Questions on Sanctification

[Arch Stanton]

Sorry, but this doesn’t follow. You stated that there are many other ways to ‘receive salvation’. In response to this post
Rom 10:9-10 CSB] "If you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. One believes with the heart, resulting in righteousness, and one confesses with the mouth, resulting in salvation." [Made possible by Eph 2:1-9]

What part is confusing? Are you saying we only need to confess with our mouths?

 

[Josheb]

yes.... St. Paul was telling the Jews that were used to the 613 laws of Moses that those works are not necessary anymore.

No. The Letter to the Ephesians was not written to or about Jews.

 

[Carbon]

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:

"I believe sanctification is all of grace. It's monergistic. Salvation is of the Lord, all of it, which includes sanctification."​

"I'm really not sure why you are saying this, I thought it was obvious we agree here. Where I think we disagree is on sanctification. As I believe it is monergistic."​

And this particular beauty.....

"It also puzzles me how the reformed believe God monergistically, predestines, calls, regenerates, justifies and finally glorifies. All parts of the ordo salutis except for sanctification."​

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.

Sanctification is monergistic

 

[Carbon]

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:

"I believe sanctification is all of grace. It's monergistic. Salvation is of the Lord, all of it, which includes sanctification."​

"I'm really not sure why you are saying this, I thought it was obvious we agree here. Where I think we disagree is on sanctification. As I believe it is monergistic."​

And this particular beauty.....

"It also puzzles me how the reformed believe God monergistically, predestines, calls, regenerates, justifies and finally glorifies. All parts of the ordo salutis except for sanctification."​

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.

You believe sanctification is monergistic until after salvation. I believe it does not stop being monergistic. If you want to change your stance, please, go right ahead

 

[Arch Stanton]

No. The Letter to the Ephesians was not written to or about Jews.

Ephesians is the great Pauline letter about the church. It deals, however, not so much with a congregation in the city of Ephesus in Asia Minor as with the worldwide church, the head of which is Christ (Eph 4:15), the purpose of which is to be the instrument for making God’s plan of salvation known throughout the universe (Eph 3:9–10). Yet this ecclesiology is anchored in God’s saving love, shown in Jesus Christ (Eph 2:4–10), and the whole of redemption is rooted in the plan and accomplishment of the triune God (Eph 1:3–14). The language is often that of doxology (Eph 1:3–14) and prayer (cf. Eph 1:15–23; 3:14–19), indeed of liturgy and hymns (Eph 3:20–21; 5:14).

The majestic chapters of Ephesians emphasize the unity in the church of Christ that has come about for both Jews and Gentiles within God’s household (Eph 1:15–2:22, especially Eph 2:11–22) and indeed the “seven unities” of church, Spirit, hope; one Lord, faith, and baptism; and the one God (Eph 4:4–6). .....

There are no personal greetings (cf. Eph 6:23). More significantly, important early manuscripts omit the words “in Ephesus” (see note on Eph 1:1). Many therefore regard the letter as an encyclical or “circular letter” sent to a number of churches in Asia Minor, the addressees to be designated in each place by its bearer, Tychicus (Eph 6:21–22).

USCCB

 

[Carbon]

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:

"I believe sanctification is all of grace. It's monergistic. Salvation is of the Lord, all of it, which includes sanctification."​

"I'm really not sure why you are saying this, I thought it was obvious we agree here. Where I think we disagree is on sanctification. As I believe it is monergistic."​

And this particular beauty.....

"It also puzzles me how the reformed believe God monergistically, predestines, calls, regenerates, justifies and finally glorifies. All parts of the ordo salutis except for sanctification."​

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.

Did you miss this very first part?

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.

 

[Carbon]

.

I reiterate: ALL of those theologians quoted are ones with which I agree (at least when it comes to post-conversion, post-monergistic sanctification's subsequent collaborative sanctification. God sanctifies us and [only thereafter] we also sanctify ourselves. If it was ever thought I was saying anything different then that mistake is not on me. ANy pretense I have not posted in a manner consistent with Calvin, Bavinck, Berkhof, Brakel, Hodge, Kuyper, Piper, Sproul, Turretin, and any other Calvinist you might quote should cease. Arguing sanctification is always and only monergistic and "God sanctifies us and we sanctify ourselves," straddles the fence at best. At worst it is blatantly self-contradictory. Either way that needs sorting out (and has nothing to do with my pov). It seems apparent these things are still being worked out (which might explain the delight with the Lutheran, Forde instead of the Calvinist, Ferguson). Forde's position was addressed at great length, which was acknowledged..... and then ignored .

Personally, I think it wanting that scripture wasn't sufficient and this had to be learned from extra-biblical theologians, but I'm delighted the lesson was learned . Only after we are changed are we able to participate in our sanctification, and even then, it is only by the inspiration, empowerment of the Word, Christ in us, and the Holy Spirit by which we accomplish anything sanctifying. We do NOT sanctify ourselves on our own, and obedience of the flesh merits nothing.

What the.....?

When joking, if it is joking, stick in an emoji indicating the rhetoric . Otherwise,

Proverbs 26:18-19
Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death is the man who deceives his neighbor and says, “I am only joking!”

I assume the irony of that behavior relevant to sanctification has not escaped you (or anyone else) .




Please refrain from posting to me, or using my posts, in any way that insinuates my views on sanctification are any different than what scripture teaches and what is consistent with orthodox monergist soteriology's view of sanctification.

I stand by my answer: Not prior to conversion.

Salvation is entirely monergistic. All of its constituent aspects (regeneration, indwelling conversion from death to life, justification, adoption, etc.) are monergistic, but the purpose of our salvation is to be able to do the works God has already planned for us to perform before He ever saved us! He sanctifies us. Once sanctified we sanctify ourselves, maintaining a clean, sacred, holy disposition only through the inspiration and empowerment of the Holy Spirit. Works of flesh merit nothing.

I don't think you actually understand those theologians.

 

[Carbon]

Eze 36:
25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.

27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

@Josheb What do you make of this passage in regard to sanctification?

 

[Josheb]

I don't think you actually understand those theologians.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Carbon]

Thank you for your time.

Anytime.

 

[Carbon]

What is a good work, one that might qualify as the fruit of sanctification? One, I think, that is free, uncalculating. genuine, spontaneous. It would be like a mother who runs to pick up her child when it is hurt. There is no calculation, no wondering about progress, morality, or virtue. There is just the doing of it, and then it is completely forgotten. The right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Good works in God's eyes are quite likely to be all those things we have forgotten! True sanctification is God's secret.

Gerhard O. Forde.

 

[Alive]

What is a good work, one that might qualify as the fruit of sanctification? One, I think, that is free, uncalculating. genuine, spontaneous. It would be like a mother who runs to pick up her child when it is hurt. There is no calculation, no wondering about progress, morality, or virtue. There is just the doing of it, and then it is completely forgotten. The right hand doesn't know what the left is doing. Good works in God's eyes are quite likely to be all those things we have forgotten! True sanctification is God's secret.

Gerhard O. Forde.

Good stuff, there.

 

[Carbon]

Good stuff, there.

Yes, I really have come to like Forde. He is Lutheran though, which is of course still Christian.

 

[Alive]

Yes, I really have come to like Forde. He is Lutheran though, which is of course still Christian.

The Lord has his elect in all kinds of places. I learned long ago, to accept that.
His chosen will be called and hear wherever they are.
He is So Gracious and Merciful beyond our comprehension.

 

[Carbon]

The Lord has his elect in all kinds of places. I learned long ago, to accept that.
His chosen will be called and hear wherever they are.
He is So Gracious and Merciful beyond our comprehension.

Amen