Mark Hausam (formerly an elder at Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City, now a Roman Catholic) posted a very interesting article recently:
Mark, whose knowledge of Reformed theology seems rather impeccable based on my reading of his blog (also, see his appearance on Jason Wallace's show, The Ancient Paths - John Calvin), does a great job at showing the problematic nature of sanctification in Reformed theology and how it relates to justification. One should read the entire article, but the following is "on the ball" as we say in Ireland:
The difficulty (or at least one difficulty) is this: If legal justification is all that we need to be right with God, what is the point of sanctification? Apparently it is not important to God, since he finds us wholly satisfactory without it. His moral character is totally reconciled to us apart from any consideration of it. And surely if God is wholly morally satisfied with us--if he finds nothing in us to warrant a moral rejection--then surely, since we are so righteous, we must attain to the fullness of blessedness. If God's law declares us righteous, God's law will grant to us all the blessed fruits of a right relationship with God. So it would seem that sanctification must have no role to play in our salvation at all. Now, many Reformed theologians balk at this, insisting on the cruciality of sanctification in our salvation; but it is difficult to see how it could be so crucial. Is legal justification all we need to be totally right with God or not? If it is, then what could we need more for salvation than to be totally right with God? Doesn't that include everything of importance? If it isn't, then it will have to be admitted that the Catholics have a point when they include sanctification in the mix of all that makes us morally acceptable to God.
For those interested on the LDS "take" on the topic, see my article:
