I'm going to agree with the growing consensus here that Bridges is accurate. I'm not a fan of the "cute" treatment of theological words which use acronymns or, as here, semi-puns--in which "justified" is profaned to "just-as-if-I'd"--as mnemonic devices when those are unrelated to the etymology of a word--much more profitable to look at the whole "justificare" issue--but Bridges didn't start this one, he's taking the by-now-mindlessly-repeated evangelical phrase as a given and correcting its imbalance.

I know that I have gone in my reforming life from saying that the justifying declaration is "not guilty" to "innocent" to "just/righteous" with a growing awareness of the centrality of double imputation, the active half of which is sadly underpreached these days. So to the degree that Mr. Bridges is highlighting and restoring that balance, good for him! And I'm sure he uses fuller terminology at some point.

For those who love the inimitable style of R.C.Sproul, here's a short clip of his on Justification and Imputed Righteousness which makes the same point between 2:27 and 4:30.

In Christ,
Paul S