More and more prepostrous:

Lastly, the writers question the Committee’s intention, through the Report, of binding PCA pastors to believe in “the concept of merit under the covenant of works.” During his ordination, each PCA elder must answer the following question in the affirmative: “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will, of your own initiative, make known to your Session the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?” (BCO 24-6). These Standards speak of “a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (WCF 7.2). It would appear that PCA pastors are already bound by their ordination vows, and the committee report merely calls upon them to affirm those vows.

No. It would appear that PCA pastors are bound to believe (as we all do) that God established at creation “a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” No one disagrees with this. That this perfect obedience was meritorious is somthing none of us are bound to say and, according to the Westminster Confession we should not say.

In order for our works to be meritorious of eternal life (WCF 16.5), they must “profit” God, there must be no “disproportion that is between them and the glory to come,” there must be no “infinite distance that is between us and God” (Compare WCF 7.1: “The distance between God and the creature is so great”), and our obedient works must be more than the duty we already owe God (was there any act of obedience Adam could conceivably do that would be above what he owed to god?).

So to summarize:

We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God, by reason of the great disproportion that is between them and the glory to come; and the infinite distance that is between us and God, whom, by them, we can neither profit, nor satisfy for the debt of our former sins, but when we have done all we can, we have done but our duty, and are unprofitable servants: and because, as they are good, they proceed from his Spirit; and as they are wrought by us, they are defiled, and mixed with so much weakness and imperfection, that they cannot endure the severity of God’s judgment.”

I believe everything I’ve bolded would include the sinless creature. The “infinite distance” language hearken right back to the chapter on the covenant. Apparently, whether “condescension” is grace or not, it wipes out the possibility of merit.

Maybe the Westminster divines should have said that some sort of merit was possible, but the document we have in front of us says, among other things, that a deed is not meritorious unless it profits God. Was Adam able to profit God?

Thus Fisher’s catechism:

Was there any proportion between Adam’s obedience, though sinless, and the life that was promised?
There can be no proportion between the obedience of a finite creature, however perfect, and the enjoyment of the infinite God�

Why could not Adam’s perfect obedience be meritorious of eternal life?
Because perfect obedience was no more than what he was bound to, by virtue of his natural dependence on God, as a reasonable creature made after his image.

Could he have claimed the reward as a debt, in case he had continued in his obedience?
He could have claimed it only as a pactional debt, in virtue of the covenant promise, by which God became debtor to his own faithfulness, but not in virtue of any intrinsic merit of his obedience, Luke 17:10.

Long before the Westminster Standards, Zacharias Ursinus wrote:

No creature, performing even the best works, can merit anything at the hand of God, or bind him to give anything as though it were due him, and according to the order of divine justice� We deserve our preservation no more than we did our creation. God was not bound to create us; nor is he bound to preserve those whom he has created. But he did, and does, both of his own free will and good pleasure. God receives no benefit from us, nor can we confer anything upon our Creator. Now where there is no benefit, there is no merit; for merit presupposes some benefit received (Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 486).

John Ball was an orthodox theologian and a great influence on the Westminster Assembly. He wrote:

In this state and condition Adam’s obedience should have been rewarded in justice, but he could not have merited that reward. Happiness should have been conferred upon him, or continued unto him for his works, but they had not deserved the continuance thereof: for it is impossible the creature should merit of the Creator, because when he hath done all that he can, he is an unprofitable servant, he hath done but his duty. (A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace)

Francis Turretin writes:

To be true merit, then, these five conditions are demanded: (1) that the “work be undue”–for no one merits by paying what he owes (Luke 17.10), he only satisfies; (2) that it be ours-for no one can be said to merit from another; (3) that it be absolutely perfect and free from all taint-for where sin is there merit cannot be; (4) that it be equal and proportioned to the reward and pay; otherwise it would be a gift, not merit. (5) that the reward be due to such a work from justice-whence an “undue work” is commonly defined to be one that “makes a reward due in the order of justice.” (Seventeenth Topic, Fifth Question, IV, p. 712).

This would lead one to expect that Turretin would deny that sinless “legal obedience” could ever be meritorious in God�s sight. Turretin explicitly meets this expectation. Even if sinless, “there is no merit properly so called of man before God” (Ibid). “Thus, Adam himself, if he had persevered, would not have merited life in strict justice” (Ibid). And, for a sinless being “the legal condition has the relation of a meritorious cause (at least congruously and improperly)” (12.3.6; p. 186 ).

(Recall in his “Gospel Under Attack” circular, that Kline explicitly said that the only basis for the covenant of works was “strict justice” and called anyone who disagreed with him a heretic)

Turretin further argues that, if Adam had remain faithful, he would have been glorified due to “the goodness of God” who is “plenteous in mercy.” Thus, Adam would “be gifted” with glory (8.6.6, 8).

In arguing that Adam would have been rewarded for obedience (even though nothing is said about it in the text), Turretin’s nephew, Benedic Pictet argues thus:

With regard to the promise of the covenant, though it is not expressly laid down, it is sufficiently clear from the threatening of death, which is opposed to it; for although God owes nothing to his creature, yet as the whole scripture sets him forth to us as slow to anger and abundant in mercy, it is not at all probable, that God denounced upon man the threat of eternal punishment, and at the same time gave him no promise (Christian Theology, p. 141).

Pictet also deals with the principle of the possibility of meritorious works later in his book. In dealing with the good works of a believer, and proving “the necessity of good works,” he goes on to point out that such necessary good works are not meritorious before God. In doing so he gives four reasons (pp 332, 333). At least two of these would apply to all creatures regardless of sin or innocence. First “a meritorious work must be one that is not due, for no one can have any merit in paying what he owes; but good works are due; ‘When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which it was out duty to do� (Luke 17.10).'”

Second, there must be a “proportion” between “the good work and the promised reward; but there is no proportion between the two in the present case; not even when the good work is martyrdom, the most excellent of all. For (all) ‘the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed,’ (Romans 8.18).”

But Pictet not only speaks of good works in general, but specifically addresses the issue of how good works would have related to Adam’s vindication and glorification if he had continued in faith and obedience rather than falling into unbelief and disobedience. He writes that “if the first man had persevered in innocence, he would have been justified by the fulfillment of the natural law which God had engraven on his heart, and of the other commandments which God might have enjoined on him; in short, by perfectly loving God and his neighbor” (p. 312). Thus, if Adam had persevered he would have been declared righteous and “acquired a right to eternal glory, not indeed as if he had properly merited it, for the creature can merit nothing from the Creator, but according to the free promise and Covenant of God” (Ibid.).

So this is Reformed Theology and the Westminster Confession is perfectly consistent with it. Yes Adam was obligated to perfectly obey God. Yes God would have bestowed glory on Adam according to his promise if Adam had persevered in perfect obedience. And No this was not a relationship in which Adam could merit anything from God.

That is the system of doctrine that we have. Love it or leave it. To attempt to punish ministers of the Word for refusing to label the works of unfallen Adam as “meritorious” is a gratuitous violation of one’s ordination vows. It is justified neither by the Bible (if we pretend for the moment that the Scripture has authority in the PCA) or the Westminster Confession or Catechisms.

And here we see why these people must assure us that they are humble. The word would not naturally come to mind in anyone witnessing this behavior unless they put it in their blog title.