1. a. We affirm that justification is an act of God’s grace whereby God pardons the sins of those he calls, and imputes the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ unto them (C 11.1 and L 70).
1. b. We deny that God imputes faith itself, the act of believing, or any other obedience as their righteousness (C 11.1).
1. c. We deny that justification is by anything done by or wrought in the believer. We affirm that Christ’s perfect obedience and full satisfaction is imputed or reckoned to the believer (L 70).
All good except 1c might need tweaking since it seems to imply that the preposition “by” cannot be used instrumentally but only in reference to ground. That can’t be right (i.e. “justification by faith”).
2. a. We affirm that those who are justified are justified perfectly in this life (L 77).
2. b. We affirm that those who are justified can never fall from the state of justification (C 11.5).
2. c. Consequently, we deny that any but the elect are justified (C 3.6).
2. d. Consequently, we deny any definition of justification that would extend it in any way whatsoever to the reprobate.
Nothing in what leads up to it provides any reason in 2.d. to “deny any definition of justification that would extend in any way whatsoever to the reprobate.” The Westminster divines knew that the word “justify” could apply to other situations beside what happens uniquely to declare the elect right with God. If there is an argument for this, I would like to see it. As it stands it is supported neither by Scripture, nor by the Reformed tradition, nor by our doctrinal standards.
Example: God told Moses that he was, in the Exodus, bringing judgment on Egypt. The Exodus was then an event that condemned Egypt and vindicated Israel. So there is, by some definition, and in some way, that justification can apply to a group that is both elect and reprobate, for some Israelites later died as unbelievers. The Apostle Paul, tellingly, uses this example to warn the Corinthian Church against idolatry (1 Cor 10.1-22).
3. We deny that justification has primary reference to membership of the Church; rather, it has primary reference to the acceptance of the individual sinner before God.
How can Reformed believers be force to choose here? If the Church is the house and family of God, how can one be reconciled with God, received into his favor, and not be received into his family? If we are right with God then we are right with God’s children as brothers and sisters. Can one posit a meaningful primacy in the parable of the prodigal son between being forgiven by the Father and being received by him into his household? I notice there is not citation from the Westminster documents here? Where could one go to justify these as mutually exclusive options? The very fact that the Westminster Divines made election coterminous with membership in the invisible Church would indicate a much closer relationship.
Having said all that, the statement may be right. I would like to pursue the issue with open Bibles. I appreciate that they Presbytery has not denied any reference to membership in the church in justification.
A lot of it depends on what is meant by “has primary reference to”–which is not obvious to me.
Another issue here is the suspicion raised whether certain parties are in fact arguing for what is denied. Are they? Or are they simply wanting to emphasize something not because it is “primary” in some universal sense, but because it has been woefully neglected in our own church culture.
4. We deny that any so-called reconstruction of Second Temple Judaism requires us to reformulate the above truths.
Agreed. But if this is supposed to be a way of dealing with PCA ministers who appreciate some things Tom Wright has to say, I think it is pretty much a complete misfire. No one is resting in the authority of noncanonical documents.