Wednesday, October 29, 2025

PROGRESSIVE SANTIFICATION – NO! (Santamaria)

PROGRESSIVE SANTIFICATION – NO!

Pro Progressive Sanctification (which we do not believe)

The Bible is clear about believers’ growth in holiness (often labeled sanctification as a progressive work).

A rapid flyover:

* God’s will is your sanctification — growth in sexual purity, vocation, and everyday conduct (1 Thess 4:3–7)
* Pursue holiness — it’s an active hunt, not a lazy nap (Heb 12:14)
* Being transformed — a Spirit-wrought, progressive “from glory to glory” change (2 Cor 3:18)
* Present your bodies… be transformed — renewing the mind will change your life (Rom 12:1–2)
* God works; you work — “work out your salvation… for it is God who works in you” (Phil 2:12–13)
* Sanctify them in the truth — reading, hearing, and internalizing Scripture (John 17:17)
* Put off/put on — concrete, everyday turning away from the old, turning toward the new (Eph 4:22–24; Col 3:9–12)
* Fruit of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, and the rest mature over time (Gal 5:16–23)
* Make every effort — adding virtue, knowledge, self-control… (2 Pet 1:5–8)
* God will finish what He starts — there is a promise of perseverance and progressive growth (Phil 1:6; 1 Thess 5:23–24)

Bottom line: the New Testament clearly envisions real, gradual, tangible, and measurable change in the lives of believers. Spirit-empowered, Scripture-illuminated, and obedience-expressed. Never as a means for earning or meriting eternal life, but as its living fruit.

Those Who Reject Progressive Sanctification (which we hold)

Here’s how Old School Baptists who reject the label “progressive sanctification” explain a range of often-cited “growth” passages:

Their core hermeneutic (in a nutshell)

Definitive, not additive.

“Sanctified in Christ” is a one-time, finished status of the elect (set apart in eternal purpose and by effectual calling). Growth texts are read as manifestation and order, not an increase in holiness-substance.
Beebe & Co. stress the once-for-all work of God and treat “progress” language as experience, knowledge, and walk (not a change to your justified/sanctified standing). (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

Practical obedience = timely deliverances.

When Scripture says “save,” very often it means present-life rescue (from error, snares, chastening). So exhortations aim at temporal peace and order, not obtaining (or upgrading) eternal holiness. Old School writers explicitly contrast eternal salvation with time/temporal salvation. (The Baptist Particular)
Means are evidence, not causes. Word, prayer, ordinance, discipline—these show and shape a believer’s path; they never cause or improve eternal standing. (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

How they handle the usual “growth” passages

1 Thess 4: 3–7 (“this is the will of God, your sanctification…”) Read as an ethical separation befitting those already sanctified in Christ. It governs conduct (sexual holiness, vocation), not a ladder that increases one’s inherent holiness before God. The fruit is practical purity and timely blessing, not added righteousness. (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

Heb 12: 14 (“pursue…holiness without which no one will see the Lord”)Pursuit = practical peace and consecration as the ordained pathway of the saints. “Without which” marks the family likeness of God’s people (and God’s discipline when absent), not a works-threshold to secure eternal life. Beebe routinely guards assurance here: chastening proves sonship; it doesn’t put you “back in.” (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

2 Cor 3: 18 (“from glory to glory”)They emphasize transformative beholding—growth in light, comfort, and order under the Spirit’s ministry—while insisting the eternal perfection in Christ isn’t inching upward; rather, the view and walk conform more openly to what God already made true. (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

Phil 2:12–13 (“work out… for God works in you”). “Work out” = live out what God has worked in. The outcome is timely salvation from errors, divisions, and reproach—not contributing meritorious bricks to an eternal house. God’s inworking guarantees family traits; our outworking affects present peace and usefulness. (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

John 17:17 (“sanctify them in the truth”). “Sanctify” here is read as consecrate/keep—a prayer for preservation and protection in mission by the Word, not an infusion of additional holiness-substance. The elect are already “sanctified” in Christ; this asks for guardedness and fidelity. (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

Eph 4:22–24 / Col 3 (“put off/put on”)Categories of walk: casting off old patterns and putting on what befits saints. The payoff is visible order, doctrinal steadiness, and timely peace; it doesn’t alter one’s eternal sanctification, which is fixed in Christ. (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

2 Pet 1: 5–8 (“add to your faith…”)“Add” = supply virtues in practice; failure yields present barrenness/short-sightedness, not loss of eternal standing. Again, a timely consequence framework. (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

How does this differ from “progressive sanctification” language

They reject the label because it often implies holiness as such is incrementally produced by human cooperation.

They affirm the reality everyone sees in these texts: believers do grow in light, obedience, stability—and they do reap different timely outcomes (peace vs. chastening). But they refuse to call that an increase in the saint’s eternal holiness. (sovereignredeemerbooks.com)

Representative sources to see the method, Beebe, Signs of the Times (editorials)—repeatedly distinguishes eternal salvation from practical, present deliverances and treats exhortations as regulating the walk of already-sanctified saints. (primitivebaptist.net)

“Time Salvation” (1901 Signs reprint)—documents Old School pushback against systematized “conditional time salvation,” yet fully acknowledges the timely categories the Bible uses. This is the lane most “no-progressive-sanctification” voices drive in. (The Baptist Particular)

Here’s a crisp, side-by-side built for Old School Baptist debates:

Progressive Sanctification vs. Conditional Time Salvation

Axis	Progressive Sanctification (PS)	Conditional Time Salvation (CTS)
What is it?	Ongoing growth in holiness in the regenerate during this life.	Non-eternal, in-this-life “deliverances” (peace, protection, order, chastening avoided) that are conditioned on obedience.
Scope of “salvation”	Salvation from the power of sin; transformation of character.	Salvation from temporal harms: crooked generations, false doctrine, needless suffering, church disorder.
Relation to eternal salvation	Fruit/evidence of eternal salvation; not its cause.	Wholly distinct from eternal salvation; never its cause or condition.
Primary agent	The Holy Spirit is the decisive cause; believers truly act (Phil 2:12–13).	God gives ability; humans must obey for the timely outcome to occur.
Certainty	In classic Reformed/Baptist teaching, it is guaranteed (inevitable though variable) in every elect person.	Not guaranteed; contingent. You can forfeit timely blessings by disobedience, yet eternal salvation remains secure.
Use of “sanctification”	The term is central: definitive (set apart) and progressive (growth).	Usually avoids calling sanctification “conditional”; stresses temporal “salvations” instead. Some CTS formulations are criticized if they imply sanctification isn’t certain for the regenerate.
Typical texts	Rom 6–8; Gal 5:16–26; 1 Thess 4:3; Heb 12; John 17:17; Phil 2:12–13.	Acts 2:40; 1 Tim 4:16; Jas 5:20; 1 Pet 3:21; 1 Cor 3:15; Matt 24:13 (read as timely endurance in context).
Means emphasized	Word, prayer, sacraments/ordinances, church discipline, mutual exhortation.	Obedience, separation from corrupt influences, faithful doctrine, baptism/discipleship as figures of timely rescue.
What “failure” means	Backsliding/grieving the Spirit; discipline follows, but God completes the work.	Loss of timely peace, protection, usefulness; chastening—not loss of eternal standing.
Historical champions (OSB context)	Many Baptists/Reformed broadly; among Old School, some affirm “practical”/“progressive” sanctification as certain fruit without tying it to means as causes.	Primitive Baptist “Conditionalists” (e.g., J. H. Oliphant; later writers like S. T. Holder, Harold Hunt). Opposed (in systematized form) by “Absoluters” (e.g., Beebe, Silas Durand), who still affirm real temporal deliverances.

Where people talk past each other

Same words, different referents. PS uses “sanctification” for life-long growth; CTS prefers “time/temporal salvation” for circumstantial rescues. If someone hears “conditional” next to “sanctification,” alarms go off.
Guarantee vs. contingency. Classic PS says growth is certain (though uneven). CTS says temporal outcomes are contingent; many Old School voices insist the sanctifying work itself is certain, while the circumstances vary with obedience.
Text choices. PS camps major on Rom 6–8; CTS camps major on places where “save” plainly isn’t heaven/hell (Acts 2:40; 1 Tim 4:16), arguing the NT uses “save” for timely rescue far more than modern readers

The Origin of the Phrase “Progressive Sanctification

Short version: the phrase “progressive sanctification” is early 19th-century English evangelical/Reformed vocabulary, not a 20th-century coinage.

Earliest printed attestations.

1819: an English pamphlet on sanctification (Google Books metadata shows the phrase in the text corpus).[1]
1824: a London sermon published under the explicit title Progressive Sanctification by George Evans[2] of Hephzibah Chapel.[3] That’s a clean, on-the-cover usage. (Google Books)

19th-century spread. By the late 1800s, the term was normal enough to appear in continental/Reformed and Presbyterian debates—e.g., Julius Müller uses “life of progressive sanctification,” and Charles A. Briggs even discusses “progressive sanctification after death” (1893). (Google Books)

Reception among High Calvinists.

Some English High-Calvinist writers in the late-18th/early-19th centuries treated “progressive sanctification” as an Arminian-leaning construct, which helps explain why parts of the Old School/Primitive Baptist world later avoided the label even while affirming growth in holiness. (OUP Academic)

Twentieth-century contrast term.

The now-common pairing “definitive vs. progressive sanctification” matured later; “definitive sanctification” was popularized in modern Reformed theology by John Murray (mid-20th c.), not the earlier writers. (reformation21)

Bottom line: the phrase “progressive sanctification” is documented in print by 1819–1824 (England), widely used across the 19th century, and only later paired formally with the “definitive sanctification” terminology that many of us use today.

THE EXCAPE HATCH POSITIONAL SANCTIFICATION AND PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION

Origins of the Term

Short answer: “Positional sanctification” is a 20th-century evangelical/dispensational term, popularized by Lewis Sperry Chafer[4] and then widely used by John F. Walvoord[5] and others.

Earliest clean print I can point to: Lewis Sperry Chafer, Major Bible Themes (1926) — “Positional sanctification is as complete for the weakest saint as it is for the strongest… It depends only on his union and position in Christ.” (lewissperrychafer.org)

Further popularization: John F. Walvoord repeatedly taught a threefold schema—positional, progressive/experiential, and ultimate sanctification (multiple articles/books). (walvoord.com)

Scofield connection (background): Notes associated with the Scofield Reference Bible (1917) framed sanctification in “three phases,” often tying one aspect to the believer’s position; later summaries credit Scofield/Chafer for this language. (biblebelievers.com)

Where it spread: The “positional/progressive/ultimate” triad became common in Dallas Seminary circles and adjacent evangelical streams (incl. some Keswick/Free-Grace and Pentecostal textbooks). (etsjets.org)

Bottom line: while Scripture speaks of being “sanctified” as a set-apart status, the specific label “positional sanctification” traces—in print and classroom usage—to early/mid-20th-century American evangelicalism, especially Chafer (1920s) and Walvoord (mid-century). (lewissperrychafer.org)

Definitive Sanctification

The phrase “definitive sanctification” is credited to John Murray[6] (mid-20th century).

Scholars consistently trace the first use/coinage of the term to John Murray, noting he “first employed” or “first articulated and popularized” it. (The Gospel Coalition)

The doctrine appeared in Murray’s short essays “Definitive Sanctification” and “The Agency in Definitive Sanctification.” They were first published in Calvin Theological Journal 2 (1967) and later reprinted in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 2 (1977), pp. 277–293. (The Heidelblog)

Readable versions of the essay circulate widely today (e.g., Banner of Truth/Monergism reprints), but these are reprints of Murray’s original work. (Banner of Truth USA)

So, while older theologians taught a once-for-all aspect of sanctification, the terminology “definitive sanctification” entered the literature with Murray in the 1960s and then became standard in Reformed theology. (The Heidelblog)

Reformed writers have preferred “definitive” (and “progressive”) sanctification, not the dispensational label “positional.”

Classic Reformed usage: From the mid-20th century on, Reformed theology—via John Murray—standardized “definitive sanctification” (a once-for-all, conversion-initiated sanctification) alongside progressive sanctification. (the-highway.com)

Who popularized “positional”?: The term was driven in the U.S. by Lewis Sperry Chafer and then Walvoord (Dallas Seminary)—a dispensational stream. (lewissperrychafer.org)

But in recent Reformed-evangelical catechesis, you’ll sometimes see “positional” used as a synonym for Murray’s “definitive.”

Ligonier describes sanctification as having “definitive and progressive—positional and transformative—elements,” explicitly linking “definitive” to a positional status in union with Christ. (Ligonier Ministries)

The Gospel Coalition essay likewise speaks of “Definitive or positional sanctification” (past), then “progressive” (present). (The Gospel Coalition)

Bottom line: In confessional Reformed theology, the native term is definitive sanctification; “positional sanctification” is not historic/confessional Reformed language, but some modern Reformed outlets use it interchangeably with definitive to communicate the same idea. (the-highway.com)

What term did the Reformers use?

Here’s how the Reformers (and the classic Reformed confessions) spoke about what we now call “definitive sanctification.” They didn’t use Murray’s 20th-century label; their vocabulary clustered around these terms and images:

Sanctification / Renewal (sanctificatio / renovatio). Used broadly for God setting a person apart and renewing them in life. See WCF 13 (“…further sanctified, really and personally… more and more weakened and mortified… more and more quickened”), capturing both the once-for-all breach with sin and the ongoing life. (A Puritan's Mind)

Regeneration (regeneratio) used more broadly than modern usage—often covering the whole change of life. Calvin speaks of “our regeneration by faith” and treats repentance as its lived form. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Repentance / Conversion (poenitentia / conversio) as the comprehensive turn to God. Calvin, Inst. III.3 defines repentance as the “mortification of the flesh and vivification by the Spirit,” i.e., a decisive break from sin with a new life begun. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

Mortification & Vivification (die Abtötung / Belebung; “putting to death” & “making alive”). The Heidelberg Catechism calls this the essence of “true conversion”: “the mortification of the old man and the quickening of the new.” (Q.88–90). (PRCA)

New Obedience (nova obedientia). Luther’s catechesis on Baptism says the Old Adam is drowned daily and a new man daily arises—a vivid way to describe the once-for-all breach with sin issuing in a new walk. (catechism.cph.org)

Repentance & Conversion in the Second Helvetic Confession, gathering the same cluster: true turning to God that issues in a new life. (creeds.net)

Put simply

Where John Murray later coined “definitive sanctification,” the Reformers usually spoke in this older triad of ideas:
conversion/repentance → mortification & vivification → new obedience, grounded in regeneration and expressed as sanctification/renewal. The decisive break with sin and entrance into new life are there, just under different names. (Christian Classics Ethereal Library)

If it helps your archive work, I can lay these terms in a one-page table mapping each Reformation phrase to Murray’s later category, with the exact confession/catechism lines.

Reformers’ Terms Mapped to “Definitive Sanctification”

Reformation term	Core idea (then)	How it maps to “definitive sanctification”	Representative lines (short)
Sanctification / Renewal (sanctificatio / renovatio)	God sets a person apart and renews life in Christ.	Encompasses the initial, decisive consecration (what Murray later isolates as “definitive”) and the ensuing life of renewal.	WCF 13: “Sanctified, really and personally… weakened and mortified… quickened and strengthened.”
Regeneration (regeneratio)	Broader than modern usage: the new birth that issues in a new life.	The breach with the old life and beginning of the new—functionally overlapping with the “definitive” break from sin’s dominion.	Calvin, Inst. III.3: repentance is the “mortification of the flesh and vivification by the Spirit.”
Repentance / Conversion (poenitentia / conversio)	The decisive turning from sin to God.	Names the once-for-all turn that Murray’s “definitive” category highlights, with ongoing fruits to follow.	Second Helvetic: true conversion is a sincere turning to God with amendment of life.
Mortification & Vivification	Putting the old self to death; being made alive to God.	Classic twofold description of the definitive breach (mortification) and new principle of life (vivification).	Heidelberg Catechism 88–90: “mortification of the old man and quickening of the new.”
New Obedience (nova obedientia)	The life that flows from union with Christ.	Immediate consequence of the definitive break: a new walk that evidences the new state.	Luther (Catechesis on Baptism): “Old Adam… drowned daily… a new man daily arises.”
Union with Christ (unio cum Christo)	Believers share in Christ’s death–resurrection.	The fountainhead of the definitive change: death to sin, life to God, by union.	Calvin, Inst. III.1: as long as Christ is outside us, his benefits do not reach us.
Effectual Calling	Spirit’s efficacious summons into Christ.	Historical Reformed shorthand for the moment the definitive change is applied.	WCF 10: called “out of that state of sin and death… to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ.”
Adoption	New status/household.	Names the status shift that accompanies the definitive change; a new family and rule of life.	WCF 12: “received the Spirit of adoption… under His fatherly care.”
Freedom from Dominion of Sin	Sin no longer reigns (though it remains).	Direct statement of the “definitive” breach with sin’s rule.	Romans 6 (as used by Reformers): “sin shall not have dominion over you.”

Summary: The Reformers didn’t use Murray’s 20th-century label, but they did teach the reality it names. Their vocabulary clusters around conversion/repentance, regeneration, mortification & vivification, new obedience, and union with Christ—all describing the decisive break with sin and entrance into a new state, from which progressive renewal flows.

DISCONTINUITY BETWEEN ETERNAL VITAL UNION AND THESE STAGES OF SANTIFICATION

Weaknesses of All These Stages of Sanctification

Here’s a straight-from-Scripture critique of “positional sanctification” (the label and the way it’s often taught). I’m not tilting at straw men; I’m targeting the real weak spots the Bible exposes.

1) The label isn’t biblical—and it tends to flatten what is

The New Testament never uses “positional sanctification.” It speaks of sanctification as (a) a once-for-all consecration and (b) an ongoing work, without carving a static “position” silo.

Already, once-for-all: “We have been sanctified” (perfected by Christ’s offering). Heb 10:10,14
Ongoing, lived: “This is the will of God, your sanctification… that you abstain…” 1 Thess 4:3–7; “Sanctify them in the truth.” John 17:17

2) Scripture’s “definitive break” is more than status—it's an actual moral transfer

The “positional” scheme risks implying a merely forensic or catalog entry. Paul describes an objective change of dominion and new creation life.

“Our old man was crucified with him… so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin… consider yourselves dead to sin and present your members…” Rom 6:1–14

“If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.” 2 Cor 5:17

“By the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body.” Rom 8:13

3) The NT couples sanctification to obedience as its form, not its optional add-on

A common weakness: preaching “positional” as if holy living were a detachable upgrade. The apostles don’t allow that split.

“God chose you… in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience.” 1 Pet 1:2

“Grace… trains us to renounce ungodliness… to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives.” Tit 2:11–14

“Work out your salvation… for God works in you.” Phil 2:12–13

4) The “three boxes” (positional/progressive/ultimate) can become an artificial partition

It’s tidy; it’s also clunky. Biblical writers often interweave the once-for-all and the ongoing in one breath.

“By a single offering, he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.” (Completed act + ongoing process, inseparably.) Heb 10:14

“To the sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints.” 1 Cor 1:2 (status and summons locked together)

5) Over-forensic drift: importing justification’s grammar into sanctification

Sanctification surely flows from union with Christ, but the NT accents Spirit-wrought transformation, not mere bookkeeping.

“We all… beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed… from glory to glory.” 2 Cor 3:18

“Put off the old… be renewed… put on the new.” Eph 4:22–24; Col 3:9–12

6) Tests of life don’t fit a purely “positional” frame

John and James bluntly connect practice with reality—not as merit, but as evidence inseparable from the thing itself.

“Whoever practices righteousness has been born of him.” 1 John 2:29; 3:9–10

“Faith by itself… is dead.” Jas 2:17,26

7) The Spirit’s agency is active, not merely indicative

A static “position” underemphasizes the Spirit’s present, invasive ministry.

“God sanctifies you entirely.” 1 Thess 5:23–24

“Walk by the Spirit… the fruit of the Spirit is…” Gal 5:16–23

If Eternal Vital Union Exists, Do You Need Any of These Transitional Stages of Sanctification?

Short answer: you don’t. If you already confess eternal, vital union with Christ, the Bible’s own categories—union with Christ + definitive sanctification (the once-for-all break with sin’s dominion) + ongoing obedience—cover everything “positional sanctification” was invented to protect.

Here’s the lay of the land:

Union carries the status. If you’re united to Christ, you are already set apart (Heb 10:10,14), a new creation (2 Cor 5:17), no longer under sin’s rule (Rom 6). That’s the decisive, non-incremental change. Calling this “positional” adds a label, not substance.

Definitive vs. progressive is cleaner. “Definitive sanctification” names the actual moral transfer (death to sin; life to God). “Progressive” names the lived-out obedience the Spirit works (John 17:17; 1 Thess 4:3). No need for a separate “position” box.

Why some use “positional” anyway (and why you can skip it):

1. Pedagogy/assurance. It tries to say, “your standing is fixed.” True—but the union already says that, biblically.

2. Guarding grace. It aims to keep works out of the foundation. Again, union + definitive sanctification do this better, without sounding static.

3. Avoiding confusion with growth. Fine—but Scripture already couples the definitive breach (Rom 6; Heb 10:14) with real transformation (2 Cor 3:18) in one breath.

Risks of “positional” talk:

Redundancy: duplicates what union/definitive sanctification means.

Flattening: can sound like mere bookkeeping, underplaying the Spirit’s invasive work.

A quick matrix of who says what about union (timing) and sanctification scheme, with a one-line diagnostic for each.

Figure / Stream	Union (timing)	Sanctification scheme (labels)	One-sentence diagnostic
John Murray (Reformed)	Vital union in time (effectual calling/regeneration)	Definitive (once-for-all breach) + Progressive + Ultimate (glory)	Union births a real moral transfer (Rom 6); growth is inevitable, non-meritorious.
Lewis S. Chafer (Dispensational)	Union in time (conversion)	Positional + Progressive/Experiential + Ultimate	Emphasizes fixed status “in Christ,” then Spirit-enabled walk; clear triad for pedagogy.
John F. Walvoord (Disp.)	Union in time	Positional / Progressive / Ultimate	Popularized Chafer’s triad; keeps Israel/Church distinctions; telegraphs assurance via “positional.”
Gilbert Beebe (Old School Baptist)	Often speaks of eternal union (manifested in time)	Avoids “progressive” label; distinguishes eternal salvation vs. timely/temporal deliverances	Holiness is perfect in Christ; exhortations regulate walk and bring timely peace/chastening.
Samuel Trott (OSB)	Eternal union accents; vital manifestation in time	Same OSB distinction (eternal vs. timely)	Growth texts = light/order/obedience for the already-sanctified; no additive holiness-substance.
C. H. Cayce (OSB editor)	Eternal union language is common	Cautious about “progressive” as a label; affirms growth in walk	Warns against making means causal; stresses obedience as fruit with timely consequences.
Silas Durand (OSB, “Absoluter” leaning)	Eternal union stress	Rejects CTS as a system; affirms temporal deliverances	Sanctification is certain in the elect; “conditional” talk risks implying uncertainty in God’s work.
J. H. Oliphant (PB “Conditionalist”)	Union in time (typical PB framing)	Conditional Time Salvation (CTS) rhetoric	Distinct eternal vs. timely categories; timely blessings explicitly conditioned on obedience.
Harold Hunt / S. T. Holder (PB Conditionalists)	Union in time	CTS vocabulary standardized	Double down on “obedience → timely outcomes,” while denying any conditions for eternal life.
Ben Winslett / March to Zion (PB)	Union in time	Affirms temporal salvation; rejects CTS as a system if it undermines guaranteed sanctification	Uses historic PB timely categories, but insists sanctification is God-guaranteed for the regenerate.
Modern Reformed catechesis (Ligonier/TGC)	Union in time	Definitive (= positional, in their phrasing) + Progressive + Ultimate	Sometimes uses “positional” as a synonym for “definitive,” but keeps Murray’s substance.

Read-off conclusions

Stages ≠ the denial of union. Reformed and dispensational writers affirm union (they place vital union in time) and then outline sanctification to honor both the decisive breach and ongoing growth.
Old School Baptist divergence is mainly lexical and metaphysical. Many OSBs emphasize eternal union (with time as manifestation) and prefer eternal vs. timely categories over “progressive.

[1] (Google Books) https://www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_subject_of_sanctification_part_of/mjNcAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Progressive%20SANCTIFICATIONhttps://www.google.com/books/edition/On_the_subject_of_sanctification_part_of/mjNcAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Progressive%20SANCTIFICATION

[2] Here’s a tight, source-anchored mini-dossier on Hephzibah Chapel (East London) and George Evans:

Hephzibah Chapel — place, time, stream

· Chapel name & preacher: The 2nd-ed. Sermon Progressive Sanctification (1824) lists the author as “George EVANS (of Hephzibah Chapel.)”—This ties Evans to the chapel. (Google Books)

· Location (East End): Mid-century notices place “Hephzibah Chapel, Mile End” in Stepney. One advert gives book pickup “**To be had… Hephzibah Chapel, Mile End. To be had of the Author, 13 Stepney Green; or **in the vestry of his Chapel, Darling Place, near Mile-End Gate.” That pins the neighborhood and the vestry entrance. (Biblical Studies Online)

· Baptist/Strict Baptist milieu: Periodicals report the place as a Baptist venue; e.g., “Hephzibah Chapel.—Mr. C. Gordelier… having engaged to supply this place of worship, which had been closed, it was re-opened…” (1863)—a typical Strict/Particular Baptist supply note in the East End. (Biblical Studies Online)

· Further East-End corroboration: Later Baptist notices reference usefulness “at Hephzibah Chapel, Mile End,” confirming the site’s ongoing identity in that neighborhood. (Biblical Studies)

George Evans — what we can say cleanly

· Minister in London, 1824. Styled on the title page “of Hephzibah Chapel”; sermon on 1 Thess 5:23 under the explicit rubric “Progressive Sanctification.” (Google Books)

· Likely setting: A nonconformist/Baptist chapel in Mile End/Stepney, with distribution given at 13 Stepney Green and a vestry at Darling Place (near Mile-End Gate). (Biblical Studies Online)

Takeaways for your archive entry

· Name: Hephzibah Chapel (Mile End/Stepney, East London).

· Address cues: 13 Stepney Green (author’s address for sales); vestry entrance—Darling Place, near Mile-End Gate. (Biblical Studies Online)

· Denomination: Baptist/Strict Baptist orbit (mid-19th-century notices). (Biblical Studies Online)

· Figure: George Evans (minister/preacher there by 1824). (Google Books)

[3] The Hephzibah Chapel in East London is tied to George Evans:

· It existed, and Evans preached there. Google Books lists the 2nd edition. pamphlet Progressive Sanctification (1824) with the author styled “George EVANS (of Hephzibah Chapel).”—That’s your anchor. (Google Books)

· Where in London? Mid-19th-century notices place “Hephzibah Chapel” at Mile End/Stepney (East End). An Earthen Vessel item advertises material “To be had… Hephzibah Chapel, Mile End… 13 Stepney Green,” which pins the neighborhood (East London strict/particular Baptist orbit). (biblicalstudies.gospelstudies.org.uk)

· Who supplied it later? A Baptist Reporter (1863) note says: “London, Hephzibah Chapel.—Mr. C. Gordelier, from the Baptist church, Bow…” indicating the place had been closed and was being supplied—again pointing to an East-End Baptist/Strict Baptist milieu. (Biblical Studies Online)

· Name & type. “Hephzibah” is from Isaiah 62:4 (“my delight is in her”). London nonconformists often christened chapels with Zion/Hephzibah/Sion-style names. Everything about the latter notices (Earthen Vessel, Baptist Reporter) screams Baptist/Strict Baptist usage in the East End.

· Don’t mix it up with other Hephzibahs. There were other chapels with the same name (e.g., Nottingham—built 1804, later sold—not your London chapel; Somerset has one too). Useful for context, but different buildings/congregations. (Internet Archive)

What we can say with confidence

1. George Evans’s 1824 sermon ties him to Hephzibah Chapel by name. (Google Books)

2. Mid-century trade/notice evidence places a Hephzibah Chapel at Mile End/Stepney (East London), active among Baptists/Strict Baptists (ads/supply notices). (biblicalstudies.gospelstudies.org.uk)

Next steps to nail it down (street & years)

· Scan London Post-Office Directories (c. 1820s–1860s) for “Hephzibah Chapel” under Mile End/Stepney.

· Search the Earthen Vessel and Baptist Reporter runs (1850s–60s) for more adverts (often list street corners and trustees).

· Check local East-End chapel lists (Stepney/Mile End Nonconformist returns).

[4] Lewis Sperry Chafer (1871–1952)

Who he was. American evangelical theologian; protégé of C. I. Scofield. Co-founded the Evangelical Theological College in 1924 (renamed Dallas Theological Seminary), serving as its first president.

Why he matters. He systematized classic dispensationalism for 20th-century evangelicals and popularized the threefold sanctification scheme—positional, progressive, ultimate—and a “grace-saturated” spiritual life theology.

Signature emphases

· Dispensational framework. Sharp Israel/Church distinction; usually seven dispensations; consistently premillennial and pre-tribulational.

· Sanctification grammar.

o Positional: complete, by union with Christ; the same for “weakest and strongest” believer.

o Progressive/Experiential: daily walk by the Spirit.

o Ultimate: perfected in glory.

· Free-grace soteriology. Eternal security, salvation apart from works; fruit/works as evidence and reward rather than basis.

· Pneumatology & the “spiritual life.” Indwelling Spirit at conversion; repeated filling for power; classic treatment in He That Is Spiritual.

· Hermeneutics. Strong literal-grammatical reading of prophecy; OT promises to national Israel not “spiritualized” into the church.

Key works (handy for citation)

· He That Is Spiritual (1918) — the standard Chaferian handbook on the Spirit-filled life.

· Grace (1922) — programmatic defense of grace as the ruling principle of the Christian life.

· Major Bible Themes (with revised editions, 1926ff.) — concise survey; widely used in churches and Bible institutes.

· Systematic Theology (8 vols., 1947–48) — sprawling synthesis of dispensational, free-grace evangelical theology.

Influence streams

· Dallas Seminary tradition. Picked up and advanced by John F. Walvoord, later by Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges (divergent accents, same lineage).

· Study-Bible culture. Extends Scofield’s project into classroom and pastor-training; shaped countless pastors’ eschatology and ecclesiology.

Typical one-liners you’ll see attributed to him (paraphrase-ready)

· Positional sanctification: complete for every believer because it rests solely on union with Christ.

· The spiritual life: the filling of the Spirit is for power and holiness; not a second blessing that alters one’s standing.

· Israel/Church: God has distinct programs for each; promises to Israel stand.

Where he sits in your ongoing comparisons

· Versus Reformed “definitive sanctification” (John Murray): Chafer’s “positional” overlaps theologically but comes from a different system; Murray stresses a real moral break in us, while Chafer stresses status in Christ (and keeps “progressive” for life-change).

· Versus Old School Baptists: OSBs who avoid the label “progressive sanctification” would resonate with Chafer’s insistence that eternal standing is fixed and growth is non-meritorious, but they won’t buy his dispensational framework.

[5] John F. Walvoord (1910–2002)

Who he was. American evangelical theologian; premier 20th-century dispensationalist. President of Dallas Theological Seminary (1952–1986), then chancellor. A student and heir of Lewis Sperry Chafer.

Why he matters. He systematized and publicized dispensational eschatology for pastors and lay readers, defending pre-tribulational premillennialism and popularizing the threefold sanctification schema: positional, progressive/experiential, and ultimate.

Signature emphases

· Eschatology: crystal-clear defenses of the pre-trib rapture, literal fulfillment of Israel’s promises, and a future earthly millennial kingdom.

· Sanctification grammar:

o Positional — what you are in Christ (fixed).

o Progressive/experiential — Spirit-enabled growth in this life.

o Ultimate — perfection at glorification.

· Hermeneutic: consistently literal-grammatical, with strong distinctions between Israel and the Church.

Key works (handy anchors)

· The Rapture Question (1957; rev. eds.) — classic pre-trib defense.

· The Millennial Kingdom (1959) — systematic case for premillennialism.

· Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation (1971) — influential commentary.

· Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (1974).

· The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook / Major Bible Prophecies (1990s) — popular encyclopedic treatments.

· Editor, The Bible Knowledge Commentary (OT/NT, with Roy B. Zuck, 1985).

His lane vs. nearby lanes

· With Chafer: carries forward the positional / progressive / ultimate sanctification triad and classic dispensational distinctives.

· Versus Murray (Reformed): overlaps with Murray’s “definitive vs. progressive” distinction conceptually, but Walvoord keeps the positional label and the dispensational framework (Israel–Church distinction, pre-trib rapture).

Bite-size takeaways

· He gave pastors a teachable blueprint for prophecy and sanctification that fit Sunday school, pulpits, and study Bibles alike.

· Where Murray stresses a real moral breach with sin (“definitive”), Walvoord stresses the believer’s unchangeable status in Christ (“positional”) alongside practical growth.

Want a page of 10 sub-25-word Walvoord quotes (with book + page) that nail his sanctification triad and rapture logic?

[6] John Murray (1898–1975)

Who he was. Scottish-born Reformed theologian; taught Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) 1930–1966. Student of Machen; ordained in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

Why he matters. He gave modern Reformed theology some of its clearest grammar for union with Christ and sanctification—especially the label “definitive sanctification.”

Trademark contributions

· Definitive Sanctification. Murray argued that sanctification isn’t only a life-long process; there is also a once-for-all breach with sin’s dominion at effectual calling/union with Christ. Key essays: “Definitive Sanctification” and “The Agency in Definitive Sanctification.”

· Union with Christ front-and-center. Ordo salutis (order of salvation) is not a mere sequence but benefits flowing from union (calling, regeneration, faith, justification, adoption, sanctification, perseverance, glorification).

· The Free Offer of the Gospel (with N. Stonehouse, 1948). Classic defense of a well-meant, sincere gospel offer alongside definite atonement.

· Ethics as covenantal obedience. In Principles of Conduct, Murray ties the Decalogue and creation ordinances to Christian ethics without lapsing into legalism: grace creates real obligation.

Key books & essays

· Redemption Accomplished and Applied (1955) — short, potent map of atonement and application.

· Principles of Conduct (1957).

· The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (1959).

· NICNT Romans Commentary (2 vols., 1959–1965) — exegetically dense, pastorally sharp.

· “Definitive Sanctification” essays (1960s; reprinted in Collected Writings, vol. 2).

A few bite-sized lines (short, fair-use)

· On sanctification’s double aspect: “There is a decisive and irreversible breach with the power and control of sin.”

· On union with Christ: “All the blessings of salvation are founded in and flow from union with Christ.”

· On the offer: “God freely and sincerely offers Christ to sinners.”

Where he sits in the debates you’ve been mapping

· Against “positional vs. progressive” (dispensational style): Murray prefers definitive vs. progressive; “positional” can sound static, whereas “definitive” names a real change in us (death to sin, life to God).

· With the Reformers: He systematizes their older cluster—conversion/repentance, mortification & vivification, new obedience—into that twofold sanctification grammar you’re using.

· Primitive Baptist intersections: Murray’s definitive breach dovetails with your “decisive break” language, while his progressive side is the part some Old School writers resist as a label (even while affirming growth-in-walk).

Translate

Historic