In a sermon from the series  The Christian’s Duty in a Hostile World, John MacArthur connects two glorious truths: the centrality of Jesus’ resurrection and that “faith cannot be removed or detached from the realm of real life.”

It is no great surprise to me that I enjoyed Bob’s book so much,  or that he seems to be enjoying mine.  For while their subjects may seem disconnected at first glance, in reality they have everything to do with each other!

The truth that lies behind Bob’s view of both the individual’s need for transformation and the need for the church to impact society is well expressed by MacArthur:

Salvation is not just forgiveness for sins. Salvation is a new order of life . . . when we understand salvation in a biblical way, we must understand that salvation effects a whole transformation of life. It is not just the forgiveness of sins, it is the transformation of life.

MacArthur goes on to explain that our woeful neglect of the resurrection has led to a terrible misunderstanding:

You might be interested to know that as central as the cross is in Christianity, it was not really the central focus of the early church. The early church saw much more in salvation than just the moment at which Christ atoned for sins, the moment in which He died on the cross. The early church saw salvation in much broader terms than that. The early church saw salvation as something that only began with the forgiveness of sins and led to a life transformed into obedience and consummated in the glory with Jesus Christ. It is interesting that even history sort of reflects this. In his book, Civilization, author Kenneth Clark shows that the cross as such was a very late symbol in Christian art and Christian culture. When we think about Christianity, we think immediately about the cross as the symbol of our faith. You might be interested to know that as far as that book, Civilization, determined the first appearance of the cross in Christian art or culture occurred in A.D. 430, all the way into the fifth century, on the doors of the church at Santa Sobina(?) and that that cross was a very small little cross inset into some piece of Christian art.

The early church did not focus on the cross. The early church focused on what great event? The resurrection. It focused its attention on the resurrection. And consequently its preoccupation was not with the point at which sin is forgiven, but the point at which new life begins. And the resurrection is that point. We, of course, died in Christ spiritually and in that death the penalty of sin was paid. But we also arose in Christ, says Paul, to walk in newness of life. To be saved then to the early church, and surely to us as well, was not just to have your sin forgiven. It was not just some transaction which dealt with your guilt. But rather to be saved was to be delivered from the power of darkness and to be translated into the kingdom of God’s dear Son. In other words, it was to enter in to an entirely new kind of life, to enter into a new sphere of existence. Salvation is not just atonement. Salvation is not just forgiveness. Salvation is regeneration. It is transformation. It is the imparting of a new kind of life, the life of God in the soul of man.

Why do so few Christian preachers today grasp this fully?

But MacArthur doesn’t leave us there.  He goes on to explain that if life transformation has happened in you, then good works are the inevitable result.  As Bob Roberts likes to put it “We serve not to convert but because we are converted.”

MacArthur then explains that every single Christian has a unique contribution to make to the Kingdom effort.  I can almost hear Bob talking about using your job to connect to the nations:

So you have a special gift. It’s a combination of the colors, as it were, on the palette of giftedness that come together to make you unique and there’s nobody like you, absolutely no one like you . . . So you take that unique gift in a unique ministry with a unique effect with a measured amount of grace and a measured amount of faith and then you add your physical capabilities, your training, your background, your opportunities, your environment and all your influences and you function like nobody else…nobody else. That’s why there’s nobody to replace you if you don’t function. That’s the extent of spiritual gifts.

So there you have it: Because salvation is not only about forgiveness of sins but the start of a new life begun by the resurrection of Jesus, Christians have a duty in this world to spread that new life, not only by preaching but also by acts of kindness that stem from a transformed heart.

I can’t offer two conferences for the price of one, but I can—in one post—discuss two conferences which, for all the similarities of their names, do have some important differences. For a start, they are on opposite sides of the Atlantic, so booking into the wrong one would be a significant logistical headache! I am quite sure, however, that many will cross the “pond” to attend one of what I am calling the “Together” conferences. In fact. they don’t happen at the same time, so it is very possible for you to attend BOTH if you want to, as at least one blogger I know is considering!

Both conferences have one important thing in common—they are filling up FAST and expect to be sell-outs, having to turn people away. Hotel rooms are disappearing even more rapidly for both events. Since I have now firmly booked my own place on the second one (sadly I can’t make the first), I feel safe to remind you, my readers, that it is time to MOVE QUICKLY!

TOGETHER FOR THE GOSPEL (T4G)
Tuesday April 15 – Thursday April 17, 2008
Kentucky International Convention Center, Louisville, KY
BOOK HERE

TOGETHER ON A MISSION (TOAM)
Tuesday July 8 – Friday 11, 2008
Brighton Conference Centre, UK
BOOK HERE

No. 18 on the list of most-read posts on this blog appeared on August 27, 2007. At the Shepherd’s Conference earlier last year, John MacArthur underestimated the likely fury of non-dispensational Calvinists at being told they weren’t “really reformed.” This post was an extract from Kim Riddlebarger’s response, which was written several months later. Its popularity proves either that people are still interested in eschatology or that MacArthur bating should become the next Olympic sport. I am publishing the post here in its entirety, with Dr. Riddlebarger’s conclusion. Use the link below to read his full response.

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, senior pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, and visiting professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary, California has issued an article refuting John MacArthur’s extraordinary attack on Reformed amillennialists from earlier this year. If nothing else, it should convince you that amillennialism is consistent with being Reformed and having a high view of Scripture. Kim’s article is well worth reading in detail; here is his strong conclusion:

“Along with countless others, I am very grateful for John MacArthur’s bold and vocal defense of the Gospel. I am also grateful for his years of faithful service and willingness to tackle controversy in the evangelical church. But how I wish that Dr. MacArthur had chosen not to pick this fight. Sadly, he did.

This is hard to say, but in his lecture Dr. MacArthur set up and repeatedly attacked a straw man. His was a pyrrhic victory over a phantom foe.

If you are a dispensationalist, my plea is that you don’t repeat the arguments Dr. MacArthur used in this lecture. Disagree as you will, you do have the responsibility to accurately represent the Reformed amillennial position. Dr. MacArthur did not.

My suggestion is to read the books listed here (Click here: Riddleblog: The Latest Post—A Quick List of Amillennial Resources in Light of MacArthur’s Charges), and then after doing so, make up your own mind. Interact with amillennial writers, weigh our arguments in light of Scripture, and see if we are truly guilty of the charges leveled at us by Dr. MacArthur.

While you may not be convinced of Reformed amillennialism (hopefully, you will!), at least you’ll be better informed and realize that Reformed amillenarians are not anti-Semites who don’t take the Bible literally or seriously.”

Just hours after the conference finished, the Desiring God National Conference is online in its entirety. John MacArthur was one of the guest speakers.

UPDATE
In January 2008, the following post was identified as the 18th all-time most popular post with readers of this blog. The 19th most-read post was my interview with Justin Taylor.

At the Shepherd’s Conference earlier in the year, John MacArthur underestimated the likely fury of non-dispensational Calvinists at being told they weren’t “really reformed.” This post was an extract from Kim Riddlebarger’s response, which was written several months later. Its popularity proves either that people are still interested in eschatology or that MacArthur bating should become the next Olympic sport.

***************

Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, senior pastor of Christ Reformed Church in Anaheim, California, and visiting professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary, California has issued an article refuting John MacArthur’s extraordinary attack on Reformed amillennialists from earlier this year. If nothing else, it should convince you that amillennialism is consistent with being Reformed and having a high view of Scripture. Kim’s article is well worth reading in detail; here is his strong conclusion:

“Along with countless others, I am very grateful for John MacArthur’s bold and vocal defense of the Gospel. I am also grateful for his years of faithful service and willingness to tackle controversy in the evangelical church. But how I wish that Dr. MacArthur had chosen not to pick this fight. Sadly, he did.

This is hard to say, but in his lecture Dr. MacArthur set up and repeatedly attacked a straw man. His was a pyrrhic victory over a phantom foe.

If you are a dispensationalist, my plea is that you don’t repeat the arguments Dr. MacArthur used in this lecture. Disagree as you will, you do have the responsibility to accurately represent the Reformed amillennial position. Dr. MacArthur did not.

My suggestion is to read the books listed here (Click here: Riddleblog: The Latest Post—A Quick List of Amillennial Resources in Light of MacArthur’s Charges), and then after doing so, make up your own mind. Interact with amillennial writers, weigh our arguments in light of Scripture, and see if we are truly guilty of the charges leveled at us by Dr. MacArthur.

While you may not be convinced of Reformed amillennialism (hopefully, you will!), at least you’ll be better informed and realize that Reformed amillenarians are not anti-Semites who don’t take the Bible literally or seriously.”

Well, I knew it would happen. People on both sides of the great premillennialist versus amillennialist debate sparked by John MacArthur have started throwing Spurgeon quotes at each other. I have been doing my best to stay on the sidelines on this one, and I haven’t even read the rest of Tim’s summaries of the conference. (Certain events have obviously preoccupied me!) I have been trying to resist posting anything new, preferring instead to simply publish “something I prepared earlier” (reference to Blue Peter for all my UK readers).

But I’m afraid I can’t resist saying just this one thing. Throwing Spurgeon quotes around could last for a millennium, and we still wouldn’t have pinned the Prince of Preachers down to a clearly recognizable modern position. He, like many of us, seems to have thought that wholeheartedly embracing any systematic view of the future to the exclusion of all others was neither wise nor warranted by Scripture.

With Phil having laid down the gauntlet with a premillennialist-sounding quote from Spurgeon, it could only be a matter of time before the sleeping giant of the blogosphere — my partner, David Wayne, would reply. And reply he did with a great quote where Spurgeon pours scorn on the premillennial view of Israel, which I understand MacArthur holds.

As fun as all this is, of course, we must remember that we are called to exposit the Bible, not Spurgeon. For thousands of years we have been trying to understand the end times, and despite MacArthur’s reported claims a week or so ago, a single dominant theory has yet to emerge. The more I reflect on this, the more I think he was just plain wrong to claim there was only one legitimate perspective on this (if that was indeed what MacArthur was saying).

People joke about “pan-millennialism” (it will all “pan” out in the end!), but I have to say that whilst I have my own theories about eschatology, they are probably my least strongly held theological positions. So let’s cut each other some slack on this one.

I am much more interested about whether we should be optimistic or pessimistic about the future — I wish more people would take me up on explaining their position on that question.

I can’t, however, resist ending the post by sharing the quote from Spurgeon in which David Wayne believes the Prince of Preachers disagrees with MacArthur over Israel:

“Distinctions have been drawn by certain exceedingly wise men (measured by their own estimate of themselves), between the people of God who lived before the coming of Christ, and those who lived afterwards. We have even heard it asserted that those who lived before the coming of Christ do not belong to the church of God! We never know what we shall hear next, and perhaps it is a mercy that these absurdities are revealed at one time, in order that we may be able to endure their stupidity without dying of amazement. Why, every child of God in every place stands on the same footing; the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about. These who saw Christ’s day before it came had a great difference as to what they knew, and perhaps in the same measure a difference as to what they enjoyed while on earth meditating upon Christ; but they were all washed in the same blood, all redeemed with the same ransom price, and made members of the same body. Israel, in the covenant of grace, is not natural Israel, but all believers in all ages. Before the first advent, all the types and shadows all pointed one way — they pointed to Christ, and to Him all the saints looked with hope. Those who lived before Christ were not saved with a different salvation to that which shall come to us. They exercised faith as we must; that faith struggled as ours struggles, and that faith obtained its reward as ours shall.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

UPDATE
David Wayne has also posted on why we should not claim that the church fathers were all premillennialist.

Also, both pastor resources and words a few more won’t hurt have collected links to others posts discussing the matter.

UPDATE – More on this issue in Spurgeon and millenial mud-slinging

Once again, it’s time to remote-blog a conference my friend, Tim Challies, is so helpfully live-blogging. In the first session of the Shepherds’ Conference MacArthur came out strongly in favour of premillennialism (no surprise there), but what was a surprise, it seems, was the strength of his opposition to amillennialism and other views — here is a quote from Tim’s report:

“The thrust of the message was simple: of all people to be premillennialists, it should be the Calvinist — those who believe in sovereign election. Amillennialism is ideal for Arminians because, according to their theology, God elects nobody and preserves nobody. Amillennialism is consistent with Arminianism. Yet it is inconsistent with Reformed theology and its emphasis on God’s electing grace.

For those who ‘get it’ that God is sovereign and the only one who can determine who will be saved and when they will be saved and is the only one who can save them, amillennialism makes no sense because it says that Israel, on their own, forfeited the promises. The central argument went like this: If you get Israel right, you will get eschatology right. “

So suddenly the Puritans, Edwards, and even Calvin himself are no longer truly reformed? Not surprisingly, this has somewhat put the cat among the pigeons. Certainly Tim’s report doesn’t make it sound to me like MacArthur was very fair to amillennialists — particularly optimistic amillennialists who actually begin to sound a bit like postmillennialists. Actually, what for me is the biggest and most important question in our eschatology didn’t seem to be addressed. As I asked a few weeks back — Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future?

Fide-O has struck back vigorously for amillennialists everywhere. According to him, MacArthur was “mocking” and “misrepresenting” those who differ from his interpretation. Fide-O concluded “this was the grandest strawman burning I [have] ever witnessed” and “the most outrageous thing I have ever heard from a preacher in many years.” Fide-O also gives us examples of where he believes MacArthur’s “exegesis was noticeably biased and at times completely off base.” So, at least this talk has got people responding to it — there is nothing worse than a “nice” message. Fide-O reports one section of the talk as follows:

“Amil should be left for Arminians because they believe God elects no one and preserves no one. Open Theists should be amil … Charismatics should be amil because they go in and out of salvation willy nilly … For those of us who get it — that God is sovereign … amil makes no sense because they believe Israel forfeited their promises.”

Kim Riddlebarger has also responded, largely because he has had a bulging inbox of e-mails about this message:

“All I can say is, “calm down.” OK, MacArthur fired a shot across the bow. But until I’ve read the transcript of his talk, I won’t respond to any specific points, other than to say, if (and that’s a big “if”) he’s been accurately quoted, then it really is too bad that someone of his stature would say the ill-informed things that he did.

From what Tim Challies reports, I don’t recognize my own position in MacArthur’s critique. I am certainly self-respecting (to a fault), and I am a Calvinist, who is well-known for my advocacy and defense of the Reformed faith. I am also amillennial and think dispensational premillennialism defaults at a number of points.”

Well, this is one that could develop into an interesting debate unless bloggers all simply hit the back button and get on with discussing the things that normally interest them. I, for one, am pleased to see the end-times discussed as I think we normally avoid it. But, from what I have read so far, I am far from persuaded that MacArthur is right to claim that every Calvinist should be a premillennialist. Over at the Pulpit Blog, they are citing the Church Fathers in defence of MacArthur’s position — always a sign of desperation in my book!

Continued at Shepherds’ Conference II - Steve Lawson on Passionate Preaching.

I know that I keep banging on about all this, but I am sorry TONE matters in a Christian blog, it really, really does! How we disagree with others and the grace with which we do so is vital. There are two things that bring me hope and despair in almost equal measure – the God blogopshere and interchurch relationships in the real world.

I am praying these days that Blogging will be a way of breeding more understanding in the real world between different Christian traditions. I am increasingly convinced it can be.

Back in the real world, I simply cant get over the way that the T4GB guys and their overlapping and increasingly integrated spheres of influence are now relating to each other. Mahaney would not have been seen as a natural comrade for MacArthur up until even very recently.

I cannot imagine MacArthur and Mahaney arguing in the way many of us bloggers do. I know for a fact that of course they they would have much to disagree about and I am sure that at times they do sit down and discuss theology in a gracious manner. It seems though from CJs latest post on Together for the Gospel that for the most part they simply prefer to play sport together!

I am not arguing against discussing theology–of course we should. I am not even arguing against emphasizing the points of our theology that are more crucial to the Gospel–of course we should. What I am saying is that the Spirit of what we are saying will come across, and guess what! It is possible to get the right Spirit to come across in our writings if we try hard enough and pray hard enough.

I have noticed that increasingly my blog posts are becoming soaked with prayer more consciously than they were before. I have always been blessed by a sense of God being in the driving seat of this blog and am well aware that he has caused me to be in the right place at the right time on many, many occasions. I have also often been aware of him helping me to know what to say. I will be praying about this blog a whole lot more. Who will commit to join me in prayerfully supporting what I am trying to do here?

The heart of what I am talking about is learning to SERVE even those we disagree with. I know that I still have much to learn about this. CJ says it well and both describes what I am talking about and provides an excellent example in his own gracious words of the humble service that we must all learn to imitate. This is CJs impression of the Shepherds Conference:-

“Though the preaching at the conference was outstanding, the example of servanthood (truly the fruit of expository preaching) was compelling. Every individual I encountered, from the first moment I arrived to my final moment at the conference, served with excellence–and not only excellence, but cheerfulness as well. The hundreds of members of Grace Community Church who took time off work in order to serve us were a compelling illustration and demonstration of the content of the preaching we heard. True greatness as biblically defined was on display each day of the conference. Sadly, in time, I will forget much of the excellent preaching I heard, but I will not forget the example of servanthood that I observed.”