Monthly Archives: August 2011

Seven Assertions Regarding Justification and Sanctification

Posted on by
Reply

Rick Phillips – Concerning the relationship of justification to sanctification:

This topic is crucial to us getting the gospel right today while avoiding the deadly extremes of antinomianism (a lawless Christianity) and legalism (a works-oriented Christianity). In an attempt to give clarity to this topic, I would offer these six assertions regarding justification and sanctification:

1. Justification and Sanctification are twin benefits that flow from union with Christ through faith.

2. Justification and Sanctification are distinct but simultaneous.

3. Justification and Sanctification are both necessary and intrinsic to salvation.

4. Justification is logically prior to progressive Sanctification.

5. Justification does not cause Sanctification, but Christ both justifies and sanctifies his people.

6. In Justification faith is passive and receptive (Gal. 2:16), whereas in Sanctification faith is active.

7. The law of God functions differently with respect to Justification and Sanctification.

Let me discuss each of these briefly:

(Note: My Scripture references are not meant to be exhaustive, but to point to the main line of biblical support.)

1. Justification and Sanctification are twin benefits that flow from union with Christ through faith. Christ is himself the center of the gospel, and through faith we are saved in union with him (Acts 16:31; Eph. 1:3). Justification and Sanctification are distinct benefits flowing through union with Christ by faith alone. Justification is a legal benefit of our union with Christ, granting us forgiveness of sin and righteousness before God through faith alone (Rom. 3:23-26; Gal. 2:16). Sanctification is a Spiritual benefit* of our union with Christ, involving the believer’s transformation into the holy likeness of Christ (Rom. 6:1-14; Eph. 4:20-24; Tit. 2:12).

* I capitalize Spiritual to emphasize that it is the Holy Spirit’s work in our lives.

2. Justification and Sanctification are distinct but simultaneous. Justification pertains to the legal problem of sin, providing Christ’s imputed righteousness once for all (Rom. 3:23-25). A believer will never be more righteous than at the moment when he first believed, since he receives through faith Christ’s perfect and complete righteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). Sanctification pertains to the spiritual and moral corruption of sin. It is both definitive and progressive. Definitive sanctification refers to the believer being set apart for and to Christ at the moment of conversion (1 Cor. 6:15-17). Progressive sanctification refers to the on-going process of becoming holy according to the likeness of Christ (Eph. 4:21-24). At the moment of saving faith, the Christian is both justified and sanctified (1 Cor. 1:30), definitive sanctification immediately beginning the Spirit’s work of progressive sanctification (Rom. 6:1-14).

3. Justification and Sanctification are both necessary and intrinsic to salvation. While Justification and Sanctification are distinct, they are also inseparable in salvation. A believer cannot be justified without being sanctified (Rom. 6:1-2; Eph. 2:8-10). Through faith alone, sinners are justified in Christ (Gal. 2:16). But as faith brings us into union with Christ, the Holy Spirit also begins and continues sanctification (1 Cor. 6:15-17; Eph. 5:1-21; 1 Thess. 4:1-8). In other words, while we deny that faith + works = justification, we insist that faith = justification + works (i.e. sanctification)(Eph. 2:8-10).

4. Justification is logically prior to progressive Sanctification. This is Calvin’s meaning in describing the doctrine of justification as the hinge on which the door of salvation turns. By “logically prior,” we mean, for instance, that we will usually address an unbeliever regarding his need for justification before we call him to sanctification. (Until the sinner is justified through faith, there is little point in discussing his or her sanctification.) The logical priority of justification is seen in the Book of Romans, where justification is treated first (Rom. 3-5), after which Paul turns to sanctification (Rom. 5-8). As another example, after the Fall God blocked the entryway to the Garden with the angel and his flaming sword. This represents the forensic/legal problem of sin for which justification through faith is the answer. Once passing through this barrier, the believer may eat of the tree of life and dwell in the presence of the Lord, which pertain to his sanctification.

5. Justification does not cause Sanctification. Sanctification, like Justification, is caused by union with Christ through faith (Rom. 6:1-14). Just as Christ justifies, Christ also sanctifies his people (1 Cor. 1:30; Col. 3:12-17). For this reason, the idea that we need only preach justification in order to gain sanctification is contrary to the biblical pattern. Paul, for instance, does not preach justification so that sanctification will occur, but rather he preaches sanctification itself (Rom. 6:12-14; 12:1-2, etc.). Peter also declares “Be holy” (1 Pet. 1:15). This being the case, gospel preaching does not consist merely of preaching Christ for justification, but also consists of preaching Christ for sanctification.
Continue reading →

Contradictions?

Posted on by
Reply

Question: Why does the Bible say that Mary Magdalene and another Mary discovered the empty tomb, while another Gospel says that only Mary did, while another says that Simon joined them? This to me seems like inaccuracies in the Bible.

Lee Strobel answers:

It’s important to clarify between a biblical inaccuracy (what others often call a contradiction) and what a Gospel writer simply chose to include or emphasize in his account. A contradiction is to affirm and deny the same thing, at the same time, in the same respect. A contradiction regarding the eyewitness testimony cited would be, for instance, that “only Mary Magdalene went to the empty tomb” – something no Gospel writers say – and “Mary and the other Mary” (Matthew 28:1) went to the empty tomb.

To shed a bit more light on the biblical passage you cited, John mentions only Mary Magdalene explicitly at the tomb in his Gospel (John 20:1). But if we read carefully we see in the next verse (20:2) that Mary tells Peter, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb but we don’t know where they have put him!” This supports the other Gospels when they say that other women went to the tomb with Mary, perhaps following closely behind. As the NIV Study Bible says, the we “indicates that there were others with Mary (see Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1, Luke 24:10), though John does not identify them.” So when John wrote his Gospel, he only mentions one woman by name but uses the plural pronoun “we” to indicate that others were with her.

Further, if the Gospel writers, two of whom were among the Twelve disciples of Jesus, wanted to fabricate a story about the resurrected Christ, it is unthinkable that they would have put women at the tomb first. It is well established that a woman’s testimony in the ancient world was generally not considered to be credible and that they were for the most part not allowed to testify in a court of law. See, for instance, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, by William Lane Craig.

Another popular “contradiction” cited by critics involves how many angels were at the empty tomb. Some accounts mention one angel (Matthew 28:5), while others say two (John 20:12). However, a contradiction would have one account saying “only” one angel was at the tomb while another account says there were “two angels.” A closer reading of these two texts suggests that it is very plausible that Matthew focuses on the angel who spoke and “said to the women, ‘Do not be afraid’” while John focuses on how many angels the women saw; “and she saw two angels.”

Here’s a modern example of what I mean. The Chicago Bears play their arch-rival, the Green Bay Packers, twice a year during the regular season. Both major Chicago newspapers cover every game between these two teams, along with the Green Bay Press Gazette.

Will the reporter for the Chicago Tribune file the same story, report the same key events in the same order, and describe big plays all in the same way as the reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times or the Green Bay paper? Of course not. Will they agree on many key parts of the game? Yes. Yet they were all eyewitnesses to the game.

The Tribune might boldly proclaim that a key play in the second half was a forced turnover by Bears defense star Brian Urlacher, while the Chicago Sun-Times notes that Brian Urlacher and defensive lineman Julius Peppers both contributed to the tackle. Was the Tribune wrong to not include Julius Peppers assisting on the tackle? No, it was not important to the bigger story – victory of the Bears over the Packers! We can look at differences in eyewitness testimony in the Gospels the same way.

In fact, if we examine biographies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, other Presidents, or famous men or women in history we see that some biographers choose to emphasize various things about seminal moments in their life or Presidency that other biographers do not. Different details noted by different eyewitnesses, however, does not mean that these things did not happen.

A Man of Two Questions

Posted on by
Reply

“Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything.” 2 Tim 2:7

MESSAGE TO SELF:

You may be armed with an inspiring quote; found a good phrase you might use as a punch line; you might have heard a great story that is sure to “wow” the people; you might have up to date facts and figures at your disposal that might possibly be shocking or even frightening, but certainly, enlightening; you might have a file of pithy quotes showing how the great thinkers of the church have seen the issue; yes, you may have all of this and more, but remember this, when you step into your office to study the word of God, you enter what for you is sacred space.

Of course, it may not be seen that way to others, but it has to be this way for you. There should be no discussion or debate on this. This is the time when you pour out your heart to God, pleading with Him to open up the text of the Bible to you. This is where you declare your total dependence on the Holy Spirit, even though He might use your study habits as a means to opening up your understanding. This is the place where the man becomes the man of God. Alone with God, your gaze is heavenward in heart, while your eyes peer downward at the text of the Bible in front of you.

Remember too that all of hell trembles as you enter this place. Hell fears the proclamation of the word of God as no other thing in this world. You wrestle not with flesh and blood but against hostile unseen forces seeking to distract you from your calling. Hell has no fear of a joke; of a punch line; or an insightful quote, but hell trembles when a man of God proclaims the word of God. If the devil cannot stop you in public, he will seek to win the war in private, distracting you with a million other things and a million other affections.

So knowing that there is both heavenly and hellish interest in what you do in your study, settle it forever. This is a sacred place to you. Its a place where you are unreachable (and those close to you know it) unless there is an emergency. Your phone is off. There are no earthly distractions. Outside the study, you have all the time in the world for people – your family especially; but inside, you have entered, what is for you, the very holy of holies.

Your task is not complicated but amazingly simple – to please the audience of One.

How exactly do you do that?

You know the answer, but let me remind you once again. Your task is not first to think of how to communicate truth; how to say it with passion, how to communicate in such a way that people can identify with it.. no, no, no, a thousand times, no. That is important. God offers no rewards for the boring preacher. Yet communication is a secondary matter. That comes later.

Your first priority is to ask (and then answer) two simple questions:

(1) What does the Bible say?

(2) What does it mean by what it says?

For Pastors Battling Depression

Posted on by
Reply

The closing exhortations of Charles Spurgeon’s priceless counsel on “The Minister’s Fainting Fits” in Lectures to My Students:

The lesson of wisdom is, be not dismayed by soul-trouble.

Count it no strange thing, but a part of ordinary ministerial experience.

Should the power of depression be more than ordinary, think not that all is over with your usefulness.

Cast not away your confidence, for it hath great recompense of reward.

Even if the enemy’s foot be on your neck, expect to rise amid overthrow him.

Cast the burden of the present, along with the sin of the past and the fear of the future, upon the Lord, who forsaketh not his saints.

Live by the day—ay, by the hour.

Put no trust in frames and feelings.

Care more for a grain of faith than a ton of excitement.

Trust in God alone, and lean not on the reeds of human help.

Be not surprised when friends fail you: it is a failing world.

Never count upon immutability in man: inconstancy you may reckon upon without fear of disappointment.

The disciples of Jesus forsook him; be not amazed if your adherents wander away to other teachers: as they were not your all when with you, all is not gone from you with their departure.

Serve God with all your might while the candle is burning, and then when it goes out for a season, you will have the less to regret.

Be content to be nothing, for that is what you are.

When your own emptiness is painfully forced upon your consciousness, chide yourself that you ever dreamed of being full, except in the Lord.

Set small store by present rewards; be grateful for earnests by the way, but look for the recompensing joy hereafter.

Continue, with double earnestness to serve your Lord when no visible result is before you.

Any simpleton can follow the narrow path in the light: faith’s rare wisdom enables us to march on in the dark with infallible accuracy, since she places her hand in that of her Great Guide.

Between this and heaven there may be rougher weather yet, but it is all provided for by our covenant Head.

In nothing let us be turned aside from the path which the divine call has urged us to pursue.

Come fair or come foul, the pulpit is our watch-tower, and the ministry our warfare; be it ours, when we cannot see the face of our God, to trust under THE SHADOW OF HIS WINGS.

HT: JT

What would you think…?

Posted on by
Reply

“What would you think of a man who had committed adultery against his wife? Imagine this unfaithful husband has a change of mind and decides to show up on his wife’s doorstep and ask for forgiveness… but still has his mistress hanging on his arm! What would you think of this man’s request? Do you suppose his broken-hearted bride will believe his so called “repentance?” Likewise, when you or I refuse to divorce ourselves from known sin, loving, nourishing, and protecting iniquity like a treasured whore, shall we also fool ourselves to think that Christ will have anything to do with us? The true Christian loves his Savior with his whole heart and wants nothing to do with the sin that nailed his redeemer to the cross.” – Kirk Cameron

Slaying the Dragon

Posted on by
Reply

[Photo credit: Smaug.tk]

“Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” (Galatians 5:24)

John Piper:
Picture your flesh—that old ego with the mentality of merit and craving for power and reputation and self-reliance—picture it as a dragon living in some cave of your soul.

Then you hear the gospel,

I will make you mine and take possession of the cave and slay the dragon. Will you yield to my possession? It will mean a whole new way of thinking and feeling and acting.

You say:

But that dragon is me. I will die.

He says,

And you will rise to newness of life, for I will take its plan; I will make my mind and my will and my heart your own.

You say,

What must I do?

He answers,

Trust me and do as I say. As long as you trust me, we cannot lose.

Overcome by the beauty and power of Christ you bow and swear eternal loyalty and trust.

And as you rise, he puts a great sword in your hand and says,

Follow me.

He leads you to the mouth of the cave and says,

Go in, slay the dragon.

But you look at him bewildered,

I cannot. Not without you.

He smiles.

Well said. You learn quickly.

Never forget: my commands for you to do something are never commands to do it alone.

Then you enter the cave together.

A horrible battle follows and you feel Christ’s hand on yours.

At last the dragon lies limp.

You ask,

Is it dead?

His answer is this:

I have come to give you new life. This you received when you yielded to my possession and swore faith and loyalty to me. And now with my sword and my hand you have felled the dragon of the flesh. It is a mortal wound. It will die. That is certain.

But it has not yet bled to death, and it may yet revive with violent convulsions and do much harm.

So you must treat it as dead and seal the cave as a tomb. The Lord of darkness may cause earthquakes in your soul to shake the stones loose, but you build them up again. And have this confidence: with my sword and my hand on yours this dragon’s doom is sure, he is finished, and your new life is secure.

———————

Piper continues:

Christ has taken possession of our soul.

Our old self has been dealt a mortal wound and stripped of its power to have dominion.

The Christian life, the fruit of the Spirit, is a constant reckoning of the flesh as dead (piling stones on its tomb) and a constant relying on the present Spirit of Christ to produce love, joy, and peace within.

For those whom He foreknew

Posted on by
1

28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

In what theologians refer to as “The Golden Chain of Redemption,” God is revealing to us an unbreakable chain that starts in eternity past, goes through time, and on into eternity future. This chain is forged by God Himself, and has five unbreakable links: God foreknows, predestinates, calls, justifies and glorifies.

Notice that there is one ambiguity in the text; something that is not actually stated but is definitely implied – that being the word “all.” Let’s see this clearly by inserting another possible implication by way of contrast, the word “some.”

“For (some) whom He foreknew, He predestined; (some) He predestined, He called; (some) He called, He justified; and (some) He justified, were glorified.” What kind of comfort and security would that give to us? Would we be able to say “who can separate us from the love of Christ?”

I think our answer would have to be, many things could separate us (if the intended implication was the word “some” in this passage). It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever, and certainly would not give us any kind of security in Christ, the very thing Paul is seeking to do in this Romans 8 passage.

I believe 100 out of 100 Bible scholars would all agree that the implication of the text is that all He foreknew, He predestined; all He predestined, He called; all He called, He justified; and all He justified, He glorified.

For those whom he foreknew…

In Romans 8:29, the text reads “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son…” Does this not therefore suggest that because foreknowledge comes before predestination in the text, then predestination is simply based on God’s foreknowledge: because God foreknows or sees in advance (with full and complete knowledge) what a person will do, and who it is that will respond in faith to the Gospel, He simply predestinates those whom He knows will believe?

Certainly this is how I understood this passage for many years and it is the way that many deal with the issue of predestination in our day. Previously, I also pointed to 1 Peter 1:1-2 which talks of those who are “chosen, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…” and assumed that this verse would add weight to my argument that election and predestination is based on God knowing ahead of time what we will do.

At first glance, it certainly seems to be a legitimate interpretation, because the word “foreknew” comes before “predestination” in the text of Romans 8:29. However, the fact that foreknowledge comes before predestination should in no way surprise us. That’s because God would need to foreknow a person He is going to predestinate to something. God does not predestinate unknown persons, but specific individuals whom He knows. So this not really an argument for either side in this debate. In both systems, foreknowing would need to come before predestination.

The real question then is “what exactly does it mean for God to foreknow somebody?”

Actually there are a number of problems with the way I once understood “foreknowledge”, not the least of which is that scripture reveals very clearly, that left to himself, man will always choose against Christ, because of his hostile disposition to God. Man is dead spiritually, and needs his heart of stone to be removed and a heart of flesh put in before he has any interest in seeking the God of the Bible (Rom. 3:11; Rom. 8:7, 8; 1 Cor. 2:14). Outside of Christ, man is the enemy of God. As A. W. Pink once stated, “God did not elect any sinner because He foresaw that he would believe, for the simple but sufficient reason that no sinner ever believes until God gives him faith, just as no man sees until God gives him sight.”

The interpretation also falls down because the word “foreknew” does not merely mean to know future actions beforehand. It has a much more precise meaning. The word “foreknew” (Greek: proginosko) in Romans 8:29 is a verb rather than a noun. It is an action word, and as the text informs us, it is something done by God.
Continue reading →