Kootenai Church Live Stream

Ancient of Days and the Sovereignty of God

Kingdoms rise and fall, there is still one king reigning over all, so I will not be alone. I will not fear, for this truth remains, that my God is the Ancient of Days.

Good morning. So a couple of housekeeping items. I forgot to send the syllabus over to Jim to have it printed out, so it's being printed right now.

Yeah, I'm really on top of things. See, this isn't finished. As I'm working through it, I'm creating the syllabus, so more power to me, huh? Anyway, last week we finished up there, so a couple more things.

So they'll have those out here pretty soon, and then each week, we're almost done with this portion before we go back into Daniel. Maybe one, two more weeks at the most, and then I'll get the rest of the covers, and those of you that didn't want pink can trade yours.

We'll get the rest of the covers. I apologize for not having this sorted out ahead of time, and then I guess that's about it. So welcome to Adult Sunday School Kootenai Community Church, such as it is.

Let's open in prayer. Father, we're grateful that nothing ever catches You by surprise. We thank You that You are sovereign and that You are to be glorified above all things. We pray this morning as we look into Your Word and into this concept of hanging the ideas of the future on this idea of the way You worked in separate economies in the past and will in the future.

We thank You that nothing is changed by grace through faith. Nothing is changed about Your character. You are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and forever. And for that, we are grateful because we can trust You for that.

So as we look into this this morning, we ask You to give us wisdom, help us to understand as much as is necessary to be able to properly understand eschatology in the context of Scripture. We give You the glory for all that You have done for us in Jesus' name.

Amen. So again, just a couple more disclaimers as we're looking through the ideas of dispensationalism. This is a theology of eschatology, of the future things. And as such, not a do-or-die theology like by grace through faith, the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the virgin birth.

Those are things that are significant for salvation. This is, we believe, significant for understanding the future. But if you have a different opinion, it will not impact your salvation. You may have a different millennial view, and that's fine.

So I just want to make sure everyone continues to understand that as we go through this. I believe it's important, but it is not one of the main doctrines. It is not one of the foundational doctrines upon which salvation hinges.

Everybody gets that, right? Okay, I want to make sure we understand that. So last week, we finished up with, we were talking about the myths about dispensationalism. There are five common myths. The first one was that it teaches multiple ways of salvation, which we discovered is not true.

Salvation is and has always been by grace through faith from the beginning and will be until the end when Christ comes again. The second apparent myth about dispensationalism is that it is inherently Arminian.

Now, Marcia is working right now to collate the second portion of the notes. Actually, she's done. She's so efficient. We've got to clone you. Nope, we already have her clone. Her name is Kathy. Anyway, she has them, and it's just six more pages, which we probably won't get through today.

But at any rate, she has them. So dispensationalism has been incorrectly identified as being inherently Arminian. There are some that teach that it is innately linked with Arminianism. Keith Matheson taught that dispensationalism has adopted a semi-Pelagian Arminian doctrine not based on scripture.

Pelagius, who lived around 390 to 418 AD, taught that human beings are born innocent without the stain of original or inherited sin. He believed that God creates every human soul directly, and therefore every human soul comes into the world free from sin.

There is no such thing, he said, as original sin, and Adam's transgression did not result in a sinful nature passed down to all humanity. He was incorrect. That is unbiblical heresy. Semi-Pelagianism was promulgated in the 5th century by a fellow named John Cassian and some other church leaders in France.

It took a middle-of-the-road approach to depravity. We are depraved, but not totally so, it taught. Semi-Pelagianism allows that humanity is tainted by sin, but not to the extent that we cannot cooperate with God's grace on our own.

Semi-Pelagianism is in essence partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. We are sinful, but we can still recognize the truth, it teaches. Cooperate with God's grace and choose to seek Christ. We need God's grace to be saved, but we can take the first step towards Christ on our own apart from grace.

This is heresy. This is untrue. We are dead prior to salvation. And dead bodies don't read encyclopedias or quote Merriam-Webster dictionary or watch TV. They're dead. And that's what we were prior to Christ.

All of salvation is a gift of God. From the very beginning of regeneration all the way through the sanctification that occurs after salvation. Numerous attempts have been made to paint Dispensationalism as inherently anti-Calvinistic.

First it must be remembered that Dispensationalism is primarily about ecclesiology, that is church study. Eschatology, that is the future. And hermeneutics, which is understanding how to interpret scripture.

It is not a treatise about soteriology or salvation. Didn't know you were going to learn all these Latin and Greek words, did you? We're going to make up a few more as we go along. John Feinberg explains this.

He says, Neither Calvinism nor Arminianism is at the essence of Dispensationalism. This matter is not at the essence of Dispensationalism, because Calvinism and Arminianism are very important in regard to the concept of God, man, sin and salvation.

Dispensationalism becomes very important in regard to eschatology and ecclesiology, but is really not about those other areas. There are many Dispensationalists that are Calvinists. Even Five Point, David L. Turner, James Oliver Buswell, S. Lewis Johnson Jr., to name a few.

Some non-Dispensational scholars have shown a clear connection between Dispensationalism and Calvinism, if you want. In fact, C. Norman Krauss has even gone on record demonstrating that the basic theological affinities of Dispensationalism are Calvinistic, for whatever that's worth.

And Wayne Grudem allows that both views are found among Dispensationalists. The point is, Dispensationalists may be inherently Calvinistic, and cannot be demonstrated to have a close connection to Calvinism than to Arminianism, but it must be remembered that Dispensationalism does not focus on salvation, on soteriology.

That is the key component to remember here. So, it is not inherently Arminian. It is about ecclesiology, it is about eschatology, and it is about hermeneutics. It's not about your salvation. It's a theology of the future, if you will.

Of understanding how to place things and understand things from Genesis through Revelation, how they relate to each other throughout the history of the church, throughout the history of Israel, and how those things are connected and not connected.

That's what Dispensationalism is about. Any questions about that? It's not Arminian. Number three, Dispensationalism, so go to number three if you would, is inherently Antinomian. Antinomianism, theologically, is the belief that there are no moral laws God expects Christians to obey.

Once you get saved, you can do whatever you want. Sure, and I've got some land on Wiley Knob to sell you. Many teach that Dispensationalists also teach Antinomianism. Some of them claim that Dispensationalists teach that the Christian is not under the Mosaic Law and that Christians can be justified without being sanctified.

According to this alleged claim, Christians can be carnal. Some of this misunderstanding hangs on the idea that Dispensationalists see justification and sanctification as being separable. There is nothing within the theology of Dispensationalism that would cause an adherent to separate justification from sanctification.

Most, and I would say all, but you can't say that because I don't know for sure, but I can say most view them as being inseparable. John MacArthur says it this way, There is no such thing as a true convert to Christ who is justified but who is not being sanctified.

If you have been justified, your sanctification is a direct result in continuing action in your life because of salvation. Philippians 1 .6 comes to mind. Dispensationalist Donald G. Barnhouse said,. Justification and sanctification are as inseparable as a torso and a head.

You can't have one without the other. Although Dispensationalists acknowledge that the Mosaic Law has been done away with, it is understood to have been replaced by the Law of Christ. Dispensationalism, therefore, does not teach that Christians can do whatever they want.

It does not teach that. There is no historical connection between Dispensationalism and Antinomianism. Another Dispensational right states it this way,. The moral law is always in effect, although its exact content may vary.

Although some may argue that Dispensationalists are in error concerning the relationship of Mosaic Law and the Law of Christ, it is inaccurate to say that it teaches Antinomianism. It does not. It does not.

They are not related. It is about eschatology, ecclesiology, and hermeneutics. Any questions about that? Number four. Dispensationalism leads another myth. Dispensationalist leads to non-Lordship salvation.

Lordship salvation posits that true salvation occurs when a sinner acknowledges he has no power to change and that Christ has done everything that is necessary to change him. He trusts Christ for that salvation, and inherent in that trust is the position that the sinner will yield to Christ's authority in his life.

One simply repents from their sin, turns from their life of wickedness, and trusts Christ for salvation, and yields their life to Him in obedience to His commands. And even that, according to Ephesians 2, is done for him by Christ.

Therefore it is perfect. That action is perfect because it is done by Christ. There were and are some Dispensationalists who made statements that are compatible with the non-Lordship view. Lewis Sperry Schaefer and Zane Hodges come to mind.

There are as many or far more who teach the Lordship view, including John MacArthur, Robert Salsey, and Richard Mayhew, to name several. Salsey claims this. He says, that would be under C. He says, the radical non-Lordship position of some contemporary Dispensationalists denying the need and salvation of a faith that works, based on James 2, 14 -26, has never been a part of traditional or classical Dispensationalism.

It does not teach that. It does not. There have been some that have mistakenly alluded to that. There have been statements that have been made without thinking to that effect. And there may be some who believe that.

But it is not what Dispensationalism teaches. Again, it's about ecclesiology, eschatology, and hermeneutics. Number five. Or any questions about that? Number five and the last one. One of the last myths.

Dispensationalism is primarily about believing in seven dispensations. This was originally popularized by R .C. Sproul in his book, What is Covenant Theology? This idea has gained ascendancy. To be fair, many Dispensationalists propound this idea as well, that there are seven specific testing periods in redemptive history.

This is not the primary point or the primary theological point regarding Dispensationalism. All Christians believe in dispensations. It is very unlikely that a Bible-believing Christian would not notice the difference between the pre-fall and the post-fall world.

Would you agree? That the pre-fall and the post-fall world are different. Yeah. That's essentially the definition of a dispensation difference. Neither would they ignore the difference between before and after Christ's first coming.

Nor would they overlook the fact that the present world is certainly different from the coming new heavens and new earth. Dispensationalism is also not just about understanding and acknowledging the Greek term oikonomia, which although it is a biblical term and is linked to the word dispensation, simply acknowledging it does not make one a Dispensationalist.

It doesn't have to do that. Traditionally, though, Dispensationalism has been linked with belief in seven dispensations. Some believe in three, four, eight, or even thirty-seven. It depends on whether or not different times during a period of history are compressed or expanded.

It is not required that one hold to seven or any other number. The number of dispensations is not the defining intent of Dispensationalism. It's not the defining intent of this theology. There are many other myths.

We're on F. There are many other myths that could be dealt with. Some taught that the Sermon on the Mount only applies to the future millennial kingdom. It does not. It is applicable today. Some believe that Dispensationalism teaches a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven.

This was probably held by some earlier teachers of it, but it is no longer the norm. One critic claims the absurd idea that Dispensationalism teaches the idea that literal fulfillment of land promises to Israel and the belief that Israel will undergo tribulation in the future promotes racism and ethnic cleansing.

This is silly and irrational. It doesn't teach that. God chose national Israel among all the nations in the Old Testament. Is God racist? Of course not. One man teaches that Dispensationalist beliefs run concurrent with a lack of concern for national and global issues.

This is not true at all. The idea was that Dispensationalists spend all their time looking to the sky, waiting for the rapture, and ignoring the terrible things that happen in our world. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think any of you who know me know I don't spend my time looking at the sky. I think. I mean, I do occasionally when there's birds flying around, and especially if they're close. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Any comments about the 7? So if you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, but only up to 37. If you've got 38, we've got a problem. I'm just kidding. So Michael Vlock in his book, and a lot of this comes from John MacArthur and Richard Mayhew's book, Christ's Prophetic Promises?

Plans. Yeah, he really knows what he's talking about. Christ's Prophetic Plans and various other books I'm reading. But Michael Vlock gives this definition of Dispensationalism which seems very proper.

Number 6. My understanding is that a dispensation is a noticeable area when God administers and deals with His creation in a unique way. Criteria for a dispensation can involve such matters as the giving of a covenant, a covenant head such as Noah and Abraham, more revelation being offered, or certain blessings and consequences being presented.

It could be an era such as the Tribulation Period when God unleashes His wrath on an unbelieving world in preparation for His kingdom. So there's the general basic idea of what Dispensationalism teaches.

Now there's a couple of other concepts we're going to talk about and we probably will get through this today. And maybe even a little more. But again, we're only going to spend one more week on this and then we're going to get into the book of Daniel proper.

And hopefully we'll be able to understand how Daniel functions or how God has predicted things. And Daniel really did predict things. He didn't write this in the 2nd century. He wrote it in the 6th century B .C.

How Daniel predicted things and how they connect with each other including Revelation, from Genesis to Revelation. Continuity and discontinuity in Dispensationalism. Continuity refers to a connection or carrier of an Old Testament idea or concept into the New Testament.

Salvation by grace alone is a continuity, an example of continuity between the Testaments. That's how it was in the Old Testament. That's how it is in the New Testament. Salvation by grace alone. Discontinuity refers to a change or a disconnect.

And I hesitated to use that word but that's what's used in the classical text on it. It's a disconnect between the Old and the New. The fact that New Testament saints do not offer Old Testament sacrifices is an example of discontinuity between the Testaments.

It does not say that Old Testament sacrifices were wrong. It simply says we don't do that anymore. Dispensationalism has been labeled a discontinuity system because it teaches significant discontent distinction.

Got to be really careful of your words. Same syllables and wrong word. It teaches a significant distinction between Israel and the church. Michael Vlock lists eight areas where discontinuity or continuity between the Testaments is affirmed.

There's eight areas where continuity is affirmed. I'm going to give you the scriptures that you can look up later if you would like. Storyline continuity. There is a continuity of storyline.

Dispensationalists believe...

Good job, thank you. There's a strong continuity between the storyline of the Old Testament and the storyline presented in the New Testament. While the New Testament adds details to the Bible's storyline, it does not change the story.

It does not alter the trajectory of what came before. Dispensationalists believe that the covenants, promises and prophecies of the Old Testament are and will be fulfilled literally through the two comings of Jesus.

This includes all physical and spiritual realities along with all particular Israel, Israel's land, and universal entities, all nations, their lands. While affirming the importance of spiritual realities such as salvation, forgiveness, new heart, and indwelling Holy Spirit, dispensationalists do not believe physical realities are spiritualized or transcended with the coming of Jesus and the New Testament era.

This contrasts with non-dispensational systems, which often, I say often, not always, often see the New Testament as transcending, transforming, transposing, or spiritualizing the message of the Old Testament.

So we believe that what God said about literal things in the Old Testament are literal, that they will be literal until they are fulfilled. Whether they were fulfilled at the first coming or will be fulfilled with the second coming and after.

Number two, the Messiah's kingdom is consistent, this is another area of continuity, is consistent with the kingdom promised in the Old Testament. The Messiah's kingdom is consistent with the kingdom promised in the Old Testament.

The prophets and the Psalms predicted a future earthly kingdom of the Messiah where He transforms the planet and rules the literal nations of the world. Psalms 2, verse 72 and 110. Isaiah chapter 2 and chapter 11.

Dispensationalists see these predictions, excuse me, and chapter 25. Dispensationalists see these predictions coming to fulfillment as a result of the second coming of Jesus the Messiah. Just as the Old Testament promised a future tangible earthly kingdom over the nation, so too does the New Testament in Matthew chapter 19, verse 28 and Revelation 19, verse 15.

The kingdom is not spiritualized or transcended. Thus when John the Baptist and Jesus declared the kingdom of heaven is at hand in Matthew 3, 2 and 4, 17, they meant the prophesied earthly kingdom foretold in the Old Testament.

This is in contrast to some non-dispensational systems that often see the promised earthly kingdom of the Old Testament spiritualized to present a reign of Messiah from heaven. They're literal. Any questions about that?

Yes. What? Psalm 2 and 72. Yeah. Another area of continuity is Israel. Israel of the Old Testament consists of the ethnic descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that comprise the nation of Israel. Sometimes these Israelites are saved and sometimes they are not.

Likewise, all 73 references to Israel in the New Testament refer to ethnic Israelites or ethnic Israelites who have believed in Jesus who is the Israel of God, Galatians 6, 16. There is no transformation or transcending of the concept of Israel.

There is no enlargement or expansion of Israel to include Gentiles, although there is an expansion of the people of God concept to include believing Gentiles alongside believing Israelites, Ephesians 2, 11 through 22.

Thus, Israel in the New Testament carries the meaning of Israel found in the Old Testament. This is in contrast to some non-dispensational systems that often view Israel as being redefined, enlarged or transcended to include Gentiles.

Gentiles are included. They're grafted into the tree. But the tree didn't change. The tree wasn't destroyed. They were grafted in. Another area of continuity is the Day of the Lord. The coming Day of the Lord that impacts both the land of Israel and the entire world is taught in the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, Isaiah 13, 1.

Excuse me, Isaiah 13, 1 Thessalonians 5, 2 Thessalonians 2. The Old Testament prophets predicted that the Day of the Lord would involve the judgment of the nations, the regathering of Israel and an earthly kingdom following judgment in Isaiah 24 -27.

This scenario is affirmed in the New Testament, Matthew 24 -25. Number 6, Messianic salvation continues to be extended to believing just Gentiles. This is an area of continuity. The Old Testament predicted that Gentiles would become the people of God because of the Messiah in Amos 9, 11 -12.

And that has happened in the New Testament times, Acts 15. The coming of Jesus means that the Gentiles have been included in the covenants of promise and have a relationship to Messiah just as believing Israelites do, Ephesians 2, 11 -3, 6.

Another area of continuity, and I'm restating this again because this is so important, salvation by grace through faith alone. There may not be anything more important. You know how I am, what's the best book in the Bible?

Well, it's the one you're in at the time. So, what's the best doctrine? Well, it's the one you're studying at the time. And salvation by grace alone through faith alone is an area of continuity from Old to New Testament.

Dispensationalism affirms that salvation in all ages is by grace alone through faith alone, Genesis 15 -6 and Romans 4. While the content of biblical revelation increases throughout the canon, there is great continuity regarding salvation.

Old Testament saints and New Testament saints are saved by grace alone through faith alone based on the atonement of Jesus. As argued earlier, the claim that dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation is false.

Moving to H, the New Testament quotes and alludes to the Old Testament in ways consistent with the original literal meaning of the Old Testament writers. So, there are approximately 350 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament.

While there are some challenging cases, the vast majority of Old Testament uses in the New Testament are contextual and consistent with the ideas of the Old Testament writers. This fact emphasizes continuity between the storyline of the Old Testament and that found in the New Testament.

Dispensationalists may vary to some degree on New Testament use of the Old Testament, but overall most affirm continuity between the Old Testament meaning and the New Testament usage of the Old Testament.

Then there are five major areas of discontinuity that are listed. Dispensationalism, excuse me, Israel and the Church. So, dispensationalism affirms the biblical distinction between Israel and the Church.

Israel consists of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that comprise the nation Israel. Some Israelites are saved and some are not. But Israel always has an ethnic component in the Bible.

The Church, on the other hand, is the new covenant community of believing Jews and Gentiles. In this age who have believed in Jesus the Messiah. The Church includes the believing Israelites, the Israel of God, Galatians 6 .16 and Romans 9 .6, but is not the same thing as Israel.

With the 73 references to Israel in the New Testament, none refer to the Church, nor are Gentiles ever referred to as Israel. Dispensationalism affirms that Israel is a vehicle for bringing blessings to Gentiles, in Genesis chapter 12, but it is not God's intent to make Gentiles part of Israel.

From Exodus 19 onward, the nation Israel was the mediatorial vehicle for God's purposes in the world. Yet, with Israel's failure, culminating in Israel's rejection of her own Messiah, the Church becomes God's vehicle for the gospel and kingdom proclamation in this age between the two comings of Jesus.

God is still saving a remnant of Israelites, Romans 11, but in this age the Church is the messenger of God's kingdom program, taking the gospel to all nations. When God saves the mass of national Israel in the future, Romans 11 .26, Israel will once again have a mediatorial role of service and leadership to the nations under Jesus the Messiah, who at that time will be ruling the nations, Isaiah 2, 2 -4, Matthew 19 .28, and Revelation 19 .15.

But in this age, the Church is the primary agent for God's kingdom purposes. Israel has deep roots in the Old Testament, but the Church is linked with all who have believed in Jesus the Messiah and have experienced the new covenant ministry of the Holy Spirit.

Thus the Church began on the day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came upon the followers of Jesus in Acts 2. Some want to make the Church the people of God of all ages, but that is not correct. Jesus and the new covenant are the main ingredients for the Church and only New Testament saints have experienced these yet.

Any questions about that? Number two area of discontinuity, the Mosaic covenant to the new covenant. The Mosaic covenant was a temporary and conditional covenant given to Israel at Mount Sinai, Exodus 19.

The era of the Mosaic covenant ended with Jesus' death and the establishment of the new covenant, Ephesians 2 .15, Hebrews 8 .8 -13. Most dispensationalists hold that the Mosaic covenant was a unit that ended with the death of Christ.

We are now under Jesus' priesthood associated with the new covenant, not the Aaronic priesthood or the Mosaic covenant. As the writer of Hebrews stressed, quote, when the priesthood is changed of necessity there takes place a change of law also, Hebrews 7 .12.

As a result, dispensationalists believe Christians are under the new covenant, not the Mosaic covenant. Likewise, Christians are under the law of Christ as our code for life, not the Mosaic law. The law of Christ has many similarities to the law of Moses since God's moral standards remain consistent.

But the Christian is no longer bound by the Mosaic law as a rule for life. With 1 Corinthians 9 .20 -21, Paul explicitly stated he was under the law of Christ, not the Mosaic law. We are not offering sacrifices today.

Christ is our sacrifice. Once for all. And that is so important. Once for all. Jim stressed that when he went through that section in Hebrews. Once for all. It was all that was necessary for eternal salvation for those who trust in Christ.

One time. Not repeated sacrifices. The third area of discontinuity is this. Dispensations. Like all Christians, dispensationalists believe in dispensations. Eras in which God works with his people in different ways.

The pre-fall era with Adam and Eve was obviously different than the post-fall era. There is a discontinuity. The present church age is different from Israel's previous theocracy under the Mosaic covenant.

Another area of discontinuity. The kingdom that follows Jesus' return will differ in some ways from the present age we live in as Jesus rules from and over the earth. Zechariah 14 .9. Yet even with the differences among these dispensations, salvation has always been by grace alone through faith alone.

I'm going to stress that again. Based on the atonement of Jesus and nothing else. Dispensations may change, but the way a person is saved always remains the same. Again, Genesis 15 .16 and Romans 4. Dispensationalists debate the number and characteristics that make up the various dispensations as non-dispensationalists do.

But they acknowledge that God has worked in different ways at different times. Yet the way of salvation remains the same throughout history. Thus the dispensations evidence both continuity, salvation by grace through faith, and discontinuity, some of the things we've talked about.

Next one is D, the people of God. The concept of the people of God has varied throughout some dispensations. To be clear, all God's people from the beginning to end are saved the same way, continuity.

But the people of God concept has varied. From Adam until Moses there was no nation of Israel. So the people of God were not related to any one nation. According to Paul, this was also an era in which people were sinners even though they did not have special, specific verbal revelation that Adam and Moses had.

See Romans 5 .13 and 14. With Israel becoming a nation, the people of God concept was strongly linked with Israel. And the message of salvation coming from Israel. Under the Mosaic Covenant era, becoming a believer usually meant becoming a proselyte to Israel.

Yet because of Jesus and the New Covenant, the people of God concept expanded to include Gentiles, excuse me, to include believing Gentiles alongside believing Israelites. This expansion of the people of God concept does not mean that Gentiles, believing Gentiles become Jews or Israel, as some non-dispensationalists believe, but they do become the people of God alongside believing Israelites.

This is what Paul discusses in Ephesians 2 .11 -3 .6. 2 .11 -3 .6. And what Isaiah predicted in Isaiah 19 .24 -25. And for further reference also see Acts 15 .14 -18. Let me just check something here.

The role of the Holy Spirit. Most dispensationalists believe the Holy Spirit's role of permanently indwelling saints began as a result of Jesus' ascension and pouring out of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts 2.

Before His death, Jesus told the apostles that the Holy Spirit lives with them, but will be in them in John 14 .17. In His person and character, the Holy Spirit never changes. He is the third person. And you know, we've numbered them.

It occurred to me one day that God may have a different number because the three persons of the Trinity are all God and are all perfect, all-knowing, all-powerful, sovereign. So it's nice we mathematicians and OCD people have a numbering system.

So I'm going to go ahead and continue to call the Holy Spirit the third person of the Trinity. His role and character, excuse me, His character never changes. Yet during Old Testament times, He came upon some select persons for temporary indwelling for service.

See Exodus 31 .3. His role of permanent indwelling and empowerment of all Christians for sanctification is closely linked with the death and ascension of Jesus the Messiah. This does not deny that the Holy Spirit saved Old Testament saints.

But there is greater enablement for sanctification with the coming of the new covenant. See Romans 8 .1 -4. Thus, the role of the Holy Spirit is somewhat different in the New Testament era. But again, His character has never changed.

His power has never changed. His authority, His sovereignty, none of that has changed. Any questions about that? I think we're going to finish early because the next thing I want to go through carefully and graciously as much as possible is going to be the key differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology without alluding to any idea that either one is perfect.

The Bible is perfect. The Scripture is perfect. Everything I say, I want you to all be Bereans. No, you don't have to go there. Because you'd have to fly and you'd have to quit work. It's a long ways away.

But I want you to think like Bereans. The Scripture is the most important thing. And again, remembering that this is a theology of understanding how the future works. How things in the Old Testament are linked to the New Testament.

It is not about salvation. It is not about sanctification. It is not about the lordship of Jesus Christ in your life. It is about ecclesiology, the history of the church and how that works, and Israel.

It is about eschatology, the things of the future and how they all relate to one another. And that's really important when we get into Daniel. A couple of things about that. Remember, those of you who have been here, I've stressed this on a number of occasions.

But to those who haven't been here, there were a number of people who, starting in the 2nd century, couldn't believe Daniel was prophetic. Because there was just no way a guy could be that accurate. Therefore, he must have written in 200 B .C., around 166 B .C.

He must have written a history of what happened in Babylon. And all the things that subsequently occurred. Because it was too accurate. Nobody could predict like that. That was a presupposition they made.

The fact is, prophetic utterances in Scripture are just that. They are statements about the future that God has made through various prophets that are accurate and true. And so we're going to be studying some of those again in the book of Daniel.

And so we felt that this idea of how to hang these on pegs, proper pegs, is going to be helpful for us as we go through Daniel. And that's primarily the reason why we elected to go through this section on dispensationalism as an interim between Daniel chapter 6 and Daniel chapter 7.

Plus, it gave me time to work on Daniel chapter 7, which is really, really challenging and fun. And I'm dumber than a post, so it's going to take some time. It's going to take some time. I appreciate your patience with me.

Any comments or questions about what we just went through? Additions? Subtractions? Deletions? Oh, that sounds like a printer page. Okay. Well, we're going to stop there. Next week, we'll look at the key differences between dispensationalism and covenant theology just with an eye to understanding them.

That's all. Let's pray. Father, again, we reaffirm the fact that it is your scripture that is true. It is the Bible that we trust. It is your word, the written word, and the Lord Jesus Christ who is the word incarnate that we look to.

Lord, we pray that as we study these things, we trust you to help us to simply understand the future and what you have planned in a manner that will be cogent to our understanding so that we can understand it.