Okay. Bien, hermanos, vamos a seguir con nuestro estudio de la confesión de fe. Estamos todavía en el primer capítulo de las sagradas escrituras. Bien, vamos a avanzar un poco más. Vamos a hablar rápidamente de los libros apócrifos, dice la confesión de fe. Los libros comúnmente llamados apócrifos, no siendo de inspiración divina, They are not part of the canon or rule of the scriptures, and therefore they have no authority for the church of God, nor should they be accepted or used, except in the same way as other human writings." Okay. So, basically, the idea here is to tell us, or is affirming, that the apocryphal books have no divine authority. They are not authoritative. We have said that the sacred scriptures are our final rule, they are the final authority for us. They are authoritative because they are the word of God. But in the case of the so-called apocryphal books, it is not like that. Why? Well, for the simple reason that these are not of divine inspiration. It's that simple. These books are not of divine inspiration. Therefore, they cannot be taken as words of God, and therefore, they do not represent any authority in that sense for us. In some Bibles, we find a section of 14 books called Apocrypha, a group of spurious books that were rejected from our present canon because they did not pass the required tests for the inspired books. And here I will quickly mention what were those rules that were taken into account so as not to include them in the canon of the Holy Scriptures, in what we have as the Bible. Look, they were not written or approved by a prophet, first of all. These apocryphal books were not written or approved by any of the prophets. Secondly, they were not recognized by the Jews as inspired writing. That is, When we talk about the Old Testament, it is easy to ignore the canon of the scriptures. Why? Because the Jews, remember, they were very rigorous in that sense in terms of the preservation of the scriptures. So, if the Jews did not recognize these books as inspired by God, the question is why we would have to consider them that way, right? So, that is the second instance. The Jews did not recognize it as inspired writing. Thirdly, they were not recognized or cited by Christ or the apostles. You will not see Christ quoting, as the Book of Wisdom says, or the Maccabees, or whatever, right? They were not quoted. Fourth, the last prophets of the Old Testament predicted that the next messenger that would come to Israel from God would be a predecessor of Christ. This is in Malachi 3.1. the last of the prophets of the Old Testament, right? So, and he is anticipating what was the next voice, the next messenger that God would send. And he says that he is the one who is going to show the way of the Lord. So, this is important. Why? Because most of the apocryphal books were written during the period between Malachi and Christ, in that intertestamentary period. That is, If those books were written during that period, those 400 years of silence, they simply do not fit or do not agree with what the prophets said. They do not agree with what the prophets said that the next messenger that God would send to Israel would be who? The predecessor of Christ. We already know who he is talking about, right? John the Baptist. In the following place, in the following instance, these authors do not claim any divine authority. This is also important. And I don't know if they don't do it. I mean, the writers of these books are not calling attention to us recognizing them as inspiration from God. I don't understand where the people or the men who included them in their Bibles come from to recognize them with that divine authority. They don't claim any authority. And it's even denied by some. For example, in the second book of Maccabees, chapter 2, verse 23, and in chapter 15, verse 38, the author apologizes. por si hay algún error en lo que él escribió. ¿Sí? Entonces, ¿qué es lo que queremos, o qué es lo que quiero decir? Los autores de estos libros, ellos no pretendieron ser reconocidos como autoridad, con autoridad de las escrituras. Ellos no pretendieron eso. Fueron los hombres los que después quisieron hacerlo. Pero ellos mismos reconocen que sus escritos pudieron haber tenido errores, como cualquier otro libro. Así de sencillo. Next, the books contain sentences that are in disagreement with biblical history. That is, if you read any of these books, you will realize that they do not agree with the sentences that biblical history presents. They, in the following place, are contradictory, and in some cases they oppose the very doctrines of the scriptures. For example, in some of those books, something is said about the intermediate state of a person, that is, in which that person can be freed from the seon, their soul can be freed from the seon, what the Church of Rome calls the purgatory. So in those books you can see certain types of doctrines that are contradictory to the scriptures. Also the case of the people who speak to the dead and all this kind of thing. There in those books are those things. So we know that those are heresies, doctrines that go against what we already know in the scriptures. In the following place, Josephus, a Jewish historian, who lived close to the time of the apostles, does not consider the Apocrypha as part of Scripture. He also rejects them, as we said, if the Jews did not recognize these as part of the canon, There is no reason for us today to include them, right? The Apocryphal Books were not part of the oldest versions of the Scriptures. They were added after 300, after Christ. Yes? No, no, they didn't come. That is, when Christ and the apostles taught the Scriptures, remember they had the version of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Well, in the Septuagint there were none of these books. That is also important. Those were added later. The Council of the Odyssey in 363 AD rejected them for not being inspired, but the version of the Vatican in the 4th century included them. There it is, the version of the Vatican that was already the version, let's say, that they took out, that the Church of Rome began to take out. So she was the one who included these books. In the Council of Trent in 1546, the Catholics increased six of those books as inspired and added them to their modern versions of Scripture. Those books are Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Tobit, Judea, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch. Those were the ones that included the Church of Rome. Philo and other writers do not consider apocryphal books to be inspired. So I think there are enough arguments for us to definitely know and be convinced that the apocryphal books were not inspired by God and therefore should not be part of the canon of the scriptures, right? Okay. I don't know if you have any questions or comments you want to make before we continue. Yes, brother. The canon absolutely never included the apocryphals. No, no. The official canon never included them. Those were included later. Later, ok. Yes, because there is always that controversy. Catholicism says that if they come from the beginning, just from Martin Luther to here, they were removed. That story is told to you in that way. It's correct. I just wanted to confirm that the canon did not include them. Yes, no, we already said it. Yes. Well, brothers. Let's continue. Let's talk about the authority of the Holy Scriptures. This is a very important topic. The authority of the Holy Scriptures. Our Confession says, The authority of the Holy Scriptures, by which it should be believed, does not depend on the testimony of any man or church. This is important. but entirely from God, who is the truth itself, the author of it. Therefore, it must be received because it is the word of God." Okay. First of all, it says that the testimony, or rather, that the authority of the Holy Scriptures, for which it must be believed, does not depend on any man or church, not even a council. No, it doesn't depend. And as I say, this is important. Why? Because, again, following the example of Rome, they are the ones who practically decide what the Church should believe in the Scriptures, and what not. To the point that, as I said a moment ago, they already have as a doctrine, for example, the teaching of purgatory. That is a doctrine for them. They don't have a problem with that. The worship of images is a doctrine. They don't have a problem with that. And so on with other things. But again, as I say, the authority of Scripture is by which it must be that it does not depend on any man or church, but as it says here, entirely from God, who is the truth itself. Christ said, I am the way, and I am what? The truth. Paul recognizes in Romans 3, be God, you will see, and all men? Liar. Okay, so the authority of the sacred scriptures by which it must be created depends solely on God, who is the truth, the author of it, and therefore it must be received because it is the word of God. Quickly, two texts that I want to bring. The first is in Luke chapter 16, and it draws attention to the context in which these words are said. Luke 16 and verses 27 to 31. You remember the story of El Rico and Lázaro, right? So, you know, El Rico went to the place of the storm, Lázaro went to Abraham's bosom. And then, there, in this conversation that El Rico was having with Abraham, do you remember? In verse 27, he realized that Abraham couldn't do anything to change the situation he was in. In verse 26, he says, in addition to all this, there is a great summit or an abyss between us, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot go from there to here. That is impossible, in other words. So he said, I beg you, Father, to send him to the house of my father. That is, to send him to whom? To Lazarus, right? To send him to the house of my parents, of my father. Because I have five brothers to testify to them, so that they do not also come to this place of torment. Maybe their intentions seemed very noble, but it's too late, don't you think? Verse 29. And Abraham said to him, listen, Moses and the prophets have. Listen to them. And verse 30, then he said, No, Father Abraham, but if any of them were among the dead, they would repent. I mean, it was going to be a whole show, right? Imagine that we bring someone here who was dead for three days and, well, that's not going to happen, definitely. But this man believed that if someone got up from the dead and preached to them, they would convert. But Abraham said to him, Listen, if you do not hear Moses and the prophets, you will not be persuaded, even if some of you rise up from the dead, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. He rose again, and they did not believe him, nor his apostles, who were visible witnesses of the risen Christ. Well, but what does this text tell us? Well, it's what we're saying here. The authority of the sacred scriptures by which it must be raised does not depend on the testimony of any man, not even that it has risen from among the dead. The authority of the scriptures does not depend on that, but entirely on God, who is the truth. As Abraham said to the rich, If you do not hear Moses and the prophets, you will not be persuaded, even if one of you rises from the dead. The sacred scriptures, the word of God is enough. And we don't need the testimony of men to know what the word of God is. But another text, this is in the epistles, in Galatians chapter 1, verses 8 and 9. Galatians 1. It says, But if we still Paul says it in verse 6, I am amazed how soon you have strayed from the one who called you by the grace of Christ to follow a different gospel. Now, it is not that there is another, as it says there, but that there are some who disturb you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. Yes, there is a problem. The Scriptures should not be believed by the testimony of men, verse 8. But if we still, that is, notice what Paul is saying, even though they are apostles of Jesus Christ, with all the authority of God, definitely, of Christ, but if we still, or an angel from heaven, In Luke it says, even if a dead man rise up. Here it says, if even we, some of the apostles, or an angel from heaven, announce to you another different gospel from which we have announced to you, be it anathema. Verse 9, as we have said before, I also repeat it now, if some ask for a different gospel from which you have received, be it anathema. Damn it. Why? Oh, because again, the reason and the authority for which the word of God must be believed does not depend on the testimony of any man. Let's go back to that verse in Romans 3. is the testimony that God himself has left in writing through his word. And it is for this reason that the scriptures must be created. Again, some accuse us of, well, obviously, We are going to say liberals and people, according to studies, who want to accuse the scriptures of simply being a compilation of books, like any other. No, no, no. This is not a library of books like the one you can find in any other library. No. This is something extremely different and special. It is the word of God. is the revelation that God has given of himself. Of course, in a language of men, so that we can know it and understand it in part. But it is not the word of men, like any other book. It is the word of God. And for that reason, as it says here, it must be received and believed. Now, Let's talk about the authentication of that authority. This is related to the topic, of course. The external testimony. Now, the fact that the authority of the Scriptures does not depend on the testimony of men or churches or councils, It does not mean that the testimony of the Church or the testimony of believers is not important. It is also important. The testimony of the Church of God can move us and induce us to have a high reverent esteem for the sacred scriptures. Now, that does not mean that someone is a believer or is going to convert, but it does lead us to have, as I said, a high and reverent esteem for the scriptures. As happened to Timothy, Paul recognizes it in 2 Timothy 3.14. And we know from whom, verse 14, 2 Timothy 3, verse 14. But you persist in what you have learned, and you have persuaded yourself, knowing from whom you have learned. ¿A quién se está refiriendo Pablo cuando dice estas palabras a Timoteo? Bueno, nosotros sabemos por otra escritura que se está refiriendo a su mamá y a su abuela, ¿no es cierto? Ellas le enseñaron las escrituras a Timoteo desde pequeño, dice el versículo 15, y que desde la niñez ha sabido las sagradas escrituras. ¿Quién le enseñó a Timoteo las sagradas escrituras desde su niñez? Su mamá y su abuela. Now, question. Was it for that reason that Timothy became a believer? No. Not exactly, and now we will see why. But, I ask another question. Was the testimony and teaching or instruction of his mother and grandmother important? Yes, it was important. Yes, it was important, and as I say here, it led him to have a stigma for the Scriptures. We know testimonies of people, now I'm not going to say names, but we know, for example, of the case of the son of a pastor who is not a believer. And yet, this son respects him and respects the Scriptures. Now, he is not a believer. You understand the point, right? The testimony of a man does not make him a person. But, at least, it can lead to people respecting the authority of the Scriptures. That is basically what we are saying. Now, if it is not the external testimony of people, what is needed for someone to create, then it is the testimony of what? Or of whom? And this brings us to our next slide. The internal testimony. The celestial character of the content, listen, the celestial character, that is, again, this is not a man's word, the character of the content is something extremely special, it is not of our terrestrial sphere, it is much higher, it is celestial. The celestial character of the content, the efficacy of the doctrine, no estamos hablando de fantasías no estamos hablando de verdades absolutas la eficacia de la doctrina la majestad del estilo no con cuanta belleza y hermosura el señor He tells us the same thing over and over again. We see it in the Law, we see it in the Prophets, in the Poetry, in the Gospels, in the Epistles, in short. The harmony of all parts, that is, they do not contradict each other. The Psalms do not contradict the Prophets. Nor do the letters contradict the Gospels, right? On the contrary, they are confirmed. He continues to say here, the harmony of all parts, the purpose that is to be achieved in all its entirety, which is to give all the glory to God. Regardless of which part of the Scripture you are reading or studying, this must lead you to give glory to God, right? The complete revelation that gives the only way of salvation for man and many other incomparable excellences and the totality of their perfections are arguments by which they give abundant evidence of being the Word of God." So, when someone comes to me and says, I can't believe that this is the Word of God, I completely reject it. I reject it. You cannot come to me and say that this is not the word of God. If you have read the Bible, you can realize that these are simply the words of men. And as we have just read, there are many reasons to argue or to say that this book is the word of God. Look at how the prophet Jeremiah says, from the Old Testament, pay attention, chapter 23 of Jeremiah and verses 28 and 29. The prophet who had a dream told the dream. And to him who is my word, tell him my true word. Question. What does the straw have to do with the wheat, says Jehovah? That is, if you take the holy scriptures and you take any other book, Otra mano, usted puede darse cuenta que no son dignos de ser comparados en otras palabras. Right? As it says here, what does the straw have to do with the wheat? Verse 30. Verse 29. It is not my word as fire, says Jehovah, and as a hammer that breaks the stone. Oh, my dear brothers and sisters, there is no other book that speaks to our souls like the word of God. No lo hay. Usted puede leer libros muy buenos. Con esto no estoy diciendo que no lean a otros autores, ¿verdad? También nos ayudan. Pero no hay otro libro como Las Santas Escrituras. Es único. Es único. And quickly, 1 Peter 1, verses 23 to 25. Look at what the apostle says there. Being reborn, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, how? Por la palabra de Dios que vive y permanece para siempre. It's interesting when you read the history of the Church, of the dogma, you find many times how with so much frequency and so much intensity they wanted to destroy the Bible, right? One can watch documentaries, movies, etc. About how there were serious intentions to end this book. Yes. But, my brothers, there is a promise from the Lord. Look at what it says. This word of God that lives and remains forever, because all flesh is like grass, and all the glory of man is like the flower of the grass. La hierba se seca, y la flor se cae, mas la palabra del Señor permanece para siempre. Just as an illustration, I remember, of the Frenchman Voltaire. He cursed the believers and the Word of God, and had serious intentions of destroying this book. And 100 years later, the house of Voltaire became a print, or editorial, of the Bible. And that's where what Peter says is fulfilled here, isn't it? Look at how he says it. All flesh is like grass, and all man's glory is like the flower of the grass. La hierba se seca y la flor se cae. ¿Qué pasó con este hombre? Él murió. Y todos sus planes de acabar y de destruir, ahí en eso quedó. Más nada. but the word of the Lord remains forever. Well, my brothers, again, only the same scriptures, or rather, the scriptures, as Luther said, do not need to be defended. They defend themselves. And why do they defend themselves? Or what is the power to defend themselves? because they are the word of God. And the word of God never, says Christ, heaven and earth will pass, but my words will never, never pass. But, he said, they remain forever. So they are going to defend themselves because they are the inspired word of God. And as I say, no other book in history has suffered the attack that the scriptures have suffered. With all of that, many books come and go, they stop being read, but this one has remained forever. And to this day, and thank God, it is with us. Now, the effectiveness of its authentication. This is very important, the effectiveness of its authentication. That is to say, we already know that the Scriptures alone defend themselves, right? The testimony of them per se, or of themselves, is sufficient. However, as the Confession says, our full persuasion and certainty of their infallible truth and their divine authority They come from the inner work of the Holy Spirit, who gives testimony in our hearts through the Word of God and with it. Just as there are many men who have wanted to destroy the Bible, there are many other men who have respected it and admired it, or have had a high esteem, as we said a moment ago. There are many people who respect it, who like to read it, because they know that here they find wisdom. And it definitely is. However, as it says here, our full persuasion and certainty of His infallible truth and His divine authority come from the inner work of the Holy Spirit. If a person could read the Bible, no matter how many times, and he would not convert, no va a cumplir ese propósito de salvación a menos que el Espíritu Santo haga esa obra interna. Eso es muy importante, muy importante. Miren conmigo. 1 Corinthians 2 verses 4 and 5. 1 Corinthians 2 verses 4 and 5. And neither my word nor my preaching was with persuasive words of human wisdom. It was not the testimony of men, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith is not founded on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. ¿Cuál es el poder de Dios en las santas escrituras que convence y convierte el alma? El Espíritu Santo de Dios. El Espíritu Santo de Dios, como dice ahí, sino con demostración del Espíritu y de poder. Ahora, Juan nos dice lo mismo en su primera epístola, capítulo 2, versículos 20 y 21. But you have the unción del santo. Now, when Juan speaks here of the unción del santo, or rather, who is he referring to? When, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, there is talk of unción, normally it refers to whom? Al Espiritu Santo de Dios, ¿no es verdad? Al Espiritu Santo de Dios en el Antiguo Testamento muchos fueron ungidos y el Espiritu Santo vino sobre ellos, ¿no? Como cuando David fue ungido, por ejemplo, como rey. En el Nuevo Testamento, ¿quién vino sobre Cristo y lo ungió? El Espiritu Santo, en fin. It says here, Juan, but you have to... Now, here he is not giving place to another interpretation, because the article is defined, that is, it is specific. It says, but you have the unction of whom? Of the saint. As I say, there is no place for other interpretations, right? He is referring to whom? to the Holy Spirit of God. But look how it says, you have the anointing of the Holy Spirit and you know all things. I have not written to you as if you were ignoring the truth, but because you know it and because no lie comes from the truth. Verse 27, but the anointing, again referring to the anointing that we read in verse 21, in verse 20, but the anointing that you received from Him remains in you. Here there is more evidence that it is the Holy Spirit. Why? ¿Cuál fue el sello que Dios en Cristo ha puesto en cada creyente? El Espiritu Santo, como dice Pablo en Efesios 1, que son las arras o la garantía de nuestra herencia hasta la posesión adquirida. Así que aquí Juan está diciendo exactamente lo mismo. Pero la unción que vosotros recibisteis de el, de Cristo, que es el Espíritu, permanece en vosotros. Y miren lo que sigue. Y no tenéis necesidad de que nadie os enseñe. Question, does this mean that we don't need pastors, teachers? No, of course not, that's not what it says. But it is referring, as we are saying here, to the effectiveness of its authentication. That is to say, It says here, you have no need for anyone to teach you. Just as the anointing itself teaches you all things, and is true and is not a lie, according to it has taught us to remain in it. That is, the believer now has the Holy Spirit of God to teach him, to instruct him, to guide him. We read in 2 Timothy 3.16 that all Scripture is inspired by God and useful to teach, to correct, to debunk, to instruct in justice. That is true. Question, how does Scripture do that task or that work? pues por la obra del Espíritu Santo. El mismo Espíritu Santo que inspiró este libro, es el mismo Espíritu Santo que hace la obra interna, o que trae el testimonio interno en nuestros corazones para convencernos de pecado, de justicia, de juicio, y para convertirnos a Jesucristo. Well, my brothers and sisters, regarding the authority of the Scriptures, we said that the authority of the Holy Scriptures, the reason why it should be believed, does not depend on the testimony of any church or men, but on God himself, who is the truth. We also said, or clarified, that this does not mean that the testimony of a believer or of the Church is not important. It is also important that people have in high esteem the word of God. But we also said that, in reality, the internal testimony of the Scriptures, that is, their content, we already said, the harmony they have in all their parts, the effectiveness of their doctrine, among other things, are enough to show us that this is the Word of God and not just any book. And finally, we said that although a person has all the knowledge of the scriptures, or the information to be more exact, he needs the testimony of the Holy Spirit to be convinced by the sacred scriptures as the word of God. If your saint does that work, then a person is not 100% convinced that this is the word of God. By the way, neo-orthodox, liberal currents teach that the Bible contains the word of God. I ask you, is that statement correct? Why not? That's what I wanted to hear. The Bible does not contain... There are many books that contain the word of God. You, for example, take a book by Martin Lloyd-Jones, by Luther, by MacArthur, anyway. It contains the word of God because they quote the word of God. That's one thing. But another, very different, is to say that this is the word of God. Viva y eficaz, como dice también en Hebreos 4. Viva y eficaz, y más cortante que toda espada de dos filos, que penetra hasta partir el alma, y que conoce y disierne las intenciones y los pensamientos del corazón. ¿Qué otro libro tiene esa autoridad? O esa virtud, vamos a decir. No hay otro libro, ¿no es cierto? Bien, hermanos. Until here, we are going to leave if you have any questions or comments that you want to make. It caught my attention, I'm going to make a comment about this very important topic, that no matter how much we see it, it does not stop us from admiring and appreciating your teachings. is the fact that the same world, through history, has always had some ethical norm, they call it constitution, that governs each country, and the countries are based on that constitution and appreciate that book a lot. Now, We see that a whole matter, a whole institution of lawyers, is dedicated to studying that constitution. And based on that constitution, they determine whether to win or lose a trial. Based on that constitution. They asked that question to the dean or the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary, Albert Mueller. So Moeller says, but why a man so intelligent, so powerful, and from such a prestigious university, everything has to be summed up with the Bible? I mean, every starting point has to be with the Bible. He says, and why don't all the countries in the world do that? ¿Cómo le ha ido a Inglaterra? Porque tiene un parlamento y una monarquía y no tiene una constitución. Cada rato tiene que hacer reformas y acudir a la Carta Magna, acudir a diferentes, inclusive al Westminster Seminar, a la constitución del seminario, al este, ¿cómo le llaman? a la confesión del Westminster. Tienen que acudir a eso porque no saben de dónde agarrarse. Cada rato están emproblemados por su arrogancia de que desde históricamente quisieron pasar por encima de la ley. Claro, lo hicieron correctamente cuando se pusieron a Roma, ¿verdad? Pero de alguna manera es un problema. Entonces, la fiscalía hace que esa constitución tenga because one thing that is written in the constitution and that no one respects, but the prosecution is in charge of killing you, that you spend 20 years in jail or your life in prison, or that they release you. In the same way, the Holy Spirit does the work of the prosecution. That verifies that the power of the word of God, the Holy Spirit, the word of God that has El poder de dar vida o dar muerte, de liberar o condenar o excusar a las personas. Entonces eso, o sea, el mismo mundo nos pone un ejemplo claro de que deberíamos de tener un... a book of moral ethics, a book of a constitution, a book where we have to go, and that is why they have wanted to undo the world, but the same constitutions are based on the scriptures, including mainly that of this country, and most of the constitutions of the world have been based on this one, to make their own, with some changes. So it's something important for us to see that the same world recognizes the power, even if they don't want to accept it, of this book, which has inspired all the constitutions. Yes, correct. And when they wanted to move away from this norm? they are also destined for failure. And history shows us, it confirms it, how countries that in the beginning were Christian, today are completely liberal countries, especially in Europe. And it is already a completely open immorality. They are countries that in reality, as I say, They have already lost their focus and are completely in that sense rejected, forgotten by the Lord. Yes. The lords of textual criticism? Yes. They attack the scriptures and they attack the inspiration. al atacar la inspiración están atacando la autoridad de las escrituras entonces ellos dicen que lo que acaba de decir que las escrituras contienen la palabra de dios nosotros decimos que las escrituras son la palabra de dios ahora una pregunta que que se les que se les podría presentar a ellos es decirles si las escrituras contain the word of God. So, which are the parts that are the word of God, and which are the parts that are not the word of God? That would be the first question. And the second question is, who is going to determine those parts? And to that question, there are no answers. No. That's right. A quick question. If the Holy Scriptures have the external and internal testimony of their authority, as we saw, why is the Holy Spirit important in our hearts? Correct. But the question would be, why do we need the Holy Spirit? Are we not able to understand the Word of God? Of course not, right? The answer is sin. Sin has led man to a state of spiritual blindness, to the point that he cannot see, understand, and much less believe in the Bible. That is why Paul says that the natural mind cannot understand the things of the spirit, because for him they are madness. And I can't understand them because they have to be discerned. How? Spiritually. And to discern something spiritually, what is needed? Well, the Spirit of God. You see, that is the reason why we need the Holy Spirit to understand and receive the Word as the Word of God. Because this is something uniquely spiritual. And man, in his natural state, will never be able to understand or accept that the Bible is the Word of God. As Ricardo was saying at that moment, some say, no, no, but don't come with the Bible. When I was in college, I remember in some class I was taking and the teacher told us, well, these are the topics that they are going to expose and that, and he says, but please don't bring me arguments from the Bible. So the Bible has no weight, no validity, right? But, well, it's that again. Because his natural mind is predisposed to the things of the Spirit. And he's simply not going to understand or receive them. That's right. that here too, when they ask the question of creation, or ask where we come from, they leave them a thesis and say, just don't bring anything from the Bible, because it contradicts. What it means is that they themselves, the teachers, are impotent. That's why they tell you, here I stop being the teacher because I don't understand it myself. How are you going to bring an argument from her? I don't understand it myself. It contradicts itself. That is the reason why it is not accepted. Why is it a book that contradicts itself? Yes, because they themselves do not understand it. The same teacher. Yes, that is the real reason. I wanted to say that also to preserve the holiness of the saints. Also for that. Of the spirit. In another context. In another context, correct. Very well, brothers, we are going to close this part by praying. Good and merciful Father, blessed Lord, thank you, Lord, for your word that you have kept and preserved, Lord, until our days. Thank you, Lord, for the testimony of it, which is true, Que es tu verdad, Señor. Que es tu palabra. Y ayúdanos, Señor, por tu espíritu a aceptarla y a recibirla como tal, con toda la autoridad del caso, Señor. No es palabra de hombres, no son sugerencias, no son simplemente consejos, Señor. Es tu palabra. Te rogamos, Señor, a tomarla, a recibirla, a estudiarla, a llenarnos de ella, Señor, porque es todo lo que tú quieres para nosotros, para tu gloria y para nuestro bien. Te lo pedimos en Jesucristo. Amen.