The following excerpt from Martin Luther’s 1525 sermon (W.A. 17.1.155f) should be a reminder to would-be perfectionists and neo-nomians about the dangers of misconstruing personal righteousness:
This is the main article which we have to learn. It gives us authority, even if we feel the lust of our flesh or even fall into sin, to say: “Howbeit, it is my will to be rid of the Law, neither am I still under the Law or sin, but I am devout and righteous.” If I cannot say this, I must despair and perish. The Law says: “thou art a sinner.” If I say, “Yes,” I am lost; if I say “No,” I must have a firm ground to stand on, to refute the Law, and uphold my “No.” But how can I say it, when it is true and is confirmed by Holy Scripture that I was born in sin? Where then shall I find the “No”? Of a truth, I shall not find it in my own bosom, but in Christ. From Him I must receive it and fling it down before the Law and say: “Behold, He can say ‘No’ against all Law, and has the right to do, for He is pure and free from sin, and He gives me the ‘No,’ so that though if I look on myself I should have to say ‘Yes’ because I see that I am a sinner and could not stand before the Law, and feel that there is nothing pure in me, and see God’s wrath, yet I can say that Christ’s righteousness is my righteousness, and henceforth I am free from sin.” This is the goal, that we should be able to say, continually, we are pure and godly, for evermore, as Christ Himself can say, and this is wrought through faith.
Luther explains well why some of us find faith in Christ to be much more comforting than the terror that comes from pursuing righteousness as sin-bedeviled saint. (I hope you’re reading Doug and Richard.)
376 Comments
Doug S: Why was I getting push back for saying you can’t be justified and not be sanctified?
Well, because it’s not crystal clear.
(Without outside forces) I can’t drop a ball without it falling; and a ball cannot fall without it being dropped, but those two statements express exactly opposite cause-effect relationships.
Catholics, for example will say that “you can’t be justified and not be sanctified” because they believe that justification is a declaration of the sanctification that has taken place in us.
Is *that* what you want to say? (Rhetorical qn)
Jeff exclaims Catholics, for example will say that “you can’t be justified and not be sanctified” because they believe that justification is a declaration of the sanctification that has taken place in us.
Is *that* what you want to say? (Rhetorical qn)
I mean it like the OPC report:
“This is not priority in the sense that one is somehow more important than the other. Neither is it a temporal priority, strictly speaking, for there is no such thing as a justified person who is not also being sanctified.”
I mean it exactly in that sense! I have said this word for word, and have got nothing but push back!
Jeff,
I absolutely endorse what Todd posted. I was responding to a point/question that John Y. had posed which relates to the ungodly person before he is justified.
Don,
I’m cautiously optimistic that OL has reached “union detente.”
Doug S:
Good. So walk with me a little bit. The OPC report found it good and necessary to distinguish between the simultenaity (in time) of sanctification and justification (hereafter: S and J) while affirming the logical priority of J over S. Here’s the backstory.
Gaffin has, for what I call “supersymmetry” reasons, affirmed a “final justification” in which the believer’s works are vindicated. So has Peter Leithart, for what appear to be exegetical reasons. I sense that you would also use this terminology?
Anyways, Gaffin’s work raises this question: Is the justification of believers, meaning their being accepted as righteous in God’s sight, contingent upon a successful completion of sanctification? Catholics would say Yes.
Gaffin in this report unequivocally says No. The sanctification process is a necessary result of and not a cause of justification. The language of logical order is an essential feature of Protestant theology in order to say
Not This: Our final standing before God will be determined by the works we do.
But That: Our standing before God is the basis for our adoption and the giving of the Spirit, whose work will necessarily result in our works, which will be vindicated at the final judgment.
So we all are hoping that you affirm the latter, and are trying to nudge you to use that language.
Jeff, I will be happy to affirm the later, although I prefer John Murray’s construct: “Sanctification is a process that begins; we might say, in regeneration, finds its basis in justification, and derives its energizing grace from the union in Christ which is effected in effectual calling.”
I was just reading Murray’s “Redemption Accomplished And Applied.” What a good read! One thing I appreciate is Murray’s ability to prove his points in Scripture, using the language of the Bible.
I am troubled that so many men at Old Life, including DGH, down play sanctification. DGH went so far, as to call his works done in faith a bunch of dirty rags! How can DGH be a teacher?! Is that what God calls our works refined like pure gold, yes even fine gold? No. So why the disconnect with Darryl and sanctification? Darryl seems to question if good works are necessary at all!
When I stated that justification is not more important than sanctification the response here at Old Life was incredulous! Yet that exact statement word for word was found in the OPC report.
Why is it, when I attempt to exhort us to press on, *some* Old Lifer’s get their panties in a wad? Especially since sanctification is emphasized so clearly in Scripture. It’s only in our sanctification (which is subjective) that we have assurance. Because if we’re not trusting God in our daily life, then how can we say we trust his promise that we are truly saved?
When I asked DGH point blank, how does he know his faith isn’t dead? He responded, “I seek after the Lord”. Bingo! In other words, if we are not seeking the Lord, then we have no right to believe we were ever born of God.
Finally, John Murray had no problem talking about the deepest aspects of salvation, using language found in the Bible. I would encourage Sean, David R, and Todd and DGH to follow suite, and try to use the language of Scripture to make their points. Latin doesn’t help those of us who don’t speak it.
Press on brothers!
Doug Sowers: I am troubled that so many men at Old Life, including DGH, down play sanctification. DGH went so far, as to call his works done in faith a bunch of dirty rags! How can DGH be a teacher?! Is that what God calls our works refined like pure gold, yes even fine gold? No. So why the disconnect with Darryl and sanctification? Darryl seems to question if good works are necessary at all!
RS: Without attempting to defend or offend, here is the basis for what D.G.H. was saying. Yes, he did make some statements that were interesting, but that one came from Scripture.
Isaiah 64:6 For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment [some translations use rags here]; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.
Doug Sowers: Why is it, when I attempt to exhort us to press on, *some* Old Lifer’s get their panties in a wad?
RS: Doug, I would be interested to know which of the Old Lifer’s wear panties. Maybe that is why they are so opposed to pressing on in sanctification.
Doug, you continue to be hot and bothered over any notion that even our best works are all imperfect and defiled with sin (HC 62). Would it help to know that even mediocre works done in faith glorify God in ways that better works done not in faith don’t? In other words, the believer’s good works, no matter how seemingly weak and ordinary, still glorify God in ways completely disallowed the unbeliever, as in the believing baker’s cake glorifies God in a way that the unbelieving Olympic champion will never achieve.
Jeff, not really, just tired of hitting my head against a wall.
Jeff,
I have observed and participated in the debates that have led to that detente, and by no means wish to open that can of worms again.
The WSC, to my knowledge, does not address how faith can be elicited from an unjustified person since that person has not yet been unitied to Christ. We all agree that faith is purely a gift of grace, but how can an unjustified person accept that gift in his unjustified state. I was pointing out how Aquinas answered that question, primarily because I thought that John Y was asking it.
I can understand why some people would prefer to avoid discussing it, but I don’t see a problem if others want to investigate how our Church fathers, including Augustine and Aquinas, have dealt with it.
I also completeely agree with your response to Doug that justification of believers, meaning their being accepted as righteous in God’s sight, is not contingent upon a successful completion of sanctification. I also understand Doug’s frustration with some who want to downplay the importance of good works because they are not perfect.
Doug, just how clueless about Scripture and the Reformed confessions can you be? Here’s the Scottish Confession on Good Works — notice the conflict within saints:
For the record, my sense of talking about personal sanctification is a function of pride. Does it ever occur to you that you might actually be self-righteous when you talk about sanctification? Also, have you ever considered that when talking about sanctification you may be in denial. Any good believer, who knows the depths of his heart, also knows that his good is a very mixed bag.
DGH, you shouldn’t have pride in your good works, since its God who is at work in and through you. He gets all the glory! Moreover, I don’t recall anyone asking you to toot your horn about your good deeds. But you did down play sanctification, as if it’s not a big deal. Huh? Sanctification is our subjective response to God saving us! Without sanctification, you’re still dead in your sins! Because no is saved who hasnt repented, which is a work of the Spirit in our heart.
If we don’t have a subjective response to the overture of the gospel then we’re still dead in our sins. And sanctification is ALSO an ongoing saving benefit of being born of God. We don’t rest in our works, God forbid! We rest in Christ, and press on knowing God will work in and through us! Why did God save us? For good works!
DGH they day you cried out to God with a broken and contrite heart with true repentance, confessing your sins and trusting in his work on the cross, and declaring him as your Lord and Savior; (conversion) do you think God saw your confession as a filthy rag?
If you do, then we have a different religion.
Doug: Jeff, I will be happy to affirm the later
OK, so you do actually care about logical priority, which is a good thing.
Jeff, while I can’t get too harsh with the OPC report on justification, and there is much to agree with, but I’m not sure about this logical priority argument. I’m in full agreement with Murray when he says
“Sanctification is a process that begins; we might say, in regeneration, finds its basis in justification, and derives its energizing grace from the union in Christ which is effected in effectual calling.”
Jeff, I say a hearty amen to that discription! Jeff, are you justified before you repent, or after?
Don and Todd,
I sent an email to a friend whose theological knowledge and insight I respect a lot. Along with the email I sent Todd’s long post about union with Christ and his explanation of it. The following is how he responded back to me. And Don, I did read that Aquinas post but I think the confusion lies in what grace consists of. I think the grace is the imputation of Christ righteousness which results in faith. So, the grace is not the faith in particular. It is a result of the grace. To answer Doug’s question- I believe repentance follows justification. And I believe imputation precedes justification. Here is how my friend responded to my email:
I hate that phrase, “mystical union”. It reeks of Pentecostalism. Not that I am suggesting that Todd is encouraging Pentecostalism, but he is using a phrase that Scripture never warrants. He is further dividing union with Christ into two categories – the forensic (which he calls decretal), and the mystical (which he calls existential). Scripture never does this. It never divides union like this. Even in John 17, “I am the vine, you are the branches”, Christ is not speaking to a mystical union whereby we are enabled to live a holier life than we would have been otherwise, but rather a forensic one, whereby we are declared just in God’s sight.
Todd is confused about the timing of justification. He, like most Calvinists, believe faith is the cause of justification. Romans 8:10, among other passages, flatly rejects this. “The Spirit is life BECAUSE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.” Imputation precedes faith. It is imputation that he is confusing with justification. Imputation is union. Justification is a verdict. He writes: “So while decretal union precedes saving faith, saving faith must precede mystical union to preserve justification by faith alone.” That is a logical contradiction. It is like saying, while the cart precedes the horse, the horse must come before the cart in order to preserve the horse preceding the cart. We are not justified based on an infusion of Christ’s holiness into us. Rather, we are justified by a forensic union with Christ’s death.
Galatians 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
The crucified part must always come first.
Todd writes: If we are to find comfort in union, and we should, we must first see that our union was applied to us through the instrumentality of faith in the gospel.”
I answer: If we are to find comfort in union, and we should, we must first see that our union was applied to us through the GRACE OF GOD. Not through the instrumentality of faith, but rather through the grace and kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ. Otherwise, faith becomes a work.
Hi Guys, listen to John Murray’s logical priority from “Redemption Accomplished And Applied”, one which seems really good to me.
Murray says the order is thus: (calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, justification, perseverance, and finally glorification.)
I really like this because I see this taught clearly in the Bible. The efficacious call is the first step THEN regeneration, THEN faith and repentance, THEN justification, adoption and sanctification. Although, according to Murray faith and repentance are sisters in that they are a work wrought by the Holy Spirit (a free gift) preceding both justification and sanctification.
How do you guys feel about John Murray? Is he no longer reformed?
John,
Just a quick response to your friend. Most of us are Calvinists on this site, so you should not be surprised that our view of union flows from our view of predestination. And the term “mystical union” is hardly Pentecostal, (though I can see how it would sound that way to some) but long-standing in Reformed systematic theologies. Here is a brief snippet from L. Berkhof that may help where we are coming from:
D. The Significance of the Mystical Union.
1. The mystical union in the sense in which we are now speaking of it is not the judicial ground, on the basis of which we become partakers of the riches that are in Christ. It is sometimes said that the merits of Christ cannot be imputed to us as long as we are not in Christ, since it is only on the basis of our oneness with Him that such an imputation could be reasonable. But this view fails to distinguish between our legal unity with Christ and our spiritual oneness with Him, and is a falsification of the fundamental element in the doctrine of redemption, namely, of the doctrine of justification. Justification is always a declaration of God, not on the basis of an existing condition, but on that of a gracious imputation, a declaration which is not in harmony with the existing condition of the sinner. The judicial ground for all the special grace which we receive lies in the fact that the righteousness of Christ is freely imputed to us.
Todd, do you think justification comes before faith and repentance?
Doug,
If we are justified by faith, faith must logically precede justification. Repentance is a bit trickier, depending how you want to define it, but no man can repent with evangelical repentance without a hope in the gospel that his repentance matters to God and will yield anything. That is what the Marrow Controversy was about.
Todd,
I don’t follow how “our view of union flows from our view of predestination.” I think what my friend was saying was that his view of union flowed from decretal union too. But I am assuming that you are using predestination as a synonym for decretal union. And it is unclear how Berkhof distinguishes between “legal unity” with Christ and “spritual oneness” with Christ. Why do most Calvinists refuse to call “legal unity” union with Christ? When you add the word mystical or spiritual union it seems like you are saying something different and/or higher and more important than mere “legal union”. And that it is this “spritual” union that propels or motivates us to more holy living than legal union does. I don’t know anything that propels or motivates someone to holy living (or putting themselves into situations like the Apostle Paul did knowing that he might get beaten or stoned to death by self-righteous Jews who had a zeal for the Law) more than knowing your grievous sins are covered by your legal union with Christ. And we usually don’t consider self-righteous sins as very grievous. We don’t know how many times Paul commanded the death of Christians he was persecuting. He was basically a murderer many times over (and oblivious to his self-righteousness). It was the knowledge of Christ’s promise of infinite forgiveness that drove him to do what he did and what he became. So, I would conclude that legal union had much more to do with what became of Paul than the mystical or spiritual union that most Calvinists want to emphasize all the time. The good news to anyone who really knows he is a worthless sinner who deserves death is the knowledge and faith that believes in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. It is like being let out of prison for free while on death row. And this continues ad infinitum in the believers life. That is really liberating when really seen. Who would’nt want to do good works for someone who did this for them?
Doug, I have heard some people argue that it was Murray who bred Shepherd, Gaffin, North and other theonomists. They drew on him a lot. I think we are all dogmatists- it is a matter of whose Kool-aide you keep imbibing on.
“Why do most Calvinists refuse to call “legal unity” union with Christ?”
We don’t, we just see that there is more to union than the forensic, so we distinguish different aspects of union.
“And that it is this “spritual” union that propels or motivates us to more holy living than legal union does.”
No, I would never say that. It is our justification that motivates our good works, but we need more than motivation, we need power. God not only forgives us, but fills us with his Spirit and empowers us to live for righteousness.
Thanks Todd, repentance IS more tricky, and since its something we do, (repent) can we call repentance a good work?
Now, of course repentance is our subjective response to the Holy Spirit doing the work of regeneration. However, God doesnt repent, we do! Our faith and obedience is a gift of God lest anyone should boast. . Have I mixed up faith with works? Please tell me it aint so!
John Y, I would also stress that justification is something outside of us. It’s forensic, it’s a legal declaration. A completely distinct work from sanctification although the two can not be separated. Sanctification is our subjective response to being born of God. If we are truly justified and “in Christ”, we must walk by faith, lest our profession be found fraudulent.
What do you think of this logical order? Calling, regeneration, faith and repentance, justification, adoption, sanctification and glorification?
Here is Cranfield, on “the obedience of faith” as well as the interchange between faith/obedience in Romans, and Paul’s thought generally:
“upakoen pisteus (the obedience of faith) has been variously understood as meaning:
1. ‘obedience to the faith’ (i.e.,to faith in the sense of fides quae creditur, the body of doctrine accepted);
2. ‘obedience to faith’ (i.e.,to the authority of faith);
3. ‘obedience to God’s faithfulness attested in the gospel’;
4. ‘the obedience which faith works’
5. ‘the obedience required by faith’
6. ‘believing obedience’;
7. ‘the obedience which consists in faith’
The first three of these interpretations assume that the genitive is objective, the fourth and fifth that it is subjective, the sixth that it is adjectival, the last that it is a genitive of apposition or definition (cf. “the sign which was circumcision” in 4:11). Of these, the one which seems to us to suit best the structure of Paul’s thought in Romans is (7).
Cranfield again: “For example, compare 1:8 (’your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world’) with 16:19 (’your obedience has become known to all’); 10:16a (’but all have not obeyed the gospel’) with 10:16b (’for Isaiah says Who has believed our report?’); 11:23 (’and they also if they do not continue in unbelief) with 11:30 (’their disobedience’) and 11:31 (’these also have now been disobedient’) and 15:18 (’For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient’)
…THE EQUIVALENCE FOR PAUL OF FAITH IN GOD AND OBEDIENCE TO HIM MAY BE ILLUSTRATED AGAIN AND AGAIN FROM THIS EPISTLE”. Cranfield here cites the following substantiation:
“For example, compare 1:8 (’your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world’) with 16:19 (’your obedience has become known to all’); 10:16a (’but all have not obeyed the gospel’) with 10:16b (’for Isaiah says Who has believed our report?’); 11:23 (’and they also if they do not continue in unbelief) with 11:30 (’their disobedience’) and 11:31 (’these also have now been disobedient’) and 15:18 (’For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ has not accomplished through me, in word and deed, to make the Gentiles obedient’).
He concludes: “Paul’s preaching is aimed at obtaining from his hearers true obedience to God, the essence of which is a responding to his message of Good News with faith. It is also true to say that to make the decision of faith is an act of obedience toward God and also that true faith by its very nature includes in itself the sincere desire and will to obey God in all things.” From there, it’s interesting to note that Cranfield further cites two LUTHERAN giants, Adolf Schlatter (neglected due to people’s lust for Bultmannian subjectivism/heresy) and Paul Althaus, with the former arguing that “the gap between faith/obedience only appears when God’s message is replaced by a doctrine offering instruction about God”(pp. 66-67 Vol 1 of ICC Romans Commentary).
Doug, I would say that faith is always accompanied by repentance, but repentance is not the ground of justification.
Try some Turrentin:
The question is not whether faith alone justifies to the exclusion either of the grace of God or the righteousness of Christ or the word AND SACRAMENTS (BY WHICH THE BLESSING OF JUSTIFICATION IS PRESENTED AND SEALED TO US ON THE PART OF GOD), which we maintain ARE NECESSARILY REQUIRED HERE; but only to the exclusion of every other virtue and habit on our part…. For all these as they are mutually subordinated in a different class of cause, CONSIST WITH EACH OTHER IN THE HIGHEST DEGREE.