…by the way that Paul addresses the Corinthians as “those sanctified in Christ Jesus” (TNIV) when he knows the mess that they’re involved in and he knows that he’s about to rebuke them. It certainly makes me want to think twice before I utter something like, “so and so might be saved, but they aren’t sanctified.”
B”H
I’ve always found it interesting, especially in discussions on eternal security, that Paul speaks to the Corinthians as brothers, not alienated sinners or reprobates.
Jason: One wonders if Paul would even write a letter to such folk.
Nick, because sanctification is positional – in Christ (1 Cor 1:30). My take.
Good point. If the Corinthians weren’t apostates, I don’t know who would be. Paul holds out hope even when it seems they’ve all but forsaken the gospel of Christ. I have been preaching through 1 Corinthians and I see repeatedly Paul’s hope for their repentance, in spite of what is practically full-blown worldliness.
TC: I can agree with that.
Jason: I think that they were immature although a ways from being apostate. Paul definitely expected them to mature, especially after reading his letter.
Jason, like justification, I believe our sanctification has been already paid for by the blood of Christ, but we only get to work it out in becoming like Christ (Heb 10:14).
TC: Hmm… I don’t know that I’d say sactification has been ‘paid for.’ I see it as the process by which we conform to Jesus’ image, I’m sure you’d agree, but I’ve never thought to apply the language of ‘paid for’ to it. Let me think on that some more.
Nick, give it some though, esp. in light of a text like Heb 10:14.
Nick: I suppose that would be the case. The fact that they reverted in many ways to their former paganism sparked the mention of apostasy (though you and I disagree on it). ;-) But I definitely think that maturity was the primary focus.
TC: I agree with Nick here, at least initially. I’ll put it this way: I’ve never thought of sanctification in quite the same terms as justification, though ultimately both “processes” are connected in some sense.
TC: Seeing sanctification like justification as accomplished in the cross and resurrection i think it right here, but in the same way as justification, sanctification is an eschatological reality that is pronounced in the present as anticipation. This seems to be an important issue to show that the way sanctification is discussed in systematic theology is different than the hagiasmos word group in the NT.
Yeah that’s the interesting thing about the Cointhians. Paul knew they were doing some jacked up stuff but he still considered them holy. That’s one of the reasons I’m so cautious about saying those who are involved in continual sin (even sexual) are back sliders who are not saved.
Bryan L
Bryan: Good point. 1 Corinthians has been corrective for me in terms of immediately consigning a person or group to condemnation based on their particular sin(s) (though some are obviously damnable).
It’s because Paul is a Calvinist. Just kidding. Sort of.
Galatians seems to be the main place where Paul fleshes out how sanctification, like justification, is by grace through faith and not by works.
TC: When I read Heb. 10:14 I see Christ’s sacrifice as perfecting those who are in the process of sanctification, but I still don’t know that I’d say the sanctification was paid for.
Jason: I view salvation as the process with justification being our initiation into it, sanctification being the working out of it all, and glorifcation as the consummation. I think that’s how Paul can talk about salvation as a past, present, and future thing.
Daniel: Could you elaborate on that last point a little bit?
Bryan: I hear ya. What I look at in addition to the actions is the attitude. I know certain folks who try to justify sin, others who admit it’s wrong, fell bad about it, but do it anyway, and then some who just don’t care. All of that factors into my thinking on whether or not a person is backslidden or just struggling with something.
Marcy: I agree completely, well, except about Paul being a Calvinist. ;-) But yes, sanctification is certainly by grace through faith.
Jason, if sanctification is becoming like Christ, which it is, then it must be paid for. Not as we go, but it has already been paid for, but only needs to be worked out.
Daniels, consider 1 Cor. 1:29, 30 and how no sarx has no real grounds for boast because God has accomplished it all in Christ, who has become… hagiasmos and so on…
I do view both justification and sanctification in eschatological terms, because in Jesus we’re talking the beginning of the end, the inbreaking of the Kingdom, and so on.
Besides, the whole issue of pneumatology is eschatological. We’re sealed by the Spirit because we’re people of the future (Eph. 1:13, 14).
Nick, precisely! Heb. 10:14 teaches that Christ has paid the price for our sanctification and now we’re working it out.
It’s only because of his sacrifice that we’re able to work it out.
TC: I suppose, in a sense, but there seems to be little “talk” of it in those terms. However, viewing sanctification as part of the larger work of salvation, I could see your argument.
Jason, the Cross is the basis of our sanctification.
Consider Paul’s argument from Col 1:9-23, which is mostly doctrinal, and then the excitement of Paul from 24-29, which is a result of his doctrinal section.
But at the heart of the doctrinal is the Cross, so Paul wants to present every one fully mature in Christ, that’s sanctification.
TC: Agreed. I only meant to say that sanctification, as far as I know, is not mentioned in Scripture frequently with the language of transaction, as is the case with justification.
Sanctification is initiated at the cross, perpetuated by the Spirit, consummated at glorification, so I suppose you could say that it is paid for in that our salvation is paid for as it is part of the salvific process. Boy that sentence got away from me!
Clarification: Sanctification is paid for in that our salvation is paid for in full. Sanctification, then, as it is part of the salvific process, would be paid for.
TC: I think my problem is much like Jason’s here, i.e., the language. ‘Paul’ (who obviously wrote Hebrews!) is using the sacrificial metaphor, not a metaphor of transaction. But when we do read such transaction metaphors it pertains to people, not necessarily salvation.
I do agree that the same language is not there, but we must view sanctification in light of the Cross, as already being paid for.
That is why Paul says in 1 Cor. 1:30 that Jesus became our “holiness” (TNIV; GK. hagiasmos).
Jesus became our hagiasmos via the Cross.