Evangelio social

Social Gospel Theology
Reformers’ Conclusions About Society
Many Christians who lived in the cities and witnessed the squalor of squalor of the poor were outraged that men could treat one another as those who controlled industry controlled their workers. For those with a liberalist impulse, the desire to bring about God’s Kingdom in the context of temporal human relationships proved an important foundation for a religious social ethic. They began to believe that "industrial capitalism" was inherently unjust, and that its particular institutions and economic situations set individuals up for failure and consequently sinful lifestyles. A man’s own hard work could no longer prosper him in the world of the twentieth century, and the unrestrained capitalism that allowed the privileged to own the labor and production of others seemed to be responsible. Men who owned the means of production did not seem to be constrained by either morality or government regulation to be fair to their employees, so Social Gospellers and Progressivists alike were more inclined to favor bigger government, the rights of labor, and a number of socialist ideas.[1]
The Church’s Responsibility and the Kingdom of God
Liberals saw this need as an excellent niche for their form of Christianity that sought to be more relevant to men and women of the new century. The Church as an transformational institution would stand up for those who had no voice and provide for those who could not do enough to help their own families. Christians in the Social Gospel movement emphasized the immanence of God’s Kingdom on earth and the responsibility of a Christian society to bring it about. Victorian Protestantism and its emphases on individual salvation and holiness were not alleviating industrial conditions, but their vision of government as a brotherhood of service would. Individuals were given the responsibility to transform society, not deny themselves as such or evangelize people only. Community betterment became the focus of liberal evangelicalism as Social Gospellers worked to improve education, health care and sanitation in cities. Christians were called to create an environment conducive to tapping full individual and community potential in a relational context. Herein was a new measure of success: being appreciated by others as making a difference in society. Curtis suggests that this ethic can be seen in Charles Sheldon’s novels In His Steps (1897) and The Reformer (1902), among other writings of the period. . She also argues that the political actions of Christian reformers created the required atmosphere for progressivism, as they charged government with the task of enforcing moral reforms. Voters believed that such "policies…would usher in the kingdom of God."[2]
Uniqueness of the Social Gospel
The reforming impulse is nothing new to Christian denominations, and we find ecumenical benevolent societies with an appreciation of social problems since the early days of the nineteenth century. Ahlstrom points out that while all liberal movements were searching for some form of new relevancy in the midst of increasing change, the Social Gospel alone stood out as a religious movement that single-mindedly emphasized the "problems [of] industrialism and unregulated urban growth." Hutchison considers the movement unique because of the "theoretical" primacy it gave to social salvation over that of the individual.[3] Traditional American Protestant thought held that the salvation of the individual would lead to social improvement, and so social improvement was never considered an end in itself. Certainly a just society would make the Church’s job easier, but it could only be achieved by converting one individual at a time. Further, that was the work that had eternal value. After all, no one expected God to ask men and women how they contributed to their governmental and economic systems as they stood before Him in eternity. The ideas of the Social Gospel were different. Adherents came to believe that many individuals could only leave sinful lifestyles and habits if they were extracted from the social and economic situations that had driven them into sin in the first place. Conversion and life in the Church therefore had to offer something better than sin and addictive habits, as well as alleviate the suffering that drove men to such despair. As a result of this reasoning, individual salvation was important, but considered secondary to social reform, which would convert multitudes into God’s kingdom as the government and economic institutions themselves taught men and women of brotherly love. Salvation of the individual, then, stood as an important byproduct of working for a literal kingdom of God on earth. Working for social improvement, the Kingdom of God on earth, then, was the thrust of the Social Gospel movement.
Kyle Potter, March 2001Back to the Index

Mi favorito reformador John Knox

John Knox (c. 1510 – 24 November 1572) was a Scottish clergyman and leader of the Protestant Reformation who is considered the founder of the Presbyterian denomination. He was educated at the University of St Andrews and worked as a notary-priest. Influenced by early church reformers such as George Wishart, he joined the movement to reform the Scottish church. He was caught up in the ecclesiastical and political events that involved the murder of Cardinal Beaton in 1546 and the intervention of the regent of Scotland, Mary of Guise. He was taken prisoner by French forces the following year and exiled to England on his release in 1549.
While in exile, Knox was licensed to work in the Church of England, where he quickly rose in the ranks to serve the King of England, Edward VI, as a royal chaplain. In this position, he exerted a reforming influence on the text of the Book of Common Prayer. In England he met and married his first wife, Marjorie. When Mary Tudor ascended the throne and re-established Roman Catholicism, Knox was forced to resign his position and leave the country.
Knox first moved to Geneva and then to Frankfurt. In Geneva, he met John Calvin, from whom he gained experience and knowledge of Reformed theology and Presbyterian polity. He created a new order of service, which was eventually adopted by the reformed church in Scotland. He left Geneva to head the English refugee church in Frankfurt but he was forced to leave over differences concerning the liturgy, thus ending his association with the Church of England.
On his return to Scotland, he led the Protestant Reformation in Scotland, in partnership with the Scottish Protestant nobility. The movement may be seen as a revolution, since it led to the ousting of the queen regent, Mary of Guise, who governed the country in the name of her young daughter, Mary, Queen of Scots. Knox helped write the new confession of faith and the ecclesiastical order for the newly created reformed church, the Kirk. He continued to serve as the religious leader of the Protestants throughout Mary's reign. In several interviews with the queen, Knox admonished her for supporting Catholic practices. Eventually, when she was imprisoned and James VI enthroned in her stead, he openly ridiculed her in sermons. He continued to preach until his final days.

Why church planting?

Put another way, it could be said that the church is God’s plan A; there is no plan B. He has always intended to create a people for his own possession (1 Peter 2:9). This has been God’s plan from all eternity, first expressed in the Garden of Eden, through the people of Israel, and into the New Testament church. From the first pages of Scripture, we see that God had in mind more than the mere conversion of individuals. Rather, he intended that those who had been alienated from God and others would now be enfolded into a new community. And in that community, or church, Christ would dwell in fullness and give life to his new creation. Therefore, fulfillment of the Great Commission must reflect God’s emphasis: the establishment of new churches committed to following Christ.

If missions is about the expansion of God’s kingdom, then the priority of missions must be to establish churches where none exist (Romans 15:20). Because it is God’s plan that all peoples will worship him (Revelation 7), the Church must cross cultural barriers to establish communities of believers among every people group.Representing the Presbyterian Church in America, the efforts of Mission to the World to take the gospel, in both word and deed, are focused on the goal of church planting. We look to God for His direction and blessing of our efforts to raise up churches and see His kingdom come on the earth

Mi soreotologia

En la cruz Jesús murió para dar salvación
Nadie lo merecía, pero así el lo decidió
Algunos se pierden otros se salvan
La única pregunta es de quien es la decisión
Esto se a debatido por siglo, pero Jesús lo a claro
Nadie merece ser salvo, pero el lo brindo
Por gracia SOS salvo quien lo decidió?
Esas es la pregunta que por mucho tiempo se debatió

Juan Calvino dice que Jesús nos escogió
Jacobo Arminio dice que el hombre en su libre albedrío decidió
Quien tendrá la razón, quisiera saber yo porque por mucho
Tiempo en la historia esta teología se debatió.
Sea Calvino o Arminio quien tenga la razónMi responsabilidad es predicar el evangelio con todo el Corazón

Calvin's Covenantal theology

Calvin's Covenantal Pronomianism
by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith
Calvin on the Covenant
Calvin's views on the covenant are sometimes distinguished from those of his heirs. It is said that Calvin was not a Calvinist and that his theology is not covenantal. [1] No doubt, Calvin's view of the covenant is less developed than the view of the Westminster theologians, for example, expressed in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. But this does not mean that the covenant was unimportant for Calvin's theology. On the contrary, as Osterhaven explains, the difference between Calvin and the Calvinists has been exaggerated:
Elsewhere, as in the sermons on Deuteronomy, one meets the concept [of the covenant] often, and there are numerous places where the discussion centers around the meaning of the covenant for the people of God today. In the third book of the Institutes, where the author writes about the Christian life, the covenant is only occasionally mentioned, but the relationship which it denotes is always at hand. Such an instance is the discussion on prayer with its emphasis on the divine promises and the fatherhood of God. Thus explicit allusion to the covenant is easy and natural so that the reader is unaware of the introduction of a new concept when that occurs.
It is incorrect to affirm without qualification then that Calvin was not a covenant theologian, or to set him over against later Reformed theologians on the Continent or in New England as though their theologies of the covenant were utterly different. . . . Emerson writes that Calvin was not a 'covenant theologian,' as that term is usually understood, 'but [that] many of the implications of covenant theology -- that man can know beforehand the terms of salvation, that conversion is a process in which man's faculties are gradually transformed -- all these are present in Calvin's teaching.' . . . He concludes that there is a 'near-identity of the approach of Calvin and that of the covenant theologians. . . . Calvin was not so different from the covenant theologians as has been argued.' [2]
In particular the concept of the covenant provides Calvin with his doctrine of the unity of the Scripture, [3] and was a foundational emphasis in his theology [4] affecting systematic as well as practical issues. Calvin pointed out that differences between the Old and New Testaments "do not erase the fundamental unity of the Scripture, and he supported this with his doctrine of the covenant. He argued that the covenant with the patriarchs 'is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in mode of dispensation.'" [5] This means that the covenant God made with Israel is basically the same as the new covenant. In Calvin's words:
Now as to the new covenant, it is not so called, because it is contrary to the first covenant; for God is never inconsistent with himself, nor is he unlike himself. He then who once made a covenant with his chosen people, had not changed his purpose, as though he had forgotten his faithfulness. It then follows, that the first covenant was inviolable; besides, he had already made his covenant with Abraham, and the Law was a confirmation of that covenant. As then the Law depended on that covenant which God made with his servant Abraham, it follows that God could never have made a new, that is, a contrary or a different covenant. For whence do we derive our hope of salvation, except from that blessed seed promised to Abraham? Further, why are we called the children of Abraham, except on account of the common bond of faith? Why are the faithful said to be gathered into the bosom of Abraham? Why does Christ say, that some will come from the east and the west, and sit down in the kingdom of heaven with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? (Luke 16:22; Matt. 7:11) These things no doubt sufficiently shew that God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. . . . Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. [6]
What this means for Calvin's view of the religion of the Old Testament is well expressed by Balke:
According to Calvin, the Old Testament did not proclaim a religion that was a step lower than that of the New Testament. It proclaimed Christ from beginning to end. . . . Calvin tied this pneumatic-Christocentric unity to the law. The prophets and the apostles were interpreters of the law: 'We are following Christ, [the law's] best interpreter.' Moreover, this is not legalism, because 'Indeed, every doctrine of the law, every command, every promise, always points to Christ.' Calvin insisted that there was no conflict between law and gospel. Both have the same teaching, which is centered in Christ. In this doctrina Christi Old and New Testaments form one unit. . . . [T]he covenant is the same in both Testaments. It is possible to speak of a New Testament and a new covenant, but it must always be remembered that Christ renewed and confirmed the very same covenant that was broken by Israel. He extended it to all nations -- but Christ did not make a new covenant. [7]
In short, Calvin taught one covenant, one covenantal religion of the people of God, one unified covenantal Holy Scripture. Thus, no consideration of Calvin's view of the law of Moses is adequate which ignores his understanding of that covenantal unity of Scripture. As Osterhaven explains, "[T]he entire Old Testament was meaningful to Calvin in an unusual manner. Since Christ was the foundation of the covenant and both Testaments found their meaning in Him, that which was said by God to Israel was said to Calvin and us as well. The law was written to us, he is fond of saying in his explication of the Old Testament in commentaries and sermons." [8]
In his first sermon on Deuteronomy Calvin emphasized that very point:
True it is that the things which are contained here were spoken to the people of Israel, and might have profited them in their time; but yet do they also belong unto us at this day, and they be as a common treasure whereof God will have us to be partakers. For as we shall see hereafter, the Law was not only given as a rule whereby to live well; but also grounded upon the covenant which God had made with Abraham and his offspring. And by virtue of that covenant, we are become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, as sheweth Saint Paul. To seek our salvation, we must resort to the promise that was made to our father Abraham; and to be of the household of God's Church and members of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must be of Abraham's spiritual lineage. Hereby then we see, that this doctrine not only served till the coming of the Son of God; but also serveth still to our behoof, and shall do still to the world's end. For it is a building that is founded upon the everlasting covenant, from whence as from the true fountain thereof, our salvation springeth as I said before.
Wherefore let us mark, that whensoever God shall henceforth speak to the Jews, the same is spoken also unto us; and we must receive it in such wise, as we must understand that God hath shed forth his grace through the whole world by the coming of His only Son, and builded up the heavenly Jerusalem, to the end that we should all be linked together in one holy brotherhood, to call upon Him as our Father all with one mouth. Since it is so then, let us understand that it is good reason that we should give over our selves unto him, and that He should hold us in awe, and enjoy us, and that like as he hath vouchsafed to give himself unto us, so we on our side should be wholly His, to yield him the duty which children owe to their father; and that when we be negligent and slow therein, we should at least wise be moved with the exhortations that are contained in this book; and that seeing God calleth upon us so earnestly, we should not stop our ears against Him but every man awake, and one of us rebuke another. Yea and that if we were wise, we should not tarry til God quickened us up so sharply, but rather prevent Him, howbeit that we ought to be moved to be ashamed of our lewdness and to return again unto God, at leastwise when He falleth to correcting of us by thundering out His threatenings against us, and by upbraiding of us with our sins. Thus ye see what we have to mark in general upon this book. [9]
Viewing the law as a continuation of the covenant with Abraham meant viewing it as part of God's grace to His people: "All this is true also of the Mosaic law itself. The latter belongs integrally to the covenant which God concluded with His servant Abraham. . . . Moses is not the founder of a so-called religion of law but the prophet of the covenant God, witnessing to God's mercy and loyalty." [10]
Calvin's understanding of God's covenant grace and blessing upon His people is also essential to his view of history. In the Institutes Calvin, responding to Anabaptists who viewed the religion of the Old Testament as unspiritual, stressed the fact that the patriarchs suffered many trials for their faith. [11] They did not merely live for the blessings of this life. When Calvin teaches the book of Deuteronomy to his congregation, however, he repeatedly draws attention to the fact that obedience to God's covenant brings the blessings of this life on both the individual and the whole church of God. [12] Calvin exhorts his congregation without ceasing, "Wherefore let us show this zeal, if we will have our Lord to bless and prosper us." [13] His sermons on Deuteronomy 27 and 28 make it abundantly clear that he understood God's sovereign rule over the nations in history as covenantal rule. The sanctions of the covenant are Calvin's basis for understanding the historical process. [14]
Finally, although Calvin himself never makes a systematic statement of the eschatological implications of his view of the covenant, it has been pointed out that, "Calvin seems to enjoy reflecting on the divine intention to make Abraham and his posterity a blessing to all the families of the earth so that there would be a spread of the gospel everywhere, for he alludes to it often." [15] Nowhere does Calvin refer to God's blessing upon the whole world more than in his prayers. In more than half of Calvin's 200 sermons on Deuteronomy, the prayer ends with the formula, "That it may please him to grant this grace, not only unto us, but also to all people and nations of the earth." [16] When we remember the place that Calvin assigned to prayer in the Christian life and the fact that his view of prayer was decidedly covenantal, we cannot regard Calvin's prayers as insignificant for understanding his outlooks on history and theology:
. . . O grant, that we, being mindful of these benefits, may ever submit ourselves to thee, and desire only to raise our voice for this end, that the whole world may submit itself to thee, and that those who seem now to rage against thee may at length be brought, as well as we, to render thee, obedience, so that thy Son Christ may be the Lord of all, to the end that thou alone mayest be exalted, and that we may be made subject to thee, and be at length raised up above, and become partakers of that glory which has been obtained for us by Christ our Lord. [17]
"And should the number of those who are professed members of thy Church diminish, yet may some seed always remain, until abundant produce shall flow forth from it, and such fruitfulness arise as shall cause thy name to be glorified throughout the whole world, in Jesus Christ our Lord. [18]
In summary, Calvin's view of the covenant argues for the continuing validity of the law of Moses, for in essence the new covenant does not differ from the Mosaic. Furthermore, God is controlling history today just as He did in the days of Moses -- through His covenant. When His people obey the covenant from their hearts, they are blessed and they prosper, both in this world and in the next. When they break His law, He disciplines them to bring them back to the way of obedience. In the end God will bring about the salvation of the world according to the covenant grace He promised to Abraham: "In thee shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." This view of the covenant is the basis for the Reformed approach to theology seen clearly, for example, in the the doctrine of baptism. In fact it affects virtually every area of doctrine. Calvin's worldview is a covenantal worldview that calls for the application of all of God's Word to all of life.
Notes:
[1] See the discussion in: Paul Helm, Calvin and the Calvinists (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), esp. pp. 5ff.
[2] M. Eugene Osterhaven, "Calvin on the Covenant," in Donald K. McKim (ed.), Readings in Calvin's Theology (Grand Rapids, Baker: 1984), pp. 90-91.
[3] "Calvin based the unity of Scripture on the doctrine of the covenant." William Balke, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), p. 315.
[4] "The unity of the covenant that God established with mankind in Abraham and confirmed in Christ is a major emphasis in Calvin's teaching." Osterhaven, "Calvin on the Covenant," p. 98.
[5] William Balke, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), p. 310.
[6] Calvin is commenting on Jeremiah 31:31-32, Commentary on Jeremiah, vol. 4, pp. 126-27.
[7] William Balke, Calvin and the Anabaptist Radicals (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), 310-311.
[8] Osterhaven, "Calvin on the Covenant," p. 103.
[9] SD, p. 4, italics added. See also pp. 133, 180-81, 797, etc.; Calvin expresses this view in too many places to refer to them all: "Moreover it is true, that in substance God maketh no other covenant with us nowadays, than He made in old time with the Jews: but yet He speaketh much more familiarly unto us; He sheweth Himself to be our God and our Father, and hath made us a far greater assurance thereof in our Lord Jesus Christ, than the Jews could have under the shadows and figures of the law. Indeed the ancient fathers were saved by no other means than by that which we have, to wit, that they were the people of God; for this betokeneth as much as that God held them for His children: and they had their salvation grounded in Christ Jesus, as we have: but that was after an obscure manner, so as they beheld the thing afar off which was presented unto them. As for us, seeing God is come so near unto us in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, that we be united unto Him and have the truth and substance of the ancient figures: we be so much more the sure that God maketh us to say that we are His people, and that we make Him to say that He is our God. And how doth He make us to say it? Truly altogether of His own good will, without being tied or bound unto us. For God having adopted us for His children, certifieth us that the inheritance of heaven is made ready for us, and behold He giveth His own Son unto us for a pledge of His love, and whatever our Lord Jesus Christ hath is all ours, with all the fulness of riches which we read was given unto Him."
[10] Niesel, The Theology of Calvin, p. 94.
[11] Cf. Institutes, II: VIII, IX, X. See Gary North, Westminster(IU(Js Confession, pp. 62-64.
[12] Gary North deals with this subject at length in the "Publisher(IU(Js Preface" to John Calvin, The Covenant Enforced: Sermons on Deuteronomy 27 and 28 (Tyler, Tex.: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), pp. ix-xxv. He also discusses Calvin's view of covenantal sanctions in Westminster's Confession, pp. 62-70.
[13] SD, p. 760.
[14] In contrast with many modern Calvinists! See, Calvin, The Covenant Enforced.
[15] Osterhaven, "Calvin on the Covenant," p. 97.

Jesus Say it!!

I was dead without opportunity to choose.
My destiny was declared by my dead condition.
What an impossible problem to resolve!
My life was destined for hell.
My motives were wrong, and I was blind and deaf.
How I remember, I was totally dead!

Christ loves me without measure.
How He provides me with life.
His Holy Spirit Illuminates me and gives me a new life.
Nothing could resurrect me, but the Holy Spirit did.
I did not deserve it but the Holy Spirit declares it!

Jesus on the cross suffered for me, I did not deserve it!
What could he have seen in me to save me? Nothing! But he decided it!
What a savior we have who died for us, and we do not love him.
Romans 5:12 declares that He loved us while we were still in sin
I wish to obey, but can I? What a terrible condition controls my life.

That is your condition, remember it!
Just Jesus is your hope let me declare it!
By grace He wants to save you do not forget it!
What are you going to do? It is very important remember it!

Do not give up preach it!
The Gospel THAT Jesus and the Apostles teach it!
That Jesus died and resurrected it!
He is alive just believe it!

Guillermo Martinez