# Pink's The Doctrine of Sanctification



## jayce475 (Jul 1, 2010)

I've been reading Pink's The Doctrine of Sanctification in hope of getting a better understanding of the objective aspects of sanctification. There's been a number of pages claiming that the reformed creeds and confessions (WLC, LBCF) have undermined the objective aspects of sanctification that Christ has accomplished for us and sanctified us perfectly at the point of conversion. Does the issue lie with him misrepresenting the confessions or are they really deficient? What is the relationship between what he is saying and the doctrine of the Union with Christ?


----------



## JM (Jul 2, 2010)

Could you provide us with a quote? You could cut and paste from the link below. 

The Doctrine of Sanctification


----------



## jayce475 (Jul 2, 2010)

From the section on the Procurer of our sanctification. It's pretty much claiming that the confessions are lacking.
_Every real Christian has already been sanctified or set apart as holy unto God by the precious blood of the Lamb. But though many believers are consciously and confessedly "justified by His blood" (Rom. 5:9), yet not a few of them are unwittingly dishonoring that blood by striving (in their desires after holiness of life) to offer God "entire consecration" or "full surrender" (as they call it) in order to get sanctified—so much "living sacrifice" they present to God for so much sanctification. They have been beguiled into the attempt to lay self on some imaginary "altar" so that their sinful nature might be "consumed by the fire of the Spirit." Alas, they neither enter into God’s estimate of Christ’s blood, nor will they accept the fact that "the heart is deceitful above all things and incurably wicked" (Jer. 17:9). They neither realize that God has "made Christ to be sanctification unto them" nor that "the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Rom. 8:7). 

It is greatly to be regretted that many theologians have confined their views far too exclusively to the legal aspect of the atonement, whereas both the Old Testament types and the New Testament testimony, with equal clearness, exhibit its efficacy in all our relations to God. Because we are in Christ, all that He is for us must be ours. "The blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, and the believer does not more truly take his place in Christ before the justice of God as one against whom there is no charge, than he takes his place in Christ before the holiness of God as one upon whom there is no stain" (Jas. Inglis in "Way-marks in the wilderness," to whom we are indebted for much in this and the preceding chapter). Not only is the believer "justified by His blood" (Rom 5:9), but we are "sanctified (set apart, consecrated unto God, fitted and adorned for His presence) through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb. 10:10). It is this blessed aspect of sanctification which the denominational creeds and the writings of the Puritans almost totally ignored. 

In the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly the question is asked, "What is sanctification?" To which the following answer is returned: "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 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." 

Now far be it from us to sit in judgment upon such an excellent and helpful production as this Catechism, which God has richly blest to thousands of His people, or that we should make any harsh criticisms against men whose shoes we are certainly not worthy to unloose. Nevertheless, we are assured that were its compilers on earth today, they would be the last of all to lay claim to any infallibility, nor do we believe they would offer any objection against their statements being brought to the bar of Holy Scripture. The best of men are but men at the best, and therefore we must call no man "Father." A deep veneration for servants of God and a high regard for their spiritual learning must not deter us from complying with "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good" (1 Thess. 5:21). The Bereans were commended for testing the teachings even of the apostle Paul, "And searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so" (Acts 17:11). It is in this spirit that we beg to offer two observations on the above quotation. 

First, the definition or description of sanctification of the Westminster divines is altogether inadequate, for it entirely omits the most important aspect and fundamental element in the believer’s sanctification: it says nothing about our sanctification by Christ (Heb. 10:10; 13:12), but confines itself to the work of the Spirit, which is founded upon that of the Son. This is truly a serious loss, and affords another illustration that God has not granted light on all His Word to any one man or body of men. A fuller and better answer to the question of, "What is sanctification?" would be, "Sanctification is, first, that act of God whereby He set the elect apart in Christ before the foundation of the world that they should be holy. Second, it is that perfect holiness which the Church has in Christ and that excellent purity which she has before God by virtue of Christ’s cleansing blood. Third, it is that work of God’s Spirit which, by His quickening operation, sets them apart from those who are dead in sins, conveying to them a holy life or nature, etc." 

Thus we cannot but regard this particular definition of the Larger Catechism as being defective, for it commences at the middle, instead of starting at the beginning. Instead of placing before the believer that complete and perfect sanctification which God has made Christ to be unto him, it occupies him with the incomplete and progressive work of the Spirit. Instead of moving the Christian to look away from himself with all his sinful failures, unto Christ in whom he is "complete" (Col. 2:10), it encouraged him to look within, where he will often search in vain for the fine gold of the new creation amid all the dross and mire of the old creation. This is to leave him without the joyous assurance of knowing that he has been "perfected forever" by the one offering of Christ (Heb. 10:14); and if he be destitute of that, then doubts and fears must constantly assail him, and the full assurance of faith elude every striving after it. 

Our second observation upon this definition is, that its wording is faulty and misleading. Let the young believer be credibly assured that he will "more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life," and what will be the inevitable outcome? As he proceeds on his way, the Devil assaulting him more and more fiercely, the inward conflict between the flesh and the Spirit becoming more and more distressing, increasing light from God’s Word more and more exposing his sinful failures, until the cry is forced from him, "I am vile; 0 wretched man that I am," what conclusion must he draw? Why this: if the Catechism-definition be correct then I was sadly mistaken, I have never been sanctified at all. So far from the "more and more die unto sin" agreeing with his experience, he discovers that sin is more active within and that he is more alive to sin now, than he was ten years ago! 

Will any venture to gainsay what we have just pointed out above, then we would ask the most mature and godly reader, Dare you solemnly affirm, as in the presence of God, that you have "more and more died unto sin?" If you answer, Yes, the writer for one would not believe you. But we do not believe for a moment that you would utter such an untruth. Rather do we think we can hear you saying, "Such has been my deep desire, such has been my sincere design in using the means of grace, such is still my daily prayer; but alas, alas! I find as truly and as frequently today as I ever did in the past that, "When I would do good, evil is present with me; for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I" (Rom. 7). Ah, there is a vast difference between what ought to be, and that which actually obtains in our experience. 

That we may not be charged with partiality, we quote from the "Confession of Faith" adopted by the Baptist Association, which met in Philadelphia 1742, giving the first two sections of their brief chapter on sanctification: 1. "They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit in them through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, are also (a) farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, (b) by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; (c) the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, (d) and the several lusts thereof more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. 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 continual and irreconcilable war."—Italics ours. 

Like the previous one, this description of sanctification by the Baptists leaves something to be desired, for it makes no clear and direct statement upon the all-important and flawless holiness which every believer has in Christ, and that spotless and impeccable purity which is upon him by God’s imputation of the cleansing efficacy of His Son’s sacrifice. Such a serious omission is too vital for us to ignore. In the second place, the words which we have placed in italics not only perpetuate the faulty wording of the Westminster Catechism but also convey a misleading conception of the present condition of the Christian. To speak of "some remnants of corruption" still remaining in the believer, necessarily implies that by far the greater part of his original corruption has been removed, and that only a trifling portion of the same now remains. But something vastly different from that is what every true Christian discovers to his daily grief and humiliation. 

Contrast, dear reader, with the "some remnants of corruption" remaining in the Christian (an expression frequently found in the writings of the Puritans) the honest confession of the heavenly-minded Jonathan Edwards: "When I look into my heart and take a view of its wickedness, it looks like an abyss infinitely deeper than Hell. And it appears to me that, were it not for free grace, exalted and raised up to the infinite height of all the fulness of the great Jehovah, and the arm of His grace stretched forth in all the majesty of His power and in all the glory of His sovereignty, I should appear sunk down in my sins below Hell itself. It is affecting to think how ignorant I was when a young Christian, of the bottomless depths of wickedness, pride, hypocrisy, and filth left in my heart." The closer we walk with God, the more conscious will we be of our utter depravity. 

Among the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England (Episcopalian) there is none treating of the important doctrine of sanctification! We believe that all the Reformation "standards" (creeds, confessions, and catechisms) will be searched in vain for any clear statement upon the perfect holiness which the Church has in Christ or of God’s making Him to be, imputatively, sanctification unto His people. In consequence of this, most theological systems have taught that while justification is accomplished the moment the sinner truly believes in Christ, yet is his sanctification only then begun, and is a protracted process to be carried on throughout the remainder of this life by means of the Word and ordinances, seconded by the discipline of trial and affliction. But if this be the case, then there must be a time in the history of every believer when he is "justified from all things" and yet unfit to appear in the presence of God; and before he can appear there, the process must be completed—he must attain what is called "entire sanctification" and be able to say "I have no sin," which, according to 1 John 1:8, would be the proof of self-deception. 

Here, then, is a real dilemma. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves; and yet, according to the doctrine of "progressive sanctification," until we can say it (though it be inarticulately in the moment of death) we are not meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. What an awful thought it is, that Christ may come any hour to those who realize that the process of sanctification within them is incomplete. But more: not only are those who have no complete sanctification unfit for eternal glory, but it would be daring presumption for them to boldly enter the Holiest now—the "new and living way" is not yet available for them, they cannot draw near "with a true heart in full assurance of faith." What wonder, then, that those who believe this doctrine are plunged into perplexity, that such a cloud rests over their acceptance with God. But thank God, many triumph over their creed: their hearts are better than their heads, otherwise their communion with God and their approach to the throne of His grace would be impossible. _


----------



## alhembd (Jul 3, 2010)

Jason,

There are some major problems in Pink's doctrine in that book. Pink was a great writer, but he was erratic. For example: he denied the eternal sonship of Christ. You may know that, in the beginning, he was Plymouth Brethren, and he was influenced by some of their writers to believe that Christ was not the Son of God until His incarnation. 

In the above quote, Pink appears again to be influenced by Plymouth Brethren writers. They would affirm in Hebrews 10.14 - "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" - this only refers to the believer's positional sanctification, as they call it: and thus, they confound justification with sanctification. You see: they say that Christ's actual positive righteousness is imputed to us, and this is correct. However, they then erroneously call this "imputed sanctification," which it is not. This imputing of Christ's positive obedience to the true believer is part of his justification. The cancelling out of his sins we may call his "negative righteousness" - he has no sins imputed to him. But the true believer also has a positive righteousness, which is Christ's perfect obedience to the Law. The believer is accounted as having obeyed the Law perfectly in Christ.

This positive righteousness, however, is not his sanctification. It is true that he is "set apart" by his justification - and thus, his "justification" can be understood as a "sanctification" or a setting apart in some sense - yet his sanctification, properly and Scripturally speaking, is the actual work of the Spirit in him, to make him more like Jesus in his actual walk.

The danger in what Pink is saying above is that it opens the door for the antinominianism that pervades Brethren and dispensational circles as a whole. Modern dispensationalists - and many Plymouth Brethren now with them - will argue that a believer may have no actual holiness of his own, but nonetheless, he has "positional sanctification" - i e, he is "reckoned" holy in Christ. This is the exact same thing that Zane Hodge and Charles Ryrie teach.

But in deed, the true believer is actually sanctified - he does indeed more and more die unto sin, and more and more live unto righteousness - even though the believer himself may doubt this to be the case. But to deny this infallible work of the Spirit in every believer's life is antinomianism, and regrettably, Pink was influenced by this incipient antinomianism through his Brethren background.

I hope this helps. Read Pink with caveats. You should also read Ian Murray's excellent biography of him. Pink changed over the years - he may not himself have embraced the doctrines of this book in his later years.


----------



## moral necessity (Jul 3, 2010)

alhembd said:


> But in deed, the true believer is actually sanctified - he does indeed more and more die unto sin, and more and more live unto righteousness - even though the believer himself may doubt this to be the case. But to deny this infallible work of the Spirit in every believer's life is antinomianism...



Although I benefit greatly from you post, I hope to throw caution to attaching this label where it technically does not fit. The position taken here does not necessitate, per se, the equating of it to an "anit-law" mindset, or a "do whatever you feel like" lifestyle, although many may abuse it to such. Many others in this camp strive to live a holy life from a motivation quite uncommon to many believers today. I know of a few, and they are not of the mindset that desires to trample over God's laws.

Thanks again for your post and your warnings.

Blessings and warm fellowship


----------



## captivewill (Jul 3, 2010)

Sanctification cannot and dare not be separated from justification. But the effect of justification is that we are new people who now work by grace through faith in active participation. We are now IN Christ and no longer In Adam. We have been born again.
Being IN Christ means that santification will be accomplished by God working in us as we work out that which HE is by grace working in. We continue to occupy our old bodies, therefore we will fight against sin as long as we live. Romans 7:7 He that is DEAD is freed from sin. Sanctification is progressive as we experience it. It is accomplished entirely however by our being IN Christ by HIS grace.


----------



## torstar (Jul 3, 2010)

While much is to admired in Pink's writings, I am always reminded that he delved into his theory to the extent that he practically isolated himself from the rest of the world. (I will stand corrected gladly if this was not the case.)


----------



## JM (Jul 3, 2010)

It's not either / or, but both.

---------- Post added at 05:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ----------




torstar said:


> While much is to admired in Pink's writings, I am always reminded that he delved into his theory to the extent that he practically isolated himself from the rest of the world. (I will stand corrected gladly if this was not the case.)


 
One might claim he was drove into isolation by an unregenerate church so he could write, his works being used to build the church at a latter date. It's been stated that Pink's works have been the catalyst for bringing Baptists back to Reformed theology.


----------



## dudley (Jul 3, 2010)

jayce475 said:


> I've been reading Pink's The Doctrine of Sanctification in hope of getting a better understanding of the objective aspects of sanctification. There's been a number of pages claiming that the reformed creeds and confessions (WLC, LBCF) have undermined the objective aspects of sanctification that Christ has accomplished for us and sanctified us perfectly at the point of conversion. Does the issue lie with him misrepresenting the confessions or are they really deficient? What is the relationship between what he is saying and the doctrine of the Union with Christ?




I have not read “Pink's The Doctrine of Sanctification“. 
From what I have studied and learned while preparing to become a Presbyterian is that Sanctification is taken from the same Greek root meaning “holy” (hagios), sanctification is the doctrine in Christian soteriology (salvation) that is normally used to describe the growth process of a believer. 

To be sanctified literally means to be “set apart unto God.” Theologically, the force of the doctrine is less an idea of separation from sin, but a closeness to God that is necessarily separate from the sin. In this sense, sanctification is both a position and a process. The Christian has been sanctified (1 Cor. 6:11), but there is also a sense in which he or she is working toward a realization of this reality in their spiritual walk (Rom. 6:22; Phil. 2:12).

How does he say that the Reformed Confession undermine the objective aspects of sanctification that Christ has accomplished for us and sanctified us perfectly at the point of conversion?

According to the Westminster Confession of Faith which I follow as a Presbyterian 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.


----------



## JM (Jul 5, 2010)

I just ordered a copy of Pink's work and hope to form a better opinion after reading.


----------



## jayce475 (Jul 6, 2010)

dudley said:


> jayce475 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been reading Pink's The Doctrine of Sanctification in hope of getting a better understanding of the objective aspects of sanctification. There's been a number of pages claiming that the reformed creeds and confessions (WLC, LBCF) have undermined the objective aspects of sanctification that Christ has accomplished for us and sanctified us perfectly at the point of conversion. Does the issue lie with him misrepresenting the confessions or are they really deficient? What is the relationship between what he is saying and the doctrine of the Union with Christ?
> ...


 
I'm not particularly sure if I truly understand him, but I think Pink insists on an objective sanctification where Christians are already considered holy before God, not only in the sense of having been set apart from the world, but in another spiritual sense due to our union with Christ. The confessions speak of actual practical sanctification only and Pink knocks them for being inadequate. I'm not sure myself if positional change (as in being actually set apart) really ought to be labelled "positional sanctification". So I guess the bigger question is whether our setting apart really ought to be deemed an aspect of sanctification when the confessional definition of sanctification focuses on the real, actual and personal sanctification of a believer.

---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:47 AM ----------




alhembd said:


> Jason,
> 
> There are some major problems in Pink's doctrine in that book. Pink was a great writer, but he was erratic. For example: he denied the eternal sonship of Christ. You may know that, in the beginning, he was Plymouth Brethren, and he was influenced by some of their writers to believe that Christ was not the Son of God until His incarnation.
> 
> ...


 
This is apparently one of his later books. To be fair to him, he does not deny actual sanctification and he merely thinks the confessions are inadequate, not wrong. If positional sanctification is a biblical doctrine, then it is merely a case of antinomians brining it too far. On the other hand, if it is not a biblical doctrine, then Pink's position can be deemed to be opening up doors to antinomianism.


----------

