Positional Sanctification

***note, this is a repost of a paper worked on by myself and D.H. Stevens

The church has for long been debating over the true nature of sanctification.  The proponents for the views to be discussed are:  Karl Barth, Louis Berkhof, and John Murray.  Karl Barth has viewed sanctification as positional.  Sanctification, for Barth, is where God declares a sinner as holy; the believer already stands in a “holy position” before God, since Christ is the believer’s sanctification.  Barth, thus emphasizes the definiteness of sanctification:  the believer has been sanctified.  Louis Berkhof, in contrast to Barth, has viewed sanctification as progressive.  Sanctification, according to Berkhof, is a continual process in which the believer is being transformed more and more into the likeness of Christ – until the believer finally becomes glorified at Christ’s return.  Berkhof, thus, emphasizes the ongoing process of sanctification:  the believer is becoming sanctified. John Murray, who in some sense acts as a mediator between Barth from Berkhof, has argued that sanctification is both positional and progressive.

*Reduced for a shorter post :P*

THE BIBLE DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION

The honest theologian must evaluate the progressiveness of sanctification upon Paul’s testimony of “hav[ing] the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out” (Rom. 7:18, ESV).  A progressive view of sanctification does not hold in light of Scripture, since Scriptures never seems to guarantee the progressive nature in the regenerate man.  And if the Scriptures never seem to guarantee it, then one cannot ask their parishioners to put their hope in it    The final task to be undertaken will be to examine five Scriptural passages that are most often quoted to argue in favor of progressive sanctification and to demonstrate how each fails in its attempt.

Murray offers what he believes to be the “most significant passage” in favor of progressive sanctification to be 2 Corinthians 3:17, 18, “where Paul says that the Lord is the Spirit and then indicates that the transforming process by which we are transformed into the Lord’s image is by “the Spirit of the Lord” (Murray, 148).  However, the context in which Paul speaks that “we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Cor. 3:17, 18) speaks not of regenerate man progressing from one state of glory to another but is rather comparing the fading glory of the old covenant, the glory of Moses, with the unfading glory of the new covenant, the glory of the Lord (2 Cor.3:6-17).  The exegesis of 2 Cor. 3:17, 18 to justify progressive sanctification of the believer is hermeneutically unwarranted and so must be rejected.

Another passage often quoted to argue in favor of progressive sanctification is found where Paul says “now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23, ESV, emphasis mine) However, Paul is not urging his readers to be holy inasmuch as he is reminding them that although God’s standards seem overwhelming (1 Thess. 5:12-22) their confidence of sanctification is grounded in the work of Christ: “He who calls you is faithful; He will surely do it” (1 Thess. 5:24, ESV, emphasis mine).  The other problem is that the passage is clear on God sanctifying the believer rather than the believer working with God to sanctify himself.  This passage also does not prove any progression, but seems to ground Christ as our sanctification, and God as the sole actor in our sanctification.

The third passage is “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.  The old has passed away; behold the new has come!” (2 Cor. 5:17, ESV).  This frequently memorized Scripture is too often misunderstood to mean that man, at conversion, becomes a morally better person (at least more capable), since he is a new creation via the Holy Spirit.  However, this reading does injustice to its immediate context, since the verse immediately prior to it says, “from now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh.  Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer” (2 Cor. 5:16, ESV, emphasis mine).  Paul tells us that we are not to know the regenerate man as a sinner.  Paul does not speak of the regenerate man as a ontologically more capable person but rather tells us where our sanctification is found:  “For our sake [God] made [Christ] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in [Christ] we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21, ESV).  Therefore, just as Christ was made a sinner not in an ontological sense but in the positional sense, so also sinners become the righteousness of God not in an ontological sense but in a positional sense.  This is what Paul clearly demonstrates here, so this passage must also be rejected as supporting a progressive nature of sanctification.

The fourth passage to examine is Jesus’ teaching to Nicodemus:  “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God  That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not marvel that I sad to you, ‘You must be born again.’” (John 3:5-7, ESV).  However, this passage does not demonstrate that the regenerate man progresses in his sanctification but merely tells us how one is made right with God:  “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.  And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life” (John 3:13-15, ESV).  Like the other passages above, this verse must be deemed as unsuccessful in proving progression.

The fifth passage is one offered by John Murray.  He claims that the regenerate, or “spiritual”, man is the one whom John speaks of “as not doing sin and as unable to sin” (1 Jn. 3:9, 5:18).  However, the same John who says that “everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning” (1 Jn. 5:18) immediately provides the reason:  “the one begotten of God” [avllV o` gennhqei.j evk tou/ qeou/] protects him, and the evil one does not touch him” (1 Jn. 5:18).  The reason John says that those born of God do not keep sinning is for the reason that the One born of God [o` gennhqei.j evk tou/ qeou] protects them so that the evil one cannot touch them.  But one must ask in what manner does Christ protect Christians from the evil one’s touch?  Considering that the devil continues to tempt Christians and given the fact that John tells us in the same epistle that the regenerate continue to sin (1 Jn. 1:8, 10), it must be concluded that Christ seems to be less concerned about the believer’s progression inasmuch the devil’s accusations.  The devil cannot harm the regenerate man because Christ is his sanctification.  And it is in this sense that John refers the regenerate man as one who does not “continue to sin”.  The regenerate man can live as though he’s perfectly sanctified, perfectly freed from sin and perfectly safe and protected from the evil one, since “the one begotten of God protects him”.  This passage, like the other four that are often used, simply cannot prove a progressive nature of sanctification.

Murray has been unsuccessful in proving the progressive nature of sanctification from the basis of a change of desire in the believer, and from the imperatives given to those indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  The major arguments for progressive sanctification from Scripture have also been debunked.  In doing so it will have been demonstrated that Murray errs when he affirmed Berkhof’s position.  Berkhof had criticized Barth for confusing sanctification with justification, and thereby “rul[ing] out the possibility of confident assurance”.  However, there is no confusion in Barth – even perhaps while acknowledging them as inseparable, since he believed that the Bible both declared sinners “righteous” and also declared sinners “holy”.  Barth understood sinners’ best deeds to continue to be sins.  Thus, he could do nothing but find confidence – by faith alone – in Christ, His Justification and His Sanctification.  However, for Berkhof, who understood the rejection of progressive sanctification as the “rul[ing] out the possibility of confident assurance” seems to dictate that a believer functionally finds his confident assurance of salvation in faith plus works, namely in his progression of a greater holy disposition.  However, for those like Martin Luther, who was never confident that his obedience was done “in relation to God, for God’s sake, and with a view to the service of God”, the doctrine of progressive sanctification seems like “no gospel at all” (Gal. 1:7).  And for those alcoholics, smoke-addicts, sex-addicts, homosexuals, heterosexuals, anorexics, bulimics, gossipers, coveters, kleptomaniacs, or maniacs who never – ever – seem to progress, looking to one’s own “progression” makes one inevitably think that one will never inherit the kingdom of God. 

Perhaps the reason why the Holy Spirit withholds that ability from us, and perhaps why Scripture never teaches that progressive disposition is so that the Holy Spirit will continue to do His primary work:  to let us see and continue to see Christ as our only hope.  And He reassures us that we belong to the family by whispering in our hearts:  “And such were some of you.  But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”  (1 Cor. 6:11, ESV)