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 
And the definition of terms frames the reality of the debate. Are we talking about whether God does anything within the believer or about whether that work of God within the believer forms any part of the basis of the sinner’s justification. Look at Piper’s statement, ” When the ground of justification moves from Christ outside of us to the work of Christ inside of us, the gospel (and the human soul) is imperiled. It is an upside down gospel.” He does not at all deny that Christ works in us. He merely denies that that internal work is “the ground [basis] of justification.” Words mean things!
LikeLike
LOL. Around and around in circles it goes, where it stops…
I was jsut having a talk with a Lutheran here at work this morning. He does not believe in eternal security but says justification is “one and done”. So, I said: “If justification is one and done and you believe one can lose their salvation, what is it that keeps you justified if the work that justifies is already finished?” He didn’t answer because the question stumped him, so I suggested “the sacrements of the church or continual infusion of grace from the church?”
It took him a minute, and I could tell he was upset by the thought, but he answered “yes”. Reformed thought to a “t”. Salvation is by faith alone- go to their graves with this statement, but it’s not, it can’t be, there has to be more…
LikeLike
Free,
Excellent! You just ended the argument.
LikeLike
He didn’t end the argument. We are not talking about what ignorant Lutherans believe or don’t believe. We are discussing whether the believer’s baptism needs to recur over and over again. That was the issue of the post, right?
LikeLike
Paul,
If the basis of justification was Jesus’ death and that alone, was that inside of us or outside of us?
LikeLike
“The intercession refers to a permanent priesthood that only required one priest and one death. Read the text.” I’m sorry but I don’t understand what that statement has to do with the issue. Please explain.
LikeLike
What is the relationship between the boldness we are to have as we approach God’s throne and the fact that, based on his finished work of sacrifice, our high priest has passed through the visible heavens into God’s presence? Does his acceptance and presence there have anything to do with the boldness of our approach?
LikeLike
‘The intercession refers to a permanent priesthood that only required one priest and one death. Read the text.” Please tell me what that means.
LikeLike
John I,
Would you please post Heidelberg Con thesis 100 here so we can discuss it? I can’t find it.
LikeLike
eli,
Answer me this: did you read HD 10 in conjunction with John’s statement?
LikeLike
Christ’s role at the right hand of the Father is that of an advocate (1 John 2:1) because we have an enemy, Satan, operating as the accuser of the bretheren (Revelation 12:10). But Satan has no ground for his accusations because the Father has already declared the believer to be “not guilty”, delcared innocent from any accusations – his legal standing IS that of righteous. That is the definition of διχαιοω, the word rendered “justified”. Jesus our advocated ever counters the accuser’s arguments by testifying of the believer’s righteous standing. This is no offering afresh of the blood. Our High Priest entered into the Holiest ONCE. Hebrews 7:27, Hebrews 9:12.
LikeLike
Andy,
I agree that is part of it, but the Reformed idea that the advocacy is the perpetual imputation of Christ’s perfect obedience to our sanctification to maintain justification must be rejected–that is not the meaning behind that text.
LikeLike
Sigh… Sigh… and Sigh…
Since I reject the Platonist/Augustinian Primacy of Consciousness as the root definition of reality of course words mean things because words are the specific conceptual corollary necessary for man to describe reality.
So it follows that since this IS an Aristotelian, Primacy of Existence world, we are not discussing the “basis” of words we are discussing the “basis” of reality …
The reality under discussion is about what Augustine, Luther and Calvin taught. NOT your subjective understanding of biblical proof texts.
So parsing out trivial distinction between words like “Basis” or say “Foundation” or “underpinning” does not change the fact that you are advocating a distinction that Augustine, Luther, and Calvin did NOT make.
Actually more precisely stated. They specifically rejected your doctrinal summation: “Denying that God’s work in us is the basis of our justification, is not the same as denying that God works in us.”
They specifically taught that there is NO savific work INSIDE the believer EVER.
So, since words only mean things WHEN THEY ARE TIED TO REALITY you are faced with this choice: keep your subjective understanding of The Reformed tradition or abandon your subjective understanding to agree with Orthodoxy.
We await your decision.
. . .
Pssst Paul… he’ll never make the choice because that would undercut his “basis” for the authority to proof text the bible for his own subjective whim.
Alakazam poof! See how easy it is to defend “orthodoxy.” Viva la orthodoxy! Viva la Reformation!
>snicker<
LikeLike
LOL! I love it!
LikeLike