A Sinner Pressed and Perplexed with a Sense of Guilt for Sin

What does the doctrine of justification primarily or fundamentally address? This question is important. If we answer that it addresses first and foremost the horizontal question of human relationships, the doctrine derails, the gospel aborts. But if we answer that it first and foremost addresses the vertical dimension of our existence, that is, our relationship with a holy and righteous God, the doctrine holds, the center stays. Then, and only then, certain horizontal entailments follow and function as they ought.

In volume 4 of his collected shorter writings, J. I. Packer says this:

The Augsburg Confession of 1531 states: "this whole doctrine [of justification] must be related to the conflict of an alarmed conscience, and without that conflict it cannot be grasped. So persons lacking this experience, and profane men, are bad judges of the matter." Calvin makes the same point in Institutio III.xii, a chapter on the theme that justification must be studied in the solemnising light of God's judgment seat (Honoring the People of God, 223). 

Packer then points out that "John Owen preserves this perspective when at the start of his classic treatise The Doctrine of Justification by Faith (1677) he writes":

The first inquiry . . . is after the proper relief of the conscience of a sinner pressed and perplexed with a sense of the guilt of sin. For justification is the way and means whereby such a person doth obtain acceptance before God, with a right and title unto a heavenly inheritance. And nothing is pleadable in this cause but what a man would speak unto his own conscience in that state, or unto the conscience of another, when he is anxious under that inquiry (The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, 7). 

So if in our formulation of the doctrine of justification we move too quickly to discussions of what justification has to say about man's relationship with fellow man, we step in the wrong direction. And this is what has happened with the so-called New Perspective on Paul (which is now old, by the way), valuable as some of its insights may be. It has a hard time addressing the distressed sinner (for that is not what it's for, they say, lambasting Luther for being so psychologically sensitive); its gospel lacks the potency and effect of the biblical gospel. Without adequately addressing the distressed conscience before a holy and just God, the doctrine falls flat and fails to liberate for love. And I believe it also makes a man-centered age even more man-centered. However, it works the other way too. It's no coincidence, to my mind, that a fundamentally horizontal understanding of justification has arisen in a period of history marked by profound man-centeredness. Sure, Luther had a context. But so do we.