Chapter 6: Sanctification
1. What words are used in Greek for the concept “sanctification”?
There are mainly five words, more or less synonymous with each other, even though, as we will see, there are certainly differences along with the similarity. These are: hieros, hosios, semnos, hagios, hagnos.
2. Which of these five is used most frequently in the New Testament?
The word hagios. And it is just this word that is used the least of all these in secular Greek. There must be a special reason that this relatively unfamiliar word became the most familiar.
3. What, in the first place, is evident from this phenomenon?
That the concepts that the Greeks (and pagans in general) formed of the holiness of the gods differed greatly from the biblical concept. This concept must have even been so great that the most commonly used words to express this pagan concept were, by this frequent use, considered unsuitable to serve as the vehicle for the divine idea. Also, our [Dutch] word heilig [“holy”], one surmises, was first formed under the influence of divine truth, that is, after the Teutons had come into contact with Christianity. Thus, in its origin it is a concept of revelation, a Christian term.
4. What was the main element in the meaning of the Greek words mentioned above?
That of sublimity, sacredness, venerability. They completely lack, on the other hand, the moral element that, just in contrast, comes to the fore in Scripture.
5. Indicate in general the meaning of the terms mentioned.
a)Hosios is used for everything that by divine or human right has acquired a kind of devotion. It is not used exclusively for religious things. It never serves to translate the Hebrew qadosh in the Old Testament. In the New Testament it occurs in 1 Timothy 2:8, “lifting up holy hands”; Titus 1:8, “temperate, just, holy, chaste”; Acts 2:27, “not to hand over your Holy One to see corruption.” Hosiotēs means faithful in carrying out the duties of piety (Luke 1:75); hosios of God (Rev 15:4; 16:5).
b)Semnos (from the stem seb in sebomai) means what instills reverence and awe. It is also used of human things worthy of honor; for example, clothing. It does not occur in the Septuagint. In the New Testament it occurs in only four places: “all that is true, all that is honest,” that is, all that is honorable (Phil 4:8; cf. 1 Tim 3:11; Titus 2:2). It is not used of God in Scripture.
c)Hieros is all that is divinely exalted, since it belongs to the gods. It is never used of the gods themselves. The word seldom occurs in biblical Greek: of trumpets (Josh 6:8); of the temple [Ezek 27:6; 28:18]. In the New Testament to hieron is the temple—that is, the whole temple (not only “the holy place”), with everything that belongs to it, including the forecourts (1 Cor 9:13); “the Holy Scriptures” (2 Tim 3:15). The meaning is thus entirely external, apart from any moral quality.
d)Hagios is not used by the Greeks for either gods or men. It means that which is an object of religious veneration (from hazomai). The Septuagint chose it for translating the Old Testament qadosh. In Scripture it then became the basis for a series of new words formed from it, such as hagiotēs, hagiōsynē, hagiazein, hagiasmos, hagiastērion, katagiazein.
e)Hagnos is used by the Greeks for both gods and things. In the former instance the meaning is “what must be venerated with sacrifices”; for the latter, “consecrated.” In the New Testament, however, it has obtained the particular meaning of “chaste” or “pure” (e.g., 2 Cor 11:2; Titus 2:5; 1 Pet 3:2; also in a metaphorical sense).
6. What is the derivation of the Hebrew word qadosh, “holy”?
It comes from a root that means “cut,” “separate,” and thus originally expresses being “set apart,” “separated.”
7. What is the opposite of this concept?
In contrast to qadosh, “holy,” is chol, which means “loose,” “common.”
8. Is this contrast completely synonymous with that between “clean” and “unclean”?
No. That this is not the case can already be seen from the fact that for the latter contrast the Hebrew uses a different pair of words—namely, tahor for “clean” and tame for “unclean.” Now the connection between these is such that all that is “holy” must at the same time also be clean, and all that is unholy is also unclean, but the opposite is not true. “Holy” means more than “clean.”
9. Is the concept of “holiness” merely that of “separation,” completely undetermined, or is there an additional determination?
There is a further determination. That something is set apart does not yet make it something holy. It becomes holy because it is set apart for God and His use.
10. Is the concept first applied to created things or to God Himself?
The former has been maintained and the matter presented such that certain things “dedicated to God” were called holy. But then it becomes completely impossible to explain how one arrived at conceiving of holiness also as an attribute of God. “Being-dedicated-to-God,” applied to God Himself, no longer makes any sense, at least not if one has to think of its origin in this way. It is also completely wrong with such a significant concept applied to God so frequently to choose its starting point in what is creaturely. We, on the contrary, therefore say: God in the first place is called the “Holy One,” and only from that does it follow that holiness can also be ascribed to other things apart from Him. Thus we say that the concept of holiness came from above to below, not the opposite.
11. How then is it possible to speak of God as “set apart”?
We must think of this as follows. With created things there are two moments present in the concept of being set apart, namely, a point of origin and an end point, a terminus a quo and a terminus ad quem. Whatever is holy is set apart from the unholy world and dedicated to God. Now it becomes self-evident how it can also be said of God Himself that He is set apart from the profane, the unholy, and determined for Himself. In this way, holiness can be ascribed both to God and to creatures without the word having to be changed in meaning.
12. Is holiness a purely formal concept? That is, is there nothing in it other than the thought of setting apart without there also being the thought in what respect that setting apart occurs?
This formal concept has a positive content also when it is being used of God Himself. Holiness is not merely “God’s sublimity above the world,” nor merely “God’s power,” nor “the consuming majesty of His being.” In all these ideas, the moral element is lacking. It has been rightly noted that where the insignificance of the creature over against God is portrayed in the strongest terms, this is never taken back to holiness as a cause (cf., e.g., Isa 40:12–17; 45:9; 64:8). Conversely, when God appears in His holiness as it is described in Isaiah 6, then the thought that overcomes the creature is not, in the first place, “how weak and of little meaning am I.” Rather, the creature feels seized by the awareness of his uncleanness and exclaims, “Woe is me, because I am defiled.” For this reason, the angel takes the coal from the altar and touches such a person on the lips, an act that naturally must have ethical significance.
On the other hand, it is a kind of exaggeration of the moral element that is present in the concept of holiness when one has identified holiness and grace, condescending kindness. This conflicts entirely with the derivation of the word that indicates being set apart. One must therefore be on guard against both extremes.
13. What then is contained in this holiness of God?
a)That God loves Himself as the highest moral good.
b)That God as such turns away from all evil.
In fact, in God, too, holiness is therefore a being separated—a being separated from the world, but not the world in the abstract. It is a separation from the unclean, sinful world. And thereby it must be kept in view that this separation derives from a positive principle, since God seeks and loves Himself as the highest good.
14. Is this holiness of God always manifested in the same manner?
No; as it comes into contact with different objects, its manifestations are also different. This explains why such unsatisfactory concepts concerning God’s holiness have been formed. This arose from the fact that people proceeded from a single manifestation of the holiness of God and wanted to derive everything from that. In this way not only one-sided but also false conclusions arose.
a)Sometimes God’s holiness is manifest in the judgments He exercises over the nations: “Who is like you—glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders?” (Exod 15:11).
b)Sometimes His holiness becomes manifest in the special adopting of His covenant people. By redeeming them and making them His special possession, and setting them apart from the unclean world, God has, as it were, registered His protest against the latter and created the core of a new world. God’s redeeming activity is thus a consequence of His holiness. From this it results that one can think that holiness equals grace. This, however, is only apparently so. Holiness is at work in redemption, not insofar as it forgives sin but insofar as it removes from the sinful world and redeems from sin (cf. Ezek 20:39–44; 38:16).
c)Since in this way God has especially united Israel to Himself and has proposed a holy purpose for His people, it thus also becomes a matter of His holiness to reach this goal, even through the failure and unfaithfulness of His hallowed people (cf. Isa 49:7 and all the places in Isaiah where, very significantly, “Redeemer” and “Holy One of Israel” are next to each other). God redeems His people for His own sake, to display His own virtues. It can therefore hold as a consequence of His holiness that He seeks out and forgives and accepts them again (cf. Hos 11:9, “I will not execute the fierceness of my anger; I will not return to destroy Ephraim, for I am God and not a man, the Holy One in your midst”). In a momentary fit of anger a man would allow it to destroy his work, but God keeps His holy purpose in view (Psa 33:21; Ezek 20:9, “But I did it for my name’s sake, so that it would not be defiled in the eyes of the heathen”).
d)Thus, although righteousness can and must be seen as a direct result of His holiness, there are still manifestations of holiness that appear to stand over against righteousness, as when it is ascribed to God’s holiness that He does not destroy His people because of their sins. After all that has been said, the reason will be clear. However, the holiness of God does not work redemption without righteousness being put into operation. For the close tie between these two, see Isaiah 10:17: “The light of Israel becomes a fire, and his Holy One a flame, which will set on fire and consume its thorns and thistles in one day” (cf. also Isa 5:16).
15. With what meanings does the word hagios appear in the New Testament?
a)Except for a few citations from the Old Testament, one finds it used of God in general only in the Apostle John (John 17:11; Rev 6:10; 1 John 2:20).
b)The reason for this is not far to seek. It is the Spirit of God who is given the name “holy” in the New Testament, something that happens in the Scriptures of the old covenant only a few times (cf. Psa 51:11; Isa 63:10–11). Through the Spirit, God sanctifies His people, for the Spirit is that person in the Holy Trinity through whose work it can be said that all things are unto God, for which reason He is also called Holy Spirit (cf. Titus 3:5: “the renewing of the Holy Spirit”; 2 Thess 2:13: “sanctification of the Spirit”).
c)Holiness occurs in an official sense for those who have been set apart for a special service: “holy prophets” (Luke 1:70); “holy apostles” (Eph 3:5); “holy men of God” (2 Pet 1:21); “holy covenant” (Luke 1:72); “holy Scriptures” (Rom 1:2); “commandment” and “law” as “holy” (Rom 7:12).
d)Holiness is used in an ethical sense, for example, when it is said in 1 Peter 1:15–16: “But as He who has called you is holy, so also you be holy in all your walk. Therefore it is written, ‘Be holy for I am holy’ ” (Eph 1:4; 5:27; Col 1:22).
It is this last-mentioned meaning that has its place in the doctrine of sanctification.
16. From what two concepts, therefore, must the concept “holy,” as Scripture uses it, be sharply distinguished?
a)From the concept of purity taken in itself. Someone is called good and pure if, considered in himself, he has no pollution.
b)From the concept of righteousness. Someone is called righteous if either his own merits or the imputed merits of another cause him to be in a state of acquittal before God. Thus, righteousness not only means that there is a relationship of his moral condition to God but also that that relationship has worked retroactively upon him.
Holiness is to be distinguished from both of these concepts. From purity in the abstract, first of all, for holiness means a relationship with God, a dedication to God. To be holy never means something that one is in himself, apart from God. But holiness is likewise distinguished from righteousness, for it is an inherent attribute and not a status granted to us again by God. It is something that we have in ourselves and not something in which we stand.
17. Is this delineation of great importance for establishing the concept of sanctification?
Yes, since at present one is accustomed to completely losing sight of this element of consecration to God and to regarding holiness anthropocentrically. One thereby starts with man and assumes that to sanctify is to make someone better or much better. This idea is already excluded by the term. Once someone has gained a correct insight into the biblical concept of “holiness” in its original meaning, as an attribute of God, in its theocentric character, that person will find it impossible to proceed in such a humanly oriented fashion. The moral transformation of man, too, his subjective change, must from the outset be regarded from this point of view: It is for God and not for ourselves. It serves for God’s glorification and to carry out His holiness, not to remake us for an ideal that would have independent significance and would bear in itself its own standard.
Thus, on this point, despite every difference between them, sanctification and justification agree in that both happen to us for God’s glorification. It is not wrong to stress sanctification along with justification, for on that Scripture itself leads the way for us most emphatically. But it is certainly wrong to stress sanctification that is cut off from the root of God’s holiness, that is not for God, so is unscriptural. That is what must be repudiated in the ethical preaching of our day. However, by no means is the corrective against such preaching a one-sided emphasis on objective justification and a neglect of subjective sanctification. True sanctification must again replace false sanctification. Once this happens, dead and deadening ethicism will be replaced by a moral earnestness that will express the warmth and ardor of true religion. “Be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy”; not only, “as I am holy” [Lev 11:44–45; 19:2; 1 Pet 1:16]!
18. What is the meaning of the word hagiotēs?
It means holiness as an inherent attribute. It appears only in Hebrews 12:10, “He chastises us for our benefit, so that we might share in His holiness.” Thus it is used as an attribute of man as well as God.
19. What does hagiōsynē mean?
This is also derived directly from hagnos and accordingly means “holiness.” Some have wanted to derive it from hagioō = hagiazō and then also wanted to give it the active meaning of “sanctification” (as deed), but this cannot be proven. In 1 Thessalonians 3:13 it is applied to people. Rather difficult is the explanation that the word must have in Romans 1:3, “who is powerfully shown to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit of sanctification, from the resurrection of the dead (kata pneuma hagiōsynēs). Here it appears to mean the deity of the Lord as Spiritus summe venerandus, “Spirit to be worshiped.”
20. What does the verb hagiazō mean?
In general, this word means “dedicate to God,” “take up into the fellowship of God” (said of God Himself). This, however, can occur in more than one way:
a)By investing with an office, to entrust with a mission: “Do you say to me whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world?” (John 10:36). Christ is therefore called “the Holy One of God” in several places (Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34).
b)By producing the inherent attribute of consecration to God in someone. For example, “Sanctify them through your truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17; cf. 1 Cor 6:11); “And may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess 5:23).
c)The sanctifying of people, that is, performed by people, occurs partly with respect to something that is already holy (e.g., in the Lord’s Prayer, “Hallowed be your name”), partly with respect to something that must still be devoted to God (e.g., 1 Tim 4:5). In the first instance, it means that the holiness of something must come to expression in word and deed and in all of life.
d)Sanctification also occurs in a special sense, namely, of the Mediator of the covenant of grace. “Because both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one” (Heb 2:11); “So that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her with the washing of the waters by the word” (Eph 5:26); “In whose will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ, taken place once for all” (Heb 10:10).
One could gather from these passages that sanctifying is equivalent to atoning or making satisfaction, since sanctifying is brought into connection with sacrifice and blood. This, however, is not so. Sanctifying here amounts to obtaining an objective state through sacrifice. Believers are therefore sanctified in principle by the satisfaction of Christ; their sanctification is firm in Him, as will be argued later. From Hebrews 9:14 it appears that a subjective cleansing belongs with this sanctification, that therefore it cannot be identified with justification.
e)Finally, it is also said of the Mediator that He sanctifies Himself for His own (John 17:19). This, of course, is not to be understood as a change in the Savior, as if this sanctification presupposes a previous lack of holiness, but as the consecration of His life in mediatorial obedience (passive and active) to God. This was an official holiness that is the basis of the sanctification of believers but must not be confused with it.
21. What is the meaning of the word hagiasmos?
It means “sanctification” and is the proper Greek word for what we call sanctification. But now the question arises whether the word is to be taken actively or passively—that is, whether it means the act of sanctifying or undergoing this act, being made holy. Both senses appear to be the case: active in 1 Thessalonians 4:3, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification, that you abstain from fornication”; also, “in the sanctification of the Spirit” (2 Thess 2:13; 1 Pet 1:2); on the other hand, certainly passive in Romans 6:19, “in order to be of service … for sanctification,” and so in other passages.
22. How do you define sanctification?
The gracious work of God whereby, under the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit, the justified believer is renewed by degrees in his whole nature, so that Christ is formed in him and he lives for God in good works.
23. Is it correct to say that the righteousness of the Mediator is imputed to us in justification and infused in sanctification?
Although there is certainly a working of Christ in us through the Holy Spirit in sanctification, this formula could give rise to misunderstanding. In any case, it is not the same righteousness of Christ that occurs in its two parts. When I speak of an imputed righteousness of the Mediator, then I mean that righteousness that He obtained by means of His suffering and dying and obedience in the state of humiliation—not, however, the righteousness of life of the human nature of Christ, that is, that Christ in His human nature now possesses. The latter is not imputed to me. And, conversely, the former cannot be infused into me; it can only be reckoned to me. Really, one cannot even say that the righteousness in which Christ now lives is infused into me. This always rests on a more-or-less unclear mystical conception. It is not the personal righteousness of Christ that is infused into the believer, for, as an inherent quality, righteousness cannot be detached from the person.
In 1 Corinthians 1:30, where the apostle enumerates what we have in Christ, there is no mention that Christ would be our holiness (hagiōsynē or hagiotēs), but it is simply said that He is our sanctification (hagiasmos).
24. Is then no “holiness” of Christ imputed to us?
Yes; by that term, if one wishes, one can designate His active obedience, imputed to us in justification. As our [Heidelberg] Catechism states in the answer to question 60, “How are you righteous before God?… God grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ,” etc. In this sense, one may thus then say that Christ is not only our sanctification but also our holiness before God.
25. Is sanctification something that occurs in the judicial sphere or does it have reference to a subjective change in the disposition of man?
The latter is the case, as was explained in detail above in the distinction between it and justification.
26. Does sanctification occur in the conscious level of the life of believers or below that level in depth?
It occurs below the level of conscious life and works out of the regenerate root of the soul on its dispositions and inclinations to sanctify them.
27. Is sanctification a mediate or immediate work?
As it takes place below the consciousness, it is primarily an immediate work. That, however, does not take away from the fact that in its manifestation it is tied by God to the use of certain means.
28. Does God Himself work in sanctification or is it man who does the work?
God is the author of sanctification and not man. The latter can only be maintained by proponents of so-called free will. Here again, however, it must be noted that the outward manifestation of this sanctification is not apart from means that the believer has at his disposal.
29. Is sanctification a work that occurs all at once or is it subject to a long passage of time?
In the normal course of things, sanctification covers a long period of time. It can happen, however, that it is completed in a single moment, namely where regeneration-conversion and temporal death coincide, or at least where the latter quickly follows the former. Because it is certain that with the death of believers, or rather immediately after their death, their sanctification is complete, then it must follow that in such cases it is immediately perfect in its full extent. It then takes on the nature of a critical transformation in place of a gradual process. And even where gradual sanctification has preceded, temporal death still always retains the character of a crisis.
30. What is the relationship between justification and sanctification?
a)Justification precedes. That is the sequence in the covenant of grace, by which it is distinguished from the covenant of works. Adam, as he was in the covenant of works, was perfectly holy; in all his characteristics and inclinations there was perfect devotion to God. Still, on the basis of this perfect holiness, righteousness had first to be acquired by Adam; his condition expressing itself in works would be indicative of his state, of his righteousness. In the covenant of grace, this is reversed. Here, by faith, the sinner is first transferred into the state of righteousness, so that he is much further than Adam before the fall; inasmuch as Adam’s state was not secure, the sinner’s is. And now, following on this righteousness, the state of holiness appears, produced through the work of sanctification. In this respect, the justified believer is not above but below Adam, for in him is unholiness, as sanctification continually presupposes.
In the Letter to the Romans there is this sequence: first justification, then sanctification, indicated by the successive treatment of both parts—chapters 1 and 2, sin; chapters 3–5, justification; chapters 6–7, sanctification.
b)The legal ground for sanctification lies in justification. Sanctification must be viewed as a gift. It belongs to those things that God can require of us, which, however, we are still not able to produce, and which are now, through the merits of Christ, produced in us through the grace of God. For this reason, as indicated above, sanctification is more than once connected with the suffering of Christ, His blood.
c)Justification excludes that in our sanctification there could ever be any mention of obtaining rights to eternal life. Sanctification remains completely outside the legal sphere. Justification has completely taken over this sphere for itself, so that nothing remains for sanctification.
d)Conversely, justification remains completely outside of our being, and therefore may never contest the distinctive task of sanctification. To stand righteous before God is not enough; the believer must and also will be holy before God. All traces and remnants of sin must be removed from him, the pollution completely purged, as well as the guilt entirely wiped out.
31. What connection and what difference is there between regeneration and sanctification?
a)Regeneration happens all at once. A person cannot be more or less regenerated. He is, or he is not. Sanctification happens gradually, and there are degrees.
b)Nevertheless, regeneration is the beginning of sanctification; Philippians 1:6, “Being confident of this, that He who has begun in you a good work shall complete it at the day of Jesus Christ.” All the sanctifying of our nature takes place in connection with the new principle of life that God has produced in regeneration.
32. What relationship is there between initial conversion and sanctification?
Conversion is the first outward manifestation of sanctification, just as continuing conversion may be called its renewed manifestation.
33. What is the nature of sanctification?
Sanctification has a supernatural character. Many think of sanctification as if it is taken up with awakening, activating, drawing out and exercising the principles of grace present in the heart as that happens in an external, persuasive manner by presenting motives. Sanctification would then be a kind of spiritual pedagogy, and God would then deal with believers as a schoolmaster treats his pupils when he seeks to develop their intellectual and moral life. Now, the great difference lies in the fact that the schoolmaster cannot inwardly touch the child’s soul and expressions of life. He must confine himself to gaining access to the child’s life along conscious routes. As a result, he can introduce nothing specifically new into the child, but only develop what is already present in principle. At the most, by the exercise of the better qualities of the child he can suppress evil and silence it temporarily; he cannot eradicate it at its root. But God’s relationship to the soul of the believer is totally different. He works from within and from the outside at the same time. Direct supernatural working and indirect working accompany each other. Therefore:
a)The principle of life, bestowed in regeneration by a special supernatural work of grace, is, with all the dispositions contained in it, strengthened and increased. It does not receive that strengthening and increase from itself. Already in nature, creation of life and causing the growth of life are two different actions of God, to which two different immediate activities correspond. God’s providence in the world of living beings works directly. But it is likewise the case in relation to spiritual life. Growth is brought about by God immediately.
b)In connection with this, it is also the case that the remnants of sin in the nature of man are not just suppressed or silenced but are also eliminated, removed. The root from which they thrive is cut off. It is obvious that this also must be attributed to a supernatural work of God. The one thing has in itself no power over the other to banish it. That is above all true of sin. Its power is so great that it cannot be killed by mediate means alone. Only because God banishes and kills sin does the new life receive the power to replace it.
c)Thus, while the actual killing of sin and the growth of the new life remain the immediate work of God, there is also another side in sanctification. First, a difference is to be made between a disposition, even the most developed disposition, and its activity. Someone who has not spoken a certain language for many years need not for that reason have lost the habitual capacity to speak that language. But he is out of practice. And when he speaks, all kinds of defects will mar his speech. Similarly, if the believer does not exercise the dispositions of grace present in him in a conscious manner and constantly, they will not be able to be manifested in his life but will continually be overcome by evil dispositions. Thus, sanctification is furthered by good works, and has its impact in all branches of life.
d)As the believer can never recognize his regeneration other than as it is worked out in repentance and faith, so too progress in the knowledge of sanctification is tied to the exercise of sanctification. Only then, and insofar as he makes progress toward honoring God in his works, can a child of God have the assurance that he is sanctified and becomes sanctified.
e)This activity coming from the outside, too, may not be viewed as detached from the grace of God. It is God who works in us both the willing and the working according to His good pleasure [Phil 2:13]. The result is therefore that in sanctification God not only works in certain respects, but the believer nowhere works alone in any respect.
34. Show from Scripture that there is a supernatural activity in sanctification, and that not everything happens through moral exercise.
a)This is taught explicitly in passages that have sanctification taking place in the inner man, thus, from within: “that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith and that you be rooted and grounded in love” (Eph 3:16); “to be strengthened with all power” (Col 1:11).
b)This is taught no less in those passages that view sanctification as preeminently a divine work. For example, “and may the God of peace sanctify you completely” (1 Thess 5:23); “now may the God of peace … make you perfect in every good work … working in you what is pleasing to Him, through Jesus Christ” (Heb 13:20–21).
c)It is also shown from the fact that the sanctification of the believer is viewed as a fruit of life-union with Christ. Because of that, sanctification immediately receives a deeper sense than one can connect with an external exercise. The Savior says that without Him we can do nothing, that He is the vine and we are the branches [John 15:5]. That relationship is, in the first place, organic, not moral. And there are a number of texts that derive sanctification directly from that relationship (Eph 2:20–22; Gal 2:20; Eph 5:28–32).
d)It is confirmed by the fact that in the first place sanctification is not attributed to the external means of grace but to the Holy Spirit, who works within the heart. The Spirit is therefore called the Spirit of grace, of joy, of love, of faith, etc., and in general the Christian virtues are called the fruits of the Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22–23).
35. Who deny that sanctification is a supernatural work of God in the sense described?
First of all, Roman Catholics, because they hold that through regeneration all sin, properly speaking, is eradicated from a person, and that there is thus no further need for a supernatural action for removing sin. They therefore must have sanctification turned into a purely human work, the performing of good works. And insofar as these good works flow from a purified nature, a meritorious character can more easily be ascribed to them.
At an even further distance from Scripture are the views of Pelagians and Rationalists, who deny the inner corruption of sin and so, moreover, have no need for sanctification. The good slumbering by nature in every man needs only to be awakened and brought to development.
36. To what parts of man does sanctification extend?
To the whole man as he exists organically. To soul and body, to all the capacities of both. First Thessalonians 5:23 sums up all the parts of man in the terminology of that time: “your whole spirit and soul and body.” Second Corinthians 5:17 emphasizes that to be in Christ Jesus means to be a new creature in every respect, so that all the old has passed away (cf. also Eph 4:24). Further, one can say that sanctification extends:
a)To the mind. There is in the natural man, also in his thought-life, an inclination to evil, a congeniality with sin and an aversion to the good. Through sanctification this disposition and inclination is removed and the opposite put in its place (John 6:45).
b)To the will. In the unbeliever the will, too, is opposed to the holiness of God. But it is reversed, so that he now reaches out for that holiness with inward pleasure (Phil 2:13; Ezek 36:25–27).
c)To the passions, from which all selfish desire is removed and which are relocated in God as the source of all true enjoyment: “But those who are of Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:24).
d)To the conscience. Through the working of sin in the soul, the conscience is defiled. If the soul is sanctified and cleansed, it involves a cleansing of the conscience (Heb 9:14). But the conscience is sanctified in still another sense—namely, because it is made sensitive and tender and judges us more dependably according to God’s holy righteousness. A defiled conscience is in this sense a conscience that is so stained by sin that it has become impervious to sin, just as one can no longer see new stains on a stained garment: “But both their mind and conscience are stained” (Titus 1:15).
e)To the body, in which—insofar as it is the organ of the sinful soul—sinful inclinations have created a fixed form. This, too, is removed by sanctifying grace. This working, however, is largely limited to the crisis that for the body coincides with temporal death and the resurrection of the dead. This is also the only point at which one may say that sanctification is not limited to this life. However, life is, as it were, something that at death remains in this life and remains behind on earth in order to become completely sanctified at the last day (1 Cor 6:15, 20; Rom 6:12).
37. Of how many parts does sanctification consist?
Two; the same two that we find in principle in regeneration. As there was in regeneration a mortifying of the flesh at its root and an implanting of a new principle of life, so too in sanctification there is a continuation of this double work.
a)The putting to death of the old man, that action of God whereby the pollution and corruption of nature, flowing from sin, are gradually diminished and removed in believers.
b)The enlivening of the new man, whereby the same corrupt nature is more and more renewed according to the image of God in Christ.
38. Are these terms scriptural?
Yes, they are used repeatedly in Scripture to portray the sanctification of man. “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, so that the body of sin might be destroyed, so that we no longer serve sin” (Rom 6:6). “But those who are of Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:25). Thus one sees that not only the death in general but most specifically the crucifixion of the old man is presented in Scripture as the one side of sanctification. Therein lies the double notion of (a) misery and (b) shame. In continuing penitence and sorrow before God, the dying of the old man enters into the consciousness of the believers. But from the other side, the struggle with the death of the old man is nothing other than the birth pangs of the new man. And coupled with the dying of the old is an inner aversion to the old. This is a proof that the holiness of God makes its impression in the soul of man. In it something occurs that, at a great distance, resembles the divine repugnance that is awakened by all uncleanness. In the eye of believers sin becomes shameful, so that they abhor it not only because of guilt and punishment but because of the pollution itself. This is one of the characteristics by which true sanctification is distinguished from moral reformation.
That the old man must be slain and crucified also expresses in a striking manner how at issue is not a partial renewal but a total, organic re-creation. It is man in his entirety. Thus this expression must never be taken in a personal sense, as if in the believer two “I’s” are opposed to each other, but more extensively: The man in view is human nature, being human in its entirety. And the same thought is present in reverse: namely, that it is a new man who must be made alive. Here, too, it is not a matter of single expressions of life but of obtaining a complete formation, an image in all its dimensions. In the beginning, over against the strong, mature old man, the new man is like a weak, newly born infant. This relationship must be reversed.
39. Can this putting to death of the old man also be described in another way?
Yes. One can describe it as the removal of the pollution of sin. The distinction involved is that the putting to death of the old man has in view more the conscious side of sanctification, while the removal of the pollution also includes the subconscious. The pollution of sin is what stands precisely over against the holiness of God, what in the spiritual world answers to physical contamination. Pollution and guilt correspond respectively to God’s holiness and to His righteousness. And in man, conscious shame answers to pollution, conscious fear to guilt. We thus see this double set:
Righteousness
Holiness
Guilt
Corruption
Fear
Shame
Even feelings of physical shame serve to portray this moral fact of pollution. As soon as Adam sins, he is ashamed and acknowledges his nakedness. And in the same way, the ceremonial laws of clean and unclean serve in order to impress this consciousness of pollution deeply in the soul of the Israelite sinner. All these things could only cleanse the flesh, but they pointed to a higher cleansing, that of the soul through the blood and the Spirit of Christ (Heb 9:13–14). Thus, there is something in sin that casts a spiritual stain on the soul, and it belongs to true repentance to feel this pollution as something detestable, unbearable. Whoever is used to bodily cleanliness and is aware that some uncleanness sticks to him has an aversion to his situation. This feeling accompanies the consciousness of sin to an even much greater degree when it is awakened in the sinner by God’s Spirit. And being freed from this feeling already belongs to the cleansing of conscience, of which Scripture speaks.
The opposite of this pollution is a spiritual beauty and splendor of the soul. Not only cleanliness in a negative sense, equivalent to the absence of pollution, but holiness in a positive sense, as holy adornment, replaces the pollution. The Church that is sanctified is presented to her Savior without spot or wrinkle [Eph 5:27] (cf., for the portrayal of the pollution of sin and of sanctification in this sense, Hab 1:13; Psa 5:4–6; Jer 44:4; Ezek 36:25; Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2–3; Psa 51:7).
40. How is the disposition designated that originates through the second work of sanctification?
Scripture calls it “a living for God” (Gal 2:19; Rom 6:11). It is expressed very strikingly in this how true holiness is completely different from self-interested reformation, insofar as the goal of its striving is not in man but in God.
41. Is there also a link between faith and sanctification?
Yes, and it is a tie that is closely connected to what has just been said. Sanctification is one of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and so will also bear the features of the covenant of grace. It is true that holiness cannot be anything other than conformity to God’s law, since this is the complete expression of God’s nature, and that, in turn, is the norm of all genuine holiness. This, however, does not diminish that restored obedience to that law, according to the varied circumstances under which it appears, also assumes a particular coloration. Adam also, when he was in the covenant of works, possessed holiness. In a certain sense, one can even say [it was] a holiness in which faith in a broader sense was not entirely lacking. But this was a legal holiness, as that was resident in the covenant of works. It was accompanied by the awareness that this inherent disposition, this personal condition, was the basis for obtaining eternal life. For Adam, there was no thought of saving faith as the elect sinner learns to exercise it. After all, this faith, as we have found, is nothing other than that activity of the soul by which it separates its legal standing from all of its own doing and works and makes it to rest in the merits of Christ. Now, however, it cannot be other than that this form of faith must be at work in sanctification. Faith becomes the root of all Christian holiness, since at every point of our striving for improvement and conformity to God it fills our hearts with the thought that all this cannot ever be the ground on which we could stand in God’s judgment. It teaches us true humility, which in the covenant of grace is inseparable from true holiness. Thus, faith is not solely something that accompanies sanctification, but something that permeates it; and that, properly seen, is the heart of everything in our holiness that is pleasing to God. Without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6). One is sanctified by faith in Christ (Acts 26:18). Our hearts are cleansed by faith (Acts 15:9; cf. also 1 Pet 1:21–22; Col 2:12–14; 3:7–11).
Thus, the question sometimes discussed—whether faith is necessary for our sanctification—must be answered according to what has been said. The answer must be decidedly affirmative. That there could have been disputes about this stems from a misunderstanding. It is feared that from this conception confusion between justification and sanctification can arise. This cannot be, if one only keeps in mind that in sanctification faith functions in a different manner than it does in justification. In justification it is the instrumental cause or the possessing organ through which we appropriate the merits of Christ. In sanctification, on the other hand, faith is the humble form of the soul by which all self-righteousness is banished from our inward holiness and from our good works. Furthermore, it is one of the characteristics of good works that they occur by faith. The relationship of the sinner to God brought about by the covenant of grace is such that the absence of faith stamps everything as sin. Whoever performs any good work without the conviction that all merit is excluded, by that already becomes the object of God’s displeasure. We may and must therefore say: Faith is not only necessary for the sanctification of a believer, but the form faith assumes constitutes an essential part of his sanctification itself.
42. Is this true only for the conscious exercise of faith, or does it also count for the disposition of faith that is produced and maintained in the soul through God’s Spirit?
It is true for both. As there is unconscious holiness, so there must also be unconscious faith that makes it pleasing to God. What does not enter into the consciousness is therefore surely present. A believer does not cease being sanctified if he loses consciousness. Between a sleeping worldling and a sleeping child of God is just as great a difference as between a David who sings psalms and a blasphemer who curses his Creator. Holiness and sanctification are not matters that can be repeatedly interrupted; they remain constantly present. And thereby is also shown the necessity of the dispositional aspect of faith for sanctification. The entire life of the soul, down into its unconscious depths, is for the regenerate person a life of faith. Faith penetrates and sanctifies everything.
43. Is faith present in sanctification in yet another connection?
Yes, insofar as it unites us in our consciousness with Christ and keeps us in union, which is our sanctification. Thus, in his faith the believer recognizes:
a)That sanctification, received by him as a gift of God’s grace, rests on and flows from the merits of Christ. Faith not only works negatively by keeping us mindful of the unmerited nature of our holiness and our good works, but also by reminding us of the origin of both in Christ.
b)That sanctification not only flows from the merits of Christ as its judicial wellspring, but also from the living Christ as its fountain. According to the Apostle Paul, it is the life of Christ in him on which his life rests before God (Gal 2:19–20). After their regeneration, believers do not serve God in their own strength. They know that for every good work they perform, the strength of Christ flows into them and is at their disposal. Through His intercession, Christ is continually active for their holiness (John 17:17). He prays for Peter that his faith will not fail [Luke 22:32]. All this can only be appropriated from our side by faith. So, an activity of faith with respect to sanctification is indispensable.
c)The Mediator is even more than the meritorious and effecting cause of sanctification. In the third place, He is also the guarantee of its permanency. In the holiness in itself that the believer possesses, there is no basis for saying that it can never be lost or die off. Neither is there a guarantee that it will ever reach its perfection. Christ is the guarantee for both: for not becoming lost, and for becoming perfect. Thus by faith the initially sanctified one contemplates his holiness as it will be perfect in the future (Gal 2:20).
d)At the same time, Christ is also the model of our sanctification, the image in which we are formed (Rom 8:29), the form that must be born in us [Gal 4:19]. In Christ all the virtues and all the gifts of holiness are perfectly present. He is the living law, according to which our living must be directed. We must not form ourselves according to a self-formed ideal, but the Holy Spirit forms us according to the image of Christ as Scripture portrays it, so that we can also recognize the likeness and find the traits of the Savior in ourselves. From Christ one must learn how to be (Eph 4:20). Beholding the Savior is what is necessary for realizing this conformity in us, a beholding of faith, so that here too faith appears as instrumental for sanctification: “And we all with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are being changed in form according to the same image from glory to glory, as from the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Cor 3:18); see also “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (4:6); “everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself as He is pure (1 John 3:3; cf. also Phil 3:21; Heb 2:14–15; Phil 2:5–7).
Although many now wrongly find in this transformation according to the image of Christ the only use that we could make of Him as mediator, this should not cause us to fall into the opposite extreme, as if we had nothing to do with Him as an example. Scripture explicitly portrays Him as such. Only He is not an example in that superficial sense in which older and newer Pelagians take it. He is an example who possesses the power of the Spirit in order to affect and impress Himself into our life, in order to reproduce His form in us, in order as the Head to have issuing from Him formative power that determines our image: “In every way to grow up in Him, who is the Head, namely Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitly joined and held together, through the supply of joints and marrow, according to the working of each part in its measure, maintains the growth of the body for building itself up in love” (Eph 4:15–16). This being given the imprint of Christ in us also has, since it coheres with mystical union, the secret nature of the latter, so that it cannot be fully conceptualized. But it is a reality.
To this conformity to Christ also belongs a part of the Christian life on which older theologians rightly placed great emphasis—that is, self-denial and cross-bearing (cf. Calvin, Institutes 3.8, “Of the Bearing of the Cross”). Scripture provides the occasion for this (Isa 31:9; 48:10, where it speaks of a fire of purification and a “crucible of affliction”; 1 Cor 3:13; “He chastises us for our benefit, so that we may become partakers of His holiness” [Heb 12:10]). The cross sanctifies:
1.Because it becomes the reminder and measure of our remaining sin. While not a punishment for sin, it is still in many respects proportional to sin. That, of course, is not to be understood as if the full punishability of sin would be depicted.
2.The cross, insofar as it is a deprivation of earthly pleasure, leads the believer to seek his only enjoyment in God. It removes from us whatever besides God occupies a place in our hearts; “I am crucified to the world and the world to me” (Gal 6:14).
3.Through the cross, faith, hope and all gifts of grace are brought to more than usual expression, so that they are strengthened and through exercise, developed.
44. Is sanctification in this life complete, so that all the pollution of sin is removed from the believer?
No; that is an error of Pelagius, some Roman Catholics (Trent), Socinians, Arminians, many mystics of all sorts (Pietists, Labadists, Quakers, Herrnhutters) and a number of sects at present.
45. What does the Reformed theologian mean when he teaches the incompleteness of sanctification in this life?
a)He does not mean it is incomplete in its parts (qua ad partes), as if only a portion of a holy person was created in regeneration. It is an entirely new man—but then an undeveloped new man—who is placed within the old, in order further to reach growth and maturity. A newly born child is a complete child, if it is properly formed; it lacks nothing in that regard. Similarly, at the beginning of his sanctification, the believer receives every capacity for holiness: a mind enlightened in principle, a will inclined to God in principle, and, in principle, a pure emotional life.
b)He does mean that it is incomplete in its stages. A “stage” here refers to the degree of development that the new man has reached. This degree can be more or less. It is determined in part by the influence of the remnants of the old nature that hamper growth. And, in particular, the new man, even with the most powerful development, cannot manifest outwardly whether in his expressions of life all sorts of sin overflow from his evil nature. Thus, the question is only whether already during this life the latter, the evil nature, is removed completely by sanctification. Here in the first place the negative side of sanctification comes into consideration. The positive side is perfect in principle and imperfect according to stages. The negative side is also given in principle, for at regeneration, and consciously in conversion, the old man has received its deathblow. But the question is simple: Does its dying cease during this life so that it can be called completely dead? To that opponents answer, “Yes,” and we, “No.”
The perfectionist no longer reckons with the dying of the old man, thinking that he has gotten beyond that and that it lies behind him as an overcome position. Of the two parts of sanctification that should always accompany each other, he lets one fall away. He thinks that since the old man has in principle suffered a mortal wound, and since it appears to have lost the power to assert itself strongly, that therefore it now no longer lives and draws breath.
A second error of the perfectionist is that he has formed a lowered concept of the demand of the law of God, as if it does not press for holiness in the depths of our living, in our heart, in our entire inner outlook, but requires only external purity of conduct. Many perfectionists do not call sin what, according to our view, is intrinsically sin. They will acknowledge that they frequently perceive the same thing in themselves—things about ourselves with which we are displeased and are humbled before God—but for them that cannot become a source for self-accusation, since their conscience does not cause them to recognize it as sin. From this it is clear, then, how it is not a matter of perfectionism but of a great imperfection in tenderness of conscience. Such people can call themselves perfect while in reality they are still so imperfect. Precisely this belongs to ongoing sanctification as a prominent part—namely, that our conscience becomes more and more sensitive about the least lack of conformity to the law of God, thus that the object of our self-criticism gradually shifts from the outside to the inside.
Roman Catholics give us a clear example of a perfectionism that first pulls the demands of the moral law downward in order then the more easily to attain to its full height—indeed, even go beyond it. Through regeneration, everything that is considered intrinsically sin in man is eradicated. But Rome acknowledges that concupiscence (concupiscentia), evil lust, also remains in the person baptized, only not as sin. Neither do forgivable sins strictly count as sins. The Christian is thus clearly subject to a law that is not the same as the pure expression of God’s holy nature, but a law that will be satisfied with less.
The Arminian judges similarly. It is not the law of Adam under which Christians live, but the law of Christ, the law of the obedience of faith. Sin is not every departure in state, inclination, or act from that original law of God, but as Wesley says, conscious and willful violation of a known commandment. Faults, mistakes, and weaknesses are not sins.
46. To what do perfectionists appeal to substantiate their doctrine of perfection in this life?
a)To the repeated commands of Scripture that make our striving for holiness a duty. If complete holiness were an unattainable goal, these commands, it is thought, would lose their meaning.
b)To passages in Scripture where, without further stipulation, sanctification is simply attributed to the people of God: “and you are perfected in Him” (Col 2:10); “so that you may be blameless and upright, children of God” (Phil 2:15); “as many of us as are perfect, let us have this mind” (Phil 3:15).
c)To examples of children of God who according to Scripture have attained this perfection, such as Noah, Job, Psalm 119:10; 139:23–24.
d)To the express declaration of the Apostle John that those who are born of God no longer commit sin (1 John 3:6–7, 9; 5:2–3, 18).
47. What must be observed against these assertions?
a)That the command to be holy cannot prove anything since it is a command that comes to every person, to the unregenerate sinner as well as to the believer. The law of God must demand holiness of us. If, then, one wishes to infer from the command the possibility to obey it, one must do so for every person. That, however, can only be done if one teaches perfectionism in a Pelagian sense. On the other hand, as soon as one acknowledges that only believers can attain to this perfection, this argument also becomes useless.
b)When the congregation is addressed as holy or sanctified, this need not at all include that it may be called perfect in a perfectionist sense. It can be called holy because in Christ (1) it possesses the holiness of His active merits as imputed; (2) it has at its disposal the power of sanctification, and so is sanctified in principle.
c)Likewise, it proves nothing in favor of perfectionism when Scripture sometimes speaks of those who are “perfect.” The contrast to “perfect” here is not “impure” or “unholy,” but rather “immature” or “childish.” For this, Scripture uses the words teleios, “perfect,” and teleioun, “to make perfect.” These mean “to bring something to its full size or ripeness.” It is applied, for example, to the Mediator Himself; He has been made perfect (Heb 2:10; 5:9). From this it is immediately apparent how “to make perfect” cannot simply be a synonym of “to sanctify.” In James 2:22 it is said that by works the faith of Abraham was “made perfect,” that is, became a mature faith. Thus, one must distinguish between “perfection” in this scriptural sense and complete sanctification. In the life of the believer there no doubt comes a period in which he ceases to be a child and becomes an adult. Then he must be treated as an adult, no longer fed with milk but with solid foods [cf. Heb 5:13–14]. The error of the perfectionist consists in this: that he confuses maturity with perfect holiness. By properly distinguishing these two concepts, many passages adduced in support of the theory vanish (Phil 3:12, 15; 1 Cor 2:6).
d)The Scripture passages that attribute perfection to the believer in the sense of no longer sinning have in view the new principle in the believer. One can in fact say that the new man in them does not commit sin. The Apostle Paul says, “So then now I no longer do it, but the sin that dwells in me” [Rom 7:17]. This is not said as an excuse, but, on the contrary, to show that the new life can even be said no longer to sin, while in the same breath can be added, “the sin that dwells in me.” If one only had the first half of this statement, then one could also maintain that Paul was a perfectionist. Now we know better.
Now, however, while Paul gives prominence to the coexistence in the believer of these two principles, flesh and Spirit, in John, on the other hand, the believer is regarded as in the deepest ground of his life to be alienated from and crucified to sin. According to him there are only two kinds of persons: those who have the new life and those who have the old life. For the sake of that great antithesis, the phenomenon that the old man is not completely dead but still constantly dying moves to the background; his death sentence has been signed. Besides this, the same Apostle John, whom some have teaching perfectionism in 1 John 3:6, 9, speaks entirely differently in other places, where he no longer has this great antithesis in view: “And if anyone has sinned, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, the righteous” (1 John 2:1). “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us” (1 John 1:8–10).
It has also frequently been overlooked that a literal view of the texts adduced from John by the perfectionists are not even applicable to themselves. What does the apostle say? “Whoever is born of God does not sin, because His seed remains in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God” [1 John 3:9]. It does not say, “The believer can be without sin” (what perfectionists maintain), but the believer is always without sin. If one now applies that to the believer’s actual condition, then that would include that not a single regenerated person commits a single sin. After all, the apostle ties not-sinning to being born of God and having the seed of God. From this it would then follow further that for the regenerated, no apostasy of the saints were possible. Apostasy in itself, and that by which it would be brought about, can be nothing other than sin. Now it is the case that by far the most perfectionists are at the same time proponents of the doctrine of the apostasy of the saints. Thus, it appears to us that the literal explanation of the texts from John is impossible for perfectionism itself, and that perfectionists must also concede that these texts are intended relatively. And if that is once conceded, then everything supports the interpretation that we have given above and is against the perfectionists. To be born of God, having the seed of God within, not being able to die, are expressions that show clearly what the apostle was thinking.
e)Of none of the persons who are commended to us as examples of perfection does Scripture say that any one was or could be entirely without sin. We are told of the most prominent saints that they fell into sin. Noah, Abraham, Job, David, Peter, Paul, John—there is not one among them for whom blemishes cannot be pointed out. Of course, this does not yet prove that they were always blemished, but it is certainly noteworthy that, when it is reported of all these men how they have committed sin, not once are we presented with how they were completely holy.
f)There is, however, more than this. Scripture declares expressly that there is no one on earth who does not sin (1 Kgs 8:46; Eccl 7:20; Jas 3:2, “For we all stumble in many ways [things]”). Believers must pray daily, “Forgive us our debts” [Matt 6:12], must confess their sins to each other, again and again make renewed use of the intercession of Christ. All of this is inconsistent with the view that now they are already in a state of perfect holiness.
48. Is sanctification something indispensable, like justification, or can it be dispensed with?
It is absolutely indispensable. To deny this is libertinism and antinomianism. Still, sanctification is indispensable in a different sense than justification. The latter stands in a judicial relationship with salvation, so that salvation is grounded in it. Sanctification, on the other hand, is a portion of the bestowed salvation itself, a part of the way along which one comes to salvation. As is known, in the Lutheran church a conflict was carried on about the necessity of good works. Agricola taught that good works were not necessary for salvation and that the law should not be preached in ministering the gospel. According to him, true repentance did not flow from preaching the law but from presenting the gospel. The believer has nothing more to do with the law. Sometime later, Major lapsed into the opposite extreme by maintaining that no one could be saved without the performance of good works. Against these extremes we must note:
a)That good works cannot be said to be necessary as conditions for obtaining salvation.
b)That neither can they be considered to be means for retaining salvation. Our salvation and the perseverance of the saints are secure in an act of God and not in any act of man.
c)That, strictly speaking, it cannot be asserted that good works are the only way to salvation. After all, children and those who die immediately after their conversion are not able to do any good works. Thus the assertion in view would shut them out of heaven.
d)Scripture nowhere teaches that no one can be saved without good works. Certainly, on the other hand, without sanctification no one shall see the Lord [Heb 12:14]. There is a difference between sanctification and good works. The former can occur at once without any passage of time, as in a crisis moment; for doing the latter, time is necessary.
e)If someone does not do good works and allows the flesh that is in him to fester unhindered, then he does not have any reason to remain assured of his salvation. Scripture addresses such people as being in danger of becoming lost (Rom 8:12–13). Thus we see here the conclusion drawn from the lack of good works—that a true regenerate life cannot be present (Eph 2:10; Heb 12:14, “Pursue peace with all, and sanctification, without which no one will see the Lord”).
f)The proposition that good works can be harmful to salvation (Agricola) is a dangerous error. It rests on a view of good works [that is] wrong at its root, and on their severing from faith and from Christ. To the same degree that someone exercises faith, he will be safe from the danger that by doing good works his salvation will be damaged. If one looks carefully, the proposition under discussion here rests on a principial denial of sanctification itself. If the selfish and self-righteous dispositions in man are not changed, then it would indeed be impossible to bring him to the performing of good works that could not harm him. Outward holiness, then, could not reveal itself without being polluted by inward unholiness. But Scripture does not teach such external holiness. It presents God’s work of grace as moving from within outwardly. The best works are the most humble works, where the most faith is and is expressed.
49. Where does the difference between sanctification and good works lie?
a)Sanctification is a work of God in us; good works are acts of ourselves for God.
b)Sanctification is the source out of which good works come; good works are the waters that flow from this source.
c)Through sanctification something is brought into us that was not there previously; through good works something is expressed outwardly that was already present in secret.
d)By confusing these two, one makes sanctification into something pietistic, that man must now perform by himself, while God is said to be at work in justification. If this were obviously right, then of course sanctification would have to be removed from theology in order to find its place in ethics, for theology has to do with the acts of God. But it is not right. In their variety, good works belong within ethics and only come into consideration here insofar as they are in an organic relationship with the sanctifying work of God in us. But sanctification has always been viewed as an essential part of the saving activity of God.
e)Good works are also in response to the holy disposition that is implanted in man by God. By being expressed and activated, this disposition is developed and strengthened inwardly. It is to be understood in this way when believers are urged to cooperate in their sanctification (2 Cor 7:1; Rom 6:19, 22; 1 Thess 3:13). However, a distinction has to be made here. In the natural order, where man has powers at his disposal, a disposition can originate through repeated activity and exercise. Something like that cannot happen in sanctification. Good works do not create holiness originally, although they promote its further development. The opposite is the Pelagian error. In this respect, holiness is distinguished from what is its opposite—sin. Through his first fall man can cause the sinful disposition, but he is not able by a leap in the opposite direction to restore the sanctified disposition. Desecration is his work; sanctification, in the final analysis, is the work of God. However, as actual sinning makes inherited pollution greater and increases inner corruption, so too the contrary is the case with good works and sanctification.
50. What are the characteristics of good works, and how is this designation meant?
a)The first characteristic of a good work is conformity to the law of God. As we define sin according to its departure from the law of God, so here, what is the opposite of sin. It is not possible for us to determine materially what sin is, nor to determine materially what good is. Something becomes good by its agreement with the law. Through sanctification, the regenerate person acquires a delight in the law of God according to the inner man [Rom 7:22]. The law is written on the tablets of his heart. And because it flows from this inward conformity to the law of God, it can be called a good work. On this basis, the Savior speaks of a good tree that brings forth good fruit (Luke 6:43–44). Thus, these works are not called “good” because they conform to the law externally. With “work” here is not meant the product of material lying outside of man, but the action itself as it stems from his consciousness, “working.” Neither are they called “good” because in all aspects they were free from sin, and within them nothing wrong lurked. There is not one believer who can do such a good work. But certain works are called good insofar as they arise from the new man, and so in their point of departure they agree with the law. Scripture itself speaks of good works in this way (Acts 9:36; Eph 2:10; 2 Tim 3:17; Titus 2:14).
Expressed negatively, this proposition says that nothing can be a good work that does not conform to God’s law and is not commanded by it. This holds true against Rome when it teaches that believers can do more than keep the law perfectly. By complying with the concilia evangelica, “gospel counsels” (in distinction from the praecepta, “the commandments”), the believer can gain extra merits. To this belong celibacy, monastic obedience, and voluntary poverty. In opposition to this view we observe:
1.That the law of God requires complete obedience and lays claim to all of human life. Thus all that is in fact well pleasing to God falls under the law. By this we are not saying that every good work must be prescribed in so many words in the law, but the principles and rules from which it flows are resident in the law.
2.That, conversely, when it cannot be derived from the law and thus falls outside the law, it also cannot be well pleasing to God and is not to be regarded as a good work.
b)The second characteristic of a good work is that it is done by faith. This was discussed above.
c)The third characteristic relates to the goal, which is the honor of God. In good works, too, the true character of holiness and sanctification must come out, that is, that the center of regenerate living is in God.
51. Can these good works be considered meritorious?
No, and the reason why not has already been demonstrated in general above. Concerning the meritorious character of good works in the strict sense, theologians teach that what would be needed for that is:
a)That we are not required to do them. This cannot be said of the good works that a believer does because they are not only an aspect of the gratitude that he owes to God, but they are also required by the natural relationship in which he, as a moral creature, stands toward God’s law.
b)That they are entirely our own. Now, it is the grace of God, who puts what is good in us and draws it out from us. God has prepared our good works beforehand, so that we would walk in them (Eph 2:10).
c)That they are completely perfect, what again does not hold true for a single good work in this life.
d)That they are proportional to the reward—that is, inherently proportional. We know that God has instituted a certain proportion between the reward of grace and the good works done by believers. But this proportion is again by grace. The good even for Adam in the covenant of works, the great gift of grace of eternal life promised him by God for his obedience, far surpassed his obedience in value. This is much truer of the good works of believers. If God granted believers eternal life for them (something that He does not do), as Rome maintains, with Rome it could still not yet be held to be meritum ex condigno, “by worthiness,” or inherent merit.
e)That they are worthy of reward not ex pacto but ex natura. This is also not true of any work. All payment or reward takes place by covenant and not according to natural necessity.
[Perseverance]1
52. Can sanctification, once caused by God, still be completely lost?
This is the same question as to whether there is an apostasy of the saints. To answer “no” here is unique to the Reformed church, since not only non-Protestant Christianity but also the Lutherans give an affirmative answer to this question. One may even say that through Reformed doctrinal development, starting with Calvin, justice was first done to the perseverance of the saints as a scriptural doctrine. Augustine, who otherwise was in many respects the precursor of Reformed theologians, could not accept this doctrine but, strangely enough, stood with Pelagius on this point. But still there was a difference. According to Pelagius, there is no difference in principle between the believer and the unbeliever. The former does not have a higher life that is lacking in the latter. There is only a different use of the powers that every natural man possesses. Augustine, on the other hand, certainly taught that a believer and a nonbeliever differ in principle: In the one, there is a new life that is lacking in the other. But even according to Augustine, that life can be lost. To be regenerated does not necessarily include remaining regenerated. One can be regenerated initially and then can return again to the position of the unregenerate. Yes, one can even be elect and still fall from grace—of course, not finally, for all time, but in order later to be taken into that number again. So, a result of this view is that also for Augustine the believer cannot use his election as the basis of his certainty, simply because there are no evidences of election in this life other than being actually saved at the end. That one is regenerated no longer provides any guarantee for election. Thus one sees what a great difference there was between Calvin and Augustine, notwithstanding all the agreement there was. With the former, election has become the firm ground for the assurance of the individual believer.
The Roman Catholic church also teaches an apostasy of the saints. This already follows from the human character that it ascribes to the work of justification (for Rome, equal to sanctification). Whatever is in human hands naturally cannot be absolute and incapable of being lost. Next, for Rome, this view follows unavoidably from its conception of the Church and the means of grace. Since salvation rests with the Church and is distributed through the means ex opera operato, “by the worked work,” in certain cases scorning or not using the means must naturally lead to being lost. By a mortal sin justification is lost; by the sacrament of penance it is restored. Whoever makes no use of this sacrament dies unjustified and is lost.
That the Socinians and Remonstrants teach an apostasy of the saints is well known.
However, on this point the Lutheran church, too, is against us. Faith is not compatible with a mortal sin. With Augustine, it teaches that there is an apostasy from faith, but not a final apostasy of the elect. However, the faith that the elect possess is not specifically different from the faith in many who are finally lost. For the Lutherans, this error is connected to their overall conception of the resistibility of grace. Man can resist or not resist when, through the mystical power of the Word of God, the action of grace impinges on him. Man himself settles the matter, makes the decision, notwithstanding his complete inability for any good. It would be nonsensical, then, to place the man who made the decision at the outset in a position subsequently where nothing more remains to be decided. For the sequel, too, it depends on him whether or not he will persevere. In their last period the Lutherans, as we have seen earlier, have gone over completely to the Remonstrant point of view and so no longer hold to absolute election.
Modern theologians for the most part also teach an apostasy of the saints; for example, Ebrard.
Over against these parties the Reformed church now stands virtually alone. Only Luther in his early period, when he opposed the free will of Erasmus, was untainted. True, there are also among most recent theologians those who deny an apostasy of the saints, but they do this on a pantheistic basis. It goes without saying that on such premises as this theology proceeds, there can be no thought of change. If the life of the Christian is the life of God in him, in a real substantial sense, infused into him by a mystical process, then it can no longer be expelled or suppressed; God does not let Himself be driven out by man. But thereby the doctrine becomes completely changed and assumes a totally other character.
If someone Reformed is asked on what his perseverance in the state of grace rests, then he will not answer, “On something in me, on the power and the capacity for withstanding of the new life that I possess,” but, “Solely on the preserving faithfulness of God.” Thus he reasons theologically, from God and His free election, on the basis of Scripture; not psychologically, from himself, on the basis of spiritual experience that he has gained for himself. Hence he knows very well how to explain when God’s Word frequently speaks with warnings as if an apostasy of the saints were possible. Where this occurs, the matter is simply being looked at psychologically, from the side of man, and accordingly man is roused to be on guard against this psychologically possible apostasy. This is not thereby denying that from the side of God apostasy is inconceivable and never occurs. With modern theologians, these two sides now become one. God does not act as a free and self-conscious being on man’s soul, but passes over with His life into man. The distinction between a theological and psychological viewpoint has then lost its meaning.
53. What is meant when we say that there is no apostasy of the saints?
That the regenerate life with the dispositions flowing from it and at work in sanctification cannot be driven out of the believer. Even if all the activities of faith would cease, even if someone would be robbed by insanity of the ability to exercise faith, the new life would still endure and his dispositions would continue to exist.
54. What is the principal error of those who teach an apostasy of the saints?
They confuse the state of believers in the covenant of grace with the state of Adam before the fall, as if these two were completely the same. The difference lies precisely in this: Adam possessed a perfect but mutable holiness, since he was in a covenant of works in which the decision is suspended from the will of man; the believer is in a covenant of grace, in which God has made all things secure so that there is no longer any thought of vicissitude. For this reason, believers have a holiness that is imperfect but is still incapable of being lost.
55. Is then perseverance something that adheres in man as a moral disposition?
No, it is a gift of God’s grace. As long as we look at man and limit ourselves to man, there is nothing that would make us suppose that he would remain constant. Life is certainly present, but it has no inherent attribute of constancy. It remains because God constantly keeps it present: “whom God will also sustain to the end, to be without blame in the day of the Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 1:8). Hence perseverance is not something that originates by degrees and is acquired slowly. There are those who think that the believer on the lowest level of his sanctification is still exposed to apostasy, but that having progressed further, he has escaped this danger. In doing so, however, they suppose that perseverance is a disposition in man. Scripture always attributes it to God as an act of grace (Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23).
56. What are the evidences for the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints?
a)The principal ground is the doctrine of election. If this is (1) an election to eternal salvation and (2) the sole source of faith and regeneration, it must follow that, therefore, where sanctification has once begun, it must certainly reach its completion. One could now still ask with Augustine if it is not possible to posit an interruption in the life of grace in the elect, or if it is necessary to teach its uninterrupted continuation. Our answer to this is that in Scripture the doctrine of election is not at all related only to final salvation but also certainly with the impossibility of a temporary apostasy. Scripture does not comfort us by saying: “Come what will, and although your regeneration is lost multiple times, in the end you will still enter heaven.” On the contrary, it says: “God is faithful, and He will never allow you to be tempted beyond your ability” [1 Cor 10:13]. Be assured that no one can snatch us from the hand of the Father. Not, “Finally we will still return again into the Father’s hand,” but, “We remain there all the time” (John 10:28–29; Rom 11:29; 2 Thess 3:3; 2 Tim 1:12). It is not only that salvation is kept in readiness for the believer, but also, conversely, that the believer is kept in readiness for salvation (1 Pet 1:5; Rev 3:10).
One must also pay attention to the fact that Scripture everywhere presents the doctrine of election as a ground of confidence and trust for the believer. If this is so, then the possibility must exist to be assured of his election. But the only possibility lies in this: that faith and election presuppose each other, that the one points no further than the other. As soon as one says to the believer that there are nonelect believers, for him comfort is gone from election. Therefore, each use that Scripture makes of the doctrine of election as a basis of comfort for believers is a proof of the perseverance of the saints.
b)A second argument for perseverance is found in the immutability of the covenant of grace. As noted above, in the covenant of grace God also guarantees for man himself that everything is accomplished that must happen. Therefore, this is called an eternal covenant (Jer 32:38–40; cf. Jer 31:32–33; Gen 17:7). This is true for all who share in the essence of the covenant, though not for all who are reckoned objectively under the covenant. But this latter consideration does not matter here, for the question is about the apostasy of those truly sanctified (Heb 8:9–12).
c)The work of Christ as mediator, His eternal suretyship, is also a ground that confirms the perseverance of the saints—and that in more than one way. First of all, His suretyship is not provisional but absolute. He pays for the debt of His own. Now, if there is an apostasy of these believers, if they are finally lost, then either the payment of Christ counts for nothing or the one debt is paid twice. Next, at regeneration a life-union comes about between Christ and believers, as a result of which they form one body. To assume that a believer, one initially sanctified, can fall away, even if it were only temporarily, involves the unbecoming notion that members can fall out of the mystical body of the Lord, so that it is disfigured and desecrated. Insofar as the members themselves are concerned, nothing is impossible, but certainly not insofar as the body is concerned. Its beauty, its proper proportions, must thereby be lost. From all this it appears that in our union with Christ, He—not we—is the governing factor. It is He who lives in us. Turning off that inflow of life that comes from Him, as the head to the members, would have to happen from His side, which again cannot be, since He is faithful.
Further, Christ through His merit has also acquired sanctification for us. If now this can still be lost, then His acquisition would have been conditional or powerless. The sin of apostasy would then be a sin for which He would not have gained our holiness. There would remain in us a series of deeds that are not covered by the merit of the Mediator. But Scripture teaches that in all His work He includes us completely in every aspect of our lives. After our justification, there is nothing in which we stand on our own account. Even our unfaithfulness and our deviation with respect to Him are forgiven on His account, and by His power we are redeemed from that and sanctified (2 Cor 1:20–21; John 6:37; Gal 2:20).
d)There is a no-less-firm basis in the work of the Holy Spirit, who makes His dwelling with believers. Through His presence, there is in them a higher and divine principle that does not permit being supplanted by the stirrings of the old nature. In back of grace, as it has become their subjective possession and has become intermingled with their lives, stands the personal Holy Spirit, who cannot be harmed through their subjective ups and downs but continues His work with eternal power. The Spirit as comforter abides with believers forever (John 14:16; Eph 1:13). He is at the same time a seal and a pledge of the future benefits of salvation, and an earnest, the firstfruits to which the full harvest will follow [2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14; Rom 8:23]. It would therefore involve a dishonor for the Holy Spirit, as well as for Christ, if He had to withdraw from His temple and to abandon what He had once taken possession of to a renewed pollution of sin. Therefore, not only final but also temporary-total apostasy is impossible (Eph 4:30).
e)The doctrine of justification automatically brings with it the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. The justification of a sinner is absolute. It places him forever in the status of a child, covers both his future life in its entirety as well as all of the past. Now, if we must assume that there is a temporary apostasy of the saints, then from that it will follow that there can be justified children of God without any grace in their hearts, without any faith, without any union with Christ, without being subjectively distinguished in any respect from the unjustified sinner. This of course cannot be. The apostle teaches us that there is no justification without sanctification. We say: no continuation of the one, then, without continuation of the other. See Romans 8:33–39, where the conclusion drawn from complete justification is that nothing will be able to separate the Christian from the love of Christ, and from the love of God in Christ.
f)At his regeneration the believer receives a life that is, in principle, eternal life. Eternal life means not only what is communicated in eternity but also what extends from now on into eternity (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:40; Rom 5:4–5, 10).
57. What objections are brought against this doctrine of the perseverance of the saints?
a)First, it is said that the repeated warnings against apostasy presuppose the possibility of such an apostasy. To this we answer:
1.That such warnings, as they are directed to man, are meant psychologically and consider the matter from the side of man. From that, one may not conclude that apostasy really occurs with those who possess true faith. One could just as well conclude from the demand for faith that comes to people that it is within their own power to give themselves faith. Believers can no more give themselves supernatural grace than they can deprive themselves of it.
2.Scripture clearly indicates that if there are those who appear to apostatize, this is only a posteriori evidence that their faith was not genuine—that is, that it was no more than an apparent apostasy preceded by an apparent faith (1 Cor 11:19; 1 John 2:19).
3.At the same time, such warnings also serve to awaken believers to self-examination whether their faith is true faith, or whether they are perhaps deceiving themselves with a temporary faith. They must examine themselves whether Christ Jesus is in them [2 Cor 13:5]. But to be assured of that also gives them a firm basis of certainty for the future.
4.If one remains aware that perseverance is not an inherent state but a constant act of grace, then it is immediately apparent to what end those warnings serve. They are intended and formulated precisely to cause believers to persevere. In this, too, God makes use of means by which He awakens us and causes us to persevere. Quite rightly some have pointed to the case of the shipwreck of Paul as a picture to illustrate this issue (Acts 27:21–31). The apostle first declares emphatically, “There shall be no loss among you of anyone’s life.” However, later he says to the officer, “If these men do not remain in the ship, you cannot be saved.” But he uses just this statement as a means for the soldiers to keep the sailors from fleeing and to prevent a total shipwreck. In the same manner, God declares categorically already in advance that none of His children will be lost, but this does not prevent Him from directing extremely serious warnings to them as if it could in fact happen.
b)It is said that there are statements in Scripture that directly teach an apostasy of saints—instances of persons who in fact suffered shipwreck from the faith. Here one points especially to Hebrews 6:4–8 and to the case of Judas, Ananias, David, and others. Against this view, we say:
1.That the persons of whom such an apostasy is recorded either were not regenerated and did not possess true faith but only an apparent faith, or they did not completely lose their faith but only fell into sin temporarily, whereby gloom descended over their conscious state. The former was the case with Judas, who is called a “son of destruction” [John 17:12], whom the Savior knew from the beginning, of whom not once was it said that he truly believed. The latter was the case with David, whose repentant and believing attitude appears to be sufficiently present, even after committing his sin.
2.Hebrews 6 has already been discussed more than once. We recall only in general: (a) that in this passage none of the terms used necessarily cause us to think of saving faith; (b) that on the contrary, temporary faith is spoken of; (c) of temporary faith, however, not in the general sense but in a entirely specific form as was perhaps possible only during the apostolic age, accompanied by extraordinary gifts and powers and under the ordinance of God that their loss made further conversion impossible.
The context of the words is as follows: At the close of Hebrews 5 a complaint is made about dullness in knowledge. The Hebrews, who ought to be teachers, were again in need of teachers and needed milk instead of solid food. They were children where they could have been mature (= perfect). This, however, is not a reason to despair. If they would only leave behind the elementary teaching of Christ and continue on to perfection, then the future can bring them to the required perfection. The apostle himself progresses in this (Heb 6:3). And then follows (Heb 6:4) the basis for this progress. “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and who have tasted the heavenly gifts, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the coming age, and fall away—those, I say, it is impossible to renew again to repentance, as those who crucify again to themselves the Son of God and openly put Him to shame.” To repeat the elementary principles and to lay again the very first foundation is, in the given circumstances, useless work, for those who have sunk to that are not renewed again to repentance.
Now, one should note that it is not said of the Hebrews here that they were in this situation. They were certainly dull, but not apostate; the foundation had remained. Hebrews 6:10 says, “God is not unjust, that He would forget your work and the labor of love that you have shown in His name, as those who have served the saints and still serve.” In Hebrews 6:4–8, on the contrary, no mention is made of the gift of grace that regeneration of the heart would presuppose. There is no mention of faith, of justification, of sanctification. This is most remarkable, for if an apostasy of the saints were taught, one would certainly expect such. Over against this is the fact that in Hebrews 6:12 and following, which speak of the promise of the covenant of grace, completely the opposite of apostasy is taught—namely, the unchangeable faithfulness of God through which believers can have a strong consolation [Heb 6:18]. God wished to demonstrate to the heirs of the promise more abundantly the immutability of His counsel, and therefore He interposed with an oath [Heb 6:17]. This is not apostasy but perseverance of the saints in the strongest terms.
As to the nature of the gifts ascribed here to those who can fall away, these gifts are spoken of as:
a)“Enlightenment.” By this is meant an extraordinary and supernatural degree of knowledge of the truth. This enlightenment is between historical knowledge and the knowledge of saving faith. It is distinguished from the former by deeper insight, from the latter by the absence of the experiential element (cf. 2 Cor 3:18).
b)“Having tasted the heavenly gift.” The heavenly gift is the gift of the Holy Spirit, also so named elsewhere in Acts 2:38; 8:20. Especially the latter text sheds light. Simon thought that the gift of the Holy Spirit was obtained for money. That was the gift to do extraordinary things, which the possession of the Holy Spirit enabled. This gift is called heavenly because it is sent from heaven by Christ.
c)“Having become partakers of the Holy Spirit.” This expresses the same thought in other words for further clarification.
d)“Tasting of the good word of God.” This of itself reminds us of the description of the temporary faith given by the Lord in the parable of the sower: “the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy.” With that, however, it is expressly said that such people have no roots in themselves. Thus one can taste the good word of God without being regenerated at the root (Matt 13:20–21).
e)“Tasting of the powers of the coming age.” By this is meant the exercise of the power of the Spirit mentioned under (b) and (c). Thus one sees that (d) corresponds to (a), and (e) with (b) and (c). The subjective effects of the enlightenment consist in tasting the good word of God. Those effects of becoming partakers of the Holy Spirit consist in tasting the powers of the coming age. The coming age is the dispensation of the New Testament, the age of the Messiah in distinction from the Old Testament dispensation, in which those powers were not seen but presented as something future (Joel 2).
The question is raised whether the words, “These, I say, to renew again to repentance,” do not imply that initially genuine repentance was present. “Again” and “re-” in “renew” look back on an initial repentance of which this would have to be the repetition. However, this objection immediately fails as soon as one poses the question of who is in view here as the subject of the renewing. If it is God, the meaning would be: It is impossible that God would again renew such persons to repentance, that He would repeat the act of renewal that He had once done in them. Then it would be difficult to avoid the conclusion that the reference here is to an apostasy of those who have truly repented, for, without further stipulation, the repentance that God produces in a sinner is true repentance. But the question takes on an entirely other complexion if men, ministers of the Word, teachers, of whom the writer himself is one, are seen as the subject of the renewing. Then the meaning becomes: It is impossible, after they have fallen away, that we would renew again to repentance such persons whom we at one time have brought to an outward repentance and moved to a confession of Christianity. Without doubt this latter understanding is the correct one. Were the other correct, then it would have to include that God would renew such people again. The context does not speak of the work of God but of the work of men, of a progressing to perfection, of not re-laying the foundation, etc. Thus, all that can be rightly derived from this expression comes down to this: If there are such apostate persons, then with this their apostasy our calling toward them ceases; God has not directed us to continue working on such people. By that, strictly speaking, it is not yet said that God, too, could not bring back such people, but that He generally does not do so and therefore also does not will to have the instrumentality of the ministry of the Word used for that. It is similar to what the Apostle John says about the sin unto death—namely, that one shall no longer pray for it [1 John 5:16].
That this is the correct conception appears, finally, from the image used in Hebrews 6:7–8, used to clarify what has been said. The soil that drinks the rain receives God’s blessing, but that which produces thorns and thistles is rejected and thereby shows that it is not good soil for growing. The former is therefore also continually cultivated; the latter is considered rejected and one no longer bothers about it.
58. Is there sanctification after this life?
No. This opinion must be rejected just as much as its opposite, perfectionism. The grounds are these:
a)Scripture says that the spirits of the blessed in heaven are completely perfect (Heb 12:23); that to see the Lord as He is involves being like Him (1 John 3:2); that those who die in the Lord are blessed in the full sense of the word (Rev 14:13).
b)Sin does not let itself be separated from misery. Therefore, to bring sin into heaven means to bring misery into heaven, which is nothing other than abolishing the concept of heaven.
c)The contrary opinion rests on the idea that change can still come about in the condition of the sinner after this life. If such is possible with holiness, then it is not to be rejected for regeneration and repentance. The doctrine of a “second probation” will then be the result.
d)Thus we posit that at death a crisis takes place in sanctification, in which every blemish of sin is at once completely taken away from the believer. This, of course, does not mean that a child who dies immediately receives the fully developed holiness of one who is mature (an adult). But all sin will be removed from the soul. This last point, however, belongs to eschatology.