Here are excerpts from R. Lusk (a current “member” of the Federal Vision) and T. Beza (a second generation Reformer, d. 1605). Read carefully, and note the most important term, instrument (cf. Belgic Confession, 22 or WCF 11.2). I’ve bolded instrument below for ease of reference.
LUSK:
“In other words, works do not justify in their own right since they can never withstand the scrutiny of God’s inspection. But we will not be justified without them either. They are not merely evidential (e.g., proof of our faith), but even causal or instrumental (“means”) in our final salvation.” Go here for the full article and context.
BEZA:
“Faith” is the “the sole instrument by which we take hold of Jesus Christ when He is offered to us, the sole vessel to receive Him.” Further, “When therefore, after St. Paul (Rom 1: 17; 3:21-27; 4:3; 5:1; 9:30-33; 11:6; Gal 2:16-21; 3:9,10,18; Phil 3:9; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 3:5; Heb. 11:7) we say that we are justified by faith alone, or freely, or by faith without works (for all these ways of speaking give the same sense), we do not say that faith is a virtue which makes us righteous, in ourselves, before God. For this would be to put faith in the place of Jesus Christ who is, alone, our perfect and entire righteousness.” Go here for the full booklet and context.
In summary, Lusk’s understanding of instrument is at odds with Calvin’s successor, T. Beza. Beza says one instrument while Lusk says more than one.
shane
sunnyside wa
[...] discovered The Reformed Reader (H.T. Heidelblog) which has a great post contrasting Rich Lusk and Theodore Beza, Calvin’s successor. That post highlights the stark contrast between Federal Vision and [...]
That was Lusk’s attempt at summarizing Calvin’s willingness to refer to works as “inferior causes” of justification. Calvin says we have our inheritance of eternal life “by means of” works as inferior causes.
So if we say “We have justification on the grounds of Chris’s righteousness, by means of faith” and call the “by means of” _instrumental_, what other kinds of terminology do we have to describe another “by means of” in calvin’s description of works as inferior causes?
Also, Lusk is discussing getting eternal life at the end, and Beza is discussing “laying hold of Christ”. Those may be the same, or they may be slightly different in referent. That would need to be argued.
Why am I not surprised to see pduggie try his darnest to and spin Lusk’s remarks so that he ends up saying something other than he actually said. Lusk, like his mentor Norman Shepherd IS asserting that an obedient faith is grounded in works and the operative word here is ‘obedient’. As such justification is conditional and can be lost. This is not in the least in keeping with what Calvin, Beza or any of the Reformed confessions taught about justification.