Thesis #23 illustrates the problem: “…good works…though not the ground of his justification, are nevertheless necessary for salvation from eternal condemnation and therefore for justification.” This thesis is replete with the confusion of formulation that I’ve already mentioned. The good works are not the ground of, yet are necessary for, justification? Which justification? If they are necessary of are they thereby a condition? If they are necessary as a condition would they have at least congruous merit?
What’s the matter with the traditional view that good works are necessary for sanctification or are necessary as evidence of authentic faith? We acknowledge that our reward in heaven will be distributed according to works, not by merit which imposes obligation upon God to reward them, but by a gracious act of God “crowning his own works” (Augustine). The wording of Thesis #23 is seriously misleading and I would appeal to Norman to alter it.
—R. C. Sproul, quoted in O. Palmer Robertson and Paul G. Settle, “Report of the Board of Trustees of Westminster Theological Seminary by the Special Board-Faculty Committee on Justification: Minority Report” (May 13. 1980), 13.