The James MacDonald White Paper: Why JMac, Like All Authentic Calvinists, is a Liar; Post 18 of 20
“Why do you think these movements are so flush with cash and mindless followers? What would you pay for your eternal salvation?”
By all appearances to the average parishioner walking into one of James MacDonald’s Harvest Bible Chapel campuses, there is a vibrant ministry going on. While one marvels at the ability of false teachers like JMac to create such illusions that draw people in, it shouldn’t surprise us because the apostle Paul likened the false teacher’s ability to do so to that of Satan’s ability to present himself as an angel of light.
Many of the lies that create this illusion at Harvest Bible Chapel could be discussed, but let’s discuss one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith: baptism. In the HBC statement of faith, we read the following in regard to baptism:
Baptism and communion are the two ordinances required in the church. We believe that Christian baptism by immersion in water is a public identification with Jesus Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. Although baptism is not required for salvation, it is commanded of all believers and is for believers only (Matthew 28:19-20; Acts 2:38, 41; Acts 18:8). Scripture shows that a person was baptized after personally receiving forgiveness of sin through accepting Jesus Christ. The waters of baptism are a symbol of our death, burial, and resurrection to newness of life that happens when we become new creations in Christ (Colossians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:1-4).
The problem is with the following:
The waters of baptism are a symbol of our death, burial, and resurrection to newness of life that happens when we become new creations in Christ (Colossians 2:12; 2 Corinthians 5:17; Romans 6:1-4).
This is a lie and James MacDonald knows grade-A-well it’s a lie. Like all authentic Calvinists, he does not believe that the “born again” Christian changes. Like all cultists, he redefines the language for the sake of those who need him (in his mind), but are not ready for the hard truth of the “scandalous” gospel (pronounced like “gaaawwwwwssssffful “among New Calvinists).
The statement will invoke a nod of approval from those vetting the doctrinal statement, but if they fall for it, the Reformed mainstay of the total depravity of the saints will be slowly assimilated into their mindset. For a long time, every time JMac speaks of their depravity, they will assume he is talking about the former unregenerate state. Finally, after months of being taught salvation minus Christian walk, or Christian walk in a salvation context, all that is left is salvation.
The goal is now achieved: the parishioners function according to the Reformed manifesto; the same gospel that saved us must be continually revisited in order to keep ourselves saved. Calvin wanted to invent an easy way to work for your salvation.
So, how do we revisit that gospel? Well, how were you saved? Answer: by repenting of my sinfulness and believing in what Jesus did on the cross, not anything we do. “Jesus’ doing and dying.” Right. Now you keep doing that to keep yourself saved. If you “go beyond the gospel,” ie., your doing versus Jesus’ doing and dying; ie., doing anything as a Christian other than revisiting the gospel circumvents Jesus’ dying, you lose your lifeline.
Now, if you are no longer a sinner, if you are no longer just declared righteous, but actually are righteous, that’s a problem, because there is no longer a need for a gospel salvific repentance. Now there is a family repentance that regards intimacy, and the repentance unto salvation is no longer needed.
That’s a huge problem for cultic Calvinism, because Calvin believed that the necessary perpetual salvific repentance needed to keep ourselves saved can only be found in the institutional church, and administered by anointed elders. The JMac gospel is a resalvation that can only be found in the institutional church (the “vertical” church) via the elders. Eventually, many function according to this doctrine though they would deny it intellectually. Why do you think these movements are so flush with cash and mindless followers? What would you pay for your eternal salvation?
“But Paul, isn’t it true that we still sin?” This question is indicative of Calvin’s brilliance and his ability to formulate a doctrine that executed his desired outcome: a theologically dumbed-down mass of humanity that could be easily controlled by the clergy. The very fact that Christians fall for this rhetorical question en mass is evidence that the goal of the Reformers was achieved: theological illiteracy. Lack of knowledge is key to controlling the masses.
The biblical answer to this “rhetorical” question follows:
1. The law is eliminated in regard to judging our righteousness. Yes, we still sin, but it is not sin that can be judged by the law’s relationship to salvation. We are no longer under judgment. The law now informs our Christian living. It is our guide for living a wise Christian life. It is not a guide for showing us that we “never outgrow our need for the gospel.” We simply no longer need forgiveness for sin that does not meet the law’s demand for perfection in regard to salvation—in that regard, the law has been abolished. In Calvinism, the law is still the standard for our salvation, so we must be newly forgiven daily via the same gospel that saved us. Calvin was clear on this: sin in the Christian life separates us from grace. That’s why we need the gospel every day. And that gospel forgiveness can only be found in the institutional church. He called this, “the power of the keys.”
2. We now love the law and the truth. That is evidence that we are in fact new creatures practically, and not just positionally. The Reformed redefinition of loving God’s law entails loving it because it shows our deeper and deeper need for the same gospel that saved us because we are still unchanged sinners.
3. In contrast to JMac’s infamous blog post about quitting in regard to “fixing people,” the Bible teaches that we can be progressively fixed through the wisdom and instruction of God’s word. As new creatures, we can live the very definition of biblical sanctification which is, “learning to control your own bodies.”
Why would JMac boldly, and publically resign from “fixing people”?
That’s a rhetorical question.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 3: Nobody Home at the House of Alistair
The following email was sent to Alistair Begg’s staff, and elders at Parkside church (Begg’s contact info is unavailable). I just want to know why respected leaders are participating in a conference that propagates a doctrine that is completely unorthodox from A to Z. Because they believe in it also? Don’t know, my 20-something email’s to Parkside were ignored. Maybe I will have more luck with the house of McDonald. Nevertheless, even though it is in regard to the Truth that these guys supposedly care so much about—it’s only my job to ask.
Greetings,
Your senior Pastor is a featured speaker at the upcoming Gospel Coalition national conference in Chicago. Since TGC promotes Gospel Sanctification / Sonship Theology / Gospel-Centered Sanctification, and as others state it: “sanctification by justification” or “sanctification by faith alone,” does this now mean that your church promotes this doctrine?
This doctrine had its fundamental beginning in the late 70’s or early 80’s and was originally known as Sonship Theology. The doctrine was devised by noted professors at Westminster Theological Seminary and promoted by others that were mentored by them; namely, Tim Keller, who has taught the doctrine on numerous occasions by that same name, and David Powlison. Both are also speaking at the 2011 TGC conference. Others at the conference such as Darrin Patrick promote the doctrine and often quote the former Westminster professor who apparently invented it, John (“Jack”) Miller.
The doctrine has been decried by several notable evangelicals such as Jason Hood and Dr. Jay E. Adams. Adams wrote a book in contention against the doctrine in 1996. Eastwood Presbyterian Church of Montgomery, Alabama issued a formal statement against the doctrine in 2008. In that document, they cite a tenet that reveals its kinship to Gospel Sanctification; specifically, presenting the book of Galatians as a Pauline treatise against effort or works in the sanctification process. Also, another tenet of this doctrine is the belief that the Bible is exclusively defined by justification only. And in fact, this is the thesis of the TGC 2011 conference theme. It is also my contention that the “Sonship” nomenclature was replaced with “gospel” because of the heavy fire that began to be directed at the Sonship label.
Since Alistair is, I believe, one of the keynote speakers at the conference, it begs the question: does he now endorse this doctrine? If not, why would he attend?
Thank you beforehand for your consideration and reply,
Paul M. Dohse Sr.
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
1 comment