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.
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