And on a related note, I continue to puzzle over the insistence of no priority of the benefits coming from union. The Reformed tradition has had no problem asserting the logical priority of justification precisely because of debates with Rome over the nature salvation’s righteousness. Imputed over infused. That is why you don’t mind justification prior to “progressive” sanctification. So the assertion of def. sanct. seems to me to be a way to deny the centrality of justification and to put just. and sanct. on an even playing field, and so avoid antinomianism. Whether intended or not, it seems like a way to make room for Shepherd’s initial concerns. I am not saying that this is what you are doing directly. I am only talking about implications, not to mention the context of the last 30 years, or the debt that Shepherd owed to Murray.

I am finding a strange trend lately. It seems those who have issues with Murray tend to equate sanctification with doing good works. Surely doing good works is a necessary result of the sanctification process, but in large scope, sanctification is the work of the Holy Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ to the believer. It is a renovative aspect of God’s entire salvation that conforms the believer into the image of Christ. There is surely a synergistic element to sanctification, but in this quotation, Murray is speaking of the initial breach of the power of sin, that is, the death to sin that occurs upon vital faith union with Christ.

I believe we must use the term “definitive sanctification” because the Bible uses the word “sanctification” when referring to union with Christ in the specific aspect of death to sin. But Scripture also uses the term to refer to the progressive element of sanctification; hence the introduction of the modifier “definitive.” I am interested to hear how you would explain the sanctification of 1 Cor 1:2. “Sanctified” is a perfect passive participle – a completed event that has present effects. Members of the Corinthian church had been sanctified in Christ Jesus, yet they still sinned.

To say that definitive sanctification is identical with effectual calling or regeneration is imprecise and leads to ambiguity. As any reader of oldlife.org should know, you do not want to introduce ambiguity regarding the differences between justification and sanctification. Why blur the distinctions between each renovative salvific activity? What advantage is that to us? It only serves to confuse as I fear equating “sanctification” with “doing good works” does.

Frankly, I struggle to understand how your final sentence relates to the Murray quotation. How does a doctrine of definitive sanctification necessitate that justification hinges upon good works? Believers are united to Christ through the Spirit. When this union occurs, believers receive all the benefits of Christ. In no logical or causal order, the Spirit breaks the power of sin in his life, the Spirit imputes the righteousness of Christ to him which is the sole ground of justification, and he is adopted as a son. Do you fear that rooting these salvific benefits directly in union with Christ makes justification hinge on adoption? Why wouldn’t sanctification hinge upon justification for that matter? All the benefits hinge upon the person and work of Christ and the activity of the Spirit in uniting us to that Savior and flow out of union with him directly.

To preemptively comment, I hold to a logical priority of justification over progressive sanctification as any orthodox theologian would. As always, thank you for the interaction. We should never tire of speaking of the gospel.