For the past few months, I’ve been trying to understand the distinction between passive and active justification. I first came across this concept when reading Luke Stamps’ essay in “The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls” edited by Matthew Barrett. The basic issue Dr. Stamps brought up was the question of how the forensic can have priority over the transformative if justification follows from faith. I had never thought about this question before and so I became very interested in understanding the solution to this question. Dr. Stamps cited Michael Horton in order to answer the question, arguing that we should see the solution in that God’s justifying declarative speech act “does what it says”. As I hope to show, I do not think this to be the best way of thinking about this concept (in fact, Horton and Stamps’ solution was what held me back from seeing precisely what the distinction actually was until recently EDIT: I have only later found out that a chapter in this book actually criticizes the concept of justification as a "speech act"). After citing Horton, Stamps then introduced the passive/active justification distinction and cited Bavinck in order to help explain it. Since then, I’ve been reading anything and everything that I could get my hands on regarding the distinction. However, I was not able to understand what the distinction actually was (or could see little Scriptural basis for it) based on what I was reading. As I hope to show, I believe this is because the distinction has not been very well explained by any recent theologian (Bavinck and Berkhof included). In this post, I hope to show that the distinction between passive and active justification is merely a logical one and, really, very common-sense (and not some extra-biblical scholastic category imposed upon Scripture as some have objected; J.V. Fesko in his book on the Covenant of Redemption rejects the distinction because he believes it lacks exegetical basis, for example. However, he misreads Bavinck as teaching imputation from the time of election, cf. pg. 308 which I'll paste in at the bottom, rather than being coordinate with regeneration, as Bavinck meant it, and is operating on a Presbyterian covenant theology that sees imputation within the pactum salutis rather than a retroactive New Covenant) and one that is necessarily implied when Scripture discusses justification. I also hope to explain it well in the way that I have personally found most helpful.
Before addressing the distinction itself, I want to address a related question, namely, whether regeneration places one in the New Covenant, or flows from it. This question (and answer) is addressed here in an awesome post by Brandon Adams: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/new-covenant-union-as-mystical-union-in-owen/. But to give a quick answer to this question, all we have to do is to look at Jeremiah 31:
“Behold, days are coming,” declares Yahweh, “when I will cut a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I cut with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, but I was a husband to them,” declares Yahweh. “But this is the covenant which I will cut with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Yahweh: “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
Now, if the writing of the law upon men’s hearts (regeneration) is part of the New Covenant, then it is clear that regeneration cannot be a prerequisite for entering it, as it only flows from it.
The question, then becomes, what exactly places one within the New Covenant? The answer can only be found in that which gives one the right to the blessings of the New Covenant; namely, the imputation of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Thus, the imputation of Christ's obedience (in life and death) imputed to you, releases you from the law as the Covenant of Works, because it switches you into the Covenant of Grace (Rom. 7:4). You enter the New Covenant through the imputation of Christ's obedience. Consider Rom. 7:4, where we are told we have "died to the Law" (released from the Covenant of Works), "through the body of Christ" (the imputed obedience in death of Christ), that we may be "joined to another" (Christ the Covenant head of the New Covenant).
This is where the active/passive justification distinction comes in.
My thesis here, following Charles Lee Irons, is that the active/passive justification distinction is best cashed out as imputation (active justification) and justification (passive justification). As Irons says, “I prefer to speak of…’imputation’ and ‘justification,’ thus reserving the term “justification” for the subjective experience of being justified by faith” (https://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2017/07/justification-and-union-with-christ-part-7.html). If you can understand the fact that God’s forensic declaration of righteousness (justification) has to be grounded on some factual basis (justification is no legal fiction), then you understand the distinction between passive and active justification (or, as I suggest, imputation and justification). From Brandon Adams’ post, citing Richard Gaffin,
[According to Owen] To be “reputed” righteous, he said, was not the same as having Christ’s righteousness be “imputed” to us. “To be reputed righteous and to have righteousness imputed, differ,” explained Owen, “as cause and effect.” Imputation was set forth as something prior to being declared or reckoned righteous. The view that Gaffin found in Calvin, as previously mentioned, would seem to have been Owen’s view as well. Being imputed righteous and being reckoned righteous were not the same. Imputation was the cause, of which being reckoned righteous was the effect. Owen continued:
“For that any may be reputed righteous ‐ that is, be judged or esteemed to be so ‐ there must be a real foundation of that reputation, or it is a mistake, and not a right judgment; as any man may be reputed to be wise who is a fool, or be reputed to be rich who is a beggar. Wherefore, he that is reputed righteous must either have a righteousness of his own, or another antecedently imputed unto him, as the foundation of that reputation. Wherefore, to impute righteousness unto one that hath none of his own, is not to repute him to be righteous who is indeed unrighteous; but it is to communicate a righteousness unto him, that he may rightly and justly be esteemed, judged, or reputed righteous”.
A clearer statement of how imputation and declaration were related would be hard to imagine. Declaration was clearly a consequence of imputation, and imputation was clearly the foundation of declaration. One could not be reputed as righteous unless one really were righteous. Imputed righteousness was logically antecedent to being reckoned as righteous before the divine tribunal. Only as one was indeed righteous, because righteousness had already been communicated, could one then, on that basis, “rightly and justly be esteemed, judged, or reputed righteous” before the judgment seat of God.
A few pages later this interpretation is confirmed. lmputation was “not a naked pronunciation or declaration of any one to be righteous,” insisted Owen, “without a just and sufficient foundation, for the judgment of God declared therein. God declares no man to be righteous but him who is so; the whole question is how he comes to be!” Declaration without a prior imputation would be meaningless. Only imputation as a prior transaction could provide declaration with a “sufficient foundation.”…
In other words, the distinction between active/passive justification is implicit for everyone who believes in forensic justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ. Lee Irons, rightly, commenting on Lane Tipton, who at least formally believes he rejects the distinction, says:
“I believe this distinction between imputation and subjective justification is the same as the distinction that Gaffin and Tipton make between the imputation of righteousness and the declaration of righteousness. The declaration of righteousness is a subjective reality in the forum of the conscience as the sinner receives the conscious assurance of the forgiveness of sins and the declaration of God that he is deemed righteous in the sight of God. The term declaration implies a speaking; it is the Holy Spirit speaking through the gospel (Word and Spirit working together in our hearts). It is a subjective experience: ‘God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us’ (Rom 5:5). But the declaration of God that he loves us and accepts us as righteous in his sight, is not a baseless assurance. It is grounded on something. And that ground, that basis, is the imputation of the righteousness Christ. When God declares us to be righteous, it is not a legal fiction; it is a verdict of divine justice, founded on the absolute truth of God because of Christ’s satisfaction and fulfillment of the law as our federal representative. Thus, the distinction between objective justification (or imputation) and subjective justification is one that even Gaffin and Tipton agree with in principle. And they would also agree that there is a legal priority to the imputation. It is on the legal ground of the imputed righteousness of Christ, that we receive all the benefits of salvation, including the declaration of righteousness. Imputation is the legal ground of the declaration of righteousness (aka subjective justification), which is received by faith” (https://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2019/03/justification-and-union-with-christ-part-9.html).
One tiny place I differ from Irons here. I do not want to say that infants only receive active justification without passive justification. If passive justification is nothing else than the application of active justification, then it is absolutely necessary. Instead, I affirm that infants are passively justified through seminal/habitual faith (see van Mastricht https://twitter.com/brandoncorley99/status/1534613140750897152?s=21&t=oqkj_zIgE8PXfQd9_3JEcg)
Think about it this way: why should I want to have righteousness imputed to me? Christ's obedience is counted to me. Cool; so what? The reason I want righteousness imputed to me is because it gives me the legal right to eternal life. It is causal of eternal-resurrection life, which is inaugurated in regeneration. Therefore, it absolutely must precede regeneration since it is the basis of regeneration. It is Christ's obedience which purchased regeneration for us. It is imputed righteousness which results in the inauguration of eternal resurrection life, which begins in regeneration (Rom. 5:17-18, 21)
Thus, A. A. Hodge: "Regeneration and consequently faith are wrought in us for Christ’s sake and as the result conditioned on a previous imputation of his righteousness to that end" (Outlines of Theology, 518).
Now, the problem I have with the explanations of active/passive justification from major recent theologians (Berkhof, Bavinck) is that they can lead to confusion (as they certainly did for me), and may seem to reduce “passive justification” to nothing more than the recognition on our part that we have been justified, thus undoing faith’s instrumentality for justification. For example, Berkhof defines the distinction as such:
“This [objective/active justification] is justification in the most fundamental sense of the word. It is basic to what is called subjective justification, and consists in a declaration which God makes respecting the sinner, and this declaration is made in the tribunal of God. This declaration is not a declaration in which God simply acquits the sinner, without taking any account of the claims of justice, but is rather a divine declaration that, in the case of the sinner under consideration, the demands of the law are met. The sinner is declared righteous in view of the fact that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him. In this transaction God appears, not as an absolute Sovereign who simply sets the law aside, but as a righteous Judge, who acknowledges the infinite merits of Christ as a sufficient basis for justification, and as a gracious Father, who freely forgives and accepts the sinner. This active justification logically precedes faith and passive justification. . . Passive or subjective justification takes place in the heart or conscience of the sinner… When the Bible speaks of justification, it usually refers to what is known as passive justification. It should be borne in mind, however, that the two cannot be separated. The one is based on the other. The distinction is simply made to facilitate the proper understanding of the act of justification. Logically, passive justification follows faith; we are justified by faith”.
See that Berkhof says active justification takes place “in the tribunal of God”, whereas, passive justification takes place “in the heart or conscience of the sinner”. This seems to reduce passive justification (what the Bible talks about when it says we are “justified by faith”) to a declaration realized on the part of the sinner, not a forensic declaration by God. This is simply not what the Bible means when it says that we are “justified by faith”. The focus is on God’s objective declaration that we are forensically justified, not on our subjective recognition of it.
Similarly Bavinck also says:
“Now the distinction between active and passive justification served to escape this nomistic pattern. Active justification already in a sense occurred in the proclamation of the gospel, in the external calling, but it occurs especially in the internal calling when God by his word and Spirit effectually calls sinners, convicts them of sin, drives them out toward Christ, and prompts them to find forgiveness and life in him. Logically this active justification precedes faith. It is, as it were, the effectual proclamation of God’s Spirit that one’s sins are forgiven, so that persons are persuaded in their hearts, believingly accept … that word of God and receive Christ along with all his benefits. And when these persons, after first, as it were, going out to Christ (the direct act of faith), then (by a reflex act of faith) return to themselves and acknowledge with childlike gratitude that their sins too have been personally forgiven, then, in that moment, the passive justification occurs by which God acquits believers in their conscience”
Once again, passive justification is reduced to the realm of the believer’s conscience.
The way that Bavinck and Berkhof parse out active/passive justification is not exactly the same way that Owen and Turretin parsed it out. See Turretin’s short comments:
“Since justification can be viewed either actively (on the part of God who justifies) or passively (on the part of man who is justified), a twofold handling of it can be adopted: either with respect to the benefit itself conferred upon us by God and of the righteousness imputed to us; or with respect to its reception and application made by faith” (Vol 2, Sixteenth Topic, Seventh Question, I).
In contrast, Bavinck and Berkhof’s formulations seem to make nothing objective occur in passive justification. In other words, does passive justification in their formulation actually “do anything” to save us? Their definitions seem to reduce this to nothing other than the sinner’s recognition that he has been justified. However, a more precise formulation is to say that imputation (active justification) provides the objective grounds for the subjective application of justification (passive justification).
We are justified by faith as an instrument. This is what the Bible means when it says we are “justified by faith”. Should we lose our faith (hypothetically, of course), we would no longer remain justified. This is because faith is the instrument that applies that which is objective to the subject. But in order to do that, this presupposes there is something objective to apply (thus God must impute Christ’s righteousness to us before He declares that we are righteous through our faith). Thus, “passive justification”, or as it should be called, simply “justification”, is indeed God’s forensic declaration of righteousness upon us (not simply our recognition of it) because faith applies justification to us by connecting us to Christ’s righteousness.
In other words, the active/passive justification distinction is between the objective application of justification by God (to provide a ground for the subjective application) and the subjective application of justification to oneself through/by means of one’s faith.
This preserves the instrumentality of faith because we see it as a necessary connector to Christ’s righteousness which God has imputed to us. The objective imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us would be useless, were it not subjectively applied to us. This is what faith does, and when it does so, it elicits God’s forensic declaration upon us based on the grounds of the imputed righteousness of Christ, which is present in our faith.
Thus, the Reformed ordo salutis is as follows (I’m following the basic outline of the one here https://www.monergism.com/topics/ordo-salutis):
Election in Christ - Atonement - Gospel Call - Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness - Inward Call/Regeneration - Faith/Repentance - Justification/Sanctification - Glorification
Furthermore, this follows from the very nature of our union with Christ itself. Obedience to the Law necessarily precedes resurrection. Therefore Christ's obedience imputed to us precedes our spiritual resurrection. This is why the federal union must precede the vital.
As a final disclaimer, I want to be clear that I am not necessarily saying that Bavinck and Berkhof are in conflict with Owen and Turretin at all points here (I don't believe they are). I am only claiming that their formulation and definition of the distinction between active and passive justification is sufficiently unclear and unhelpful so as to open the door to at least make it look like they differ from Owen and Turretin here, regardless of their own personal thoughts on the issue.
This reading of Owen is not limited to me and Irons alone, ex: "God imputes Christ to the elect sinner in a forensic union, on the basis of which, God grants the sinner faith. Through this faith, the believer is mystically united to Christ” (Matthew W. Mason, “John Owen’s Doctrine of Union with Christ in Relation to His Contributions to 17th Century Debates Concerning Eternal Justification,” Ecclesia Reformanda 1 [2009]: 68).
In sum, active justification is the objective imputing to someone of Christ’s righteousness (if one possesses Christ’s righteousness, one has the objective legal right to eternal life because God must grant it to you. There is an imputing from God's side and then a receiving of that imputation unto justification through faith on our side. He is required to justify you in order to be just because of His covenant with Christ our head just as He was required to condemn Christ due to our sins imputed to Him), and passive justification is the subjective judicial pronouncement from God (warranted and required on the grounds of the prior imputation), placing you judicially in the right before Him.
Glad to take any constructive criticism here, as I am on all my posts.
Edit: I just found out it looks like John Gill explicitly makes this distinction in his comments on 2 Peter 1:1
Now faith comes "in", or "with" this righteousness, as the phrase may be rendered; when the Spirit of God reveals and brings near this righteousness to a poor sensible sinner, he at the same time works faith in him to look to it, lay hold upon it, and plead it as his justifying righteousness with God: or it comes "through" it; hence it appears that faith and righteousness are two distinct things; and that faith is not a man's righteousness before God, for it comes to him through it; as also that righteousness is before faith, or otherwise faith could not come by it; and, moreover, is the cause and reason of it; faith has no causal influence upon righteousness, but righteousness has upon faith: the reason why a man has a justifying righteousness is not because he has faith; but the reason why he has faith given him is because he has a justifying righteousness provided for him, and imputed to him.
(if Gill is correct, this verse would also provide a basis for the active/passive distinction, as it says that our faith comes by Christ's righteousness).
Finally, I hope my comments here are of some assistance: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/active-passive-justification-and-union.105582/#post-1303616
Another implication I want to pull out from the above linked discussion is that I want to point out the idea that Christ was an eternal mediator even before the incarnation is an idea based on Presbyterian covenant theology. I've always found this idea to be unbiblical since mediation implicitly requires the incarnation of the God-Man in order for it to, by definition, be mediation (1 Tim. 2:5). Mediation is an inherently covenantal act and Christ is mediator of the elect in the New Covenant, not in the Covenant of Redemption. Of course, the benefits of Christ's mediation are retroactively applied to those who believed back in OT times, but Christ does not actually become mediator until He establishes the N.C. anymore than He actually becomes savior until He dies and establishes the N.C.
And to be clear, I am not saying that the New Covenant is unconditional in the sense that it is without conditions within it (for example, it is requisite that one persevere in good works in order to be saved within the covenant), but I am saying there is no condition on the right to the covenant and thus it is unconditional in that sense.
I want to shortly consider some of the exegetical basis for this, as well. Consider Romans 4:6. that "God counts [imputes] righteousness apart from works". D.A. Carson in "The Vindication of Imputation" notes that this verse is parallel to 4:5: "Him who justifies the ungodly", and 3:28: "man is justified by faith apart from works of the law". Through these verses, Carson argues that faith is an instrument by which we receive imputed righteousness. We can observe here that God's justifying of man (4:5, 3:28) is based on the imputation of righteousness (4:6). The counting of righteousness apart from works is what enables God to declare one righteous (otherwise the declaration is baseless). As Carson says, "justification of the ungodly means the imputation of righteousness". To be declared righteous by God presupposes the imputation of righteousness. Thus, faith is not itself our righteousness (God declares righteous the ungodly per v. 5), but takes hold of the righteousness imputed to us (per v. 6).
Obviously, I would need to do more work to fully show this, but we can see a difference in Scripture between the imputation of righteousness (Rom. 4:6, Rom. 5:19, 2 Corin. 5:21, 1 Corin. 1:30, Phil. 3:9, Rom. 8:3-4) and the declaration of righteousness through faith (Rom. 3:28, 4:5, 5:1, Gal. 2:16. Gal. 3:24), as cause follows effect because the declaration is based on a truly imputed righteousness.
Take for example, Romans 4:5, which I will use to prove the active/passive justification distinction: "But to the one who does not work, but believes upon Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness". Working off what Carson has already identified, we see that logically, in this verse, God's "justifying of the ungodly" (which Carson identifies as parallel and therefore equivalent to the imputation of righteousness) precedes one's "believing on Him". In other words, the logic of this verse is somewhat like this: "because God justifies the ungodly (through the imputation of righteousness), I can believe on Him for righteousness". God's justification of the ungodly grounds and is the necessary condition for one's believing upon Him unto righteousness. The fact that "[God] justifies the ungodly" is the objective focus of this verse, and because He does so, one can "believe upon Him", and when one does so, his faith is credited as something that it is not (by becoming an instrument by which it receives something external to it): namely, righteousness. in the sense that faith is the instrument that justifies.
Edit: The above is worded a little awkwardly as I'm trying to match Paul's language, but my point is that when Paul says "justifies" in Romans 4:5, he is actually speaking of justification in its active sense, i.e. as a shorthand for the imputation of righteousness.
Fesko's misreading of Bavinck:
Bavinck does not, of course, believe that imputation occurs from eternity coordinate with the decree of imputation. I have no idea how Fesko could possibly think that is what is being said. Bavinck follows the Reformers, seeing imputation as occurring as the first logical step within the effectual call in time. Fesko also misreads G.K. Beale on pg. 330 (see my post on an internet debate with an eastern orthodox on justification, especially the linked Acquilla Report article Edit: now see here for a comprehensive treatment of the issue), uses the wrong argument to support Romans 8:4 on pg. 285 as speaking of imputation (he should have pointed out "statute" is singular rather than making a connection to the O.T. plural; see my post on verses about imputed righteousness), and makes an exegetically really bad argument for Zechariah 6:13 referring to the CoR, and a very questionable comment about the Scriptures never attributing election to the Son even in the Gospel of John which is disagreed with by Augustine, Turretin, Klink. Apart from those criticisms, and a general weakness in exegesis, it's a good book and I recommend it. Also, wherever Fesko got the idea that righteousness is imputed in the pactum salutis itself is beyond me. To my knowledge, no 17th-century theologian believed this, but I'm willing to be proven wrong; nevertheless, the vast majority (if not all) were quite clear in affirming that righteousness is imputed in the New Covenant.