A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W XY Z

Tyndale Open Bible Dictionary

SANCTIFICATION

Term meaning “being made holy, or purified.” It is used broadly of the whole Christian experience, though most theologians prefer to use it in a restricted sense to distinguish it from related terms, such as “regeneration,” “justification,” and “glorification.”

Definition

A comprehensive definition of sanctification by the New Hampshire Baptist Confession (1833) states,

We believe that Sanctification is the process by which, according to the will of God, we are made partakers of his holiness; that it is a progressive work; that it is begun in regeneration; and that it is carried on in the hearts of believers by the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, the Sealer and Comforter, in the continual use of the appointed means—especially the Word of God, self-examination, self-denial, watchfulness, and prayer. (Article X)

This definition helps us to distinguish sanctification from regeneration in that the latter speaks of the inception of the Christian life. Sanctification is also distinguished from glorification, which focuses on the consummation of God’s work in the believer. Put quite simply, then, regeneration refers to the beginning, sanctification to the middle, and glorification to the end of salvation.

The distinction between sanctification and justification, on the other hand, calls for more detailed attention, both because it is subtle and because it is fundamental. In the first place, “justification,” like “regeneration,” refers (though not exclusively) to the beginning of the Christian experience, whereas the above definition emphasizes the progressive character of sanctification. Second, justification refers to a judicial act of God whereby believers are at once absolved of all their guilt and accounted legally righteous, whereas sanctification, like regeneration and glorification, calls attention to the transforming power of the Holy Spirit upon the character of God’s children.

This distinction played an important role at the time of the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church, in the opinion of the Reformers, confused these two doctrines by insisting that justification “is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man” (Decrees of the Council of Trent, Sixth Session, 1547, ch. VII). In contrast, the Reformers emphasized that the two doctrines, although inseparable, must be distinguished. Calvin argued that, to be sure, these two elements of God’s saving act cannot be torn into parts any more than Christ can be torn: “Whomever, therefore, God receives into grace, on them he at the same time bestows the spirit of adoption, by whose power he remakes them to his own image. But if the brightness of the sun cannot be separated from its heat, shall we therefore say that the earth is warmed by its light, or lighted by its heat?” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3:11.6). In short, then, justification is a once-for-all, declarative act of God as Judge, whereas sanctification is a progressive change in the character of the person justified.

One more element in the New Hampshire Baptist Confession definition requires comment, namely, the statement that “we are made partakers of his holiness.” A complete survey of what the Bible has to say about sanctification is not possible here, since practically the whole of Scripture addresses this issue in one way or another. One central theme in that teaching, however, must be emphasized: “You shall be holy as I am holy” (Lv 11:45; 1 Pt 1:16; cf. Mt 5:48). According to the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647), by sanctification “we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God” (Question 34; see Col 3:10). Nothing can be more crucial to our view of sanctification than this truth. The standard of holiness is complete conformity to Christ’s image (Rom 8:29); anything less than that is a lowering of the scriptural standard and thus a dilution of the doctrine. The definition above, however, implies that Christ is more than our pattern: he himself provides his holiness for those united with him—he is our sanctification (1 Cor 1:30).

Initial Sanctification

The progressive nature of our sanctification is explicit in many passages, particularly Paul’s statement that Christians are transformed “from glory to glory” into the Lord’s image (2 Cor 3:18; see also Rom 12:1-2; Phil 3:14; Heb 6:1; 2 Pt 3:18). Moreover, the numerous commands found in Scripture imply that the Christian experiences growth.

At the same time, however, a number of expressions in Scripture reveal that sanctification is given to the believer concurrent with regeneration. For example, Paul frequently refers to Christians as “saints,” that is, “holy ones” (Rom 1:7; Eph 1:1; etc.); this language suggests that sanctification is already the possession of believers. In fact, Paul specifically says that the Corinthian Christians “have been sanctified” (1 Cor 1:2), and he even coordinates sanctification with washing (= regeneration?) and justification as though all three elements had taken place at the same time (6:11). Perhaps more impressive is the apostle’s declaration that Christians have died to sin (Rom 6:2). One can hardly think of a more powerful figure than death, suggesting as it does a permanent, irrevocable dissolution of the believer’s relationship with sin.

It goes without saying, of course, that these passages do not teach absolute perfection for every Christian upon conversion. Such an interpretation would bring us into conflict with the clear teaching of Scripture as a whole. Furthermore, one should note that the Corinthian “saints” were marked by woeful immaturity (1 Cor 3:1-3; 6:8; 11:17-22).

How, then, should these passages be interpreted? Some writers have suggested that Paul is speaking of “potential” sanctification—that is, although our relationship with sin has not been actually severed, God has given us what we need for that to take place. There is an element of truth in this formulation, but it hardly does justice, by itself, to the force of Paul’s language. Coming somewhat closer to an adequate explanation is to speak of “positional” sanctification. According to this view, Paul is speaking in judicial terms regarding our status before God. One should certainly recognize a judicial element in Paul’s discussion (Rom 6:7 uses the word “justified”), but if that is all that is said, then it suggests that Romans 6 simply restates the doctrine of justification—a doubtful conclusion. Much more satisfactory is the view that Paul’s teaching contains both a judicial element and an actual, experiential reference.

Progressive Sanctification

Historical Survey

Although all Christian groups recognize the need to become transformed by the renewing of the mind (Rom 12:2), considerable differences are found among them regarding specific issues. The Reformers, generally speaking, held to what some call a “pessimistic” view of personal sanctification. This perspective is clearly reflected in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), which states that sanctification “is imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part, whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war” within the believer (XIII.ii). Although the confession goes on to emphasize the overcoming power of the Spirit, some Christians believe that its basic thrust obscures the need and possibility of spiritual victory.

To some extent, the teachings of John Wesley (1703–91) may be viewed as a reaction to the usual Calvinistic and Lutheran formulations. Strongly influenced by the Pietistic movement of his day, Wesley paid much attention to the experiential side of Christianity and eventually formulated, though not with great consistency, the doctrine that “entire sanctification” is possible in this life. During the 19th century, interest in the possibility of perfection (not understood in an absolute sense, however) spread to many Christian circles. According to some, perfection resulted from the eradication of sin; according to others, spiritual victory was gained by counteracting the sin that remains even in the Christian’s heart. The latter approach became characteristic of the so-called Victorious Life Movement. These various “perfectionist” groups were subjected to a searching criticism by the Princeton theologian Benjamin B. Warfield (1851–1921). The debate has continued, though not as vigorously, ever since then.

The Agency in Sanctification

Much of the controversy focuses on the human role in sanctification. While all Christians agree that holiness would be impossible without God’s help, it is difficult to define precisely how that truth affects one’s own activity. In the Roman Catholic tradition so much stress has been placed on the cleansing power of baptism and on the meritorious character of good works that one may rightly question whether the significance of divine grace is not thereby ignored. At the other extreme stand some exponents of the Victorious Life Movement, whose stress on “let go and let God” (a slogan that has some value if properly used) sometimes suggests that believers remain completely passive in sanctification.

No passage of Scripture is more relevant to this issue than Philippians 2:12-13, where Paul juxtaposes the command for one to work out one’s own salvation with the declaration that it is God who provides the spiritual strength necessary for the task. It may be tempting to emphasize the first part of the statement so as to ignore the fundamental significance of the second, or else to become so arrested by Paul’s stress (here and elsewhere) on divine grace that the weight of personal responsibility is overlooked. The apostle, however, appears to have deliberately and carefully preserved a fine balance between these two truths.

Sanctification requires discipline, concentration, and effort, as is clear by the many exhortations of Scripture, especially those where the Christian life is described with such figures as running and fighting (1 Cor 9:24-27; Eph 6:10-17). But Christians must always resist the temptation to assume that they in effect sanctify themselves, that spiritual power comes from within them, and that they may therefore rely on their own strength. This is a difficult tension, though no more puzzling than the paradox of prayer (“Why pray when God, who knows our needs and who is all-wise and sovereign, will always do what is best anyway?”). Yet perhaps the real “secret” of holiness consists precisely in learning to keep that balance: relying thoroughly on God as the true agent in sanctification, while faithfully discharging one’s personal responsibility.