Some of these comments follwing the links might help clarify the differences...
"Definitive sanctification is a dangerous theological innovation of the 20th century. In a spirit of reconciling Horton and Tipton’s views I thought it was mainly a difference in language or emphasis but overall both were teaching the same doctrine. Now I’m seeing some real theological dangers in this doctrinal innovation of definitive sanctification. First of all Christ\s purpose was to pay the penalty for sin so that the sinner would be acquitted on judgment day. Against thee only have I sinned says David in the psalms, sin is first and foremost an offense against almighty God.that needs to be atoned for, and for this purpose Christ came into the world. Our sin is imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, the gospel is about imputed righteousness and not infused righteousness (sanctification). It’s not about both. When we start teaching that faith both justifies (imputes righteousness) and sanctifies (infuses righteousness in the believer) we are going down a slippery slope. We are taking away from Christ’s righteousness that comes by faith and adding our own righteousness as well, Once this has been admitted we will start asking the question, do I have enough infused righteousness? Am I sanctified enough? Is my faith genuine or I don’t have enough good works? And this is clearly unbiblical. I should only look to Christ’s righteousness as the object of faith, not at my own righteousness. So faith is the direct cause of justification, but it does not directly cause definitive sanctification. Now justification is the direct cause of sanctification. Once the sinner is unconditionally forgiven, this justification produces or is the antecedent cause of sanctification. Warfield was absolutely correct in ruling out sanctification as coming directly from faith.: Wesleyan holiness groups, pietism, roman catholics, and pentecostals have made sanctification by grace alone through faith alone the core of their doctrine. Joel Osteen’s church is full people that believe faith gives them power, for them faith means overcoming the corruption of the flesh as well as the penalty for sin. The right doctrine is that faith doesn’t look inside us (our own righteousness or corruption), it looks at Christ’s perfect righteousness, and it has Christ as its only object. Justification comes through faith. Sanctification comes through justification. Only when we grasp the seriousness of our offense, only when we grasp the depth of our sin, only when the sinner is aware that he is in danger of capital punishment and is heading to hell, it is at this point that grace can be grasped and Christ apprehended in the forgiveness of sins. Freed from the penalty of sin (justified) sanctification in the christian follows, the christian is sanctified by being freed from the law’s penalty, by being brought to a sate of grace. Faith removes the penalty of sin, it does not remove the inner corruption in man. Sanctification is the consequence of being free from the penalty of sin. Although the law is holy and perfect, far from being able to remove sin, it causes it to increase as Paul teaches in several passages. Christ by fulfilling the requirements of the Law, removes the penalty of sin. It is this removal of the penalty of sin apprehended by faith that produces sanctification. Grace can be defined as not being under the condemnation of the law, a man is either under the law or in a state of grace. Romans 7:8 – 7:11 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. Romans 8:3 – 8:4 3 For God has done what the law, )weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
"I want to offer a few clarifying points and questions relative to your comments. I think you misunderstand the basic features of the doctrine of definitive sanctification as taught by John Murray, Richard Gaffin, and Lane Tipton. For a short description, you can read Murray’s article in his Collected Writings or listen to Lane Tipton at
Union with Christ and Sanctification - Reformed Forum. I don’t expect you to agree with what they say, but we should at least be able to represent the view accurately. In short, definitive sanctification is the breach in sin’s power. Murray’s exegesis of Romans 6:1-7 is helpful at this point. If you reject this notion of the crucifixion of the old man, I’m curious how you interpret this passage. Some argue that justification mortifies the old man. Yet this understanding compromises the very forensic nature of justification. For justification would no longer be a forensic declaration that changes one’s state, but a transformative work that alters one’s condition. Although I greatly appreciate your concern to maintain the integrity of justification by faith alone, you are protecting against a faulty understanding of definitive sanctification. To argue that the Spirit breaks sin’s power in the believer’s life does not compromise the ground of justification in any way. The ground of justification always remains the imputed righteousness of Christ which is received by faith alone. Faith, works, infused righteousness, etc. never affect the believer’s status before God nor contribute or merit anything in any way. It also appears that you conflate faith with justification. Granted, faith is the instrument of justification, but it is important to distinguish the two. You write:
Faith removes the penalty of sin, it does not remove the inner corruption in man.
Faith does neither. Faith is the instrument by which the believer is justified. But it’s also the instrument by which the Spirit sanctifies (cf. Acts 26:18). How else would you be sanctified? Sanctification (definitive or progressive) cannot be identified exhaustively with good works. Sanctification is first and foremost the work of the Spirit to apply Christ’s death and resurrection to the one that has faith in Jesus Christ.
…the gospel is about imputed righteousness and not infused righteousness (sanctification). It’s not about both.
If the gospel is only about justification, then you have no “good news” for your indwelling sin. In that case, Christ has done nothing for you in terms of conforming you into his image or bringing you to consummation. But praise God that the gospel is about all the blessings we receive in Christ Jesus (Eph 1:3). It also includes the reality of our Spiritual resurrection already and the hope of the bodily resurrection to come. To be quite honest, I’m happy and relieved that His Spirit is working within me to put sin to death. Though I’m acquitted through my justification and accepted as a son through my adoption, I’d still like the Lord to continue to work in my life. I consider all of it the good news of the gospel."
"You ended your comments with, “To be quite honest, I’m happy and relieved that His Spirit is working within me to put sin to death. Though I’m acquitted through my justification and accepted as a son through my adoption, I’d still like the Lord to continue to work in my life. I consider all of it the good news of the gospel.” Up to that point I find myself in agreement (although what is defined as ‘definitive sanctification’, I think, is already included in regeneration). But in these words above you seem to be saying that ‘my loving my neighbor’ (as the Spirit works in me) is part of the gospel. Are you including our good works, i.e. progressive sanctification, as part of the gospel?"
"There are different ways “gospel” is being used here. Narrowly speaking, I would define the gospel in terms of what Paul said he delivered as of first importance in 1 Cor 15:3-7. The gospel is Christ’s life, death, resurrection, ascension, and session for sinners. In short, the gospel is the person and work of Christ (historia salutis). Yet people often speak of the gospel in a broader sense, that is, in the sense of the “good news” of what Christ has done, is doing, and will do for us. In that sense, the Spirit’s work in applying Christ’s death and resurrection to the believer is certainly part of the gospel (cf. WLC 75). The future bodily resurrection and glorification of believers is also part of the gospel. I consider it all part of the Spirit’s unified work in making us into the image of Christ—righteous and holy co-heirs (forensic, renovative, and filial aspects). Your question is very important, and I’m glad you raised it. Maintaining this broader view of the gospel in no way imports Spirit-wrought good works as meritorious. But, in the broader sense of simply “good news,” I would still consider believer’s good works as part of God’s overall plan for our conformity to the image of Christ (Eph 2:10) even while I affirm they are all filthy rags (Isa 64:6). The good works aren’t the gospel proper, but the fact that the Spirit is moving the believer to do good works is a function of historia salutis being applied (ordo salutis). Do you agree? I want to be as clear and precise as possible."
"Warfield saw the same dangers I just outlined From
Warfield says Sanctification from Justification « For the Elect Alone
“Justification and sanctification are thought of as parallel products of faith. This is not, however, the New Testament representation. According to its teaching, sanctification is not related to faith directly and immediately, so that in believing in Jesus we receive both justification and sanctification as parallel products of our faith; or either the one or the other, according as our faith is directed to the one or the other.
Sanctification is related directly not to faith but to justification;
and as faith is the instrumental cause of justification, so is
justification the instrumental cause of sanctification. That which binds justification and sanctification together is not that they
are both effects of faith – so that he who believes must have both –
because faith is the condition of both alike.
Nor is it even that both are obtained in Christ, so that he who has Christ, who is made to us both righteousness and sanctification, must have both because Christ is the common source of both. It is true that he who has faith has and must have both; and it is true that he who has Christ has and must have both. But they do not come out of faith or from Christ in the same way.
Justification comes through faith; sanctification through
justification, and only mediately, through justification, through
faith. So that the order is invariable, faith, justification,
sanctification; not arbitrarily, but in the nature of the case.”
B.B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, p 362"
"(although what is defined as ‘definitive sanctification’, I think, is already included in regeneration)
This is very helpful. This is what I was describing in my previous response of a confusion between BT (Biblical Theology) and ST (Systematic Theology) as two distinct, yet interrelated methods of doing theology. What Murray is doing in making a distinction between “definitive” and “progressive” is using a BT insight to help explain a ST point — our sanctification (which is progressive as the WORK of God’s free grace, not ours) is grounded in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (already completed sanctification) in order to help explain that sanctification is monergistic not synergistic. But to then leave that discussion of “sanctification” and try to reinsert that mini-discussion (species) into the larger “ordo” (genus) gets confusing because the theologian then has to decide where to place “definitive” and where to place “progressive”. The confusion comes when “definitive” is then placed with justification in the ordo and “progressive then follows on its heels. You can see what happens when your BT method gets jumbled with your ST method and the two methods are not kept separate from one another. Of course, they can each give us help at getting at the one Scripture and theology, but they approach them differently. Here is the crux of the issue: in ST approach to “definitive” sanctification we are dealing with Christology – the work that Christ accomplishes as prophet, priest, and king. This is the category of what Murray would speak of as “Redemption Accomplished.” Traditionally, in regards to what Gaffin-Tipton mean by “definitive sanctification,” Reformed theologians have rooted in the pactum salutis, not the unio mystica. Christ is fulfilling the obedience to the Father through his active and passive obedience. But once we move to a discussion of the “ordo salutis” we are no longer in the category of Christology regarding the work of Christ – we are discussing Pneumatology or the application of the work of Christ by the Holy Spirit to the believer. “Definitive Sanctification” is not part of the “ordo” because it would be an illogical step to discuss – calling, regeneration, conversion, justification (which are applications of Christ’s work) TO THEN go back to Christ’s work in “definitive sanctification” AND THEN return to application to speak of “progressive sanctification. This is neither logical, nor chronological and because BT and ST are being confused it SOUNDS as if something regarding the restorative/transformative work of the Holy Spirit is being equated with the legal/forensic grounding of those gracious benefits. What is usually understood by “definitive” is what Christ does for us in His work and that work of Christ which fulfills the Covenant of Redemption is imputed to us as the grounding of all the benefits of Christ. As Calvin stresses, that work of Christ is no use to us as long as Christ is outside of us – but nevertheless that work is already completed. It is then Christ in us where we move the entire discussion to the “order of salvation” in the Holy Spirit’s application to the elect of the Father. At that point in our theological enterprise (ST) the “definitive” is no longer under direct study — that is already complete in our Christology. What then becomes the focus is what has now been called “progressive” which is grounded in our justification and can never be coterminous with justification. Thus the logical priority of the forensic ground of our sanctification."
"So, are you saying the comment about definitive sanctification being part of regeneration is an example of the method/category confusion you are concerned about? That seems to be the case because you later place definitive sanctification in a Christological category and regeneration in the ordo category with calling, conversion, etc. Just want to confirm that I am understanding."
"No, I actually don’t agree with definitive sanctification being a part of regeneration. I’m sorry. I meant to address that in my comment but forgot by the time I sent it. I think that would be equally confusing, even though Calvin spoke of regeneration as including the whole salvation applied, I think the later Reformed distinctions are much more helpful in what we think of the as the typical later Reformed ordo. My point of agreement with Jack Miller’s comment, is that “definitive” is already taken up and included BEFORE we discuss ordo issues. That was the full extent of my agreement. I prefer the Confessional ordo (calling, justification, adoption, sanctification) over these other unnecessary distinctions. BTW, to be fair in the debate on CTC, I don’t think Horton’s language of proclamation of Gospel as “justification” is helpful either. I understand what he is saying and in general agreement with the thrust of his argument but I think it is because we are not sticking close to confessional language in making theological points that so much confusion is going about. I do not think it is all about confusing language or misunderstanding of what is being said. After all, these are both professors at highly prestigious seminaries. They out to be able to communicate clearly and understand one another clearly. We saw this sort of sloppy analysis in the Norman Shepherd debates. Every time a point was made and disagreed upon both sides came to the table and claimed “oh, well he wasn’t clear” or “you just misunderstood what he was saying.” I think a lot of that approach is laziness, cowardly, and deceptive. I do believe we have two different approaches to the ordo coming out of Westminster West and East. We shouldn’t sugar coat it but investigate, study, and do the hard work to see who is coming up with the best theological understanding of the Scriptures and our Reformed tradition. It’s possible that both are wrong, but it is also clear that both can’t be right. It’s up to the ecclesiastical community to make that decision and for both of them to keep presenting their exegetical, theological, historical, and confessional arguments to help us in that ecclesiastical community to understand and decide which best expresses our Reformed Confession."
"Thanks for getting back to me. I do basically agree with what you wrote in your last comments above. Your initial words that I questioned seemed to put progressive sanctification in the “gospel proper” with the closing sentence, I consider all of it the good news of the gospel. I agree it is indeed “good news” that the Spirit is working in us unto conformity with Christ as God predestined, but not that it is part of the good news. The way I understand it is that the subjective (yet real) part of God’s work in the believer is distinct from the free promise which was kept and accomplished entirely by Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension, even though that subjective working is indeed connected as a sure and holy effect. That accomplishing of God’s promise in Christ is the glad tidings – the gospel – and it is that to which faith looks, is strengthened and finds salvation (Rom. 1:16). I think the term “gospel” can sometimes be used in too loose a fashion. By including everything of God’s working in it, the term loses meaning and focus, thereby confusing faith as to where it should to look.
From Calvin’s Inst. 3:2.29 -
Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy. And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself."
Blessings
