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 
Hey Randy… er… eligido. If you believe such things as you have described on both my blog and Pauls, then please stop calling yourself a calvinist. We don’t have to call ourselves anything. It only puts our beliefs and God in a theological box of our own making, and He certainly does not belong there. If you call yourself a calvinist, you are defining your beliefs through the man Calvin just as surely as if I call myself a “Darbyite” I am defining myself through the man Darby.
LikeLike
Free,
I am simply incredulous that he would show his face here after the “Calvinists don’t believe what Calvin believed” laugher.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that. I was only attmepting to illustrate the fact that despite the enemy’s attempt to accuse us, we are still righteous; not because Christ perfoms a continuous act on our behalf, but simply becaue God declared us so when we believed. There is no need to maintain something that already is.
LikeLike
Andy,
Right, right, I didn’t misunderstand you. I know you were pointing out one of the applications of that text as opposed to what I stated. No apology needed, I was contrasting the antithesis.
LikeLike
eligido,
I was being funny with the Heidelburg 100 comment …. my point was you were saying that faith alone was a 101 level class, I was saying that this class was prerequisite to understanding Luther’s faith alone doctrine.
The actual event is called the Heidelburg Disputation. It occurred on April 26th 1518
Here are the notes for what Luther argued. I don’t think this is the full transcript.
http://bookofconcord.org/heidelberg.php
This is hardly the full scope of Luther’s doctrine but it goes to what Paul and myself are arguing. Notice at the editors note at the very beginning on the distinction between “theology of Glory” vs the “theology of the cross.”
This is a summation of the essential distinction that anything that happens WITHIN man is necessarily for the “glory of man” anything that happens OUTSIDE man is necessarily for the glory of God.
Pretty much Luther proof texts this distinction through out the disputation.
LikeLike
John,
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Hmmmm, does this end the argument better than Free’s comment?
LikeLike
I don’t recall referring to myself as a Calvinist. As to Calvinists not believing what Calvin believed, I think whoever said it is right depending on how one defines Calvinism. There are different groups of people who would be included in what is known as “Calvinists.” Clearly those who are Baptists don’t believe all that Calvin believed. If we did, we would not be Calvinists. Generally, the term “Calvinists” refers to those who are in general agreement with the Canons of Dort.
LikeLike
John I, I have to go for now, but I intend to challenge your contention that Calvin denied the work of regeneration in believers.
LikeLike
eli,
Don’t bother–I won’t post it because the Reformers used/use a lot of “in you” and “in us” statements that don’t mean “in you” and “in us.” It’s “in you” and “in us” BY faith.
“Faith” only has reality in the object of the faith which is “Christ OUTSIDE of us.” Calvin believed faith was an empty vessel that had no value or dignity. Its focus outside of us is where all the value is (CI 3.11.7). In other words, our faith is a valueless anthropomorphic mental ascent to an object outside of us.
Be sure of this: your parroting of Calvin’s Gnostic bulldung will not be posted here.
LikeLike
Again Randy, you put your theology and God in a box. This time the box is the Canons of Dort. What a nice, neat tidy way to explain the unexplainable. They are a miserable failure. Every attempt of man to “canonize” or “confess” the ways of God is a miserable failure. God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, period. I suggest you read again the Mackintosh article I posted on my blog. Every attempt we make to hem God in is laughable.
LikeLike
And, by your own admission, according to your profile, you “love” the Reformed doctrine of salvation. Which is TULIP. I hope readers of this blog can see the absolute futility in all of this.
LikeLike
“Generally, the term “Calvinists” refers to those who are in general agreement with the Canons of Dort.”
All hail subjectivism!
This is exactly the intellectual gerrymandering I was talking about. And why I contend that the endless preoccupation with Orthodoxy is all a massive shell game and why I said you are repeating a doctrinal conclusion that occurred later.
This is why Orthodoxy is a myth. The definition moves by centuries depending on the argument of the moment…
which really means the roots of Reformation theology is utter subjectivism.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is exactly what the catholic church said would be the fruit of protestant-ism.
So, uh… maybe we should all become catholic right?
>snicker<
LikeLike
Well John, my studies have taught me the following and I counsel people accordingly and I am not being sarcastic: If we are talking formal church, it doesn’t matter; go where you want, Catholic or otherwise–there is no fundamental difference. Seriously, if I was going back to the formal church, I would probably do Catholic. Their buildings are really cool and I like the pomp and circumstance. Like most Baptist churches you don’t need your Bible, and confession or absolution at the alter call–what’s the difference?
LikeLike
Andy,
He entered once but still appears in God’s presence for us. He is applying his once for all finished work, just as the high priest of Israel both offered sacrifice and presented the sacrifical blood on the mercy seat. His work of sacrifice is finished but his work as intercessor is not.
LikeLike
Ele,
The intercession was the sprinkling of blood. You are saying that Christ continues to apply His death. The point the Hebrew writer was making is that no more intercession is needed because Christ is not like the former Priests who died and had to be replaced and had to apply continual intercessions. Christ’s intercession is eternal because of His life. The Hebrews were being tempted to go back to the Old Covenant and the Hebrew writer is contrasting the two covenants. You are making the “intercession” synonymous with the need for perpetual atonement. We are forever justified because of Christ’s life which makes the onetime intercession eternal.
LikeLike
freegraceful,
If you are referring to gracewriterrandy at http://www.truthunchanging.wordpress.com, I am honored that you would mistake me for him. He and I are very close and I have profited from his blog.
I don’t know how you think the Canons of Dort put God in a box. They are simply answering the arguments of the Arminians re:these points of soteriology. Like Randy, I am in general agreement with these statements, but I am not bound by them or any other creed or confession. Where they conform to the truth of Scripture, I follow them. If they depart from Scripture I abandon them.
By the way, you follow perhaps one of the most logical systems of theology ever devised. Given the presuppositions of Dispensationalism, you conclusions are iron-clad. The problem is, you begin with faulty presuppositions.
LikeLike
Randy,
I posted this to show what a lying Reformed maggot you are. And do you really think I don’t know how to get around anonymous proxies? Furthermore, I told you I wasn’t going to post Calvin’s Gnostic routine on the whole “in us” thing. Those comments are out as promised.
LikeLike