No Separation But Distinction⤒🔗

One issue about which not all people agree concerns the relationship between justification and sanctification. This already becomes clear when we compare the doctrines of Augustine and Luther, although both ascribe man’s salvation entirely to God’s grace. There is even less agreement between the Roman Catholic doctrine, as formulated by the Council of Trent, and the doctrine as verbalized in the reformed confessions. In later times we can mention the names of John Wesley and H.F. Kohlbrugge who display a divergent approach to justification and sanctification.

The Holy Scripture, in using these words, gives us reason to investigate further into the relationship and the difference between justification and sanctification.

First of all we need to recognize that these are two aspects of the salvation we own in Christ and that they are inseparable. Their unity is already given in that in both terms we are dealing with what God is doing. The N.T. expressly states that it is God who justifies, that it is he who sanctifies. “It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn” (Rom. 8:33, 34)? “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely...” (1 Thess. 5:23).

This unity is also evident in that both justification and sanctification are given to us because of and through Christ’s mediatory work. Paul says in Romans 5:9 that the believers are justified through Christ’s blood, while in Hebrews 13:12 we read that Jesus has suffered in order to sanctify his people by his blood.

Another word of the apostle is important in this respect. He writes, “And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30). The believers, as Paul says in his characteristic style, are in Christ. They are united in him, they have communion with him, and in him they have all that Christ accomplished for them and what he became for them. It follows from God’s plan of salvation that Christ has become justification and sanctification for them.

He became justification for us, this means that he is as such in his Person and his work for us, because he lived righteously and did not transgress God’s justice, but in fact let it come upon him at the cross. Calvin notes that the apostle does not say that Christ was sent in order to help us to obtain righteousness, but because he is our righteousness (Institutes, III, 15, 5). He became our sanctification by living, in his Person and work, as a holy one entirely dedicated to God. Both for our justification as well as our sanctification we are dependent upon him. Justification and sanctification are not only united in Christ’s work, they are also inseparably united in the work of the Holy Spirit. The apostle Paul speaks of it in this way, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11).

Paul uses passive verb forms here. He is thinking of what has happened to the believers. Christ’s gifts, communicated by the Spirit of God to them, are the washing away of sin, sanctification and justification.

While justification and sanctification are facets of salvation, and an indivisible unity—because the saving work of the Triune God is one — this does not preclude that there are distinctions. Justification and sanctification are not interchangeable terms.

We have been able to establish that in the Bible “justification” is to be understood as declaring righteous, as acquittal. But what does sanctification mean? Originally it was a term connected to the cultus, i.e., the worship. People and things are holy only when they have been set apart as holy (or: sanctified) by the holy God. This means that they are placed in a special relationship to him and his service. They are separated from the world and sin, and dedicated to him.

Sanctification is at the same time a gift and an obligation. When God lays claim on people for his service, then their life needs to be in accord with it. But it is not always a matter of the heart. It may lack internal and sincere dedication. Therefore more is needed than the kind of sanctification that entails that the people of Israel as a whole could be called a holy people. What in the N.T. is called sanctification in Christ Jesus, and the sanctification through the Spirit of God, is so much more. Calvin says in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:2 that all who want to be counted as God’s people need to be sanctified in Christ. The word “sanctification” indicates a separation. It takes place when through the Spirit we are born again unto a new life, to serve God and not the world. For while we are unholy by nature, the Spirit dedicates us to God.

Thanks to the sanctification through the Holy Spirit our life, in communion with God and heartfelt dedication to his service, become reality. At times the N.T. shows us by way of a contrast how sanctification changes our entire life: “For just as you once presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification” (Rom. 6:19); “For God has not called us for impurity, but in holiness” (1 Thess. 4:7).

Of justification we can say that it is an acquittal of the sinner, and of sanctification that it is a cleansing from sin. This does not happen without a struggle; it is an ongoing process.

In justification, Christ’s righteousness is given and imputed to us, and in sanctification we are being renewed in his image. Justification is a liberation of guilt, and sanctification is a cleansing of the blemish of sin. In justification the relationship to God is restored, and in sanctification our life is being dedicated unto his service. The acquittal is complete — a partial justification would not bring peace to our conscience — while our sanctification is still fragmentary.

It is therefore not the same whether we are justified or sanctified. The greatness of God’s grace comes to us in a two-fold manner.

With sanctification it may not escape us that it has two sides, which serves to highlight the difference even more. Thus far we have let ourselves be guided by words of Scripture where God, Christ or the Holy Spirit is the active Person (see 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 13:12 and 1 Cor. 6:11). But from other texts, to which we already made reference, it becomes clear as well that sanctification is not only God’s gift, but that it is also our calling. When God is at work, he puts us to work. The Holy Spirit does not sideline us when he sanctifies us more and more, but he involves us fully. The Lord addresses us, “Be holy for I am holy” (1 Pet. 1:16). We are encouraged to “Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14).

The Bible nowhere calls us to justify ourselves. On the contrary, it is entirely wrong to want to justify yourself before God. That is something the Pharisee did in the parable (Luke 18:9-14)! With his own works, however good or piously intended, no man can attain righteousness with God.

But we are actively involved in our sanctification. We need to “cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1). That is not to be taken moralistically, as if we need to strive to live ever better lives and so to obtain perfection. In this passage the admonition is carried by God’s promises, promises that demand our faith.

Biblically and theologically the first thing is that God not only justifies us, he also sanctifies us. For the experience of faith this is decisive. “For it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

Now that Christ has become our sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30), the call to sanctification has also become an obligation to live in his communion. The Saviour has declared: “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12), and therefore those who are his can be the light of the world (Matt. 5:14). “I am the vine; you are the branches. Whoever abides in me and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Calvin’s View←⤒🔗

When it concerns the relationship between justification and sanctification, we can learn much from John Calvin. Because of his position, he needed to keep himself occupied with these questions. On the one hand he faced legalistic views whereby gospel changed into a new law, while on the other hand he needed to pay attention to tendencies toward libertinism where the idea that believers are freed from the law led to dereliction. But aside from this, he has taken account of such extremes in his exegesis of Scripture and in his contemplation on the biblical message.

We can say with Calvin that it is only through faith that we are justified, but that the faith that justifies is not the only thing. As we shed light on the latter, the strong emphasis of the doctrine of justification will likely cause fewer misunderstandings. To Calvin, this doctrine is however the most important pillar on which religion rests (Institutes, III, 11, 1).

The third volume of the Institutes begins with a chapter that explores how salvation flows from the communion with Christ through the Holy Spirit. In the second chapter we read that faith accepts Christ, as the Father presents him to us. He is not only presented to us unto justification, forgiveness of sins and peace, but also unto sanctification as a well of living water (Institutes, III, 2, 8). Justification is grace and sanctification is grace. It is a duplex gratia, a two-fold grace. By having part in Christ, whereby we are justified, sanctification is encapsulated also as righteousness. These blessings are linked via a continuous and indivisible connection. Christ justifies no one whom he does not also sanctify (Institutes, III, 16, 1). 

Calvin has taken serious note of the arguments brought against the reformational doctrine. As interpreter and expounder of Scripture he has made an effort to understand those texts that appeared to point in a different direction. For instance, in Deuteronomy 6:25 Moses says, “And it will be righteousness for us, if we are careful to do all this commandment before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us.” In Psalm 7:8 an appeal is made to God in these words, “Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness and according to the integrity that is in me.”

It appears as if the saints derive their trust from their works. But in the context we need to also realize that they confess their innocence over against the ungodly, with God as witness and judge. When they deal with God they all say, “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquities, O Lord, who could stand” (Ps. 130:3)?

The life of believers that is directed toward holiness and righteousness is pleasing to God. But the saints are still sinners, and their works are only a beginning. Therefore God cannot be gracious to them on account of their works, unless he embraces them more in Christ than in themselves. We appear righteous before God because our unrighteousness is covered in Christ’s guiltlessness. Only then are our works righteous and are they being seen as righteous, when the faults of it are buried in the purity of Christ, and therefore no longer imputed to us. That is how we can say that not only are we justified through faith, but also our works will be justified (Institutes III, 17, 5&10).

People have called this a distinct teaching of Calvin. Aside from the justification of the sinner there is also the justification of the believer’s works, a ‘second justification’. Perhaps it is better to speak of a justification of the believer and his works.

In his commentary on 2 Cor. 5:10 Calvin says, “For no work is so full and complete in all its parts as to be deservedly well-pleasing to him, and farther, there is no one whose works are in themselves well-pleasing to God, unless he render satisfaction to the whole law. Now no one is found to be thus perfect. Hence the only recourse is in his accepting us through unmerited goodness, and justifying us, by not imputing to us our sins. After he has received us into favor, he receives our works also by a gracious acceptance. It is on this that the reward hinges.” According to Calvin this is not a remuneration we earn, but a reward of grace. Where God has promised a reward, he adds grace upon grace.

Many of the reformer’s thoughts can be found back in the Belgic Confession, where it is clearly worded: “Therefore it is not true that this justifying faith makes man indifferent to living a good and holy life” (BC, Art. 24).

The underlying thought in all of this is that, according to Calvin, the communion with Christ is so powerful that not only are we counted to be justified by grace, but that also our works will be reckoned to us as righteousness and we will receive an eternal reward for them.

The doctrine of justification and sanctification is an effect and application of Christology. Paul’s words about Christ Jesus, who became our righteousness and sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30) takes central place in the theology of the reformer.

We can also think of what he says about Christ’s office. We owe our atonement from God in the first place thanks to the priestly office of the Mediator. Further, through his mediation we may approach freely before God’s face to offer and present ourselves and all that is ours. This regards the justification, which is one with Christ’s atonement (Institutes III, 7, 1).

The Views of Wesley and Kohlbrugge←⤒🔗

We do not always hear such a balanced approach as with Calvin, when he speaks of the relationship between justification and sanctification. In his discourse on justification he did not detract anything from sanctification, and neither the other way around. When the emphasis starts to shift this can easily lead to one-sided presentations.

John Wesley (1703-1791) has endeavoured to reach a true sanctification that would impact the life of the Christian. He saw antinomianism as a great danger, because it threatens the Christian life. Regeneration to him meant a real change, to be distinguished from justification, which represented to him only a relational change. When God justifies us he is doing something for us; when he allows us to be reborn, he is at work in us. Justification changes our relationship with God in such a way that from being enemies we become children; through rebirth our souls are changed inwardly in such a way that from being sinners we become saints.

We cannot say that for Wesley justification culminates in sanctification. There is a clear distinction. In his view however justification is exceeded by sanctification. This appears especially from his teaching about perfection or Christian perfectionism, which is rather characteristic for Wesley.

However real regeneration may be, it does not yet bring about perfection. In order to achieve this, the life of a Christian needs to be brought to a higher level by what he calls a “second change”. Through faith, which is a total surrender, perfection is within reach. Wesley has not managed to maintain consistency in writing about this, and among his followers there are different opinions as to whether perfect holiness, whereby it matters in the first place whether the perfection of the love for God and the submission to his will, also implies sinlessness.

Wesley thought that the propagation of this doctrine, which we designate as perfectionism, was the most important task to which God had called him and his followers.

Anyone who takes his starting point with the biblical message of justification and sanctification will have objections against this Wesleyan Methodism, even though we do recognize that it made much of the sanctification of life.

Our sanctification was seen as something that was needed in addition to faith, as a condition for our blessedness. Through our own fault we could lose not only the perfect holiness, but we could also lose our justification and regeneration.

There is no solid ground for the Methodist structure of the two phases in our sanctification, that of regeneration and that of the second change. The teaching that believers can become perfect and sinless in this world is nowhere found in the Bible. In it we read how sanctification revolves around “already-and-not-yet”. This is what we read in Philippians 3, “Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own” (v.12). And yet he considers himself mature (v.15).  Being mature in Christ is a biblical notion (Col. 1:28), but we are not perfect in ourselves.

In the Wesleyan view of justification and sanctification, justification through faith stands in the shadow of the “striving s for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord” (Heb. 12:14). In fact, justification is there because of sanctification. In perfectionism the station of justification gets bypassed in order to make progress in the tracks of sanctification.

Whereas Methodism and the resultant or related movements and groups instruct and mobilize the Christian, leaving an activist impression, there is no such thing with Kohlbrugge. In his eyes it is even sin before God when someone takes his own sanctification in hand, and thinks to reach ever greater heights with the help of grace.

Hermann Friedrich Kohlbrugge (1803-1875) has been called the purest representative of a theology, and especially a preaching, of justification. In any case, he was a mighty preacher of the righteousness of Christ.

Kohlbrugge reminded the congregation constantly that the forgiveness of sins or justification was a matter of faith. The question is not whether we can feel it, but whether we believe it. “Let us hold on against our accusing conscience, against devil, death and hell: God forgives. There is no other way to know God. That is his manner of operation: he forgives, i.e., he says of sinful man that he has no sin.” In the suffering and dying of Christ lies the promise: “Where I am staying, you stay there as well. You do not need to see anything, you do not need to feel it, and you only need to trust fully that my suffering continues to work. My innocence, with which I cover your guilt, is of eternal value.” Kohlbrugge asks, “To which word do you have to hold on when you think you cannot find any sign of true grace in yourself and as a result you are deeply distressed?” The answer is: the word “however”.

Faith, which God demands of us, cannot count as righteousness before God. Faith is the trembling, shaking hand of a beggar. Actually, that image does not quite cover it all. Faith, according to Kohlbrugge, is more than a trembling acceptance of what God provides. It is also trust in God’s Word, in God’s promise, in Christ as the Lamb of God. It is saying “Amen” to it, that God has established our salvation outside of us and without us in Christ; it is to reckon God as an honest Man; it is to rely on his word, on his promise, on his Lamb; to look at this Lamb; to entrust oneself to Christ, the Mediator and Guarantee of the Covenant, for his righteousness, sanctification and complete salvation.

From a spirited exchange of thoughts with Isaac daCosta, who spoke ambitiously about the new man, about the new beginning in man and about Christ in us, it appears that Kohlbrugge did not want to neglect sanctification, yet he did not see this as a process toward greater holiness. In his opinion a Christian does not rise above being carnal, sold under sin. Romans 7:14 had made a deep and lasting impression upon him. As sinners we need to live from the righteousness and holiness of Christ, in whom we have part through faith.

It remains a question to what extent Kohlbrugge asserts the law of God as the rule of life for believers. The third function of the law, which to Calvin was the main purpose, can hardly be found with him. It is rather instructive what he writes ”as clarification and confirmation” of Lord’s Days 32 and 33 of the Heidelberg Catechism. The question is asked, “What do you say about someone who thinks he has to do this or that kind of good work, for so it is written?” The answer is, “Someone like this wants to delude God. He who does a good work does not do it so that God and people would get to know about it, but he does it automatically, for love motivates him.” In the same connection it is said of keeping God’s commandments, that we need to be convinced that we must live in full harmony with the law and that therefore we need to hold fast to Christ, to his grace. In this way we will walk by the Spirit, guided by his hand and counsel, according to his promise, in a law that was fulfilled by him, so that we remain sinners and only glory in his sanctification.

The new life lies in Christ in such a way that one cannot see it. This sounds very different from Wesley, for whom the holy life needs to be entirely evident, but also different from Calvin, who envisions that the new life becomes more defined both in the dying of the old nature and in the coming to life of the new nature.

With Calvin there is growth and progression, due to God’s grace. But Kohlbrugge poses the question: “For you, is the old nature more dead now than 20 or 30 years ago?”

When the apostle Paul says, “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you” (Col. 3:5), Kohlbrugge aims to interpret this in an imperative way: these were put to death; assume these as dead!

This is an interpretation of the imperative of the aorist style, which we need to reject in spite of the defense that G. Oorthuys furnished. There are no good linguistic or theological grounds for it.

People run the risk with an application of the doctrine of justification and the doctrine of sanctification, that the latter does not come to its proper effect, because it becomes a parallel of justification. Yet sanctification does not consist solely in our being sanctified in Christ.

And yet, Kohlbrugge has himself realized the danger. In a sermon about Romans 6:3, 4 he states, “What is true in the imputation is not true in the sense that God would not by means of his Spirit, obtained by Christ, call to life what he also imputes to a believer.”

Kohlbrugge’s strength lies — as it does with Luther, who might be called his spiritual father — in the doctrine of justification. We need to hold on to it in order to live truly sanctified lives before God and the people.

It cannot be maintained that in his view sanctification dissolved in justification, although it is true that he did not quite know how to deal with the apostolic admonitions such as “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you” (Col. 3:5), and with the law as rule for our thankfulness. It would have been better if he had not used certain expressions. This would also have safeguarded him from being charged with antinomianism.

Conversely, his preaching about the righteousness in Christ has had a liberating effect for many. The thing that strikes us with Kohlbrugge is, as O. Noordmans said at one time, “But for Kohlbrugge it always was a matter of all-or-nothing. In the absolute moment of union with Christ there was the full sanctification, otherwise nothing.” For the reformed, when it comes to sanctification — according to Noordmans — there is continuity, progression, and greater awareness of this God-ordained means to unity with Christ and as an element of personal relationships.

Kohlbrugge’s personal accentuations have their appeal. Yet the classical reformed doctrine of Calvin, as worded in the confessions of the Netherlands, needs to be our preference.

In a study about Calvin and Kohlbrugge we can find the following characterization of the differences between these two, whereby it is assumed that there are images that occur to both. Calvin presents God as a father, who judges what his children have done to him with a large measure of kindness. Kohlbrugge compares God to a mother who is near her children, understands them when they threaten to fall down, and who pulls them up when they fall. He keeps them on the straight path.

We cannot call it an essential difference, but it is a difference of accentuation.

The Coherence Between Justification and Sanctification←⤒🔗

When we distinguish between justification and sanctification on biblical and theological grounds, we do so in a position that is clearly opposed to Rome. In the Roman Catholic church justification is also called sanctification, or described as an inner renewal of man. Even though we recognize that this church wants to glorify God’s grace by emphasizing to what great things a man is enabled by grace, yet it leaves us with a sense of legalistic striving for merit and self-fulfillment. But now that we have received justification through faith alone, everything is different.

In accepting the distinction between justification and sanctification one could still have the idea that in the doctrine of justification faith has to be optimized, while in the doctrine of sanctification it all centers on works. According to H. Bavinck many people assume, or at least act on the premise, that they need to be sanctified through a holiness that they achieve on their own. But in that case we would not be living by grace, received into freedom. We would still be living under the law. The gospel’s teaching about sanctification brings us to Christ, for in him God grants us not only our righteousness but also our complete holiness. It keeps us with Christ, for our lives are only renewed and sanctified when his Spirit is guiding and ruling us.

Justification is not a gate through which God directs us and then leaves it up to us how we will travel the way of sanctification, where he provides some directions here and there. It is not a preliminary stage of the holy life that gets started once we leave justification behind us.

In the apostolic doctrine of justification through faith, all our boasting is excluded. When in the doctrine of sanctification the central point is that Christ Jesus has become our holiness, this will lead us to the words found in Scripture: “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord” (1 Cor. 1:31).

In justification we do not exceed our humility, for we live by grace alone. With sanctification this is no different. “We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty” (Luke 17:10).

We need to take as our starting point that the believers are in Christ, given by God and having become our wisdom, righteousness, holiness and redemption (see 1 Cor. 1:30) as we also confess in HC, Lord’s Day 6. Doing so, we cannot make a separation between justification and sanctification. The salvation in Christ is a whole, and both the one and the other are part of it. The reality of our redemption is the foundation on which both justification and sanctification are built.

When we are under grace, says Paul, we may not and cannot live in sin. “Having been set free from sin, [you] have become slaves of righteousness...so now present your members as slaves to righteousness leading to sanctification” (Rom. 6:1, 15, 18, 19).

In Paul’s letter to the Romans it also shows that justification is not everything. Sanctification is of no less importance. When someone thinks justification is sufficient, and makes no effort toward a sanctified life, such a person will not escape the criticism that he is teaching a kind of “cheap grace”.

The strong cohesion between justification and sanctification can be approached in yet another way. It is living by faith. We are justified through faith. But sanctification does not happen outside of such faith! It has everything to do with faith. Faith, love and holiness are also mentioned in the same breath (1 Tim. 2:15).

With sanctification then, does faith have the same function as with justification? There it is receptive: we receive justification through faith. In sanctification, faith is both receptive and active.

It is first of all receptive, because it is directed to God’s promises. Justification and sanctification, forgiveness and renewal are promised. One of the great promises of salvation in the O.T., emphasized anew in Hebrews 8:10-12, reads as follows, “I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts...For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” (Jer. 31:33, 34). In a similar way our Form for Baptism summarizes salvation in Christ, the washing away of sin and the daily renewal of our life. But faith is also active. It is faith working through love (Gal. 5:6). Faith takes shape in a life of serving love. With the children of the light there will be the fruit of light: all that is good and right and true (Eph. 5:9).

Fruit of gratitude cannot be lacking (HC, Lord’s Day 24). In light of the salvation by grace, the life of a believer is a life of gratitude (LD 32). But it is a thankfulness that we owe God. It can also be described as a life of obedience. It concerns the new obedience, which is “a prompt and sincere obedience of the Spirit” (Canons of Dordt, III/IV, Art. 16). In following the example of Christ, thankfulness and obedience go hand in hand (see Eph. 5:1, 2). This thankful obedience supposes grace and is a consequence of it.

Justification, granted in Christ, and sanctification by the Spirit keep a Christian going. Indeed, he is both righteous and a sinner (simul justus et peccator). This is taught not only by Luther, but also by the reformed confession (HC, Lord’s Days 23, 24, 44, 51).

There is no justification without sanctification. Because Christ gives himself to us, the holiness as well as the righteousness are part and parcel of our communion with him. When God acquits us of guilt and punishment, he also makes us righteous and holy. There is no holiness without justification either. There is no true serving God except that he regards us in Christ in grace.

We mention justification first, and then sanctification. That is a sequence we may not reverse. Because God declares us righteous, he also makes us righteous and holy. God acquits sinners and also frees them from any ties to the old, such that everything becomes new. When the relationship to God is restored, things will be well in our life.

It cannot be a chronological sequence, for sanctification is there at the same time as justification. It is a theological sequence, which we can find also in the letter to the Romans.

Furthermore, we need to be on guard against (nominalism) and moralism, which continuously threaten the biblical teaching of sanctification. If holiness should not digress to holiness-by-works, to a new law, and if the new obedience should not have a legalistic character, then justification needs to remain in its first place.

Another danger is that of the monism of the doctrine of justification. This would be enabled when we start ranking things. Over against this we maintain that while sanctification does not have the priority, it may certainly not be regarded as of secondary importance.