Joel Garver has written more, dealing with merit among other things. You should read it. According to the Report

This is precisely the point of the Standards’ use of the term and theological category of “merit.” Merit relates to the just fulfillment of the conditions of the covenant of works (LC 55, 174).

This is an incredibly important statement because it defines two of the declarations.

1. The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

4. The view that strikes the language of “merit” from our theological vocabulary so that the claim is made that Christ’s merits are not imputed to his people is contrary to the Westminster Standards.

It would be great to interpret number four, above, as a claim that we are free to ignore the content of the report regarding Adam and the fulfillment of the covenant of works. But the Committee document could just as easily, and probably intends to be, read in such a way as any “compromise” on the alleged merit of Adam impedes on Christ’s.

And the problem is that the reasoning is flawed (Adam’s demerit is what is related to Christ’s merit, not Adam’s merit), and the claim is utterly false to both the Reformed tradition generally and the Westminster Standards in particular.

Knowing the PCA culture that surrounds these “discussions,” I fully expect everything I’ve cited to be discounted without argument. After all, some on the committee had doctorates. They are experts. How could they go so fundamentally wrong on such a basic point, claiming Westminster meant something it nowhere says (especially not in their citations) and which mainstream Reformed Covenant theology constantly spoke against before and after the Westminster Assembly?

It is a good question. I admit it. I have no answer whatsoever.

In fact, I can’t even understand how the committee report could condemn the teaching of one of its own members, Dr. Ligon Duncan, in his lecture on the Covenant of Works (.pdf) in which he teaches (present tense since these are still documents his church publishes on their website):

What God is doing is not merited. Adam has not merited this. We use the phrase Covenant of Works, not to say that man earned these blessings, but to express the fact that this original relationship had no provision for the continuation of God’s blessings if disobedience occurred. So it was a covenant contingent upon Adam continuing in his obligations. (emphasis all in the original).

So here it is.  Perfect obedience was required of Adam, but it was not meritorious.  That is well within the bounds of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms and no one should even raise an eyebrow in any ecclesiastical court for teaching this.  Yet, according to the committee, this position (now?) is false and wrong to the Westminster Standards.

How could the committee do this?  As I said, I have no idea.