Particular Pitfalls of Independent Baptists: Performance-Based Sanctification

[Anne Sokol]

Thus I have reminded you that the prayer for sanctification is offered to the divine Father, and this leads us to look out of ourselves and wholly, to our God. Do not set about the work of sanctification yourselves, as if you could perform it alone. Do not imagine that holiness will necessarily follow because you listen to an earnest preacher, or unite in sacred worship. My brethren, God himself must work within you; the Holy Ghost must inhabit you; and this can only come to you by faith in the Lord Jesus. Believe in him for your sanctification, even as you have believed for your pardon and justification. He alone can bestow sanctification upon you; for this is the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Key word there is “alone” in “perform it alone.” I don’t know of anybody who teaches that. Certainly some lapse into that attitude, and that’s what CHS is going after here. But I’m pretty sure that, among the serious views of sanctification, everybody agrees that the Spirit must (and does) indwell believers, God must work in us, and that this indwelling of the Spirit and work of God comes by faith.

What’s disputed is whether it’s accurate to say that our work is not required, or that we shouldn’t strive or discipline ourselves with the goal of change, or that our works have no impact in our faith, that simple obedience—even when not understood—benefits us, etc. In short, the central question—in my mind—is whether our relationship to sanctification precisely mirrors our relationship to justification: faith alone plus nothing.

I’m among those who believe the dynamic is significantly different in several ways after justification and new birth have occurred.

my point is more along the lines of: how much do we ourselves have control over the process of sanctification and in what way do we contribute to it?

And maybe that could broken down to the primary ways and the “smaller” influences. (This is kind of supposition.) Like, would rules (like, man-made) be a primary or lesser means that God uses in our sanctification? Is it different at different stages of life?

I would say that God controls my process of sanctification.

It’s kind of hard to argue about because when I’m “doing” something, it’s like, I’m doing it. But is it really me that is contributing to my sanctification?

I think the answer is somehow no. God is doing it all. He will get all the glory for it.

So I think that’s what I”m trying to communicate here, and your piece is kind of man-centered and doesn’t have these points or qualifications addressed, i don’t think , but i could be misremembering.

it’s like, you’d have to say all these qualifications: God is the one who leads your sanctification on a personal level, He gives the commands, He fulfills them in Christ perfectly so you can be acceptable in the first place, nothing you do is “perfect” according to God’s standards—even your good works and obediences are impure before God, and what obedience you do perform is only what is due to God— it’s nothing praiseworthy on your part… . . and yes, rules have some place in there, but your obedience to them is not what makes you righteous, Christ is … . .

yada yada … ,

And then get into your faith being purified and strengthened is what really will result in good works … .

???

I think you’re asking all the right questions.

It’s kind of hard to argue about because when I’m “doing” something, it’s like, I’m doing it. But is it really me that is contributing to my sanctification?

I think the answer is somehow no. God is doing it all. He will get all the glory for it.

My understanding of Scripture is that it is “really me,” but I am not me anymore. God is not “doing it all,” because it really is “me” who makes the choice to obey or disobey. But “me” is a new creation God has made. So God receives all the glory because it is only a new birth He produced and resources that He provides that make an obedient life possible… indeed, certain.

I have often used the analogy of a table lamp when teaching sanctification. My lamp is supposed to shine brightly, that’s what it was made to do. And when the light is on, there is no doubt that the lamp is the object shining. However, the lamp is unable to perform appropriately unless it is plugged into the wall. The lamp shines, but only by means of the power supplied to it. Likewise, we are commanded to perform good works, but we are powerless to do so apart from the regeneration and enablement provided by God. We “shine”, but only by means of God’s power.

Before this thread breaks down into more rampant silliness, let me offer a simple exercise. Walk through Scripture, particularly the NT, and especially the narratives (Gospels/Acts) and chronicle where someone asked, in regards to either salvation or sanctification, what they were to do and see what the response is, either from the Savior or from the apostles/church.

I cannot speak authoritatively as I have not chronicled every event (I don’t think), but every event I have chronicled they were most definitely given something to do.

Anne and Aaron,

Your last two posts made me think of Paul’s wording in this popular verse.

“I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me.”

The fact that Christ is now living in me does not in any way deny or distort the fact that I am still living. Therefore, it my responsibility to live my life according to this principle. Do I exert effort to obey God’s Word? Yes. Does that effort exclude the life of Christ in me? No. Are my efforts an important part of my sanctification? It would seem so, and yet, clearly there can be no sanctification apart from the indwelling of Christ.

It is both/and, not either/or.

this whole talk makes me kind of woozy b/c … .

… . .

because why:

[*clarify: when I say “rules” I’m talking about manmade rules (applications, they are often called), not God’s commands.]

1) to what extent do we really “control” when we sin and when we obey? To what extent do we control that our hearts are open to God or hardened? … . What did you do to save yourself? And what did you do to sanctify yourself?

2) just because there are a lot of commands in the NT, in the whole Bible, doesn’t mean that Christians are given the ability to obey those commands. (And I say that, knowing that they are good, right, beautiful commands that show us who we should be and what God wants of us, and of course, we should obey them! We want to obey them.)

3) so, where do I put my effort, is maybe the bottom line question here. Aaron’s been writing about the usefulness of rules. they are useful, I’m not sure if in the ways he may be thinking, but yes, there will always be rules and there are probably stages in life where they are more focused on than others.

But in one’s personal sanctification, where is the lion’s share of effort to go? in creating and striving to obey rules? I’m not saying Aaron is saying this, but he is putting a magnifying glass over the relationship of rules to sanctification.

Or would I (and churches) be better served to put the greater focus on teaching people how to rightly go through the events and conditions of life learning to … how shall I encapsulate it? … . actively look at Jesus in faith and let God use that to lead my sanctification. It may include making “rules” for myself if God directs me to do that. It may not. (Let’s ask exploratory questions about this.)

4) when you’re talking about this in the context of a Christian who is wanting to backslide or rebel … Aaron is arguing that it’s always better not to sin… . . Yes, less folks will be hurt the less one sins, it’s true. But on a spiritual level, God simply does not deal with us in this way. He carefully uses our sins. He carefully uses them in the lives of those effected. He exactly knows the limits to which He will let us stray. And Rom 8:28, it all eventually serves us to conform us to Christ.

If I were to articulate my position, and what I think is a classical Reformed position, I would say that both either/or and both/and fail to capture the reality.

Either/or fails simply. When one considers the entirety of the Christian life, it is impossible to put law and gospel in opposition. Or, at least, one cannot simply leave them in opposition without trying to resolve them into a higher unity.

Both/and has a problem too. It starts correctly, but is too vague. If it’s both/and, does that mean 50/50? Do I sometimes try and sometimes rely on Jesus? Or is it 100/100? But if it’s the latter, how do they relate? How do I understand grace’s effect in relation to my striving?

So, Reformed theology has always considered this question in terms of order:

​1. The unbeliever approaches the gospel through the law.

In order for the gospel to be intelligible, the moral expectations of God, the moral failing of humanity, and the moral success of Christ’s life must be understood. The crushing weight of the law brings to light our sins (Rom. 5:20), silences man’s excuses (Rom. 3:19), removes their trust in the law (Gal. 3:10), and directs them to the grace found through belief in Christ (Rom. 10:4).

​2. The believer approaches the law through the gospel

Calls to sanctification in Scripture are often explicitly based in the (logically) prior work of God in and for the believer. Even when these explicit connections are not made, I would argue that they are assumed premises.

The book of Ephesians is structured in 3 (almost exclusively) indicative chapters followed by 3 primarily imperative chapters. The transition between the two makes the connection explicit: “I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called” (Eph. 4:1).

The book of Romans is not quite as easily divided, but has a similar structure. Chapters 1-11 deal primarily with the indicative, explaining the realities of justification, positional sanctification, and adoption. Chapter 12 until the end deal primarily with concrete ethical guidelines. There is a similar transition: I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Rom. 12:1). The “therefore” and the “by the mercies of God” recall everything Paul has been talking about up to this point.

Titus manifests a cyclical structure, but the logical relationship is the same. In chapter 2, Paul (or “Paul”, if you prefer) begins with a list of instructions, but then grounds those instructions in God’s grace found in Christ: “For the grace of God has appeared…”

Reformed theology has taken these patterns seriously, not only as making the rather obvious point that our response to God depends upon the objective actions of Christ’s work, but also as providing the Christian with an orientation toward obedience. That is, God’s action not only objectively enables me to respond to him in obedience, but my subjective, regular appropriation of his actions on my behalf orient me toward him in a way that makes my obedience easier and more likely. Gratitude is the attitude that gets results. Willpower may be useful, but having to grit through obeying God is usually a warning sign that my actions have become disconnected from proper root motives. Willpower is better than no willpower, but I would never rely on sheer willpower or try to put myself in that position, just like I would never encourage people to drive on a spare tire. The proper action is to get back to a regular tire as soon as possible, not see how long your spare will last.

Both Lutherans and the Reformed have stressed that a Christian’s first duty, if you will, in sanctification is getting my eyes off of myself and on to Christ, meditating on God’s graciousness on my behalf, and regularly receiving grace from Christ in the form of the sacraments. That way, I don’t need as many rules, and the ones I retain I am in a much better position to keep.

I don’t want this post to go on forever. Suffice to say, I think it matters not only that ​we affirm both God’s enabling and human effort but how ​we relate them. If not, it becomes impossible to give people understandable counsel.

I don’t have a list of historical resources here, but other than the obvious texts of Luther and Calvin, I think that the “Antinomian Controversy” of the 1640’s (look up primarily Richard Baxter and Samuel Rutherford) would shed some light on this. Also, the “Marrow Controversy” of the 1720’s probably touches on it as well (look up Thomas Boston and The Marrow of Modern Divinity).

[Charlie]

Reformed theology has taken these patterns seriously, not only as making the rather obvious point that our response to God depends upon the objective actions of Christ’s work, but also as providing the Christian with an orientation toward obedience. That is, God’s action not only objectively enables me to respond to him in obedience, but my subjective, regular appropriation of his actions on my behalf orient me toward him in a way that makes my obedience easier and more likely. Gratitude is the attitude that gets results. Willpower may be useful, but having to grit through obeying God is usually a warning sign that my actions have become disconnected from proper root motives. Willpower is better than no willpower, but I would never rely on sheer willpower or try to put myself in that position, just like I would never encourage people to drive on a spare tire. The proper action is to get back to a regular tire as soon as possible, not see how long your spare will last.

Both Lutherans and the Reformed have stressed that a Christian’s first duty, if you will, in sanctification is getting my eyes off of myself and on to Christ, meditating on God’s graciousness on my behalf, and regularly receiving grace from Christ in the form of the sacraments. That way, I don’t need as many rules, and the ones I retain I am in a much better position to keep.

I don’t want this post to go on forever. Suffice to say, I think it matters not only that ​we affirm both God’s enabling and human effort but how ​we relate them. If not, it becomes impossible to give people understandable counsel.

I don’t have a list of historical resources here, but other than the obvious texts of Luther and Calvin, I think that the “Antinomian Controversy” of the 1640’s (look up primarily Richard Baxter and Samuel Rutherford) would shed some light on this. Also, the “Marrow Controversy” of the 1720’s probably touches on it as well (look up Thomas Boston and The Marrow of Modern Divinity).

You have said some good things Charlie.

The two things that stand out to me are really one thing, I believe. You mention gratitude as opposed to willpower which I see as “faith” or “on-going belief”. For how can gratitude be anything else, except possibly a “response of love”. However, in my thinking it must be “faith”.

“Looking unto Jesus” is also “faith” as far as I can tell. So, in my mind, they are both “faith” expressed differently or, maybe from a different perspective.

We know that Christ dwells (is manifested?) in our heart through faith and that our faith overcomes the world. So, in these regards, we as Christians are set apart, delivered from sin, empowered to live the “new life”. In other words, sanctified.

As a non-Reformed person, how do the “sacraments give grace”? How many sacraments do you folks have? You must have known, I would think, that your statement would elicit some reaction on a mostly “non-Reformed” board. Without sending me somewhere to look things up in this regard, would you briefly outline your thoughts on the “receiving grace though the sacraments?”

Alex

beliefspeak2.net

(how does a person get a signature line on SI?)

These sections from the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith are so thoughtfully well-worded, they have helped my thinking on this topic a great deal. I can’t express in pages a droplet of what they have said in a few paragraphs.

Of good works:

1._____ Good works are only such as God hath commanded in his Holy Word, and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretence of good intentions.

2._____ These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith; and by them believers manifest their thankfulness, strengthen their assurance, edify their brethren, adorn the profession of the gospel, stop the mouths of the adversaries, and glorify God, whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto, that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life.

3._____ Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ; and that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet they are not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit, but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

Of Free will:

4._____ When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, he freeth him from his natural bondage under sin, and by his grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so as that by reason of his remaining corruptions, he doth not perfectly, nor only will, that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.

Of Divine Providence:

5._____ The most wise, righteous, and gracious God doth oftentimes leave for a season his own children to manifold temptations and the corruptions of their own hearts, to chastise them for their former sins, or to discover unto them the hidden strength of corruption and deceitfulness of their hearts, that they may be humbled; and to raise them to a more close and constant dependence for their support upon himself; and to make them more watchful against all future occasions of sin, and for other just and holy ends. So that whatsoever befalls any of his elect is by his appointment, for his glory, and their good.

[Charlie] Suffice to say, I think it matters not only that ​we affirm both God’s enabling and human effort but how ​we relate them. If not, it becomes impossible to give people understandable counsel.

I agree… and appreciate the interest in understandable​ there. My views on the subject have been heavily influenced by teaching people, encountering confusion and revisiting how I’m saying things. Still have a ways to go though!

[Charlie] I don’t have a list of historical resources here, but other than the obvious texts of Luther and Calvin, I think that the “Antinomian Controversy” of the 1640’s (look up primarily Richard Baxter and Samuel Rutherford) would shed some light on this. Also, the “Marrow Controversy” of the 1720’s probably touches on it as well (look up Thomas Boston and The Marrow of Modern Divinity).

Thanks for this reference. Should prove to be very interesting.

About our ability to obey God. As I said, it is not our ability because (a) we never had any ability of our own to begin with and (b) we are not “us” anymore. New creations. But it is ​our ​ability in another sense: it is ability we possess and that is available to us to use. It is not from us but is very much with us. Chip’s illustration above works well for that part of it.

2 Pe 1:3 His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,

2 Co 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound toward you, that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may have an abundance for every good work.

Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Alex,

I didn’t want to get into my sacramental theology, because I don’t think it’s a major issue in this discussion; it is related secondarily. The Reformed acknowledge two sacraments: Lord’s Supper (or Communion or Eucharist) and baptism. Lutherans have those two plus a form of confession. There is no single Reformed sacramental theology; I’d say it runs a spectrum from almost Zwinglian* to almost Lutheran.

The view of Calvin and of the Westminster Confession of Faith (the official standard of Presbyterianism) refers to sacraments as “signs and seals” of the covenant of grace (basically, the gospel). Through baptism and the Lord’s Supper, the power of God acts on believers to strengthen their faith and confirm in their hearts the promises of the gospel. In my opinion, some of this comes through the conscious understanding of the participant, but some is mysterious. I think that’s true of all grace, though, whether it’s reading the Bible, hearing the sermon, or praying with a friend. It may do more for us than we comprehend at the time or than we’ll ever know.

*Zwinglian refers to the view of Ulrich Zwingli, that the sacraments are only memorials of God’s past actions. Most Baptists are Zwinglian, but some are Reformed (check out the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith).

Aaron,

I think you have hit upon a quite vexing point of theology, the ability of the Christian to do good works. There are a few views here worth mentioning.

First, the Reformed/Augustinian view. I’m just pasting this from the 2LBCF that Anne cited above:

3._____ Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ; and that they may be enabled thereunto, besides the graces they have already received, there is necessary an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will and to do of his good pleasure; yet they are not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty, unless upon a special motion of the Spirit, but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.

This says that any good work requires, above and beyond any kind of “general” grace, a specific influence of the Holy Spirit. So, it does not seem to be “available to us to use” in the straightforward way you are suggesting. The upshot is, “You don’t have in yourself the ability to do good, but don’t let that stop you.” While certainly counter-intuitive, it is not strictly illogical, since it ​denies ​ability and affirms​ responsibility. It’s the same logic as that of monergistic regeneration (“You don’t have the ability to believe, but don’t let that stop you”).

However, there is the additional difficulty that it treats the regenerated and at least partially renewed Christian the same way that it treats the unregenerate. If the renewed person needs the Spirit to do good works the same way that the unregenerate needs the Spirit to believe, then what is the actual effect of regeneration? So, I follow you on your skepticism.

It’s not so easy, however, to propose an alternative view. In the 18th century, a modified Reformed theology arose. The proponent was John Wesley. Simplifying a bit, the key to his system was that the Christian has the ability to resist any temptation. This plausible and seemingly modest claim led to a much larger claim, as modifications always do. If a Christian can resist ANY sin, why not EVERY sin? If each individual sin is resistable, then the total sum of sin must be as well. It’s not so simple to refute this. So, the teachings of “entire sanctification” or “Christian perfectionism” were born, with various effects.

I see the problems with the Reformed position, at least the Reformed position articulated in the 2LBCF (there may be others), but I’m much more skeptical of the Wesleyan solution. A “progressive sanctification” position that takes regeneration seriously and gives priority to grace is much more difficult to articulate than it first appears.

Alex, you’ll find a signature box in your profile. Click “My SI” in the header and then click the Edit link. It’s in there somewhere.

Charlie… did you mean to say that the Second Lond is nonZwinglian in its view of the “sacraments”? I’m a bit unclear on how you used the categories Zwinglian and Reformed, since Zwinglian is Reformed.

Anyway, for those interesting in perusing, the 2nd London is avail. in several locations online.

This one is a bit easier to text search.

It does have a nice little statement on sanctification and on good works, which Anne quoted from earlier. I’m not sure what parts of it she meant to emphasize, but in reference to good works this is interesting…

that having their fruit unto holiness they may have the end eternal life

It’s a bit hard to tell if they mean to say that good works have “fruit unto holiness,” due to the abundance of pronouns there (Looks like “their fruit” is probably the believers’ fruit).

It’s important not to misunderstand this phrase:

Good works are only such as God has commanded in his Holy Word,1 and not such as without the warrant thereof are devised by men out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intentions.2

The point is not that good works are only those that God has specifically named. For example, we are command to “be kind to one another,” but not commanded to “help one another get up if someone slips on the ice in the parking lot.” The latter is an application, but we can’t reasonably claim to be obeying the former without that application. I could sniff at a fallen (literally) brother or sister and say “Well the Bible doesn’t command me to help folk fallen on ice get back up, so I don’t have to do it. And if you disapprove of my inaction, you are elevating man-made rules to the level of Scripture.”

But we’d know in our hearts that this reasoning is lame.

It just isn’t feasible to categorically reject “man made rules” as having a vital role in genuine Christian living without taking the position that obedience has no vital role.

As I look at the remembrance of Christ in The Lord’s Supper, it appears that it is a solemn invitation to the believer to take a stand and proclaim Christ’s death. This is a reaffirming of the believer’s faith, and so, grace through faith. I think I agree with you.

To my thinking this proclamation is for both non believers as a stand and call to accept Christ and to believers as an encouragement.

The early Christians lived in close proximity with others where the observance was really taking a stand and invitation to turn to Christ for unbelievers more so than it is today in my opinion.