That would seem to be the way J. Gresham Machen thought about the relationship between forensic righteousness and the fruit of faith.
Of course [Jesus] died to produce a moral effect upon man. If He did not die, man would have continued to lead a life of sin; but as it is, those for whom He died cease to lead a life of sin and begin to lead a life of holiness. They do not lead that life of holiness perfectly in this world, but they will most certainly lead it in the world to come, and it was in order that they might lead that life of holiness that Christ died for them. No man for whom Christ died continues to live in sin as he lived before. All who receive the benefits of the Cross of Christ turn from sin unto righteousness. In holding that that is the case, the substitutionary view of the atonement is quite in accord with the moral influence theory and with the governmental theory. . . .
The true moral influence of the Cross of Christ really comes, in other words, only when we see that the moral influence theory regarding it is false; it comes only when we see that on the Cross Christ truly bore the penalty of our sins and buried it forever in the depths of the sea. He loves little to whom little is forgiven. If the sin for which we are forgiven is merely the light, easily forgiven thing that the advocates of the moral influence theory of the atonement think it is, then no great spring of gratitude with well up in our souls toward Him who has caused us to be forgiven; but if it is the profound and deadly thing that the advocates of the substitutionary view of the atonement think it is, then all our lives will be one song of gratitude to Him who loved us and gave Himself for us upon the accursed tree. (“The Bible and the Cross,” in God Transcendent, 183, 185)
Old Life 
One might just as well see definitive sanctification in this passage. In fact, much of the first paragraph is congenial to it and perhaps presupposes it. We need to acknowledge that justification isn’t the only thing involved in Christ’s death/resurrection. The closest thing I read in what you have included that focuses our attention on justification would be Machen’s mention of Christ dying to the penalty of sin. But one could just as quickly mention that Christ died to put an end to the corruption of sin just as he did the guilt. I fail to see how this particular quote follows necessarily from the title and introduction. Of course I’m not reading the entire quotation in context.
I’m not sure if you’re suggesting this in you title [given previous posts], but we should not equate good works with sanctification. While being intimately related, they are not identical. Good works flow out of sanctification, which the WCF defines as the Spirit applying the resurrection to the believer. Moreover good works are part of the sanctification process, but the process and the fruit are distinct. The confession in fact has one chapter on sanctification and a separate chapter on good works. I’m just seeking a little clarification here and realize I’m considering previous posts as I respond.
LikeLike
Which justification causes good works? The one that is by faith or the other one that is by works, which Calvin so clearly taught in his commentaries?
Just kidding…
LikeLike
Camden, where do you see definitive sanctification? What I thought was interesting was the emphasis on the death of Christ — which some say goes with the foresnic as opposed to the resurrection which goes with the renovative. In fact, it is interesting to see how much credit Machen gives to Christ’s death and doesn’t mention the resurrection — as in Paul preaching Christ and him crucified.
Then it’s also interesting to see that the cross cancels the penalty of sin — the forensic, but it has a moral influence. So the insistence that the forensic must not cause the renovative seems foreign to Machen.
LikeLike
First, I’m not suggesting Machen held to a definitive sanctification. I am suggesting that the first paragraph that was quoted is congenial to it. The phrase “those for whom He died cease to lead a life of sin and begin to lead a life of holiness” can certainly be read as allowing for a definitive sanctification, that is, an initial breaking of the power of sin over the life of the believer. This phrase might even presuppose that very thing. How can a life of holiness be pursued if the believer is helplessly held as a slave of sin?
In my opinion Romans 6 clearly teaches that an initial breach of the power of sin occurs as believers are united to Christ in his death [specifically]. Being that it is the power of sin, I consider that a transformative category. I don’t find it helpful to identify the death of Christ with forensic categories and his resurrection with renovative categories since I don’t see that the biblical testimony sustains that distinction.
Though I have not read the surrounding context of this quotation (it’s not available to me at the moment), it seems Machen is dealing with the moral influence theory of the atonement. If that is the case, it would seem natural for him to focus on the death of Christ rather than the resurrection given the fact that Christ’s death is more germane to the discussion. If my suspicion about the context is correct, he’s counteracting a view that says the atonement was simply a moral example for us to follow. He’s not writing a case for the idea that justification causes sanctification.
LikeLike
Camden, first, isn’t it possible that a view of Christ’s work before the development of the idea of def. sanct. talked about breaking the power of sin in the life of the believer? In which case, definitive sanct., a very confusing and contested idea, was not necessary because there was not a problem that needed to be fixed in Reformed soteriology.
Second, I don’t see how the breaking of sin’s power is both forensic and transformative, with the forensic being more basic, because of what Paul writes in 1 Cor. 15 — “the power of sin is the law.” How can that power not be a forensic weight since it is legal? And if death removes the power of sin, and death is the law’s requirement for sin, I don’t see how the forensic is responsible for the transformative.
LikeLike
Just some thoughts on the relation of the atonement to the duplex gratia:
That the atonement was about justification only has an initial plausability. However, as Melancthon first held, and Calvin and the Reformed tradition has furthered, sanctification is comprised of both mortificatio and vivificatio. So that strictly speaking, sanctification is connected to both Christ’s death and his resurrection. One could argue, although I have not seen it anywhere or remember it, that justification is both forgiveness of sin (death to satisfy divine justice) and being declared righteous (or gaining a title to eternal life) which would be analogous to Christ’s being declared to be the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead (Rom 1:4). The upshot is that the death and resurrection of Christ are essential for the whole duplex gratia dei.
LikeLike
I’m assuming you mean that you don’t see how the breaking of sin’s power is not both forensic and transformative. Am I correct? After further study on 1 Cor. 15:56 “power” (δύναμις) does seem to carry forensic weight. Interestingly it seems the verb (κυÏιεύω) in 1 Cor 15 and elsewhere, which the ESV uses as “to have dominion” and other translations render “to lord over” seems to be used similarly. Regardless, just as the duplex gratia dei contains two distinct, yet inseparable benefits (justification and sanctification), sin is comprised of two distinct, yet inseparable aspects (guilt and corruption). “Power” (δύναμις) is probably not the best term to use in conjunction with corruption or the transformative aspect. Even though the triumph over corruption is surely the most prominent element of Paul’s teaching in 1 Cor 15. Thanks for the mention to 1 Cor 15:56.
Would you agree with Jeff’s point on the mortificatio aspect to sanctification? Is the biggest problem with definitive sanctification simply the nomenclature? Frankly, I don’t care if someone calls it definitive sanctification or not, so long as they see a union with Christ in his death and a subsequent breach of sin’s enslaving influence. “Definitive” just emphasizes the irreversible nature of sanctification.
LikeLike
Camden, first don’t you think it’s a tad ironic that historia salutis concerns have led to the micro-managing of ordo salutis matters? Frankly, I’m no fan of trying to pin point when anything happens between God and the person — whether it’s a conversion experience or the “alpha point” of sanctification (isn’t it curious that the experimental Calvinists are not more drawn to BT since it gives all the attention to the soul’s interior state of experimental Calvinism and then some). But to answer your question I can see plausibility to Jeff’s point.
My gut reaction to “def. sanct.” is that its proponents (except Murray ironically) tend to deny the priority of justification to sanctification. So with sanct. starting at the same time as justif., there’s no need to assert priority. Simulteneity is key. I’m having trouble with that because I see the forensic so tied up with the Covenant of Works, the Law, and Christ’s obedience. No offense, but it seems like the renovative or transformative if gravy after the forensic is addressed. It seems even more like gravy when we consider that our good works and our sanctification are incomplete or defiled in this life.
So when you write: “I don’t care if someone calls it definitive sanctification or not, so long as they see a union with Christ in his death and a subsequent breach of sin’s enslaving influence. ‘Definitive’ just emphasizes the irreversible nature of sanctification” I wonder what you mean. If sanctification and good works are imperfect in this life, and if the forensic aspects of Christ’s work are perfect and complete, why the apparent insistence that sanctification be irreversible. Once I sin I’ve reversed sanct., no?
LikeLike
I hear your concern about the lack of priority between justification and sanctification. I can be persuaded of a certain polemical and perhaps a pedagogical priority to sanctification, but I struggle with assigning any causal priority to justification over sanctification. As I understand it, assigning some causal ability for justification to cause sanctification compromises the forensic nature of justification (now that’s where I see the irony). I think it also downplays the Spirit’s agency in the entire soteric process. Now, I’m willing to hear arguments for why this isn’t the case, but that’s where I’ve been throughout this entire discussion.
I don’t agree that BT “gives all the attention to the soul’s interior state of experimental Calvinism and then some.” I find the BT of Vos et al to be much more balanced concerning the entire concern of Scripture, especially the Pauline corpus. The renovative aspect is a crucial element of salvation and is much more than gravy or a bonus that goes along with the “main course” of justification. Whether or not you assign [even a causal] priority to justification, the Reformed tradition has certainly been concerned that God conquer all of sin’s power and effects. The WCF 13.1 even mentions that the holiness that comes from sanctification is quite important: “without which no man shall see the Lord.”
Regarding irreversibility in sanctification – though there may be periods of progress and regress in the Christian life, the outcome of sanctification for the elect is guaranteed and the overall direction of sanctification is irreversible. If we say otherwise, I can’t help but conclude that we start to erode the assurance of salvation. I’m not a fan of proof-texting, but I think these two texts are helpful in demonstrating this point.
Phil 1:6 And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
2 Thess 2:13 But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the first fruits to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.
The overall thrust of the WCF 13 corroborates:
[…] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. […] In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
LikeLike
Camden, I don’t understand how talking about justification as causal compromises its forensic nature. That is like saying that Lutheranism winds up where Rome is on justification. If that were the case, then Trent was unnecessary.
Also, according to your view of sanctification and its direction and progress, how do you counsel the family of a professing Christian who sins at the time of his death? Are you meaning to imply that such sin calls into question the righteousness imputed by faith alone?
And that is the reason for insisting on the priority of the forensic and of justification (which I believe is much more than polemical or pedagogical). It concerns the very teaching of the Reformed (and Lutheran) churches on sanctification — that it is partial and imperfect in this life. Also, Protestants teach that good works are filthy rags. If a believer is to have any hope, it is going to come from the righteousness of Christ, received by faith, known as justification. In that context, I don’t have any problem saying that my good works are gravy compared to Christ’s active and passive obedience. Those who affirm the priority of the forensic are not denying the work of the Spirit. They are talking about a different matter — how are we right with God, where does the righteousness come from, not how is Christ’s redemption applied.
LikeLike
I’m beginning to think you hear Wesleyan perfectionism when I write! God forbid I ever sound like a perfectionist, but I can’t help think that’s how you interpret what I write regarding sanctification. Let me reiterate: I’m not calling into question the ground of our justification by any stretch of the imagination. That always remains the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. Good works never merit anything. My hope rests on the foundation of Christ’s righteousness.
I’m just trying to echo the confession and Scripture in saying that there will be no vestige of sin in heaven and subsequently the new heavens and new earth. That’s why I quoted the standards which do speak of sanctification being imperfect in this life, but that also teach that we are being led to a “true” and “perfecting” holiness (WCF 13) that is brought to completion not in this life, but upon our death [or glorification] and entrance into the eternal state. Certainly you will agree that the standards teach that no remnant of sin will enter into glory (Heb 12:14; WCF 13.1). Sanctification is a glorious work “through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in [us]” (WCF 13.1).
As a result we can counsel the family of the person who sinned at their death by quoting Philippians 1:6 to them. If that person trusted in Christ, they were justified and free from any condemnation on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness alone. Moreover God brought his work to completion and he/she stands before the presence of the Lord in heaven as a justified, adopted, and [now] perfectly sanctified individual.
LikeLike
Camden, I’m glad to hear you’re no Wesleyan. So, if the only basis upon which we can stand before God is Christ’s righteousness imputed to us, then why do you think some people reject the idea of justification being prior to sanctification? I’m not talking about a temporal, logical, pedagogical, or polemical priority. I’m talking about a priority of imputed as opposed to infused righteousness, or a priority of how we stand innocent before God. (Also, I wonder where you get the language of “perfect” sanctification. The Shorter Catechism talks about the souls of believers being made perfect at their death.)
LikeLike
That’s actually quite helpful in how you put that. Other than the fact I have an issue with causal language between the forensic and renovative, I can certainly agree with you on the point of priority regarding the righteousness by which we stand before the Lord.
LikeLike
Thanks, Camden. I do believe that this is the concern that prioritists have been expressing all along in the context of affirmations of simultaneity and denials of priority.
LikeLike
Well Camden … I would give pedagogical priority to union. For without this, as Spike Lee would say, we ain’t got nuttin. And union is the electrical power outlet that brings any sanctification about. Faith in Christ then both gives us participation with Him but also inactivates but our sanctification.
LikeLike
I don’t think simultaneity compromises the ground of justification at all. I think we must affirm Calvin’s simultaneous duplex gratia dei of justification and sanctification. Doing so, however, does not alter the fact that the sole ground of justification is the imputed righteousness of Christ. Of course the progressive aspect of sanctification follows justification. I can play you the sound bite of Gaffin saying that is “a no brainer.” I am not aware of anyone who would say that progressive sanctification is completed simultaneously with justification. Furthermore I am not aware of anyone in this debate who would say that sanctification ever comes into the discussion regarding the ground of justification. My understanding is that the concern of the “non-prioritists” such as myself is to root sanctification directly in union, not in justification in order to maintain the forensic nature of justification and to affirm that all the benefits are found and received directly in union with the person and work of Christ.
LikeLike
Camden: one concern is with definitive sanctification. Some of us don’t see it in our tradition until Murray it is awfully confusing with regard to regeneration and effectual calling. (Hence the complaint about micro-managing the ordo with the historia.)
Another concern is with the relationship between the benefits that come through union. The language of simultaneity has led some to claim that the priority of the forensic is merely ornamental or pedagogical. It is not clear why the forensic does not occupy a primary place in the benefits because of the import of Christ’s imputed righteousness. VanDrunen’s article in the recent WTJ and its lengthy footnote about Dick Gaffin’s arguments is instructive on this point.
And then there is the concern that union becomes more central to salvation than justification. In other words, it seems that union decenters justification because ultimately justification comes from union as well as all the other benefits. As important as union may be, it was not in the creeds and catechisms of the Reformation, where justification was the material principle on which the Reformation proceeded.
LikeLike
One problem is that those who speak of “definitive sanctification” assume that their own definition of this is what we found taught in Romans 6. But a careful reading of Romans 6 shows that being united to Christ’s death sets the elect apart by means of legal identification with Christ. The reason sin shall not reign is not “we will not practice sin (so much) anymore”. The reason sin shall not reign over those sanctified by Christ’s death is that they are now no longer under the law.
Romans 6 is about Christ the public representative of the elect first being under condemnation,being under sin and death. Romans 6:7 “For one who has died has been justified from sin. 8 Now since we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death NO LONGER has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died HE DIED TO SIN once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 1
Christ was never under grace and is still not under grace. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ’s condemnation by the law and His death as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law. Christ’s elect, after their legal identification with Christ’s death, are no longer under law.
The death of the justified elect is the SAME legal death that Christ died. The “definitive resurrection” of the elect in Romans 6 is the result of being set apart with Christ from being under law.
Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect’s sin was legally transferred by God to Christ. Christ’s death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the elect are united with a death like his, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. Romans 6:7: “For one who has died has been justified from sin.”
Yet many commentators tell us that “set free from sin” must mean the elect’s definitive transformation by the Holy Spirit so that the justified cannot habitually sin (or that their new nature cannot sin) They tell us that justification was in chapter five and that chapter six must be about something more if it’s to be a real answer to the question “why not sin?”. But Romans 6 does not talk about Christ or His people not habitually sinning. Romans 6 locates the cause of “sin not reigning” in “not being under the law”
Christ was never under the power of habitual sin , and the definitive death of the justified elect is like His death.
Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because the Holy Spirit has changed you so that you cannot habitually sin, but only occasionally and always with repentance. Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace.”
Christ also died to purchase every blessing, including the giving of the Spirit and our believing the gospel. But it is not believing which frees the elect from the guilt of sin. What’s definitive is being legally joined to Christ’s death. (Also, Romans 6 says “baptized into” not “baptized by the Spirit into….)
LikeLike