Is There A Difference Between Justification & Sanctification?
Posted by truthtalklive on 14 July, 2009
True or false..We are justified by faith and we are sanctified by works.
Does the gospel really save us positionally and practically? And why does it matter?
A great open- line topic today. Weigh in with your calls tollfree at (866) 34-TRUTH or leave your comments here.
Find us on:
50 Comments on “Is There A Difference Between Justification & Sanctification?”
Yes there is a great difference between justification
and sanctification. The Reformers died for it.
Justification is the moment in time when God declares
the sinner just on the grounds of Christ’s righteousness.
Sanctification is in one sense both. We are set apart
at our justification but the NT also refers to it as the
process between our justification and glorification.
The answer to the T/F question is false.
We live by faith and are no more sanctified by our own
diligence than we are justified by our own good works.
Phil. 1:6 …He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion
on the last day.
Well put. The good works that are evidence of sanctification still result from a heart that is transformed by grace.
Justification: the saving gift of righteousness that makes human beings acceptable to God. It is true “sonship” with God, not simply “coating” with Jesus’ righteousness as Luther mistakenly proposed (1John3:1-3, 1 John1:7, Rom6:3-8, Rom8:14-17, 2Cor5:17, etc.) Sanctification (Lat. “being made holy”): God’s action in enabling human beings, whose sins have been forgiven, to participate more fully in the divine holiness and perfection.
Also, as per afternoon radio program on 7/14: Paul sets the context to Romans 3:28 & 4:5 in 2:6-11 clearly stating that good works are in fact necessary for eternal life. He uses phrases such as “according to his works…patience in well-doing…he will give eternal life…do not obey the truth…every human..who does evil…does good..” These verses clearly set the tone regarding this topic. Also, Romans 3:28 speaks of “works of the law,” not all works. In Paul’s day there was a growing heretical sect that believed a Christian (besides believing in Christ and following New Covenant) must also observe Levitical Law in order to be saved. Paul here is trying to set the record straight regarding this false belief of the day. It is sadly misinterpreted today as regarding all works and not just Old Covenant Law has been historically recognized.
None of our works of any type are required for justification. Likewise, our sanctification is not dependent on our good works but Christs’. Luther never, to my knowledge implied being “coated” with Christs’ righteousness, but it was the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s merit to us that made Luther jealous to Reform. Certainly the justified person bears fruit but those good works are not the tree of our justification, but the fruit which it bears. Grap, the distinction you are making between two laws isn’t warranted by those or any other texts.
We are justified by faith (Romans 5:1), made righteous through faith (Romans 3:22), sanctified by faith (Acts 26:18), made holy by faith (Hebrews 10:10), all because of ONE sacrifice, because of God’s unmerited favor (grace). All of those terms carry with them the “already/not-yet” sense that defines the Kingdom of God since the moment of Christ’s resurrection. At the moment of Christ’s resurrection, the Kingdom of God had already come, yet is not yet fulfilled. At the moment of our salvation, we are already justified/sanctified/righteous/holy, yet we still must grow in spirit and truth if we are truly new creatures living for Jesus. Works are the natural result of a changed heart/spirit/mind, and we will become more mature Christians and more “righteous” in our actions as we grow in the faith, yet we are never any more sanctified/justified than at the moment of our salvation. Justification and right-ification (we have no English equivalent for the greek verb form of righteousness) share a greek root, and sanctification and holinessification (again, no verb form) share a greek root. The Bible clearly states that all of these are done in us through the action of God, Jesus, and/or the Holy Spirit, not by any of our acts/works.
Perhaps the following (taken from Monergism.com) will help us as we discuss sanctification:
Definitive and Progressive Sanctification (A. Orendorff)
Definitive sanctification, as defined by John Frame, is “a once-for-all event, simultaneous with effectual calling and regeneration, that transfers us from the sphere of sin to the sphere of God’s holiness, from the kingdom of Satan to the kingdom of God.” Definitive sanctification marks us out (or separates us) as God’s chosen people – His treasured and covenantal possession (Acts 20:32; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 6:11). So too, definitive sanctification redeems (or frees) us from the dominion (or slavery) of sin by uniting us to Christ, particularly in His death, resurrection and ascension. Sanctification, in this sense, refers to a decisive and radical break with the power and pleasures of sin.
Progressive sanctification, as defined by Wayne Grudem, is “a progressive work of God and man that makes us more and more free from sin and like Christ in our actual lives.” According to John Frame, “We can think of sanctification as the outworking of the new life given in regeneration.” It involves the gradual, incremental and (S)piritual work of both putting to death the remains of “indwelling sin” as well as putting on the likeness of Christ.
SinClair Ferguson from Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification
Union with Christ in his death and resurrection is the element of union which Paul most extensively expounds…if we are united to Christ, then we are united to him at all points of his activity on our behalf. We share in his death (we were baptized into his death), in his resurrection (we are resurrected with Christ), in his ascension (we have been raised with him), in his heavenly session (we sit with him in heavenly places, so that our life is hidden with Christ in God), and we will share in his promised return (when Christ, who is our life, appears, we also will appear with him in glory) (Rom. 6:14; Col. 2:11-12; 3:1-3).
This, then, is the foundation of sanctification in Reformed theology. It is rooted, not in humanity and their achievement of holiness or sanctification, but in what God has done in Christ, and for us in union with him. Rather than view Christians first and foremost in the microcosmic context of their own progress, the Reformed doctrine first of all sets them in the macrocosm of God’s activity in redemptive history. It is seeing oneself in this context that enables the individual Christian to grow in true holiness.
jason, I’m making a distinction between “two laws.” I’m simply pointing out the obvious that in Romans 3:28, Paul isn’t saying that all works aren’t what justifies man, but those “of the law..” as the apostle clearly says. There is no need to go over the grammar which also points to this anyway. Check 2:28-29 and Colossians 2:11-12. Paul proclaims the New Covenant specifically delivering the message that circumcision (Old Law practice) isn’t needed. It is in this context that Paul talks about “works of the law” in 3:28. In fact the idea that Paul was speaking of all works is relatively new. It evolved with time over the past couple of hundred years without historical precedent. Talk about not adding or taking from Scripture!
Acts 15:1-2 also……warranted now?
Let me clarify, I’m not claiming that Paul taught that all and any “work” justifies or saves man, but only those done in Christ after baptism. These works must be done via God’s grace and not by one’s own power (Romans 6:3-4). Now, in Galatians 3:2-3 Paul speaks of the same “Christians” that still believed in the necessity of circumcision despite Christ’s fulfillment of the New Covenant. This group was baptized (walking in newness of life Romans 6:3-4), but now Paul warns that they “have fallen away from grace…” “Through the Spirit, by faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness (Greek: dikaiosoune – justification). For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith working through love.” It seems to me that Paul is warning of a possible fall from grace after being justified at baptism. If this is possible, then what actions (works) could possibly warrant this?
Grap,
The most fundamental error in your posts in this thread is that you connect justification with baptism. The sacrament doesn’t confer justifying grace, but only the admission of the child (in the Presby case) into the covenant community where he/she will experience the universal call of God with a bullhorn. Consequently, this is the grace that is “fallen away from”.
Here’s the progress of Romans: Chap. 1 Humanity is depraved even in its will and we actually know God exists yet we actively suppress that truth in our sin. What Law is it in Chap. 1 against which man is measured? It is all that God has commanded throughout time. Chap. 2 Jews fall into the same camp, just because they were used to foreshadow the coming of the Redeemer does not mean every ethnic Jew, even those who obeyed the Law outwardly, is a member in the Kingdom of God. Notice the use of Law in 2:12-13. If the context demands that it is ONLY the Mosaic Law (and you place an emphasis on the ceremonial) then we are justified by keeping it. The use of the example of circumcision in Chap. 2 is obviously a reference to all God’s commands. The context doesn’t demand that we see Paul only describing justification as being not by the Mosaic Law. Take into account Galatians and other letters. Chap. 3 The OT quotation is employed to establish our helpless state (baptized or otherwise). By the law the entire world is held accountable this is not just the ceremonial law. And in v. 20, no one is justified by keeping it. So in v. 28 we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law…apart form obeying all that God commands
Good post Jason. The “works of the law” can be a big discussion, as illustrated in the current “New Perspective on Paul” controversy, but I agree with you. When Paul uses the phrase “works of the law” he means much more that mere Jewish identity markers like circumcision. He is referring to the obedience required by the law of God – to everything the law requires. Since we fallen sinners cannot keep the law perfectly, we can only be condemned by the law; we can never be saved by keeping it. No one in history has ever been justified, that is, declared righteous by God, by keeping the moral law (i.e. – by doing the works of the law). The only way to be justified is through faith in Jesus Christ, that is, through trusting Christ and Christ only for one’s acceptance before God. This is the only exegesis that make any sense when you get to Romans chapter 4. Justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Christ’s righteousness is the only ground, or basis, of our justificaiton, and not our own works. Once we begin to trust in our works for justification we have lost the gospel.
As for sanctification, I think the material I pasted in post # 7 gives a good start to a proper understanding of this doctrine. It is vital that we understand both definitive and progressive sanctification. And it is vital that we see that all of our sanctification flows out of our union with Christ. Christ purchased and the Spirit applies the entirety of our salvation – justification, sanctification, and glorification.
Grap,
Col. 2:11-12 does in fact connect baptism to circumcision, but not baptism to regeneration. I suppose you would say that OT saints were regenerated by circumcision. This passage actually confirms the continuity between the Old and New covenant regarding the signs. Neither OT nor NT saints were regenerated by the application of the sign (Rom. 2: 28For no one is a Jew who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical. 29But a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.)
What is obvious from Acts 15:1-2 is that the 1st century Jews were confused about the fact that the application of the sign never did save. So much of what Paul wrote about not being justified by ANY law at all was framed in the context of the Jews misunderstanding about being justified by the Law of Moses in particular. The is no distinction made between the Law of Moses and some other Law in the Acts verses you cited…so no, still not warranted.
Our justification makes it possible to do good works, obey the Law. But it isn’t these good works that God foresees and as a result He justifies us because of them. The fact is, Christ’s good works are the grounds for our justification and they are imputed to us freely and graciously by God through faith. If you deny that then you deny the gospel. God has predestine all those who believe to do good works, and in the end, those who had none, will not be finally glorified, but justification is NOT the process of making us more righteous.
The context in Romans 6:3-4 clearly indicates that Paul’s point is not that we are regenerated at baptism but that the believer’s old man dies with His death and is raised to new life in His resurrection.
Gal. 5: For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.
Paul actually indicates that these who fall away from grace were not members of Christ. The grace they’ve fallen away from is the testimony of the Old Covenant, hence Gal. 4:28-31. Like those who we know have been made part of the community of God through baptism as a child but who later fall away in unbelief. They benefit from the sanctifying grace of God through the preaching of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, but they never had benefited from the justifying grace which places them in the Kingdom of God eternal.
Yes JD, the Monergism stuff is great!
Jason, Your point about works that God has designed for us to do it right on point. Ephesians two describes the works that were created in Christ Jesus to do. Actually, it does so right after the writer says that we are “saved by grace through faith, not by works” without “the law” as a disclaimer. I would think that from Paul’s perspective there would be no distiniction between works and works of the Law. From his Christianized Jewish perspective of the time, anything a Gentile pagan would do would have amounted to idolatry. The idea that you would have works that would be fruitful without coming from the covenant would be nonsensical to him I think. It is exactly correct about circumcision. That act was never intended to “save” one in the O.T. That rite initiated one into the covenant community and also was distinguished Israel from everyone else. Jason, JD, I’d be curious to know about your opinion of the “new perspective” on Paul. I’ve read Tom Wright’s Climax of the Covenant, and found his take on Romans 9-11 to be pretty compelling.
ADB,
I think you’re right on about the 1st cent. perspective. I’m not sure where Grap is coming from, maybe he can enlighten us to the theological bent that causes one to see Paul as referring to two types of works…RC perhaps?
As for the NPOP, I’ve probably forgotten most of what I’ve read about the debate. If I remember correctly the main point is similar to what Grap was saying, that in the end we are in fact justified by our works. At the last judgment (I can’t remember pertinent the verse in Rev.) God sees the good works He ordained for us and enabled us to do after regeneration and He finally calls us righteous, but I’m probably confusing the issue b/c I think Wright agrees that we are in fact declared righteous at conversion on account of Christ’s good works, but I’m not sure.
As for his take on Rom. 9-11, I cannot comment. But I do know that I agree with many many things Wright has written and I believe his work on the historicity of the resurrection is the best.
I must admit, I am not following every detail and intention in all the replies to my posts. I have detected some misunderstanding in the translation of some of what I have said. I will address the big overall matter that I think I perceive from not only your messages, but much of what is in Christian media. > The Bible’s teaching on justification is nuanced. Paul indicates that there is a real transformation which occurs in justification, that it is not just a change in legal status. This is seen, for example, in Romans 6:7, which every standard translation renders as “For he who has died is freed from sin.”
Paul is obviously speaking about being freed from sin in an experiential sense, for this is the passage where he is at pains to stress the fact that we have made a decisive break with sin that must be reflected in our behavior: “What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?” (Rom. 6:1-2). “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness” (6:12-13).
It seems that this context is what some (or all) of you are referring to as “sanctification”: the process of being made holy. Sanctification is the sense in which we are said to be “freed from sin” in this passage. Yet in the Greek text, what is actually said is “he who has died has been justified from sin.” The term in Greek (dikaioo) is the word for being justified, yet the context indicates sanctification, which is why every standard translation renders the word “freed” rather than “justified.” This shows that, in Paul’s mind, justification involves a real transformation, a real, experiential freeing from sin, not just a change of legal status (as many Christians attest to). And it shows that, the way he uses terms, there is not the rigid wall between justification and sanctification that is so suprisingly popular today.
According to Scripture, sanctification and justification aren’t just one-time events, but are ongoing processes in the life of the believer. Both can be spoken of as past-time events, as Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 6:11: “But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” Sanctification is also a present, ongoing process, as the author of Hebrews notes: “For by one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). In regard to justification also being an on-going process, compare Romans 4:3; Genesis 15:6 with both Hebrews 11:8; Genesis 12:1-4 and James 2:21-23; Genesis 22:1-18. In these passages, Abraham’s justification is advanced on three separate occasions.
Welcome to the site grapplin_pt and JD42! It’s good to hear from some fresh names.
Jason, I’ll agree with you about Wright’s view of resurrection. His Resurrection of the Son of God has had a profound impact on my understanding.
Grap, I suspect that we’re using different language to describe the same thing. In my understanding justification is inherently a juridical term. God declares that someone to be righteous who is not righteous in in himself. Where to many Christians miss the boat, in my opinion, is that they leave salvation at that. My understanding of sanctification is that we are progressively made to be righteous by God.
ADB, I am confused by this also? I repeated (hopefully in a more clear way) my overall point because I didn’t follow much of the responses to my original posts. I’m having to make some assumptions as to the actual meanings of “justification” and “sanctification” in regards to overall salvation (reward of eternal Heaven) as put out by the other posters. It’s not them, it’s my lack of full understanding of their intended meaning.
Grap,
The biblical understanding of the distinction between justification and sanctification is necessary because we are not justified by the imputation of our righteousness but by Christ’s. This declaration is made in a moment as it were, then it necessarily leads to sanctification. So justification is a moment not a process, but sanctification is both.
On a couple occasions you seemed to have suggested that because theologians prior to the Reformation didn’t fomulate a distinction between justification and sanctification that all former theologians would have disagreed, but this is not true. That would be paramount to saying that the theology that caused the Reformation didn’t exist until after the Reformation.
I want to understand what you are saying:
1) Do you believe that it it Christ’s righteousness alone that is credited to our account so God can accept us?
2) Do believe that righteousness is infused at baptism?
3) Do you believe that an individual who actually has been credited with the righteousness of Christ can thereafter be again credited with the wickedness of Adam? In other words, can one lose their salvation?
We are justified, declared righteous, at the moment of our salvation. Justification does not MAKE us righteous, but rather pronounces us righteous. Our righteousness comes from placing our faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ. God is the one who declares us righteous, and God is the one who justifies us. Sanctification is a state of separation unto God; all believers enter into this state when they are born of God: “But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians 1:30). This is a once-for-ever separation, eternally unto God. Sanctification also refers to the practical experience of this separation unto God, being the effect of obedience to the Word of God in one’s life, and is to be pursued by the believer earnestly (1 Peter 1:15; Hebrews 12:14). Jesus prayed in John 17 “As Thou didst send Me into the world, even so send I them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth” (v. 18, 19). His sanctification is the pattern for ours, even though we cannot become as Holy as He in this world (that will be the glorification that is to come, Colossians 3:4, out total separation from sin that will occur in eternity). Before salvation our behavior bore witness to our separation from God, after salvation our behavior should bear witness to our separation from the world.
So I would summarize that justification refers to the fact that Christ’s atoning act enables us to be counted as righteous by God, even though we are not yet perfectly righteous in our behavior. And we are sanctified in the sense that we are separate from the world in God, a once-for-all positional separation unto Christ at our salvation. In that sense sanctification and justification are similar (if not identical) at the moment of salvation. However, as a believer progresses through THIS life, there are usually (ought to be) progressive outward signs of sanctification (holiness) due to maturation in spirit and truth and knowledge of God. This is seen by others as progressing sanctification, but to God we are already sanctified (“de jure”) at the moment of our salvation. Our final separation “de facto” from sin will occur at death or the second coming of Christ, whichever comes first. This is why in the parable of the vineyard workers, those hired at the end of the day make just as much as those who worked the entire day. Those who die shortly after their salvation, before they have a chance to grow in faith and righteous behavior, are just as saved as those who die as elderly saints of the church, who have labored their entire lives for Jesus. This is also why Baptists believe that you can’t lose your salvation, even if you “backslide” (meaning outwardly you are not acting very sanctified!) as long as you don’t die in a state of denial/rebellion against the Holy Spirit.
Kash,
Very well put. The only thing I’d add is that regarding sanctification (specifically the “progressive” nature of it) we grow in grace to see ourselves increase in repentance and belief. We see the greatness of our sin and of the cross more and more over the course of ones life. So that, it may not always from our perspective look like a steady incline, but there is definitely the lusts of the flesh are continual mortified. (WCF: Chp 13 Sanctification .1)
Considering that this question “Is There A Difference Between Justification & Sanctification?” is fundamentally more important than “Should Christians Celebrate Darwin’s Birthday?” or “Why Would You Recommend A Christian College That Teaches Evolution?”, I’m discouraged that this thread isn’t filled with people making comments because they are so passionate about the doctrine of justification.
Jason,
I share your grief over the seeming lack of passion over justification by faith alone. I believe the leaders of the Reformers were correct when they said that this doctrine is the article upon which the church stands or falls. If we deny justificaiton by faith alone, in Christ alone, we deny the biblical gospel. Christ righteousness is the ground or basis of our salvation from A to Z – justification, sanctification, glorification. I let #7 stand as my explanation of sanctification.
Stu,
The lack of a flood of posts should not lead you to believe that you shouldn’t have more shows on this topic. A proper understanding of justification is vital for the church. Please have more shows with more guests (like maybe RC Sproul) who can speak inteliigently to the topic.
ADB,
I, like Jason, happen to believe that the New Perspective is off base when it comes to justification. They end up placing most of the stress on future justification. Men like NT Wright say that final justification is on the basis of our good works. This is a loss of the biblical gospel in my opinion. We are and ever will be acceptable to God only through Christ – His sacrifice and His righteousness.
Grapplin,
Anytime you think a word should be translated as something other that ALL the major translations have translated it, you should see this as a major red flag indicating that you are probably wrong. This lesson has come home to me in my studies of Greek in seminary. The reason that the translations translate this verb form (dedikaiotai) as “freed” is because that is what it means in that context. Words are not locked into one meaning. They have what’s known as a semantic range of meanings. And just because two words share the same root doesn’t mean that they share similar meanings. Roots do not determine meaning. Example: Breaking the word “butterfly” apart into “butter” and “fly” will not help you determine its meaning. Etymology can be helpful, but it is certainly not the only factor to consider. I don’t want to get too technical here. May I just suggest that you look up the verb dikaiao in a good lexicon and you will see what I mean. Below is the listing from one lexicon:
“to put into a right relationship (with God); acquit, declare and treat as righteous; show or prove to be right; set free; acknowledge God’s justice or obey God’s righteous demands”
Notice that one of the possible meanings is “set free.” Trust me. If you don’t know some Greek, you can’t just take a Strongs concordance and come up with an accurate translation. That’s why translators have to study the language for years before they are competent.
Hope this helps.
Woa! Thanks for the responses. I have friends in town. I’ll read and reply probably after the weekend. God bless.
JD,
I’ve read some NT Wright, but not Dunn and Sanders who are also associated with the NPP. I’m not well versed enough on it and the arguments against it to really make a judgment at this point. Wright does make a strong point that there is only one people of God, regardless of ethnicity. That this people is maked by faith in Christ only, and that it’s silly to regard unbelievers as “anonymous Christians” as some do, and that the church does need to try to carry the gospel to Jews. Anyway, thanks for your comment.
Grap,
To follow up on what JD said about translations. If several reliable English translations all say the same thing, there’s no need to look at a lexicon. Where you see the ESV, NIV, NASB, etc.translate something differently, there’s clearly something going on- either a textual variant or Greek/Hebrew word for which there simply isn’t a good English equivalent, something that is fairly common.
Best wishes.
Clement of Alexandria:
“When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we become immortal . . . ‘and sons of the Most High’ [Ps. 82:6]. This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins, a gift of grace by which the punishments due our sins are remitted, an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation” (The Instructor of Children 1:6:26:1 [A.D. 191]).
Tertullian:
“Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life. . . . [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . . themselves generally do live in arid and waterless places. But we, little fishes after the example of our [Great] Fish, Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water. So that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes—by taking them away from the water!” (Baptism 1 [A.D. 203]).
…
“Baptism itself is a corporal act by which we are plunged into the water, while its effect is spiritual, in that we are freed from our sins” (ibid., 7:2).
Irenaeus
“[Paul], an able wrestler, urges us on in the struggle for immortality, so that we may receive a crown and so that we may regard as a precious crown that which we acquire by our own struggle and which does not grow upon us spontaneously. . . . Those things which come to us spontaneously are not loved as much as those which are obtained by anxious care” (Against Heresies 4:37:7 [A.D. 189]).
Since we Christians are so trusting of our own interpretation of Scripture some 2,000 years after our Lord, why not learn what the disciples of the Apostles believed?
Grapp,
I’m sure I cannot speak to the accuracy of your quotations or the interpretations of them. I do know this, Not all that the early church fathers believed or thought was correct. Arguably the greatest theologian of the Church is Augustine and being far closer to the life of the Apostles than we are, he was still a product of his culture and his own biography, so when he says that after intercourse with one’s wife, we must repent, sex, he surmised, was only a means of procreation. So do we, because of his proximity to the Apostles in time, necessarily agree with him, no. That actually is an “argument from antiquity”. I realize you probably wouldn’t claim that this is the ONLY reason we need to believe in baptismal regeneration, that some early church fathers believed it, but when we have so many enscripturated writings that attest to the regeneration of the soul being connected to faith, we must question anyone’s interpretation to the contrary. Further, the ones you quoted weren’t “disciples of the Apostles”:
Clement lived from 150-215
Irenaeus: Born 115-142 (disputed) and died 202
Tertullian lived from 160-220
So, though they were closer in history to the Apostles, you can hardly call them the disciples of the Apostles…maybe the disciples of the disciples (Polycarp 69-150) of the Apostles. At best, Irenaeus may have know Polycarp.
Jason, You seem to begin your last message with a type of excuse. If you are sure you can’t comment on the quotes I posted, then why do you actually do so? That aside, Augustine did say what you claim, however, there are a couple of considerations: (1) He never meant that intimacy with one’s wife/spouse was sinful UNLESS there was conception, this would mean that if God didn’t bless a couple in this way then that would be the determiner of whether there was sin or not…it wouldn’t ultimately be due to the act of the humans, which isn’t logical. He meant that OPENESS to life in marital intimacy was necessary and any act to the contrary (abortion, contraception, etc.) was where sin enters the picture. You see, he was speaking to the intention of the marital act: Does it include the possibility of life or is it only for pleasure? Openness to life and pleasure can and should be in the picture. (2) You assume that what he proposed isn’t true. Why? Neither Scripture nor Christian tradition proposes anything that supports your assumption. Take your own advice and don’t be a product of your own biography or time. You oddly tried to link this to the original question of faith/baptism, etc. We need to back up a bit. I never (nor do the early Christians) claimed that a sacramental such as baptism is apart from faith. The person seeking Christianity would (or should) only approach something like baptism with the faith that it washes away Adam’s Sin. The assumption that the two don’t or can’t co-exist is startling and confusing. As for the Apostles and early Christians, they are the disciples of the Apostles in that the Word and tradition was passed down. There was no printing press. As the New Testament was finally being written down by the Apostles in the later part of the first century, the story of Christ was being verbally passed and shared. They didn’t dissect each passage of anything written like we mistakenly do today. The tradition of Christianity was more oral than anything in the earliest days. This actually allowed for a more personal and clear teaching method….no snakehandlers and Jehova’s Witnesses in those days….only clearity.
First off, you seem to miss the point I was trying to make with the Augustine issue, secondly, sex inside marriage for purely the physical pleasure of the husband and wife isn’t anywhere in Scripture condemned.
Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Clement weren’t likely to have sat at the Apostles feet, which is what I thought your previous statement made it sound like. I was trying to make the point that their doctrine was not ore purely Apostolic because of their historical proximity and your last post seems to try to prove that. Your assertion that there was only clarity (“clearity” SP?) among the church fathers is historically inaccurate. I agree that even we 2000 years later, are disciples of Christ, but that didn’t seem to be the type of discipleship you were suggesting in #29, reading it again it seems that you brought it up to give more credence to their teaching because Christian doctrine hadn’t enough time to have been corrupted, but we know that wasn’t the case…it was being corrupted by the early Jewish Christians even before Paul had finished writing his letters. In fact corruption was largely the reason many of the NT letters were written. The epistle of James was probably written in 55 and at the very very latest, the Revelation to John was written in 90, so every one of the NT writings were on paper before any of the church fathers you mentioned were even born.
You suggested that they “didn’t dissect each passage of anything written like we mistakenly do today” so please enlighten us as to how they went about the task of understanding Christ’s doctrine. And explain how the early creeds came about without an intimate understanding of doctrine, one that wasn’t derived from a dissection of the text. Also, you suggest that we wrongly dissect the text today. If so, would you say that of the counselors of the Nicene Creed were a bit too detailed when they debated over a single Greek character as they fought to describe Christ’s deity? You said that Christian tradition was more oral in the early days. If by that you mean before 60 or 70 ad then you are right, otherwise, I don’t think you have a firm grip on the transmission of scripture.
As for linking this question to baptism…well, that was your point in post #29,30 wasn’t it? What I meant was that personal faith is not necessarily tied to physical baptism. How could you make a judgment of the personal faith of an infant?
O.K., we will never get anywhere if you keep interpreting my posts the way you do Scripture. Maybe I should be more clear and not assume you will understand what I mean by merely reading it. My apologies. (1) I didn’t mean to claim that pleasure in itself is wrong in marital relation, I (and hopefully Augustine) mean that the act should always be open to life, i.e. no artificial contraception, a stance that EVERY mainstream Christian held until the whims of society swayed most of Protestant Christianity (see Lambeth Conference 1930)
Also: Augustine wrote in 419, “I am supposing, then, although you are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives]” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:15:17).
The apostolic tradition’s condemnation of contraception is so great that it was followed by Protestants until 1930 and was upheld by all key Protestant Reformers. Martin Luther said, “[T]he exceedingly foul deed of Onan, the basest of wretches . . . is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest and adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a sodomitic sin. For Onan goes in to her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed. Accordingly, it was a most disgraceful crime. . . . Consequently, he deserved to be killed by God. He committed an evil deed. Therefore, God punished him.”
John Calvin said, “The voluntary spilling of semen outside of intercourse between man and woman is a monstrous thing. Deliberately to withdraw from coitus in order that semen may fall on the ground is doubly monstrous. For this is to extinguish the hope of the race and to kill before he is born the hoped-for offspring.”
John Wesley warned, “Those sins that dishonor the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he [Onan] did displeased the Lord—and it is to be feared; thousands, especially of single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.” (These passages are quoted in Charles D. Provan, The Bible and Birth Control, which contains many quotes by historic Protestant figures who recognize contraception’s evils.)>>>I would rather take one issue at a time….I’m not good with one-liners and rarely is any topic solved with one.
I know its late, but there is a live pro-life webcast discussing political action, etc. You all may be able to catch a replay. http://www.instantteleseminar.com/?eventid=8269788
Grapp,
Forget about the Augustine issue…it’s nearly irrelevant to the discussion and you still don’t seem to understand why I brought it up. I don’t have any interest in discussing contraception…especially on this thread.
Please read #21 and answer my questions, and also my comments on transmission in #33, and JD’s in #26.
OK, will do this weekend. I had to clear up the Augustine issue because of the error. That’s just how it is. You understand.
grapplin_pt
You’re against contraception AND a woman’s right to choose. That kind of backward thinking has no place in the 21rst century. At least you admit you hate the fact that other people can enjoy intimacy and you cannot. And that, keeping women powerless and forced parenthood is what this whole abortion issue is really about.
Bernie,
“keeping women powerless and forced parenthood is what this whole abortion issue is really about.”
Are you serious?!?
jAsOn pAytOn
One of the most destructive teachings of Christianity is that pleasures of the flesh are all necessarily evil. So the idea that sex is dirty is hard-wired into the subconscious mind of the conservative Christian. It’s quite impossible for anyone to have a healthy attitude toward sexual pleasure or have a completely fulfilling sex life with this thought weighing down their mind. This leads to erotophobia. Not only is their a fear of sex and sexual intimacy there is also a fear that other people are having sexual intimacy and likely enjoying it very much without feeling guilty while they cannot. The same people who are against abortion are first and foremost against other people having sex at all. They are against contraception or any type of birth control, against sex-education, pre-marital or non-marital sex, oral sex, manual sex, masturbation or anything that has to do with people having sex for pleasure rather than procreation.
So erotophobia and all the hang-ups that go with it is the main reason conservative Christians are anti-choice. Anti-feminism is probably the second biggest driving force behind the anti choice movement. Conservative Christians can only understand one side of most issues especially this one. So they don’t understand the consequences of forcing parenthood on people who either don’t want it or are not ready for it.
There you have it. The anti choice movement exists because of its member’s sexual hang-ups, anti-feminism and because it doesn’t understand the consequences of its position at all.
Well Bernie, I hope you aren’t equating this phenomena with my posts. That would be totally inaccurate. Again, I keep having to revisit this sub-topic because of the false assumptions of Jason and now you (as it appears). Jason didn’t like the diversion from his main points, but if your main points are presented with false assumptions and myths then those must be addressed first.
Jason Payton: Here are your questions 1) Do you believe that it it Christ’s righteousness alone that is credited to our account so God can accept us? Yes
2) Do believe that righteousness is infused at baptism?
Few truths are so clearly taught in the New Testament as the doctrine that in baptism God gives us grace. Again and again the sacred writers tell us that it is in baptism that we are saved, buried with Christ, incorporated into his body, washed of our sins, regenerated, cleansed, and so on (see Acts 2:38, 22:16; Rom. 6:1–4; 1 Cor. 6:11, 12:13; Gal. 3:26–27; Eph. 5:25-27; Col. 2:11–12; Titus 3:5; 1 Pet. 3:18–22). They are unanimous in speaking of baptism in invariably efficient terms, as really bringing about a spiritual effect.
One key Scripture reference to being “born again” or “regenerated” is John 3:5, where Jesus says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”
This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. “Born again” Christians claim the “water” is the preached word of God (some even claim it as the amniotic fluid they lived in as infants in their mother’s womb).
But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism. Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom. 6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).
No Church Father referred to John 3:5 as anything other than water baptism.
Justin Martyr
“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we [Christians] teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, and instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we pray and fast with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father . . . and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19], they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, ‘Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’ [John 3:3]” (First Apology 61 [A.D. 151]).
Irenaeus
“‘And [Naaman] dipped himself . . . seven times in the Jordan’ [2 Kgs. 5:14]. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [this served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions, being spiritually regenerated as newborn babes, even as the Lord has declared: ‘Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’” (Fragment 34 [A.D. 190]).
Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: “Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted”
3) Do you believe that an individual who actually has been credited with the righteousness of Christ can thereafter be again credited with the wickedness of Adam? In other words, can one lose their salvation?
Christian author Wilson Ewin says that “no wrong act or sinful deed can ever affect the believer’s salvation. The sinner did nothing to merit God’s grace and likewise he can do nothing to demerit grace. True, sinful conduct always lessens one’s fellowship with Christ, limits his contribution to God’s work and can result in serious disciplinary action by the Holy Spirit.”
One problem with this argument is that this is not even how things work in everyday life. If another person gives us something as a grace—as a gift—and even if we did nothing to deserve it (though frequently gifts are given based on our having pleased the one bestowing the gift), it in no way follows that our actions are irrelevant to whether or not we keep the gift. We can lose it in all kinds of ways. We can misplace it, destroy it, give it to someone else, take it back to the store. We may even forfeit something we were given by later displeasing the one who gave it—as when a person has been appointed to a special position but is later stripped of that position on account of mismanagement.
The argument fares no better when one turns to Scripture, for one finds that Adam and Eve, who received God’s grace in a manner just as unmerited as anyone today, most definitely did demerit it—and lost grace not only for themselves but for us as well (cf. also Rom. 11:17-24). While the idea that what is received without merit cannot be lost by demerit may have a kind of poetic charm for some, it does not stand up when compared with the way things really work—either in the everyday world or in the Bible.
Regarding the issue of whether Christians have an “absolute” assurance of salvation, regardless of their actions, consider this warning Paul gave: “See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off” (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).
Jason,
Grapplin is basically cut and pasting from the catholic website, which answers all your questions I think.
Yeah JD42,
I’ve gotten alot of my info from a catholic website. I don’t claim to memorize what Tertullian said nearly 2,000 years ago or what Scripture says. I can hardly quote any of this stuff even though I know roughly the whereabouts of it. So what if I copied and pasted large portions of it? Jason asked me extremely indepth questions that I haven’t even started to answer fully. I have a new bride, a baby on the way, and a 12-hr. work day currently, so again…so what if I “copied and pasted” to an extent…we are on a CPU and I’m busy. Do I have to invent my own theological thoughts and perspectives? Is it o.k. that I share many of the same views as other authors and thinkers. I realize that in our liberal, anything goes “Christian” society we love to invent our own doctrine. Is it o.k. if I don’t?
grapplin_pt: New bride and new baby on the way….that’s great!
Don’t let those who insist on your own words browbeat you, if you copy and paste what you also believe why does it matter. God Bless your wife with the safe delivery of your baby.
You are right Herm. Thanks for the prudent words. You are wiser than me. I didn’t copy and paste all, only roughly the last half of my posts…and not all of them. Mostly quotes. Thanks again.
grapplin_pt: I’v never been called Herm before, but that’s OK. I originally logged in as Maz before they changed everything. And I am female if it makes any difference.
Anyway, we could all do with some encouragement sometimes instead of criticism which seems quite rife on this site at the moment.
Maz, agreed…in defense of others, I do “ask for it” sometimes in debates. Thanks again, God bless all here.
“God Bless all here.”
Haaaa! That means I can get in on this too!
Thank you for the blessing, grapplin_pt.
I would like 2 put my 2 cents in even though Im not a seminary student or bible scholar First i was born and raised Roman Cathlolic but i was born again in college in southern california. Giod used a campus minstry Campus cRusade for christ. i heard the gospel for the first time wioth clarity.
i believe mankind is justified by faith alone iin grace alone. Second regrading baprtism I dont hink we should be cherry picking bible verses to support our own personal interpretation opf the gospel message.
THe book of Galatians even refers to the danger of headin to a different gospel one of the law and not by grace.
It comes down to context ihtink..
I dont believe baptism imparts anything.. as i heard it once stated… you go in as a sinner you come out as a wet sinner.. The only difference is that you are making a public delcaration before the local body of believers that they want to walk in god’s footsteps.. besides what if some never gets baptized like the thief at the cross is he going to hell now?
sorry i dont hink so
repentance and faith are 2 sides of the same coin you repent of your sins and plac your faith in the finshed work of Jesus christ all your sins are washed away
period end of sory you are a christian you are born again you are saved..etc..