John Calvin on Justification
Forensic — righteousness imputed, not infused
Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
THE POSITION
A verdict, not a transformation. 'To justify, therefore, is nothing else than to acquit from the charge of guilt, as if innocence were proved' (Institutes III.xi.3), and God does this not on proof of our innocence but by imputation, so that we are 'not righteous in ourselves' yet 'deemed righteous in Christ.' Calvin defends the forensic sense of the word against Osiander by appeal to legal usage, noting that justification is set opposite accusation (III.xi.11). Sanctification is never separated from it — the same Christ is received for both — but it is not part of the verdict.
24 and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.
18 OTHERS HOLD THIS
ABOUT THIS FIGURE
Reformer of Geneva and the most systematic of the first-generation Reformers. This entry rests on the 1559 Institutes of the Christian Religion in Henry Beveridge's translation, checked section by section, with Calvin's own commentaries on 1 John, John, the Harmony of the Evangelists, the Psalms and the Harmony of the Law used where the Institutes are thin.
Cite this page
"John Calvin on Justification", Examined Doctrine, July 2026 edition, https://examineddoctrine.com/position/calvin/justification (archived at https://examineddoctrine.com/editions/2026-07/position/calvin/justification).