{"id":19235,"date":"2018-11-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-11-28T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-055\/"},"modified":"2018-11-28T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2018-11-28T06:00:00","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-055","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-055\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 055"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[111],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19235","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-revelation","series_event-the-coming-kingdom","sermon_service_type-wednesday-evenings","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"The Coming Kingdom 055","sermon_date":"20181128","sermon_month":"11","sermon_year":"2018","sermon_notes":6251,"sermon_slides":6250,"sermon_mp3":6252,"sermon_id":"11291803332006","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":111,"chapter_and_verse":"3:21","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nThe Coming Kingdom\n\n11-28-18\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Revelation 3:21\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 55\n\n2 Samuel chapter 7 and we\u2019ve been doing this study through the kingdom.\u00a0 By the way, I\u2019m looking at this screen here, is this the new computer\u2026 it\u2019s a new computer\u2026 WOW, we\u2019re really entering into kingdom conditions at this church, aren\u2019t we.\u00a0 But we spent really the first part of the study and I think this is lesson 55 so I appreciate you all\u2019s perseverance on this, but we really talked about what does the Bible say about the kingdom, Genesis to Revelation.\u00a0 We developed the kingdom very carefully from the pages of the Old Testament and New Testament, we saw that it was offered to Israel on a silver platter and rejected.\u00a0 And at that point the kingdom was not cancelled but post\u00adponed.\n\nWe\u00a0 could have stopped the study at that point but I wanted to keep going because most of Christen\u00addom throughout its last two thousand years and really most of Christendom even up to the present time argues that we are in the kingdom now.\u00a0 So we\u2019ve been talking about why is that belief system wrong.\u00a0 It\u2019s wrong because it changes what the Old Testament reveals concerning the kingdom,, as we\u2019ve studied.\u00a0\u00a0 So why is it, looking at number three here, that so many people believe that we are in the kingdom?\u00a0 There are a plethora of passages in the New Testament allegedly arguing that the kingdom is something that\u2019s present and we looked at every single passage people used in the ministry of Jesus and we found them to be wanting in the scales, tried in the scales but wanting.\n\nAnd we\u2019re moving into some passages from the Book of Acts that people use to argue what we\u2019re currently in the kingdom.\u00a0 So as we move into the Book of Acts and this study is based on a book I wrote called The Coming Kingdom, and I think most of you have copies of that book.\u00a0 If you don\u2019t have one I know we\u2019ve got some new folks tonight, see me after and I\u2019ll get you a copy of that.\u00a0 That\u2019s just part of an elders gift to you all for taking this class and sticking with it, you get a copy of my book.\n\nBut we\u2019re in chapter 17 of the Book of Acts and the Book of Acts has really become a key battle ground for people arguing that we are presently in the kingdom.\u00a0 We\u2019ve seen how they misuse the teachings of Jesus to argue we\u2019re in the kingdom and now we\u2019re looking at passages from the Book of Acts.\u00a0 And by far and away the biggest argument that people use today from the Book of Acts, and I\u2019ll show you the passages that they use, is that they believe that Jesus is currently reigning on David\u2019s throne today.\u00a0 So if you go to a church and you\u2019re trying to figure out should I attend that church or not or you\u2019re trying to figure out where someone is doctrinally one of the things that you can do is ask them is Jesus on David\u2019s throne currently, because what they say about that will reveal an awful lot about their theology.\n\nSo is Jesus currently reigning on David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 And this is unfortunately one of the more complicated parts of this study and it\u2019s difficult because we\u2019ve had some stops and starts and another stop coming up to take a pause for Christmas break, so I\u2019m going to try to take you through this the best I know how, so just sort of hang on to your seat belts, it\u2019s not the easiest part of the study to grasp.\u00a0 But really this part of the study is dealing with the response to this idea that Jesus is currently on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0\u00a0 In other words, He is functioning today in their minds not according to his high priestly role at the right hand of the Father but He is functioning as Davidic King reigning on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 And everybody that promotes kingdom now theology basically teaches that.\n\nSo to this idea that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne, I\u2019ve got six responses to that.\u00a0 You see them listed there on the screen. [1. Passages from Christ\u2019s ministry, 2. Passages from Acts 3. Passages from Paul.\u00a0 4. Passages from the General letters. [5] Passages from Revelation. [6] Miscellaneous Arguments]\u00a0 We\u2019re not going to be able to get through all of these tonight but I think we\u2019ll be able to get through a pretty good portion of this so you\u2019ll get a\u00a0 handle on this idea.\n\nSo is Jesus really reigning on David\u2019s throne?\u00a0 Well the first response, and we started this sub-section three or four weeks ago, when I was with you, before I left on my trip.\u00a0 The first response is David\u2019s throne is earthly; it\u2019s always portrayed as something on the earth.\u00a0 We went through, you might recall, several verses that reveal that the Davidic throne, beginning in the Old Testament, is never something in heaven but it\u2019s always something on the earth.\u00a0 You might remember we looked at 1 Kings 2:11-12.\u00a0 It says, \u201cThe days that David reigned over Israel were<\/em> forty years: seven years he reigned in Hebron and thirty-three years he reigned in Jerusalem. [12] And Solomon sat on the throne of David his father, and his kingdom was firmly established.\u201d\n\nSo this is talking about the transition from the Davidic dynasty to the Solomonic dynasty, and the throne obviously there is very literal because Solomon, a literal character \u201csat on the throne.\u201d\u00a0 I mean, did Solomon travel up to heaven to sit on that throne?\u00a0 Obviously not, he was seated on an earthly Davidic throne.\u00a0 And that\u2019s how the Old Testament always portrays David\u2019s throne.\n\nBut when you go over to 2 Samuel chapter 7 and\u00a0 you take a look at verses 12-16, it says in 2 Samuel 7:12-16, \u201cWhen your days are complete and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your descendant after you, who will come forth from you, and I will establish his kingdom.\u00a0 [13] \u201cHe shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. [14] \u201cI will be a father to him and he will be a son to Me; when he commits iniquity, I will correct him with the rod of men and the strokes of the sons of men, [15] but My lovingkindness shall not depart from him, as I took it<\/em> away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. [16] \u201cYour house and your kingdom shall endure before Me\u201d for how long? \u201cforever; your throne shall be established forever.\u201d\u00a0 [17] In accordance with all these words and all this vision, so Nathan spoke to David.\u201d\n\nSo David, about 1000 B.C. wanted to build a house for the Lord and the Lord said you\u2019re not going to build a house for Me, I\u2019m going to build a house for you and in the process He gave to David what\u2019s called the Davidic Covenant.\u00a0 And from that Davidic Covenant is a promise that from his seed or his lineage will come forth an eternal dynasty.\u00a0 So this is where the Davidic throne idea comes from.\n\nJohn Walvoord writes this, the great scholar formerly at Dallas Seminary.\u00a0 He says, \u201cThe covenant with David is not only given twice in its major content, namely 2 Samuel<\/u> 7 and then there\u2019s a parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 17<\/u>, but it is also confirmed in Psalm 89<\/u>.\u00a0 In this and other Old Testament references there is no allusion anywhere to the idea that these promises are to be understood in a spiritualized sense as referring to the church or to a reign of God in heaven.\u00a0 Rather, it is linked to the earth and to the seed of Israel, and to the land...There is no indication that this kingdom extended to a spiritual entity such as the church nor that the throne in view is the throne of God in heaven rather than the throne of David on earth... Such a situation does not prevail in this present age and is not related here or elsewhere to the reign of Christ from the throne of His Father in heaven.\u201d\n\nSo Walvoord\u2019s point is very simple, that when you study the Davidic Covenant, 2 Samuel 7, you study all of the passages that speak of David\u2019s throne they\u2019re always what you would call mundane, earthly, over the earth, they\u2019ll be fulfilled on the earth, they have nothing to do with anything taking place in heaven.\u00a0 And that\u2019s not only true with the Old Testament\u2019s portrayal of the Davidic throne, it\u2019s true with the New Testament\u2019s portrayal of the Davidic throne.\n\nYou remember the mother of the sons of Zebedee, James and John came to Jesus with their sons bowing down and making a request of Him and He said to her, \u201cWhat do you wish.\u201d\u00a0 She said to Him, \u201cCommand that in Your kingdom that these two sons of mine may sit on Your right and on\u00a0 Your left.\u201d So how did she, the mother of James and John, understand David\u2019s throne, heavenly or earthly?\u00a0\u00a0 Obviously very earthly and she makes a bold request; she says, \u201cwhen You enter\u00a0 Your kingdom,\u201d and she expected a kingdom, she expected it on the earth, she was no doubt well-schooled in the Davidic Covenant, \u201cwhen You enter Your kingdom and sit on your throne I just want my two sons to sit on\u00a0 Your right and\u00a0 Your left,\u201d which is a pretty bold request. But she understood it as earthly and that\u2019s my point.\u00a0 All these references to David\u2019s throne are always on the earth, never in heaven.\n\nWhen Jesus returns He will sit on David\u2019s throne on this earth and that will be fulfilled in Matthew 25:31, which says, \u201cBut when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.\u201d\u00a0 Now what throne is that?\u00a0 That\u2019s David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 Where is it located?\u00a0 On the earth?\u00a0 In which city?\u00a0 The city of Jerusalem.\u00a0 So is the Davidic throne right now occupied?\u00a0 It\u2019s not occupied;\u00a0 you have no reigning King today on David\u2019s throne, it\u2019s waiting for Jesus.\n\nSo the first thing to really think about, responding to this idea that kingdom now theologians\u00a0 use that Jesus is now reigning on David\u2019s throne is number one, David\u2019s throne is always earthly, so therefore to argue, watch this very carefully, to argue that Jesus is on David\u2019s throne today in heaven involves you doing what with the concept that\u2019s laid out in the Bible?\u00a0 You have to change it.\u00a0 So the key word is \u201cchange.\u201d\u00a0 Everybody takes today (sadly) is taking the Davidic throne and changing its meaning.\n\nNow we have something in the Bible called progressive revelation; we\u2019ve covered this haven\u2019t we.\u00a0 Basically what that means is the Bible will lay down a point or a principle and subsequent Scripture never changes the original point or principle, it just adds details.\u00a0 So for example in Genesis 3:15, the very first prophecy of a coming Messiah, we learn that there\u2019s coming one from the seed of the woman, or Eve, who\u2019s going to crush the serpent\u2019s head.\u00a0 And subsequent Scripture never changes that concept, it just adds details.\u00a0 You\u2019re traveling through the Old Testament and you learn that He\u2019s going to be born of a virgin.\u00a0 You learn that He\u2019s coming from the tribe of Judah, first He\u2019s coming from Israel, secondly He\u2019s coming from the tribe of Judah.\u00a0 You learn that He\u2019s going to be pierced.\u00a0 So notice what subsequent Scripture does, it never changes Genesis 3:15, it just adds information or clarity or details.\u00a0 And that\u2019s basically what we mean by progressive revelation.\n\nIf all of a sudden the New Testament, and this is what makes us different from the kingdom now theologians.\u00a0 If all of a sudden the New Testament can change the Old Testament\u00a0 that means that everything God spoke in Old Testament times was a lie.\u00a0 So progressive revelation will never change what God originally said, ever!\u00a0 If that could happen then God could be proved a liar and\u00a0 He was just saying to His original audience, just fooling, I really didn\u2019t mean it!\u00a0 So progressive revelation is always adding clarity, is always adding detail as\u00a0 you start early on in the Bible and start moving through it but it never changes it.\n\nAnd kingdom now theologians are not respecting that principle at all; they\u2019re outright changing what God originally said because they believe that the New Testament actually changes the meaning of the Old Testament.\u00a0 It\u2019s sort of (if I can use this analogy) it\u2019s sort of like Islam.\u00a0 In the Qur'an\u00a0 you have two kinds of verses; you have the Mecca verses and the Medina verses, and Shahram Hadian, when he was here covered this with us you\u2019ll recall.\u00a0 So when the Muslims are in the minority in a population they quote all of the verses, they talk about Allah\u2019s love and that kind of thing, but once they get the majority in a population suddenly they start quoting a different set of texts about aggression and bloodshed.\u00a0 And you can see this exact pattern in Mohammed\u2019s life.\u00a0 Mohammed, when he was in the minority spoke a lot about love; once he got the majority and wanted to start killing people he started talking about hatred and vengeance and all of these kinds of things.\n\nSo you ask yourself, well what happened to the love verse, now all of a sudden you\u2019ve become warlike?\u00a0 And their answer is well those earlier verses have been (and this is a very important word to understand) they\u2019ve been abrogated.\u00a0 Abrogated means the new passages cancel the old passages.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 That\u2019s the doctrine of abrogation in Islam.\n\nThe Bible knows no such doctrine.\u00a0 You can never use one set of passages to cancel out the clear meaning of another set of passages because the moment you do that you challenge God\u2019s character where His original promises to an audience really don\u2019t mean anything anymore because He was just fooling after all.\u00a0 So we don\u2019t believe in abrogation, we don\u2019t believe the New Testament changes the Old Testament or cancels the Old Testament.\u00a0 Kingdom now theologians do that and I think their method of interpretation is more similar to Islam than it is biblical Christianity.\u00a0 So if David\u2019s throne is earthly suddenly arguing that Jesus is on David\u2019s throne now, what have you just done?\u00a0 You\u2019ve just changed the whole thing and you\u2019re not following the principles of progressive revelation.\n\nSo Robert Lightner, who is\u2026 was, he\u2019s with the Lord now, a very good scholar on this subject, says this concerning kingdom now theologians.\u00a0 He says,\u00a0 \u201cSo, they have not only changed\u201d now this is his response to this idea that Jesus is now on David\u2019s throne in heaven, \u201cSo they have not only changed \u00a0the people to include the Church, but they have also changed the place where the covenant is to be fulfilled. Now it\u2019s not only on earth, but it\u2019s also in heaven. . . . The people have changed and the place has changed.\u201d\u00a0 [Robert Lightner, \u201cProgressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal<\/em> 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 53\u201354.]\n\nSo to kind of capture this idea I put together this little chart showing how this idea that Jesus is currently reigning on David\u2019s throne is the complete change of what the Old Testament and New Testament portray.\u00a0 First of all the place has changed, the throne has moved from the earth to heaven.\u00a0 Secondly, the people have changed, the Davidic throne is no longer over Israel which was what it was originally designed or intended but now it\u2019s over the church which today is predominantly Gentile. And then also what has changed is Israel has changed; according to the original promises the Davidic throne only comes into existence after Israel is converted, and I took you through quite a few of those passages demonstrating that, and now what they\u2019re saying is it really doesn\u2019t matter if Israel is converted or not, we\u2019re going to still have the Davidic throne over the church anyway.\n\nSo the place has changed, the people have changed, the promise of a Davidic throne over a regenerated Israel has changed and automatically when you see that you can begin to ask yourself, something is not right with their theology because they\u2019re contradicting the principle of progressive what?\u00a0 Revelation.\u00a0 I mean, latter Scripture can add details but it can never change what was originally said.\u00a0 Do\u00a0 you follow me on this?\n\nSo you have to watch these kingdom now theologians very carefully because when they start arguing from early Acts that Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne what they all start saying is somehow the New Testament changed the Old Testament.\n\nSo here is this quote from George Elden Ladd who started to promote a belief called already\/not yet, which basically means we\u2019re already in the kingdom today but some of it is yet to come.\u00a0 So he calls it already-not yet.\u00a0\u00a0 And this was something that he got into sort of a theological argument with, with John Walvoord of Dallas Seminary, Walvoord and him in the 60\u2019s and the 70\u2019s started going back and forth, George Eldon Ladd at Fuller Seminary in Pasadena, California, which coincidentally (maybe not so coincidentally) has become extremely liberal where today they don\u2019t even hold to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scripture.\n\nAs a matter of fact, I almost went to seminary there until the Lord told me (basically) not to, and part of it was I wanted to go there because I lived in southern California and it was very close to my house and I was working at a Baptist church at the time and I could get a huge discount on tuition because of my denominational affiliation.\u00a0 And I was very close to enrolling until I figured out that you could be a teacher there and not believe in the full inerrancy of the Bible.\u00a0 So you could believe this, the Bible is true when it comes to spiritual things but it can have mistakes in it when it comes to physical things, like what?\u00a0 History, archeology, geography, science, the Bible could be mistaken on those things but\u00a0 you can trust it on things you can\u2019t see. And once I figured that out, that they didn\u2019t believe in full inerrancy\u2026 if you want a fancy title for this it\u2019s plenary inerrancy, it\u2019s believing that the Bible is true not just on spiritual things but on everything it talks about.\n\nOur belief is plenary inerrancy; we don\u2019t believe the Bible is a scientific textbook but when it talks about science it\u2019s extremely accurate what it says.\u00a0 The Bible is not primarily a history book although it records and awful lot of history, but when it touches on history it\u2019s absolutely accurate in what it says.\u00a0 The Bible is not primarily an archeology book but when it comments on archeology it\u2019s absolutely 100% accurate in what it says.\u00a0 Fuller seminary you don\u2019t have to believe that, so you can believe it has mistakes in it historically, archeologically, scientifically but you can trust it on spiritual things.\u00a0 Now just think about this for a minute; if you can\u2019t trust the Bible on the things\u00a0 you can see, archeology, science, history, those kinds of things that you can validate through human observation, then how in the world are you supposed to trust it on things you can\u2019t see, like heaven, hell, angels, demons.\u00a0 So Fuller Seminary went this direction of partial inerrancy and that\u2019s the reason I decided not to go there, I didn\u2019t really want to sit under somebody that doesn\u2019t believe the Bible is completely accurate.\n\nSo we at Sugar Land Bible Church reject partial inerrancy; we believe in plenary inerrancy.\u00a0 And you say well what do you do with those situations where the scientific world is saying one thing and the Bible is saying something different?\u00a0 Well what\u2019s happening is either we\u2019re interpreting the Bible wrongly or the scientific world is interpreting science wrongly, or maybe it\u2019s some combination thereof because at the end of the day when all of the tallies come in and all of the evidence is known science will 100% line up with the Bible and the Bible will 100% line up with science.\u00a0 There cannot be a mistake in it.\n\nSo Fuller Seminary, prior to moving into this partial inerrancy direction, went into this already-not yet concept of the kingdom.\u00a0 And George Ladd started arguing back and forth through journal articles and things like that with John Walvoord that Jesus is currently on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 And the very sad thing about it is Walvoord aggressively stood his position arguing that Jesus is not on David\u2019s throne now and yet today, now that Walvoord is dead and gone the majority of the faculty at Dallas Seminary ended up siding with George Ladd on this issue, adopting his already-not yet view of the kingdom rather than John Walvoord.\u00a0 And they\u2019ve come up with something called aggressive dispensationalism which is not exactly Laddian but I\u2019ll tell you this much, it\u2019s a lot closer to what George Ladd was saying than it was what Walvoord was saying.\u00a0 And so it\u2019s interesting how Ladd\u2019s presuppositions actually took hold in the very school that John Walvoord represented and was, as the two were battling on this issues throughout the 60\u2019s and the 70\u2019s. But anyway, that\u2019s just a little background on George Ladd but notice what he says here concerning this kingdom now idea.\n\nHe says, \u201cThe new redemptive events in the course of\u201d now he\u2019s got to give a German word in there to show how scholarly he is, how do you say that word, \u201cHeilsgeschichte<\/em>\u201d what does that word mean by the way?\u00a0 Salvation history.\u00a0 Now you can either come out and say salvation history or you can\u00a0 use a German word to show everybody how smart you are.\u00a0 So when you see that word just think of salvation history.\n\n\u201cThe new redemptive events in the course of salvation history have compelled Peter\u201d now he\u2019s talking about Peter\u2019s sermon in Acts 2, that\u2019s why I\u2019m going into all of this because they\u2019re basing it on what Peter says on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. Watch this very carefully, \u201chave compelled Peter to\u201d do what, what\u2019s the next word? \u201creinterpret the Old Testament<\/u>.\u201d What is he saying here?\u00a0 He\u2019s saying the New Testament has just changed the meaning of the Old Testament, therefore he\u2019s not following the time and tested approach of what kind of revelation?\u00a0 Progressive revelation, and that\u2019s the difference between us and our belief and kingdom now theology.\u00a0 They believe that the New Testament somehow changes the Old. \u00a0\u00a0[George Eldon Ladd, \u201cA Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 336\u201337]\n\nHere\u2019s another\n\nLadd goes on and he says, \u201c Because of the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, Peter\u201d in his sermon in Acts 2, \u201ctransfers<\/u>\u201d see that word, \u201ctransfers the messianic Davidic throne from Jerusalem<\/u>\u201d which \u00a0is on the earth to where, \u201cto God\u2019s right hand in heaven<\/u>. Jesus has now been enthroned as the Davidic Messiah on the throne of David, and is awaiting the\u201d final consummation of His Messianic reign, already not\u00a0 yet.\u00a0 Jesus is in heaven now reigning on David\u2019s throne but one of these days He\u2019s going to come back to the earth and He\u2019s going to sit literally on David\u2019s throne, already not\u00a0 yet.\u00a0 \u201cJesus as not been enthroned as the Davidic Messiah on the throne of David, and is awaiting the final of His Messianic reign,\u201d this involves a rather radical, and this is why I use this quote, because he\u2019s admitting what he\u2019s doing, \u201ca radical\u201d what?\u00a0 \u201creinterpretation of the Old Testament prophecies,\u201d not adding clarity, not adding detail but an outright change or reinterpretation.\n\nAnd this is how you always recognize kingdom now theology, because they will argue for this.\u00a0 My response is well then all the promises that God made in the Old Testament era to a specific audience really have no meaning because God always knew all along He was going to change what He said.\u00a0 That makes God telling fibs, lies, half-lies, all the way through the Old Testament until you get into the New Testament.\u00a0 See the problem with that?\u00a0 To my mind it\u2019s an assault on the character of God.\u00a0 See, our view with the postponed kingdom allows all of God\u2019s prophecies to take place in the millennium; that\u2019s why the millennium or the thousand year reign of Christ is such a big deal, because we are allowing God to keep His Word meticulously on the earth.\u00a0 Their system doesn\u2019t allow for that.\u00a0 See that.\n\n\u201cThis involves a rather radical reinterpretation of Old Testament prophecies<\/u>, but no more so than the entire reinterpretation<\/u> of God\u2019s redemptive plan by the early church.\u201d\u00a0 They think the apostles came along and just changed everything.\u00a0 I mean, if that\u2019s true why do we even have an Old Testament?\u00a0\u00a0 You might just as well throw the whole thing out and you might just as well start reading in the New Testament if the New Testament is carte blanche rewriting, changing, altering the Old Testament.\u00a0 \u201cThis involves a rather radical reinterpretation of Old Testament prophecies<\/u>, but no more so than the entire reinterpretation<\/u> of God\u2019s redemptive plan by the early church.\u201d\u00a0 In fact, it is an essential part of this reinterpretation<\/u> demanded by the events of redemptive history. . . . Jesus is enthroned as the Messiah. . . . He must reign until all his enemies are made a stool for his feet.\u201d\u00a0 [George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 336\u201337]\n\nSo there is your \u201calready not yet\u201d view of the kingdom coming from the very liberal Fuller Theological Seminary that almost within a millimeter claimed me as one of their own.\u00a0 I don\u2019t know if I\u2019d be standing here if I went to that school.\n\nHere\u2019s another example of kingdom now theologians changing, believing the New Testament changes the Old.\u00a0 George Murray, a kingdom now amillennialist says, \u201cThe Davidic Covenant, of which much has been said, was to the effect that his seed would sit upon his throne and had its natural fulfillment in the reign of King Solomon.\u201d So far so good; he\u2019s taking it literally.\u00a0 \u201cIts eternal aspects include the Lord Jesus Christ of the seed of David; and in the book of Acts, Peter insists that Christ\u2019s resurrection and ascension fulfilled God\u2019s promise to David that his seed would sit upon his throne\u201d what\u2019s he quoting there, see the verse, \u201c(Acts 2:30).\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s why I\u2019m covering all this as we got through some early passages in the Book of Acts.\u00a0 They\u2019re all getting this from early Acts. \u00a0George Murray says, \u201cWhy insist, then, on a literal fulfillment of a promise which the Scriptures certify to have had a spiritual fulfillment?\u201d\u00a0 So you see he\u2019s following the same hermeneutic, you all know what hermeneutic is, method of interpretation.\u00a0 His method of inter\u00adpretation is Peter just took all of the Davidic promises that are earthly and like George Ladd argued in the prior quote, just all of a sudden changed them to being celestial and heavenly.\n\nSo in George Murray\u2019s mind if Jesus is now reigning on David\u2019s throne and we\u2019re in the kingdom now then quit praying \u201cThy kingdom come.\u201d\u00a0 Quit talking about the future millennial reign of Christ on the earth because we\u2019re in it now.\u00a0 This is kingdom now theology.\n\nDwight Pentecost, one of the good guys, my professor, responds to George Murray as follows:\u00a0 \u201cThe amillennialist is bound to argue for a conditional covenant and a spiritualized fulfillment,\u201d see it\u2019s very tricky, they either say the Davidic Covenant\u2019s conditional meaning cancelled because Israel didn\u2019t keep her end of the bargain.\u00a0 Now is that true?\u00a0 I thought the Abrahamic Covenant and the related sub covenants were not conditional, as we have studied, but what? It starts with a \u201cu,\u201d unconditional.\u00a0 So the kingdom now theologian comes along and says well the covenants were always conditional.\u00a0 Now what if that argument doesn\u2019t work?\u00a0 Well if people don\u2019t accept that argument I\u2019ll just say they\u2019re being fulfilled now.\u00a0 Where?\u00a0 In heaven, not on the earth one day.\n\nPentecost says, \u201cThe amillennialist is bound to argue for a conditional covenant and a spiritualized fulfillment so that the throne on which Christ is now seated at the right hand of the father becomes the \u2018throne\u2019 of the covenant, the household of faith becomes the \u2018house\u2019 of the covenant, and the church becomes the \u2018kingdom\u2019 of the covenant. . . .\u201d\u00a0 See what Pentecost is pointing out here?\u00a0 Murray has rewritten the whole covenant to make it fit his kingdom now theology. Pentecost says, \u201cThis makes the church the \u2018seed\u2019 and the \u2018kingdom\u2019 promised in the covenant.\u201d\u00a0 Then Pentecost says, \u201cThe kingdom becomes heavenly, not earthly\u2026.\u201d And look at this last line, \u201cOnly by extensive allegorization can such a view be held<\/u>.\u201d <\/em>[Dwight Pentecost, Things to Come, Page 103<\/em>]\n\nWhat Pentecost is saying is Murray is not following, number one, the literal method of inter\u00adpretation.\u00a0 Number two, he is not following the time and tested principle of progressive revelation but he is allowing the New Testament (in his mind) to completely rewrite the Old Testament.\u00a0 And that\u2019s how Israel is cancelled as a nation and how the church has now usurped Israel\u2019s place and become the new Israel.\u00a0 And we are in the kingdom now.\u00a0 Another fancy name for this you might recognize is replacement theology.\u00a0 Israel means nothing as a nation because we have inherited all of our promises, her promises through extensive allegorization.\u00a0 So whenever you get around kingdom now theologians or replacement theologians they go on and on about how the Bible is not to be interpreted literally.\u00a0 But when you interpret it literally what do you come up with?\u00a0 God is going to fulfill every single promise He made to Israel on the earth during the millennial kingdom.\n\nSo we, I believe, God has a future for Israel and we believe that the gathering of the Jews today in their own land, even in unbelief, is in some sense preparatory for that. So we look at the nation of Israel and rejoice.\u00a0 Now if you go to a mainline denominational church, I don\u2019t mean to call out any names but any particular Reformed church, Lutheran church, Presbyterian church, and I\u2019m not saying within those different environments there are not good people here and there, I\u2019m just talking about as a movement as a whole, you will never hear a single word in their sermons about the nation of Israel.\u00a0 The nation of Israel is irrelevant.\u00a0 In fact, if the nation of Israel is irrelevant future then really who cares about a bunch of Jews being regathered in the Middle East.\n\nWe talk about it from our pulpit as a miracle of God, a preparatory for the end of the age.\u00a0 But if you\u2019re in a kingdom now replacement theology church you get no teaching at all on this subject of future Israel. The Middle East, who cares about the Middle East, who cares about Israel, we are Israel.\u00a0 Who cares about Jesus reigning from a throne in Jerusalem called the throne of David in the future millennial kingdom; don\u2019t you understand that Peter, in Acts 2, reinterpreted those passages and we\u2019re in the kingdom now and He\u2019s reigning on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 And how do you reach that conclusion?\u00a0 By discarding literal interpretation and discarding progressive revelation that subsequent Scripture will never change what the original promise says and by embracing what Dwight Pentecost here calls extensive allegorization.\n\nI believe largely what I believe about the Bible because I became committed a long time ago to taking this whole book literally whenever I could, except when there\u2019s an obvious figure of speech.\u00a0 That relates not just to the ministry of Christ in the first century but all of the prophecies related to not just the first coming of Christ but the second coming of Christ.\u00a0 And the more you become committed to that the more you start to see that God has never fulfilled these prophecies literally so there has to be a time in history where He does and we place it where?\u00a0 In the thousand year millennial kingdom.\n\nLewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Seminary, said this around 1947.\u00a0 He says, \u201cSimilarly, the earthly kingdom that according to the Scriptures had its origin in the covenant made to David, which is mundane and literal in its original form\u201d you all know what \u201cmundane\u201d means, just earthly or ordinary, \u201cand equally as mundane and literal in uncounted references to it in all subsequent Scriptures which trace it on to its consummation,\u201d and we\u2019ve looked at those Scriptures, haven\u2019t we, these are very literal, he says, \u201cis by theological legerdemain<\/u>\u201d and I had to look that word up, I didn\u2019t know what he meant by that so I put it in parenthesis when I looked it up, it means \u201ctrickery, or deception<\/u> \u201cis by theological trickery or deception \u00a0metamorphosed into a spiritual monstrosity<\/u>\u201d that\u2019s a strong word or phrase isn\u2019t it?\u00a0 \u201c\u2026in which an absent King seated on His Father\u2019s throne in heaven is accepted in lieu\u201d or in substitution for \u201cthe theocratic monarch of David\u2019s line seated on David\u2019s throne in Jerusalem.\u201d\n\nLewis Sperry Chafer, the founder of Dallas Seminary understood this issue cold.\u00a0 He says, \u201cIf\u00a0 what Jesus has right now at the Father\u2019s right hand is now the Davidic throne and the Davidic kingdom,\u201d he says \u201cthat\u2019s a metamorphosized spiritual monstrosity.\u201d\u00a0 And it\u2019s also trickery or deception to teach that.\u00a0 Why is that?\u00a0 Because they\u2019re taking the original promises and changing them.\u00a0 So that\u2019s the battleground there.\n\nNow around the early 1980\u2019s enter a professor at Dallas Seminary by the name of Darrell Bock and you see Darrell Bock a lot on TV, when the Easter special and the resurrection of Jesus and the news people want a comment from a so-called conservative, they interview Darrell Bock.\u00a0 He\u2019s pretty good on defending the resurrection and the historicity of Jesus and things like that, a very smart guy.\u00a0 My wife and I actually went to his church for a while, not really understanding what he was teaching, a very intelligent guy.\u00a0 But he got wrapped up in this whole debate in the 1980\u2019s and he started to move in George Ladd\u2019s direction.\u00a0 He was trying to come up with a middle ground between John Walvoord and George Ladd and so what he began to teach at Dallas Seminary with the assistance of another guy named Craig Blaising is progressive dispensationalism which is very, very similar to what George Ladd was teaching at Fuller Seminary already not yet.\u00a0 Jesus is already reigning on David\u2019s throne and then you say well, Darrell Bock,\u00a0 you\u2019re a replacement theologian.\u00a0 And he says no I\u2019m not because I still believe Jesu is going to return to the earth over regenerated Israel and rule in that sense.\u00a0 But I do believe that the kingdom now theologians are right in the sense that we\u2019re in the kingdom now, already and Jesus is already reigning on David\u2019s throne.\n\nSo he tried to carve out what I would call a middle ground position between George Ladd and John Walvoord.\u00a0 And you see,\u00a0 your typical Bible church who has never had anybody come into their midst to explain these controversies to them hires a pastor from Dallas Seminary thinking\u00a0 they\u2019re getting the old stuff from Walvoord and Pentecost and suddenly they start hearing some kingdom now theological ideas from their pulpit about Jesus reigning on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 And once you move in that direction it opens a lot of other theological doors which I\u2019ll be explaining; I do that in part III of the book.\u00a0 And so what\u2019s happened is a lot of traditional Bible churches have been sort of lurching leftward because they\u2019re assuming that everybody coming out of such and such an institution thinks the old way when in reality they\u2019re not thinking the old way, they\u2019ve moved in this sort of already not yet direction and they\u2019re hearing\u2026 the old guard is hearing kind of fuzzy things that they\u2019ve never heard before from the pulpit.\u00a0 And they\u2019re kind of in a mist as to what\u2019s happening because they\u2019ve never really had someone come in and explain these controversies to them.\u00a0 See that.\n\nSo that\u2019s why if you\u2019re on a pulpit committee or selecting a church to attend, these are things you need to be attune to, to figure out exactly what kind of pastor am I getting here and what kind of a church am I becoming involved in.\u00a0\u00a0 So Darrell Bock, through his \u201calready not yet\u201d view of the kingdom says, and this is a direct quote, \u201cThe Davidic throne and the heavenly throne of Jesus at the right hand of the Father are\u201d what? \u201cone and the same.\u201d\u00a0 [Evidence from Acts,\u201d in The Coming Millennial Kingdom, ed. Donald Campbell and Jeffrey Townsend (Chicago: Moody, 1992), 194.]\n\nThere it is, he believes that Jesus is currently reigning on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 Now it\u2019s not the final form of the kingdom the way replacement theologians and amillennialists teach but it\u2019s what he calls an already form of the kingdom.\u00a0 And you see, he moves into the middle and it\u2019s kind of an outworking of what you call postmodernity which is a belief that no one has the truth.\u00a0 So if nobody has the truth how do you arrive at the truth?\u00a0 You look at where opposites converge; where do people agree in the middle, that\u2019s where you find the truth.\u00a0 And the middle becomes the what?\u00a0 The new truth.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 And so I like to call this sort of middle ground mania, and this is largely how his position came into existence.\u00a0 Now he claims he came to his position through a study of the text, I believe he believes that but I also believe that what was also motivating him was a resolution of this conflict between Ladd and Walvoord.\u00a0 And the problem is when you come to the Bible trying to fix a conflict are\u00a0 you really interpreting the Bible or are you just trying to patch things together between two sides?\n\nMy perspective on it is let\u2019s study the whole Bible in its literal sense and let\u2019s let the Lord settle the conflicts.\u00a0 What does the text say?\u00a0 I don\u2019t come to the Bible saying well, I\u2019ve got to make this camp over here happy and this camp over here I\u2019m going to make them happy so let me kind of put out a tightrope and see if I can walk the middle a little bit.\u00a0 I have no ambition to do that as a Bible student, as a Bible teacher.\u00a0 In fact, if Martin Luther had done that we probably would never have had the Protestant Reformation when you think about it.\u00a0 What we need today are people that will stand on the authority of the text regardless of the cost or the consequences or who\u2019s happy or who\u2019s unhappy with it.\u00a0 The Lord will sort all that stuff out.\u00a0 The issue is what does the text say?\u00a0 And I\u2019m convinced that these progressive dispensationalists were not doing that, they\u2019re just moving into what I call middle ground, a middle ground mania.\n\nSo what did Darrell Bock come up with?\u00a0 He came up with a new hermeneutic.\u00a0 Now you should \u00a0be very suspicious about anybody that wants to come up with a new hermeneutic or a new method of interpretation because to my mind we don\u2019t need a new hermeneutic or a new method of interpretation with the Bible, we need to apply the literal method to the whole Bible and figure out what the Bible says.\u00a0 But if you do that kingdom now theology won\u2019t float so you come up with a hermeneutic that says the new changes the old or abrogates it.\u00a0 Bock was more clever than that, he came up with what is called complementary hermeneutics.\u00a0 I know this is a lot to ingest and digest on a Wednesday evening when it\u2019s freezing outside.\n\nBut here is what Darrell Bock says concerning complimentary hermeneutics.\u00a0 \u201c\u201c\u2026the New Testament does introduce\u201d what\u2019s the next word? \u201cchange<\/u>\u201d now when you see the word \u201cchange\u201d your warning bells or whatever should be going off because a change means a different definition of progressive revelation.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 You see, I believe when Peter preached on the day of Pentecost he was taking old passages, not changing their meaning but just applying them freshly.\u00a0 That\u2019s what I try to do every Sunday by the way; I\u2019m not coming up with new meanings of verses, I\u2019m trying to figure out what the verse says but apply it to a 21st<\/sup> century audience.\u00a0 I think that\u2019s what Peter was doing.\u00a0 But Darrel Bock says no, Peter was not doing that, he was actually changing it.\u00a0 Now watch this, \u00a0\u00a0\u201c\u2026. In making complementary additions<\/u>, however, it does not jettison Old Testament promises. The enhancement<\/u> is not at the expense of the original promise.\u201d [Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, \u201cDispensationalism, Israel and the Church: Assessment and Dialogue,\u201d in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church<\/em>, ed. Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 392\u201393]\n\nSee, when you criticize Darrell Bock he always says you\u2019re misrepresenting me and partly he is right because everybody wants to accuse him of teaching amillennialism or kingdom now theology, which he\u2019s not doing.\u00a0 He still believes\u2026 let me say that again, they want to accuse him of teaching amillennialism and replacement theology which he is not doing.\u00a0 He still believes in a future kingdom, a future place for Israel.\u00a0 But what he does says is while the New Testament doesn\u2019t cancel the old (that\u2019s what the amillennialists say and kingdom now theologians say.\u00a0 \u201cWhile the New Testament doesn\u2019t cancel the Old Testament it adds a layer of truth that was never there before.\u201d\u00a0 Do you follow that?\u00a0 The old stuff is still there and it\u2019ll be fulfilled one day but here\u2019s a new layer of truth that Peter adds that was not in the original passage.\u00a0 And that\u2019s what\u2019s called complementary hermeneutics.\n\nHere\u2019s kind of how it works.\u00a0 \u201cThis novel approach allows mere crucial linking allusions,\u201d or \u201cpictorial descriptions\u201d of Jesus as the heir to David\u2019s Throne to expand\u201d that\u2019s a very important word, \u201cto expand the original terrestrial promise of the Davidic Throne so that it now encompasses a current spiritual form of the Davidic Kingdom with Jesus presently ruling from a celestial Davidic Throne.\u00a0 [The Reign of the Lord Christ,\u201d in Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church<\/em>, ed. Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 49, 51.]\n\nSo he\u2019ll take some passages that portray Jesus at the right hand of the Father and he\u2019ll say wait a minute, notice the Davidic imagery that\u2019s used to describe Christ as Jesus is at the right hand of the Father.\u00a0 Why is that Davidic imagery there?\u00a0 In my opinion it\u2019s there to show that Jesus is the heir to David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 That\u2019s the only thing it\u2019s doing there.\u00a0 But he says no, no, no, no, what it\u2019s there to do is to take 2 Samuel 7, the original Davidic promise, and add a layer of meaning, expand a layer of meaning that was never there before.\u00a0 Do you follow that?\u00a0 And this is how these guys can sign a doctrinal statement at Dallas Seminary which is still premillennial but at the same time argue that Jesus is now reigning from David\u2019s throne in heaven.\u00a0 Do you follow that?\u00a0 It\u2019s sort of like trying to grab a wet eel, I mean, these guys are just slippery and I want to you exactly how they\u2019re doing it.\n\nRobert Lightner exposes what Bock is doing in this quote by contrasting Bock\u2019s approach with progressive revelation.\u00a0 Lightner says, \u201c\u201c\u2018Complementary hermeneutics\u2019 must not be confused with the historic orthodox doctrine of progressive revelation. The latter truth means that God revealed His truth gradually, sometimes over a long period of time. What was revealed later never\u201d what\u2019s the next word, \u201cchanged,\u201d that\u2019s the key word, \u201cWhat was revealed later never changed the original revelation, however. The meaning and the recipients of the original promise always remain the same.\u201d\u00a0 [Robert Lightner, Last Days Handbook<\/em> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 210.]\n\nSo what you have in progressive dispensationalism Bock, Blaising, etc. is a movement away from the traditional definition of progressive revelation that I explained at the outset.\u00a0 Subsequent Scripture clarified, gives details, but never changes its meaning.\u00a0 Bock and his group says yes it does change it.\u00a0 It adds a layer of truth with leaving the original meaning intact, complimentary hermeneutics, middle ground between Ladd and Walvoord. \u00a0And by the way, if you don\u2019t buy into this you\u2019re considered as not being that bright.\u00a0 You have to be up to speed, you have to be with their trend, and if you hold to the old way of thinking Walvoord, Pentecost, Toussaint, Ryrie, etc. you\u2019re looked at as being conceptually and hermeneutically na\u00efve.\n\nIt\u2019s sort of the same way they make you feel when\u00a0 you\u2019re going through law school and they\u2019re all talking about how the Constitution is an evolving document because if the Constitution is not an evolving document how am I going to find all my socialism and abortion in the Constitution?\u00a0 Right?\u00a0 So I\u2019ve got to make it a living document.\u00a0 And then if you raise your hand in class and say I don\u2019t think it\u2019s a living document, I think it\u2019s a fixed document, if you want to evolve the document and amend the document through the amendment process but let\u2019s interpret it according to the framers, you get mocked and belittled for wanting to return to an under evolved society of 18th<\/sup> century.\u00a0 And that\u2019s sort of the same pressure seminary students are put under, under this new progressive dispensationalism.\n\nSo Craig Blaising says, \u201cBut when that which is in fact new is presented and accepted as if it had always been the case, the result is not only historical confusion but a conceptual na\u00efvet\u00e9<\/u>\u201d now you know who he\u2019s speaking of there when he says \u201cconceptually na\u00efve\u201d? \u00a0He\u2019s speaking of Charles Ryrie.\u00a0 Charles Ryrie, who\u2026 gosh, don\u2019t I have a Ryrie Study Bible here, who wrote all of these books on systematic theology and all kinds of books, and you know Charles Ryrie, who had a PhD from Dallas Seminary and Europe, by the way, two doctorates, you follow Ryrie\u2019s way of thinking you\u2019re looked at as conceptually and hermeneutically na\u00efve.\u00a0 And most seminary students can\u2019t hold\u00a0 up under the pressure because it\u2019s sort of like not being kick pick for the kickball team.\u00a0 Remember how you felt as a kid when everybody else was picked for the kickball team and you weren\u2019t picked?\u00a0 That\u2019s sort of the group pressure that they can put you under when you don\u2019t buy into this new way of thinking, because this is considered sophisticated \u201cwith it\u201d and the old way is just kind of a dying corpse so to speak.\u00a0 So this is the\u00a0 battle ground.\n\nNow why are they doing it?\u00a0 And wouldn\u2019t you know it, I get on a roll and it\u2019s 8:02, because Janet was asking me a few weeks ago why are they doing this?\u00a0 You asked me that, didn\u2019t you?\u00a0 Can I give you this paragraph?\u00a0 I can do it fast.\u00a0 I guess not, I\u2019ve lost my audience, you guys have already had to endure an awful lot of academic stuff tonight so we\u2019ll pick it up next time.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t