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 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
Would this be because McArthur believes in OSAS “Once Saved Always Saved” literally by those terms whereas those other Calvinists believe in “Perseverance of the Saints”? So to them, the saints persevere by constantly being born again over and over — to him that’s not necessary because its literally “Once Saved Always Saved.”
In either case, unless you repeat the lie of justification by faith alone over and over and over again everyday you will begin to believe the truth from the Old Testament scriptures that obedience to God is required on some level. Not perfect obedience of course since nobody prior to Paul was stupid enough to suppose that God was a perfectionist lunatic. But unless the lie is repeated constantly that God requires nothing but faith alone, you will cease to believe it. This is why the Gnostic “gospel” must be preached to yourself everyday.
LikeLike
I think one problem here is how we define terms. I’ve learned that different people may mean different things when calling themselves a “Calvinist”. For me, if I were to call myself a Calvinist, it would simply be a 5-point Calvinist (I don’t typically use Calvinist anymore because it has so much baggage with it, considering how much he is so off on other things). For others it may mean a lot more than the 5 points and go further into his Ecclesiology, etc…(ie, “baggage”)
However, this is also true in other aspects like when one calls themself a Baptist. That means different things nowadays too. There are Free-will Baptists, Independent Baptist, GARB, Fundamental Baptist, Reformed Baptist (where I lean mostly but not entirely) and so on, each having differing views on doctrine but all calling themselves Baptists.
I don’t think J-Mac is “confused” here. I just think he holds to a particular brand of Calvinism. And while I don’t necessarily agree with everything he teaches, I would hardly call him confused. I think I could even venture to say that many of his teachings are much in line with Paul here and those who follow this blog. I could be wrong about that, however.
LikeLike
Justification by faith alone is NOT a lie.
Saving Faith is all that justifies. Luther had this right.
Saving Faith ALWAYS produces works that justify the saving faith. This is where most “christians” (using the term very lightly) completely deny/shipwreck their “faith”.
How do I know? I lived the lie for 42 years until God made me understand that the heart must be converted and not just the mind.
LikeLike
Free,
Luther didn’t have it right. Not even close. He believed that justification and sanctification were the same thing and justification was a recurring event based on living by faith alone in sanctification. He believed that perpetual forgiveness was needed to maintain justification and that it was found only in the church via elder absolution. Calvin and Luther both believed that pastors have the authority to bind and loose forgiveness of sins unto salvation.
LikeLike
Paul I respectfully have to submit that there are two meanings for the word “sanctification”. One an everyday process in a believers life with their co-operation with the Holy Spirit, however another use of the word means “to separate” to “set apart”. In this sense we are sanctified from the get-go. I know I know, it’s not the same thing. But we need to be careful how we are throwing the term around. The believer from the get-go is “in” Christ, sanctified in the sense they are set apart and holy. In the other sense they are not because they are being made like Christ every day. I don’t know if we need a different term but there are two different uses of the term.
LikeLike
Free,
Definitive sanctification happens at justification. Progressive sanctification is a continual wider and wider separation from the world and the old self. Glorification is final sanctification, the ultimate separation. Consider Romans 8:30 and 1Cor 6:11 together. Augustine, Gregory, Luther, and Calvin believed that definitive sanctification and progressive sanctification are the same thing. Hence, sanctification is by faith alone; ie, sanctification by justification. This is why Luther rejected the book of James.
LikeLike
Holiness and Holy living.
LikeLike
Calvin did not equate progressive sanctification with definitive sanctification. This is why Calvinists speak of the outworking of our baptism, by which they mean the confession of our union with Christ, not the baptism of the Spirit. Mortification is clearly a biblical doctrine in regard to the sanctification process and has nothing to do with being re justified everyday.
LikeLike
eligido,
Calvin clearly taught that the same repentance that saved us had to be pursued until our death and could only be found in the formal church, and partly through the sacraments. Calvin made no distinction between a forgiveness for salvation and a repentance to restore fellowship. The wantonness of your defense is found in Calvin’s statement that the free reconciliation found in Christ’s death is perpetual in the church, and must be sought beyond the initial days of one’s salvation (CI 3.14.11).
LikeLike
Thank you. I just wanted this clarified because people who come here and elsewhere get hung up on terms.
LikeLike
Free,
Right, I am getting some nasty emails in regard to this conversation. So, let me clarify:
1. I believe in: A. monergistic justifcation; B. synergistic sanctification per the book of James.
2. I reject: the Reformed gospel of perpetual resalvation by faith alone in sanctification.
3. All opposing views framed intelligently that bring education to the table will be posted here.
LikeLike
But Calvin taught that all such “reconciliation” is the outworking of the believer’s initial union with Christ, not a repeat of that union. It is in that union that definitive sanctification as well as justification occur. Calvin did not teach that believers must be united with Christ over and over again, but that through faith there is to be a daily outworking of the reality of that union. Though there is a difference between forgiveness in justification and forgiveness to reestablish fellowship in terms of the standing of those who receive the forgiveness [believers are not being readmitted to a justified state when we confess our sins], there is no difference in the sins being forgiven and the basis on which that forgiveness is granted. The “reconciliation” that occurs between our loving Father and his erring children is no different in character than the reconciliation that initially occurred between an offended God and obdurate rebels. Sin is sin and forgiveness is forgiveness. Being reconciled and forgiven must not necessarliy refer to the initial acts that occurred at our conversions. It all depends on definition. I think it is clear from Calvin’s other writings how he would define “reconciliation” in the passage you are referring to.
LikeLike
eligido,
The Reformers absolutely taught that the union had to be repeated, or at least maintained. What do you think baptism symbolizes?
LikeLike
Furthermore, they taught a union minus an indwelling. The “centrality of the objective gospel OUTSIDE of us.” The infusion of grace within us was considered to be, and still is, considered by the Reformers to be a false gospel.
LikeLike
Paul,
The following was the idea Calvin was arguing against in that passage “and in describing the righteousness of the regenerate man, maintain that being once reconciled to God by means of Christ, he is afterwards deemed righteous by his good works, and is accepted in consideration of them.” Everything he wrote in the section you cited above must be understood in that context. He is merely teaching that our reconciliation with God and our justification is not initially by faith and afterward based on our works, but is perpetual based on Christ’s work alone. Context is everything!
LikeLike
eligido,
Do you think I am an idiot? Note what you said: “He is merely teaching that our reconciliation with God and our justification is not initially by faith and afterward based on our works, but is perpetual based on Christ’s work alone. Context is everything!”
Your very statement makes works IN sanctification synonymous with works FOR justification. You make the point for me. Because the Reformers saw sanctification as the maintaining of justification, a perpetual work of Christ must be substituted for our work in sanctification. Hence, we must maintain our salvation by faith alone in sanctification. Obviously, you think I am an idiot and easily confused.
LikeLike