<\/p>
The notion of a \u201cfuture justification\u201d has come under criticism from some Reformed writers, though the idea has a fairly established place in Reformed thought (beginning at least with Vos). The opposition to the idea suggests that some Reformed soteriology is eschatologically schizophrenic. <\/p>\n
Consider: It seems clear that adoption is both already and not yet, and yet few would fear that future adoption at the resurrection (which is taught in Rom 8, at least by traditional interpretations) undermines the present reality of adoption. If that\u2019s the case, why would a future justification be seen as a threat to present justification? <\/p>\n
On the one hand, some Reformed theology operates with a doctrine of justification that assumes a WHOLLY realized eschatology (it\u2019s ALL already, not at all not yet) yet on other soteriological issues is comfortable with an already-not yet scheme. It is also intriguing that many who insist on applying the already-not yet scheme to justification are, in other areas, sometimes charged with having an overrealized eschatology. <\/p>\n
It seems much more straightforward and consistent to recognize that already-not yet cuts across the whole of soteriology. <\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The notion of a \u201cfuture justification\u201d has come under criticism from some Reformed writers, though the idea has a fairly established place in Reformed thought (beginning at least with Vos). The opposition to the idea suggests that some Reformed soteriology is eschatologically schizophrenic. Consider: It seems clear that adoption is both already and not yet, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theology-soteriology"],"yoast_head":"\n