The Sanctification Paradox: Can It Be Solved?
Image
The NT seems to teach that believers must obey in order to be transformed, yet must be transformed in order to obey. The language of responsibility and action abounds, but so does the language of sovereignty, humility, and dependence. Students of the doctrine of sanctification have long struggled to understand how both can be true and how faithful believers should think and act in response.
I’ve recently suggested that many have embraced what amounts to a theology of giving up when it comes to Christian growth—and that they have done so because what they see in themselves and others seems to fall so far short of “read your Bible, pray every day and you’ll grow, grow, grow.” But even this sense of frustration with self and others tends to arise from—or perhaps fuel—a view of the sanctification paradox.
My aim here is to survey four solutions to the paradox and briefly evaluate their merits.
1. The hole: deny one side of the paradox
One popular solution to the sanctification paradox has two opposite versions, but both end up with the same problem: they fail to fit about 50% of the New Testament teaching on sanctification. They leave a hole.
One version of this solution resolves the paradox by teaching or acting as if there is really no depending on God involved—we pretty much change ourselves by sheer will power. Probably no Christian holds to this view formally, but some convey it by omission. Little attention is given to depending on the power and grace of a merciful God.
The other version makes a similar mistake in the opposite direction: it either openly rejects, or marginalizes, the obedience part of the equation—especially outward obedience. We grow by humbly recognizing our neediness, soaking heart and mind continually in the gospel, and nothing more.
Surely this second version is better than the first! Still, it solves the paradox at the cost of creating a hole. (I don’t know if this is the sort of hole DeYoung has in mind in his book, The Hole in Our Holiness. I suspect the concepts are somewhat similar.)
2. The bundle: accept the paradox
Perhaps a better solution to the sanctification paradox is to just let the mystery remain.
For many of us, this would have to be a “solution” of last resort, because it seems lazy. Rather than wrestle with what God has revealed and prayerfully seek understanding until it all “clicks” in some coherent way, just shrug and say “whatever”? It seems irresponsible as well as lazy.
But we shouldn’t dismiss this option too quickly.
Surely there are some puzzles in God’s dealings with man that we should recognize are unlikely to ever be fully solved. For example, how does a spiritually dead sinner believe without being regenerated—yet how does he become regenerate without first believing?
For many of us, the “working solution” is to bundle the paradox—narrow it down to as small and precise a form as possible, and work with it in that form. Without fully sorting out and understanding what’s in the bundle, it is possible to relate it to other items and bundles in a coherent theology. (I’m only using “bundle” here because the idea of putting anything “in a box” is currently so unfashionable. Everything is apparently supposed to be outside of boxes!)
In the case of sanctification, it is indeed a bit hard to see how our efforts can have real results if we simultaneously claim that sanctification is “God’s work, top to bottom.” Perhaps the problem there is that we’re not using biblical language. Still, a solution that locates the paradox precisely at that point and says “we don’t know exactly how it is that our efforts have a causal relationship in sanctification; we only know that that somehow they do, even though it is God’s work and He will certainly complete it.”
I’m reminded of the Westminster Confession’s solution to the problem of a comprehensively-sovereign God’s relationship to sin. How does God decree all that comes to pass and yet remain holy and in no sense the author of sin? The confession simply bundles the paradox by affirming that God decrees all and affirming at the same time that He is in no sense the author of sin. (Maybe it’s just me, but the Chalcedonian Definition seems to have a similar approach to articulating the two natures of Christ.)
3. The haul: resolve by defining self-reliance
Another solution to the personal-effort vs. humble-dependence paradox is to look at the concept of “dependence” differently. Specifically, this solution reasons that there is really no such thing as doing anything “in our own strength”; we are always and in every way dependent on God’s enabling, whether we realize it or not. In Him “we live, and move, and have our being” (Acts 17:28), and through Him “all things consist” (συνέστηκε, hold together).
In this solution, real dependence is not an option—it’s an attitude.
Consequently, the dynamic of growing in holiness is like hauling freight. If you’re a “big rig” truck driver nowadays, chances are good that you don’t do any of the real work of getting the cargo from point A to point B. That is, forklifts fill the trailer, and 400-600 horses worth of diesel engine does the pulling. There is plenty to do in the cab, certainly—plenty of responsibility. But most of the driver’s “work” is that of accessing what does the real work. Using his “own strength” is not an option.
The driver can do his work humbly and thankfully, recognizing the wonders at his disposal. Or, if he chooses, he can do his work arrogantly, in a spirit of independence, reminiscent of Nebuchadnezzar’s thinking about Babylon: “which I have built by my mighty power.”
But it’s easy to see the folly of this. Nebuchadnezzar couldn’t have placed a single stone of Babylon’s great wall in “his own strength.” A trucker was never born who could carry his freight a single mile “in his own strength.”
In this light, the sanctification paradox seems to dissolve. We are responsible to do all we can, and our actions are indeed effectual in the sense that progress is furthered or hindered, but we are called to engage in obedience in a spirit of humble dependence, recognizing that anything that seems like “our own strength” really isn’t. As Jesus put it, “without Me you can do nothing.”
Jesus’ “abide in me” in the vine-and-branches metaphor of John 15 must also refer to the state of mind and heart that recognizes our dependent condition. According to Romans 6 and many other passages, believers are permanently in union with Christ. Over and over again, Paul short-hands our identity as believers with the phrase “in Christ.” There is apparently no way to not abide in Him other than to fall prey to the illusion of independence.
4. The spiral: resolve by defining dependence
Like the haul, the spiral solution to the paradox focuses on the relationship between our action and God’s enablement, but it is less shy about giving our conduct a strong causal relationship in the process.
The spiral solution is simply this. Yes, a sovereign and gracious act of God is required before we can be obedient in “spirit and soul and body” (1 Thess. 5:23). Further, as we grow in grace, repeated acts of gracious and sovereign enabling are necessary. However, faithful obedience with what we have already been given leads to more transforming work by God and further obedience. The sequence repeats: enablement, obedience, enablement, obedience, enablement, etc.
For some, this solution must be rejected out of hand because no enablement that is contingent on our conduct can be truly gracious. For others, this solution fails because it implies that at various points along the spiral, a believer may not be “mature enough yet” or “divinely enabled yet” to be obedient in one area or another. He has a ready excuse to keep sinning, whether by omission or commission, because he doesn’t yet have what he needs to overcome temptation and obey the Lord. And this situation seems incompatible with the language of passages such as 2 Peter 1:3.
Conclusion
In the end, perhaps some combination of bundle, haul, and spiral is best. Maybe the haul describes our already-sufficient ability—employed with an attitude of humble and thankful dependence—while the spiral describes our increasing skill and faithfulness as we are transformed. As for how our obedience can be causal (as we find in Rom. 12:2, for example) in sanctification, the fact that there is really no such thing as “our own strength” resolves any supposed incompatibility with grace. And for those who don’t find this satisfying, there’s always the bundle.
In any case, we do not need to solve the paradox by creating a hole.
Aaron Blumer 2014 Bio
Aaron Blumer, is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored Grace Baptist Church for thirteen years.
- 36 views
You can’t. You don’t. You are unable to do this— You are unable to obey God in the manner and to the extent He requires. Christ had to do it.
For example, 1689 Bapt CofF on Good Works:
6._____ Yet notwithstanding the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblameable and unreprovable in God’s sight, but that he, looking upon them in his Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections.
( Ephesians 1:6; 1 Peter 2:5; Matthew 25:21, 23; Hebrews 6:10 )
If, by definition, a NT Christian has been baptized by the Spirit, is it even possible for a believer to do anything completely in the flesh? I’m just thinking out loud, here, but isn’t there a fundamental difference in the makeup of a believer after conversion? Paul says that he has been crucified with Christ and that Christ now lives in him, so everything that he does is through the enabling power of the Spirit, correct? Then sanctification cannot possibly be a choice between “making oneself pleasing to God by his own strength” and “resting in the finished righteousness of Christ.” This is surely a false dilemma.
To add another Scripture passage to the discussion in this thread, I think 1 John 2:1-2 is also revealing. John clearly suggests that perfect obedience is the goal that he has set for his “children,” yet he clearly understands the need to depend on Jesus Christ as the source of righteousness. These two concepts have never been in competition. We can and should diligently pursue perfect obedience to the commands of the NT, all the while looking to our Advocate who pleads his own blood on our behalf.
is our being in Christ, our faith—this is what completes us, makes us righteous (counts as our obedience). But our obediences themselves don’t meet His standards. Pursuing perfect obedience, of itself, isn’t the goal. Pursuing Christ is, and there is a subtle or not so subtle difference.
Another piece of understanding that comes into this is our tendency to isolate commands. I used to think I could “obey” in one thing.
but true obedience requires simultaneous obedience to all the commands of God.
Example: If you look at a woman and don’t lust after her, you have done some minimum that’s good for you, but obedience requires loving that woman in the way God wants, not just ignoring her or something.
Example: Driving with idiots on the road. If I can drive and not get angry at someone, I haven’t fulfilled God’s requirements of having a heart of graciousness and humility?
Example: If I get through a day without yelling at my kids, have I still loved them the way God expects of me to love them? Have I met God’s love standard? No.
[pvawter] Then sanctification cannot possibly be a choice between “making oneself pleasing to God by his own strength” and “resting in the finished righteousness of Christ.” This is surely a false dilemma.
yeah, i’m not sure where you’re getting those two options in such isolation either.
[pvawter] To add another Scripture passage to the discussion in this thread, I think 1 John 2:1-2 is also revealing. John clearly suggests that perfect obedience is the goal that he has set for his “children,” yet he clearly understands the need to depend on Jesus Christ as the source of righteousness. These two concepts have never been in competition. We can and should diligently pursue perfect obedience to the commands of the NT, all the while looking to our Advocate who pleads his own blood on our behalf.
I’m not sure the I John ideas are consistent with a discussion on sanctification, in that, I heard teaching on this that the “sin” we won’t do in I John is gnosticism—that the book is addressing this issue. Others say it’s repetitive sins— though I question that somewhat. I don’t know— several statements there are made about not denying that we sin, yet also that we won’t sin … so ????
I think you’re looking at these two perspectives and creating polar opposites, which is probably common to do, and putting a lot of assumptions into the other side’s position.
I’m sorry, but it’s just not plausible that either the believers of yore or today were supposed to read the NT and believe that they cannot obey. To many passages make assertions that are simply not compatible with this idea.
To name a few…
- a) Imperatives themselves necessarily imply ability to obey, otherwise there is no point in commanding
- b) Jesus says we love Him when we keep his commands. The subject of the verb “obey” is “you” in context, which would be us (John 14:15, 14:21, 1 John 5:3)
- c) All the NT references to obedience where believers are the subject (Rom. 16:19, 2Cor. 7:15, 2Cor.10:6, Philemon 1:21, 1Pet. 1:2, 1Pet. 1:22 and so many more.)
- d) Judgment of believers for what they have actually done (2 Cor. 5:10)
- e) The absence of any Scripture that teaches we (believers) cannot obey
- f) The many passages that assure us we have the resources we need to be obedient (2 Pet. 1:3, 2Cor. 9:8, Eph. 6:10-11, 1Cor.10:13)
By way of explanation—though I’ve explained all this before (as so many have before me)…
1) Because of our union with Christ, there is a radical change in what “I” and “me” etc. mean for believers. In short, we are no longer who we were, but the new “us” does indeed do the obeying (Rom. 6:3-4, Gal. 2:20, 1Cor. 6:15)
2) The righteousness of Christ—including all His perfect obedience that flowed from it—is imputed (credited) to us when we are justified. We are personally righteous and obedient as we are sanctified. Both are because of the merits of Christ and the latter is empowered by the Spirit in the life of a new creation God has made. However, the new creation is indeed made in Christ “for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Paul reveals how the relationship works in this respect: God prepared, we walk.
Though some aspects of sanctification are puzzling (i.e., the how), the question of whether we are able and responsible to obey (i.e., the what) is not among them.
About LGLG, just one question at this point: what is “self effort”?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
there’s a simple answer, yes we can (obey). But when you look more technically, you see it’s not you, it’s all Christ, and the answer is no, you can’t.
there is a gracious extent to which we “obey” … that God graciously accepts what we do. But we don’t obey to the extent of His righteous standard.
Theoretically, we can obey. But practically, we can’t. The new nature doesn’t impart victory. The new nature means … that our orientation is completely different now. If an alcoholic “fails” to find alcohol one day, does he just give up being an alcoholic? No, it’s his nature to drink. So if the Christian fails one day, does he just give up the cleansing process and struggle against sin? no, it’s not in his nature to give it up. What he loves and who he is, is now entirely different.
a) imperatives don’t imply/impute the ability to obey— read Martin Luther again. And the Law, full of imperatives, didn’t imply the ability to keep it.
b) Love makes the working to keep commands easy, but it doesn’t mean we obey to God’s level.
c) there is a level on which we obey and are active, but it doesn’t mean that we have achieved the level God requires. Even in sanctification, Christ achieves/d it for us. … Most people here leap to the “If I believe that, then we ‘just stop trying” logic.
d) God does graciously reward things in our lives, doesn’t mean we earned or deserve it
e) The Christian simultaneously fails and fulfills. Practically, we fail in the sense that we don’t meet God’s standard, but in Christ, we have and are counted as fulfilling obedience.
f) resources, yes, we have all we need from God, but while we still have the sin nature in us, we won’t meet His objective requirements for obedience.
[Aaron Blumer] 2) The righteousness of Christ—including all His perfect obedience that flowed from it—is imputed (credited) to us when we are justified. We are personally righteous and obedient as we are sanctified. Both are because of the merits of Christ and the latter is empowered by the Spirit in the life of a new creation God has made. However, the new creation is indeed made in Christ “for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Paul reveals how the relationship works in this respect: God prepared, we walk.I used to believe this, but I don’t any more. In the sense that Christ’s righteousness is not just credited for us to be saved, but also for our entire lived life. We have nothing to put before God that is worthy of His standard of our selves, even after we’re saved. Only our faith.
So our obedience/sanctification as believers, while graciously accepted at some level and rewarded at some level, really is only fulfilled by our faith in Christ.
Not saying I’m explaining all this exactly, but that this point is a major difference in these two views and probably needs further exploration and clarification.
…from a different angle will help.
What role does the Holy Spirit play in our sanctification? Does He make us righteous, and then stand back and watch us work out our new nature? Or does He give us new righteous inclinations, and sometimes work to get us back on track when we’ve strayed? Or does He always work in the believer regardless of how the believer lives his life (LGLG)? Or does He provide the ability to live righteously only as the believer submits to the Holy Spirit (resulting in the good works)? Or does He work a different way?
Andrew Bernhardt
To build on Andy’s comment, if we believe the Holy Spirit is the Counselor—John 16:7—we would assume that somehow the Holy Spirit communicates the need to know, understand, and apply the Scriptures, no? I am constantly struck, for what it’s worth, at how often churches try to use guilt and emotional tricks to “sanctify” people instead of presenting the Word and letting the Spirit have His way through prayer and patience.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
[Bert Perry] I am constantly struck, for what it’s worth, at how often churches try to use guilt and emotional tricks to “sanctify” people instead of presenting the Word and letting the Spirit have His way through prayer and patience.I’m struggling with this right now in our church. My husband is the pastor and he is patient and focuses on main issues, where I would just slam people for being the immature, sinful, ungodly creeps they are being— and these are people who’ve been in the church the longest! Some of the long-standing issues they are manipulating is just … killing me.
But V has grace in his core in a much deeper way than I do, I will be the first to say. Well, maybe it’s easier for him to express in the church and easier for me to express in our home.
But it’s an area of my “sanctification” the Holy Spirit has been directing me towards the last few months. How Christ lived such a godward, loving (fulfilling every angle of love), righteous way on the earth surrounded by so many sinful, “mature” adults …
V has been mulling over a comment he recently heard from another pastor— that God lets or even keeps Christians as babies for so long, and why He does that.
Anyway, that was a personal parenthetic, fwiw.
In some of my readings I see that some folks posit that LGLG is evidence of Keswick leanings and characterize this movement by the LGLG phrase. This is not the case with me. Rather, this LGLG concept is from Ps. 46.10 and speaks of finding provision in God instead of human efforts.
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
Discussion