He Is Coming (Hebrews 10:36-37) | Adult Sunday School

Them in the folders. That's the deal. Well good morning. Welcome to Kootenai Community Church Adult Sunday School. We will be looking again at the concept of the future from a dispensational view. And I better turn this thing off or it will be irritating me.

There. So let's open in prayer. We'll wait until Jim sits down so we don't pray over his head. Let's pray. Father, we're grateful this morning for the opportunity to look into your Word. It is your story of your Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

And for that we give you glory. Lord, we anticipate learning how to hang the future on the pegs that some theology provides. No human-made theological proposition is superior to your Word. So we look to your Word always, first and foremost.

Help us be able to grasp these concepts so that we can more appropriately, more effectively give you glory and grow in the grace and the glory of your Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. We thank you for your Word.

We thank you for your gift of your Son. And we look forward to what we are going to be illuminated by. And thank you in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Dispensationalism and the Authority of Scripture

So Jim will finish handing these out. For those of you that weren't here last week, we started a study in the concept of dispensationalism. And I made a number of disclaimers. If you don't believe in dispensationalism, it's fine.

It's not one of the prime directives, if you will, of the Christian faith. The Lord Jesus Christ is the second person of the triune God. That is one of the most important ones. He is the only way for salvation.

There are no other names under heaven by which we are called to be saved. And so that's another prime, if you want, or a fundamental doctrine. The concept of dispensationalism is a method of interpreting the historical periods of time that God has operated in.

And I will get to this, but I'm going to make sure you understand at the outset that God operated according to grace in Genesis chapter 1, and He operates according to grace in Revelation chapter 22, and in every single word in between.

It is by grace through faith we are saved. And that alone is the method by which people come to salvation. So as we're going through this and we're talking about the nuts and bolts of dispensationalism, let's keep that in mind at all times.

There are some things God has outlined in history and He changes and He does differently, but He does not change the prime concept of the gospel, which is it is by grace through faith that you are saved.

That there is no other name under heaven by which men are called to be saved but the Lord Jesus Christ. And that He alone is sovereign and is the triune God who created and made us and is worthy of all glory and all praise.

Those are the things that we will be putting in the back of our minds as we study through these concepts of dispensationalism. So last week we talked about the fact that in the 66 books, 62 of them have future concepts.

That eschatology is a necessary study. And none of us are going to be, what is it, pan-millennialists. It will all pan out in the end. If you are a pre-post-trib-ah-millennialist, I believe it's important, but it is not salvific.

It is not. And so there will be no looking down on each other for, well, my millennialism starts with a P. Well, there are several that start with that. We just don't do that. The point is we're looking at a method of hanging the historical actions of God's Word onto theological pegs that we can, how we can understand the future.

And we felt that that was important for our study of Daniel, which is upcoming. So I won't go through the whole, I won't review all of what we did last week because you should have it in writing or in typing.

I guess it's typing now. You'd be glad it's typing. If you saw my writing, you would not be reading it. It looks like a spider, a drunk spider that fell into a bottle of ink and then walked across a page.

Okay, moving right along. Recently we looked at, in Jim's teaching, we looked at the fact that our last, what we last looked at last week was that the Levitical priesthood and the Mosaic covenant was a type.

We were looking at types. They are types of the better priesthood and the new covenant of the Lord Jesus Christ. And we looked at the fact that typology is significant in eschatology. Non-dispensationalists often believe that national Israel was a type of the New Testament church.

And once the anti-type and an anti-type is a fulfillment of the type, once the anti-type of the type, which the church was revealed, Israel's place as the people of God was transcended and superseded by the church.

This is a teaching of most non-dispensationalists. So starting today, we're going to look at the fact that national Israel, however, is not an inferior type that is replaced by the church. So if you're looking at the, it's going to be different pages, but if you're looking at the outline, you might look at, let me see if I can get you, if you haven't already figured it out, it's under F2D.

Sounds like legislation. National Israel, however, is not an inferior type that is replaced by the church. Here's what has been said about that. The unconditionality of the promises to Israel guarantees that the New Testament does not even implicitly remove those promises from Israel.

Old Testament civil and ceremonial laws and institutions are shadows and are explicitly removed in the New Testament. But unconditional promises are not shadows, nor are the peoples to whom they are given, unquote.

So national Israel is not the anti-type of the church. There is no biblical evidence that Israel is a symbol for the church, and further, there is no evidence that Palestine is a symbol for the New Jerusalem.

If the New Testament cancels an Old Testament type, now get this, the New Testament must tell us so. If the New Testament cancels an Old Testament type, the New Testament must tell us so. There are typological connections between Israel and the church.

These connections, however, do not cancel the future for the type as though it were taken by the anti-type. In other words, although Israel prefigures the church in many ways, no denying that, the church does not cancel the promises made to Israel that were unconditionally made by God.

When God makes an unconditional promise, it is not conditional. Well, duh, it seems like since the word unconditional means not conditional, but some folks believe there's a belabored theology that makes them conditional.

They are not. When God makes an unconditional promise, they are not conditional. He has made an unconditional promise to you that if you trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, your eternity is sealed. Are you glad that's unconditional?

Because if it depended on me, oh my, are we in trouble from about the get-go. If it depended on you, and I don't know you so I'm not making crass personal statements, I'm just talking biblically, it would be the same.

His unconditional promises depend on Him and Him alone, and His unconditionality is eternal. Thus there may be a typological connection between Israel and the church, but this connection is not that of the church superseding national Israel.

Instead, the typological connection is that of a historical and theological correspondence that reveals a close relationship between Israel and the church. Thus, the unconditional promises that God made to Israel should be treated as genuinely unconditional.

It seems like the church has been transcended and superseded by the church. In many cases, the church is added in to the promises that Israel benefits from, but it never replaces Israel, never supersedes it, never takes those blessings away from Israel.

Israel, the Church, and Distinct Roles in Salvation History

Number three, Israel and the church are distinct, thus the church cannot be identified as the new or true Israel. So dispensationalists reject replacement theology, quote, replacement theology, unquote, or supersessionism.

They do not believe in the church, that the church is a replacement or a fulfillment of the nation Israel as a people of God. Traditional dispensationalists view the church as a distinct anthropological group.

Now, are modern Jews saved the same way as any other Christian? Of course they are. Of course, that is not what we're saying. Progressive dispensationalists, a group within dispensational camp, view the church as a satirological or new covenant community starting with the events of Acts chapter 2, but neither believe that the church is the new slash true Israel that forever supersedes national Israel.

I'm belaboring this point because that is a point, and you can see that in Ephesians chapter 2 verses 11 through 22, but they also point out that the New Testament distinguishes Israel and the church in such a way that rules out the idea that the church is now identified as Israel or that the church entirely inherits Israel's promises and covenants to the exclusion of national Israel, of the nation Israel.

So the church does not displace, supersede, or remove Israel's blessings. It does not do that. The title Israel is used 73 times in the New Testament, but it is always used of ethnic Jews. The New Testament consistently refers to the nation Israel as Israel, even after the establishment of the church.

Romans 10 .1, Brethren, my heart's desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation. In context, Paul is talking about national Israel. He refers to them separately from the church. Romans 9, chapter 9, verses 3 and 4 was obviously written after the church was instituted, and here's what it says,.

For I wish that I and myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongs the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the temple service, and the promises.

Further, the book of Acts continues the distinction between the church and Israel. The term Israel in Acts is used 20 times, and the term ecclesia, or church, the called out ones, is used 19 times. The church, lacking any distinctive national traits in contradistinction to Israel, is not a nation as is Israel.

The church is not identified with Israel. Their identities, though different, both enjoy equally the blessings of the future eschatological salvation. Future salvation is enjoyed by both. There is both spiritual unity and salvation between Jews and Gentiles, and a future role for Israel as a nation.

Any questions so far? Are you able to follow? Okay. That's amazing. A significant argument made against dispensationalism is that it does not properly treat the unity the Jews and Gentiles have in Christ.

And there is most certainly a unity. It does not, and we are not ignoring that. Ephesians 2, 15 through 16. By abolishing in his flesh the enmity which is the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in himself he might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross by having put to death the enmity.

By it having put to death the enmity. The cross put to death the enmity between Jews and Gentiles. Non-dispensationalists believe that when Christ fulfilled the law, Israel's exclusivity as a nation and people ended.

As soon as Christ fulfilled his mission, if you will, on the cross and fulfilled the law, Israel's exclusivity as a nation ended. The contention is that Christ's work on the cross in joining Gentiles and Jews into one man and one body rules out a future role for Israel.

One of their proponents, Anthony Hokema, says this, he says, actually he is a progressive dispensationalist, he says, to suggest that God has in mind a separate future for Israel in distinction from the future he has planned for Gentiles actually goes contrary to God's purpose.

It is like putting the scaffolding back up after the building has been finished. It is like training the clock of history back to Old Testament times. It is imposing Old Testament separateness upon the New Testament and ignoring the progress of Revelation.

So it is one of those situations where the church is added in potentially to the blessings of the Jews, of the nation Israel. Dispensationalism teaches that though there is spiritual unity between believing Jews and Gentiles, and there most certainly is, under the salvation plan of the Lord Jesus Christ, Jews and Gentiles have become one man.

There is no distinction in salvation. None. Their God-ordained functional distinctions have not been done away with. Let me re-read that. Dispensationalism teaches that though there is spiritual unity between believing Jews and Gentiles, their God-ordained functional distinctions have not been done away with.

With reference to salvation, Jews and Gentiles are equal before God. It is by grace through faith. No other way. This salvific unity, however, does not cancel the ethnic or functional distinction. One theologian said it this way, Paul's comments in Ephesians exclude any salvific priority for Israel in the ecclesiological structure for the new man.

However, while there is no longer salvific advantage, there is still an ethnic distinction between Jews and Gentiles. Paul continues to speak of Jews and Gentiles as distinct ethnic groups in his letters.

You can reference Romans 1 .16, 9 .24, 1 Corinthians 1 .24, 12 .13, and Galatians 2 .14 and 15. I believe I included those in the study. Similar to this, though men and women share equally in salvation benefits, the Bible still teaches that men and women have distinctly different roles, does it not?

Further, elders and non-elders share equally in the spiritual blessings of salvation, but elders have a distinct role in the church based on the plan of God. The same distinction can be made between parents and children.

And in fact, within the Trinity itself, all three members of the Godhead are equal and yet they have different functions within their oneness. And those functions blend and support the others. And that is how the roles that God has left assigned to men and women, fathers and daughters, mothers and daughters, mothers and sons, all the relationships we have, they have distinct, clear requirements and roles and responsibilities.

But it doesn't change the fact that all of us are saved exactly the same way and have been for all eternity. Well, all of the history of the earth. Got to use that word properly. Saving unity between Jews and Gentiles as well as future role for Israel in the Millennial Kingdom is what has been called a both-and situation.

The union of Jew and Gentile in the church does not rule out the possibility of functional distinctions between Israel and the other nations in the future. In the same way that there are functional distinctions among believers in the church today amidst spiritual equality.

Another operational functional distinction is the different gifts. Are any gifts superior to the others? They are all on equal par given by God to His people for the blessing of one another and for the glory of God.

All the gifts are. Some have been set aside for a certain time but at any rate the gifts that continue are blessings and everyone that has one or more is a, I almost was going to say is a tool in the hand of God.

That sounds so constructionist. Is a useful blessed member of the body of Christ to build one another up and to give.

Glory to God. Yes, correct. So the question was is God has brought the church in with.

The Jews but where does that leave unbelieving Jews? It leaves them exactly the same place every unbelieving person is left. Without Christ and therefore without salvation. She said that some Christians hold all Jews up here.

Up here is Christ. Way down here is us in the mud. All of us. Jews and Gentiles. All of us must trust Christ for salvation. Jews and Gentiles. There is a place for believing Jews in the new order of things but everyone who does not trust Christ will be on the wide road to hell.

Is on the wide road to hell. Is that helpful? Yes. Absolutely. Yes. There were unbelieving Jews pre-Christ. Ahab comes to mind. The nation Israel will be saved, restored with a unique identity. Now when it says nation again that is not referring to every single Jewish person but we are talking about a national identity now as distinct from other national identities.

The nation Israel will be saved, restored with a unique identity and function in the future millennial kingdom on earth. Many non-dispensationalists believe in a literal salvation of Israel based on Romans 11 26.

A proper understanding though includes a restoration of Israel. Israel will be restored as a nation quote in her land with a specific identity and role of service to the nations. In other words in a literal earthly kingdom a millennium the nation Israel will perform a functional role of service to the nations.

And my printing that is out of John MacArthur and Richard Mayhew Christ's prophetic plans. This is affirmed by dispensationalists but denied by many non-dispensationalists. Oh by the way one other thing there are plenty of non-dispensationalists who are pre-millennial.

I didn't make that that was one of the caveats or one of the distinctions I haven't made before and I want to remind us that there are plenty of non-dispensationalists who are pre-millennialists. And so it's an amazing thing that when we get to heaven we're going to see the one true track of history and the one true track of everything.

And all of us are going to go how did I mess that up? You know because the scripture is clear. But here we have all these different opinions and different ideas. As long as we don't compromise the fundamentals then we can use these other tools to hang the future on and try to understand it.

But we won't compromise the fundamentals. To be clear non-dispensationalists do not say that Israel will be saved into the church but rather that the nation Israel will be saved and restored with a unique identity and role in an earthly millennium.

The Lord Jesus Christ will literally rule over nations at his return. That's what the scripture says. Revelation 19 .15, From his mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it he may strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron, and he treads the winepress of the fierce wrath of God the Almighty.

The Lord Jesus Christ will rule the nations when he comes again. Zechariah 14 names Egypt as one of the nations for example. Isaiah chapter 49 teaches that Jesus the ultimate Israelite restores the nation and brings blessings to Gentiles.

Let's read that Isaiah 49 .3 -6 He said to me, You are my servant Israel in whom I will show my glory. But I said, I have toiled in vain, I have spent my strength for nothing in vanity, yet surely the justice due to me is with the Lord, and my reward with my God.

And now says the Lord who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, so that Israel might be gathered to him. For I am honored in the sight of the Lord, and my God is my strength.

He says, It is too small a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved ones of Israel. I will also make you a light of the nations, so that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.

Now when God's salvation reaches to the end of the earth, does that mean that everyone will be saved? We could wish it so, but it is not so. The potential, the gospel will reach to the ends of the earth, and there will be those who will accept it, and those who will turn from it.

Those who will cast it back in, if you will, back in God's face. Number six, there are multiple senses of the seed of Abraham, thus the church's identification as the seed of Abraham does not cancel God's promise, or God's promises to the believing Jewish seed of Abraham.

Scripture teaches that those who believe are sons of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise. Galatians chapter 3 verse 7 says,. Therefore to be sure, it is those who have faith who are sons of Abraham.

Galatians 3 29,. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to promise. It has been argued that because of this Gentiles must be spiritual Jews, since being a son or a seed would automatically make one a Jew.

Abraham was a believer before he was circumcised. Abraham was a believer when he was a Gentile, that's significant. Therefore he is the father of Gentiles prior to becoming the founder of God's covenant people.

Romans 4 9 and 10,. Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say faith was credited to Abraham because of his works. Oh wait a minute, as righteousness, how was it then credited?

While he was circumcised or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised. Paul makes note of that. The faith Abraham demonstrated came before he was declared the father of the covenant people of God.

One scholar put it this way, he said,. If Abraham were merely the father of Israel, we would have to conclude that the Gentiles who are now a part of this seed are therefore a part of Israel. But according to the New Testament, Abraham is more than that.

He is portrayed as the father of both the people of Israel and of the Gentiles. On the grounds that Abraham was a believer before he was circumcised, that is before he was recognized as a Hebrew, the apostle Paul declared him to be the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised and also the father of the circumcised.

The distinction is made there only to show that he was the father of the Gentiles before circumcision and the father of the Hebrew nation, father of faith of the Hebrew nation after. Although the seed of Abraham covers both Jews and Gentiles, this does not rule out Israel's distinct role in the New Testament nor does it justify the formation of a new spiritual Israel that takes the place of the Old Testament nation of Israel.

Israel is Israel and will remain Israel. Her functions change a bit but she will remain Israel. Her functions in the millennium will be different somewhat than her functions in today's world. There are four senses of the seed of Abraham in the New Testament.

Number one, or A, those who are biological descendants of Abraham. That's a pretty clear one. Number two, the Messiah who is the unique individual seed of Abraham. Number three, the righteous remnant of Israel, Isaiah 41 .8, but you my Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, descendant of Abraham, my friend.

And then Romans 9 .6, but it is not as though the word of God has failed for they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel, to your point. In a spiritual sense, believing Jews and Gentiles are a seed of Abraham.

Number D, Galatians 3 .29, and if you belong to Christ then you are Abraham's descendants, heirs according to the promise. So the four senses are those who are biological descendants, the Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the unique individual seed of Abraham, the righteous remnant of Israel, and in a spiritual sense, believing Jews and Gentiles.

Any comments or questions about that? Both. There were righteous Israelites in the Old Testament, righteous Israelites today, believing Israelites. Well that's the definition of righteousness, true righteousness, if you will.

Any other questions? So now I'd like to look at some of the myths about dispensationalism, because sometimes when you understand what other folks think about it, and you can see how they misunderstood or misapplied scripture or statements, indiscriminate statements that have been made.

I made one last week, and actually I didn't make a statement, and I was called on it, and that was that there are non-dispensationalists who believe in the millennial, who are premillennial. I didn't mention that.

It was an omission. And sometimes those things, what is omitted can be just as disconcerting to people reading about or hearing about something as blatant misstatements. And there were plenty of those in the history of understanding dispensationalism because guess what?

Men made those statements. I wish I could go back through my life and take back every misstatement or falsehood I ever said. You know how much time it would take for me to do that? It would be another lifetime expended.

I'm just grateful that they came under the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. Not that I'm going to continue to do it intentionally. As a matter of fact, I'm hoping I learned from each and every one that was brought to my attention.

But I'm a slow learner. I've often said that my headstone is going to read, he was a growing Christian, but he ran out of time. Myths about dispensationalism. Not all theological systems have a direct relationship to every area of Christian theology.

So a theological system, proper one, could be erected on page 1150 of Grudem's Systematic Theology, and that little piece of theology may not have a relationship to salvation, soteriology, or to eschatology.

It may just be related to the Trinity. It's a theological system. There are plenty of theological systems that men erect to understand things. And they will not necessarily always impact every area of theology.

So Reformed theology specifically addresses the doctrines of Scripture, God's sovereignty and salvation, but it does not presuppose any particular view of eschatology. Reformed theologians can be amillennialists, postmillennialists, premillennialists.

Dispensationalism does not directly relate to every category of theology. It is linked to the doctrines of ecclesiology, the church, and eschatology and times. Those are the two most salient points that are dealt with in the theology of dispensationalism.

It is directly linked to hermeneutics and Bible interpretation, but it is not inherently, if you will, related to soteriology or salvation, the doctrine of salvation. Dispensation does not teach multiple methods of salvation.

That is one of the mysteries or myths that has been promulgated that dispensationalists believe that people in one of the old dispensations are saved in a different way than they are saved in the new dispensation.

That is heresy. That's not a mistake. That's not a poor interpretation. That is heresy. God saves His sons and daughters the same way from Adam and Eve through whoever the last guy or gal it is in Revelation.

John MacArthur states it this way, he says,. So, dispensationalism shapes one's eschatology and ecclesiology, that is it, I'm jumping away from John, it has an effect on how you understand the church and the future, mainly those two things.

Now granted, salvation is related to the church because in order to get into the church, you've got to get saved. But it's not directly, dispensationalism is not directly related. So he says this, Dispensationalism shapes one's eschatology and ecclesiology, that is the extent of it.

Pure dispensationalism has no ramifications for the doctrines of God, man, sin, or sanctification. More significantly, true dispensationalism makes no relevant contribution to soteriology or the doctrine of salvation.

It makes no significant contribution to soteriology. He makes the point in one of his books that theology proper, especially the element of God's sovereignty, informs dispensationalism. But dispensationalism does not inform theology proper.

Does that make sense? Do you understand that? As you understand dispensationalism, it will be informed by other doctrines, but it does not necessarily inform some of those other doctrines. It doesn't form a groundwork to understand those other doctrines.

Those other doctrines stand on their own. Other non-dispensationalists allow that the two features that are the most prominent in dispensationalism are related to the church and prophecy. So other non-dispensationalists allow that the two most prominent factors are the church and property.

Property. Prophecy. Other non-dispensationalists allow those. Various dispensational authors, including progressive dispensationalists, have devoted chapters of books refuting the idea that dispensationalism teaches a false view of salvation.

And I looked at many of them, and I thought it was best for me to just sum it up and say this, we do not believe in two methods of salvation. Case closed. Period. Which don't.

Yes. That is a correct statement. Do I need to repeat that, Peter? Yeah. Past dispensationalists,.

And I would not take issue with what Jim said, but some of them were misunderstood as teaching that and did not. But there were some who would have actually taught two methods of salvation. They were, there's a five-letter word to describe their teachings.

Wrong. They would have taught those two things, and so then, as Jim pointed out, the rest of dispensationalism has been painted by a broad brush of assuming that all dispensationalists teach that. And they do not.

Actually, they teach against it. They point out that it's a myth. They point out that it's false. They point out that there is one method of salvation is, and always has been, one method. So, this is the first time that dispensationalists on this issue have been perplexing.

A poorly worded statement by Charles Schofield seems to be an early cause of this confusion. A note on John 117 stated this, he said this, as a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ.

Do you hear the giant gong going off? Anybody ever watch the gong show? I'm dating myself. Okay, people would make a stupid statement and someone would smack a gong. Wrong. Charles didn't have that benefit back then.

As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ. The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ with good works as a fruit of salvation.

That's a misstatement. That's a misstatement, or I don't know Charles Schofield. I'm not that old. Some people think I am. At any rate, one way or the other, that's a false statement. It appears from this statement that dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation.

Early proponents, early pronouncement were as Charles Riley put it, Ryery put it, unguarded statements that would have been more carefully worded if they were being made in the light of today's debate.

The Schofield Reference Bible comment was changed to read this way, under the former dispensation, law was shown to be powerless to secure righteousness and life for a sinful race, Galatians 3, 21 -22.

Prior to the cross, man's salvation was through faith, Genesis 15 -6, Romans 4 -3, being grounded on Christ's atoning sacrifice, viewed, anticipated by God. Now it is clearly revealed that salvation and righteousness are received by faith in the crucified and resurrected Savior.

So prior, saints looked forward. After the death of Christ, we look back. But it is the same grace. Later writers have joined in correcting earlier misconceptions, acknowledging that progression in the dispensations does not change the fundamental principle of salvation by grace.

Fair-minded critics have dropped the accusation. They acknowledge that dispensationalists correctly teach that salvation is and has always been by grace alone. Some continue to propagate the idea that dispensationalism teaches multiple ways of salvation, but nothing can be furthered from the truth.

Salvation is and always has been, as stated above, by grace alone, through faith alone, founded upon the merits of Christ alone. Can I be any clearer? Yes. So Jeff pointed out that although critics were quick to reference the John 1 -17 note, which seemed to teach two methods of grace, they ignored the clear teaching of salvation by grace through faith alone in the note on page 1245 in the 1945 edition of Galatians 3 .29.

Okay, so that's myth number one, that dispensationalism teaches two methods of salvation. And that's as far as we're going to get because the next one is that dispensationalism, the myth is dispensationalism is inherently Arminian.

So my answer to that is no it's not, have a nice day. So there's too much to unpack here, so we're going to stop there and find out if there, we've.

Got a couple minutes for any more questions or comments. Yes, it is. Is he trustworthy?

Yes, so if I might summarize, one of the more salient teachings of dispensationalism is that God is trustworthy and if He made unconditional promises to ancient Israel and those promises in any way, shape or form aren't kept, then we can't trust Him.

I know I kind of jumped but we can't trust Him. He is either an all trustworthy God or He picks and chooses what He's going to be trustworthy about. He is not a picker and a chooser. He is a permanently, eternally trustworthy God.

From every statement He made with the first word in Genesis to the last word in Revelation. And His promises in Romans 9 where Paul was pointing out the faithfulness of God to ancient Israel are important to us as He has made promises to be faithful to His church.

He will be faithful to His church, there is no question. And I'm thrilled with that, I'm grateful for that. Yes, He can. He can make a covenant wherever He chooses to, yes. And He can make them so that they are additions or changes.

But He will not change His foundational dealing with man. Let's pray. Father, we thank You for Your Word because it is trustworthy. All of these theologies are useful and they change with the times as we grow more understanding in Your Word.

And so that is what we look forward today as Jim teaches and as we continue in this study. We look for greater understanding of Your Word because therein lies life and we thank You for that in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Who drank the bitter cup reserved for me. Your blood has washed away my sin. Jesus, thank You. The Father's wrath completely satisfied. Jesus, thank You. Once You're in, now seated at Your table. Jesus, pouring out the riches of Your glory.