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 
OK, I have answered your questions. Will you now post the earlier comments?
LikeLike
No.
LikeLike
Here, this is as close as I can come to the Holy Spirit’s “mission statement”.
“When He is come, He will
reprove(or convict) THE WORLD of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.”
Oops, I forgot, the Holy Spirit can’t convict the unregenerate according to you…
LikeLike
“They taught that ANY, that’s “ANY” work of Christ INSIDE of us at any time “imperils the soul.” Stop playing word games.”
and where did anyone teach this?
LikeLike
My conference notes are posted. read them or shut up.
LikeLike
The question was not the Puritans’ character but whether what they wrote was true or not. I am waiting on your statement of the trinity and unity of the Godhead since your character is so stellar.
LikeLike
LOL! Classic. Keep it coming, it speaks for itself.
LikeLike
Randy,
Perhaps some Calvinist would like to come here and disavow you as being representative of them. I mean, you really don’t get it do you? Because you can’t see us, doesn’t mean we can’t see you. Randy, like, everyone here knows that you are not even using your real name, but you will actually make the above statement. Am I here right now?
LikeLike
And of course we get around to the Trinitarian doctrine: The ultimate black whole of doctrinal “absolutes.”
I touched on this issue as a keystone of “orthodoxy” in Blight in the Vineyard. (available on Amazon and Barns and Nobel)
Excerpt:
How do we know what defines orthodoxy?
What if I told you that the Nicene Council’s quest for absolute, definitive irrefutability took over fifty years?
A curious reality if I was a “clear” absolute. What if I told you that the “absolute” view—the current definition of Trinity that everyone who is “anyone” believes now—was nonexistent for most of the preceding two hundred fifty years? What if I told you that the fight was a politically motivated fuss that turned on the Emperor’s decree that called opposing positions demented and insane?
What if I told you that the shared nature of God and Jesus—was Jesus of the same homoousios as the Father—required the metaphysical framework of Aristotle and the philosophical instruction of Plotinus Neo-Platonism?(1)
What if I told you the word homoousios is nowhere in Hebraic Canon or Christian 1st and 2nd century authoritative writings; indeed was expressly condemned for its Gnostic connotations as heretical by a council of Antioch Bishops in 268 AD?
What if I told you that the “winning” side of the argument knew full well this was an entirely pagan concept but used it anyway to galvanize ecumenical support for their political position and save their state-paid jobs?
1 (Source in foot note: Richard Patrick Crosland Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (London: Continuum, 1988). See discussion starting p. 856, “The Influences of Philosophy.”)
END
. . .
. . .
. . .
Nailing down the elements of this part of Christian history is a huge challenge because modern research into the background material sources and key figures are just now starting to mature out from under the historic threat of governing powers who refused critical review.
But if you want some truly disturbing reading, might I recommend the totality of Hanson’s work. It is a beast, so pack a lunch. Hanson’s work is a great place to start because it is such a broad attempt to evaluate the scope of the issues from 318 to roughly 400 AD. However, the scholarship continues to emerge, expanding our understanding of the driving forces of Christianity’s early intellectual history.
Richard Hanson’s work is one of the most exhaustive studies of the Trinitarian fight. And it was a fight on par with any Islamic Jihad and I suspect if modern Christians made any effort to understand the history they would make a concerted effort to distance themselves from pretty much any conclusions coming out of that time.
LikeLike
“The question was not the Puritans’ character but whether what they wrote was true or not.”
I sure hope this entire comment section is preserved for all time to come.
LikeLike
Incidently, ask freegracefull what his real name is. at times it is drew if I am not mistaken.
LikeLike
Randy, please, this isn’t even fun anymore. Please retain some dignity for yourself and go away.
LikeLike
Randy, I have 2 wordpress accounts, OK? It is as simple as that. Never denied anything. Just am computer illiterate. I got rid of the other one.
LikeLike
Paul,
I am not here for your entertainment. I have told you before, I will keep correcting you until you stop lying about us. Disagree with what we truly believe all you want and you have my promise that I will never bother you or yours again. You are so boring that I would never come here for any other reason. Just stop lying and I will be gone for good.
LikeLike
A. It would be funny but for the human carnage that this doctrine produces.
B. Honored by your accusations.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
It’s the gift that just keeps giving.
LikeLike