Westminster Standards.



I think your impression of all of these writers is sorely mistaken. The basic logical error being committed consists in making a complex definition a simple one. Where the Confession, Catechisms, and these various authors speak of sanctification in terms of author, subject, and effect, you confine your definition to the author and subject, and shut out the effects working through the subject. Then you state a mere truism by calling this work "monergistic" -- it is obvious that God must be the only worker of His own work. The fact is, though, that all these writers include the effect of God's work working through the subject within the scope of sanctification, which contradicts what you are trying to make them say.

Your view leaves you with no way of fundamentally distinguishing between regeneration and sanctification, or of explaining the imperfection of sanctification in believers, or of motivating believers to press towards the mark. 

WCF 13.3, "*the saints* grow in grace, *perfecting holiness* in the fear of God."

John Owen: "But *our duty* it is to be always 'perfecting holiness in the fear of God.' *This*, pursued in a due manner, *is continually transforming the soul* into the likeness of God."

Thomas Boston: "In progressive sanctification, though *the sinner does act towards his own sanctification*, 2 Cor. 7:1, yet he acts not but as he is acted by the Holy Spirit, Phil. 2:13.


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Jul 6, 2013)

This thread is nearly a month old, but I just read a cool quote from the puritan Samuel Smith, and I wanted to add it to the discussion.



> The fourth main benefit which every godly man hath, by being one with Christ, is sanctification; which is a wonderful and supernatural work of God's Holy Spirit, whereby every godly man, that is a true and lively member of Jesus Christ, is freed both in mind, will, and affection from the bondage and slavery of sin and Satan, and is by little and little enabled and strengthened by the Spirit of God, to will, desire, and approve that which is good and holy, and to walk in it.
> And this sanctification hath two parts, mortification and vivification; by the former, sin is every day more and more mortified, weakened and consumed. By the latter, inherent righteousness is put into them, whereby they walk with God in newness of life.
> Now both these parts of sanctification are wrought after this manner. First, after the Christian man is united to Christ, planted into him as into a stock, and become a living member of his mystical body, Christ Jesus then by his Spirit works in him two blessed works.
> First, the godly man engrafted into Jesus Christ, receives power and strength from the death of Christ to die to all sin. So as the power of Christ's death and passion doth kill sin, and mortify their corruptions, ‘For as many as are baptized into Jesus Christ, are baptized into the similitude of his death,’ Romans 6:4. So as the death of Christ is as a corrosive to eat up and to consume all rotten flesh and corruptions of our hearts, it eats our sin and frets it away by little and little, till it be utterly abolished by death, when our sanctification shall be perfected.
> ...


----------

