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 
I hope readers can see through Randy’s duplicity. He blatantly lies that he is not eligido, and then admits he is. And then makes accusations about character. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
LikeLike
The whole argument of the trinity could be avoided by simply denying it. It isn’t in the bible, and so it seems fairly irrelevant. What we know is that God is infinite and absolute. Thus, ANY attribute of God is by definition ALL God. You cannot have “part” God or “part” infinite. Any manifestation of God is God. Whether one, three or five, etc. His “finger” in Exodus is logically ALL God.
There is no trinity. Which is why it isn’t in the bible.
Finally, since God is infinite, you cannot logically ascribe any value (read: number) to Him. How can that which is infinite be given a value of three? It is not possible.
To me, trinity is border line blasphemous.
LikeLike
Argo,
Who is the “us” in Genesis.
LikeLike
Hi Paul,
Well…that isn’t the relevant question. The relevant question for my argument is what is the NUMBER of “us” in Genesis? That isn’t given, so it seems presumptuous to me for men to provide it.
Logically though, the “us” is the infinite “more than one” of an infinite absolute being. The point is that God may be an “us” but it is a human logical fallacy to decide that this must imply a set value/number.
God is ONE is merely the logical human translation of this idea of an infinite God. ONE isn’t a value in this sense, it is the idea that God is God is God. He is Himself. There can be no more or less value added to Him.
LikeLike
Why would’t the “us” be the 3 at Christ’s baptism by John?
LikeLike
I want to be clear that I am not denying that there is a Son, Father, Spirit. What I dispute is that this constitutes a “trinity” in the sense that these manifestations of God are the only attributes of God that can be declared God. Regardless of the manifestations of God revealed in the bible, there is never any mention (other than ONE, which is not really a value, but a metaphysical statement) of a numerical value given to God. This is not an oversight. It is because it is logically impossible to number that which is infinite by definition. And therefore It is presumptuous of man to declare that God is only three.
The bible never numbers God. So, given that? plus my sound logical argument, I find it hard to assume the trinity is somehow a TRUTH of God.
LikeLike
“We do believe that just as it was the Son’s mission during his humiliation to bring glory to the Father, it is now the Spirit’s mission to bring glory to the Son.”
This is one of those assumptions that sounds pious but has no real meaning. Jesus’ “mission” was to bring Glory to the Father? But isn’t Jesus, God? The Holy Spirit, God?. God is God. So bringing “Glory” to the Father is the same as bringing Glory to Himself.
(This is where the Hebrew understanding of the one true God was lost. Not modalism but the relationship within the Triune God)
I go back to Isaiah and see that the Sent One is also referred to as Everlasting Father AND Counselor. How can that be? Father and Holy Spirit? Then we see in John 5 the Pharisees were aghast that Jesus, by referring to Himself as the Son, was making Himself equal to God and they wanted to kill Him for it And where is God referred to consistently as the Father in the OT? I could go on and on.
Actually, the whole idea of all of what took place was to bring “Glory” is an assumption that is totally misused and meant to take humans totally out of the equation except for the ones who hold the secrets, of course, and tell us how to think.
It is just a form of sound bite Christianity that is meaningless when analyzed. Piper is full of this sort of thing.
LikeLike
Argo’s Universal Truth Number 6:
That which is a direct function of an absolute IS the absolute. There is no logical difference.
LikeLike
key part:
that God may be all in all.”
LikeLike
Lydia,
Be sure to let me know how John’s presentations flow together with the videos and illustrations. Looking for anything that would take away from the material.
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…””
EXACTLY!!! Those who will be convicted have already been chosen so the work of the Holy Spirit was done before the foundation of the world. Which is why the whole convo is MOOT with a Calvinist since man has no input at all. They cannot be “convicted” except by force and that was done before Adam sinned. It has all been determined. So why would Randy even be debating? What would be the point? It has all been determined. He knows truth and we are incapable of getting it. That was predetermined for us. We have no volition, remember?
What is missing in Calvinism? LOVE. There is NO love relationship within the Triune God nor between God and man. It is all force. How do they get around this? They redefine the word “love”.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Thanks for coming–Randy flees when you show up every time.
LikeLike
Lydia is awesome and wicked smart.
LikeLike
“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…..
….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.”
Bingo! This is one of the problems I have with this love affair with the Reformation and refusal to acknowledge it was political!
Just what I have read over the last 10 years about the councils, translations, etc, was so politically motivated it is astounding. They made it up as they went using parts of Greek philosophy. Just one tiny example was Auggies position on the Donatists which turned into the doctrine of just war because he wanted them wiped out.
Anyone who gets their beliefs from these political creeds is actually hurting themselves and supporting a gnostic political approach to ‘what is truth’. It is uncanny!
We have been given the Holy Spirit for a reason. But what is so interesting is that people have been taught not to trust that. We have to be given information from other humans. It has to be validated by other humans. Sad.
LikeLike