Holiness in action . . .

According to Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology sanctification is to set someone or something apart for the use intended by its designer. In our case by God in and through Jesus Christ: "We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" ( Heb 10:10 ). Christ was qualified to sanctify because he himself had been sanctified through suffering (Heb 2:10-11). 

Jesus was sanctified from the moment of his conception ( Matt 1:18-20 ; Luke 1:35 ). He was rightly called the "Holy One of God" ( Mark 1:24 ), sanctified by the Father ( John 10:36 ). In his character, therefore, Jesus Christ was morally sanctified. Second, he was vocationally sanctified (set aside for a particular ministry). Christ was obedient to His call (John 5:19 John 5:30 John 5:36 ; 6:38 ; 8:28-29 ; 12:49 ). Thus, he sanctified himself by fulfilling his unique calling as the Messiah ( John 17:19 ), being declared the Son of God at his resurrection ( Rom 1:4 ). Jesus Christ, therefore, is the model human being for both moral and vocational (ministry) sanctification (Php 2:5-11 ). He accomplishes his purpose through time, and continually fulfills his sanctifying purpose as the forerunner is for us as  an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec (Hebrews 6:20).

Now, the big question is, How do we live a sanctified life that continues in grace instead of a theology of works?

There is much in the New Testament that Paul does not teach completely. It was left up to James to “complete” or explain in greater detail that good deeds is a corollary that always accompanies abiding faith. In kindergarten terms, it is the show and tell of faith.

Our example is always the best proof of our inner convictions. [James 2:18]. This in essence is all that James is saying, When according to some he and Paul disagree theologically.

James knew Paul and was most probably was familiar with Paul’s epistles, so the reasonable conclusion is that James is simply expanding on Paul’s doctrine of grace and faith to counter a prevalent antinomianism [Acts 21: 17-28] among some who had misinterpreted Paul’s doctrine of grace and faith.

Personally, I therefore object to E. C. Barr that,

“Only unto Paul was committed the complete system or revelation of church doctrine. We term this division Paul’s unique gospel, those great church truths which Paul and Paul alone, reveals, proving that unto him was committed the complete revelation of church doctrine, thus it is "the gospel according to Paul."

That to me smacks of the kind of cultism to which Paul was most definitely opposed, when he wrote: 

I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas”; still another, “I follow Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? [1 Corinthians 1:10-12]

For as he put it,

“For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” [1 Corinthians 3: 11]

We can agree, however, with Dr. Barr that Paul’s admonition to Timothy is applicable:

"Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" (II Timothy 2:15).

Where we choose to disagree, however, is that rightly dividing the word of truth is left entirely in the hands Paul’s gospel; as if the gospel belonged exclusively to Paul.  How anyone could claim that the 12 Apostolic foundational stones were somehow placed there with Paul’s permission.

So, we reject to the exclusivism of Barr’s interpretation of what the gospel is in terms of the New Testament narratives. We believe in the plenary inspiration of all scripture, including New Testament theology as recorded by others as well as by Paul..

In the words of scripture,

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” [2 Timothy 3:16-17]

Picking and choosing proof text for a particular doctrinal preference is not the way to go about doing theology. For sure, as Paul says,

"We are not under law, but under grace." [Romans 6:14]

Works are not an insignificant tag along that just happens to follow grace along on the trail faith. It seems to me that minimally faith requires assent which is a function of the will; however, a strict Calvinist, as appears that many of these Pauline cultists are, will not even concede that. Human assent is relegated to the sovereignty of God, as if God did not even give man the freedom to choose.

However, those that insist on a strict Calvinistic approach in understanding Paul’s doctrine of grace will adamantly oppose any and all suggestions that any effort—including ascent—as an act of libertarian free will on our part not only unnecessary, but also impossible, since for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.  (Philippians 2:13 NASV)

However, these same men conveniently overlook the prayer of blessing that the writer of Hebrews shares with us:

Now the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, even Jesus our Lord, equip[i] you in every good thing to do His will, working in us that which is pleasing in His sight, through Jesus Christ, to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. (Hebrews 13: 20-21 NASV)

The same corollary applies to works. Not the works of the Law, as Paul so clearly proscribes; but rather the works of Him that sent Christ, who likewise in turn sends us. [John 20:21] In a word, good works follows faith; or faith is not faith. It may be mental ascent, belief, or perhaps hypocrisy, but it is not faith. So, we are treading on theologically thin ice, so to speak, when we insist that Paul’s theology of grace is in some way superior to James’ theology of works.

It is true that it appears that Paul taught that pure grace is not in any way contingent on works or law. However, pure grace does not expunge good works as a corollary of actualized faith. For sure the law was inadequate as a salvic principle, since no manner of good works will save us eschatologically. Only Omnipotence has made that possible through the substitutionary atonement of The Son of God—a man of good works, for us. So, it seems only reasonable to assume that since we are to be made in His image [Romans 8: 28-29] that we too should be men and women of good works. This to me indicates an obligation not a choice. It is part and parcel of our redemptive covenant.

So, no matter how hard the “free grace” theologians try to wiggle out of any responsibility that translates into works, it seems that scripturally and logically they are lock into a theological conundrum of inescapable proportions. 

Good “born again” Christians are men and women of works.

---

[i] 1 Thessalonians 3:10

BIB: πρόσωπον καὶ καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα

NAS: your face, and may complete what is lacking

KJV: and might perfect that which is lacking

INT: face and to supply the things lacking

Hebrews 13:21

BIB: καταρτίσαι ὑμᾶς ἐν

NAS: equip you in every good thing

KJV: Make you perfect in every

INT: perfect you in