Sanctification and Justification

Here is part of an e-mail I wrote in response to a friend of mine–edited for this blog.

 

Concerning the opening paragraph from my post “Some Thoughts on Faith and Works“. I actually gave quite a bit of thought to that paragraph. I intentionally kept it very simple and logical. Of course it does not specifically address every aspect of Christianity, such as original sin, or the specific nature of justification and sanctification, etc . . . –all of which I know are very important. I am just trying to stick to what I am sure of.

I had always been taught that Justification and Sanctification were almost completely separate: that Justification happens once and for all upon belief, and that at that point Sanctification begins. However, I think that stands in direct contradiction to James 2:24, where good works are said to play a part in the justification of a believer. (My dad argued that this justification only refers to extra benefits or “crowns” we receive in heaven. It seems to me that it is obvious to him that this passage is saying that good works play a part in Justification. Only it doesn’t bother him because he says this justification isn’t referring to “being saved”. From what I have read, I think I would be correct in saying that most protestants would disagree with my dad’s use of the word “Justified”, admitting this Justification to be Saving Justification. They would simply argue that James is not denying “true faith alone”, but “false faith alone”–that true faith produces works and that false faith doesn’t. However true this may be, it does not negate the fact that James 2:24 is very direct about works playing a part in justification. [both good faith and good works are, despite our assent, a result of the grace of God,]).

Other passages speak of justification as a past event, but it only makes sense to me to say that this refers to a one time beginning through faith (for all christian converts begin by submitting to grace through faith) not a once and for all point in the past. 1 Corinthians 6:11 refers to Sanctification as if it had already happened—and it had—but that does not mean that it was not still happening. It makes more sense to me to say that Sanctification is part of Justification–that God doesn’t just declare, but that he actually makes us holy. That is something I don’t understand about the separation of Justification and Sanctification. If, upon belief, we are completely holy, and cannot lose that, then why is it necessary that we be Sanctified? (and what sins was Paul to be washed of in Acts 22:15 ?) If Justification is an imputed righteousness (as differentiated from infused righteousness), a mere legal declaration of righteousness, then what part does Sanctification play in entrance to heaven? I am pretty sure the Bible is clear that nothing imperfect will enter heaven–that means complete Sanctification. But I don’t suppose that everyone is Sanctified at the same rate or to the same amount; I suppose few people reach perfection before death. That would mean that there must be some means of being made really and completely holy after death–which is sounds similar to the state of purgatory.

I think that we agree on the basics of the journey of a Christian: That God acts first, giving us the grace to believe, and that upon acceptance, we are to live holy lives, also by the grace of God—none of it is initiated by us, though (because we have free will) it requires our assent (not our power). In this way, we share in Christ’s righteousness, since the righteousness we obtain does not originate in us, but Christ. I guess a big difference we have is that you would argue that after our initial acceptance/compliance of faith, we have an unconditional guarantee of salvation, and while I would agree that God’s love is unconditional, I hold that our divine son-ship to Him is conditional (even after adoption)—that guarantees are often conditional (for instance: a money back guarantee on a book you bought—provided that you do not rip the pages out). I think that Paul illustrates this well in Romans 8:17, “Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory”, where we are heirs and co-heirs if we share in his sufferings.

A Biblical Baptism

I’ve been thinking a little bit about baptism. In my last post, I gave a little background for those of you who haven’t known me as long. I mentioned my baptism, and while I was writing it was probably the first time I really realized that it wasn’t very biblical to have waited so long to be baptized. I’m not saying that my church taught that believers should wait to be baptized; that’s just what happened. But what is a biblical baptism? More specifically: does baptism actually do something, or is it merely a symbol? Here is what I have found so far.

Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.

One way of looking at it is to say, “See, unbelief is the only thing this passage says condemns a man.” This is true, but it does not take into account the whole sentence. To borrow an analogy from Dave Armstrong, consider this:

In order to win the gold medal for a particular event in the Olympics, there are these two criteria:

1) One must come in 1st place.

2) One must be free of any performance enhancing drugs.

(Of course, there may be other criteria not mentioned here that could possibly prevent one from receiving a gold medal, but we know for sure that these two are necessary.)

In order for one to win the gold medal, one must meet both the above criteria: he must place first in the event, and he must be free of any performance enhancing drugs. That means that if only one criterion is met, then he will not receive the gold medal. Many people compete in the Olympics without performance enhancing drugs, yet do not win the gold medal because they do not come in first place. Likewise, a contestant may come in first, but if found to have been on performance enhancing drugs, will forfeit his medal–as has happened in the past.

So, in the passage above, the fact that unbelief is the only criterion for condemnation does not mean that both belief and baptism are not necessary for salvation. In the analogy, it would be like saying of someone who was refused the gold medal because they were found to be on performance enhancing drugs: “See, the use of performance enhancing drugs is the only thing that keeps a man from the gold medal.”

John 3:5

Jesus answered, “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.”

In opposition to those who say that by “born of water and spirit” Jesus is referring to baptism, some people say that that the “water” part merely refers to our natural birth. They claim that such an interpretation would contradict the Bible, which they believe clearly advocates “faith alone“. I don’t believe that we are saved by faith alone simply because I don’t believe the holy Spirit would inspire the only passage in the bible where faith and alone are together to say “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24 emphasis added) if the truth were the complete opposite. Apart from that, it seems odd to me that Jesus would tell people who have already been naturally born that they must be naturally born. Jesus often shows much more insight than that when talking to specific individuals, knowing exactly what they lack, and addressing them along those lines (e.g. Matthew 19:16-22, John 4:7-19).

Acts 2:37-39

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter [said] to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

This passage takes place right after Pentecost. Peter had just preached the gospel to the crowd there, and the passage says they “were cut to the heart”, and they asked “What are we to do, my brothers?” It seems evident to me from their response that these people believed and accepted the gospel. Yet, similar (in it’s twofold command) to the passage in Mark above, Peter responds: “Repent and be baptized”… for the forgiveness of your sins”. The Bible Knowledge Commentary, on this passage, suggests that “a problem revolves around the command ‘be baptized’ and its connection with the remainder of 2:38.” Their objection to the view that both baptism and repentance result in the forgiveness of sins (the more natural reading) is solely based on the belief that other parts of scripture base forgiveness on “faith alone”. Of course, none of their cited passages contain “faith alone”, and, as I mentioned earlier, the one place in scripture where “faith alone” occurs would not suit their objection. Let’s look at this passage without the word “baptism” it it at all:

Acts 2:37-39 (edited for example)

Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and they asked Peter and the other apostles, “What are we to do, my brothers?” Peter [said] to them, “Repent, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

Taking the word “baptism” out of this passage, to me, clearly shows its connection with forgiveness. The phrase “in the name of” is either connected with repentance or baptism (or , as I believe is the case, both); so what sense does make to repent “in the name of” when Jesus specifically commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the son and the holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The passage is quite clear that whatever is done “in the name of Jesus Christ” is done for the forgiveness of sins–”for the promise is made to you and your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

Acts 9:17-19

So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength.

Ananias says the Lord sent him for two things:

1) That Saul may regain his sight

2) That Saul may be filled with the holy Spirit

Saul immediately regains his sight–this fulfills the first promise. But how does he receive the holy Spirit? The scripture says that (even before eating–significant when one hasn’t eaten or drank for three days [Acts 9:9]) he was baptized.

Acts also records Paul explaining this same event to the Jews:

Acts 22:12-16

“A certain Ananias, a devout observer of the law, and highly spoken of by all the Jews who lived there,came to me and stood there and said, ‘Saul, my brother, regain your sight.’ And at that very moment I regained my sight and saw him.Then he said, ‘The God of our ancestors designated you to know his will, to see the Righteous One, and to hear the sound of his voice;for you will be his witness before all to what you have seen and heard. Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name.’

This account is a little different than the first, saying that at his baptism, his sins were forgiven. Objectors to this interpretation claim that the phrase “sins washed away” is only referring to a symbolism of when he was “saved” when he believed in the Lord ( there is evidence that Paul already believed before his encounter with Ananias [Acts 22:10]). I see no evidence that this is so. This account more clearly shows the urgency in which baptism held. “Now, why delay?” Paul had not eaten or drank anything for three days! It makes sense that he was baptized first because supernatural life is more important than natural life. Of course baptism is symbolic in several ways–but it is not only symbolic, as this passage shows.

Romans 6:3-4

Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.

The Church is Christ’s body. If we were baptized into Christ Jesus, we were also baptized into the Church. It says that in being baptized into Him, we were baptized into his death–buried with Him–through which we are also born again in Him. Simply put, this passage is saying that we must die with Christ to be born again, and that it is God’s will to do this instrumentally through baptism.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13

As a body is one though it has many parts, and all the parts of the body, though many, are one body, so also Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free persons, and we were all given to drink of one Spirit.

This passage shows more clearly the theme of Christ’s body as the Church–how we are all individual members of Christ’s body, yet we are one body–which may be a deeper statement than first appears. Baptism is given as a sort of proof or reason for this, since “in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body.” Those who hold that baptism is merely symbolic claim that baptism in this passage is not baptism in water, but a “baptism of the spirit.” I find this implausible since, earlier on in this same letter, Paul’s reference to baptism is unmistakably water baptism:

1 Corinthians 1:13-15

“Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?I give thanks (to God) that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius,so that no one can say you were baptized in my name.”

In fact, both passages are addressing the same theme–unity. In both passages, Paul urges the unity of the body of Christ with baptism, which is clearly referring to water baptism since Paul talks about how he is thankful that he didn’t baptize many of them.

1 Peter 3:18-22

For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit.In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah during the building of the ark, in which a few persons, eight in all, were saved through water.This prefigured baptism, which saves you now. It is not a removal of dirt from the body but an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers subject to him.

I don’t think it gets much clearer than 1 Peter 2:21 that baptism is not merely symbolic. Peter says “This [the great flood of Noah] prefigured baptism, which saves you now.” He has to be referring to water baptism because he says that the Flood prefigures baptism. In the flood, Noah was “saved through water”; as is the same in baptism–that’s what they have in common!

A Few More Things

One thing that those who object to baptismal regeneration argue concerns the thief on the cross. They argue that he was saved without water baptism. I think the important thing to address concerning this type of argument is the nature of the necessity of baptism. For instance, those who argue this would hold that faith is the only necessity for salvation. Yet do they condemn infants or the mentally handicapped who do not believe because they have no capacity to believe? Of course not, they simply pray for God’s mercy! It seems (to me) to be self evident that the only ones required to believe are those who have such an ability. All of the miracles of Jesus and the prophets show how things that are definitely considered necessity (such as both a human mother and father to conceive a child) can have exceptions (the virgin birth). Not that such exceptions are common, by any means. Other exceptions given are examples of people receiving the holy Spirit at times other than baptism, but this kind of argument neglects the fact that there are quite a few examples people, such as the Apostle Paul, who were filled with the holy Spirit on more than one occasion in Scripture. Would those people assert that each time they were filled with the holy Spirit they were saved? Certainly not. I do not claim to completely understand what being filled with the holy Spirit always means, but it doesn’t seem to me to be any proof against baptismal regeneration. So the existence of examples, such as the thief on the cross, or others of people being filled with the holy Spirit, does not negate the clear Scriptural command to “repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins”.

Please keep in mind that these verses in no way diminish or abolish the necessity of faith. For those able to believe, faith is always necessary for one to be baptized.

Follow-up to “Some Thoughts on Faith and Works”

I don’t think anyone has been reading this blog yet, but I posted a link to it onto my Facebook profile, so some people–I guess that’s you, the reader–may be reading it by now. I think I was clear of my intentions about my post on the Books of the Bible (which was originally a Facebook note), but my post “Some Thoughts on Faith and Works” may seem a little bit forward.  That is because I wrote it more to get my thoughts straight and on paper than any other reason.

A little background:

As noted in “Books of the Bible”, I was raised in a Non-Denominational Bible-Christian Church/home. I was taught early on about Jesus and his loving sacrifice for my sin. I made a decision to accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior when I was five during nap-time at school. Although I knew what I did was good, I don’t think I underwent much of a change at that point in my life. I had faith like a child, but the understanding of one too. Our family went to church (nearly) every Sunday–my brother and I mostly went to Sunday-School, kids church, but sometimes we went with our parents (and sometimes our parents helped with Sunday-School). I liked church okay. It wasn’t until I was around 12 years old that I was baptized.

Looking back, it wasn’t very Biblical of me, as a Bible-only Christian, to wait 7 years after accepting Jesus to be baptized, but that’s what happened. My parents never really pushed that I should get baptized, and I never really knew exactly what baptism was; I did think that the baptismal font in my baptist school Church was one of the coolest things in the world, though. It was way up high, and had some sort of secret passage way! Anyway, after church one day, they were having the baptism and lunch/fellowship time thing, and my parents asked me if I had thought about being baptized. I’m pretty sure I wasn’t ready that time, plus I didn’t have a swimsuit, so I passed that opportunity. What I meant by not being ready, was I still wasn’t sure of what baptism was all about, and so I was scared. It seemed like a big commitment to me–though, according to what our church taught, it really wasn’t. My parents explained, though not in these words, that ‘believers baptism’ is essentially a believer publicly announcing to other believers that he also believes, all while getting dunked–a symbol of what had taken place when I was five. Sometime later the situation after church repeated itself, and although I still had not been prepared and brought appropriate clothes, I said yes. I remember our pastor Donald Tabb baptizing me in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and feeling good and new afterward–sort of empowered to do whatever God wanted me to do. After that I became a teenager. I was strongly convicted of my need for God through both my downfalls and the youth group events at church, and at the urging and example of my dad, I began to regularly read the Bible every day.

By the time I reached high school I had probably read through the new testament at least once (except maybe all of Revelation, though it was cool to skim), and a few of the books more than once; I had also read into the Old Testament, but the ‘boring’ parts often halted my reading for so long that I had to start over. After I began to become familiar with some parts of the Bible, I naturally began to notice things that I had not noticed before: Things like what Jesus meant in a given parable; some differences in accounts between the four gospels; verses that I could not understand; and, eventually, the seeming contradiction of James and Paul. It was my first serious doctrinal dilemma as a christian. I wrestled for a while with all of the possible ways to reconcile those verses with each other, and what I believed. I must have hoped that James didn’t really mean what it seemed to be saying, because I new that no one could get his self to heaven–no one could be good enough on their own to go to heaven!

I eventually decided that while Paul was talking to people who thought they could go to heaven by their own goodness, James was addressing people who thought that they could have faith with no outward change whatsoever–a fake faith, and that true faith has to produce good works–though the works themselves don’t affect the “yes or no” of your salvation, but do affect the blessedness of your eternal state once you’re in heaven. I was glad that I had reconciled those verses, but changed me and led me to question things such as the closely related ‘assurance of salvation’, or ‘once saved, always saved’. I never denied it, but never completely trusted it because I knew the Bible talked about a sin that could not be forgiven, and how we had to forgive others for God to forgive us.

To say the least, a lot has happened since then–too much for me to explain all at once–so that now I know that James 2 isn’t the only place in the bible that talks about works being involved in salvation, but is the only place where ‘faith alone’ is mentioned, and that it’s the same faith that Paul refers to. So as I was trying to show someone how I thought that in John 15:1-6 Jesus was saying it is possible to lose your salvation (by the way, learn from my mistake. I don’t recommend starting with this because it deals with works too) it escalated into multiple attacks on me, aimed to hurt me personally. That is why I wrote my thoughts on faith and works for you to read. I know it is not comprehensive–it deals only with the things that I thought were necessary to prove my point. However, I’m sure that many people, if they ever read it, will have something to say, so I just want you to know that I happily welcome any comments or objections. My main problems I have when talking to people about these controversies is that they either aren’t willing to discuss it, or they just get mad at me. So please, let me know what you think.