Introduction to Reformed Christianity

A few years ago, a professor from Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary north of Boston, Dr. David Wells, published a book that fell like a bombshell on the playground of the american’s theologians.  And the name of the book was No Place for Truth.  Now the subtitle, I think, is significant, as he wrote in the subtitle, Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?  And in this book that caused quite a stir in the evangelical world, Dr. Wells outlined his concern for the demise of confessional theology in the life of the Church today.  And I’d like to begin this subject by reading a brief comment from that book by Dr. Wells.  He makes this statement, “The disappearance of theology from the life of the Church and the orchestration of that disappearance by some of its leaders, is hard to miss today, but, oddly enough, not easy to prove.  It is hard to miss in the evangelical world in the vacuous worship that is so prevalent.  For example, in the shift from God to the self as the central focus of faith, and the psychologized preaching that follows this shift, in the erosion of its conviction, in its strident pragmatism, in its inability to think incisively about the culture, and in its reveling in the irrational.

I recently attended a meeting in Philadelphia of the board of an organization known by the acronym “ACE”, which is the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, which was brought together in the first place largely through the stimulus provided by Dr. Wells’ book.  For this group is concerned to help call the Church back to its confessional foundation, understanding that Christianity HAS a theology.  Now the purpose of this series that we’re beginning today is to give an overview, kind of a glimpse of the essence of that theology that is called “REFORMED THEOLOGY,” as distinguished from other branches of historic Christianity.  Now we won’t have the time and the opportunity to go into all of the details of reformed theology, but I want to give sort of a compendium, an introduction to the main ideas that we find in reformed theology.   

And the first thing that I want to say today is that reformed theology is a THEOLOGY.  Now that sounds rather redundant, I realize that, but I want to make this distinction clear: that there is a difference between “religion” and “theology”.  One of my favorite illustrations of this comes from a personal experience that I had several years ago when I was invited by the faculty and the administration of a college in the Midwest that was a Christian college.  And they were without a president at the time, and as a result, the school was going through a period of self-evaluation.  And they asked me to come to address the faculty on the subject “What is a Christian College?”  And when I appeared on the campus, the dean greeted me and gave me the cook’s tour of the facilities and as we were going through the faculty office building, I noticed that one of the doors had the name stenciled across the top of the door, “Department of Religion.”  And I didn’t say anything, I just sort of filed it back in my mind for a few moments and then later on that evening when I addressed the faculty on the question “What is a Christian College?” before I began my message, I asked them a question.  I said, “I noticed this afternoon that you have here at this institution a Department of Religion.  And my question is, “Has this department ALWAYS been called the ‘Department of Religion’?”  And there was an elderly professor in the back of the room who raised his hand and said, “No, it used to be called the ‘Department of Theology,’ but we changed it about thirty years ago to the ‘Department of Religion‘.”  And I said, “Well, why did you change it?”  And he didn’t know.  And I asked the rest of the faculty and they began to GUESS why they changed it.  They said, “Maybe to make it easier for our students to transfer academic credits from our institution to other universities,” and so on.  But I took off on that point to address the question, “What is a Christian college?” or  “What is Christian education?”  And I reminded my colleagues that evening that there is a PROFOUND difference between the study of RELIGION and the study of THEOLOGY. 

Now, for those of you that are watching this presentation, I have put on my blackboard a brief diagram where I distinguish between two approaches to the question of faith.  One, I call “God-centered” and the other I call man-centered.  And the illustration that I use here has a circle with the word “theology” in it and a line underneath it coming to a sub-circle which says “anthropology”.  And the purpose of my diagram is to show that in a God-centered approach to faith, the discipline or the study of humanity, the science of anthropology,  is subsumed under the science of theology.  This reflects something of the way in which university courses were structured in the Middle Ages, when it was said that “Theology was the ‘queen’ of the sciences.”  The idea being that all OTHER disciplines in education are subsumed under the search for ULTIMATE TRUTH that is found under the nature and the character of God.  And it assumed that the study of humanity was always to be pursued in light of our understanding of God.  Since man is created by God and that we are the image-bearers of God, to have a proper understanding of what it means to be human, we have to first study the prototype rather than looking at the reflection of that.  And then BELOW the center line, I have the man-centered approach to things, indicated by a circle that reads “anthropology” and then under THAT is a smaller circle that says “religion.” 

If we go to secular universities today and study “religion”, usually that study will take place in the department of sociology or of anthropology.  And the difference is this, the study of theology is the study of GOD Himself, first and foremost.  The study of religion is the study of particular type of human behavior.  We notice that there are all kinds of religions in the world, and that when people are involved in religion, they’re involved in certain characteristic things like prayer and worship and sacrifice and singing and devotions and that sort of thing, all of which belong to the trappings of human religion.  And when we study religion from a human perspective, we are examining how people who have certain beliefs about the supernatural behave in their personal lives and in their cultic lives.   But when I say at the outset that reformed theology, when I say that reformed theology is a THEOLOGY, not a religion, I mean by that that it is not simply a way of behaving that we can determine by studying the affairs of men.  But rather, it is a belief system, it is a belief system that is indeed an entire life and world view with GOD at the center.

Now we live in a culture that has certain axioms and adages that are popular in the nomenclature of the day.  And, you know, you’ve heard it said that, “it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you are sincere.”  And that idea communicates that what God is really concerned about with us is that we be “religious.”   It doesn’t matter what the religion is, as long as we’re sincerely religious.  Well, that idea is on a collision course with biblical Christianity, because in the first instance, the Bible acknowledges that man is incurably religious, he’s homo religiosis, and that wherever we look in the world we find all kinds of manifestations of religion. 

When the Jewish people were called by God and consecrated and set apart to be a holy nation, they were not the only religious people in the world.  All the nations around them had their peculiar religions.  But when God made His covenant with His people, and called them to be holy, to be different at the very beginning of His law, He made certain things absolutely clear, the first thing is “Thou shalt have NO OTHER GODS before Me” and the second, “Thou shalt not make unto thyself ANY GRAVEN IMAGE.”  At the very beginning of the Old Testament Covenant at Sinai was an emphasis on faith that was to be different from other religions, a faith that would be focused and centered on the character of God Himself.  Now we know what happened very early in the history of Israel in the Old Testament. 

We recently had a conference in Orlando on the essentials of the Christian faith where I called attention to an incident that is recorded for us in the 32^nd chapter of the book of Exodus, and I’ll read a part of this episode to you beginning at verse 17.  We read this, “Now when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, ‘There is a noise of war in the camp.  It is not the noise of the shout of victory, nor the noise of the cry of defeat, but the sound of singing that I hear.’”  Now imagine this scenario: Moses is just now returning from Mount Sinai; he has been alone with God, conversing with God, as it were face to face.  And when he comes down from the mountain, he meets Joshua, and Joshua comes to Moses and he says, “I hear this loud noise coming from the camp.”  And Joshua’s first instinct was to guess that there was some kind of war going on because you don’t hear this kind of whooping and hollering and shouting from a mass of people except on the field of combat.  But as he drew closer, he said, “Wait a minute, it’s not the sound of victory, it’s not the sound of defeat.  It’s the sound of singing that I hear.”  And he realized that he was approaching the whole assembly of the people of Israel as they were gathered for RELIGIOUS OBSERVATIONS, singing lustily in their celebration of their religion.  But it was a celebration that centered on a golden calf…a golden calf that the people had imposed and begged the high priest, Aaron, to make for them, that they could have a god like the other nations.  A god that was tangible, a god they could see, a god that was contemporary, a god that was relevant, a god they could get excited about.  And the first high priest consecrated by God Himself acceded to the demands of the people and built them a golden calf.  Now in the meantime, while this was going on, initially, Moses, as you recall, had been on Sinai in a relationship with God.  And God KNEW what was going on at the foot of the mountain.  Moses didn’t.   Listen to what God says to Moses in verse 7: “And the LORD said to Moses, ‘Go get down, for your people whom you brought out of Egypt have corrupted themselves.  They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them, and they have made themselves a molded calf and worshiped it and sacrificed to it.  And they said, “This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt.”’  And the LORD said to Moses, ‘I have seen this people, and indeed it is a stiff-necked people.  Now therefore, let Me alone that my wrath may burn hot against them and I will consume them.’”

Now the people were engaged in RELIGION, but the religion they were celebrating was a religion that had a theology of this world, a theology that distorted and corrupted the very character of God; a theology that moved away from true and honorable worship of God to the worship of creaturely, manmade things.  And God said to Moses, “Look at this.  They’re worshiping this calf, and they’re saying, ‘This is the god that brought us out of the land of Egypt.’” As if that calf made by their own hands could have delivered them from anything.  They prayed to the calf.  They offered worship and sacrifices to this calf and the calf was deaf; the calf was dumb; it couldn’t see anything; it couldn’t do anything.  It was not omnipotent, but IMPOTENT.  But it was a SUBSTITUTE for the Living God.

Now in the first chapter of Romans, the Apostle Paul says that God has revealed Himself through the things that are made so clearly and so manifestly that EVERYONE in this world KNOWS the eternal power and deity of God.  And yet the primary sin of the human race is to take that knowledge of God and to push it down, to do what the Apostle says in Romans, “To suppress the truth and hold it in unrighteousness, and then EXCHANGE that truth for a LIE, and serve the creature rather than the Creator.”  The exchange is between the incorruptible, transcendent, holy God who is for the corruption of creaturely things.  In other words, friends, the most BASIC sin that WE, not just pagans in far off aborigine [sic] lands or in primitive tribes commit, but that WE commit is the besetting sin, the proclivity for idolatry.  And idolatry involves RELIGION.  But even the Christian religion can be idolatrous when we strip God of His true attributes, and place at the center of our worship, something other than God Himself. 

Now if we’re going to look at the essence of reformed theology, I have to say to you that THE most strict focus of reformed theology is on THEOLOGY, on the knowledge of the true God.  We live in a day where people say theology doesn’t matter.  This is what David Wells was decrying in his book No Place for Truth.  What counts is “feeling good,” being “ministered to in our psychological needs,” having a place where we can “feel the warmth of fellowship” and have a “sense of belonging and of relevance.”  And theology is something that divides, something that stirs up controversy and debates.  “We don’t need doctrine,” we’re told, “we need life.”  Well, at the heart of reformed theology is the affirmation that THEOLOGY IS LIFE, because theology is the KNOWLEDGE of GOD.  And there’s no more important knowledge that exists to inform our lives than the knowledge of God. 

This is what the Protestant Reformation was all about.  There were scandals in the priesthood.  There were problems  of immorality both among the Roman Catholic people AND among the Protestant people.  And Luther at that time said that Erasmus attacked the pope in his belly.  He said, “I have attacked him in his doctrine.”  And Luther even admitted, he said, “We find scandalous behavior among our own people, but what we’re trying to do FIRST is come to a sound understanding of God.”  Because our lives will never be reformed; our lives will never be brought into conformity with Christ until we first have a clear understanding of the original form of the model, of the ideal; of true humanity that is found in Christ.  And that’s a matter of theology.  So we start with the clear acknowledgement that the reformed faith IS a theology, a theology that permeates the whole structure.

 (using some comments from RC Sproul Material on reformed theology)*

The Rich Young Man’s Rejection

16 And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.  If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” 18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said,  “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness,19 Honor your father and mother, and,  You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 20 The young man said to him,  “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” 21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.

23 And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you,  only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

Some days ago I visited the city of Tarapoto and  the areas around in the highlands of the jungle in Peru, where I was invited to a wedding of a dear friend, and also to preach the word in a church in that place, I really had a wonderful time there, in the middle of my visit I held very good conversations with some brothers in the church, one of the topics I remember the most is when they telling me about a pastor who had been investing time  visiting  a person who used to attend a church but eventually gave up and did not want to continue attending to church nor the gospel, so the pastor decided to stop spending his time with this man,  that situation caused many questions between the Christian community and also curiosity within the brotherhood of that church, their main  thing  was, as a pastor he shouldn’t  have stopped investing time with that man, if Christ does not give up on us why should we?, they were thinking the pastor was wrong for not trying to continue dealing with that man who was in apparent need for Christ, I did not get to know the whole details in that situation so I could not give a very deep advice in the matter, but  I could only share the  story of the rich young man written  in the book of Matthew chapter 19 of the Bible, a story that happened to Jesus, and I'd like to share this story to you  and also some thoughts about the matter.

It really strikes me the way how the rich young man approached Jesus, -what good deed must I do to have eternal life?”- he asked,  At first  this kind of question it is not bad isn’t it?, it is a kind question that every good Christian at some point did ask, in fact you would think that the motivation behind, it is good; Jesus knowing the heart of this young man replied:   - keep the commandments-, the young man said to him -that he had kept it all from his youth- (meaning I’m a good person who fulfills the law, I deserve eternal life), Jesus who understood his heart from the beginning, added this, -that he should sell all he had and give to the poor-, but Jesus did not just stop there because helping the poor is not but an act of philanthropy, generosity that we all should do but that’s  not what will change our lives, the key is what Jesus said next: "Come, follow me", while the rich young man heard this the Bible tells us that the rich young man was sorrowful because he had great possessions, then Jesus added a sentence talking about how difficult it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Some things here that call my attention:

Ø  Something  that strikes me in general about the story is how Jesus the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep, the one who is able to leave the 99 sheep in order to go find the one that is lost of 100 , seeing the reaction and the deep sadness of this rich young man, and seeing him to leave, Jesus did not say a word to him, not at all, he did not call him, or said try again. I personally  in a similar situation I had walked up to him and had said : Wait do not go, be still, well maybe this way is very difficult  for you why don’t  you try this different way, or perhaps you will gradually get there and will reach the goal, do not go, be still, but Jesus, Jesus did not flinch, just let him go, and actually he began to teach about this, the question then is why? What was it, that made Jesus to let the rich young man go? And if so will be there any situations in our lives where the Lord would let us go? And these are my possible explanations to those questions:

1.    When the young man approached Jesus the first thing he asked is: what good deed must I do to have eternal life? I think his motivation was, how can I continue having the kind of life I have here, in eternity? I have many things I need a guarantee that I will have it in eternity too, his central subject was the eternal life, he wanted the eternal life and that was it, the issue of being with Jesus was not important to him at all. It was not necessary if he could have eternal life; then you wonder,  what is wrong with thinking about eternal life? we all have to wonder about that eventually, and that's true, all Christians should ask for eternal life, but our main focus is Jesus and not only eternal life, we have to be with Jesus having a relationship with him, what we will do in eternity is to continue our relationship with Jesus adore and praise him for eternity, but meanwhile, this time is our preparation and let us call it "practice" here on earth, today and now, but if the grounds of your heart are not focus on Jesus, it is kinda useless for you to think or yearn about eternity, because at the end what will we face there in eternity will be  a complete picture of what we do today,  to be with Jesus, worship Jesus, and to live for him.  For the rich young man (like many people today), his concerns was to live well in eternity, have good insurance that guarantees comfort, wealthy live, the guarantee that all he had in this life will be given to him in eternity too, that’s why he had to do works, “keeping the commandments”, for him the sanctification process did not matter, that’s what was important for him: to ensure eternal redemption. Christians have been redeemed, so there is no condemnation and we are destined to live in eternity, but yet we still live in this world and we must live as worthy representatives of Christ on earth in this process  of daily dependence on God, His word and power of Holy Spirit; that is what is called sanctification, we do not based on our works but it is very important to have a look in our deeds, our actions, our ways of living, the rich young man all he cared about was getting there, eternity and he would do what he would consider necessary, fulfill the commandments. I’m not trying to say here that we shall live by works, but what i am trying to say is that as believers we do live by faith and our faith will produce works, we don’t live by works, our faith will produce works. For us is not only important our goal(heaven, eternity), for us is also important the process to get there(sanctification), living a life being a witness of Christ on earth.

2.         Jesus who knew his heart, tried to explain: yeah  that's good(it is a good thing to keep the commandments), it is necessary to fulfill the word of God and be worthy ambassadors of Christ here on earth, but Jesus added: something else you need to do: -go and sell what you have and give it to the poor-, in this matter I would say I believe that the issue here is not about money and possessions, but what it does represent, for this rich young man,  possessions were his idol, and what he had inside his heart instead of Jesus, and that was enthroned in his heart, that was the thing he would care about,  he was not  interested in Jesus at all, that's why he approached Jesus asking what good deed must I do to have eternal life?, he never approached him and asked: what can I do to be with you? seeing this Jesus tries to help, he opened his heart and gave him the secret saying; -come and follow me-, (He had  said the same thing to his disciples and they followed him, and even though they often turned away from him, and they failed many times but Jesus  never let them alone, and never gave up on them) the young man listening to this, became sorrowful, and he walked away sad, He never cared of being with Jesus, he was careless about Jesus,  for him his main subject was the eternity and how he could keep his possessions in eternity. He was not interested in Jesus at all.

3.         Jesus who knew his heart, He simply let him go; regardless of which church or ministry you are involved in or attend, if your motivation is not to be with Jesus, He will simply let you go, the Bible states that who finds the son has found life, it was to be with Jesus that had changed  the disciples, Jesus once said, "Already you are clean because of the word that I have spoken to you." it was the presence of Jesus, being with Jesus, what had changed sinners, publicans and bad people lives, it is the presence of Jesus in your life what will change you. It is necessary along with the story of the rich young man to analyze our motivation about why  we do approach the gospel, the essence of the gospel is Jesus. We are called to live lives for him, in the process of  daily sanctification in total dependence on God, the Holy Spirit and His word, with the Lordship of Jesus in our lives.

4.         We must do what the rich young man didn’t, to follow Jesus. Today, so many people come to the gospel with many misconceptions; we must return to the roots and get close to Jesus, he is the one who will provide whatever else you need, he is the good shepherd who cares for his sheep. The young man rejected Jesus and did not want to be with him, He did not contemplate the idea of being with Jesus, so Jesus let him go without hesitation, he did not persuade him to stay, just let him go, that situation might also happen to us if our motives are different to what it should.

In conclusion to finish with this story about this pastor I was talking about in the beginning of this lecture when he decided to stop investing time and visiting this man who used to be  a frequent visitor to  church, I could say if the motivations of this man  were the same as the rich young man, and like Jesus the pastor saw the same pattern, I believe what the pastor did  It was the best he could do, the Bible says whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. Because we have free will, God in His everlasting love has given us the power to choose to seek for him, then let us draw near with confidence to the throne of grace to find mercy and grace to help in time.

EL RECHAZO DEL JOVEN RICO MT 19:16-24

19:16 Entonces vino uno y le dijo: Maestro bueno, ¿qué bien haré para tener la vida eterna?
19:17 El le dijo: ¿Por qué me llamas bueno? Ninguno hay bueno sino uno: Dios. Mas si quieres entrar en la vida, guarda los mandamientos.
19:18 Le dijo: ¿Cuáles? Y Jesús dijo: No matarás. No adulterarás. No hurtarás. No dirás falso testimonio.
19:19 Honra a tu padre y a tu madre; y, Amarás a tu prójimo como a ti mismo.
19:20 El joven le dijo: Todo esto lo he guardado desde mi juventud. ¿Qué más me falta?
19:21 Jesús le dijo: Si quieres ser perfecto, anda, vende lo que tienes, y dalo a los pobres, y tendrás tesoro en el cielo; y ven y sígueme.

19:22 Oyendo el joven esta palabra, se fue triste, porque tenía muchas posesiones.
19:23 Entonces Jesús dijo a sus discípulos: De cierto os digo, que difícilmente entrará un rico en el reino de los cielos.
19:24 Otra vez os digo, que es más fácil pasar un camello por el ojo de una aguja, que entrar un rico en el reino de Dios.

Días atrás visite la ciudad de tarapoto y sus alrededores en la selva alta del Perú, donde fui invitado a la boda de una amiga muy querida, y también a predicar la palabra en una iglesia de aquel lugar, la verdad que pase un tiempo maravilloso, en medio de mi visita me encontré con muy buenas conversaciones con algunos hermanos en la iglesia, uno de los temas que más recuerdo, es cuando ellos me comentaban acerca de un pastor, el cual había estado batallando con una persona que solía asistir a una iglesia pero que al final el pastor desistió y dejo de invertir tiempo en el hermano, y como que esa situación causo mucha dudas y curiosidad en los hermanos de aquella iglesia, el argumento de los hermanos que hablaban conmigo era, como pastor él debía insistir en el hermano, no llegue a conocer todos los detalles de la situación así que no pude dar un consejo muy profundo en el tema. Lo que si recordé es la historia del joven rico narrada en el libro de mateo capítulo 19 de la biblia, una historia que le paso a Jesús, y que me gustaría narrar los hechos con detalles y entrar a exponer algunos puntos.

Cuando el joven rico se le acerca a Jesús me llama mucho la atención la forma como el se le acerca: ¿qué bien haré para tener la vida eterna? A simple vista este tipo de pregunta no tiene nada de malo, es una pregunta que todo buen cristiano en algún momento se hizo, de hecho uno pensaría que la motivación detrás de ella es buena; Jesús conociendo el corazón de este Joven, le responde; cumple los mandamientos, el joven le respondió y le dijo todo eso eh cumplido desde mi juventud(interpretando soy una buena persona que cumple la ley, me merezco la vida eterna), Jesús quien entendió su corazón desde un principio, añadió que debía vender todo lo que tenia y dárselo a los pobres, pero Jesús no acabo ahí porque ayudar a los pobres no es más que un acto de filantropía, que todos deberíamos hacer pero no es lo que va cambiar nuestra vida, la clave siguiente es lo que Jesús le dice, “ven y sígueme”, al escuchar esto la biblia narra que el joven se fue triste porque tenía muchas posesiones, y luego Jesús añadió una frase hablando sobre lo difícil que para los ricos es entrar al reino de los cielos. Algunas cosas que enumere que me llaman la atención acá:

Ø Lo primero que me llama la atención en general de la historia es siendo Jesús el buen pastor que da su vida por las ovejas, aquel que es capaz de dejar las 99 ovejas en orden de ir a buscar a la que está perdida de las 100, al ver la reacción y la profunda tristeza de este joven rico, y al verlo partir muy triste, no se inmute para nada ni se acerque a él, en lo personal tal vez yo en una situación similar hubiese caminado hacia él y le hubiese dicho: espera no te vayas, tranquilo, de pronto de esta forma es muy difícil, porque no tratas de esta manera, o tal vez, te discipulare poco a poco y llegaras a la meta, no te vayas, tranquilo; pero Jesús no, Jesús no se inmuto, sencillamente lo dejo ir, es mas hasta dio una enseñanza en base a eso, la pregunta entonces es por qué? Que fue lo que hizo que Jesús dejase ir al joven rico? Y si fue así habrá situaciones en nuestras vidas en las cuales el señor nos dejara ir igual?   Y estas son las posibles explicaciones:

1.      Cuando el joven rico se le acerca a Jesús lo primero que le pregunta es ¿qué bien haré para tener la vida eterna? Considero que su motivación era, como puedo extender el tipo de vida que tengo acá, en la eternidad, tengo muchas cosas lo que necesito es una garantía de que también las tendré en la eternidad, su tema central era la vida eterna, el quería la vida eterna y esa es su meta principal, para él, el tema de estar con Jesús no era importante, no era necesario, si él podía tener vida eterna, usted se preguntara que de malo tiene pensar en la vida eterna? Todos tenemos que preguntarnos sobre eso; y eso es verdad, todo los cristianos debemos preguntarnos por la vida eterna, pero nuestro tema central es Jesús, tenemos que estar con Jesús tener una relación con el, lo que nosotros haremos en eternidad es evidenciar nuestra relación con Jesús en adoración y alabanza por la eternidad, pero mientras tanto nuestro tiempo de preparación y llamémoslo así “practica” es acá en la tierra hoy y ahora, si la motivación de su corazón no es estar con Jesús, de nada sirve que piense o anhele eternidad, porque al final lo que haremos allá es una forma más completa de lo que hacemos hoy estar con Jesús, adorarlo, vivir para él, para el joven rico al igual que muchas personas hoy en día, su preocupación era vivir bien en la eternidad, tener un buen seguro que le garantice la comodidad, vivir bien, para eso el tenía que trabajar por obras, cumplir los mandamientos, para El la santificación no importaba, lo importante es la redención que garantice eternidad, los cristianos hemos sido redimidos, por la tanto no hay condenación y estamos destinados para vivir en la eternidad, mas sin embargo aun habitamos en este mundo y tenemos que vivir como dignos representantes de Cristo en la tierra a ese proceso de dependencia diaria en Dios, su palabra y el poder del espíritu santo es lo que se llama santificación, no se basa solo en nuestras obras si no en nuestros hechos, nuestras acciones, nuestras formas de vivir, al joven rico lo único que le interesaba era llegar a ese lugar, a la eternidad y para ello haría lo que le fuere necesario, cumplir lo mandamientos.

2.      Jesús quien conocía su corazón, trata de explicarle, si, eso es bueno, es necesario que cumplamos la palabra de Dios y que seamos dignos representantes de El aquí en la tierra, pero algo mas te falta,  vende lo que tienes y dalo a los pobres, yo soy de las personas que considero que aquí el tema no es el dinero   y las posesiones sino lo que ello representa, para este joven rico las posesiones eran su ídolo, y lo que el tenia en su corazón en vez de Jesús, a El no le interesaba más, por eso es que se acerco preguntado qué puedo hacer para tener la vida  eterna, nunca se acerco y le dijo que puedo hacer para estar contigo, ahí es donde Jesús abre su corazón y le da el secreto diciendo: ven y sígueme, (lo mismo había hecho con sus discípulos y estos le siguieron, y a pesar de que muchas veces fallaron y se apartaron de El nunca los dejo desamparados, y siempre insistió con ellos) el joven rico al escuchar esto, se puso mal, y se fue triste, a El nunca le intereso estar con Jesús, a el daba igual, para El su tema era la eternidad y como tener sus posesiones en ella, la relación con Jesús a el no le interesaba.

3.      Jesús quien conocía su corazón sencillamente lo dejo ir,  sin importar la iglesia o el ministerio en cual usted esté involucrado o asista, si su motivación no es estar con Jesús, sencillamente el le va dejar ir, la biblia declara que quien halla al hijo halla la vida, era estar con Jesús lo que había cambiado a los discípulos, Jesús lo dijo alguna vez “ya ustedes están limpios por la palabra que yo les hable” era la presencia de Jesús, el estar con Jesús, que había cambiado pecadores, publicanos y gentes de mal vivir, es la presencia de Jesús en su vida lo que le va cambiar. Es necesario al igual que con el joven rico analizar nuestra motivación acerca de por qué y para que nos acercamos al evangelio, la esencia del evangelio es Jesús, somos llamados a vivir vidas en proceso de santificación diaria en total dependencia de Dios, el espíritu santo y su palabra, teniendo el señorío de Jesús en nuestras vidas.

4.      Tenemos que hacer lo que el joven rico no hizo, seguir a Jesús, hoy en día las personas se acercan al evangelio muchas veces por ideas equivocadas, debemos volver a nuestras raíces y acercarnos a Jesús, él es quien traerá lo demás a nuestras vidas, el es el buen pastor que cuida de sus ovejas, el joven rico rechazo a Jesús y no quería estar con él, no contemplaba la idea de estar con Jesús , por eso Jesús lo dejo ir sin inmutarse, no añadió palabras para el, y eso puede pasar con nosotros, si nuestras motivaciones son distintas.

Para concluir en relación a la historia que les comente al principio acerca de este pastor dejando de tratar de ayudar a este amigo visitante asiduo de la iglesia, yo pudiera decir si las motivaciones de este hermano eran iguales a las del joven rico, y al igual que Jesús este pastor se dio cuenta de ello, considero que el pastor hizo lo que mejor pudo hacer, la Biblia dice que el señor es galardonador de todos los que le buscan. Debido al libre albedrio que tenemos, Dios en su inmenso amor nos a dado la potestad de elegir buscarlo,  acerquémonos pues confiadamente al trono de la gracia para hallar misericordia y gracia para el oportuno socorro.

PS mike  

Scripture Alone

The Bible says that all men are liars, and I’m afraid that I verified the truth of that, at least in terms of its application to myself in our last session because I concluded our last session by saying, “From now on, we were only going to consider the distinctives of reformed theology,” and the next two sessions we’re going to be studying the doctrine [sic] of sola scriptura and sola fide, which I’ve already told you are critical doctrines held in common by the evangelicals and their traditions, and so: I lied.  But I didn’t lie intentionally, but I was mistaken.  I don’t want to leave you with the impression that the doctrine of sola scriptura is a distinctly or uniquely reformed theological principle.  It is part of that body of truth that we share in common with historical evangelicalism. 

But having said that, let’s look then at this principle that historians call the formal principle of the Protestant Reformation, sola scriptura.  In one sense, this concept was born publicly in Luther’s famous confrontation with the rulers of the State and the Church at the Diet of Worms, whereupon Luther was called to recant of his teaching, and you recall on that occasion when he stood at this solemn place, he said, “Unless I am convinced by sacred Scripture or by evident reason, I cannot recant, for my conscience is held captive by the Word of God.  And to act against conscience,” said Luther, “is neither right nor safe.  Here I stand, God help me.” 

Now that’s been memorialized in motion picture lore and in the history books and so on.  But though this was the public debut in a historic sense at Worms, it was not a new concept with Luther.  Luther had been more or less forced to say this in earlier debates with some of the theologians that were trying to persuade him to change his views, where he earlier had said that it was possible for popes to err, to make mistakes, and even for church councils to make mistakes, but the only absolutely authoritative written source of divine revelation is the Scripture itself. 

And so we get this word sola that we place before the word scriptura and the phrase simply means “by the Scripture alone.”  Well what does this mean?  What is the, the vantage point that we’re concerned about here with the use of this term “alone”?  Well actually, there’s more than one consideration though they’re all interrelated.  In the first instance, one of the disputes at the 16^th century level was the question of the SOURCE of divine revelation.  All Christians in the 16^th century believed that Christianity is a revealed faith, that its content comes from God.  And both sides of the dispute, Rome and Protestantism in the 16^th century, agreed that there were at least two distinct places where God gives revelation of Himself.  One is in nature, which is called natural revelation or general revelation, whereby the heavens declare the glory of God, and the other, of course, is the Bible.  Now both sides agreed that the Bible was revelation.  And both sides agreed that nature is also revelatory.  But the dispute over the “alone” was whether there was more than one source of what we call “special revelation.”  And the Protestant movement said there is only ONE SOURCE of what is called special or written revelation and that is Scripture, where Rome confessed its confidence in TWO SOURCES of special revelation: Scripture and tradition.  I’ve gone over this in other courses, but I want to review the bidding on it now for the context of this study of the essence of reformed theology.

At the Council of Trent, in the 16^th century, which was the Roman Catholic Church’s response to Luther and to Protestantism, the Council was held in different sessions, at different times, spread out over a few years.  And at the fourth session of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church declared that the truths of God are found in the Scripture AND in tradition.  And the Latin word that is in the final text of the Council of Trent that links Scripture and tradition is the somewhat innocuous simple Latin word et, which I used to think when I listened to my grandmother, was the past tense of the verb, to eat., because she would say, “Have you et your supper?”  But that is not, that is simply the Latin word for “and”.  Well, this is a complicated discussion, because an Anglican scholar in the 20^th century was doing his research for his doctoral dissertation and he was focusing on this fourth session of the Council of Trent, which session ended unexpectedly and abruptly because of the outbreak of war on the continent.  And there were some loose ends left dangling and some difficult things to explain from the discussions that went on at that time.  And what this Anglican scholar noted was that in the first draft of the fourth session of the Council of Trent, the statement was made in Latin that the truth of God is contained partly, parting, PARTLY in Scripture and PARTLY in tradition.  Partly in Scripture, partly in tradition, which would indicate clearly that there were two separate, distinct sources for the Church’s doctrine: one from the Bible, and the other from the historic tradition of the Church. 

Now when that first draft was presented to the Council, two priests who were delegates to the Council stood up and protested the language.  I don’t know why I remember their names, but their names were Bonuccio and Nacchionti.  These two Italian priests protested this language saying that it undermined the sufficiency of Scripture.  And there the record stops.  And we don’t know what then transpired in the further debates about their objections.  All we know is that the final draft exhibited a change, and the words partim partim, which CLEARLY taught a dual source of special revelation, were crossed out, and in their place was the word et, which may or may not mean two separate sources.  The use of the word “and” here is a little bit ambiguous, isn’t it?  Because if you said to me, “Where would you find the reformed faith?”  I would say, “Well you can find it two places.  You can find it in the Bible, or you can look at the confessions that appear in Church history that try to give a summary of the reformed doctrine, that insofar as those creeds are consistent with the Bible, they are repeating it, and it’s just another place that you could go to find it.  And so the Church MAY have meant simply to say that we find the truth of God first of all in Scripture, and then as it is RE-presented to us in the historic councils or the decrees of the Church, that’s the other place you can look. Which somebody could say, and still hold to sola scriptura.  And now that debate continues to this day among contemporary Roman Catholic scholars as to whether their Church is committed to TWO sources or one.  Unfortunately, there are those conservatives in the Church who said that the change from partim partim to et was not a substantive change, but merely a stylistic change, and that the Church clearly WAS meaning to affirm in the 16^th century TWO sources of written revelation. 

Now that debate, though it continues, was more or less settled a papal encyclical of the 20^th century which UNAMBIGUOUSLY refers to the TWO sources of revelation.  And that has been the mainstream of thinking within the Roman Church since the 16^th century, that truths that are founded in the tradition of the Church are just as binding upon the consciences of believers as the truths of Scripture.  Whereas in Protestant heritage, the principle of semper reformanda is, is embraced by virtually all Protestants.  That is, that the Church is ALWAYS called to undergo reformation, and ALWAYS called to check her own creeds and confessions to make sure that they are in conformity to sacred Scripture.  And virtually every Protestant Church that HAS a creed or confession that is unique to their communion will go to great pains to say that their own confessions are not infallible and do not carry the weight of Scripture except insofar as they faithfully reproduce the doctrines of the Scripture.  Because the overarching principle is affirmed, namely, that the Bible ALONE is that written source that has the authority of God Himself, the authority to bind our consciences absolutely.  And though we are called to be submissive to lesser authorities, and respectful of other authorities, in my own church I’m called to submit to the authority of the presbytery or to the session of the local church.  There are all kinds of levels of authority.  And, and I’m told that if I find in conscience I can no longer genuinely submit, then it is my DUTY to withdraw from that communion peaceably.  But otherwise, I’m not to disturb the peace of the Church by acting in direct conflict to the confessions or the government of the Church.  And yet at the same time the Church says, “We know our confessions could be wrong, and some of the ordinances of our church are POSSIBLY in-, incorrect, but this is what we believe to be the true [sic] and as long as you’re going to serve here, you have this obligation to submit to us.  Not that sola scriptura eliminates other authorities, but what it says is there’s only ONE authority that can ABSOLUTELY bind the conscience and that authority is sacred Scripture, and that ALL CONTROVERSIES over doctrine and theology must be settled, in the final analysis, by SCRIPTURE. 

Now, there are other aspects, as I said, about this sola besides this business of being the only SOURCE of written revelation, and second, the only authority that can bind absolutely, but not the only authority at all, but also involved in this affirmation in the 16^th century, was a clear affirmation that the Bible is the vox Dei, or the verbum Dei.  The Word of God, or the Voice of God being infallible and inerrant because it comes to us by the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit; that the Bible is inspired in the sense that its Author ultimately is God, even though it is transmitted through human writers.  The ultimate SOURCE of its truth and of its content comes from God, and God, of course, is infallible.  Human writers, in and of themselves, are fallible.  But the view of historic Protestantism WAS that God so assisted the weaknesses of our fallen humanity as to preserve the Bible from the corruption that one would normally expect to find from the writings of human beings BY HIS DIVINE SUPERINTENDENCE and by the special ministry of the Holy Spirit.  And so that even though the Bible comes to us in human words and by human authors, it is considered to be of divine origin. 

Now I realize that in light of the dispute in our own day over the infallibility of the Scripture and the inspiration of the Scripture, and the inerrancy of the Scripture - words that have engendered all KINDS of theological controversy - there have been those that have protested loudly that the very idea of and infallible or an inerrant Scripture was not something that was taught and embraced by the magisterial reformers of the 16^th century, but was the result of the intrusion of a kind of Protestant scholasticism that came to pass in the 17^th century, which is called the “Age of Reason,” where these rationalists were so concerned about certainty, that they had almost a psychological or emotional need for certainty to such a degree that they invented this concept of inerrancy and infallibility.  Well now that question directly is not a question of whether the Bible IS infallible, it’s a question of WHERE the doctrine came from.  It’s a historical question.  Is this something that was invented in the 17^th century or in the 16^th century? 

Let me take a few moments to just read a few quotes to you from the magisterial reformers of the 16^th century and let you decide for yourself.  Here are a few observations that come from the pen of Martin Luther.  Luther says this, quote:  “The Holy Spirit Himself, and God, the Creator of all things, is the Author of this book.”

Another quote: “Scripture, although also written of men, is not OF men, nor FROM men, but from God.”

Again, “He who would not read these stories in vain must firmly hold that Holy Scripture is not human, but divine wisdom.” 

Again: “The Word must stand, for God cannot lie, and heaven and earth must go to ruins before the most insignificant letter or title of His Word remains unfulfilled.”

And then he cites Augustine, saying Augustine says in his letter to St. Jerome, quote: “I have learned to hold ONLY the Holy Scripture inerrant.”

Now that’s not Luther quoting a 17^th century scholar, that’s Luther quoting Augustine from the end of the 4^th century, where Augustine says, “I have learned  to  hold ONLY the Scripture inerrant.”

Again, he says in the books of St. Augustine, “One finds many passages in which flesh and blood have spoken.  And concerning myself I must also confess that when I talk apart from the ministry, at home, at table, or elsewhere, I speak many words that are not God’s Word.”  That is why Augustine, in a letter to Jerome, has put down a fine axiom the, that only Holy Scripture is to be considered inerrant. 

So we see that Luther hardly hedges.  Another passage I could quote from Luther in which he says, “The Scriptures NEVER ERR.” 

Now I don’t know that Luther ever used the word “inerrancy,” he just used the word “inerrant” and said that the Bible never errs, which is the very essence of the concept of inerrancy.  So I think it’s a fool’s errand to try to argue that the reformers of the 16^th century were strangers and foreigners to the idea of the inspiration of and the authority and the infallibility and the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture. 

But one of the other important points of sola scriptura in the 16^th century which has become a very important principle for historic evangelicalism was a hermeneutical principle.  Now the Scriptures, now the reformers not only confessed their view of what the Scriptures ARE and where they came from, but they also expressed their views on HOW the Bible is to be interpreted and WHO has the right and responsibility to read it.  One of the radical things that happened in the Reformation was the translation of the Bible into the vernacular, taking it OUT of the hands of those who were able to read Latin and/or Greek or Hebrew and putting [sic] it into the hands of people who could only read their native tongues.  As Luther translated the Bible into German, and Wycliffe translated the Bible into England, English, and so on, and in some cases the people who did that paid for it with their lives, because the principle that was asserted in historic evangelicalism was the principle, first of all, of private interpretation, meaning that every Christian has the right and the responsibility to read the Bible for themselves.  And they have the right to INTERPRET for themselves.  Now that was heard by Rome, as witnessed in the 4^th session of Trent, to mean that the Protestants were giving license to the rank and file church member not only to READ the Bible for themselves, but to distort it at will.  And of course, the reformers were horrified at that idea.  They said every Christian has the right to interpret the Bible for themselves, but NO Christian has the right to misinterpret it or to distort it according to their own whims or their own prejudices.   But the principle of private interpretation was based upon an, another principle, which was the principle of the perspicuity of Scripture, which is a three-dollar word for “clarity.” 

Now Luther said there are MANY parts of Scripture that are difficult to handle, that’s why we NEED teachers in the Church, and the commentaries and all of that, but that the BASIC MESSAGE, THAT message that is necessary for a person to understand and grasp is plain for any person to see.  And when, when Luther talked about giving the Bible to the, to the laity the Church said, “If you do that, that’ll open up a floodgate of iniquity because people will start creating all kinds of horrible distortions.”  Which is exactly what happened.  But Luther said, “If that is the case, and IF a floodgate of iniquity is opened by opening the pages of the Bible to people, so be it, but the message that IS clear is so important.  It contains the message of our salvation.  It is so important and so clear that we’ll take the risks of all of the distortions and all of the heresies that go with that to make sure that the central message of Scripture is heard.”  And as a result of this affirmation of sola scriptura, the Bible was put into the Church.  And the reading of the Scriptures and the preaching from the Scriptures became central to the liturgy and to the worship of historic Protestants.

(using some fragments of RC Sproul dissertation on Sola Scriptura)*

Sola Escritura

La biblia dice que todos los hombres son mentirosos, y es triste decirlo pero es fácil demostrarlo, por lo menos en relación a nosotros mismos, lo definimos en nuestro último artículo, porque concluí nuestro último artículo diciendo, " de ahora en adelante íbamos solamente a considerar los distintivos de la teología reformada, " y ahora  vamos a estudiar la doctrina  "sola scriptura"  y "sola fide"  que como todos sabemos es una de las doctrinas críticas  sostenidas en común por las distintas denominaciones evangélicas.  

Pero habiendo dicho eso, miremos entonces este principio que los historiadores llaman el principio formal de la reforma protestante, "sola scriptura"    En un sentido, este concepto fue expresado públicamente en la famosa confrontación de Lutero contra las reglas del estado y de la iglesia en la dieta de Worms, con lo cual Lutero fue obligado a retractarse de su enseñanza, y si hacemos memoria de aquella ocasión cuando él estaba puesto en pie en aquel solemne lugar, y dijo, " a menos que se me convenza por las sagradas escrituras o por razón evidente, yo no puede retractarme, porque mi conciencia esta cautiva a la palabra Dios y actuar en contra de mi conciencia, " dijo a Lutero, " no es correcta ni segura. Aquí permanezco en pie, Dios me ayude." 

Ahora esto ha sido perennizado en algunas películas, en  libros de historia, etcétera.  Pero aunque este principio hizo su debut público en Worms, no era un  concepto nuevo para Lutero, Lutero había estado más o menos forzado a decir esto en discusiones anteriores con algunos de los teólogos que intentaban persuadirlo a cambiar sus opiniones, donde él había dicho que era posible que  los papas yerren, se equivoquen, y aun para los líderes de la iglesia incurrir en equivocaciones, pero la única fuente escrita absoluta de la revelación divina es la biblia.

Bien ahora tenemos la palabra "sola"  que colocamos antes de la palabra "scriptura"  y la frase simplemente significa " solo las escrituras o solo la palabra de Dios."  Bien qué significa eso?  Cuál es la consideracion a la que nos referimos aquí con el uso de este término " solo "?   Bien de hecho, hay  más de una consideración aunque todos se correlacionan.  En el primer caso, uno de los conflictos principales en el siglo XVI era la cuestión de la FUENTE de la revelación divina. Todos los cristianos en el siglo XVI creian que el cristianismo es una fe revelada cuyo contenido viene de Dios.  Y ambos lados de la disputa,  Roma y el Protestantismo en el siglo XVI, convenieron que había por lo menos dos lugares distintos en donde Dios se revela a si mismo.  Uno está en la naturaleza, que se llama revelación natural o revelación general, porque los cielos declaran la gloria de Dios, y la otra, por supuesto, es la biblia. Ahora ambos lados convinieron que la biblia era revelación de Dios.  Y ambos lados convinieron que la naturaleza es tambiénreveladora.  Pero el conflicto por la la palabra " solo " era si había más de una fuente de lo que llamamos " revelación especial" el movimiento protestante dijo que hay solo UNA FUENTE de lo qué se llama revelación especial o escrita y ésa es la biblia, mientras que  Roma expreso su confianza en DOS FUENTES de la revelación especial: la biblia y la tradición.  Miraremos algo de este concepto para entender la escencia de la teología de la reforma.

En el Concilio de Trent, en el siglo 16, que fue la respuesta de la Iglesia Católica Romana a Lutero y al protestantismo, el Consejo se llevó a cabo en diferentes sesiones, en momentos diferentes, repartidos en unos pocos años. Y en la cuarta sesión del Concilio de Trento, la Iglesia Católica Romana declaró que las verdades de Dios se encuentran en la Escritura y en la tradición. Y la palabra latina que está en el texto final del Concilio de Trento que la Escritura y la tradición enlaza es la  sencilla palabra latina “et”, que es simplemente la palabra latina para "y". Bueno, esta es una discusión complicada, porque un erudito anglicano en el siglo 20 estaba haciendo su investigación para su tesis doctoral y  se centro en esta cuarta sesión del Concilio de Trento, que la sesión termina inesperadamente y abruptamente a causa del brote de la guerra en el continente. Y había algunos cabos sueltos que dejan colgando y algunas cosas difíciles de explicar en los debates que se prolongaron en ese momento. Y lo que este erudito anglicano observó fue que en el primer borrador de la cuarta sesión del Concilio de Trento, se hizo la declaración en latín que la verdad de Dios está contenida, en parte en la Escritura y en parte en la tradición. Lo cual indicaría claramente que había dos fuentes separadas y distintas para la doctrina de la Iglesia: uno de la Biblia, y el otro de la tradición histórica de la Iglesia.

Ahora, cuando el primer borrador fue presentado al Consejo, a dos sacerdotes que eran delegados en el Consejo se puso de pie y protestó por el lenguaje. No sé por qué recuerdo sus nombres, pero sus nombres fueron Bonuccio y Nacchionti. Estos dos sacerdotes italianos protestaron este lenguaje diciendo que socava la suficiencia de las Escrituras. Y no se detiene el registro. Y no sabemos lo que ocurrió a continuación en los nuevos debates acerca de sus objeciones. Todo lo que sabemos es que el proyecto final exhibió un cambio, y las palabras “partim partim”, que enseñó claramente una doble fuente de la revelación especial, fueron tachados, y en su lugar era la palabra “y”, que puede o no puede significar dos fuentes separadas. El uso de la palabra "y" aquí es un poco ambiguo, ¿no? Porque usted me puede decir: "¿Dónde encontramos la fe reformada?" Yo diría, "Bueno, puedes encontrar dos lugares. Lo puedes encontrar en la Biblia, o se puede ver en las confesiones que aparecen en la historia de la Iglesia que tratan de dar un resumen de la doctrina reformada, que en la medida en que dichas creencias son consistentes con la Biblia, lo están repitiendo, y es sólo otro lugar que usted podría ir para encontrarlo. Y así la Iglesia puede haber significado simplemente decir que nos encontramos con la verdad de Dios en primer lugar en las Escrituras, y luego como que se re-presenta a nosotros en los consejos de históricos o de los decretos de la Iglesia, que es el otro lugar que pueda mirar. U otros sujetarse a la “Sola escritura”. Y ahora  el debate continúa hoy en día entre los actuales estudiosos católicos romanos en cuanto a si la Iglesia se ha comprometido a dos fuentes o uno. Por desgracia, no son los conservadores de la Iglesia, quien dijo que el cambio de partim partim que et no era una modificación de fondo, sino simplemente un cambio de estilo, y que la Iglesia era claramente el sentido de afirmar en el siglo 16 dos fuentes de revelación escrita.

Ahora que el debate, si bien continúa, era más o menos resuelto en una encíclica papal del siglo 20 que inequívocamente se refiere a las dos fuentes de revelación. Y esa ha sido la corriente principal del pensamiento dentro de la Iglesia romana desde el siglo 16, que las verdades que se fundan en la tradición de la Iglesia son tan vinculantes para las conciencias de los creyentes como las verdades de las Escrituras. Mientras que en la herencia protestante, el principio de “semper reformada es decir, es abrazado por casi todos los protestantes. Es decir, que la Iglesia siempre se llama a someterse a la reforma, y ​​siempre llamaba para comprobar sus propios credos y confesiones para asegurarse de que estén en conformidad con la Sagrada Escritura. Y prácticamente todas las iglesias protestantes que tiene un credo o confesión que es único en su comunión a ir a un gran esfuerzo para decir que sus propias confesiones no son infalibles y no llevar el peso de la Escritura, excepto en la medida en que reproducen fielmente las doctrinas de la Escritura. Debido a que el principio general se afirma, a saber, que solo la Biblia es que la fuente escrita que tiene la autoridad de Dios mismo, la autoridad para obligar a nuestras conciencias absolutamente. Y a pesar de que estamos llamados a ser sumisos a las autoridades menores, y respetuoso de otras autoridades, en mi propia iglesia que estoy llamado a someterse a la autoridad del presbiterio o el período de sesiones de la iglesia local. Hay todo tipo de niveles de autoridad. .

Ahora, hay otros aspectos, como he dicho,  además de este negocio de ser la única fuente de revelación escrita, y en segundo lugar, la única autoridad que puede obligar en absoluto, pero no la única autoridad en absoluto, pero también participan en este afirmación en el siglo 16, era una clara afirmación de que la Biblia es la vox Dei, o de la Dei Verbum. La Palabra de Dios, o la voz de Dios es infalible y sin error, ya que viene a nosotros por la Superintendencia de Dios el Espíritu Santo, que la Biblia es inspirada en el sentido de que su autor es Dios en última instancia, a pesar de que se transmite a través humana escritores. La fuente última de su verdad y de su contenido proviene de Dios, y Dios, por supuesto, es infalible. Escritores humanos, en sí mismas, son falibles. Pero el punto de vista histórico el protestantismo fue que Dios lo ayudó a las debilidades de nuestra humanidad caída que se preserve la Biblia de la corrupción que uno normalmente esperaría encontrar en los escritos de los seres humanos por su superintendencia divina y por el ministerio especial de la Santa Espíritu. Y para que a pesar de que la Biblia viene a nosotros en palabras humanas, y por autores humanos, que se considera de origen divino.

Ahora me doy cuenta que a la luz de la controversia en nuestros días sobre la infalibilidad de la Escritura y la inspiración de la Escritura, y la infalibilidad de la Escritura - las palabras que han engendrado todos los TIPOS de controversia teológica - que han sido los que han protestado en voz alta que la idea misma de infalible o una Escritura infalible, no era algo que se enseña y se abrazaron por los reformadores magisteriales del siglo 16, pero fue el resultado de la intrusión de un tipo de la escolástica protestante que sucedió en el siglo 17 , que se llama la "Edad de la Razón", donde los racionalistas estaban tan preocupados por la seguridad, que tenían casi una necesidad psicológica o emocional de la certeza a tal grado que ellos inventaron el concepto de infalibilidad. Bueno, ahora esa pregunta directamente, no es una cuestión de si la Biblia es infalible, es una cuestión de dónde provenía de la doctrina. Es una cuestión histórica. ¿Es esto algo que fue inventado en el siglo 17 o en el siglo 16?

Permítanme tomar unos momentos para leer sólo unas cuantas citas a usted de los reformadores magisteriales del siglo 16 y le permiten decidir por sí mismo. Aquí hay algunas observaciones que viene de la pluma de Martín Lutero. Lutero dice esta cita, ". El mismo Espíritu Santo, y Dios, el Creador de todas las cosas, es el autor de este libro"

Otra cita: "La Escritura, aunque también por escrito de los hombres, no es de los hombres, ni de los hombres, sino de Dios."

Una vez más, "El que no lea estas historias en vano debe sostener firmemente que la Sagrada Escritura no es humano, pero la sabiduría divina."

Una vez más: "La palabra debe permanecer, porque Dios no puede mentir, y el cielo y la tierra debe ir a las ruinas antes de la letra más insignificante ni una tilde de Su Palabra no se ha cumplido."

Y luego cita a San Agustín, diciendo: dice San Agustín en su carta a San Jerónimo, y cito: ". He aprendido a contener sólo la Sagrada Escritura infalible"

Ahora eso no es Lutero citando a un estudioso del siglo 17, sino Lutero esta  citando a San Agustín a partir del final del siglo cuarto, donde dice San Agustín: "He aprendido a contener sólo la Escritura infalible."

Una vez más, se dice en los libros de San Agustín, "Se encuentran muchos pasajes en los que la carne y la sangre han hablado. Y en cuanto a mí también debo confesar que cuando hablo aparte del ministerio, en casa, en la mesa, o en otro lugar, hablo muchas palabras que no son la Palabra de Dios. "Por eso Agustín, en una carta a Jerónimo, ha echado un axioma de la multa, que la Escritura Santa es sólo para ser considerado infalible.

Así vemos que Lutero apenas coberturas. Otro pasaje que podría citar a Lutero en el que, dice, "las Escrituras nunca erra".

Ahora no sé porque Lutero nunca usó la palabra "infalibilidad", porque el siempre utilizo la palabra "infalible" y dijo que la Biblia nunca se equivoca, que es la esencia misma del concepto de la infalibilidad. Así que creo que es una tontería tratar de argumentar que los reformadores del siglo 16 eran extraños y ajenos a la idea de la inspiración de y la autoridad y la infalibilidad y la inerrancia de la Sagrada Escritura.

Pero uno de los otros puntos importantes de la Sola Scriptura en el siglo 16, que se ha convertido en un principio muy importante para el evangelicalismo histórico era un principio hermenéutico. Ahora las Escrituras, ya que los reformadores no sólo confesaron su visión de lo que las Escrituras y de dónde vino, pero también expresaron sus puntos de vista sobre cómo la Biblia debe ser interpretada y la quien tiene el derecho y la responsabilidad de leerlo. Una de las cosas radicales que sucedieron en la Reforma fue la traducción de la Biblia a la lengua vernácula, sacándolo de las manos de aquellos que fueron capaces de leer latín y / o el griego o el hebreo y la puesta  en las manos de personas que sólo podían leer sus lenguas nativas. Como Lutero tradujo la Biblia al alemán, y Wycliffe tradujo la Biblia  en Ingles en Inglaterra, y así sucesivamente, y en algunos casos las personas que lo que pagaron con sus vidas, porque el principio de que se afirmó en el evangelicalismo histórico era el principio, en primer lugar, de interpretación privada, lo que significa que cada cristiano tiene el derecho y la responsabilidad de leer la Biblia por sí mismos. Y tienen el derecho de interpretar por sí mismos. Ahora que se escuchó por parte de Roma, como se vio en la 4 ª sesión de Trent, en el sentido de que los protestantes estaban dando licencia para cualquier miembro de la iglesia  no sólo a leer la Biblia por sí mismos, sino a distorsionar a su antojo. Y, por supuesto, los reformistas estaban horrorizados por la idea. Dijeron que cada cristiano tiene el derecho de interpretar la Biblia por sí mismos, pero ningún cristiano tiene derecho a una mala interpretación o una deformación de acuerdo a sus propios caprichos o de sus propios prejuicios. Pero el principio de interpretación privada, se basó en una, otro principio, que era el principio de la suficiencia de la Escritura, que es una palabra de tres dólares por la "claridad".

Ahora Lutero dijo: Hay muchas partes de la Escritura que son difíciles de manejar, es por eso que nosotros necesitamos de maestros en la Iglesia, y en los comentarios y todo eso, pero que el mensaje básico, el mensaje de que es necesario que una persona de entender y comprender Es evidente para cualquier persona para ver. Y cuando, cuando Lutero habló de dar la Biblia  a los laicos de la Iglesia dijo: "Si haces eso, que va a abrir una compuerta de la iniquidad, porque la gente va a empezar a crear todo tipo de distorsiones terribles." ¿Qué es exactamente lo que pasó. Sin embargo, Lutero dijo: "Si ese es el caso, y si una compuerta de la iniquidad se abre al abrir las páginas de la Biblia a la gente, que así sea, pero el mensaje de que está claro es tan importante. Contiene el mensaje de nuestra salvación. Es tan importante y tan claro que vamos a asumir los riesgos de todas las distorsiones y de todas las herejías que van con el para asegurarse de que el mensaje central de la Escritura que se oye. "Y como resultado de esta afirmación de la “sola Scriptura”, la Biblia fue puesta en la Iglesia. Y la lectura de las Escrituras y la predicación de la de las Sagradas Escrituras se convirtieron en el centro de la liturgia y el culto de los protestantes históricos.