Sanctification Is Not “More and More”, by AW Pink

In the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Assembly the question is asked, “What is sanctification?” To which the following answer is returned: “Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby, they whom God hath before the foundation of the world chosen to be holy, are in time through the powerful operation of His Spirit, applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them, renewed in their whole man after the image of God; having the seeds of repentance unto life and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up, increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life.”

Now far be it from us to sit in judgment upon such an excellent and helpful production as this Catechism, which God has richly blessed to thousands of His people, or that we should make any harsh criticisms against men whose shoes we are certainly not worthy to unloose. Nevertheless, the best of men are but men at the best, and therefore we must call no man “Father.”

First, the definition or description of sanctification of the Westminster divines is altogether inadequate, for it entirely omits the most important aspect and fundamental element in the believer’s sanctification: it says nothing about our sanctification by Christ (Heb. 10:10; 13:12), but confines itself to the work of the Spirit, which is founded upon that of the Son.

This is truly a serious loss, and affords another illustration that God has not granted light on all His Word to any one man or body of men. A fuller and better answer to the question of, “What is sanctification?” would be, “Sanctification is, first, that act of God whereby He set the elect apart in Christ before the foundation of the world that they should be holy. Second, it is that perfect holiness which the Church has in Christ and that excellent purity which she has before God by virtue of Christ’s cleansing blood. Third, it is that work of God’s Spirit which, by His quickening operation, sets them apart from those who are dead in sins, conveying to them a holy life or nature, etc.”

Thus we cannot but regard this particular definition of the Larger Catechism as being defective, for it commences at the middle, instead of starting at the beginning. Instead of placing before the believer that complete and perfect sanctification which God has made Christ to be unto him, it occupies him with the incomplete and progressive work of the Spirit.

Instead of moving the Christian to look away from himself with all his sinful failures, unto Christ in whom he is “complete” (Col. 2:10), it encouraged him to look within, where he will often search in vain for the fine gold of the new creation amid all the dross and mire of the old creation. This is to leave him without the joyous assurance of knowing that he has been “perfected forever” by the one offering of Christ (Heb. 10:14).

Our second observation upon this definition is, that its wording is faulty and misleading. Let the young believer be credibly assured that he will “more and more die unto sin and rise unto newness of life,” and what will be the inevitable outcome? As he proceeds on his way, the Devil assaulting him more and more fiercely, the inward conflict between the flesh and the Spirit becoming more and more distressing, increasing light from God’s Word more and more exposing his sinful failures, until the cry is forced from him, “I am vile; 0 wretched man that I am,” what conclusion must he draw?

Why this: if the Catechism-definition be correct then I was sadly mistaken, I have never been sanctified at all. So far from the “more and more die unto sin” agreeing with his experience, he discovers that sin is more active within and that he is more alive to sin now, than he was ten years ago!

That we may not be charged with partiality, we quote from the “Confession of Faith” adopted by the Baptist Association, which met in Philadelphia 1742, giving the first two sections of their brief chapter on sanctification: 1. “They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit in them through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, are also (a) farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, (b) by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; (c) the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, (d) and the several lusts thereof more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord. 2. This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life; there abides still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war.”—

This description of sanctification by the Baptists leaves something to be desired, for it makes no clear and direct statement upon the all-important and flawless holiness which every believer has in Christ, and that spotless and impeccable purity which is upon him by God’s imputation of the cleansing efficacy of His Son’s sacrifice.

In the second place, the words convey a misleading conception of the present condition of the Christian. To speak of “some remnants of corruption” still remaining in the believer, necessarily implies that by far the greater part of his original corruption has been removed, and that only a trifling portion of the same now remains. But something vastly different from that is what every true Christian discovers to his daily grief and humiliation.

All the Reformation “standards” (creeds, confessions, and catechisms) will be searched in vain for any clear statement upon the perfect holiness which the Church has in Christ or of God’s making Him to be sanctification unto His people. Most theological systems have taught that while justification is accomplished the moment the sinner truly believes in Christ, yet is his sanctification only then begun, and is a protracted process to be carried on throughout the remainder of this life by means of the Word and ordinances, seconded by the discipline of trial and affliction.

But if this be the case, then there must be a time in the history of every believer when he is “justified from all things” and yet unfit to appear in the presence of God. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves; and yet, according to the doctrine of “progressive sanctification,” until we can say it we are not meet for the inheritance of the saints in light.

Not only are those who have no complete sanctification unfit for eternal glory, but it would be daring presumption for them to boldly enter the Holiest now—the “new and living way” is not yet available for them, they cannot draw near “with a true heart in full assurance of faith.” What wonder, then, that those who believe this doctrine are plunged into perplexity, that such a cloud rests over their acceptance with God.

The glorious Gospel of God reveals to us a perfect Savour. It exhibits One who has not only made complete satisfaction to the righteous Ruler and Judge, providing for His people a perfect righteousness before Him, but whose sacrifice has also fitted us to worship and serve a holy God acceptably, and to approach the Father with full confidence and love.

If the conscience be still defiled, if the eye of God rests upon us as unclean, then confidence before Him is impossible, for we feel utterly unfit for His ineffable presence. “Now where remission of sins is, no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holiest by the blood of Jesus” (Heb. 10:18, 19).

The same sacrifice which has procured the remission of our sins, provides the right for us to draw nigh unto God in acceptable worship. “By His own blood He entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption for us” (Heb. 9:13).

The Christian is regarded not only as guiltless, but also as spotless and holy. Oh to realize by faith that we are assured of the same welcome by God now as His beloved Son received when He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high. God views us in Christ His “Holy One”.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: good works

Tags: , ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

15 Comments on “Sanctification Is Not “More and More”, by AW Pink”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    Christ is our holiness in the same sense in which he is our righteousness. He is a complete and all-sufficient Savior. He does not accomplish his work halfway but saves us really and completely. He does not rest until, after pronouncing his acquittal in our conscience, he has also imparted full holiness and glory to us.

    By his righteousness, accordingly, he does not just restore us to the state of the just who will go scot-free in the judgment of God, in order then to leave us to ourselves to reform ourselves after God’s image and to merit eternal life. But Christ has accomplished everything. He bore for us the guilt and punishment of sin, placed himself under the law to secure eternal life for us, and then arose from the grave to communicate himself to us in all his fullness for both our righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30). The holiness that must completely become ours therefore fully awaits us in Christ.

    — Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics(Grand Rapids, Mi.: Baker Academic, 2008), 4:248

  2. markmcculley Says:

    The writer to the Hebrews does not use the word “sanctification” in the WCF sense of the word.

    Hebrews 6:10 For God is not unjust to forget your work and labor of love which you have shown toward His name, in that you have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

    Hebrews 10–then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

    Hebrews 10: 28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which He was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace?

    Hebrews 13:24 Greet all those who rule over you, and all the saints. Those from Italy greet you.

  3. markmcculley Says:

    There are different “sanctifications” in the NT. Certainly II Thess 2:13 is talking about the work of God in the heart to cause the elect to believe the gospel. But that work of causing us to believe the gospel is not to be equated with the Father placing the elect into Christ’s death so that they are “set apart by the blood”. The key for me is texts like I Peter 1 which address Christians as “saints”. Sure, either God has worked in our hearts to believe the gospel, but even that goes up and down, increase and decrease. But either we are saints or not, and this is first of all about being united to the death of Christ. Who unites us to the death of Christ? What does Romans 6 say? Is it the Spirit who gives us Christ’s death, or is Christ’s death (imputed by the Father) which gives us Christ’s Holy Spirit? We can’t say that “sanctification by the blood” is included in what Shaw and the WCF are talking about because they are simply not talking about “sanctification by Christ’s death because they are limited to the Spirit’s work in sanctification, and thus make the Spirit the agent of application. Why they do this, to the neglect of the Father’s agency in sanctification, is a historical mystery to me—and I won’t speculate about their motives, but I want us to not repeat their mistakes.

  4. markmcculley Says:

    Mark Jones—The more a creature resembles God and is his image, the more he or she will rise above the imperfections of time and approach eternity.”

    Richard Gaffin, by Faith not by Sight, p 103–”The law-gospel antithesis enters NOT BY VIRTURE OF CREATION

    ….. but as the consequence of sin…The gospel is to the purpose of removing an absolute law-gospel antithesis in the life of the believer…With the gospel and in Christ, united to him, the law is no longer my enemy but my friend.”

    Mark Jones claims that there is no promise (of death) to those in hell. But at the same time Mark Jones claims that God’s threat of death to Adam (before Adam sinned) was “grace”. I claim only the merits of Christ’s death as satisfaction of the law

    http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2015/05/hells-horrors-vs-heavens-happi.php#sthash.GHjaVjhT.4YtVjCAs.dpuf

    • markmcculley Says:

      opc report on justification, p30—When Paul speaks of justification, he invariably establishes the starkest imaginable contrast between law and works, on one hand, and grace and faith, on the other hand. (Though his is not true when Paul speaks about sanctification, in which law and works, and grace and fatih, are perfectly complementary, since the good works of the law flow out of this faith that comes by grace.)

      My guess is that Gaffin wrote that part (no antithesis for the Christian) but I also guess that most people don’t have a problem in talking about “sanctification” that way

  5. markmcculley Says:

    John Murray is not talking about being set apart by Christ’s death. Murray is talking about a new disposition.

    Steve Yang– Murray argues that those who crucified their old self with Christ are no longer under the dominion of sin (Romans 6). He says that “it is wrong to use these texts to support any other view of the victory entailed than that which the Scripture teaches it to be, namely, the radical breach with the power and love of sin which is necessarily the possession of every one who has been united to Christ. Union with Christ is union with him in the efficacy of his death and in virtue of his resurrection – he who thus died and rose again with Christ is freed from sin, and sin will not exercise the dominion” (Murray, 143). Murray further writes, “[the Christian] must reckon himself to be dead indeed unto sin but alive unto God through Jesus Christ his Lord. It is the faith of this fact that provides the basis for, and the incentive to the fulfillment of, the exhortation, ‘Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body…’” (Murray, 146).
    Murray’s usage of Scripture, however, has failed to prove that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit necessarily sanctifies a man in a progressive and ontological sense. His usage of Romans, for instance, is unwarranted for the reason that he assumes that by “the dominion of sin” Paul has an ontological change in mind. However, when Paul wrote “so you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:11) the verb he chose to use was logi,zesqe. This verb [logi,zomai] means to “consider”, to “count”, to “credit” or to “reckon”. Such a verb is not used in an ontological sense, but in a positional sense. Paul also uses this very verb to describe the manner in which Abraham was counted righteous by God – by faith (Rom. 4:6, 8-11, 22-24). God accounted, or declared, Abraham righteous even though Abraham ontologically wasn’t. Hence, by his usage of this passage all Murray has done is undermine his own assumptions by reaffirming the positional aspect of God’s blessings.
    The freedom from the dominion of sin, which Paul speaks of, is not the ontological change in holiness, as Murray would suggest. Rather, it is the freedom from the condemnation of sin and from the guilt of falling short of the law’s demands. Whereas Murray would seem to suggest that sanctification is conforming to the law (by the Spirit’s help), Paul’s claim is that “we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit” (Rom. 7:6,). Paul’s claim is that believers are released from the condemnation of the law’s demand. It is freedom from this captivity that Paul has in mind when he says that Christians are free from the dominion of sin. Whereas Murray would suggest that being freed from the dominion of sin means that the believer has newly attained ability to keep the law, Paul, on the contrary, suggests that such freedom means Christians are absolved from the law’s demands. All the law could do is condemn, kill, and destroy. And it is for this very reason that in Rom. 7:7 Paul anticipates the objection that “doesn’t such a view suggest that the law is sin?” However, the view that the freedom from the dominion of sin only means that the Spirit aids us in obeying the law would never draw one to raise the objection that the law is sin (in fact, quite the contrary). If one were in line with Pauline theology, one would have to expect answer to similar objections in which Paul faced. The fact that John Murray does not seems to attract such objections only suggests that he is not reading the Apostle Paul correctly.

  6. markmcculley Says:

    it s not the case that progressivesanctification follows from the imperatives given to those indwelt by the Holy Spirit. It will first be demonstrated that the burden of proof is on Murray to prove that the imperatives given to the believer entail the believer’s ability to obey them. A potential set of counter objections from Murray will then be introduced and be responded to.
    Murray writes: “the sanctified are not passive or quiescent in this process. Nothing shows this more clearly than the exhortation of the apostle: ‘Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12, 13) (Murray, 148). Murray wishes to acknowledge that the commands in Scripture demand human responsibility – not least Paul’s exhortation to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil. 2:12). However, one must ask what relevance the imperatives have in proving the progressive nature of sanctification? Unless one is ready to make the Pelagian presupposition that God would not give us a command unless we were able to keep it, one cannot assume that just because believers are given a command that the believer has the ability to keep them. Murray would agree with Berkhof that uncoverted man is commanded to be perfect, to do good, to not sin, to believe and be saved, but simultaneously “cannot do any act, however insignificant, whichfundamentally meets with God’s approval and answers to the demands of God’s holy law…In a word, he is unable to do any spiritual good” (Berkhof, 247, emphasis mine). If responsibility does not entail ability in the pre-converted state, then it is the burden of proof of Murray to demonstrate that responsibility entails ability in the post-converted state. Murray clearly fails to demonstrate this by his exegesis of Romans 6. One cannot simply assume that God gave the believer commandments and thus man is able – or guaranteed – to keep them.
    Murray would probably indicate that the difference between post-conversion and pre-conversion is the presence of the Spirit in the regenerate man (which is clearly absent in the unregenerate man). Murray would then state that the Spirit then “enables” the believer to perform the requirements of the Law. However, he must demonstrate how regeneration or the presence of the Holy Spirit grants the believer an ability which the unbeliever does not have. One cannot assume, as Murray does, that the Holy Spirit’s presence grants this ability.
    If one cannot assume that the Holy Spirit grants the believer the ability to keep God’s commandments, then Murray might then object by asking me for an explanation on what purpose God gives someone a commandment if one isn’t able to keep it. To this objection, the Apostle Paul responds, “if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. I would nothave known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet’” (Rom.7:7, ESV). Again, Paul says elsewhere, “Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come…so then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith” (Gal. 3:19, 24, ESV). Paul tells us that the law was given so that it would demonstrate that we can’t keep it and, thereby, lead us to Christ as our righteousness. Nowhere does Paul say that commandments are given so that we could keep them. Like the Old Testament Law Paul’s exhortations provide context for what it means to be perfect, thereby providing a measuring stick for perfection (since perfection is always God’s standard) and drive all men to our only hope, Jesus Christ. Paul contextualizes God’s commands, to demonstrate what the perfect man would look like in their contexts of church conflict (1 Cor. 3, 12-14), in church conduct (1 Ti. 5), in marriage (Eph. 5), in mature character (Rom. 12, 1 Thess 5), in generous giving (2 Cor. 8), in relation to the state (Rom. 13), and so forth. There is no question that Paul wishes his exhortations and commandments to be obeyed. But this demonstrates the pastoral heart of Paul, much like it demonstrated Moses’ heart over the nation Israel. However, in no way do the commandments of Paul demonstrate ability to God’s covenantal people in the New Testament any more than the commandments of Moses demonstrated ability to God’s covenantal people in the Old Testament.

  7. markmcculley Says:

    It is interesting to see how Murray can quote so much Scripture and yet miss the essential point of what the passages he quotes actually demonstrate. Jesus’ words in Matthew, for instance, “ye shall be perfect therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48) demonstrates that God requiresperfection and nothing short of it. He is not satisfied with someone’s best work (with or without the Holy Spirit). Jesus’ point in the Sermon on the Mount is that anyone’s best work still falls short of what God requires. He says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:17-18, ESV).
    Someone might read that and think that Jesus is asking his hearers to obey more, to sin less, to become more sanctified. However, that would only be relaxing God’s command of perfection and thereby be guilty of what Jesus is warning against: “Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:19, ESV). Jesus is not asking his hearers to put in more effort, to try harder, to sin less, or to be more sanctified – inasmuch as He is setting up the perfect standard of God and thereby demonstrating that they need a greater righteousness than His hearers could ever perform. When Jesus says, “For unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:20, ESV), He is trying to expose the inability of fallen man and thereby lead His hearers to find righteousness that does not come from the law, “but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9, ESV). Thus, His aim is not to show that they can keep the law (even the scribes and Pharisees have failed!), but that they can’t. Thus He continues to make the law harsher with the repeated formula: “You’ve heard it said…but I say unto You…, even if You…You have still failed” (Matt. 5:21-47). And it is in this context that Jesus says “Ye shall be perfect therefore as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matt. 5:48). While it is true that believers are not to be self-complacent, the response Jesus is looking for is not “O wretched man that I am…let me try harder (with or without the Holy Spirit)”, but rather, “O wretched man that I am, I am required to be perfect…who will rescue me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:24, ESV). It is this context which provides an understanding to which the Biblical men above state “woe is me”, and “I abhor myself”. It is in this context that they recognize their inability to perform righteousness, thus they are only left with cursing themselves.
    Again, Murray only undermines his position by the manner in which
    Murray’s usage of Scripture, therefore, in no way supports his position but only seems to emphasize the fallenness of man and his utter inability to amount to anything worthy. To argue for ability from this passage seems contrary to Jesus’ antithetical position of relaxing a commandment. Furthermore, by Murray’s understanding of complacency, it would seem as though the non-complacent man that is able to perform the law (to greater degrees) is not lead to cursing oneself, but rather to the encouraging of oneself in order to perform tasks better and more frequently (after all, the man who is so able wouldn’t want be discouraged by cursing himself). Simply said, Murray does not disprove the positional view of sanctification by claiming that the regenerate man should not be morally-lax.

  8. markmcculley Says:

    Hugh, short answer—I deny that faith unites us to Christ. I deny that the Holy spirit unites us to Christ.

    Gaffin—The issue here can be reduced to the relationship between this statement and the “Christ-outside-us, useless-and-of-no-value-for-us” statement in 3.1.1.
    Nor, to address a related misconception, does giving union antecedence, as Calvin does, make that spiritual union the ground or judicial basis of justification. That exclusive ground in the application of redemption is Christ’s finished righteousness imputed to us for justification solely by faith (as it unites us to Christ.)Cf. Westminster Shorter Catechism 30)

    http://www.opc.org/os9.html?article_id=140

    Gaffin—Despite the exegesis of some Reformed commentators, this death to sin is almost certainly not to the guilt that sin incurs and justification. In view, rather, is a definitive deliverance from sin’s over-mastering power to being enslaved instead to God and righteousness. That Spirit-worked (7:6) deliverance, not justification, grounds and provides the dynamic for the believer’s beginning to “walk in newness of life” (6:4), their being enslaved in their conduct to God and righteousness

    “…what John Murray, more recently, has referred to as “definitive sanctification.” This is the crucial soteriological truth that in the inception of the application of redemption, at the moment sinners are united to Christ by faith, they are delivered from sin’s enslaving power, from bondage to sin as master. At issue here, as much as anything, is the sense of the rhetorical question in Romans 6:2, as it expresses the controlling theme of the passage (Rom. 6:1-7:6) on its negative side, “How can we who died to sin still live in it?

  9. markmcculley Says:

    Gospel Reformation Network Affirmations and Denials

    Article IV – Union with Christ and Sanctification
    • We affirm that both justification and sanctification are distinct, necessary, inseparable and simultaneous graces of union with Christ though faith.
    • We deny that sanctification flows DIRECTLY from justification, or that the transformative elements of salvation are MERE consequences of the forensic elements.

    my questions

    1. Who is the Gospel Reformation Network? Is it a conference of friends who think alike, or does it agree to certain confessions, and does it have ecclesiastical and sacramental authority?

    2. Why is it a problem to deny that “sanctification” flows from justification, as long as “sanctification” result (flows)?

    3. Is the problem that “justification” is defined, but that “sanctification” and “union” are not?

    4. What does “sanctification” mean in Hebrews 10:10-14?

    5. What does “union” mean? Is “union” non-forensic? Is “union” both forensic and non-forensic?

    6. Once you have defined “union”, will you consistently use the word “union” in the way you defined it? Will you be thinking of “union” only as a result “flowing from” faith?

    7. If “faith-union” is a result of faith, and if faith is a result of regeneration, where do faith and regeneration come from?

    8. Is the problem with saying that “sanctification” results from “justification” the fact that we are either justified or we are not? Are we not also either “united to Christ” or not? (Please define “union”. Do you mean “in Christ”? Or do you mean “Christ in us”? Is there a difference in those two phrases? Why do you say “union” when you could be saying “in Christ” and “Christ in us”?)

    9.When you deny that “sanctification” is a “mere consequence” of the forensic, did you mean to deny that “sanctification” is a consequence of the “merely forensic”? What do you have against “merely” or any “sola” which points to Christ’s earned outside righteousness imputed to the elect?

    10. Is the point of the Gospel Reformation Network denial that “union” is not forensic or is the point that it is not “merely forensic”? Is this a question-begging point?

    11. If “sanctification” is “more than” than a “mere consequence”, does that mean that “sanctification” is also more than a result of “union”, so that “sanctification” is in someway identical to “union”, or at least a necessary “condition” for “union”?

    12. Does “union” flow from merely the transformative elements? If union is transformation, and union must come before justification, how is it that God is still justifying the ungodly?

    13. If becoming children of God only means being born again so that we are freed from the power of corruption, what is the need for those who are no longer ungodly to be justified or adopted?

    14. Is “union” a cause or a result of sacramental efficacy? It’s too late now to tell us that the order of application does not matter so much, since you insisted on denying that “justification” was a result of “sanctification”

  10. Brad Says:

    I have a problem with Progressive santification when it is used to define what justification looks like. Paul, in all his admonishing of the christian regarding how we should live as Christians , is calling us out to live out who we all ready are, not to try and attain a certain level of “Practical holiness” by the methods of John Wesley and of many so called calvanist that hold to Lordship salvation in a way that is similar to what the Galatians false teachers were adding to Christ as a requirement to be justified. Santification becomes a form of justification if what Pink said above is not correct.


  11. I agree, Brad. It’s not enough to say that the “progress” is in our sanctification and not in our justification. “Progress” is not evidence of justification but evidence of failure to understand the gospel yet.

    https://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/is-the-sanctification-of-a-christian-like-the-justification-of-christ/

  12. Hugh McCann Says:

    This, surprisingly(?) from an Eastern Orthodox priest:

    http://blogs.ancientfaith.com/glory2godforallthings/2014/12/05/youre-not-better/

    (The usual caveats apply…)

    • Brad Says:

      That is rather surprising Hugh, he has insights that makes you think he has walked on the same road we have, perhaps he has. Its the usaual caveats that give me the trouble , But i firmly believe God will not fit in the box we design for him. At the same Truth is not relative. Where is my wine bottle 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: