A gradual growth in holiness?
A distinct and separate work of grace after salvation?
Something only God can have?
The ability to live a sinless life?
Iām not really sure exactly what sanctification is, but I do know that it is not the ability to live a sinless life. The bible says that the āRighteous man falls seven times and the Lord sustains him.ā That would imply that itās impossible to lead a sinless life. Iām going to have to study this topic for a more solid answer.
My best friend belongs to a denomination that teaches it is a distinct, separate work of grace after salvation. She says it gives you the ability to live sinless but it doesnāt make sin impossible.
Of course, a lot of judging goes on in that church. She says it is āfruit inspection ā but I donāt think it washes. Incidentally, the founder of her denomination was booted out of my denomination for preaching this.
NT HOLINESS / SANCTIFICATION
The NT asserts that when sinners turn to Jesus in repentance and faith (cf. Mark 1:15; Acts 3:16,19; 20:21), they are instantaneously justified and sanctified. This is their new position in Christ. His righteousness has been imputed to them (cf. Gen. 15:6; Romans 4). They are declared right and holy (a forensic act of God).
But the NT also urges believers on to holiness or sanctification. It is both
a theological position in the finished work of Jesus Christ
a call to be Christlike in attitude and actions in daily life. As salvation is a free gift and a cost-everything lifestyle, so too, is sanctification (i.e., Eastern Literature [biblical paradoxes]).
SPECIAL TOPIC: EASTERN LITERATURE (biblical paradoxes)
Initial Justification and Sanctification A Progressive Sanctification, Christlikeness
Acts 26:18
Romans 15:16
1 Corinthians 1:2-3,30; 6:11
2 Thessalonians 2:13
Hebrews 2:11; 10:10,14; 13:12
1 Peter 1:2 Romans 6:19
2 Corinthians 7:1
Ephesians 1:4; 2:10
1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:3-4,7; 5:2
1 Timothy 2:15
2 Timothy 2:21
1 Peter 1:15-16
Hebrews 12:14
The goal of salvation is not heaven when we die but Christlikeness now (cf. Rom. 8:28-29; 2 Cor. 3:18; 7:1; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 1:4; 4:13; 1 Thess. 3:13; 4:3; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:13; Titus 2:14; 1 Pet. 1:15), so that those who see our witness may be drawn to Jesus and go to heaven with us! Sanctification, like justification, is
a gift and a choice
an INDICATIVE and an IMPERATIVE
a trophy and a race
SPECIAL TOPIC: HOLY
SPECIAL TOPIC: HOLY ONE
https://www.freebiblecommentary.org/special_topics/sanctification.html#:~:text=NT%20HOLINESS%20/%20SANCTIFICATION,TOPIC%3A%20HOLY%20ONE
Shalom.
Johann.
@Johann @StephenAndrew
This is an interesting topic, here is what I feel
āIn talking about Gradual growth in holiness?ā
In the cahtolic and orthodox traditions, holiness constructed as theosis in the East of sanctificatio in the West denotes the transformative participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) wherby the justified soul, through synergistic coopertion with grace is progressively conformed to the likness of Christ. This gradual ascent towards sanctity is not a mere accretion of moral values but an ontological reorientation of human person toward eschatological beatitude, thats what I feel.
But we need to see Orthodox and Catholic perspective
Orthodox:
The Eastern Tradition (To which I belong) as artiulated by St Gregory Palamas, emphasizes theosis as a dynamic process mediated by the uncreated energies of God. The soul, baptized into the Trinitarian life, advacnes through katharsis (purification), theoria (contemplation) and ultimate union with God. THis is what we learnt. This progression is asymptotic, never fully consummated in this life, yet ever deepening through ascetical praxis and sacramental participation in the Eucharist.
Catholic:
The Latin tradition as told by St.Augustine and St.Thomas Aquinas frames sanctification as a movement from gratia justificans to gratia sanctificans. The habitus of charity, infused at baptism, is actualised through meritorious acts, sacramental grace and the purgative, illuminative and unitive ways (St John of the Cross). The CCC underscores that this growth is a lifelong pilgrimage, contingent upon divine initiative and human cooperation.
why is this important, u can ask?
The gradual nature of holiness destroys the Pelagian self-reliance, affirming that grace is initiating and sustaining. et, it also rejects Quietist passivity, insisting on the soulās active synergeia with the Holy Spirit.
Then we come to the next question
āA Distinct and Separate Work of Grace After Salvation?ā
The notion of a distinct post-salvific work of grace evokes the Protestant concept of a second blessing or entire sanctification as in Wesleyan theology, but Catholic and Orthodox traditions approach this differently.
Orthodox:
In Eastern theology, the distinctions between justification and sanctification is less pronounced as theosis encompasses both. However certain ascetical milestones such as acquistion of apatheia (passionlessness) or gift of nepsis (watchfulness) may be regarded as qualitative leaps in grace facilitated by the Holy Spiritās uncreated energies. The hesychastic tradition exemplified by the Philokalia describes moments of divine illumination as transformative yet these are not separate from the lifelong synergy of grace.
Catholic:
The Latin tradition does not posit a discrete second work but acknowledges extraordinary infusions of grace such as gratiae gratis datae (charismatic graces) or mystical encounters (St. Teresa of Ćvilaās oratio infusionis). The Council of Trent teaches that justification, while initiated at Baptism, is augmented through sacramental and ascetical means. Extraordinary graces like locutions, visions or the donum perseverantiae are not normative but ancillary, ordered toward the universal call to holiness (Lumen Gentium). The dark night of the soul (St.John of the Cross) may be seen as a distinct purgative grace yet it remains within the sanctificatory trajectory.
So both traditions reject a bifurcated soteriology, affirming that all graces flow from the singualr redemptive act of Christ, applied variably according to divine providences and human disposition. Any ādistinctā work is thus a modal intensification, not an ontological rupture within the economy of salvation.
A post was merged into an existing topic: The ONE Thread for All Things Omnilogical
Oh ok I see ur point of view too
So why would Jesus tell the woman to go sin no more, if she couldnāt?
Mary did What!
3 Gods!!!
WOEā¦
What Bible are you using?
Hi, did you write this?
Yes I am a student of theology so yes we did one month of study abt sinlessness and salvation..etc in which we discussed and debated about it
What about the third or fourth point can you explain that?
1 Like
Sam,
This was articulate, but elegance isnāt exegesis. The language of mystical ascent and synergy may sound reverent, but the NTās grammar of sanctification remains tethered not to metaphysical speculation but to Christ-centered transformation.
Gradual Growth in Holiness?
Yes, sanctification is progressive (2 Corinthians 3:18), but not via katharsis, apatheia, or uncreated energies. The text says Ī¼ĪµĻĪ±Ī¼ĪæĻĻĪæĻĪ¼ĪµĪøĪ± (present passive)āwe are being transformed āfrom glory to gloryā by the Spirit. No mention is made of mystical fusion or Platonic ascent. The movement is moral, not metaphysical.
2 Peter 1:4 speaks of becoming āpartakers of the divine natureā (ĪøĪµĪÆĪ±Ļ ĪŗĪæĪ¹Ī½ĻĪ½Īæį½¶ ĻĻĻĪµĻĻ) within a context of moral escape from corruption. The verb ĪŗĪæĪ¹Ī½ĻĪ½ĪĻ implies participation, not absorption. Compare Hebrews 3:14, where we are āpartakers of Christāānot merged with Him metaphysically, but joined by faith.
Palamite Theosis or Pauline Clarity?
St. Gregory Palamasā concept of divine energies has no footing in Paulās corpus. Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians teach no hesychastic ascent. Paulās emphasis is faith working through love (Galatians 5:6), not mystical stages. Transformation happens by union with Christ through the Spirit (2 Corinthians 5:17), not nepsis or illumination.
Catholic Theology: Infused Habits or Declared Righteousness?
Aquinas and Augustine posit sanctification as beginning with gratia justificans, but collapse justification into a habitus. Paul does not. In Romans 4:6ā8, Ī“Ī¹ĪŗĪ±Ī¹ĪæĻĻĪ½Ī· Ī»ĪæĪ³ĪÆĪ¶ĪµĻĪ±Ī¹ārighteousness is counted, not infused. 2 Corinthians 5:21 declares we are made the righteousness of God in Christ, not through a slow infusion via sacraments.
Galatians 3:3 rebukes the notion that what begins by the Spirit is perfected by flesh. Catholic sanctification, built on merit and sacramental accrual, bypasses Paulās forensic, declarative framework.
Second Work of Grace?
Scripture affirms sanctification as ongoing from the moment of new birth (Philippians 1:6, 1 Thessalonians 5:23). But post-conversion empowerments existāEphesians 3:16ā19 speaks of being strengthened in the inner man so that Christ may dwell more fully by faith. Thatās not a second salvation; itās deepened communion.
Extraordinary giftsātongues, visions, revelationsāoccur, but are not normative stages. Paulās third-heaven experience (2 Corinthians 12:2) was revelatory, not sanctificatory.
Is It Just One Grace? Or Intensifications?
Yes, all grace flows from Christās redemptive act. But Scripture distinguishes various workings (į¼Ī½ĪµĻĪ³ĪµįæĻĪ±Ī¹, 1 Corinthians 12:6) and gifts (Ī“ĻĻĪ¹Ļ, James 1:17). These are not just modal intensities of one grace but concrete intrusions of divine initiative into the believerās life, each distinct and purposeful.
We must distinguish between justificationāwholly monergisticāand sanctification, where the believer is active, but only because God is first at work. Philippians 2:13 uses ĪŗĪ±ĻĪµĻĪ³Ī¬Ī¶ĪµĻĪ±Ī¹ to show divine causality in willing and doing. That is not synergy; it is causation producing response.
Conclusion
Eastern and Western traditionsāhowever beautifulāembed speculative metaphysics and sacramental layering into the process of sanctification. Yet Scripture never speaks of theosis as mystical fusion, nor of infused righteousness as meritorious progression. It speaks of grace as appearing (į¼ĻĪµĻĪ¬Ī½Ī·, Titus 2:11), of righteousness as counted (Romans 4:6), and of the soul responding because the veil has been lifted (į¼ĻĪæĪŗĪ±Ī»Ļ
ĻĪøįæ, Luke 10:22).
We truly respond, but only because the light broke through, the Word was revealed, and the soulāundoneābelieved (Romans 10:9ā10). Sanctification is not a ladder toward divine essence, but a Spirit-wrought reshaping into Christās image (Romans 8:29), by grace, through faith, day by day.
Johann
thats true brother johann but i think it will make more sense after we answer the main Q3 and Q4
can we say (since im orthodox/catholic), this will help to understand the basis of the first two question @Johann, what do u think about it..
3. āSomething Only God can Have?ā
Holiness in its absolute essence is an incommunicable attribute of God, the Tremendum et Fascians whose sanctity is ontologically unique (Isa 6:3 and Revelations 4:8). Yet, catholic and orthodox theology affirm that created beings may participate derivatively in divine holiness through grace, without compromising the Creator-creature distinction.
Orthodox:
The palamite distinction between Godās essence and energies is the foundation. Humans partake of Godās holiness through His uncreated energies, becoming āgods by graceā (St.Athanasius, De Incarnatione) while remaining creaturely. This participation is not an absorption into the divine essence but a transformative union preserving human hypostatic integrity.
Catholic: St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that divine holiness is Godās perfect goodness and separation from all defects. Humans, through the lumen gloriae in the beatific vision or sanctifying grace in this life, share in this holiness analogically, not univocally. The imago Dei, restored in Christ, enables the soul to reflect divine sanctity, yet only God possesses it per se as His essential nature.
Thus, while holiness is properly divine, it is communicable through grace, enabling the saints to be called āholyā as icons of Christ, the sole Holy One (Dominus Sanctus). The exclusivity of divine holiness lies in its unoriginate, infinite perfection, whereas creaturely holiness is contingent and participatory.
4. The Ability to Live a Sinless life?
The possibility of sinless perfection in this life is a contentious issue.
Orthodox:
Eastern theology while affirming theosis, doesnt typically endorse sinless perfection in this life. St Maximus the Confessor and St.John Climacus teach that apatheia, freedom from disordered passions is attainable through ascetical struggle but this is not equivalent to impeccability. The lingering effects of the ancestral sin (propatrikon hamartema) and the soulās voluntary frailty preclude total sinlessness, save for Christ and, by unique grace, the Theotokos. The hesychastic ideal for ceaseless prayer fosters profound purity, yet the saints remain vigilant, confessing for their sins until death.
Catholic:
The Council of Trent affirms that while grace enables the avoidance of mortal sin, venial sins reamin inevitable without special divine privilege as granted to the Blessed Virgin Mary (Immaculate Conception). St Thomas Aquinas and St.Augustine emphasise that concupiscence the residual inclination to sin post-baptism persits redering abolute perfection unattainable in this life. However, heroic virtue as seen in the saints, approximates sinlessness through habitual grace and mortification. The Catechsim underscores that baptism removes original sin but not its effects, necessitating ongoing conversion.
Although Orthodox doesnt accept the concept of Immaculate conception, i added it in the catholic section to get a full picture of what im trying to say
Both Traditions reject Pelagian optimism and Wesleyan perfectionism, affirmin that sinlessness is an eschatological hope, not a terrestrial norm.
Sam.
Catholic View: Analogical Participation
Aquinas says humans share in Godās holiness analogically. But Scripture does not use analogia entis language. It speaks of being sanctified į¼”Ī³Ī¹Ī±ĻĪ¼ĪĪ½ĪæĪ¹ in Hebrews 10:10āperfect passive participleāby the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Holiness is not an ontological quality passed on through lumen gloriae. It is covenantal status and moral conformity to the image of the Son.
You cite the imago Dei, restored in Christ. Amen, but Romans 8:30 shows how: āthose whom he justified, he also glorified.ā There is no hint of ascending through analogical layers toward Godās essential sanctity. The saints are āholyā not because they share in divine ontology, but because they are in Christ, who is our sanctification (1 Corinthians 1:30). The Greek verb ĻĪ±ĻĪÆĪ¶ĪæĪ¼Ī±Ī¹ means to bestow freely, not to infuse gradually. Holiness is a gift, not a metaphysical stretch.
Yes, God is the Holy One (Isaiah 57:15), but He calls us holy because He has set us apart in Christ, not because we now reflect His unoriginate perfections. The moment we claim to participate in divine holiness beyond this covenantal grounding, we collapse the Creator-creature distinction we claim to uphold.
- āThe Ability to Live a Sinless Life?ā
You say both traditions reject sinless perfection, but Paulās theology presents something far more nuanced and powerful. Romans 6:2 asks, āHow shall we who died to sin still live in it?ā This is not a rhetorical bluff. It is grounded in the believerās union with Christās death, burial, and resurrection.
Orthodox: Apatheia and Hesychasm
Apatheia aims at freedom from passions, yet Paul never holds up dispassion as the telos of Christian life. He preaches crucifixion of the flesh (Galatians 5:24), not a passionless state. Theosis is not the goal. Conformity to Christ is. Ceaseless prayer is beautiful, but 1 Thessalonians 5:17 uses ĻĻĪæĻĪµĻĻĪµĻĪøĪµ in the present imperativeāit calls for persistence, not mystical stillness or ontological rest.
The saints confess sins till death not because they are drawing nearer to divinization, but because they know, like Paul in Philippians 3:12, that they have not already attained. The verb ĻĪµĻĪµĪ»ĪµĪÆĻĪ¼Ī±Ī¹ is perfect passive indicative. He denies any state of completion.
Catholic: Grace, Concupiscence, and Heroic Virtue
Trent rightly distinguishes mortal and venial sin, but Romans 7:18 says, āI know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh.ā Paul is not speaking before conversion. He uses the present tense: Īæį¼¶Ī“Ī± and Īæį¼°ĪŗĪµįæ. Concupiscence remains. Even Augustine acknowledged this. But Scripture never calls this residue of sin a lesser evil. James 1:15 says desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin. It does not distinguish between sin types, it reveals the inner birth cycle of rebellion.
Heroic virtue, in Catholic language, may approximate sinlessness, but the gospel speaks not of approximation, but of imputed righteousness and sanctifying grace working itself out through love. Galatians 5:6 says faith working through love, not gradual elevation into holiness.
Immaculate Conception?
Mary is blessed among women, yes, Luke 1:42. But she herself rejoices in āGod my Savior,ā Luke 1:47. The doctrine of her being conceived without sin is not present in Scripture, and even she brings the purification offering in Luke 2:24, as required by Leviticus 12:8. If Mary, uniquely graced, still lives under Torah, how can we speak of sinless perfection this side of glory?
Final Clarification:
Both Orthodox and Catholic traditions avoid Pelagianism, but often introduce synergistic models that inch close. Romans 8:13 says if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. The key is āby the Spirit.ā Sanctification is not mystical ascent. It is Spirit-empowered death to sin and resurrection life, Romans 6:4.
Sinless perfection is not the normative state for believers on earth, but neither is it the unreachable dream. 1 John 2:1 says āI write these things to you so that you may not sin.ā The subjunctive verb į¼Ī¼Ī¬ĻĻĪ·ĻĪµ reveals it is possible not to sin in given moments, though not a permanent condition of impeccability.
Therefore, let us speak biblically, not mystically. Holiness is not essence. It is gift. It is not infused, it is granted. It is not ontological ascent, it is Spirit-empowered obedience. We do not scale the divine, we bow low, believe, and walk in the power of the Spirit until the day He presents us faultless with great joy.
Johann
hmm i see what ur saying but again we are in the fine strands of theology, but i like to go with scripture and tradition together, but ur view is also right, everything u said is right..but again we have to go deeper and deeper, look into theology and dive but yes ur correct, but again i cant digest some parts..like scripturally u correct and ur interpretation is correct, but i see the catholic/orthodox doctrines as extensions of scripture inspired by Holy Spirit, so yes thats why we have centuries of debate and no one has reached a common ground..thats why..otherwise ur posts are highly academic..nice work
peace
Sam
yes sir i just posted a new post in reply to Johann so I have ans and Johann has given his ans too, so u can read both of them, so u will get a better understanding of the topic
Peace
Sam
here it is:
here is something intresting for u my brother:
To everyone who desires to deepen their understanding of the Five Sorrowful Mysteries and the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ:
I wholeheartedly recommend reading The Complete Visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich. These mystical revelations, recorded by Clemens Brentano and Dr. Wesener, offer an unparalleled and soul-stirring insight into Christās suffering.
When I read them, my heart was changed. I discovered so much more about the depth of Jesusā love, sacrifice, and the mystery of redemption.
You can access the full visions here: http://annecatherineemmerich.com/
I strongly encourage everyone to read it. It truly transformed me.
Brother Sam.
The Sword and the Flame: A Rebuttal to Private Visions Masquerading as Gospel
Brother, your love for the Passion is admirable, but when mystical emotion overshadows scriptural foundation, it becomes a dangerous fire that consumes discernment.
You speak as if Anne Catherine Emmerichās visions add depth to Calvary, as though Gethsemane was waiting for Brentano to complete it. I say this soberly - that path leads not to Christ crucified, but to Christ reimagined.
The Lord did not teach us to seek mystical ecstasies. He taught us to seek what is written. Luke_24:44 - āThese are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.ā
The foundation is not visions. The foundation is Scripture. The apostles never appealed to private revelations. They appealed to the written Word.
You speak of Emmerichās visions as offering āunparalleled insight.ā Let us tremble at that phrase. That is a claim Scripture never gives to any post-apostolic experience. Jude_1:3 says ācontend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.ā Once. Not progressively through private dreams. Not continued through mystics. Once. For all.
Anne Catherine Emmerich was not an apostle. She was not present at the Cross. She was not moved by the Spirit to record divine revelation. 2_Peter_1:16ā21 is crystal clear - Peter says even his own mountaintop vision of Christās glory is not the surest thing. He says, āwe have the prophetic word made more sureā - and then points to Scripture, not sensation. That is the fire-tested canon.
Let me ask plainly - if Anneās visions are needed to grasp Christās agony, was the Holy Spirit negligent in breathing out the four Gospels? Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John somehow incomplete? Has Isaiah 53 lost its power to pierce the soul? āBut He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquitiesā - Isa_53:5. The Cross needs no elaboration. It needs proclamation.
And what do we find in her writings? Not careful agreement with the Gospels, but embellishment, even contradiction. Scenes not found in Scripture. Details the apostles never mention. This is not illumination. This is accretion. Paul warned of this very danger. 2_Corinthians_11:3ā4 - āI am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.ā The simplicity is found in the written Word, not mystic recollection.
Even Catholic doctrine cautions against such overreach. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 67: āChristian faith cannot accept ārevelationsā that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment.ā These visions must be subordinate to Scripture. Not equal. Not necessary. Not definitive.
And what of spiritual transformation? You say her visions changed your heart. But has not the Word of God been declared as the true sword? Hebrews_4:12 -āFor the word of God is living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword.ā Transformation does not come through evocative prose. It comes through the Spiritās power in the Word.
Even Islam recognizes the danger of distortion. Surah Al-Baqarah 2:2 says: āThis is the Book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah.ā If Muslims defend their text from intrusion, how much more should we defend the final Word of the risen Christ from poetic embellishment?
Let us not be children drawn by spiritual sensationalism. The apostles did not say, āRemember Emmerich.ā They said, āRemember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my Gospelā - 2_Timothy_2:8.
We do not need Emmerich. We need Exodus 12, Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, Matthew 26ā28, John 19. We need the apostolic Gospel, crucified and risen, once for all.
We need the lamp shining in a dark place. Not foggy mysticism. Not unverifiable impressions. But the voice of God, breathed into every verse. The Word is enough. Let us not add to it. Let us not drift from it. Let us stand upon it.
Johann.
yes bro ur right, it was something that opened my eyes, so i wanted to share with others from an innocent view..(my eyes tearingā¦)
I dont accept that the visions of anne catherine emmerich replace, surpass or correct the scripture, they are the most important (scripture). I fully affirm that public revelation ended with death of the last apostle, and everything needed for salvation is there in scripture and Sacred tradition.
It comes under the private revelations, which is not the deposit of faith, but aids to devotion and deepen our personal understanding of what has already been revealed.
They are not scripture.They are not infallible, they are spirtual meditations granted by God to a soul for the edification of others.
These visions opened my eyes to the weight of Christās suffering, already revealed in Scripture by helping me to meditate ore deeply on it. The Word is living and active (Hebrews 4:12) and I believe it was that very Word which struck me anew through the lens of Emmerichās meditation, otherwise i wont be here studying theology, this was a serious turn in my life and i wanted to share it with everyone.
We are embracing what St.Paul himself encouraged in Philippians 4:8:
8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirableāif anything is excellent or praiseworthyāthink about such things. (NIV)
Peace
Sam
Im crying now, im moved, even when i talk abt it..the grief is too much
1 Like
So the OP is about sanctification, and the majority donāt know what this doctrine is?
Correct me if Iām wrong here, but it aināt theosis, right? And what is justification?
The term sanctification can be a bit confusing for new believers in particular. We hear it used for our initial salvation experience, we hear it used in connection with our existential state as Christians, and even as something we are to continually pursue.
But without understanding the various uses of the word and what Scripture intends when it uses the word in various contexts, we can easily get lost.
So, letās look at what sanctification is and its biblical definition.
Why Is Sanctification Important?
It is always important to be very clear in our communication. Otherwise, people might get the wrong idea of what we are saying and take offense or be encouraged to a certain action that we never intended. Think for a moment about the word ālove.ā We use it in so many contexts.
āI love chocolate!ā
āI love her voice!ā
āI love this shirt!ā
So many uses for the word love. One of the most important is its use in relationships. Even when we say, āI love you,ā the intended meaning changes depending on who weāre talking to or about. Communication then must be clear, both with regard to context and intention.
The word sanctification is no different. The word means different things depending on how and when it is used. As a start, letās establish a basic definition for the word that will apply in all contexts.
Sanctification is that gracious and continuous work of God in us through His Holy Spirit whereby He creates us anew in Christ Jesus, separating us unto God from the common and sinful, and transforms our nature into the likeness of Christ, enabling us to perform good works, and live above willful sin. Regardless of the context, this definition will always apply.
Where Does Sanctification Begin?
When does sanctification begin? Sanctification is actually an immediate grace and ongoing process. It first occurs simultaneously with justification. That is, the moment you surrender your life to Christ.
Truthfully, you cannot have justification without sanctification. They are inextricably connected. Logically, justification precedes sanctification. Temporally, they occur simultaneously (1 Corinthians 1:2; 6:11).
Justification and sanctification may be likened to a one-dollar bill. There are two distinct sides to the dollar bill.
There is the front side, which in this illustration may be likened to justification. We can describe the front side and notice the differences between it and the backside.
However, you cannot receive the dollar without receiving both sides simultaneously. In our illustration, the backside of the dollar is sanctification.
Likewise, sanctification includes all aspects of experiential change that occur in a personās life when they get saved.
If one stopped with the doctrine of justification by faith, one would only have a legal matter between man and God. Man would still be a sinner, have no power to live holy, and sin every day in word, thought, and deed.
Holiness (righteousness) would only be a matter of imputation alone. It is true that at the moment you gave your life to Christ the Father declared you holy, or sanctified, based on the merits of Christ.
Johann.
1 Like