Check your reformed confessions and Scripture, because justification and sanctification are both acts of God's free grace, but sanctification is an infusion of grace by the Spirit (WLC Question 77). Sanctification is God's grace at work in us but it also requires works from us. Sanctification is always progressive and if it is not, then it is an indication that one is not justified by faith. Luther refered to the works in sanctification as the fruits of righteousness. I think you mistated the point when you said that the law has no part in our sanctification. The law certainly is at work in our sanctification. The third use of the law is the means of holiness. We are delivered from the law as a covenant of works, so that we are neither justified or condemned, but we are called to walk in holiness and continually put to death the deeds of the body. You have to make a clear distinction between justification and sanctification.
Stephen, I have checked them over and over and over again. I am very leary of what is meant by infusion, but that is a whole other topic. Santification is both positional and progressive. Yet both are in Christ alone by grace through faith, not by works obedience as a believers focus. I have heard all the cliche sayings as you have mentioned above and have certainly concluded it is wanting. Anyway you slice it, works sanctification is an impossibility. What does walking in holiness mean to you? Scripture says we walk by faith. Walk in this newness of life procured by Christ. Our life is not supposed to be some rollercaoster ride of failure and victory based upon sinning vs not sinning every day or every hour. It is finished Christ said. And that means more than justification. We have been taught that we become saved by faith in the gospel, but now that we are saved we need to perform well to walk righteously. If at any time we fail to perform well we need to get back on track of good performance in order to get on God's good side again. If we really screw up then it may take several days (or even weeks) of good performance before we 'feel' that God is accepting us again. If we are able to sustain a decent run of good behavior we believe that God is beginning to smile on us again thereby increasing our confidence in approaching and sharing Him. this 'good performance' is a works-based righteousness no different than living under the law. Let me repeat, good performance under the law is no different than 'good performance' under grace. 'Good performance' will not bring us into good standing with God. Good works could not help 1% before salvation and cannot help 1% after salvation. In God's view, a 'successful' five hour period or a five year flawless track record makes no difference to God in relation to our righteousness and acceptability.
Again, I only ask that you interact with Paul on this point:
Galatians 2:21-3:3, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain… This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?"
There is no other way to understand this verse, becasue it is exactly the same in the original. The Spirit is what saves, then why go back to the flesh/Law/obedience for sanctification? How are we to walk in Christ? The same way we were saved, by faith in the gospel. We are to walk in the faith that God loves us and that we can do nothing to make Him love us more. He proved His love for us by offering Himself in our stead on the cross. We cannot earn His love by being a better Christian, reading our Bibles more, fasting more, etc., for we are fully loved forever.
Stephen? What works are required of us that you speak of? What do's and dont's are we required to follow that Paul condemns in Col 2? Again I am not speaking of obvious commands of God. But a believer does not need the 10 words in stone constantly presented to him in order for him to not murder or covet. Michael and Bert Mulder have even gone beyond this and followed the traditions of the mishna and have lists of things that only burden others to even read about. This is my biggest gripe with this flavor of legalism. Do you find a roman catholic who prays the rosary foolish? Even when she says she is doing it to please God? Do you find an Amish person a false witness when they scream about not having their picture taken? Or what about the catholic who goes to novena? Is he not praying? Or the one who does not eat meat on wednesdays or fridays during lent? They all say they are doing it to please God, yet you call them heretics, believing a lie. Well I do not care if Ryle, WLC, Calvin, Michael, You, or anyone says that a list of required works has a part in our sanctification, it is against the Gospel. Especially when the list is a bunch of peccadillo things that do not matter at all.
Robert,
I am incredibly concerned about this statement above in reaction to a prima facia, Reformed understanding of the nature of sanctification. I am actually considering issuing an infraction for your Strawman attack on Reformed sanctification as outlined by WLC 77. For you to characterize Stephen's synopsis that sanctification flows out of our justification and to compare the third use of the Law to an "on again/off again" view of God's favor or to "good performance" is either a sign of profound ignorance as to what every Reformed thinker taught about the third use of the Law or a purposeful mischaracterization of it. Either way, you have no business trying to teach here with such a profound misapprehension of what the third use is.
Consider carefully how you proceed. I like you Robert but what you think is wise above or accurately represents Paul's presentation of Galatians 2 is completely faulty as you attempt to pit our "reasonable service" against God's forensic justification.
You need to completely divorce this discussion from any discussion about how a scruple might have missed the nature of the third use and focus upon what the actual Reformed view is.
I do care what our Reformed confessions teach on this because I'm convinced they are Biblical regarding how God saves us by declaring us righteousness but His act and purpose are singular in electing us to newness of life and giving us hearts that desire to live unto Him. If we do not bear fruit then we are dead. We are not saved by the fruit but the fruit is a sign of life and you are pitting the fruit against the fountainhead of life. Both are borne of God and Paul's polemic against the Judaizers is not aimed at an idea of sanctification that seeks to please God but is aimed at those that believe that effort began in the Spirit and is perfected by our effort.
Finally, whether you like the term "infuseth" or not, it is the term chosen by the Reformers. They did not have a Roman Catholic understanding of the term but adopted and adapted the term to their own use. Rather than dumping all over men who you ought to respect enough to understand, you need to ask for clarification.
You are warned Robert. Proceed with caution.