This paper will attempt to answer the question, “Is progressive sanctification optional, that is, is salvation (justification) without sanctification or receiving Christ as Savior but not as Lord an open option?” Within protestant theology, theologians often classify the options on sanctification into two possibilities. The first possibility is that sanctification is not optional, that is, justification and sanctification occur together, and sanctification is an inevitable, deterministic, result of justification. The life of a justified individual is one of continual victory over sin and temptation. A second possibility is that after justification, some event occurs after which progressive sanctification begins. A justified individual may experience significant struggles with sin and temptation before realizing victory over sin.
However, this dichotomous classification may be too coarse. Nuanced reading of theological positions reveal more than just two options. A third option includes the potential for victory over sin beginning at justification, but times of genuine struggle mixed in with times of victory. That is, at the moment of justification all is in place for victory over sin (progressive sanctification) to begin but that victory may not be seen or recognized. This paper will argue for the third case as a reasonable view of sanctification that is consistent with Pauline theology in the book of Romans.
For the purpose of this paper sanctification will be taken as the strive of a justified individual for holiness. [1] As stated, among Protestant perspectives on sanctification, traditionally two major perspectives exist. The first perspective is often associated with Reformed Theology and asserts that justification and sanctification are distinct but not separate. [2] In this view the justified individual will live a life of victory over sin through the Spirit. [3] The second perspective provides for separation between justification and progressive sanctification. [4] The ultimate result of this separation is that an individual can be justified and not experience personal victory over sin in their life. That is, a justified individual may hold a disposition and even an inclination toward sin. [5] The debate between these two perspectives has brought numerous theologians into the conversation who have developed numerous nuanced perspectives. For example, even in the separation view, various perspectives exist on what event leads to the start of sanctification. Table 1 below summarizes some of those perspectives. However, even within the views outlined in the rows of Table 1, there are nuanced differences and even disagreements about particulars. [6]
Table 1: Five Views on Sanctification
| Justification and Sanctification | Event leading to sanctification/progressive sanctification | Life changes | View |
| Not separate | Justification | Inevitable progressive growth | Reformed |
| Separation | Crisis | Christian perfection | Wesleyan |
| Surrender | Victorious Christian Life | Keswick | |
| Spirit-baptism | Victorious Christian Life + Speaking in Tongues | Pentecostal | |
| Dedication/Submission | Life submitted to Christ as Lord/Filling of the Spirit | Chaferian |
A review of literature suggests that much of the debate on sanctification is concerned with whether sanctification necessitates a crisis moment or a second work of grace. However, this might be the wrong question. Pratt notes that the main difference between the two perspectives on sanctification is that “justification and sanctification is viewed as inevitable and necessary in the Reformed model while in the Wesleyan, Pentecostal, Keswick, and Chaferian models this relationship is understood as merely possible or potential.” [7] Specifically, the point of emphasis is not on whether or not a crisis event occurs that leads someone to begin sanctification (as in the Wesleyan system) but rather questions of the inevitability of sanctification. If sanctification is not inevitable then a justified individual has potential not to strive for holiness. In the framework of this paper, the key question is whether an inclination or propensity to sin can be present in a justified individual or if justification eliminates that propensity.
A significant point of contention between the two major views on sanctification involves the interpretation of Rom. 7. The question that garners attention is whether Rom. 7 is speaking of a justified individual or the state of an individual prior to justification. The traditional, Augustinian, interpretation is that Rom. 7 speaks the struggle within a justified individual. [8] However, many interpreters have since rejected this interpretation adopting a view that Rom. 7 describes the plight of a pharisaic Jew struggling to fight sin with the law alone. [9] The consequences of this decision are instrumental for sanctification. If Rom. 7 only applies to those who are not justified then the only state of a justified individual is the state described in Rom. 6 and 8, one of victory over sin and temptation. However, if Rom. 7 described a justified individual, then struggle with sin, especially as described in Rom. 7:21-25, is a normal part of the life of an individual who has been justified.
By itself, nothing in Rom. 7:21-25 suggests that Paul is speaking as anything other than a justified individual struggling with sin and temptation. However, if the scope is enlarged slightly to include 7:14 and the description of slavery to sin together with Rom. 6:15-23 and the description of the justified individual as no longer a slave to sin, then the argument becomes harder. In fact, some suggest that the perfect Οἴδαμεν (we know) may describe what has come to be known, which allows the present tense verbs in the following verses to be historical presents. [10] In this argument Rom. 7 is temporally pre-justification.
Nevertheless, both of these supports for the pre-justification view can be dealt with. First, the semantics of Rom. 7:14-21 do not actually support a historical present. [11] Furthermore, Cranfield, without appealing to semantics, notes that verse twenty-four in particular stands out as almost requiring a present interpretation given the dramatic nature of the verse. [12] Based on the lack of semantical support and Cranfield’s suggestion on verse twenty-four, it seems best to interpret 7:14-21 as part of the life of a justified individual. What remains to be understood is how the notion of being sold under sin fits with the freedom of 6:15-23 and 8:2.
Some have suggested that the phrase πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (have been sold under sin) in Rom. 7:14 is a perfect periphrastic construction which has perfect tense equivalence. [13] However, it may be that the participle is simply functioning adjectivally in parallel with the adjective σάρκινός (flesh). In either case, the point of emphasis appears to be on a past event with continuing effects. If this is the case, then Rom. 7:14 and Rom. 8:2 can actually exist together without any contradiction. One might say something like “despite being free from the law of sin, I was previously sold under sin and this still has consequences for me today.” In this case justification brings about the potential for victory over sin, but the effects of having been sold under sin may still be present and prevent an individual from fully realizing that victory in the present age. Chafer argues “the “old man” will remain active, apart from sufficient control. The union with Christ has provided a possible deliverance.” [14] Hence, Rom. 7 supports the thesis of this paper, justification brings about the potential for victory over sin but the remaining effects of previous slavery to sin mean that despite having moments of victory the individual still wrestles with sin. The individual may not strive for holiness.
A natural question arises once it is accepted that a justified individual may still have sin in their life and fail to strive for holiness. Specifically, how sinful can an individual be? Or relatedly, how much must an individual turn from sin and reorient their life in order to be justified? While certainly this is a soteriological question, it also has implications in the relationship between justification and sanctification. The question is, must an individual submit themselves to the sovereign authority (Lordship) of Christ over their life in order to be justified? [15] If so, then sanctification must naturally be deterministic with justification. [16]
The argument for the necessity of the Lordship of Jesus in justification is far more involved than can be discussed here but a few points are particularly relevant. First, Jam. 2:19, Matt. 19:16-22, and Luke 9:57-62 suggest that merely knowing facts about Jesus is not sufficient for justification. However, this does not prove Lordship is necessary for justification. Second, a key text, Rom. 10:9 likely refers not to Lord as a sovereign position but rather as the God of Israel. [17] Third, In Rom. 12:1, Paul commands those who have been justified to yield themselves and such a command suggests that these justified individuals still have something to do. [18] This does not mean that yielding is optional second step of dedication. [19] Instead, the Gospel demands the individual yield to God, and this is not automatic or deterministic with justification. Hence, the feasibility of requiring an individual submit to the Lordship of Christ for salvation seems doubtful.
Therefore, a justified individual may in fact continue to sin and struggle with sin. Furthermore, an individual may not even recognize the need to submit every aspect of their life to Christ in order to be justified. Thus, an individual may be justified and still have significant struggles with sin and significant areas of their life in which sin is present. The question that deserves attention is then, what is to be done with Rom. 6 and Paul’s strong language about continuing in sin?
In Rom. 6, Paul describes victory over sin in the life of an individual using the language of deliverance from slavery to sin. Several important metaphors are used in Rom. 6 including slavery, baptism, and being united. The overall picture painted in Rom. 6:1-11 is that of an individual who has experienced a significant change. This change, justification, brings about a new state of slavery to righteousness. Paul argues that the justified individual should not use justification as an excuse for continual sin (Rom. 6:1-14) or as an excuse for planned occasional sin (Rom. 6:15-23). However, neither of these points is an argument that justification necessarily brings victory over sin, they are arguments that sin should not be excused on the grounds of having been justified.
Rom. 6 is about victory over sin, but the victory over sin described in Rom. 6 is not a victory over all sin in all areas of one’s life. Instead, Rom. 6 is an argument against turning back to sin after victory. The implication of Rom. 6 is not that an individual who is justified will never sin again but instead that there are individuals who are justified and fall back into sin. Paul does not tell an individual who falls into sin that they were never justified. Paul tells the individual, “Stop doing that! Christ has given you the potential to overcome sin!”
In fact, despite Rom. 6 being primarily about those who use God’s grace in justification as an excuse for sin, the passage does provide some explanation on how one can experience victory. Specifically, the individual who is justified is commanded to yield to God. For example, in Rom. 6:11-14 Paul commands his readers to offer themselves to God. [20] Especially significant, Rom. 6:13 contrasts between the present tense μηδὲ παριστάνετε τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν ὅπλα ἀδικίας τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ (do not present your members as unrighteous instruments to sin) and the aorist παραστήσατε ἑαυτοὺς τῷ θεῷ (present yourselves to God). In particular, the aorist contrasted with the present contrasts the idea of making a complete commitment to God as opposed to habitual sin. [21] Romans 12:1-2 provides an apt summary, “present your bodies as a living sacrifice.” [22] In this model, victory is possible through an act of submission, presenting oneself for righteousness. The questions, remains, what does it look like to present oneself?
The first half of Rom. 8 discusses the ministry of the Spirit in the life of the believer. A central contrast within Rom. 8 is present in verses five through eight where those without the Spirit are described as carnally minded and those with the Spirit as spiritually minded. In Rom. 8:11 Paul presents a summary statement of significance noting that the Spirit gives life to the mortal bodies. Hence, the Spirit is the one that gives victory and should therefore be the one to whom the believers yield in presenting themselves.
In the larger context of Pauline Theology, the yielding to God described in Rom. 6 and 12 can be reasonably seen as the Filling of the Spirit described in Ephesians 5:18. [23] A question that remains is what this yielding involves. Some see yielding to the Spirit as an act of dedication or surrender. [24] In Rom. 8:12-17 yielding appears to also involve an act of “putting to death the deeds of the body.” [25] Yielding can be seen as an act of submitting to the Spirit as the Spirit works within as described in Phil. 2:13. The point seems to be that throughout life, the Spirit of God works within the individual to lead them into victories. [26] With this in mind, a remaining question is “once a victory is achieved can a justified individual fall back into sin?”
The question of whether a Christian who experiences victory can fall back into sin has been addressed in a variety of ways. In the extreme, Wesleyan Perfectionism holds that “by a final, all-surrendering act of faith in Christ” one can achieve some measure of perfection or freedom from willful sin. [27] The idea is that through a final surrender an individual is capable of either eradicating or being empowered to forevermore achieve victory over sin. [28] Nevertheless, as suggested by Rom. 7, within each justified individual there is a desire or predisposition to sin that is at war with a new nature. [29] Based on the descriptions of Rom. 7 it seems best to conclude that an individual can in fact achieve victory and subsequently be tempted and even fall back into sin. Therefore, the idea of potential for victory is strictly a potential and continues to be a potential for victory until the final culminating eradication of the sin nature when the justified individual comes face to face with Christ.
At the moment of justification, an individual receives a right standing before God, but that does not mean the individual will cease sinning. In fact, the individual may not even recognize their need to cease sinning. They may see Jesus as God but not recognize the implications of Jesus as sovereign over their own life. Overtime the individual may begin to recognize areas of their life where obedience is demanded, with justification, the potential for obedient victory exists, and through the Holy Spirit, at times, the individual can even realize victories. Sanctification progressively occurs as the Holy Spirit leads the individual into victories.
In 1 John 3:2, John writes “but we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is.” [30] Jobes writes, “surely when he returns, the full impact of his identity, of which humanity can only have a feeble glimpse, will transform every desire, every motivation, every impulse.” [31] At the moment of justification all is in place for victory over sin but that victory may not be seen or recognized until that moment when faith becomes sight.
Chafer, Lewis Sperry. He That is Spiritual. Chicago: Moody Press, 1918.
Christ, Michael T. "The Relationship between Justification and Sanctification in the Structure of Calvin's Soteriology: Toward a More Nuanced Approach." Evangelical Quarterly 88, no. 3 (2016/17): 209-221.
Combs, William M. "Romans 12:1–2 and the Doctrine of Sanctification." Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 11 (2006).
Combs, William M. "The Disjunction Between Justification And Sanctification In Contemporary Evangelical Theology,." Detriot Baptist Seminary Journal 6, no. 6 (2001).
Cranfeld, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: International Critical Commentary. London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004.
Dieter, Melvin E, Anthony A Hoekema, Stanley M Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin, and John F. Walvoord. Fives Views on Sanctification. Edited by Stanley N. Gundary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology in One Volume. Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2011.
Grenz, Stanley, David Guretzki, and Cherith Fee Nordling. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.
Hobes, Karen H. 1, 2, &3 John. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014.
Lewellen, Thomas G. "Has Lordship Salvation Been Taught throughout Church History?" Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990).
Livingston, Blauvelt Jr. "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?" Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986).
Naselli, Andrew David. "Keswick Theology: Asurvey and analysis of the Doctrine of Sanctification in the Early Keswick Movement." Detriot Baptist Seminary Journal, 2008: 17-67.
Pratt, Jonathan R. "Dispensational Sanctification: A Misnomer." Detriot Baptist Seminary Journal 7 (2002).
Rall, Franklin H, and Daniel Steele. "Sanctification." In The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, edited by James Orr. Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915.
"Review of Sanctification." The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 39, no. 1-4 (1867).
Ryrie, Charles C. "Contrasting Views on Sanctification." In Walvoord: A Tribute. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.
Ryrie, Charles C. So Great Salvation. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1989.
Snodgrass, W D. "Review of The Scriptural Doctrine of Sanctification Stated and Defended against the Error of Perfectionism." The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 24, no. 1-4 (1842): 456.
Thielman, Frank. Romans: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Clinton E Arnold. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018.
Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.
[1] Stanley Grenz, David Guretzki and Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999). 105.
[2] "Review of Sanctification," The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 39, no. 1-4 (1867). 537.
Michael T. Christ, "The Relationship between Justification and Sanctification in the Structure of Calvin's Soteriology: Toward a More Nuanced Approach," Evangelical Quarterly 88, no. 3 (2016/17): 209-221.
[3] Melvin E Dieter, Anthony A Hoekema, Stanley M Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin and John F. Walvoord, Fives Views on Sanctification, ed. Stanley N. Gundary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). 231.
[4] Andrew David Naselli, "Keswick Theology: Asurvey and analysis of the Doctrine of Sanctification in the Early Keswick Movement," Detriot Baptist Seminary Journal, 2008: 17-67.
[5] Dieter et. al., Five Views on Sanctification, 208.
[6] For example, Ryrie writes “The Reformed view considers justification and sanctification inseparable yet distinct, whereas the Chaferian view sees justification and sanctification as distinct, yet inseparable.” Yet, Combs argues that Chafer makes progressive sanctification a second work of grace. Hence, for Ryrie the Chaferian view links justification and sanctification view but for Combs the Chaferian view presents some separation between justification and the beginning of progressive sanctification. Further nuance within the Reformed tradition can be seen in Christ’s article.
Charles C Ryrie, "Contrasting Views on Sanctification," in Walvoord: A Tribute (Chicago: Moody Press, 1982). P. 193.
Christ, “The Relationship between Justification and Sanctification in the Structure of Calvin’s Soteriology.”
William M Combs, "The Disjunction Between Justification And Sanctification In Contemporary Evangelical Theology,," Detriot Baptist Seminary Journal 6, no. 6 (2001). 29.
[7] Jonathan R Pratt, "Dispensational Sanctification: A Misnomer," Detriot Baptist Seminary Journal 7 (2002). 107.
[8] W D Snodgrass, "Review of The Scriptural Doctrine of Sanctification Stated and Defended against the Error of Perfectionism," The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review 24, no. 1-4 (1842): 456.
[9] Dieter et. al., Five Views on Sanctification, 232.
[10] Frank Thielman, Romans: Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Clinton E Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2018). 355.
[11] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammer Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996). 531.
[12] C. E. B. Cranfeld, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: International Critical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark International, 2004). 345.
[13] Wallace, Grammar, 647-649.
[14] Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That is Spiritual (Chicago: Moody Press, 1918). 129-130.
[15] Blauvelt Jr Livingston, "Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?," Bibliotheca Sacra 143 (1986). 37.
[16] It is important to be clear that Lordship Salvation does not teach that a professing Christian who sins is not a believer. Thomas G Lewellen, "Has Lordship Salvation Been Taught throughout Church History?," Bibliotheca Sacra 147 (1990). 65.
[17] Thielman, Romans, 499.
[18] Livingston, Does the Bible Teach Lordship Salvation?, 40
[19] William M Combs, "Romans 12:1–2 and the Doctrine of Sanctification," Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 11 (2006). 23-24.
[20] Dieter et. al., Five Views on Sanctification, 217.
[21] Thielman, Romans, 310-311.
[22] ESV
[23] Dieter et. al., Five Views on Sanctification, 214-220.
[24] Pratt, “Dispensational Sanctification: A Misnomer, 105.
[25] Romans 10:13, ESV
[26] Ryrie argues for a progressive sanctification as the continual work of setting apart the individual during life. This progressive sanctification includes victory over sin but also other aspects of spiritual growth as well. In this paper, the focus is on victory over sin but there are certainly other aspects of sanctification that deserve attention as well. Charles C. Ryrie, So Great Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1989). 150-154.
[27] Franklin H Rall and Daniel Steele, "Sanctification," in The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. James Orr (Chicago: The Howard-Severance Company, 1915). 2685
[28] Norman L Geisler, Systematic Theology in One Volume (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House, 2011). 1560.
[29] Dieter et. al., Five Views on Sanctification, 214-220.
[30] ESV
[31] Karen H Hobes, 1, 2, &3 John (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014).142.
mobirise.com free creator