Beholding Glory: The Dynamics of Sanctification

Over the past few days, we have been examining some fundamental biblical truths about the doctrine of sanctification. On Tuesday, we considered three of those truths. First, we saw that sanctification is a fundamentally internal and supernatural work. Second, as a result of that, we considered how sanctification is a sovereign work of the Spirit of God. But then we quickly observed how the Spirit’s sovereign work doesn’t cancel our work, because the Spirit employs means in sanctifying the believer. And yesterday, we looked into five of those means which we are to avail ourselves of in order to grow in Christlikeness.

 

Today I want to focus on how it is that those means actually work. In other words, I want to look at the actual dynamics of sanctification. Why is it that the Word of God, and prayer, and fellowship with the saints, etc., sanctify us?    Continue at Mike Riccardi

Shooing Away the Legalism Boogeyman: What Graceless Legalism Isn’t

Robust discussion has resurfaced these past few weeks regarding the law-gospel issue and the relationship of sanctification with justification, being fueled, in part, by Tullian Tchividjian’s removal from TGC’s blogdom. In light of that, the Cripplegate is reposting an article from last year on identifying common legalism misconceptions.

The “L” word. It’s one of the ugliest of all words: legalism. Defined as the idea that we can earn right standing with God, it does violence to the glorious gospel of Christ. It says, “No, sorry, it’s not enough,” to the substitutionary atoning work of Christ. It confuses the way to forgiveness, it tarnishes the gospel of grace, it lays up heavy burdens that no one can carry, it crushes hope, and fuels despair. It declares that man possesses finesse to propitiate the just wrath of God due our sin. For that, legalism is deadly and must be opposed at every level. Paul called it another gospel whose proponents are condemned (Gal 1:8-9).

Consequently, labeling something/one legalistic ought to be done with caution. To bring the charge is to say that this thing or person is in danger of propagating an unsavable system and trampling the cross of Christ. So if we label something legalistic, we better thoroughly understand the gospel, the definition of legalism, and what exactly is happening with what we are labeling as legalistic. Otherwise, we are sinning by erroneously labeling something in opposition to the cross of Jesus Christ.    Continue at Eric Davis

See also:  Where the Sanctification Controversy Lies

Law-Gospel Off the Rails

The last week or so has seen renewed calls for reflection and responsibility on the part of Tullian Tchividjian in responding to critiques in the debate on sanctification.  His most recent post on the Gospel Coalition website indicates that he is instead digging in his heels, employing his law-gospel cookie cutter with ever more reckless abandon.  As Michael Kruger recently pointed out, Tullian shows no signs of paying attention to careful and charitable criticism from those interacting with him.  Yesterday's exposition of 1 John 5:3-4 indicates that Tullian is not listening even to the text of the Bible which he is handling.  

Yesterday's post from Tullian, titled Unburdened, takes on the apostle John's statement that God's "commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).  Predictably enough, Tullian insists that the reason for this blessed condition is that the Christian does not do the commandments of God but Jesus Christ bears this burden for us.  At this point, we know to expect the automatic and context-ignoring download of Christ's wonderful fulfillment of the law for believers in justification.  To wit, Tullian explains: "Though the commandments are indeed burdensome, that burden has been laid on the shoulders of another.  Jesus Christ, who demands that we be perfect, achieves perfection in our place... God's commandments are not burdensome because we do not carry them."   Continue at Rick Phillips

What We All Agree On, and What We (Probably) Don’t, In this Sanctification Debate

First the low down, then a few statements, and then a lot of questions.

About two weeks ago Jen Wilkin wrote a piece called “Failure Is Not a Virtue” in which she registered her concern over celebratory failurisum–”the idea that believers cannot obey the Law and will fail at every attempt.” I thought her post was right to expose one of the possible errors in talking about sanctification, especially when some in the Reformed community have suggested that trying to help people stop sinning is a waste of time akin to teaching frogs how to fly.

In response, Tullian Tchividjian accused Jen of “theological muddiness,” saying that while failure is not a virtue, acknowledging failure most definitely is. After that, Michael Kruger jumped in, arguing that Tullian’s response failed to distinguish between the second and third use of the law. Then Mark Jones, whose excellent book on Antinomianism I commended here and here, came down on the side of Jen and offered to fly to Florida to debate law and gospel with Tullian, his fellow PCA pastor. Carl Trueman seconded the idea, and Jared Oliphint weighed in with a fine piece on the relationship between law and gospel in Reformed theology.    Continue at Kevin DeYoung

Imperatives are for Preaching...

Now that Kevin DeYoung has weighed in quite effectively on the most recent flap over the justification/sanctification debate I suppose any words from me would be superfluous. However, I am a preacher so silence is not an option. But given DeYoung's excellent post I have greatly altered what I had originally written.

Like many others, I was thankful for Jen Wilkin's recent post over at TGC entitled "Failure Is Not a Virtue." She expresses appropriate concern over what she calls "celebratory failurism" - the tendency to excuse our sins by casting them as means by which we experience more grace. Tullian Tchividjian fired back with a strongly worded response accusing Wilkin of muddy theology and confusing theological categories. Dr. Michael Kruger responded with understandable dismay given the fact that Pastor Tchividjian never actually responds to Wilkin's article and even accuses her of assertions she did not make. To Dr. Kruger's response (are you following this?) Pastor Tchividjian did not yield the point but dug in by asserting that he knows of no one guilty of "celebratory failurism." I actually have seen quite a bit of it. Jared Oliphint effectively pushes back on Pastor Tchividjian's objection. But I digress.   Continue at Todd Pruitt

One Degree of Glory to Another: Andy Davis on Growing Toward Christ

God saves us for his glory and then calls us to live for his glory.

Okay, but how? What does a God-pleasing life look like? Is he happy because of what we do, or is he happy because of what Jesus has done? What's the relationship between justification and sanctification, and why does it practically matter?

In his thick new book, An Infinite Journey: Growing toward Christikeness, Andrew Davis explores our growth in grace from a wide array of angles. The result is a lucid, compelling survey of Scripture's teaching on an all-embracing, all-important topic.

I corresponded with Davis, a Council member of The Gospel Coalition and pastor of First Baptist Church in Durham, North Carolina, about the Christian journey, lopsided emphases, introspection, and more.

*************

"The modern evangelical movement has been far more concerned about evangelism than about discipleship," you observe. What's been the practical fallout of such an unequal emphasis?

God has set before the church two infinite journeys—the internal journey of sanctification (by discipleship), and the external journey of evangelism/missions. These two journeys are completely interdependent—symbiotic. We grow most in sanctification when we're actively involved in evangelism/missions, and we're increasingly effective in evangelism/missions the more conformed we are to Christ. So no Christian or church can focus on one over the other and remain healthy for long.   Continue at Matt Smethurst

The Nature of Sanctification and Gospel Holiness

Paul's prayer for Christians is that the God of peace would sanctify them completely (1 Thess. 5:23). His assurance is that 'he is faithful, who will do it' (v. 24). 

From this prayer we learn firstly, that the one who sanctifies us is God. As God gave us our beings, so he gives us our holiness. It is not by nature but by grace that we are made holy. Secondly, we learn that the one who sanctifies us is emphatically declared to be God himself. If God does not do it, no?one else will. And thirdly, we learn that the one who sanctifies us is the 'God of peace' (Rom. 15:33; 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:11; Phil. 4:9; Hel). 13:20). 

Sanctified by the God of peace

Sanctification is a fruit of that peace with God which he has made and prepared for us byJesus Christ. 'God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself' (2 Con. 5:19).

God, by sanctifying our natures, keeps that peace which we have with him. It is holiness that keeps up a sense of peace with God, and prevents those spiritual sins which still tend to break out from the corrupt nature still left within us. So God, as the author of our peace, is also the author of our holiness.  Continue at Banner of Truth

Is Sanctification Monergistic or Synergistic? A Reformed Survey

Recently, in a leadership training class at our church, a spirited discussion broke out on whether sanctification is monergistic or synergisitic. No, this is not what every class is like at University Reformed Church. But this one was. I wasn’t there, but I was told the discussion was energetic, intelligent, and respectful. I’m glad to serve at a church where people know and care about this level of theological precision.

The terms monergism and synergism refer to the working of God in regeneration. Monergism teaches that we are born again by only one working (mono is Greek for “one,”  erg is from the Greek word for “work”). Synergism teaches that we are born again by human cooperation with the grace of God (the syn prefix means “with” in Greek). The Protestant Reformers strongly opposed all synergistic understandings of the new birth. They believed that given the spiritual deadness and moral inability of man, our regeneration is owing entirely to the sovereign work of God. We do not cooperate and we do not contribute to our being born again. Three cheers for monergism.   Continue at Kevin DeYoung

Hope for the Battle with Intractable Weakness

We all have sin-infected weaknesses that are intractable. They are deeply woven into the fabric of who we are and are frequently exacerbated by our sinful responses to them.

Inherent weaknesses are different from indwelling sin. Indwelling sin is evil that is waging war against God in our very members (Romans 7:21–23). Inherent weaknesses are our bodily experience of God’s curse of futility that is affecting all of creation (Romans 8:20). Sin is moral corruption resulting in real guilt. Weakness is a constitutional corruption — a disease or disorder or disability — resulting in sometimes anguishing struggle.

When we’re young, we tend to underestimate our weaknesses. We think they’ll change when our situation changes. Or we believe they will simply fade away as we get older. Or we assume our future mature selves will muster the discipline to conquer them. Or surely the Spirit will come with healing power and give us victory.

We battle our weaknesses every day for years. And years. And at some point, often in middle age, we find ourselves bewildered. Our old enemy is not vanquished. We thought sanctification was supposed to be progressive. Where’s the progress? Will this never end?     Continue at Jon Bloom

When the Good News Becomes Bad

Introduction

The word “Gospel” is so familiar and frequently used that it is possible to lose sight of its genuine meaning, “good news.” This question is vital as we face a series of movements within our churches which seek to redefine the meaning of the Gospel. In each case we are being offered “another Gospel” (Gal 1:6). The Good News of Christ faces a threat on the order of that faced by the Galatian Christians.

What Happened to this Good News?

 

The fathers in the early church spoke the Gospel, but their concerns tended to focus on apologetics, the Trinity, Christology, the canon of Scripture and the church. As often as not the “Gospel” message among the early fathers was that Christ had come, and salvation is available to those who trust Christ and behave themselves. This was not good news for sinners.

By the thirteenth century the Gospel of grace was understood as a progressive transformation of a person’s moral life. The gospel equaled sanctification. People were thought to be morally sick and in need of an injection of a medicinal substance called grace. In this scheme, one is as justified as he is sanctified, and sanctification comes by cooperating with this medicine (grace) received in the sacraments. Their Gospel exclaimed: “salvation is available for those who cooperate with grace and obey the Law.” This was more bad news for sinners. Instead of Christ’s perfect righteousness earned for us, we were left with a partial righteousness worked in us.   Continue at R. Scott Clark

Biblical Holiness

21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.  (Romans 6:21-23 NASB)

Holiness is one of those subjects that everyone seems to know everything it pertains to, but no one knows how to define. What is it? If you look up “Holiness” in a dictionary, it will tell you that it means to be “Holy.” That is not a lot of help is it? What does the word “Holy” mean? One dictionary definition is, “exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness.” Of course, that could only be speaking of God.

A synonym for “Holiness” is “Sanctification.” If we look it up, it is defined as “the state of growing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion.” That’s close. A believer’s holiness comes as he or she matures in Christ through grace. It comes from there, but what are its qualities? As a believer’s mature they begin to take on Christ’s very character. They become Christ-like. One of the “fruits” of salvation, a huge part of the godly treasury of the Heart, is separation from the World. What does this mean?   Continue at Mike Ratliff

The Joy of Not Sinning

I think it is a question every Christian would all like to ask God, given the opportunity. It is an honest question. A humble one, I hope. If you have the ability to immediately destroy and remove all of a Christian’s sin the very moment he puts his faith in Jesus Christ, why don’t you? Why didn’t you?

There is always a good bit of debate in the Christian world about exactly how God sanctifies us and how human effort relates to divine work. Whatever we believe about sanctification, we know it is a lifelong battle and we know it is a difficult one. The difficulty is related to the extent of our depravity, the fact that the effects of sin extend to our every part, to our minds, our hearts, our wills, even our bodies. We could give every moment of every day to the battle against sin and still die as deeply sinful people. Every Christian will die much more holy than he was when he first put his faith in Jesus Christ, but a lot less holy than he would like and probably a lot less holy than he would have imagined.  Continue at Tim Challies

Changed From the Inside Out

Although heaven will be our first encounter with true, complete perfection, the Lord is already at work in the lives of His people preparing us for that perfection.

God begins the process of perfecting us from the moment we are converted from unbelief to faith in Christ. The Holy Spirit regenerates us. He gives us new hearts with new, holy desires (Ezekiel 36:26). He transforms our stubborn wills. He opens our hearts to embrace the truth rather than reject it, to believe rather than doubt. He gives us a hunger for righteousness and a desire for Him. Thus the new birth transforms the inner person. From that point, everything that occurs in our lives—good or bad—God uses to make us like Christ (Romans 8:28–30).

In terms of our moral and legal status, believers are judged perfect immediately—not on the basis of who we are or what we have done, but because of what Christ has done for us. We are forgiven of all our sin. We are clothed with a perfect righteousness (Isaiah 61:10; Romans 4:5), which instantly gives us a standing before God without any fear of condemnation (Romans 5:1; 8:1). And when Paul writes that God has “raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 2:6), he is again speaking of this position of favor with God that we have been granted by grace alone.

We are not literally, physically seated with Christ in the heavenlies, of course. We are not mystically present there through some kind of spiritual telepathy. But legally, in the eternal court of God, we have been granted full rights to heaven. That is the high legal standing we enjoy even now, on this side of heaven.    Continue at John F. MacArthur
IMAGE

The Pitfalls and Joys of "Trying Harder"

I recently wrote a brief defense of the importance of personal effort (or “trying harder”) in God’s gracious design to transform His saints. My central claim was that we put ourselves at odds with the NT if we understand or teach the dynamic of sanctification in a way that devalues or strongly cautions against hard work.

But that doesn’t mean emphasizing hard work has no attendant hazards.

Bob Hayton wrote of one of these pitfalls in a post last summer: Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Performance-Based Sanctification.

Work hard, feel good; blow it and feel terrible. Where is the

confidence in God’s grace in this model? The secret to living victoriously for Christ is gritting your teeth, doing more, and not doing the things you shouldn’t do. Try, try, try. Harder, harder, harder! Don’t quit. Keep going. We say that salvation is by grace, but growing in Christ is about the will power, the commitment and the determination.

This can lead to despair or a terrible form of pride.

The solution Bob advocates (citing Terry Rayburn and Tim Kellar, in part) is to reject trying harder, and focus exclusively on faith. Several Reformed leaders have emphasized a similar perspective in recent years (with a burst of back and forth on the Web beginning in the summer of 2011, see the table posting tomorrow), Tullian Tchividjian and Sean Lucas among them.

My purpose here is to explore the problem Bob and others have described. Perhaps we can come to more fully understand it.

The “just preach the gospel to yourself” view of sanctification has a legitimate complaint when it describes the despair-pride yo-yo experience many believers go through. I’ve not only met Christians like this but have done my share of bouncing up down as well. Whatever might be lacking in the “just preach to yourself” or “gospel centered” model, it’s advocates are right that a state of alternating inner turmoil and arrogance cannot be what Christ and the apostles had in mind in the New Testament.   Continue at Aaron Blumer

Is Sanctification Mongeristic or Synergistic?

In this article, Kevin DeYoung addresses question of whether sanctification is a monergistic or synergistic work – original source here:

Recently, in a leadership training class at our church, a spirited discussion broke out on whether sanctification is monergistic or synergisitic. No, this is not what every class is like at University Reformed Church. But this one was. I wasn’t there, but I was told the discussion was energetic, intelligent, and respectful. I’m glad to serve at a church where people know and care about this level of theological precision.

The terms monergism and synergism refer to the working of God in regeneration. Monergism teaches that we are born again by only one working (mono is Greek for “one,” erg is from the Greek word for “work”). Synergism teaches that we are born again by human cooperation with the grace of God (the syn prefix means “with” in Greek). The Protestant Reformers strongly opposed all synergistic understandings of the new birth. They believed that given the spiritual deadness and moral inability of man, our regeneration is owing entirely to the sovereign work of God. We do not cooperate and we do not contribute to our being born again. Three cheers for monergism.   Continue at John Samson

Is Jesus Plus Nothing a Formula for Sanctification?

When D. James Kennedy fell asleep in Jesus, Coral Ridge Presbyterian found itself in a bind. A church with a massive building (dedicated by Billy Graham), Kennedy was their founding pastor and an icon of American Christianity. A leader like that is impossible to replace, but the longer Coral Ridge went without a pastor, the more their attendance dropped, and the more pressure there was to find someone who could follow Kennedy.

Meanwhile, only a few miles away, one of Billy Graham’s grandsons was pastoring a church plant with swelling numbers, and no building. In a match straight out of E-harmony, the elders from both churches realized that each congregation was incomplete. One had a building, the other had none. One was growing, the other not so much. One was famous, the other unknown. One had a pastor, the other was on the hunt. One was dedicated in the 1970’s by Graham, the other was pastored by his grandson. You don’t have to be a Calvinist to see how God was setting this up.

Eventually, Coral Ridge called Tullian Tchividjian to be their pastor, and the two churches merged. What happened next though, is not the stuff of fairy tales. To make a long story short, Coral Ridge seemed to revolt, and after a while the elders called a congregational vote to consider removing Tchividjian as their pastor. Before the vote, Tchividjian went away on vacation, and spent his vacation studying Colossians.

Jesus + Nothing = Everything is the story of Tchividjian and Coral Ridge, interwoven around a commentary of Colossians. At the center is the spiritual epiphany he experienced through his study of that book.   Continue at Jesse Johnson

Powlison on Whether Sanctification Is Only by Remembering Justification

There are few people whose writing on sanctification I find more valuable and insightful than David Powlison’s. His latest essay for The Journal of Biblical Counseling (27:1), “How Does Sanctification Work? Part 1” is no exception.

Here’s the takeaway. I dare not extrapolate my exact experience of God’s mercies to everyone else. Similarly, those who have had their Christian life revolutionized by awakening to the significance of justification by faith dare not extrapolate that to everyone else. One pattern of Christ’s working (even a pattern common to many people) should not overshadow all the other patterns. A rightly “unbalanced” message is fresh, refreshing, joyous, full of song, life-transforming. But eventually, if it is oversold, it becomes a one-string harp, played by one finger, sounding one note. It drones. Scripture and the Holy Spirit play a 47-string concert harp, using all ten fingers, and sounding all the notes of human experience. Wise ministry, like growth in wisdom, means learning to play on all the strings, not harping on one note.

I am certain that those who teach “sanctification by revisiting justification” have heard that message as a new and joyous song that sanctifies them. May Jesus Christ be praised! Perhaps God has been liberating them from a ponderous Christianity that seemed to breed a weight of failure to perform, of failure to live up to expectations, of failure to accomplish all that needs doing, and of judgmentalism toward others who fail. May the God of mercies be praised! But let’s not forget to learn all the other sweet and joyous songs. And let’s learn the darker notes of lamentation and the blues. Let’s learn the call to action in work songs and marching music. And let’s learn everything else that comports with and nourishes life in Christ.   Continue at Justin Taylor

Tullian Keeps Digging

I’ve tried very hard to be diplomatic and restrained in my criticisms of Tullian Tchividjian’s writing (here and here). I’ve tried to communicate genuine appreciation for his books while also expressing my deep concerns. I’ve watched others  gently and wisely caution him about the theological trajectory he is on, and yet he seems to just keep on digging deeper and going further. I’ve watched with growing anxiety as his imbalanced and confusing theology gains popularity. But there comes a time when we have to move from concern to alarm.

Yesterday’s blog post God doesn’t need your good works, but your neighbor does pushed me over that edge.

Using truth to eliminate truth

The headline, like much of the blog post contains truth. However Tullian uses that truth to eliminate another truth, a vitally important one. Of course God doesn’t need our good works. But Tullian uses that truth to argue that God is not interested in them, pleased by them, and nor does he respond to them.

Let’s start with this statement:

Forever freed from our need to pay God back or secure God’s love and acceptance, we are now free to love and serve others.

Yes we are freed from our need to pay God back or secure God’s love and acceptance. But please don’t use that truth as a proof that the Christian has no concern to show his love for God by worshipful and grateful service, or to deny that God’s revelation of His love to us, and our experience of it, can and does change depending on our love-stoked obedience (John 14:21, 23).   Continue at David Murray

God Doesn’t Need Your Good Works…But Your Neighbor Does

Pertinent to any discussion regarding justification and sanctification is the question of effort. In my recent back and forth with Rick Phillips on the nature of sin and its ongoing effect on the Christian, some have assumed that when I say there is no part of Christians that are sin free, I’m also endorsing a “why-even-try”, effortless approach to the Christian life–that I’m overlooking or understating the importance of “sanctification.” I suspect that one of the reasons for this is owing to my passion to help people understand the inseparable relationship between justification and sanctification. 

 Whether this was explicitly taught or implicitly caught, I grew up with the impression that when it comes to the Christian life, justification was step one and sanctification was step two and that once we get to step two there’s no reason to revisit step one. In my experience as a pastor, this is one of the reasons why it seems so new to people that the gospel is not just for non-Christian’s but for Christian’s too–that it doesn’t just ignite the Christian life, but fuels it as well. By giving people the impression that sanctification is progress beyond the initial step of justification, they have concluded that once God saves us (justification) he then moves us beyond his work into our work (sanctification). But justification and sanctification are both God’s work and while they can and must be distinguished, the Bible won’t let us separate them. Both are gifts of our union with Christ and within this double-blessing, justification is the root of sanctification and sanctification is the fruit of justification. Moralism happens when we separate the fruit from the root. Or, as I’ve said before, imperatives minus indicatives equal impossibilities. As G. C. Berkouwer said, “The heart of sanctification is the life which feeds on justification.” So, I think it’s fair to say that sanctification is the justified life.   Continue at Tullian Tchividjian

See also: The Problem with “Gospel-Centered” Sanctification

See also: Protecting a Gospel-Centered Culture in Your Church

Misconceptions about Justification and Sanctification

I have benefited from reading the comments on the wide variety of blogs that have picked up the discussion between Tullian Tchividjian and me on the subject of total depravity, the Christian, and the doctrine of sanctification.  In some respects, these conversations are most valuable in terms of the interplay that takes place in the comments.  I have been helped by reading what people are thinking and want to thank those who have commented, whether positively or negatively about me.  I have found, however, a number of misconceptions that it may help to have cleared up.  Here are five points that I hope will clarify this discussion:

      1. Total depravity is not proved by arguing for the on-going presence of sin in the believer.  The point of total depravity is the spiritual inability of the sinner so that he or she will not and cannot respond positively to God through faith (Rom. 8:7; 1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 2:1-3).  To say that Christians cannot be totally depraved is not to argue that they do not continue to wrestle with sin, sometimes profoundly.  The point that I am making is that while Christians will continue to sin, it is not because we must do so.  We have been freed from the reign of sin (Rom. 6:6-12), though not from sin's presence (1 Jn. 1:8).  As Augustine put it, whereas before our conversion we were not able not to sin, in Christ we now are able not to sin.

2.  Luther's wonderful formula, simil justus et peccator (simultaneously just and a sinner), is the Reformation doctrine of justification, not sanctification.  To use this response to questions of sanctification is simply to change the subject.  With respect to sanctification, Christians are saints (1 Cor. 1:2).  To deny being a saint, as well as a justified sinner, is simply to deny being a Christian.   Continue at Rick Phillips    See also: We are Sanctified in Christ, but not Perfect Yet