Westminster Larger Catechism #75
Commentary by Dr. Chuck Baynard
Q75. What is sanctification?
Answer: Sanctification is a work of God’s grace, whereby they whom they whom God
hath, before the foundation of the world, chosen to be holy, are in time, through the
powerful operation of his Spirit applying the death and resurrection of Christ unto them,
renewed in their whole man after the image of God, having the seeds of repentance unto
life, and all other saving graces, put into their hearts, and those graces so stirred up,
increased, and strengthened, as that they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto
newness of life.
References: Eph. 1:4; 1 Cor. 6:11; 2 Thess. 2:13; Rom. 6:4-6; Eph. 4:23-24; Acts 11:18;
1 John 3:9; Jude 20; Eph. 3:16-19; Col. 1:10-11; Rom. 6:4,6,14; Gal. 5:24.
Harmony of the Standards: COF 13.1; SC 35
An abundance of references to this statement, however I think we could rest with only
the first two as establishing the doctrine. Nonetheless as usual I find myself picking not
at the statement as considered as a whole, but with the choice of some words. I would also
want that the doctrine as a whole was more clearly explained. There is much error around
this doctrine, and it is to a large degree the creeds of the church to which we turn to
clarify the doctrines taught by Scripture. This isn’t to deny that Scripture
interprets Scripture, but that men often need the analogy of faith as set forth in other
words of men to grasp this truth. We as humans tend to have little consideration for or
totally ignore things that we do not understand. In the midst of the world of Satan the
church now finds herself laboring, we cannot afford the luxury of things theological not
being important in their most fundamental detail. Even our laity need a level of
apologetic expertise that exceeds that of previous generations. First for their own safety
and peace in the Lord, second to give a ready answer for the faith they have before a lost
and hurting world, blessed with an abundance of worldly knowledge.
The Divines begin with a singular grace, and a supra position in this statement. I
think we will find that the Confession of faith as a whole tends to be Supra, but as noted
before this isn’t a measurement of orthodoxy. I happen to agree with the Divines, and
claim the Supra position when dealing with systematics, though like many when it comes to
practice I may find myself operating as if I were Infra. (See previous discussion of
Supra/Infra-Lapsarianism.) I note they dropped the "free" from before grace in
this statement and can’t help but wonder why in the previous question it was used. I
find it unnecessary, but think they added the redundancy for a purpose, that I am not sure
I understand completely. It seems they also went to great lengths to
"systematize" the process and set in order the things which in my opinion are
simultaneous operations in regeneration.
We also once again see that the plural of grace is used after the opening word grace is
used. Though not incorrect, I choose not to ever uses the plural of grace, but rather
seeing grace manifested in many ways and by different means, but all of one grace of God.
To me this is more consistent with the unity in the nature of God and even fits better the
ending position of this statement whereby we see sanctification is an on going process
whereby we read "...as they more and more die unto sin, and rise unto newness of
life." As opposed to the other areas we receive by grace through faith, that are
"imputed" (not imparted) which I believe are received in their fullness
(Justification and adoption for two) sanctification is a continuing process. Unlike some I
do not hold that this can be perfect in the flesh because as long as we are in the flesh
the sinful nature will remain, and unlike Christ who was without all sin. Nonetheless that
forces a different exegesis of the Scripture that says we should be Holy because He is
Holy, and speaks elsewhere of perfection in the same manner. My answer is that perfection
indicates completeness or maturity more than perfection in our understanding of the word.
That indeed we can be pure of heart and within know maturity, but because of the nature of
the flesh, will not know perfect holiness of life outwardly. This in no way becomes
permissive as if we can use our human nature as an excuse for our moral failures, but sets
the goal that we can only perfectly and completely obtain after we have shed the body of
this tabernacle for that glorious resurrection body the elect shall one day inhabit. The
point here though is that we have grace that is instantaneous, and that which is worked
out in time. Sanctification is the only element of grace that is not received in fullness,
that we can "see" worked out pragmatically in the church around us. Now this
same can be said to be true of all other areas in that we all will "grow" in the
Spirit and truth as the gift of sanctification is worked out, they are not dependent upon
one another. Nonetheless there is an interdependence between all the elements of grace and
where we find one all will be present. God has spoken and it will be manifest, but may
work out in history different for each person.
We could thus say that we are justified, we are adopted, and we are growing in
sanctification and be quite correct. Yet from the mind of God all is complete and has been
since before the foundation of the earth. Thus we too see elements of the Supra/Infra in
the manner spoken of earlier when theology is compared to the physical manifestation of
these things. The former appearing Supra, and the latter Infra. To me the mind of God
settled the issue and it is a done deed, and I can only marvel and praise His Holy Name as
it comes to be even as He said.
The Divines again used the plural in "...having the seeds of repentance unto
life,..." We find in all three synoptic gospels the parable of the sower. Matthew and
Luke use the plural seeds as to what the sower is sowing, Mark uses the singular. However
all three in explaining the parable use the singular word as being the seed, and the
hearers of the word being the plural. Though there be many words, the Bible is one word of
God, which the Apostle John identified as being the Lord, as the manifestation and the
perfection of God’s word, not words. Perhaps I am beating a dead horse so to speak,
but consistently maintaining the unity of all aspects of the attributes of God is
important to me. The immutability of God is next to His sovereignty in understanding how
we must work all things out theologically.
When we begin to form our theories, our doctrines, terms most don’t like and try
to ignore, but we all have a theology which is simply means the study of God and His word,
we need to grasp these two anchors. God’s immutability and sovereignty will help us
not poke holes in another side of our theological balloon as we work through another area.
These become the lines within which we color so to speak, and will guard against our
entering into deep error. So places in Scripture that seem to be inconsistent with this
unity, oneness, in all things pertaining to God I spend much time in thought and prayer
that I may find (if it exists) an apologetic that doesn’t break or stretch God’s
Word and allows this unity to be consistent. There may be some areas that I cannot explain
this week, or even this year. But in time I have found that most troublesome passages do
come to fit within this context of unity as I learn more from the whole of God’s
word.
Both from the statement of the Divines and the proof texts we see the full glory of
petal three in this question. We cannot see petal three without one and two then existing
by an absolute necessity. As verified three pointers, I think we will have no trouble
reaching maturity and having our eyes opened that we see then the full beauty and know the
satisfaction and peace of God amid our TULIP garden.
I will close this section with one more comment, at the risk of spending more than the
two page limit I have set for myself. That is, indeed we all have our own theology which
is the result of our own "experience" in time of God working in our lives. How
and why is God important to you? This is your personal testimony, and just as
sanctification will differ for each, so will our experience of God’s hand in our
personal life. Take what you "know" from experience and bring it within this
"reformed TULIP, and you have a powerful testimony for God. It doesn’t have to
be a great miracle, or supernatural event, just sincere and truthful. The TULIP will help
you understand what has taken place according to the Scriptures, and to explain it to
those you share with. God can and will use you and "your" story for His own
glory. Fear not, the Holy Spirit will lead and guide, just share God’s love and tell
all about this fantastic garden filled with God’s own flower, the TULIP.
Dr. Chuck Baynard -- September, 1998
LC Index
Observer Home Page
1st EPC Home Page
