Helm's Deep - On NT Wright's Ordo

I wouldn't make to much of the lack of mention of sanctification in that article. As Dr. Helm notes, it does not appear in THIS article. Rather, it's an exegetical account of Romans 8, and Paul does not mention sanctification there. NTW discusses it elsewhere.

Read What Paul Really Said, chapter 8, pgs 142-145 for some discussion of sanctification (he doesn't much use the word sanctification, though). Read his Romans commentary for an in depth discussion of it.

In fact, if you want to discuss his theology, those two places are the best to start.

Ben, thanks brother, I knew you would be all over this one :) I need to buy those books.

I must say that I generally dislike all this yacking over various theories of justification. The issue for me is the interface of the theory with practice. I'm a chemist so I suppose I would naturally interested in where the rubber meets the road. I think theology tends to suffer from the abstract-only virus. Anyways, where the rubber meets the road for me with sola fide is that I no longer have to be seek to be shown or judged as right in this world. The way this is manifested in real life interests me; I've had a few friends switch to the Roman Catholic Church and they all became argumentative afterwards. It's as if they needed to be proved to be right. I don't think this is mere coincidence. As a result of my reflections on how sola fide is true in reality, it tends to confront my ego. I take that to be a good thing, honestly. Hopefully my ramblings made some sense.

Ben, I hear you brother. But if your view of justification is not sola fide...the working out of your salvation is much different. And yes, the Solas of the reformation are humbling and they leave no credit for us to take for the work of grace in our lives.

Though sanctification is synergestic...justification is not.

I lent Tim my copy of What Paul Really Said. Pilfer it off him and you won't have to buy it! He's a sneaky one, though, that Dees is, so you'll have to be crafty...or I bet you could just ask him for it :)

Also interesting, one of NTW's criticism's of the RCC is that it has a tendency to collapse justification and sanctification together; something we ought to avoid, he says.

Of course, for BV, the practical outworking of that abstract criticism is that one who has the two collapsed will think that God's view of them in the present depends on their present action; thus, our God actions put is in a right standing with God.

Also interesting, one of NTW's criticism's of the RCC is that it has a tendency to collapse justification and sanctification together; something we ought to avoid, he says.

Of course, for BV, the practical outworking of that abstract criticism is that one who has the two collapsed will think that God's view of them in the present depends on their present action; thus, it is our actions that put us in a right standing with God. We can lose or gain that standing depending on the moment.