Forget the Channel » Sanctification

Pet food, pornography, and the law

Lionel — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 05:00:24 +0000

One lazy afternoon in 1999, travel writer Bill Bryson discovered a shop that sold pet supplies and pornography.¹ It was at the far end of the main street of an unassuming Australian country town called Young.

The front of the shop contained rather mundane supplies of flea powder, fish flakes, and other pet accessories. But at the back of the shop, behind a small wooden gate, there was a whole section devoted to the sale of explicit pornographic material. Bryson was apparently baffled by the existence of such a bizarre establishment. But I think I can explain what it was doing there.

If memory serves me correctly, there was a period during which various local planning laws existed to get rid of the ‘adult’ industry in Australian towns. The lawmakers didn’t ban small stocks of pornography in shops that existed for other purposes (e.g. newsagents²). But they did try to make sure that all such stocks were strictly controlled. No shop was allowed to have pornography comprising more than a certain small percentage of its total stock. Therefore, no dedicated ‘adult’ stores could exist. The laws were designed to create a safe and wholesome town environment by ensuring that the sale of explicit material couldn’t become a business in its own right (remember, at this point the internet was still taking off).³

But what actually happened? Did the laws work as intended? Not quite. Instead, bizarre shops started to spring up, shops like the one Bryson encountered. The shops still had pornography as their real core business, but to get around the planning laws, the stores put up not-very-subtle ‘fronts’. A shop that advertised pet supplies out the front could ‘legitimately’ claim that it was not really an adult store, since its main purpose was something else. And since there were more individual packets of cheap flea powder and fish flakes on the shelves than there were magazines out the back, the stocks of pornography technically came under the legal limit. But everybody knew what the shops were really for. The laws, despite their good intentions, had failed.

This is a clear illustration of a problem that crops up whenever we try to use laws to make things better. These planning laws were good. They were worthy manifestations of our community’s desire to uphold marriage as the proper context for healthy sexual expression, and to limit the harm and exploitation that arises when this context is ignored. I’m glad the lawmakers did what they did. But the legislation couldn’t, by itself, get to the heart of the problem. The laws couldn’t make men love their families more. They couldn’t convince people that being a real ‘adult’ is about care and responsibility, not self-gratification. The letter of the law did nothing to make people love the spirit of the law. It just brought about grudging compliance and tragically comic workarounds that exploited loopholes. A good law doesn’t make people good.

This isn’t just a problem for Australian planning laws. In fact, the problem also crops up when we try to put God’s law at the centre of our lives. In Romans 2:17-24, the apostle Paul has a debate about this very issue. Paul and his debating partner were Jews. This means they were law-people, and glad of it. The God of the entire world had especially revealed himself to Israel through the law of Moses. Jews had a fantastic privilege: they knew God’s will in the law. They knew what was good and right and proper, because the Creator himself had told them all about it. Jews were also equipped to teach other people all about this great revelation of God’s will. But Paul insists that God’s law-revelation has a fundamental problem. It’s not that the law is bad; actually, the law is great. But the problem is that the law won’t change the heart. God’s good law doesn’t make God’s people good. In fact, as Paul goes on to show in Romans 3, the law does something else entirely. In the end, the law makes our sin and hypocrisy crystal clear. It silences every mouth, and holds us accountable to God (Rom 3:19-20). The law doesn’t save us. Instead, it shows up our failure, and points to something greater: the forgiveness and transformation that we find in Jesus Christ, through the word of the gospel and the Spirit of God.

A heart that relies on the law to find salvation before God is a bit like that store at the end of the main street in Young. It might look respectable and well-ordered. It might seem quite attractive to a casual passer-by. It might have a plentiful stock of law-compliant good deeds on the shelves. And yet there are those sealed sections, the bits at the back. At one level, these sealed sections might seem small or insignificant compared to the much more obvious good deeds that can be pointed to as examples of that heart’s own inherent goodness. But in fact, it is these back sections that truly show up the heart’s real orientation. And if we admit it, there’s a bit of that hypocrisy in all of us, isn’t there?

Simply knowing God’s character and will, even his character and will as expressed in the pages of the Bible itself, will not solve our biggest problem. If we want actual forgiveness, salvation, and transformation, we need something far more radical and powerful than God’s law. We need God himself to forgive us. We need the cross of Christ. And we need God to change our hearts, imperfectly now, and soon our whole heart, soul, and strength perfectly on that last day.

¹ Bill Bryson, Down Under, Black Swan, London, 2001, pp. 109-110.

² Newsstands to American readers.

³ I’m relying on my memory of news reports. I’ve tried hard, but haven’t been able to track down the laws that were in effect twelve years ago.

Comments at The Briefing.

In praise of holiness

Lionel — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 06:00:07 +0000

From The Briefing:

I’ve just read an article that I agree with, but can’t relate to. The article, by Carl Trueman, is about the problems with hagiographies (a hagiography is a ‘saint-biography’: an account of somebody’s life that treats them as a hero of holiness and leaves out the naughty bits).¹ He argues that hagiographies are bad for multiple reasons: they’re not good history, they promote an unhelpful black-and-white view of the world, and they make readers feel depressed and inadequate when they don’t measure up. I think he’s right. But I just don’t feel his pain.

I’m not blaming Carl. It’s just that he and I come from opposite sides of the world. Carl is writing in an American context, where the common impulse is to praise heroes and aspire to greatness. So he needs to warn people about the dangers of hero worship (like Paul does in 1 Cor 3:4-9). But I’m an Aussie: my gut instinct is to sledge heroes and cut down tall poppies.² So I need to learn more about how to affirm and praise examples of holy living and ministry (like Paul in Col 4:7-13). Hagiography is an American problem, not mine.

Okay, by now you might be protesting that I’m making wild stereotypical and racial generalizations. I’ll come clean, and admit that indeed I am. Americans and Australians aren’t that different, are we? We share a lot of culture. We even speak similar languages. Ultimately, both of us need to hear each of these messages. Whatever country we’re born in, we need to learn to affirm and praise great examples of holy lives, and we need to avoid the danger of hero worship. But how can we do both of these things at the same time?

I learned the answer from a wise and godly man—my former ministry trainer and the founder of this publication. He taught me this: when we see people persevering, growing, working, preaching, loving, praying and dealing with sin day by day, we should rejoice. But when we rejoice, we should remember that we’re not rejoicing in the holiness of people. We’re rejoicing in the holiness of the Holy Spirit, who makes all God’s children holy. That is, when we talk about the great deeds of ‘saints’, we’re not praising the saints. We’re praising the sanctifier: the Holy Spirit, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.

No matter what our cultural tendencies are, the task is the same for all of us. If you’re inclined to cut down tall poppies, praise the God who made them grow tall. If you’re inclined to worship heroes, then praise God and not the person. In both cases, we’re doing what we were created for: praising and worshipping God, who alone is perfectly holy.

¹ You can read Carl’s article at http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2011/06/writing-on-athanasius-a-genera.php.

² Translation: insulting heroes and criticizing successful people who distinguish themselves

Comments at The Briefing.

Doctrines Under Threat 2: Union with Christ

Lionel — Sat, 07 May 2011 03:00:14 +0000

Outline

(Reading from Romans 6)

Intro: Faith and Works

Union with Christ in Philippians 3
- Righteousness by law is rubbish (2-7)
- Knowing Christ (8a)
- Gaining Christ (8b)
- Being in Christ (9a)
- Righteousness through faith in Christ (9b)
- Living in Christ (10-11)
What is Union with Christ?
- Fundamental
- To be loved by God as Sons
  
  For strictly speaking, the love with which God loves us is none other than that with which he loved his Son from the beginning, so as to make us acceptable and lovable to him in Christ. . .
  
  we are (so far as we are concerned and apart from Christ), hated by God and he only begins to love us when we are united to the body of his beloved Son
  
  It is an inestimable privilege of faith that we know that Christ was loved by the Father for our sake, that we may be made partakers of the same love and that for ever. . .
  
  For as the Father cannot look upon his Son without at the same time having before his eyes his whole body, so, if we wish to be beheld in him, we must truly be his members
  
  Calvin, Commentary on John 17:26
- To be righteous
- To be a new creation
- To have a sure hope of our bodies being raised
- To be saved from judgment
What Union with Christ isn’t
- A mystical experience
- A credit union
- Imitation
How does Union with Christ happen?
- The Holy Spirit
- The Word of the Gospel
- Faith
  
  We embrace Christ, crucified for us and raised from the dead… I maintain that it is only after we obtain Christ himself that we come to share in the benefits of Christ. And I further maintain that he is obtained, not just when we believe that he was sacrificed for us, but when he dwells in us, when he is one with us, when we are members of his flesh, when, in short, we become united in one life and substance (if I may say so) with him. For Christ does not offer us only the benefit of his death and resurrection, but the self-same body in which he suffered and rose again.
  
  Calvin, True Partaking
What does Union with Christ involve?
- Repentance
- Prayer
- Hope
- Joy
Faith, works and union with Christ

We do not, therefore, contemplate [Christ] 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.

Calvin, Institutes 3.11.7
Are you in Christ?

Keeping the Solas Together

Lionel — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 06:47:49 +0000

From the Sola Panel

One of the aims of the Sola Panel is to go back to basics, to remind ourselves of the importance of the ‘solas’ (i.e. scripture alone, faith alone, Christ alone, grace alone, glory to God alone). This post will look at one way in which these solas all fit together.

I’m currently reading through Timothy Ward’s very helpful book Words of Life: Scripture as the Living and Active Word of God (Inter-Varsity Press, Nottingham, 2009). It’s a good and highly accessible exposition of the Reformed doctrine of Scripture, which avoids many of the petty caricatures that are sometimes thrown about, and deals well with a number of modern objections. I highly recommend it as a book to put near the top of your reading list this year.

Early on in the book, Ward seeks to ground our doctrine of Scripture in the even more fundamental doctrine of the ‘word of God’ (or the ‘speech of God’). Ward points out that God’s speech is, and always has been, exceedingly powerful. This is seen especially when it comes to God’s justification of the ungodly. In this very significant case, God’s speech doesn’t just inform us about God’s salvation; it actually brings salvation to us:

God establishes, by his own declaration, a fundamental change in our standing before him, before he brings about, by the sending of the Holy Spirit, a real change to our sinful state… he spoke, making us by that declaration to be justified in our relationship with him… Thus a fundamental aspect of God’s redemptive work occurs when he chooses to speak, and in so doing unilaterally brings us to share here and now in the right standing with him that Jesus Christ has. (pp. 27-28)

This is a pretty good exposition of some of the important connections between God’s word/speech and our salvation. But it’s important to remember that God’s ‘speech-act’ of justification is only one part of the story of salvation.¹

We must always remember that when the Bible talks about God justifying us, it never talks about this justification as a mere declaration that occurs all by itself. It’s not the case that God simply says to us out of the blue, “I deem you to be justified”, and that act of speech alone brings about our salvation. Of course, God’s speech is mightily powerful. But when it comes to our salvation, God’s justifying speech-act is connected to other highly significant powerful actions of God.

The first aspect of God’s saving work that we must always remember when we think about justification is the atonement. God’s justification of sinners is based squarely on the death of Jesus Christ for our sins—that one supreme act of love and grace whereby Jesus paid for our sins and satisfied the wrath of God. Paul, who of all the biblical authors spells out the idea of justification most fully, never talks about justification in a vacuum. Paul brings the concepts of justification and atonement together. He tells us that we “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24). The purpose of Jesus’ atoning work (Rom 3:25) is to enable God to be ‘just’ and to be the “justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:26). Without the atonement, God could not remain true to his own just standards as creator and judge, and therefore could not justify us. You see the same thing in Galatians—Paul’s strong defence in Galatians is that God’s justification of sinners doesn’t stand alone, but it is based on the fact that Jesus “gave himself for our sins” (Gal 1:4). Justification and the atonement go together; justification without atonement would be nothing and would mean nothing.

The second thing that must not be forgotten when it comes to justification is that those who are justified are united to Christ through faith. This isn’t to say that our own faith is itself some wonderful meritorious action that secures a reward from God. What it means is that when God justifies us he’s not issuing some arbitrary declaration that makes no sense of the reality of our own personal sin. It’s not the case that God one day decides to say to us, “You are righteous”, when patently we are, in fact, miserable sinners. No, God’s declaration of us as ‘righteous’ is based on the fact that he, by his Holy Spirit acting through his word which brings about faith, has actually united us to his righteous Son. This means that our own sins are truly cancelled by Jesus’ death, and that we truly share in the righteousness that by rights only belongs to Christ. For example, Paul speaks about being “found in him [i.e. Christ], not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil 3:9).

In other words, the Reformation ‘solas’ all go together. God, through the supreme authority of Scripture alone, addresses us, speaks the gospel to us, declares that we are justified, and so brings salvation to us sinners. But this can only be true because Christ alone has performed that once-for-all atoning sacrifice for sins. By faith alone, the sacrifice of Christ is applied to our own reality. All of this is an act of God’s grace alone—to the glory of God alone. You can only go so far talking about one or the other of the solas in isolation. They really are a package deal.

¹ I’m not disagreeing with Timothy Ward here, just clarifying a possible misunderstanding. I’m pretty sure that he would agree with what I have to say here, since in the passage I’ve quoted, he cites Romans 5:8 (about Jesus’ death), and goes on to discuss the “effectual calling” whereby God’s word creates saving faith.

Comments on the Sola Panel

Heavy metal for kids on iTunes – Ben Pakula

Lionel — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:43:38 +0000

Our whole family (aged 35, 31, 7, 5 and 2) has loved listening to Ben Pakula’s heavy metal album for kids, A Very Special Tent. The Album is now available on iTunes. Just type “Ben Pakula” into the iTunes Store search box (if you don’t have iTunes, you need to download and install the program first).

If you know any kids in late primary school, let them have a listen: these songs are musically and lyrically awesome. If you just want to download a few tunes rather than the whole album, Knowing Jesus as my Boss, Say ‘No’ to Sin, and Powerful Love are my top picks from a consistently excellent album.

If you want more info on Ben Pakula and his music, I wrote a rave review at the Sola Panel last year.

Justification and Sanctification: Biblical Definitions and Modern Misunderstandings

Lionel — Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:00:29 +0000

Lionel Windsor (2004)

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 צדק, NT δικ-) 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 Newman⁷ 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 קדשׁ (OT), ἁγι-, καθα- and παριστημι (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 (Colossians 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 dialogues⁶³ 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 Ryrie⁷³ 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

¹ See, for example, Mark A. Seifrid, ‘Righteousness, Justice and Justification’, in New Dictionary of Biblical Theology (ed. T. D. Alexander, Brian S. Rosner; IVP Reference Collection; Leicester: IVP, 2000), 740; Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 2; Alan Torrance, ‘Justification’, in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (ed. Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason and Hugh Pyper; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 362.

² Seifrid, ‘Righteousness’, 740.

³ Seifrid, ‘Righteousness’, 741–42.

⁴ Seifrid, ‘Righteousness’, 743–45; Torrance, ‘Justification’, 362.

⁵ See Anselm’s merit/satisfaction atonement model (Gordon S. Dicker, ‘Luther’s Doctrines of Justification and Sanctification I’, Reformed Theological Review 26/1 (1967): 15), modern Lutheranism (Anthony N. S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (London: T & T Clark, 2002), 153).

⁶ Peter Toon, Justification and Sanctification (Foundations for Faith; Westchester: Crossway, 1983), 64.

⁷ Toon, Justification and Sanctification, 113-17.

⁸ Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations Vol. VI: Concerning Vatican Council II (trans. Karl-H. and Boniface Kruger; 23 vols.; Baltimore: Helicon, 1969), 221-23.

⁹ John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 1 (ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford L. Battles; 2 vols.; Library of Christian Classics vol. XX; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955), 753.

¹⁰ K. Bockmuehl, ‘Sanctification’, in New Dictionary of Theology (ed. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright; Leicester: IVP, 1988), 613-14.

¹¹ David Peterson, Possessed by God: A New Testament Theology of Sanctification and Holiness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 133.

¹² Peterson, Possessed by God, 13.

¹³ Peterson, Possessed by God, 13-14.

¹⁴ Philip Melanchthon, ‘Loci Communes Theologici’, in Melanchthon and Bucer (ed. Wilhelm Pauck; trans. Lowell J. Satre; The Library of Christian Classics XIX; London: SCM Press, 1969), 130-31.

¹⁵ Calvin, Institutes, 607, 798.

¹⁶ E.g. Calvin, Institutes, 552-3, 684-86, 775-76.

¹⁷ E.g. Anthony A. Hoekema, Saved by Grace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 192; Oliver Davies, ‘Holiness’, in The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (ed. Adrian Hastings, Alistair Mason and Hugh Pyper; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 302.

¹⁸ Karl Barth, The Doctrine of Reconciliation (ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance; Church Dogmatics Vol. IV, 2; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1958), 500.

¹⁹ Contra Toon, Justification and Sanctification, 42.

²⁰ Torrance, ‘Justification’, 362.

²¹ Robert C. Doyle, Eschatology and the Shape of Christian Belief (Carlisle: Paternoster, 1999), 191.

²² Calvin, Institutes, 538.

²³ Geddes MacGregor, The Nicene Creed: Illumined by Modern Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), ix.

²⁴ Robert W. Jenson, ‘Justification as a Triune Event’, Modern Theology 11/4 (1995): 421.

²⁵ E.g. R. E. O. White, ‘Sanctification’, in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (ed. Walter A. Elwell; Baker Reference Library; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 970.

²⁶ 73 times in Paul, 3 in Peter.

²⁷ Calvin, Institutes, 737.

²⁸ Thomas F. Torrance, The Trinitarian Faith (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), 189.

²⁹ Peterson, Possessed by God, 113-14.

³⁰ Jenson, ‘Justification’, 421-27.

³¹ Jenson, ‘Justification’, 425.

³² Jenson, ‘Justification’, 426.

³³ Jenson, ‘Justification’, 425.

³⁴ Doyle, Eschatology, 165.

³⁵ Peterson, Possessed by God, 114.

³⁶ Hoekama, Saved by Grace, 17-27

³⁷ Hoekama, Saved by Grace, 16

³⁸ Barth, Reconciliation, 504.

³⁹ Barth, Reconciliation, 503.

⁴⁰ Barth, Reconciliation, 507-511.

⁴¹ Calvin, Institutes, 821-25.

⁴² See the Formula of Concord in Kolb and Wengert, Book of Concord, 576; Calvin, Institutes, 813; ‘Personal action implies purpose, and this in turn implies assessment’ (D. Broughton Knox, Selected Works Volume I: The Doctrine of God (ed. Tony Payne; Kingsford: Matthias Media, 2000), 57-58).

⁴³ Torrance, ‘Justification’, 363.

⁴⁴ Augustine, Later Works (ed. John Baillie, J.T.McNeill and H.P. Van Duse; trans. John Burnaby; Library of Christian Classics vol. VIII; London: SCM Press, 1955), 205-6.

⁴⁵ Toon, Justification and Sanctification, 51-54.

⁴⁶ Martin Luther, Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings (ed. Timothy F. Lull; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 156-58.

⁴⁷ Martin Luther, Luther’s Works Vol. 34: Career of the Reformer IV (ed. Lewis W. Spitz; 55 vols.; American ed.; Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1960), 183.

⁴⁸ LW 34, 178.

⁴⁹ Luther 1989, 600-4.

⁵⁰ Luther 1989, 156.

⁵¹ Toon, Justification and Sanctification, 62.

⁵² Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (trans. Charles Arands, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb, et. al.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 39-40.

⁵³ Kolb and Wengert, Book of Concord 39, 41, 57.

⁵⁴ Calvin, Institutes, 738.

⁵⁵ Kolb and Wengert, Book of Concord, 569.

⁵⁶ Kolb and Wengert, Book of Concord, 564.

⁵⁷ Torrance, ‘Justification’, 363.

⁵⁸ Calvin, Institutes, 798.

⁵⁹ F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone (eds.), ‘Holiness Movement’, in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 779.

⁶⁰ Bockmuehl, ‘Sanctification’, 615.

⁶¹ This is the concern of John C. Ryle, Holiness (Welwyn: Evangelical Press, 1979), 16, 113.

⁶² Peterson, Possessed by God, 137.

⁶³ See especially H. George. Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, and Joseph A. Burgess, ‘Justification by Faith (Common Statement)’, in Justification by Faith (ed. H. George Anderson, T. Austin Murphy and Joseph A. Burgess; Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985), 13-74; and the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) cited in full in Lane, Dialogue.

⁶⁴ Council of Trent, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (trans. H. J. Schroeder; Rockford: TAN, 1978), 33.

⁶⁵ Council of Trent, 34.

⁶⁶ Hans Küng, Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection (Reissued ed.; London: Burns & Oates, 1981), 199-211; Rahner, Vatican II, 221-23.

⁶⁷ Contra Lane, Dialogue, 152-55.

⁶⁸ Anderson, Common Statement, 73.

⁶⁹ Lane, Dialogue, 248.

⁷⁰ Lane, Dialogue, 252.

⁷¹ Lane, Dialogue, 253.

⁷² John F. MacArthur, Faith Works: The Gospel According to the Apostles (Dallas: Word, 1993), 25-26.

⁷³ Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation: What it Means to Believe in Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1997).

⁷⁴ Zane C. Hodges, Absolutely Free: a Biblical Reply to Lordship Salvation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989).

⁷⁵ MacArthur, Faith Works, 27-28, summarising Ryrie.

⁷⁶ Hodges, Absolutely Free, 143-45.

⁷⁷ Hodges, Absolutely Free, 167-68.

⁷⁸ Ryrie, So Great Salvation, 141-43; Hodges, Absolutely Free, 107-19; cf MacArthur, Faith Works, 27.

⁷⁹ Tom Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? (Oxford: Lion, 1997), 153-57.

⁸⁰ Coined by Dunn: see Mark D. Thompson, ‘Personal Assurance and the New Perspective on Paul’, Reformed Theological Review 53/2 (1994): 73.

⁸¹ Wright, Saint Paul, 114.

⁸² Wright, Saint Paul, 133.

⁸³ James D. G. Dunn, ‘The Justice of God: A Renewed Perspective on Justification by Faith’, Journal of Theological Studies, NS 43/1 (1992): 4-5.

⁸⁴ Dunn, ‘Justice of God’, 4.

⁸⁵ Thompson, ‘Assurance’, 76.

⁸⁶ Wright, Saint Paul, 132, 151-53; see also Dunn, ‘Justice of God’, 15-18.

⁸⁷ Wright, Saint Paul, 117-18, 160; Dunn, ‘Justice of God’, 15-18 makes the same point.

⁸⁸ Thompson, ‘Assurance’, 85.

⁸⁹ Wright, Saint Paul, 121.

⁹⁰ Wright, Saint Paul, 131, emphasis mine.

⁹¹ Wright, Saint Paul, 131, emphasis mine.

⁹² Wright, Saint Paul, 119.

⁹³ Calvin, Institutes, 737.

⁹⁴ Wright, Saint Paul, 143.

⁹⁵ Wright, Saint Paul, 147.

⁹⁶ Robert S. Smith, ‘Justification and Eschatology: A Dialogue with “The New Perspective on Paul”’, Reformed Theological Review Supplement 1 (2001): 132.

⁹⁷ Wright, Saint Paul, 153-57.

⁹⁸ Wright, Saint Paul, 157.

⁹⁹ Wright, Saint Paul, 157-58.

¹⁰⁰ Smith, ‘New Perspective’, 130-31.

¹⁰¹ Wright, Saint Paul, 158-59.

¹⁰² Smith, ‘New Perspective’, 131.

¹⁰³ Smith, ‘New Perspective’, 131.

¹⁰⁴ Wright, Saint Paul, 161-64