The idea of an antecedent being, who has antecedent thought and who therefore by His self-contained counsel determines whatsoever comes to pass, is abhorrent to both Barth and Brunner, and has been so at every stage of their thinking. There is no spot along the whole front of their theological opponents that is so constantly made the target of their most vigorous attack as the idea of a self-contained ontological trinity.

I think we should devote most of our attention to the distinction between historia and ordo salutis. In similar (perhaps more familiar) categories, we speak of redemption accomplished and applied. Dr. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. has done the Church a tremendous service in his book Resurrection & Redemption.¹ In this work, Gaffin navigates the connection between Christ’s death and resurrection (historia salutis) and the application of that work to believers (ordo salutis). He provides insightful exegesis that demonstrates convincingly that Christ’s resurrection is simultaneously his justification (1 Tim 3:16), adoption (Rom 1:3-4), sanctification (Rom 6:1ff; Acts 20:32), and glorification (1 Cor 15:42ff; 2 Cor 3:17f; 4:4-6).

The fundamental category—the “ground” of it all—is Christ’s person and work, which is neither exclusively forensic nor renovative. From what I gather, it is possible we need further clarification regarding what we mean by forensic. It is a term referring to the procedures of law. It is often used to distinguish the Reformed from the Roman Catholic view of justification. The Reformed argue that justification is entirely extrinsic. It does not make one righteous in themselves, rather Christ’s righteousness is imputed, and justification is the acquittal of guilt on that account. Conversely, Roman Catholics argue that justification imparts grace. It makes the sinner righteous intrinsically.  I gather from my interactions with people on this subject that some prefer to invest the word forensic with the notion of monergistic. I do not find the two synonymous. For instance, regeneration is entirely monergistic, but in no way forensic; it is renovative—a work that changes the subject intrinsically.

I believe we can move forward in this discussion by further exploring what is entailed by Christ’s resurrection, particularly as his justification (1 Tim 3:16). I believe this may help to crystallize Dr. Horton’s concerns in his interview response. We ought to develop the sense in which we may speak of the open declaration of Christ’s righteousness in his resurrection. Specifically, we must detail the way this wonderful truth interfaces with preaching (cf. Rom 10:17). This may clarify how Christ’s justification in historia salutis relates to the believer’s justification in the ordo salutis.

For example, there is a real union with Christ in his death on the cross and subsequent resurrection. As Christ accomplished his work, he accomplishes it for his chosen people. But there is also a real transition from wrath to grace in the life of the sinner saved by grace. There is no point when a declaration can be made to a sinner that their sins have been forgiven until they receive Christ’s imputed righteousness by faith. Christians are not justified in the preaching of the Word. They are justified when God acquits them of their guilt on account of an alien righteousness. To keep with the forensic/legal metaphor, without that righteousness, received by faith, there is no case.

In I Corinthians 11:7ff., Paul does expound the man-woman relationship as an instance of the image-glory pattern. However, he interprets the man(husband)-woman(wife) relationship not as that which itself constitutes man(kind)’s image-likeness to God, but, on the contrary (and excluding that possibility), as simply containing an analogy to the image of God in man. It is not that the man-woman relationship is an image-likeness of intertrinitarian relationships, but that the man-woman relationship mirrors the glory-reflecting relationship of mankind to God in which the image of God in mankind actually does consist. [Meredith Kline, Images of the Spirit (Eugene, Ore.: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1999) 34.]

Kline is responding to several competing interpretations, including that of Karl Barth, who argues that the image of God is found as man and woman considered together. He recasts the discussion in light of his twofold conception of image. There is image-likeness and image-glory. Image-likeness is the reproduction of the original image (the analogue) whereas image-glory is a reflection of the original. Consider Moses’ face reflecting the glory of the Lord. Human reflect God’s glory as analogue images of Him. Similarly, the wife-husband relationship is yet another picture of how Christ relates to his bride—as original glory and glory-reflectors.

But we need to know more than the bare contents of Bible. We have to understand that system of doctrine contained in the Bible (yes, I still believe that the Bible contains a system of doctrine!). And even before that we need to know how the Bible “works.” That is, how it is structured redemptive-historically. So many have made shipwreck their faith because they read the Bible in a flat way, not caring for the redemptive-historical intricacies of the text. And here Kline is so very helpful. It might even be rightly said that Kingdom Prologue is fundamentally an apologetic work. Though it is more than that. We might say it is Biblical Theology in service of apologetics. That is because Kline comes from the Old School approach to Biblical Studies when men actually thought that the Bible ought to be defended against skeptical attacks. It seems today modern Bible believers have shied from that. They have caved to the pressure of the academy which eschews apologetics in biblical scholarship. That’s a shame. Since when did the liberals and secular scholars get to set the standard for biblical scholarship? That Biblical scholars have caved to this for the sake of advancing their own names and careers is a shame. By God’s grace, Kline did not cave.

Anyway, below is a dialogue I’ve had with an atheist. I share it here because in it I try to apply Van Til and Kline to the task, and I am asking for feedback. Take a read. Lets have iron sharpen iron. How can we better defend the faith? How would you tackle the issue differently, in a better or clearer fashion? Remember, this is real soul (a guy who actually apostacized from the Reformed Faith to atheism). I’d like to better defend the faith, so let’s hear your ideas.

Just by way of preface, this has been cut and pasted from an e-mail exchange which has a long back history. If you read this, you are jumping-in in the middle of a discussion.

> Jim:
>
> I didn’t ask you “by what standard.” I asked whether you believe that the
> slaughter of whole populations is always and everywhere immoral?
>
[Atheist] Yes, I know that, but you will eventually go there, so I’m
eliminating “the middle man”, as it were. You always end up asking by what
standard I judge god or some such, so why not just ask that in the first
place?

Yes, I think genocide is always and everywhere immoral. By what standard? By
reason. Reason tell me that genocide is not a good thing. Reason tells me
that collaboration works a whole lot better than killing off those who
aren’t on my side, or don’t believe the same thing I do? Now, when we talk
about genocide, we’re not talking about self-defense, at least not in the
OT; we’re talking about eliminating nations that didn’t believe in your god.
God couldn’t deal with them on judgment day, he had to have them slaughtered
like so much cattle. Quite the loving deity you’ve got there; defenseless
little children put to the sword, the ax, the lance and hey, why not the
hammer while we’re at it? I hope you’re paying attention to this, Jim, and
that you won’t ignore these points.

Jim:

First, I am curious how it is that “reason” told you those things. Whose reason? Yours? How do you know your reason is correct, especially because not every one’s reasons agrees with yours. It seems as if you have completely fallen into a subjectivistic approach to these things. Either that, or there is a universal standard of what defines reason – or rationality – and that which defines irrationality. Is there, in fact, a universal standard of reason? If so, how do you know it?

Second, God could have – and will – deal with them on judgment day. But as a precursor to that day, he enacted a temporal act of judgment. Your concern here is a right one, if – in fact – the people he judged were innocent. They were not. That’s right, not even the women and the babies. All are shut up under sin because of the sin of the first Adam. You know the rest. So it seems to me your real problem is not so much with the command of God to judge whole people groups, but with the doctrine of original sin. You don’t like that doctrine, you think its unfair and unjust. But, again, I wonder what standard you would use to determine just and unjust. The logical conclusion to your worldview is that you have no standard upon which you may stand to judge God without God. You just cannot do it. Your position, ironically enough, is that as you pursue an exclusively rationalistic approach to anything, you end up in the irrational camp because you cannot base your judgements upon anything outside of yourself. Therefore, your view of morality is simply a projection of yourself and your own subjective opinions about morals.

JIM:
> In terms of situational ethics, I can say unequivocally that I do not hold
> to that position. And you don’t as well. Situational ethics is not moral
> relativism. What I hold to is the fact that God’s law is universally
> binding on all men everywhere. However, where and how that law applies
> takes wisdom to determine. The law of God is never to be applied in a
> naive, unguarded way across the board in every and all situations (this is
> not situation ethics. SE rejects all laws other than the law to love.
> Therefore, all moral codes can be cast aside as long as the goal of love is
> the end).
>
> [Atheist] Not so. All moral codes are not cast aside in the name of love.
Situation ethics says that “other moral principles [not codes] can be cast
aside in certain situation if love is best served; as Paul Tillich once put
it: ‘love is the ultimate law.’” If you love your neighbour, do you not
fulfill the whole law? Jesus said that, didn’t he? So how would slaughtering
a whole nation be loving your neighbour, or your enemy? Will you tippy-toe
past these questions, Jim, or answer them?

Okay, so you don’t have a situation ethic, you have a subjective ethic.
Sorry, my bad.

Jim:

Actually, no, I don’t. My ethic is grounded upon a standard of morality which exists outside of me (the law of God). Now, that law has to be applied appropriately. And where and how depends much on context – that is the “situation.” And that situation is also outside of me, wholly objective. Yes, I need wisdom to determine which situation is before me and which law applies appropriately. And since the fall, that will always be imperfect, thus I will screw up a lot and sin. But that does not change or alter or determine what is right and what is wrong. That fact always remains outside of me. In other words, I do not determine morality. God does.

JIM:
> So, the 10 commandments say do not kill. This is true. We are are not to
> kill. But the question is, when is an act murder and when is it something
> else – such as self-defense. Even the law itself makes such distinctions.
> That is not to relativize morals. It is only to say that universal moral
> laws have to be rightly, and thoughtfully applied according to godly
> wisdom.
>
[Atheist] Right, godly wisdom to slaughter “seven nations greater than thee.”
Yep, and that’s just the kind of godly wisdom I happen to think should be
avoided, because it isn’t loving one’s neighbor. Jesus said love your
enemies and pray for them that persecute you, he didn’t say “slaughter the
lot of them”. He made more sense than that genocidal maniac in the OT.
Please explain to me how it is loving one’s neighbour and fulfilling the law
of love when one slaughters men, defenseless women, children and babies? My,
what a loving god you’ve got.

Jim:

God is love. He is also just. You cannot truncate the one for the other. And what you are up against is your limitations of understanding the flow of redemptive history. Throughout redemptive history God acts. Now, when he acts he is not necessarily giving a command of what we should always and everywhere do. God commands Israel to slaughter the Amalekites back in – lets say – 1500 BC. That does not mean that Israel should always and everywhere slaughter Amalekites. Its a woodenly literal and mechanical approach to the Bible that thinks it does. The command to kill the inhabitants of the land, as I said above, was a precursor of the final judgment to come. But what is even more important is the land which God commanded to be cleansed. The land of Canaan was also a precursor. It was a temporary and earthly picture of a an eternal and heavenly Kingdom. It was never an end in itself. That Kingdom has been ushered in through Jesus Christ, the King of Kings. Given that fact, the wall of hostility has been torn down between Jew and Gentile (Eph 2). The way of bringing about the Kingdom will no longer be by swords and carnal weapons, but through the spiritual weapons of preaching the Gospel, and acts of love toward neighbor. Of course, it was always that way, even under the Old Testament. The “spiritual realm” was there operative along side the carnal realm or physical and earthly pictures and foreshadows. But come the New Covenant, the earthly gives way to the heavenly and becomes obsolete. So, God’s command to slaughter the inhabitants of the land is what we might call an intrusion ethic. It is God’s end-time judgment intruding into the present (from their perspective), whereby God foreshadows the coming of the Kingdom in Christ. But it is never intended to be an abiding ethical code for the people of God, that is only found in the moral law as contained in places like the 10 commandments.

Dr. Hendry’s book, The Westminster Confession for Today, seeks to give a “contemporary interpretation” of the Westminster Confession. His “contemporary interpretation” however is, in effect, a reinterpretation in terms of dimensional philosophy. In other words, Hendry’s “contemporary interpretation” amounts to a substitution of a man-centered theology for a God and Christ-centered one.

To give “interpretations” of this sort is now the vogue. The Germans speak of it as Umdeutung. Liberals were not very good at this sort of thing. When they didn’t like the doctrine of Christ’s virgin birth or of his substitutionary atonement, they would reject these teachings. This rejection excited the fundamentalists and they reacted noisily.

Neo-orthodoxy knows better than, in this manner, to offend the fundamentalists openly. Don’t just throw the milk out of the bottle and put polluted water in it. Give your polluted water the color of milk. Hang up the portair of Warfield on your wall and tell the church that, together with him, you revere the standars of the church. Having done this the fundamentalists will not likely notice the fact that, in your contemporary interpretation, you have, in effect, substituted a modern man-centered theology for the historic Christian faith.

Cornelius Van Til, The Confession of 1967: Its Theological Background and Ecumenical Significance, pp. 15-16.

The recent blog exchanges concerning the relationship between justification and sanctification, along with the role of union with Christ in each, is part of a larger ongoing discussion of which some may be unaware. Certainly this is not true for those writing the posts, but the general reader may not have noticed what has developed into a debate particularly over the past five years. My purpose here, after providing a brief context for the current exchange, is simply to point interested readers to other resources that play a role in the larger discussion. Some are available online though most are books and journal articles.

Though there is a much longer history, the context for the current debate reaches back most immediately to the various critiques of the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision. These movements emphasize union with Christ at the expense of the doctrine of justification as historically understood within Reformed theology. In particular, each takes issue with the idea of imputation in which Christ’s righteousness is attributed to me or legally counted as mine.

The response from Reformed circles defending the doctrine of justification has, generally speaking, followed along two lines. One response has continued to assert the central role of union with Christ as the overarching principle in the application of redemption and argues that imputation is an essential aspect of this union. The other response places greater emphasis on the priority of justification for the entire structure of salvation and makes this legal dimension the basis for all other benefits of redemption.

These different responses, one explaining justification as an aspect of union with Christ and the other emphasizing justification as the primary benefit of salvation and the basis for all others, brought to the fore different frameworks for how the whole of salvation is envisioned. Thus the initial defense of the doctrine of justification became the occasion for this broader debate about which has priority in Reformed soteriology: union with Christ or justification.

It’s important to note that both groups vigorously maintain that justification is God’s forensic, or legal, declaration of a believer’s righteous status dependent entirely on the imputed righteousness of Christ and received by faith alone. This is not at question. The debate is about the broader structure of salvation, the relationship between union with Christ and justification, along with the other benefits of redemption, and in particular sanctification.

Perhaps two quotations from advocates of each position would be helpful summaries. The first is from Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., emphasizing the priority of union with Christ:

The central soteriological reality is union with the exalted Christ by Spirit-created faith. This is the nub, the essence, of the way or order of salvation for Paul. . . no matter how close justification is to the heart of Paul’s gospel . . . there is an antecedent consideration, a reality, that is deeper, more fundamental, more decisive, more crucial: Christ and our union with him, the crucified and resurrected, the exalted, Christ.  Union with Christ by faith – that is the essence of Paul’s ordo salutis.[1]

Here, the focus is on the person of Christ and what he has accomplished for salvation through his death and resurrection, and consequent to this, our union with Christ is the inception of the application of what he has accomplished. Though justification is an essential aspect of redemption, union with Christ is most basic in the structure of salvation.

The following is from Michael S. Horton, emphasizing the priority of justification:

I am suggesting that we view all the items in the Pauline ordo as constituting one train, running on the same track, with justification as the engine that pulls adoption, new birth, sanctification, and glorification in tow. . . This means that we never leave the forensic domain even when we are discussing other topics in the ordo besides justification proper.  Although there is more to the new birth, sanctification, and glorification than the forensic, all of it is forensically charged.[2]

Here, justification is the dynamic for the entire structure of salvation, the source of power that animates every other aspect of redemption. The forensic declaration of justification is understood as the proper context for salvation as a whole.

Below, in chronological order, is a bibliography pointing to works that fit within this ongoing debate. A few things should be noted. First, I do not claim the list is exhaustive. Second, I will provide some annotation, primarily a brief description of where each fits within the broader discussion. Lastly, where the work is available online, a link will be provided.

2003

2004

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

For the passing of Jesus through the divine judgment in the water rite in the Jordan meant to John’s baptism what the passing of Yahweh through the curse of the knife rite of Genesis 15 meant to Abraham’s circumcision. In each case the divine action constituted an invitation to all recipients of these covenant signs of consecration to identify themselves by faith with the Lord himself in their passage through the ordeal. So they might assured of emerging from the overwhelming curse with a blessing. – Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned, p. 61.

When Jesus was baptized by John, he entered into a proleptic ordeal which foreshadowed his eventual cutting off from the Father at the cross. This Paul calls a “circumcision” in Colossians 2:11-12. Though at the Jordan Christ traversed the waters of judgment in anticipatory fashion, he emerged justified as the Father proclaimed his sonship and bestowed on him the Spirit for his Messianic work. Likewise, Christ was vindicated, that is justified, in the Spirit when he was raised from the dead (1 Tim 3:16) having now passed through the eschatological judgment ordeal spoken of as a circumcision.

In reading Kline’s book, I was struck of how infrequently these themes come to mind when we consider baptism. The blessings of the covenant have come with a tremendous cost, and those who do not reach out to Christ in faith will pass through the eschatological judgment ordeal themselves. But those who trust in Christ, though bearing that dual sanction sign of blessing and curse in water baptism, have a federal head who underwent the judgment ordeal for them so that his people would escape its horror.

• One of Tullian Tchividjian’s main thrusts for his blog (and his tweets) is communicating that sanctification is “getting used to your justification”, prompted in part by the Lutheran theologian Gerhard Forde (see here, here and briefly here).
• Meanwhile, Darryl Hart occasionally expresses his confusion on finding union with Christ as expressed by Vos, Gaffin, etc. in the Reformed tradition* (e.g. see here).
• Justin Taylor links to three posts: one from Kevin DeYoung emphasizing the role of effort in the Christian life (possibly prompted by Tullian’s emphases, but possibly not), one from Tullian that attempts to articulate the relationship of justification to sanctification (in response to Kevin), and one from Kevin emphasizing that sanctification includes more than just recalling our justification.
• Bill Evans writes on Ref21, seeking to add clarity to the issues Kevin DeYoung and Tullian were speaking of by giving a brief history of the discussion and emphasizing the soteriological priority of union with Christ, from which the benefits of justification, sanctification and adoption flow. Evans is also concerned to understand the law, obedience, legalism, grace, etc. within this context of our union with Christ and the benefits we receive from that union.
• Sean Lucas writes on Ref21 in response to Bill Evans’ article. Lucas emphasizes the need for unity among brothers as these discussions continue while seeing the issues as more of a matter of emphasis than foundational disagreement.
• Justin Taylor links to Sean Lucas’s post that is a response to Bill Evans’ post, sympathizing with Lucas’s concerns for unity.
• GreenBaggins also weighs in and gives thoughts on the debate.
• Rick Phillips writes a lengthy, organized response by putting forth positive statements on sanctification.
• Camden Bucey rounds out the discussion by also pointing out the believer’s union with Christ in his death, along with that union with Christ in his resurrection, ascension, and session.
• Kevin DeYoung again weighs in, responding to the Ref21 articles.
• Bill Evans writes another response here.
• Jim Cassidy weighs in here, emphasizing the pastoral element to the discussion.
• Sean Lucas responds again here, indicating that he should not be misunderstood as saying that these discussions are matters of mere emphasis.
• Tullian sums up his response to those recent posts here.

In the interest of keeping a spirit of unity, I won’t mention any names of people with whom I differ on this topic. I hope that’s at least partially indicative of my desire not simply to start arguments between Christian brothers, but to allow iron to sharpen iron for the sake of producing clarity where it perhaps lacked beforehand, on both sides.

What I hope to present are the categories for the discussion, arrived at by careful exegesis elsewhere by other writers. For the sake of space and the reader’s patience, I’ll simply assume this exegetical work represented by the passages cited especially by Bill Evans, Rick Phillips, and Camden Bucey in the articles mentioned above. Especially assumed and foundational to the discussion is the work done by Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. in his book Resurrection and Redemptionas well as in his articles “Biblical Theology and the Westminster Standards”, “Justification and Eschatology” in Justified in Christ, “Theonomy and Eschatology” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, “Epistemological Reflections on 1 Corinthians 2:6-16” in Revelation and Reason and somewhat related “The New Testament as Canon” in Inerrancy and Hermeneutic. Much of what I write here is simply summarizing Gaffin’s work as well as drawing on Lane Tipton’s crucial notes on this subject from his “Doctrine of Salvation” course taught at WTS, alongside his articles “Justification and Union with Christ” in Justified in Christ and “Paul’s Christological Interpretation of Creation and Presuppositional Apologetics” in Revelation and Reason.

Eschatology. Eschatology. Eschatology. It may initially sound foreign, but eschatology is the background of and essential to the gospel. What sets the stage for how we are justified, how we are sanctified, and what’s called the “order of salvation” is what was accomplished in history by Christ to make possible those benefits you receive by being in Christ; the history of salvation is the context for the gospel and your own personal salvation.

The history of salvation starts with the need for salvation and redemption in the first place: Genesis 3. Before Adam’s fall the garden was very good, but it wasn’t the pinnacle or fulfillment of God’s creation. The garden was set up as a probationary environment and Adam was meant to pass that probationary test, but he failed. Instead of passing the temptation and being exalted, Adam became the head and representative of the unfulfilled, unredeemed human race in an unredeemed, unfulfilled age, earth, and heavens. The conditional curse told to Adam by God became a reality. The entire creation would groan from that point forward because of Adam’s failure, and every person after him would be born united to Adam (Rom 5:12-21) in his guilt, corruption, alienation from God, and lack of redemption.

You know what happens next in redemptive history. The entire Old Testament is filled with anticipation, looking forward to a time when the redemption promised in Genesis would come and the new epoch is ushered in. Until that happens, failure after failure emerges – Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Isaiah – all of them Hebrews 11-like ‘heroes’ in the faith, but clearly failing to be the one who brings in that new, redeemed epoch. In the meantime, those who have faith in the Redeemer who is yet to come are no longer united to their earthly father Adam, they are united to their future Redeemer who has yet to come.

As we take a look at the epochal shift and fulfillment that occurred with the coming of God’s Son, Christ, we know that Christ lived a perfect life, then died for his chosen people and became sin (2 Cor 5:21) for believers for our salvation and our redemption from our inherited sin from Adam. But our salvation did not and cannot stop with Christ’s death alone, or with the cross alone (see Rev. 15). The second part to what Christ did back then in history is his resurrection by God that effectively ushered in that redeemed, new epochal age and conquered the fleshly, temporary, visible, groaning age and old creation. Those who died with Christ have been buried with Christ and have been raised with Christ by virtue of our union with Christ (Rom 6), and have, like Christ, become a new creation – but not fully. Yet.

There is a reality that we do not yet see with our physical eyes in our temporary bodies: the reality of being united with Christ as he has been raised, exalted, ascended into heaven, and as he is seated in heaven at the right hand of the Father. We don’t visibly see that, do we? But make no mistake, it is a reality for Christ and is just as much a reality for us, albeit not physically seen. By faith we are united to Christ and receive the benefits of justification, sanctification, and adoption and we receive those benefits simultaneously at the time-point of our faith in Christ. In his resurrection and exaltation Christ was justified (1 Tim 3:16), definitively sanctified (Rom 6), and adopted (Heb 1:5). Moreover, this also happens to us as believers because of our union with that exalted Christ. We are not first justified by faith and abstractly declared innocent, only to then be sanctified for good works as that initial justification and its reality plays out in our lives. We are definitively sanctified at the same time-point that we are justified. Yet progressive sanctification does just that – it progresses – as we work out our salvation (Phil 2:12-13) in the power of the Spirit as believers living in this temporary world.

We can understand Christ’s coming in various ways, but one that I think is helpful is understanding Christ’s coming in two episodes. Christ has already completed the first part by being born of a virgin, living a perfect life, being crucified, dying, being buried, and being raised, exalted, ascending, and sitting at the right hand of God in heaven (Eph 1:20f). “It is finished”, it goes without saying, is completely true. But “it” doesn’t mean “everything” and Christ still has work to do before all is well and the removal of sin includes not only the removal of our guilt and corruption but working towards our deliverance from the old, evil age. We are awaiting a new creation, the new heavens and the new earth. We have faith and hope in what is invisible and unseen that is yet to come, for who hopes for what is visible (Heb 11:1-3)? We will get new bodies when Christ returns, bodies fit for the not-yet new creation that he will bring and fit for what we already are in our union with him. What we see now in this age will burn when Christ returns. What we see is just our temporary home as we are aliens here, and all of it will on that day make way for our real, permanent, new creation home with the glorified Christ.

Because of the already/not yet aspect to all of reality now, that reality must inform discussions regarding the gospel, salvation, what Christ has done, what he will do, etc. There is a sense (already) in which we are no more justified or sanctified now than we ever will be, even in the new heavens and the new earth. But there is another (not yet) sense where there is still work to be done in us and with God’s unredeemed, temporary creation. While this already/not yet tension is still a reality here while our Lord tarries, the indicative of who we are as believers united with Christ and receiving every spiritual blessing (Eph 1:3) as a result is never in tension with what God calls us to do here as his sons and daughters in Christ. Whatever motivation we have for doing good works, we can be confident that those good works are never the basis for our salvation, while at the same time we strive toward them (Col 3:1) to hear Christ when he returns say, “Well done good and faithful servant.”

When the sanctification discussion takes place merely on the level of a pendulum swing between indicatives and imperatives (Gal 5:25; Eph 5:8; 1 Cor 5:7; Phil 2:12-13 are just a few examples of the biblical both/and of indicatives and imperatives), when the same two concepts are highlighted as emphases, and when all of that is discussed apart from the systemic eschatological element coursing through what Christ has done and what he is doing in you, something foundational and structural is lacking.

When sanctification is defined as “getting used to your justification” or “forgetting about yourself” and the law and the gospel/grace are in a tug of war of emphasis, do you not see that the entire crucial context and substructure of what Christ accomplished and how he applies it in your life is missing? Sanctification is a dying to sin and rising with Christ and has so much more to do with what Christ did for you than in your disposition of just letting the reality of the benefit of judicially being declared righteous sink in; not to mention the need to distinguish for clarity’s sake the difference between being definitively sanctified (1 Cor 1:2; 6:11; Heb 10:10,14) through our union with Christ and progressively sanctified (Rom 12:2) over time in the life of believers.

What absolutely must be distinguished in these discussions is the difference between pastoring a believer who needlessly feels guilty over not doing good works because he thinks he has to earn his salvation, and pastoring a believer who actually fails to do a specific good work (or doing a bad work) because he reverted to breaking God’s law and followed the previous patterns of the “old man” (Rom 5:12f; 6:12; 8;13) who was dead before God breathed new life and Spirit into him as God breathed life into his first creation, Adam.

As redeemed believers we must do good works “for Jesus” as God works in us progressively to sanctify and we must do so as good and faithful servants of the Savior who requires that of us, but not do them from a false motivation to earn our salvation already achieved for us by Christ. We obey as God’s new creatures, groaning with creation for our Savior to come and complete his work in us.

—

For reference to the historical Reformed tradition, one place to start would be the Westminster Confession of Faith; Chapter 11 for justification, Chapter 12 for adoption, and Chapter 13 for sanctification. Also see the Westminster Larger Catechism Questions 69-78 for the relationship of union to the benefits, particularly

Q 69: What is the communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ?
A. The communion in grace which the members of the invisible church have with Christ, is their partaking of the virtue of his mediation, in their justification, adoption, sanctification, and whatever else, in this life, manifests their union with him.

Also, Westminster Shorter Catechism Questions 32-38 are helpful. In Calvin, it’s worth looking at his Institutes, III.I.1, III.XI.1, III.XI.6, III.XI.10, III.XVI.1. It should be clear from those readings that what is said above regarding eschatology and our union with Christ is consistent within the tradition and not in conflict.