- The End of the New Perspective
- What is the New Perspective? Part 4
- What is the New Perspective? Part 3
- What is the New Perspective?, Part 2
- What is the New Perspective on Paul?
The last two posts have summed up some key New Testament passages that are foundational for the New Perspective on Paul (Rom 3:28-30; 4:12-14; Gal 2:11-16). Dunn and others have argued from these passages—and this is the most basic center of the New Perspective—that since first century Judaism was not legalistic (as shown by Sanders), Paul was not arguing against Jewish legalism with his justification by faith, but against ethnic exclusivity. To be justified by faith and not by works of the law means that Jews and Gentiles are justified on the same basis. Justification is primarily a Jew/Gentile thing, and not a grace/legalism thing.
If you can get that, then you’ve gotten the heart of the New Perspective (NPP). This is where it all began and all other tenets of what New Perspective writers have said over the years flow from that basic thesis. So, what are those other tenets? I’m glad you asked, since that’s what this post is all about. I’ll list these out as succinctly as I can, but remember, not every NPP writer would sign off on all of these.
(We’re now leaving the world of the New Perspective and into the world of New Perspectives.) I’ll begin with just a brief summary of what we’ve already said in the last 2 posts:
1. Judaism was not legalistic in the first century and Paul was not reacting against Jewish legalism, but against Jewish ethnocentrism.
2. The phrase “works of the law” (Rom 3:20, 28; Gal 2:16; 3:2, 5, 10) refers to Jewish boundary markers, such as circumcision, food laws, and the Sabbath. These laws excluded Gentiles as Gentiles from the covenant.
3. Justification by faith is not the central feature of the gospel, but was one of many metaphors Paul used to describe salvation. Justification by faith is largely limited to 2 of Paul’s letters (Romans and Galatians) and doesn’t come up at all in 1-2 Thessalonians, 1-2 Timothy, Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Corinthians and Philemon, let alone the General letters: 1-2 Peter, Jude, 1-3 John, Hebrews. And then there’s James…we won’t even go there. So justification by faith is important, but largely limited to the Jew/Gentile conflicts Paul was battling in Romans and Galatians.
4. Paul, in his pre-converted state, was not plagued by guilt as he sought to obey the law, and he never saw himself as failing to measure up to the law. While this was true of Luther, Paul’s own autobiographical narratives reveal a “robust conscience,” as Swedish scholar Krister Stendahl used to say, who in Philippians 3 says that he was “blameless…as to righteousness under the law” (3:6; Acts 23:1). Paul’s so-called “conversion” (Acts 9; Gal 1) was not so much a change from one religion to another, but was more of a “call” to a new prophetic type of ministry in the vein of Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer 1; Ezek 1). He was called, not converted, to be a prophet to bring Gentiles into the covenant (e.g. Isa 2:1-4).
5. Justification has both a past and a future component. Romans 2:13 uses the term “justify” in the future tense (“the doers of the law will be justified”) and the same idea is implied in Gal 5:4-6, Rom 8:31-34, and other passages. Just as “salvation” and “redemption” have a past and future component, so does justification. Since the future aspect of our salvation takes into consideration our Spirit-wrought works, 
therefore works will be a factor in our future justification.
This is a lot to think through if it’s the first time encountering these issues, so I’ll stop the list here (we could go on and on). But I want you to think about that last point (#5) because this will lead us into our next post about N.T. Wright. Do you agree that there is a future component to justification? Why, or why not? (The Bible must be consulted if you post a response; if not, I’ll delete it.) Let me just affirm that there is indeed a past, present, and future component to salvation. Consider the following texts:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8). This refers to the past aspect of salvation.
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God” (1 Cor 1:18). This refers to the present aspect of salvation.
“Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God” (Rom 5:9). This refers to the future aspect of salvation.
Salvation has past, present, and future components. We are “saved,” are being “saved,” and will be “saved.” And the same is true of all the other salvation metaphors, such as reconciliation and redemption. But is this true of justification? And if it’s true of justification, then what role do works play in that future justification?
If you’re totally lost, then just know that if you talk about future justification, many people (Bible geeks, anyway) will think you’re either catholic, a heretic, or both. Martin Luther himself is rolling over in the grave listening to this post (though John Calvin is a bit intrigued). Justification, according to most reformers, is a past act with no future component. But again, our goal is not to be reformed, catholic, protestant, or Lutheran, but to be biblical—which is what the reformers fought for anyway. So I ask again: “what role do works play in that future justification?” 
Everyone agrees, by the way, that our initial or past justification (the thing that happened at conversion) did not take into account any good deeds that we did—for we had none.
Are you with me? Ok, so this is where the whole Piper and Wright showdown comes in: the role of works in final justification/salvation. We’ll cover that in the next post.
Preston,
Great series of post so far!!!
“Do you agree that there is a future component to justification? Why, or why not?”
I definitely agree based on verses like Matt. 12:36-37,16:27,25:45-46, John 5:28-29, Luke 12:47-48,14:14, 2 Corinthians 5:10, 1 Peter 1:17, 2 Timothy 4:8.
“And if it’s true of justification, then what role do works play in that future justification?”
I am somewhat tired of people trying to explain the relationship of works and future justification by saying works are in “accordance” but not the “basis” of final justification without explaining their underlying story so that the meaning of the words, “accordance” and” basis” can be clearly understood.
Also, I would love to hear your thoughts on if it’s wrong to give any connotation that Christians “earn” eternal life through their “works” during the final judgment. It seems like in some sense the Bible allows us to convene this idea (2 Timothy 4:8, Luke 14:14) but with the qualification that in another sense we earn nothing from God (Luke 17:10). Of course, I am already presupposing that the believer’s final judgment is not exclusively an evaluation for heavenly reward.
Dan
Hey preston this is michael from EBC. When i think of works and our standing before God I am taken to the great white throne judgment in Revelation 20:11-15; which talks about the “books being opened” and in verse 12 and 13 both the righteous and the wicked were judged on the “basis of what were ‘their deeds'”. So as far as it comes for a future aspect of justification this is my input. Yet though i read N.T Wright’s justification book and am still very much a student when it comes to the N.Ps.(new perspectives). I look forward to reading more on this from you and seeing the posts. Also when i think about future i think of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-13 and 1 Cor 15:50-58 about the dead in Christ will rise with bodies that are imperishable at the sound of the last trumpet.
Dan,
A lot of good thoughts here. Sounds like you’ve thought through these issues quite a bit. Here’s a few quick responses.
First, you list a lot of passages to support an idea of “future justification,” but I would want to trim these a bit, focusing on only those passages that use justification language (e.g. Matt 12:36-37) or justification concepts (e.g. Matt 25:31-46). Not every eschatological salvation passage is NECESSARILY speaking of justification in particular.
Great point about the quibble of words (in accordance with; basis; etc.). I do think that the underlying story is huge. Great point. I’m still much more comfortable speaking of our Spirit generated works as either the evidence of genuine faith or perhaps even the condition of future salvation. But I like to reserve the work of Christ as the basis for initial and final salvation. Since our works are created by and flow from the work of Christ/Spirit, I think Christ/Spirit is better suited as the basis.
Earning eternal life? I would only want to use this language if the Bible does. The word “award” or “reward” (e.g. 2 Tim 4:8) doesn’t have to mean earn (again, though, we could quibble over meaning so words). Also, Rom 6:22-23 calls eternal life a free gift of grace, even though this statement follows a long list of exhortations about not letting sin reign in your bodies. In short, I’d want for you to really tease our what you mean by earn.
Very good thoughts, Dan!
Preston,
I knowledge that there are passages that indicate that in one sense eternal life is a gift and undeserving and we, evangelicals have rightly pointed this out. But I wonder if we have done full justice to the idea that Christians in some sense “deserve” (earn(?)) eternal life due to their faithfulness to God/Christ (Col. 3:24-25) through the power of the Spirit.
Can you describe how you are using the word “basis”? I think a lot of people use it to suggest that we don’t ever earn( in any sense)eternal life which is merited by Christ’s imputed righteousness.
Thanks,
Dan
“And whatever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord and not to men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance; for you serve the Lord Christ. But he who does wrong will be repaid for what he has done, and there is no partiality.” Col. 3:24-25
Again, another verse that … I don’t know about you, but it makes me rather uncomfortable with my evangelical paradigm! Can you imagine someone preaching this way to a “saved” congregation? They would be ushered off the stage in seconds! “How could a believer be repaid for his evil – get that legalistic pharisee out’a here!” Yet Jesus also talks this way quite a lot.
I like to always go back to the relationship I have with my wife when I think about works and faith. It seems that with the things of God we take a scalpel to the scriptures and dissect everything to analyze it. We think that separation and classification brings more understanding. But I don’t think that’s always the case. (Like some words like soul & spirit were never meant to be treated that way … that’s why you have Christians that think man is made of a trinity – soul, spirit & body instead of a spirit/soul & body). I think this can be the tendency with faith and works. Paul had to emphasize being saved by faith to show that gentiles are included into the covenant without observance of the law. But we can’t be deceived into thinking Paul was against works or that they were somehow not important to him. If someone asked my wife “how do you know you are married your husband?” perhaps she would reply “because we entered into a covenant based on our love & devotion” … but because we are married we have a responsibility to live faithfully to each other.
Great stuff, Adam. This is a good passage that shows that our “reward” is eternal life, and not various levels in the kingdom (which is, in itself, insanely meritorious).
With you, I’m totally fine with reward language in the Bible, because, well, the Bible says it. To synthesize it all together, though, I’d still want to emphasize that our works are the by-product of Christ and the Spirit’s work in us, so that when God “rewards us” he really rewards the Spirit’s work in us (Rom 8:1-11; 2 Cor 3:1-18).
Ya, I’m still not comfortable with “earn” but would rather stick to the biblical language of “award/reward.” Someone can be given a “reward” without having earned it. And since our faithfulness is created, empowered, and sustained by Christ and the Spirit, then it’s less us meriting anything and more the power of God merited it through us.
Oh, and I’m using “basis” as “ultimate foundation” i.e. upon which everything rests. That’s why I like “condition” more. It’s stronger than “evidence” (I think) but doesn’t replace the foundation, or basis, of the trinitarian work of God, which enables and empowers our works.
As usual, late to the party. Just to leave a comment that might be helpful on ‘condition,’ (from another topic):
‘…“not willing that any should perish but that all
should come to repentance” (2 Peter 3:9c), but here again is
that condition—repentance.
A condition is a very different thing than a merit. We
must avoid confusion at this point. A merit is something due
to us; it is deserved; it is a reward we “earn by service or performance.”
A condition, on the other hand, is “something
established as a requisite to the doing or taking effect of
something else” (Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary).
Christ declares the condition, “Repent and believe.” We did
not deserve God’s salvation; we were lost in sin, headed in
the wrong direction. But his grace drew us to himself, and
by his grace, we repented…’
Preston,
Thanks again for another helpful post. I think the following verses in Rom. 5 help:
9 Much more then, having now been justified in His blood, we will be saved through Him from the wrath. 10 For if we, being enemies, were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more we will be saved in His life, having been reconciled,
11 And not only so, but also boasting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
These verses do show a past, a present, and a future aspect to salvation of which justification is a part. Additionally, the saving in His life is “much more” than the initial justification and reconciliation.
Romans 4 shows the experience of one justified by faith and that experience does not end until Abraham has received Isaac as one raised from the dead (as indicated in verse 17, “God, who gives life to the dead”) and has inherited the corporate Isaac, typified by the multitude of stars and grains of sand (“and calls the things not being as being”).
Abraham’s experience of justification by faith began when he first believed God. His experience of the justification he received spanned his entire life.
I think much of the controversy revolves around semantics and people talking past each other. I would not normally refer to justification as having a past, present and future; for this I would prefer to speak of salvation. However, I must consider the breadth of Abraham’s experience of justification in Genesis and as alluded to in Romans 4. (I’m apologize for covering a lot of ground quickly but this is a reply.)
I still am in doubt of the basic premise concerning 2nd Temple Judaism not being about works of the law. I do however agree that at least part of the problem was with the ethnic fence, the special diet, circumcision, Sabbaths, etc. And I strongly agree that in His crucifixion Christ broke all these ordinance down in order to create in Himself one new man (Eph. 2:14-19, 4:22-24).
Thanks again for addressing this matter.
Great thoughts, Dan!
“I think much of the controversy revolves around semantics and people talking past each other.”
I totally agree. This happens all the time.
“I still am in doubt of the basic premise concerning 2nd Temple Judaism not being about works of the law.”
It all depends on what you mean. Certainly, any Jew seeking to be obedient to God would be “about works of the law.” If we lived then, we should have been too. So this isn’t a bad thing. Now, were they trying to work in order to earn salvation apart from divine grace? You don’t see a lot of that. Did they emphasize God’s agency in salvation to the same extreme that Paul did? That’s a different question, and yet I think the answer is no.
Preston,
Thanks for your comments.
I think I am still a bit concerned about points of the NP that I have read. I am surely not an expert. My earlier reply to a related post raised the following issue. Dunn (and other NPs) claim that works of the law were not the prominent feature of righteousness in 2nd temple Judaism. Then Dunn contends that the part of the early church under the influence of Jerusalem/James was Jewish in character and because of that influence was nearly heretical because of their emphasis on righteousness through works.
I cannot quite reconcile the two views.
I think it depends on how the word justification or righteousness in used in the context. The Pharisees (and even Jesus) did also use the word to mean “charity”. And as Dan said above, in Matt 12:36-37 Jesus does talk about a future judgment based on works, specifically the words we speak, and we will be “righteoused”/justified or condemned by them:
“But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
Ouch. Well, let’s just completely ignore this verse from Jesus … or maybe place another expiration date on it just like we do with Matt 5:19 or others … he was speaking to Jews anyway right? Now that he died and rose again, it’s all different now isn’t it? According to my Bible Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever. That means his teaching is the same. As uncomfortable as it sounds I can’t deny that Jesus, Paul, Peter, & John do talk about a judgment of works – a subject totally omitted in many churches.
In the context of Paul and Romans, the “good news” of God and his saving act of covenant faithfulness, his “righteousness” has been revealed and extended to the gentiles/nations through faith in Christ. They are now made “righteous” – a term also of covenantal membership. So his emphasis is that they have already been justified (past & present) and will be saved IF …. let’s not forget the IF …. if they remain faithful like Christ …. they must LIVE in accordance with this righteousness or else they will be “condemned” (the opposite of justified) and “die” (Rom 8:1,13). But if they remain faithful through suffering and obedience they will share in the resurrection of Christ and the renewal of all things. In the same way, Jesus was preaching to Jews to live in accordance with their covenantal membership or else they will indeed be brought under condemnation.
Perhaps we cannot completely separate the terms righteousness & salvation.
Psalm 98
1 O sing to the LORD a new song,
For He has done wonderful things,
His right hand and His holy arm have gained the victory for Him.
2 The LORD has made known His salvation;
He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations.
3 He has remembered His lovingkindness and His faithfulness to the house of Israel;
All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.
Let us not forget that the emphasis should always be on Him as Savior, Redeemer, and the One who acts righteously. After all, this is what got Paul singing at the end of Romans 🙂
Agreed. Righteousness and salvation are used synonymously throughout the Psalms and Isaiah.
But with your “if…Rom 8” thing, there’s a huge contrast between what we could do under our own power (7:6-25) and what God did for and in us through Christ and the Spirit (8:1-11). So I’d want to highlight Paul’s emphasis on divine agency in salvation, which I believe is his main point in Romans 8:1-4. The reason why we are not condemned is because Christ and the Spirit’s unilateral work in us (cf. Rom 5:8-11). I’m pretty sure you’d sign off on this; just wasn’t clear in what you said.
Judgment according to works? Absolutely. The authors of Matthew, James, Hebrews, and others would see this as central, as would Paul (2 Cor 5:10; Rom 14:10-12).
Yes, I definitely believe that the emphasis should always be on what God has done in Messiah and his Spirit who empowers us to live righteously. We cannot live righteously on our own strength. But true faith (Heb -emunah) is more than a theological confession … it is obedience and faithfulness. That’s why Paul said that only Jews who obey the Torah will be declared righteous (2:13). In the same way, we have to be careful to walk in the Spirit and not try to resurrect that dead man! The author of Hebrews said “we have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence we had at first” (3:14).
Great words, bro. And it seems that Paul’s even alluding to this Psalm in Romans 3:21-22, which helps us understand what he means by “righteousness of God.”
I’m having difficulty seeing how this perspective would practically fit into certain passages. For example, if I apply it to Romans 4:2-5, this is what I hear: “For if Abraham was justified by works (i.e. circumcision), he has something to boast about (i.e. in the flesh), but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed (faith + works, James 2) God and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ Now to the one who works (i.e. circumcision) his wage is not credited as a favor but as what is due (i.e. “I cut my flesh, you owe me”). But to the one who does not work (i.e. circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath) but believes (actively loves God & neighbor) in Him who justifies the ungodly his faith is credited as righteousness.”
Am I applying this perspective correctly here?
Julie,
The best way to see it “fit in” is to see it not as mutually exclusive, but as complementary. Even folks like Dunn–the author and perfector of the New Perspective–would agree with everything you said about Rom 4:2-5. He’d only want to highlight the Jew/Gentile issue that’s so central to Rom 3:28-30; 4:12-16.
“But to the one who does not work (i.e. circumcision, dietary laws, Sabbath) but believes (actively loves God & neighbor) in Him who justifies the ungodly his faith is credited as righteousness.”
I agree with you here. I think that Rom 4:2-5 teaches a rather classic view of Justification in the face of works-righteousness. The burden of proof would lie on those who say otherwise. Interestingly, James Dunn agrees with us here (see his Romans Commentary).
Julie,
I think Dunn believes Romans 4 relates to initial justification and not final judgement (Romans 2)
Dan
Ya that’s correct. Dunn takes a rather traditional view of Rom 4:2-5, except that he doesn’t think Paul is arguing against Jews but simply affirming what every Jew would affirm–that God justifies the ungodly. Dunn makes an interesting case, but there’s one minor problem: he’s wrong. Paul is arguing polemically. No Jew would have called Abraham “ungodly” or said that God justifies the ungodly, and there’s plenty of documentation to support this.
Alright, I’ll begin by saying that a lot of this is over my head. Thanks Preston for writing so clearly that a non-academic can follow the argument. As I’m wading through the comment stream, however, I find the conversation is beginning to get beyond me. I do have one thought though in answer to you question, “Do you agree that there is a future component to justification? Why, or why not?”
What about Romans 8:16-17 – The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him so that we may also be glorified with Him.
Here I’m specifically referencing that last part – “if indeed we suffer with Him …” Could this be referring to future justification? Or maybe it’s just future salvation (a little confused on the distinction).
Similarly, perhaps I would cite Romans 8:13 – For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Here it clearly seems there is “work” for the Christian to do in order to “live” (which seems to be referencing a future living) – namely, “put to death the misdeeds of the body.” And that if this “work” doesn’t happen, death will result. Is this future justification/salvation? Is this j/s now works-based?
Not sure on the answer to the first question there but to the second I would say no on the basis of common teaching that your behavior/’works’ flow out of your identity (child of God) rather than that behavior earning you the right to the identity.
You know, it’s funny, I’ve always said “I want to go to seminary and just study the Bible and try to master it as much as I can” thinking that that wouldn’t really involve reading other authors but I guess there’s no getting away from having to wrestle through what other people have thought/written about the Bible!
Malek, for not being an accademic you sure have a good grasp on the issue and–even more importantly–on Paul’s thinking as a whole. Very impressive.
Ya, I really think the whole of Romans 8 is important for the conversation. Paul begins in 8:1 with justification language (“no condemnation…”), and moves right on through the Spirit’s work in our lives (8:5-8), culminating in resurrection (8:9-11, 20-23), and our future justification that’s secure in light of Christ’s intercession (8:31-34).
Very good thoughts!
Thanks very much for the response, Preston. I’m tempted to pride by your commendations but I think, reading through the thoughtful way you reply to all the comments, it’s more that you’ve got the spiritual gift of encouragement. Either way, may God be praised!
I wonder if you could weigh in on the differences between the biblical treatment of justification and of salvation. It seems to me, perhaps, that salvation and glorification are used somewhat interchangeably by Paul based on Romans 8:30 (?) and therefore salvation is name given the fuller project of God’s redemption which includes justification as a critical element of that project.
Another basis for the above argument could be Romans 1:16 – For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
i.e. I am not ashamed of [the message of how God justifies the unjust] for it is the power of salvation to everyone who believes….
Would this then make Romans 1:16 a mirror-verse to John 3:14-15 – “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the desert, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.”
i.e. Jesus has to “justify” sinners on the cross but that faith in that justification leads to salvation?
Hope this is clear…. It’s easy to get muddled when thinking through all of these proof-texts. Would love to get your thoughts, Preston. Thanks again for giving us blogees so much of your time.
Malek,
Lots of good questions here! Simply put, “Salvation” is a very broad overarching concept, and “justification” is one metaphor within the broad concept. So “Salvation” can be seen through the lenses of redemption, atonement, forgiveness, reconciliation, triumph over spiritual forces, and justification–each one capturing different features of salvation, like slices of pizza. The whole pizza pie is salvation; justification is a slice (albeit and important one, I think).
Just to be clear (or perhaps redundant), justification is not a synonym of salvation, but captures one important aspect of salvation.
I would have to say that our final justification will not be determined by our works. Although Romans 2:13 tells us that only the doers of the law will be justified before God, Romans 3:9 tells us that both Jews and Greeks are under sin. If you’re under sin, your “doing of the law” won’t change that. However, Romans 2:29 reveals that the man who keeps the requirements of the law (cf. Rom. 2:21-22) demonstrates a circumcised heart and whose praise is from God. Now, some may argue that this proves that “doers of the law” will be justified before God (i.e. our final justification will be determined by our works). If so, why is his praise from God and not men? I would argue that his works emerged from a circumcised heart that is fashioned through faith. Now, if fruit can only come forth from a branch abiding in a healthy tree, why would the branch get any glory for the apple or pear? So, what part do our works play in our final justification? It seems to me that our works will simply reveal the source of our justification.
Very good thoughts, Julie. You sure know your way around the text! And ya, I think my most recent post articulates more or less what you’re saying here.
I swear I’m smarter than this post is going to make me sound, but could someone please sort through the differences between redemption, reconciliation, salvation, and justification? There are some obvious distinctions, but in many ways I feel like they’re slightly different words for similar concepts. However, it seems, based on this entry, that the distinction is significant and important. If that’s the case, would somebody sum them up? These are huge questions that leave me with a myriad of other questions, and if I’m going to attempt to sort through any of it, I want to at least make sure my foundation is reliable.
Thanks for the thought-provoking conversation, everyone!
torri,
There’s differences but also some overlap. The definitions can be found pretty easily on the web or in a commentary. Or, you could probably look up Rom 3:21-26 in a good study bible and it should spell out some of the differences.
example:
Justification is a court-room metaphor and speaks about our LEGAL standing before God. We are as guilty as hell (literally) and yet the Judge slams down the gabble and says INNOCENT!
Redemption has to do with buying back, usually in the context of slavery. We were enslaved to sin, but God has redeemed us–he was purchase us–so that sin no longer has mastery over us; God is our new master.
These are different, ya? But they both parse out what God has done for us in salvation.
Salvation is a continuous work for we live in ‘Time.’
Phil 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you WILL PERFORM IT until the day of Jesus Christ.
Yet justification demands a fulfilled act, a state of being (a condition). I can’t live a new live unless I AM justified and free to live it. Sanctification therefore, becomes the fruit or product of that Condition=JUSTIFICATION.
Tit 2:11-12 For the GRACE of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, (12) TEACHING US that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.