@Josheb Another Calvinist, Herman Kuiper says this:
But precisely what is sanctification? Is sanctification perhaps, as is often loosely said, a joint work of God and man, a project in which God and man cooperate, each doing a part of the work necessary to make a person progressively more pure and more holy? Hardly. If that were the case, it could hardly be maintained that we are saved sola gratia. Then man could give himself some credit for his final arrival in glory-land.
However true is it that scripture in speaking of sanctification often uses language, which seems to intimate that man can and does work out his own salvation by cleansing himself of the defilement of sin, (see for instance 2 Corinthians 7:1 -
"Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God."), yet we must maintain that God and God alone is the author of sanctification. It is God and God alone who progressively removes the evil that dwells in a believer's heart, and undermines its power. It is God and God alone who fosters a believers spiritual life and strengthens it so that it progressively controls his thoughts, feelings, words, and acts. It is God and God alone who causes a believer to walk the road of obedience and to engage in good works. In short, it is God and God alone who conforms the souls of the believers to the image of Christ. So it is scarcely correct, as Dr. Berkouwer shows on page 24 of his "Faith and Sanctification" to speak of the relation between God's work and man's work in sanctification as being one of cooperation. Here as well as in the sphere of justification we must maintain that it is God, who saves man and not man who saves himself.
Correct.
It can be demonstrated
you once argued the opposite of all these theologians now quoted. We've had many discussions on the topic of sanctification, and I exit them because of the personal comments I receive, not because there's no consensus to be had. It's all very ironic because
THIS OP was posted taking my side of the discussion. This
OP HERE, the one beginning this thread, is simply one in a series in which post-monergistic sanctification's synergism was argued against
while elsewhere espousing post-monergistic sanctification's synergism! Anyone can look at the dates of these ops and follow the change in the posts. Anyone can go to
your profile page and track the threads you've authored and other's threads you've joined to
argue the opposite position than that which is asserted in Post 83 above. I have been personally invited (or was I disingenuously baited?
) into threads and threads were initiated using my posts (like this one) as points of
disagreement, only to later write posts like #83 above that say exactly what I have always said. If the effort is put in every poster here can see you subscribe to a Lutheran definition of sanctification, not a Calvinist one. It's still a Reformed pov, but it is not Calvinist. CCAM members can go back a year ago (or more) to find me saying, "
I also think [sanctification] is monergistic until after conversion," so when this op was posted in March those who've participated in the earlier threads know I am being asked a question I have answered
many times before going back months beforehand! There is, therefore, an unstated agenda inherent in the use of my posts; one other than that of merely seeking information on my point of view. Look at the date stamps. This
OP HERE was prompted by posts
HERE and
HERE. In posts prior to that date, we read repeated statements sanctification is monergistic
and we read any premise of post-conversion synergism is resisted. Everyone here can mark the day this changed because an op was written, "
Is Sanctification Monergistic or Synergistic? A Reformed Survey," demonstrating that fact. The following was the conclusion:
"So what do we see in this short survey of Reformed theologians. For starters, we do not see the exact language of monergism or synergism applied to sanctification.
Second, we see that, given the right qualifications, either term could be used with merit. “Monergism” can work because sanctification is God’s gift, his supernatural work in us. “Synergism” can also work because because we cooperate with God in sanctification and actively make an effort to grow in godliness.
Third, we see in this Reformed survey the need to be careful with our words. For example, “passive” can describe our role in sanctification, but only if we also say there is a sense in which we are active. Likewise, we can use the language of cooperation as long as we understand that sanctification does not depend ultimately on us.
And if all this is confusing, you can simply say: we work out our sanctification as God works in us (Phil. 2:12-12). Those are the two truths we must protect: the gift of God in sanctification and the activity of man. We pursue the gift, is how John Webster puts it. I act the miracle, is Piper’s phrase. Both are saying the same thing: God sanctifies us and we also sanctify ourselves. With the right qualifications and definitions, I believe Calvin, Turretin, A Brakel, Hodge, Bavinck, and Berkhof would heartily agree."
Prior to September 17, 2023 we read statements like the following:
And this particular beauty.....
On September 16th, 2023, it was surprising that the Reformed believe all parts of the ordo salutis are monergistic except sanctification but
the very next day, on September 17th, a host of notable Reformed theologians were quoted asserting that very position leading to the conclusion, "
God sanctifies us and we also sanctify ourselves."
I commended the investigation and its results, praising the effort to others many times in multiple threads.
