William Bradford Institute
for Study of the
Early Settlement of America

Home
Sermons
 
Back
 
Forensic Justification


by Francis Turretin


Is the word Justification always used in a forensic sense in this
argument, or also in a moral and physical? The former we affirm, the
latter we deny, against the Romanists.

I. As in the chain of salvation Justification follows Vocation, Rom.
8:30, and is everywhere set forth as the primary effect of faith.
The topic concerning Vocation and Faith begets the Topic concerning
Justification, which must be handled with the greater care and
accuracy as this saving doctrine is of the greatest importance in
religion. It is called by Luther, the article of a standing and
falling church; by other Christians it is termed the characteristic
and basis of Christianity not without reason, the principle rampart
of the Christian religion, and, it being adulterated or subverted,
it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in other places.
Whence Satan in every way has endeavored to corrupt this doctrine in
all ages; as has been done especially in the Papacy: for which
reason it is deservedly placed among the primary causes of our
Secession from the Roman Church and of the Reformation.

II. Although, however, some of the more candid Romanists, conquered
by the force of the truth, have felt and expressed themselves more
soundly than others concerning this article; nor are there wanting
also some among our divines, who influenced by a desire to lessen
controversies, think there is not so great matter for dispute about
it, and that there are here not a few logomachies: still it is
certain that up to this time there are between us and the Romanists
in this argument controversies not verbal, but real, many and of
great importance, as will be made manifest in what follows.

III. Because from a false and preposterous explanation of the word,
the truth of the thing itself has been wonderfully obscured, in the
first place, its genuine sense, and in this question most
especially, must be unfolded, which being settled we will be able
the more easily to reach the nature of the thing itself.
Homonyms of the verb Justificare

IV. The [hebrew] verb tsayke, to which the greek dikaioun answers,
and the Latin Justificare, is used in two ways in the Scriptures,
Properly and Improperly. Properly the verb is forensic, put for to
absolve any one in a trial, or to hold and to declare just, as
opposed to the verb to condemn and to accuse, Ex. 23:7, Deut. 25:1,
Prov. 17:15, Luke 18:14, Rom. 3-5. Thence apart from a trial it is
used for to acknowledge and to praise one as just, and that too,
either deservedly, as when it is terminated on God, in which way men
are said to justify God, when they celebrate him as just, Ps. 51:4,
Wisdom is said to be justifed of her children, Matt. 11:9, Luke
7:35, that is acknowledged and celebrated as such, or presumptously,
as the Pharisees are said to justify themselves, Luke 16:15.
Improperly it is used either ministerially, for to bring to
righteousness, Dan. 12:3, where mtsdyqy seems to be exegetical of
mskylym: because while the preachers of the gospel instruct and
teach believers, by this very thing they justify them ministerially
in the same sense in which they are said to save them, 1Tim. 4:16.
Or by way of synecdeche, the antecedent being put for the
consequent, for to free, Rom. 5:7, "He that is dead is justified
from sin," that is, freed. Or comparatively, Ez. 16:51-52, where on
account of a comparison between the sins of Israel and Samaria,
Israel is said to justify Samaria, and, the sins of Judah
increasing, Judah is said to have justified Israel, Jer. 3:11,
because Israel was more just than Judah, that is, her sins were
fewer than the sins of Judah.
State of the Question

V. Hence arises the Question of the Romanists, concerning the
acceptation of this word, whether it is to be taken precisely in a
forensic sense, in this affair; or, whether it ought also to be
taken in a physical and moral sense for the infusion of
righteousness and Justification, if it is allowable so to speak,
either by the acquisition or the increase of it? For they do no
deny, indeed, that the word Justification and the verb justificare
are often taken in a forensic sense, and even in this affair, as
Bellarmine, De Justificatione, chap. 1, Tirinus, Theologiae
elenchticae, cont. 15.1, Toletus Ad Romanos, anno 13, and many
others. But they do not wish this to be the constant meaning but
that it often signifies a true production, acquisition, or increase
of righteousness, and this is especially the case, when employed
about the justification of man before God. Whence they distinguish
Justification into first and second. The first is that by which man
who is unjust is made just, the second, by which a just man is made
more just. Whence Bellarmine, lib. ii, chap. 2, "Justification
undoubtedly is a certain movement from sin to righteousness, and
takes its name from the terminus to which it leads, as all other
similar motions, illumination, calefaction; that is true
justification, where some righteousness is acquired beyond the
remission of sin." Thomas, I-II, q. 113, "Justification taken
passively implies a motion to making righteous, just as calefaction
a motion to heat." Now although we do not deny that this word has
more than one signification, and is taken in different ways in the
Scriptures, now properly, then improperly, as we have already aid,
still we maintain that it is never taken for an infusion of
righteousness, but always as often as the Scriptures speak
professedly concerning our justification, it must be explained as a
forensic term.
The word Justification is forensic

VI. The reasons are: 1) Because the passages, which treat of
Justification, admit no other than a forensic sense, Job 9:3. Ps.
143:2, Rom. 3:28 and 4:1-3, Acts 13:39, and elsewhere, where a
judicial process is set forth, and mention is made of an accusing
law, of accused persons, who are guilty, Rom. 3:19, of a handwriting
contrary to us, Col. 2:14, of divine justice demanding punishment,
Rom. 3:24, 26, of an advocate pleading the cause, 1 John 2:1, of
satisfaction and imputed righteousness, Rom. 4 and 5; of a throne of
grace before which we are absolved, Heb. 4:16, of a Judge
pronouncing sentence, Rom. 3:20, and absolving sinners, Rom. 4:5.
VII. 2) Because justification is here opposed to condemnation; "Who
shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that
justifieth. Who is he that condemneth?" Rom. 8:33. As therefore
accusation and condemnation occur only in a trial; so also
justification. Nor can it be conceived how God can be said to
condemn or to justify, unless either by adjudging to punishment, or
absolving us from it judicially, which Toletus is compelled to
confess on this passage; "The word justification in this place is
taken with that signification, which is opposed to its antithesis,
namely, condemnation, so that it is the same in this place to
justify as to pronounce just, as a Judge by his sentence absolves
and pronounces innocent." Cornelius, a Lapide, who otherwise
earnestly strives to obscure the truth still overcome by the force
of the truth, acknowledges that God justifies,that is, absolves the
threatened action of sin and the devil, and pronounces just.
VIII. 3) Because the equivalent phrases, by which our justification
is described; such as not to come into judgment, John 5:24; not to
be condemned, John 3:18; to remit sins, to impute righteousness,
Rom. 4; to be reconciled, Rom. 5:10-11 2Cor. 5:19; and the like. 4)
This word word ought to be employed in the sense in which it was
used by Paul in his dispute against the Jews. And yet it is certain
that he did not speak there of an infusion of righteousness, viz;
whether from faith, or from the works of the law the habit of
righteousness should be infused into man, but how the sinner could
stand before the judgment seat of God, and obtain a right to life,
whether by the works of the law, as the Jews imagined or by faith in
Christ; and since the thought concerning Justification arose without
doubt from a fear of divine judgment, and of the wrath to come, it
cannot be used in any other than a forensic sense; as it was used in
the origin of those questions, which were agitated in a former age
upon the occasion of Indulgences, satisfactions and remission of
sins. 5) Finally, unless this word is taken in a forensic sense, it
would be confounded with sanctification, and that these are
distinct, both the nature of the thing and the voice of Scripture
frequently prove.
Sources of Explaination

IX. Although the word Justification in certain passages of scripture
should recede from its proper signification, and be taken in another
than a forensic sense, it would not follow that it is taken
judicially by us falsely, because the propersense is to be looked to
in those passages in which is the seat of this doctrine. 2) Although
perchance it should not be taken precisely in a forensic sense, for
to pronounce just, and to absolve in a trial, still we maintain that
it cannot be taken in a physical sense for the infusion of
righteousness, as the Romanists hold, as is easily proved from the
passages brought by Bellarmine himself.
X. For, in Is. 53:11, where it is said Christ by his knowledge shall
justify many; it is manifest that reference is made to the
meritorious and instrumental cause of our absolution with God,
namely, Christ, and the knowledge or belief of him. For the
knowledge of Christ here ought not to be taken subjectively,
concerning the knowledge by which he knows what was agreed upon
between himself and the Father, which has nothing to do with our
satisfaction. But objectively, concerning that knowledge, by which
he is known by his people unto salvation, which is nothing else than
faith, to which justification is everywhere ascribed. The following
words show that no other sense is to be sought, when it is added,
for he shall bear their iniquities, to denote the satisfaction of
Christ, which faith ought to embrace, in order that we may be
justified.

XI. No more does the passage of Daniel, 12:3, press us. Because, as
we have already said, justification is ascribed to the ministers of
the gospel, as elsewhere the salvation of believers, 1 Tim. 4:16,
1Cor. 9:22. Not assuredly by an infusion of habitual righteousness,
which does not come within their power; but by the instruction of
believers, by which, as they open the way of life, so they teach the
mode, by which sinners can obtain justification in Christ by faith.
Whence the Vulgate does not translate it justificantes, but
erudientes ad justitiam.

XII. The passage Rev. 22:11, he that is righteous, let him be
righteous still, does not favor our opponents, so as to denote an
infusion or increase of righteousness. Because thus it would be
tautological with the following words, he that is holy, let him be
holy still, for that justification would not differ from
sanctification. But it is best to refer it to the application and
sense of justification, for although on the part of God
justification does not take place successively, still on our part,
it is apprehended by us by varied and repeated actions, while by new
acts of faith we apply to ourselves from time to time the merit of
Christ as a remedy for the daily sins into which we fall. Nay,
although it should be granted that the exercise of righteousness is
here meant, as in a manuscript we have dikaiosynen poiesato, that is
may be opposed to the preceding words. He that is unjust, let him be
more unjust, the opinion of the Romanists will not on that account
be established.

XIII. The justification of the wicked, of which Paul speaks, Rom.
4:5, ought not to be referred to an infusion or increase of habitual
righteousness, but belongs to the remission of sins, as it is
explained by the Apostle from David. Nay, it would not be a
justification of the wicked, if it were used in any other sense than
for a judicial absolution at the throne of grace. I confess that God
in declaring just, ought also for that very reason to make just,
that his judgment may be according to truth. But man can be made
just in two ways, either in himself, or in another, either from the
law, or from the gospel. God therefore makes him just whom he
justifies, not in himself as if from a sight of his inherent
righteousness he declared him just, but from the view of the
righteousness, imputed, of Christ. It is indeed an abomination to
Jehovah to justify the wicked without a due satisfaction, but God in
this sense justifies no wicked one, Christ having been given to us
as a Surety, who received upon himself the punishment we deserved.
XIV. Although certain words of the same order with justification
denote an effecting in the subject, there is not the same reason for
this, which otherwise barbarous has been received into Latinity, to
express the force of htsdyq and dikaioun, neither of which admit a
physical sense. Thus we magnify and justify God, not by making him
great from small, or just from unjust, but only declaratively
celebrating him as such.


 

Promoting a Greater Understanding of the Discovery of the Americas