The Reformation doctrine of justification has undergone severe criticism in recent decades. Challenges have come from three different sources. First, a number of ecumenical discussions have offered more ambiguous expressions on justification than the Reformation doctrine in the interests of church unity and have implicitly rejected the Reformation teaching as too divisive. The statements “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” and “The Gift of Salvation” are examples of such ecumenical compromise. Second, some biblical scholars have argued that Luther and Calvin misunderstood what Paul was actually teaching and so constructed a false doctrine of justification. The so-called “New Perspective on Paul” offers such an argument. Third, some who claim to be Reformed suggest that too many Reformed people have a Lutheran view of justification and need to develop a distinctively Reformed view of justification. These critics usually claim that they accept the Reformed confessions, yet at the same time claim that Reformed theology needs to be changed and clarified to be distinctive. Such critics, called neonomians in the seventeenth century, today are perhaps better labeled covenant moralists.
As the faculty of Westminster Seminary California we believe that we must issue this testimony especially in relation to those who claim to be Reformed in their attack on the Reformation doctrine of justification and who claim to uphold the teaching of the Reformed confessions.