{"id":19240,"date":"2019-01-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-01-30T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-060\/"},"modified":"2019-01-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2019-01-30T06:00:00","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-060","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-060\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 060"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[89],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19240","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-acts","series_event-the-coming-kingdom","sermon_service_type-wednesday-evenings","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"The Coming Kingdom 060","sermon_date":"20190130","sermon_month":"1","sermon_year":"2019","sermon_notes":6406,"sermon_slides":6405,"sermon_mp3":6407,"sermon_id":"130192125107785","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":89,"chapter_and_verse":"2:30-34","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nThe Coming Kingdom\n\n1-30-19\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Acts 2:30-34\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Lesson 60\n\nLet\u2019s take our Bibles tonight if we could and open them to the Book of Acts, chapter 2.\u00a0 And did you all know we\u2019re continuing our study through the doctrine of the kingdom and we\u2019re sort of in that section of the book I wrote that we\u2019re working our way through, Why Do Some People Believe that we are now in the kingdom? Because we\u2019ve been carefully trying to piece that the kingdom today is in a state, not of cancellation but of postponement.\u00a0 And that\u2019s sort of a minority view today and actually has been a minority view throughout church history.\u00a0 The vast majority of Christians that have lived and died over the last two thousand years have believed that we\u2019re in the kingdom now.\u00a0 Why do they think that?\u00a0 We\u2019re looking at passages really from the Book of Acts right now and specifically Acts 2 and one of the main arguments that\u2019s used is based on Acts 2 and we get more into this specifically in chapter 18 where at the very end here, chapter 17.\n\nBut there\u2019s an argument that\u2019s being made that Jesus is now reigning from David\u2019s throne and we went through about six reasons why we do not think Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne, rather He\u2019s at the right hand of the Father.\u00a0 Now at the end of chapter 17 I\u2019m sorry to do this to you again but I threw a bunch of quotes from people and one of the reasons I do this is to show you that the warnings that I\u2019m trying to give about Jesus reigning on David\u2019s throne today being a game changer, I don\u2019t want you to think those are just my own personal thoughts.\u00a0 There\u2019s a long line of scholars that are very worried about this idea that Jesus is currently reigning on David\u2019s throne.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0So there\u2019s developed, I don\u2019t know, since the mid 1980\u2019s a viewpoint at Dallas Seminary called Already-Not Yet, progressive dispensationalism.\u00a0 And basically what they teach is we are already in the kingdom but we won\u2019t be completely in it until Jesus returns.\u00a0 So if you ask them is the kingdom present or is the kingdom future they would say yes, it\u2019s both.\n\nOur perspective is the kingdom is completely future but they believe in what\u2019s called already\/not yet.\u00a0 They believe Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne now over the church which is Phase A of the kingdom, but He will not actually take His seat on David\u2019s throne until the millennial kingdom which will be Phase D of the kingdom.\u00a0\u00a0 And it\u2019s very sort of \u201cin vogue\u201d to believe this today.\u00a0 \u00a0All of the scholars my age are sort of moving in this direction.\u00a0 And what I want to do with some of these quotes, I\u2019ll go through them pretty fast because I don\u2019t want to spend our time on quotes, I want to spend our time in the Bible, but I just want to communicate that this idea that Jesus is now on David\u2019s throne in any sense is something completely new to Dallas Seminary and it\u2019s completely new to our tradition as dispensationalists.\n\nIn other words, those that are promoting this want to promote it as a development within our belief system.\u00a0 That\u2019s what they always say, we\u2019re just developing things.\u00a0 And the key question is, is this a development or is this a departure?\u00a0 And I\u2019m of the view that what they\u2019ve done is so radical that it\u2019s actually a departure from the viewpoint that we represent here.\n\nSo here\u2019s a few quotes.\u00a0 Here\u2019s one from Stephen Nichols of Master\u2019s Seminary, commenting on this new development called progressive dispensationalism, the already\/not\u00a0 yet viewpoint. He says: \u201cAlthough the progressive dispensationalists are careful to express their commitment to a future for ethnic Israel and a future, literal fulfillment of Israel\u2019s covenant promise, these views concerning the inaugural fulfillment of Old Testament promise, especially that of the Davidic covenant, and the redefining of the present form of the church\u201d and you see, that\u2019s what\u2019s happening, the church really is no longer a parenthesis in between God\u2019s past work with Israel and future work with Israel, that\u2019s how we teach the concept of the church.\u00a0 They\u2019re basically trying to say the church is just a present form of the Davidic kingdom.\u00a0 So Nichols says, \u201c\u2026the redefining of the present form of the church mark an aberration from normative dispensationalism.\u201d That\u2019s our viewpoint.\u00a0 \u201cThe consistently held offer, rejection, postponement, and fully future fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom is absent from their teaching.\u201d [\u201cThe Dispensational View of the Davidic Kingdom: A Response to Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d in The Master\u2019s Perspective on Biblical Prophecy, ed. Richard L. Mayue and Robert L. Thomas, Master\u2019s Perspective Series (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002), 54.]\n\nNow if you\u2019ve been tracking with our study, we\u2019re already in what, Lesson 60, we\u2019ve carefully traced, haven\u2019t we, the offer of the kingdom?\u00a0 Any thumbs up on that, you guys remember that?\u00a0 \u00a0Rejection of the kingdom, postponement of the kingdom, and then one day in the future tribulation period the kingdom will be reoffered.\u00a0 But if your perspective is the church is now phase A of the kingdom you can\u2019t have an offer and rejection of it, can you?\u00a0 I mean, how can something be offered and rejected if we\u2019re in it now?\u00a0 Do you see that?\u00a0 So the whole framework that we\u2019ve been giving here about the offer of the kingdom to Israel, the rejection, postponement, future offer, all of that is absent in their teaching.\u00a0 So this already\/not yet progressive dispensationalism, as much as they want to say it\u2019s very similar or it\u2019s not that much of a change, don\u2019t believe that!\u00a0 It\u2019s a radical, RADICAL departure.\n\nNichols goes on and he says, \u201cFrom the perspective of dispensational tradition, the current land\u00adscape of progressive dispensationalists appears to be a different terrain. The view of the offer, rejection, postponement, and fully future fulfillment of the Davidic kingdom and the corollary view of the church as something different and distinct is and has been the consistent view of normative dispensationalism.\u201d\u00a0 See, because the kingdom was rejected by Israel we\u2019re in a phase of God\u2019s program today which is not the kingdom at all.\u00a0 So the church is something completely new.\u00a0 But that gets lost in this already not yet system.\n\n\u201cBy viewing the present form of the church as an inaugural stage of the Davidic kingdom with Christ seated on the Davidic throne in heaven, the progressive dispensational position has distanced itself from this distinguishing feature of dispensationalism. The <\/em>distinguishing feature of dispensationalism, i.e., the consistent distinction between Israel and the church, is all but absent. Consequently, the legitimacy of calling Progressive Dispensationalism part of the dispensational tradition is questionable.\u201d\u00a0 [Stephen Nichols, \u201cThe Dispensational View of the Kingdom: A Response to Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d The Master\u2019s Seminary Journal 7 (Fall 1996): 238.]\n\nSo basically what\u2019s happening is these new guys have come along and they want to be called a dispen\u00adsationalists also, progressive dispensationalists.\u00a0 But how do you call someone a dispensa\u00adtion\u00adalist when they reject the tenants of dispensationalism?\u00a0 It\u2019s like someone wanting to be called a Baptist but they don\u2019t believe in full immersion in water.\u00a0 Or they don\u2019t even believe baptism is an ordinance to be practiced in the church.\u00a0 Well, you don\u2019t get the title Baptist just because you want it; you get it because you represent the views of being a Baptist.\n\nIt\u2019s the same with this mindset that\u2019s going on with progressive dispensationalism.\u00a0 They want the title but when you actually look at what they teach they\u2019re no longer teaching dispensationalism.\u00a0 They no longer believe in a consistent literal approach to the whole Bible. They really don\u2019t believe in different programs for Israel and the church.\u00a0 They don\u2019t believe in the offer, rejection, postpone-ment, reoffer of the kingdom. All of that disappears.\u00a0 And they really don\u2019t believe the church is sort of a break in God\u2019s program with Israel, or a parenthesis, yet they want the title dispensational.\n\nAnd by the way, they\u2019re really fuzzy on the rapture.\u00a0 They\u2019ll pay it lip service but the whole basis of believing in a rapture, a pre-trib rapture is believing that Israel and the church are different.\u00a0 In the tribulation period God is dealing with Israel again so the church can\u2019t be here.\u00a0 But if you\u2019re kind of fuzzy on that and you\u2019re not really seeing a clear distinction between Israel and the church, you get kind of fuzzy on the doctrine of the rapture.\u00a0 So these folks almost never will talk about the rapture although they might pay it lip service in private conversation.\u00a0 I had several of them for classes I took from them and the only time I ever remember them mentioning the rapture was never in a public lecture or anything like that, it was always when I went up and asked them questions privately, then they sort of reluctantly acknowledge, yeah, we still sort of believe in a pre-trib rapture.\u00a0 But it becomes sort of a backburner issue rather than what I think it should be, a front burner issue.\n\nHere\u2019s a quote from Robert Lightener, a long time professor at Dallas Seminary, criticizing progressive dispensationalism.\u00a0 He says, \u201c\u201cMany who are classic dispensationalists\u2014and even those who are not dispensationalists at all\u2014question why those who no longer believe in the foundational essentials of dispensationalism still want to be part of the dispensationalism family. This is truly something not yet revealed.\u201d\u00a0 [Robert Lightner, Last Days Handbook<\/em> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 211.]\n\nSo you\u2019ll notice I am quoting these guys, these older professors, I\u2019m showing\u00a0 you where in their books they said these things and so I don\u2019t want you to think I\u2019m up here just inventing things.\u00a0 The concern I have about progressive dispensationalism has been sounded also by many other people of far more greater weight and reputation that myself.\u00a0 That\u2019s why I\u2019m showing you these quotes, not to bore you with a bunch of quotes.\n\nLightener goes on and he describes progressive dispensationalism as \u201cThe term used by those who still wish to be called dispensationalists but who do not believe some of the basic essentials of dispensationalism. They do not believe God has a program for Israel and one for the church. They believe that Christ is presently on the throne of David in heaven and the Davidic kingdom is being fulfilled now in part.\u201d\u00a0 [Robert Lightner, Last Days Handbook<\/em> (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 233.]\n\nSee, Lewis Sperry Chafer never believed anything like that when he established Dallas Seminary.\u00a0 Charles Ryrie never believed anything like that.\u00a0 John Walvoord never believed anything like that.\u00a0 J. Dwight Pentecost never believed anything like that.\u00a0 But here come these third generation scholars all of a sudden believing all these things and they want the title \u201cdispensational\u201d and they want to argue that they\u2019re just developing dispensationalism.\u00a0 The fact of the matter is they\u2019re not developing anything, they\u2019re departing; they\u2019re departing from something.\u00a0 And the Scripture warns us over and over and over again about doctrinal departures.\u00a0 Look at the state of Harvard, Princeton, Yale, I mean, all of those schools started as Bible believing schools and today they\u2019re about as far from believing the basic tenants of the Bible as you can get.\u00a0 And this is sort of the direction I think that progressive dispensationalism is moving in.\n\nNow Robert Lightner, in the Conservative Theological Journal<\/em>, has a whole article on this.\u00a0 And I wanted to share these quotes with you because I think he really captures the idea.\u00a0 \u201cProgressives,\u201d that\u2019s progressive dispensationalist, \u201cProgressives are very set on finding various periods within the history of dispensationalism where there have been changes made or developments. They like to talk about the initial period. They like to talk about the classical period and the essentialist or revised period.\u201d\u00a0 And then he says, \u201cI personally do not wish to get involved in that kind of breakdown of category. I do not think that is genuine at all. I think that this is an attempt to pave the way for their defense of their own system. What they\u2019re really wanting to say is that since dispensationalism has changed from year to year or decade to decade, why get so excited about this new change that we are introducing?\u201d\u00a0 [Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 47\u201349, 54.]\n\nSo this is sort of how part of the game is played.\u00a0 They try to find disagreements amongst traditional dispensationalists, and there are some.\u00a0 Dwight Pentecost, for example, didn\u2019t believe everything that Lewis Sperry Chafer taught.\u00a0 Lewis Sperry Chafer taught two new covenants, Dwight Pentecost believed in one new covenant.\u00a0 And so the progressives come along and they say aha, look at these traditional dispensationalists made some changes, so therefore since they made some changes people shouldn\u2019t get upset about the radical changes that we\u2019re making.\u00a0 See that.\n\nBut you see, the differences between J. Dwight Pentecost and Lewis Sperry Chafer were basically microscopic.\u00a0 I would kind of analogize it this way, and I think Lightner does this in his article, those kind of changes are like moving furniture around in a house.\u00a0 Well, the couch should be over here and we\u2019ll but the coffee table over there, and you make some minor changes, why don\u2019t we put in some new wall paper.\u00a0 But what progressive dispensationalists are doing is they\u2019re not moving furniture around in a house; what they\u2019re doing is they\u2019re damaging the foundation the house is built on.\u00a0 See that?\u00a0 Because dispensationalism comes from a commitment to a literal approach to the whole Bible and once you do that that\u2019s how\u00a0 you start to see differences between Israel and the church all of these very important things.\n\nSo kind of the deception is well, there was some changes in\u00a0 years gone by and so don\u2019t pay attention to our changes, and Lightner\u2019s point here is that the changes in\u00a0 years gone by were microscopic; the changes that are being made today are of a foundational fundamental variety.\n\nLightner goes on and he says, \u201cOur change is just like the other changes,\u201d repeating their mantra.\u00a0 \u00a0\u201cDispensationalism has always had various people believing certain things about it within dispensationalism. There has been change; therefore, this is just another one of those changes. However,\u201d Lightner says, \u201cI do not believe the changes are the same at all. To be sure, dispensationalists have always differed, Dr. Walvoord differs at points with Dr. Chafer, Dr. Chafer differs at points with Dr. Ryrie, Dr. Ryrie with Dr. Pentecost\u2026.\u201d \u00a0And that was sort of [can't understand word]\u00a0 when I was there taking classes from these older guys and trying to figure out where they disagreed with each other because their disagreements were very small.\u00a0 Lightner says, \u201cbut the core beliefs of dispensationalism have not changed since Darby<\/em>.\u201d\u00a0 [Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 47\u201349, 54]\n\nDarby\u00a0 really was the first to sort of formalize and codify dispensationalism.\u00a0 Yeah, there\u2019s little changes in the furniture of the house here and there but the foundation has always been the same.\u00a0 That\u2019s what Lightner\u2019s point is.\n\nHe goes on and he says, \u201cThe core beliefs involved are what Ryrie calls the \u201csine qua non,\u201d<\/em> you say well what is that?\u00a0 Are\u00a0 you speaking on tongues up there, what\u2019s\u00a0 \u201csine qua non,\u201d<\/em> mean?\u00a0 Sine qua non<\/em> is a Latin expression and it means without which there is nothing. And it\u2019s Charles Ryrie that really developed what\u2019s called this sine qua non<\/em> of dispensationalism.\u00a0 And to be a dispensat\u00adionalist what do you have to believe?\u00a0\u00a0 Do you have to agree with everybody on every little thing?\u00a0 No, that would be an impossibility, but here are three things you have to believe in: Number one, you have to believe in a literal approach to the whole Bible, Genesis to Revelation.\u00a0 In other words, you take things literally whenever possible, unless there\u2019s a clear figure of speech or metaphor or something like that.\u00a0 So literal whenever possible, not just in the gospels, not just in the Book of Romans, but in the book of Genesis, in the Book of Revelation, in the Book of Daniel, etc.\u00a0 And you approach the whole Bible that way.\n\nAnd once you move in that direction\u00a0 you start seeing very fast that Israel means Israel and the church means the church.\u00a0 And they are two trains on totally different railroad tracks, meaning that God has a separate program for Israel and He has a separate program for the church.\u00a0 Now a lot of people are greatly offended by that idea, what do you mean God has two programs, one for Israel and one\u00a0 for the church, aren\u2019t we all one people of God?\u00a0 Well, as you look at nature do you see variety in nature?\u00a0\u00a0 I mean, as\u00a0 you look around this room aren\u2019t we all different, don\u2019t we all have different personalities, don\u2019t we all have different DNA.\u00a0 I mean, we all have different finger prints. I mean, there\u2019s seven billion people on this planet, I don\u2019t think anybody\u2019s fingerprints are exactly the same are they?\n\nOr you look at all of the snowflakes that have ever fallen in human history, my understanding is when you look at all of those snowflakes under a microscope no two snowflakes are identical.\u00a0 So isn\u2019t God a God of variety?\u00a0 I mean, don\u2019t we have male and female?\u00a0 Isn\u2019t that diversity there?\u00a0 Don\u2019t we have good angels and fallen angels; I mean, doesn\u2019t God have one program for the good angels that never fell, two-thirds of them, and then He\u2019s got a different program for the fallen angels that did fall, one-third of them, with Lucifer. \u00a0So when you look at the variety in God in the Bible and in nature what\u2019s the big deal of having a separate program, one for Israel and one for the church?\u00a0 I mean, that shouldn\u2019t be any big deal at all.\n\nAnd we start to see those two programs when you start becoming committed to the fact that the whole Bible is literal. So foundation stone number one in the sine qua non<\/em>,\u00a0 without which there is not, meaning if you take away one of these things dispensationalism doesn\u2019t exist anymore.\u00a0 Foundation stone number one is a literal approach to the whole Bible.\u00a0 Foundation stone number two is Israel and the church are separate programs.\u00a0 And then what\u2019s foundation stone number three?\u00a0 It\u2019s what\u2019s called the doxological purpose of God.\u00a0 Anybody know what doxa <\/em>means?\u00a0 Glory!\u00a0 God works in history to do what?\u00a0 Glorify Himself.\u00a0 God doesn\u2019t even work in history to save people primarily; now that\u2019s part of His love and His mercy but even the salvation of souls, who gets the glory when a soul gets saved?\u00a0 God does!\n\nEven our salvation is subsumed under God\u2019s overarching purpose which is to glorify Himself.\u00a0 And that\u2019s what makes you a dispen\u00adsationalist.\u00a0\u00a0 Now you can disagree with somebody on when the Gog\/Magog war happens in dispensationalism, there\u2019s a lot of different views on that but that\u2019s not the defining characteristic\u00a0 of a dispensationalist.\u00a0 You have to believe these three things: a consistent literal approach to the Bible leading to separate programs for Israel and the church, and God in both of these programs is glorifying Himself, the doxological purpose of God.\u00a0 And should I have a heart attack and drop dead (I\u2019m not planning on doing that) and you have to get a new pastor and you\u2019re trying to figure out where that potential pastor is on this issue, you ask him what his believes are on the sine qua non<\/em>.\u00a0 Do you believe in the dispensational sine qua non<\/em> or don\u2019t you, because that\u2019s going to tell you if he\u2019s within our theological tradition or not.\n\nAnd so Lightner goes on and he says, \u201cFirst, Ryrie proposed that the sine qua non<\/em>, the least common denominator, the most basic beliefs, involve a distinction between God\u2019s program with Israel and His program with the Church. The first distinction is one part of the sine qua non<\/em>. A second would be that the view of the distinction between those two programs is based on a\u201d what? \u201ca literal hermeneutic\u201d now do you see that fourth to the last word there, see the word consistently? \u201c\u2026consistently applied to Scripture.\u201d\u00a0 [Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 47\u201349, 54.]\n\nI can\u2019t emphasize that word \u201cconsistently\u201d enough because everybody that\u2019s a Christian believe in literal interpretation somewhere or else they wouldn\u2019t even be an orthodox Christian.\u00a0 They would be in the camp of liberalism. So everybody somewhere believes you\u2019ve got to be literal with Jesus and He died on a cross and rose from the dead.\u00a0 So all Christian traditions are literal somewhere. But you see, what makes our belief system unique is we\u2019re literal everywhere.\u00a0 I\u2019m just as literal in the Book of Revelation as I am in the Gospels and I don\u2019t invent a new method of interpretation (that\u2019s what that word hermeneutic means there, interpretation) just because I\u2019m in one part of the Bible or the other.\u00a0 So it\u2019s not enough to ask somebody do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.\u00a0 You have to ask them do you consistently<\/u> believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?\u00a0 So that\u2019s part two of this sine qua non<\/em>.\n\nLightner goes on and he says, \u201cThe third sine qua non<\/em> is that God has introduced these various economies\u2014dispensations\u2014in the history of time so as to bring the most glory to Himself. \u00a0God\u2019s major purpose in the world as He implements His sovereign plan is to bring glory to Himself. Certainly, there are other purposes but dispensationalists\u201d going all the\u00a0 way back to Darby, \u201chave always believed the overriding one is for God to bring glory to Himself.\u201d\u00a0 Now watch what Lightner says here about progressive dispensationalism, which is this new idea that everybody is trumpeting today.\u00a0 Lightner says, \u201cIn progressive dispensationalism all three of these basic essentials, which Ryrie pointed out and that have been believed from the beginning of the dispensational emphasis, have been rejected.\u201d\u00a0 [Robert Lightner, \u201c\u201cProgressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 47\u201349, 54]\n\nSo what do you call progressive dispensationalism?\u00a0 You can\u2019t call it\u2026 I don\u2019t there\u2019s dispensation\u00adalism anymore because it\u2019s outside the sine quo non<\/em>.\u00a0 They do not believe in a consistent literal approach to the whole Bible.\u00a0 They do not believe that Israel and the church represent separate programs.\u00a0 And if you don\u2019t believe these things how in the world could you call yourself a dispensationalist?\u00a0 This is the warning that Lightener is giving here in this article.\n\nHe goes on and he says, \u201cAt least two of them, have been categorically rejected. Namely, a distinction between God\u2019s program for Israel and the Church has been blurred, and the concept of a literal, consistent, interpretation has been replaced by a complementary hermeneutic.\u201d Now if\u00a0 you go back into our series we did some teaching on their complimentary hermeneutics which is very different than the literal hermeneutic that we practice here. \u00a0\u201cThe third has been rejected, the glory of God as the primary purpose of God. It has been replaced by a Christological salvific purpose. The salvation of sinners has been the primary purpose of God, progressives say. So it is a salvific purpose rather than a doxological, glory to God purpose that includes salvation.\u201d\u00a0 [Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 47\u201349, 54.]\n\nAnd his point is let\u2019s just go through the sine quo non<\/em> and let\u2019s look at what the contemporary progressive dispensationalist (so-called) are doing with each of those elements, and they basically have rejected all three.\n\nLightner goes on and he says, I think that progressive dispensationalists have made this classification of initial, classical, and essential in order to simply argue that there have been these spurts of growth, development, and change; therefore, their view is just another change.\u201d So what these guys love to do is they like to find all these differences of opinion between Chafer and Pentecost and Ryrie and Walvoord and they say those guys did some changes so don\u2019t really pay attention to the changes that we\u2019re making.\u00a0 But you see, the point that Lightener is making here is the changes that existed between Ryrie, Walvoord, Pentecost, Chafer, etc. were within the sine qua non<\/em>.\u00a0 See that.\u00a0 I mean, nobody was challenging the sine qua non<\/em> when these different changes or tweaks were happening.\u00a0 What\u2019s happening here is the sine qua non<\/em> itself is being challenged.\n\nSo Lightener says, it\u2019s the difference between moving furniture around in a house versus attacking the foundation the house is built on. That\u2019s his point.\u00a0 He says, \u201cI want to categorically reject that thesis because I think there is a world of difference between various differences within the system and altering the foundation of the system. I liken the three essentials, or sine qua non<\/em>, as the foundation upon which dispensationalism rests. You can\u2019t be a dispensationalist without these essentials, in my opinion.\u201d\u00a0 [Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 47\u201349, 54.]\n\n\u201cThe other changes, the differences between how to interpret the New Covenant, for example, and whether or not the Tribulation is another dispensation or a thousand other things such as that,\u201d now here\u2019s his analogy that I stole from him, \u201cI liken to moving furniture around a room. It doesn\u2019t affect the system. In fact, it\u2019s healthy to have differences as to where this piece of furniture belongs and that one, and you may get tired of it being this way, so you shift it. That doesn\u2019t affect the structure of the house. But the dispensational house is built upon the foundation of the three essentials I just named, and progressive dispensationalism is attacking these essentials.\u201d\u00a0 [\u201cProgressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 47\u201349, 54.]\n\nNot Tommy Ice is going to be here Sunday speaking; he\u2019s a dispensationalist, I\u2019m a dispensat\u00adionalist.\u00a0 Did you know that there are things that I disagree with in Tommy Ice\u2019s views on things, and there are things that he disagrees with, with me?\u00a0 Now he can go his way and I\u2019ll go the Lord\u2019s way\u2026 NO, just joking!\u00a0 But for example, the God Magog war, I wrote a whole little book on that, Ezekiel 38 and 39, when does that happen?\u00a0 He\u2019s of the perspective that it happens post rapture pre Daniel\u2019s 70th<\/sup> week.\u00a0 I\u2019m of the perspective that chapter 38 happens with the second seal and chapter 39 happens at the end.\u00a0 And we can have a very lively conversation about that but the fact of the matter is, both of us, even though we might disagree on the timing of the Gog\/Magog invasion are within the dispensational tradition because we\u2019re developing our conclusions within the sine qua non<\/em>?\u00a0 Do you see that?\n\nWhat\u2019s happening with progressive dispensationalism is the sine qua non<\/em> itself is being demolished, the foundation upon which dispensationalism rests is being demolished and\u00a0 yet these folks want the title \u201cdispensationalists.\u201d\n\nYou know, it\u2019s one thing to have differences of opinion within the system, even with this church, probably on our staff, I think Jim and myself agree on most things, but there are probably things he disagrees with me on and I might disagree with him on but the disagreements are almost micro\u00adscopic because both of us are developing our conclusions within the sine qua non<\/em>.\u00a0 Do you see that?\u00a0 So it\u2019s okay to have mild differences of opinion within the sine qua non<\/em>.\u00a0 The problem is when you start demolishing the foundation of the household, which is the sine qua non<\/em>, then you\u2019re outside the dispensational tradition.\u00a0 And Ryrie, I believe, was exactly right on when he developed this three part test, and that\u2019s how\u00a0 you can figure out real fast if someone is a dispensationalist or not.\n\nLightner goes on and he says, \u201cThat is a world of difference between any change, any development that has ever taken place since Darby. So, it\u2019s not fair, it\u2019s a misrepresentation to say that here\u2019s another development just like all the other ones. No, it is not<\/em><\/strong> like all the other ones.\u201d\u00a0 You again, their point is well, Jim and Andy disagree, Andy and Tommy disagree, they change things around so there\u2019s nothing to see here folks, just go right along, don\u2019t pay attention to the changes that we\u2019re making.\u00a0 And Lightner\u2019s point is that\u2019s an apples and oranges comparison. The disagreements amongst true dispensationalists are within the sine quo non<\/em>; these guys are attacking the sine quo non<\/em>.\u00a0 So it\u2019s not fair, it\u2019s a misrepresentation to say that there\u2019s another development just like all the other ones.\u00a0 And when\u00a0 you read progressive dispensational literature they start off their books, one book in particular, where they start pointing out all the differences of opinion amongst dispensat\u00adionalists.\u00a0 They try to make it sound like well there\u2019s some differences of opinion there so we\u2019re going to introduce some more; there\u2019s nothing to see here folks, move right along.\u00a0 What they\u2019re not telling you is they\u2019re attacking the foundation of the house upon which dispensationalism rests and they\u2019re not telling you that the differences amongst the older guys were within the sine quo non<\/em>.\n\nSo Lightener says, \u201c It is drastically different<\/u><\/em> from all the other ones because it attacks the foundation upon which the system has been built. That is different from moving the furniture around to different places in the dispensational house, or to carry it through more literally the household, the economy, the stewardship. . . . I am not\u201d Lightner says, \u201cmanufacturing these doctrines.\u201d\u00a0 And this is why I\u2019m sharing these quotes, because I think sometimes you all think I\u2019m\u00a0 up here making this stuff up and just sending out warnings that have no merit.\u00a0 I think they do have merit because my mindset is well reflected by other people.\u00a0 \u201cI\u2019m not manufacturing these doctrines, \u00a0These are the core beliefs of progressive dispensationalism and are at great variance with normative dispensationalism.\u201d\u00a0 [Progressive Dispensationalism,\u201d Conservative Theological Journal 4, no. 11 (March 2000): 47\u201349, 54.]\n\nSo what is progressive dispensationalism or anybody that says Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne today.\u00a0 They are outside the scope of the dispensational tradition.\u00a0 And I think the last time I was with you I gave you the example of the young youth pastor before we got Gabe that wanted to be a\u00a0 youth pastor here and the youth pastor search committee just loves this guy and he pulled on everybody\u2019s heartstrings and everybody wanted him to be our youth pastor and then we looked at where he was at theologically, what he believed on the sine quo non<\/em>, and I had to be the bad guy and I had to veto the whole thing because it was very obvious by reading his beliefs that he was outside the sine quo non.<\/em>\u00a0 And if he\u2019s outside the sine quo non<\/em>\u00a0 he\u2019s outside the Sugar Land Bible Church doctrinal statement because the Sugar Land Bible Church doctrinal statement is based on the sine quo non<\/em>.\n\nSo to hire someone that\u2019s outside the sine quo non<\/em>\u00a0 is essentially to hire someone who is an open violator of the doctrinal statement.\u00a0\u00a0 Someone teaching your youth is a violator of the doctrinal statement.\u00a0 And the temptation within evangelical Christianity is just to sort of look the other way because this guy has such a magnanimous personality and everybody likes him.\u00a0 The problem is if you start trashing or disregarding one part of the doctrinal statement how long do you think it will take until you start ignoring other parts of the doctrinal statement?\u00a0 \u00a0Virgin birth, Trinity, deity of Christ, and that\u2019s a danger you get into.\u00a0 And when you have sort of the mindset I have on it you\u2019re immediately looked at as sort of a bad guy because you\u2019re pulling the plug on somebody that everybody likes.\u00a0 But I don\u2019t know if that\u2019s our standard in terms of firing people.\u00a0 I mean, do we hire people everybody likes?\u00a0 Is that the goal?\u00a0 I mean, I thought we had a doctrinal statement and we expect it to be taught and protected and we expect all of our teachers to teach within that doctrinal statement.\n\nSo I wanted to toss those quotes at you there at the very end just to show you that this issue, we went through six reasons why Jesus is not now reigning from David\u2019s throne, why this is a much bigger issue than most people would think.\n\nWe move from chapter 17 and we have a few minutes left, let\u2019s go to chapter 18 of the book, and that\u2019s why I had you turn to Acts 2.\u00a0 And in chapter 18 of the book what I\u2019m trying to expose is how the birth of the church as given in Acts 2 is being used by kingdom now theologians to teach the kingdom was inaugurated in Acts 2.\u00a0 And I think what they\u2019re doing with Acts 3 is unconscionable and I think it\u2019s wrong what they\u2019re doing with Acts 2 because anybody that believes that the kingdom has started, or that we\u2019re in the kingdom, or Jesus is reigning on David\u2019s throne, eventually they\u2019re going to take you to Acts 2 and what I\u2019m trying to do in chapter 18 is expose the misuse of Acts 2. BUT it\u2019s difficult for me to expose how Acts 2 is being misused unless we first study what Acts 2 really means.\u00a0 See that?\n\nSo to expose something as a counterfeit you have to compare it to the real and so I just wanted to spend a couple of minutes, we don\u2019t have time, I wish we did, to go through Acts 2 verse by verse but I just want to take you through this outline so that you\u2019ll see what Acts 2 is really talking about.\u00a0 Then when we reconvene and we start looking a the abuses of Acts 2 you\u2019ll have a plumb line to compare it to.\u00a0 It\u2019s like in the banking system, how do they teach you to recognize counterfeit money?\u00a0 They give you real money and you become familiar with its color, its texture, what it looks like, even what it smells like, and then all of a sudden a counterfeit bill goes across your hand and it doesn\u2019t feel right; you immediately detect it as a falsehood because you\u2019re so familiar with the real.\n\nAnd that\u2019s sort of what I\u2019m trying to do here with Acts 2.\u00a0 If you really see what\u2019s happening in Acts 2 and someone comes along and says Acts 2 is really about the beginning of the kingdom, or the inauguration of the kingdom, you\u2019re going to see it as sort of a funny money that may have crossed your hand that doesn\u2019t feel right.\u00a0 So let\u2019s very fast tonight walk through Acts 2 and see if we can get a handle on what Acts 2 is talking about.\n\nActs 2, as you probably know, is the beginning of the church, so here\u2019s sort of an outline, there\u2019s two slides here, but verses 1-4 of Acts 2 is The Falling of the Holy Spirit on the Day of Pentecost, where tongues of fire and so forth appeared over the apostles.\u00a0 And then as you look at verses 5-8 that falling of the Holy Spirit is commensurate with the gift of tongues.\u00a0 Now tongues is not a very good translation; that word is better translated from the Greek \u201clanguage\u201d or \u201clanguages,\u201d as in the word is glossa<\/em>, where we get the word glossary, and sometimes the word is dialectos<\/em> where we get the word dialect. \u00a0So tongues here was the capacity to speak in a known language that you\u2019ve never studied.\u00a0 It would be like if you only spoke Spanish and I only spoke English and then all of a sudden I broke out into Spanish perfectly, even though I\u2019ve never studied Spanish.\u00a0 What would you think? You would say wow, he\u2019s speaking in our own language or glossary or dialect and you would say what?\u00a0 This is a miracle of God.\n\nSo \u201ctongues,\u201d the way I\u2019m describing it was how the Holy Spirit got the attention of people as the Holy Spirit was being poured out on the Day of Pentecost as the church was beginning.\u00a0 You have to understand that in the providence of God the nation of Israel had been under the dispensation of the Law for one thousand five hundred years.\u00a0 That\u2019s a long time, isn\u2019t it?\u00a0 And now God is doing something completely different, the age of the church has started, and so how would people know it\u2019s really God changing the rules?\u00a0 Well, He testified to it through tongues or languages the way I\u2019m describing it, because tongues, we know from 1 Corinthians 14, is not a sign for the believer, it\u2019s a sign for the unbeliever.\u00a0 So that\u2019s where tongues comes from in verses 5-8.\u00a0 Suddenly the apostles are speaking in a language that they\u2019ve never learned, that the audience could understand.\n\nAnd these folks, verses 9-12, came from all over the known world.\u00a0 You see the little map there in the right hand corner, it shows\u00a0 you all the different places that these folks on the Day of Pentecost came from.\u00a0 They came from Libya, Egypt, Arabia, Rome, Asia, Pontus, Cappadocia, Parthia,, Elam, Mesopotamia, which is modern day Iraq, etc. etc. etc.\u00a0\u00a0 And why were all these people gathered there in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost?\u00a0 Because it was a special feast in Judaism called The Feast of Pentecost.\u00a0 And these Jews who were kind of dispersed throughout the known world were under the obligation to show up in Jerusalem to celebrate this feast, Leviticus 23\u00a0 told them to do that.\u00a0 It\u2019s just this time around God had a surprise for them, the Holy Spirit had a surprise.\n\nSo we have the falling of the Holy Spirit, the manifestation of the gift of tongues, verses 9-12 is all of those people groups assembled that were hearing the apostles speak clearly in their own language despite the fact that those apostles had never studied that particular language, and they were saying this a miracle.\u00a0 And what unbelief does is it comes up with natural mystic, naturalistic explanations to explain away the supernatural.\u00a0 I mean, what did the Pharisees ultimately say about Jesus\u2019 miracles?\u00a0 They couldn\u2019t explain them away so they said What?\u00a0 Well, He did those through the power of Satan, in Matthew 12 they said that.\u00a0 \u00a0[Matthew 12:22, \u201cThen a demon-possessed man who was<\/em> blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man spoke and saw. [23] All the crowds were amazed, and were saying, \u201cThis man cannot be the Son of David, can he?\u201d [24] But when the Pharisees heard this,<\/em> they said, \u201cThis man casts out demons only by Beelzebul the ruler of the demons.\u201d]\n\nAnd would you not call creation a miracle?\u00a0 To me it\u2019s obvious that God exists looking at creation, but here comes unbelief that doesn\u2019t want to submit to God so let\u2019s just develop a naturalistic explanation for creation; let\u2019s say the whole thing is assembled itself over random chance events, over billions of years and we\u2019ll call that what?\u00a0 Evolution or Darwinism.\u00a0 So what is evolution or Darwinism?\u00a0 It\u2019s unbelief that doesn\u2019t want to submit to God trying to explain away the supernatural.\n\nSo you have the falling of the Holy Spirit, the manifestation of the gift of tongues and here comes unbelief coming up with a naturalistic explanation because they don\u2019t want to submit to the authority of what God is doing here.\u00a0 And what do they say?\u00a0 Verses 13-15, oh, these people are drunk.\u00a0 This tongues is explainable through drunkenness.\u00a0 Now does that make any sense.\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0[Acts 2:13-15, \u201cBut others were mocking and saying, \u201cThey are full of sweet wine.\u201d\u00a0 [14]\u00a0 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: \u201cMen of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. [15] \u201cFor these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only<\/em> the third hour of the day.\u201d]\n\nNow does that make any sense?\u00a0 I mean, drinking doesn\u2019t make\u00a0 you smarter, if anything it makes\u00a0 your speech slur and\u00a0 you certainly don\u2019t have an ability so speak clearly in a language you\u2019ve never studied. But you know, they don\u2019t want to accept this as a miracle of God so they say it\u2019s drunkenness.\u00a0 So consequently Peter, this is the guy that denied Christ three times now filled with the Holy Spirit that has just descended on him in the first four verses.\u00a0 Now he stands up and he gives, probably the greatest sermon, other than maybe the Sermon on the Mount, right here in Acts 2 explaining to these unbelieving Jews that this is not drunkenness.\n\nAnd it\u2019s amazing how this fisherman of limited education is able to put together all of these Scripture verses in a powerful apologetic showing people that this is a move of God that\u2019s happening right here; it has nothing to do with some kind of naturalistic explanation like drunkenness.\u00a0 So his first point in his sermons I it\u2019s 9:00 o\u2019clock in the morning.\u00a0 I mean, I\u2019ve had family members, extended, that suffered from alcoholism and things like that and I don\u2019t remember any of them starting drinking at 9:00 o\u2019clock in the morning, it was at least 11:00 but it wasn\u2019t 9:00.\n\nAnd then from there he starts to quote, verses 16-21, he starts to quote Joel 2:28-32.\n\n[Acts 2:16-21, \u201cBut this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;\u00a0 [17] And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams:\u00a0 [18] And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:\u00a0 [19] And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke: [20] The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: [21] And it shall come to pass, that<\/em> whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.\u00a0 [22] Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.\u201d\n\nJoel 2:28, \u201cIt will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions.\u00a0 [29] \u201cEven on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.\u00a0 [30] I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, blood, fire and columns of smoke.\u00a0 [31] \u201cThe sun will be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes.\u00a0 [32] And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD will be delivered; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape, as the LORD has said, Even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.\u201d]\n\nNow as I\u2019ll explain in chapter 18 I don\u2019t think Peter is saying in Acts 2 that Joel 2 is being fulfilled in Acts 2.\u00a0 I think he\u2019s drawing an analogy of how the Spirit is going to work with Israel in the distant future, in the tribulation period and the millennial kingdom and he\u2019s saying something similar is happening now.\u00a0 He\u2019s arguing by way of analogy and if you want more proof on that the second half of chapter 18 gets into that and I\u2019ll be getting into that in the class.\n\nFrom there he begins to talk about where the Holy Spirit and these miraculous manifestations that they were seeing actually came from, verses 22-35, and he says the source is Jesus, because Jesus, verse 22, is a worker of miracles when he was on the earth, wasn\u2019t he?\u00a0 And yet where is Jesus now?\u00a0 He\u2019s at the right hand of the Father, and guess what?\u00a0 He\u2019s still doing what?\u00a0 Miracles, He\u2019s doing it from a different place, and that\u2019s how you explain, Peter says, tongues and the coming forth of the Holy Spirit upon the church.\n\n[Acts 16:22-35, \u201cThe crowd rose up together against them, and the chief magistrates tore their robes off them and proceeded to order them<\/em> to be beaten with rods. [23] When they had struck them with many blows, they threw them into prison, commanding the jailer to guard them securely; [24] and he, having received such a command, threw them into the inner prison and fastened their feet in the stocks.\u00a0 [25] But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; [26] and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone\u2019s chains were unfastened. [27] When the jailer awoke and saw the prison doors opened, he drew his sword and was about to kill himself, supposing that the prisoners had escaped. [28] But Paul cried out with a loud voice, saying, \u201cDo not harm yourself, for we are all here!\u201d [29] And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, [30] and after he brought them out, he said, \u201cSirs, what must I do to be saved?\u201d\u00a0 [31] They said, \u201cBelieve in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.\u201d [32] And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. [33] And he took them that very<\/em> hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.<\/em> [34] And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household.\u00a0 [35] Now when day came, the chief magistrates sent their policemen, saying, \u201cRelease those men.\u201d]\n\nAnd then he makes the point that this is the very Jesus that Israel rejected and if you look at verse 23 people ask me all the time, do you believe in election or do you believe in free will?\u00a0 And my answer is yes, because in verse 23 you\u2019ll see both of them together.\u00a0 \u201cThis man\u201d that\u2019s Jesus, \u201cdelivered by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,\u201d that\u2019s election, in other words it was always God\u2019s will, God the Father\u2019s will for God the Son to die on the cross but then Peter, right in the middle of the verses says \u201cyou,\u201d who\u2019s \u201cyou\u201d?\u00a0 The Jews, \u201cnailed Him to a cross by the hand of godless men and you put Him to death.\u00a0 \u00a0[Acts 2:23, \u201cthis Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.\u201d]\n\nSo why did Jesus die?\u00a0 Did God the Father plan for Jesus to die or did men kill Jesus through an act of their own free will.\u00a0\u00a0 And what would the answer be?\u00a0 The answer would be yes!\u00a0 And he\u2019s making a point that Israel nationally is guilty.\u00a0 BUT, you killed Him and guess what happened?\u00a0 Verses 24-29, He rose from the dead.\n\n[Acts 2:24, \u201cBut God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power.\u00a0 [25] For David says of Him, 'I SAW THE LORD ALWAYS IN MY PRESENCE; FOR HE IS AT MY RIGHT HAND, SO THAT I WILL NOT BE SHAKEN.\u00a0 [26] 'THEREFORE MY HEART WAS GLAD AND MY TONGUE EXULTED; MOREOVER MY FLESH ALSO WILL LIVE IN HOPE;\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 [27] BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.\u00a0 [28] 'YOU HAVE MADE KNOWN TO ME THE WAYS OF LIFE; YOU WILL MAKE ME FULL OF GLADNESS WITH YOUR PRESENCE.'\u00a0 [29]\u00a0 Brethren, I may confidently say to you regarding the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day.\u201d]\n\nNow what text does he use to demonstrate that Jesus rose from the dead.\u00a0 He uses Psalm 16:8-11 about how My Holy One will not see decay and that\u2019s not talking about David even though David wrote that because we can go to David\u2019s tomb right now and see, he\u2019s not out of the grave.\u00a0 This was a prophecy about Jesus.\u00a0 [Psalm 16:8-11, \u201cI have set the LORD continually before me; because He is at my right hand, I will not be shaken.\u00a0 [9] Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoices; my flesh also will dwell securely.\u00a0 [10] For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; nor will You allow Your Holy One to undergo decay.\u00a0 [11] You will make known to me the path of life; in Your presence is fullness of joy; in Your right hand there are pleasures forever.\u201d\u00a0 ]\n\nAnd then he explains verses 30-32 that Jesus is the heir to David\u2019s throne and he quotes Psalm 132:11. \u00a0Now he\u2019s not, and here\u2019s the disagreement that we\u2019ll be getting into, he\u2019s not saying He\u2019s on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 What he\u2019s saying is the one that the nation of Israel rejected and turned over to Rome for crucifixion was their own Messiah; that\u2019s what he\u2019s saying.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why he\u2019s quoting Psalm 132:11 and Acts 2:30-32.\n\n[Acts 2:30-32, \u201cAnd so, because he was a prophet and knew that GOD HAD SWORN TO HIM WITH AN OATH TO SEAT one OF HIS DESCENDANTS ON HIS THRONE,\u00a0 [31]\u00a0 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.\u00a0 [32]\u00a0 This Jesus God raised up again, to which we are all witnesses.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 Psalm 132:11, \u201cThe LORD has sworn to David A truth from which He will not turn back: \u2018Of the fruit of your body I will set upon your throne.\u2019\u201d]\n\nNow he\u2019s not, and here\u2019s the disagreement that we\u2019ll be getting into, he\u2019s not saying He\u2019s on David\u2019s throne now.\u00a0 What he\u2019s saying is the one that the nation of Israel rejected and turned over to Rome for crucifixion was their own Messiah; that\u2019s what he\u2019s saying.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why he\u2019s quoting Psalm 132:11 and Acts 2:30-32.\n\nAnd where did this Jesus go?\u00a0 He ascended, verses 33-35\u00a0\u00a0 [Acts 2:33, \u201cTherefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.\u00a0 [34] \u00a0\u201cFor it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, \"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,\u00a0 [35] UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.\u2019\u00a0 [35] Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-- this Jesus whom you crucified.\u201d]\n\nAnd where is He now?\u00a0 He\u2019s not on David\u2019s in Jerusalem, He could have been had Israel accepted Him, but where did He go?\u00a0 At the right hand of the Father.\u00a0 He\u2019s not on His own throne, which is on earth.\u00a0 He\u2019s on who\u2019s throne?\u00a0 The Father\u2019s throne.\u00a0 And what passage does He use to substantiate that point?\u00a0 Psalm 110:1 which is probably the most quoted Old Testament psalm in the New Testament and probably in the whole Bible.\u00a0 It says, \u201cA Psalm of David. The LORD says to my Lord: \u2018Sit at My right hand\u201d what\u2019s the next word, \u201cUntil I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.\u201d\u00a0 So Jesus is there at the right hand of the Father waiting to be dispatched back to the earth at the end of the tribulation period after Satan is evicted.\n\nAnd then Peter gets to his conclusion.\u00a0 What\u2019s the point he\u2019s trying to make?\u00a0 Verse 36, \u201cTherefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both LORD and Christ---this Jesus whom you crucified.\u201d\u00a0 [Acts 2:36]\u00a0 In other words, these miracles that you\u2019re seeing via the Holy Spirit and via tongues that you\u2019re trying to explain away, these things are very real; they are coming from the miracle working Messiah that you, Israel, rejected.\u00a0 That\u2019s where they\u2019re coming from.\u00a0 That is the source of those miracles.\u00a0 In fact, they\u2019re the first activity of Christ\u2019s high priestly ministry at the right hand of the Father.\n\nDo you realize what he\u2019s doing here?\u00a0 This is the guy that denied Christ three times.\u00a0 This is the guy who was intimidated when a little slave girl came up and said He was one of them.\u00a0 He is now standing in front of a mass audience on a very important feast within Judaism essentially saying that Israel had it all wrong in rejecting Christ.\u00a0 He\u2019s still alive, He\u2019s at the right hand of the Father, and this is where the spiritual activity that you\u2019re seeing is coming from.\n\nAnd if\u00a0 you look at verse 37 it\u2019s amazing what the Holy Spirit did with His words, because it says, \u201cNow when they\u201d that\u2019s the unbelieving Jews, \u201cheard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, \u2018Brethren, what shall we do?\u2019\u201d\u00a0 I mean, they were just torn apart when they heard this because they recognized that their own nation got it wrong in the rejection of their own King.\n\nSo Peter gives them an exhortation, verses 38-41 and this is where he tells them to repent, and what does repent mean?\u00a0 Change your mind, metanoe\u014d<\/em> is the Greek word, meta is change, noe\u014d<\/em> as in notion or mind, change your mind.\n\n[Acts 2:38, \u201cPeter said to them, \u2018Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.\u00a0 [39] For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.\u2019\u00a0 [40] And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, \u2018Be saved from this perverse generation!\u2019\u00a0 [41] So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.\u201d]\n\nChange your mind about what?\u00a0 Change your mind about what Israel just did with Jesus.\u00a0 Go from being a Christ-rejecting Jew to a Christ-accepting Jew.\u00a0 A synonym for that is to believe or to trust in Jesus Christ.\u00a0 That\u2019s the point that he\u2019s getting at here.\u00a0 And this is a guy that walked out on the water and sunk, remember that?\u00a0 And this is also the guy whose mouth was used as an instrument of the devil in Matthew 16 where Jesus said \u201cget behind Me Satan.\u201d \u00a0\u00a0[Matthew 16:23, \u201cBut He turned and said to Peter, \"Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's.\u201d]\n\nNow as he\u2019s filled with the Holy Spirit and he opens his mouth and weaves together all of these Scriptures, he\u2019s got verses 38-41, three thousand conversions.\u00a0 [Acts 3:38-41, \u201cPeter said<\/em> to them, \u201cRepent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. [39] For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.\u201d [40] And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, \u201cBe saved from this perverse generation!\u201d [41] So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls. [42]They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles\u2019 teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.\u201d]\n\nSo the church just went from twelve to three thousand, with one sermon, from a guy that most people would say is unqualified for ministry because of his prior failures.\u00a0 See, that\u2019s what a Spirit-controlled person is able to do under God\u2019s direction.\u00a0 And so now what do these three thousand people do?\u00a0 Well, they have their first church meeting and you have a description at the end of the chapter, verses 42-47 what these three thousand people started to do.\n\n[Acts 2:42-47, \u201cThey were continually devoting themselves to the apostles\u2019 teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.\u00a0 [43] Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. [44] And all those who had believed were together and had all things in common; [45] and they began<\/em> selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. [46] Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, [47] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.\u201d]\n\nNow we think three thousand people is a lot, and it is, but keep in mind there were probably around a million people in Jerusalem around this time for this particular feast day, Josephus tells us.\u00a0 So Israel, as a whole, did not get regenerated here, that comes later in the tribulation period. But certainly a believing remnant now exists and this is how the church started.\u00a0 And then you have the activities of the early church, verse 42 through 47.\u00a0 If you\u2019ve been following along with us in our Ecclesiology series on Sunday mornings we use that as a basis for what churches ought to be doing in terms of activities.\n\nSo that is what Acts 2 is about.\u00a0 It\u2019s not about starting the Davidic kingdom.\u00a0 And yet as I\u2019ll be showing you in this series, now that you know the truth, people are going to warp these chapters and make it sound like the Davidic kingdom started and it\u2019ll be easier for me to expose the counterfeit of that now that you know what Acts 2 is really about.\n\nSo I\u2019m going to stop talking at this point.","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