Richard Gaffin Jr on the Reformation and the teaches the eschatological "not yet"

Richard Gaffin Jr says:

The reformation tradition has clearly grasped, as Paul teaches the eschatological “not yet” of our sanctification, penultimately at death and climactically at Christ’s return, and that our being perfectly conformed to the image of Christ is, until his return and the resurrection of the body, still future. It has maintained that truth more or less consistently, even though at times some have been drawn away, for example, toward various cheap perfectionisms and easy “victorious life” positions.

But, we may ask, has the Reformation grasped as clearly the “resurrection,” eschatological “already” of our sanctification? For instance, as we consider preaching and teaching in our traditions, how many Christians understand that the Holy Spirit presently at work in them is nothing less than resurrection power, that the Spirit, through whom God “will give life to your mortal bodies,” is “his Spirit who dwells in you” (Rom 8:11)? How many believers grasp that the Holy Spirit indwelling them is an eschatological power, that, in terms of the metaphors Paul uses, he in his activity in the church is an actual “down payment” on our eschatological inheritance (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:14), the “firstfruits” of the full “harvest” of his eschatological working (Rom 8:23)? How many appreciate that Christ himself, as “life-giving Spirit” (1 Cor 15:45), is present and at work in our lives in his resurrection power?

[…]

In the matter of sanctification, it seems to me, we must confront a tendency, at least practical and, my impression is, pervasive, within churches of the Reformation to view the gospel and salvation in its outcome almost exclusively in terms of justification. Recall, for instance, the statement of our conference speaker quoted in the previous chapter, to the effect that the gospel is only about what Christ has done “for us” and apparently does not include his work, through the Spirit, “in us”.

The effect of this outlook, whether or not intended, is that sanctification tends to be seen as the response of the believer to salvation, defined in terms of justification. Sanctification is viewed as an expression of gratitude from our side for our justification and the free forgiveness of our sins, usually with the accent on the imperfection and inadequacy of such expressions of gratitude. Sometimes there is even the suggestion that while sanctification is highly desirable, and its lack certainly unbecoming and inappropriate, it is not really necessary in the life of the believer, not really integral to our salvation and an essential part of what it means to be saved from sin. The attitude we may have – at least this is the way it comes across – is something like, “If Jesus did that for you, died that your sins might be forgiven, shouldn’t you at least do this for him, try to please him?”

With such a construction justification and sanctification are pulled apart; the former is what God does, the latter what we do, and do so inadequately. At worst, this outlook tends to devolve into a deadening moralism.

(pp. 75-76, By Faith, Not by Sight: Paul and the Order of Salvation, Carlisle:Paternoster)