Scholars who are overly saturated with the eschatological Kingdom of God as ‘already and not yet’—that is, already inaugurated, but not yet consummated—as well as with the Pauline soteriological concept of union with Christ, falsely put the doctrine of justification into the category of already and not yet. This is a grave misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the Pauline soteriology. A sinner’s justification before a holy and righteous God is only by faith alone and grace alone and in Christ alone. There is no other way. A sinner’s justification by faith alone is God’s once-for-all declaration in the heavenly court. Nevertheless, growing numbers of scholars interpret and promote the biblical doctrine of justification as a category of already and not yet, which is not only anti-Reformational but also anti-Pauline. For example, Beale falsely interprets the doctrine of justification as already and not yet: ‘To understand better the believer’s inaugurated vindication, we must also look at how it is related to the very end of the age and their own resurrection. The following represents the not yet aspect of justification of the Christian, which remains to be consummated in the future.
Jeong Koo Jeon | Biblical Theology: Covenants and the Kingdom of God in Redemptive History (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock., 2017), 198.
RESOURCES
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Waltke On The “Fundamental Error” Of Dispensational Eschatology
- With Presbycast In The Cantina On Common Grace, Nature And Grace, Eschatology, And Christian Liberty
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Very helpful. I have been reading and listening to a lot of Beale recently and his application of the already and not yet to justification felt a little FV/Piper to me.
🏆🏆🏆
The glorious declarations of Ephesians 1 and 2, that our justification IS an accomplished fact, that we can know for certain, when we believe, because it is God’s purpose in election, should put an end to such silly speculations about future justification!
Dr. Clark, I am really interested in your take on Beale here. I believe I have heard him say something like “non-causal necessity for salvation” referring to good works. It seems like if this was meant to mean good works are necessary as “fruit and evidence”, he would have said so. Beale is a huge influence in Reformed (scholarly) circles. Are we really batting our eyes at this? What is your take?
Hi Josh,
1. The magisterial Protestants and their orthodox successors didn’t speak of two stages of justification. Richard Baxter taught initial and final justification.
2. Perkins was right: Two-Stage Justification Is A “Popish Device.”
3. The Reformed way to speak about this is to speak of Justification and Vindication.
4. I’m not sure what you mean by “batting our eyes” but if it means looking the other way, no, I’m not. I can’t speak for others but I agree with Jeon.
More resources:
In my opinion the really disturbing aspect of Beale’s teaching is that he changes the Reformation use of the term vindication at the final judgment, from God declaring us righteousness, on the basis of our trust in Christ alone, to confirmation of justification based on our Spirit produced works. So our final judgment is based on our works vindicating us at the final judgment instead of our trust in Christ’s righteousness. See The Final Judgement by Gregory Beale in Tabletalk Magazine, December 2022.
Beal writes: “At the end of the age, the good (not perfect) works of believers vindicate them and show that in the past they have been justified.”
Angela,
Does he mean vindicate before men and Satan or vindicate before God? Does he actually believe that our works are proof to clear, as from an accusation of guilt at the Holy tribunal? If so is there a reference of him saying so.
Never mind I found it. Yep, definitely FV/ Piperish.
Ya I’m not bringing up any of my “good” works at the Holy tribunal. I hope I don’t even try to remember any of them in THIS life. Sola gratia til the end.
Exactly!