SANCTIFICATION Term
meaning “being made holy, or purified.” It is used broadly of the whole
Christian experience, though most theologians prefer to use it in a
restricted sense to distinguish it from related terms, such as
“regeneration,” “justification,” and “glorification.”
Definition A
comprehensive definition of sanctification by the New Hampshire Baptist
Confession (1833) states,
We believe that Sanctification is
the process by which, according to the will of God, we are made partakers of
his holiness; that it is a progressive work; that it is begun in
regeneration; and that it is carried on in the hearts of believers by the
presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Sealer and Comforter, in the
continual use of the appointed means—especially the Word of God,
self-examination, self-denial, watchfulness, and prayer. (Article X)
This definition helps us to distinguish sanctification
from regeneration in that the latter speaks of the inception of the
Christian life. Sanctification is also distinguished from glorification,
which focuses on the consummation of God’s work in the believer. Put quite
simply, then, regeneration refers to the beginning, sanctification to the
middle, and glorification to the end of salvation.
The distinction between sanctification and justification,
on the other hand, calls for more detailed attention, both because it is
subtle and because it is fundamental. In the first place, “justification,”
like “regeneration,” refers (though not exclusively) to the beginning of the
Christian experience, whereas the above definition emphasizes the
progressive character of sanctification. Second, justification refers to a
judicial act of God whereby believers are at once absolved of all their
guilt and accounted legally righteous, whereas sanctification, like
regeneration and glorification, calls attention to the transforming power of
the Holy Spirit upon the character of God’s children.
This distinction played an important role at the time of
the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church, in the opinion of the Reformers,
confused these two doctrines by insisting that justification “is not
remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the
inward man” (Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sixth Session, 1547, ch. VII).
In contrast, the Reformers emphasized that the two doctrines, although
inseparable, must be distinguished. Calvin argued that, to be sure, these
two elements of God’s saving act cannot be torn into parts any more than
Christ can be torn: “Whomever, therefore, God receives into grace, on them
he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption, by whose power he
remakes them to his own image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be
separated from its heat, shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by
its light, or lighted by its heat?” (Institutes
of the Christian Religion, 3:11.6). In short,
then, justification is a once-for-all, declarative act of God as Judge,
whereas sanctification is a progressive change in the character of the
person justified.
One more element in the New Hampshire Baptist Confession
definition requires comment, namely, the statement that “we are made
partakers of his holiness.” A complete survey of what the Bible has to say
about sanctification is not possible here, since practically the whole of
Scripture addresses this issue in one way or another. One central theme in
that teaching, however, must be emphasized: “You shall be holy as I am holy”
(Lv 11:45; 1 Pt 1:16; cf. Mt 5:48). According to the Westminster Shorter
Catechism (1647), by sanctification “we are renewed in the whole man after
the image of God” (Question 34; see Col 3:10). Nothing can be more crucial
to our view of sanctification than this truth. The standard of holiness is
complete conformity to Christ’s image (Rom 8:29); anything less than that is
a lowering of the scriptural standard and thus a dilution of the doctrine.
The definition above, however, implies that Christ is more than our pattern:
he himself provides his holiness for those united with him—he
is our sanctification (1
Cor 1:30).
Initial Sanctification
The progressive nature of our sanctification is explicit in many passages,
particularly Paul’s statement that Christians are transformed “from glory to
glory” into the Lord’s image (2 Cor 3:18; see also Rom 12:1–2; Phil 3:14;
Heb 6:1; 2 Pt 3:18). Moreover, the numerous commands found in Scripture
imply that the Christian experiences growth.
At the same time, however, a number of expressions in
Scripture reveal that sanctification is given to the believer concurrent
with regeneration. For example, Paul frequently refers to Christians as
“saints,” that is, “holy ones” (Rom 1:7; Eph 1:1; etc.); this language
suggests that sanctification is already the possession of believers. In
fact, Paul specifically says that the Corinthian Christians “have been
sanctified” (1 Cor 1:2), and he even coordinates sanctification with washing
(= regeneration?) and justification as though all three elements had taken
place at the same time (6:11). Perhaps more impressive is the apostle’s
declaration that Christians have died to sin (Rom 6:2). One can hardly think
of a more powerful figure than death, suggesting as it does a permanent,
irrevocable dissolution of the believer’s relationship with sin.
It goes without saying, of course, that these passages do
not teach absolute perfection for every Christian upon conversion. Such an
interpretation would bring us into conflict with the clear teaching of
Scripture as a whole. Furthermore, one should note that the Corinthian
“saints” were marked by woeful immaturity (1 Cor 3:1–3; 6:8; 11:17–22).
How, then, should these passages be interpreted? Some
writers have suggested that Paul is speaking of “potential”
sanctification—that is, although our relationship with sin has not been
actually severed, God has given us what we need for that to take place.
There is an element of truth in this formulation, but it hardly does
justice, by itself, to the force of Paul’s language. Coming somewhat closer
to an adequate explanation is to speak of “positional” sanctification.
According to this view, Paul is speaking in judicial terms regarding our
status before God. One should certainly recognize a judicial element in
Paul’s discussion (Rom 6:7 uses the word “justified”), but if that is all
that is said, then it suggests that Romans 6 simply restates the doctrine of
justification—a doubtful conclusion. Much more satisfactory is the view that
Paul’s teaching contains both a judicial element and an actual, experiential
reference.
Progressive Sanctification
Historical Survey
Although all Christian groups recognize the need to become transformed by
the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2), considerable differences are found
among them regarding specific issues. The Reformers, generally speaking,
held to what some call a “pessimistic” view of personal sanctification. This
perspective is clearly reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith
(1647), which states that sanctification “is imperfect in this life; there
abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a
continual and irreconcilable war” within the believer (XIII.ii). Although
the confession goes on to emphasize the overcoming power of the Spirit, some
Christians believe that its basic thrust obscures the need and possibility
of spiritual victory.
To some extent, the teachings of John Wesley (1703–91)
may be viewed as a reaction to the usual Calvinistic and Lutheran
formulations. Strongly influenced by the Pietistic movement of his day,
Wesley paid much attention to the experiential side of Christianity and
eventually formulated, though not with great consistency, the doctrine that
“entire sanctification” is possible in this life. During the 19th century,
interest in the possibility of perfection (not understood in an absolute
sense, however) spread to many Christian circles. According to some,
perfection resulted from the eradication of sin; according to others,
spiritual victory was gained by counteracting the sin that remains even in
the Christian’s heart. The latter approach became characteristic of the
so-called Victorious Life Movement. These various “perfectionist” groups
were subjected to a searching criticism by the Princeton theologian Benjamin
B. Warfield (1851–1921). The debate has continued, though not as vigorously,
ever since then.
The Agency in Sanctification
Much of the controversy focuses on the human role in sanctification. While
all Christians agree that holiness would be impossible without God’s help,
it is difficult to define precisely how that truth affects one’s own
activity. In the Roman Catholic tradition so much stress has been placed on
the cleansing power of baptism and on the meritorious character of good
works that one may rightly question whether the significance of divine grace
is not thereby ignored. At the other extreme stand some exponents of the
Victorious Life Movement, whose stress on “let go and let God” (a slogan
that has some value if properly used) sometimes suggests that believers
remain completely passive in sanctification.
No passage of Scripture is more relevant to this issue
than Philippians 2:12–13, where Paul juxtaposes the command for one to work
out one’s own salvation with the declaration that it is God who provides the
spiritual strength necessary for the task. It may be tempting to emphasize
the first part of the statement so as to ignore the fundamental significance
of the second, or else to become so arrested by Paul’s stress (here and
elsewhere) on divine grace that the weight of personal responsibility is
overlooked. The apostle, however, appears to have deliberately and carefully
preserved a fine balance between these two truths.
Sanctification requires discipline, concentration, and
effort, as is clear by the many exhortations of Scripture, especially those
where the Christian life is described with such figures as running and
fighting (1 Cor 9:24–27; Eph 6:10–17). But Christians must always resist the
temptation to assume that they in effect sanctify themselves, that spiritual
power comes from within them, and that they may therefore rely on their own
strength. This is a difficult tension, though no more puzzling than the
paradox of prayer (“Why pray when God, who knows our needs and who is
all-wise and sovereign, will always do what is best anyway?”). Yet perhaps
the real “secret” of holiness consists precisely in learning to keep that
balance: relying thoroughly on God as the true agent in sanctification,
while faithfully discharging one’s personal responsibility.
Elwell, Walter A. ; Comfort, Philip
Wesley: Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Wheaton, Ill. : Tyndale
House Publishers, 2001 (Tyndale Reference Library), S. 1163