An indispensable focus, heightened in the solitary observance of 1 Peter 3:15: “sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts”. The weight of each word in that mighty call elucidates vital components of what theologians reckon the doctrine of sanctification. In theology, no items have more strength than the articles concerning salvation and the atonement. Justification, sanctification, and glorification theologically encapsulate the atonement, each with their precise emphasis: justification in its declaration of righteousness, glorification in its presentation of the saint in glory, and sanctification – the focus henceforth – in its consecration of God’s children as holy. Returning to the text, first noted, the mention of Christ (more so His centrality) is essential to sanctification. Jesus is ascribed and described at every angle of the doctrine, from its propulsion to its function. Christ is the gospel; the gospel is Christianity; therefore, His workings in sanctification resolve the doctrine with a necessary call for analysis and clarification. Therein is the beckon to study. Second, it is a command. This is not a superfluous additive to the Christian life ready to be taken or dismissed; it is an active imperative. Third, it is a chief affection of the heart. Jonathan Edwards beautifully stirs man towards Christian greatness:
“He that has doctrinal knowledge and speculation only, without affection, never is engaged in the business of religion… Never was there a saint awakened out of a cold, lifeless frame, or recovered from a declining state in religion, and brought back from lamentable departure from God, without having his heart affected.”
Indeed, sanctification and the whole of Christian life is a glorious affectation from the heart – not the hands or mouth. It ought to be remembered and valued before continuing a study that one purposely analyzes this doctrine to have it sealed on his heart and mobilized therein. “The result of slavery to God is sanctification.” Therefore, may the man seek God as master, and sanctification will consequently lord over his heart alongside his King. Covet not the life of holiness or the trappings of the ethic, but be captivated by the Giver of Grace. The observation of the exit passage is moot unless one first knows the key. The aim is extended as to uncover the source that an everlasting spring would ceaselessly persist through the hearts of God’s children.
A. Scriptural Verbiage
In light of the glorious truth that New Testament concepts are frequently built upon Old Testament concepts, one must firstly analyze the Old Testament’s verbiage regarding sanctification. The Hebrew words translated ‘to sanctify’ are קדוש (qadosh) and קדשׁ (qadesh, qodesh, qaddish). One may rightly assume that these were words stemmed from the words קדד (quadad) translated ‘bow’ or ‘bow down’ and קדם (quadam) translated ‘to come before’. Herein a student finds reverence and worship, which is the irrepressible response to the foundational principle of sanctification: holiness.
The tenet continues in its Greek translation for sanctification, as ‘holiness’ and ‘to sanctify’ are often interchangeably translated. Translation is determined by “context alone” and “even in individual passages translators do not always agree.” However, holiness must be treated as the chief concern. Therefore, several Greek words must be observed and analyzed. ἅγιος (hagios) is used about 233 times in the New Testament and is mostly translated ‘Holies’ and ‘holy’, but is also translated ‘saint’ or ‘saints’ about sixty-one times, ‘sanctuary’ twice in the book of Hebrews, and ‘most holy’ once in Jude 20. ἁγιάζω (hagiazo) is mainly translated ‘sanctified’, ‘sanctifies’, or ‘sanctify’; it is translated as such in twenty-five of its twenty-eight uses. Its other three applications, it is translated ‘hallowed’ – both times referencing the Lord’s prayer spoken by Jesus – in Matthew 6:9 and Luke 11:2, and ‘keep… holy’ in Revelation 22:11. ἁγιασμός (hagiasmos) is used a total of ten times in the New Testament, and accounts for the translation of ‘sanctification’ in some of Paul’s epistles (Romans 6:19, 22; 1 Corinthians 1:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:3, 4, 7; 2 Thessalonians 2:13; c.f. Hebrews 12:14). Its two other uses render it ‘sanctity’ as in 1 Timothy 2:5, or ‘sanctifying’ as in 1 Peter 1:2. ἁγιωσύνη (hagiosune) is only translated ‘holiness’ and is used in Romans 1:4, 2 Corinthians 7:1, 1 Thessalonians 3:13. ἁγιότης (hagiotes) is used only once in Hebrews 12:10, and is translated ‘holiness’. ἁγνεία (hagneia) is only used in 1 Timothy 4:12 and 5:2, and is translated ‘purity’. ἁγνισμός (hagnismos) is exclusively translated ‘purification’ in its one use in Acts 21:26. ἁγνίζω (hagnizo), is translated ‘purified’, ‘purified’, and ‘purifies’, and is interestingly never used by Paul (John 11:15; Acts 21:24, 26; 24:18; James 4:8; 1 Peter 1:22; and 1 John 3:3). ἁγνός (hagnos) is used eight times, being mainly translated ‘pure’ (2 Corinthians 11:2; Philippians 4:8; Titus 2:5; James 3:17; 1 John 3:3), but also ‘innocent’ (2 Corinthians 7:11), ‘free from sin’ (1 Timothy 5:22), and ‘chaste’ (1 Peter 3:2).
Aspects of sanctification’s verbiage are divided into firstly, the actual process and secondly, the sanctified place, object or person. The differentiation is found in that one is a verb, the other a noun. Through the analysis of the Scriptural verbiage, it is evident that ‘sanctification’, and words of resemblance, were used to describe holy people, holy objects, holy places, or the process by which these items came to be holy. The Christian’s relevance and theological implications are weighted more on the latter: the process of becoming holy and set apart. The most basic concept that can be noted of the act of sanctifying would be characterized as a ‘setting apart’. A sanctified object or person is distinguished and ‘separated’ from the masses. In summation, sanctification has been traditionally defined with reference to Scripture as “the process by which an entity is brought into relationship with or attains the likeness of the holy.” This definition will suit the study, and may be refined and built upon, but not nullified.
Some have been taught a system of categorizing sanctification into four parts or sequences, but this is simply bad theology. For what is mentioned in the first of the four sequences ought to be termed otherwise as to reserve sanctification its precise definition and clarity; e.g., what one may call ‘Preparational Sanctification’ is simply the theology of God’s election. What one may call ‘Positional Sanctification’ is better maintained by the term justification, and what one may call ‘Prospective Sanctification’ is better maintained by the term glorification. Yet, in this system, what one may call ‘Practical Sanctification’ is best fitted to what a respectable theologian may deem true and precise sanctification. The classification mentioned has its value, but not in regards to the desired exactitude of the following study.
C. Justification and Sanctification
Martin Luther was revolutionarily concerned with justification sola fide, but “paid scant attention to sanctification.” John Calvin and other reformers agreed with Luther on justification, but “insisted that the God who justifies is also the One who sanctifies” and purposely sanctions the justified with “the power for holiness of life.” Therefore, before proceeding, it may be appropriate to display holiness’ distinction from righteousness, or even better, sanctification’s distinction from justification. Conversely, Schreiner upholds that “in Pauline thought” sanctification and justification “are overlapping metaphors that portray God’s work in Christ for his people.” Further, Fitzmyer states that sanctification in Romans “is simply saying the same thing under a different image: as does justification, so sanctification also transfers the baptized Christian to the dominion of Christ.” The two doctrine’s agreement will be dissected further at a latter point, but the correspondence is noted. Systematic Theology pleads and digs for distinctions, and must have its limit. Nonetheless, distinctions provide clarifications, and there are certainly distinctions that allow sanctification and justification its rightful place according to Schreiner and Fitzmyer. Yes, one must remember that justification and sanctification are dependent upon one another, and therefore should not be separated, but this does not deny each their idiosyncrasy. In the observance of one there can be no robbery of the other. Justification is promoted and provoked by righteousness, sanctification is evermore fueled by holiness. Holiness is typically defined as a ‘setting apart’ but also implies a relation to the divine. Righteousness is a state of vindication or declaration. It simply surfaces that ‘holiness’ is more concerned with the ethic in a man. Justification does not necessarily “touch the soul of man” and may be deemed “extra nos – outside ourselves… However, in regard to sanctification… the work of God through faith does indeed touch the soul, and change it.” Further, both begin and are wrought by God’s divine hand, but not in same form or function. “Justification is an act of God’s reckoning; sanctification is an act of God’s transforming.” Another major difference is found in the consideration of procession and gradation.
“Justification is an event that happens at a point in time, and is not an ongoing act of God as sanctification is. Not only that, justification is not an act that comes in varying degrees, but one that is a once-for-all and total reckoning of righteousness to us for Christ’s sake. It is not mediated to us in varying measures as sanctification is. ”
Therefore it is safe to assert such distinctions as viable cause to view sanctification in its independent singularity. With the provided framework and definition, one may move forward into methodical aspects of the doctrine of sanctification.
Nothing is more valuable than aligning one’s perspective regarding the basis of sanctification. If one assumes the wrong basis, consequently, the means, results, and even permanence will be skewed or completely misguided. Therefore one ought to be blunt: “Sanctification is not an attainment.” Man’s sanctification was only brought upon by the sanctification completed by Christ Himself (cf. John 17:19). The blood spilt by Jesus Christ has completed the consecration that no man could have attained in attempts infinity (Hebrews 13:13; cf. Romans 8:7). Foundational to holiness is the idea that man cannot conquer such a status further than the one that has already been bestowed upon him by God. “It is not something for which a man works; it is a gift. It is not a thing that a man grows into; it is a given thing, which he receives.” Hence, if man cannot achieve it, then he cannot establish it. ‘The God of peace Himself’, and the divine hand of the Spirit, is left to build its genesis in the heart of man (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Thus it is necessary to view all aspects of sanctification in light of God’s gracious stirring. For, it would certainly be imprudent to value the ‘gold’ over ‘the temple that sanctified the gold’ (Matthew 23:17). “The summons to present oneself wholly to God… must not be severed from the prevenient grace of God, for it is based on it and flows from it.” God has called the dead man to be alive for his sanctification (1 Thessalonians 4:7).
For one knows, both biblically and experientially, that God does not mechanize the hands and mouth of the Christian directly; He affects the heart. The Holy Spirit opens up the believer “from the inside to the gospel message as He enables him to understand the wonder of God’s love for him” (Rom. 5:5) that consequently creates “the response of faith”. Therein one sees the two basic means of sanctification: the Spirit’s affectation of the heart, and faith. Further, the Spirit reigns in the believer “by dwelling in him continually” (Rom. 8:9) and “making him free from the tyrannous authority of sin” (Rom. 8:2). Once again, it is said, ‘sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts’ (1 Peter 3:5). Yet, once more, ‘it is God who works in you’, not necessarily ‘out of you’ (Philippians 2:13). Paul reserves the responsibility of practical obedience to the Christian in that ‘working out’ of what God places within (Philippians 2:12). “The conceptual tension… seems unbearable – apparently, an extreme formulation of the paradox of divine sovereignty and human responsibility.” Still, the apostle frames this act of sanctification around the empowering work unto the Christian’s heart to complete the deed. Nevertheless, this ostensible contradiction leads to another premise of great importance.
The Christian finds himself pinned between what some call the ‘two times.’ It is even said that Paul “believed himself to be living” and ministering “‘between the times’.” This anticipatory transition period is the designated setting of the Christian’s moral admonition. The ‘times’ are distinguished: for, “in one sense” the justified “have already been raised from the dead”, but “in another, they are still waiting for this to take place.” Silva asserts an almost identical principle, in that “while in a very important sense we have already been saved (Ephesians 2:5, 8; Titus 3:5), in another sense we are yet to be saved (Romans 5:9-10; 1 Corinthians 3:15; 5:5; 2 Timothy 4:18).” The tension is upheld as a result of the ‘newness of life’ experienced by one who is reckoned righteous as not having altered “the fact that man in this world have mortal bodies” where “sin is ever at hand.” Even James “recognizes that his readers will not entirely be able to escape the influence of sin” (James 3:2) but still beckons them to press on unto total holiness (James 1:4). It is because “the ‘new creation’ in its fullness belongs to the future, but to those in Christ it is already realized through the Spirit.”
Herein the connotations relay a conclusion to this dialectical balance: sanctification being a progression of realization. The Spirit’s work in the hearts of God’s children is a means to manifest their justification. This principle beautifully unfolds and provides an aid to understanding to the text of Philippians 2:12-12. Paul is elucidating the struggle of how “salvation in its entire scope necessarily includes the manifestation of righteousness in our lives.” Barrett affirms that sanctification is a “process of realization” – in that, one begins to personally witness and enact what God has done in them by justification. Fitzmyer states, “Sanctification… involves the daily task of living out of justification.” The man has died with Christ and “should no longer be in servitude to sin” (Romans 6:6); the service points back to the death one has occurred by justifying faith. For, one’s death with Christ has consistently led to life with Christ (Romans 6:8-11). Paul does not use the phrase ‘new creation’ in Romans as he does in his other epistles (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17), but he most certainly upholds the concept. The “Christ-event (Romans 6:4-5)” of justification introduces the believer “into a new way of life” (Romans 6:4).
“Since God is the sort of God He has revealed Himself to be, to belong to Him involves the obligation to strive to be and do what is in accordance with His character. The Christian’s concrete living is henceforth to be marked by the continuing process of sanctification: it is to be moulded and shaped ever more and more into conformity with God’s righteous will.”
The Christian ‘new life’ consists in moving further up and into God’s character. Importantly, one must realize that “this new life in Christ is nothing less than the risen Christ living His life in the believer.” It is not that God’s children are yearning for god-like imitation, rather they “enjoy proleptically the very life of the risen Christ, which is nothing less than ‘eternal life’ (5:21; 6:23).” Deucedly, the sons of God are left in a state of realization and not implementation. This is necessary since “a right relationship has been established” and therefore, “we can in no way ‘add’ to that status by our conduct.” However, there is a return to the paradox on the side of human responsibility, in that “the life of the Christian with Christ can be experienced and recognized only by faith.” F.F. Bruce elegantly summarizes this premise: “faith” is “the bond of union with the risen Christ.” In sanctification, it may be sufficient to say that not one faction, neither Christ or faith, affects the other to budge, rather they are inseparable in continuity and function. One cannot separate justifying faith and life lived in the Spirit, for they “are two sides of one coin; neither is present without the other.” Cranfield obliges in the belief that “our righteous status before God involves an absolute obligation to seek righteousness of life”; to grasp justification without sanctification is incongruous. True faith, as depicted in the Bible, simply “cannot exist apart from acts of obedience to God.” Again, it is the faith in sanctification, being led by the Spirit, which motions the process of realizing one is justified; and this is simply due to them being the same faith. The faith that led to one’s justification empowers and moves one’s sanctification.
A summation regarding the results of sanctification can be stated in two parts: present ‘newness of life’ and future glorification. Moreover, it has been stated that if Paul were to give a summation of his doctrine on sanctification, he would answer with something to the likening of Romans 8:14-17.
A. Romans 8:14-17
Before studying the passage, one must look at the preceding texts where his premise is unfolded. Specifically, Paul states the necessity of ‘putting to death the deeds of the body’ (Romans 8:13) amongst the non-existent ‘obligation… to the flesh’ (Romans 8:12). Therefore, Romans 8:14-17 concerns the method of such mortification, which concerns the firstly stated result of sanctification: ‘newness of life’.
1) ‘Newness of Life’
Firstly, in this passage, the truth is glorified in that the justified are ‘led by the spirit’ (Romans 8:14). Some commentators call this being ‘driven’ by the Spirit – it is at “the most natural sense” a “being constrained by a compelling force, of surrendering to an overmastering compulsion.” However, Stott observes that “the verb ago… does not, either necessarily or normally, imply the use of force.” Cranfield asserts that mortification comes by “means of… being led, directed, impelled, controlled by the Spirit.” Moreover, those led by the Spirit are ‘sons of God’ (Romans 8:14). Yet, Paul tames his elucidation of his phrase the ‘sons of God’ at this point to reserve it for its appropriate exegesis, i.e., to reveal it as the distinctive condition regarding the Spirit’s leading of people. The Spirit only leads those who are God’s children. Paul assets the implications of adoption for his second point found later in the passage (Romans 8:15b).
Secondly, the Holy Spirit restores freedom in one’s reconciled relationship with God (Romans 8:15a). It is indeed true that one is still a ‘slave to Christ’ (Romans 1:1; 6:22) but “these slaveries… are its essence”. Slavery to Christ and freedom in God are not discordant, and this is seen in the apostle’s mention of ‘fear’. Slavery to Christ does not lead to fear, and therefore the sons of God can be pronounced and prosper as free. Paul is known to use the contrast of freedom and slaveship to expose the ‘newness’ of the Christian life, but with that contrast he also clings to the likeness of ‘adoption’ and receiving of inheritance (cf. Galatians 4:1). A ‘spirit of adoption’ is used here to institute some imagery into this newfound freedom with God, and it is another great and necessary element of sanctification (Romans 8:15b).
The distinction ought to be made that ‘adoption’ is a deeper sonship that that of all of creation being God’s offspring (Acts 17:28) – in that, it comes by a certain reconciliation (Romans 8:15; cf. John 1:12; Galatians 3:26; 1 John 3:1, 10). It is absolutely necessary to the true implications of ‘adoption’ that one analyzes its concept in its Greco-Roman context.
“In the Roman world of the first century… an adopted son was a son deliberately chosen by his adoptive father to perpetuate his name and inherit his estate; he was no whit inferior in status to a son born in the ordinary course of nature, and might well enjoy the father’s affection more fully and reproduce the father’s character more worthily.”
As adopted children of God, those being led by the Spirit “are granted a specially close, personal, loving relationship with” the “heavenly Father” by which they ‘cry out, Abba! Father!’ (Romans 8:15b). Calling God ‘Abba’, an Aramaic word, has superb connotations that are greatly noted in Joachim Jeremias’ study. He concluded that the term was “an everyday word” that certainly “no Jew would have dared to address God” as. Moreover, the overtones of intimacy ring true in Jesus’ distinct use of ‘Abba’ in His prayers with the Father (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2). ‘Abba’ was without doubt a term of affectionate family-oriented relationship.
2) Assured Glorification
This intimacy is ‘testified’ to God’s children by ‘the Spirit himself’ (Romans 8:16). Assurance is the great means of Paul’s premise, seen in Romans 8:13, that the justified indeed ‘will live’. Therein is the second gracious result of sanctification, the eternity promised in glorification. Therefore, the leading of the Holy Spirit aids in mortification, as well as assures one of their adoption as God’s son or daughter; these are two great elements of one’s sanctification. Conclusively, as already noted, the Spirit is the great stirrer of sanctification, and His function is manifested in practical mortification and theological invigoration. Here, let one continue in the theme of glorification in regards to sanctification’s permanency.
It is accordingly resolved that the seal of the Spirit is the means of the Christian’s permanency (Ephesians 1:13). It is the indwelling of the Spirit that is a symbol of God’s ‘pledge’ (2 Corinthians 1:22) to keep one until the day of redemption (Ephesians 4:30). Furthermore, this pledge is not contingent upon the one whom is called; rather, God promises it at the time of faith – or ‘belief’ (Ephesians 1:13). Again one is reminded of the emphasis of the ‘Promiser’ above the promise – the ‘Blesser’ above the blessing. In the same fashion that God initiates the basis of one’s sanctification, so He also carries it unto its completion and glorification (cf. Hebrews 12:2; Philippians 1:6). Even philosophically, this notion is in accordance with God’s character. If God indeed justified a man, and it could be lost or forsaken, what is that to do to the concept of God’s faithfulness? It is simply incongruous to the nature of God. Moreover, ‘seal’ has come to possibly connote that of a ‘sign of possession’ in relation to God’s kingship. God’s seal then marks His children under His ownership. “The concept of sealing includes the ideas of ownership, authority, and security. Since God has sealed us, we are His possession, secure until the day of redemption.” While this comparison is true and valuable, the seal, in relation to sanctification, ought to be better thought of as the empowering indwelling of the Spirit and not merely a stamp of approval. For sanctification’s permanency is better stated as a promise of progression – a permanency of process.
VII. TIME FACTORS
Of sanctification’s distinctions of justification, one of its foremost is that of its progressive description. While justification is one time reckoning of righteousness unto one’s account, sanctification is process of progressive growth into holiness. Abstractly, “justification does not admit of degrees… it is instantaneous and complete”, whereas sanctification is never perfected in this life.Time in the life of the believer on earth grants no means unto completion. The holiness of the consecrated Christian can never exceed that which was reckoned at justification or will be granted at glorification. Yet, sanctification certainly begins at justification, and can thus be said to have a precise beginning. This principle is clearly seen in the already elucidated analytical study, but beckoned corroboration as to grant utmost clarity.
In precise analysis, the doctrines of atonement may be expressed, regarding their emphasis, as such: justification is a declaration, sanctification is a realization, and glorification is an actualization. Regarding sanctification, it is the consecration of the justified unto holiness by the equipping of the Holy Spirit to manifest one’s ‘newness of life’ in preparation for God’s promised bestowal of glorification. Faith is undoubtedly the providential bond for communion with Christ and the Holy Spirit, thus furnishing it as the necessary act of the believer throughout the progression of sanctification. Moreover, this faith is the representation of one’s slaveship to God that was passionately generated by the great gift of grace upon the man’s heart.
 Jonathan Edwards, A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections: In Three Parts. (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1996), 101.
 Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 1998), 340.
 K. E. Brower, “Sanctification,” in New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 1057.
 All data is cohesive with the New American Standard Bible (1995), and was collected by means of Young’s Analytical Concordance and Logos Bible Software’s ‘Bible Word Study’ feature.
 Brower, New Bible Dictionary, 1057.
 The sequence of sanctification mentioned begins with preparational, then positional, then practical, and lastly prospective. Preparational sanctification seeks to illuminate that God preordains and prepares the one’s whom He sanctifies, and that He does so through election and discipline. Positional sanctification’s focus: God separates one as Holy through their submission to the truth of Christ’s atoning sacrifice, and their redemption is now sealed. Practical sanctification’s focus: God continually and progressively works in the heart that has submitted to His will and follows after the glory of God in obedience to Him. Prospective sanctification focuses on the time of judgment, when a Christian does stand completely holy.
 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Present Day, 10 ed. (New York: Prince Press, 2010), 206.
 Ibid., 206.
 Schreiner, Romans, 245.
 Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York, NY: Anchor Bible, 1993), 445.
 John Piper, Future Grace (Britain: Multnomah Books, 2005), 26.
 Ibid., 26.
 Ibid., 402.
 Charles E. Brown, The Meaning of Sanctification (James L. Fleming, 2005), 33.
 Brown, The Meaning of Sanctification, 33.
 Schreiner, Romans, 643.
 A not too misaligned side note: notice that man was not only called by God to be resurrected, but also purified. Indeed, one could not be rendered without the other.
 It is well established, and will be further reinforced, that sanctification is not by works, but by faith. However, Charles Brown presents a conclusive argument for those left wanting: “If a Christian is sanctified as the reward of long striving against inward sin, then he receives the payment of a debt which God owes him, and his reward is not of grace nor of faith. These two methods will not mix. This doctrine of sanctification by works is a denial of the whole principle of salvation by faith.” Brown, The Meaning of Sanctification, 34.
 C.E.B Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On the Epistle to the Romans, 6th ed.,International Critical Commentary (New York: T&T Clark, 2004), 2:841. My emphasis added.
 Ibid., 841. My emphasis added.
 Moisés Silva, Philippians, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 118.
 C. K. Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, (The Black’s New Testament Commentary), Revised ed. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 120.
 Ibid., 119. See Barrett’s eschatological implications of justification and sanctification, pgs. 118-120.
 Silva, Philippians, 121.
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 119.
 Douglas J. Moo, The Letter of James (The Pillar New Testament Commentary) (Leicester, England: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2000), 37.
 F.F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary On the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1982), 273.
 Silva, Philippians, 121.
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 118.
 Fitzmyer, Romans, 451.
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 118.
 Fitzmyer, Romans, 123.
 Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 2:601.
 Bruce, Galatians, 144.
 Fitzmyer, Romans, 123.
 Silva, Philippians, 121.
 Barrett, Epistle to the Romans, 118.
 Bruce, Galatians, 145.
 Ibid., 233.
 Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 1:295.
 Moo, James, 38.
 It may be critiqued that there is too much reiteration of this concept. In light of the profundity of the notion, it can be dangerously misinterpreted and maltreated. Thus, scholarly support and multiple commentaries on the theory are critical.
 James D. G. Dunn, Word Biblical Commentary: Volume 38a, Romans 1-8 (Downers Grove, Ill.: Thomas Nelson, 1988), 450.
 John R.W. Stott, The Message of Romans: God’s Good News for the World (Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2001), 231. Stott continues by saying “the same verb is used of the spirit ‘leading’ Jesus from his baptism in the Jordan to his temptation in the desert (Luke 4:1).” For further analysis see Stott’s prolonged thoughts and footnotes.
 Cranfield, Epistle to the Romans, 1:395.
 Stott, The Message of Romans, 232.
 Bruce, F.F. The Letter of Paul to the Romans, in The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Inter-Varsity Press and Eerdmans, 1963; second edition, 1985). Cited in Stott, The Message of Romans, 231.
 Stott, The Message of Romans, 231.
 Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus (SCM, 1967), pp. 57ff. Cited in Stott, The Message of Romans, 231.
 Charles Caldwell Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972).
 This proposition does not negate ‘seal’ as it is regarded as a sign of ownership, but rather wishes one to steer closer to the first proposal of the indwelling Spirit. If this were a study on justification, it might be better suited to assign the recognition of adoption as the seal of permanency, but in the observance of sanctification, one must emphasize the permanence of one’s progression.
 Brown, The Meaning of Sanctification, 28.