We have gotten a number of questions regarding Lordship Salvation and the historic, reformed position on it. So, today, that is what Jon and Justin talk about. We talk about concerns over the definition of faith, the collapsing of law and gospel, and confusion on the uses of the law. We interact with John MacArthur’s book, “The Gospel According to Jesus,” as well as Michael Horton’s “Christ the Lord.”Semper Reformanda: The guys talk more on uses of the law–and how confusing the first and third use of the law is particularly damaging. Justin also offers thoughts on how some Puritan theology is unhelpful.Resources:Podcast: Law/Gospel Podcast: Are You a Legalist or an AntinomianFREE EBOOK: Safe in Christ – A primer on restGiveaway: “Christ the Lord” by Michael HortonSUPPORT Theocast: https://theocast.org/give/  https://youtu.be/rpm-qPBEuBgPodcast TranscriptJustin Perdue: Hi, this is Justin. Today on Theocast, we are going to be talking about lordship salvation. Many of you have asked us questions and have even asked us to give the historic Reformed take on lordship salvation—and so that is what we are going to offer in today’s episode. We hope you enjoy the conversation.Today we’re talking about lordship salvation. The title of this episode is A Critique of Lordship Salvation. That’s what we’re going to be doing from a pastoral perspective. Hopefully with grace and clarity, we’re going to raise some concerns that we have, as Reformed guys, with so-called lordship salvation. For many people at the pop level, at least, in the church, a figure that is most often associated with lordship salvation is John MacArthur. This podcast is not a review of John’s book that’s entitled The Gospel According to Jesus, but we will be interacting some with that content and some of the other things that MacArthur has said and written over the last 30 years or so.We will also be referencing Christ the Lord, which was edited by Michael Horton. There were a number of guys that contributed to that volume: Robert Godfrey, Rod Rosenbladt, Kim Riddlebarger, and others had chapters in that book. That’s a response from a Reformed and confessional perspective to the lordship salvation debate that was really, really heated back in the late eighties and the nineties. Inevitably, we’re going to interact with some of that material. This podcast is not a review of that material specifically. We’re going to be talking about lordship salvation in a more broad way.If we were going to define it just very simply for people, lordship salvation is this conversation about the idea that you can make Jesus your Savior but not your Lord—or is it even possible for Jesus to be your Savior, but not your Lord? There’s this distinction that’s introduced between those two things as though he can be one or thought of as one without being the other.And of course, the argument from the lordship salvation side or John MacArthur’s side, and guys and gals who agree with him, is that you cannot make Jesus Savior without also consciously making him Lord of your life. And so we’re interacting with that idea and that language that’s often used about submission to the lordship of Christ; what we understand that are at best confusing things that are said from that camp.Maybe we want to start by outlining the debate as it took place historically just to give people a little bit of context. In the eighties and nineties, there was a debate between John MacArthur and Zane Hodges. Zane Hodges was articulating a kind of theology. His book Absolutely Free articulated this theology that a person is justified by a single act of faith. Now, Hodges is coming at

Biblicism might sound like a good thing…but it’s not. Biblicism is a methodology that tends to introduce confusion and mystery into the Scriptures where there isn’t any. It also tends to confuse doctrinal and theological categories such as law/gospel distinction and faith versus works. Jon and Justin consider these things and more in this episode.Semper Reformanda: The guys discuss how biblicism is related to theonomy and unhelpful views on the nation of Israel. And, as a bonus, we get into a little bit of eschatology.Resources:Episode: Is the whole Bible about Jesus? Episode: Is your theological system any good?Series: Covenant Theology seriesBook: “Living in God’s Two Kingdoms” by David VanDrunnenSUPPORT Theocast: https://theocast.org/give/https://youtu.be/Dd-b7t1Ht8APodcast TranscriptJon Moffitt: Hi, this is Jon. Today on Theocast, we are going to be explaining what biblicism is. There’s a lot of theological confusion and categories and systems and theologies that have been birthed out of biblicism. We’re going to explain to you what it is, how to refrain from it, and how to spot it when you see it. Stay tuned.Today is a podcast we probably have been needing to do for a long time and we reference it often.Justin Perdue: We even promised to do a podcast on it multiple times.Jon Moffitt: I know. The real estate on the podcast is very small so we have to be choosy on what we pick.Biblicism is a word. I saw someone use it the other day, saying, “I’m a biblicist.” Someone should tell him not to say that.Justin Perdue: It’s not a badge of honor.Jon Moffitt: It’s a negative thing and we’re going to explain to you why. Someone may think, “Why would ‘Bible’ and ‘-ism’ be a bad thing?” Typically, “-ism” isn’t good. Not always the case; Calvinism isn’t necessarily bad—it has gotten a bad rap—which I just did an introduction to that on Ask Theocast. Check that out.But to stay focused: biblicism. Justin, give us a quick definition of what it is. Then we are going to work through about five or six examples of what happens when you don’t use Scripture properly, or you’re a biblicist, this is what it ends up producing.So what’s a good definition, a simple definition, of a biblicist for our listeners?Justin Perdue: Let me define it in a simple way, and even use pop level accessible language in talking about this. You already alluded to it once when you said a person would describe themself as a Bible person. Another way that you hear this commonly presented is people will say, “no creed but Christ”, or, “no confession but the Bible”. People will say that the only thing that we need to use is Scripture and any kind of framework outside of the Bible, or any tools outside of the Bible are not useful; it’s not faithful or it’s not responsible to use such things to understand the Scripture. And so you end up getting this kind of a situation where people will say that if the text does not say it explicitly, then we cannot preach it and we cannot teach it.Jon Moffitt: Or the reverse is true: “The text explicitly said it, therefore I’m going to preach it.”Justin Perdue: Sure. We’re going to give illustrations of this, like you said, in broad categories