Turretin first explains why he is addressing this question (and why we should as well). Justification is what Martin Luther described “the article of a standing and falling church.” It is a principle element of Christian doctrine and thus if it is corrupted, other doctrines which flow from it will also be perverted. Secondly, he describes the two sides of the argument (between the Reformers and the Romanists). The Romanists would hold that justification is both forensic (legal) and moral, whereas the Reformers would say that justification deals strictly with a legal system.What is meant by these two terms? If justification is used in the forensic/legal sense, then it means that the sinner is counted just in the court of God. If justification is used in the moral sense, it means that the sinner is “infused with righteousness.” In modern day discussion, the terms are usually “imputation” (forensic) versus “impartation” (moral).
Turretin begins addressing the question of the word “justification” (Hebrew tsayke, Greek dikaioun) by analyzing its two uses in Scripture, properly and improperly. The proper verb “justification” is forensic-declaring someone just in a trial (Ex. 23:7, Deut. 25:1, Prov. 17:15, Luke 18:14, Rom. 3-5). Thus men are said to justify God (Ps. 51:4) when they call him just. The Pharisees tried to justify themselves (Luke 16:15). The improper verb “justification” is moral-bringing someone to righteousness. Examples of this are Romans 5:7 “He that is dead is justified from sin” meaning freed. Or Jeremiah 3:11, where Judah is said to justify Israel, meaning that Israel was more just because she had fewer sins.
The Word Justification is Forensic
Five reasons are set forth for this claim of justification being forensic in nature.
1. Passages that refer to Justification use it only in a forensic sense.
Scripture: Job 9:3; Ps. 143:2; Rom. 3:28; 4:1-3; Acts 13:39
Several other Scriptural passages reference Justification, and in all of them the image of judicial process is central. The image is always of a law that condemns people as guilty of failing to be lawful:
Divine justice demands punishment (Col. 2:14)
Jesus the advocate is pleading our cause (1 John 2:1)
Satisfaction and imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4, 5)
Absolution of sinners (Rom. 4:5)
Judge pronouncing a sentence (Rom. 3:20).
2. Justification is set in opposition to condemnation (Rom. 8:33).
Because accusation and condemnation only occur in a trial, justification also occurs only in a trial. If God is said to condemn us or justify us, He can only achieve either by a sentence of punishment or absolving us judicially.
3. Phrases used to describe our justification are forensic in nature.
Justification given as to:
Not come into judgment (John 5:24)
Not be condemned (John 3:18)
Remit sins and impute righteousness (Rom. 4)
Be reconciled (Rom. 5:10-11; 2 Cor. 5:19)
4. Paul uses it in disputes against the Jews
When Paul disputes with Jews about whether salvation comes through works of the law or through faith in Christ, clearly the idea of an infusion of righteousness was not on the table. What the Jews were concerned about was being able to stand before God the Judge and obtain the right to live. Thus Paul uses justification in the context of a few of divine judgment, a forensic image.
5. Justification is distinct from sanctification
The whole nature of justification cannot be mixed with sanctification because they are separate, which Scripture proves frequently.
Sources of Explanation
Turretin goes through Scripture and refers to several passages that reject this idea of infusion of righteousness (Is. 53:11; Daniel 12:3; 1 Tim. 4:16; 1 Cor. 9:22; Rev. 2:11). His analysis can be read online at the article itself.
I want to summarize just briefly one point which I found to be clearest. Turretin brings our attention to Romans 4:5:
However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.
In this verse, Paul is not talking about infusion or increase of righteousness in justification. Justification of the wicked would not be justification if it is used in any sense other than “judicial absolution at the throne of grace.” When God declares something just, he must make it just because his judgments must be aligned with the truth. There are only two ways to be justified, either through oneself or through someone else (either from law or from gospel). Thus God makes those he declares justified just, not through inherent righteousness but because of Christ’s righteousness being imputed. Christ’s righteousness is “credited” to us as the means for justification. Infusion of righteousness would make inherent righteousness in the sinner the means of justification.
Source Information
Publication: Institutio Theologiae Elencticae (Institutes of Elenctic Theology) (Question 16)
Date of Publication: Trans. George Giger ed.
To read online, click here.
Let’s look at this: “Infusion of righteousness would make inherent righteousness in the sinner the means of justification.”—The moral view is not an infusion of righteousness into man, that would be ontological and a-moral, righteousness is not an assence, it is a moral way or manner of life, a substance can not be moral.
Randolph S. Foster, say: “I object to the whole Calvinian view of the atonement as dishonorable to that transaction and its Author. It renders it a mere commercial transaction, a thing of bargain and sale–so many souls given for so much blood–so many sins remitted at so much price. The Father agrees to give the Son so many souls at so much price. The Son agrees to suffer such a quantum for the forgiveness of so many sinners. In the language of another:
This hypothesis measures the atonement, not only by the number of the elect, but by the intensity and degree of the suffering to be endured for their sin. It adjusts the dimensions of the atonement to a nice mathematical point, and poises its infinite weight of glory even to the small dust of a balance. I need not say that the hand which stretches such lines and holds such scales must be a bold one. Such a calculation represents the Son of God as giving so much suffering for so much value received in obedience and sufferings. This is the commercial atonement, which sums up the worth of a stupendous moral transaction by arithmetic and, with its little span, limits what is infinite.