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 
“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.”
Well this becomes a huge problem when your foundational premise is that man has no volition (unless he is one of the enlightened ones, of course, with one of the few decoder rings). A totally depraved worm cannot grasp reality. (wink)
Look guys, I am past the point of seeking any sort of unity with this doctrine like the SBC is falsely seeking while letting Al Mohler off the hook for the havoc he has wrecked over the last 8 years or so. I cannot have unity with people who are “saved” yet remain depraved worms and think all sins are the same so molesters and victims are in the same sin category. Who think the 1st Amendment covers pastors who protect molesters! Who encourage young men to deceive the very churches (because they are ignorant pew sitters) they expect to pay them!
Seriously, have so many leaders lost their “collective” minds in the SBC? Am I seeing “prestige” win out over basic rational thinking? I think so. Or perhaps it is more about 401k’s at Guidestone.
LikeLike
John,
Interesting. You know, I was thinking and thinking this weekend, diligently working on my “theory of everything”, which I pretty much have down I think LOL! And this question struck me…stemming partly from your discussion on the senses at the conference.
If God possesses no senses, then how does He “see” to rationalize anything? Presumably senses require a body, but then what is God’s “body”, and how does the notion of a body with sense perception square with an infinite I Am? Meaning, if God doesn’t possess senses in the same way man does, then it is impossible to see anything beyond Himself. It is impossible for Him to reason because there is nothing external to Himself that He must conceptually organize.
And if we concede then that God must have senses, we must concede that sense perception prior to reason is necessary. Which makes the validity of the senses a requirement for all manner of wisdom and truth even for God. The point is that if man’s senses are insufficient for apprehending the world, what is the rational argument for declaring that God’s senses are SUFFICIENT for apprehending the SAME world?
I believe that God must sense in exactly the same way man senses. I find no rational argument to the contrary.
LikeLike
Lydia said: “Look guys, I am past the point of seeking any sort of unity with this doctrine like the SBC is falsely seeking while letting Al Mohler off the hook for the havoc he has wrecked over the last 8 years or so. I cannot have unity with people who are “saved” yet remain depraved worms and think all sins are the same so molesters and victims are in the same sin category. ”
Thank you Lydia… we are of the exact same mind. This is not about unity. This is about defeating a construct that utterly enslaves man to death and destruction.
I recently answered a Calvinist on this subject like this ….
Gary Mable said: “We owe it to each other not to impugn bad motives on each other just because we interpret Scripture differently.
Actually no! We owe it to ourselves to condemn philosophical subjectivism with impunity. The insidious tide of modern pragmatism has so corrupted our will to condemn that which is evil that we are sucked into the vortex of “lukewarm debate.”
Evil is the only thing that wins when those holding all the cards in an objective conflict choose to allow subjectivism to make a claim to being “reasonable.” Calvinism is not REASONABLE it is DICTATORIAL. And people who demand the right to subjective license are not reasonable. They can only pose as reasonable when we concede their whimsy and ” . . . allow each person to define what he believes.”
I do not have a unity of mind or spirit with any man proclaiming the roots of the Reformed construct.
I am out to defeat the core of this ideology because it is the most destructive body of thought every perpetrated on human existence.
Furthermore it is a profound conceit to preach evil and then demand that I censor myself in the name of brotherly love.
I will not do it.
This is not one big misunderstanding where a few people are merely misled. The history and outworking of this doctrine is available for anyone who will actually look. And if you can LOOK and still cling to Reformation orthodoxy then we are not brothers. And your willful blindness exempts you from ever receiving my moral absolution.
I value my judgment, my values, my objective rational faculties far, far, far too much to let such disgusting pragmatism infect my life. And I exhort everyone to do the same.
Throw off the subjectivity and pragmatism that is foisted upon your unsuspecting souls by those staking a claim to reason and denounce evil for the evil it is.
LikeLike
“I value my judgment, my values, my objective rational faculties far, far, far too much to let such disgusting pragmatism infect my life. And I exhort everyone to do the same.”
This is what I regret the most. Setting aside my own sound judgment and values to “believe the best”. Thankfully, that did not last long!
I really liked your description of us being “contractual beings”. That really sums it up nicely.
LikeLike
Oh, happy day reading and savoring sweet, juicy watermelon. I love summer, don’t you? Connected with baseballs 75-80 MPH at the batting cage & it felt super good. Thanks to Dad for my love of baseball. 🙂
I echo Argo… John Immel and Lydia duo on Paul’s blog is thrilling. What a treat. I am accumulating summer reads, nice. John Immel, please grind away at the mill, hungry thinkers abound out here! Lydia and Paul, keep warning!
Randy quasi Eligido, a question. Who will go to the judge and say I believe in man’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, after committing murder? Do we applaud and say this man knew God or do we call him a fraud? 1 John 2:3-6 (ESV again) 3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
Argo, I’ve been thinking about your physical posts. Calvinists want to divorce thinking from the physical. Body, flesh, physical, actions – they do not care. Flesh is bad, it’s meant to suffer, so what. Abuse does not matter. The only thing that matters for both the abuser and abused is to get the thinking right, and if your thinking and giving don’t match up with these leaders, you are in trouble. As history consistently proves, the theology/orthodoxy is wrong to being with. Calvin ruled as a dictator against man’s pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
Lydia said, “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.” Yes, they are experts at twisting the truth. The lines are so blurred for them that it is all grey area for them to manipulate for personal gain, while telling you it is all meant to be, ordered by God. This is pure evil. I fear for them. May their victims find truth, comfort and healing here.
John Immel said, “Calvinists must use this kind of argumentative subterfuge to sever the causal relationship between doctrine and action.” Yes! In order for a Calvinist to make sense, you must tie reality and ability to reason behind your back.
Many reformed run Bible verses about helping others through their “only if they’re a member in good standing in my church” interpretation. You’ll know them by their indifference.
John Immel said, “Furthermore it is a profound conceit to preach evil and then demand that I censor myself in the name of brotherly love. I will not do it.” Wow! We no longer want for real men and real women. Where are they? The heros are here. Thank you!
Randy quasi Eligido, I am interested in your comments & posts, if you have made any anywhere, regarding the lawsuit against SMG. And can you provide the links? Also, I would like to know what you think about these Calvinist leaders: John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson, CJ, Tullian T, James MacDonald.
Anyone else curious if he will answer these questions? Will it be his last answer… Eligido said, “I am not suggesting that character doesn’t matter. Of course it does. However, it doesn’t affect the truth of falsehood of a statement. Truth is truth, even on the lips of a fraud.” So… does he think these men are frauds, just like he said Calvin himself is? Anyone see a pattern here? Eligido, you admit to believing in the doctrines of a man you called a fraud. That is not rational. Untie the chains that bind your reality and reason and come out from among them, Randy et all.
LikeLike
Please allow me to respond to these unjust accusations.
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
Hey Argo,
“If God possesses no senses, then how does He “see” to rationalize anything?”
Actually this is exactly the right question. At the conference you will remember that I discussed the Sophists leading attack on the senses?
2) What you perceive also depends on the nature and condition of your sensory apparatus.
Examples:
• a color blind man and a normal man look at a tree and one says it is green the other says it is gray. Same object but different sensory outcomes.
• One man is sick the other healthy. They both eat pie. One says it tastes sweet the other says it tastes bitter.
• One man is in a hot tub and then gets sprayed with a water hose and he says “How cold.”
• Another man crawls out of the arctic ocean and gets sprayed with a water hose and says “How hot.”
And that they concluded that there is no TRUTH as such. There is only subjective experience.
• IF the senses are invalid THEN reality is unknowable.
• IF Reality is unknowable THEN reason is useless.
• IF reason is useless THEN Truth is unknowable.
The reason the Sophist/Skeptic argument was so compelling is because it is ultimately a refutation of consciousness qua consciousness. If the senses are invalid how does anything perceive reality? The answer is… it doesn’t. So if there is no sensory impute there is no consciousness as such. This would include ALL consciousness. There is no means to interact with even the most fundamental parts of existence.
Most people see the problem with this when expressed in “human” terms. But we have a hard to time figuring out how to deal with how this affects God’s consciousness. We wave our magic wands and exempt him from the metaphysical conundrum. The loose logic is that the material world is inferior (because it is finite) and so applying “senses” to God necessarily makes God finite. And we can’t have that because that would undercut our (totally made up) definition of the divine. If God is somehow quantifiable he must necessarily be limited. Unfortunately in the Christian pathology to defend an entirely made up doctrine makes us fall into a trap laid by our own zeal.
So I submit for God to “Perceive” he must necessarily have senses. Because all consciousness requires a means by which it interacts with reality. And since Christians believe we are created in the image of God, the answer to HOW this works is staring us in the mirror.
. . .
. . .
. . .
And for those of tempted to trip over your root assumption that God = infinity (AKA Onmi-xxx) I will point out that infinity is not an identity.
For those of you at the conference who will remember my discussion of the Zeno paradox. I touched on this issue briefly in the round table discussion when Zak was talking about and infinite depravity. The answer to Zeno is the same answer to this problem.
LikeLike
A Calvinist demanding to answer “Injustice” ??? What righteousness could you possibly have to be vindicated?
>Snicker<
LikeLike
Good call, Paul. The time for endless circular arguments is over.
LikeLike
A mom,
I live at ground zero and have had years to experience this movement, the doctrine and the fall out. I can promise you I seriously studied it and even flirted with it for a while. I did a ton of research from the historical roots of the Reformation to reading Calvin and the progression of this doctrine.
What I am hearing from people, who are not so immersed, is that they can discern something is wrong but cannot put their finger on it as these guys do not declare themselves Calvinists or even Reformed in most situations.. An example would be some friends from my daughter’s school who were invited to a neighborhood bible study. (Don’t let anyone fool you, the YRR target nice neighborhoods) After a few weeks, they knew something was off but could not define it. They just happened to mention it to me at a school function and I immediately knew it was YRR Calvinism. This gave them something to research and study. They were not amused.
And there is the problem. they are not upfront and people who don’t immediately buy it feel deceived. It is like that everywhere here in Christian circles. And it is wrecking churches. One YRR guy who spoke out loud what some of us already knew said: If the people are too ignorant to ask me the right questions about my doctrine before hiring me as a pastor, then it is their fault. So, he expected them to pay him without being upfront about his doctrine even though a seminary his church has supported recommended him. He trampled on their love, trust and tolerance. He used them for his own means declaring it was for God. But, God’s economy does not operate this way.
This is right out of Reisinger’s book, A Quiet Revolution, which is a handbook on how to take over a church and make it Reformed without people realizing it for a long time. It is a handbook on how to be a deceptive Christian leader. It is systematized evil masquerading as good.
The thinking in this book is so ingrained in that movement that most of the YRR have never even read it. They have been taught the principles in the book as course of life.
And you know what is scary? Most of these guys and their followers are so jaded they don’t even know this sort of behavior/thinking is wrong and even evil. It is their new normal. And that should be the scariest part of it for all of us.
God Bless you!
LikeLike