The Most Important Overlooked Doctrine (Part 2)
In the previous post we briefly considered the biblical teaching on what is commonly called definitive sanctification. In this post we want to briefly consider yet another aspect of the biblical teaching on sanctification which has been equally overlooked or downplayed–namely, positional sanctification. The idea of positional sanctification has sometimes been considered to be an aspect of definitive sanctification–in addition to the radical breach with sin; however, I tend to think it is a distinct aspect of sanctification that happens simulaneous with definitive sanctification. In this way, both definitive and positional sanctification are foundational to our progressive sanctification. If definitive sanctification stands at the head of progressive sanctification, so too does positional sanctification. Positional sanctification assures us that we will continue in progressive sanctification since we are united to the Sanctified One–Jesus Christ–and are, therefore, already perfected in holiness in Him. It will help us to consider more fully what positional sanctification is and what difference does it makes to my life as a Christian?
As we search the Scriptures we stumble across several things that are said about our Lord Jesus Christ and His own sanctification that ought to give us pause. For instance, in John 17:19, Jesus prayed to His Father on behalf of His people saying, “for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.” Elsewhere we are told that “He learned obedience by the things that He suffered” (Heb. 5:8). This raises a number of questions. Did Jesus need sanctification? Isn’t sanctification the act of being made holy? Wasn’t Jesus perfectly holy? How could one who is said to be “holy, harmless, undefiled and separate from sinners,” said to have “learned obedience.” Does that mean that He was not perfect through His whole life? The answer to this difficult question is simultaneously ‘yes’ and ‘no.’
There is a sense in which it would be fatally wrong for us to say that Jesus was not perfect. The Scriptures make it abundantly clear that though he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, yet without sin. “The apostle Paul boldly asserts that He “knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). At the announcement of His birth, an angel called Him “that Holy One who is to be born.” Pilate’s wife told her husband: ‘Have nothing to do with that just man.’ Pilate himself said, ‘I find no fault in Him.’ The dying thief acknowledged the innocence of Jesus when he said, ‘this Man had done nothing wrong.’ The centurion, at the foot of the cross, said, ‘Certainly this was a righteous man’ (Luke 23:47). Even the demons recognized that Jesus was ‘the Holy One of God’ (4:34).1
However, there is another sense in which we may properly speak of Jesus “being made perfect” and “growing in obedience.” In fact, the latter idea is explicitly taught in Luke 2 where we read of Jesus: “The Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him” (Luke 2:40), and that ” Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52). How could a perfect being “increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man?” The answer to this question is bound up in mystery of the incarnation. Though in His divine nature, Jesus was absolutely and immutably perfect in holiness, in His human nature, Jesus grew in holiness as to the capacity of His humanity at each stage of life. He knew what it was to be an obedient 3 year old and He knew what it was to be an obedient 30 year old. There was an increase in his progressive experience of holiness. This does not mean that He had any sinful imperfections in Him, but that–as the covenant keeping true Israel of God and representative second Adam–Jesus had to learn obedience through every stage of life in order to redeem His people who have lived sinfully at every stage of life. In this way, from His birth to His adulthood to His death, Jesus underwent a process of sanctification for His people. He did so in order to become the source of that holiness that God requires in the lives of His people. Sinclair Ferguson explains the rationale for this so well when he writes:
What a redeemed soul needs is human holiness. Angelic holiness will not serve fallen man. If we are to be holy, that holiness must be wrought out in our humanity. This is what Christ has accomplished. And now the Spirit, out of his union with the incarnate Son, brings those resources to bear upon the lives of believers. Because of his ministry in Christ he can now indwell us to reproduce the same holiness in our lives. And so, adds, [Abraham] Kuyper, ‘The Holy Spirit finds this holy disposition in its required form, not in the Father, nor in Himself, but in Immanuel, who as the Son of God and the Son of man possesses holiness in that peculiar form.2
To read more, see the original post at The Christward Collective.
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my question on part 1. You’ve persuaded me of the usefulness of the term “definitive sanctification,” though it does seem quite close to “regeneration” (Could we call it a specific aspect of regeneration?). I appreciate the addition of this second post, because, in the past, I think I’ve been turned off to the term “definitive sanctification” primarily because it’s been lumped together with positional sanctification. To have the two set out distinctly and related to progressive sanctification as three parts of a doctrine of sanctification is helpful, and I see the pastoral benefits you point to. You have encouraged me to pick up and employ these categories anew.