The Utterly Confused John MacArthur Jr.
While proudly calling himself a Calvinist, John MacArthur teaches in the following video clip that the believer’s baptism in the Spirit only occurs once. Yet, John Calvin and the Reformers in general believed that the believer’s baptism needed to occur daily through the death of deep repentance and the resurrection of new obedience. In other words, self-depravation brings about perpetual death with Christ, followed by the fruits of resurrection expressed in joy or some kind of manifestation of Christ’s obedience. That’s “revisiting the gospel afresh” through deep repentance and new obedience. As a result, the believer supposedly receives a perpetual forgiveness for sins that maintains our justification. It’s heresy of the first order.
Astonishingly, MacArthur also states that the baptism of the Spirit should not be sought or repeated. This completely contradicts what his associates teach in regard to “preaching the gospel to ourselves every day.” The very purpose of this mantra is to advocate a continual return to the gospel in order to “experience” death and rebirth. MacArthur cohort and Reformed hack Dr. Michael Horton stated it this way in his book on systematic theology:
Progressive sanctification has two parts: mortification and vivification, “both of which happen to us by participation in Christ,” as Calvin notes….Subjectively experiencing this definitive reality signified and sealed to us in our baptism requires a daily dying and rising. That is what the Reformers meant by sanctification as a living out of our baptism….and this conversion yields lifelong mortification and vivification “again and again.” Yet it is critical to remind ourselves that in this daily human act of turning, we are always turning not only from sin but toward Christ rather than toward our own experience or piety (pp. 661-663 [Calvin Inst. 3.3.2-9]).
Luther advocated the same in Thesis 16 and 17 of his Heidelberg Confession. There, he posits the Reformed mainstay that Christians need the same grace that saved them continually, and this saving grace should be continually sought. So, baptism does not signify a onetime event, but signifies the need to continually repent in order to receive the perpetual baptism that saved us.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
A mom, I read a book years ago called “Corporate Cults” and it was dead on what you are describing. It did not catch on I think because it was the late 90’s and people were really more into the whole thing of being a part of an organization. I see that changing and while most will hang on trading lifestyle for substance, they are also not loyal at all which is wrecking havoc.
You can tell there are big changes in just looking at the simple things like customer service. It is horrid. It is all fake. Companies spend more time on cheesy platitudes with customers than competence in dealing with solutions/problems. No one has any authority to act because they are incompetent. Most do not even speak fluent English if you are making a call and you spend a ton of time just trying to understand. It is becoming impossible to do simple, efficient business transactions in America. Some of it has to do with our culture of liability but much of it has to do with just plain old incompetence. I saw the trajectory in the 90’s of the incompetents being promoted because they were yes people and now they are in full force. The whole leadership guru business hurt us badly because it became about being a visionary and not someone who equips others to succeed. More and more narcissists were attracted to leadership because it became about charisma instead of competence.
That is why I want Rand Paul as President. He is nerdy, uncharismatic and a policy wonk with very bad hair. I have a crush on him. :o)
I am so sick of platitudes and long for substance in policy.
LikeLike
“Conversely Man’s greatest satisfaction comes from achievement: the completion of the entire process of creation to final product. Then we are proud in the most righteous sense of the word. It is this end product of creation—the culmination of the process—that we want to share with the world. The OUTCOME, the FULFILLMENT, the GRATIFICATION is what we are willing to share with the world . . .But we expect a reciprocal value for what we have created. ”
This was communicated at creation in Genesis with God’s command to take dominion and be fruitful. We were created with the ability to do this.
LikeLike
John Immel,
Thank you for writing about man as a contractual being. I’ve thought a lot about this. I don’t think I’ve got the full grasp of it, so I’ve put my thoughts down. Please let me know if I misunderstood what you’ve written and feel free to critique. I added my own thoughts as well.
Man as a contractual being. God created individuals. The purpose of an individual is not social. Social is defined as: to be liked, to fit in, to be accepted. This could also be called “pack mentality”. This is the norm for animals, such as dogs, but God created individuals to decide for themselves based on reality (reality is determined by senses), based on rational thought, based on ability to reason. Is reason the same as love for others and self? Man was created superior to animals, in God’s image in fact.
Pack mentality and it’s outcomes can be observed throughout history.
Mighty individuals rage war and conquer, creating personal empires. Many rulers then used non-violent means to pacify and quiet their subjects through religion: self-proclaimed favor or power from “gods” or “God”. Sovereignty or divine will of God, for example. It seems to me that many conquerors and leaders don’t care that they feed off other individuals. They are narcissists (you may disagree, you said, “it eventually destroys those who practice it with impunity..” I do think most people care, but not narcissists).
collectivism = communism = common good. However, history shows that aspiring dictators flock to this type of lifestyle (government) and take it over, creating personal empires. It is inequality, even though it’s advertised as an irresistible utopian equality. In an earlier comment, I mentioned North Korea as a present day example. I see it as trading rights and freedoms for a promise of future protection. It ends in a forced contract, the people are property of one man (or a few individuals) who decides for everyone.
Wasn’t America uniquely structured in regard to the rights of individuals? Examples: Cherish and protect individual rights, as God given rights. Individuals were to be treated with equal fairness. In this model an individual chooses to fail or succeed based on their own actions. The terms of contracts are determined by the individuals themselves. The foundation would be honesty, fairness, & justice. This may be a scary proposition, but with vast, exciting possibilities. The problem is America is more like a collective, for instance corporations have individual status now, individual freedoms have been taken away, etc.
I think you are speaking of decisions and accomplishment, fostered only in a society where individual rights are most honored and revered. Interestingly then, society as a whole ends up benefiting as a result (cures, transportation, energy). Individualism accomplishes/produces what collectivism advertises. Not just now, but for future generations as well. The end result of creation was accomplishment. God said it was good, handed it over to individuals and said decide (name the animals, etc…) and go accomplish. Much of the Bible refers to actions and consequences, it’s not only gospel. And that he expects us to contract fairly and justly with others, like He does with man.
Each one of us is free, encouraged to pursue what lights our eyes up or gets us talking – our uniqueness is great & valuable. Which is the opposite of, keep your eyes on the cross, bask in Christ’s light, follow the leader. No need to do anything else. The problem is churches are more like collectives, issuing one size fits all mandates like have lots of offspring, get married, no divorce, etc.
Okay, it seems there is more to understanding man as contractual being. It may be I’m heavy on application, light on understanding?
LikeLike
A Mom…
You HAVE thought a lot about this and it sounds to me like you have a pretty solid grasp of the implications. It seems as though you seeking to integrate the concept in to a much bigger picture. Since I am an advocate of full philosophical integration I think this is a fantastic exercise. You are merely taking the contractual part of man’s nature and seeing how that fits into a much larger picture … this is great.
Of course the scope of my pervious comments was designed to be a brief overview of man’s nature. It is with this starting point that people can begin to see the correct conceptual relationship between Man and other men. Because man’s primary tool of survival is reason he must necessarily be an individual employing his rational faculties with the highest and best standards. But because man is a finite being his greatest lever for the prosperity is the ability to share knowledge and the effect of knowledge . . . productivity.
Collectivists take the “sharing for prosperity” part of the equation as the primary and organize the collective accordingly. The loose logic goes: “If man shares his production all men will prosper.” The root moral assumption is that all members of a culture have a moral claim to those productive rational abilities of the individual. Because man is “social” he must necessarily be grafted into society like an animal into the pack.
You correctly identify that this ends up with select men organizing “society” around their individual sense of values. And that this effort is always self-destructive. It is also collectively destructive because it refuses to identify the real primary of human existence: rational ethical sovereign individuality.
The means by which man MUST operate in a social context is by contractual agreement. He freely exchanges values with those who freely exchange values. Since the primary element of this social dynamic is freedom, contracts are entered into willingly. There can never be force in a contract unless there is a breach. When the social contract has been defaulted on there must be a means to recoup the loss.
And this is a key concept to understand…while man—as a whole—does benefit from freedom, the primary concern is not collective well-being. The primary concern is for the individual. Without this as a primary there is no such thing as justice. Value exchange falls apart when men default on their agreements—AKA covenants, or contracts—with impunity. Man cannot suffer an endless exploitation of his production therefore oath breaking, covenant betrayal, contract breach must have a consequence. To make sure that the virtue of rational self-appointment is upheld, the moral vice of rational default must have consequence.
Therefore the man who takes on the responsibility of his nature must be free to prosper under his own productive action and be the SOLE moral beneficiary of the product. Man must be morally right to benefit from his own virtue. And by contrast men who default on their nature and resort to contractual breech i.e. loot and exploit producers to get their “needs” must suffer the consequence of their evasion and be condemned for their vice.
This is the root of justice.
. . .
As an aside think of your personal relationships. What is the leading cause of their failure? The answer is: Breach of contract. It doesn’t matter if we are talking marriage or child/parent or friends or casual acquaintances. Most interpersonal contracts are informal agreements (very often with unstated expectations). Each of these relationships is based on some form of social contract. The intimacy persists until one of the parties defaults on the agreement. And the dissolution of the relationship is tied to a breach of the contract when one person (or both) quit providing the values previously committed to the interaction. (The other common relational failure is unstated irrational expectations that are demanded without any justification.)
. . .
A mom said: “Is reason the same as love for others and self?”
Mmmmm…. I think it is better understood this way: Love is another way to say values.
Man cannot love what he does not value.
How does man arrive at his values? The highest value is life and every other real value is the product of an independent rational mind choosing between subsequent values in service to the furtherance of life. I submit that without this as the understanding of love, man cannot value other men. Jesus edict to love other men as you would love yourself fails miserably if the fundamental moral premise of human existence is self-hatred, self-destruction, self-abnegation. Only a man fully persuaded of his own value can look at another man with the expectation of equal value. (In as much as that man demonstrates virtues)
. . .
A mom said: It seems to me that many conquerors and leaders don’t care that they feed off other individuals. They are narcissists (you may disagree, you said, “it eventually destroys those who practice it with impunity..” I do think most people care, but not narcissists).
There are actually very few narcissists in the world. Most historical tyrants have been motivated by “the greater good” or in other words they have been motivated by an ethical standard that made the logical consequence of their despotism THE moral action. Their “CARE” was for a value that subordinated the individual to the collective. I think it is important to make the distinction between psychological aberration and philosophical continuity. I submit that men like Al Molher and CJ. Mahaney, and Mark Dever are not narcissists (that is) suffering from personality disorders, but rather are acting consistently with their ideological premise. I think this process does eventually warp a man, but I don’t think the disorder comes first. It is a consequence.
. . .
A Mom said: Wasn’t America uniquely structured in regard to the rights of individuals?
Yes and Yes. America was the first political organization in the history of the world founded on this premise. And our current mad dash into decline is directly tied to the abandonment of this foundation.
. . .
A mom said: “The end result of creation was accomplishment. God said it was good, handed it over to individuals and said decide (name the animals, etc…) and go accomplish.
This is thrilling. You have landed on what I consider to be the key concept in Genesis. I submit that this is the point (as opposed to the fictitious doctrine of Original Sin) of the creation story. Man as volitional moral agent responsible for the content of his own mind and work. Notice that reward for naming the animals was an individual benefit: knowledge of his own comparative value to the rest of creation. His reward for his work was a person of equal value. These are “selfish” values. Adam must have a self to grasp why Eve is a value. And she is a reflection of his highest and best self.
I have much more to say about this but you have identified a key principle. Outstanding.
. . .
A Mom said: “Which is the opposite of, keep your eyes on the cross, bask in Christ’s light, follow the leader. No need to do anything else.”
This preoccupation I call Christianity’s Cult of Death. It elevates death to the highest human value. It demands that man LOVE death. This is horrific and evil. And dare I say that herein is the knowledge of
Good and Evil.
You are doing great. Keep thinking.
LikeLike