Justification -- How your view affects sanctification

[JBaldwin]

We are going through the Westminister Confession in Sunday school along with the elder nominees for our church. Today we discussed Chapter 11 --Justification. It was the first paragraph that got my attention:

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

One of the key points of our discussion was the difference between "infusion" of righteousness vs. "accounting" of righteousness. The confession cleary states that we are not infused with righteousness, but are accounted righteous because of the work of Christ and for sake alone.

As I thought about this, I realized that most of my struggle with sanctification over the years has been wrapped up in a misunderstanding of justification. To be infused with righteousness would mean that God actually made us righteous to one degree or another (I was taught that we were actually now completely sinless, but that we had an old nature that we still remembered, like an old habit). To be accounted righteous (as the confession confirms the Scriptures to teach) means that we are still just as sinful, and therefore, we must rely on the work of Christ for everything.

What a difference this makes in sanctification! If we believe we are infused with righteousness, we will always trust in our own works for sanctification rather than in the work of Christ. If we understand our sinful condition, we are forced to run to Christ for every need.

I am sharing this, because sanctification was such a struggle for me. I didn't realize the root of my problems was my view of justification. I realized as I've thought back on my years in the church, that even in reformed circles, the confessional view of justification is rarely taught in a clear manner. It seems to me that this is vital.

I would like to continue this discussion and perhaps follow this idea further.

How do different views of justification affect the way you live your Christian life, i.e. your sanctification?

 

[MW]

It should be noted that the Confession only says that justification does not consist in, or is based on, the infusion of righteousness. Both the Confession and Catechisms speak of sanctification in terms of the Spirit's infusion of gracious qualities which He enables the believer to personally exercise and subsequently can be qualitatively discerned in terms of actual obedience to the commandments of God.

 

[Herald]

Interesting that you should should share this today. This morning I taught on the 1689 LBC Chapter 11 "Of Justification." Same topic.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

Good post.

You may find it encouraging to read how Paul describes the relationship between justification and sanctification in Titus 3:4-8. That text has really helped me in the faith.

 

[JBaldwin]

CHAPTER XIII.
Of Sanctification.
I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

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

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

Is this the same as infusion?

 

[Herald]

CHAPTER XIII.
Of Sanctification.
I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

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

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

Is this the same as infusion?

Not really. Infusion of righteousness is a decidedly Roman doctrine. Rome teaches that we are made righteous, not declared righteous. Infusion is not a term reformed believers would use in any positive sense regarding justification or sanctification.

 

[JBaldwin]

Interesting that you should should share this today. This morning I taught on the 1689 LBC Chapter 11 "Of Justification." Same topic.

How does the 1689 LBC describe it?

 

[Herald]

1. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

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

3. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail, yet through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed them.

 

[MW]

Infusion is not a term reformed believers would use in any positive sense regarding justification or sanctification.

Larger Catechism, answer 77: "in sanctification His Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof."

 

[Herald]

Infusion is not a term reformed believers would use in any positive sense regarding justification or sanctification.

Larger Catechism, answer 77: "in sanctification His Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof."

I stand corrected. I should have stopped at justification.

 

[JBaldwin]

Question 77: Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?

Answer: Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputes the righteousness of Christ;in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enables to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued:the one does equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.

It seems the idea of infusion of grace is completely different than the infusion of righteousness, and this seems to explain it better.

 

[TaylorOtwell]

When understood, infusion of righteousness by the Spirit in sanctification is a very comforting thing. The Lord is working in us both to will and do of his good pleasure (Phil 2:13). However, the imputation of Christ's righteousness remains the sole basis of our justification.

 

[JBaldwin]

I find this really important, because in the first infusion of righteousness would leave you to your own devices in sanctification, whereas the infusion of grace leaves you to the work of the Holy Spirit for sanctification.

 

[Herald]

It makes sense. Grace is not imputed, it is imparted (infused).

 

[MW]

It seems the idea of infusion of grace is completely different than the infusion of righteousness, and this seems to explain it better.

How could the infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit be anything other than "righteous?"

Compare with Larger Catechism answer 75 and Shorter Catechism answer 35 -- the infusion of grace enables the believer to die to sin and "live to righteousness," as per Rom. 6.

 

[moral necessity]

I am sharing this, because sanctification was such a struggle for me. I didn't realize the root of my problems was my view of justification. I realized as I've thought back on my years in the church, that even in reformed circles, the confessional view of justification is rarely taught in a clear manner. It seems to me that this is vital.

I would like to continue this discussion and perhaps follow this idea further.

How do different views of justification affect the way you live your Christian life, i.e. your sanctification?

Sounds as if we had somewhat similar experiences in the past. I think that sanctification tends to blossom better when we look outward to Christ in full assurance of our justification, than it does when we look inward at ourselves from a platform of justificational doubt, evaluating how much progress God has made in us with regard to sanctification. I think that God wants us to take him at his word with regard to us being justified by faith while we are ungodly. That justification promotes assurance, comfort, and joy. And, from that platform, the fruits of sanctification blossom best. Walter Marshall speaks to much of this in his book, The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification. Ruben inspired me to read this, and so I did. It was worth every penny! 1589600630: The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification by Walter Marshall (Used, New, Out-of-Print) - Alibris UK

Blessings!

 

[JBaldwin]

It seems the idea of infusion of grace is completely different than the infusion of righteousness, and this seems to explain it better.

How could the infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit be anything other than "righteous?"

Compare with Larger Catechism answer 75 and Shorter Catechism answer 35 -- the infusion of grace enables the believer to die to sin and "live to righteousness," as per Rom. 6.

Larger Catechism Question 75: What is sanctification?

Answer: Sanctification is a work of God's grace, whereby they whom God has, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.

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

I am not arguing that the infusion of grace is not righteous. I'm saying that it is not the same as the accounting of Christ's righteousness to us. No where that I see does it say that Christ's righteousness is infused, but rather these are applied to the believer and the other saving graces put into their hearts.

Maybe we need to define what the Catechism means by "saving graces"

 

[MW]

I am not arguing that the infusion of grace is not righteous. I'm saying that it is not the same as the accounting of Christ's righteousness to us. No where that I see does it say that Christ's righteousness is infused, but rather these are applied to the believer and the other saving graces put into their hearts.

This amounts to the difference between justification -- being accounted righteous, and sanctification -- being made righteous. But one should not speak of sanctification as if it were nothing more than being accounted righteous, else you end up with no actual new man created in righteousness and true holiness which the believer has put on, Eph. 4:24.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Is this the same as infusion?

If you read WLC question 77, the one is an imputing of righteousness, the other infusing of grace.

This is a new nature within the regenerate is what gives us the ability to do good, to please God, to love God, and to move to that which we are called. Yet in this life, it is not without taint in all parts.

The WLC asks the question

What is sanctification?

Sanctification is a work of God’ s grace, whereby they whom God hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of life.

Before you get too tied up with what the confession says, it helps to understand what is meant by the term. Justification is imputation of righteousness. You are legally declared righteous. Sanctification is the working out of that legal declaration so that the declaration is not just a sham. But there are two things to be careful of, both contained in two verses:

So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure." (NASB phil 2:12,13).

In these two verses, we are to work out our salvation (we are responsible to do what God commands) and it is God that works in us (God alone is sovereign and ordains what comes to pass).

We really and truly do walk by faith.

 

[JBaldwin]

I am not arguing that the infusion of grace is not righteous. I'm saying that it is not the same as the accounting of Christ's righteousness to us. No where that I see does it say that Christ's righteousness is infused, but rather these are applied to the believer and the other saving graces put into their hearts.

This amounts to the difference between justification -- being accounted righteous, and sanctification -- being made righteous. But one should not speak of sanctification as if it were nothing more than being accounted righteous, else you end up with no actual new man created in righteousness and true holiness which the believer has put on, Eph. 4:24.

I would agree with you. I hope that is not what I was conveying. What I have been trying to say is that without an understanding of our accounting of Christ's righteousness to us in justification, it will throw us off when it comes to trying to understand sanctification. All of it is a work of Christ, not a work that we do, even the imparting of God's graces to us in sanctification is His work.

 

[MW]

I would agree with you. I hope that is not what I was conveying. What I have been trying to say is that without an understanding of our accounting of Christ's righteousness to us in justification, it will throw us off when it comes to trying to understand sanctification. All of it is a work of Christ, not a work that we do, even the imparting of God's graces to us in sanctification is His work.

Yes, there is a definitive sanctification by means of our participation in Christ, as per the first half of Rom. 6; but then there is also a progressive sanctification which includes the believer's effort, for which the Holy Spirit makes him able, as per the latter half of Rom. 6. This effort is vividly portrayed under the figures of fighting the good fight, running the race set before us, entering the strait gate, etc. These are things in which the believer is actively involved and towards which he is exhorted to put forth strenuous "renewed" effort.

 

[greenbaggins]

If I understand you correctly, JBaldwin, you are affirming the importance of understand justification's part in sanctification. What Matthew is trying to get at here is that justification's part in sanctification is distinct from the structure of sanctification itself. The structure of justification is imputation. The structure of sanctification is infusion. Take the analogy of two books: Christ's life and my life. In justification the book cover of Christ's book is exchanged with the book cover native to my own book such that when God looks at my book, it has Christ's book cover on it. That's justification. In sanctification, God proceeds to rewrite the inside of the book to make it look more like the cover. We are certainly not passive in progressive sanctification, however much we are dependent on the grace of God for sanctification! Philippians 2 is vitally important to remember here. The formula of sanctification is this: work out your salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you both to will and to work His good pleasure. Quote either part of that statement in isolation, and you have a drastically misunderstood picture of sanctification.

 

[Scott1]

CHAPTER XIII.
Of Sanctification.
I. They who are effectually called and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened, in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

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

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

Is this the same as infusion?

Not really. Infusion of righteousness is a decidedly Roman doctrine. Rome teaches that we are made righteous, not declared righteous. Infusion is not a term reformed believers would use in any positive sense regarding justification or sanctification.

The Book, What is Reformed Theology? by Dr R.C. Sproul may be helpful on this point.

The Roman doctrine also assumes in "infusion" that one can lose it. Since it is not based on Christ's righteousness alone but rather, in that incorrect application ("infusion"), good works and sacraments, both measured and controlled by the visible (not even the "invisible") church, must be added to keep the "infusion" going.

This "infusion" notion (Roman) wrongly presupposes that Christ's righteousness alone is not sufficient, and misapprehends the eternal, immutable nature of our God. It also implies an authority not given to a representation of men (i.e. the "visible" church).

By imputation, as I understand it, we mean a full (and eternal) declaration that Christ's righteousness alone is sufficient and faith in that is the basis for salvation.

Salvation, broadly viewed involves election, effectual calling, justification, adoption...sanctification.

So, God does the first four completely, and saving faith necessarily flows.

Rightly understanding that frees us so we begin, by God's grace, to overcome the struggle between the "old nature," which is dead now and the "new nature," which is implanted and aided by the sanctifying Holy Spirit.

 

[moral necessity]

Rightly understanding that frees us so we begin, by God's grace, to overcome the struggle between the "old nature," which is dead now and the "new nature," which is implanted and aided by the sanctifying Holy Spirit.

Blessings to you Scott! I always love your posts, as they edify me quite often! I wonder how you piece together in your mind that we struggle with something that is "dead". It seems to me like there should be no struggle at all with something that is dead. In my mind, I have it worked out in a way that fits, but I wonder what your take on this is.

Blessings and fellowship!

 

[Wannabee]

Good thread! This is closely related to what I was searching out here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/input-imputation-42609/

THANKS!

 

[JBaldwin]

Rightly understanding that frees us so we begin, by God's grace, to overcome the struggle between the "old nature," which is dead now and the "new nature," which is implanted and aided by the sanctifying Holy Spirit.

Blessings to you Scott! I always love your posts, as they edify me quite often! I wonder how you piece together in your mind that we struggle with something that is "dead". It seems to me like there should be no struggle at all with something that is dead. In my mind, I have it worked out in a way that fits, but I wonder what your take on this is.

Blessings and fellowship!

Romans 6:6-14 comes to mind:
6We know that(K) our old self[a](L) was crucified with him in order that(M) the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For(N) one who has died(O) has been set free from sin. 8Now(P) if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that(Q) Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again;(R) death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin,(S) once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves(T) dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Let not(U) sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13(V) Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but(W) present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For(X) sin(Y) will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

We are to consider ourselves dead to sin. It doesn't mean we are sinless or that we won't sin, but rather that we have a position in Christ that gives us power over sin, so that we can live righteously. If our sin nature was actually dead, Paul would not have written chapter 7 of Romans.

 

[moral necessity]

Rightly understanding that frees us so we begin, by God's grace, to overcome the struggle between the "old nature," which is dead now and the "new nature," which is implanted and aided by the sanctifying Holy Spirit.

Romans 6:6-14 comes to mind:
6We know that(K) our old self[a](L) was crucified with him in order that(M) the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For(N) one who has died(O) has been set free from sin. 8Now(P) if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that(Q) Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again;(R) death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin,(S) once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves(T) dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Let not(U) sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13(V) Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but(W) present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For(X) sin(Y) will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

We are to consider ourselves dead to sin. It doesn't mean we are sinless or that we won't sin, but rather that we have a position in Christ that gives us power over sin, so that we can live righteously. If our sin nature was actually dead, Paul would not have written chapter 7 of Romans.

Knowing that you came out of a similar Keswick background as I did , I have heard this verse quoted many times as well in this manner. But, remember, that whatever death to sin Paul is speaking of in verse 11, it has to be the of the same kind of death that Christ died to sin that he mentions in verse 10. For, Paul says, "in the same way, you too consider yourselves as dead to sin." Robert Haldane makes this point very well in his commentary on Romans, and it gave me a lot to think about. So, in what way did Christ die to sin? Was it to it's power to cause him to act, or over it's power to condemn him?

I appreciate your thoughts.....as always.

 

[JBaldwin]

Romans 6:6-14 comes to mind:
6We know that(K) our old self[a](L) was crucified with him in order that(M) the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. 7For(N) one who has died(O) has been set free from sin. 8Now(P) if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9We know that(Q) Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again;(R) death no longer has dominion over him. 10For the death he died he died to sin,(S) once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 11So you also must consider yourselves(T) dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12Let not(U) sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13(V) Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but(W) present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For(X) sin(Y) will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

We are to consider ourselves dead to sin. It doesn't mean we are sinless or that we won't sin, but rather that we have a position in Christ that gives us power over sin, so that we can live righteously. If our sin nature was actually dead, Paul would not have written chapter 7 of Romans.

Knowing that you came out of a similar Keswick background as I did , I have heard this verse quoted many times as well in this manner. But, remember, that whatever death to sin Paul is speaking of in verse 11, it has to be the of the same kind of death that Christ died to sin that he mentions in verse 10. For, Paul says, "in the same way, you too consider yourselves as dead to sin." Robert Haldane makes this point very well in his commentary on Romans, and it gave me a lot to think about. So, in what way did Christ die to sin? Was it to it's power to cause him to act, or over it's power to condemn him?

I appreciate your thoughts.....as always.

Thanks, could you elaborate further?

 

[turmeric]

That's always puzzled me - Christ was never "alive to sin" in the way people describe us.

 

[JBaldwin]

Good thread! This is closely related to what I was searching out here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/input-imputation-42609/

THANKS!

Thanks for the link. I missed that thread. It raises some interesting questions.