Wow, just listened to this. Bottom line, MH believes that one’s conversion occurs upon believing in his own justification in the proclamation of “you are justified.” But “you are justified” is not the gospel! We should preach the gospel to the lost yet we should never preach “you are justified” to the lost. Limited atonement forbids it as does the fact the elect aren’t justified prior to conversion. We only see that message preached to the church, but it’s not for conversion but for assurance and sanctification.

I agree Jan. Tipton came across condescending (at least to me).

If Horton’s recent critique of John Frame’s new book shows, it is the innovators who are coming up with something new. The Reformed position has always taught that good works show other men that there is a valid profession of faith. Those without that validating faith are considered either fallen temporarily into a sinful state or else unconverted or even apostate. But works themselves are not necessary to salvation since they are the result of salvation, not the cause of it. The neo-legalists do not seem to get this critical distinction.

Charlie

A Response to John Frame’s The Escondido Theology.

“XIV. Works can be considered in three ways: either with reference to justification or sanctification or glorification. They are related to justification not antecedently, efficiently, and meritoriously, but consequently and declaratively. They are related to sanctification constitutively because they constitute and promote it. They are related to glorification antecedently and ordinatively because they are related to it as the means to the end; yea, as the beginning to the complement because grace is glory begun, as glory is grace consummated.

XV. Although we acknowledge the necessity of good works against the Epicureans, we do not on this account confound the law and the gospel and interfere with gratuitous justification by faith alone. Good works are required not for living according to the law, but because we live by the gospel; not as the causes on account of which life is given to us, but as effects which testify that life has been given to us.”

There is nothing here unique to Reformed theology. Even Luther was famous for saying, “we are saved by faith alone, but not be a faith that is alone.” This is typical Reformed theology standing between the semi-Pelagianism of Rome and the antinomianism of the radicals.

Here’s John Fesko on Francis Turretin: http://wscal.edu/blog/entry/3434

On 17th topic Turretin question 3 Turretin writes:

“IV. Although the proposition concerning the necessity of good works to salvation (which was thrust forward in a former century by the Romanists under the show of a reconciliation in the Intermistic formula, but really that imperceptibly the purity of the doctrine concerning justification might be corrupted) was rejected by various Lutheran theologians as less suitable and dangerous; nay, even by some of our theologians; still we think with others that it can be retained without danger if properly explained.”

Well, let me say this, Turretin by going against Luther and Calvin, and admitting in his own words he’s going against the lutheran confessions and reformed theologians, makes a serious error and sides with the Council of Trent on salvation by works against the Reformation and the Augsburg confession. Some lutherans did the same error as Turretin, and the solid declaration of the formula of concord articles 22 to 29 conddemned their wrong teaching.

Calvin on James 2:18-26: Justification by Faith Manifests Works

11. But they say that we have a still more serious business with James, who in express terms opposes us. For he asks, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works?” and adds “You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only,” ( [James 2:21, 24] ). What then? Will they engage Paul in a quarrel with James? If they hold James to be a servant of Christ, his sentiments must be understood as not dissenting from Christ speaking by the mouth of Paul. By the mouth of Paul the Spirit declares that Abraham obtained justification by faith, not by works; we also teach that all are justified by faith without the works of the law. By James the same Spirit declares that both Abraham’s justification and ours consists of works, and not of faith only. It is certain that the Spirit cannot be at variance with himself. Where, then, will be the agreement? It is enough for our opponents, provided they can tear up that justification by faith which we regard as fixed by the deepest roots:45 to restore peace to the conscience is to them a matter of no great concern. Hence you may see, that though they indeed carp at the doctrine of justification by faith, they meanwhile point out no goal of righteousness at which the conscience may rest. Let them triumph then as they will, so long as the only victory they can boast of is, that they have deprived righteousness of all its certainty. This miserable victory they will indeed obtain when the light of truth is extinguished, and the Lord permits them to darken it with their lies. But wherever the truth of God stands they cannot prevail. I deny, then, that the passage of James which they are constantly holding up before us as if it were the shield of Achilles, gives them the slightest countenance. To make this plain, let us first attend to the scope of the Apostle, and then show wherein their hallucination consists. As at that time (and the evil has existed in the Church ever since) there were many who, while they gave manifest proof of their infidelity, by neglecting and omitting all the works peculiar to believers, ceased not falsely to glory in the name of faith, James here dissipates their vain confidence. His intention therefore is, not to derogate in any degree from the power of true faith, but to show how absurdly these triflers laid claim only to the empty name, and resting satisfied with it, felt secure in unrestrained indulgence in vice. This state of matters being understood, it will be easy to see where the error of our opponents lies. They fall into a double paralogism, the one in the term [faith] , the other in the term [justifying] . The Apostle, in giving the name of [faith] to an empty opinion altogether differing from true faith, makes a concession which derogates in no respect from his case. This he demonstrates at the outset by the words, “What does it profit, my brethren, though a man say he has faith, and have not works?” ( [James 2:14] ). He says not, “If a man [have] faith without works,” but “if he say that he has.” This becomes still clearer when a little after he derides this faith as worse than that of devils, and at last when he calls it “dead.” You may easily ascertain his meaning by the explanation, “Thou believest that there is one God.” Surely if all which is contained in that faith is a belief in the existence of God, there is no wonder that it does not justify. The denial of such a power to it cannot be supposed to derogate in any degree from Christian faith, which is of a very different description. For how does true faith justify unless by uniting us to Christ, so that being made one with him, we may be admitted to a participation in his righteousness? It does not justify because it forms an idea of the divine existence, but because it reclines with confidence on the divine mercy.

See also, section 12:

12. We have not made good our point until we dispose of the other paralogism: since James places a part of justification in works. If you would make James consistent with the other Scriptures and with himself, you must give the word [justify] , as used by him, a different meaning from what it has with Paul. In the sense of Paul we are said to be justified when the remembrance of our unrighteousness is obliterated and we are counted righteous. Had James had the same meaning it would have been absurd for him to quote the words of Moses, “Abraham believed God,” &c. The context runs thus: “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.” If it is absurd to say that the effect was prior to its cause, either Moses falsely declares in that passage that Abraham’s faith was imputed for righteousness or Abraham, by his obedience in offering up Isaac, did not merit righteousness. Before the existence of Ishmael, who was a grown youth at the birth of Isaac, Abraham was justified by his faith. How then can we say that he obtained justification by an obedience which followed long after? Wherefore, either James erroneously inverts the proper order (this it were impious to suppose), or he meant not to say that he was justified, as if he deserved to be deemed just. What then? It appears certain that he is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by true faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as justified who are destitute of good works. Due attention to the scope will thus disentangle every doubt; for the error of our opponents lies chiefly in this, that they think James is defining the mode of justification, whereas his only object is to destroy the depraved security of those who vainly pretended faith as an excuse for their contempt of good works. Therefore, let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than the two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III: 17:11-12

[51 451 French, “Il suffit à nos adversaires s’ils peuvent deraciner la justice de foy, laquelle nous voulons estre plantee au profond du cœur.”—It is enough for our opponents if they can root up justification by faith, which we desire to be planted at the bottom of the heart.]

—

Reasonable Christian Blog Glory be to the Father, and to the Son : and to the Holy Ghost; Answer. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be : world without end. Amen. 1662 Book of Common Prayer
Posted by Charlie J. Ray at 3:44 PM
2 comments:
Charlie J. Ray said…
Calvin’s Commentary on James 2:20,

20. But wilt thou know. We must understand the state of the question, for the dispute here is not respecting the cause of justification, but only what avails a profession of faith without works, and what opinion we are to form of it. Absurdly then do they act who strive to prove by this passage that man is justified by works, because James meant no such thing, for the proofs which he subjoins refer to this declaration, that no faith, or only a dead faith, is without works. No one will ever understand what is said, nor judge wisely of words, except he who keeps in view the design of the writer.

3:47 PM
Charlie J. Ray said…
As you can see, John Calvin does not teach that justification is by faith plus obedience or “Lordship” salvation. He says that true faith manifests works as a valid public profession of faith. That is a huge difference my friend. (Romans 4:4-8)

Calvin on James 2:18-26

As you can see, Calvin does not deny that good works are necessary nor does the 39 Articles of Religion say that good works are not necessary. But those good works are not necessary to salvation or justification. They are necessary to a credible profession of faith, which a huge difference. No one can claim before other men that they are saved if they have an empty faith with no evidences of conversion. Before God our ONLY standing for salvation is THE OBJECTIVE WORK OF CHRIST.

This is what this dispute is about. I stand by my view that Westminster East is neo-legalistic and out of step with the Protestant Reformation as a whole. Justification by faith alone is the sine qua non of biblical Christianity and “union with Christ” is by means of faith alone.

Charlie

22] But here we must be well on our guard lest works are drawn and mingled into the article of justification and salvation. Therefore the propositions are justly rejected, that to believers good works are necessary for salvation, so that it is impossible to be saved without good works. For they are directly contrary to the doctrine de particulis exclusivis in articulo iustificationis et salvationis (concerning the exclusive particles in the article of justification and salvation), that is, they conflict with the words by which St. Paul has entirely excluded our works and merits from the article of justification and salvation, and ascribed everything to the grace of God and the merit of Christ alone, as explained in the preceding article. 23] Again, they [these propositions concerning the necessity of good works for salvation] take from afflicted, troubled consciences the comfort of the Gospel, give occasion for doubt, are in many ways dangerous, strengthen presumption in one’s own righteousness and confidence in one’s own works; besides, they are accepted by the Papists, and in their interest adduced against the pure doctrine of the alone-saving faith. 24] Moreover, they are contrary to the form of sound words, as it is written that blessedness is only of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Rom. 4:6. Likewise, in the Sixth Article of the Augsburg Confession it is written that we are saved without works, by faith alone. Thus Dr. Luther, too, has rejected and condemned these propositions:

25] 1. In the false prophets among the Galatians [who led the Galatians into error].

26] 2. In the Papists, in very many places.

27] 3. In the Anabaptists, when they present this interpretation: We should not indeed rest faith upon the merit of works, but we must nevertheless have them as things necessary to salvation.

28] 4. Also in some others among his own followers, who wished to interpret this proposition thus: Although we require works as necessary to salvation, yet we do not teach to place trust in works. On Gen. 22.

29] Accordingly, and for the reasons now enumerated, it is justly to remain settled in our churches, namely, that the aforesaid modes of speech should not be taught, defended, or excused, but be thrown out of our churches and repudiated as false and incorrect, and as expressions which were renewed in consequence of the Interim, originated from it, and were [again] drawn into discussion in times of persecution, when there was especial need of a clear, correct confession against all sorts of corruptions and adulterations of the article of justification.

Third Question: The Necessity of Good Works
Are good works necessary to salvation? We affirm.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, Seventeenth topic, 3rd question.

It’s a good section to read for a nuanced answer that much of this discussion is missing.

Now how can Tipton say that salvation (justification) is equally important with sanctification, it’s beyond me. How can good works (sanctification) that add nothing to salvation be as important as salvation itself (which is of grace alone instead of works)? This is a theological mistake of biblical proportions to say the least. It is what it is but until this doctrine is abandoned by Westminster Seminary East, they will be churning out more Norman Shepherd’s and federal visions. Norman Shepherd may have been fired but the doctrine that produced his theology is alive and well.

Justification is not a mere declaration from God that has the same value as our good works. Justification is salvation and it comes from faith. Calling justification a benefit that has the same value as our good works (sanctification) is downgrading God’s saving work in justification and giving our own works (sanctification) the same value.

Galatians 2
21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Can scripture be more clear? In Romans 11 it says salvation is by grace and not works, otherwise grace would no longer be grace. Ephesians 2, we are saved by grace through faith. Scripture is talking about salvation (not only justification) in these passages, salvation excludes works. So if sanctification involves good works as Tipton says, well guess what, sanctification is not part of biblical salvation.

Although I was glad to hear Dr. Tipton affirm that the basis for union with Christ is justification by faith alone, it seems to me that any overemphasis on sanctifification while pragmatically ignoring the doctrine of an objective and imputed righteousness still begs the question. The Westminster Confession clearly says that even the elect can temporarily fall from their assurance because God can remove sanctifying grace (progressive) in order to humble them. Take heed when ye think ye stand lest ye fall. Both Scripture and history bear this out.

The unconverted already understand the law. What they do not get is the Gospel and grace. It is God’s mercy alone that anyone at all is saved. If that’s Lutheran, so be it. And let’s not forget that Luther said that nothing happens by contingency. If God foreknows what will happen–including the fall–then it is God’s will. Salvation viewed from the perspective of God’s sovereignty can only render us speechless and without any room for boasting. We all deserve hell. That’s why God can and does save people at the beginning of their lives and at the very last in their death beds. Works are not necessary for salvation. They are pleasing to God only because of faith, not because they are meritorious whatsoever.

Matthew 20:8-16

Sincerely in Christ,

Charlie

I agree, Bill. In fact, Article 12 of the 39 Articles of Religion makes it clear that sanctification follows after imputed justification by faith alone and is not and never will be “equal” with justification even through “union with Christ.” The Reformed Anglican view is that living faith has a valid profession of faith, which it calls a “living faith”. This is way different from equating the two. Furthermore, Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ is by the instrument of faith, which itself is the only basis for justification OR sanctification.

Article XII
Of Good Works
Albeit that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God’s judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

Any protest against the idea that justification is foundational is really to capitulate to a confusion of sanctification with justification. If you doubt this, read Articles 9-18 in the 39 Articles.

Sanctification is always and forever imperfect. Justification is perfect and imputed.

Charlie

Romans 7:14 to 7:16
14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am of the flesh, (sold under sin. 15 For I do not understand my own actions. For do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good.

Romans 7:25
“25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.”

A believer can commit homicide like David did, and be forgiven, while an unbeliever may never commit homicide yet be condemned by God. Blessed is the man whom God does not impute his sin. A believer may sleep with a prostitute like Sampson did, while an unbeliever may be a loyal husband that never had sex outside marriage in his whole life. While Sampson is mentioned as a saint in Hebrews, the unbelieving loyal husband will eternally perish. This is why the new testament calls the Corinthians saints, though fornication abounded. They were saints because they were set apart for God, not because of their good works. Civil righteousness has is not sanctification, unbelievers can and do perform good works that help society better than christians in many instances.

Thanks for getting back to me. I do basically agree with what you wrote in your last comments above. Your initial words that I questioned seemed to put progressive sanctification in the “gospel proper” with the closing sentence, I consider all of it the good news of the gospel. I agree it is indeed “good news” that the Spirit is working in us unto conformity with Christ as God predestined, but not that it is part of the good news.

The way I understand it is that the subjective (yet real) part of God’s work in the believer is distinct from the free promise which was kept and accomplished entirely by Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension, even though that subjective working is indeed connected as a sure and holy effect. That accomplishing of God’s promise in Christ is the glad tidings – the gospel – and it is that to which faith looks, is strengthened and finds salvation (Rom. 1:16). I think the term “gospel” can sometimes be used in too loose a fashion. By including everything of God’s working in it, the term loses meaning and focus, thereby confusing faith as to where it should to look.

From Calvin’s Inst. 3:2.29 –
Free promise we make the foundation of faith, because in it faith properly consists. For though it holds that God is always true, whether in ordering or forbidding, promising or threatening; though it obediently receive his commands, observe his prohibitions, and give heed to his threatening; yet it properly begins with promise, continues with it, and ends with it. It seeks life in God, life which is not found in commands or the denunciations of punishment, but in the promise of mercy. And this promise must be gratuitous; for a conditional promise, which throws us back upon our works, promises life only in so far as we find it existing in ourselves. Therefore, if we would not have faith to waver and tremble, we must support it with the promise of salvation, which is offered by the Lord spontaneously and freely, from a regard to our misery rather than our worth. Hence the Apostle bears this testimony to the Gospel, that it is the word of faith, (Rom. 10: 8.) This he concedes not either to the precepts or the promises of the Law, since there is nothing which can establish our faith, but that free embassy by which God reconciles the world to himself.

Thanks again…

How about an episode on speech act theory?

I couldn’t follow what Horton said because of the audio.

It would be great to have Horton & Tipton write point-counterpoint type articles in tandem about this to really clarify this.

Jack,

There are different ways “gospel” is being used here. Narrowly speaking, I would define the gospel in terms of what Paul said he delivered as of first importance in 1 Cor 15:3-7. The gospel is Christ’s life, death, resurrection, ascension, and session for sinners. In short, the gospel is the person and work of Christ (historia salutis). Yet people often speak of the gospel in a broader sense, that is, in the sense of the “good news” of what Christ has done, is doing, and will do for us. In that sense, the Spirit’s work in applying Christ’s death and resurrection to the believer is certainly part of the gospel (cf. WLC 75). The future bodily resurrection and glorification of believers is also part of the gospel. I consider it all part of the Spirit’s unified work in making us into the image of Christ—righteous and holy co-heirs (forensic, renovative, and filial aspects).

Your question is very important, and I’m glad you raised it. Maintaining this broader view of the gospel in no way imports Spirit-wrought good works as meritorious. But, in the broader sense of simply “good news,” I would still consider believer’s good works as part of God’s overall plan for our conformity to the image of Christ (Eph 2:10) even while I affirm they are all filthy rags (Isa 64:6). The good works aren’t the gospel proper, but the fact that the Spirit is moving the believer to do good works is a function of historia salutis being applied (ordo salutis).

Do you agree? I want to be as clear and precise as possible.

Mark G.

No, I actually don’t agree with definitive sanctification being a part of regeneration. I’m sorry. I meant to address that in my comment but forgot by the time I sent it.

I think that would be equally confusing, even though Calvin spoke of regeneration as including the whole salvation applied, I think the later Reformed distinctions are much more helpful in what we think of the as the typical later Reformed ordo.

My point of agreement with Jack Miller’s comment, is that “definitive” is already taken up and included BEFORE we discuss ordo issues. That was the full extent of my agreement. I prefer the Confessional ordo (calling, justification, adoption, sanctification) over these other unnecessary distinctions.

BTW, to be fair in the debate on CTC, I don’t think Horton’s language of proclamation of Gospel as “justification” is helpful either. I understand what he is saying and in general agreement with the thrust of his argument but I think it is because we are not sticking close to confessional language in making theological points that so much confusion is going about.

I do not think it is all about confusing language or misunderstanding of what is being said. After all, these are both professors at highly prestigious seminaries. They out to be able to communicate clearly and understand one another clearly. We saw this sort of sloppy analysis in the Norman Shepherd debates. Every time a point was made and disagreed upon both sides came to the table and claimed “oh, well he wasn’t clear” or “you just misunderstood what he was saying.” I think a lot of that approach is laziness, cowardly, and deceptive.

I do believe we have two different approaches to the ordo coming out of Westminster West and East. We shouldn’t sugar coat it but investigate, study, and do the hard work to see who is coming up with the best theological understanding of the Scriptures and our Reformed tradition. It’s possible that both are wrong, but it is also clear that both can’t be right. It’s up to the ecclesiastical community to make that decision and for both of them to keep presenting their exegetical, theological, historical, and confessional arguments to help us in that ecclesiastical community to understand and decide which best expresses our Reformed Confession.

Thanks Robert. I agree with your concerns.

(although what is defined as ‘definitive sanctification’, I think, is already included in regeneration)

This is very helpful. This is what I was describing in my previous response of a confusion between BT (Biblical Theology) and ST (Systematic Theology) as two distinct, yet interrelated methods of doing theology.

What Murray is doing in making a distinction between “definitive” and “progressive” is using a BT insight to help explain a ST point — our sanctification (which is progressive as the WORK of God’s free grace, not ours) is grounded in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (already completed sanctification) in order to help explain that sanctification is monergistic not synergistic.

But to then leave that discussion of “sanctification” and try to reinsert that mini-discussion (species) into the larger “ordo” (genus) gets confusing because the theologian then has to decide where to place “definitive” and where to place “progressive”. The confusion comes when “definitive” is then placed with justification in the ordo and “progressive then follows on its heels.

You can see what happens when your BT method gets jumbled with your ST method and the two methods are not kept separate from one another. Of course, they can each give us help at getting at the one Scripture and theology, but they approach them differently.

Here is the crux of the issue: in ST approach to “definitive” sanctification we are dealing with Christology – the work that Christ accomplishes as prophet, priest, and king. This is the category of what Murray would speak of as “Redemption Accomplished.” Traditionally, in regards to what Gaffin-Tipton mean by “definitive sanctification,” Reformed theologians have rooted in the pactum salutis, not the unio mystica. Christ is fulfilling the obedience to the Father through his active and passive obedience.

But once we move to a discussion of the “ordo salutis” we are no longer in the category of Christology regarding the work of Christ – we are discussing Pneumatology or the application of the work of Christ by the Holy Spirit to the believer. “Definitive Sanctification” is not part of the “ordo” because it would be an illogical step to discuss – calling, regeneration, conversion, justification (which are applications of Christ’s work) TO THEN go back to Christ’s work in “definitive sanctification” AND THEN return to application to speak of “progressive sanctification. This is neither logical, nor chronological and because BT and ST are being confused it SOUNDS as if something regarding the restorative/transformative work of the Holy Spirit is being equated with the legal/forensic grounding of those gracious benefits.

What is usually understood by “definitive” is what Christ does for us in His work and that work of Christ which fulfills the Covenant of Redemption is imputed to us as the grounding of all the benefits of Christ. As Calvin stresses, that work of Christ is no use to us as long as Christ is outside of us – but nevertheless that work is already completed. It is then Christ in us where we move the entire discussion to the “order of salvation” in the Holy Spirit’s application to the elect of the Father. At that point in our theological enterprise (ST) the “definitive” is no longer under direct study — that is already complete in our Christology. What then becomes the focus is what has now been called “progressive” which is grounded in our justification and can never be coterminous with justification. Thus the logical priority of the forensic ground of our sanctification.

Camden,

You ended your comments with, “To be quite honest, I’m happy and relieved that His Spirit is working within me to put sin to death. Though I’m acquitted through my justification and accepted as a son through my adoption, I’d still like the Lord to continue to work in my life. I consider all of it the good news of the gospel.”

Up to that point I find myself in agreement (although what is defined as ‘definitive sanctification’, I think, is already included in regeneration). But in these words above you seem to be saying that ‘my loving my neighbor’ (as the Spirit works in me) is part of the gospel. Are you including our good works, i.e. progressive sanctification, as part of the gospel?

Thanks…

In Hebrews were Christ’s perfect sacrifice is explained to the jewish people and the old testament sacrifices are referenced, the reference is made to the atonment of sin, satisfying the penalty of sin. The atonement refers to the guilt and just penalty for sin, it does not refer to personal renewal. In the old testament is the same, the purpose of the sacrifices was not to renew the sinner, but to put the sinner in a right standing with God (justify the sinner), to appease God’s wrath. Christ died to atone for sin, not for directly renewing us internally. Renewal or sanctification follows, but is always mediated by justification. The removal of the penalty of sin produces renewal (loosens the power of sin).

I want to offer a few clarifying points and questions relative to your comments. I think you misunderstand the basic features of the doctrine of definitive sanctification as taught by John Murray, Richard Gaffin, and Lane Tipton. For a short description, you can read Murray’s article in his Collected Writings or listen to Lane Tipton at http://reformedforum.wpengine.com/rfs13/. I don’t expect you to agree with what they say, but we should at least be able to represent the view accurately.

In short, definitive sanctification is the breach in sin’s power. Murray’s exegesis of Romans 6:1-7 is helpful at this point. If you reject this notion of the crucifixion of the old man, I’m curious how you interpret this passage. Some argue that justification mortifies the old man. Yet this understanding compromises the very forensic nature of justification. For justification would no longer be a forensic declaration that changes one’s state, but a transformative work that alters one’s condition.

Although I greatly appreciate your concern to maintain the integrity of justification by faith alone, you are protecting against a faulty understanding of definitive sanctification. To argue that the Spirit breaks sin’s power in the believer’s life does not compromise the ground of justification in any way. The ground of justification always remains the imputed righteousness of Christ which is received by faith alone. Faith, works, infused righteousness, etc. never affect the believer’s status before God nor contribute or merit anything in any way.

It also appears that you conflate faith with justification. Granted, faith is the instrument of justification, but it is important to distinguish the two. You write:

Faith removes the penalty of sin, it does not remove the inner corruption in man.

Faith does neither. Faith is the instrument by which the believer is justified. But it’s also the instrument by which the Spirit sanctifies (cf. Acts 26:18). How else would you be sanctified? Sanctification (definitive or progressive) cannot be identified exhaustively with good works. Sanctification is first and foremost the work of the Spirit to apply Christ’s death and resurrection to the one that has faith in Jesus Christ.

…the gospel is about imputed righteousness and not infused righteousness (sanctification). It’s not about both.

If the gospel is only about justification, then you have no “good news” for your indwelling sin. In that case, Christ has done nothing for you in terms of conforming you into his image or bringing you to consummation. But praise God that the gospel is about all the blessings we receive in Christ Jesus (Eph 1:3). It also includes the reality of our Spiritual resurrection already and the hope of the bodily resurrection to come.

To be quite honest, I’m happy and relieved that His Spirit is working within me to put sin to death. Though I’m acquitted through my justification and accepted as a son through my adoption, I’d still like the Lord to continue to work in my life. I consider all of it the good news of the gospel.

David and Mark G.,

I think my point has been misunderstood. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify by thoughts. I am not saying that a division between “definitive” and “progressive” is entirely wrongheaded with the category “God’s WORK of free grace”. I think Murray’s treatment can help clarify how sanctification should be understood, grounding the progressive element in the definitive sanctification of Christ.

However, what I find confusing and unhelpful (perhaps dangerous?) is to then separate the “definitive” and “progressive” from one another and then join one aspect of sanctification to justification as the duplex gratia and then having separated the one work of God to join the “definitive” to justification, “God’s ACT of free grace”.

It is this construction I find helpful, which I am not aware of appearing in Reformed theology until Gaffin, i.e., the innovation I am concerned about.

I think one of the problems here is the confusion of the work of Biblical Theology and Systematic Theology. There is a reason why “union with Christ” has no distinct confessional article in our Reformed confessions. Union with Christ helps us to explain the “historia” acts of salvation in “redemption accomplished and applied” but it is too general a term to make the fine distinctions in Systematic Theology as are done in our confessions by making a distinction between the “act” of God and the “work” of God. These are distinctions important in Systematics where we also make distinctions between “chronological” and “logical” order and priorities. So, in confusing these two ways of doing our theology, surely having a vital connection between them, but yet two different ways of doing theology is why I think there is so much confusion in this difference. Also, by confusing the methods of BT and ST, we end up making statements in our theological abstractions can lead to deadly thinking and therefore practice in our Christian life, as when someone who isn’t as careful as Gaffin or Tipton might teach something like sanctification as being the ground of our justification (PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying either Gaffin or Tipton teach this . . . my point is that confusing these categories can result from those who don’t understand the careful clarification and make such statements.)

Even Murray was very clear that the legal/forensic is the context and ground of sanctification and that ground is justification. He then went on to divide sanctification into “definitive” and “progressive” but separately and distinct from his discussion of justification. He was careful to do this so as not to confuse the distinct categories of “justification” and “sanctification” which is how you do ST. Then our ST limits will protect us from BT saying something contrary to our theological reflections of our Reformed Confessions.

I hope that helps clarify my thinking in regards to previous posts.

John Bunyan:
One day as I was passing into the field…this sentence fell upon my
soul. Thy righteousness is in heaven. And me thought, withal, I saw
with the eyes of my soul Jesus Christ at God’s right hand; there, I
say, was my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was
doing, God could not say of me, he wants [=lacks] my righteousness,
for that was just [in front of] him. I also saw, moreover, that it
was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better,
nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse, for my
righteousness was Jesus Christ himself, “The same yesterday, today
and, and forever.” …

Now did my chains fall off my legs indeed. I was loosed from my
afflictions and irons; my temptations also fled away; so that from
that time those dreadful scriptures of God [e.g. Hebrews 12:16 –17]
left off to trouble me; now went I also home rejoicing for the grace
and love of God.

This is the believing sinner’s great hope—to see his righteousness
firmly, securely resting at the right hand of God the Father in the
person and finished work of Jesus Christ His Son. To have such a
faith-directed vision is to be set free.

“Justification and sanctification are thought of as parallel products of faith. This is not, however, the New Testament representation. According to its teaching, sanctification is not related to faith directly and immediately, so that in believing in Jesus we receive both justification and sanctification as parallel products of our faith; or either the one or the other, according as our faith is directed to the one or the other.

Sanctification is related directly not to faith but to justification;
and as faith is the instrumental cause of justification, so is
justification the instrumental cause of sanctification. That which binds justification and sanctification together is not that they
are both effects of faith – so that he who believes must have both –
because faith is the condition of both alike.

Nor is it even that both are obtained in Christ, so that he who has Christ, who is made to us both righteousness and sanctification, must have both because Christ is the common source of both. It is true that he who has faith has and must have both; and it is true that he who has Christ has and must have both. But they do not come out of faith or from Christ in the same way.

Justification comes through faith; sanctification through
justification, and only mediately, through justification, through
faith. So that the order is invariable, faith, justification,
sanctification; not arbitrarily, but in the nature of the case.”

B.B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, p 362

First of all Christ\s purpose was to pay the penalty for sin so that the sinner would be acquitted on judgment day. Against thee only have I sinned says David in the psalms, sin is first and foremost an offense against almighty God.that needs to be atoned for, and for this purpose Christ came into the world. Our sin is imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, the gospel is about imputed righteousness and not infused righteousness (sanctification). It’s not about both.

When we start teaching that faith both justifies (imputes righteousness) and sanctifies (infuses righteousness in the believer) we are going down a slippery slope. We are taking away from Christ’s righteousness that comes by faith and adding our own righteousness as well, Once this has been admitted we will start asking the question, do I have enough infused righteousness? Am I sanctified enough? Is my faith genuine or I don’t have enough good works? And this is clearly unbiblical. I should only look to Christ’s righteousness as the object of faith, not at my own righteousness. So faith is the direct cause of justification, but it does not directly cause definitive sanctification.

Now justification is the direct cause of sanctification. Once the sinner is unconditionally forgiven, this justification produces or is the antecedent cause of sanctification.

Warfield was absolutely correct in ruling out sanctification as coming directly from faith.:

Wesleyan holiness groups, pietism, roman catholics, and pentecostals have made sanctification by grace alone through faith alone the core of their doctrine. Joel Osteen’s church is full people that believe faith gives them power, for them faith means overcoming the corruption of the flesh as well as the penalty for sin. The right doctrine is that faith doesn’t look inside us (our own righteousness or corruption), it looks at Christ’s perfect righteousness, and it has Christ as its only object. Justification comes through faith. Sanctification comes through justification. Only when we grasp the seriousness of our offense, only when we grasp the depth of our sin, only when the sinner is aware that he is in danger of capital punishment and is heading to hell, it is at this point that grace can be grasped and Christ apprehended in the forgiveness of sins. Freed from the penalty of sin (justified) sanctification in the christian follows, the christian is sanctified by being freed from the law’s penalty, by being brought to a sate of grace.

Faith removes the penalty of sin, it does not remove the inner corruption in man. Sanctification is the consequence of being free from the penalty of sin. Although the law is holy and perfect, far from being able to remove sin, it causes it to increase as Paul teaches in several passages. Christ by fulfilling the requirements of the Law, removes the penalty of sin. It is this removal of the penalty of sin apprehended by faith that produces sanctification. Grace can be defined as not being under the condemnation of the law, a man is either under the law or in a state of grace.

Romans 7:8 – 7:11
8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Romans 8:3 – 8:4
3 For God has done what the law, )weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Just a thought on your preaching concern which I do appreciate. I don’t think it is difficult to understand that, to put it in kind of Paulinesque terms, you have been sanctified therefore BE sanctified. You have a great high priest in heaven who continually offers priestly service to God on your behalf. By virtue of your union with Christ, being Spiritually seated with him, put on clean garments and offer pure sacrifices to God in the heavenly holy of holies. It is inconceivable that we could approach God in the heavenly holy place in filthy rags. The service that we now render by faith we will then render by sight when Christ returns.

Definitive sanctification deals with passages treating sanctification as already completed; e.g., I Cor 1:2, I Cor 6:11, II Tim 2:21. It’s dealing with the eschatology of sanctification, it’s already – not yet perspective for which there is scriptural warrant. I don’t think it can be easily dismissed.

Thanks for your response and your take on the distinction within sanctification. The reason I asked my question, and the thing I am still trying to figure out, is whether or not your Billings quote (which I agree accurately echoes the Reformed tradition) is compatible with the Gaffin/Tipton paradigm for connecting the ordo salutis to the historia salutis. As I understand Gaffin, he is saying that in the historia, Christ’s resurrection is His justification, adoption and sanctification and that similarly, the believer’s union with Him in the ordo–his made alive with Christ–is his participation in each of those benefits simultaneously and without priority. If Gaffin is correct, then I suppose this would be the exegetical reason for making justification coincide with definitive sanctification. Given what you say above, I am wondering: Would you (and/or Billings) accept Gaffin’s basic paradigm, or would you want to reject it, or modify it?

David,

I take it that Billings is describing what is termed “progressive sanctification” however, I think to separate sanctification in terms of “definitive” and “progressive” is less than helpful and is not they way the Reformed confessions speak of sanctification at all. To make a distinction “within” the discussion of sanctification is one thing, to so far separate one from the other and then make one coincide with justification while the other follows it is confusing at best, dangerous at worst. Why do it? Is there an exegetical reason to state the relationship of justification and sanctification this way? Or rather, is there a new hidden theological agenda driving this construction? I am *always* leery of innovation in theological language. It’s not that I think it can never changed, but there must be a good reason for the change and that I haven’t seen.

Rather, I think it introduces unnecessary confusion into the relationship between justification as the legal ground and sanctification as the fruit of that new condition. If one then wants to speak of “definitive” and “progressive” why not do so after the legal has already been established as the logical order of salvation? You could even say that justification is the ground of “definitive” and “definitive” is the new relational ground of “progressive” but even here I think this language would be introducing both an unnecessary and confusing division.

When I hear these multiple qualifications and divisions, not only do I react negatively to the non-confessional, innovative theological impulse, but I cringe thinking that the ordinary, living-breathing sheep of God have to discern where their hope and ground of assurance lies. I’m only a pastor and dare to speak in the upper chambers of academia, but it is already difficult enough to preach Christ and Him crucified to God’s people Sunday after Sunday and convince them that their hope and assurance is not in them but in the glorious, finished work of Jesus Christ without adding another unnecessary theological qualification that can lead them to ever, even for a brief second, take their eyes of the author and perfecter of their faith, Jesus Christ.

Justification + Definitive Sanctification -> Progressive Sanctification = unhelpful, unnecessary, confusing theology, IMHO.

When Billings speaks of “a transformative process by the Spirit” and you speak of “the restorative work of God’s child,” I think you are speaking of progressive sanctification and not definitive, correct? Is there any disagreement between Billings, Tipton, et. al. on the indispensability of justification for progressive sanctification? (I don’t think so, but I’m still trying to gain clarity myself.)

Camden, are you saying that Dr. Horton teaches that “justification causes one’s union with Christ,” as Bob L. proposes?
Horton on justification and sanctification: “Both gifts are given in union with Christ. At no point is either something that we attain by cooperating with God. He gives it all, in Christ, through faith alone.”

Horton affirming : “everyone from Calvin, Vermigli, Knox, Bullinger, Zanchi, and Owen all the way to Berkhof held that while we receive all spiritual blessings in union with Christ, the forensic (Christ’s mediatorial work and forensic justification) is the source or basis of personal renewal and sanctification.

So, I think questioning Bob L’s assumption is valid despite whatever concerns you have. Sometimes I get the impression that this is about em-PHA-sis, and it is only the right em-PHA-sis that is truly reformed. If only Horton would say it this way…

Ah… yes, it did cross the line.

I’ve looked online for an e-mail for Dr. Tipton but can’t find one. Are you able to give that out?

“Within the framework suggested by his formula that justification and sanctification are two distinct, yet inseparable, parts of God’s grace in Christ, Calvin sometimes, when he wants to define with greater precision the relation between them, refers to sanctification as both an “effect” (consequentia, effectus) and an “inferior cause” (causa inferior) of justification…Calvin acknowledges an order between justification and sanctification. Justification is the basis or the presupposition for sanctification, and sanctification is the the telos, consequence, or effect of justification…Calvin expresses his understanding of sanctification as the effect or consequence of justification in a variety of ways.. [quoting Calvin] ‘the righteousness of works […]is the effect of the righteousness of faith, and the blessedness which arises from works is the effect of the blessedness which consists in the remission of sins […]. WE SHOULD CONSIDER HERE THE ORDER OF CAUSES AS WELL AS AS THE DISPENSATION OF THE GRACE OF GOD'” (emphasis mine, p. 172-173)

All of this is to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Robert. A triangulated perspective with a third, less interested, party will help further the discussion and keep it from turning into a “east vs. west” debate.

“Although adoption should not be the only rubric under which justification is considered, consider how the language of adoption can help to illuminate the role of justification. For any adoption to be valid, in the ancient world as well as our own, the adoptive parents must have legal rights to the child. The child cannot just start acting like the child of the new parents. That new relationship is secure only when it has a legal basis. When “forensic” pardon is received in Christ, sinners are acquitted of their guilt and are legally adopted as children. The legal dimension is indispensable — and it is what provides the context for sanctification as a transformative process by the Spirit” (p. 27).

The last sentence is especially a solid restatement of the Reformed position par excellence. While both justification and sanctification are ours through union with Christ as the duplex gratia the restorative work of God’s child doesn’t make sense until the child is legally his through adoption. I’ve found J. Todd Billings’ work very helpful in seeing more clearly through the Horton-Tipton discussion, the book mentioned above and his previous work: “Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ. I would highly recommend both books for those who are interested in delving deeper and wider into this discussion by seeing the ramifications of a clear, Reformed ordo worked out in the Christian life.

Also, I think we need to start a glossary section on the site. This episode in particular was loaded with jargon, which at times seemed to get in the way of the each side understanding the other.

justification as “instrumental cause”? sanctification “through justification”? i’m not really seeing how Tipton would agree with any of that, nor the Owen quotes above. ad fontes, again and again.

This is all very interesting – and thank you Tony for your question regarding what implications these two views would have in ministering to those believers who are struggling with assurance. I had a related set of questions that kept ringing around in my head while listening to this talk:

What implications regarding each view may change the way we share the gospel with non-believers? IOW…. Does the wording (and emphasis) of the gospel message change at all depending on which view one holds to? Or, am I completely missing the point……

possible example?

“In Christ, your sins have been forgiven, therefore, believe” vs. “If you believe in Christ, your sins will be forgiven.”

Thanks!!

“Justification and sanctification are thought of as parallel products of faith. This is not, however, the New Testament representation. According to its teaching, sanctification is not related to faith directly and immediately, so that in believing in Jesus we receive both justification and sanctification as parallel products of our faith; or either the one or the other, according as our faith is directed to the one or the other.

Sanctification is related directly not to faith but to justification;
and as faith is the instrumental cause of justification, so is
justification the instrumental cause of sanctification. That which binds justification and sanctification together is not that they
are both effects of faith – so that he who believes must have both –
because faith is the condition of both alike.

Nor is it even that both are obtained in Christ, so that he who has Christ, who is made to us both righteousness and sanctification, must have both because Christ is the common source of both. It is true that he who has faith has and must have both; and it is true that he who has Christ has and must have both. But they do not come out of faith or from Christ in the same way.

Justification comes through faith; sanctification through
justification, and only mediately, through justification, through
faith. So that the order is invariable, faith, justification,
sanctification; not arbitrarily, but in the nature of the case.”

B.B. Warfield, “The German Higher Life Movement,” in Perfectionism, vol. 1, p 362