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 
Eli (or Randy) said: “I don’t think it is too much to ask to be fairly represented. You told me you are not an Arminian, [though I am not sure where that puts you] and I have not continued to misrepresent your views. It is just not that difficult to provide actual quotations in context that show exactly what a person or persons believe. Interact with what people say or write, not what you perceive them as saying.
. . .
. . .
. . .
Ok, I happen to like it when the Calvinist aficionados come howling out of the pack and try to mark their territory. They provide so much grist for the teachable moment mill.
First for all of their bluff and bluster about being broad minded, studied, informed sages I want you to notice the utter narrowness of self-proclaimed Calvinist aficionado’s thinkers. Notice in the equation in the paragraph above: IF you are not a Calvinist THEN you must necessarily be an Arminian. This presumes that Calvin-ism and Arminian-ism are the only theological traditions available to man. Think of the narrowness of this world view then think of the implicit conceit it represents.
Of course there are a number of Christian intellectual traditions that emerged out of the Reformation and then more came during the Enlightenment but evidently those intellectual traditions don’t merit exploration.
When confronted with this argument (and its variations) people most often get sidetracked into validating the particulars of their intellectual pedigree. (This is a classic Calvinist gambit to demagogue the “orthodoxy” moral high ground.)
But notice instead what the comment really reveals. Eli (or Randy) has exposed a profound conceptual narrowness that is telltale characteristic of the Neo Calvinist mentality. Here is the root of the argument: If they don’t know it, (whatever IT happens to be) IT can’t possibly be a valid expression of TRUTH. They presume that they are the final measure of all TRUTH which means they get to define man’s available knowledge.
At its root this is argumentative reductionism, and you will see it over and over and over.
Notice that throughout Eli (or Randy’s) commentary above that new information is ignored with impunity and his response is an argument of reduction. He constantly tries to drive the conversation down to a parsed definition that he is confident that he has mastered. And the moment new information enters the argument he casually dismisses it as irrelevant to his point. (or a failure of OUR perceptions of his doctrine)
When arguing with Neo Calvinists you will constantly see this technique.
To beat this part of their argument don’t concede their presumptive right to define the boundaries of available knowledge by ignoring facts of reality that illustrates their claims false.
Which goes to the second point: facts of reality.
Notice how hard Eli (or Randy) has tried to argue against the implications of Puritan Character. Notice how hard he has worked to distance Puritan doctrine from Puritan actions and then puritan doctrine from his specific understanding of “bible” doctrine.
This is by design.
Calvinists must use this kind of argumentative subterfuge to sever the causal relationship between doctrine and action. Because the moment the case is made that there is an iron clad relationship between doctrine and action the whole Reformed Construct comes crashing down on the Neo Calvinists aficionados heads. The moment the doctrine is no mere theological abstraction but the motive power behind tyranny they are on the hook for societal outcomes.
When Geneva finally figured out that Calvin was a menace the ran him out on a rail. When Europe finally figured out the Puritans were tyrants in black cloths and funny hats they ran them off the continent. These are the facts of reality and this should tell us something.
Notice how fast he turned the issue of Character into a personal challenge to Paul. This is also by design.
This is a gambit for moral equivalency. The loose logic goes: “how you can criticize the conduct of the Puritans if your character is no better?”
(This is a CJ Mahaney argument 101)
Unfortunately since most Christians are conditioned to accept the Universal Guilt pounded into our brains from the Platonist/Augustinian theology we tend to accept the moral equation.
And here is the problem with the moral equivalency. The facts of reality have no bearing on the discussion. Unless Paul is a magistrate building bonfires to enforce doctrinal conformity, and trying to purge witches from the midst of his dearly held theocracy . . . there is NO moral equivalency between Paul’s conduct and Puritan conduct.
Third point:
Eli (or Randy) have provided a great object lesson that those who oppose the Calvinist construct must come to understand. Notice how often Eli (or Randy) dances back and forth between defending the generalized doctrinal statement and his own subjective understanding of Bible ideas.
I want to point out the Venn Diagram being used. He assumes that “all things bible” are necessarily “all things Calvin-ism” UNTIL he is confronted with a doctrine that does not square with his “All things bible” subjective interpretation.
As soon as that happens he packs John Calvin’s specific doctrine into a box and disavows it with impunity insisting that John Calvin doesn’t not interpret the bible for HIM.
(They are independent thinkers after all excelling in reason and logic applied to the ‘objective’ word of God)
Notice that (Eli or Randy) honestly do not understand the criticisms because he equates what HE believes with PURE bible faith. And all interpretive failures are always the product of OUR failed perception.
This Venn Diagram Two-Step gives Neo Calvinists enormous argumentative power because they can frame their subjective understanding as THE doctrinal plumb line. They are never accountable to the SPECIFIC nuttiness in Augustine, Luther or Calvin’s doctrine all the while insisting that their (subjective) doctrine is Orthodoxy. With the wave of a magic wand they can say with a straight face: “But I don’t believe that???!!!” but maintain the “authority” of the “word of God.”
This is not mere sophistry. They absolutely mean to defend themselves with that subjective assertion. They see no contradiction or error or failing in this counter argument. They can only conclude that people’s perceptions must be flawed. It couldn’t possibly THEIR understanding because their understanding is consecrated by the God’s authority.
And now you can understand why Eli (or Randy) seems so mystified by being so “misrepresented” by our criticisms. He is picking and choosing which part of the Venn Diagram he wants to stand in. Or maybe better said he is removing any part of Calvinist doctrine from the Diagram that does not square with HIS subjective “all things Bible” superiority.
And that is why I insist that the three questions that must be answered FIRST before any conversation can be had with a self-declared Reformed Theology aficionado:
1. Is this a Primacy of Consciousness or a Primacy of Existence World?
2. Do you believe that Man’s reason and logic are fully effective to understand Truth?
3. Will you be defending Orthodoxy or are you debating your subjective understanding of orthodoxy?
LikeLike
“I don’t care whether you read it or not. It is sent for you to see. If you ignore it that is up to you. One reason Calvinists may be angry is that Paul and others continue to misrepresent our views. I don’t think it is too much to ask to be fairly represented”
1. Ok, send all you want.
2. Calvinists have been historically “angry”. It seems to be a by product of the doctrine. Read Calvin’s letters. My favorite part of Calvinism is they goad people then react like victims when people respond in a manner they do not like. It is like dealing with children.
3. No one can ever fairly represent Calvinism to a Calvinist. It is impossible because that is their response to seeing their own beliefs and the natural results of those beliefs in black and white. If I had a dollar for every Calvinist/YRR/Neo Reformed who told me I did not represent their beliefs fairly (even when I quoted them!) I would be rich. I have come to the conclusion they live in bubbles and are not challenged enough on their beliefs. Too many gurus telling them what to think and believe.
“You told me you are not an Arminian, [though I am not sure where that puts you] and I have not continued to misrepresent your views.”
Those are the choices? Calvin or Arminius? Do you not see the problem with that thinking? Of course you don’t because your world operates in those two paradigms.
“It is just not that difficult to provide actual quotations in context that show exactly what a person or persons believe. Interact with what people say or write, not what you perceive them as saying.”
See number 3 above.
LikeLike
“Calvinists must use this kind of argumentative subterfuge to sever the causal relationship between doctrine and action. Because the moment the case is made that there is an iron clad relationship between doctrine and action the whole Reformed Construct comes crashing down on the Neo Calvinists aficionados heads.”
Bingo! Their doctrine only works if you accept the dualism. But the reality is it is actually moral chaos. And who gets to fill the void in moral chaos? So it goes, the Puritan leaders were “godly men” because they believed right things (according to Cals) so their behavior becomes a “man of his time” rationality and is excused or never mentioned. Mostly never mentioned.
(Evil as good, good as evil)
But here is our problem. All actions come from thinking thoughts. We must think the thoughts to have the acts. We are not animals. It is even a “way” of thinking that is deep inside that we “act” a certain way when certain situation arise. Indians won’t sell us the land? We wipe them out. Women should not use anything for pain in labor? They are witches if they do. You disagree with leaders? You are banished into the wilds. You refute my writings, I will premeditate your murder if you come to my city.
Calvinists do not really believe this because they think it was all predestined. So no matter what they do as leaders who know best for others, it was predestined. It is a brilliant strategy
I have longed to really challenge all Calvinists to really think long and hard about the Holy Spirit and where the HS fits into their paradigm. In fact, the HS does not fit at all. History makes that evident.
Calvinism has a cruel, hateful history and it is rearing it’s ugly head again. The early Calvinists here in the West eventually went Unitarian or became social liberals…and for a good reason. I still think the Founding Fathers had guys like Calvin and Kings who used religion for their political aims in mind when they wrote the Constitution.
LikeLike
“The loose logic goes: “how you can criticize the conduct of the Puritans if your character is no better?”
(This is a CJ Mahaney argument 101) ”
Yep, this fits in with the “all sins are the same” paradigm. That is how Mahaney made the victims of molestations on par with the molesters. We are all sinners, right? They teach this is how God views sin. My sin of having a bad thought is the same as the sin of molesting a child –to God. We are all sinners so shut up. Problem is, they don’t really practice this as the most heinous sin to them is disagreeing with them publicly.
MORAL CHAOS. Sorry but their belief system is nothing but moral chaos. Period. Even the Atheists I have known and worked with over the years have more moral clarity than most Calvinists I know.
LikeLike
“Well remember, in his view, the truth is always outside of us. So the evil we commit has nothing to do with us, you know, if we have the correct “doctrine”. Dualism.
Here is your example of it.”
Boom. Please let the discerning reader see this. Note in all of history where murder, rape and all other kinds of atrocities were committed in the name of Christianity it has always supposedly been by those who held “correct doctrine” but just weren’t as “enlightened” as we are now as to the value of persons.
BULLCRAP. You cannot have the correct “doctrine” of Christianity and committ heinous lawless acts. This is why New Calvinism WILL lead to “christians” murdering “Christians” in the name of god. Unless people act.”
One more thing to add to this thought- that you cannot agree with the doctrinal soundness of your “forefathers” while at the same time condemning their acts- the following passage from the Bible:
Matthew 23:29
29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Because you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.’
31 “Therefore you are witnesses against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers’ guilt. 33 Serpents, brood of vipers! How can you escape the condemnation of hell? 34 Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, 35 that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
LikeLike
“This is not mere sophistry. They absolutely mean to defend themselves with that subjective assertion. They see no contradiction or error or failing in this counter argument. They can only conclude that people’s perceptions must be flawed. It couldn’t possibly THEIR understanding because their understanding is consecrated by the God’s authority.”
The Venn diagram illustration is perfect for what happens when debating Calvinists. They move in and out of those categories with ease.
The problem for most non Calvinists is that they do not have the same type of thinking so when they are challenged that their perceptions are flawed they will, for a while, believe that until it becomes obvious that is not the case. Then they match the Cals boldness and are accused of being hateful. The Cals play the victim card with an ease that astounds me for grown men.
Blogging has not been good for the Calvinist cause. It is outing them faster than anything else could have before. That is why you will rarely EVER see a Calvinist celebrity guru have informal debates where the other side is treated equally.
LikeLike
John,
That was awesome. I love it when you write like that. LOL! You are my favorite intellectual reprobate and “instigator of the people”.
LikeLike
Thanks Argo, That is much appreciated. I love being an intellectual reprobate and an instigator of the people.
However, I would like to revise and extend my remarks. As I was driving home after I posted the previous comment I realized that I didn’t really explain the significant distinction between Primacy of Consciousness vs Primacy of Existence and why that is important in the conversation with Eli (or Randy) and the whole of the Neo Calvinist world.
The Primacy of Consciousness says that it is a “consciousness” that is the plumb line of existence which means it is the plumb line of reality. All reality is interpreted and understood by the dictates of this universal consciousness.
So for example Plato said the consciousness is the FORMS casting its long shadow over this world of matter. Hegel said the consciousness is the State casting the collective mind (the state group think) over individuals within its borders. And Augustine said that the Prime Consciousness is God. In the modern age the sub variation of this metaphysics is seen in the Neo Calvinist’s “Cross Story.” (Paul detailed this in the conference.) This is a primacy of consciousness hermeneutic: i.e reality is only understood from a Cross centered mind, which means that God demands that all reality be interpreted through the cross.
Of course the million dollar question is WHOSE consciousness is the prime one?
And here is where world history gets bloody because man MUST fight over is “Whose consciousness is the ruling conscious?”
This of course cannot be answered because by definition Primacy of Consciousness means primacy of the subjective. It is a (singular) consciousness that is in charge of all reality . . . its meaning and purpose and causation. All other minds are necessarily competitors/interlopers on that consciousness.
With this introduction you can more clearly see how eli (Or Randy) function in these arguments. At the root of their presumption is the Primacy of Consciousness. Like Augustine they assume that God’s mind is the defining consciousness. But here is the important part: THEIR mind is in agreement with God. They presume that their “bible” understanding is synonymous with God’s understanding. They are predestined to believe correct doctrine therefore their doctrine is correct. Maybe they wouldn’t describe it so bluntly, but at the root of their presumption is that their thinking = God’s thinking.
So they recognize no inconsistency in their “thinking” because they are not rationalizing a systemic doctrine. They are absorbing (for lack of a better word) the “emanations” from the Prime Consciousness. This is why John MacArthur can, with a straight face, preach mutually exclusive ideas. If there is a conflict, the prime consciousness trumps logic (reason) and the inconsistency is merely punted into the great mystery of the universe.
This is why they are so mystified by our criticisms. In their mind we are criticizing God. How could we dare be so brazen?
And this is why they are so cavalier about atrocities committed by Calvin or the Puritans or any modern day Reformed Theology preacher. At best, those atrocities are aberrations committed by men who are not in harmony with the Prime Conciseness and at worst the “atrocities” are merely the manifestation of the Good intentions of the Prime Consciousness and not really bad things but events confined to the great mysteries of the universe.
Now of course, you can understand why this Metaphysical presumption causes all manner of disaster. Man has no way to interact with reality let alone interact with other men. So he spends his existence in endless warfare to capture the reins of government for the express purpose of dictating the Prime consciousness.
By contrast the Primacy of Existence affirms that the plumb line of reality is existence. This of course requires that Man can perceptually grasp reality (the senses) and conceptually process reality (Reason) to integrate his life successfully within his environment. This makes Reality objective and fully attainable by any man who chooses to engage his faculties.
So when you challenge doctrinal inconsistencies from men like John MacArthur or Eli (or Randy) or the host of other Neo Calvinists based on Reason and logic you are quite literally talking a foreign language. When you demand that they respect the Law of Identity, the Law of the Excluded Middle, or the Law of Non-Contradiction you are demanding they subordinate the Prime consciousness. This they can NEVER do.
This is the reason all conversations with Neo Calvinists fail.
And now you can understand why the first question is:
1. Is this a Primacy of Consciousness or a Primacy of Existence World?
LikeLike
Lydia said: Then they match the Cals boldness and are accused of being hateful. The Cals play the victim card with an ease that astounds me for grown men.
That is so true. How the heck do they become victims in a blink of an eye?
LikeLike
Lydia Said: “MORAL CHAOS. Sorry but their belief system is nothing but moral chaos. Period. Even the Atheists I have known and worked with over the years have more moral clarity than most Calvinists I know.
Abso-freaking-lutely! utter moral chaos … The root doctrines destroy moral clarity because they ultimately destroy morality as such.
But hey, if they can keep their joint in their pants and their hands out of the church coffers who cares about burning women at the stake. They are paragons of virtue.
LikeLike