Why is Sanctification not in Rom. 8:29

Status
Not open for further replies.

fralo4truth

Puritan Board Freshman
The great golden chain reads:

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate [to be] conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified" (Rom. 8:29-30)

Any particular reason you feel why sanctifcation is not mentioned here? Certain antinomians I know use this as an argument that sanctification is not a definite part of eternal salvation. I could of course reference other passages, but why is it not mentioned here? The short answer is because God did not will it. But do you have any other thoughts?

Thanks brethren.
 
Surely being conformed to the image of his Son involves a moral conformity, i.e., sanctification.
 
Surely being conformed to the image of his Son involves a moral conformity, i.e., sanctification.

Thanks Ruben. That's one of the responses I expected to receive when I posted this topic, and I totally agree. I perhaps should have re-phrased my topic to ask why the actual word sanctification does not appear at what we would think would be its appropriate place after justification.
 
Glorification also includes sanctification (at least it would imply that one is sanctified)...
 
I think Paul wrote this as encouragement to the persecuted Roman believers and so his argument is from the standpoint of those who are not feeling blessed in the face of persecution. Paul wanted to point out that God chose them before they were even born and sent His own son to die for them, so why would they assume that God had abandoned them. I just don't think the topic of sanctification was brought up because it wasn't pertinent to the topic at hand.
 
Perhaps it's not repeated because according to the immediate context, it is bound up with predestination? Paul has said they are predestinated to be conformed to the image of God's son; then he goes on to say that those thus predestinated, those predestinated to that very end of conformity, are also called, justified, glorified. He doesn't express sanctification by name, because in context predestination already includes that concept.
 
Does this have anything to do with the context involving things that God alone does? Whereas, sanctification is at least partly synergistic, isn't it?:think:
 
What Ruben said. Because it's already there in the first verse.

We shouldn't expect Paul to use the word "sanctification" every time he talks about that topic, as if he were writing a systematic theology textbook. We have the habit of using that one word with a specific theological meaning. But the biblical authors used a variety of words to describe our growth in Christ, for a richness of meaning. Our way of thinking about it all as "sanctification" is a good and biblical choice, but this doesn't mean these authors will always use that word as if that terminology were the only way to communicate the concept.
 
Adding to the good responses above, Paul already dealt with sanctification in Romans chapter 6.
 
Adding to the good responses above, Paul already dealt with sanctification in Romans chapter 6.
Precisely the point I was going to make: http://www.puritanboard.com/content/dead-sin-alive-Christ-rom-6-1-11-58/

In other words, it would be folly to assert that the fact that sanctification is not mentioned in Romans 8 means that sanctification is not definitive when Romans 6 clearly teaches it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top