Briefly put, then, one key problem with denying a priority of justification to sanctification is that it makes sanctification something other than what it is. The very character and identity of the Christian life are at stake. As Calvin has stated, when discussing the importance of justification, “For unless you first of all grasp what your relationship to God is, and the nature of his judgment concerning you, you have neither a foundation on which to establish your salvation nor one on which to build piety toward God.” There is such a thing as the moral life for the non-justified, non-Christian person. He is constantly confronted by God’s law (whether in nature or in Scripture) and everything he does is in anticipation of a judgment to come. His moral life can be nothing other than a striving by his own efforts to be right with God. For the Christian, the moral life is radically different. In his justification, the Christian has already passed through the judgment of God. He pursues holiness not in order to be right with God, but as a response to God’s gracious declaration that he already is right with him.
Justification is thus decisive for sanctification and Christian ethics. All the work of the Holy Spirit’s sanctification in a person presupposes that he has been justified once and for all and that he exists as one who is right before God. Hence, it is only a justified person, never a condemned person, who is sanctified. People progress in their Christian lives as those who are justified. But the reverse is not the case. People are not justified as those who are sanctified—instead, Scripture is clear that it is the ungodly who are justified (e.g., Rom. 4:5). There is a relationship between the blessings of justification and sanctification. This relationship cannot be reversed. Justification has priority to sanctification in this sense. Again, as the OPC justification report states: “While justification is the necessary prerequisite of the process of sanctification, that process is not the necessary prerequisite of justification. It is true to say that one must be justified in order to be sanctified; but it is untrue to say that one must be sanctified in order to be justified.”
Consider the sorts of evidence drawn from Luke 7:47 and Galatians 5:13 presented in the OPC justification report. In Luke 7:47, Jesus says about the sinful woman: “Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” The very character of her love, that sanctified expression of the Christian life, was shaped by her identity as a forgiven, justified person. Her love was proof that she had been forgiven. If such love was possible apart from the reality of forgiveness, then Jesus’ words do not make sense. In Galatians 5:13, Paul writes: “For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” Paul’s appeal to the Christian’s freedom here is crucial. In the previous chapters of Galatians, Paul has argued that through justification (and adoption) by faith a person is no longer imprisoned under the law, no longer a slave, no longer a child of the slave woman, no longer seeking to be justified by law. Thanks to our justification in Christ there is freedom. It is this freedom, according to Paul, that is the foundation for our love. We love as those who have been freed through our justification. Both Calvin and Luther spoke eloquently on this point. Thus, Paul and Jesus make the same point: the reality of justification is the foundation for the sanctified Christian life.
A couple of other Pauline verses along the same lines are also worth considering briefly. Romans 6:14 appears in the midst of Paul’s discussion of our sanctification, of the reality of our death to sin. He tells us that sin should not reign in our bodies and that we should offer up our members as instruments of righteousness. Then in 6:14 Paul writes: “For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.” For Paul, being “under the law” means being condemned by the law as a covenant of works (see Rom. 3:19; and also Gal. 4:21 and surrounding context). Because of justification a Christian is no longer condemned and hence is not under the law but under grace. In Romans 6:14, then, Paul makes justification, the state of being no longer under the law, the reason and explanation why sin no longer has dominion over us. Sin has no dominion over us because we are not under the law. Romans 7:6 is similar: “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit.” Once again we can see the same themes as in Romans 6 and in Galatians 3-5. We have been released from under the law, liberated from captivity—this is the reality of justification. But the purpose or result of this justification (hÅoste) is the sanctified Christian life: the new life of the Spirit. These verses in Romans may be especially helpful for the present discussion in light of the fact that Paul has much to say about our union with Christ in Romans 6-7. This raises a point worth emphasizing: union with Christ and the priority of justification to sanctification are not competing doctrines, but complementary doctrines. (W. Robert Godfrey and David VanDrunen, “Response to Mark Garcia’s Review of Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry)
Old Life 
Good stuff from Ordained Servant. Its probably a good thing. though, that Greg doesn’t use the same sources for cover art that you do. 😉
LikeLike
Good stuff, indeed. I still think that the main point that needs to be debated here is ‘definitive sanctification’.
But, please, how does viewing J & S as simultaneous, inseparable and distinct benefits that flow from union with Christ (as opposed to S flowing from J) “make sanctification into something other than it is”? Basically, it seems that these authors are arguing that sanctification is that which flows from justification and so to view it any other way is to make it something else. But this is begging the question. Why and how? They go on to discuss the character of justification, on which we all agree, without explaining how sanctification is made something else on a union view. Then they state that these views can be compatible (which makes me wonder why they are arguing so strongly in the book) but never go on to say what they mean by priority.
This whole debate is suffering from a lack of clarity and precision. Let’s debate where we disagree rather than beating the same point over and over again.
That’s my 2 cents.
LikeLike
Granted, Horton wrote the following in 1992, I found (and continue to find) it helpful on the matter:
“Regeneration, or the new birth, is the commencement of this union. God brings this connection and baptism even before there is any sign of life–“while you were dead…he made you alive” (Eph.2:1). The first gift of this union is faith, the sole instrument through which we live and remain on this vine. But this is a rich vine, pregnant with nourishing sap to produce an abundance of fruit. Though we are not attached to nor remain attached to this vine by the fruit (what branch depends on the fruit?), those who are truly members of Christ inevitably produce fruit. Through union with Christ, we receive his righteousness imputed (justification) as well as his righteousness imparted (sanctification).”
Granted, this is not speaking to the question of priority or causation, but it seems to clearly place J & S as flowing from the believer’s union with Christ.
LikeLike
cnh, so why is union not the material principle of the Reformation?
I don’t see how Godfrey and VanDrunen beg any questions about sanctification since they are stating the relationship laid out in the creeds and they were reviewed negatively for their estimate of justification.
LikeLike
The creeds state a relationship between J & S? Which one, the Apostles’, Nicene?
Union is not the material principle of the Reformation because it was not the question they were answering. It doesn’t mean that they don’t hold to that view though. I don’t have a problem with the historical understanding of justification and, as I have stated before, I don’t have a problem with seeing a certain kind of priority of J over S (progressive S, that is). The question is begged, imo, when they state something and then don’t prove it but, instead, assume the truthfulness of what they have stated. S flows from J, they say. Why? Because to see it any other way is to make it into something it isn’t. How? Because S flows from J. This, of course, is simplified, but I don’t see them arguing their point much. Granted, they are reacting to another review. I think that needs to be taken into consideration.
I read the Garcia review and it is a bit harsh, yes, but I think he was reacting to just how much the book was taking aim at the Union view. It seems that this is done often. I am still waiting to understand from someone what exactly is lost on a union view. I have heard the statement that definitive sanctification is unnecessary because it’s all subsumed under justification (a problematic statement in itself) but I would say the same about those arguing for a Reformed understanding of Justification – the Union view has it. Now, I know that the usual answer is to cite FV or NPP as the direction the Union guys go…but this is a Red Herring and, as such, does not help the actual discussion.
It has to go back to the DS question, I think.
LikeLike
Sinclair Ferguson has a good way of explaining things – here is his take on sanctification being grounded, not in justification, but in union:
“Union with Christ in his death and resurrection is the element of union which Paul most extensively expounds…if we are united to Christ, then we are united to him at all points of his activity on our behalf. We share in his death (we were baptized into his death), in his resurrection (we are resurrected with Christ), in his ascension (we have been raised with him), in his heavenly session (we sit with him in heavenly places, so that our life is hidden with Christ in God), and we will share in his promised return (when Christ, who is our life, appears, we also will appear with him in glory) (Rom. 6:14; Col. 2:11-12; 3:1-3).
This, then, is the foundation of sanctification in Reformed theology. It is rooted, not in humanity and their achievement of holiness or sanctification, but in what God has done in Christ, and for us in union with him. Rather than view Christians first and foremost in the microcosmic context of their own progress, the Reformed doctrine first of all sets them in the macrocosm of God’s activity in redemptive history. It is seeing oneself in this context that enables the individual Christian to grow in true holiness.”
LikeLike
cnh, if you are going to hold on to DS, then just. and sanct. can’t be simultaneous for you. For one, DS comes before justification, and for another Progressive sanct. comes after justification. So much for simultaneity.
Where exactly did the WSC book on just. critique union. Union is not in the index. The only reference to Gaffin is positive, from Estelle. And the only real criticisms of WTS come in references to Murray’s ideas about Mosaic covenant. That’s not exactly a critique of union.
Meanwhile, what is wrong with Jones’ description of the love that fulfills the law: ” So where does this love come from? It can come only from the bosom of the God who is love. How is it transplanted in the human heart? It is done by the action of the regenerating Spirit, and it surfaces in the conscience as a sinner places faith in Jesus Christ, the son of God ‘who loved me and gave himself for me’ . . . . The only people who can truly love are therefore those who have been justified. . . . Faith is described as waiting and also as working. Again there is not contradiction, because it waits for one thing and work for another. It waits for the righteousness that is perfection and vindication at the last day, whereas it works in loving service every day.”
He doesn’t say “union” enough, I guess.
One more thing to consider: way back in 1978 a WTS theologian argued that the Reformed tradition (in fact the entire Western tradition) had misunderstood Paul by emphasizing the cross of Christ as opposed to the resurrection. A different emphasis, he argued, would have “far-reaching dogmatic consequences.” It sure seems to me that if you’re going to take on a tradition like that — including the Western church — you might expect to get a little push back rather than pats on the back.
LikeLike
dgh, where would you find DS coming before J? What part of simultaneous, inseparable and distinct allows for temporal reception? In being united to Christ, a believer receives justification and the beginning of sanctification. The beginning of sanctification has two aspects: a definitive (you are holy in the Romans 6 sense) and a progressive. I don’t understand how that leads to DS coming before J or PS coming after…unless you just mean that one is more progressively sanctified after they are justified. That’s a no-brainer and even Gaffin stated that in an article printed recently. Maybe I am misunderstanding something you are saying. I don’t think that the simultaneous ever meant that one is completely sanctified at the same time as being justified.
The WSC book establishes clearly that faculty’s understanding of sanctification flowing from justification. I would cite numerous sources that show such a view is improper but they have already been cited to you before. This is a dogmatic debate now. Seeing justification as the cause of sanctification is not a Reformed position…it’s from another tradition. I don’t know why there is such a desire to state otherwise.
As for the “far reaching dogmatic consequences” of the WTS theologian’s approach – I guess I don’t think of them for the worse. Of course there is “push back” but lets have the discussion, then, rather than what it has become. This is not being done as it ought to be – via study committees and church work…more often it is being fought out over blogs. Now, this might be just part of the process nowadays. I can get used to that. But let’s take the argument where it needs to go. I mean, the theologian you cited above also signed on to the OPC Justification Report.
You are a churchman. So, what should the next step be? I mean, books have been written and there is plenty of information out there. These don’t seem to be reconcilable views. So, what’s next?
LikeLike
cnh, the way I have heard DS described, as in Murray, it sounds a lot like regeneration, which comes before faith, which is the instrument by which we obtain justification. (I thought the eschatological was supposed to get away from ordo.)
What the WSC book says is what the confession says about good works flowing from faith. The short hand is often sanctification following from justification. You yourself have said that good works need to be distinguished from sanctification. So why read WSC as if saying that justification produces sanctification?
Also, why would you assume that the WSC point is anti-WTS?
Please remind me of those authorities that say it is improper to say that sanct. flows from just. If anything, the Standards are silent. But it’s a pretty common inference in the Belgic, Gallican, and Second Helvetic Confessions.
What next? Blog.
LikeLike
To all – True or False: the Confession and Catechisms teach the following:
1. Our effectual calling includes a transformative element.
2. Justification is logically prior to Repentance unto Life.
3. Our perseverance in the faith flows from our justification.
4. Our sanctification is a direct result of being regenerated and thereby having the indwelling Spirit.
LikeLike
As always, dgh, thank you for interacting with me. Perhaps blogging is the only thing to do right now. I guess I have seen one too many demotivator posters on blogging. You know, “Blogging: Never before have so many people with so little to say said so much to so few.” I guess I think that, if the union view denies the gospel (as some argue), then there ought to be public charges made rather than blogspeak against ordained ministers of one’s denomination. I am sure if and when it finally comes to that, the 9th commandment will be spoken of quite a lot.
So, I assume the WSC point is anti-WTS because of the blogs and all the discussions via articles that are taking place. I have kept up with the another blog, which leads me to believe that my thinking is correct on this matter. If you want to say that there is not a WSC v. WTS aspect to this debate then I guess you are welcome to. You pay the bill. I would be interested to hear it because it seems that whenever anyone, in the pages of Ordained Servant, takes up the Gaffin view – WSC profs are ready to fire back…and vice versa, of course.
I go back to the WCF, which separates good works and sanctification and states that all benefits flow from union with Christ. I guess, then, I would cite the WCF (that is the document to which I subscribe) in citing an “authority” that precludes sanctification flowing from justification. It can’t be both, right? Either both flow from union or S flows from J. There might be more variations to discuss but, for our purposes, we can say that either S flows from J or S flows from U. I suppose you could say that S flows from U, which flows from J but that would be blatantly Lutheran. The Reformed understanding sees effectual calling as the moment where we are united to Christ and from that flow all the benefits.
I think you might be on to something in saying that DS sounds a lot like Regeneration. I will have to look into it more but I have found that Reformed theologians often speak of two aspects of sanctification but they do not call them definitive and progressive. Perkins, for examples, calls them mortification and vivification. I said it before – clarification in the discussion on both sides would be tremendously helpful.
I still don’t see these views as reconcilable but I am willing to learn. Perhaps we can find some way to bring them together. Unfortunately, until we actually deal with things in the open – instead of incognito on blogs 😉 – and have solid theological discussions amongst theologians about the points in dispute I don’t know what more can be done. I, for one, enjoy the public conversation such as this one…but I don’t know necessarily how helpful it is.
Maybe WSC should just come out against Murray…maybe that is why they are hesitant to come out strongly against DS. I don’t know.
Thank you again.
LikeLike
cnh, you started by saying the WSC book on justification was anti-WTS. But now you shift to blogs. I suspect that you are exhibiting the tendency I’ve seen repeatedly, which is that if you don’t talk about union the way that Philly does then you are suspect and you are anti-WTS. Sorry, but aside from the justification controversies over Shepherd, ECT, and Kinnaird, WSC was minding its business.
In point of fact, the Standards say that all the benefits flow from effectual calling. WSC 32: What benefits do they that are effectually called partake of in this life? Why is effectual calling the Rodney Dangerfield of these debates? Why is it that unionists keep reading union where everyone else reads justification or effectual calling? Why does union obscure all other considerations? Could it be personal attachment? It sure seems that way.
It’s also curious that you want to say that sanct. and good works are different. And yet when it comes to what is blatantly Lutheran you fail to make the same distinction. Lutherans don’t talk about sanctification as different from good works all the time (neither did the 16th c. Reformed creeds). But Lutherans do assert that good works from from justification — synonymous with faith:
Augsburg Confession: “Furthermore, it is taught on our part that it is necessary to do good works, not that we should trust to merit grace by them, but because it is the will of God. It is only by faith that forgiveness of sins is apprehended, and that, for nothing. And because through faith the Holy Ghost is received, hearts are renewed and endowed with new affections, so as to be able to bring forth good works. For Ambrose says: Faith is the mother of a good will and right doing. For man’s powers without the Holy Ghost are full of ungodly affections, and are too weak to do works which are good in God’s sight. Besides, they are in the power of the devil who impels men to divers sins, to ungodly opinions, to open crimes. This we may see in the philosophers, who, although they endeavored to live an honest life could not succeed, but were defiled with many open crimes. Such is the feebleness of man when he is without faith and without the Holy Ghost, and governs himself only by human strength.
Hence it may be readily seen that this doctrine is not to be charged with prohibiting good works, but rather the more to be commended, because it shows how we are enabled to do good works. For without faith human nature can in no wise do the works of the First or of the Second Commandment. Without faith it does not call upon God, nor expect anything from God, nor bear the cross, but seeks, and trusts in, man’s help. And thus, when there is no faith and trust in God all manner of lusts and human devices rule in the heart. Wherefore Christ said, John 15:5: Without Me ye can do nothing . . . ”
I do think there is something wrong with beating up on Lutherans, especially when we agree with them on justification.
LikeLike
On beating up on Lutherans–a sidelight on justification by faith alone:
“By maintaining that baptism is the ordinarily necessary occasion of justification and by holding to an essentially ex opere operato understanding, Martin Luther unwittingly compromised his cherished doctrine of justification by faith alone. Stressing the objectivity of baptism as God’s saving word and work, as does Trigg, is not enough to vindicate Luther. For when baptism becomes the means of justification, responding to the gospel in faith is no longer sufficient. One must believe and be baptized.” By D. Patrick Ramsey
http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/publications/34-2/sola-fide-compromised-martin-luther-and-the-doctrine-of-baptism/
LikeLike
dgh, I don’t beat up on Lutherans. I just don’t understand why many Reformed people won’t admit that there is a difference between Lutheran and Reformed on this matter. I assume you don’t take the Supper at a Lutheran church…you admit some difference, right? When I was ordained, one of the questions (a standard question) dealt with the differences between Lutheran and Reformed. Why such a strong resistance on the ordo? I mean, where do you, if at all, differ from Lutherans?
I don’t mean to neglect effectual calling. Especially as a union advocate…after all, the catechism says that we are united to Christ in our effectual calling. I apologize if you thought differently. You seem to assume a great deal and that gets put into the blog interactions. This is one of my concerns with this format. Oh well. It’s what we have.
I almost laughed very loudly when you said WSC was “minding its own business.” Really? Do you believe that they don’t ever take aim at WTS in their publications? Really? I think that is a naive view and I am somewhat surprised to hear it from such a good historian…makes me think that you are not applying to this situation the same care you do in deconstructing evangelicalism. You never answered that question regarding the historical basis of union – if it turns out that it is, in fact, a confessional view (over against the ordo) – will you fall back on your attacks. WSC sees sanctification as flowing from justification – this is in the books, articles and blogs. I am not shifting.
I have yet to see (and you have yet to show – except by stating it over and over again) how the union view of seeing all the benefits flowing simultaneous, inseparable and distinct from our union with Christ messes up justification by faith alone. If the benefits are distinct – justification taking care of the righteousness problem and sanctification taking care of the holiness problem (we could talk also about adoption) – then what is the problem?
LikeLike
cnh, so you think Lutheranism is a good thing? Why do you think a union advocated would fault WSC for holding a Lutheran position to the point of not recommending the institution’s book on justification? If Lutheranism is a thing indifferent, then why work so hard to show the difference between Reformed and Lutherans?
Laugh away about WSC but you haven’t cited anything yet from WSC in an official capacity that qualifies as criticism of WTS. (I could actually help you out but I want to see what you have in mind.) You earlier mentioned the WSC book on justification as an example. I countered that the book had no reference to WSC. You continue to say that WSC is officially critical of WTS. Where?
The problem with union advocates is that they thinks Lutheranism is in error on matters important to the gospel. This betrays in my estimate a misunderstanding of what was at stake in the Reformation and also why justification is important.
Union advocates think union is more important than justification. That would be a surprise to a host of Reformed theologians.
Union developed at the same time that the American churches experienced controversies over justification. I have not seen union appealed to as a remedy against the errors of that have occurred.
I put these things together and think to myself that union advocates are not as clear about the distinct position of the Reformation — both Lutheran and Reformed churches — as the times call for. Union may or may not responsible for that lack of a response. But when you consider that union advocates are critical of Lutheran views on justification for being antinomian, methinks something is amiss with the union estimate of justification. Is it defective? Probably not — though its advocates have defended some defective views (Shepherd and Kinnaird). Is it wise? I don’t think so if it means missing the import of the material principle of the Reformation.
LikeLike
Thank you for the exchange.
LikeLike
II Cor 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.
Jonathan Gibson, “The Glorious, Indivisible, Trinitarian Work of Christ”, From Heaven He Came
p 352—”Some conclude that the efficacy of Christ’s work occurs only at the point of faith, and not before. This ignores the fact that union with Christ precedes any reception of Christ’s work by faith. It is union with Christ that leads to the efficacy of Christ’s work to those who belong to Him.”
LikeLike
“Justification in Galatians”, p 172, Moo’s essay in the Carson f (Understanding the Times)—Nor is there any need to set Paul’s “juridicial” and “participationist” categories in opposition to ibe another (see Gaffin, By Faith Not By Sight, p 35-41). The problem of positing a union with Christ that precedes the erasure of our legal condemnation before God ( eg, making justification the product of union with Christ; see Michael Horton, Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ, Westminster John Knox, 2007, p 147) CAN BE ANSWERED IF WE POSIT, WITHIN THE SINGLE WORK OF CHRIST, TWO STAGES OF “JUSTIFICATION”, one involving Christ’s payment of our legal debt–the basis for our regeneration–and second our actual justification=stemming from our union with Christ.”
mark: No way! so they don’t deny election or legal atonement or legal imputation, but in the end they continue to make “actual justification” the result of “union” which is for them a “faith-union”. They still get faith first (and not God’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness) in the “real justification” . Calling Christ’s death (and resurrection?) not only “the legal payment” but the “first justification” doesn’t change the fact that they start by saying there is no order of application and then turn around and make the Holy Spirit’s gift of faith first in the order of application.
LikeLike