{"id":19264,"date":"2019-12-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2019-12-11T06:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-084\/"},"modified":"2022-10-04T09:22:23","modified_gmt":"2022-10-04T14:22:23","slug":"the-coming-kingdom-084","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/the-coming-kingdom-084\/","title":{"rendered":"The Coming Kingdom 084"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[85],"series_event":[470],"sermon_service_type":[474],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-19264","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-matthew","series_event-the-coming-kingdom","sermon_service_type-wednesday-evenings","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"The Coming Kingdom 084","sermon_date":"20191211","sermon_month":"12","sermon_year":"2019","sermon_notes":7367,"sermon_slides":7366,"sermon_mp3":7373,"sermon_id":"12121904420975","series_or_event":470,"service_type":[474],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":85,"chapter_and_verse":"4:17","sermon_transcript":"

The Coming Kingdom 084 - Matthew 4:17<\/h1>\r\n

Dr. Andrew Woods -<\/h1>\r\n

December 11,2019<\/p>\r\nLet\u2019s open our Bibles to John's<\/strong> gospel chapter 5:24<\/strong>. \u00a0Here we are at the end of a long series on The Coming Kingdom<\/u><\/strong>.\u00a0 In the book I wrote (with the same name), we're on the last chapter 26, and we've examined, Number 1<\/strong>, what does the Bible say about the kingdom\u2014arguing that the kingdom is postponed. \u00a0Amen?\r\n\r\nNumber 2,<\/strong> why do people believe we're in the kingdom now? \u00a0We went through all the verses that they use, showed them to be tried in the scales of justice and found wanting.\r\n\r\nAnd then Number 3<\/strong>, the part of it that may be the most interesting part of it. \u00a0I hope all of it's interesting, but who cares? \u00a0In other words, if the Church sees itself as the kingdom, why does it really matter? \u00a0So, part 3<\/strong> is basically an examination of nine heresies, I guess I could put it that way, if I could use that strong of language, or false doctrines that naturally come into the Church once the Church sees itself as the kingdom.\r\n\r\nSo in this section, it's not so much an in-depth analysis of each of these nine false doctrines, but more or less, it's an explanation as to how kingdom now theology really provides the right soil for false doctrines to emerge.\r\n\r\nAnd so we've gone through many of these. \u00a0And a lot of times as Christians, we spend our time shooting at the false doctrine. \u00a0And we don't really understand the foundation from which it emerges, and the foundation of all of these false doctrines, as we've tried to explain, and I would argue that almost every false doctrine that Christianity faces today is\u00a0 kingdom now theology.\r\n\r\nSo we're going to try to cover the last one here\u2014 Number 9<\/strong>, something called Lordship Salvation, the very last chapter in my book, The Coming Kingdom<\/u><\/strong>. \u00a0Chapter 26 deals with a controversy that's been brewing in the church since around the 1980s called Lordship Salvation. \u00a0And this is not an expos\u00e9 on everything there is to know about Lordship Salvation. It's an explanation of how if you get sloppy on your kingdom language, and you don't make kingdom distinctions: \u00a0church versus kingdom, Lordship Salvation comes right into the church. \u00a0So I think most people probably have heard of Lordship Salvation\u2014 has anyone heard of Lordship Salvation?\u00a0 Most of the hands have gone up.\r\n\r\nWhat does the Bible say? \u00a0Well, Lordship Salvation really is an issue related to a controversy concerning what must the lost sinner do to be justified before God?\u00a0 So those of us that are against Lordship Salvation are not against the Lordship of Christ. We're not against calling Jesus Lord because the Bible calls Him Lord. \u00a0The issue is: Is the submission to Christ as Lord, in addition to <\/em><\/strong>faith alone, necessary,<\/em><\/strong> not for growth in Christ, but to come to Christ<\/em><\/strong>?\r\n\r\nSo you'll notice in John 5:24, Jesus says this, \u201cTruly, truly I say to you, He who hears My word and believes Him<\/u><\/strong>, who sent Me, has eternal life<\/u><\/strong>, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out<\/u><\/strong> of death into life.<\/em>\u201d\u00a0 \u201cHas eternal life,<\/em>\u201d is in the present tense. \u00a0So eternal life is something that you receive, not when you die and go to heaven, but the moment you fulfill a condition. \u00a0And once this condition is fulfilled, you have spiritually passed out of death into life.\u00a0 Passed out of death into life is in the perfect tense in Greek, meaning it's a one-time action with ongoing results. \u00a0So how do you pass from death to life? \u00a0How do you receive eternal life from God? \u00a0Notice in this verse that there's one condition here, which is to what? \u00a0To believe in Him, which means to trust in Him as your Savior. \u00a0And once you do that, you have eternal life, and you've already crossed out of death into life. \u00a0You're not gradually crossing out of death into life. \u00a0It's already happened: \u00a0a one-time action in the past. \u00a0And so this is our view at Sugar Land Bible church of how salvation, justification before God, is gained. \u00a0Lordship Salvation denies what I just said.\r\n\r\nRobert Lightner, who was a critic of Lordship Salvation, and who was my professor in seminary, defines Lordship Salvation as follows:\u00a0 \u201cLordship Salvation refers to the belief which says the sinner who wants to be saved must not only<\/u><\/strong>\u2026 <\/em>[there's a problem, right? because we believe in faith alone.\u00a0 Whenever someone says \u2018not only believe<\/em>\u2019 there's a problem, it's a gospel of works, in other words.\u00a0 \u201cLordship Salvation refers to the belief which says the sinner who wants to be saved must not only trust in Christ as a substitute for sin, but must also<\/u><\/strong> surrender every area of his life to the complete control of Christ.\u201d<\/em> \u00a0So if you don't do that on the front end, or at least you're not willing to do that in addition to exercising faith, then you're not a Christian. \u00a0That's what Lordship Salvation is.\r\n\r\nThe biggest advocate of Lordship Salvation today is John MacArthur. \u00a0And it's hard to mention him because a lot of the things John MacArthur teaches and says, I find myself in agreement with. But I think he really got it wrong here when he went off in this direction of Lordship Salvation. \u00a0John MacArthur did not invent Lordship Salvation. You can find that belief in the writings of the Puritans, and MacArthur became a big fan. \u00a0I'll show you some quotes a little bit later of how he became a real student of these Puritans, which is always dangerous when you start to study the writings of men instead of what God says. And to my knowledge, that's what happened to John MacArthur a few decades back. \u00a0So John MacArthur didn't invent Lordship Salvation, but he certainly has done more than any person alive to popularize the belief and bring it since the 1980s into the mainstream of Christianity.\r\n\r\nJohn MacArthur defines Lordship Salvation as follows: \u00a0\u2018Jesus is Lord of all, and the faith<\/u><\/strong> that He demands involves unconditional surrender<\/u><\/strong>\u2026He does not bestow eternal life<\/u><\/strong> on those whose hearts remain set against Him<\/em>.\u201d \u00a0So you notice how he uses the words \u2018eternal life<\/em>\u2019 here. \u00a0And he specifically says that eternal life is not gained through simply trusting in Christ, but it\u2019s unconditional surrender. \u00a0And if you go back to John 5:24<\/strong>, you'll find no such teaching in that verse. \u00a0In fact, you'll find no such teaching in John's gospel. \u00a0John's gospel is probably the one that sets forth the conditions for the unsaved more than any other gospel because it was written to unbelievers. \u00a0And you can see that at the very end of the book, when John gives us His purpose statement in John 20:30-31<\/strong>, and he says, \u2018\u2026these things I write to you so that you may believe in the name of the Son of God and may have life in His name\u2019 <\/em>\r\n\r\nSo John's gospel is evangelistic. \u00a0And in John's gospel, you'll find the word \u2018believe\u2019<\/em> used about 99 times, and never once, whether it's John 3:16<\/strong>, (that's a verse that we all memorize very early on as Christians), or any other verse, is salvation, eternal life, conditioned on anything other than faith alone in Christ alone. \u00a0So that's basically what Lordship Salvation is.\r\n\r\nNow, I'm not doing an in-depth expos\u00e9 of Lordship Salvation here.\u00a0 \u00a0We taught a course here called Soteriology. \u00a0And if you go back to lessons 7-9, you can get our full-blown treatment on Lordship Salvation. \u00a0Lordship Salvation, to our mind, has seven problems with it.\r\n

    \r\n \t
  1. It changes the gospel.<\/li>\r\n \t
  2. It places an impossible burden upon the unsaved.<\/li>\r\n \t
  3. It confuses justification with sanctification, or growth in Christ.<\/li>\r\n \t
  4. It confuses the result of salvation with the requirement of it.<\/li>\r\n \t
  5. It ignores the unfortunate reality of a carnal Christian.<\/li>\r\n \t
  6. And at the very end there, from a pastoral perspective, and there's actually been an article written about this by Minirth and Meier, two psychologists who worked at Dallas Seminary. I think they wrote this article around 1998, and the name of the article escapes me, but it's something like \u2018The Psychological Burden of Lordship Salvation.\u2019 <\/em>They were basically counselors, and they started to do a study of people that had been victimized by this doctrine and the psychological effect it has on people. \u00a0And one of the reasons Lordship Salvation is so negative to the psyche of the believer is because you never really know if you've submitted enough. I mean, if salvation comes through submission, have I submitted enough? I mean, don't we sin as Christians? Does anybody here sin as a Christian? \u00a0Well, most of you are lying because your hands are not going up. \u00a0So you just committed a sin, right? \u00a0\u201cThou shalt not lie<\/em>.\u201c<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\nSo we have 1 John 1:9<\/strong> and things like that as Christians, not to get us saved again, but to restore broken fellowship. But if you tell someone that submission to Christ is necessary to get saved, they spend the rest of their life struggling with sin because we still have an old nature to contend with, wondering if they've really done enough to gain eternal life.\r\n\r\nI was reading a comment by R.T. Kendall, talking about the Puritans. \u00a0He calls them the Puritan Divines, people that taught this doctrine. \u00a0And he said every single one of them, to a man, went to their deathbed, terrified, based on bad theology, because they really didn't know if they had submitted enough or demonstrated enough fruit, and all of these kinds of things to go into heaven. \u00a0So on their deathbed, they had no assurance of salvation.\u00a0 So that's really the seventh problem with Lordship Salvation.\r\n\r\nAnd the one I skipped is the one we're going to focus on tonight related to the Kingdom. \u00a0Lordship, salvation becomes popular in a climate where the church does not distinguish between the church and the Kingdom. \u00a0I'll try to flesh that out and unpack that this evening. \u00a0So one of the views or the<\/em><\/strong> view that we teach here is what's called Dispensationalism. \u00a0People have a tendency to look at this, and they don't really think it matters. \u00a0But if you ignore this, it opens the door like a floodgate to Lordship Salvation. And most people have never really connected the dots between kingdom now theology and Lordship Salvation. \u00a0So that's sort of what we're going into this evening. \u00a0As I said before, we\u2019re not doing an expos\u00e9 completely of Lordship Salvation, but just focusing on that one angle. \u00a0And that's what Chapter 26 in my book is about.\r\n\r\nSo Charles Ryrie defines Dispensationalism as what he calls the sine qua non<\/em>. \u00a0Say that 3 times fast. \u00a0It's Latin. \u00a0It means \u2018without which there's nothing.<\/em>\u2019 \u00a0So if you take one of these things away, you're not a dispensationalist anymore.\r\n\r\nSo traditional or normative dispensational theology is a system that embodies three essential fundamental concepts called the sine qua non<\/em>, \u2018without which there is not.<\/em>\u2019\r\n\r\n(1) The consistent<\/strong> use of a plain or normal, literal grammatical historical method of interpretation, the most important word there being \u2018consistent<\/em><\/strong>.\u2019 In other words, a dispensationalist is someone who tries to take the Bible literally in its ordinary sense, not just in some parts of the Bible, but from Genesis<\/strong> to Revelation<\/strong>\u2014taking into account figures of speech when they're conspicuous in the passage. And when you become committed to that method of interpretation, what you start to see very quickly is that\u2026\r\n\r\n(2) There's something called Israel, and there's something called the Church, and the two are not the same. Israel is a nation. The church is a body or a worldwide spiritual organism. \u00a0And what you start to see is that not just Israel and the church are different, but what you start to see is God has separate programs for Israel than He does for the church. \u00a0So, for example, when you look over at, I wasn't planning on going here, but if you look over at 1 Corinthians 10:32<\/strong>, Paul says, \u201cGive no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.\u201c<\/em>\r\n\r\nSo do you see how Jews, or Israel and church of God are distinguished there? \u00a0In fact, when you go through the book of Acts<\/strong>, you'll see Israel and the church mentioned about 20 times each during a time period before Rome had pushed Israel out of her land. \u00a0And the two entities are always kept separate. \u00a0And you start to see this as you become committed to a literal approach to the Bible from cover to cover.\r\n\r\n(3) And the third part, of the sine qua non<\/em> is God's overall purpose in history is to glorify Himself. \u00a0So God works in history not to save men, but to glorify Himself. \u00a0Because when people get saved, who gets the glory? \u00a0God does. \u00a0And this is very different than a lot of theological systems. \u00a0They'll say God's purpose in history is salvation. \u00a0No, no, it isn't.\u00a0 If you believe God's purpose in history is salvation, then you have no explanation for His dealings with the angels. \u00a0Good angels and fallen angels. Because the plan of salvation is not open to the fallen angels, see that?\u00a0 God's work in history is related to glorification of Himself, and our salvation is subsumed under that because when we get saved, who gets the glory? \u00a0God does.\r\n\r\nSo that basically is what a dispensationalist is. \u00a0And when you ignore the structure, what happens is people take concepts from the kingdom [there on the far right of the screen \u2014 see slide on Prophecy Panorama<\/strong>] the thousand-year kingdom, Revelation 20<\/strong>, and they start to incorporate those concepts into the church. And so my book is a reaction against that. \u00a0And one of the things that will percolate in the church when the church takes kingdom concepts and appropriates them to the church is Lordship Salvation will come into the church. \u00a0Now, let me sort of unpack that and explain to you why I think this.\r\n\r\nThe kingdom, as we've studied, is a time period of perfect justice. \u00a0It's a time period where Jesus is ruling with a rod of iron, Psalm 2:9<\/strong>. \u00a0It's a time period of perfect justice, Isaiah 11:4<\/strong>.\u00a0 It's a time period when rebels will be immediately dealt with, Zechariah 14:16-18.<\/strong>\r\n\r\nSo if the kingdom is present now, just think about this for a minute, that ideas have consequences. If the kingdom is present now, every single believer, every single person who names the name of Christ, should be 100% submitted to the Lordship of Christ. And that fits exactly with Lordship Salvation because Lordship Salvation basically says submission to Christ or a willingness to submit to Him is a condition<\/em><\/strong> for justification. \u00a0So kingdom now ideas and Lordship Salvation\u2014they're sort of like bedfellows; they go together.\r\n\r\nSo one of the things that is an unfortunate possibility, from our perspective, is something that is denied by Lordship Salvation or kingdom now theology, which is the reality of a carnal Christian.\u00a0 You get into Lordship teachings and those significantly downplay carnal Christianity, and they'll act like such a thing probably doesn't even exist. And that fits perfectly with their system, because you have to submit to Christ perfectly on the front end in order to get saved. \u00a0So there really is not any such thing as a carnal Christian.\r\n\r\nAnd one of the other things you'll see significantly downplayed in Lordship Salvation is the Bema Seat Judgment. The Bema Seat Judgment is there following the rapture to reward, not to determine heaven or hell, but to reward or not reward Christians. Because we believe carnal Christianity is a reality, when is God going to deal with that?\u00a0 Well, all Christians will be in heaven, but not all Christians will be equally rewarded in heaven. You see that?\u00a0 When you get into Lordship teachings, they totally downplay that as a possibility, and they kind of make it sound like at the Bema Seat Judgment, everybody gets a blue ribbon for participation, because after all, you couldn't be a Christian to begin with, could you, unless you were submitted to Christ on the front end?\r\n\r\nSo there is a reality in the Scripture called carnal Christianity. \u00a0Now, I should say this: We\u2019re not saying, \u2018Yay, carnal Christianity. Get out there and be carnal.<\/em>\u2019 No, it has a consequence. \u00a0One of the consequences is a lack of reward at the Bema Seat Judgment of Christ. \u00a0There's always a price tag you pay when you go into sin. \u00a0But we acknowledge it as a possibility, and you don't have to get far into the Bible to see it. \u00a0When you go over it, you can follow me over if you want or look at it on the screen. \u00a0Hebrews 5:11-14,<\/strong> the author of Hebrews says \u201cConcerning him we have much to say, and it is<\/strong> hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing.\u00a0 For though by this time you ought to be teachers<\/u><\/strong>,...\u201d<\/em> [So he wants to give them a meaty subject, the Melchizedekian priesthood, but he doesn't think his audience can handle it because they're not mature enough. \u00a0And he says \u2018You should have grown out of that condition a long time ago.\u2019 <\/em>\u00a0So they were in this state of spiritual immaturity far too long as far as the author of Hebrews is concerned.\r\n\r\nAnd when you look at John MacArthur's commentary on the book of Hebrews<\/strong>, he says that everybody in this paragraph is an unsaved person. \u00a0Now, why would he say that? He's saying that because submission to Christ is necessary to be justified. \u00a0So all of these people here in Hebrews<\/strong> are unsaved people. So he's downplaying or denying the reality of a carnal Christian. And yet, his explanation strains credulity because Hebrews 5:12<\/strong> also says, \u201cFor though by this time you ought to be teachers<\/strong>.<\/em>\u201d\u00a0 [How could he be saying that to an unsaved person? Can you think of any scenario under any circumstances where an unsaved person would be teaching a saved person? \u00a0I mean, the paragraph doesn't make any sense. \u00a0And so this is a very good paragraph to reveal the unfortunate possibility of a carnal Christian. When the key passage on carnal Christianity is 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 (NKJV)<\/strong>, where Paul says, \u201cAnd I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual<\/u><\/strong> people, but as to carnal<\/u><\/strong>, as to babes<\/u><\/strong> in Christ. \u00a0I fed you with milk, and not with solid food; for until now you are not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; for you are still carnal...\u201d<\/em> [And then he starts describing what carnal Christianity is like], \u201d...where there are<\/strong> envy, strife and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men<\/u><\/strong>?\u201d<\/em>\u00a0 So you notice he calls them carnal<\/em><\/strong>, or babes in Christ. \u00a0You see that in verse 1<\/strong>, which indicates you can be a babe in Christ, you could be carnal in Christ, or you could be spiritual in Christ.\r\n\r\nSo Paul takes the world, and he divides it into half: \u00a0unsaved and saved. \u00a0And a lot of people's analysis stops there. \u00a0But you'll see Paul is far more sophisticated than that. [See slide on 4 Kinds of People from 1 Corinthians 3:1-3]<\/strong> He\u00a0 takes the world of the saved, the justified, and he divides it into three groups.\r\n\r\nFirst of all, you've got your spiritual<\/strong> believers, not perfect, obviously, they're not sinless, but they're sinning less, and they're discovering who they are in Christ, and they're growing. \u00a0And those people are always a blessing in the church.\r\n\r\nThen you have a second group called infants<\/strong>. And by the way, these categories I'm getting right out of the passage, those are the things I've got underlined. \u00a0You have very new Christians, and they're sort of doing age-appropriate things. You know, when you're sucking your thumb at age 2 to 3, it's sort of cute when they're doing it at age 16, it loses its cuteness, but they're infants in Christ, and they're growing and they're sort of cute. But then you've got another group called the carnal<\/strong>, and they're called carnal because carnal means flesh. You might recognize the word carnivorous, or flesh, or meat. \u00a0They keep going back to the sin nature over and over again. \u00a0And those are the people Paul is correcting here in his epistle.\r\n\r\nNow, think about this for a minute. \u00a0If we are in the kingdom, and Jesus is ruling with a rod of iron, you wouldn't have carnal Christians, would you? \u00a0And the denial of a carnal Christian fits exactly with what Lordship Salvation teaches. So the more kingdom now the church becomes, the more Lordship Salvation becomes popular in the church. \u00a0Kingdom now theology is the right soil is what I'm trying to get at, through which the false doctrine of Lordship Salvation grows.\r\n\r\nNow, here's a man that I did a lot of work on. I wrote my master's thesis against<\/em> his view on eschatology. I wrote my doctoral dissertation against<\/em> his view on eschatology. Kenneth Gentry is basically what you call a post-millennialist preterist. You can't get more kingdom now than the writings of Kenneth Gentry. And I did all this work on him and his eschatology, and somebody said, \u2019Do you know about Ken Gentry and his views on Lordship Salvation<\/em>?\u2018 And I was so focused on his eschatological teachings because he takes the whole book of Revelation<\/strong> and puts it into the past with a few shreds he saves for the end. And that's how he believes we're in the kingdom now, because the book of Revelation<\/strong> has been or is being fulfilled. So he thinks society is getting better and better and better. And his problem, of course, is the book of Revelation, which says things are going to get worse. \u00a0And he says, \u2018I have an answer for that. \u00a0We'll just put the book of Revelation<\/strong> in the past.\u2019 <\/em>\r\n\r\nSo I've been working on that. And someone said, \u2018You know what? Ken Gentry has written on Lordship Salvation?\u2019 <\/em>And I said, \u2018No, I had no idea<\/em>.\u2019 And it turns out, and I have the footnote in the book in Chapter 26, that Kenneth Gentry was not just a leader in the area of post-millennial preterist, reconstructionism, kingdom now theology, but he was actually writing the leading academic work on Lordship Salvation. And once I discovered that, I said, \u2019that kind of makes sense\u2019<\/em> because the man is kingdom now; he believes basically that his ilk, called reconstructionists, are going to take over the United States, and are basically going to legislate the law of Moses from Washington, D.C. \u00a0It's a very right wing, I guess you can put it that way, form of reconstructionism. So he believes we're in the kingdom. \u00a0He hates the viewpoint of eschatology we have here, Dispensationalism. And it turns out that as he's doing all this work on the kingdom, he's also writing leading articles on Lordship Salvation. \u00a0So Kenneth Gentry is sort of the brain behind Lordship Salvation. Kenneth Gentry was talking about Lordship Salvation long before John MacArthur ever got hold of it. \u00a0John MacArthur himself really didn't believe a lot of the things he teaches today concerning Lordship Salvation.\r\n\r\nAnd if you ever, he's passed away now, but listen to John MacArthur's father, Jack MacArthur, Jack MacArthur thinks exactly like we do on every single subject, prophecy, salvation, etc. So John MacArthur didn't grow up being an advocate of Lordship Salvation. \u00a0He absorbed the teaching from somebody else, and John MacArthur became the popularizer of Lordship Salvation. \u00a0Kenneth Gentry is sort of the academic mind behind Lordship Salvation, but I point that out to show you that the two go together. Kingdom now theology and Lordship Salvation are sort of bedfellows, if you will.\r\n\r\nOne of the things, sadly, that's happening at Dallas Seminary, and I've made many references to this in our series, is the ascendancy of the already-not-yet view of the kingdom. \u00a0You guys recall me talking about that? \u00a0\u00a0Basically, the younger folks there, for the most part, believe that we are in an \u2018already\u2019 form of the kingdom. \u00a0In other words, Jesus is ruling from David's throne presently in an \u2018already\u2019 sense. \u00a0And one of the things that Zane Hodges points out, a free grace fellow, who is also with the Lord, is the moment that school went in that particular direction, is the moment Lordship Salvation began to take hold at that particular institution. So Hodges writes this. He says, \u201cRegrettably, some published materials written by DTS faculty members confirm my earlier concern. First there was Dr. Darrell Bock\u2019s review ...\u201d<\/em> [Now, Darrell Bock is one of the progenitors of the already-not-yet view of the kingdom]... \u201cof MacArthur's The Gospel According to Jesus<\/strong> which showed significant confusion on the subject of assurance...\u201d <\/em>[of salvation]. ... \u201cDarrell has told me, both in person and in writing that his position is \u201csoft Lordship Salvation\u201d\u2014<\/em> [which to me is kind of like being a little bit pregnant; I mean, the moment you add any work to the presentation of the gospel, you can call yourself \u201csoft Lordship Salvation-hard Lordship Salvation.<\/em>\u201d It doesn't matter, but you fundamentally altered what the gospel is. \u00a0The moment you give man any opportunity to do something to gain God's favor in addition to faith, you fall under the curse, if you will, that the Apostle Paul outlines the anathema of the false gospel in Galatians 1:6-9<\/strong>. \u00a0But Darrell Bock calls his view \u201csoft lordship<\/em>,\u201d \u201ca view Hodges says that would have been rejected by the<\/em> [founder and first] president of Dallas Seminary, Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer.\u201d\u00a0 <\/em>\r\n\r\nSo again, you see this pattern. You're a little bit into the kingdom, already into the kingdom, and so that affects your soteriology. You start to call yourself \u201dsoft lordship<\/em>.\u201d It's just another example of how Lordship Salvation seems to enjoy ascendancy in a climate where the church thinks it's in the kingdom in any sense. \u00a0So I want to show you this quote from MacArthur. \u00a0This is not mishearing something he said on the radio. \u00a0It's there in black and white in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus.<\/u><\/strong>\r\n\r\nAnd I want to show you that John MacArthur's promotion of Lordship Salvation, really, when you look at it carefully, is actually related to his attack on Charles Ryrie\u2019s traditional dispensationalism. So MacArthur says this on page 31, The Gospel According to Jesus<\/u><\/strong>, \u201cIsrael and the Church are separate entities\u2026and in that regard, I view myself a ... dispensationalist... There is a tendency, however, for dispensationalists to get carried<\/strong> away<\/strong> with compartmentalizing truth to the point that they make unbiblical<\/strong> differentiations<\/strong>. An almost obsessive desire<\/strong> to categorize and contrast related truths has carried various dispensationalist interpreters [Chafer, Ryrie, Hodges, etc.] far beyond the legitimate distinctions between Israel and the Church. \u00a0Many would also draw hard lines<\/strong> between<\/em>,...\u201d [now let me stop reading. \u00a0Now he's going to go through all the things that he thinks ought not to be separated. \u00a0And he thinks if you separate these things, then you are getting carried away with unbiblical ideas, and you're dominated by an obsessive desire to categorize, when in reality, I don't think making these distinctions at all is related to getting carried away with unbiblical ideas. \u00a0It relates to a literal approach to the Bible, and when you engage in a literal approach to the Bible, you start to see distinctions that God has made. \u00a0So we're not reading<\/em><\/strong> these distinctions into the Bible. \u00a0We are observing<\/em><\/strong> the distinctions that God Himself is pointing out.\r\n\r\nSo what are some of these unbiblical hard lines according to MacArthur?\u00a0 \u2019You should not draw lines\u2019 \u201cbetween discipleship, salvation and discipleship..<\/em>.\u201d In other words, you don't draw a distinction between what's necessary to get saved versus what's necessary to grow as a Christian. \u00a0Now, I don't know how you feel about it, but I think that's a totally appropriate line to draw. \u00a0And if you don't draw that line, you know what you're going to do to the lost? \u00a0You're going to teach them a works-oriented gospel.<\/em><\/strong>\r\n\r\nIf you take commands given to the Christian, \u2018Renew your mind; put on the full armor of God, pray without ceasing,<\/em>\u2019\u2014all these things that are necessary for us to grow, and you hold those out to the lost as a condition to be justified, and you don't know how to rightly divide God's Word in that sense, you just preached a works-oriented gospel.\r\n\r\nSo you'll notice that this whole Lordship Salvation thing comes from John MacArthur's willingness to see key distinctions in the Bible.\r\n\r\nWhat other distinctions does he not like? \u00a0The distinction between \u201cthe church and the kingdom<\/u><\/em><\/strong>.\u201d That's what our whole course is about, isn't it? How the church and the kingdom are completely different. He won't acknowledge that distinction. What else won't he acknowledge? The distinction between \u201cChrist's preaching and the apostolic message,<\/u><\/em><\/strong>\u2026 \u00a0More on that in a second. \u00a0And he won't acknowledge the distinction between \u201cthe age of law and the age of grace.<\/u><\/em><\/strong>\u201d\r\n\r\nI mean, you've got to be kidding me. You're not going to see a difference between the commands through Moses at Mount Sinai to the nation of Israel related to things like if someone picks up sticks on the Sabbath, you're to stone them to death?\u00a0 And you're not going to see a distinction in that economy with what God is doing today? \u00a0I mean, that's insanity, but sloppy soteriology comes out of not making key kingdom-like distinctions.\r\n\r\nNow, let's explore just for a minute this distinction that he has between the apostolic message and Christ's preaching. \u00a0He goes on and says\u2014this is now on page 96 of the same book. \u201cUnfortunately, traditional dispensationalism tends to miss that simple point. Some dispensationalists teach that \u2018the gospel of the kingdom\u2019 Jesus proclaimed, is distinct from \u2018the gospel of the grace of God.\u2018<\/em> The substance of this gospel of the kingdom,\u2019 one popular source says, is \u2018that God purposes to set up up on earth the kingdom of Christ...in fulfillment of the Davidic covenant.\u2019 Lewis Sperry Chafer, [<\/em>who he criticizes frequently], wrote that the gospel of the kingdom was for the nation of Israel only, \u2018and should in no wise be confused with the gospel of saving grace.\u201d\u2019<\/em>\r\n\r\n\u201cAnother early dispensationalist writer declared that the gospel Jesus preached had nothing to do with salvation but was simply an announcement that the time had come to set up the kingdom of Christ on earth. That may fit neatly into a particular dispensational scheme, but Scripture does not support it. We must not forget that Jesus came to seek and to save the lost, not merely to announce an earthly kingdom. When Jesus proclaimed His kingdom, He was preaching salvation.\u201d <\/em>\r\n\r\nNow what he is attacking here is the difference between the kingdom gospel and the personal gospel. \u00a0Those are two different things. \u00a0We've studied this, haven't we in this class, kingdom gospel versus personal gospel?\u00a0 What is the kingdom gospel? It was preached by John the Baptist, Jesus Christ, the 12 [apostles] and the 70. \u00a0What was their message? \u00a0John the Baptist, \u201c\u2018Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand\u201d<\/u><\/em><\/strong>\u2019<\/em> Matthew 3:2.<\/strong>\u00a0 Jesus Christ, \u2019Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand<\/u><\/em><\/strong>.\u2019 \u00a0Then Jesus in Matthew [Matthew] 10:5-7 <\/strong>sent out the 12. \u00a0\u201dThese twelve Jesus sent out after instructing them: \u00a0\u201cDo not go in the<\/strong> way of the<\/strong> Gentiles, and do not enter any<\/strong> city of the Samaritans; but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.<\/em>\u201c Is that the gospel we're preaching today? Well, if that's true, we're disobeying it because this was only for Israel. And what was the message? \u201c\u2026preach, saying \u201cThe kingdom of heaven is at hand<\/strong>.\u201d<\/em> \u00a0It's what John preached. \u00a0It's what Jesus preached. \u00a0It's what the 12 preached.\r\n\r\nIn fact, over in Matthew 15:24,<\/strong> Jesus makes this<\/em> statement: \u201cBut He answered and said, \u2018I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.<\/u><\/strong><\/em>\u201d\u2019 I mean, is that something we would showcase at a missions conference; Christ for the Nations conference? \u00a0No, because this is talking about the kingdom gospel for Israel. And then Jesus sent out the 70. \u00a0Same message, Luke 10:9<\/strong>, \u201d...\u2018The kingdom of God has come near to you<\/u><\/em>.\u2019\u201d<\/u><\/strong>\r\n\r\nSo what is all of this? \u00a0This is what's called the kingdom gospel. \u00a0And what is that? \u00a0If the nation of Israel had enthroned the King of God's choosing, in this case, Jesus Christ, what would have come to the world through Israel? \u00a0The Kingdom, and the nation of Israel had a unique opportunity to receive that blessing because in the first century, Jesus was present. \u00a0All they had to do was enthrone Christ and the Millennial Kingdom would have come.\r\n\r\nSo this is what is called in Matthew 4:23<\/strong>, the gospel of the kingdom. \u00a0Now, by the time you get to the end of Matthew's Gospel, the Great Commission, what does Jesus say?\u00a0 Matthew 28:19.<\/strong> \u201cGo therefore and make disciples of all the nations<\/u><\/strong>.<\/em>\u201d Oh, my goodness, something changed. \u00a0I mean, that's really different than Matthew 15:24<\/strong>, \u201cI was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel<\/u><\/strong><\/em>.<\/u><\/strong>\u2018\u201c \u00a0So what changed by the end of Matthew 10 <\/strong>\u00a0but before you get to Matthew 28<\/strong>?\u00a0 Matthew 12<\/strong> changed everything.\r\n\r\nYou all agree that Matthew 12<\/strong> is between Matthew 10<\/strong> and Matthew 28<\/strong>?\u00a0 Matthew 12:24<\/strong>, the Pharisees attributed Christ's miracles to Beelzebub or Satan. \u00a0The moment they did that is the moment the offer of the kingdom was taken off the table.\r\n\r\nHere's sort of an outline or a structure of Matthew's gospel. \u00a0Most people agree that the turning point in Matthew's gospel is Matthew 12<\/strong>, because that's where the nation went too far in rejecting the offer of the kingdom, so that offer was postponed. \u00a0And it will not be announced again until the Great Tribulation period after the church is removed from the earth.\r\n\r\nSo the gospel of the kingdom is never mentioned again in Matthew's Gospel until Jesus talks about the 70th week of Daniel. \u00a0When He talks about the 70th week of Daniel after the church is removed, then he says, \u201cThis gospel of the kingdom<\/u><\/strong><\/em>, [which was the exact same one that was preached in early Matthew<\/strong>], ...shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.\u201c<\/em>\r\n\r\nSo when we go around and evangelize today, do we tell people \u2018repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand?<\/em>\u2019 No. The kingdom gospel was for first century Israel. It will be for tribulation period Israel. \u00a0But it's not in effect today.\r\n\r\nSo what gospel are we preaching? \u00a0We are not preaching the gospel of the kingdom. \u00a0We are preaching the personal gospel of salvation. It's codified in early form in Acts<\/strong> 16:30,31<\/strong>, where the Philippian jailer asked life's most important question: \u201c...what must I do to be saved?\u2019<\/em> He's not asking, \u2018What does Israel have to do to get Rome off her back?\u2019 \u00a0<\/em>That would be answered in the kingdom gospel, right?\u00a0 Here he's asking, \u2018What must I do to be saved? What do I have to do to go to heaven?\u2019<\/em> And what did Paul and Silas say? \u2018Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.<\/em>\u2018 It\u00a0 doesn\u2019t say that, does it?\u00a0 It says, \u2018Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved,<\/em><\/strong>..<\/em>.\u201d He's not preaching kingdom gospel here. He's preaching personal gospel. And he's doing that in Philippi, isn't he? \u00a0If Paul's teaching the kingdom gospel in Philippi, he's disobeying Christ because Christ said the kingdom gospel is only for Israel. \u00a0The fact that he's preaching it in Philippi shows you that what Paul's preaching in the book of Acts<\/strong> is not the kingdom gospel, it's the personal gospel of salvation. So I put together this chart [See Slide on Kingdom Gospel vs. Personal Gospel<\/strong>], and we've looked at this before in this class, but let's kind of review it.\r\n\r\nWhat is the difference between the kingdom gospel and the personal gospel? In terms of biblical examples, the kingdom gospel is found in those early Matthew<\/strong> passages. \u00a0The personal gospel is found in Acts 16:30-31<\/strong>.\u00a0 It probably gets its fullest treatment in\r\n\r\n1 Corinthians 15:1-4<\/strong>, \u2018Christ crucified for the sins of the world, resurrected according to the Scriptures, believe on Him for salvation.\u2019<\/em>\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fWho is the target audience for the kingdom gospel? \u00a0Israel.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fWho is the target audience for the personal gospel? \u00a0All nations.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fWhat type of salvation is offered in the kingdom gospel? \u00a0National. \u00a0This is how Israel can be restored to her place over the nations with Rome removed.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fWhat is offered in the personal gospel? \u00a0\u00a0Personal and individual salvation.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fThe portrayal of Christ. \u00a0What is portrayed of Christ in the kingdom gospel? \u00a0\u00a0He is the national Savior and King of the nation.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fWhat is portrayed of Christ in the personal gospel? \u00a0\u00a0He's our personal Savior.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fKingdom expectancy. \u00a0In the kingdom gospel, the kingdom was imminent because the King was present. That's why they keep saying \u2018Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u2019<\/em> \u00a0It's within reach. \u00a0But when the personal gospel is proclaimed to the last sinner, there's no kingdom expectation at all. \u00a0Paul, to the Philippian jailer, didn't say, \u2018Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.\u2019<\/em>\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fThe Kingdom Gospel: its contribution to God's program is the appearing of the kingdom. \u00a0It sets out the conditions through which the kingdom will come to the earth.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fThe contribution as far as God's program is concerned, related to the personal gospel has got nothing to do with the kingdom.\u00a0 It has to do with the building of His church.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fThe Scriptural foundation for the kingdom gospel is the Mosaic covenant, because that's where Deuteronomy 17:15<\/strong> says that Israel is responsible to enthrone the king of God's own choosing.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fThe scriptural foundation for the personal gospel really goes all the way back to Genesis 3:15<\/strong> where there's going to come a Redeemer through the lineage of the woman.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fWhen is the kingdom gospel preached? \u00a0\u00a0Early Gospels and Tribulation period.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fWhen is the personal gospel preached? \u00a0Right now in the Church Age? \u00a0It's what's been preached for 2000 years.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fDo we preach the Kingdom Gospel today? \u00a0What do you think? \u00a0No. \u00a0Do we preach the personal gospel today? \u00a0\u00a0Yes.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fIs the Kingdom Gospel available today? \u00a0\u00a0No.\r\n\r\n\u25aa\ufe0fIs the personal gospel available today?\u00a0 \u00a0Yes\r\n\r\nNow we have these books in our Bible called the Gospels. \u00a0Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.<\/strong> Three of them are called Synoptics. Syn <\/em>is a Greek word meaning same. You know what optics<\/em> means, right? \u00a0Look. \u00a0Same look. \u00a0Matthew, Mark and Luke<\/strong> are called Synoptics. \u00a0They have the same look. \u00a0They follow the basic plot structure. You know, they start off with Jesus and His birth, and then it talks about His Nazareth upbringing, and then it gets into His ministry, and then it finally goes to the Passion Week and His resurrection, etc.. \u00a0So they all \u2014 Matthew, Mark and Luke<\/strong> follow that same plot.\r\n\r\nThey're called Synoptics.\r\n\r\nDoes John's gospel follow that plot? \u00a0It does not. \u00a0So it's not one of the synoptics. \u00a0So if you want to find a development of the kingdom gospel, what which gospel should you read? \u00a0The Synoptics, Matthew, Mark and Luke.<\/strong>\r\n\r\nIf you want to find an exposition of the personal gospel, which gospel should you read? The gospel of John<\/strong>. We have information in the gospels about Christ's death on the cross, His atonement, His resurrection, His ascension, the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins. \u00a0Are those things prominent in the Kingdom Gospel? \u00a0No, they're not. \u00a0In fact, you go through Matthew's gospel<\/strong>, you don't even figure out that Jesus is going to die for the sins of the whole world until late, probably around Matthew 16, around verse 21<\/strong> or so, you finally get the first hint that he's actually going to die on the cross for the sins of the world because Matthew is early on developing the kingdom gospel, and he doesn't early on, spend any time that I know of, talking about all of these things, about the personal gospel that we today, in our time period, value. \u00a0The Cross, the atonement, the resurrection, the Ascension, the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of sins\u2014those aren't prominent in the Kingdom Gospel. But are they prominent in the personal gospel? Absolutely. \u00a0So do you see the difference between the two?\u00a0 Kingdom gospel. \u00a0Personal gospel. \u00a0All of these verses here: \u00a0Genesis 15:6<\/strong>, \u2018Abraham believed<\/strong> the Lord; and it was credited him for righteousness.\u2019<\/em>\r\n\r\nJohn 3:16<\/strong> \u201cFor God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes<\/u><\/strong> in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.\u201d<\/em>\r\n\r\nActs 16:30-31<\/strong> \u201cSirs, what must I do to be saved?\u201d They said, \u2018Believe<\/strong> in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved.<\/em>\u201d\r\n\r\nAre these proclamations of the kingdom gospel or the personal gospel? \u00a0Clearly, these are proclamations of the personal gospel.\r\n\r\nAnd I like to use quotes of some of the sages from the past because some of the things I'm communicating you may have never heard before. \u00a0No one may have ever pointed out to you the difference between the kingdom gospel and the personal gospel. And you might think that I'm up here making things up. \u00a0Has that thought ever crossed anybody's mind? \u00a0What I am teaching used to be taught standard in virtually every Bible church. \u00a0Lewis Sperry Chafer has a lengthy quote here. \u00a0I'll let you read most of that on your own. \u00a0But he writes, \u201c...This good news to that nation [Israel] was the gospel of the kingdom<\/u><\/em><\/strong>,\u2019..<\/em>. [You know, \u2018Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand\u2019<\/em>] ...and should in no wise be confused with the gospel of saving grace.\u201d<\/u><\/em><\/strong>\r\n\r\nCharles Ryrie says \u201cEven the New Testament uses the word gospel to mean various types of good news<\/u>..<\/em><\/strong>.\u201d \u00a0I mean, every time you see the word gospel in the Bible, it's not referring to how to get to heaven.\r\n\r\nYou have to contextually differentiate between is this to Israel and her kingdom, or is this the personal gospel? \u00a0So Ryrie says, \u201cEven the New Testament uses the word gospel to mean various types of good news<\/u>...<\/em>\u201d <\/strong>And he goes on and says, \u201c...In fact, their hope for the establishment of the promised rule of the Messiah in His kingdom on this earth, and in the kingdom that would exalt the Jewish people and free them from the rule of Rome under which they lived. \u00a0But the rule of heaven did not arrive during Jesus\u2019 lifetime because the people refused to repent and meet the spiritual conditions for the kingdom. Most only wanted a political deliverance [<\/em>from Rome] without having to meet any personal requirements for change of life. So the kingdom did not arrive because the people would not prepare properly for it.\u201d<\/em>\r\n\r\nRyrie is saying to look at what is necessary for the kingdom to come. \u00a0And look at what is necessary for an individual to be saved. \u00a0What is necessary for a country to do for the kingdom to come is different, particularly a country under the Mosaic law, versus what is necessary for an individual lost sinner to be saved. \u00a0And you should never mix those two together, because if you take those two things and you jam them together, what are you preaching to the unsaved? \u00a0Lordship Salvation, or a works-oriented gospel.\r\n\r\nSo you might be listening to me thinking it's just a bunch of pie in the sky academic gibberish. \u00a0But this is fundamental for any Christian to understand because it relates to what message you're giving to the unsaved. \u00a0See that?\r\n\r\nSo John MacArthur, and this is my problem with him; this is why I'm not a big promoter of the writings of John MacArthur. \u00a0\u2018Hey, everybody, get the MacArthur study Bible. Everybody get John MacArthur's books.<\/em>\u2019 Because John MacArthur won't draw basic distinctions like this, and because he won't draw basic distinctions like this, he merges two things that God keeps separate. You see that? \u00a0And if you do that, you're not going to have the right message to the unsaved.\r\n\r\nConcerning the offer of the kingdom, John MacArthur, in one of his sermons, says this: \u201cListen, the Jews were looking for a political kingdom, but Jesus never offered one..<\/em>.\u201c [And I'm thinking, \u2018Is Matthew 10:5-7<\/strong>, not in his Bible? Is Matthew 15:24<\/strong> where Jesus said,<\/em> \u2018I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel<\/em>\u2019 not in his Bible\u2019<\/em>]?\r\n\r\nAnd so George Zeller of Middletown Bible Church, [they have a wonderful website; I would encourage you to take advantage of it] writes this concerning these distinctions that John MacArthur is not making. \u201cMacArthur also runs counter to traditional dispensationalism in his understanding of \u2018the gospel of the kingdom\u2019... He sees this phrase as simply meaning that Jesus was preaching salvation. Dispensationalists understand this as a reference to that preaching which takes place when the Messianic kingdom is \u2018at hand\u2019 which was true during the days of John the Baptist and Christ, and will also be true in the closing years of this<\/em> [present] age<\/em> (Matthew 24:14<\/strong>).\u00a0 Nowhere in the New Testament does it say that the gospel of the kingdom is being preached during this church age.\u201d<\/em>\r\n\r\nSo he's criticizing MacArthur for not making this basic distinction. \u00a0John MacArthur calls himself a leaky dispensationalist<\/em><\/strong>. And he calls himself that, I think Brother Jim found this quote in one of his transcripts where he started reading the reformed theologians, and those sort of became like hero worship to him.\r\n\r\nHere's another quote of his in a recent interview where he calls himself a leaky dispensationalist<\/em><\/strong>, and he says to some reformed theologians, \u201c...I was much more one of you than I was one of them.\u201d<\/em><\/strong>\r\n\r\nHere is a quote from John MacArthur where he accuses dispensationalists in writing. \u00a0It is on page 221 of his book, The Gospel According to the Apostles<\/u><\/strong>, as being a mongrel species. \u201cFrankly, some mongrel species<\/u><\/strong> of dispensationalism...\u201d<\/em> [Now, who would that be? That would be Sugar Land Bible Church], [which he defined as the Dispensationalism of Ryrie, Chafer, and others] ought to die,\u201d<\/em> he says, and I will be happy to join the cortege.\u201d <\/em>Wow.\r\n\r\nHere's another quote from John MacArthur, where he says, \u201cWho are the defenders of <\/u><\/em><\/strong>[what we call free grace dispensationalism?\u201d\u00a0 ... [He is complaining],... \u201cNearly all of them stand in the tradition that has its roots in the teaching of Lewis Sperry Chafer<\/u>\u2026\u201d<\/em><\/strong>\r\n\r\nSo what am I trying to get at? \u00a0What I'm trying to get at is what MacArthur is actually attacking here with his whole presentation of Lordship Salvation is he's attacking the dispensational distinctives. \u00a0He's attacking traditional dispensationalism. \u00a0And if you do that and you damage Ryrie\u2019s structure, the sine qua non,<\/em> you're going to take church and kingdom and merge them. You take church and kingdom and merge them together, Lordship Salvation grows up in its place.\r\n\r\nYou're going to take the preaching of Jesus and John the Baptist in early Matthew<\/strong> concerning the kingdom, and you're going to merge it with the personal gospel of salvation, and you're going to end up preaching a false gospel. \u00a0You see that?\r\n\r\nSo my only point tonight was really not so much to do an expos\u00e9 of Lordship Salvation, but it was to show you that [if] you start to confuse the church with the kingdom, then Lordship Salvation is one of the nine heresies that grow up in that sort of soil.\r\n\r\nSo I hope I made a little bit of sense tonight. \u00a0And that takes us to the end of our series. Can you believe it\u201484 lessons. \u00a0And anyway, I hope you all enjoyed it.\u00a0 I probably had more fun than you guys did. \u00a0But anyway, let's stop. \u00a0And if you've got to collect your kids or take off, this would be a good 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