# Did the Reformers Get it Right on Justification?



## Scott (Jun 14, 2005)

Interesting piece by Reggie Kidd, Did the Reformers Get it Right on Justification?, on the PCA web site. Kidd is a professor of NT at RTS, Orlando. Anyway, he has an interesting take on things, suggesting that some elements of the NP can complement the traditional Reformed understanding of justification.

I don't know if that is accurate or not. Seems like I read something excerpt from Wright about how his position is really new and the Reformers and Catholics both got things wrong.


----------



## Scott (Jun 15, 2005)

No comments? I am surprised.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 15, 2005)

I had Dr. Kidd for a teacher way back when.

I find his approach, to be a bit more touchy feely with things, which, in some respects, his articles leans that way.

His dad said, "I know I can't be accepted by God because of my works, but I also can't believe it's by virtue of some mechanical transaction at the cross either." 

Justification, though, is not something we experience. It is something legally declared about us as a result of the Covenant of Redemption. FV and AA advocates totally mess that up. 

The article, in that respect, is not accurate.

He says, "That's why we need a logic of "not only, but also," instead of "not this, but that," just because we're talking about the power of God for salvation, to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. "

I would disagree here. Corporate justification is a NPP fad. It is not corporate justification, but individual justification which makes up, ultimately, the bride of Christ.

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism, as he quotes:

Q. 33. What is justification?
A. Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. 

Where is the touchey feely in this about the love of God? (Not that God being love is "touchy feely", but at least how the article protrayed trying to gain something of the personal dimension. Justification is not really the dimension to deal with that issue. It would be under God's decree and the CoR that it takes place.

[Edited on 6-15-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## AdamM (Jun 15, 2005)

Thank you for your analysis Matt.


Scott, please when you get a chance listen to the recent D.A. Carson lectures given at RTS Charlotte. I think you will really appreciate how he discusses the issues involved in the NPP and does so in a way that is gracious and balanced (you'll find it funny after hearing the lectures that in the past Carson has been accused by some of not understanding the NPP).

http://fieryones.com/lectures/

I think Carson has the critique nailed in that the NPP does indeed offer some good insights into 1st century Judaism, but that the proponents error by dramatically over playing their hand. This results in bringing to the front aspects of justification that are properly second tier or background issues (as Matt & Rev. Hutchinson aptly point out). So in NPP thinking the justification of the individual believer is a secondary component of some type of corporate "œjustification". The Westminster Standards would certainly disagree with that approach in emphasis, which I think as a confessional denomination ought to be a concern.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 15, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Corporate justification is a NPP fad. It is not corporate justification, but individual justification which makes up, ultimately, the bride of Christ.



Exactly. The doctrine of justification, and our personal justification in time, is not a corporate issue, its an individual issue. When we talk of corporate things we should talk about the Church, union with Christ, etc.. It is true that individuals who are justified are called to a corporate confession and life, but this is so different from justification itself having a corporate dimension. Why these guys want to change justification, instead of simply reminding lone-ranger christians of the moral imperatives that those who are justified are called to, I just don't understand.


----------

