he new testament doctrine of justification is crucial as we come to see the basis for our relationship with God. Today justification is commonly expressed as a forensic act

Luther and Calvin

Before Luther, as a CRI article points out, "extrinsic justification, in which a sinner is declared righteous legally, was at best, a subterranean stream, in Christian soteriology" (CRI Journal, Winter '95 pg 27). Even Luther did not really use forensic terms, as this idea was popularized by Calvin. "Calvin does not see justification as involving an infusion of grace: 'Man is not made righteous in justification, but is accepted as righteous'." (CRI Journal, Winter' 95, 28).

Forensic Justification

In the following excerpt from the CRI Journal, a correct Old Testament definition of "justification," is given; however, I will also show what they've missed.

"Concerning the Hebrew word hitsdiq, usually rendered 'justify,' more often than not it is used in a forensic or legal sense, as meaning not 'to make just or righteous,' but, ' to declare judicially that one is in harmony with the law.' George Eldon Ladd notes that "he is righteous who is judged to be in the right" (ex. 23:7; Deut. 25:1).

This is how those at The C.R.I. define justification; however, Gospel justification in no way can be considered forensic, for the following reasons outlined by Charles Finney:

"The term forensic is from forum; ' a court'. The ground of a judicial or forensic justification, invariably is and must be universal obedience to the moral law. If but one crime or breach of the law is alleged and proved, the court must inevitably condemn, and can in no such case justify or pronounce the convicted just. Gospel justification is the justification of sinners; it is, therefore, naturally impossible and a most palpable contradiction, to affirm that the justification of a sinner, or of one who has violated the law, is a forensic or judicial justification. That only is, or can be a legal or forensic justification that proceeds upon the ground of its appearing that the justified person is guiltless, or, in other words, that he has not violated the law, that he has done only what he had a legal right to do. Now it is certainly nonsense to affirm that a sinner can be pronounced just in the eyes of the law; that he can be justified by deeds of law, or by the law at all. The law condemns him. But to be justified judicially or forensically, is to be pronounced just in the judgment of the law. This certainly is an impossibility in respect to sinners. The Bible is as express as possible on this point in Romans 3:20. 'by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.' " From Finney's chapter on Justification

False Assumptions

This position is affirmed by the very scriptures that the CRI article refers to - Deut. 25:1. "When men have a dispute, they are to take it to court and the judges will decide the case, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty." They are correct: this is forensic justification, but in this sense (before the law) we are condemned, not justified. The real and only ground for gospel justification is grace. We are "... justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus" Romans 3:24. For clarity, let us continue.

Legal Transaction?

The CRI article continues to make it clear that they believe the basis for our justification to be a legal transaction:

"Turning to the New Testament, the Greek verb translated 'to justify' is dikaioo. This word is used by Paul in a forensic or legal sense; the sinner is declared to be righteous"
(cf. Rom.3-4).

It is very unfortunate that the authors include references without making direct quotes. They seem to be banking on the hope that you trust them and won't look up these verses yourself. If you do, you will find that the opposite of what they state is true. Gospel justification is not in the legal sense; rather, it is "apart from the law" Rom. 3:21 and "by grace" Rom. 3:24.

Let us continue with the article. "As Anthony Hoekema observes, ' The opposite of condemnation, however, is not ' making righteous but declaring righteous.' Therefore by dikaioo, Paul means 'the 'legal imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner.' " This sounds good, but it is wrong as shown in the following excerpt from Finney's Systematic Theology:

The whole system of sacrifices taught the doctrine of pardon upon the conditions of atonement, repentance and faith. This, under the old dispensation, is constantly represented as a merciful acceptance of the penitents, and never as a forensic or judicial acquittal or justification of them. The mercy seat covered the law in the ark of the covenant.

Paul informs us as to what justification was in the sense that the Old Testament saints understood it in Rom. 4: 6-8

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 'Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.'

This quotation from David shows what both David and Paul understood by the term justification; to wit, the pardon and the acceptance of the penitent sinner." (320)

Part II