Bahnsen Quote For Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
One could ask if deathbed conversions are possible. If salvation circumscribes both justification and sanctification, does that mean sanctification is necessary for salvation? Can one receive saving faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (thereby be justified), and die before the Spirit starts the process of sanctification, and still be saved to eternal life with the Father?

That is, can one be saved and not sanctified? Is sanctification really necessary for ones salvation?

Does the process of sanctification necessarily begin immediately after one receives saving faith, or might there gap in time?

Why ask? Really?
We are not supposed to ask?

Scripture tells us the Spirit sanctifies those who believe (those who are justified). On what basis should we question his ability to do so in whatever time frame he chooses? God, the master and creator of time, space, and everything, can certainly control the method, timing, and the end for those who are washed, sanctified, and justified.
I did not question his ability.


It's not like any of us are saying you need X amount of sanctification before you are saved. God knows what we need to be made holy in his presence.
But do we need any sanctification in order to achieve salvation? Do we require any infusion of grace to be saved? Bahnsen said "... salvation is not exhaustively circumscribed by God's pardon of, and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to, the sinner". But it seems to me that our salvation is based on "the imputation of Christ's righteousness" alone. Nothing more is needed for salvation.
 
We are not supposed to ask?

Brother, some questions are just not worth asking, especially speculative ones. You were asking a bunch of "what if's": Are deathbed conversions possible? Can one receive saving faith and yet die before the Spirit starts the process? etc.

It's a lot like asking what God would do if he created a rock too big to move. It's speculative and not supported by scripture--so, no, it is not worth asking.

My point about the Spirit's ability directly address the hypotheticals you presented. Question: What if you die before the Spirit sanctifies you? Answer: Those whom Christ justifies will be sanctified by the Spirit. The "what if" is precluded by the promise.

I really don't have anything else to say about this. Your systematic seeks to transcend the information provided by Scripture. I find it an odd position for you to take.
 
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.

The way you have stated your position would not be in conformity with Scripture or the Westminster Standards. Sanctification is always an ongoing and progressive work in the believer's life. Justification has to do with our standing or position. If one is not progressing in holiness, he is not a believer. Justification always results in sanctification.



It is both positional and progressive. As I pointed out your error in the other thread so graciously, both flow form the fountain of Grace..:)

Brother, I am not presenting error here but the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity, which you agreed to when you joined the Puritan Board.
 
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.

The way you have stated your position would not be in conformity with Scripture or the Westminster Standards. Sanctification is always an ongoing and progressive work in the believer's life. Justification has to do with our standing or position. If one is not progressing in holiness, he is not a believer. Justification always results in sanctification.

It is both positional and progressive. As I pointed out your error in the other thread so graciously, both flow form the fountain of Grace..:)

Brother, I am not presenting error here but the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity, which you agreed to when you joined the Puritan Board.

I'm not seeing what was said that is contrary (not in conformity) to the WSF or the TFU. I hardly see a difference in the statements that are supposed to be correcting each other. Are you all maybe talking past each other? (There are also three or more people in this particular thread so that's confusing. :))
 
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.

Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
 
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.

Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?

This discussion has not been about whether sanctification is optional, but rather should sanctification be 'circumscribed' with justification as part of the definition of the word 'salvation'.
 
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.

Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.
 
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.

Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.

This appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. What is the difference between "optional" and "not necessary?"

The Dallas Seminary teaching made an unbiblical distinction between believers and disciples, that disciples made Jesus Lord but that one could believe the facts about the gospel and be saved without having Jesus as Lord i.e. sanctification. Apparently your mentor John Robbins is in large agreement with them since he has been published twice in the journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, which is one of the more extreme groups (Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin) promoting this teaching or some variation.
 
Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.

This appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. What is the difference between "optional" and "not necessary?"

The Dallas Seminary teaching made an unbiblical distinction between believers and disciples, that disciples made Jesus Lord but that one could believe the facts about the gospel and be saved without having Jesus as Lord i.e. sanctification. Apparently your mentor John Robbins is in large agreement with them since he has been published twice in the journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, which is one of the more extreme groups (Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin) promoting this teaching or some variation.

Moderation

Chris, I appreciate the point you made about the distinction without a difference, but let's not derail the thread. JR isn't posting here and we don't need this to turn into another thread discussing his views or the views of DTS on yet another issue.
 
But however you answer this, the term "salvation" is not the main subject, or the subject of a independent clause. So this does not seem to support the idea that salvation "circumscribes" both justification and sanctification.

The Catechism says "all other saving graces" and "holy obedience" are "evidence of the truth of their faith" and "the way which he hath appointed them to salvation."
 
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.

Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.

Hebrews 12:14

and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.
 
Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.

Hebrews 12:14

and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

Surely this verse isn't meant to be interpreted to be referring to a subjective, individual level of growth in personal holiness. "Sanctification" can be used in other ways.
 
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.

Hebrews 12:14

and the sanctification without which no one will see the Lord.

Surely this verse isn't meant to be interpreted to be referring to a subjective, individual level of growth in personal holiness. "Sanctification" can be used in other ways.

Actually, I think it does. Read the context (I'm using the AV, but, the Greek word for holiness, as I'm sure you know, is often translated into sanctification too):


Heb 12:12 Wherefore lift up the hands which hang down, and the feeble knees;
Heb 12:13 And make straight paths for your feet, lest that which is lame be turned out of the way; but let it rather be healed.
Heb 12:14 Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord

Sounds like he is directing persons to increase in personal holiness, to me.

But I think we've come full circle. The first sentence of the original quote by Bahnsen tells us it is God's doing anyway:

"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."
 
One could ask if deathbed conversions are possible. If salvation circumscribes both justification and sanctification, does that mean sanctification is necessary for salvation? Can one receive saving faith by the power of the Holy Spirit (thereby be justified), and die before the Spirit starts the process of sanctification, and still be saved to eternal life with the Father?

That is, can one be saved and not sanctified? Is sanctification really necessary for ones salvation?

Does the process of sanctification necessarily begin immediately after one receives saving faith, or might there gap in time?

I think Gordon H. Clark has the answer. Please take a moment and read some of these wonderful paragraphs from his book titled, "Sanctification."

Clark writes,

"In colloquial Christian conversation the term salvation is very frequently misused. There is a story of a Salvation Army lassie in London who approached a man on the street and asked, Are you saved? The man happened to be an Anglican bishop. He replied to the question, Do you mean sesouenos, sezomenos, or sothesomenos? Which being interpreted, means, have I been saved, am I being saved, or shall I be saved? Poor lassie. In plain English, salvation is a broad term that includes regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. The present study concerns sanctification" (Sanctification, Introduction, page 1).

Let me just say that I am not defending Greg Bahnsen. I would never hand a new convert a Greg Bahnsen tape on sanctification, if I could put Clark's book on sanctification in his/her hands. Time and again, at least in my personal opinion, I find that Clark solves the problems that Bahnsen often finds himself stuck in.
Clark continues,

"Regeneration is an act of God. By it he instantaneously produces an effect in man, a change in which man is totally passive. Jeremiah 13:23 puts it rather picturesquely: "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?" Co-temporaneously God does something else that is not a change in man at all. Justification is an instantaneous judicial act of acquittal. Sanctification, however, is neither instantaneous, nor is a man passive therein. It is not instantaneous because it is a time-consuming, subjective, life-long process. Nor is it an act of God alone. It is indeed dependent on the continuous power of God, but it is also the activity of the regenerated man. Both God and man are active. Sanctification is the Christian life" (Ibid., page 1).

This is excellent Calvinism. Clark is arguing that all of salvation is by Grace Alone! The Bible says, "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord" (Psalm 3:8). Pay attention to Clark's last sentence above: "Sanctification is the Christian life." When one of the elect is quickened unto life (Ephesians 2:1), God gives that person faith (Ephesians 2:8), and that person begins to believe the Gospel and profess his faith (Romans 10:10). Watch as Clark speaks of this first human activity in the regenerated person. Clark writes:

"Regeneration initiates the Christian life, resurrecting the dry bones and clothing them with flesh--something only God can do--but the first conscious human activity in this new life is faith. Faith, human activity as it is, is still a gift from God. This activity, or its first moments, may be called conversion. The previous state of mind is replaced by belief in the atoning death of Christ. The man conciously changes his mind--for repentance is a change of mind--and turns from his old thinking toward the Savior" (Ibid., page 2).

Clark is clearly teaching that regeneration initiates sanctification.
Please take the time to read one more paragraph from Clark. He writes,


"If, now, one wishes to examine what is simultaneous, or what the logical relations are, one could say that repentance itself, more commonly connected with aversion from sin than with belief in the Trinity, is an act of, and a part of, faith. Believing is indeed an act of the human self, caused by God to be sure, and totally impossible except for regeneration and God's gift; but it is nonetheless a human volition. It is the first act in a Christian life. Dead bones cannot believe; but when clothed with flesh they live, and they live a life of faith. By means of this volition God justifies the sinner on the ground of Christ's merits. this judicial pronouncement inevitably, if some people do not care to say automatically, sets in motion the life-long process of sanctification. The purpose of justification, or at least one of the purposes, and the immediate one, is to produce sanctification. The earliest stage of this is conversion, so early that it might be identified with the first act of faith itself" (Ibid., page 3).

The above paragraph needs to be read several times. While studying the paragraph, notice the words 'simultaneous' and 'immediate'. Clark is answering Anthony Coletti's last question from the quote at the beginning of this post.
The following syllogism is an example of the first stage of sanctification, that is, conversion.


Any person who begins to believe the Gospel is one who has begun sanctification
King Henry VIII, on his death-bed, is one who begins to believe the Gospel
Thus, King Henry VIII, on his death-bed, is one who has begun sanctification


So, with what has already been said, and as long as we are speaking plain English, I think Gordon Clark is correct when he states that salvation is a broad term which includes regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification.
 
Last edited:
When Clark mentions salvation in the first paragraph is he implying the same form of salvation in all three instances? Are all three forms of I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved to imply justification before the throne of God?

Or do we need different kinds of deliverance to which the three uses of salvation may be referring to?
 
Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.

This appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. What is the difference between "optional" and "not necessary?"
"Optional" is not the term the conveys the correct idea. I trying to make clear the logical necessity of justification for salvation. Since we are saved by "faith alone", then nothing that happens after we are saved by faith alone (i.e. sanctification) is necessary for our salvation.

The Dallas Seminary teaching made an unbiblical distinction between believers and disciples, that disciples made Jesus Lord but that one could believe the facts about the gospel and be saved without having Jesus as Lord i.e. sanctification. Apparently your mentor John Robbins is in large agreement with them since he has been published twice in the journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, which is one of the more extreme groups (Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin) promoting this teaching or some variation.
I really don't know much about GES. I believe GES simply republished a couple Trinity Review articles. Anyone can reprint most TR articles without prior permission. This is the statement found on most of their articles:
The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche.
I believe GES also quotes a lot of Calvin. I suppose we need to through him out also.
 
When Clark mentions salvation in the first paragraph is he implying the same form of salvation in all three instances? Are all three forms of I am saved, I am being saved, I will be saved to imply justification before the throne of God?

Or do we need different kinds of deliverance to which the three uses of salvation may be referring to?

Do you mean the Anglican bishop Clark was quoting? That's a good question. I don't think we should use all three to refer to justification. Broadly speaking, "being saved" might refer to sanctification.
 
"...In plain English, salvation is a broad term that includes regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. The present study concerns sanctification" (Sanctification, Introduction, page 1).

Thanks RB! It is almost ironic, but Clark is very good about making it clear where things are not always clear. Rather than trying to conflate all the different senses of "salvation", Clark shows that the term itself can have different and even mutually exclusive meanings. Although salvation can mean justification or sanctification, justification can not mean sanctification. And salvation can not mean sanctification and justification at the same time.

It is possible that Bahnsen was not trying to conflate the different meanings of salvation. But the quote of Bahnsen seemed to be doing just that. Maybe someone can provide additional Bahnsen quotes that make that clearer.



P.S. Another Clark book I need to add to my library. :) I wonder if John Robbins has considered publishing them in ebook format?
 
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.

Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.


I have a problem with the way you are stating that only justification is necessary for salvation, and sanctification temporarilly flows after justification. We certainly are declared righteous and blameless at justification, but the Westminster standards do not teach that sanctification is not necessary for salvation or is temporary. Justification leads to sanctification, which is an ongoing work that is not perfected or completed until we are glorified. Sanctification is a doctrine of soteriology just like justification. While we have been saved from the guilt and penalty of sin - justification, we are presently being saved from the power of sin - sanctification, but we will one day be saved from the very presence of sin - glorification. Salvation involves the deliverance of the whole person both soul and body. The Westminster shorter Catechism question and answer 37 states that believers are at their death made perfect in holiness. We are not made perfect until death, so our salvation has not yet been made complete. For the believer we have the guarantee of our complete salvation, but it is still future (Romans 8:28-30). It is certainly all of grace, but not complete until our glorification.
 
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.

This appears to me to be a distinction without a difference. What is the difference between "optional" and "not necessary?"
"Optional" is not the term the conveys the correct idea. I trying to make clear the logical necessity of justification for salvation. Since we are saved by "faith alone", then nothing that happens after we are saved by faith alone (i.e. sanctification) is necessary for our salvation.

The Dallas Seminary teaching made an unbiblical distinction between believers and disciples, that disciples made Jesus Lord but that one could believe the facts about the gospel and be saved without having Jesus as Lord i.e. sanctification. Apparently your mentor John Robbins is in large agreement with them since he has been published twice in the journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, which is one of the more extreme groups (Zane Hodges, Bob Wilkin) promoting this teaching or some variation.
I really don't know much about GES. I believe GES simply republished a couple Trinity Review articles. Anyone can reprint most TR articles without prior permission. This is the statement found on most of their articles:
The Trinity Foundation hereby grants permission to all readers to download, print, and distribute on paper or electronically any of its Reviews, provided that each reprint bear our copyright notice, current addresses, and telephone numbers, and provided that all such reproductions are distributed to the public without charge. The Reviews may not be sold or issued in book form, CD-ROM form, or microfiche.
I believe GES also quotes a lot of Calvin. I suppose we need to through him out also.

They are quite antagonistic to Calvinism and articles attacking Calvinism have often been published there. But let's not hijack the thread any further and I should not have posted the references to GES and Robbins earlier because they really don't help the discussion since the ultimate issue is what the Bible teaches.
 
"...In plain English, salvation is a broad term that includes regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. The present study concerns sanctification" (Sanctification, Introduction, page 1).

Thanks RB! It is almost ironic, but Clark is very good about making it clear where things are not always clear. Rather than trying to conflate all the different senses of "salvation", Clark shows that the term itself can have different and even mutually exclusive meanings. Although salvation can mean justification or sanctification, justification can not mean sanctification. And salvation can not mean sanctification and justification at the same time.

It is possible that Bahnsen was not trying to conflate the different meanings of salvation. But the quote of Bahnsen seemed to be doing just that. Maybe someone can provide additional Bahnsen quotes that make that clearer.



P.S. Another Clark book I need to add to my library. :) I wonder if John Robbins has considered publishing them in ebook format?

If you're so clear in your simplicity, Anthony, then,it seems to me you should have been able to post once. Why does it take a long thread of qualifying yourself?

The reason the Reformed confessions and thinkers have used the term salvation in a broad way is because Scripture uses the term in very broad ways.

It uses it of God's purpose in the Covenant of Redemption:
2TI 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.

Speaks of it in reference to our calling and regeneration:
Eph 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved).
TIT 3:4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, 5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.

In our justification:
EPH 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.

In our sanctification:
2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

Of our glorification:
Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
ISA 64:5 Thou meetest him that rejoiceth and worketh righteousness, those that remember thee in thy ways: behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in those is continuance, and we shall be saved.

The term is even used of God's deliverance of men from calamity even more regularly. (perform a search for the term save and you'll be overwhelmed)

I fundamentally disagree that the believer's growth in wisdom is served by narrowing the use of a term that God Himself has ordained to be broad for a very good reason. With respect to the Elect, maintaining the broader definition of the term helps us to see salvation as beginning in the CoR and revealed to us in the CoG. Our justification is certainly, for us, the motiviation from which other saving graces proceed but to understand that we have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved because God is the author and finisher of salvation is of great importance.

Yes, we need to sometimes look at the individual leaves and consider them in parts but we don't gain anything if, in our goal to simplify a part, we lose track of a whole.

I state yet again that I don't find over-simplification helpful here and the fact that you have to keep explaining everything demonstrates the point. Reformed theology has a long pedigree of profound exegetes and systemeticians. I think you need to start picking up more of those older books as well.
 
Isn't saying that sanctification is optional the same as the old Dallas teaching which makes sanctification optional and is essentially a Keswickian second blessing scheme that gives us the "carnal Christian" etc?
I'm not familiar with the "Keswickian second blessing scheme".

But I would not say sanctification is optional, rather I would say sanctification is not necessary for salvation. Only justification is necessary for salvation. Now, sanctification necessarily follows temporally after justification, but that is not the same as saying it follows logically.


I have a problem with the way you are stating that only justification is necessary for salvation, and sanctification temporarilly flows after justification. We certainly are declared righteous and blameless at justification, but the Westminster standards do not teach that sanctification is not necessary for salvation or is temporary.
I did not say it was temporary. I said it was temporal (over time). Sanctification is a process. But all that we need for justification is faith - ergo our salvation is by faith alone.

Justification leads to sanctification, which is an ongoing work that is not perfected or completed until we are glorified. Sanctification is a doctrine of soteriology just like justification. While we have been saved from the guilt and penalty of sin - justification, we are presently being saved from the power of sin - sanctification, but we will one day be saved from the very presence of sin - glorification.
I agree. But our justification does not depend on our sanctification.

Salvation involves the deliverance of the whole person both soul and body.
That is sanctification.

The Westminster shorter Catechism question and answer 37 states that believers are at their death made perfect in holiness. We are not made perfect until death, so our salvation has not yet been made complete. For the believer we have the guarantee of our complete salvation, but it is still future (Romans 8:28-30). It is certainly all of grace, but not complete until our glorification.
But we have the perfect righteousness of Christ when we are justified. Our perfection does not save us.

So it depends on what sense of "salvation" you are using. Please read the quotes RB posted from Clark. If you mean by salvation our justification before the throne of God, that is occurs when we are regenerate and believe in Christ as our Savior. At the moment, we have the imputed righteousness of Christ, and our salvation is complete. Nothing more needs to be added.

However, if you mean by salvation, our ongoing deliverance from the bondage of sin through the work of the Holy Spirit in the process of sanctification, then indeed we are "being saved" every day.

But "salvation" can not mean both "justification" and "sanctification" at the same time.
 
But "salvation" can not mean both "justification" and "sanctification" at the same time.

This is flat out, unconfessional and un-Biblical. Salvation is our election, calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

I'm sick of these kinds of re-definitions.
 
"For now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." (Rom. 13:11)

In that context, the word salvation is not being used in reference to justification, therefore, salvation is more than justification.
 
"In plain English, salvation is a broad term that includes regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. The present study concerns sanctification" (Sanctification, Introduction, page 1).



Anthony, I don't know if were both reading Clark the same way.
Clark is simply enumerating different members classed together under the term 'salvation.'
By doing so, Clark is in complete agreement with the Westminster Standards and historical Reformed theology.
Clark's plain English understanding of the term here is denotative, even though he leaves out election in the above quote from page 1 of Sanctification. But no Calvinist, especially Gordon H. Clark, would argue that election is not part of the "Golden Chain of Salvation" (consider his book "Predestination"). The soteric doctrines listed by Clark are logically connected, they are each essential to the plain English understanding of the term "salvation," but each member classed under the term 'salvation' is different, and not to be confused
.
 
"In plain English, salvation is a broad term that includes regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. The present study concerns sanctification" (Sanctification, Introduction, page 1).



Anthony, I don't know if were both reading Clark the same way.
Clark is simply enumerating different members classed together under the term 'salvation.'
By doing so, Clark is in complete agreement with the Westminster Standards and historical Reformed theology.
Clark's plain English understanding of the term here is denotative, even though he leaves out election in the above quote from page 1 of Sanctification. But no Calvinist, especially Gordon H. Clark, would argue that election is not part of the "Golden Chain of Salvation" (consider his book "Predestination"). The soteric doctrines listed by Clark are logically connected, they are each essential to the plain English understanding of the term "salvation," but each member classed under the term 'salvation' is different, and not to be confused
.

Yes, I agree with you brother. I like Clark's works and lean more toward him than VanTil (that is another thread). Clark did (he is in glory now) hold consistently to the Westminster Standards and believed that sanctification is part of salvation that one logically flows from the other. Paul's ordo salutus in Romans 8:29-30 shows a logical progression from justification to glorification, which all involves salvation. Clark certainly affirmed this.
 
But "salvation" can not mean both "justification" and "sanctification" at the same time.

This is flat out, unconfessional and un-Biblical. Salvation is our election, calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification.

I'm sick of these kinds of re-definitions.

I will agree when you provide one example of Scripture where the term salvation means "election, calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, and glorification" at the same time. When you do that, you have proven I am being unconfessional.
 
"In plain English, salvation is a broad term that includes regeneration, justification, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. The present study concerns sanctification" (Sanctification, Introduction, page 1).



Anthony, I don't know if were both reading Clark the same way.
Clark is simply enumerating different members classed together under the term 'salvation.'
By doing so, Clark is in complete agreement with the Westminster Standards and historical Reformed theology.
Clark's plain English understanding of the term here is denotative, even though he leaves out election in the above quote from page 1 of Sanctification. But no Calvinist, especially Gordon H. Clark, would argue that election is not part of the "Golden Chain of Salvation" (consider his book "Predestination"). The soteric doctrines listed by Clark are logically connected, they are each essential to the plain English understanding of the term "salvation," but each member classed under the term 'salvation' is different, and not to be confused
.

Exactly. I agree completely.

My point is to show that salvation can not mean both justification and sanctification at the same time. In fact, there is not instance in Scripture where the term refers to both at the same time.

While the term salvation can refer to any of election, sanctification, justification, glorification, etc., in Scripture it never refers to all at the same time and in the same sense.

Justification is not sanctification.

Sanctification is not justification.

The salvation of justification is not the same salvation of sanctification.

They both are a kind of salvation, but in categorically different senses. The salvation of justification refers specifically to the being saved from spiritual death and separation from the Father, to eternal life, and comes from the external righteousness of Christ imputed to us forensically. It refers to an event when we are declared righteous when we are saved through faith alone.

The salvation of sanctification refers to being freed from the bondage of sin through the process of sanctification by an internal change over time to our nature, and infused rightousness by the Spirit. It begins when we are regenerate, but adds nothing at all to our justification.

Our salvation by justification is perfect and complete. And no part of our sanctification adds anything to our salvation by justification. No part of our righteousness by sanctification earns us eternal life with the Father or saves us from damnation.

While these ideas are logically interrelated, they are distinct and not to be confused. That is both confessional and biblical.
 
"For now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." (Rom. 13:11)

In that context, the word salvation is not being used in reference to justification, therefore, salvation is more than justification.

If it does not refer to justification, then you can not say salvation is "more than justification". The more reasonable conclusion is the salvation is other than justification. But that is not correct either. Better to say that salvation refers to something other than justification in this instance.
 
"For now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." (Rom. 13:11)

In that context, the word salvation is not being used in reference to justification, therefore, salvation is more than justification.

If it does not refer to justification, then you can not say salvation is "more than justification". The more reasonable conclusion is the salvation is other than justification. But that is not correct either. Better to say that salvation refers to something other than justification in this instance.

I mean that the term "salvation" - when we consider all of its Biblical usages - has a broader meaning that simply "justification", in the instance cited it refers to our ultimate salvation and glorification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top