Justified Quotes

“There is a familiar play on the word "justification" that it means "just as if I'd never sinned." But there is another way of saying this that is even better---justification means "just as if I'd always obeyed." That's the way we stand before God: clothed in the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. And that's the way we can live with the discomfort of the justified life.”
― Jerry Bridges, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“So in the midst of our struggle with indwelling sin, we must continually keep our focus on the gospel. We must always go back to the truth that even in the face of the fact that so often "I do not do the good that I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing" (Rom 7:19), there is no condemnation. God no longer counts our sins against us (Rom 4:8). Or, to say it another way, God wants us to find our primary joy in our objectively declared justification, not in our subjectively perceived sanctification. Regardless of how much progress we make in our pursuit of holiness, it will never come close to the absolute perfect righteousness of Christ that is ours through our union with him in his life and death. So we should learn to live with the discomfort of the justified life. We should accept the fact that as still-growing Christians we will always be dissatisfied with our sanctification. But at the same time, we should remember that in Christ we are justified.”
― Jerry Bridges p. 94, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“However, "the doers of the law" is not quite an empty set since Jesus fulfilled all righteousness on behalf of his coheirs. So we are saved by works after all, but by Christ's rather than by our own. It is not merely verse here and there that will be persuasive on this point, but the broader exegetical conviction that Christ has assumed Adam's representative role, fulfilling all righteousness (i.e., the covenant of works) and dispensing it to his coheirs in a covenant of grace. Otherwise, Christ's active obedience is suspended in midair. In the absence of Christ's active obedience in fulfilling the covenant of works, Wright substitutes the imperfect but Spirit-led faithfulness of the believers' whole life lived. P.28”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“Yet both [Wright & Piper] miss the point that covenant theology highlights. None of the Reformers taught that God's essential righteousness is imputed or transferred to believers. Rather, they taught that the meritorious active and passive obedience of Christ as the faithful Servant of the Lord has be imputed to believers. So if the covenantal context is too faith in Piper's construal, missing form Wright's account is the third party in the courtroom--namely, the Last Adam, who as covenant head and mediator fulfills the terms of the law-covenant and bears its sanction on behalf of those whom he represents. Wright's objections can be properly addressed not by bracketing covenant theology but only by offering a different covenant theology. P.26-27”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“The problem is not covenant theology in general, but covenantal nomism in particular. Wright's primary objection to the imputation of Christ's active obedience is that it's a category mistake: "If we use the language of the law-court, it make no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or gas which can be passed across the courtroom....To imagine the defendant somehow receiving the judge's righteousness is simply a category mistake." P.25”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“In classic covenant theology, then, the questions of Gentile inclusion in the people of God, the removal of boundary markers, and the fulfillment of the promise of Abraham's worldwide family are addressed. However, they are the consequence of justification. In Wright's approach, the ecclesiological question is the main thing and justification is a consequence. Yet apart from the legal basis that justification (i.e. imputation) provides, the union of Jew and Gentile in Christ is suspended in midair. P. 23”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“This question lies at the heart of the debates over justification: Is the promissory covenant subsumed under (or absorbed into) the covenants of law, resulting in a covenatal nomism? Or are the two covenant always distinguished and, on the point of justification, to be treated in fact as antithetical means of inheriting eternal life? P.22”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“The point is this: The deepest distinction in Scripture is not between the Old and New Testaments but between the covenants of law and the covenants of promise that run throughout both...Therefore, the distinction between law and gospel or between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace is not the result of imposing an alien sixteenth-century construct on the biblical text. P.17-18”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“The Sinai covenant itself, then, is a law-covenant. The land is given to Israel, but for the purpose of fulfilling its covenantal vocation. Remaining in the land is there fore conditional on Israel's personal performance of the stipulations that people swore at Sinai...The ultimate promise of a worldwide family of Abraham--sinners justified and glorified in a renewed creation--is unconditional in its basis, while the continuing existence of the national theocracy as a type of that everlasting covenant depended on Israel's obedience...The Decalogue and Joshua 24 fit this suzerainty pattern, but as Mendenhall observe, "it can readily be seen that the covenant with Abraham (and Noah) is of completely different form." P.15”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“From the period of development to the present, Reformed theologians have debated the finer points (particularly the relation of the Sinai covenant to the covenant of grace). Nevertheless, a consensus emerged (evident, for example, in the Westminster Confession) affirming the three covenants I have mentioned: the eternal covenant of redemption; the covenant of works; and the covenant of grace. With these last two covenants, Reformed theology affirmed (with Lutheranism) the crucial distinction between law and gospel, but within a more concrete biblical-historical framework...Ironically, just at the moment when so much Protestant biblical scholarship is rejecting a sharp distinction between law and gospel, Ancient Near Eastern scholars from Jewish and Roman Catholic traditions have demonstrated the accuracy of that seminal distinction between covenant of law and covenants of promise. P.13”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification

“While I agree with Wright's claim that covenant theology is more crucial for understanding justification than Piper suggests, I argue that it is Wright's version of covenant theology (viz., reducing different types to "covenant nomism") that generates false choices...At least as defined by its confessions and dogmatic consensus, Reformed theology is synonymous with covenant theology...This federal theology gathers various biblical covenants under two broad types: law and promise, or the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. P.12”
― Michael S. Horton, Justified: Modern Reformation Essays on the Doctrine of Justification