Discussing Sanctification (Part 01)
STATEMENT
"Sometimes, when people talk about sanctification as the second part of salvation, they have or give the impression that justification is by grace alone, through faith alone but sanctification is (at least partly) by good works. That’s not true. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace. It produces good works in us, but sanctification is by grace alone, through faith alone." - RS Clark
Westminster Shorter Catechism 35: 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.
- Anonymous
RESPONSE
These statements are a good example of wrongly dividing sanctification. Failure to rightly divide the sanctification into LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification and ETHICAL/PRACTICAL sanctification creates this problem. LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification is a monergistic work wrought for us by Christ as part of our eternal salvation. In contrast ETHICAL/PRACTICAL sanctification is behavior to which we are exhorted in obedient discipleship. This behavior plays no participatory role in the work whereby we are eternally saved. The bible speaks of sanctification in these two distinct ways (one finished and eternally saving, the other exhorted and of temporal benefit in discipleship). Failure to recognize this distinction introduces a logical contradiction in the doctrine of sanctification. Consider the following two verses of scripture....
"By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." (Hebrews 10:10)
That is monergistic, LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification by Christ. This sanctification too place apart from any participatory involvement from man whatsoever. The offering of the body of Christ took place at Calvary 2000 years ago and created a current state of LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification for every child of God by Christ’s work alone.
"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:" (I Thessalonians 4:3)
Here Paul is speaking of one's synergistic, ethical and practical sanctification from the sinful practice of this wicked world. This sanctification is not conferred upon us passively as in the previous instance of sanctification that the writer of Hebrews has under consideration. This sanctification requires that “we should abstain” - it requires us to DO something. It is certain that if we do not abstain that we will remain unsanctified in this regard.
Consider the following:
If a regenerate man commits fornication is he sanctified in the I Thessalonians 4:3 sense?
If a regenerate man commits fornication is he sanctified in the Hebrews 10:10 sense?
Proper answers to those questions establish, beyond any reasonable dispute, the necessity of rightly dividing sanctification into the LEGAL/POSITIONAL monergistic work of God and ETHICAL/PRACTICAL synergistic work of God in us that requires our willing and active participation.
- Elder Daniel Samons
OBJECTION
So, R. Scott Clarke is wrong then? As well as the Westminster Shorter Catechism on the base fact that they haven't rightly divided the legal and positional sanctification, according to you?
"You are sanctified (Acts 20:32), is DEFINITIVE SANCTIFICATION, the legal positional condition because of the justification we have received. The progressive nature to Santification is not conditioned upon our works, rather because of the Grace we have received, being justified (imputed Christ's righteousness) and santified (imputation Christ's holiness), our obedience is out of gratitude, not synergistic legalism, or neonomian new laws to merit any conditions.
The progressive nature to santification, and ethical practice by obedience never seperates us from the legal nature of what we have already received, rather, by the infusing of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit leads us to obedience, worship and service, not synergistic merit. Discipline and obedience is motivated by the Gospel alone, not law imperatives.
You are the one who seems to be distorting the nature of santification, by 'seperating' the definitive from the progressive, rather than presenting the correct theological distinctions between the two.
1 Thess.4:3, is presenting how we have been set apart onto Holiness and godliness, however, our santification is not the base to our legal justification or santification, rather the power of the objective work of Christ by His Gospel, imputing His righteousness and Holiness to us, and the infusing of His Holy Spirit that teaches us to observe all that He Has commanded.
So, if regenerated man commits fornication, he has fallen from Grace, and needs to repent! It doesn't mean he is at the end of santification merit cue, rather he is not walking in the power of his santification.
The definitive aspect of our santification means it is not conditioned to our behaviour.
The progressive nature of our santification, in relation to obedience if we sin, means that we are not walking in the power of our santification, refusing to show gratitude to the every word of God.
The definitive aspect is not determined by us, the progressive aspect is a loyal response, one that is a continual devotion and loyal response.
- Anonymous
RESPONSE
So, R. Scott Clarke is wrong then? As well as the Westminster Shorter Catechism on the base fact that they haven't rightly divided the legal and positional sanctification, according to you?
Yes. That is correct. They are wrong because they do not rightly distinguish between the two ways that the bible speaks of sanctification. In so doing they make assertions that are correct with respect to our LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification that are NOT TRUE with respect to our ETHICAL/PRACTICAL sanctification.
"You are sanctified (Acts 20:32), is DEFINITIVE SANCTIFICATION, the legal positional condition because of the justification we have received.
I agree. That is LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification as a result of the monergistic work of Christ.
The progressive nature to sanctification is not conditioned upon our works, rather because of the Grace we have received, being justified (imputed Christ's righteousness) and sanctified (imputation Christ's holiness), our obedience is out of gratitude, not synergistic legalism, or neonomian new laws to merit any conditions.
Our ETHICAL/PRACTICAL sanctification is most certainly conditioned upon our works. If a regenerate person chooses to practice fornication, a possible choice that is abundantly testified to in the scriptures (II Samuel 12:24), he remains LEGALLY/POSITIONALLY sanctified by the work of Christ, because this work is permanent, monergistic, and unalterable (Hebrews 10:10). However, he is not sanctified in terms of his ETHICS or PRACTICE because he is a present practitioner of sin which does not set him apart from the practice of the wicked world. So again, it is critically important to note that our LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification is a monergistic done deal, but how we live from the stand point of ETHICS and PRACTICAL godliness is most certainly NOT a done deal. It requires requires our willing obedience. This observation is no assault on monergistic eternal salvation by grace. In fact it is essential to a proper affirmation of eternal salvation by sovereign grace, because our works of obedience have precisely NOTHING to do with the work that brings us eternal salvation.
While I agree that our obedience should be motivated by gratitude, I am pointing out that when we sin, which we all do more than we care to admit (I John 1:8), we are NOT sanctified in our ethics. Again a good way to draw this out is to point out that while David was fornicating with Bathsheba, he was undeniably sanctified in a LEGAL/POSITIONAL sense by Christ via covenant, but he was not sanctified in an ETHICAL/PRACTICAL sense per his sinful behavior. That point is not even remotely debatable. Understanding that distinction is essential to a proper understanding of sanctification in that it clarifies the two ways that the bible uses the term.
The progressive nature to sanctification, and ethical practice by obedience, never separates us from the legal nature of what we have already received, rather, by the infusing of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit leads us to obedience, worship and service, not synergistic merit. Discipline and obedience is motivated by the Gospel alone, not law imperatives.
I do not doubt that obedience is an expression of our sanctification in Christ. My point is that DISOBEDIENCE is proof positive of a lack of ETHICAL sanctification. If Christ’s work of LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification is perfect, and our ETHICS remain imperfect, then we can be certain that there is a biblical distinction between Christ’s finished work of sanctification whereby we are eternally saved, and the imperfect work of ethical sanctification demonstrated by our manifold disobediences in this lifetime (I John 1:8). When one smears these two different senses of sanctification together, one ends up conjoining that which is monergistic and related to eternal salvation, with that which is synergistic and related to our obedient discipleship in this life time.
You are the one who seems to be distorting the nature of sanctification, by 'separating' the definitive from the progressive, rather than presenting the correct theological distinctions between the two.
To be clear, I do not believe in so-called “progressive sanctification.” I believe that the bible speaks of LEGAL/POSITIONAL monergistic sanctification by Christ (Hebrews 10:10) and exhorts us to ETHICAL/PRACTICAL synergistic sanctification (I Thessalonians 4:3) as our reasonable service to God in this lifetime. The former is perfect and finished, the latter imperfect and an ongoing struggle that is attended with many flaws based on our often, poor performance of obedience (I John 1:8, Romans 7:18-23).
1 Thess.4:3, is presenting how we have been set apart onto Holiness and godliness,
That passage it is exhorting God’s people unto sanctification via obedience to a specific command regarding their sexual conduct. That being the case, it most certainly is not exhorting us to the LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification that was accomplished for us by Christ. Look closely at what is said in the epistle to the Hebrews, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:10) That sanctification knows absolutely nothing of our involvement, because it is a monergistic accomplishment of Christ alone.
Herein lies the reason for the previously asked questions – they are instrumental in making my case for the distinction between one’s LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification in Christ, and the ETHICAL PRACTICAL sanctification to which we are exhorted. More on that in a moment…
however, our sanctification is not the base to our legal justification or sanctification, rather the power of the objective work of Christ by His Gospel, imputing His righteousness and Holiness to us, and the infusing of His Holy Spirit that teaches us to observe all that He Has commanded.
That’s all well and good, but the point is that we do not always obey (I John 1:8) and when we do not, we ARE NOT SANCTIFIED in an ethical or practical sense. Stated plainly, when David was committing fornication with Bathsheba, he was LEGALLY and POSITIONALLY sanctified in Christ via covenant (Hebrews 10:10) but he was NOT ETHICALLY and PRACTICALLY sanctified in his behavior because he was committing sin (I Thessalonians 4:3). Sin is the opposite of separation from this wicked world. The point I am making here is not really even debatable. To do so requires either the admission of some incompleteness or imperfection in Christ’s sanctification, or the affirmation that sin is sanctified behavior – both are ludicrous.
So, if regenerated man commits fornication, he has fallen from Grace, and needs to repent! It doesn't mean he is at the end of sanctification merit cue, rather he is not walking in the power of his sanctification. The definitive aspect of our santification means it is not conditioned to our behaviour. The progressive nature of our santification, in relation to obedience if we sin, means that we are not walking in the power of our santification, refusing to show gratitude to the every word of God. The definitive aspect is not determined by us, the progressive aspect is a loyal response, one that is a continual devotion and loyal response.
So is one’s “loyal response” conditioned upon them?
I would again ask you to directly answer the questions originally asked with respect to the sanctifications of Hebrews 10:10 and I Thessalonians 4:3:
If a regenerate man commits fornication is he sanctified in the Hebrews 10:10 sense?
If a regenerate man commits fornication is he sanctified in the I Thessalonians 4:3 sense?
Please answer those questions directly in your response. If you do so, we may find that we are more in agreement that you realize, though we are employing some different terminology.
- Elder Daniel Samons
COMMENT
Consider this statement from Dr. Michael Horton:
"It has sometimes been said that justification is monergistic, but sanctification is synergistic. I understand the point: namely, to distinguish these gifts, as I've done above. It is certainly true that we are active in sanctification and that we grow in Christian maturity through our grace-given responses each day to God's commands and promises. However, it is unusual and, I think, inappropriate to import the monergism-synergism antithesis (typically belonging to the debate over the new birth and justification) into sanctification. It is better simply to say that we are working out that salvation that has Christ has already won for us and given to us by his Spirit through the gospel. Though in sanctification (unlike justification) faith is active in good works, the gospel is always the ground and the Spirit is always the source of our sanctification as well as our justification. As John Owen expressed it, "The doctrine of justification is directive of Christian practice, and in no other evangelical truth is the whole of our obedience more concerned; for the foundation, reasons, and motives of all our duty towards God are contained therein." In other words, the law always tells us what God requires and the gospel always tells us what God has done for sinners and why they should now yield themselves to righteousness." - Dr. Michael Horton
What Dr. Clark states is consistent with Dr. Horton and in fact does not exclude that, as believers, we are "doing." The last part of Shorter Catechism 35 states, "and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.”
- Anonymous
RESPONSE 02
My thoughts…
It has sometimes been said that justification is monergistic, but sanctification is synergistic. I understand the point: namely, to distinguish these gifts, as I've done above. It is certainly true that we are active in sanctification and that we grow in Christian maturity through our grace-given responses each day to God's commands and promises. However, it is unusual and, I think, inappropriate to import the monergism-synergism antithesis (typically belonging to the debate over the new birth and justification) into sanctification.
The suggestion that employing “monergism” and “synergism” is in appropriate in this discussion is baseless, though I have found it common among the reformed. Monergism means the work of one, where synergism means the work of more than one, and any work can be assessed as either the work of an individual or a cooperative. Exploring this construct they are reluctant to employ avoids the very mechanism whereby one can more clearly understand the two different ways the bible speaks of sanctification. Stated plainly, our LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification is a monergistic, perfect, past accomplishment of the Lord Jesus Christ (Hebrews 10:10). Nothing that one of God’s children will ever do can either improve or diminish this sanctification. In contrast, our ETHICAL/PRACTICAL sanctification is something to which we are repeatedly admonished (I Thessalonians 4:3). It requires our synergistic obedience. As such it remains imperfect in this lifetime.
Again this is clearly demonstrated provided one is willing to provide honest answers to the following questions…
If a regenerate man commits fornication is he sanctified in the Hebrews 10:10 sense?
If a regenerate man commits fornication is he sanctified in the I Thessalonians 4:3 sense?
A regenerate man who commits fornication remains sanctified in the LEGAL/POSITIONAL, Hebrews 10:10 sense. Yet he is NOT sanctified in the ETHICAL/PRACTICAL, I Thessalonians 4:3 sense. That observation is not debatable. It establishes and properly expresses the biblical distinction that exists in sanctification.
It is better simply to say that we are working out that salvation that has Christ has already won for us and given to us by his Spirit through the gospel.
Perhaps, but if we are “working” then we are talking about a sanctification that is different from the sanctification of Hebrews 10:10 wherein it is said that this was accomplished, “through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” (Hebrews 10:10b) That’s something Jesus Christ did without any assistance. It was done without any “works” from us whatsoever. Stated plainly, the moment you refer to a sanctification that requires our “working” – you are talking about our ETHICAL/PRACTICAL sanctification in obedience, not the LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification that was wrought for us by the monergistic work of Christ alone. Simply put, you are proving my point.
Though in sanctification (unlike justification) faith is active in good works, the gospel is always the ground and the Spirit is always the source of our sanctification as well as our justification.
Not exactly. Your faith was NOT involved in the sanctification that was “through the offering of the body of Christ once for all”? (Hebrews 10:10b) That is LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification and your faith has precisely NOTHING to do with its accmplishment. That is because LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification is a monergistic work of God.
As John Owen expressed it, "The doctrine of justification is directive of Christian practice, and in no other evangelical truth is the whole of our obedience more concerned; for the foundation, reasons, and motives of all our duty towards God are contained therein." In other words, the law always tells us what God requires and the gospel always tells us what God has done for sinners and why they should now yield themselves to righteousness.
Part of what Christ has done for sinners is the accomplishment of their absolutely perfect LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification. But it is also certain that our ETHICAL sanctification is not perfect or absolutely certain to the same degree. ETHICAL sanctification requires our willing, active, and thus synergistic obedience. This remains imperfect and greatly varied over the course of our lives given the indisputable fact of remaining sin in the life of a regenerate child of God (I John 1:8).
What Dr. Clark states above is consistent with Dr. Horton and in fact does not exclude that, as believers, we are "doing."
he moment you admit that man is actively and willingly “doing” something, you are talking about synergism by definition. The Lord said “without me ye can do nothing.”(John 15:5b). This statement involves a HE DO and a YE DO. That is synergism. It is a work that we have willing and active participation in. To deny this one must either admit that sanctification is synergistic, and if it is required for eternal salvation then eternal salvation is synergistic as well (a clearly untenable position, Titus 3:5), or recognize the distinction between the LEGAL/POSITIONAL sanctification which was wrought monergistically by Christ apart from anything done by us (Hebrews 10:10), and the ETHICAL/PRACTICAL sanctification to which we are exhorted in obedience (I Thessalonians 4:3).
The last part of SC 35 states, "and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness."
I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit provides this enablement, but I reject that God’s regenerate people always live in accordance with the enablement we have been given. Moreover I reject that their ethical practice is always onwards and upwards throughout the course of their natural lives given the examples of David, Solomon, and Lot.
- Elder Daniel Samons