Progressive Sanctification & the Assurance of Pardon - 11

     Below I comment on the final Forde quote:

"If we are turned around to get back down to earth by grace, then it would seem that true sanctification would show itself in taking care of our neighbor and God’s creation, not exploiting and destroying either for our own ends, religious or otherwise. It would mean concern for the neighbor and society, caring for the other for the time being. Here one should talk about the place of morality and virtue and such things. Although we do not accept them as the means by which we are sanctified, they are the means by which and through which we care for the world and for the other. This is what the Reformers meant when they insisted that good works were to be done, but one was not to depend on them for salvation."

     Here Forde rightly categorizes virtue and morality to such things as “concern for the neighbor and society” and “taking care of our neighbor and God’s creation”. The prescription to do these things is explicitly Law and neither Forde nor Reformed theology suggests we lean on our doing of them as the merit or assurance of our pardon.  Only the repetition of the gospel can give us assurance in the midst of our struggle against sin, and only the repetition of the gospel can cause the type of life change that acts on such commands as to love one’s neighbor as oneself and to love God above all else.

     In conclusion I’d like to reiterate Forde’s thesis that, “Sanctification, if it is to be spoken as something other than justification is perhaps best defined as the art of getting used to the unconditional justification wrought by the grace of God for Jesus’ sake.” Perhaps it is stated in typical Lutheran hyperbole, but in this thesis Forde indicates that a distinction should not be made between justification and sanctification, except to say that sanctification is the “art of getting used to” being justified by grace alone. Reformed theology certainly disagrees with the idea that the two shouldn’t be distinguished. Justification is historically spoken of as the momentary event when God declares one righteous before His holiness on account of Christ’s merit. And sanctification, though it has its moment of eventfulness (John 17:19; Acts 20:32, 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 2:11, 10:10; Jude 1:1), has been referred to additionally (and in distinction to justification) as a process toward glory—and as support, scriptures that say we are “being conformed to the image of Christ” (Rom. 12:1-3), and “being made” like the Son of God (Phil. 3:8-11), or “being made perfect or holy” (Gal. 3:3; Heb. 10:14). Forde agrees with the Reformed position in that whatever progress in sanctification, whatever obedience is rendered in the believer’s life is due to the pouring out of the unconditional grace of God. So it is right not only to express justification as being by grace alone through faith in Christ alone but also to speak of sanctification as being by grace alone through faith in Christ alone.

     Also, whatever spontaneous care-taking we see in our lives, or humility we express regarding our sanctification is still a measurement against the Law and should not be used as an agent of assurance. Only that historical fact of Christ’s life for our life and death for our death can assure us of our adoption and give us hope of a future freedom from even the desire to sin. Though our good works, to which believers were in fact predestined, are evidence to others of some difference about us, and though they may serve to a certain degree as a confirmation of faith along with continued repentance and belief, even they are tainted and marred by Adam’s indelible mark. As it was once penned in a Puritan prayer…”I need to repent of my repentance, I need my tears to be washed”. I believe we would do well to be reminded of the depth of our sin so the gospel of Christ grows increasingly sweeter thus we are assured because of its certainty.

Progressive Sanctification & the Assurance of Pardon - 10

     Below I continue my comments on the Forde quotes.

"The second aspect of the transition of the Christian from old to death to life, is that all our ordinary views of progress and growth are turned upside down. It is not that we are somehow moving toward the goal, but rather that the goal is moving closer and closer to us. This corresponds to the eschatological nature of the New Testament message. It is the coming of the kingdom upon us, not our coming closer to or building up the kingdom. That is why it is a growth in grace, not a growth in our own virtue or morality. The progress, if one can call it that, is that we are being shaped more and more by the totality of the grace coming to us. The progress is due to the steady invasion of the new. That means that we are being taken more and more off our own hands, more and more away from self, and getting used to the idea of being saved by the grace of God alone. Our sanctification consists merely in being shaped by, or getting used to, justification."

     In my opinion there is very little if any to disagree with in the above statement, assuming the way Forde frames the progress of sanctification, as the Kingdom coming ever closer to the justified man, means that it carries the broad idea of our going from justification to glorification through sanctification. He mentions at the first, the progress from the old man—the death of the old man—to new man, so there is a progression of sorts. But the matter that needs to be worked out is whether the new man is capable of sin or if he, by virtue of his new position in Christ, is not, and perhaps it is only the old man warring against him. If by having our ideas of progress and growth turned upside down, Forde does NOT mean the new man does NOT sin then I agree with his description. The concept of “compatibilism” also comes to mind, thus I’ve included these posts in that category on the blog. On monergism.com, B.B. Warfield is quoted as defining the term this way, “Compatibilism (also known as soft determinism), is the belief that God’s predetermination and meticulous providence is “compatible” with voluntary choice.” The term is generally thought of in regards to regeneration but it really covers the entire realm of human choice, which also includes our choices as believers, to obey and experience that moment of sanctification or disobey and not. Our choices to obey God’s Law and leading are mysteriously and sometimes strangely compatible with the foreordination of God that we either do or do not conform to that Law. We make real choices according to our present and most aggressive affection or desire—in fact we must operate that way, for the only factors constraining our “creaturely” free choices are our affections or desires and God’s perfect knowledge of our future choices. It is here I would like to draw the distinction between the indicative or positional and experiential natures of the believer’s sanctification. On the one hand the New Testament says that we are or already have been sanctified or set apart (John 17:19; Acts 20:32, 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:21; Heb. 2:11, 10:10; Jude 1:1). When we were regenerated we were set apart to God. On the other hand, sanctification seems to be the progress through the interim period between justification and glorification, as the New Testament says, but not in as many places, we are being sanctified (1 Thess. 4:3; Heb. 10:14). So it is imperative that we obey God’s Law and be sanctified. At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, consider the following event as an analogy because most of us can relate to the emotion of it. During a bank robbery a woman is held hostage and the thief calls for the male security guard cowering in the corner to go to the safe, but in his angst he can’t move. Finally one of the other customers calls out to him and says, “…be a man!” The fact that the guard was petrified in the corner did not change his gender, during the entire episode he was a man. His gender hadn’t suddenly changed as his fear overtook him. But the other customer was encouraging him to fulfill in action, the position he already occupied.

     Reformed theology would agree that the progress of sanctification is not the growth of our own virtue, but what does “being shaped more and more by the totality of the grace coming to us” mean except that our actions change? To be sure, the shaping would include at the very least an increase of repentance and belief over the entire period of “sanctification” in a believer’s life, but I am coming to the conclusion that it can’t be that alone. Even in Forde’s description of what being shaped by grace means he puts up life change as a sign of the growth; change which can only really be measured against the Law of God unless one sets up another tablet of prescribed actions in its place. But we would agree that any change made in that direction is not of our own conjuring but of the Kingdom coming upon us in the person of the Holy Spirit, and I would add, by whom we have been sanctified, and by whom we are being sanctified, or growing by grace, into our new position. Like someone who has been hired as a product developer who has never performed in that capacity before, even though he is called the Vice President of Product Development he must grow into the position as his actions change to reflect his title.

     Quotes and comments to be continued...

Progressive Sanctification & the Assurance of Pardon - 9

     Below is the continued discussion of Forde's article on the Lutheran view of sanctification.

"So it is impossible to put God's unconditional act of justifying sinners for Jesus' sake alone together with our ideas of progress based on conditions. It doesn't work either logically or in the life of faith."

     At least in the reformed camp, sanctification is not a work of man for God, but a work of God for man. Not even the regenerate man who in Christ is, before his glorification, made posse peccatore—who has the possibility to not sin in a given moment—can render to God without grace, the good works for which he has been foreordained. So perhaps it is against another non Reformed theory of sanctification that Forde is arguing, because Reformed theology agrees, “progress [in sanctification] based on conditions” is as improbable as God’s very plan for one’s life coming about by conditions. I believe the correct way to look at the relationship between the transpiring of God’s plan for our lives and our willingness to be guided into that plan by His wisdom is the same as the relationship between prayer and God’s actions, and the relationship between our obedience and the progress of our sanctification. Our “willingness”, prayers, and obedience are means to the ends ordained by God: His plans and our salvation, and He has ordained the means as well.

"So it is always as a totality that unconditional grace attacks sin. That is why total sanctification and justification are in essence the same thing."

     This is where, I guess, my confessionalism shines and my love for historical theology and the weight I think they both should carry for subsequent believers is manifest. I don’t think that there is in any way that we can say that justification and sanctification are “essentially the same thing”. The Protestant Reformers were very careful to distinguish the two: justification as an event in time where the believer is declared righteous before God on the grounds of Christ’s work, and through faith—which is also the gift of God—and sanctification being the process or series of events between justification and glorification. The purpose of Martin Luther pointing this out in the 16^th century was to challenge the Roman Catholic high-sacramentalism and the working out of the doctrine of salvation (specifically justification) to reform from a process wherein the covenant child was baptized, having original sin washed away producing the state of tabula rasa (blank slate), maintaining that state revived in continued cleansing of venial sins through the sacrament of the Eucharist, and finally the believer paying for his remaining sins in Purgatory, to an event which the description thereof was encapsulated in the five “solas”. So for a Lutheran to imply through a confusing statement that justification is perhaps a process is unfortunate. Certainly Forde would consider himself Protestant, even at his description of the differences of justification and sanctification, but denying any difference between justification and sanctification at their essence seems to me to be unhelpful. Even if his motive is altruistic, assuming it is to protect individuals from measuring their progress in grace up against to Law, or using the Law to try to find assurance of their justification by emphasizing the fact that we have been set apart and made holy, acquiring all the righteousness we need to stand before God our Father. But to jettison the idea of any actual warning to the Christian to make sure your calling and election is sure, and to render the New Testament imperatives impotent is not going to protect individuals from legalism, nor does it do justice to the text. Pastor Reggie Kimbro has said that when one finds himself to be a legalist he doesn’t need to remedy the situation by becoming  a little more antinomian, likewise when one finds himself a bit too antinomian the prescription is not to become a little bit more legalistic to balance one’s self. So what is the answer, how do we protect ourselves from falling off the right side of the horse into the error of legalism or falling off the left side into the error of antinomianism? That will be a question to be answered toward the end of the discussion.

     Quotes and comments to be continued...

Progressive Sanctification & the Assurance of Pardon - 8

     Below are my continued comments on Forde's words:

"Conditional thinking is wedded to the schemes of law and progress characteristics of this age. Sin is understood primarily as misdeed or transgression of such a scheme...The logic would then be that with the help of grace one progressively gains more and more righteousness and thus sins less and less. One strives toward perfection until, theoretically, one would need less and less grace or perhaps finally no more grace at all."

"Whose fault is it if the scheme doesn't work?...Either I have not properly responded to or cooperated with the free divine grace, or most frightening of all, the God of election who presides over such grace has decided, in my case, not to give it."

     Again we hear in the above statements the visceral groaning of pastoral concern…to which I most certainly can relate. However, the total relegation of one’s progress in sanctification or growth in Christ to the “scheme of law and progress characteristic only of this age” is far too simple a distinction. Protestants of all shapes and sizes are jealous to separate Law & Gospel in some degree. The idea behind the Reformed view of sanctification through the mortification of sin is not one of conditionality: if I mortify sin, then God gives me more righteousness, but one of imputation as with justification: Christ lived in perfect obedience to the Law, meriting my righteous standing before God and died to pay the debt I merit with sins I commit even after I’ve been justified. So I am at war within myself to do real good, good that is a result of a holy standing before a holy God, not to retroactively merit what God has already done for me in justification but because God has predestined those whom He has justified, to actually do good works.

     The term “conditional thinking” can be defined contextually as the idea that, if believers obey God’s Law, then they will be sanctified, thus considered holy. Forde goes on to define sin according to those who promote such a scheme, as the transgression of that if/then system. In my own mind, I agree that if one is lead to believe that they are left to perform in this scenario without the gracious provision of God, then he has been misled. But, like God’s use of means in the regeneration of individuals (Rom. 10) and the means of atonement

     Assuming the correctness of the particular view of sanctification which Forde is fighting (which I don’t believe Reformed theology does), that the regenerated person “gains more and more righteousness” thus striving toward a theoretical perfection, I believe Forde is right to surmises that that individual might need less and less grace because of his performance. But this exposes Forde’s presupposition, at least at this point, that free divine grace isn’t the driving factor of the mortification of sin and calls to mind Paul’s words in Romans 6 that we should not sin more and more so that grace may abound more and more, God forbid. The fact is that grace abounds really in the life of a believer whether (in the eyes of man or his own eyes) he is conformed or lacked to be conformed to the Law of God. Grace abounds over a sinner saved by it regardless of the degree of fruit he produces. The most outwardly and inwardly obedient child of God has no more righteousness before Him that the technically worst sinner among the Kingdom. If he is a true convert of Christ, fruit will be produced by the same grace it took to regenerate him, yet the same grace shades him from the wrath of God when he commits sin and the righteousness of Christ that was once imputed to him neither waxes nor wanes but, like light in the universe, is constant—never changing but ever presenting us as sons and daughters, spotless as Christ. Furthermore, certain that Forde would agree that we are not made more and more righteous before God even if we do sin less and less by being more and more conformed to the image of Christ. Our righteousness is really gained at our justification (1 Cor. 6:11), otherwise how could God call us just, and what more righteousness needs to be involved except that of Christ’s which He merited for us in His life? Not withstanding, when we do sin it really does grieve the Spirit in us, thus the picture of war in our members, but there is no war in the unbeliever, just submission and slavery to sin.

     Quotes and comments will continue...

Progressive Sanctification & the Assurance of Pardon - 7

Below I continue to post quotes and comments on Forde's article.

"Talk about sanctification can be dangerous in that it misleads and seduces the old being into thinking it is still in control. We may grudgingly admit we cannot justify ourselves, but then we attempt to make up for that by getting serious about sanctification."

Forde’s essential conclusion here is that talk about sanctification as progressive in nature can be “dangerous” and I can sympathize with this concern when such talk of our theology of sanctification either leads to a practical application that doesn’t include God’s gracious gift of that progress, or if it stems from a theology that denies the same type of graciousness from God which is subsequent to the grace of justification. The Westminster Divines, among others, concluded that the justified life necessarily involves some degree of the mortification of sin. Dying to the desires of the flesh, recognizing and repenting of (seeing it in light of God’s holiness) personal sin, confessing it and believing that Christ died with it on His shoulders, and having it once for all cast away is the sanctified life. But it is this matter of progression that is somewhat nebulous, even in the definition given in ages past. So I must admit that many a bruised reed and smoldering wick has been broken and snuffed out by well-meaning pastors (those intending to fight heartily against “Easy-believism” as they have taught on the progressive nature of sanctification. At times I’ve wondered if the gospel was simple left behind as though it was simply the boarding pass to get on the jet of sanctification. And in that way I sympathize with Forde’s (and what I think is peculiarly the present Lutheran concern for souls who have been prepared for legalism in the midst of the practical application of the doctrine of progressive sanctification. However, I must part ways when it is suggested that simply because the doctrine has been abused, it must therefore be erroneous. Consider Luther himself as he answered the Roman Catholic objection to sola fide, that if it were true, then a flood-gate of iniquity will be opened. To that protestation he said, “…so be it.”
Quotes and comments to be continued...

Progressive Sanctification & the Assurance of Pardon - 6

     Below are some comments on Forde’s words:

"It [sanctification] is what happens when we are grasped by the fact that God alone justifies."

"It is what happens when the old being comes up against the end of its self-justifying and self-gratifying, however pious. It is life lived in anticipation of the resurrection."

     Certainly no protestant would disagree that a very large portion of what it means to be sanctified is, being “grasped by the fact that God alone justifies”, and living life in light of the resurrection. It is the realization of this fact (essentially belief in the gospel) that sets us and our belief apart from the world in the first place—the mental ascent to the dire need for salvation and finding it only through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is part of what it means to have been justified by God but, and perhaps this is the main issue Forde is attempting to counteract in his argument, after being justified by grace through faith we are not then left to be sanctified by any other means.  It is by the same grace and through the same faith that we are sanctified until the end of our lives; until that time when we “see Him as He is” and are glorified and rid of all possibility of sin.

"Now, living morally is indeed an important, wise and good thing. There is no need to knock it. But it should not be equated with sanctification, being made holy. The moral life is the business of the old being in this world. The Reformers called it "civil righteousness." Sanctification is the result of the dying of the old and the rising of the new. The moral life is the result of the old being's struggle to climb to the heights of the law. Sanctification has to do with the decent of the new being into humanity, becoming a neighbor, freely, spontaneously, giving of the self in self-forgetful and uncalculating ways."

     My only real objection here, and it turns out to be a major one, is that I must, because I believe the Scriptures to do so as well, include “becoming a neighbor, freely, spontaneously, giving of the self in self-forgetful and uncalculating ways" as part of living the moral life. Jesus says that the greatest commandment or the summation of the Law is to love God with all your soul and mind to and love your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:34-40). So I must ask Forde how “becoming a neighbor” is not part of the moral life—“the old being’s struggle to climb”.

     Quotes and comments to be continued...

Progressive Sanctification & the Assurance of Pardon - 5

     After reading Forde's treatment of sanctification I can see several main conclusions he has drawn.  The thesis statement of his article is this, "Sanctification is simply the art of getting used to justification." Below are some other quotes I've taken to show Forde's conclusions.

"It [sanctification] is what happens when we are grasped by the fact that God alone justifies."

"It is what happens when the old being comes up against the end of its self-justifying and self-gratifying, however pious. It is life lived in anticipation of the resurrection."

"Now, living morally is indeed an important, wise and good thing. There is no need to knock it. But it should not be equated with sanctification, being made holy. The moral life is the business of the old being in this world. The Reformers called it "civil righteousness." Sanctification is the result of the dying of the old and the rising of the new. The moral life is the result of the old being's struggle to climb to the heights of the law. Sanctification has to do with the decent of the new being into humanity, becoming a neighbor, freely, spontaneously, giving of the self in self-forgetful and uncalculating ways."

"Talk about sanctification can be dangerous in that it misleads and seduces the old being into thinking it is still in control. We may grudgingly admit we cannot justify ourselves, but then we attempt to make up for that by getting serious about sanctification."

"Conditional thinking is wedded to the schemes of law and progress characteristics of this age. Sin is understood primarily as misdeed or transgression of such a scheme...The logic would then be that with the help of grace one progressively gains more and more righteousness and thus sins less and less. One strives toward perfection until, theoretically, one would need less and less grace or perhaps finally no more grace at all."

"Whose fault is it if the scheme doesn't work?...Either I have not properly responded to or cooperated with the free divine grace, or most frightening of all, the God of election who presides over such grace has decided, in my case, not to give it."

"So it is impossible to put God's unconditional act of justifying sinners for Jesus' sake alone together with our ideas of progress based on conditions. It doesn't work either logically or in the life of faith."

"So it is always as a totality that unconditional grace attacks sin. That is why total sanctification and justification are in essence the same thing."

"The second aspect of the transition of the Christian from old to death to life, is that all our ordinary views of progress and growth are turned upside down. It is not that we are somehow moving toward the goal, but rather that the goal is moving closer and closer to us. This corresponds to the eschatological nature of the New Testament message. It is the coming of the kingdom upon us, not our coming closer to or building up the kingdom. That is why it is a growth in grace, not a growth in our own virtue or morality. The progress, if one can call it that, is that we are being shaped more and more by the totality of the grace coming to us. The progress is due to the steady invasion of the new. That means that we are being taken more and more off our own hands, more and more away from self, and getting used to the idea of being saved by the grace of God alone. Our sanctification consists merely in being shaped by, or getting used to, justification."

"Sanctification under the invasion of the new, however, holds out the possibility of actually coming to hate sin, and to love God and his creation, or at least to make that little beginning. It is not that sin is taken away from us, but rather that we are to be taken away from sin heart, soul and mind, as Luther put it. In that manner, the law of God is to be fulfilled in us precisely by the uncompromising totality and unconditionality of the grace given."

"If we are turned around to get back down to earth by grace, then it would seem that true sanctification would show itself in taking care of our neighbor and God’s creation, not exploiting and destroying either for our own ends, religious or otherwise. It would mean concern for the neighbor and society, caring for the other for the time being. Here one should talk about the place of morality and virtue and such things. Although we do not accept them as the means by which we are sanctified, they are the means by which and through which we care for the world and for the other. This is what the Reformers meant when they insisted that good works were to be done, but one was not to depend on them for salvation."

   In my next post I intend to comment on some if not all of these quotes.