Hello, this is Pastor Patrick Hines, and I wanted to press on with the series I started. I'd like to hopefully do a bunch more videos on this, of Reformed theologians and Reformed systematic theologies on issue of justification since that is the the gospel that's the heart and soul of of the christian faith and is is it's not just central to the gospel it is essential to the gospel if you don't have justification by faith alone um you don't have christianity and it's really important that to know the reformers and luther in particular made that comment that this is the doctrinal article upon which the church stands or falls. It is extremely and profoundly important that we see it that way and that we understand the importance of this great doctrine. The reason that it is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls is because it's the doctrine by which the individual person stands or falls for eternity. And I can't begin to tell you how important this blessed truth is, because justification really is the fruit of the work of Jesus Christ. It is the result of what he did when he came into the world, when he lived his life of sinless obedience, when he went to the cross and died, was buried, and rose again. And any ministry that does not preach with great clarity and and repetitiousness, and putting this out before the world and before the people really isn't a ministry at all. It's not a ministry of life, it would be a ministry of death. We preach the whole counsel of God, we don't ignore anything in scripture, we want to apply the law of God to all of life, and that's my passion and that's the passion of our church. But the gospel is the central article of the Christian faith, and if you're wrong on this, then it doesn't matter where else you write. So continuing on with Robert Raymond, I also had another idea. I wanted to go through Joel Beekes and Sinclair Ferguson's Reformed Confessions Harmonized and go through the sections of that on justification so you can see the united front that the Reformed churches have always been. The Continental churches, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, the Canons of Dort, and the Westminster Standards on this all-important issue of justification. With that said, let me just pick up exactly where I left off in Robert Raymond. I'm on page 743 of his A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Now, this section gets a little bit technical, but I think that you'll see what it is. I'm also going to pull up Bible passages occasionally here on the screen. I think I've got the font still big enough for you to be able to read it. Even if you're looking at a relatively small screen, you should still be able to read it. It's character as a legal judgment. This is talking about justification. It's character as a legal judgment. The primary Old Testament word group dealing with justification comes from the verb root, sadak. That's the Hebrew term, sadak. And the New Testament word group comes from the verb, dikaya'o. Okay, and both of those mean to justify, to pronounce righteous legally. Murray describes that Demonstrates that there is a pervasive use of the forensic signification of the root Sadak in the what are called Hebrew verbs have what are called stems. We really don't have any parallels to this in in Western Languages, I remember learning it's chapter 12 of Prada go and van Pelt and I remember reading about Hebrew verbs and how in They have these linguistic conventions that are very unusual that you have to learn. But verbs are put into different stems, and there's seven of them that are attested in the New Testament. One of them, the cal stem, that's spelled Q-A-L, cal. Sixty-six percent of all verbs are in the cal stem, and then you have other ones, the hyphial and the pl stems. And there's other ones that the nifal is another one that tends to make verbs passive. The pl stem tends to make verbs more intense, things like that. So, um, when the, the term sadaq occurs in the cal, which is the most common, the hyphial and the pl stems in terms of the form it's, it's put in the text in, uh, and the one instance of, of the hythpial, hythpial is another stem. It's much more rare than the other ones is not essentially different. And that the same is true of dikaya'o in both the Septuagint and the New Testament. And why is he saying this? He's pointing out that, look, the terms, the terms used for justification, that an individual being justified, both the Hebrew term tzaddik, or tzaddak, depending on the form, it's pronounced different ways depending on the form it appears in. But the three-character root, tzadak, means to justify or pronounce not guilty, to declare righteous in the standing of the law. Dikai a'o, the Greek verb, means the same thing. It means I justify. So it is to pronounce legally in the right, to pronounce legally just in the sight of law. Leon Morse points out that verbs ending in a'o, that's at the end of the verb in Greek, and referring to moral qualities have a declarative sense. They do not mean to make. Okay, now what Leon Morris wrote an excellent book called The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross where he goes through and just does word studies on the key words that are used in the New Testament to describe what the cross of Christ accomplishes. The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, that book sold me on limited atonement. Because if you know what apolutrosis, redemption, if you know what that word means and the way it's used in the New Testament, you cannot say that Jesus did that for everybody in hell. You just, you can't. It is impossible. And if you know what the term for sacrifice, if you know the term for ransom, loutron, loutron, he gave himself as a loutron for many, um, the term justification, dikayasune, the noun, Justification the verb dikayo I justify When you look at what all these words mean when you look at what the word Propitiation means the Greek term helosterion what that means. That's another just clear indication that the the work of Christ is not a provision of You know, it's one thing that Leighton Flowers, I think, you know, from the stuff I've seen Dr. White go through, they're calling themselves provisionists now. So the cross work of Christ and the design of the triune God in sending Jesus into the world was not actually to save anybody. It was to make a provision so that salvation would become possible, I guess. So there's no particularity to it at all. There's no decree that certain individuals will be saved. It is merely a provision. And I would encourage people, just challenge people. You don't even need to read a direct reputation of that idea. Just read Leon Morse's book, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, and look up all the passages. Look at how the terms are used. Sacrifice, propitiation, reconciliation, redemption. The Greek terms for those in the Old and New Testaments. The term justification, that one. And there's a few other terms, I can't remember all of them. When you look at the way the terms are used, you're talking about an accomplishment of something and the God justifying someone is not making them righteous. It is declaring a change in their judicial status. That's why it's so important. That's why I've come down really hard on the Piper position. That initially that's what it is, it's a change in status and you have the righteousness of Christ imputed to you. Of course, I don't understand how in his thinking that by itself does not give you a legal right to go to heaven. That there's another judgment of fruit that will save you in so-called final salvation. What does that say about justification? That states clearly that that's not what gives you a legal title to go, to get into heaven. And yet that's exactly the way the term is used in scripture. Once a person has been declared righteous, they have been, as Raymond said earlier, brought before the final judgment. The term assize, that's actually how you pronounce it, I had mispronounced it, it's not assize, it's the final assize. And has already passed successfully through it because what Jesus experienced at the cross Was the fullness of divine wrath against sin. It was the fullness of that punishment of the legal requirements of my law-breaking They were fully discharged by Jesus and his righteousness is imputed to my account So that I stand declared righteous before God Okay, so that first paragraph's a little bit technical, but Morris is right. Let me give you an example. The ending "-ao-" is declarative. It's not talking about making someone subjectively change. The ending of Greek verbs that more so indicates a change in the subject is adzo rather than a'o. For example, the term I sanctify is the Greek verb hagiadzo, hagiadzo, to make righteous, to sanctify. A'o, dikaya'o, is to declare righteous. So you see the point? You don't need to know Greek or have studied the language, but OO on the end of a verb is declarative. ODZO is more of making subjective changes in the subject of a verb. Alright, so moving on from that technical discussion here. That justification is an objective forensic judgment as opposed to a subjective transformation. is evidenced first by the meaning of the term itself in the following context. Now listen to these passages. He's going through the Old Testament texts here where the term justification is used, the tzadak root is used. Deuteronomy 25, verse one. If there is a dispute between men and they go to court and the judges decide their case, then they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. Now, that's the way the term is used. I mean, it even uses the word court. Okay, if there's a dispute between people, and they go to court against one another, what he's saying there, what the Word of God is teaching, is that the judge needs to justify the righteous one. In other words, declare that he's right, and condemn the wicked. pronounced condemnation against those who are found guilty of their crimes. Now, listen, in justifying the righteous man, the judges were not making the man righteous, inherently. Rather, they were declaring him to be what the evidence presented in the case demanded, and what he in fact was. So you hear that? When a judge justifies the righteous, he is not making that person inwardly righteous. He's not transforming them as a person. You see the point? He's simply declaring that in this case, after hearing the evidence, we're declaring he's the one who's right in the eyes of the law, and or if a person's been accused of something and they find him guilty, they pronounce him to be condemned before the law. Neither verdict, justified or condemned, changes that person subjectively, inwardly, or morally, right? I mean, think about when I was growing up, it was Judge Wapner. People who are a little bit older like me will remember Judge Wapner and The People's Court. That was such a popular television show, it has a whole bunch of spinoffs on it now. There's so many different judges, Judge Judy, and all kinds of stuff. But that's what they were doing. I remember watching The People's Court constantly when I was a kid, it was fascinating. and that he would make a ruling. When he made that ruling, he wasn't changing the plaintiff or the defendant in any way. He was simply declaring, here's what the law states, and here is your status in front of the law. That's all. Okay, Job 32 verse 2 is another example. According to Elihu, Job, quote, justified himself before God, end quote. In Elihu's opinion, Job was arguing his innocence before God, that is, declaring himself righteous before God. Now if a person justifies themselves in an argument of some kind, what they're doing is they're not making themselves inherently good or moral, they're saying that in this case they are the right ones, that they are correct in that way. You see, justification is declarative, it's not transformational. It doesn't produce a change in the subject upon which it is done. Okay? Proverbs 17, 15. He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. Okay? So there it is again. He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord. So think about that. The scripture says a person, a judge who justifies someone who's wicked, and condemns someone who's actually righteous in the eyes of the law, that person's an abomination. What is so amazing is that that is exactly what God does in the justification of sinners. And y'all, if you've listened to my podcast enough or watched any of these videos, you've heard me quote the same passage over and over and over again. Romans 4, 4 and following here. Now look at, in particular, verse five. But to him who does not work, but believes on him who, you see it? Who justifies the ungodly. That term that's used there in Greek, I think it's asēbēos, let me make sure that's right, in verse five. Who justifies the wicked. Asēbēs, yeah, asēbēs. Who justifies the wicked. His faith is accounted for righteousness. How can God do this? How can God pronounce me to be righteous when, in fact, in the eyes of the law, inherently, me, myself, I am condemned by that law, and yet God justifies me, God pronounces me justified by virtue of the work of Christ, his righteousness. I mean, look at verse six. Just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works. How is God able to be just in declaring me, a wicked person, to be just? Because I have Christ's righteousness imputed to me. And then verse 8 says, blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. My sins will not be imputed to me or credited to me or charged to me, because they were born by Christ already. Jesus died for my sins. Okay, so it's pretty amazing. Proverbs 17, 15 says he who justifies the wicked is an abomination. And yet God does justify the wicked. How is God not an abomination for doing that? Because of imputation. My sins are imputed to Christ. His righteousness is imputed to me. So therefore God is righteous and just in declaring me to be righteous when in fact I am wicked and sinful. God transfers Christ's righteousness to my legal account and transfers my whole life of sin and disobedience to Christ at the cross. God is a competent authority and is able to do that. Rome, the Roman Catholic religion has always said, that's a legal fiction. God is pretending that we're righteous when in fact we're still evil. And so you have God lying about us. And I would just ask the question, was God lying about Jesus when he was condemned to die on the cross? Or was Jesus actually dying for real sin? He was treated as if he had committed the sins I've committed. He was treated legally by God the Father as if he had done all the bad things and all the transgressions of the law that I have committed and that all his people have committed. Is that a legal fiction? Were the sufferings of Christ not real? Were they only fictitious? Calling the gospel a legal fiction is, to me, one of the worst kinds of blasphemy possible. Because you're basically saying that the work of Christ failed. That Jesus could not take away our sins, when in fact he did. Okay. That justification is an objective forensic judgment as opposed to a subjective transformation is evidenced second by the fact that the antithesis of justification is invariably condemnation. That's another dead giveaway that we're talking about a change in a person's legal status, not a change in them subjectively, or morally, or transformationally. The opposite of justification in scripture is condemnation. To condemn. which latter term is clearly a juridical or forensic determination. For example, back again to Deuteronomy 25 verse one, they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. Meaning in court, if someone's wicked and it's proven that they're wicked, the judge will pronounce the verdict condemned. It's just like when the jury comes back and they give their decision, we the jury find so-and-so guilty of this crime. Now, by announcing the verdict, condemned, guilty, are they subjectively changing that person morally? No, they're simply declaring their status after the evidence is in. At the judgment of God, my sin, all of it, was nailed to the cross of Christ. Righteousness has been imputed to my account before God. I am righteous in the sight of God That's why Paul says in Romans 8 33. He says who will bring a charge against God's elect You see that who will bring a charge that means a legal charge Who can charge me with sin when God has justified me and the passage goes on to say how he did it? Who is he who is the one who condemns Christ Jesus is he who died? Right? The death penalty? It's been taken away. Christ Jesus died in my place. Yes, rather, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who makes intercession for us. Okay, and so, in that passage, man, it goes on, it's just glorious. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Those whom God has justified can never be condemned. It is impossible that they can be condemned, because Christ, their sacrifice, their Passover lamb, was condemned in the stead and place of that person. And therefore, that person bears their guilt no more. In fact, I was having a texting dialogue with a member of the church here yesterday, who struggles with assurance, and I texted them this passage from Colossians 2, verses 13-14. Listen. "...and you being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, he has made alive together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses, having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us." You see, just breaking from the verse here for a minute, the law of God curses and damns every person to hell. That law stood against me. The writing of requirements was against me and contrary to me. But it's not anymore. See the rest of verse 14? And he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. Christ, our curse-bearing substitute, has taken the judicial, legal requirement away, and has forgiven me of all my trespasses, and has justified me once and for all eternity. The law that stood against me, as I am in myself, still stands against me. It is taken out of the way permanently by the work of Christ. So important to understand that. And it really is amazing how quickly we forget this and we drift from it and we start thinking our walk with God is based on our performance and everything else and we can get into a spiral of despair and I'm so bad, I'm so bad, I'm so bad. I know, God knows we're so bad. That's why Jesus had to come and do this. That curse, the handwriting of requirements that was against us and contrary to us, God took it out of the way by nailing it to the cross in Jesus Christ. That's glorious stuff. It doesn't get any more glorious than that. 1 Kings 8.32, judge your servants, condemning the wicked and justifying the righteous. See the contrast between condemnation and justification. Justification, to justify, to change the legal status, not to transform. To condemn someone in court is to pronounce them guilty of the crime they're charged with, not to make them inherently evil. See the difference? It's a huge difference between subjectively transforming someone and simply declaring their status to be different in the eyes of the law. Matthew 12, 37, for by your words you shall be justified and by your words you shall be condemned. See the contrast? Justified, condemned. Justified, condemned. Justified, condemned. Those aren't transformational words, those are declarative words, declaring a person's legal status. Romans 5 16, the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. And then Romans 8 33 and 34, Raymond has cited here. God is the one who justifies, who is the one who condemns. See the contrast? Justified or condemned. Every person on this planet, every one of us, is either justified or condemned before the law of God. And the reason we share the gospel, the reason we preach Christ and Him crucified, is we want people to be justified before the law, not condemned. But to be justified, you need to understand, it needs to be understood in your mind that you aren't relying on any subjective transformation in yourself to get you into heaven. It is faith alone and Christ alone. You trust in Jesus and nothing else to get you into heaven. The whole time you're a Christian, that confidence in Jesus is never transferred to or shared with anything else. Not even your sanctification, not your fruits, nothing of the kind. And in fact, what's so ironic is as soon as people start trusting in their fruits, in the fruits of their faith, they lose all sense of peace and assurance anyway. To the extent that my salvation depends upon my fruit or my works or my performance, It's going to be left completely in the dark whether or not it's going to happen or not. Raymond continues, that justification is an objective forensic judgment as opposed to a subjective transformation is evidenced third by contextual considerations which place the act of justifying in the context of legal judgments. For example, Psalm 143 verse 2. Do not enter into judgment with your servant, for in your sight no man living shall be righteous. That is, justified. So, entering into judgment. God is the judge. This is one of the things, when you hear people attacking penal substitutionary atonement, And they don't like the idea of Christ satisfying wrath against sin. You have to wonder, have those people opened the Bible and read it? The whole book presents God as the judge of all the earth. God is the judge, and he judges human beings. All of us are covenantal creatures. All of us are in covenant with God, and we are either lawbreakers or lawkeepers. And in ourselves, we're all lawbreakers. Even as Christians, we're lawbreakers. And so we need to have someone represent us before God legally and to fulfill all those things for us, that's what Christ does. Romans 3, 19 to 20, another great passage. Now we know that whatever the law says that speaks to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God, because by the works of the law, no flesh will be justified that is declared righteous in his sight. Then Romans 8, 33 again, who will bring a charge against God's elect? God is the one who justifies. Okay, justification is an objective, forensic judgment as opposed to a subjective transformation. Okay, justification doesn't change me subjectively at all. It doesn't change me subjectively at all. And Raymond concludes that section, the biblical evidence makes it clear that justification is a juridical or forensic determination made by a judge. And as such, it is intimately tied to the cross work of Christ. And that's why, for my part, me personally and all faithful ministers of the gospel will always be very, very, very zealous to protect justification from being based upon anything other than the blood and righteousness of Christ and received by the sinner by anything other than belief and trust in Jesus. Because anything other than that, anything alongside of that, nullifies the work of Christ altogether. That's why we'll just, in closing, point out again Galatians 5, 1 and following, Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and do not be entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Indeed, I, Paul, say to you, if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. Why is he saying that? Because if a person is trusting in circumcision alongside of Christ, what you're saying is that Christ isn't enough. That's why Paul says, you take one step in that direction, then Christ will be of no benefit to you. Coming to God means you come to God on God's terms, meaning you trust in the gospel, you trust in Jesus and nothing else, nothing alongside of him. And then he says, and I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised, he is a debtor to keep the whole law. Meaning, as soon as you share, as soon as you share the thing that's going to get you into heaven with something other than Christ, then Christ is out of the equation, no matter how much you say you believe in him, and you become a debtor to keep the whole law if you want to go to heaven, which of course nobody can do that. You have become estranged from Christ. You who attempt to be justified by law, you have fallen from grace. Even if you think that believing in Jesus helps you keep the law and that God does his gracious work to help you do it, that's still not really believing in the gospel. So I think that that's a good place to stop. And then the next section of Raymond's Systematic Theology speaks of the righteousness of justification. So this is gonna be good too. So thank you all for watching or for listening. This is Pastor Patrick Hines of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church, and you've been listening to the Pulpit Supplemental Podcast. You can find us on the web at www.bridwellheightspca.org. Our sermons are streamed through sermon audio, and you can listen to that on the iTunes podcast version of Bridwell Heights Presbyterian Church. Feel free to join us any Sunday morning for worship at 11 a.m. sharp at 108 Ridgewell Heights Road in Kingsport, Tennessee. And may the Lord bless you and keep you. The Lord make His face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. The Lord lift up His countenance upon you and give you peace.