Justification and Sanctification

Biblical Definitions and Modern Misunderstandings

Introduction

The relationship between God and humanity is, of course, of fundamental importance to Biblical revelation. The details of how this relationship is made right, from God’s point of view and from our own (corporately and individually), are also treated at length, both in the Scriptures and in subsequent Christian reflection. Here we will examine one aspect of the workings of this relationship; the relation between the creation of the believer’s right relationship with God (justification) and the effects of that relationship in the believer (sanctification). Once the terms are clarified according to normal systematic theological usage, the location of their unity and the points of their distinction will be defined, with particular weight given to Calvin’s Institutes. Then will follow a brief history of thought on the topic from Augustine to Calvin. We will then be in a position to look at some contemporary misunderstandings of the relation; focusing on the consequences of neglecting either the unity or the distinction.

Definitions

The ‘righteousness / justice’ word group in the Bible (OT root Ts-D-Q, NT dik-) is primarily relational.[1] One is ‘right’ with respect to a person, especially God, rather than a purely abstract principle (e.g. Gen 15:6, Deut 6:25, 1 Pet 3:10-12).[2] Yet this relational rightness is realised in concrete ways: in ‘right order’—because God is creator (e.g. Isa 45:8)—and in forensic situations—because God is ruler and judge (e.g. Deut 6:20-25, Ps 7:6-11, 1 Sam 26:23).[3] Thus when we come to the New Testament, we see that God effects our ‘justification’ both by establishing order (e.g. Eph 4:24) and by judging sin ‘forensically’ (e.g. Rom 8:33-34).[4]

Hence justification encompasses the creation of a rightly ordered relationship with God and the legal declaration that this right relationship does, indeed, exist. To neglect this relational reality by defining justification in an exclusively forensic (or ‘declaratory’) way is ‘legal myth’.[5] This element of ‘unreality’ in some understandings has been rightly criticised, e.g. by Osiander,[6] Newman[7] and Rahner.[8] Yet these critics attempted to locate righteousness in the believer, wrongly (e.g. Rom 4:5). Rather, as Calvin perceived, justification is an ontic reality rooted in Christ’s person and work rather than in the believer.[9] Christ’s substitutionary death really achieved it, and it is appropriated by faith, uniting us with Christ (2 Cor 5:21).

Sanctification is definitionally problematic, because of the divergence in the use of the term between the Bible and systematic theology. When the Bible applies terms such as Q-D-Sh (OT), hagi-, katha- and paristemi (NT) to believers, on view is an act of God (e.g. John 17:19, Eph 5:26, Heb 10:29, 1 Cor 6:11, Acts 20:32, Acts 26:18) to make believers fit for his purposes (e.g. 2 Tim 2:21), with ongoing consequences in their lives (e.g. 1 Thess 5:23, Rev 22:11, John 15:2), often with their co-operation (e.g. Rom 6:19, 22; 2 Cor 7:1).[10] The moral element is present throughout Scripture (e.g. Lev 19:2ff, Matt 15:19-20). Peterson defines sanctification as a covenantally-conceived aspect of the total renewal of the person,[11] with definitive sanctification being fundamental.[12]

Protestant systematics, however, has understood the term differently.[13] Melancthon used it to refer to the total process of the action of the Spirit in our lives, based on our renewal.[14] Calvin developed the word along similar lines,[15] although he didn’t use sanctification as a heading.[16] Now it is commonly used as a heading to cover the work of the Spirit in conforming our lives to right relationship with God.[17] We will use this systematic understanding, conscious of Peterson’s warning that it is different to the biblical term, and that this has caused confusion in many articulations. Perhaps a more appropriate biblical grammar would be terms such as ‘walking’ (e.g. Rom 6:4, 8:4, 13:13, 14:15; 1 Cor 3:3; 2 Cor 4:2, 5:7, 10:2-3; Gal 5:16; Eph 2:10, 4:1, 5:2, 5:8, 5:15; Phil 3:17-18; Col 1:10, 2:6, 4:5, 1 Thess 2:12, 4:1, 4:12, 1 John 1:7, 1 John 2:6); ‘discipleship’, especially in the Gospels;[18] putting off the old self and putting on Christ, or the new self (Rom 13:12, 14; Eph 4:22-25; Col 3:8, 10; Jam 1:21; 1 Pet 2:1);  ‘killing / crucifying sin / flesh / desires / the old man’ (Rom 8:13, Col 3:5ff) and ‘transformation’ (Rom 12:2, 2 Cor 3:18).

United but distinguished in Christ

What, then, is the relation between the creation of a right relationship with God (justification) and living in this relationship (sanctification)? It cannot be the relation between the declaration and the reality, for justification is the reality in Christ.[19] It is better conceived as the relation between the objective and the subjective.[20] Calvin, in locating both justification and sanctification in Christ, was able to perceive their unity and inseparability, as well as their distinction. Before looking at historical and contemporary articulations of the relation between justification and sanctification, we will explore the nature of this unity and distinction.

Justification and sanctification are united as the work of the Triune God. Calvin’s Institutes, which are self-consciously and credally Trinitarian,[21] locate both sanctification and justification in the work of the Spirit, ‘the bond by which Christ effectually unites us to himself.’[22] The Spirit, says the Nicene Creed, is ‘the holy one, the Lord, the lifegiver, the one who proceeds from the Father [and the Son]’.[23] In Colossians, the Spirit is not mentioned except in 1:8, yet ‘in Christ’ language (1:2, 4, 27, 28; 2:2, 5, 6, 8-16, 17, 20; 3:1-4, 11, 15-16, 24) is bound up with calls to living a godly life (especially chapter 3). Thus Jenson’s comment that justification must follow the Cappadocian pattern ‘initiated by the Father, effected by the Son and perfected by the Spirit’ applies equally to sanctification.[24] As we shall see, modern conceptions which separate the work of the Son (as justifier) and Spirit (as sanctifier) are problematic.[25]

Furthermore, justification and sanctification are united in Christ. Paul is sweeping in his inclusion of the whole of our reality en Christo.[26] This includes justification, sanctification (1 Cor 1:30, 1 Cor 6:11) and our Christian walk (Eph 2:10; Col 2:6; Rom 6:3ff). Our faith union with Christ means that in justification, ‘We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him.’[27] Our faith union in Christ is so fundamental for sanctification that Paul’s criterion for the value of our works is not their intrinsic value but their source: whatever is not from faith is sin (Rom 14:17).

Justification and sanctification are united in Christ’s whole divine-human person and work. They are, in fact, en Christo Jesou (1 Cor 1:30, i.e. Christ crucified 1:23). As Athanasius observed, the Spirit is mediated to us through the Christ’s humanity.[28] Because we are united by faith to the incarnate divine person there is an ontic basis of justification, inseparable from sanctification. But because we are united by faith to Christ’s human work of obedient substitutionary death and resurrection there is a forensic element to justification, and sanctification is typified by mortification and vivification.[29] This is the problem with Jenson’s Trinitarian perspective on justification referred to above.[30] For Jenson, justification is a union of the divine Logos (‘the word that he is’) with our soul, so ‘we are righteous as we are one with the Son’.[31] Although the Son’s divine righteousness is ‘itself achieved as a human event’,[32] we are separated from Christ’s work, since we do not benefit directly from it. Rather, the Logos achieves Trinitarian righteousness through death and resurrection, and we benefit by partaking in the Logos. Hence Jenson wants to dispense completely with the forensic element of justification.[33] We shall see that many modern misconceptions spring from a neglect of either the person or work of the Christ in whom is our righteousness and life.

However, justification and sanctification are also distinct. Firstly, they are distinguished eschatologically. Justification, an objective reality totally en Christo, is completed in Christ’s crucifixion, although it is hidden before Christ’s eschatological appearance (Col 3:3). Sanctification, insofar as it is a subjective reality in the believer’s life, will be completed at the eschaton ‘in glory’ (Col 3:4), although it is anticipated before then (Col 3:5ff). Luther expressed this in the eschatological dialectic of ‘simultaneously a sinner and justified’.[34] Calvin expressed it in the fact that the primary pattern of our sanctification before the eschaton is Christ’s death rather than his glory.[35]

Justification and sanctification are also distinct soteriologically. There is an ordered relationship between the two. Just as we received Christ, so we must walk in him (Col 3:6). This ordo salutis is not chronological, since they are inseparable in Christ. Hoekama, following Berkouwer, rightly rejects such a chronological separation of justification and sanctification.[36] Yet in his zeal to reject certain teachings which posit chronological order, he is too quick to dismiss any order at all, and ends up with an amorphous ‘process/way of salvation’.[37] Yet Barth notes that soteriology will suffer if we do not distinguish them in a logically ordered fashion.[38] For Barth, justification (God’s act towards us) is the basis of sanctification (God’s act in us).[39] Teleologically, however, sanctification is prior as the goal of justification.[40]

How does this distinction affect soteriology? The basis of salvation from condemnation into eternal life is justification, not sanctification (Rom 5:9, Rom 8:33-34, Titus 3:7), because it is the forensic act before the judge. This is not to deny that sanctification may be ‘evidentiary’ when it comes to final judgment,[41] nor that there may be an assessment of our works (done in Christ and by faith).[42] Yet after all we have done, we are still unworthy servants (Luke 17:10). God’s creation of a right relationship with himself is not dependent upon our living in that relationship.

Historical development

We have already mentioned some of the key historical figures. Before we proceed to look at contemporary misunderstandings, however, we will briefly trace the historical development.

The contribution of Augustine, being a foundation for all serious Western thought in the doctrine of grace and salvation, is immensely significant, yet also immensely problematic. Positively, he sourced justification entirely in God’s grace rather than in human nature (Rom 3:24).[43] Yet, in using as a controlling category a Roman/Aristotelian-Ciceronian category of justice (reward for merit) rather than Biblical righteousness (right relationship), he failed to distinguish justification and sanctification. So believers are justified:

‘“freely by his grace”: not that the justification is without our will, but the weakness of our will is discovered by the law, so that grace may restore the will and the restored will may fulfil the law’[44]

For Augustine, sanctification is a part of the process of justification. Aquinas followed suit, systematising both of Augustine’s emphases: that God is the initiator of justification (operative grace), and that we are involved in the process (co-operative grace).[45]

Luther’s breakthrough was to locate our justification, not in an infused righteousness, but in Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. Thus he was able to distinguish ‘two kinds of righteousness’: Christ’s alien righteousness which we receive by faith, and the righteousness which is our proper righteousness, but which is the fruit and consequence of Christ’s alien righteousness.[46] It is Christ’s alien righteousness which saves, although ‘[t]rue faith is not idle.’[47] Yet this ‘alien’ righteousness is not something distant from us, for it is truly given to us through faith in Christ. ‘Righteousness is our possession, to be sure, since it was given to us out of mercy. Nevertheless, it is foreign to us, because we have not merited it.’[48] Luther used personal, relational terms rather than forensic to describe imputation: fulfilment of a promise or sharing in a marriage union.[49] For Luther, Christ himself becomes ours.[50]

Melanchthon, Luther’s colleague and successor, systematically distinguished justification from sanctification. Unfortunately, Melancthon and the documents he influenced tended to use exclusively forensic terms for justification.[51] For example, in the Augsburg Confession (1530) which is a foundational Lutheran document, it is Christ’s work which reconciles the Father to us, and so we are justified by faith ‘on Christ’s account’.[52] This is correct, but incomplete. The Spirit is not specified a role in justification, only sanctification.[53] The lack of emphasis on personal union with Christ was problematic for the Lutheran Osiander, who tried to reinstate the ontic basis of justification by bypassing Christ’s humanity and ‘merging’ our nature with Christ’s divine nature, which Calvin calls a ‘gross mingling’.[54] The Formula of Concord (1577) went some way toward reinstating the Spirit’s role in justification,[55] and also the role of both Christ’s divinity and humanity.[56]

It was Calvin, however, who articulated a truly coherent picture of the Spirit as the bond of unity to Christ, and Christ’s human righteousness justifying those united to him in faith:[57]

‘Although we may distinguish [justification and sanctification], Christ contains both of them inseparably in himself. [. . . T]hus [. . .] we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.’[58]

We are now in a position to address the deficiencies and consequences in some contemporary misunderstandings.

Separating Son and Spirit: the Holiness Movement

‘Holiness’ denominations such as the Nazarenes and the Keswick movement exist today but are relatively small.[59] Sadly, prosperity has overtaken holiness as the buzzword in many contemporary churches. For this reason, we will not devote much space to this topic. The ‘holiness’ movement has some origin with Wesley who stressed sanctification to the extent that he hinted at the possibility of perfection in this life. The Keswick movement stresses ‘victorious Christian living’ by complete reliance on the Christ’s strength in the believer.[60]

This is a faulty Christological relation between justification and sanctification; and a consequent separation of the incarnate Son and the Spirit. Christ’s work justifies me; subsequently Christ’s person indwells and sanctifies me by the Spirit. Personal assurance can be lost because Christ’s perfect work is distant from the believer and Christ’s person is seen primarily at work in our imperfect sanctification.[61] Sanctification becomes moralism and perfectionism.[62]

Collapsing the distinction: Lutheran-Catholic Dialogues

Recent Lutheran-Catholic dialogues[63] have fed upon the lack of adequate Christological foundation for justification in Lutheran confessions outlined above. Modern Catholicism is defined by the Council of Trent (16th Century) interpreted by the Second Vatican Council (20th Century). Trent quite starkly reasserted the Augustinian and scholastic position that ‘justification itself [. . .] is not only a remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man’ leading to eternal life.[64] Trent’s concern was Christological: ‘faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body.’[65] Modern Catholic theologians such as Rahner and Küng have had the same issue: there appears to be no ontic basis in the purely ‘declarative’ Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith, and they feel the need to locate this reality in the believer.[66]

The outcome is more than just a redefinition of terms, a simple recognition that what Catholics mean by the term ‘justification’ is exactly what Protestants mean by the two terms ‘justification and sanctification’;[67] faith ‘com[ing] to fruition in our love’.[68] More seriously, the ontic reality of justification is displaced from being purely ‘in Christ’ and placed, like sanctification, partly in the believer. The Joint Declaration make this explicit in paragraphs 23 and 24: neither justification nor sanctification is independent of human cooperation.[69]

Thus there is a simul of assurance for believers. ‘In trust in God’s promise they are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves.’[70] This may be true, but it is entirely misleading when followed by ‘Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings’[71] which assumes an undeniable basis of salvation in our own works. It is, in fact, opposite to Luther’s position, in which we are made more sure of our salvation when we look upon our own weaknesses and shortcomings, and in despair look instead to Christ.

Neglecting the Person of Christ: no-Lordship Salvation

MacArthur speaks of the development of a ‘no-lordship gospel’ in North America.[72] Representative advocates are Ryrie[73] and Hodges.[74] According to Ryrie, faith is ‘assent’ rather than relational commitment, justification is entirely forensic, and Christ’s work is the complete gospel.[75] Hodges is more radical: repentance is not only distinct from faith,[76] but separate. Faith is the basis of justification and salvation; repentance is the basis of the entirely separate concept of relationship or fellowship with God and Christ.[77] Faith can exist without repentance, salvation without a relationship with God![78]

This is, of course, a radical disjunction between Christs’ person and work. It leads quite simply to false assurance; assurance based on a ‘faith’ devoid of repentance, which is not union with Christ. Furthermore, like the holiness movement, because Christology is separated from sanctification then the Christian life is emptied of its power, which is the Christ’s Lordship exercised through the cross (Phil 2:1-11, Col 2:6-15). There is also the intense, individualistic focus which doesn’t impinge upon the outer man or the public world, as Wright observes happens when the focus on Jesus’ lordship is lost.[79]

Neglecting the Work of Christ: the ‘New Perspective’ on Paul

In many ways the ‘New Perspective on Paul’[80] is a direct mirror image of the ‘no-lordship salvation’ view. Wright, for example, separates Christ’s person and work, so that the person displaces the work from the ‘centre’ of Paul’s thought:

‘[Justification] cannot be put right at the centre, since that place is already taken by the person of Jesus himself, and the gospel announcement of his sovereign kingship.’[81]

‘“the gospel” is not an account of how people get saved. It is [. . .] the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ.’[82]

The New Perspective is self-consciously a reaction against Lutheran excesses, particularly the individualistic, existential theology of Bultmann (critiqued by Stendahl).[83] There is an emphasis on Christ’s lordship which creates community. Following Schweitzer to some extent,[84] Sanders has made a disjunction between juristic and participationist understandings of justification, such that participationist is more fundamental.[85]

To use Wright’s own words, his position is, ‘a covenantal reading of Paul’. Forensic, righteousness, and even apocalyptic concepts are all subsumed under the overarching theme of ‘covenant’, which is primarily a corporate rather than an individual notion.[86] The consequence is that justification and sanctification are both aspects of the covenant between God and his people.[87]

But this ‘covenant’ is now interposed between the individual believer and Christ’s cross.[88] There is an ecclesiological and eschatological distance between the believer and his justification. This is because our union with Christ by the Spirit is ecclesiological (or ‘irrevocably covenantal’[89]) and because ‘justification is the covenant declaration, which will be issued on the last day, in which the true people of God will be vindicated [. . .] the verdict, can be issued already in the present, in anticipation.’[90] Ironically, Wright’s theology, which seeks to put Christ’s person at centre stage, ends up working in the purely forensic, declarative categories for justification that Calvin worked so hard to join with the person. Present justification is merely a ‘declaration’, a ‘verdict’.[91] It is simply a ‘definition’ of covenant membership.[92] We are left, in Calvin’s words, to ‘contemplate him outside ourselves from afar’.[93]

Sanctification is also ‘covenantal’. The sanctifying work of the Spirit is primarily seen in a ‘re-integrated humanity’,[94] the ‘existence of a community of love.’[95] Because the ‘real’ justification takes place at the eschaton, it follows sanctification chronologically. So it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, from the point of view of the individual, justification is based on sanctification.[96] This looks very similar to the Roman Catholic position.

‘The gospel’ of ‘Jesus is Lord’ is primarily for the world, not the individual.[97] It is a royal pronouncement comparable with the pronouncement of an ancient emperor.[98] The individual’s response and experience is acknowledged by Wright, but sidelined in the interests of community.[99] But when the question, ‘How can I be saved?’ is sidelined as secondary, it doesn’t disappear. The individual believer will keep asking the question, and the answers he receives will be inadequate because Christ’s work has not been used to properly define his person. This ambiguity is compounded by the promotion of the ecumenical task,[100] since it is agreement about Christ’s person rather than the details his work which bring people to the ‘same table.’[101]

Again, there are consequences for sanctification. ‘[I]n redefining justification and distancing it from the gospel, Wright has actually weakened the ground from which holiness springs.’[102] Holiness comes from the complete freedom in Christ brought about by our justification through his work, and which must be constantly drawn on throughout the Christian life.[103] This is all sadly ironic, given Wright’s concern to proclaim a God who is intimately involved in every aspect of our world.[104]

Conclusion

Justification and sanctification are united as the work of the Triune God and in Christ’s person and work. Thus they are inseparable. Yet they must also be distinguished, as entities with eschatologically distinct completion (now and not yet) and as different moments in the order of salvation (the creation of a right relationship with God following by living in that relationship). The holiness movement separates Son and Spirit, the Lutheran-Catholic dialogues collapse the distinction between justification and sanctification, the no-Lordship Salvation view neglects Christ’s person, and the New Perspective on Paul neglects the application of Christ’s work to the believer. The results are loss of assurance, loss of holiness, and (most seriously) loss of saving union with Christ.

Footnotes