I think Bridges IS saying the same thing, although perhaps differently in order to gain more of a hearing? or whatever...

The key here is "forensic declaration", i.e., in the heavenly court, the Judge, God Himself pronounces that the one for whom Christ has died and whom the Spirit has given faith and which has resulted in being made in union with Christ by believing on Him, is righteous. What does it mean to be DECLARED righteous? "just as if no sin has been committed", or "just as if full and perfect obedience has been rendered". These are simply flip sides of the same coin.

The imputed righteousness of Christ IS positively: "the full and perfect obedience of the law" OR negatively: "without transgression of the law". The declaration isn't referring to the actual acts of the individual but rather his/her legal status based upon the righteousness of another, Christ Jesus. The sins committed are real. Thus "afollowerofJesus" rightly referred to Luther's classic utterance (and my signature wink) simul iustus et peccator.

Bottom line: I think Bridges is okay with that statement but perhaps his reason for using it might be questionable?

In His grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]