{"id":18886,"date":"2017-07-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-07-16T05:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sugar-land-bible-church.local\/sermon\/protestant-reformation-006\/"},"modified":"2017-07-16T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2017-07-16T05:00:00","slug":"protestant-reformation-006","status":"publish","type":"sermon","link":"https:\/\/slbc.org\/es\/sermon\/protestant-reformation-006\/","title":{"rendered":"Protestant Reformation 006"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","book":[86],"series_event":[480],"sermon_service_type":[473],"speaker":[6],"class_list":["post-18886","sermon","type-sermon","status-publish","hentry","book-mark","series_event-protestant-reformation","sermon_service_type-sunday-school","speaker-dr-andy-woods","no-post-thumbnail"],"acf":{"sermon_title":"Protestant Reformation 006","sermon_date":"20170716","sermon_month":"7","sermon_year":"2017","sermon_notes":4787,"sermon_slides":4788,"sermon_mp3":4796,"sermon_id":"71617108114","series_or_event":480,"service_type":[473],"speaker":6,"books_of_the_bible":86,"chapter_and_verse":"7:13","sermon_transcript":"Andy Woods\n\nThe Protestant Reformation 006\n\n7-16-17\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Mark 7:13\n\nGood morning everybody.\u00a0 \u00a0Let me open us up in a word of prayer and we\u2019ll get started.\u00a0 Father, we\u2019re grateful for Your hand of protection upon us, protecting us through storms, literal storms and also the storms of life.\u00a0 So we\u2019re grateful for Your providential care over\u00a0 Your children and I just ask that You\u2019ll be with us during Sunday School as we try to understand church history a little better and with the main service that follows.\u00a0 We\u2019ll be careful to give you all the praise and the glory, we ask these things in Jesus\u2019 name and God\u2019s people said\u2026 Amen.\n\nWhy don\u2019t we open our Bibles to Mark\u2019s Gospel, chapter 7, and verse 13.\u00a0 And as you know we\u2019re continuing our study on The Protestant Reformation, I think we\u2019re on lesson 6.\u00a0 The reason we\u2019re looking into this is 500 years this October, end of October, will mark the 500th<\/sup> year anniversary of the Protestant Reformation when Luther started it really, by nailing his 95 Thesis to the cathedral door in Wittenberg, Germany so you\u2019re going to hear when we get into the fall a lot of people talking about the Protestant Reformation so what was that whole thing about.\u00a0 And we\u2019re doing a series on what it accomplished and what it did not accomplish.\n\nHere\u2019s the outline that we\u2019re following; we\u2019ve looked at the early church and what the early church, the apostles handed off to the first generation of Christians which I think is represented by the circle up north in Antioch where they applied a method of interpretation called the literal method of interpretation.\u00a0 They even applied it to the whole Bible, including prophecy.\u00a0 There\u2019s another map there, you can see Antioch up north.\u00a0 And then we talked about what happened with the Alexandrian eclipse down south, that bottom circle.\u00a0 A rival school developed in Alexandria, Egypt, which began to dismiss the literal method of interpretation.\u00a0\u00a0 There\u2019s another circle there, it tells you where Alexandria, Egypt is, and they began to get into a method of interpretation called allegorization, or they began to take certain parts of the Bible and say well, those really aren\u2019t literally true, they just represent symbolic ideas.\u00a0 So I\u2019ve shown you how they did that with the Garden of Eden, the wall, the gates around the wall I should say, in Nehemiah 3.\n\nAnd as you move into that method of interpretation what you discover is the biblical text is no longer in control but the carnal imaginations of man are now in control.\u00a0 And we talked about why the shift happened and how this mindset really took over the church, for lack of a better expression.\u00a0 So Alexandria, Egypt eclipsed Antioch.\n\nThat led us to a period of time that lasted about a thousand years, called the Dark Ages, that\u2019s Roman numeral III there.\u00a0 And we talked about the Dark Ages and basically the Dark Ages, although there\u2019s always exceptions but the Dark Ages is a time period where the Bible is removed from the common man.\u00a0 Bible translations aren\u2019t available, illiteracy is rampant.\u00a0 And even if people had a Bible (which they didn\u2019t) they were told they couldn\u2019t understand it because they hadn\u2019t been schooled in the Alexandrian method of allegorization.\n\nSo once you start to see all that background, which lasted a long time, that takes us all the way up to Roman numeral IV, the 16th<\/sup> century when God began to raise up certain men called the Protestant Reformers.\u00a0\u00a0 They (when they started) didn\u2019t know they were Protestant Reformers, they were just voicing disagreements with the one church at the time, the Roman Catholic Church.\u00a0 But they began basically to demand a return to the literal method of interpretation, to get back to Antioch in other words.\n\nThe last time we were together I talked to you about\u2026 and this takes us to Roman numeral IV in our outline, the contribution of the Protestant Reformers.\u00a0 And I\u2019m sorry I\u2019ve been taking so long to get to this point.\u00a0 Most studies on the Protestant Reformation start you right at this point but I felt the need to give you the background that we\u2019ve covered in about five lessons because you can\u2019t understand the significance of the Protestant Reformation until you understand what was lost and what needed to be restored.\u00a0 So we go to Roman numeral IV, the contribution of the Protestant Reformers and we talked last time about the preparation of the Reformers, didn\u2019t we?\u00a0 There were some morning stars of the Reformation, some people that preceded Luther that were trying to argue basically the same thing Luther was trying to argue but they didn\u2019t have a lot of influence.\u00a0 So we talked about a few names there, names like Huss, Wycliffe and others.\u00a0 And I talked to you a little bit about how God prepared Martin Luther through his consecration, monasticism, conversion, and ultimately leaving what we know today as the Protestant Reformation.\n\nSo with the background of some of these Reformers in mind what did the Protestant Reformation really bring to Christendom, or Christianity?\u00a0 I have several things listed here, but one of them is an emphasis on literal interpretation.\u00a0 When you study the Protestant Reformers you start to see they sound an awful lot alike the folks at Antioch in the first two centuries of the church.\u00a0 So let me give you a few quotes here.\n\nHere is William Tyndale, who was a contemporary of Martin Luther.\u00a0 And Tyndale says, \u201cThe Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense.\u201d\u00a0 [William Tyndale, \u2018Obedience of a Christian Man, in Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scriptures<\/em>, ed. Henry Walter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1848), 304.]\u00a0 Now that\u2019s the exact opposite of what Roman Catholicism, coming from Alexandria, Egypt, had been teaching for over a thousand years.\n\nSo you start to get this idea that interpretation is one but application is many and there\u2019s one interpretation and it can be borne out through taking the words in the ordinary sense.\u00a0 As you look at Luther\u2019s writings and sermons and things like that this is a big issue with Luther.\u00a0 He says, [The Scriptures] \u201care to be retained in their simplest meaning,\u201d in other words, when you look at the four rivers in Eden, the Pishan, the Gihon, the Tigris and the Euphrates, what does that mean?\u00a0 Well, it means there\u2019s four rivers in Eden is what it means, you don\u2019t have to read into it a bunch of stuff about the four parts of the soul and all of these kinds of things.\u00a0\u00a0 So Luther said [The Scriptures] \u201care to be retained in their simplest meaning whenever possible, and to be understood in their grammatical and literal sense unless the context plainly forbids.\u201d\u00a0 [Quoted by Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth<\/em> (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 1991), 45.\u00a0 So the method of interpretation that Luther is trying to bring back is what\u2019s called the literal method; you take words and ideas in the Bible in their ordinary sense unless there\u2019s something in the context that tells you that the Scriptural writers are using a figure of speech.\n\nSo for example, the Bible does use many different figures of speech; it uses hyperbole, it uses similes, it uses metaphors, it uses personification when it says the mountains clapped, we don\u2019t look at that as the mountains having hands clapping.\u00a0 These are all figures of speech but when there\u2019s a figure of speech in play it\u2019s sort of obvious in the text itself.\u00a0 So unless there\u2019s an obvious figure of speech in play you take the Bible for what it says.\u00a0 And this is the method that Luther used to restore the church to proper doctrine that had been lost for over a thousand years.\n\nMartin Luther, in another quote puts it this way.\u00a0 He says, \u201c\u2018I have observed this, that all heresies and errors have originated, not from the simple words of Scripture, as is so universally asserted, but from neglecting<\/em> the simple words of Scripture, and from the affection of purely subjective\u2026tropes and inferences.\u2019 \u2018In the schools of theologians it is a well-known rule that Scripture is to be understood in four ways\u201d see, what is this \u201cfour ways\u201d idea?\u00a0 That comes from Augustine and Alexandria, Egypt, and allegorization.\u00a0 \u2018In the schools of theologians\u201d what schools?\u00a0 The schools influenced by Augustine, Alexandria which influenced Augustine which influenced Roman Catholicism, \u201cIn the schools of the theologians it is a well-known rule that Scripture is to be understood in four ways,\u201d so when you look at the rivers in Genesis 2 there\u2019s actually four interpretations of that.\u00a0 You probably didn\u2019t know that did you, because the way you read it it just says four rivers. But the theologians are coming along and saying let me give you the higher mean, which you can\u2019t see.\n\n\u201cIn the schools of the theologians it is a well-known rule that Scripture is to be understood in four ways, literal, literal, allegoric, moral, anagogic. But if we wish to handle Scripture aright, our one effort will be to obtain unum,<\/em>\u201d now I\u2019m not much of a Latin speaker, I\u2019m not a Latin speaker at all so forgive me for mangling some of these words, \u201cour one effort will be to obtain unum, simplecum, germanum, et certum sensum literalem<\/em>.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 How\u2019s that for a dose on Sunday morning, which simply means, \u201c\u2018Each passage has one clear, definite, and true sense of its own. \u00a0All others are but doubtful and uncertain opinions.\u2019\u201d [quoted in Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961; reprint, 1886), 327.]\u00a0\u00a0 So Luther is getting back to the objective truth of God\u2019s Word that everyone can understand and all of these things that the allegorical method foist or thrust into the Scripture are just subjective; it can\u2019t be tested and it\u2019s just someone\u2019s opinion.\n\nAnd when Luther is making these kind of statements what you have to understand is he is unearthing a thousand years or more of church authority.\u00a0 In his Table Talk Luther says this: \u201cThus Luther [(Table Talk<\/em>, \u2018On God\u2019s Word,\u2019 11) remarks: \u201c\u2018I have grounded my preaching upon the literal word;\u201d see how they keep using the word \u201cliteral.\u201d\u00a0 If you look up the word \u201cliteral\u201d in the Oxford Dictionary it basically means by the letters.\u00a0 \u201cBy the letters\u201d means you\u2019re interpreting what\u2019s there rather than dragging in a bunch of stuff into the passage that\u2019s not there.\u00a0\u00a0 You know, using the gates around the wall of Jerusalem to say well this fish gate means it\u2019s evangelism.\u00a0 Well, that\u2019s not what the text says, it just says they took fish in and out of the gate.\u00a0 \u201cI have grounded my preaching upon the literal word; \u00a0he that pleases may follow me, he that will not may stay.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 [Quoted in George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom<\/em>, 3 vols. (New York: Funk & Wagnall\u2019s, 1884; reprint, Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1952), 1:47]\n\nSo that\u2019s a nice way of saying the exits are clearly marked.\u00a0 And Luther says this is the way I teach the Bible, I teach it literally.\n\nAnother great Reformer that\u2019s very influential during this time is John Calvin, who I believe was born after Luther.\u00a0 And\u00a0 you get into Calvin\u2019s material and he\u2019s basically saying the same kind of thing.\u00a0 \u201cCalvin wrote in the preface of his commentary on Romans \u201cit is the first business of an interpreter to let the author say what he does say, instead of attributing to him what we think he ought to say.\u201d\u00a0 [Quoted by Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth<\/em> (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 1991), 47. ]\n\nNow we kind of take this for granted but a thousand\u00a0 years of allegorization and the people not having a Bible and the people being told they couldn\u2019t understand the Bible because they weren\u2019t schooled in allegorization\u2014these are\u00a0 unearthing statements.\u00a0 And the Lord is using this to redirect the church away from Roman Catholicism, away from Augustinianism, away from Alexandrianism and all the way back to Antioch.\n\nCalvin wrote in his commentary on Galatians, \u201cCalvin wrote in his commentary on Galatians \u201cLet us know then that the true meaning of Scripture is the natural and obvious meaning; and let us embrace and abide by it resolutely.\u201d\u00a0 [John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians<\/em>, p. 136; Quoted by Gerrit H. Hospers, The Principle of Spiritualization in Hermeneutics<\/em> (E. Williamson, NY: Author, 1935), p. 11]\u00a0\u00a0 What he means there is you take words and phrases, like Bethlehem, Jesus, virgin, Jerusalem, whatever is being said in the Scripture, you don\u2019t come into it and assign some meaning that the words don\u2019t normally mean.\u00a0 You assign to those words and phrases the meanings that those words would have in ordinary speaking, writing and thinking.\u00a0 And if you\u2019re not willing to do that then the authority in interpretation changes.\u00a0 That\u2019s the problem.\u00a0 The authority moves away from the biblical text into the subjective mind of the interpreter. So this whole issue of consistent literal interpretation is just a battle of authority; who\u2019s going to be in charge here?\u00a0 Is the written Word of God going to be in charge or is the mind of the allegorist going to be in charge.\n\nPhilip Schaff, a very well-known church historian, of John Calvin says this:\u00a0 \u201cCalvin is the founder of grammatico\u2013historical exegesis.\u201d\u00a0 Now I would qualify his statement a little bit.\u00a0 I don\u2019t think he\u2019s the founder of it, I think he is the retriever of it; I think I\u2019ve shown enough evidence that it, this method that Calvin is using and Luther is using is already well-established for 200 years in the church before it was lost.\u00a0 \u201cCalvin is the founder of grammatico-historical exegesis.\u201d\u00a0 What does that mean, \u201cgrammatical?\u201d\u00a0 You understand that words are linked in a passage, there\u2019s something called syntax and sentence structure and you have a subject, you have a verb, you have an object, you have different ways verbs are used, present tense, on and on we could go.\u00a0 So they\u2019re into studying the laws of language because God has revealed Himself in language.\n\nAnd by the way, who authored language?\u00a0 God did, so God authored language, God revealed Himself in 66 books linguistically; language has laws that govern it, right?\u00a0 Just like math does, just like engineering does; every discipline has laws.\u00a0 So if\u00a0 you\u2019re into grammatical method of interpretation you\u2019re studying the laws of language that bind anything linguistically, a legal contract, a lecture, a conversation, anything.\u00a0 So you study those laws and you apply them to Scripture.\n\n\u201cCalvin is the founder of grammatico\u2013historical exegesis.\u201d\u00a0 What does historical mean?\u00a0 Historical means it was written in a historical context.\u00a0 So when it says \u201cthe prince and power of the air\u201d I don\u2019t say well, the air is the radio so the devil is on the radio\u2026I\u2019ve heard people say stuff like that.\u00a0 Well, that\u2019s not what \u201cprince and power of the air\u201d meant when Paul wrote that.\u00a0 If you study that in Greek it\u2019s the prince and power of the atmosphere, so I\u2019m interpreting \u201cair\u201d not based on some 21st<\/sup> century definition but how it was commonly used back in first century times.\u00a0 \u201cCalvin is the founder of grammatico\u2013historical exegesis.<\/em>\u201d\u00a0 You know what that term is, right, it comes from the Greek preposition, ek<\/em>, drawing out from the text what is there; eisegesis<\/em> comes from the Greek preposition eis<\/em>, into, it\u2019s the opposite, you\u2019re reading into the text what is not there.\u00a0 Antioch and the reformers are trying to practice exegesis<\/em>; Alexandria, Egypt, Augustine, Roman Catholicism is doing the opposite up to the time of Calvin and Luther; they\u2019re practicing eisegesis<\/em>.\u00a0 I know that a lot of this sounds academic but if I can just boil it down to its basics it\u2019s the question of authority; it\u2019s a question of who\u2019s going to be in control of the interpretation process.\n\nNow obviously if you believe God has spoken in this Book, who do we want to be in charge here?\u00a0 I think we want God to be in charge, right?\u00a0 So the best way to keep God in charge is to consistently practice the literal (by the letters), grammatical (studying syntax) historical (understanding words or phrases in their ordinary sense).\u00a0 The best way to understand God and to let God speak is to consistently practice the literal grammatical historical method of interpretation.\n\nThe Reformers restore that method in some areas of the Bible but as I\u2019ll be showing you in the subsequent weeks they didn\u2019t do it in other areas.\u00a0 But at least they gave us a start here.\u00a0 I mean, the Reformers, they knocked over a domino and once the first domino fell the Holy Spirit started raising up other people and other dominos started to fall as people were following the same method that the Protestant Reformers retrieved from Antioch.\u00a0 Am I ever going to get to this quote here:\u00a0 \u201cCalvin is the founder of grammatico\u2013historical exegesis. He affirmed and carried out the sound hermeneutical\u201d now \u201chermeneutical\u201d means interpretation, \u201chermeneutic principle the biblical writers, like all sensible writers, wished to convey to their reader\u2019s \u2013 one definite thought in words which they could understand.\u201d\n\nI\u2019ve studied under postmodern allegorists teachers and they will deconstruct things and assign their own meaning to writings, but the funny thing is when they pass out their syllabus and it says the exam is on this day and the paper in the class is due on this day you can\u2019t raise your hand and say well, I don\u2019t the syllabus the same way you interpret it.\u00a0 All of these allegorists demand that their own words be understood literally but they don\u2019t use that same method when they approach writings of others.\n\nWhere did I leave off here; I\u2019m just going to start in the middle or else I\u2019ll never finish. \u201cA passage may have a literal or figurative sense;\u201d so yeah, we believe there\u2019s figures of speech in the Bible when they\u2019re conspicuous in the text, if they\u2019re not conspicuous in the text you just take the text for what it says.\u00a0 \u201cA passage may have a literal or figurative sense but cannot have two senses at once.\u201d\u00a0 It can\u2019t be literal and allegorical simultaneously; it\u2019s got to be literal.\u00a0 \u201cThe Word of God is inexhaustible and applicable to all times,\u201d here\u2019s a key thing to understand, interpretation is one; application is many.\u00a0 The first goal of interpretation is to understand meaning, what is this passage actually saying.\u00a0 Once you figure out what meaning is then a second method of not interpretation but preaching or teaching is to apply that meaning to the needs of the audience.\u00a0 So once meaning is established you can apply the text very different ways but you\u2019re not doing it outside the meaning that you have established.\n\nSo why does Pastor Andy preach so long?\u00a0 Why do we have to stay here till after 12:30?\u00a0 Why can\u2019t we beat the Baptists to the cafeteria?\u00a0 Because I\u2019m an advocate of this method of interpretation and I can\u2019t do it in a soundbite.\u00a0 To stand up in the pulpit and establish meaning takes time.\u00a0 It would be much easier for me to just pick three points and a poem.\u00a0 Let me give you the three points of application today, 1, 2, 3, and everybody gets a liver quiver of the day and says oh, I feel better for five minutes, until I get in an argument with my wife on the way home, then it just dissolves like cotton candy, or the first trial that comes up.\u00a0 It would be much easier for me, and probably for Sugar Land Bible Church would be larger if I did it this way: just give me the three points of application, don\u2019t talk so long, you can get it done in 20-25 minutes.\u00a0 There you go, there\u2019s your mega church.\n\nWell, the problem is what\u2019s happening is people are leaving congregations with wonderful application but then you wonder well, where did he get that from?\u00a0 I\u2019ve heard sermons that have a lot more in common with the Dale Carnegie course or Tony Robbins or positive thinking type things than the Bible.\u00a0 And what\u2019s happening is people are just ripping the Bible out of context to support some kind of pre agenda that they have in terms of application.\u00a0 Don\u2019t get me wrong, I am pro application but I\u2019m also pro meaning.\u00a0 I don\u2019t want people to leave here without understanding what is the meaning of this and application is an important step in the process but it is a secondary step.\u00a0 So to do meaning and application requires a certain time discipline; it\u2019s not something that can be done in a sound bite.\u00a0 There I go again, where\u2019d I leave off?\n\n\u201c The Word of God is inexhaustible and applicable to all times, but there is a difference between explanation and application,\u201d you see the difference there, \u201cand application\u201d watch this \u201cmust be consistent with\u201d what? \u201cexplanation.\u201d\u00a0 [Quoted by Gerrit H. Hospers, The Principle of Spiritualization in Hermeneutics<\/em> (E. Williamson, NY: Author, 1935), p. 12.]\u00a0\u00a0 Your application is only as good as the meaning it comes from because if I give\u00a0 you some application that has no basis in the text it\u2019s not going to hold up in your life when the first trial hits your life Monday morning or Sunday afternoon for that matter.\u00a0\u00a0 You have to have both.\u00a0 So what you find is the Reformers emphasizing literal interpretation.\u00a0 Now what are they denouncing in the process?\u00a0 Allegorization; they\u2019re denouncing everything that was taught in Alexandria, Egypt.\u00a0 So notice how Luther not only promotes literal interpretation but he condemns allegorization.\n\nOne writer, Farrar, in his History of Interpretation<\/em> says, \u201cLuther denounced the allegorical approach to Scripture in strong words. He said:\u201d quote, Luther now speaking, \u201c\u2018An interpreter\u2026must as much as possible avoid allegory, that he may not wander in idle dreams.\u2019 \u2018Allegories are empty speculations and as it were the scum of Holy Scripture.\u2019\u201d I mean, one of the things I like about these Reformers is you don\u2019t really have to guess what they\u2019re thinking, they just come out and\u2026 how do you really feel Martin Luther?\u00a0 But the aggressiveness that they\u2019re advocating their ideas is necessary to unearth a thousand years of bad interpretation.\u00a0 He says, \u201cOrigen\u201d now Origen is one of the early interpreters I introduced you to coming from the school of Alexandria, probably around the third century.\u00a0 \u201c\u2018Origen\u2019s allegories are not worth so much dirt.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 Wow! \u00a0\u201c\u2018To allegorize is to juggle with Scripture\u2019\u201d \u201c\u2018Allegory is sort of a beautiful harlot,\u2019\u201d look at this, \u201ca beautiful harlot who proves herself specially seductive to idle men.\u201d\u2019 \u201cAllegorizing may degenerate into a mere monkey game.\u201d\u2019 Meaning the meaning is just whatever the allegorist wants it to mean. \u201cAllegories are awkward, absurd, inventive, obsolete, loose rags\u2026mere spangles and pretty ornaments but nothing more.\u2019\u201d [Quoted in Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation<\/em> (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1961; reprint, 1886), 328]\n\nYou can see why he ticked off the Roman Catholic hierarchy by talking about things like this.\u00a0 You find the same type of aggressive denunciation of allegorization in the writings of John Calvin.\u00a0 Roy Zuck here is quoting John Calvin. \u201cCalvin similarly rejected allegorical interpretations. He called them \u2018frivolous games\u2019 and accused Origen and other allegorists of \u2018torturing scripture, in every possible sense, from the true sense.\u201d\u2019\u00a0 [Quoted by Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth<\/em> (Colorado Springs, CO: Victor, 1991), 47.]\n\nIn other words what the allegorist is doing is they are ignoring the laws of language which govern all languages.\u00a0 And since God has revealed Himself in language if you want to understand God you have to understand the laws of language and he\u2019s saying allegorists just set aside the normal laws of language.\u00a0 It\u2019s like trying to set aside the law of gravity.\u00a0 Language is a law.\u00a0 When you get into actual syntax and grammar and things like that you understand that language functions according to laws and you can\u2019t just rewrite the law when you see something in the Bible you may not like.\u00a0 That\u2019s what Calvin is getting at here.\n\nAnd in the process the Protestant Reformers begin to reject church tradition as a guide.\u00a0 This is huge and that\u2019s why I had you open to Mark 7:13.\u00a0 You say we\u2019re finally getting to the passage now?\u00a0 Yeah, that was my intro.\u00a0 Jesus faced this same battle, Mark 7:13, with the Pharisees who had buried the Scripture under layer after layer after layer after layer of manmade tradition.\u00a0 I had to read some of that manmade tradition when I was in seminary and it\u2019s just exhausting all of the manmade requirements they put on the Scripture.\u00a0 And there was something called the Mishnah and something called the Talmud.\u00a0 There was actually two Talmud\u2019s, one from the land of Israel, one later created in Babylon where many of the Jews remained, having not returned from the Babylonian captivity.\n\nAnd so you look at all that stuff and it\u2019s like reading the tax code; it\u2019s just exhausting the amount of detail and information.\u00a0 And it started off well intentioned because they understood that violating the Sabbath, the Sabbath\/land principle, you know, let the land rest a\u00a0 year, the seventh year, every year that they broke that was another year that God put them into captivity.\u00a0 That\u2019s why they were in captivity for seventy years.\u00a0 I\u2019ll explain that more in our Daniel series when we get to Daniel 9, the seventy weeks prophecy.\n\nSo they passed a bunch of regulations to stop what people could and could not do on the Sabbath and in the process the tail starts to wag the dog.\u00a0 The regulations start to take over the interpretive process where the text is not being interpreted; the text is being filtered through all these layers of regulation.\u00a0 So the tail starts to wag the dog do the point where the biblical text is no longer an authority and these Pharisaical regulations became so bad that they actually lost the meaning of the text.\n\nAnd that\u2019s why when Jesus healed somebody on the Sabbath what are the Pharisees doing?\u00a0 They\u2019re freaking out, how can You do that?\u00a0 Why can\u2019t I heal someone on the Sabbath?\u00a0 You\u2019re not supposed to work on the Sabbath.\u00a0 Well, why aren\u2019t you supposed to work on the Sabbath?\u00a0 Well, look at what the Mishnah says; look at what the Talmud says.\u00a0 And then Jesus comes back and says, Do you now know what the purpose of the Sabbath is, going back to its original intent.\u00a0 The purpose of the Sabbath is to be a blessing to man; God didn\u2019t design us to work seven days a week all year long; He designed us for a day of rest.\u00a0 So God gave us the Sabbath, a day of rest, to be a blessing to us.\u00a0 And they had so lost the meaning that was given originally through Moses that by the time of Christ, with all these Pharisaical regulations they were all upset over Jesus blessing someone on the Sabbath when in fact that was the Sabbath\u2019s purpose.\u00a0 So what Christ is doing is He\u2019s coming along and He\u2019s saying this is the authority based on the literal grammatical historical method of the Sabbath, this is an authority, not all of these regulations.\n\nAnd what I want\u00a0 you to understand is that\u2019s basically what the Reformers are doing; they\u2019re saying this is the authority, not all of this allegorical interpretation and Roman Catholic hierarchy.\u00a0 So Luther makes all of these statements about rejecting church tradition as a guide.\u00a0 Luther says, quote, \u201cUnless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils,\u201d WOW, I mean that\u2019s such a huge statement right there given the time period that he was living in, \u201cfor they have contradicted each other\u201d he says that\u2019s a funny thing about all this extra-biblical regulations, even those guys don\u2019t agree with each other.\u00a0 \u201c\u2026 my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me.\u201d\u00a0 Some translations say \u201chere I stand, I can do no other, God help me, Amen.\u201d\u00a0 [Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms (1521)]\n\nSo what is he saying here when he highlights Scripture and rejects the authority of the Popes and the councils?\u00a0 He is rejecting church tradition as a guide for understanding God.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t matter what Priest A said or Priest B said or Monk A said or Monk B said or Pope A said or Pope B said; what matters is what this Book says.\u00a0 And he\u2019s basically saying I\u2019ll agree with the Popes and the Monks when they agree with this Book but when they depart from this Book I depart from them.\u00a0 And that\u2019s what Jesus is doing in the first century, in the time of Christ.\u00a0 He\u2019s basically saying Pharisaical regulation is great as long as it is harmonizing with this Book but once it fails to harmonize with this Book I can\u2019t follow it any more.\u00a0 And this is the philosophy of Sugar Land Bible Church also because there\u2019s so much that goes on in local churches, people want to follow some tradition of the past; maybe the tradition is valid, maybe it\u2019s not.\u00a0 Or a lot of people come in and they want to impose something on a Bible church; maybe what they want to impose is valid, maybe it\u2019s not.\u00a0 But the issue is, is it in harmony with the Scripture.\u00a0 And how can you tell unless you\u2019ve read the Scripture?\u00a0 And how can you understand the Scripture unless you take it literally, unless in those places that it\u2019s telling you not to take it literally.\n\nAnother great\u2026oh, I love this quote, this is one of my favorites from Luther; he\u2019s having a debate\u00a0 here with a guy named Dr. Eck; Eck is the Roman Catholic Representative at that time.\u00a0 Luther in this debate says, \u201cI ask for the Scripture, and Eck offers me the Fathers. I ask for the sun,\u201d not s-o-n, s-u-n, \u00a0and he shows me his lanterns. I ask, \u2018where is your Scripture proof?\u2019 and he adduces Ambrose and Cyril\u2026With all due respect to the Fathers, I prefer the authority of Scripture.\u201d\n\nSo in this debate, give me the sun, you\u2019ve given me lanterns because they\u2019re all dog-piling on Luther because he\u2019s teaching justification by faith alone.\u00a0 Eck is coming along and saying where are you going to find that in the church councils and the church creeds and the church confessions and in the Monks and in the Popes and all this stuff.\u00a0 And Luther says I have a church father that outweighs every other church Father, the Apostle Paul.\u00a0 And that\u2019s where he quotes the Book of Galatians, \u201cthe just shall live by\u201d what?\u00a0 \u201cshall live by faith.\u201d\u00a0 That\u2019s where the doctrine of justification by faith comes from.\u00a0 And part of this process of rejecting church tradition as a guide is the rejection of the papacy because what you have to understand in the Roman Catholic system the Popes speak Ex-cathedra<\/em>. What does Ex-cathedra<\/em> mean? Ex-cathedra<\/em> means from the chair, in other words the Pope\u2019s proclamations are on equal authority with the Word of God.\u00a0 And they believe that the papacy is traced back, lineage wise to Peter who they think is the first Pope.\u00a0 I think we\u2019ve looked at this passage before, haven\u2019t we?\u00a0 Very quickly look at Matthew 16:18 because when you dialogue or converse with your Roman Catholic friends what you have to understand is you, as a Protestant are operating on a different authority base than they are.\u00a0 That\u2019s why we disagree on so many things.\u00a0 They\u2019re operating on the basis of Scripture and\u2026; you\u2019re operating on the basis of Scripture period.\u00a0 And when you operate on the basis of Scripture and you\u2019re going to come to different conclusions than the person that\u2019s operating on Scripture by itself.\n\nSo Matthew 16:18 says, Jesus speaking to Peter, \u201cI also say to you the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 So in Roman Catholic thinking what they believe is Jesus built the church on Peter, who was the first Pope.\u00a0 That\u2019s a problem, isn\u2019t it, because look at verse 23, \u201cBut He turned and said to Peter, \u2018Get behind Me,\u201d what? \u201cSatan!\u201d\u00a0 Why would Jesus build the church on a guy who the next second his mouth is about to be used as an instrument of Satan; it doesn\u2019t make any sense, does it.\u00a0 So the whole problem is cleared up just by looking at this in Greek; in English it doesn\u2019t come across this way but when you look at in Greek it\u2019s very clear.\u00a0 And this is why you have to go back to the literal grammatical historical method of interpretation and interpret passages according to the laws of language.\n\nWhat it says is: \u201cI say that you are Peter,\u201d now the word for \u201cPeter\u201d there is Petros<\/em>, masculine noun which means little stone, \u201cand upon this rock\u201d now when he says \u201cthis rock\u201d he\u2019s not making another reference to Peter.\u00a0 Well, how do I know that, the English Bible says that.\u00a0 Well, it doesn\u2019t read that\u2026 the Bible wasn\u2019t written in English folks, we are all aware of that right, it\u2019s written in Greek.\u00a0 When he says \u201cupon this rock\u201d it\u2019s a different Greek word.\u00a0 If he wanted to say the church was built on Peter he would use Petros<\/em> twice, wouldn\u2019t he. But he doesn\u2019t do that, he says \u201cupon this rock,\u201d he just switched the word, Petra,<\/em> which is not masculine but feminine.\u00a0 It doesn\u2019t mean little stone; it means what?\u00a0 large stone.\u00a0 So Jesus is building the church, not on Peter, the little stone but on the Big Rock.\u00a0 \u201cI will build My church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.\u201d\n\nSo what is the Big Rock?\u00a0 It\u2019s not Peter; I believe the Big Rock is Peter\u2019s confession; He\u2019s not building the church on Peter; He\u2019s building the church on an accurate statement that Peter just made. Where?\u00a0 In the prior verse.\u00a0 See how context helps us with this.\u00a0 Just look at the prior verse.\u00a0 Peter has declared that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, verse 16.\u00a0 Verse 17, \u201cAnd Jesus said to him, \u2018Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.\u2019\u201d\u00a0 So Jesus is not building the church on \u201clittle stone\u201d Peter, who is about to betray Him three times by the way.\u00a0 He\u2019s building it on the big stone, the accurate confession of who Jesus is, that at that moment came out of the mouth of Peter.\n\nSo the Protestant Reformers are starting to look at this passage using the laws of language.\u00a0 And all of these, for over a thousand years the Roman Catholic Church has been telling people don\u2019t pay attention to that verse folks, just move right along.\u00a0 The Protestant Reformers say no, let\u2019s look at this and let\u2019s look at this using the laws of language.\u00a0 And in the process they are rejecting church tradition as a guide; they\u2019re rejecting the idea that Peter is the first Pope, and they\u2019re getting back to what the text says.\u00a0 They\u2019re interpreting the Bible through the lens of the Bible rather than through the lens of the papacy.\u00a0 So this is a massive contribution that the Protestant Reformers are making here.\u00a0 And in the process what starts to get restored to the church?\u00a0 The priesthood of all believers.\n\nTake a look for just a minute at Revelation 1:6, because you see in the Roman Catholic system who do you confess your sins to?\u00a0 To a priest.\u00a0 So the priest is\u00a0 your intermediary back to God.\u00a0 And that\u2019s why your average person was told they can\u2019t understand the Bible because that is the responsibility of the priest.\u00a0 So the Bible is removed from the people; it\u2019s interpreted to the people through the lens of the priesthood and as we have studied the priests were abusing their authority through the sale of indulgences; \u201cwhen the coin in the coffer rings the soul from purgatory springs.\u201d Luther didn\u2019t like that at all because he didn\u2019t like to see people manipulated any more than you like to see that.\n\nBut as he gets back into the actual biblical text he says that these Roman Catholic priests have absolutely no authority biblically for what they\u2019re doing.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 Because of passages like Revelation 1:6, \u201cand He has made us\u201d now who would \u201cus\u201d be?\u00a0 The church.\u00a0 \u201cHe has made us to be a kingdom, priests\u201d plural, \u201cto His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.\u201d\u00a0 So who are the priests according to that passage?\u00a0 The church,\u00a0 us, plural.\u00a0 And so the Protestant Reformers start to advance this idea of the priesthood of all believers.\u00a0 See, in Israel not everyone was a priest.\n\nDid you know that?\u00a0 The priests came from the tribe of Levi and they had to be a descendant of who\u2019s lineage?\u00a0 Aaron\u2019s.\u00a0 Well, you get into the church age, which started in Acts 2 and you have a different teaching for the body of Christ in the present dispensation or age of time that we are in and you discover that all of us are priests.\u00a0 Did you know that you\u2019re a priest?\u00a0 I mean, that\u2019s a startling thing to discover, isn\u2019t?\u00a0 When your whole life you\u2019ve been groveling to this manmade priest and then you\u2019re reading in the Bible that you\u2019re a priest.\u00a0 Whoa!\u00a0 If I\u2019m a priest and you\u2019re a priest maybe we can all understand the Bible on our own, without it being filtered to us through the lens of the priesthood.\u00a0 This starts the process of the priesthood of all believers.\n\nAnd you know, so many people are sort of Roman Catholic still, even to some extent at Sugar Land Bible Church because, like when I\u2019m out with people and we pray before the meal everybody is looking at me like I should be the one to pray for everybody.\u00a0 I mean, aren\u2019t we all priests?\u00a0 I mean, why can\u2019t you pray for the meal. \u00a0I need a little rest anyway every once in a while.\u00a0 Or people call the church and they say I want Andy to pray for this. Well, I don\u2019t mind praying for anything, I love to pray for people but the reality is my prayers don\u2019t have any more authority than your prayers have.\u00a0 I\u2019m a priest, you\u2019re a priest, we have different roles because God has given me the gift of pastor-teacher, I\u2019m a teacher, that may be an office that you don\u2019t have but that doesn\u2019t mean I have some kind of special pipeline to God that you don\u2019t have, right?\n\nBut people have been sold this idea for over a thousand years that the priest is the one that\u2019s the intermediary to God and Luther has figured out here, based on the return to the authority of the Scripture, that all of us are priests.\u00a0 And so what starts to get restored is the priesthood of all believers.\u00a0 So everyone has access to God; everyone can understand the Bible for themselves.\u00a0 And this leads to other dominoes that begin to fall, such as Bible translations.\u00a0 Oh my goodness, if all of us are priests and the Bible is literally true, and God gave us a book to understand\u2026 do we all agree with that, that God gave us a book so we could understand it?\u00a0 I\u00a0 understand that some parts of it are harder than others but generally speaking God didn\u2019t write a book to confuse everybody.\u00a0 So if all of that is true and there\u2019s a priesthood of all believers, my goodness, I think what we need to do is we need to translate the Bible into the language of the common man.\n\nNow we say well so what?\u00a0 That\u2019s no big deal.\u00a0 Well, not in the year 2017 it\u2019s no big deal when you have Bibles in every size or shape or color that you like with all kinds of notes and maps and table of contents, where the Bible is totally accessible, but think if you\u2019re living in a time period where the Bible is not accessible to the people for a thousand years.\u00a0 Think about a time period when the Mass is in Latin and you go to Mass and you can\u2019t understand what they\u2019re saying.\n\nSo the Protestant Reformers are now moving in the direction of Bible translations.\u00a0 And when I was in Germany there\u2019s the desk; I mean, I don\u2019t know if he did every little part of it here but there\u2019s the desk where it\u2019s believed Martin Luther did a lot of his translation work, in Wittenberg, Germany, they took us to the actual house of Martin Luther.\u00a0 And Luther translated the New Testament, which was only available in Latin,\u00a0 (watch this very carefully) NOT from Latin into German, and I was very specific in my questioning of our guide because she started to get annoyed with me because I kept asking so many questions.\u00a0 I said this is very important, when Luther did the translation (she\u2019s looking at me like where\u2019d this guy come from) when Luther did the translation did he translate it from the Latin to the German or did he do it from the Greek to the German.\u00a0 See the difference?\u00a0 Because there was a Latin Vulgate available in the fourth century going back to Jerome.\u00a0 And she was very clear with me that when he did the translation he translated it, not from the Latin to the German which was common language of the people in Luther\u2019s area, but from the Greek to the German.\u00a0 Why I asked.\u00a0 Because he did not trust the Roman Catholic version.\n\nSo here\u2019s this guy who spends 11 months; he obviously was brilliant if you\u2019ve ever studied languages, to be flexible like that, but he went from Greek to German in eleven months, New Testament.\u00a0 Why would a guy waste his time doing that?\u00a0 Because of Revelation 1:6, the priesthood of what?\u00a0 All believers.\u00a0 [Revelation 1:6, \u201cand He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father-- to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.\u201d]\n\nAnd then when he does the Old Testament it didn\u2019t take him 11 months, it took him 11 years.\u00a0 Did you know that?\u00a0 So I raised my hand again and I asked the guy, why did it take him 11 years to do the Old Testament when he did the New Testament in 11 months.\u00a0 And the answer basically that she gave is his life became filled with crises, turmoil, people wanting to kill him, and these kinds of things.\u00a0 And people were looking to him for leadership, and you can imagine the disruption at a personal level that\u2019s going on in his life and so it took him much longer to do the Old Testament from Hebrew into German.\u00a0 But he got the thing done.\u00a0 And the whole emphasis of doing this translation work is this priesthood of all believers.\n\nSo they wanted to translate the Bible into the language of the common man.\u00a0 That is what Tyndale was doing also, translating the Bible into the language of the people that he was ministering to.\u00a0 Now if you want to translate the Bible into the language of the common man what kind of standard to you have to raise?\u00a0 A literacy standard because as I\u2019ve tried to explain throughout the Middle Ages there is a rampant illiteracy so what you start to find in the Protestant Reformers is an emphasis on people becoming literate.\u00a0 Why is that?\u00a0 So they can read the Wall Street Journal and pick the better stocks?\u00a0 See, our whole goal in getting people literate is so that they can get a better job. Right?\u00a0 And achieve the American dream.\u00a0 That\u2019s not at all the thinking of the Protestant Reformers.\u00a0 The whole goal of getting people literate is to get them to a point where they can read the Bible for themselves because of the theological rubric called the priesthood of some believers?\u00a0 NO, priesthood of all believers.\u00a0 So Bible translations logically lead to a need for literacy and that\u2019s why you see statements in the Protestant Reformers about the need for literacy.\n\nThis is one of my favorite Luther quotes.\u00a0 He said, \u201cI am afraid that the schools\u201d well why in the world do we need schools?\u00a0 Because of the priesthood of all believers.\u00a0 They need school to learn to read and they need to learn how to read because they need to learn how to read the Bible on their own because we\u2019re reversing a thousand years of church tradition which basically never taught the priesthood of all believers.\u00a0 \u201cI am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell,\u201d WOW, that\u2019s prophetic, isn\u2019t it?\u00a0 \u201c\u2026 unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth....\u201d\u00a0 Now look at this, \u201cI advise no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not unceasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt.\u201d\n\nSo can you say hello home schooling?\u00a0 Hello Christian schools?\u00a0 I think the Protestant Reformers, if you could resurrect them from the dead would be the most enthusiastic cheerleaders you could get on the whole issue of home schooling and getting children out of environments where the Word of God is not reigning paramount.\u00a0 And I\u2019m surprised that more home schooling advocates don\u2019t use quotes like this.\u00a0 I had to really hunt for this one.\u00a0 This to me is very powerful.\u00a0 Now from Europe, after the Protestant Reformation happened, and I\u2019ll end with this slide here, the subsequent generations came from Europe to where?\u00a0 The United States of America.\u00a0 So this country was founded by the children or the spiritual descendants of the Protestant Reformation.\u00a0 So they came to the United States of America with the same mindset that one of the first things we\u2019ve got to do is we\u2019ve got to get a public school system set up to teach people to read, not to pick the best stocks and retire early but to read so they can have access to the Word of God because of the doctrine called the priesthood of the what?\u00a0 All believers.\n\nSo this is what\u2019s called the Old Satan Deluder Law, 1642, Massachusetts.\u00a0 Now this is not too long, too many generations after the Protestant Reformation, so this is the heritage of the Reformers.\u00a0 This is what the Law said; this is the beginning of public schools in the United States.\u00a0 \u201cIt being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan<\/u>, to keep men from the knowledge of the\u201d Wall Street Journal, it doesn\u2019t say that, \u201cto keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures,\u201d now look at this next statement, \u201cas in former time<\/u>\u2026\u201d\n\nWhat former time could they be talking about:\u00a0 Any guesses?\u00a0 The Dark Ages, that\u2019s the \u201cformer time\u201d they\u2019re talking about. What they\u2019re saying when they set up the school system in America is we don\u2019t want to go back to a thousand years of Dark Ages.\u00a0 We want to keep the priesthood of all believers doctrine.\u00a0 So to do that we have to get people literate to understand the Bible in their own language.\u00a0 So since that\u2019s the motivation, \u201cIt is therefore ordered \u2026\u201d, not suggested, \u201cordered that \u2026 after the Lord hath increased the settlement\u2026they shall\u2026appoint one within their town, to teach all such\u201d who? \u201cchildren to read\u2026they shall set up a\u201d what kind of school? \u201cgrammar school\u201d what is a grammar school?\u00a0 It\u2019s a school that studies the laws of grammar, subject, verb, object, adjective, nominative, accusative, present tense, all that kind of stuff, \u201cgrammar to instruct youths\u2026\u201d\u00a0\u00a0 [Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S<\/em>., 143 U.S. 457, 467 (1892]\n\nWell why did the children of the Protestant Reformers, when they came to America, want to set up a school that taught people the laws of language?\u00a0 So they wouldn\u2019t be deceived by the devil and go back to the sale of indulgences and the manipulation of the masses by the priesthood as had been done in former time.\n\nThat\u2019s the origin of education in the United States.\u00a0 And now, (I\u2019d better be careful, I feel a sermon coming on here) [laughter] and now people are telling me we\u2019ve got to get the Bible and prayer out of the public schools because of the separation of church and state, whatever that means.\u00a0 And if you put your ear to the ground\u00a0 you can hear Martin Luther rolling over in his grave every time people say that.\u00a0 It\u2019s just so ridiculous and we have so lost sight of history that we can\u2019t even see lies when they\u2019re in front of our faces.\u00a0 You\u2019re telling me to get the Bible out of the public schools you never read the Old Satan Deluder Law and the purpose of public education in America?\n\nWell, I was going to open it up for questions but the Spirit took over.\u00a0 I promise, we\u2019ll get to questions next time.\n\nLet\u2019s pray.\u00a0 Father, we\u2019re grateful for the Reformation and the heritage that we have and learning about these truths.\u00a0 Make us good stewards of these things as we do this historical study together.\u00a0 We\u2019ll be careful to give you all the praise and the glory. We ask these things in Jesus name, and God\u2019s people said\u2026. Amen.","series_sermon_number":""},"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t