A Critique of Lordship Salvation | Theocast

Hi, this is Justin, and today on Theocast, we're 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. If you'd like to help support Theocast, you can do that by leaving us a review on iTunes and subscribing on your favorite podcast app.

You can also follow us on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Plus, we have a Facebook group if you'd like to join the conversation there.

Thanks for listening. Welcome to Theocast, encouraging weary pilgrims to rest in Christ.

Conversations about the Christian life from a Reformed and pastoral perspective. Your hosts today are

John Moffitt, pastor of Grace Reformed Church in Spring Hill, Tennessee, and I'm Justin Perdue, pastor of Covenant Baptist Church in Asheville, North Carolina.

John, how's it going in your neck of the woods, my man? Good. I was just thinking that we probably need to contact

Michael Horton and get some kind of a sponsorship from him because we have given away a lot of his books, and that means he's written a lot of books.

Well, and edited a lot of books. But yeah, I think we need to do that.

I did have someone tell us that we could get a lot of the Renahan books. They can get us those. We'll just get more of those away, too.

Hey, if you are a publisher or know a publisher or you want to help us give away resources, let us know.

I'd like to give away an ESV Bible, a really nice leather -bound one. I think that would be a fun thing to give away to encourage somebody.

Now you've just introduced a debate about which translation to use. Yeah, I left that world a long time ago, the whole translation debate.

But there's one that exists outside of KJV only, my friend. Well, yeah, NAS versus Holman versus ESV.

Now it's called the Christian Standard Bible. Go ahead, John.

Please just give away a book. Yes. The listener doesn't see, but if you're on YouTube, you can watch it.

We are giving away Christ the Lord by Michael Horton. If you looked at the title of our podcast, you'll know why we're giving this one away.

We found it very helpful. It's been around for many years. We're going to reference this book here in a little bit. But this book is, well, we'll talk about it later, so I don't need to describe it for you, but we're giving it away to one of our members.

One of the things that we like to do is give away good resources, and we like to thank our members. And so today we had

The Random Selection, and one of our members who's been supporting us for over a year and a half. So thank you, Jonathan Ashford.

We will send you an email, get your address. If you would like a copy of this and you'd like to share this podcast and you're excited about what we're doing, we'll also give you a book.

You can go to our social medias and Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and you'll see the instructions on there of how to get entered in to win one.

And then Thursdays, every Thursday morning, we pick a winner. So it's a good reason to listen or at least go to our social medias on Wednesdays.

You can see what we're giving away that day. Eventually, when someone wants to do this for us because I don't have the time, neither does

Justin, we're going to have a whole page of all the books we've recommended so far because they've all been excellent.

And they're all ones that we would definitely want you to read. And then eventually, if someone wants to help us with this, we are going to put together a book recommendation of what

I would say a starter kit to Reform Theology. It's like, what do I read next? Eventually, when we have time,

I just say that. Justin Perdue Yeah, it wasn't built in a day. Jonathan Ashford No. I mean,

Jesus did it in three days, but no one else can do that. You know, it took Rome 40. So Justin, we have an important conversation today, one that's been requested of us for many years and recently on the

Facebook group. For those of you that are not on the Facebook group, we have one that's growing and it's a lot of fun, a lot of great encouragement, a lot of questions being asked, a lot of great book recommendations.

I've seen some books on there I've never heard of before. And I was like, oh, that's cool. So today's I think is an important subject.

It's something we reference often but haven't done an actual podcast on.

So talk us through where we're going and what we're going to be covering, and then we'll jump right into it.

Justin Perdue Today we're talking about lordship salvation. And so the title of this episode is

A Critique of Lordship Salvation, and 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.

And 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. And so today, 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.

And 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 Rosenblatt, and others have chapters in that book. And that is a response from a

Reformed perspective, from a confessional perspective, to the lordship salvation debate that was really, really heated back in the late 80s and the 90s.

And so inevitably, we're going to interact with some of that material, though this podcast is not a review of that material specifically.

We're going to be talking about lordship salvation in a more broad way. And so lordship salvation, I guess,

John, if we were going to define it just very simply for people, it's this conversation about basically the idea is that you can make

Jesus your savior, but not your Lord. Or is that 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, John MacArthur's side and guys who agree with him 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 and what we understand at least to be some at best confusing things that are said from that camp.

And so maybe we want to start by just outlining the debate as it took place historically, just to give people a little bit of context for that.

I mean, I'm happy to do that in like 60 seconds, unless you want to jump in and do it. Go for it, that'd be fine. Okay. Yeah. So again, in the 80s and 90s, there was a debate really between John MacArthur and Zane Hodges.

And so 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 this from an Arminian, semi -Pelagian even perspective, where he understands that human beings can make this decision of faith, and this act of faith is something they can do.

And so once this act of faith occurs, once this decision to believe in Jesus occurs, at one point in time, a person is justified forever, and it matters not at all what happens in a person's life thereafter, whether or not they continue believing, whether or not they are sanctified, whether or not they desire to obey

God, whether or not there are good works in their life, et cetera. It doesn't matter because a person is justified and they're good with God.

And of course, there's a lot of stuff within that kind of theological schema where, of course, if you are obedient and if you are sanctified and if you become a disciple and you're not a carnal

Christian, then there will be blessings for you in eternity and the like. But then MacArthur's response to that bad doctrine, and we're going to talk about this more in a minute as to why

Hodges' theology is bad, MacArthur's response is that, no, that is not biblical

Christianity, and in fact, there is a lot demanded of us if we're going to be legitimately

Christian. And so John's book, The Gospel According to Jesus, is his attempt to articulate what the gospel is, what the message of salvation is, and what is required in one sense of us if we're going to be legitimately in Christ Jesus.

That's right. And so that's the debate as it has historically taken place. And we agree that Hodges is wrong.

We also have concerns with the way that MacArthur and others have articulated the gospel. Yeah, I think that's a good introduction,

Justin. I appreciate that. I would agree wholeheartedly with John's assessment and a lot of men's conservative, good, dispensational, and Reformed men's assessment of that theology.

It is very confusing, and I will also say dangerous, because one, it does confuse the gospel.

Two, it confuses the nature of salvation. And three, it confuses what I would even say what sola fide is.

He almost thinks he's promoting a sola fide position, but he's not. But he's undermining it. He is, because you're putting your faith in an action, not in Christ's actions.

So that's the danger of this theology in that, one, it's a confusion on the gospel.

Two, it is a confusion on the nature of the Christian. We would agree wholeheartedly. And union with Christ, yeah.

That's right. Those who have been put in union with Christ, they will show the evidence of the

Spirit in their life, right? You can't get away from passages that speak about the obedience of the

Christian as being a part of the nature. May it be varying at times at different degrees, you will see the desire and the nature of a

Christian to obey. So all of those critiques of this movement are accurate, and we would agree and stand wholeheartedly and say, that is not an accurate representation of Scripture.

And not only is it not accurate, it's actually quite disturbing at times. Well, the theology of Zane Hodges can rightly be called antinomianism.

I mean, it is legitimate antinomianism. To be anti -against obedience or anti -law.

The law has no place in the life of the Christian, and it just doesn't even matter what we do.

That's legitimate antinomian theology, and it's actually quite rare. But it was being articulated by Zane Hodges, and so we agree with John MacArthur and his critique of it.

Just really quickly, because we are going to be talking about MacArthur inevitably today, we want to go ahead and say from the outset that we are grateful to God for John MacArthur, and he has done a lot of good and has been a man who has demonstrated himself to be in ministry just for decades, aiming to preach the

Word of God faithfully. And so we want to commend that. And even in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, just to be very clear, there have been three editions of it.

There was the original, and then a significantly revised second edition, and then now a 25th anniversary edition that's been released in recent years.

And it's clear that the book, Christ the Lord, that we gave away today was interacting with the first publication of The Gospel According to Jesus and raised some significant critiques.

And it's clear that MacArthur and his camp heard some of those critiques based upon how the second edition was revised.

We say all of this to be clear that as it stands today in the way that MacArthur articulates lordship salvation and the way that he even writes in The Gospel According to Jesus, he is not rejecting any historical

Protestant reform doctrines outright. He's not. He's not a heretic. He even has a chapter that was added, thankfully, on justification.

He's clear on faith alone, at least it means to be clear. He'll make assertions about faith alone. We would argue that he confuses it in ways, and we're going to come to that.

He's clear on God's grace versus our effort or our merit. He's even clear on the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

And then we'll even say good things about the law, about how it was given to show us how sinful we are and how disobedient we are.

And then sadly, in other ways, he's going to collapse some categories, and we're going to get to that. But we just want to be clear from the outset that this is not a roasting of John MacArthur wholesale, and we are not understanding him to be a false teacher or preaching another gospel.

No, and I want to say to that point, too, that we are interacting with the most recent material.

It's unfair to go back and just criticize this whole book. And so both of us have the newest book.

That's the book we interacted with. And I want everyone else to also hear that we aren't foreign to John's ministry.

I actually was taught by him in the classroom, trained underneath his ministry while at the

Master's Seminary. Justin's also very familiar with his ministry. I was engaged with John on a personal level as well.

And so we aren't foreign. A lot of times people say, you don't understand his teaching or you haven't engaged enough with his theology or his sermons.

And we have on a very deep level. So we do not ever want to misrepresent people if we can help it.

I hate straw men. I don't want to be involved in that. Well, it's unhelpful to our listeners, too. And I'll be very clear.

When I first encountered Calvinism, I was helped by John MacArthur as a young man and was grateful for him.

And he was always very personally kind to me as I interacted with him just through various ways over the years.

So, yeah, totally. Let's jump into it. Yeah, let's do it, man. Let's talk about the content. Yeah, I don't want people to hear the tone.

We are not a discernment ministry. The one thing that we want to do is clarify things. We want to clarify the gospel from a historical biblical reform perspective using documents, we would say categories like law, gospel distinction through uses of the law, confessionalism.

Reform definitions of faith. Reform definition of faith. So what we're really doing is taking John's writing and holding it up against what we would say historical theology and making our assessments that way.

So just know our conclusions. These aren't new to us. Nothing we say today is anything that Justin and I have come up on our own.

We are just trying to articulate it for our listeners because it has been asked. So enough of the introductions.

Justin, let's go ahead and jump right into, I think, some of the heart issues of this. I do want to say one thing,

Justin. I really did appreciate a lot of what was written in the book. I found myself agreeing with the majority of the book.

When it was describing certain things about the nature of Christianity, and so I had to slow down and make sure that I fully understood.

I didn't, again, want to misrepresent something, take it out of context. You can always take a paragraph way out of context.

And in the years that I've been a part of these conversations about lordship, salvation, and reform theology, the number one thing is that people say, you misunderstood

John. So that being said, Justin and I had tried to be very clear in listening and representing the what he has said consistently recently about lordship, salvation.

Justin Perdue I think we could begin, because this one is going to be less significant in the more updated versions than it was in the original version of the gospel according to Jesus, and I don't think we'll have to spend as much time here.

The way that MacArthur seeks to define faith is one thing that we would raise some issue with.

Again, in the original version of the gospel according to Jesus, this language was much more troubling, much more concerning, but the language has been revised in the second and the third edition, which we give thanks for, frankly, because it's better.

The thing that seems to me is that John MacArthur is desiring, at least, to weave categories of repentance and obedience and a desire to obey into the way that we would define saving faith.

Even the subtitle of the book, What is Authentic Faith?,

I think conveys that message. Originally in the first version, there was stuff that was said that was just full -blown

Catholic theology. That no longer exists in the more updated versions, praise

God, but there is still language at points about obedience, for example, being inseparable from faith.

Let me just quote from the gospel according to Jesus here. MacArthur writes this, quote,

Clearly the biblical concept of faith is inseparable from obedience. Believe is treated as if it were synonymous with obey in John 3 .36.

And then he cites the verse, He who believes in the Son has eternal life, but he who does not obey the

Son shall not see life. So even here in the most updated version, you do see this desire to effectively say that you can't separate obedience from faith.

That's something that is concerning to us as historically Reformed guys because we understand that saving faith is comprised of knowledge about the facts about Jesus, assent, affirming that they're true, and then thirdly, trust in the

Lord Jesus Christ. That's how the Reformed have always defined faith. Then even in our own confession, there's language of trusting, hoping, and resting in Christ for justification, sanctification, and glorification on account of the covenant of grace.

That's how we would define saving faith. In terms of how the Reformed have defined faith, there never has been any language of obedience or repentance or a desire to obey as being a part of saving faith.

Those things need to be kept distinct because they are. Now we would be the first to say,

John, as the Reformed have always said, that when saving faith is present, good works and repentance and those other things will be present.

Yet those things are not one and the same. Jon Moffitt Yeah. We've heard this, you guys are being petty or you're splitting hairs or you're misrepresenting.

We're really trying not to. I say this with as much humility.

I mean, John has obviously been preaching and studying God's word for a very long time. This is why we're not telling you these are not our conclusions against John.

These are just things that we have learned ourselves. But you can see where John will quote and admit to Sola Fide, he will say, you are not saved by works alone.

He's very orthodox in his understanding of the nature of salvation.

The nature of salvation is, he literally says, a sovereign work of God that cannot be boasted upon about works.

Justin Perdue It's based on faith and our works don't contribute. I mean, he's going to say that. I appreciate the clarity on that.

Where the confusion is, is that he is trying to show the significance of one's life who is in Christ.

This is where he will state his orthodox position, which we herald a bend to, then confuses it a little bit, or I would say a lot, with collapsing the law onto the gospel.

I think the longest section in his book probably is the rich young ruler, the one that comes to him and asks,

Lord, what must I do to be saved? Did you have something you wanted to add to that? Justin Perdue Yeah, just really quickly before we transition to the long gospel piece, because that's huge, and we're going to spend more time on that.

I think what you end up seeing is that MacArthur is trying to bake submission and obedience and a desire to obey into the nature of what it is to trust and believe in Jesus.

What you end up doing, I think, effectively is he's not saying that fruit and obedience and all these kinds of things are the basis of being saved.

That's not at all what he's saying, but it does seem that good works and fruit and all these kinds of things is the basis by which we can be assured that we are saved.

That's where we would want to raise some issue. It's as though we are building our justification upon our sanctification.

We're deriving our justification from the sanctifying work of God in our lives, and that just flat out can't be done.

As soon as we do that, we've sort of given the whole thing away. I'm just going to quote John Calvin really quickly, John, and then we'll move on to long gospel stuff.

Calvin writes this, For if they begin, they being Christians, begin to judge their salvation by good works, nothing will be more uncertain or more feeble.

From this it comes about that the believer's conscience feels more fear and consternation than assurance.

If righteousness is supported by works, in God's sight it must entirely collapse, and it is confined.

Now he's talking about what salvation is. He said, It is confined solely to God's mercy, solely to communion with Christ, and therefore solely to faith.

I think that's our concern is that there's a confusion, of exactly what faith is at times, but then there certainly is a collapsing of justification and sanctification in a way that robs the believer of peace with God and assurance.

Historically speaking, the confessions have, and I would say the Reformism, Reform theology, acknowledged that good works are necessary and obviously bolster or encourage or build upon the assurance of the believer.

Wholeheartedly, it says that you should do good works. These works, of course, arise only out of the

Holy Spirit, but the evidences of these good works bolster our salvation.

It literally says, Those who attain the greatest heights of obedience possible in this life are far from being able to merit reward by being beyond duty.

You never at a moment can look to your good works as the ground of justification.

Right? Or as the basis of your assurance. Right. Again, I do not want to misrepresent him, so we're going to use a couple of sections of his passage.

When we're dealing with the rich young ruler, he rightly exegetes the passage. Now we're moving into the law gospel stuff now.

A lot of things. Law gospel, uses of the law. He rightly exegetes the passage and says that Jesus doesn't give him the gospel.

I was like, amen to that. John's right. Jesus doesn't give the gospel to him. He is so right for so long about the rich young ruler, and then it ends poorly.

I know. It's funny. As I was reading it, I'm like, man, I know I've read this a long time ago, but this is a lot of really great stuff.

I was very encouraged by a lot of what I was reading. I was like, I agree. I agree. I agree. That's historic. That's reform. Where the confusion comes in, and again, his assessment of what he's trying to prevent from happening, which is you can say a prayer, live however you want, walk an aisle, sign a card, get baptized.

Or believe certain things, but not really surrender your life to Christ. Right.

Which we would all agree, and the reformed would say, if one professes Christ and is unwilling to live for Christ, they obviously don't understand the gospel, because the gospel transforms you from life to death.

If you're in Christ, then the evidences of Christ will come through. We agree with all of that, but he says things in such a way that I think causes some confusion.

I have a couple of quotes here that I wanted to read, and I know, Justin, that you did too. It comes from this section about the rich young ruler.

Let me back up. This is one that before then he gets into. This is the one that we did a whole podcast on, which is

Matthew 7. You remember that episode that we did? Jon Moffitt Unless anyone says to be Lord, Lord.

In the end of it, he says, clearly no past experience, not even prophesying, casting out demons, or doing signs and wonders, can be viewed as evidences of salvation apart from a life of obedience.

I understand what he's getting at, but in the context of Matthew 7, you're dealing with people who are rejecting

Jesus as Messiah. They aren't rejecting obedience, and so there's a confusion there.

Justin Perdue Well, and if anything, I think they're placing confidence in their works, not confidence in Christ. That's the irony.

Jon Moffitt Exactly. So he says, viewed as evidence of salvation apart from a life of obedience, which they were pointing to their obedience as the evidence of salvation, and Jesus rejected them because he's like, it's not your obedience that saves you.

It's me. Justin Perdue That's right. Jon Moffitt That's right. I know you had a quote.

That was one I was tracking with until that last statement, and I'm like, okay, there's a confusion on the application here.

Jesus actually is pointing to their obedience, saying that's not what justifies you. Justin Perdue Just to be very clear for those who are listening in on this, we pointed out already some concerns about how faith is even defined or described.

Now we're pointing out concerns about how MacArthur and the lordship camp tends to collapse the law and the gospel, and also how they collapse the categories of the uses of the law.

That's really where we're launching into now by even talking about the rich young ruler. A number of these things, I think, are just going to come out, and we'll talk about them as they do.

So his exposition, like you said, Jon, of the rich young ruler is pretty good for a while, and then sadly it just ends really, really badly in terms of the takeaway.

So here's perhaps the most significant quote from that section.

This is MacArthur's conclusion. Our Lord gave this young man a test.

He had to choose between his possessions and Jesus Christ. He failed the test. No matter what points of doctrine he might affirm, because he was unwilling to turn from what else he loved most, he could not be a disciple of Christ.

Salvation is only for those who are willing to give Christ first place in their lives. So that's guiding

MacArthur's exposition of the text. That's his takeaway from the passage.

Jon Moffitt I was going to say, just so people understand, when we talk about the categories of the law and the gospel, if you've not heard our episode,

Understanding the Difference Between the Two, I would encourage you to go do so. Gospel is always what has been done by Christ for sinners.

It's a declaration of the good news, of the freedom from the punishment of sin, and the gaining of righteousness done by the works of God through Christ for our benefit.

That is good news of declaration. The law is the demand for perfect obedience and righteousness to everything that is in the nature of God and in his word, and the two are never ever collapsed in on each other.

So you have good news of what is done, and then you have the declaration of what you must do. And what he admits in this section is that Jesus never gets to the gospel, and yet says that basically he could never get to the gospel because the young man was not willing to basically come to receive the gospel.

If you're new to Theocast, we have a free ebook available for you called Faith vs. Faithfulness, a

Primer on Rest. And if you've struggled with legalism, a lack of assurance, or simply want to know what it means to live by faith alone, we wrote this little book to provide a simple answer from a

Reformed confessional perspective. You can get your free copy at theocast .org

slash Primer. What's crazy is that MacArthur even gets right that Jesus effectively is aiming to get this young man to prove his love for God and neighbor.

He even almost says that language verbatim, which was shocking to me, because we agree. That's what

Jesus is doing when he tells the young man to sell everything he has, give it to the poor, and then come follow me,

Christ says. That is him saying to the young man, okay, you think you've kept the commandments. Prove your love to God and neighbor.

That is still a message completely of law. This is where MacArthur kind of collapses these categories, because his takeaway, like so many people from that section, is there is this element in which we must surrender all if we're going to be saved, or we at least have to be willing to do so.

This collapsing of law and gospel forces MacArthur to do this whole kind of backpedaling thing, where he's going to say, like I'll just read this quote right now.

He says, quote, do we literally have to give away everything we own to become Christians? No, but we do have to give

Christ first place. That means we must be willing to forsake all for him, close quote.

Now he has to backpedal on the requirements of the law, and he has to dumb them down and relativize them and say, okay, well, no, we don't all literally need to sell everything we have in order to follow

Jesus, but we need to be willing to do that. My question is, okay, well, where is willing in the idea of willing in the passage?

It's not there, because Jesus is giving this man law, straight up law. Prove your love to God and neighbor, and you will be perfect.

The man can't do it. That's the whole point of it. The one who could provide him righteousness and atone for his sins is standing right there in front of him.

Right. Another quote later on down, it says, he left not because he heard the wrong message, not even because he didn't believe, but because he was unwilling to forsake what he loved most in the world and commit himself to Christ as Lord.

Instead of taking him from where he was and getting him to make a decision,

Jesus had laid out the terms that were unacceptable to him. In a sense, Jesus drove him away, which we would say the rich young ruler came in and asked, what must

I do? Jesus told him what he had to do. The confusion on that is that somehow then connected to what it's required to be a disciple of Jesus.

Jesus never gave him what was required in order to be a follower, or let's put it this way, saved from his sins.

That wasn't the conclusion. If you collapse that down in there and say Jesus is setting up the requirements of what it looks like to be a follower of him in forgiveness, that's a confusion of the law.

You get this language of the quote -unquote demands of the gospel. The lordship camp loves to use that kind of language.

The gospel demands everything from us and requires everything from us, and it will cost us our very lives and all those kinds of things.

There are ways in which we agree that it will cost us our lives in that we are forsaking anything about ourselves that could ever be meritorious before the

Lord, and we are following a crucified Savior. All of those things we absolutely and heartily affirm, but the language of the demands of the gospel is exhibit

A when it comes to the collapsing of the law in the gospel and turning the gospel effectively into a kind of covenant of works where there are all these things required of us if we're going to be worthy of the

Lord Jesus Christ. This is just another observation. MacArthur, like us, would affirm that Romans 7, for example, is about a

Christian where Paul writes this language of wanting to obey but finding himself not obeying.

The good things he wants to do, he doesn't do. The bad things he doesn't want to do, he does. Whatever he wants to do right, evil lies close at hand, etc.

I delight in the law of God in my inner man, but there's another law waging war against me, and that's sin in his members and these things.

MacArthur agrees with us and agrees with the reform through history that that's about a Christian's state, the internal war we fight as believers.

He does not maintain that Christians can be perfect. Because he collapses law and gospel, and because he also maintains

Christian imperfection, he then is forced to talk about this willingness to obey, and then he is also forced, as we've already talked about, to relativize and tone down the requirements of the law.

It's interesting. I want to read one more quote, and I think we need to go into the uses of the law.

I want to talk about the Sermon on the Mount a little bit too. Right, which is where I was going to go, because that's where the uses of the law get confused.

I lost my quote here. It says here, The ultimate test was whether this man would obey the

Lord. Jesus was not teaching salvation by philanthropy. He was not saying it is possible to buy eternal life with charity.

In effect, he was saying, here is the test of true faith. Are you willing to do what I want you to do?

Whom do you want to run your life, you or me? The Lord was putting his finger on the very nerve of this man's existence.

Knowing where his heart was, he said, unless I become the highest authority in your life, there is no salvation for you.

By placing himself alongside the man's wealth and demanding that he makes the choice, our

Lord revealed the true state of the man's heart. Look, I don't disagree, but did you see where it was slipped in in that quote?

Jesus never offered him what he is saying. He never offered him eternal life.

He only offered him earning it. You can earn it. It's not a gift. We know that salvation and faith is a gift.

This is Ephesians 2. Faith is gifted to us. It's not earned. The phrase here where he says, the test of true faith, are you willing to do whatever you want to do?

No, no one is ever willing to do that. You are dead in your trespasses and sins. You cannot make yourself alive.

This is where John is a Calvinist, but then uses non -Calvinistic language. Well, he even, or maybe in another sense, like some of the reform through history have done, he puts all these qualifiers on faith.

There are all these things that have to be, if not done, at least certain things that need to be met, qualifications that need to be met in order to come to Christ.

We don't have time to get into it, but that is what the whole Merrow controversy was about in the Church of Scotland. Do we need to do anything in order to be eligible effectively to come to Jesus?

The conclusion there from the Merrow brethren, which we agree with, is no, we don't need to do anything in order to come to Christ.

We come to Christ in faith and then through union with Him. In essence, you can make the conclusion from John is that this man needed to do something before he'd be truly a follower of Christ, and that's or he had to be willing to give everything away for Christ.

It's like, well, I don't know that anybody is on the front end apart from a sovereign work of God that would give us eyes to see as we hear the law and then the message of Christ in the gospel.

Anyway, let's move over. I'll let you do that, but let me jump in. Even in John 3 .16, when

Jesus tells Nicodemus, those who believe, that's who have been granted eternal life.

He's talking about this regeneration of new birth. What's hard is that Jesus isn't talking to a believer, saying, hey, if you're claiming faith in me, this is what life should look like.

To confuse that conversation, Jesus is talking to an unbeliever who isn't seeking Jesus for salvation.

He's seeking the law for salvation. We always have to keep the context of the passage at hand, and there are times where Paul flat out says, hey, if you're up saying you're a believer and you're not acting like it, that's a problem, but that's not the context of the rich young ruler.

No, it's not. As we continue with this law gospel track and even the law itself and how it should rightly be used, let's talk briefly on MacArthur's treatment of the

Sermon on the Mount, along with the Reformed through history, that the

Sermon on the Mount is the greatest sermon on the law that's ever been preached.

We're not saying exclusively, but largely, the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is an exposition of the law and an application of the law to man that will condemn and crush us in our own attempts to be righteous, and would thereby drive us to the one preaching the sermon who came to fulfill the law in our place.

But MacArthur's take on the Sermon on the Mount, and I think some of this, John, has to be derived from his dispensational convictions and how he thinks about the law existing really in a different era of redemptive history.

Now, with the coming of the Messiah of Christ, we're in a redemptive era.

So he says, for example, citing Matthew 7, 13, and 14, which is the broad road and the narrow way and all that, his conclusion from those verses is this, this passage crushes the claim of those who say the

Sermon on the Mount is not gospel but law. In fact, these closing verses are pure gospel with as pointed an invitation as has ever been issued.

He goes on to say, quote, you will not find a plainer statement of the gospel according to Jesus anywhere in Scripture, close quote.

He's saying that about the narrow way and the broad road in particular.

My initial take on that is, first of all, no, the Sermon on the Mount is not gospel, it's law, and there's a confusion of law and gospel all over the place going on there.

Then when he says you can't find a plainer statement of the gospel according to Jesus, I think you can. For example,

Jesus' words to the woman of the city in Luke 7, the prostitute who comes and washes his feet, etc.,

he says to her, quote, your sins are forgiven, your faith has saved you, go in peace.

I think that's a better word of gospel. You're forgiven and your faith in me has saved you, go in peace.

Justin Perdue That's right. Jesus uses a lot of illustrations in his ministry, like the eye of a needle and the camel.

He's talking about the impossibility of one finding salvation on their own or one earning salvation by their own merits.

So the road is narrow, meaning a few that find it. The idea of it is you don't find it, you don't logically discover it, you don't earn your way into it.

Taking that verse and using it in that way, you should hear that and respond as the disciples do and say, well, then who could be saved?

Jesus says, well, no one can. With man, it's impossible. With God, everything is impossible. Everything Jesus says when it relates to the law and earning salvation, you should hear impossibility, impossibility.

Nicodemus did. He said, well, how am I going to reenter the mother's womb? It's like, well, now you've got it.

You've got the impossibility of the gospel. Justin Perdue Now you understand that this is a work of God. Tim Cynova Right. And so later on, he even says that this is the work of the

Spirit, and who knows? You can't even manipulate the Spirit. It's like the wind, and we don't know where it's going. There's nothing you can do to manipulate salvation, not before and not after.

It is an entire work of God, and that's where there's the confusion of the law and the gospel. You add the law into the gospel, you are then saying there is something that you are involved in prior to regeneration, and we're saying no, it's all after regeneration, which

I agree is simultaneously, but you cannot put anything before the gift of salvation through faith.

And the free offer of Christ. We were talking before we recorded, John, about how—

Justin Perdue I'm sorry, I need to clarify something. Just to be clear, John MacArthur is not Roman Catholic, and he is not putting works in front of salvation.

I don't want to misrepresent him. It's just the confusion of his conclusions at times where it's like, is that what he's saying?

Because that's what it sounds like what he's saying. Tim Cynova And all we are asking for in this whole thing is clarity of language, clarity on the gospel, clarity on justification, clarity on the sufficiency of Christ, and all these things.

So one of the things too, John, that we want to hit on, I know, in this regular portion of the podcast is how there is also not just a collapsing of law and gospel, but there's a confusion and a collapsing of the uses of the law, in particular the first use and the third use.

So just very quick definitions. The first use of the law is to show us our sin and drive us to the

Savior. It's the pedagogical, the teaching use, and the mirror use. But then there is also the third use, which is the guide that the law is for the

Christian's life. So once we're united to Christ, the law guides are living in him, and we seek to be conformed to it by God's grace through the

Spirit. It seems that in much of the teaching from the Lordship Camp and from John MacArthur, there's a confusion of these categories and a collapsing of them.

Yes, yes. So I think Sermon on the Mount is a good example of this. And there are a lot of people who don't agree to the uses of the law.

They say that it's not biblical. I think it's very helpful. And obviously, if you believe in church discipline, you have to believe in the uses of the law.

I don't know how you don't. And the confusion is that a really famous sermon,

I'll mention this here, and we'll get into more detail in it in our next podcast, but a good example of using the first use of the law, which is designed for sinners, as a third use of the law for believers, guiding the

Christian's life, is Paul Washer's sermon, the famous youth sermon that he preached. And if you go in there and you listen to it, he rightly preaches law, but he's using it in such a way to condemn

Christians and get them to believe that they're not Christians and call into question their faith.

And he's doing it in such a way where people who hear that sermon, I remember the first time I heard it, there was this sense of, am

I truly a believer? Because he's using the law, the fewest use of the law to garner holiness.

And this, I know this is so nuanced and we're going to have to get into this later. We can't do this now, which is kind of the purpose of the

SR podcast, to kind of go into things a little bit deeper. But you can never use the first use of the law to encourage holiness in Christians, because it will only condemn them, crush them, and push them away from Christ.

Just some clarifying comments, at least from my perspective on this. I know in my own church,

I preach the first use of the law to the saints pretty much every week, but I do it in this way. I am reminding us of our utter inability to keep the law and to do everything that God requires so that we might anew be reminded and be driven to Christ and cast ourselves completely upon Him.

Even in preaching the first use of the law, it's more like, guys, lest we get it confused. We cannot do this and trust

Christ. So that is a first use of the law since, but it is still not done with this kind of condemnatory edge to it that is often taking place.

For example, you mentioned that sermon from Paul Washer. The other thing is, whenever we talk about the third use of the law, the law for the

Christian cannot condemn. It can't. So our tone ought not be condemnatory as we are talking to people about how they ought to live.

We've made this observation before that a lot of times the third use of the law to guide the Christian is preached like it's the first use, which is to condemn and crush those outside of Jesus who are trusting in themselves.

It really is harmful because what you end up doing effectively is just unsettling every saint who is thoughtful and who has a tender conscience, thinking,

I've not really done what God requires. Two examples of the third uses of the law that we use all the time.

One would be Ephesians 4, where Paul says, for those of you that have been chosen, walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you've been called with meekness, gentleness, and longsuffering.

Those are commands and they are in relation to the nature of Christ and that you should obey them, but they're not condemnatory.

Peter says in 2 Peter 1 .9, he lists all these things that are godly, obedience, and he says, if you're not doing these things, you have forgotten that you've cleansed from your former sins.

He's not condemning the believer because there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, but he is saying you're not a very effective

Christian. To condemn a Christian by using the law is an inappropriate use of the law and it's a confusion of law and gospel.

When you confuse the law and the gospel, you will immediately confuse the three uses of the law and the demands of the law.

I think this happens a lot when we collapse these. The last thing I want to emphasize, I know we're way over and we're going to have to take this.

This really is a discussion. If I'm going to boil it all down and say the one thing that I would love to dialogue more with the guys in this camp, and really there's a whole generation of people that are my age that are wrestling with these truths, it's a place of emphasis.

This is the very thing that we talk about. The Reformed faith and the confessions emphasize the finished work of Christ, the sufficiency of Christ on our behalf, and then obedience.

We find ourselves safe in Christ, now obey, and that emphasis has been reversed. Really, your sufficiency and security and safety in Christ is called into question based upon your level of dedication.

We aren't drawn into obedience because we're safe in Christ. We're pushed into obedience out of fear and anxiety of possibly losing what we have in Christ or proving we never were in Christ.

Exactly. We've got to prove ourselves to be legitimate, therefore we obey. You and I are on the same wavelength because that's exactly where I wanted to go.

As I stated at the outset, and you did too, while MacArthur and the Lordship camp, generally speaking, has not directly denied any historical

Reformed or Protestant doctrine, at least what has occurred is that the accent has been moved from Christ to the

Christian in this kind of theology. People who are familiar with theocast are going to hear that and they're going to say, yeah, we've heard you guys talk like that before because, brother, in so many ways when we talk about pietism, that's what we're saying.

It's not that Christ isn't preached. It's not that we're not even clear on justification or whatever it may be.

It's that the emphasis and the accent has been shifted. Rather than Jesus being in the foreground in the

Christian life and the Christian being in the background, that's inverted. Really, the focus becomes the

Christian. The same thing has happened in this conversation when it pertains to Lordship salvation.

I think we're going to make our way over to the Simple Reformanda podcast here in just a minute. A couple of things before we actually make our way over there.

First thing is if you want to dive a little bit more into some of these things that we've been discussing today, a great thing for you to do would be to go and download the free ebook version of our

Primer on Rest. It's called Faith vs. Faithfulness, a Primer on Rest. We're just going to be talking about things from a

Reformed confessional perspective when it comes to the sufficiency of Christ and clarity on the gospel and all that good stuff.

There's a free ebook available, or you could always go on Amazon and buy the hard copy if you're a guy like me who likes to have a book in your hands.

The second thing is that a big piece of Simple Reformanda is the app that's been created for Simple Reformanda that connects all of the

SR members together. That's a forum in which this conversation and conversations like it can continue to be had in a safe place and in a place where we can talk about these things with charity and grace.

We would encourage you to consider signing up and being a part of Simple Reformanda so that you can join the community of people who are thinking and wrestling with the same things that you are, and also to help us spread this message of the sufficiency of Christ as wide as we can and as far as we can.

Over in the SR podcast, which is where John and I are headed, we're going to talk about a few things. I think we're going to keep talking some about the collapsing of the first and third use of the law, and John may make some more comments on that.

I want to talk about Puritans a little bit because I think in the book that MacArthur wrote,

The Gospel According to Jesus, he cites a number of Puritan writers. He seems to do that generally in a way that I think is a little bit indiscriminate.

I don't want to impugn him in this way, but not all Puritans are the same. I think that some of the lordship salvation stuff that I read seems like a reworking of some of the less good

Puritan theology from the 17th, 18th century and the like. We're going to talk a little bit more about that over in SR, and so if you want to be a part of that conversation, sign up and become a

Semper Reformanda member. Part of that means that you'll listen in on this extra podcast we do every week.

We hope this conversation has been enjoyable and easy to track with, and hopefully this has brought some clarity for you as you think about lordship salvation and some of the things that you hear and see maybe in the

Twitter sphere and wherever else you may see comments about these matters. Anyway, I'd say one last part.

Wherever you talk about this, you need to do it in obedience with meekness and patience, seeking to maintain the bond of peace.

And I would argue that Twitter is not the place to have significant debate. Anyway, we'll leave that with the listener.