Bahnsen Quote For Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.

Backwoods Presbyterian

Puritanboard Amanuensis
From Theonomy In Christian Ethics:

To be sanctified is to be "set apart" by and unto God, so that the Christian is recreated after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness and empowered by the Holy Spirit to die progressively unto sin and live more and more in conformity with God's will. It is easy to see that sanctification, then, requires of the law of God as the standard for God's holiness and will; it defines that sinfulness unto which we are to die. Therefore, the necessity of sanctification and the validity of the law mutually imply each other.

To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)
 
This quotation sounds like good, Reformed theology to me.

I'll refrain from saying another about theonomy because that would be :offtopic:
 
Man Bahnsen's doing a good job of turning me to Theonomic principles.


For what it's worth,

It's a leap to say that God's laws for *personal* holiness should also be the laws for the *state's* holiness.

One reason is that you'd have to say that the *state* should enfource laws against (say) coveting.

So, you'll not get to "theonomy" from his specific claims here on personal sanctification.

:2cents:
 
Originally Posted by Barnpreacher
He's reading TiCE. Why does everybody assume this quote alone is turning him to theonomic principles?

I don't assume that.

He posted something on sanctification.

He then said:

Man Bahnsen's doing a good job of turning me to Theonomic principles.

I'm assuming that he's trying to be relevant to his first post.

I then pointed out, For what it's worth, that his quote shouldn't be something that "turns someone on to theonomic principles."

So, either he brought up the link between his post and theonomy, or else he made a totally irrelevant comment. I chose the first interpretation as it was more charitable . . .
 
Originally Posted by Barnpreacher
He's reading TiCE. Why does everybody assume this quote alone is turning him to theonomic principles?

I don't assume that.

He posted something on sanctification.

He then said:

Man Bahnsen's doing a good job of turning me to Theonomic principles.

I'm assuming that he's trying to be relevant to his first post.

I then pointed out, For what it's worth, that his quote shouldn't be something that "turns someone on to theonomic principles."

So, either he brought up the link between his post and theonomy, or else he made a totally irrelevant comment. I chose the first interpretation as it was more charitable . . .

Don't you know it's a woman's prerogative to win every argument, not a brilliant Christian that puts a mere mortal like myself in his place. :)
 
Originally Posted by Barnpreacher
He's reading TiCE. Why does everybody assume this quote alone is turning him to theonomic principles?

I don't assume that.

He posted something on sanctification.

He then said:

Man Bahnsen's doing a good job of turning me to Theonomic principles.

I'm assuming that he's trying to be relevant to his first post.

I then pointed out, For what it's worth, that his quote shouldn't be something that "turns someone on to theonomic principles."

So, either he brought up the link between his post and theonomy, or else he made a totally irrelevant comment. I chose the first interpretation as it was more charitable . . .

Don't you know it's a woman's prerogative to win every argument, not a brilliant Christian that puts a mere mortal like myself in his place. :)

Are you calling me a woman? :eek:

:)
 
Man Bahnsen's doing a good job of turning me to Theonomic principles.


For what it's worth,

It's a leap to say that God's laws for *personal* holiness should also be the laws for the *state's* holiness.

One reason is that you'd have to say that the *state* should enfource laws against (say) coveting.

So, you'll not get to "theonomy" from his specific claims here on personal sanctification.

:2cents:

:agree:

Sanctification is personal and progressive. As Thomas Watson put it:

"Justification does not admitt of degrees; a believer cannot be more elected or justified than he is, but he may be more sanctified than he is. Sanctification is still increasing, like the morning sun, which grows brighter to the full meridian. Knowledge is said to increase. Col i 10; 2 Cor x 15. A Christian is continually adding a cubit to his spiritual stature."
(Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, page 242).


This statement by Bahnsen...
To be sanctified is to be "set apart" by and unto God, so that the Christian is recreated after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness and empowered by the Holy Spirit to die progressively unto sin and live more and more in conformity with God's will. It is easy to see that sanctification, then, requires of the law of God as the standard for God's holiness and will; it defines that sinfulness unto which we are to die. Therefore, the necessity of sanctification and the validity of the law mutually imply each other.

To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)

...doesn't really address the place of the law in society or state but rather in the heart of the individual believer, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
This statement by Bahnsen...
To be sanctified is to be "set apart" by and unto God, so that the Christian is recreated after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness and empowered by the Holy Spirit to die progressively unto sin and live more and more in conformity with God's will. It is easy to see that sanctification, then, requires of the law of God as the standard for God's holiness and will; it defines that sinfulness unto which we are to die. Therefore, the necessity of sanctification and the validity of the law mutually imply each other.

To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)

...doesn't really address the place of the law in society or state but rather in the heart of the individual believer, in my opinion.

I don't think Benjamin would disagree with that, brother. His second post was more of an aside about TiCE than about this particular quote proving theonomic principles.
 
This statement by Bahnsen...
To be sanctified is to be "set apart" by and unto God, so that the Christian is recreated after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness and empowered by the Holy Spirit to die progressively unto sin and live more and more in conformity with God's will. It is easy to see that sanctification, then, requires of the law of God as the standard for God's holiness and will; it defines that sinfulness unto which we are to die. Therefore, the necessity of sanctification and the validity of the law mutually imply each other.

To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)

...doesn't really address the place of the law in society or state but rather in the heart of the individual believer, in my opinion.

I don't think Benjamin would disagree with that, brother. His second post was more of an aside about TiCE than about this particular quote proving theonomic principles.

Just reading through the posts again. Got it! :up:
 
Man Bahnsen's doing a good job of turning me to Theonomic principles.


For what it's worth,

It's a leap to say that God's laws for *personal* holiness should also be the laws for the *state's* holiness.

One reason is that you'd have to say that the *state* should enfource laws against (say) coveting.

So, you'll not get to "theonomy" from his specific claims here on personal sanctification.

:2cents:

:agree:

Sanctification is personal and progressive. As Thomas Watson put it:

"Justification does not admitt of degrees; a believer cannot be more elected or justified than he is, but he may be more sanctified than he is. Sanctification is still increasing, like the morning sun, which grows brighter to the full meridian. Knowledge is said to increase. Col i 10; 2 Cor x 15. A Christian is continually adding a cubit to his spiritual stature."
(Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, page 242).


This statement by Bahnsen...
To be sanctified is to be "set apart" by and unto God, so that the Christian is recreated after the image of God in righteousness and true holiness and empowered by the Holy Spirit to die progressively unto sin and live more and more in conformity with God's will. It is easy to see that sanctification, then, requires of the law of God as the standard for God's holiness and will; it defines that sinfulness unto which we are to die. Therefore, the necessity of sanctification and the validity of the law mutually imply each other.

To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)

...doesn't really address the place of the law in society or state but rather in the heart of the individual believer, in my opinion.

One of the things I admire about Bahnsen was his capacity to think through the implications of his thesis. Although the quote doesn't directly address the place of the law in society, Bahnsen correctly saw that if his Theonomy was correct and an individual disagreed with it, certain eternal consequences would follow. As he wrote:

Bahnsen said:
God's law is weighty with relevance for sanctification. The breaking of the very least stipulation of the law generates God's displeasure ... taking an erroneous teaching position with respect to the details of the law (e.g. that the exhaustive details of God's law no longer bind Christians or this period of history) does the same....The antecedent referent of 'these' in verse 19 is clearly the 'jot and tittle' mentioned in verse 18. Verse 19 teaches… that the smallest part of the law of God is a canon for determining personal standing in the kingdom of heaven.
(Theonomy in Christian Ethics, pp. 87,88).

If Theonomy is Scriptural, non-Theonomic Christians who do not follow, teach and promote the civil laws hinder their sanctification and add to humanity’s rebellion against God. If they do not repent, on the last day they will be found among the least in the kingdom of heaven.
 
If Theonomy is Scriptural, non-Theonomic Christians who do not follow, teach and promote the civil laws hinder their sanctification and add to humanity’s rebellion against God.

Indeed; but it cuts both ways. Likewise, if theonomy is un-Scriptural, theonomic Christians who follow, teach and promote the specific principles found in the civil laws as being not merely good/wise in some cases, but universally required (which is what theonomy teaches, by definition), then they are guilty of binding the conscience of believers and unbelievers alike by an extra-biblical standard.

It's similar to the issue of baptism: Between credobaptism and paedobaptism, either credos are withholding a commanded biblical sign and blessing from their children, or paedos are applying that sign in an unbiblical way which deprives the children of themselves embracing it in the biblical way. As such, the practice of one of the two is necessarily sinful, a fact which adherents of each must acknowledge if they are being consistent with their view, whichever one it is.

If they do not repent, on the last day they will be found among the least in the kingdom of heaven.

As Dr. Bahnsen's quotation wonderfully summarizes, the utterly amazing process of the Lord's redemption of His people, namely our salvation, encompasses both our justification as well as our sanctification, and the latter is, always has been and always will be an equally real, actual and necessarily present part of salvation just as much as the former.

But there is nothing in that biblical truth (or even in theonomy for that matter) which implies, and indeed I would say it is a far cry from, a belief in degrees of reward or honor in the eternal state of glorification. I explained in a previous thread why I furthermore see that belief as in fact being unbiblical as well as theologically illogical:

Regarding the various passages throughout both the Old and New Testaments that specifically speak of reward for various ways of life, good deeds, and endurance of persecution, I honestly see nothing in the texts that specifically point to or implies anything beyond the reward of eternal life and glorification that all believers are guaranteed on the basis of their unity with Christ and their credit of His active obedience - and I certainly see no (systematic) theological reason to believe such, either.

Theologically, when God looks at us and the lives we lived, why (or even how, logically and in a legally consistent way) would He see the perfect record of our imputed righteousness in Christ when asking, "Are they righteous enough to dwell in my presence and obtain eternal life," yet see the imperfect record of our actual deeds in gradual conformity to Christ when asking, "How righteous are they for the nature and level of the reward and acknowledgment I should give them?" Sounds arbitrary.

Textually, verses like Matthew 10:41-42, Mark 9:41, Luke 6:35 1 Corinthians 3:14, Colossians 3:23-25 and Hebrews 10:35 (often cited as alleged support for the doctrine of degrees of reward in Heaven) all speak of specific good deeds and heart conditions that will lead to "reward" if kept - but many verses throughout the Scriptures likewise speak of works and obedience as being the way to eternal life. We always understand the latter in light of Christ's imputed righteousness, yet somehow seem to forget about or disregard that doctrine when considering the former. Another example is 2 John 1:8, which speaks of winning a full reward, and not losing what we have worked for - but how is that any different than the various salvific warning passages to the visible New Testament congregations, or Philppians 3:11-14 in which Paul speaks of the prize that he is pressing to attain as being "the resurrection from the dead " and "the upward call of God in Christ Jesus"?

I think Proverbs 22:4 is a good verse illustrating the nature of this issue overall: "The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honor and life." The "riches" and possibly even "honor" spoken of here have the exact same apparent nature and contextual appearance as do the "rewards" spoken of any of the various passages often cited to support degrees of reward in Heaven. Yet in this verse, what is the third benefit indiscriminately spoken of right next to those other two? "Life." And we certainly agree on that being something that we fully and solely obtain through Christ's righteousness. So the burden of proof would seem to be on those who would make the "riches" or "honor" a different story.
 
From Theonomy In Christian Ethics:

...
To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)
Isn't this Federal Vision?!? The first sentence seems to imply that, to be saved, we need more than "God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness" - we need more than faith to be saved/justified, we need faithfulness/sanctification.
 
From Theonomy In Christian Ethics:

...
To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)

Isn't this Federal Vision?!? The first sentence seems to imply that, to be saved, we need more than "God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness" - we need more than faith to be saved/justified, we need faithfulness/sanctification.

No he is talking about what God does in the life of His elect: something that encompasses more than justification.
 
From Theonomy In Christian Ethics:

...
To summarize what has been said to this point, we can say that salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner; salvation continues beyond the point of justification into the process of sanctification, a process which begins with a definitive break with the bondage of sinful depravity and matures by progressively preparing the Christian to enjoy eternal life with God by the internal purifying of his moral condition. (pg. 160-161)

Isn't this Federal Vision?!? The first sentence seems to imply that, to be saved, we need more than "God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness" - we need more than faith to be saved/justified, we need faithfulness/sanctification.

No he is talking about what God does in the life of His elect: something that encompasses more than justification.

I think I understand that much - I suppose that was his intent. I have problems with his wording/formulation. By saying that specifically salvation "encompasses" more than justification, to include sanctification, he could be construed to be conflating faith and faithfulness by implication - which is the FV heresy.

I can give Bahnsen the benefit of the doubt, but this quote is a problem. I think we need to be careful in how we use terms like salvation, justification, and sanctification, so that we do not inadvertently cause confusion.

Salvation is the act or means of saving. We are saved exclusively by being justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ's death and resurrection alone. In other (less clear) words, salvation is exhaustively circumscribed by justification (period).

Just the use of phrase "exhaustively circumscribed" does not well clarify the relationships between salvation with justification and sanctification. It's a clever turn of phrase, but can be easily misconstrued. I think Bahnsen has over-stretched the meaning of salvation to make a point. He would like to impress on us the necessity and importance of sanctification. But by subordinating both sanctification and justification to salvation, he has made our salvation subject to both sanctification and justification. This can be understood to mean our "final" salvation is a consequence of our continued sanctification, rather than just our justification by faith alone. In other words, only those who remain "faithful" will be saved. This is not the same being saved by faith alone. And that is one of the errors of FV.
 
Isn't this Federal Vision?!? The first sentence seems to imply that, to be saved, we need more than "God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness" - we need more than faith to be saved/justified, we need faithfulness/sanctification.

No he is talking about what God does in the life of His elect: something that encompasses more than justification.

I think I understand that much - I suppose that was his intent. I have problems with his wording/formulation. By saying that specifically salvation "encompasses" more than justification, to include sanctification, he could be construed to be conflating faith and faithfulness by implication - which is the FV heresy.

I can give Bahnsen the benefit of the doubt, but this quote is a problem. I think we need to be careful in how we use terms like salvation, justification, and sanctification, so that we do not inadvertently cause confusion.

Salvation is the act or means of saving. We are saved exclusively by being justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ's death and resurrection alone. In other (less clear) words, salvation is exhaustively circumscribed by justification (period).

Just the use of phrase "exhaustively circumscribed" does not well clarify the relationships between salvation with justification and sanctification. It's a clever turn of phrase, but can be easily misconstrued. I think Bahnsen has over-stretched the meaning of salvation to make a point. He would like to impress on us the necessity and importance of sanctification. But by subordinating both sanctification and justification to salvation, he has made our salvation subject to both sanctification and justification. This can be understood to mean our "final" salvation is a consequence of our continued sanctification, rather than just our justification by faith alone. In other words, only those who remain "faithful" will be saved. This is not the same being saved by faith alone. And that is one of the errors of FV.

The definition of 'salvation' according to Baker's Theological Dictionary (pg 470) includes 1) Justification 2) Temporal victory over evil 3) Final deliverance and blessing.

I am not sure if 'temporal victory over evil' is the same thing as 'sanctification' or not, but this definition clearly includes more than just justification.

I am sure you are more knowledgeable about this subject than I, so could you give us your definition of 'salvation'?
 
This quotation sounds like good, Reformed theology to me.

I'll refrain from saying another about theonomy because that would be :offtopic:

I thnk you hit on something important. Theonomism aside, I think many people will find that Bahnsen is quite orthdox and even helpful on 99.3% of his theology. His lectures on sanctification and personal holiness were arguably the best thinh I have ever heard.

He went to a Charismatic church to teach the elders there systematic theology. He essentially followed Murray's outline. Yes, Bahnsen is quite mainstream on most of his topics (and I think in closer alignment with Knox and the American Puritans on his political ethics).
 
No he is talking about what God does in the life of His elect: something that encompasses more than justification.

I think I understand that much - I suppose that was his intent. I have problems with his wording/formulation. By saying that specifically salvation "encompasses" more than justification, to include sanctification, he could be construed to be conflating faith and faithfulness by implication - which is the FV heresy.

I can give Bahnsen the benefit of the doubt, but this quote is a problem. I think we need to be careful in how we use terms like salvation, justification, and sanctification, so that we do not inadvertently cause confusion.

Salvation is the act or means of saving. We are saved exclusively by being justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ's death and resurrection alone. In other (less clear) words, salvation is exhaustively circumscribed by justification (period).

Just the use of phrase "exhaustively circumscribed" does not well clarify the relationships between salvation with justification and sanctification. It's a clever turn of phrase, but can be easily misconstrued. I think Bahnsen has over-stretched the meaning of salvation to make a point. He would like to impress on us the necessity and importance of sanctification. But by subordinating both sanctification and justification to salvation, he has made our salvation subject to both sanctification and justification. This can be understood to mean our "final" salvation is a consequence of our continued sanctification, rather than just our justification by faith alone. In other words, only those who remain "faithful" will be saved. This is not the same being saved by faith alone. And that is one of the errors of FV.

The definition of 'salvation' according to Baker's Theological Dictionary (pg 470) includes 1) Justification 2) Temporal victory over evil 3) Final deliverance and blessing.

I am not sure if 'temporal victory over evil' is the same thing as 'sanctification' or not, but this definition clearly includes more than just justification.

I am sure you are more knowledgeable about this subject than I, so could you give us your definition of 'salvation'?

Salvation often includes lots more than 1) and 3) . In the OT it often (usually?) means deliverance in battle. That is why I sometimes think that the battlefield metaphor is as important as the courtroom one (not that I am ditching the courtroom one).
 
The fact Bahnsen used "salvation" and not "justification" provides us with a proper context...in the NT, salvation did not include only justification, but also glorification.

In a sense: We are saved (justified), being saved (sanctification), and will be saved (glorification). Salvation includes all of those things...though biblically, we do not say justification relies on sanctification, etc. So Bahnsen wasn't *limiting* the word salvation to justification...he's not saying we "need more than God's pardon", rather, that the word salvation is more comprehensive than the foundational component of justification.
 
The definition of 'salvation' according to Baker's Theological Dictionary (pg 470) includes 1) Justification 2) Temporal victory over evil 3) Final deliverance and blessing.

I am not sure if 'temporal victory over evil' is the same thing as 'sanctification' or not, but this definition clearly includes more than just justification.

BTD gives three separate definitions. This first definition makes salvation synonymous with justification. In this case, salvation is justification alone (i.e. not also sanctification). The reference seems to be specifically talking about Christ's justification of the elect.

The second definition is more generic. Here salvation is simply victory over evil at some point in time. The reference is more general and could refer to God's deliverance of us from our enemies.

The third defintion seems to refer to our state of salvation after the Final Judgment. This would be a specific instance of the second defintion of salvation.

Each defintion as a specific reference in mind, and are not to be conflated. "Salvation" can have different meanings in different contexts.


I am sure you are more knowledgeable about this subject than I, so could you give us your definition of 'salvation'?

It depends on the context. But in the context of systematic theology (e.g. the WCF, or in explanation of our relationship to Christ), I would define salvation in simple terms like Webster's 1828: "the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness". In a more generic context, salvation means simply "the act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity" (Webster 1812, first definition).

Salvation
SALVA'TION, n. [L. salvo, to save.]

1. The act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity.

2. Appropriately in theology, the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness. This is the great salvation.

Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation. 2 Cor 7.

3. Deliverance from enemies; victory. Exo 14.

4. Remission of sins, or saving graces. Luke 19.

5. The author of man's salvation. Psa 27.

6. A term of praise or benediction. Rev 19.


Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English
 
The fact Bahnsen used "salvation" and not "justification" provides us with a proper context...in the NT, salvation did not include only justification, but also glorification.

In a sense: We are saved (justified), being saved (sanctification), and will be saved (glorification). Salvation includes all of those things...though biblically, we do not say justification relies on sanctification, etc. So Bahnsen wasn't *limiting* the word salvation to justification...he's not saying we "need more than God's pardon", rather, that the word salvation is more comprehensive than the foundational component of justification.

Usually the references in Scripture or more specific and not comprehensive. In the NT, it seems to most often refer specifically (and exclusively) to our justification by Christ death and resurrection. Other references seems to point strictly to our state of salvation at the Last Judgment. However, in 2 Thes 2:13 it does speaks of salvation through sanctification. I don't find many instance where a "more comprehensive" understanding is implied.

We would do well not to conflate each usage into one defintion lest we lose the meaning intended by each instance. Certainly the Bible does not imply sanctification each time it uses the terms justification or salvation. We need to use the correct definition (sense) in each instance - and not extended the meaning any further.

Also, I think Bahnsen taught "Systematic Theology". It would be poor systematics to use broad and general definitions for specific theological terms and ideas. Systematics tend to be more specific and strict in the use of terms else the "system" fall apart. Possibly Bahnsen's' views were more technically in line with "Biblical Theology".
 
When God saves us, we are rescued from the condemnation and power of sin. Salvation encompasses justification and sanctification as acts of God in the life of the elect otherwise Philippians 2:12 doesn't make any sense. We are not saved by works but we are saved unto works.

Canons of Dordrecht, 1.9

Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to the testimony of the apostle: He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy, and without blemish before him in love (Eph. 1:4).
 
When God saves us, we are rescued from the condemnation and power of sin. Salvation encompasses justification and sanctification as acts of God in the life of the elect otherwise Philippians 2:12 doesn't make any sense. We are not saved by works but we are saved unto works.

Canons of Dordrecht, 1.9

Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to the testimony of the apostle: He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy, and without blemish before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

Bahnsen mentions that in his lectures on Revelation (I think the one on 1:4)
 
It depends on the context. But in the context of systematic theology (e.g. the WCF, or in explanation of our relationship to Christ), I would define salvation in simple terms like Webster's 1828: "the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness". In a more generic context, salvation means simply "the act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity" (Webster 1812, first definition).

When God saves us, we are rescued from the condemnation and power of sin. Salvation encompasses justification and sanctification as acts of God in the life of the elect otherwise Philippians 2:12 doesn't make any sense. We are not saved by works but we are saved unto works.

Canons of Dordrecht, 1.9

Therefore election is the fountain of every saving good, from which proceed faith, holiness, and the other gifts of salvation, and finally eternal life itself, as its fruits and effects, according to the testimony of the apostle: He hath chosen us (not because we were, but) that we should be holy, and without blemish before him in love (Eph. 1:4).

Perhaps we could say that salvation, since it includes justification and redemption, makes sanctification possible but does not include sanctification in a 'progressive' sense but only in a 'positional' sense.
 
I don't think we should speak of sanctification as being a possibility. According to Romans 6 it is a reality.

In fact if we do not believe that sanctification is a gift from God as part of the salvation which Christ has won for us, we end up (even if this is not our intention) saying that it is left up to us, which would we be a poor reflection of the marvelous truth(s) of scriptures that tell us that the Father has "delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love" (Colossians 1:13)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top