Sanctus: Christian Sanctification

Copyright © 2010 David T Williams.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

WestBow Press books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

WestBow Press

A Division of Thomas Nelson

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.westbowpress.com

1-(866) 928-1240

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any Web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

ISBN: 978-1-4497-0800-9 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4497-0801-6 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010939924

Printed in the United States of America

WestBow Press rev. date: 11/30/2010

Contents

Preface

Part 1

The properties of sanctification

Sanctity as separating from sin

Sanctity as restoring the image of God

Sanctity as reliving the humility of Christ

Sanctity as reflecting the Trinity

Sanctity as relating in community

Sanctity as salvation

Part 2

The possibility of sanctification

Sanctification to perfection

Sanctification as paradigm

Sanctification in postmodernism

Part 3

Provision of sanctification

Sanctification by the Trinity

Sanctification by grace

Sanctification by the suffering of Christ

Sanctification by the Spirit

Sanctification by subsequent acts of grace

Part 4

Pursuit of sanctification

Sanctification through the means of grace

Sanctification through the law

Sanctification through prayer

Sanctification through the Lord’s Supper

Sanctification through ministry

Sanctification through community

Sanctification through suffering

Part 5

Pictures of sanctification

Sanctification as a building

Sanctification as healing

Sanctification as growth

Sanctification as marriage

Sanctification as technology

Sanctification as theistic evolution

Sanctification as a journey

Part 6

Purpose of sanctification

Bibliography

Other books by David T Williams

Reviews of SANCTUS

Preface

Some time ago I went to a conference at a theological college not too far away from the university where I work. While there, I took the chance to have a look at the library, as my university has suffered for several years from being unable to buy very much, and I want to be aware of new books which are worth buying. I found quite a nice library, quite well equipped, obviously one that has not suffered like ours from too great a shortage of funds. I had a general look around, then went specifically to Dewey number 234,8. As I have found almost everywhere else, the subject with that number is very thinly populated; in fact on that occasion I found a mere two books! Peterson (1995:11) is absolutely right when he complains that very little attention is given to the subject in academic circles. So what is this topic? It seems that Melvil Dewey, when he established his book classification system in 1876, expected that there would be much more published on that topic than has proved to be the case! This rare topic is that of sanctification and holiness. On the back copy of one book that has emerged in recent years (Webster 2003) are two significant remarks: holiness is not a theme commonly taken up by contemporary theologians (Ralph Del Colle), and although the topic of holiness is central to Christian theology, comparatively little has been written on it in recent years (Alan J Torrance). In his apology for his own book, Toon (1983:9) said that the time seemed ripe for the further explication of this area of doctrine. The same is reflected in the title of Packer (1992), Rediscovering holiness; I even found reference to a second book with the same title (Matthews 1996), but sadly was not able to locate a copy. Interestingly, this stands in stark contrast to previous generations; there is a vast Puritan literature on the subject (Wright 1996:33).

It has then been a particular joy when I have found some books and articles on the subject, especially the two each giving five contrasting views on the subject (Dieter et al 1987, Alexander 1988). However, here, I was struck by the fact that although there was inevitable overlap, the five views were not the same; in fact between them, there were seven. Many theories of sanctification have been put forward (Prior 1967:5). Definitely a lack of Christian consensus on the subject!

So with such a paucity of material, I felt motivated to look into the matter. For many subjects, it seems to be a waste of time to write; there is just so much already available. But this is certainly not the case here.

An unpopular subject

Why is this topic so unpopular? Of course, writing a book on sanctification can never be easy. It deals with a subject that can never be popular, even with the author, as it must highlight the failings that seem to be an inevitable part of being human, and nobody likes to have their faults pointed out to them. This was after all one reason why Jesus was crucified.

Nicholl (1981:3), starting his work Holiness, has to confess a feeling of absurdity in the enterprise. For immediately, he was overcome by a feeling of unworthiness, and incompetence in approaching so great a theme. He even felt that there was a touch of the comic, for holiness can never be achieved as the result of a technique to be learnt, such as from a book. It is even embarrassing; who wants to admit working on such a theme! I can certainly identify with Nicholl in these thoughts.

But really, this reticence is very strange. After all, there is a great joy in writing and thinking about the forgiveness of sins, even though it must be accompanied by a measure of sadness at the realization of what it cost Christ to enable this for us. There is perhaps an even greater joy when the topic is the intimately related one of the gift of eternal life, for this is enabled by the glory of the resurrection, and so points to our’s. An old classic on sanctification points out that sanctification in Christ is glorification begun, as glorification is sanctification perfected (Marshall 1981a:237). One impetus to sanctification is the confidence in future bliss (Marshall 1981a:27, also Calvin 1989b:25). Yet salvation is more than these; indeed, it has been a frequent criticism of the gospel as it has often been preached that it deals with pie in the sky when you die, without being relevant to the present life. If the preaching of the gospel is limited to forgiveness and eternal life, it is a perversion, for included in the atonement is the command to repent, which is much more than being sorry for previous sins, but must include a determination to live in a way more worthy of the Christ who gave so much for us. The atonement must have a third component of repentance in addition to the means of forgiveness and the gift of eternal life, and indeed a full understanding of salvation must have all three elements (Williams 2007:228f).

This immediately gives a further motive, for salvation gives peace with God, and if it does that, it leads to peace with others and within oneself. Indeed, a sanctified life must give peace, for it is one in accordance with the intentions of the Maker. Bonar (sa:7) can therefore insist that the way of peace is the way of holiness, and that one cannot have either without the other.

This must affect the present, and then must bring in a move towards increasing sanctification as a necessary sequel to justification, the declaration of forgiveness and therefore the imputation of righteousness. Sanctification continues the story, as the impartation of righteousness (Dieter 1987:35); it is then a necessary part of salvation. Prior (1967:9) writes that holiness is the chief purpose of election. But it is the tough one! It is nice to be forgiven, glorious to receive eternal life, but hard to change a lifestyle. Yet, hard though it may be, it is a legitimate part of the gospel, and a valid demand of God.

It is then surprising that a book on salvation, such as that by Letham, gives such a small amount of space to the topic of sanctification (1993:184-5), even though it does base sanctification on the work of Christ. Rather, there is a concentration, so typical of the church in the West since the Reformation, on the forgiveness of sins, and the life everlasting, largely neglecting what should happen in between. Smail (1980:46) agrees that evangelicals have largely concentrated on the beginnings of the Christian life. One reason for this is that, very correctly, the Reformation emphasis was on salvation entirely by grace, totally unearned by any works. Then as Protestants have had a fear of works, a neglect of sanctification has naturally followed (Dieter 1987:20). A second aspect here follows from the Reformation, which stressed the authority of scripture as fundamental source and authority; as it says so little about sanctification, the topic tended to be neglected. Sanctification is one area where exegesis has been ruled by dogmatics (Peterson 1995:16). This is particularly evident in respect of the Wesleyan view of entire sanctification, which lacks an explicit scriptural basis. Perhaps this is one reason why even more than the overall idea of sanctification, there has been a wide neglect of the doctrine of perfection (Sangster 1943:6).

The dearth of writing on holiness becomes especially striking when seen in the context of a veritable explosion of works on spirituality, mysticism or meditation (Nicholl 1981:5). It is not that there is no interest in religion! Yet Packer (1995:99) has to write that As holiness is a neglected priority throughout the modern church generally, so it is specifically a fading glory in today’s evangelical world. In the Church, as the interest in holiness fades, there has been a growth in spiritual healing and of obsession with the powers of evil (Packer 1992:9); an example of this is the shift in the understanding of the second blessing from the granting of holiness to the receipt of power. This may be sought for the wrong motives (Cook 1913:155), which may be far from sanctified. And yet, as Smail (1980:48) observes, every successful revival has stressed repentance! Davies (1992:251) affirms that There is an observable connection in the history of awakenings between revival and holiness.

Much of our contemporary church life seems superficial, self-indulgent and compromised (Peterson 1995:11). A lack of awareness of God’s holiness leads to moral decline (Prior 1967:16), and there is moral laxity even in evangelicals (Packer 1992:152). So of all the subjects about which a book could be written this must be one of the most needful. Real practical holiness does not receive the attention it deserves (Ryle 1979:xiii). The fact that it has been comparatively little written on, indeed neglected (Dieter 1987:35), is in the context of what must be seen as an increasing need as the world continues in a moral decline. If we are concerned about the survival of western civilization, we must be concerned about morals, for the two things are clearly linked. This statement is especially apposite in the context of England at the time of Wesley, which was in the depths of sin and corruption, yet which as a result of his preaching experienced a profound social evolution Metz 1971:9). Then if we are concerned about the survival of Christianity, the same is even more true, for unless the moral standard of Christians is distinctive, where is its appeal?

Indeed, even a cursory glance at the moral state of society, and regrettably, often including the Church, shows a remarkable lack of holiness. It is a sad comment on a society when the points recommending a film are lust and deceit. It is a tragedy when so much of a person’s time and effort has to go into protection against crime. It is an offence to a person’s professionalism when so much administration is necessary, taking time away from the real task, just because otherwise people cannot be trusted to do a conscientious job. It repels people from the Gospel when ministers are caught in embezzlement or adultery; although holiness is for all, it is particularly important for them (Ryle 1979:276). The list could go on.

Would it not be true to say that in contrast to previous centuries, there is just no awareness of sin in the modern world? And if that is the case, it is hardly surprising when the interest in the Church is on other matters, hardly surprising when there are few modern works on justification (Toon 1983:126), and even fewer on sanctification.

Modern emphasis on self

Part of the problem lies just in this, for not only has increasing secularization resulted in diminishing interest in Christian ethics, but the very world-view that prevails is hardly sympathetic to a concern with sanctification. From a temporal perspective, few things could be less relevant than holiness (Orsuto 2003:1). On the one hand, there has been a noticeable shift in the last few decades from a view based on Enlightenment ideas, what is often referred to as modernism, to one of postmodernism. This has meant firstly that there is no longer any acceptance of an absolute, so that nothing can be seen as definitely right or wrong, and secondly, linked to that, is that everybody’s opinion can be held as valid, at least for them. In this case, sanctification can hardly be said to exist, at least not beyond the actual individual. However, this is far from saying that an Enlightenment view, which has dominated thought for the last couple of centuries, is sympathetic to a Christian view. Indeed, far from it! The system has generated a belief in the absence of God, at its extreme, Deism, rationalism, and a belief that human beings are essentially good. Goodness comes from education, the provision of a good environment, and the application of technology; all are good, but hardly sanctification. Rationalism has led to the questioning of Biblical authority, but more than this, as Otto (1957:61) has observed, there is always an irrationality associated with holiness. A symbol of sanctity, the halo, reflects utter impracticability (Prior 1967:5). Even in the Biblical world, the man of the Spirit was accused of madness (Hos 9:7). All these are detrimental to the traditional Christian understanding of sanctification.

And very far from the Biblical ideal. The Enlightenment stressed knowledge, so a hundred years go, Blake urged people to put off holiness and put on intellect (Lockyer, in Bridges 1999:viii). But "to the Hebrew mind, holiness, or perfection, or moral excellence, appears as the summum bonum of all wisdom" (Metz 1971:10).

A diminishing interest in holiness is certainly much more comfortable. Any desire to find out more about God, and especially about his holiness, has an immediate, not always pleasant, result; it can never be just knowledge, but it confronts us, and demands a change in us (Nicholl 1981:9). An appreciation of God’s holiness leads to the realization that this is not just an opinion to be accepted or rejected at will, the postmodern view, but confronts us as an objective reality (Otto 1959:25). Any dealing with God is not to be treated likely. The idea that God hates sin but loves the sinner is just not scriptural (Bray 1993:222). The book of Hebrews speaks of God as a consuming fire (12:29); Nicholl (1981:12) reminds us that when he met with God, Jacob left with a dislocated hip (Gen 32:24).

More than this, the Enlightenment viewpoint has spawned a stress on a free enterprise economy, on capitalism. This is essentially a belief that the benefit of all is best served when each individual acts for the benefit of him- or herself, without direct concern for others. What matters is individual benefit. There has been a general shift in Christian interest away from the pursuit of holiness towards fun and fulfillment, and the quest for personal success (Packer 1992:9). Any striving is for happiness not holiness (Prior 1967:10), definitely opposite to God’s priority (Sangster 1954:xi). Sanctification is seen as bad, or boring, involving suffering, no benefit to ME, all very contrary to the modern ethos.

The naturally aggressive attitude which follows from this world-view is also obviously very different from the concern for others which is at the heart of Christian ethics, although Hinson (1988:177) is quick to point out that the key matter is submission to God, and not automatic submission to people. Nevertheless, a person who is deliberately humble, giving way to others, seeking other goals than personal interest, is most definitely out of line with modern western society. If sanctification is these things, it is hardly going to be popular, and even not with many Christians, insofar as the capitalist viewpoint is extremely pervasive. God’s priority is not our success, but our holiness (Packer 1992:215). It is indeed a comment on this to see the popularity of the health and wealth gospel, or when somebody can write a book entitled Self-esteem: the new Reformation (Schuller 1982).

But the other side of this is really exciting, for I am convinced that sanctification, at least to an extent, is what God does in us. The modern world centres on human achievement, and this view spills over into the Church, and naturally results in the view that any improvement, whether in the individual or in society as a whole, is simply due to human activity. Although people are ready to accept that God can forgive, there is a natural disbelief that he is able to change people (Sangster 1954:xiii); so it is a real witness to God when he shows that he can. The result is that people tend to be valued for their gifts and skills rather than for personal holiness (Packer 1992:33). In contrast, I must insist, and glory in the fact, that it is God who sanctifies, that Christianity is fundamentally supernatural. Even if he delights in working through people. Indeed, one aspect of holiness is that it involves standing against secularism (Peterson 1995:11).

While the Christian can glory at all that God has done in Christ, there can also be glory at this aspect, for sanctification is not simply a result of human effort; if it were, there would indeed be reason for sadness. On the contrary, the resurrection and ascension of Christ were followed by Pentecost and the gift of the Holy Spirit, who did not come simply to empower the Church after the loss of their leader, but to lead the infant Church into a life of holiness. His empowering was not just for the expansion of the Church, the growing rule of God in the world, but also for the expanding rule of God within the individual Christian.

Neglect of the Holy Spirit

Yet this gives a further possible reason for the neglect of the subject, just because sanctification is clearly linked with the third Person of the Trinity. He is the one who sanctifies; after all, he is called the Holy Spirit. Indeed, there have been some suggestions as to renaming the Persons, often prompted by a desire to remove allusions to gender, such as the one in the previous sentence (which I do feel is defensible from a Biblical perspective). One which has received a measure of acceptance is to refer to the Trinity as Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. Suggestions such as this are open to a considerable amount of objection, such as they locate the differences between the Persons in the roles rather than in the nature of the Persons. However, the point is that the Spirit is usually particularly associated with sanctification. Interestingly, Augustine thought that the very name of the Spirit is in fact Holy (Bray 1993:215).

It is this that may well also contribute to the neglect of sanctification, simply because the Spirit himself has been neglected for most of the history of the Church (Horton 1987:95). Sangster (1943:194) suggests that a lack of spiritual power has come from a neglect of the Holy Spirit. There are several reasons for this, not least being the fact that the Spirit is self-effacing, or shy (Packer 1992:226), rather glorifying the Son and his work (Jn 16:14). Just as the Father and Son have chosen to limit themselves for the sake of the creation, and especially humanity, so in keeping with this, and in line with the mutual interpenetration of the Persons of the Trinity (perichōrēsis), the Spirit has also limited himself. Thus just as the self-limitation of the Father and the Son, their kenōsis, were done to preserve human freedom, so the action of the Spirit does not compel a human response. He may urge, cajole, and persuade, but never forces. Some have described the Holy Spirit as a gentleman (Bennett and Bennett 1974:99). In this case, it is clearly possible to ignore demands that are unwanted! The Spirit may well be grieved (Eph 4:30), and it is clear that the heart of God is indeed grieved by the lack of human sanctification; even a cursory look at the Old Testament prophets and their lament over human faithlessness gives some understanding of the pathos of God.

Much more theologically, the position of the Spirit may be seen in the great controversy over his procession that was a major factor leading to the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches in 1054 AD. Ironically, although the West believed that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, a belief resting on the total equality of the being of the Persons (homoousios), as affirmed at the conclusion of the Arian controversy several centuries before, the implication of this could well be taken as meaning the subordination of the Spirit to the other Persons. In contrast, the Eastern church, perhaps more consciously Biblical (Jn 15:26), sought to maintain what they saw as the original belief, and insisted that the Spirit proceeds from the Father. They possibly wanted to add the word only, or the phrase through the Son, but this also would go beyond Biblical support. The Eastern position would then have the result of tending to equate the Son and Spirit, which is then a reason for a Western objection. However, this view does give more importance to the role of the Spirit, and this is indeed notable in Eastern Orthodoxy, at least until the emergence of Pentecostalism in the West. The works of Son and Spirit, justification and sanctification, are then of similar importance as aspects of an overall salvation.

Whether or not such deep theology has had any real effect is debatable; however, what is clear is that there has been a neglect both of the Spirit and his work. It is even the case that although the origin of Pentecostalism was in the American holiness groups, and so connected to a desire for a deeper life, the reason for the baptism of the Spirit was very soon located in a desire for power, so for the gifts, rather than in a desire for holiness, so for the fruit (Gal 5:22-3).

And perhaps a desire to marginalize the demands of sanctification has itself contributed to the neglect of the Spirit? It is then a sign of real hope that there is increasing appreciation that the Spirit does not work just through professionals, but all Christians; and if so, that holiness is not a concern just for the ministry, or for the particularly committed or interested, but for all (Ryle 1979:44).

The need for this book

What is clear is the neglect, and I am convinced that there is another reason for this. In the neglect of the subject there has been increasing ignorance of it, and in ignorance there has been even more neglect. If there is no understanding of the process of sanctification, it is not likely to be pursued. Packer (1995:133) can bemoan the fact that Wesley’s revolutionary teaching on sinless perfection as a result of a crisis of spiritual commitment is almost extinct in larger Methodist churches. Later, he adds that the original Keswick emphasis of sanctification by total yielding to the power of God has little or no place in the modern conventions (1995:146). Indeed, it may well be asked what understanding of the process of sanctification is present in the modern Church! It is to be hoped that this book will do something to clarify the doctrine, and therefore to add to actual sanctification. This will itself give further understanding; holiness produces the fear of the Lord, so the beginning of wisdom (Webster 2003:27). Ryle (1979:1) points out that the new creation, like the old, starts with light. I love doing theology, but am far more concerned that the results of my efforts will be of actual use.

For even if the subject has been neglected, this does not mean that the neglect is right. After all, the same is true of sanctification itself; even if most do not actively pursue holiness, they cannot be right. The Bible contains a repeated call to follow (Berkouwer 1952:138). It gives a clear command, strive for holiness (Heb 12:14). And that verse continues with a motive which is of fundamental significance for any serious Christian: without which no one will see the Lord. Sanctification is then a qualification for this (McQuilkin 1988:158)! Cornwall (1983:134) pertinently points out that in Isaiah’s vision of God (Is 6), the angels do not cry omnipotent, but holy; it is this which is the fundamental attribute of God. And to know holiness, one has to be holy (Nicholl 1981:11); Isaiah was immediately justified (Is 6:7). Maritain was absolutely right: the only tragedy in life is not to be a saint (Orsuto 2003:9). Léon Bloy said basically the same thing but perhaps less harshly; he called it a sadness (Nicholl 1981:28). Roberts (1981:1) observes that for the Puritans, holiness was the summum bonum of the entire Christian life. Sanctification is not an idea which can be neglected, and certainly not ignored. This in itself gives a reason for writing; it comes, or should, from a desire to be holy oneself (Nicholl 1981:4). The more we know about something, the more likely we are to do it well.

Evidence for the truth of the gospel

It can even be said to be fundamental. Toon (1983:18) cites the Old Testament scholar G von Rad, "There is absolutely no concept in the Old Testament with so central a significance for all the relationships of human life as that of sdq [righteousness]. Berkouwer (1952:9) very pertinently points out that this is one subject on which those outside the church will express an interest, and continues that a sanctified life is evidence for the reality of the gospel. They may see your good deeds and glorify God" (1 Pet 2:12). Indeed, more than this, a sanctified life is positively fascinating (Sangster 1954:xi). The world may not be concerned with the message, but is with quality of life (Lloyd-Jones 1989:25), surely a motive for sanctification to any who are concerned to make the good news better known and appreciated.

In any case, God can only use people who are sanctified (Lloyd-Jones 1989:27). Lloyd-Jones (1989:20) therefore insists that sanctification is essential for evangelism. Berkouwer (1952:9) cites Philippians 2:15, that you may be blameless and innocent … in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world. It is necessary to be holy to show the significance of the gospel; people otherwise do not see the need for it. This demands difference; holiness is separation from the world, in order to declare the truth of the gospel (Webster 2003:75). This, incidentally, is one reason why holiness is not simply received by faith, like justification (Ryle 1979:xx). In the Old Testament, consecrating an object identified it as belonging to God; our holiness should likewise identify us (Alexander 1999:21). Paul refers to the clear result of Christianity among the Corinthians as like a letter written with ink (2 Cor 3:3); their sanctification and the presence of the Spirit were visible and obvious to all in their glorification by the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 3:18) (Peterson 1995:121). Philippians 2:15 emphasizes you are seen (Berkouwer 1952:10). Speaking of J B Hallier, the novelist Edgar Wallace said that he is a perfect man. He is an everlasting barrier between me and atheism (Sangster 1943:201). Such loyalty to God is a powerful appeal; it shows people that there is an alternative life (Dan 3:28, 6:20f, Acts 27:23f) (Möller 1997:167). Barclay (1971:215), concluding his Ethics in a permissive society, wrote,It may be that what the church needs to get the people back is not compromise, but a message of uncompromising purity.

The contrast with today is pathetic. It is hardly surprising that people neglect a gospel which is perceived as ineffective; how many people are repelled by blatant sin in the Church? Later Berkouwer bemoans the awful truth about the lives actually lived by believers (1952:47). But again this is part of the problem, for not only does sin seem to be far more enjoyable and interesting than holiness, but it is never easy to be conspicuously different from those around. It is even to attract not only ridicule, but positive persecution; is this after all not what happened to Jesus?

But should not Christians positively emulate the one that they profess to be their Lord? And the very word lord means that obedience is expected! Is this not part of the reason for the neglect of sanctification? Thus Christians are different from the world because of their lifestyle. This must inevitably manifest in the way that they relate to others; Christianity has always stressed the necessity of love, which is for Packer (1995:114) the heart of holiness. It necessitates a consecration to service (Toon 1983:30), although with the necessary proviso that God desires us much more than our work (Wood-Samuel 1913:38). Packer (1995:105) notes a bit of a paradox here in that their holiness means that Christians are separate from the world, but at the same time that same holiness demands involvement with that same world. Significantly, sanctification then means at the same time both a difference from the world and a closer link to it. Saints are not unapproachable, even if different (Prior 1967:7). This is not surprising as sanctification is essentially a conformity to God, who in the Christian understanding is theistic, so both transcendent, distinct and different from the world, and immanent, involved in it. The completely separated One is the characteristically related One (Brueggemann, quoted by Orsuto 2003:21). Otto (1959:56) also portrays this duality; in describing God as mysterium tremendum et fascinans, the first word highlights the difference from people, while the last the relation to them. The first, the blind wonder at the wholly other, at a mystery far more than just a problem to be understood, evokes not just a dread, but a desire for oneness with such a wonder (Otto 1959:40ff). The same duality then appears again as people become sanctified; on the one hand they become different and less understood in the irrationality of their actions, but on the other they become fascinating, and cannot just be ignored. What not this how Jesus was treated?

This gives a deeper dimension to worship, which is what a relationship to God leads to, and of which sanctification is a vital component. An appreciation of the transcendent holiness of God lifts this from the level of gratitude and trust (Otto 1959:21), essential though they are, to greater fullness; or perhaps one should say wholeness. And at the same time to a greater desire to serve, to express the immanence of God in the world. Holiness is motivated by awe, gratitude and a desire to glorify God (Packer 1992:78). So if the appreciation of God declines, so will holiness. Prior (1967:11) then bemoans the fact that godliness is a word which has largely disappeared from English, and so sanctification, which is its pursuit, follows. As Wood-Samuel (1913:11) observes, a thirst for righteousness is a measure of our love.

Immediately this gives a word of caution as regards the theme of this book. Otto (1959:21) insists that the appreciation of God as numinous cannot be taught, but only evoked. Sanctification likewise is ultimately a gift that cannot be taught. Yet Otto wrote a book to instruct on the uninstructible, and likewise the way of following God can be, to an extent, communicated. As in the case of sanctification, illustration helps. Otto (1959:61) cites the depth of a sexual relationship compared with affection, or the experience of a song when compared with just the words; music, he avers, is also wholly other. The duality of transcendence and immanence persists!

It is gratifying where there is a concern. The great Calvin, with all his interest in correct doctrine, was intensely spiritual and practical. Ferguson (1988:48) contrasts his approach with medieval works that centred on theology; his concern was always practical, not just intellectual. One entire book of the Institutes, the third, deals with the subject of the mode of obtaining the grace of God, the benefits it confers and the effects resulting from it. Elsewhere, Ferguson (1996:12,96) says that Calvin is known as the theologian of the Holy Spirit. The emphasis did continue, at least for some, in that tradition; John Owen’s aim in life was to promote holiness (Ferguson 1988:48).

Perhaps what is striking is that when there has been revival, or movements that have re-invigorated Christianity, these have generally been accompanied by moral renewal. The Welsh revival of the early years of the twentieth century was a good example of this. Similarly, the aim of the Keswick movement since 1875 has been the promotion of practical holiness (McQuilkin 1987:152).

Indeed, surely Christianity must have sanctification as one of its key pursuits. If it is essentially the worship of, and relation to a God whose nature is holy, then a Christian life must be one which values and seeks holiness. Orsuto (2003:11) quotes Ernst Sellin’s statement "God is holy … touches on that which constitutes the deepest and innermost nature of God in the Old Testament; thus Eichrodt notes that it has been possible to characterize the whole religion of the Old Testament as a ‘religion of holiness’ (Hänel)" (2003:42). Judaism insists on no religion without ethics (Barclay 1971:21). This can hardly be less so for the fulfillment in Christianity. Dieter (1987:11) comments that this has indeed been the case throughout its history. He cites words which will be very familiar to most Christians, at least of past generations; perhaps the fact that they are no longer so well known is part of the problem? These are from the widely used Book of Common Prayer, in its 1695 version:

Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid: cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of Thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love Thee, and worthily magnify Thy Holy Name; through Christ, Our Lord. Amen.

A personal interest

My thanks must be due to one of my first doctoral students, who has been an inspiration to me in many ways. Not the least is that he started his studies in the closing years of his eighth decade, thereby also producing great amazement whenever his case came up at the university. But he must be an inspiration to persist, which must also pertain to the matter of sanctification. It is never too late to make progress in the Christian life.

I had a long correspondence with Albert over a number of years as he developed his work, and I certainly learnt a lot about the subject, and appreciated the need for more work on it. Perhaps unfortunately, after a stroke, he had to discontinue his work. But he succeeded, perhaps not in what he originally intended, but in making me enthusiastic about the topic.

The need for another book

The motive that Albert had for his research was simple. He had become aware of a divergence in the views held in Protestantism concerning sanctification, and felt that there must be one correct view. He felt that there was a consensus as to justification, and that this meant that there should also be on the clearly related topic of sanctification. I agreed with Albert; although very much aware that there are many views on justification, I believe that the various theories of atonement should really be seen as aspects of one overall view. My experience has been that in other areas where Christians disagree, there is an overall view, and each side has emphasized one pole to the neglect of what is a complementary truth. This should be true for sanctification. Albert had isolated two main views, and this was indeed the case; the seven that I had found described could quickly be seen to belong to one of the two. But are they indeed aspects of one, as Albert believed, and I suspected?

What are the key questions?

The difference that Albert was concerned about was that some Christians, especially from the Wesleyan tradition, believed that sanctification was achieved at a crisis experience, similar to that of justification. In contrast, a much older view was that sanctification is progressive, a gradual improvement in a person over a lifetime. Which is correct? And if both, as I shall argue, how are they related?

This gives rise to what must be a major concern of this book, the question of how sanctification is achieved. Is sanctification, like justification, received as a gift from God, sola gratia, or is it the result of human effort? Or again, are both true?

Related to this is the question of whether, in any sense, perfection is possible in this life. The issue is, which should of course perhaps be the first, is that there is a variety of views as to what sanctification is in any case. It seems obvious to think of it in an ethical sense, as becoming better, but the Biblical words carry at least two more meanings. Firstly, the Hebrew word primarily means to separate. God is holy because he is distinct from the world. The ethical sense is derived from this; holiness is separation from sin. Then secondly, the key word holy seems to directly linked to another idea, that of wholeness. God is holy as he is complete or perfect, and the same should be true of people.

These are the key questions. But I have added a fourth part to the book, as I am always helped by illustration, and my experience when I use them is that most people also are. I have therefore added a fourth part to the book, dealing with pictures and symbols. Although as (Prior 1967:5) says, considerable care must be taken with analogies, and we must always refer to scripture, they have certainly helped me in my own understanding of the nature and means of sanctification, and it is my prayer that these will help others. Maybe they can be used in sermons or other teaching. Along the way they also deal with a couple of other issues, such as theistic evolution, which I at least have found quite fascinating. I just hope that they do not divert people from what must be the key point and the theme of this book!

And finally, I must say, right at the beginning, that this is not intended to be a work on ethics! I do not intend to look at specific questions. Obviously sanctification has to do with the correct response to the serious questions in life, but my concern here is not with these, but with the development of the human being such that he or she will live in the way that God intends.

My prayer is that those who proceed further will receive a blessing not from understanding such a great theme, but by the development of it in life.

Part 1

The properties of sanctification

We all know what sanctification is; getting better. But like all quick answers, even if it is correct, it does not give the whole story. Sanctification is a concept with several aspects, which first need to be unpacked if we are to have any hope of understanding it, and so be better able to achieve it - or at least make any progress towards it.

Fortunately, we have a good place from which we can start. We are not simply purveyors of ideas, but can go to God’s own word to us, and in the various references in the scriptures, can start to build up an idea of what holiness is all about. A good Biblical definition is in Ephesians 4:22-4:

Put off your old nature which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful lusts, and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Very similarly, according to the Westminster Catechism, the statement held by most Presbyterian churches, sanctification is:

the work of God’s free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness (Prior 1967:9).

These most definitely relate sanctification to the nature of God; holiness is only possible from a vision of God (Metz 1971:21). Aulén sees holiness as the background and atmosphere of the conception of God (eg Is 12:6) (Webster 2003:43). The most frequent Rabbinic name for God is the holy One (Metz 1971:34). God commanded, you will be holy, as I am holy (Lev 19:2, 1 Pet 1:16), a command reflected also in Matthew 5:48, where however the word is perfect, and in its parallel in Luke 6:36, using merciful; these reflect aspects of holiness. Sproul (1985:52) quotes Augustine:

What is that which gleams through me

and smites my heart without wounding it?

I am both a-shudder and a-glow.

a-shudder, in so far as I am unlike it,

a-glow in so far as I am like it.

But this is a God who the Bible portrays as a God who acts. It is perhaps for this reason that Webster (2003:19) says that a work as that of Otto, which considers holiness in the abstract, should be avoided; it does not naturally demand a response in life. (Packer (1992:131) however says that Otto’s understanding is scriptural.) Rather, an appreciation of the holiness of God must then result in action; it cannot be detached from practice (Webster 2003:33). He is holy, and therefore sanctification, almost by definition, is becoming like God. We become what we should be, in the image of God.

This must be our essential motive. Lloyd-Jones (1989:84) bemoans the tendency to start the idea of sanctification with self and not God. We are even often rather concerned with our victory over sin, while God wants obedience (Bridges 1999:4). Rather holiness should be motivated by awe, gratitude and the desire to glorify God (Packer 1992:68,72,78). Any discussion of sanctity must therefore centre on who God is and what he has done.

Chapter 1

Sanctity as separating from sin

As a very quick definition, sanctity is relating to God, but a God who is firstly very different from what we are, secondly totally morally perfect, and thirdly perfectly complete. It is these which must form the basic understanding of what our sanctity will be, the goal of our sanctification.

The fact that we need sanctification at all brings in the issue of sin, for it is this that has ruined our sanctity by separating us from God, and which has to be removed in the process of sanctification.

Three elements of sanctity

As soon as we look into the Old Testament, we realize that the very idea of holiness must carry with it the notion of difference. Israel’s sanctification was linked to the call to be distinct (Peterson 1995:30). The Hebrew word qadosh has a fundamental meaning of cutting and separation. The normal Old Testament concept of holiness was that an object was consecrated or sanctified to religious use, as in the Temple, and was then not to be used for ordinary things (Alexander 1999:27). An example of this was the oil used for anointing priests; although it was made of ordinary things, it was made holy. Significantly, Neill (1960:21) then observes that in the Old Testament, sanctify and sacrifice were virtually synonymous; sanctity is a separation to God. Peterson (1995:153) suggests that the disciples could be clean in anticipation of sacrifice (Jn 15:3 also Jn 13). The offense that Jesus felt at the sellers in the Temple was that a holy place was being profaned by ordinary activity. Cornwall (1983:136) gives the very appropriate illustration of light, which overcomes and cannot exist with its opposite.

Thus God is holy as he is transcendent, different and apart from the world. Otto (1959:21) famously links the idea of God’s holiness with his being as numinous, a word which he coined (Prior 1967:13), which is an appreciation of essential incomprehensibility. There is an irrationality in God in the sense of not being able to be understood; this inevitably highlights difference. Holiness has a similarity to music as being much more than the rational; it cannot be fully understood, or in a sense we have mastered it; however, this does not mean that he is totally alien from us such that we cannot enter into relationship with him (Neill 1960:11).

Heschel observes that in the Genesis account of creation, God declared everything to be good, but the Sabbath was also declared to be holy (Orsuto 2003:12). The sabbath is holy as different (Prior 1967:18); it was therefore observed differently from other days. Observation of the Sabbath was a sign of a unique relationship with God, the covenant; its observation was then one thing that made the Israelites and Jews distinctive, and in their distinctiveness came their survival as a people despite all the pressures on them.

This is not only true of God the Father, but also of the other Persons. Even if the incarnation was unity with us, Jesus was so different, just because he was sinless (Heb 7:26). And of course the Spirit is so different from us.

Therefore, if Christians are to be sanctified, holy, they are apart, different from the world (2 Cor 6:17). It is an essential aspect (Smith 1902:vi). Christians become a church, where the Greek word ekklesia means to be called out. This demands an essential intolerance of whatever is wrong (Ryle 1979:288). Such an attitude does of course stand in stark contrast to the modern attitude of tolerance, especially under the influence of postmodernism; it is commonly assumed that the more sanctified a person is, the more tolerant they would be. However, this intolerance is not done from a stubborn desire to be different but as a reflection of the nature of God. Webster (2003:101) remarks that the intolerance of holiness strikes us as inhumane; so perhaps we need to change our idea of humanness.

Of course, one expression of this was in the monasticism of the Middle Ages, where Christians believed that the only way to avoid sin was to physically depart from the world; they usually found that the temptations of the world followed them! Rather Lloyd-Jones (1989:17) comments that the Gospel does not take the Christian from the world, but the world from the Christian. Simple withdrawal is not right, especially when it results in an added burden to others (Barclay 1971:153). Indeed, one manifestation of sanctification is service in the world. Christians do have a duty of seeking to change the world, but that is not sanctification, but its effect, that of a change within (1989:18). Sanctity does not then mean inapproachability despite separation (Prior 1967:7).

But then again, sanctification in the Christian sense does not only mean difference. It is quite possible for holiness to mean just belonging to deity without moral implications, as was the case in the ancient near East; an object could be both holy and evil (Alexander 1999:23-4). In this case, it would be possible for God to evoke a sense of awe without an appreciation of a demand to obey, as Otto (1959:66) points out. The basic idea of holiness was not ethical (Neill 1960:15), as in Hinduism (1960:19). The Pharisees, which word means separate (Berkouwer 1952:119), are a good example of this perversion. But as Orsuto (2003:14) emphasizes, Biblical holiness is not only separation, but belonging to God. It is not just negative sinlessness, but unbroken fellowship with God (Edwards 1965:61). Holiness is inward, the life of God in the soul, a participation in the divine nature (Edwards 1965:79). Being a Christian, and therefore holy, is not primarily ethical, but religious (Neill 1960:64). For Lloyd-Jones (1989:9) sanctification means both separation from contamination and devotion to God; he adds that only the second applies to Jesus (also Peterson 1995:28), who cites Jn 10:36, cf 2:19-22). In this case, it will have ethical implications. Thus sanctification must mean both. It does not mean only consecration without the action; after all it is consecration to service (Toon 1983:30). The distinction is not just from sin, but positively to God (Toon 1983:39). But neither is it just the action without the consecration (Toon 1983:38). The prophet Isaiah had to be cleansed before he could serve (Is 6:6-8). Marriage, which must be a good parallel to sanctification, embraces both aspects; it is relational, but exclusive.

The prophet Isaiah was most conscious of the holiness of God, referring to God as holy more than the rest of the Old Testament (34 out of 60 uses of the term). His famous experience in the Temple described his own sanctification, when his lips were touched by the coal from the altar (Is 6:7); this both set him apart from others, and commissioned him to relate to them in service. At the same time, his sin was