Something Like a Defense of Definitive Sanctification

In a recent post on his blog here Professor Scott Clark from Westminster Seminary in California critiques Professor John Murray's view of Definitive Sanctification. All three of these confessions are clear that Christ "is made unto us...sanctification," that those who are justified are also sanctified, and those that are "called and regenerated" are "further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection."

2. The absence of this doctrine in Reformed theology is not necessarily a sign of error. Reformed theologians are human and finite. Their perspective has limitations especially as they developed their views vis-a-vis the views of Rome. Reformed theologians and confessions were more concerned with issues of justification and good works and the relationship between the two.

3. Reformed theology missed an opportunity to develop its views of sanctification as compared to the Roman view which treated justification and sanctification together. An understanding of Definitive Sanctification would have made clear the difference between justification and sanctification and yet understood both as the work of Christ.

4. In Paul, sanctification is parallel to justification and glorification. If justification is a definitive act, there is no reason not to believe that sanctification and glorification are not likewise definitive. In justification, God declares us righteous. In Christ we are glorified, having been seated in the heavenly places (Colossians 3) already. In sanctification, God declares us to be holy, to belong to him, to be set apart for his service. We do not become more justified nor more glorified. We are sanctified which is the whole basis for the imperatives of the Christian life in Paul's letters.

Thinking along these lines, Murray's concept is Reformed.