When expressed in terms of the model of a chain of causes and effects, the traditional ordo salutis runs the danger of displacing Christ from the central place in soteriology. The fruits of his work may be related to one another in the chain of cause-and-effect sequence, rather than viewed fundamentally in relation to the work of the Spirit in bringing us into union and communion with Christ himself. Thus, election is spoken of as the cause of regeneration, which in turn is the cause of faith, of which sanctification and perseverance are the invariable and inevitable effects. The relation of each to Christ himself is thus obscured or even minimized.
Sinclair Ferguson, The Holy Spirit (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 99.
photo by Tyler Ingram
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
Have you ever wondered why faith is the instrument of justification? Why not repentance, love or hope which are each gifts of God just as much as faith is? John Murray has several helpful thoughts on the question.
The differentiating quality of faith is that the nature and function of faith is to rest completely upon another. It is this resting, confiding, entrusting quality of faith that makes it appropriate to and indeed exhibitive of the nature of justification. It is consonant with its source as the free grace of God, with its nature as a forensic act, and with its ground as the righteousness of Christ. Faith terminates upon Christ and his righteousness and it makes mention of his righteousness and of his only. This is the Savior’s specific identity in the matter of justification – he is the Lord our righteousness. And in resting upon him alone for salvation it is faith that perfectly dovetails justification in him and in his righteousness. (Collected Writings, v. 2, pp. 216-217)
I had a thought (a dangerous thing!) this morning while showering (a double danger!). And, for what little it may be worth, I thought I’d share it here.
Maybe this way of stating things will bring clarification over the issue of great debate today with regard to justification and sanctification as simultaneous benefits of union with Christ. And we will consider this issue under two headings: 1) In what sense are justification and sanctification equally ultimate realities; and 2) In what sense are they not equally ultimate realities. Read the rest of this entry »
This is what happens when your wife leaves her point-and-shoot camera home and a theology geek starts to play with it. I speak about the relationship of justification to sanctification as I drive to get coffee.
The New Perspective on Paul continues its movement in an incredible way. This new book goes toward proving that. It goes to show that this is not some fly by night scholarly trend that will be here today and gone tomorrow. In fact, it is quite revolutionary. It has, in many ways, overturned the way we think as theologians and Bible scholars.
But I am still not convinced that the emperor is in fact wearing any clothes. What is frustrating in reading NPP advocates is trying to figure out exactly what they’re against. They are protesters. They are doing more than simply setting forth a positive new and fresh exegesis of Paul’s writings. They are reacting. They are reacting against what is perceived to be many faults and shortcomings of Western Protestant Christianity. Read the rest of this entry »
There are several ways to define an absolute. In the medieval philosophical sense, an absolute can be considered as something free from imperfection. Other definitions would describe an absolute as something having no restriction, exception or qualification; perfectly embodying the nature of a thing. But for our purposes, we will consider an absolute as something that is self-sufficient and free of external references and relationships. Read the rest of this entry »
