33 comments

1. Good quote from Calvin on justification. Would be nice to see some quotes from him on sanctification in light of the current controversies.

2. What we need can’t be found within us or in our works of obedience to the law. We are found exceedingly short of the mark when it comes to measuring up to the law, even our ‘sincere’ obedience. So the question that always remains relevant to us really is the one Calvin poses, because the answer is one we never outgrow in this life:

   For the question is, not how we may be righteous, but how, though unworthy and unrighteous, we may be regarded as righteous. If consciences would obtain any assurance of this, they must give no place to the law.

3. Can anything good regarding sanctification come from a Lutheran?

   From Lutheran Pastor David Scaer:

   As magnificently monergistic as our sanctification is, that is, God works in us to create and confirm faith and to do good to others, we Christians are plagued by sin. In actual practice our sanctification is only a weak reflection of Christ’s life. Good motives often turn into evil desires. Good works come to be valued as our own ethical accomplishments. Moral self-admiration and ethical self-absorption soon replace total reliance on God. The sanctified life constantly needs to be fully and only informed by Christ’s life and death or our personal holiness will soon deteriorate into a degenerate legalism and barren moralism. God allows us Christians to be plagued by sin and a sense of moral inadequacy to force us to see the impossibility of a self-generated holiness. Our only hope is to look to Christ in whom alone we have a perfect and complete sanctification. “He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30).

   H/T John Yeazel

4. But how about some Reformed (not Lutheran) theology on sanctification?

   • Your question suggests that you think Reformed theology is different

     And that you would prefer it

     What is the matter with Scaer’s? How would you oppose it if you did not know he was a Lutheran?

5. Calvin (Institutes) in agreement with the Lutheran(!):

   Let us now see what kind of righteousness belongs to those persons whom we have placed in the fourth class. We admit that when God reconciles us to himself by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ, and bestowing upon us the free pardon of sins regards us as righteous, his goodness is at the same time conjoined with mercy, so that he dwells in us by means of his Holy Spirit, by whose agency the lusts of our flesh are every day more and more mortified while that we ourselves are sanctified; that is consecrated to the Lord for true purity of life, our hearts being trained to the obedience of the law. It thus becomes our leading desire to obey his will, and in all things advance his glory only. Still, however while we walk in the ways of the Lord, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, lest we should become unduly elated, and forget ourselves, we have still remains of imperfection which serve to keep us humble: “There is no man that sinneth not,” saith Scripture, (1 Kings 8:46.) What righteousness then can men obtain by their works? First, I say, that the best thing which can be produced by them is always tainted and corrupted by the impurity of the flesh, and has, as it were, some mixture of dross in it. Let the holy servant of God, I say, select from the whole course of his life the action which he deems most excellent, and let him ponder it in all its parts; he will doubtless find in it something that savors of the rottenness of the flesh, since our alacrity in well-doing is never what it ought to be, but our course is always retarded by much weakness. Although we see theft the stains by which the works of the righteous are blemished, are by no means unapparent, still, granting that they are the minutest possible, will they give no offense to the eye of God, before which even the stars are not clean? We thus see, that even saints cannot perform one work which, if judged on its own merits, is not deserving of condemnation. Kindle location: 13558

   For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us, so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins. Kindle location 13577

   13. If these things are so, it is certain that our works cannot in themselves make us agreeable and acceptable to God, and even cannot please God, except in so far as being covered with the righteousness of Christ we thereby please him and obtain forgiveness of sins. God has not promised life as the reward of certain works, but only declares, “which if a man do, he shall live in them,” (Leviticus 18:5) denouncing the well-known curse against all who do not continue in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them. In this way is completely refuted the fiction of a partial righteousness, the only righteousness acknowledged in heaven being the perfect observance of the Law. Kindle location 13616

6. You’re cheating, Jack. That chapter is on justification. 😉

   • As if Calvin limited himself to strict categories in the Institutes… So now there’s a sharp separation between justification and sanctification? Or an antithesis between the two? They intersect. And the same questions for the sinner regarding salvation addressed in justification continue to be raised in our consciences in our sanctification. In other words, the secure ground that we walk upon in sanctification is our justification. But that truth is not of common wisdom because we, wired for law, too easily forget.

     Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Corinthians 1:30.) Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification. Kindle 13920-13925

   • Calvin:

     For since perfection is altogether unattainable by us, so long as we are clothed with flesh, and the Law denounces death and judgment against all who have not yielded a perfect righteousness, there will always be ground to accuse and convict us unless the mercy of God interpose, and ever and anon absolve us by the constant remission of sins.

   • Last one for tonight, Calvin Book Two:

     Ezekiel is still more full, but the sum of what he says amounts to this: that the sabbath is a sign by which Israel might know that God is their sanctifier. If our sanctification consists in the mortification of our own will, the analogy between the external sign and the thing signified is most appropriate. We must rest entirely, in order that God may work in us; we must resign our own will, yield up our heart, and abandon all the lusts of the flesh. In short, we must desist from all the acts of our own mind, that God working in us, we may rest in him, as the Apostle also teaches (Heb.3:13; 4:3, 9).

7. As if Calvin limited himself to strict categories in the Institutes… So now there’s a sharp separation between justification and sanctification? Or an antithesis between the two?

   I was joking. But I think it’s funny that when asked to cite something from Calvin on sanctification, you cite something where he’s expressly speaking of justification (as indicated by the chapter title). It’s true there’s overlap, but he does speak about the benefits of salvation separately (as you know). And you still haven’t haven’t quoted anything where he’s expressly speaking of sanctification….

   • David, you again make a distinction/separation regarding justification and sanctification that Calvin doesn’t make. The Institutes are not a systematic theology written by segregated topic. So I don’t accept your assertion that Calvin, in these quotes, is referring explicitly and only to justification. If these citations don’t apply then please do quote something from the Institutes where Calvin is expressly speaking of sanctification. BTW, the last quote is from Book Two, the supposed book where he addresses sanctification. Interestingly, there are many more references to sanctification in Book Three where he addresses justification than in Book Two…

   • BTW, in the quotes I cited, there are 10 explicit references to sanctification. Yet, you would say these are only about justification? Hello?

   • Well, we will have to disagree here. I read you as wanting to separate justification and sanctification as if they are free-floating, independent benefits of salvation in Christ, connected only in that they are received in union with him without any logical priority or connection. It is the whole person of Christ who has been given to us for all of our salvation. In him is righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, not as separate gifts but the benefits of his sin-bearing, his obedience, his death, his resurrection, his ascension offered in himself. So in Christ there are distinct yet not separated benefits. And this would be applicable concerning our works of sanctification and the pardon of sin.

     “Our third and last exception relates to the recompense of works,­ we maintaining that it depends not on their own value or merit, but rather on the mere benignity of God. Our opponents, indeed, admit that there is no proportion between the merit of the work and its reward; but they do not attend to what is of primary moment in the matter: that is, that the good works of believers are never so pure as that they can please without pardon. They consider not, I say, that they are always sprinkled with some spots or blemishes, because they never proceed from that pure and perfect love of God which is demanded by the law. Our doctrine, therefore, is that the good works of believers are always devoid of a spotless purity which can stand the inspection of God; nay, that when they are tried by the strict rule of justice, they are, to a certain extent, impure. But, when once God has graciously adopted believers, he not only accepts and loves their persons, but their works also, and condescends to honor them with a reward.

     “In one word, as we said of man, so we may say of works: they are justified not by their own desert, but by the merits of Christ alone; the faults by which they would otherwise displease being covered by the sacrifice of Christ. This consideration is of very great practical importance, both in retaining men in the fear of God, that they may not arrogate to their works that which proceeds from his fatherly kindness; and also in inspiring them with the best consolation, and so preventing them from giving way to despondency, when they reflect on the imperfection or impurity of their works, by reminding them that God, of his paternal indulgence, is pleased to pardon it.”
     -The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543), John Calvin.

   • Jack,

     I don’t know if you intended to post your latest response here (under my first comment). Since we’ve had a few back-and-forths since then, I shall wait for your response to what I’ve said more recently….

     Well, we will have to disagree here. I read you as wanting to separate justification and sanctification as if they are free-floating, independent benefits of salvation in Christ, connected only in that they are received in union with him without any logical priority or connection.

     No doubt you read me as failing to adequately connect justification and sanctification. But I have only said they are distinct, not separate. I read you as failing to adequately distinguish them, e.g., when you say things like “All the virtues and benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection, including justification, are applied by the Holy Spirit to the redeemed in his sanctifying work.” Sorry but that’s confused. There’s a reason why justification and sanctification are spoken of as distinct benefits.

     I don’t know what “free-floating” and “Independent” mean as you use them here. If they mean “separate,” then no; if “distinct,” then yes.

     So in Christ there are distinct yet not separated benefits.

     Of course. I’m pretty sure I’ve affirmed this several times already.

   • Sorry about the mix up on reply buttons. My last reply was intended for our latter back and forth. And yes, I have heard you (maybe incorrectly) as drawing too sharp a line between the J and S.

     So in Christ there are distinct yet not separated benefits.

     This I do agree with and I think you’ve heard me as saying otherwise. My point could be summed up in this from Calvin:

     “… as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable. Whomsoever, therefore, God receives into his favor, he presents with the Spirit of adoption, whose agency forms them anew into his image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, are we therefore to say, that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat? Nothing can be more apposite to the matter in hand than this simile. The sun by its heat quickens and fertilizes the earth; by its rays enlightens and illumines it. Here is a mutual and undivided connection, and yet reason itself prohibits us from transferring the peculiar properties of the one to the other.” Int. 3.11.6

     If heat is sanctification in this analogy, then when we are warmed by the sanctifying work of the Spirit we at the same time apprehend the light. Justification continues to comfort our consciences while God simultaneously sanctifies the believer as he seeks to mortify sin and love God and neighbor. Without that comfort and assurance of justification the works principle too easier reasserts itself in the flesh. My emphasis here is more from a pastoral point of view (though not a pastor) than a systematic presentation of the doctrines. Because that is where I think the ball often gets dropped in the church.

     blessings, David R…

     I hope this comment ends up in the right spot!

   • Jack,

     I fully agree and I’ve always much appreciated Calvin’s sun illustration for the duplex gratia. But I had understood some of what you said earlier to indeed be tantamount to saying “that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat.” Particularly your assertion that “All the virtues and benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection, including justification, are applied by the Holy Spirit to the redeemed in his sanctifying work.” Do you still stand by this? Blessings to you too….

   • David, you wrote:
     But I had understood some of what you said earlier to indeed be tantamount to saying “that the earth is warmed by light and illumined by heat.” Particularly your assertion that “All the virtues and benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection, including justification, are applied by the Holy Spirit to the redeemed in his sanctifying work.” Do you still stand by this?

     I can see how you understood me to be saying that from my words (which were inexact) that you quoted, though they were not intended as such. As I wrote in my last comment, my concern is how these things are communicated pastorally, especially to ears of struggling or confused or insecure believers in the church. All I meant to say by that quote is that the Holy Spirit continues to point our faith to Christ for all we need pertaining to salvation (it is done) while at the same time effecting our sanctification in Christ (as we are doing). Light and heat together, same source all for our salvation. Not – we’ve already done justification (move on) and now, leaving that behind, let’s get on to the work of sanctification as the next phase. Hope this helps…

   • Jack, gotchya. Yes, that helps!

8. C’mon, Jack, the Institutes are topical. Calvin makes distinctions. Here’s something from the discussion of sanctification:

   When mention is made of our union with God, let us remember that holiness must be the bond; not that by the merit of holiness we come into communion with him (we ought rather first to cleave to him, in order that, pervaded with his holiness, we may follow whither he calls), but because it greatly concerns his glory not to have any fellowship with wickedness and impurity. Wherefore he tells us that this is the end of our calling, the end to which we ought ever to have respect, if we would answer the call of God. For to what end were we rescued from the iniquity and pollution of the world into which we were plunged, if we allow ourselves, during our whole lives, to wallow in them? Besides, we are at the same time admonished, that if we would be regarded as the Lord’s people, we must inhabit the holy city Jerusalem (Isaiah rev. 8, et alibi); which, as he hath consecrated it to himself, it were impious for its inhabitants to profane by impurity. Hence the expressions, “Who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness,” (Ps. 15:1, 2; 24:3, 4); for the sanctuary in which he dwells certainly ought not to be like an unclean stall.

   • David, amen to this and the passage below. And of course they should be taught and followed. Yet, you call them passages on sanctification when they might more properly be exhortations or calls to our duty and good works. Yes, those things are interwoven in the work of sanctification that God by his free grace accomplishes in the believer. But exhortations to those duties of fighting sin and seeking after good works are just that. And taken alone these might lead one to understand that sanctification (if that is how one is to describe these quotes) is accomplished by our fighting sin and striving for holiness (which of course believers should do). Interestingly, sanctification is not mentioned in either chapter 6 or 7 that you quote from. So I think definitions are needed:

     WLC Q. 75. What is sanctification?
     A. 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.

     It would seem to me that it is God’s gracious sanctification of his people which ultimately enables the faithful response to the exhortations and duties that you quote.

   • Seeds of Q/A 75 are found in this quote of Calvin’s, as well as speaking to proper and improper motives for our obedience:

     For, first, they are altogether in error when they say that, unless a hope of reward is held forth, no regard will be had to the right conduct of life. For if all that men do when they serve God is to look to the reward, and hire out or sell their labor to him, little is gained: he desires to be freely worshipped, freely loved: I say he approves the worshipper who, even if all hope of reward were cut off, would cease not to worship him. Moreover, when men are to be urged, there cannot be a stronger stimulus than that derived from the end of our redemption and calling, such as the word of God employs when it says, that it were the height of impiety and ingratitude not to “love him who first loved us;” that by “the blood of Christ” our conscience is purged “from dead works to serve the living God;” that it were impious sacrilege in any one to count “the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing;” that we have been “delivered out of the hands of our enemies,” that we “might serve him without fear, in holiness and righteousness before him, all the days of our life;” that being “made free from sin,” we “become the servants of righteousness;” “that our old man is crucified with him,” in order that we might rise to newness of life.

   • Jack, I am glad we’re actually talking about sanctification now. And I agree that those are exhortations given in the context of the discussion of sanctification, and if abstracted from that context could mistakenly lead to the notion that sanctification is self-produced (as could also the idea that sanctification is the hard work of getting used to justification). But no, sanctification is indeed by grace alone. Yet, it is interesting (isn’t it?) that nowhere in the WLC definition is there the slightest hint of a reference to the doctrine of justification. (One side of the current controversy might appear to view this as problematic.) As far as Calvin not using the word “sanctification,” it’s because his terminology differed from later Reformed theology in that he seems to have discussed what we call sanctification under the terms regeneration and repentence. For example following is his definition of repentance, which seems to have at least some overlap with what we think of as sanctification (and your cited definition): “Wherefore, it seems to me, that repentance may be not inappropriately defined thus: A real conversion of our life unto God, proceeding from sincere and serious fear of God; and consisting in the mortification of our flesh and the old man, and the quickening of the Spirit.”

   • David, I’ve been talking about sanctification all along, thank you.

     No hint? What possible benefits could be linked to the phrase – “the powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them…” – if not that Christ has been made unto us “wisdom from God, righteousness [i.e. Christ’s imputed righteousness] and sanctification and redemption?”
     And…
     Rom. 4:
     21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
     22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
     23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
     24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
     25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

     All the virtues and benefits of of Christ’s death and resurrection, including justification, are applied by the Holy Spirit to the redeemed in his sanctifying work.

   • Jack,

     All the virtues and benefits of of Christ’s death and resurrection, including justification, are applied by the Holy Spirit to the redeemed in his sanctifying work.

     Respectfully, I think this is confused. Sanctification is one benefit; justification is another. Both flow from the work of Christ, but they do so distinctly:

     Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
     A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth 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.

     HC 43:

     Q. What further benefit do we receive from the sacrifice and death of Christ on the cross?
     A. That by virtue thereof, our old man is crucified, dead and buried with him; that so the corrupt inclinations of the flesh may no more reign in us; but that we may offer ourselves unto him a sacrifice of thanksgiving.

     HC 45:

     Q. What does the “resurrection” of Christ profit us?
     A. First, by his resurrection he has overcome death, that he might make us partakers of that righteousness which he had purchased for us by his death; secondly, we are also by his power raised up to a new life; and lastly, the resurrection of Christ is a sure pledge of our blessed resurrection.

9. Exhortation to pursue a life of holiness:

   The great point, then, is, that we are consecrated and dedicated to God, and, therefore, should not henceforth think, speak, design, or act, without a view to his glory. What he hath made sacred cannot, without signal insult to him, be applied to profane use. But if we are not our own, but the Lord’s, it is plain both what error is to be shunned, and to what end the actions of our lives ought to be directed. We are not our own; therefore, neither is our own reason or will to rule our acts and counsels. We are not our own; therefore, let us not make it our end to seek what may be agreeable to our carnal nature. We are not our own; therefore, as far as possible, let us forget ourselves and the things that are ours. On the other hand, we are God’s; let us, therefore, live and die to him (Rom. 14:8). We are God’s; therefore, let his wisdom and will preside over all our actions. We are God’s; to him, then, as the only legitimate end, let every part of our life be directed. O how great the proficiency of him who, taught that he is not his own, has withdrawn the dominion and government of himself from his own reason that he may give them to God! For as the surest source of destruction to men is to obey themselves, so the only haven of safety is to have no other will, no other wisdom, than to follow the Lord wherever he leads. Let this, then be the first step, to abandon ourselves, and devote the whole energy of our minds to the service of God.

   • Calvin’s thinking is much more profound than it might first seem.

     For him, our whole, whole, whole focus is no longer us but the Lord – we ‘abandon’ ourselves in service.

     Unfortunately too often what is now preached is still a pursuit of a form of ‘holiness’ which focuses on ourselves – a sort of ‘carnal’ holiness, ie moralism

   • I don’t see a problem here. I think Horton isn’t saying anything more that this:

     “Faith is passive in justification, but becomes active in accepting Christ when He is offered to the sinner.” – Heinrich Heppe

     Certainly we are active in the sense of receiving Christ as our justification through faith. We believe, we trust. Yet even that faith is given or awakened to life in us by the operation of the Spirit of God. But regarding the pardon of sin and obedience of righteousness procured by Jesus which is declared by God as our justification – we have no part. We are completely passive. Christ is solely active.

     And, Horton doesn’t actually use the word ‘monergism’ in the examples you cite. You stated that he wanted to speak of justification as “monergistic.” Passive doesn’t necessarily equal monergistic.

10. On this topic of sanctification, Dr. Horton helpfully writes:

    “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.”

    – See more at: http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/03/23/sanctified-by-grace/#sthash.6skQoW5X.dpuf

    • Interesting that he seems to want to speak of justification as “monergistic.” I don’t see how that is helpful. Have other Reformed theologians used that term for anything but regeneration?

    • David, I think you are reading into Horton’s words what isn’t there. I don’t read Horton as affirming ‘monergism’ as a term to be used when speaking of justification. Regarding justification and sanctification he wrote that, “it is sometimes said…” and “I understand the point: namely, to distinguish these gifts…”

    • Jack,

      No, I think I am reading what IS there. Twice in the article he speaks of us being “passive” in justification (as we are in regeneration):

      “In the new birth and justification we are passive. Repentance and faith are given as a free gift. However, in conversion—the act of repentance and faith—we are active, having been raised from death to life by the Spirit through the gospel. ”

      And:

      “Second, we dare not see ourselves as passive in sanctification, as we are in the new birth and justification.”

    • I clicked on the wrong reply button. So this is a copy of the comment I left above:

      I don’t see a problem here. I think Horton isn’t saying anything more that this:

      “Faith is passive in justification, but becomes active in accepting Christ when He is offered to the sinner.” – Heinrich Heppe

      Certainly we are active in the sense of receiving Christ as our justification through faith. We believe, we trust. Yet even that faith is given or awakened to life in us by the operation of the Spirit of God. But regarding the pardon of sin and obedience of righteousness procured by Jesus which is declared by God as our justification – we have no part. We are completely passive. Christ is solely active.

      And, Horton doesn’t actually use the word ‘monergism’ in the examples you cite. You stated that he wanted to speak of justification as “monergistic.” Passive doesn’t necessarily equal monergistic.

Comments are closed.