Is Sanctification only up to God?

[RICHinCHRIST]

Hi,

I used to be a Calvinist due to listening to only Calvinist preachers in my first couple years of being a Christian. Along with that theology, I understood that sanctification is all God's work. God began it, and God will ultimately be faithful to complete it. I have no problem with thinking that way, because to be honest, all the glory is to God for our salvation. He first drew us to Himself (giving us the opportunity to choose Him), and He was the one who died and rose again for us, which is the only means of our complete reconciliation. However, I used to think that I could just sit back on cruise control in Christian living because, after all: "It's all God's work anyway". Although I wasn't using that as an excuse to live in rebellion, it did affect my diligence in seeking after holiness. I had just assumed that since sanctification is all God's work, there is nothing that I can do to expedite or curtail it. But after reading certain Scriptures, I don't think that's true anymore. I taught a Bible study last week and mentioned these passages during part of it. Can you find any more that relate to this concept?

"And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure." - 1 John 3:3

"Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Cleanse [your] hands, [you] sinners; and purify [your] hearts, [you] double-minded." - James 4:8

"But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay, some for honor and some for dishonor. Therefore if anyone cleanses himself from the latter, he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work." - 2 Tim. 2:20-21

Then a voice came from the throne, saying, "Praise our God, all you His servants and those who fear Him, both small and great!" And I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready." And to her it was granted to be arrayed in fine linen, clean and bright, for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Rev. 19:5-7 --> This one really caught me off guard. It is true we are robed in the righteousness of Christ... but this verse indicates that the Bride of Christ has made herself ready by also clothing herself in her own good works!

"Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God." - 2 Cor. 7:1

It is clear from these verses that it is not only the blood of Jesus that cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7), but we also have the responsibility of cleansing ourselves as well. Praise God that He's given us the power through His Spirit!

grace and peace,

Rich

[mattrose]

Good Scriptures

I find it helpful to use two terms so as to maintain the necessary tension between God's part of initiation/work and our part of response/work. These 2 words are sanctification and consecration. It is God who sanctifies us, Who accomplishes the work of making us who we were designed, by Him, to be. But by His design, it is necessary for us to consecrate ourselves to this process, to devote ourselves to the means of sanctification.

When I was seeking ordination in the Wesleyan Church, I was asked by a panel whether or not I had been 'entirely sanctified.' I simply asked them what exactly they meant by that (perhaps I should have known, but I had heard so many different points of view on the subject so I can prolly be excused). One guy responded that they just wanted to know if I was 100% consecrated to God. So the term 'entirely sanctified' is not a favorite phrase of mine since, I think, it is God's part and too ambiguous.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Hi matt,

What you said makes alot of sense. However, if I understood correctly, you are saying that we have a responsibility included in our sanctification, although you don't like to use that specific word. For example, if someone was to not "consecrate" themselves to God's "sanctifying" work, then God's sanctification would subsequently be hindered. So whether or not you like to use the word "sanctify", sanctification is not only up to God.

As far as I know, the word sanctify just means to be "set apart". God does initially set us apart when we are born again (in that we receive a new heart, and become spiritually sensible), the blood of Christ indeed cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7), but we have a responsibility whether we will continue to be set apart or not, and according to those Scriptures I quoted, it doesn't seem that God is the only One cleansing us. We also have to cleanse (purify, be set apart, whatever word you want to use) ourselves.

You may completely agree with that, and it may just be a "word game". Any thoughts?

[RICHinCHRIST]

"When I was seeking ordination in the Wesleyan Church, I was asked by a panel whether or not I had been 'entirely sanctified."

I have read a portion of John Wesley's "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection". I'm assuming that their question about "entire sanctification" was referring to his interpretation as described in that writing?

Also, on another note:

"that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word" - Eph. 5:26

Here the word sanctify is tied in with "cleanse", the same word used in 2 Corinthians 7:1, which describes how we need to cleanse ourselves. The only point I'm trying to make is that in this verse (and many others) God is the one who is pointed to as the One Who sanctifies. But others clearly show that we are the ones who sanctify ourselves.

[steve]

Consider this series of verses in 1 Thessalonians 5—

16 Rejoice always,
17 pray without ceasing,
18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
19 Do not quench the Spirit.
20 Do not despise prophecies.
21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
22 Abstain from every form of evil.

23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. 24 He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.

I consider this to be a case of Paul telling us "our part" and "God's part" in sanctification. In verses 23f, Paul says that God will thoroughly sanctify us and that He is faithful to do so...but it presupposes what Paul has just said in the immediate context of verses 16 through 22. I take Paul's intention as follows:

"As you continually rejoice, pray and give thanks in all circumstances, and do nothing to resist or quench the Spirit's work and will in your life, and as you are receptive to the prophetic words by which God gives you direction—not gullibly, but testing them and only adhering to the genuine—and, of course, as you make it your habit to avoid known sin and corruption in all its forms...then you will find God working in you to wholly sanctify you."

This is not very different in meaning than the section in Philippians 2:12-15, where Paul says, "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Do all things without complaining and disputing, that you may become blameless and harmless..."

It looks as if Paul believed that both God and man have a part to play, as in initial salvation (we must believe; He must save), so also in our growth in holiness (we must trust and obey; He must transform our inner man). Calvinism appears to make human history into a chess game with only one player who moves both the white and the black pieces to amuse himself. The Bible makes human history out to be an interactive drama, where God actually has relationships with real people. As in all relationships, both parties must participate.

[darinhouston]

Rich, for my part I hope you feel welcome to the board -- I very much enjoy reading your thoughtful well-formed posts.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Hey Darin,

Glad to be here on the forum, I'm looking forward to continuing to learn with everyone!

[steve]

it may just be a "word game". Any thoughts?

In one sense, there really is room for semantic confusion here, because evangelicals almost always use the word "sanctification" to mean "becoming victorious over our native sinfulness." This is generally the case regardless whether one believes in a crisis "second work of grace"-type "sanctification," or whether one views as more normative a progressive growth into the likeness of Christ and greater victory over sin. It is commonly said (and I am one who commonly says it) that there are three aspects of salvation: justification, sanctification and glorification. By the second of these terms, we explain that we mean "deliverance from the power of sin." Well, we may mean that when we use the word (and we are entitled to continue using the word that way, if there is a consensus among our hearers that we are imputing this meaning to the word), but I do not think this is generally the meaning of the term when used by the scriptural writers. It is true that victory over and deliverance from the power of sin is a biblical subject. I am just saying that I am not sure that "sanctification" is technically the right biblical term for that phenomenon. "Overcoming" would probably be the closest Johannine term for this concept.

When I find the term "sanctified" (and its cognates) in the New Testament—for example, in Hebrews, where the term is frequently used—I get the impression that the writer has something different in mind from the matter of subjective victory over sin (important as he may regard the latter to be). He seems to connect "sanctification" much more closely with conversion, and almost as identical to Paul's term "justification." Neither of these would be speaking about the subjective experience of the Christian life (e.g., overcoming the power of sin), but rather of the objective reclassification of the person in Christ over against some alternative. They would seem to be closely related, but not identical in usage. Let me try to explain my hunch here:

"Justification" seems to speak of the objective standing of the disciple of Jesus in contrast with his own earlier condition. That is, he was once a guilty and condemned man in the sight of God, but God has "reclassified" him as a righteous, acquitted man.

"Sanctification" (meaning "being set apart for God") often appears to refer to the disciple's objective standing—not in contrast to his former state, but in contrast with the rest of mankind. That is, in the world of lost sinners, God has set one group apart for His own purposes, to be devoted only to Him.

If this is really the meaning in many cases (as in Hebrews, I believe) then justification and sanctification are two objective reclassifications that apply to believers at the moment they come to Christ. They are justified, in contrast to their former condemnation; they are sanctified (the opposite of the concept of "ordinary"), in contrast to the rest of the world of "ordinary" humans.

This would agree with the Old Testament's use of "sanctified." The priests were "sanctified"—or set apart for divine service—without reference to their moral character. Israel was a sanctified or holy people—without reference to how they were doing spiritually at any given moment. They were objectively "set apart" for God, whether they lived consistently with that status or not.

In the New Testament, the writers used the fact of this objective sanctification as an argument for maintaining a subjective, moral excellence. Just as the use of the word "Lord" in addressing Jesus suggests the obligation to obey Him (Luke 6:46), so the status of being set apart for divine service (sanctified) suggests living worthy of that status. Thus, Peter tells his readers to "be holy in all manner of behavior" (1 Peter 1:15).

I believe that a thorough word study of sanctification in the New Testament will yield more than one nuance of meaning (perhaps different from book to book, and from author to author). I am not sure whether we would conclude, after such a study, that the Bible uses the word in the manner that we have become accustomed to using it.

This is a side issue, and even a "word game," since the core of Rich's concern is not so much with the lexical meanings of words as with the question of whether our growth toward greater victory over sin (whatever we may call it) is only God's work, or whether it is a joint effort—so that we become "laborers together with God" (1 Cor.3:9). The latter text is not talking about this subject, of course, since Paul is there describing the respective significance of his and Apollos' labors in building the church at Corinth. However, there is some connection in the concept, in that building the church is rightly the work of God, as is our moral formation as Christians. If God may share the task with humans in one of His projects, it cannot be blasphemous to suggest that humans may also have a role in the other.

[mattrose]

You may completely agree with that, and it may just be a "word game". Any thoughts?

Yes, I do completely agree with what you wrote there As a non-calvinist, I have no problem speaking about our involvement in the process of sanctification.

I have read a portion of John Wesley's "A Plain Account of Christian Perfection". I'm assuming that their question about "entire sanctification" was referring to his interpretation as described in that writing?

The problem is that Wesley struggled with the doctrine himself. He didn't necessarily have 1 consistent view of entire sanctification throughout his life of ministry.

Steve said...
I believe that a thorough word study of sanctification in the New Testament will yield more than one nuance of meaning (perhaps different from book to book, and from author to author). I am not sure whether we would conclude, after such a study, that the Bible uses the word in the manner that we have become accustomed to using it.

That's interesting. Certainly most of the uses I've been surrounded with in my life have to do with a process of sanctification, EVEN AS I was told that the meaning is set apart (or sometimes 'put to proper use').

In any case, though, there is a process of becoming more like Christ. Whether we call that sanctification, growth in holiness, cleansing, or whatever is, I suspect, less important than the growth itself.

[RICHinCHRIST]

Thanks, Steve, for your comments. What you said about the objective nature of sanctification (in Hebrews, and previously in Old Testament use) makes alot of sense.

"Sanctification" (meaning "being set apart for God") often appears to refer to the disciple's objective standing—not in contrast to his former state, but in contrast with the rest of mankind. That is, in the world of lost sinners, God has set one group apart for His own purposes, to be devoted only to Him.

I believe that a thorough word study of sanctification in the New Testament will yield more than one nuance of meaning (perhaps different from book to book, and from author to author). I am not sure whether we would conclude, after such a study, that the Bible uses the word in the manner that we have become accustomed to using it.

Thought I'd do a quick NT word study of the original word used for "sanctification" as well as its nuances.

What Steve said is very helpful because the "objective standing" interpretation of sanctification that he mentioned is seen throughout many of the uses of these words... but so is the traditional understanding of having victory over sin (although not nearly as frequent, as far as I can tell). As always, the context determines which of the two meanings it's referring to. With that in mind, please reply if you notice one of the verses I mention belong under a different classification. Thought I'd share some of the results of my studies for everyone's benefit:

ἁγιασμός - hagiasmos (Strong's G38 - masculine noun)
1) consecration, purification
2) the effect of consecration--a) sanctification of heart and life

a.) translated "sanctification" 5 times in KJV.

2 out of 5 times it is used as "objective standing" (1 Corinthians 1:30, 2 Thessalonians 2:13)

2 out of 5 times it is used as "victory over sin" (1 Thess 4:3, 1 Thess 4:4)

1 out of 5 times it could be one or the other (1 Peter 1:2)
the word "for" (which is translated differently in some translations) is what's important in this regard. Are we set apart "to be" obedient? Or is obedience what happens by being set apart? I tend to think it is the first one (although the second statement is idealistically true as well), which in essence, would point to the "objective standing" camp. (This is when I wish I knew Greek! )

b.) also translated "holiness" 5 times in KJV.

5 out of 5 times it is used as "victory over sin" (Romans 6:19, Romans 6:22, 1 Thessalonians 4:7, 1 Timothy 2:15, Hebrews 12:14)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Root word of hagiasmos is...

ἁγιάζω - hagiazō (Strong's G37 - verb)

1) to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow
2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God--a) consecrate things to God--b) dedicate people to God
3) to purify--a) to cleanse externally--b) to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin--c) to purify internally by renewing of the soul

translated "sanctify" 26 times, "hallow" 2 times, and "be holy" 1 time in KJV. However, only 16 times is it used in reference to the believer.

11 out of 16 times it is used as "objective standing" (John 17:17, John 17:19, Acts 20:32, Acts 26:18, 1 Cor 1:2, 1 Cor 6:11 (an interesting one considering Paul was writing to people who may have at that point been struggling with the sins of the previous 3 verses), Heb 2:11, Heb 10:10, Heb 10:29 [apostate], Heb 13:12, Jude 1:1)

2 out of 16 times it is used as "victory over sin" (2 Tim 2:21, Rev 22:11--sounds like "holy" can be coupled with the previously mentioned "righteous".. just as 'unjust' and 'filthy' could be coupled as well: all indicating a 'lifestyle practice')

3 out of 16 times it could be one or the other (Eph 5:26, 1 Thess 5:23---other times the word is used in this book it refers to 'victory over sin'(1 thess 4:3-4,7), Heb 10:14--according to some translations it sounds like 'victory over sin' is being described, for instance, NKJV "being sanctified" seems to indicate a process... however, this just may refer to those who "will be" sanctified (set apart in objective standing) at a future time) --I hope that makes sense.... .. many translations just simply say "were sanctified" or "was sanctified", which would clearly place it in the objective standing camp.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Root word of hagiazō is...

ἅγιος - hagios (Strong's G40 - adjective)
1) most holy thing, a saint

translated "holy" 161 times, "saints" 61 times, and "Holy One" 4 times in KJV.

Some interesting notes:

1) often describes the "Holy" Spirit. This can go between both camps considering that the Holy Spirit is Who sets us apart objectively from the world, but also gives us the power to overcome sin.

2) describes the "holy" city, Jerusalem. This would clearly classify under "objective standing", since Jerusalem, as described by Jesus was anything but "pure" (Matt 23:37). Notwithstanding, it was the city that God chose to be the worship capital of the known world in the Old Covenant.

3) this word is translated "saint" over 60 times in the NT, which in context sometimes describes the objective standing of the child of God.

4) often describes either Jesus, the Father, the scriptures, the law, the covenant, the temple or holy place, the prophets, or the apostles.

DESCRIBING THE BELIEVER'S...

Objective Standing = Eph 1:4, Col 1:22, Col 3:12, 2 Tim 1:9, 1 Pet 2:9, Rev 20:6

Conduct (overcoming sin) = 1 Peter 1:15-16, 2 Peter 3:11, Rev 22:11
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________