How Is Sanctification Completed?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

At the moment of death, we do not act perfectly righteous in the horizontal realm, even though we have been declared righteous on account of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us. Our sanctification remains incomplete up though death.

Yet in rejecting the Catholic doctrine of purgatory, or any similar doctrine that would disallow works-righteousness or some such fiction, we do not seem to allow any time for sanctification to 'finish.'

How, then, do we Lutherans say that God completes the work of sanctification in us? An immediate transformation?

[DaRev]

I believe that sactification is completed at the moment of death when we leave the sinful flesh behind.

[Edial]

Yes, DaRev is correct.

The generator of sin is our nature/flesh.
God changes our heart and sanctifies us from within.

I see it as a corked champaign bottle.
(We are hermetically sealed). :)
And the fruit of sanctification is often not visible for the naked eye, because Satan owns the bottle and the cork and influences us.

When God takes our flesh away I guess it will be like someone opens a champaign bottle.
We are free - sanctification is complete.

No one dies without God allowing it. So much more if one of His children dies.
At a point of death God's work is completed in us in this life. God will not allow death until His work is completed.

Why does God choose to complete His work for some at 100 years old and some at 1 day old?
This I cannot answer.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Good point. If we buy into an Augustinian theory, whereby sinfulness is rooted in the flesh, then the flight of the soul to heaven would take away every inclination to sin.

I don't know if I buy into the Augustinian theory though, and though it does solve the problem quite nicely. Hmm...

[RevCowboy]

Good point. If we buy into an Augustinian theory, whereby sinfulness is rooted in the flesh, then the flight of the soul to heaven would take away every inclination to sin.

I don't know if I buy into the Augustinian theory though, and though it does solve the problem quite nicely. Hmm...

I don't like the Greek dualism either, I prefer the more folksy Hebrew way of looking at things. There can be no soul if there is no body because they are one thing. I also am 99% sure that Lutherans believe in the resurrection of the body and I would argue that its God's grace is intended for all creation. So no leaving our bodies behind and no jumping in the life raft while the earth sinks.

The completion of our sanctification comes, with the completion of of the transformative character of justification. We are declared righteous by God, this is forensic justification. But then throughout life we go through a process whereby the Old Adam is put to death. But this not sanctification but our transforming power of God's grace or justification. And it is complete upon our death, the death that we owe because of original sin completes the death of the Old Adam.

[Jim47]

I think these verses sum it rather nicely.

1Co 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1Co 15:49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
1Co 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
1Co 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—
1Co 15:52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
1Co 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
1Co 15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

[stumpjumper]

Karl Rahner had a good section on our transformation through death into a sanctified "all cosmic body" that was more or less instantaneous .

I know he's technically Catholic but his views were very Lutheran overall especially regarding justification and sanctification. He even defended sola fide in a Lutheran manner.

Anyway, regarding sanctification, he looked at it as something that occurred through death as the Old Adam and flesh was transformed into the resurrected body. I'd have to pull the book off the shelf to say any more.

I do also remember that this was also his view of purgatory as something that was intrinsically experienced through death and not a destination after one dies...

[MagnusEmboden]

"The Flesh" shouldn't be confused with our bodies although it is there that it resides as a principle.

But when the Bible speaks of "the Flesh" and the "Lust of the Flesh" it is talking about the principle at work in us which desires to go our own way. It is that faculty in us which says that the way we "know to be right" is the way we ought to go, God's way be damned.

Don't we always have to keep in mind that, at the resurrection, we will have bodies of flesh and blood though glorified? Surely then it is not "flesh" in this sense, the general term for the bone and meat of the material person that the Bible talks about when it talks about sanctification...

Or am I all wrong?

[stumpjumper]

No, I think you're right, as we can live, imperfectly, according to the spirit in our bodies.

[RadMan]

I think these verses sum it rather nicely.

1Co 15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
1Co 15:48 As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.
1Co 15:49 And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
1Co 15:50 I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
1Co 15:51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—
1Co 15:52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.
1Co 15:53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."
1Co 15:55 "Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"
1Co 15:56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
1Co 15:57 But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Good post Jim. No intellectual head knowledge to confuse the issue.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Karl Rahner had a good section on our transformation through death into a sanctified "all cosmic body" that was more or less instantaneous .

I know he's technically Catholic but his views were very Lutheran overall especially regarding justification and sanctification. He even defended sola fide in a Lutheran manner.

I like him the more I learn about him.

And I'd heard that he'd used the phrase 'faith alone,' but somehow I'd thought that was just a twist of words, albeit an ecumenically important one. So he really did defend such a doctrine?

[Edial]

"The Flesh" shouldn't be confused with our bodies although it is there that it resides as a principle.

But when the Bible speaks of "the Flesh" and the "Lust of the Flesh" it is talking about the principle at work in us which desires to go our own way. It is that faculty in us which says that the way we "know to be right" is the way we ought to go, God's way be damned.

Don't we always have to keep in mind that, at the resurrection, we will have bodies of flesh and blood though glorified? Surely then it is not "flesh" in this sense, the general term for the bone and meat of the material person that the Bible talks about when it talks about sanctification...

Or am I all wrong?
Jim presented verses that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Heaven.

Isn't it simpler to think that we will have a completely different type of a body?
We will recognize each other, since it will have the shape that we are used to.

Besides, description of Christ as he appeared to John in the Revelation appears to describe a person who is not of flesh and bones.

REV 1:12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man,"dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Thanks, :)
Ed

[Radiata]

To put it in extremely plain and easy to understand language, the Christian is to live the life of constant repentence. The removal of sins from us is continuous. Which is a good thing because our sins would build up really quick if they were left unchecked. So even if you don't have the chance to make a genuine prayer for forgiveness right before the time of death, the sins are already taken away because of our constant repentence.

I figure this is right.

[Qoheleth]

How, then, do we Lutherans say that God completes the work of sanctification in us? An immediate transformation?

I too believe that the transformation, sanctification, i.e., the union with Christ is completed in the life to come, but Im not sure if we are ever told whether it is instantaneous or in any sense, ongoing.

Do the Confessions make any explicit statement towards this?






“This life is not godliness, but growth in godliness; not health, but healing; not being, but becoming; not rest, but exercise. We are not now what we shall be, but we are on the way; the process is not yet finished, but it has begun; this is not the goal, but it is road; at present all does not gleam and glitter, but everything is being purified.”

Martin Luther,
“A Defense and Explanation of All Articles”
(AE 32:24).






Q

[Qoheleth]

"The Flesh" shouldn't be confused with our bodies although it is there that it resides as a principle.

But when the Bible speaks of "the Flesh" and the "Lust of the Flesh" it is talking about the principle at work in us which desires to go our own way. It is that faculty in us which says that the way we "know to be right" is the way we ought to go, God's way be damned.

Don't we always have to keep in mind that, at the resurrection, we will have bodies of flesh and blood though glorified? Surely then it is not "flesh" in this sense, the general term for the bone and meat of the material person that the Bible talks about when it talks about sanctification...

Excellent point! Paul mainly speaks of the flesh as the passions of desire, the corrupted, fallen passions (desires) that seek all manner of things other than Christ.


Q

[MagnusEmboden]

Jim presented verses that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Heaven.

Isn't it simpler to think that we will have a completely different type of a body?
We will recognize each other, since it will have the shape that we are used to.

Besides, description of Christ as he appeared to John in the Revelation appears to describe a person who is not of flesh and bones.

REV 1:12 I turned around to see the voice that was speaking to me. And when I turned I saw seven golden lampstands, 13 and among the lampstands was someone "like a son of man,"dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest. 14 His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire. 15 His feet were like bronze glowing in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of rushing waters. 16 In his right hand he held seven stars, and out of his mouth came a sharp double-edged sword. His face was like the sun shining in all its brilliance.

Thanks, :)
Ed

And yet, after His resurrection He ate breakfast with the disciples and bade Thomas touch Him. this seems to Indicate that He had a body which took sustenance and could be tangibly experienced.

There was a one-to-one concurrence between what was laid down and what was raised up. His body (and ours, at the resurrection) are spoken of as having been/being "glorified" but this does not mean that they were/will be of an entirely different material construction.

Again, I think there is too much confusion about the meaning of the word "flesh".

When the Bible says that flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven I think it's talking more about the complete ultimacy of the eschaton and the total inadequacy of the physical person to comprehend and encompass it.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

And yet, after His resurrection He ate breakfast with the disciples and bade Thomas touch Him. this seems to Indicate that He had a body which took sustenance and could be tangibly experienced.

There was a one-to-one concurrence between what was laid down and what was raised up. His body (and ours, at the resurrection) are spoken of as having been/being "glorified" but this does not mean that they were/will be of an entirely different material construction.

Again, I think there is too much confusion about the meaning of the word "flesh".

When the Bible says that flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of Heaven I think it's talking more about the complete ultimacy of the eschaton and the total inadequacy of the physical person to comprehend and encompass it.
I agree.

The body that came out of the tomb is the same body that went in, even if it was renewed, transformed, and glorified. And thus, so too with ours.

[RevCowboy]

To put it in extremely plain and easy to understand language, the Christian is to live the life of constant repentence. The removal of sins from us is continuous. Which is a good thing because our sins would build up really quick if they were left unchecked. So even if you don't have the chance to make a genuine prayer for forgiveness right before the time of death, the sins are already taken away because of our constant repentence.

I figure this is right.

There is a distinction between the removal of sins and the removal of sin, or original sin. Original Sin is more a state of existence and not so much something that can be built up. It qualitative more than quantitative. The reformers were very explicit in saying that Baptism does not remove original sin, as the RC Church believed. Why did they think this? People kept sinning after they were baptized.

Original Sin is trying to be God in God's place. Thus the justifying process that begins in Baptism is a separation of Old Adam who is dying to sin and the New Adam being made alive in God. It takes our whole life for these two to be ripped apart, and the Old Adam is finally put to death once and for all in our death.

So much as constant repentance is important, just as important is for us to grow in understanding of our need of God for salvation. To live more deeply at the foot of the cross (instead of as the RC's believe the cross being the foot of the stairway of self sanctification. As we grow in understanding of your need for God, we are also detached from our Old Adam who wants to be God. How can someone who needs God be God?

[RevCowboy]

I agree.

The body that came out of the tomb is the same body that went in, even if it was renewed, transformed, and glorified. And thus, so too with ours.

I always found it interesting that no one recognized Jesus at first. Mary, the Disciples in locked room, the Road to Emmaus, Paul. Jesus had to identify himself to them.

[BabyLutheran]

I am confused: why do infant baptism if it's not to take away original sin? A baby hasn't committed any sins, so what would baptism do other than take away original sin?

Pardon my ignorance in advance.

[MagnusEmboden]

I am confused: why do infant baptism if it's not to take away original sin? A baby hasn't committed any sins, so what would baptism do other than take away original sin?

Pardon my ignorance in advance.

Presbyterians (who baptize infants but do not belive in baptismal regeneration) would say that Baptism is a sign and seal of what Christ has accomplished for them and represents their entry into the Community of the New Covenant and children and heirs of that covenant but there is a good deal of debate as to what all that means.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I am confused: why do infant baptism if it's not to take away original sin? A baby hasn't committed any sins, so what would baptism do other than take away original sin?

Pardon my ignorance in advance.
Adopt them into Christ's family, and seal them with the sign of salvation.

Although I thought it did remove original sin... RevCowboy, and others, could ya'll elaborate on your posts?

[Edial]

I am confused: why do infant baptism if it's not to take away original sin? A baby hasn't committed any sins, so what would baptism do other than take away original sin?

Pardon my ignorance in advance.
When infant is baptized he/she experiences the grace of God. They get baptized into Christ.
(I do not know about taking away original sin or not, it is too theoretical for me to understand).

When such a child dies, he/she goes to Heaven, since he/she died under grace of God.

Baptism also has many other spiritual "benefits".

And the fact that infant baptism is an accepted Scripturally is VERY easy to show Biblically.

Infants were baptized into Moses when passing through the Red Sea carried by their parents. About 2 million Jews passed through the sea. There certainly were infants among them.
The NT plainly states that they ALL were baptized into Moses.

1CO 10:1 For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. 2 They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea.

(Yes, these infants are also our forefathers).

So, since it is valid for infants be baptized into Moses, it is certainly valid for them be baptized into Christ.

Now, what does exactly baptism means for infants?
I am not exactly sure. :)

Thanks, :)
Ed

[DaRev]

I am confused: why do infant baptism if it's not to take away original sin? A baby hasn't committed any sins, so what would baptism do other than take away original sin?

Pardon my ignorance in advance.

Adopt them into Christ's family, and seal them with the sign of salvation.

Although I thought it did remove original sin... RevCowboy, and others, could ya'll elaborate on your posts?

Baptism saves us. It forgives sins including original sin. It, however, doesn't prevent us from sinning.

Original sin can and does deserve eternal death, whether or not any actual sin has been committed. Baptism saves us from that damnation that original sin deserves.

[BabyLutheran]

Thanks DaRev. Your answer seems to conflict with Rev Cowboy's on the original sin part.

[RevCowboy]

Thanks DaRev. Your answer seems to conflict with Rev Cowboy's on the original sin part.

Its does seem to conflict, but actually does not. There is a subtle but important distinction. I said Baptism does not "remove" original sin, but indeed it forgives it, which was DaRev's point. We are forgiven and constantly forgiven for our sin through baptism. Also if original sin were removed why would then still die?

Roman Catholics believe that baptism removes original sin, but the reformers noticed that we keep sinning after baptism. But this has to do with the differences between RC and Lutheran understandings of justification. Lutherans believe that we are declared righteous by God even though we are not, while Romans believe we are made or become righteous through the infusion of grace (vs Luther's imputation). They believe that God could not declare something righteous when it is not. Yet, this is precisely what Paul explains to be the case in Roman's 3 and 4.


As far as babies not having sinned... If you hurt someone unintentionally does it make it not a sin? If sin is about being in curvatus se, or curved in yourself, who are the most inwardly focused people alive. Babies are the most selfish people that exist. They don't care what mom or dad are doing, if they want food or need to changed they let you know and they let you know now. This is original sin at work and it is precisely what its forgiven in baptism and precisely what keeps us sinning throughout life. It is forgiven but not removed in baptism.

Hope that explains this subtle but important distinction.

Oh and Luther's small catechism explain what benefits we recieve in Baptism (http://bookofconcord.org/smallcatechism.html#baptism)

[stumpjumper]

And I'd heard that he'd used the phrase 'faith alone,' but somehow I'd thought that was just a twist of words, albeit an ecumenically important one. So he really did defend such a doctrine?

Yes.

He defended a doctrine of grace pretty strongly and had a nice long section on sola fide in his foundations.

Now, to be honest, I have never ventured into his 15+ volume Theological Explorations. I have read a few devotional books and his Foundations of The Christian Faith which was incredible.

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I'd really like to read his work on the Trinity. His collapsing of the economic-imminent distinct is brilliant.