Thread: Some thoughts about justification, sanctification, & salvation to close out 2017.
Sanctification is a moral (ought/must) necessity for Christians. It is a necessary consequence of justification. This may not be denied by those profess the “Reformed religion” (Dort).
Salvation is the Reformed way of accounting for both justification & sanctification. Both aspects of salvation are sola gratia, sola fide. This may not be denied by those who profess the Reformed religion.
Good works are also necessary (ought/must) for Christians but not as the ground or instrument of salvation but as the consequence. This must be affirmed by those who profess the Reformed religion.
Good works are not sanctification but its fruit and evidence.
The moral law (revealed in nature, in the Decalogue, & in the NT) is the abiding norm of the Christian life. To deny this is antinomianism.
To make more of the law (as defined), eg., ground/instrument is nomism.
In their zeal to combat antinomianism, some have become nomists.
We have faced antinomianism since the 1520s but we have never called opposing it the article of the standing or falling of the church.
We (J H Alsted) have called justification the article of the standing/falling of the church.
Nomism (salvation through law keeping) and antinomianism (as defined) are great errors & evils and have much in common. Both downplay the demands of the law, the holiness of God, & the consequences of sin.
The turn to a doctrine of a two-stage justification or salvation is biblically, historically, confessionally, & theologically unjustified.
The two-stage doctrine will not produce the desired results: sanctification & good works but it does turn the cov of grace into a cov of works.
The 2-stage doct will produce heartache, despair, & hopelessness. It is law & not gospel.
We all want to see growth in sanctification for ourselves & others (eg., our congregations, our brothers & sisters in Christ). I doubt that the nomists & nomist-sympathizers believe that about their orthodox critics.
I suspect that the critics of nomism & the nomists have different ideas of sanctification. I think some of the 2-stagers & most of the nomists are perfectionists or sympathize w/perfectionism.
I am surprised at the casual way some nomists & 2-stagers talj & act re the miral law. If, as they suggest, salvation is partly through law-keeping why don’t they attend more closely to the law?
Thinking here particularly of the 2nd & 4th connandments. I get accused falsely (thus un violation of the 9th commadment) of being antinomian but I teach a higher view of the 2nd certainly & the 4th (in most cases) than my critics,
Aren’t the 2nd & 4th comnandments still in the Decalogue? We still confess them. They’re still in every copy of Scripture to which I have access.
The historic & Reformed consensus (allowing for a spectrum of views & rhetoric) is that sanctification is gradual, progressive. It will not be perfected in this life by anyone.
The confessioal, historic orthodox consensus is that santification is the work of God’s grace in believers, who are united sola gratia, sola fide by the Spirit to Christ. He is conforming us to Christ.
The law & the gospel have different but nec roles in sanctification.
The nomists continue to reject the law/gospel distinction despite the confessional & historical evidence in the Reformed tradition. This is a serious problem.
Much of the debate could be resolved by the acceptance of basic Prot/Reformed distinctions & the rejection of novelties (eg., 2-stage salvation/justification).
