Biblical words for "imputation" and "justification" refer to God's objective work, not subjective, internal, progressive moral reformation within man

"The true import of the word 'justify' seems to have been corrupted among the Romanists, when the Latin Vulgate alone was taken as the guide; for the Latin word, from which our English term is derived, taken aside from its use seems to carry with it the signification, not of declaring, but making a man just; but in the original terms, both in the Hebrew and Greek, there is no ambiguity. The words express uniformly the sense which we have put on them; that is, they mean, to account, to esteem, to declare a person to be just or righteous, and never to make a man just or righteous by the infusion of grace. Justification and Sanctification should, therefore, be carefully distinguished, although they should never be separated. The difference between these two benefits which arise from union with Christ, is well expressed in the answer to the 77th Question, in our Larger Catechism. 'Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that, God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ, in sanctification his Spirit infuses grace, and enableth the exercise thereof: in the former, sin is pardoned, in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the avenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation: the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection." (Archibald Alexander, “A Treatise on Justification by Faith Alone”)


"To inquire what is meant by the imputation of this righteousness; which is the way in which it becomes ours and indeed is the only way in which it can become ours. The Hebrew word כשח in Genesis 15:6 and the Greek word logizwmai used by the apostle here, signifies to estimate, reckon, impute, or place something to the account of another. So the righteousness of Christ is estimated, reckoned, and imputed to be his people's, and is placed to their account as such by God the Father, and looked upon as much by him as their justifying righteousness or as though it had been wrought by them, in their own persons. That this righteousness becomes ours this way, is manifest. For in the same way that Adam's sin became ours, the same way the righteousness of Christ becomes ours; or the same way we are made sinners by the disobedience of Adam, are we made righteous by the obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:19). For as by one man's disobedience, many were made sinners. So by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous. Now Adam's sin became ours, or we were made sinners, through his sin; by imputation, it was reckoned, it was placed to the account of all his posterity. So Christ's righteousness becomes ours, or we are made righteous, through that righteousness of his; by the imputation of it to us, it is reckoned, it is placed to our account. Again, the same way our sins became Christ's, Christ's righteousness becomes ours, as appears from 1 Corinthians 5:21. He who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. Now the way in which Christ was made sin for us, was by imputation; he never had any sin inherent in him, though he had it transferred unto him and laid upon him. So the way in which we are made the righteousness of God, must be by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, and indeed we cannot be made righteous any other way, than by imputation. For the objects of justification are ungodly persons in themselves; for God justifies the ungodly, as in the verse preceding my text. Now if they are ungodly in themselves, then they are not justified by a righteousness of their own, it must be by the righteousness of another. And if they are justified by the righteousness of another, that other's righteousness must be some way or other made theirs, it must be placed to their account, and reckoned as their own, which is only done by an imputation of it to them." (John Gill, "The DOCTRINE OF IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS Without Works Asserted And Proved")


“I may also remind you that Augustine, and a few of the other fathers, misled by this etymology, and their ignorance of Greek, conceived and spoke of justification as a change of moral state, as well as of legal condition. Here is the poisonous germ of the erroneous doctrine of the Scholastics and of Trent concerning it; a striking illustration of the high necessity of Hebrew and Greek literature, in the teachers of the Church.” (R.L. Dabney, “Systematic Theology”)

Excerpts from Berkhof's "Systematic Theology" on the atonement

According to Scripture the moving cause of the atonement is found in the good pleasure of God to save sinners by a substitutionary atonement.

... It was the love of God that provided a way of escape for lost sinners, John 3:16. And it was the justice of God which required that this way should be of such a nature as to meet the demands of the law, in order that God "might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus," Rom. 3:26.

... The fact that God gave up His only begotten Son to bitter sufferings and to a shameful death cannot be explained on the principle of His love only.

... Reformed theology in general rightly shows a decided preference for this view [that the atonement was absolutely necessary, rather than relatively or hypothetically necessary or even unnecessary].Whatever may be true of Beza in later life, it is certain that such scholars as Voetius, Mastricht, Turretin, a Marck, and Owen, all maintain the absolute necessity of the atonement and ground it particularly in the justice of God, that moral perfection by which He necessarily maintains His holiness over against sin and the sinner and inflicts due punishment on transgressors.

(Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth, 2003, pp. 367-369)

John Owen: Licentiousness was charged against Paul's doctrine of justification, but Paul showed it was the grounds of our sanctification

“I know that the doctrine here pleaded for [namely, justification by faith through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ] is charged by many with an unfriendly aspect towards the necessity of personal holiness, good works, and all gospel obedience in general, yea, utterly to take it away. So it was at the first clear revelation of it by the apostle Paul, as he frequently declares. But it is sufficiently evinced by him to be the chief principle of, and motive unto, all that obedience which is accepted with God through Jesus Christ, as we shall manifest afterwards. However, it is acknowledged that the objective grace of the gospel, in the doctrine of it, is liable to abuse, where there is nothing of the subjective grace of it in the hearts of men; and the ways of its influence into the life of God are uncouth unto the seasonings of carnal minds. So was it charged by the Papists, at the first Reformation, and continues yet so to be. Yet, as it gave the first occasion unto the Reformation itself, so was it that whereby the souls of men, being set at liberty from their bondage unto innumerable superstitious fears and observances, utterly inconsistent with true gospel obedience, and directed into the ways of peace with God through Jesus Christ, were made fruitful in real holiness, and to abound in all those blessed effects of the life of God which were never found among their adversaries.” –John Owen, The doctrine of Justification by Faith, through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ; explained, confirmed, and vindicated

Gordon Clark: Saving faith is understanding and assent

Gordon Clark explains that saving faith is understanding and assenting to propositions concerning the person and work of Christ, including His work of atonement:

The usual evangelical analysis of belief separates it into three parts: notitia, assensus, and fiducia-or understanding, assent, and trust. Perhaps even theologians who use this analysis might omit fiducia if they confined themselves to belief as such; for in a colloquial manner a person who believes that Columbus discovered America in 1492, or in 1374, is not taken as an example of trust. Yet is he not actually an example of confidence?

...

We should not “rest in,” i.e. be satisfied with, the single proposition, “There is but one God.” This proposition even the devils accept [cf. James 2:19]. But for salvation men must not only accept the monotheistic proposition, but also other propositions relating to the Atonement.

...

One slogan is, “No creed but Christ.” Another expression, with variations from person to person, is, “Faith is not belief in a proposition, but trust in a person.”

Though this may sound very pious, it is nonetheless destructive of Christianity. Back in the twenties, before the Methodist Church became totally apostate, a liberal in their General Conference opposed theological precision by some phrase centering on Christ, such as, Christ is all we need. A certain pastor, a remnant of the evangelical wing of the church, had the courage to take the floor and ask the pointed question, “which Christ?” ... A person can be identified only by a set of propositions.

...

Thomas Manton was a Puritan of the seventeenth century, and when he speaks of “the former age,” he is not referring to apostate Romanism, but to the Reformers themselves. Hence he is a witness that they defined fait[h] has an assent to the promise of the Gospel.

...

The former age never said that true believing, or false believing either, is an act of the understanding only. The former age, and much of the later ages too, specify assent in addition to understanding. They make this specification with the deliberate aim of not restricting belief to understanding alone. One can understand and lecture on the philosophy of Spinoza, but this does not mean that the lecturer assents to it. Belief is the act of assenting to something understood. But understanding alone is not belief in what is understood.

...

The crux of the difficulty with the popular analysis of faith into notitia (understanding), assensus (assent), and fiducia (trust), is that fiducia comes from the same root as fides (faith). Hence this popular analysis reduces to the obviously absurd definition that faith consists of understanding, assent, and faith. Something better than this tautology must be found. (Gordon Clark, Saving Faith)

John Robbins: The blasphemous charge of antinomianism against Paul's doctrine of justification demonstrates he taught justification apart from works

John Robbins explains the separation -- in history and in modern times -- between those who teach salvation by faith alone and those who heretically and damnably add works:

The Bible clearly and emphatically teaches that a sinner is saved by belief of the Gospel alone, "apart from the deeds of the law." That is why the blasphemous charge of antinomianism arose against the Gospel in the first place. If Paul and the other apostles had taught a false gospel of faith plus obedience as the way of salvation, the charge of antinomianism would never have been brought against them. Neither Rome nor many so-called "Reformed" theologians seem to understand that salvation is not a result of good works; good works are a result of salvation. It was that difference that divided the Christians from the Romanists in the sixteenth century, and it is that difference that divides the Christians from the Romanists in the twenty-first century. (John Robbins, R.C. Sproul on Saving Faith)

Francis Turretin: Justification is of the greatest importance

Francis Turretin explains the importance, biblically and historically, of justification by 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. (Francis Turretin, Forensic Justification)

C. Matthew McMahon: Justification by Faith Alone is one of the most important, yet neglected, doctrines

C. Matthew McMahon on the fundamental importance of justification by faith alone:

However, in the sea of doctrine which we are all to be familiar with throughout the Word of God, there may be a doctrine which is more important than any other; one which is the most important of all. Some may vouchsafe for the atonement. I must admit, the atonement is crucial, critical and the crux of saving grace for the believer. But, the importance of a doctrine does not simply fall on the kind of doctrine or the content of the doctrine, but also on the need of the doctrine as well. Eschatology is very important, but not as important as the need to understand the atonement. Today, I believe, as it was in the sixteenth century, the need to regain lost ground in understanding the doctrine of Justification by faith alone has come to the forefront. Most people, even those in Reformed circles, those who claim Luther as a hero, have little to say about justification. I have been a member of solid reformed churches for quite a long time. Yet, I have heard very little about justification by faith alone. I cannot remember a sermon dedicated to the subject. It has been neglected in the school setting, in the home study groups, and in the pulpit. It is a vital doctrine that we cannot do without. Its urgency dictates the difference between one going to heaven and one going to hell. It is of crucial significance and should be rightly understood by those who claim Christ as their banner. If justification is misunderstood, being the pillar upon which the church stands or falls, then what will the rest of our doctrine look like? Will it be a nominal Christianity? Would it be works righteousness? I think it would. To understand that we must be clothed in the righteousness of Christ for safety in the Day of Judgment is of vital import.

As I believe the doctrine of seeking is all but lost in our day, I also believe the doctrine of justification is slowly being forgotten. Friends, without it we are lost. Without understanding it we will not truly perceive the great wonder of the grace of God in Christ. It is my hope that in this section of the website such a glorious truth may be exalted beyond measure, that it may bring a great amount of glory to the one true and living God of the Ages. Let us think rightly about one of the most, if not the most important doctrine in the entire bible, the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone. (C. Matthew McMahon, Justification by Faith Alone: A Plea for Understanding)

John Gerstner: The church always taught "Sola Fide" implicitly, and the Reformers explicitly defended the doctrine against apostate Romanists

John Gerstner explains the history of "Sola Fide" within the church:

One may say generally of the history of the doctrine of justification that solafideanism (justification-by-faith-alone-ism) was taught implicitly, but not explicitly, from the beginning of the church. That is, it was known in the early church that salvation was by faith alone, but not until the sixteenth century was the church called upon to define that teaching more precisely. Those in the church who had quietly apostasized opposed this essential truth (adherents of Tridentine Roman Catholicism), while the faithful (Protestants), affirmed it. The Reformers defined and refined the doctrine in the fires of controversy. (Dr. John Gerstner, History of the Doctrine of Justification)

Joel R. Beeke: Christ's righteousness, alien to the believer, is the formal cause of justification, and faith is the instrumental cause

Joel R. Beeke explains that faith is the instrumental cause of justification and that Christ's righteousness -- alien to the believer and imputed to him -- is the formal or meritorious cause, the ground upon which we are justified:

Protestant theology, on the other hand [set against Romanism], maintained that faith is the instrumental cause of justification, while the alien righteousness of Christ, external to the believer and imputed to him, is the formal cause, i.e., the ground upon which God can justly justify sinners. ‘For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21; cf. Romans 3:26). It is critical to maintain that this formal cause of justification resides in Christ’s righteousness alone, for all the Scriptures dealing with the fundamentally depraved nature of man make clear that there is no righteousness inherent in the natural man upon which a divine verdict of justification could be based. ‘They are all gone aside, they are together become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one’ (Psalm 14:3). For the Reformers, faith was the conscious, personal immediate reliance of a sinner on Christ alone. (Dr. Joel R. Beeke, Justification by Faith Alone, Soli Deo Gloria (1995), p. 90)

James Buchanan: Four major points of controversy regarding justification

There are four major points regarding justification, according to James Buchanan (Justification, p. 113-114): 1) “The nature of Justification …”; 2) “the ground of Justification …”; 3) “the means of Justification …”; 4) “the effect of Justification …” “Under one or other of these topics every question of any real importance on the subject of Justification may be conveniently ranked; and they were all involved in the great controversy between the Reformers and the Church of Rome.”

• Nature: “…the fundamental error of the Church of Rome consisted in confounding [justification] with sanctification. … Justification, considered as an act of God, is the mere infusion, in the first instance, and the mere recognition, in the second, of a righteousness inherent in the sinner himself; and not an act of God’s grace, acquitting him of guilt, delivering him from condemnation, and receiving him into His favour and friendship” (pp. 114-115)
• Ground: “…the fundamental error of the Church of Rome consisted in substituting the inherent righteousness of the regenerate, for the imputed righteousness of the Redeemer. … The merits of Christ were rather, according to their doctrine, the procuring cause of that regenerating grace by which we are made righteous; while the inherent personal righteousness which is thus produced, is the real proximate ground of our justification. … But that His righteousness imputed is the sole and all-sufficient ground of our justification, which neither requires nor admits of any addition being made to it in the shape either of suffering or obedience, and which is effectual, for that end, without the aid of any other righteousness, infused and inherent,--the strenuously denied.” (pp. 116-117).
• Means: “… the fundamental error of the Church of Rome consisted in denying that we are justified by that faith which ‘receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation, as He is freely offered to us in the Gospel.’ They affirmed that we are justified, not simply by faith in Christ, for faith might exist where there is no justification, but by faith informed with charity, or love, which is the germ of new obedience;--that this faith is first infused by baptism, so as to delete all past sin,--original sin, in the case of infants, and both original and actual sin in the case of adults, duly prepared to receive it,--while it is restored or renewed, in the event of post-baptismal sin, by confession and absolution, which effectually deliver the sinner from all punishment, except such as is endured in penance, or in purgatory. … Accordingly faith, to which so much efficacy and importance are everywhere ascribed in Scripture, was, first of all, defined as a mere intellectual belief, or assent to revealed truth, such as an unrenewed mind might acquire in the exercise of its natural faculties, without the aid of divine grace, and described as having, in itself, no necessary connection with salvation, but as being only one of seven antecedent dispositions or qualifications, which always precede, in the case of adults, but are not invariably followed by, Justification” (p. 118-119).
• Effect: “… the fundamental error of the Church of Rome consisted in holding, that it was neither so complete in its own nature, nor so infallibly secured, as to exempt him from the necessity of making some further satisfaction for sin, or to warrant the certain hope of eternal life” (p. 122).
  

R.J. Rushdoony: Justification is not on account of faith as a pietistic work

R.J. Rushdoony affirms the reformational understanding of faith as taking hold upon Christ and His righteousness alone, not looking inwardly to itself as the meritorious cause for our pardon and acceptance before God:

Justification is often discussed after regeneration and conversion because the emphasis is on justification by faith. The convert’s awareness of justification and its meaning comes with faith, but it is a serious error to assume that it is on account of faith. Scripture never says that we are justified on account of faith, but only through or by faith. Faith acknowledges that it is Jesus Christ and His righteousness which alone redeems us, but that faith does not in itself justify us. The doctrine of justification by faith began as a rejection of humanistic salvation, by works, merit, knowledge, or anything in and of man. Unhappily, the term is now often popularly used to set forth the belief that it is man’s faith which releases God’s saving power and justification. The doctrine of justification by faith is thereby converted into exactly that which it originally sought to destroy. Instead of setting forth the Reformation doctrine, it now serves to undercut and destroy the Reformation. We are in process of a return to medieval pietism and its emphasis on feeling and experience, on man and his ‘works’ which includes man’s ‘faith’ in this non-Biblical sense. (R.J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, pp. 534-535)

John MacArthur: Justification by faith is always attacked first by the enemy

John MacArthur on the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith:

The Reformation doctrine of justification by faith is, and has always been, the number one target of the enemy’s attack. It provides the foundation of the bridge that reconciles God and man—without that key doctrine, Christianity falls. But the doctrine that the Reformers so painstakingly clarified, even spilled blood over, has become so muddled today that many Protestants barely recognize it. Sadly, there are some who react against a clear presentation of justification, calling it nothing more than useless hair-splitting.

...

What’s so important about the doctrine of justification by faith alone? It is the doctrine upon which the confessing church stands or falls. Without it there is no salvation, no sanctification, no glorification—nothing. You wouldn’t know it to look at the state of Christianity today, but it really is that important. (John MacArthur, Justification by Faith)

J.I. Packer: Justification was the Material Principle of the Reformation

J.I. Packer on the controlling principles of the Reformation:

Justification by faith has traditionally, and rightly, been regarded as one of the two basic and controlling principles of Reformation theology. The authority of Scripture was the formal principle of that theology, determining its method and providing its touchstone of truth; justification by faith was its material principle, determining its substance. (J.I. Packer, “Introductory Essay” -- in James Buchanan’s Justification, Banner of Truth, 1997 -- reprinted from the 1867 original, p. vii)

John Robbins: Justification by faith alone is the article upon which churches and individuals stand or fall

John Robbins asserts that justification by faith alone was central to biblical and reformational theology:

Justification by faith alone was not just another topic in theology for Paul; it was the center of Christian theology, a sine qua non of Christian doctrine. The Reformers recognized its central place 1500 years later and declared that it was the doctrine by which churches, as well as individuals, stand or fall. (John Robbins, Why Heretics Win Battles)

R.J. Rushdoony: Justification was central to the Reformation

R.J. Rushdoony on the centrality of justification as God's objective work alone:

The central Reformation doctrine was justification. Today, in all evangelical circles, the focus is not on atonement and justification but on being born again. Man’s rebirth and conversion are clearly important and necessary; without it we would have no Christianity. But being born again is a product, not the cause. It is man’s subjective experience of God’s work; atonement and justification are God’s objective acts, and totally His work. (R.J. Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, p. 620)

The Reformation was possible because justification was made central and basic. (Ibid., p. 621)