Uncomfortable with Justification?

[Richard OFfill]

Which is more important Justification or Santification? What is the danger when we consider these topics?

[Raven]

I will be guilty of plagiarism, but I once heard a very well respect preacher say, "Which is more important, getting married, or staying married?"  You can't have one without the other.  So it is with justification and sanctification.  Justification is not a destination, it is instantaneous.  Sanctification is also not a destination, it is a process.

I think the danger may be when we emphasize one over the other.  Usually it is the former that is overemphasized, at the expense of the latter.

[colporteur]

Which is more important Justification or Santification? What is the danger when we consider these topics?

Neither. The question I have is which one is most often viewed as optional in the church ? If sanctification is just as critical to salvation as justification and if the former is seen as less important, then under that scenerio the point might made that it Sanctification is more important because it is the side of the coin being neglected. To my thinking this is like asking which of the 10 commandments is most important?  Is the 4th commandment the most important? I believe the answer is yes and no. "No," in that if we break one law we have broken them all. Yes, in that the 4th is the most controverted.

[Richard OFfill]

I have commented on other occasions that the evangelicals have more to say about  commandments 7 and 8 (abortion and homosexuality). We must be careful not to preach only one. What about number 10?

[Jim]

What about number 10?

A most excellent question. #10 gets to the heart of the matter almost literally. Unlike the rest of the commandments most of the time there are no tell signs that it's been committed. Although there can be. There is a saying that character is what you do when no one is looking. I think character is what you think when you believe no one can read your thoughts.

[Raven]

It is interesting that we often disfellowship people who break the 7th commandment, but I've never known on anyone who was disfellowshipped for breaking the 10th.  I have a feeling that our list of sins (most offensive versus least offensive) would read somewhat differently that God's.  I say that because of the text that lists pride as the first in a list of 7 sins the Lord hates.  Prov. 6:16-19.

[lily-of-the-field]

Which is more important Justification or Santification? What is the danger when we consider these topics?

They are both equally important.  The danger is that we overemphasize one at the expense of the other.  The result - either way - is distorted theology, neither of which glorify God or help us to to have the Christian experience or testimony that the Lord desires for us.

[El]

I have commented on other occasions that the evangelicals have more to say about  commandments 7 and 8 (abortion and homosexuality). We must be careful not to preach only one. What about number 10?

Does not stealing usually come from coveting the thing that is stolen? And what about the 5th commandment?  'Honor thy father and thy mother'. Interesting!!! I have never heard of anyone losing membership for breaking these commandments.

[El]

It is interesting that we often disfellowship people who break the 7th commandment, but I've never known on anyone who was disfellowshipped for breaking the 10th.  I have a feeling that our list of sins (most offensive versus least offensive) would read somewhat differently that God's.  I say that because of the text that lists pride as the first in a list of 7 sins the Lord hates.  Prov. 6:16-19.

I have never heard of any member losing membership for having or showing too much pride.

[reaching4heaven]

I have never heard of any member losing membership for having or showing too much pride.

Could that be because pride is often a hidden heart problem, where as adultery or theft is not? What would the criterion be for knowing someone is prideful? Owning a house or car worth more than a certain amount? Clothing not bought at Wal-Mart or Sears? The outward appearance would only touch the issue...and may not even be a sign of pride(?).

Not getting after anyone on this part of the discussion, I am in agreement of what was said. Only thinking it would be a difficult reason to disfellowship people.

Also wondering if in past years when some were disfellowshipped when the Independent Movement swung through, if pride was an issue. I definitely experienced & saw hardness of heart on both sides. (This was the time I became an SDA, and it was through the Independents that I learned of SDAism.)

[colporteur]

Probably pride is more difficult to identify than adultery and tends not to be as flagrant. I beleive often people comment on pride when they wish to take a light stance on other thing. What appears to be pride may not be anymore than an attempt to cover inferiority. Many times when people bragg about their accomplishments it is not because they are proud but that they are trying to be somebody because they think they are nobody and good for nothing. It may not be that they are trying to be better than others but that they want to be esteemed as well as others.

[Raven]

Probably pride is more difficult to identify than adultery and tends not to be as flagrant. I beleive often people comment on pride when they wish to take a light stance on other thing. What appears to be pride may not be anymore than an attempt to cover inferiority. Many times when people bragg about their accomplishments it is not because they are proud but that they are trying to be somebody because they think they are nobody and good for nothing. It may not be that they are trying to be better than others but that they want to be esteemed as well as others.

Isn't it possible to be proud, even with low self esteem?  I believe pride is more pervasive than we may realize, and whether it stems from an attempt to counteract a low self image, or because of a big ego, it is still an undue fixation on self.  I was not trying to lessen the seriousness of sins such as adultery or stealing, etc., only pointing out that in God's eyes, the fornicating drunken thief lying in the gutter may be less guilty in the sight of God than the proud, hypocritical church "member-in-good-standing,"  who looks down on the open sinner, but, in his heart, may be harboring the same attitude as that of the Pharisee who went up to the temple to pray "with himself."  Pride and hypocrisy seem to be closely aligned.  I'm thinking of the Pharisees and Sadducees at the time of Christ as an example.  And I don't expect that anyone will ever be disfellowshipped for being proud, because that's one area in which we can't judge.  I was only pointing out that while we are horrified with these "grosser" sins, are we as horrified at the hidden sins in our own hearts?--such as pride--which bar us from the kingdom as readily as the other, more obvious sins.  I probably didn't say it very well.

[Jim]

I think the reason why other sins are dealt with more severely is because pride and covetousness does not affect other people until it's manifested in stealing, disrespect for parents, lying, etc.. etc..  Until it's manifested in such a manner you can not prove it one way or other. However, when your sins affect others in such a manner it's a different story and it needs to be dealt with. A person may be wishing(coveting) that they could steal something from someone but the fear of getting caught constrains them. Who here until that happened would dare go to someone say... "I know you're coveting."??

[GraceVessel]

I have been trying to come up with an example of Justification and Sanctification that explains why we as Christians have so much trouble defining this multifaceted issue:

Within the major protestant world today are two major concepts regarding justification and sanctification; both of which pertain to two schools of thought which I will define:

Calvinism: (they use an acronym called TULIP)

Total depravity - The doctrine of total depravity (also called "total inability") asserts that, as a consequence of the fall of humanity into sin, every person born into the world is enslaved to the service of sin.

Unconditional Election - The doctrine of unconditional election asserts that God's choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God's mercy alone.

Limited Atonement - Also called "particular redemption" or "definite atonement", the doctrine of limited atonement is the teaching that Jesus' substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its design and accomplishment. The doctrine is driven by the concept of the sovereignty of God in salvation and the Calvinistic understanding of the nature of the atonement. Namely, Calvinists view the atonement as a penal substitution (that is, Jesus was punished in the place of sinners), and since, Calvinists argue, it would be unjust for God to pay the penalty for some people's sins and then still condemn them for those sins, all those whose sins were atoned for must necessarily be saved.

Irresistable Grace - The doctrine of irresistible grace (also called "efficacious grace") asserts that the saving grace of God is effectually applied to those whom he has determined to save (that is, the elect) and, in God's timing, overcomes their resistance to obeying the call of the gospel, bringing them to a saving faith.  The doctrine does not hold that every influence of God's Holy Spirit cannot be resisted, but that the Holy Spirit is able to overcome all resistance and make his influence irresistible and effective. Thus, when God sovereignly purposes to save someone, that individual certainly will be saved.

Perserverance of the Saints - Perseverance (or preservation) of the saints is also known as "eternal security."

Armenianism: (widely held adventist view)

- Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation (see also prevenient grace).
- Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.
- No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
- God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
- Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.
- God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
- Salvation can be lost, as continued salvation is conditional upon continued faith.

Summary:

There are two sides of the ditch here that need to be noted. First, is that once me make the selection to follow God (predestined in the Calvinistic view), the deal is set and our walk of faith happens on autopilot (This is wrong).  Second, the other, is that, since we do not measure up to the callling of faith (Arminianism) (ie. salvation can be lost).  Our confidence in God's ability to provide grace for us is in flux and is lacking, ie the other side of the ditch.

Put simply, I am justified in Christ during my walk of faith.  At any point on the walk of faith, I am sanctified at each step as I grow in faith and grace.  Paul talked in the past tense, in the new testament, that he was sanctified.

Having a good understanding of both Calvinism and Arminianism has provided me a good framework from which to share the Good News of the TAM and also SDA specific truths, especially regarding the judgment (Calvinism beliefs all judgment ended at the cross) - Preterism.
(NOTE: You will find a duality in that judgment is Preteristically stipulated and Reformed Theology Eschatology is very Futurism oriented).

Hope this helps define what you are asking,

Best regards,

Gracevessel

[Lazarus]

Thanks, GraceVessel, for this comparison of the Calvinist and Arminian views. I don't ever recall this comparison being discussed in any of the Sabbath School lessons or evangelical series I read or attended growing up SDA (although there were of course frequent and disparaging comments made regarding Once Saved Always Saved theology). It would have been helpful if it had been. On the other hand, the fact that it wasn't gave me an opportunity to seek the information out.