Forgive me brother Hodge, I must interrupt again. If indeed we are born again of incorruptible seed at the moment of conversion then how can our 'inward character' remain unchanged. At justification we receive the promise of God like a seed. That seed, the holy and incorruptible divine nature. Obviously, we must still contend with our own earthly and carnal nature, our stubborn self will and the many temptations that surround us in the veil of tears. I must object though to the idea that the seed, the new nature, the new creature in Christ is anything less then the righteousness of God
Once we have been declared "righteous", God also declares us "justified". Which means we cannot come into condemnation, especially in regards to the "Law" (Torah).
Hodge shows:
"That to justify means neither simply to pardon, nor to make inherently righteous or good is proved,
—
From the Usage of Scripture.
1. By the uniform usage of the word to
justify in Scripture it is never used in either of those senses, but always to declare or pronounce just. It is unnecessary to cite passages in proof of a usage which is uniform. The few following examples are enough.
Deuteronomy xxv. 1, “If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.”
Exodus xxiii. 7, “I will not justify the wicked.”
Isaiah v. 23, “Which justify the wicked for reward.”
Proverbs xvii. 15, “He that justifieth the wicked” is “abomination to the Lord.”
Luke x. 29, “He willing to justify himself.”
Luke xvi. 15, “Ye are they which justify yourselves before men.”
Matthew xi. 19, “Wisdom is justified 121of her children.”
Galatians ii. 16, “A man is not justified by the works of the law,”
v. 6, “Whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” Thus men are said to justify God.
Job xxxii. 2, “Because he justified himself, rather than God.”
Psalms li. 4, “That thou mightest be justified when thou speakest.”
Luke vii. 29, “All the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God.” The only passage in the New Testament where the word δικαιόω is used in a different sense is
Revelation xxii. 11, 6, ὁ δίκαιος, δικαιωθήτω ἔτι, “He that is righteous, let him be righteous still.” Here the first aorist passive appears to be used in a middle sense, ‘Let him show himself righteous, or continue righteous.’ Even if the reading in this passage were undoubted, this single case would have no force against the established usage of the word. The reading, however, is not merely doubtful, but it is, in the judgment of the majority of the critical editors, Tischendorf among the rest, incorrect. They give, as the true text, δικαιοσύνην ποιησάτω ἔτι. Even if this latter reading be, as De Wette thinks, a gloss, it shows that ὁ δίκαιος δικαιωθήτω ἔτι was as intolerable to a Greek ear as the expression, ‘He that is righteous, let him justify himself still,’ would be to us.
The usage of common life as to this word is just as uniform as that of the Bible. It would be a perfect solecism to say of a criminal whom the executive had pardoned, that he was justified, or that a reformed drunkard or thief was justified. The word always expresses a judgment, whether of the mind, as when one man justifies another for his conduct, or officially of a judge. If such be the established meaning of the word, it ought to settle all controversy as to the nature of justification. We are bound to take the words of Scripture in their true established sense. And, therefore, when the Bible says, “God justifies the believer,” we are not at liberty to say that it means that He pardons, or that He sanctifies him. It means, and can mean only that He pronounces him just.
Justification the Opposite of Condemnation.
2. This is still further evident from the antithesis between condemnation and justification. Condemnation is not the opposite either of pardon or of reformation. To condemn is to pronounce guilty; or worthy of punishment. To justify is to declare not guilty; or that justice does not demand punishment; or that the person concerned cannot justly be condemned. 122When, therefore, the Apostle says (
Rom. vii. 1), “There is therefore, now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,” he declares that they are absolved from guilt; that the penalty of the law cannot justly be inflicted upon them. “Who,” he asks, “shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? God who justifieth? Who is he that condemneth? Christ who died?” (
vers. 33, 34.) Against the elect in Christ no ground of condemnation can be presented. God pronounces them just, and therefore no one can pronounce them guilty.
This passage is certainly decisive against the doctrine of subjective justification in any form. This opposition between condemnation and justification is familiar both in Scripture and in common life.
Job ix. 20, “If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me.”
xxxiv. 17, “And wilt thou condemn him that is most just.” If to condemn does not mean to make wicked, to justify does not mean to make good. And if condemnation is a judicial, as opposed to an executive act, so is justification. In condemnation it is a judge who pronounces sentence on the guilty. In justification it is a judge who pronounces or who declares the person arraigned free from guilt and entitled to be treated as righteous."
Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume III, Chapter XVII, Justification, Section 2,
Justification is a Forensic Act.,
Hodge goes on in the next chapter to show how "justification" and "sanctification" differ.
He says:
"...justification differs from sanctification, (1.) In that the former is a transient act, the latter a progressive work. (2.) Justification is a forensic act, God acting as judge, declaring justice satisfied so far as the believing sinner is concerned, whereas sanctification is an effect due to the divine efficiency. (3.)
Justification changes, or declares to be changed, the relation of the sinner to the justice of God; sanctification involves a change of character. (4.) The former, therefore, is objective, the latter subjective. (5.) The former is founded on what Christ has done for us; the latter is the effect of what He does in us. (6.)
Justification is complete and the same in all, while sanctification is progressive, and is more complete in some than in others."
Ibid, Chapter XVIII, Sanctification, Section 1. It's Nature
I hope this helps.
God Bless
Till all are one.