Paul's Passing Thoughts

Most NC are synergistic in their understanding of sanctification, therefore, most believe we participate in it.  The doctrinal contention is, what “motivates” our post-conversion walk of faith?  A wrong understanding of justification will contaminate the motive for sanctification.   Hence, good works are the necessary fruits of justification, never causal to it.  The Galatians were falling back into an understanding of lawful compliance (faith in Christ…plus works), as the grounds for their salvation, and for this reason, they had redefined justification and distorted the proper foundational understanding of sanctification.

Probably the biggest reason why NC’s view sanctification as being Gospel centered and “finished work of Christ motivated” primarily is because it takes a genuine gospel conversion, true work of the HS, for one to experience saving faith and conversion.  All other professors of the faith, they are not motivated by the finished work of Christ.  Their default motive in all of their life continues to be motivated by any/everything other than Christ and his glory.  Some of these individuals, as Saul of Tarsus, retain an outward moral self-discipline that is quite impressive to the natural man, but filth and rags as when measured up to the motive that stems from a gospel centered, Christ centered motive.  For this reason, it is a humanistic “walk of faith” to believe one can grow in their faith, apart from the gospel centrality of Christ, his glory and his grace.

Q: Is this not where New Calvinism and traditional evangelicalism part ways? In theological terms, evangelicals do not see sanctification as intrinsically related to justification. They see justification as a onetime legal declaration that guarantees glorification, and makes sanctification possible, but does not feed it. Along with justification comes the new birth, which enables the believer to participate in kingdom life and separation from this fallen world. But works in sanctification do not relate back to justification at all. Justification does not progress, only the spiritual life in sanctification progresses. New Calvinism teaches that sanctification must look back to justification and is given continual life by justification. Evangelicals reject that. They see justification as a guarantee and foundation to be built on. Evangelicals believe that works in sanctification have no relationship at all to justification because nothing done in sanctification can do anything to sustain it. Again, it’s a completely done deal, and everything it has to offer has been credited to our account in full.

….in other words, justification isn’t on an installment plan, it’s been paid in full. It’s not progressing forward and building toward glorification through sanctification.  Again, can we agree that this is the fundamental difference? Not to debate the issue at hand, but to clarify what the debate actually is in all honesty. Again, the goal of this series is clarification, not persuasion.

I agree.  We are clarifying, not persuading right now.

That being said, can you provide historic/fundamental predominant teachings that would concur with where you believe NC have departed?

Historically, NC’s view the sacraments not much different than the Jews viewed many of their Old Covenant rituals.  Passover was to be used as a motivating memorial for the Jews to remember the freedom they were given.  Because of the trust placed in the blood, salvation (justification) was secured.  Type and anti-type for you and me.  We are to reflect the joy and liberation of our justification as continual grounds for our sanctification.  No different is the eucharist; proclaiming the Lord’s death until he comes.  It is not a mere symbolic exercise so much as it is designed to remind us in order that it would motivate us towards holiness, via glory and grace.

What evangelicals would assert what you are saying?  I’ve been a Christian for 38 years, “reformed” for over 20, but I have never once heard the concept that “justification…makes sanctification possible, but does not feed [motivate?] it.”   What classical “reformers” who you would not classify as NC, have stated what you just said?  I’m not saying they don’t exist, just that I’ve never heard/read anything like that.

Q: Good clarifying response. Let me therefore answer. First, because New Calvinism is relatively new on the scene and unique in its tenets, there wouldn’t be an abundant need for such a clarification, the former being assumed. But yet, there are examples. Secondly before I give an example, evangelicals don’t look to the Reformers as authority for truth. Jay Adams is considered to be a contemporary Reformer (and also a rabid Calvin buff), being known as “the father of the contemporary biblical counseling movement,” and he stated the following:

“The problem with Sonship [what New Calvinism was called in the 80’s and 90’s] is that it misidentifies the source of sanctification (or the fruitful life of the children of God) as justification. Justification, though a wonderful fact, a ground of assurance, and something never to forget, cannot produce a holy life through strong motive for it. As a declaration of forgiveness, pardon, and adoption into the family of God, it is (remember) a legal act. It changes the standing, but not the condition, of the person who is justified.

On the other hand, regeneration (quickening, or making alive; Ephesians 2:5) is the true source of sanctification. Justification deals with guilt; regeneration and sanctification deal with corruption. Regeneration, the true source of sanctification (growing out of sinful living into holy living)….”

Though Adams is Reformed, I would strongly contend that this is the traditional evangelical view of justification and sanctification. I would also add Floyd Barackman’s definitions of justification and regeneration. Again, Reformed, but agreeing with traditional evangelicalism:

“Justification is the act of God whereby He acquits the gospel believer of the divine verdict of condemnation and declares him to be righteous….Regeneration is the act of God whereby He cleanses the gospel believer, renews the immaterial part of his human nature , and imparts to him spiritual life. ”

After we are done with this part, I think another question worthy of investigation is the following: Is New Calvinism the same as Old Calvinism?