Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 7-Justifying Faith

Posted here:

1. a. We affirm that justifying faith receives and rests upon Christ and his righteousness held forth in the Gospel for pardon of sin and for the accepting and account of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation (L 72).
1. b. We deny that justifying faith justifies a sinner because of any of those other graces that do always accompany it, or because of any act of justifying faith being imputed to him for his justification (L 73).
2. a. We affirm that justifying faith is an instrument by which a sinner receives and applies Christ and his righteousness (L 73).
2. b. Consequently, we deny that prelapsarian Adam or Christ could have had or did have this justifying faith and so be counted righteous by such a faith.

Fine. But the faith of prelapsarian Adam or of Christ could be counted as their righteousness. In other words, their trust in God would be pleasing to him and also be the motive cause of all their obedience to him. Their faith was not justifying in that they were relying on a substitute/representative and his alien righteousness, but they did have faith, that faith motivated their obedience, and it was the root of all other obedience which flowed from it.

Furthermore, the Westminster Confession is right to insist that faith is not the ground of our justification. However, “righteousness” is a term in the Bible sometimes use for meeting conditions of the covenant. Also, faith is that condition in the Covenant of Grace (i.e. as it is defined in Larger Catechism q&a #32). Thus, it is true by such definitions that, for all believers their faith is counted as righteousness (the condition of the covenant of grace). This would in no way deny that their faith is in no way the meritorious ground of their standing before God, which is only in the alien righteousness of Christ receive instrumentally by faith.

My only point in bringing this up is to show why I am concerned that this section lays out confusing grounds by which a person could be accused of saying something improper, merely for relaying common knowledge in Biblical studies. Again, at the very least this warrants some discussion. I can’t help but wonder here if innocent statements are being misconstrued.

3 thoughts on “Some thoughts on Siouxland Presbytery’s document: Part 7-Justifying Faith

  1. Andy Gilman

    You say:

    “Fine. But the faith of prelapsarian Adam or of Christ could be counted as their righteousness. In other words, their trust in God would be pleasing to him and also be the motive cause of all their obedience to him. Their faith was not justifying in that they were relying on a substitute/representative and his alien righteousness, but they did have faith, that faith motivated their obedience, and it was the root of all other obedience which flowed from it.”

    Why do you suppose the Westminster Standards do not speak of “faith” with regard to the prelapsarian Adam? Instead they speak of life being promised to Adam upon condition of perfect, personal and perpetual obedience. Is there anywhere that the Standards speak of Adam’s obedience flowing from Adam’s faith? Instead, it seems to me, the word faith is only brought in with regard to the second covenant, and never with the first. Maybe you can prove me wrong on that point, but if not, why do you suppose they did not speak that way? Was it mere oversight, or was it deliberate?

    Reply
  2. Jeff Meyers

    Mark: that’s right. The fact that the WCF doesn’t say something, doesn’t mean we are forbidden to. There’s no regulative principle of subscription, as if whatever is not mentioned in the WCF is forbidden.

    Reply
  3. mark Post author

    Andy, I have no idea. It doesn’t matter why as far as subscribing to the Confessions and Catechisms is concerned. Or being free from accusation.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *