Isn’t Definitive Sanctification Simply Regeneration?
File this one under “The Spirit of Murray.” The oft-derided theological formulation of definitive sanctification is seen by some as a superfluous doctrine. To subscribers of this line of thought, the doctrine should fall victim to Occam’s Razor. Can’t we explain definitive sanctification simply by appealing to the doctrines of regeneration or effectual calling? One theologian of the previous generation addresses the question himself.
While regeneration is an all-important factor in definitive sanctification, it would not be proper to subsume the latter under the topic ‘regeneration’. The reason is that what is most characteristic in definitive sanctification, namely, death to sin by union with Christ in his death and newness of life by union with him in his resurrection, cannot properly be referred to regeneration by the Spirit. There is multiformity to that which occurs at the inception of the Christian life, and each facet must be accorded its own particularity. Calling, for example, as the action of the Father, must not be defined in terms of what is specifically the action of the Holy Spirit, namely, regeneration. Definitive sanctification, likewise, must be allowed its own individuality. We impoverish our conception of definitive grace when we fail to appreciate the distinctiveness of each aspect, or indulge in over-simplification.
–
John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2, p. 285n2.
photo by Chae Chong
Camden, but if we already have good words like regeneration and effectual calling, why add another concept? Strunk and White would disapprove. Not to mention the theological problem of making justification hinge upon sanctification, which was what the Reformation found troubling about Rome’s views.
Darryl, thanks for the comment and the concern. Let me begin by saying for however excellent Strunk and White were at writing, they were not systematic theologians. But neither is this to present myself as much of either. My point in the Occam’s Razor analogy is that the term definitive sanctification is indeed needed. We must all strive for theological precision especially in matters such as these. In my opinion, to eliminate the term is to introduce ambiguity.
I am finding a strange trend lately. It seems those who have issues with Murray tend to equate sanctification with doing good works. Surely doing good works is a necessary result of the sanctification process, but in large scope, sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ to the believer. It is a renovative aspect of God’s entire salvation that conforms the believer into the image of Christ. There is surely a synergistic element to sanctification, but in this quotation, Murray is speaking of the initial breach of the power of sin, that is, the death to sin that occurs upon vital faith union with Christ.
I believe we must use the term “definitive sanctification” because the Bible uses the word “sanctification” when referring to union with Christ in the specific aspect of death to sin. But Scripture also uses the term to refer to the progressive element of sanctification; hence the introduction of the modifier “definitive.” I am interested to hear how you would explain the sanctification of 1 Cor 1:2. “Sanctified” is a perfect passive participle – a completed event that has present effects. Members of the Corinthian church had been sanctified in Christ Jesus, yet they still sinned.
To say that definitive sanctification is identical with effectual calling or regeneration is imprecise and leads to ambiguity. As any reader of oldlife.org should know, you do not want to introduce ambiguity regarding the differences between justification and sanctification. Why blur the distinctions between each renovative salvific activity? What advantage is that to us? It only serves to confuse as I fear equating “sanctification” with “doing good works” does.
Frankly, I struggle to understand how your final sentence relates to the Murray quotation. How does a doctrine of definitive sanctification necessitate that justification hinges upon good works? Believers are united to Christ through the Spirit. When this union occurs, believers receive all the benefits of Christ. In no logical or causal order, the Spirit breaks the power of sin in his life, the Spirit imputes the righteousness of Christ to him which is the sole ground of justification, and he is adopted as a son. Do you fear that rooting these salvific benefits directly in union with Christ makes justification hinge on adoption? Why wouldn’t sanctification hinge upon justification for that matter? All the benefits hinge upon the person and work of Christ and the activity of the Spirit in uniting us to that Savior and flow out of union with him directly.
To preemptively comment, I hold to a logical priority of justification over progressive sanctification as any orthodox theologian would. As always, thank you for the interaction. We should never tire of speaking of the gospel.
Camden, I’m busy with lots of stuff so I need to think more about sanctify as Paul uses it, but if you put definitive sanctification before justification then you raise the question of whether we are justified because of implicit in infused righteousness. I believe Gaffin conceded this problem in one of his articles.
I understand your schedule. Let me begin by saying if there is any confusion on behalf of the readers of this post, my answer to the question in the title is “No.” The point I’m making is that definitive sanctification is not before justification. It’s a benefit of vital faith-union with Christ that happens simultaneously without temporal or logical priority with respect to justification or adoption. This quotation nor anything I’ve written has ever said definitive sanctification comes before justification.
Is this a Presbyterian problem of some kind? How can anyone collapse what happens to our will with what is done with and by our will?
A little confused on how this could possibly get started.
Camden, I’m not sure that 1 Cor. 1:2, or that any single verse, qualifies for rewriting the doctrine of regeneration. My Greek isn’t merely rusty, but has been repossessed. So I can’t go toe to toe exegetically. But I don’t see the need for positing definitive sanctification. And even though you deny that it is prior to justification, it is somewhere in the ballpark of regeneration which does precede faith (in some ordo schemes) and so does precede justification. Regeneration seems like a much more helpful term to avoid the problem I mention above.
And on a related note, I continue to puzzle over the insistence of no priority of the benefits coming from union. The Reformed tradition has had no problem asserting the logical priority of justification precisely because of debates with Rome over the nature salvation’s righteousness. Imputed over infused. That is why you don’t mind justification prior to “progressive” sanctification. So the assertion of def. sanct. seems to me to be a way to deny the centrality of justification and to put just. and sanct. on an even playing field, and so avoid antinomianism. Whether intended or not, it seems like a way to make room for Shepherd’s initial concerns. I am not saying that this is what you are doing directly. I am only talking about implications, not to mention the context of the last 30 years, or the debt that Shepherd owed to Murray.
Camden, btw, we may be both guilty of exegetical fallacies here, but if Murray was right that Rom. 6:7 should be interpreted “For he who has died has been justified from sin,” then the definitive break with sin comes not from sanctification but from justification. At least, this is an argument I have heard John Fesko make.