# Lusk's Catechism?



## py3ak (Sep 3, 2006)

What do you people think of this, especially the bolded section?



> Question 62. What did the death and resurrection of Jesus do for you?
> *Because I trust in the crucified and risen Jesus, I am now regenerated* (which means I am born from above and share in Jesus´ resurrection life), I am justified (which means I am right with God and forgiven by him), I am adopted (which means I am God´s child and heir), I am reconciled (which means I am at peace with God and he calls me his friend), I am sanctified (which means I am a priest to God, and he promises to make me grow in holiness and obedience), and I am glorified (which means I have the Holy Spirit living in me and will be conformed to Christ´s image).



Taken from this site


----------



## tewilder (Sep 4, 2006)

I suppose what you mean is that it has regeneration following faith, in the Arminian order.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 4, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> What do you people think of this, especially the bolded section?
> 
> 
> ...



Are you FV or a sympathiser? [Moderator Edit] It is board policy not to link to other message boards. Edited to remove link. [/Moderator Edit] Your posts I have noticed lately are geared toward this, or maybe I am misunderstanding.

[Edited on 9-4-2006 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## Peter (Sep 4, 2006)

Because I am regenerated I now trust in the crucified and risen Jesus


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 4, 2006)

Not surprisingly, Lusk mucks up things. I say, "not surprisingly," because Lusk is one of those clever fellows who doesn't need the merit of Christ imputed to him and who teaches baptismal union with Christ.

Here are the first seven questions of his catechism:



> Question 1. Who are you?
> I am a child of God.
> 
> Question 2. What does it mean to be a child of God?
> ...



Okay. So far it's not terribly problematic. One has to start somewhere.



> Question 4. How do you know you are a child of God?
> Because I am baptized in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God made me his child in baptism, just as his Word promises.



Now it starts to become more problematic. This answer is would be less problematic if it were followed up with better questions and answers, but Lusk lets us down. He doesn't follow up by asking, "Does baptism itself create this relation?" (and then by answering, "No, baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant -- he says more than Luther!) Nowhere in his answer does he mention faith and he doesn't go on to stipulate faith as the unique instrument of justification (and union with Christ).



> Question 5. Don't you have to be good for God to love you?
> No. God loves me in spite of all I do wrong because of what Jesus has done for me.
> 
> Question 6. How do you thank God for this free gift of love?
> I promise to love and trust God with all my heart and to live for his glory.



Here's the give away. The first place "faith" is mentioned is under what Reformed folk would call sanctification! Baptism has replaced faith as the instrument of the covenant of grace. It's no longer a sign and seal, but the instrument whereby we receive the benefits of Christ. Why? Because he assumes no distinction between those who are members of the covenant of grace externally and those who are members of the covenant of grace internally. He assumes that everyone is in the covenant of grace in the same way by virtue of baptism. So faith becomes our "obligation," or something we owe to God. He's turned faith into a "work." This is clearer in Q 7:



> Question 7. How do you love God?
> By trusting, worshipping, and obeying him, and by loving my neighbor as myself.



Faith is just another act of obedience. This is "in by grace, stay in by faithfulness (i.e., faith and works). It's covenant nomism. 

He can talk about "grace" all he wants but so long as he contradicts it, it means nothing. This is why I keep yelling (yes, yelling) that it's not enough to say "sovereign grace." There is more to being Reformed than confessing predestination. One can be strong predestinarian AND a moralist at the same time. 

rsc


----------



## py3ak (Sep 5, 2006)

Mr Wilder, 

Yes I was struck by the fact that he seemed to present faith as preceding regeneration. That didn't seem very reformational.

Dr. Clark,

Thanks for your analysis. I also noticed question 4.

Andrew,

I think there might be alternative options to the two you present. Why do you ask?


----------



## tewilder (Sep 5, 2006)

"I was struck by the fact that he seemed to present faith as preceding regeneration." 

But do these terms mean to them what they mean to Reformed people? "Faith" means faithful living. "Justification" means being recognized as one of the people of God. "Regeneration" means living in the kingdom, and so on. 

It is not that the order does not match the Reformed order, because Lusk is not saying the faith in the Reformed sense preceeds regeneration in the Reformed sense. The FV is a different religion with different concepts from Reformed Christianity.

The FV has tried to exist in Reformed churches by mimicing Reformed terminology (as did early neoorthodoxy), but now that Norman Shepherd has advised the OPC to dump the Westminster Confession, the game is up. The pretense of being confessional has been dropped.

Also the church splits among the FVers are starting as their own theological chaos overtakes them.


----------



## Scott (Sep 5, 2006)

> This is "in by grace, stay in by faithfulness (i.e., faith and works)


That is a nice shorthand.


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Mr Wilder,
> 
> Yes I was struck by the fact that he seemed to present faith as preceding regeneration. That didn't seem very reformational.
> ...



Like I said, somethings you are talking about lately have a lot to do with that, so I was wondering. I guess it is kind of like me, I have been trying to understand it more fully.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 5, 2006)

This is the standard shorthand/summary for E P Sanders' version of "covenantal nomism." This basically what he understands 1st century (aka second temple) Judaism to have been teaching.

See Cornel Venema's new book from the Banner of Truth.

rsc



> _Originally posted by Scott_
> 
> 
> > This is "in by grace, stay in by faithfulness (i.e., faith and works)
> ...


----------



## py3ak (Sep 5, 2006)

Mr Wilder,

Would it not still create a problem to say that faithful living comes before living in the kingdom? I mean, are these two things not synonymous?

Andrew,

It's a slippery beast, for sure.


----------



## tewilder (Sep 5, 2006)

"Would it not still create a problem to say that faithful living comes before living in the kingdom? I mean, are these two things not synonymous?"

I don't think that Lusk would want to say they these are, strictly speaking, separate things. The different terms put an emphasis on different aspects and phases of what is all union with Christ.

To some extent the FV people appeal to Gaffin, who supposedly replaced the old <i>ordo salutis</i> with a wheel and spokes model, where all aspects of salvation radiate from union and are more or less simulteneous with each other. I don't know how fair this is to Gaffin, nor have I read his new book. But the FV (and this is one thing it has in common with the New Perspectives) rejects the theological method of careful definition and distinction, and ties the terms to redemptive narrative. When we talk about our individual experience and commitment we may want to use the word "faith". When we talk about this life and experience in wider historical and creational terms we may want to talk about "regeneration", that is, of life as part of the new creation, the new order. 

The FV people claim that the traditional Reformed scheme does not apply to the way that they are using these terms. They further claim that the way that they are using these terms is the way the Bible employs them.

So the FV claim is that the criticisms that come from the perspective of Reformed dogmatics all miss the point. To this we can reply that Reformed dogmatics answers necessary questions. Unless and until the FV gives clear answers to these questions, they do not have a theology. If they ever do try to answer these questions they will have to employ a precise theological vocabulary and give answers that either are hererodox or orthodox. They cannot dance away from the issues forever. 

Also, one may doubt whether they are really consistent in their non-traditional use of vocabulary. Obviously they do not believe the confessional doctrine, or they could have given clear affirmations of it from the beginning and avoided the whole controversy.


----------

