Friday, January 13, 2023

Staples misdiagnosis on “The Protestant Achilles' Heel”

 

Staples misdiagnosis on “The Protestant Achilles' Heel”

First, this sophist resorts to employing a straw man:

Sola Scriptura was the central doctrine and foundation for all I believed when I was Protestant. On a popular level, it simply meant, “If a teaching isn’t explicit in the Bible, then we don’t accept it as doctrine!”

Which is a blatant mischaracterization [if qualified as a popular level] of the very thing Staples imagines he is refuting!

For as no less than the Westminster Confession states,

“all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all, what is necessary is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture, and Scripture is such that “not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.”

Cp. VI: Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

Once I got past the superficial, I had to try to answer real questions like, what role does tradition play?

Why not ask Prot scholars who deal with this issue and SS rather than whoever Staples go his ideas from? Was Muhammad right in thinking at one point that the Trinity consisted of the Father, the Son and Mary? (Though considering the demi-goddess Rcs make of her than is understandable.)

This [SS] does not mean — as Catholics often assume — that Protestants obtain no help from the fathers and early Councils. - Evangelical authorities Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie: http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf

**From Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism:

Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”

In answer to this last question, “Where is sola scriptura taught in the Bible?” most Protestants will immediately respond as I did, by simply citing :

So since that is as far as most Protestants get, or , then these are the only texts Staples deals with, and does not deal with actual arguments based on the former, such as apologist James White sets forth in debating RCs, which can be seen here

But why not also examine the abundant evidence that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God

Then answer the following questions:

• 1. What other transcendent objective, comprehensive body of revelation is wholly inspired of God? Infallible decrees? No, not even according to Rome, which only hold these utterances - and not even the reasoning or arguments behind them - are protected from error. But which does not the anointed power of the word of God, which is alive "and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." ()

Are the words of the church which express Tradition wholly inspired of God? No, Catholic teaching says these are not either. She does claim oral (as oral) tradition is, however that exists in a nebulous amorphous form, the authenticity of which rests upon the premise of the perpetual magisterial infallibility of Rome, which is the alternative Staples must establish but only assumes is true.

• 2. What body of Truth is said to instrumentally be used for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, and to make one "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works? That the man of God can be complete because he has available to him this body of Truth? (,17)

• 3. What body of Truth did the Lord establish His Truth claims by, and specifically open the minds of the disciples to? (,45) It was not Cath. tradition.

Thus we see that Scripture has a unique status and is uniquely qualified to be the supreme standard for Truth and obedience, and being the final court of appeal on all doctrinal and moral matters, and indeed, as written, it manifestly became that standard, which oral preaching depended on.

Moreover, the unique instrumental ability of Scripture referred to above was written while as yet the NT was yet to be complete, but which in principle extends to whatever will given as Scripture. And which relates to the other aspect of SS, that of its full sufficiency, of Scripture both formally providing all the Truth essential to function as the supreme authoritative standard as the wholly inspired word of God, the "rule of faith" for the Church, which sufficiency is nowhere found in Scripture and in no other source.

And that it also materially (some RCs also hold Scripture as being materially sufficient) provides for helps in this, which includes reason, the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the church, and the guidance of conscience and the Spirit.

Concerning the latter, most every SS preacher allows that God can "speak" to a person's heart - especially during the offering - whether by conscience and or impressions of the Spirit. And as a conditional continuationist i allow that God may speak thru prophecy (though i know of no contemporary ones), a word of wisdom or knowledge, even perhaps if by a tongue (rare today i would say). But all of which are subject to testing by Scripture, and do not make such formally or even materially sufficient, and a supreme authoritative standard which is binding upon all as the wholly inspired word of God.

Scripture is a unique body of Truth that stands in a class by itself, with its writings being established as being of God due to their enduring Divine qualities and attestation.

While the position of the sufficiency of Scripture only pertains to a 66 book canon, and does not hold that the written word always was the the rule of faith, yet as said, as written, it is manifest that Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which materially provided for additions to it, of writings of God being recognized and established as being so — without an assuredly infallible magisterium — and thus in principal it materially provided for a canon of Scripture.

And if Scripture was the only transcendent objective formal body of Truth which that is wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally able to make one wise unto salvation, and to work to make one complete, throughly furnished unto all good works, then this attests to it alone being the supreme sufficient (in its formal and materal aspects) standard for Truth and Faith.

When defending sola scriptura, the Protestant will predictably appeal to his sole authority—Scripture. This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. One cannot prove the inspiration of a text from the text itself.

Wrong debate, as this is with Caths which already assent to Scripture being wholly inspired of God, while unlike with so many RCs, Scripture provides for man's recognition of what is of God without an infallible church.

Beyond the fact of circular reasoning, for example, I would point out the fact that this verse says all Scripture is inspired tells us nothing of what the canon consists.

See above. It is both historically and Scripturally evident (,456, etc.) that both men and writings of God were discerned and established as being so without an infallible church.

Catholics certainly agree that the Holy Spirit guided the early Christians to canonize the Scriptures because the Catholic Church teaches that there is an authoritative Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

But here the RC enages in circularity, that of proving the Scriptures by the church and the church by the Scriptures. That leads to Staples entering into a graveyard spiral (below).

“Show me in the Bible where the canon of Scripture is, what the criterion for the canon is, who can and cannot write Scripture, etc.”

Again, it is both historically and Scripturally evident (,456, etc.) that both men and writings of God were discerned and established as being so without an infallible church. Thus if the books the NT preachers and writers abundantly invoked for support were est. as Scripture, and others rejected, then in principle what is written provided for recognition of additional writings as being Scripture, and thus for a larger canon. Even if as then, there was no complete universal complete assent.

The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so, and the Scriptures are inspired because the infallible Church says so.” That would be a kind of circular reasoning. The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so.

However, to invoke Christ means that one has an authoritative source of what He said, which is Scripture, but which RCs hold requires the church (which it says the Christ of Scripture established) to give it authority as certainly being of God:

Cardinal Avery Dulles: People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html

Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium" "...the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm

But which is contrary to what Scripture reveals and to how the church began.

For the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, () who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (,3; 17:4,7,8; ; Lv. 10:11; ; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; , ,34; )

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, () and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (; ,44; ,39; ; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; , etc.)

Thus to avoid circular reasoning the RC cannot even reference Scripture as being so, but is compelled to reduce it being a merely reliable historical document.

However, this is not circular reasoning. When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired.... Further, this testimony of the Bible is backed up by hundreds of works by early Christians and non-Christian writers

But which argument appeals to men to discern that the church of Rome is of God, but denies they can correctly assuredly know Scripture is of God apart from the church of Rome. Yet if they allow souls can discern the latter from history then they must also allow souls can be right in discerning the church of Rome is contrary to these historical writings, as well as that these writings are of God.

To put it simply, reason clearly rejects sola scriptura as a self-refuting principle because one cannot determine what the “scriptura” is using the principle of sola scriptura.

Wrong, as explained before. Only ignorance or deception can explain the failure to see from Scripture that even without an infallible church souls recognized both men and writings as being of God, upon which foundation the NT church began. While Rome argues souls can assuredly know discern the church of Rome is of God from historical sources, yet it denies they can correctly assuredly know she is not from these sources, and that Scripture is of God apart from the church of Rome.

Thus reason clearly rejects as a self-refuting principle the alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, in which the church alone is the supreme infallible authority, and essential for souls to know what Scripture is. Because without an infallible church one can assuredly ascertain both men and writings as being of God, and thus the very NT church began.

Let us now consider the most common text used by Protestants to “prove” sola scriptura, , which I quoted above:

And which i above showed supports SS.

The problem with using this text as such is threefold: 1. Strictly speaking, it does not speak of the New Testament at all.

Regardless, it speaks of what Scripture both is and enables, which unique qualities as the only wholly inspired formal body of Truth is able to instrumentally work to make one complete, throughly furnished unto all good works. Thus it supremely qualifies it to be the sole supreme sufficient rule of faith, if anything is.

. 2. It does not claim Scripture to be the sole rule of faith for Christians.

This is from a man who imagines Scripture teaches by fallacious extrapolation perpetual magisterial infallibility, but in contrast, the unique qualities of this wholly inspired writings uniquely qualify them as being the sole supreme sufficient standard, as described, and its status as the supreme standard is abundantly testified to.

The alternative, that of the church being supreme over and above Scripture, is not. (Some RCs argue Rome is not supreme ove Scripture, however, when you uniquely claim to assuredly correctly declare what Scripture consists of and means, then you are effectively claiming supremacy over it.)

3. The Bible teaches oral Tradition to be on a par with and just as necessary as the written Tradition, or Scripture.

Wrong. "Oral Tradition" as oral preaching of the word of God in the NT was dependent upon Scripture which affirmed it textually as well as the manner of other supernatural attestation given to it. (; ,44; ,39; ; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; , etc.)

In addition, Oral Tradition as meaning the passing on of Truths presupposes these were never subsequently written, but which always seems to be the case with any revelation called the word of God/the Lord, and as written, it is manifest that Scripture became the standard by which all Truth claims were tested by. Which the noble Bereans exampled. ()

Moreover, for Rome especially, oral Tradition can even be a specific event not recorded or promised in Scripture, nor even supported by early "tradition," but which is "remembered" 1800 years later and made binding doctrine.

This presumption requires making the church the supreme authority as being assuredly infallible, but which is not seen or promised in Scripture, nor is it essential, which is a presupposition this RC premise is based upon.

None of the New Testament books had been written when St. Timothy was a child! To claim this verse in order to authenticate a book, say, the book of Revelation, when it had most likely not even been written yet, is more than a stretch. That is going far beyond what the text actually claims.

Wrong. Rather, contrary to Roman reasoning, if all Scripture is wholly inspired of God, then it applies to all that was or will be given as such. Saying "all men are mortals" does not simply apply to the present human race as it now stands, but all that share that nature.

The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (, emphasis added).

And Reformers clearly taught that obedience was necessary as a fruit of saving faith,

“Such a faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present: for where faith is, there the Holy Ghost is and must work love and good works.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:21-22] "...it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]

And it is evangelicals, those who hold most strongly to the most basic Prot. distinctive of Scripture being supreme as the wholly inspired accurate word of God, that testify the most, in contrast to Caths, that they believe works follow faith.

Meanwhile, in Ja. 2 the manner in which one is justified cannot be the same as and Rm. 4, that of the faith of the unGodly being counted for righteousness, which faith itself appropriates, otherwise it would contradict both Moses and Paul.

But one is justified as being a believer with salvific faith, which must be the kind of faith which effects obedience, versus an inert, merely intellectual fruitless faith, which is what James argues against, as do Reformers.

However, the text of never says Scripture alone.

Nor does Scripture say Mary alone was sinless among culpable souls born of men, but RCs somehow see Scripture teaching this, yet cannot see that Scripture is the only objective body of revelation that is said to be wholly inspired of God, and instrumentally able to make one wise unto salvation, and works to make one complete, and thus the only supreme sufficient rule of faith.

illustrates clearly the problem with Protestant exegesis of : And let steadfastness (patience) have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If we apply the same principle of exegesis to this text that the Protestant does to we would have to say that all we need is patience to be perfected.

More fallacious Roman reasoning as this pertains to two different categories. One pertains to a body of Truth functioning as a standard for Truth and obedience, which instrumentally thru the church works to make one complete, furnished for every good work, while the other pertains to one of the virtues Scripture provides for. The outworking of which makes one mature in tested virtue, overcoming sin. Thus this aspect of perfection is one which Scripture equips, exhorts to, and and instructs in. But which does not work to fully equip him.

Likewise Scripture provides for the church, which uses the Scriptures to conform one to Christ.

o then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions you have been taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. According to St. Paul, the spoken word from the apostles was just as much the word of God as was the later written word.

What the RC ignores here is that , the spoken word, as with all Truth claims, relied upon and was subject to testing by the established written word, and thus the appeal to it. See also my comments on this made before.

When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening.

Rather, the RC has blinders on as a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth

"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors." (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906),

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )

when it comes to the teaching and governing authority of the Church, the biblical text is equally as clear: If your brother sins against you go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone … But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you … If he refuses to listen … tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. ()

According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal for the people of God in matters of faith and discipline.

Another category mistake. Scripture is the final court of appeal as to being the supreme authority on Truth, like as the US Constitution is in defining the role of government, while the Supreme Court is the final court as regards government judging cases regarding what that means, binding or loosing souls thereby. But which does equate to or require ensured perpetual infallibility, but as in the OT judiciary, though it has authority, yet it can be wrong, unlike Scripture.

Also, the rulings of the court can be subject to interpretation, as are those of Rome.

For is not some new thing, but is the NT equivalent of the OT judiciary seen in such places as . And which mainly had to do with personal transgressions and disputes, (cf. ) , and whose judgments were binding or loosing, even to disobedience being a capital offense.

Yet as with all obedience enjoined to men, this was conditional and the magisterial office did not possess perpetual infallibility as per Rome (although those of such might sometimes speak Divine Truth), which is nowhere seen or promised in Scripture, nor it necessary for discernment and preservation of Truth.

And Westminster clearly upholds the authoritative magisterial office of the church. "It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)

However, under the RC model for authority, souls are to submit to the historical magisterium of the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation, and recipient of promises of God's presence and preservation as a people. Which means 1st century souls should have submitted to those who sat in the eat of Moses over Israel, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (; 9:4-5)

But isn’t it also telling that since the Reformation of just ca. 480 years ago—a reformation claiming sola scriptura as its formal principle—there are now over 33,000 denominations that have derived from it?

What is telling is that the RC engages in a number of fallacies:

1. That Rome exists as the example of the NT church, which it manifestly does not. The NT church also saw its limited degree of unity under manifest apostles of God, who could say they were,

"in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left,..." ()

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. ()

And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; ()

We do not see this manner of leadership today, and that of Rome is not even in the running (nor am i), and she fails of both the qualifications of apostolic successors, and the credentials of Biblical apostles.

2. Comparing one church with a varied multiplicity of churches, many of whom do not hold to the primary Reformation distinctive of Scripture being supremely authoritative as wholly inspired and accurate word of God, is a valid comparison. Which is besides other problems with the 33k figure.

3. That unity under Rome is superior to that of the aforementioned type believers. Organizational unity, while an ideal, does not equate to spiritual and doctrinal unity, and unity under Rome is very limited and largely on paper, as in addition to things RCs can conscientiously disagree on, RC disagree with their church more than most others do, yet Rome conveys implicit sanction of such by treating even proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death, as well as her liberal majority (at least in the West). Thus the rest must count them as brethren, rather separating as commanded.

You also have SSPX type sects and SSPV and EO divisions because some do separate to a degree (not enough).

As one poster wryly remarked,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

4. That the Roman alternative to SS, that of sola ecclesia, is Biblical, as it is not. Again, the church did not begin under the premise of perpetual magisterial infallibility, thus calling for implicit assent to her based on that premise of ensured veracity, but instead it began with God-fearing souls discerning men as being of God due to their Scriptural substantiation in word and power.

Therefore under the Biblical model the church can only expect its level of unity insomuch as God-fearing souls see that manner of leadership, and or they seek the Lord as the 120 did before Pentecost.

In addition sola ecclesia is shared by many cults, and which see superior unity to Rome, yet under which is seen the most serious heresies.

For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms

Yet it still had divisions, and Catholicism today exists in sects and schisms. And under her model it can sink to the condition seen leading up to the Reformation:

Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)

Cardinal Bellarmine:

 "Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

Now in just 480 years we have this? I hardly think that when Jesus prophesied there would be “one shepherd and one fold” in , this is what he had in mind.

Actually, the Reformation fostered this, as a far greater percentage of evangelicals have Christ as their shepherd than the fruit of Rome, while to have Christ as shepherd requires doing what RCs are not to do, but evangelical converts from Rome have.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ()

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. ()

This is what RCs need to do in light of the manifest deformation of Rome, and come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him, confessing this first in baptism.

Thereby they will realize the essential unity of the Spirit which evangelicals who walk therein do, due to Christ being in them, and them in me, which ,23 speaks of. Glory be to God.

[See also  14 questions as regards sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia]

Posted by at No comments:

What has the Good News Mission under Pastor Ock Soo Park preached?

Around 2010 a friend of mine was taken in by  the Good News Mission, and would come by for Bible studies with him, and which provided an opportunity to hear what they basically taught, and for interaction/debate with them as well as examination of some of their printed teachings. 

 I quickly realized that GNM (Good News Mission) under Pastor Ock Soo Park they were perverting basic Biblical and evangelical faith, and essentially teaching that they alone were distinctively preaching true salvation.

Below is a rough analysis of Good News Mission based upon what I have read in some of their own publications, and some personal interactions, and there is some redundancy here as this was done piecemeal over time in dealing with each aspect. Source links were working when first provided about 10 years ago, but all have likely fallen dead by now. Working 91.23) archived copies will be in brackets. I do not know if the message of GNM has changed since my original examination.

The method of Park’s church was to create two camps: those who believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and that their sins were washed away, but still struggle with and confess sin, and think they can please God by their obedience in faith in response to being saved, while GNM disciples are to believe they are righteous and never need to repent and confess sin or can please God by their works.

The former are all relegated by GNM as souls who never heard the “true gospel,” as if they did they would not ask for forgiveness or try to please God, and instead they try to earn acceptance with God, being souls which never truly repented and believed. And which are represented as souls outside Park's church, while the latter are those who believe the true gospel and thus they are righteous because of Christ and never need to repent and confess sin or try to please God. If the latter do sin, they only confess that they are evil by nature, but righteous in Christ.

There is therefore no place in Park's theology for souls who do believe they are sinners by nature and thus cannot merit eternal life, and thus trust in the Lord Jesus to save them by His blood, and thus seek to please God in response, and confess and repent of sin in seeking to maintain a right relationship with Him. Instead, to engage in that kind of response God's means one has not believed the “true gospel” (of “Parkism”).

The psychological appeal of Park's preaching is like that of the (Boston) International church of Christ, especially in its heyday, which took (and still does) advantage of a lack of discipleship in churches and the struggling of believers in order to convince them they never were saved (which only sometimes was the case), because the churches they were in did not believe that only in baptism can one effectually confess Christ and be saved, and which baptism only the Int. church of Christ rightly provided. Therefore the ICC was basically the only true church, and it had no fellowship with others.

And as the discipleship of the ICC was much more intense in teaching and in practice than the typical evangelical church — which was its prime “competition” and often source of converts — and kept them focused on doctrine and activity by constant meetings and overwhelming indoctrination, many souls who wanted to serve God on a higher level were taken in by it, and were even helped to a degree. However, they were also indoctrinated into an exclusive system which discouraged objectively analysis of their teachings, or reading the works of others, and it also inculcated a codependency upon the church, and leaving it meant one had left Christ.

The devil himself knows the weakness of the church, and how to use them, and how to build a church, and cults typically use the failures of the evangelical church and many of God's building principles to build their very own tower of Babel.

Likewise Park appeals to those who believe on Christ for salvation by grace through faith, and have seen God work in their hearts and lives as a result, but due to a lack of growth (partly due to weak discipleship) they struggle with sin. Park helps such by his focus on the innate iniquity of man and his inability to earn salvation or walk in victory except by emptying oneself and letting Christ work through them, and the need to see oneself in Christ as a saint, all of which are evangelical doctrines.

But for Park, not only is this basically his whole message, but he misconstrues it to mean that a believer is not to confesses he has sinned, and repent, or think that he may please God by obedience, and to do any of these things shows that they have not believed the “true gospel” of Park.

And it also engages in indoctrination in its teachings to the exclusion of any who are outside it, and those who disagree are disparaged as thinking “his own thoughts” and under the law sometimes as being proud, etc. regardless if they do confess they can only be saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

While Park can speak according to evangelical truths, i have yet to hear him or his missionaries ever acknowledge other churches as preaching the “true gospel,” but one will often hear stories that portray those outside his church, including evangelical types, as lost and all struggling in sin, and souls who denied what Christ did, to which he constantly contrasts with his way of salvation and church, which highly exalts itself and Park above all.

A GNM promotion states,

“Pastor Ock Soo Park's spiritual values and his fervent hope towards the true church has become the Good News Mission Church's foundation. Through him, the Good News Mission Church, as an independent body, is distinguishable from the rest of the preexisting religious bodies which are not based on the gospel. The servants of God who are strongly working for the gospel are taking the lead in the reformation of the history of Christianity. Even now, Pastor Ock Soo Park does not yield to anything apart from the will of God, whether it may be himself, the ministers of the Good News Mission Church, or the congregation. He continues to fight relentlessly” http://www.londongoodnews.com/02sermon_park.php (emphasis mine)[https://web.archive.org/web/20130928035602/http://londongoodnews.com/02sermon_park.php]

In addition, questioning Park and the GNM and his highly selective use of Scripture is dealt with by charging those who do as thinking their own thoughts, versus the Bible, and inferring those who do are false prophets. “In this context, Park asks,

“When you distinguish a person as a false prophet, according to the words of the Bible, you must turn away from him coldly.”

“I would like to ask the pastors who are here. What do you testify on the podium? Although you say that your sermons can move people, if you cannot save one soul from his conscience, then that sermon is not from God. (The secret of forgiveness and being born again, p. 327)

A main theme in GNM publications is that of portraying Christians outside of it souls who deny the work of Jesus Christ on the cross by confessing sin, such as seen in the testimony here:

I had committed countless number of sins in the past, and I had confessed each time I sinned to receive forgiveness for that was what I believed to be true and biblical. As a result, misconceiving myself as a 'saved sinner,' I had committed the terrible sin of denying the work of Jesus Christ on the cross.” (The secret of forgiveness and being born again, p. 178)

As will be expanded upon below, Park effectively portrays those outside his church as those who deny the gospel, even though they may know they are forgiven and righteous by faith in Christ, and who therefore confesses known sins, while he also substitutes confessing one's failures to God with simply confessing one has a sinful nature. And rather than saving souls from their conscience by imagining that sins never need to be confessed as part of maintaining a relationship with God, the Bible teaches us to confess actual sins and ask for forgiveness, as we will see by God's grace, and thus have a clear conscience.

This does not mean that we need to confess unwanted thoughts which we are already repentant about, or that any sin committed by a follower of Christ (outside of sinning into apostasy) damns him, or that we are guilty for having a sinful nature, but that saints offend God and are guilty for yielding to their sinful nature, and, and thus they are to confess such to God, as the Lord instructed, (; ) in faith that He will forgive us. Park's attempts to negate these verses will be dealt with shortly.

Park states,

There are many people who strain and cry out to have their sins forgiven. They appear to be truly sincere, but such prayers come from distrusting and not believing that the blood Jesus shed on the cross has washed their sins away...It is a prayer to be cursed.

There is no one who does not sin, but people who believe, "Lord, although I am an evil, dirty human being. It is recorded that the blood the Lord shed has washed away all of my sins. I believe that my sins are washed away," do not pray, "Lord, wash my sins away." Instead, they pray, "Thank you for washing my sins away."

Anyone who sins feels guilt and pain because everyone has a conscience. When we sin our conscience says, "You are a sinner. You lied. You deceived other people. You committed adultery. You caused damage to others. You are a terrible bastard!" Of course it is only human to have such voices from our conscience. However, you should not listen only to that voice, but listen to the voice of God in the Bible. () "Ah, I did sin, but God called me righteous through the redemption of Jesus! (The son of distrust. http://enbbs.goodnews.or.kr/bbs/download_onlist.php?bo_table=nytimes&wr_id=27&no=2)

Throughout his teachings, Park takes his former failure and that of others who do not believe that,

1. God forgave sins upon Biblical repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus,

or fail to

2. see themselves as a new creatures in Christ, (), washed, sanctified and justified, in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of our God, () and accepted in the Beloved, and looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, ()

and concludes (as will be additionally shown) that:

1. sin is not actual acts of transgressions of God's law, but instead these are “crimes;”

2. confession of sin does not really refer to actual acts of sin, but only acknowledging one has a sinful nature and cannot save himself or please God;

3. a Christian has no need to ask God to forgive him for sins, as his sins are already forgiven, and to ask that is a cursed prayer, as he says it means that they are denying Christ and are damned;

4. Christians are not to refer to themselves as sinners, and if they do that indicates they are damned.

However, as will be further developed, the Bible makes it clear that:

1. sins are actual transgressions of God's law; (; ) This is also seen in that t judgment of sin is always based upon how we have yielded to our sinful nature (not because we were born with a sinful nature), and in accordance with the light and grace we have received; (; cf. )

2. though one need not necessarily mention all or what he did in sinning (for God sees the heart), yet confession of sins is not simply confessing we have a sinful nature, and are helpless to save ourselves, but is a confession that we acted that nature out, and can include what we specifically did. (; )

3. while Christ atoned for the sins we can be forgiven for, receiving forgiveness is contingent upon confession and repentance, (; ; )

4 even though Christians are accounted righteous in Christ, (ff) they yet can offend God, (, , , ) and are chastened for sins, () and thus have need for forgiveness to restore fellowship with God, (; 3:19; Ja. 5:15) as this is a relationship, and thus Jesus taught believers to ask for forgiveness; ()

5. multitudes of evangelical believers now (and down through history) live victorious fruit-bearing lives as Christians, but do not believe as Park requires by denying asking God for forgiveness, etc.

Park selectively uses texts to support his reasoning that since Jesus atoned for all our sins, and since we are washed from them at conversion — with God promising to remember our sins no more, () — then we are never to confess and repent of actual sins or ask forgiveness from God again.

And in GNM teaching and testimonies we hear them talk about evangelical-type Christians who did not believe the “true gospel,” because they felt guilty for sin and confessed they were sinners and asked God to forgive them:

“...in Isaiah chapter 55, God still talks about the unrighteous which refers to sinners. So what do you think is the problem here? The answer is that all of our sins have been taken away by Jesus but the thought that they are sinners still remains in their hearts. In other words, people who have the thought that they are sinners are the unrighteous that God talks about. The thought that they are sinners is more serious than them committing sins. This is because they are denying the fact that Jesus was crucified to wash away our sins. http://www.londongoodnews.com/02sermon_park.php [https://web.archive.org/web/20130928035602/http://londongoodnews.com/02sermon_park.php]

However, while believers are called a “saints,” (, , ; 26:10; Rm. 1:7; 8:27, etc.) or sanctified ones, by imputed righteous in Christ, and are positionally seated in heavenly places, () yet the fact is that they do sin, even if that is to be an exception, and thus are objectively sinners just like a good man who breaks the speed limit is a law breaker. Thus sometimes in practice, not position, one is a sinner, both facts of which Scripture confirms, and Park admits as much by emphasizing that he is evil by nature. And thus the Holy Spirit, addressing Christian, (Ja. 2:7) refers to disobedient ones as sinners (Ja. 4:8) as well as “carnal,” without necessarily denying what they are positionally in Christ, (, ; 6:11,19) which repentance affirms and enables.

But one of Park's fundamental problems is that he is one dimensional, and his false dilemma cannot allow that a person can acknowledge himself as being two things, that they are accepted in the Beloved, and positionally are righteous in Christ and seated together in heavenly places, (; 2:6) yet functionally they can agree that they are sinners in practice, without denying the atonement of Christ. And which is why they confess their sins, as Scripture instructs, as will be seen next. Consistent with Park's false dilemma, believers must be disallowed from referring to themselves as having any dwelling on earth, since they positionally are in heaven. (; )

What Scripture teaches on confession and repentance it is not simply acknowledging that we have a sinful nature, and must rely on Christ to do good, but confession and repentance from giving into false thinking and acting. When the Lord Jesus teaches believers the manner in which they are to pray, He explicitly includes includes asking God for forgiveness: “And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.” ()

And promises: " If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Faced with , a GNM pastor relegates this as only applying to unbelievers, (http://www.amazon.com/review/R1912BOCDK571C/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1912BOCDK571) but the lost cannot call God their father, as spiritually He is not, and Jesus was not addressing unbelievers. (yet note that this prayer is not a prayer that is meant to be said ritualistically, but is set forth as pattern: “after this manner” pray ye.)

And faced with , Park defines confessing sins as NOT meaning actually confessing sins, but that confession and repentance of sins means simply confessing that we are evil by nature, while asserting that things like adultery are not sin, but crimes. Park states,

It says, “If we confess,” right? Then, what is sin? Stealing, lying, murdering, committing adultery, is that what sin is? No. That is not sin. What is sin?

Folks, sin and act of sin are different. You may have stolen, lied and committed murder, but those are not sins, they are crimes.

Folks, sin and act of sin are different. You may have stolen, lied and committed murder, but those are not sins, they are crimes. The Bible has clearly explained about sin and crime. "If we confess our sins . . . ." () These words are not about confessing your acts of sin, saying "I committed theft." It means to confess your sin.

In the Old Testament, it tells about King David. One day King David committed adultery with his servant's wife. He was in so much pain because of his sin, that he confessed before God. Do you know how he confessed?..

It was not about what sin he had committed. He confessed of his nature, the fact itself that he was a human who could only commit sin, saying that he was a mass of sin, completely enveloped in sin...

“If we confess our sins.” It's not about confessing crimes you have committed, but it's confessing that, "I am by nature a sinner. I cannot do it, so You, Lord, come and save me," and leaving yourself to the Lord. Then He will take care of all your problems.— (The secret of forgiveness and being born again, p. 37,39.41)

True repentance is not saying, "God, I lied. God, I stole. God, I had an abortion. God, I committed adultery. Forgive me..." But true repentance is saying, "God, I am a seed of sin, so that is why evil thoughts arise inside of me without end. (Repentance and Faith)

However, Park's use (above) of Ps. 51 is another example of his selective use of Scripture to the exclusion of the whole thought. For while Park here denies that David confessed that he had actually sinned, and he only mentions David's poetic lament that he was born in sin, yet David declared,

"Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. {3} For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. {4} Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. " ()

Yet in my interaction with GNM missionaries they also flatly denied that David confessed he had sinned, which along with other examples, indicates how implicitly they trust and follow Park.

Furthermore, the way the Bible defines sins makes it a crime, the breaking of God's law: "Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." () not having a sinful nature. And obeying the moral law is upheld under the N.T. Thus the Lord taught believers to confessed their sins. () Being guilty of committing sins makes one culpable, guilty before God of sin, and in need of forgiveness and righteousness, while one's sinful nature makes one in need of deliverer from the power of sin. Confessing that one has a sinful nature by birth is not a confession of guilt (unless we are culpable for Adam's sin), but of our helplessness, which besides our guilt and damnation renders us helpless and in need of a Redeemer.

While a sinner coming to Christ need not itemize all his sins, he does confess that he is a guilty sinner, () and his need is one of salvation, both from the penalty of sins and also the power of it. And the preaching in Acts emphasizes the former, while the latter is seen in teaching on living that out. Therefore before the Jews on the day of Pentecost cried out, “what shall we do?”, () Peter had charged them with guilt in the death of Christ. (, )

And while it is true that sin begins in the heart, () acting it out is also sin. () Also, while the basic sin of man is indeed unbelief, which is idolatry, yet a change in heart means repentance from deeds of the flesh. ()

And for the people of God what the Bible teaches is that of confession and repentance of actual ways in which we have given into our sinful nature and broken the laws of God, (, ; ; ; ; Ja. 5:16) the morality of which laws the Christian is to fulfill. (Rm. 2:13; 8:4)

In another sermon, Park refers to :

"And the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him." () People think that their sins cause them to suffer and experience hardships in their lives and therefore try to stop sinning by themselves, because they know that as sinners they cannot stand . However, God did not ask them to forsake their sins and return to Him, He asked them to forsake their thoughts and return to Him. We consider committing sin as the problem but God considers our thoughts as the problem. Actually the truth is that God has perfectly solved the problem of sin. http://www.londongoodnews.com/02sermon_park.php) [https://web.archive.org/web/20130928035602/http://londongoodnews.com/02sermon_park.php]

However, looking at we see that an actual forsaking of the wicked's “way” is called for (“Let the wicked forsake his way”), which involves turning from actual sins. (; ; Ja, 4:8)

► Park describes states his pre-conversion states as a seeing what a “filthy, dirty, and wicked person I was. As I realized it, I distrusted myself. Because I was such a dirty, filthy, and evil person, I threw myself away. From that point on, the words of Jesus began to enter my heart as faith.”

This is emphasized often in GNM lessons, and it is certainly part of classic evangelical teaching, yet he preaches it was if it were unique to GNM, contrasting it to evangelical-types who,

“....would go to church and show unconditional zeal. They would pray and cry all night, fast, make offerings and do volunteer work. However, whenever God sees that, He wants to say, "Your sincerity is admirable, but those are not my ways." (The secret of forgiveness and being born again. p. 72)

In contrasting Christians who have unconditional zeal, fastings, all night prayer meetings, etc. (hardly your average Catholic or “Jehovah Witness”) with his own conversion, Park creates a false either/or dichotomy, otherwise known as a false dilemma (like saying Jesus could not be God and man at the same time), and which is a typical tactic with Park in his preaching. In so doing he makes merchandise of the legitimate failings of modern evangelical churches overall to disciple believers according to historical truth, in order to justify Park's superficial theology. This is done by characterizing all other churches as apostate, a typical claim of all elitist cults, in contrast with his own as representing victory.

However in order to do so he must ignore the many Christians living holy lives or all the great examples in the past. But who prayed for forgiveness and believed in repentance from sin, and that they could please God (but not earn justification and eternal life) by obeying God by the Spirit, all of which the Scriptures teach.

In addition, the Christianity of Park is one that effects cultic mind-control from him, constantly teaching from Park on his one theme, and who is looked to as a uniquely enlightened apostle, and requiring strict conformity to his verbose teachings, with nary a mention of any of the manifest Christian men and women of God outside his church past or present.

This is typical of cults such as the Mormons and so-called Jehovah's Witnesses and which can exhibit a high form of holiness and great uniformity, but which is not the work of the Spirit in the Scriptural manner, but is the result of constant indoctrination from them alone which punishes independent objective examination that may challenge their teachings from Scripture, rather than establishing faith in the light of such examination, which is how core Christian doctrines were established.

In my interaction with GM missionaries, it seems that in their emphasis on the depravity of man, that he cannot justify himself by his works in the flesh, then they would see to disallow that man can please God by what he does as a Christian. but are only pleasing to God as regards them being righteousness in Christ.

.after you receive salvation and go before God, do not go relying on your goodness. God is not pleased by your works and is only pleased by His son. He only accepts us by looking at the blood of Jesus. (Cyber Fellowship with Pastor Ock Soo Park 11/7/09)

However, along with statements such as the above which may infer this, Park himself refers to him pleasing God by him holding retreats (Abraham Who Read God’s Heart) or by his preaching the gospel (If You Hear the Voice of God).

In any case, while it is true that works will not earn eternal life, and without faith it is impossible to please God, () and those that are in the flesh cannot please God, (Rm. 8:8) and a soul is only accepted by God in Christ, () yet God is pleased not simply because of Christ being in believers and they being righteous because of Him, but by acting that out as they walk in the Spirit of Christ,; (; ; ; ; ; )

"But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." ()

"And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. " ()

"Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. " ()

"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. {9} Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. {10} For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. " ()

Here the apostle is addressing Christians, and while he knows that if he dies then he will be with Jesus, yet he seeks to labor for Him that he may find the Lord's commendation, “well done thou good and faithful servant..” () It also shows that while Christians are accepted in the Beloved, on His expense and righteousness, yet they will be accountable to God for their service.

Moreover, even though we are justified by faith, and clothed with the righteous do Christ, yet Christians are called to “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord,” () and “be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.” ()

This is because a justifying kind of faith is one that works obedience toward its Object, the Lord Jesus, () and who takes pleasure in those who walk in obedience.

► Park supposes that since the atonement of Christ was for past and future sins this means that sins committed after conversion have no need for be confessed and repented from in order to maintain a right faith relationship with God, and he invokes for support.

This verse states that under the New Covenant, “their sins and iniquities will I remember no more,” and in v. 2-12 it teaches that whereas under Moses a remembrance of sins was made every year, and “every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins,” as it was impossible for the blood or animals to actually put away sins, yet under the New Covenant we are forgiven of past sins and sanctified by the offering of Jesus once for all. Therefore those who believe in Christ for salvation are washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. ()

What this teaches in the light of other texts is that faith in the Lord Jesus means that the perfect atonement of Christ does give believers a clean conscience from past sins, forgiveness being appropriated except through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus, () and places believers us into the family of God as washed, justified, and sanctified adopted children, clothed in the righteous of Christ so that we can walk in obedience, with the atonement providing for continual cleansing as we confess and repent, (, ) which testifies to our faith in Christ as both Lord and Savior.

However, while all the sins that can be forgiven are atoned for, this does not mean there there is will be no more need for forgiveness, as if future sins were ignored and do not effect his relationship with God, but that God can be displeased by our sins, but that because the believer is positionally righteous and accepted in Christ then when the believer sins he is not treated as an unbelievers, but as a son he is called to repentance and may be chastised if needed, so that he may become practically what he is positionally:

“Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.” To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Rm. 3:25,26)

“But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.” ()

“There is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” (Rm. 8:1)

“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” ()

“And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” ()

And while the atonement places believers in a covenant relationship with God in which we are accounted righteous, and sins do not cast us out of His family (except as see below), yet the Lord Jesus is offended by our sins and calls us to confession and repentance. This is because saving faith in the Bible something a believer continues us, and it is manifest in the Bible as being one that effects obedience towards its Object, i.e. and which obedience to Christ includes confession and repentance.

This is seen by many texts, such as the churches in Revelation 2+3, in which the Lord had some things against churches such as in Ephesus, and called them to repentance.

“Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. {5} Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." (; cf. 2:14-16, 20-22)

Likewise, even though believers are also in a covenant relationship with each other, commands us to confess our faults (transgressions) to each other, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. (made whole).

The idea that being positionally accounted righteousness in Christ means that sin has no effect upon our relationship God is not one that is Scriptural.

► That Parks selective theology and misapprehension of the atonement results in him rejecting that what we do as Christians has consequences is further stated here:

We have received eternal life. We no longer have judgment. The Lord has received the judgment that we were suppose to receive. Those who believe in the Lord will not receive judgment when they depart from this world. They will enter straight into heaven. (This is Salvation)

However, while God will not judge a believer on his past sins before he became a child of God, nor condemn him for what he did after while living out the life of faith, which must include repentance when convicted of sin if it is to be considered a life of faith, yet both what the believer did for good or for evil has consequences, in this life as well as in the next.

"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences. " ()

The lost will face the full terror of the Lord Jesus in judgment, (; , ; ) being judged for his sins (in accordance with light and grace given: ) since he has rejected the One who took upon Himself his sins and was judged for them. The believers will not be judged for them, but will be rewarded for how he built the church, which every believer is doing directly or indirectly, or he will suffer loss. See notes in red (at end) on ff here

We will be chastened for sins after we are saved in order to bring us to repentance, so that we will not be condemned with the rest of the world, () and will lose rewards for such things as building His church by false means. () And will give an account to God for our actions at the judgment seat of Christ.

"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. {9} Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. {10} For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. " ()

Therefore we seek to please God by obeying Him in doing good. Christians confess actual sins (not simply that our sinful nature is evil) and repent in order to obtain forgiveness, and walk in fellowship with God. ( - “WE”)

If our sins as believers had no effect upon our relationship with God, and had no need of confession and repentance, then believers would no be chastened to bring them to the latter, or be told to repent.

And if being accounted righteous meant our performance as Christians had no effect upon our approval with God, then believer would not seen seeking to win His full approval, and not be ashamed at His coming.

In addition, confessing one's sin is asking God for forgiveness, as that is the purpose of it. (; )

All of which is showing God does remember our sins as Christians, but as long as we believe in the Lord Jesus to save us by His blood, and thus follow Him and repent when convicted of not doing so, then we know we walk in truth and have saving faith. (, ; ; )

Or it can be said, that as long as we rest on the Lord Jesus for our salvation, then we will walk in the light, showing love for God and each other as He commands.

"And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. " ()

And confession and repentance of known sins is a mark of the saved. Unlike under the Law, we do not need yearly sacrifices for sins to be forgiven, or feel guilty over sins we confessed and repented from, yet consistent with the Old Testament, () willful, deliberate sinning and drawing back from following Christ, without repentance, is a denial of faith, and if continued, ultimately can result in becoming reprobate and unable to repent, having forfeited what faith appropriated. (; ; cf. 6:4-8) Some believe such were never saved, and while the Bible does not support the idea that one is saved who does not manifest things which accompany salvation, () versus those who do, () yet it is clearly addressing Christians in such places as and and warning them of the consequences of yielding to a false gospel or impenitent willful sin.

► What is also seen in Park's prolixity in preaching is the degree of comprehension that is required in order to believe the “true gospel,” which stands in contrast to the “simplicity that is in Christ” () seen in the gospel messages in the Bible. (, ; 13:16-41, with conversion occurring by a faith which was expressed in baptism. (, ; 10:43-47; 15:8,9)

Yet, besides rejecting Biblical confession and repentance, Park evidently also rejects water baptism, which is a transcendent command to the church which the Lord shall never leave, () and Park's rejection of this would be consistent with his cultic rejection of the established church which he competes with.

► In conclusion, Park is like most cultic groups, which much depend upon extreme loyalty to their human leaders whose conclusions are held as indisputable, and whose teachings depends upon a highly selective use of texts, and or an esoteric understanding of them, and who promote themselves as unique possessors of salvation. And yet like some cultic groups, Park is close to the Biblical gospel, but by addition and subtraction alters it enough to reject the historical Biblical gospel, to contrast it with the gospel according to Park.

Rather than preaching the whole counsel of God, what Park does is major on one evangelical theme, which is not only that of man's innate sinfulness and inability to save himself from his sins, and please God by his own efforts, but what doctrinally renders him and the GNM cultic are his conclusions that Christians must not confess guilt for actual sins, or ask for forgiveness, and that those who do so are not saved (due to not believing the “true gospel”), and that those saints who refer to themselves as sinners (as being so in practice) are designated to be the unrighteous, while those who subscribe to the GNM gospel are presented as the enlightened elite, with Parks disciples exhibiting an unwarranted devotion to him.

Behind Park's misconstruance of sin, and of what confession of sin really is, and the place of it in the Christians life, is a cultic approach to the Bible in which the fundamental salvific truth of salvation is conveyed as something hidden, with Park being an esoteric elite who reveals what other all churches basically are presented as missing:

God is opening a new pathway of the gospel to us. That pathway is hidden deep within the Bible. The way of God, which is different from your thoughts, is hidden within the Bible. (The secret of forgiveness and being born again, p. 25)

But while the lost are blinded by the devil to the truth of the gospel, (, ) yet the truth of salvation is NOT hidden in the Bible, nor does it require great comprehension. Rather the problem is that of an impenitent heart, as "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. " ()

An examination of the book of Acts and epistles shows that those who were converted did not require hours-long sermons, and what was preached was NOT that sin meant having a sinful nature, though that is true and is dealt with in teachings on walking in victory, (Rm. 6-8) but as referenced before, in preaching to Gentiles, Paul told them to that they “should turn from these vanities unto the living God...,” () while the Jews in Acts 2 were convicted of sin in that they were guilty of rejecting their own Messiah, and were implicit in the crucifixion of the Righteous One, and thus were in need of deliverance since He would be their judge. And they were promised salvation upon repentance and faith, expressed in baptism, which (properly) is like a “sinners prayer” in body language, though souls can be born again prior to that “confession” of Christ. ()

Questions for GNM disciples. Require straight answers, not stories

What constitutes sin: having a sinful nature (from Adam), or yielding to that nature and thus breaking God's law and committing sin?

"Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. " ()

"And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed." ()

"O Lord, according to all thy righteousness, I beseech thee, let thine anger and thy fury be turned away from thy city Jerusalem, thy holy mountain: because for our sins, and for the iniquities of our fathers, Jerusalem and thy people are become a reproach to all that are about us. " ()

"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." ()

Does confessing sin mean confessing you have a sinful nature, or confessing acts of sin?

"And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that he hath sinned in that thing." ()

"And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness." ()

Is asking for forgiveness a prayer of damnation for a believer?

"Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. {3} For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me. {4} Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. " ()

"He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. " ()

"And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins." ()

“And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.” ()

"If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me; " ()

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. " ()

"Confess your faults [transgressions] one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." ()

Does being accounted righteous in Christ mean that He does not see our sins, and cannot have something against us that needs an intercessor, and repentance and forgiveness in order to make our relationship with God right?

"Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. {5} Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. " ()

"Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth." ()

"Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee." ()

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: " ()

 

Does being forgiven of past sins mean that God will not hold a believer accountable for how he lived out his Christian life?

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." ()

"Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." ()

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God." ()

▀ Notable Christians the GNN effectively sends to Hell, along with everyone who obeys what the Lord taught as concerning prayer and asking forgiveness and pleasing God.

E. M. Bounds: It is significant that the very justice of God comes into play and stands hard by God's faithfulness in the strong promise God makes of the pardon of sins and of cleansing from sin's pollutions: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/bounds/5bb.10597-possibilities/5bb.10597.10.htm

Charles C. Ryrie: For Protestants the confession of sin and prayer for forgiveness are continually required to regain fellowship with God after committing sin, though they maintain that forgiveness for sin is a matter of pure grace. (Basic Theology, Charles C. Ryrie)

Andrew Murray: "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" . Let the confession be one of trust.7 Depend entirely on God to actually forgive you, and to cleanse you from sin. Continue in confession by casting the sin you desire to be rid of into the fire of God's holiness until your soul has the firm confidence that God takes it on His own account to forgive and to cleanse. It is this faith which truly overcomes the world and sin. It is the faith that God, in Jesus, actually frees us from sin http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/murray/5f00.0571/5f00.0571.11.htm

Martin Lloyd-Jones:

Who is the man who can pray, 'Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors'? He is the man who already has a right to say 'Our Father'. And the only man who has a right to say 'Our Father' is the one who is in Christ Jesus. It is 'The Children's Prayer.' It is not a prayer for anybody, but only for those who have become the children of God in the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the relationship of the child to the Father, and the moment we realize we have offended, or grieved or sinned against the Father, we confess it and ask to be forgiven, and we are sure that we are forgiven.

John Mcarthur:

We have launched out on a study of the epistles of John, 1, 2, and 3 John. Chapter 1, of course, is critically important as we have been learning. And some number of weeks ago we started into a discussion of the subject "confession of sin, a certain proof of salvation." It is the purpose of John in this epistle to offer proofs of salvation, to offer tests by which a true believer can be distinguished from the false. One of those is the confession of sin. "If we say," says verse 8, "that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar and His Word is not in us."

There is a distinct line drawn between those who are true believers and those who are not. The false deny their sin, the true confess it. http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/62-8

"That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. " ()

More from Christians whom the GNM relegates as to be unbelievers, lost damned souls

Jonathan Edwards’ Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and that I will let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God. (Resolutions #8, http://www.apuritansmind.com/the-christian-walk/jonathan-edwards-resolutions)

►John Wesley: We ought quietly to suffer whatever befalls us; to bear the defects of others and our own, to confess them to God in secret prayer, or with groans which cannot be uttered; but never to speak a sharp or peevish word, nor to murmur or repine; but thoroughly willing that God should treat you in the manner that pleases Him. We are His lambs, and therefore ought to be ready to suffer, even to the death, without complaining.

'We are to bear with those we cannot amend, and to be content with offering them to God. This is true resignation. And since He has borne our infirmities, we may well bear those of each other for His sake. 'To abandon all, to strip one's self of all, in order to seek and to follow Jesus Christ naked to Bethlehem, where He was born; naked to the hall where He was scourged; and naked to Calvary, where He died on the cross, is so great a mercy, that neither the thing, nor the knowledge of it, is given to any, but through faith in the Son of God. (A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, Chapter 11 Reflections; http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/wesley/8317/831702.htm)

►Hudson Taylor

We have had great cause for thankfulness in one respect : we have been so placed as to show the native Christians that our position as well as theirs has been, and may be again, one of danger. And they have been helped, doubtless, to look from " foreign power " to God Himself for protection, by the facts that (1) the former has been felt to be uncertain and unreliable; both with regard to themselves and to us, and (2) that we have been kept in calmness and joy in our various positions of duty. If in any measure we have failed to improve for their good this opportunity, or have failed to rest for ourselves in God's power to sustain in or protect from danger, as He sees best, let us humbly confess this and all conscious failure to our faithful, covenant-keeping God... . (CHAPTER 14--SHALL NEVER THIRST- 1890-1871. AET. 38-39; http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/hudsontaylor/hudsontaylorv2/hudsontaylorv214.htm)

►Spurgeon:

Only on the footing of sin daily confessed and pardoned can there be any fellowship between us and the eternal God this side heaven, for that footing is the only one consistent with the facts of the case. Let us daily ask the Lord to keep us in a truthful spirit, admitting the truth, both concerning ourselves and our Lord, feeling its power, and desiring to he taught still more of it. Let us pray him to deal with us not according to our suppositions but according to the fact, and let us entreat him never to allow us to rejoice in fancied blessings, such as might satisfy our proud, half-stupified conscience, but to give to us the real blessings of genuine forgiveness, and effectual cleansing from all unrighteousness.Only on the footing of sin daily confessed and pardoned can there be any fellowship between us and the eternal God this side heaven, for that footing is the only one consistent with the facts of the case. Let us daily ask the Lord to keep us in a truthful spirit, admitting the truth, both concerning ourselves and our Lord, feeling its power, and desiring to he taught still more of it. Let us pray him to deal with us not according to our suppositions but according to the fact, and let us entreat him never to allow us to rejoice in fancied blessings, such as might satisfy our proud, half-stupified conscience, but to give to us the real blessings of genuine forgiveness, and effectual cleansing from all unrighteousness. (Honest Dealing with God

►Spurgeon on : And forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.

No prayer of mortal men could be complete without confession of sin.

Prayer which does not seek for pardon will fail, as the Pharisee’s prayer did. Let proud men boast as they please, those who are in Christ’s kingdom will always pray, “Forgive us our debts .” Our Lord knew that we should always have debts to own, and therefore would always need to cry, “Forgive! “This is the prayer of men whom the Judge has absolved because of their faith in the Great Sacrifice; for now to their Father they come for free forgiveness, as children. No man may pass a day without praying “Forgive”; and in his supplication he should not forget his fellow-sinners, but should pray “Forgive us.” The writer ventures to pray, “Lord, forgive me, and my brother over yonder, who says he is perfect.”

This pardon we can only obtain as we freely pass over the offenses of others against ourselves: “as we forgive our debtors. ” This is a reasonable, nay, a blessed requirement, which it is a delight to fulfill. It would not be safe for God to forgive a man who will not forgive others.

Lord, I most heartily forgive all who may have done me wrong, I am lenient with those who are indebted to me; and now, with a hopeful heart, I pray thee forgive me, as surer, as I now forgive all who are in and sense my debtors. (EXPOSITION TO THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW -CHAPTER 6; http://www.godrules.net/library/spurgeon/45spurgeon9.htm)

►Spurgeon: An incident is told of Spurgeon who suddenly stopped in the middle of the street he was crossing and prayed. [These were the days when streets were somewhat safer, populated with horses rather than automobiles.] When he reached the other side, his companion asked him, "Why did you stop to pray in the middle of the street?" Spurgeon's reply was something like this, "A cloud came between my soul and Christ, and I could not let it remain there even long enough to reach the other side of the street." (J.V.McGee; http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/christia/nothingb.htm)

►Andrew Murray: The Church exists with the Divine purpose and promise of having conversions. Let us not be ashamed to confess our sins and feebleness, and cry to God for more conversions in Christian and heathen lands, of those too whom you know and love. Plead for the salvation of sinners. (Helps to Intercession , 25th day; http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/murray/helps_intercession/hi25.htm

►Robert Murray Mc'Cheyne: You read your Bible regularly, of course; but do try and understand it, and still more, to feel it. Read more parts than one at a time. For example, if you are reading Genesis, read a psalm also; or, if you are reading Matthew, read a small bit of an epistle also. Turn the Bible into prayer. Thus, if you were reading the 1st Psalm, spread the Bible on the chair before you, and kneel, and pray, '0 Lord, give me the blessedness of the man,' etc. Let me not stand in the counsel of the ungodly,' etc. 'This is the best way of knowing the meaning of the Bible, and of learning to pray. In prayer confess your sins by name going over those of the past day, one by one. Pray for your friends by name-father, mother, etc. etc. If you love them, surely you will pray for their souls. I know well that there are prayers constantly ascending for you from your own house; and will you not pray for them back again? Do this regularly. If you pray sincerely for others, it will make you pray for yourself. (Chapter 2. His Labors in the Vineyard Before Ordination; http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/bonar/mccheyne/contents.htm)

►Watchman Nee: Each time a believer is chastened by God and becomes sick he is open to great blessing, for the Father of spirits "disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness" (Heb. 12.10). Sickness prompts us to recollect and examine the past as to whether there be any hidden sin, obstinacy or self-will. Then and there we can detect if any barrier exists between us and God....Thus the Holy Spirit shall point out to him where he has failed. And whatever he is shown, it must be immediately confessed and forsaken. (THE SPIRITUAL MAN Volume III, PART 10 :CHAPTER 2 : SICKNESS ; http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/nee/sprtmnv3/part10chapter2.htm)

►F.B. Meyer: Cultivate the habit of speaking aloud to God. Not perhaps always, because our desires are often too sacred or deep to be put into words. But it is well to acquire the habit of speaking to God as to a present friend while sitting in the house or walking by the way. Seek the habit of talking things over with God-thy letters, thy plans, thy hopes, thy mistakes, thy sorrows and sins. Things look very differently when brought into the calm light of His presence. One cannot talk long with God aloud without feeling that He is near

►F.B. Meyer: When water is left to stand, the particles of silt betray themselves as they fall one by one to the bottom. So if you are quiet, you may become aware of the presence in your soul of permitted evil. Dare to consider it. Do not avoid the sight as the bankrupt avoids his telltale ledgers, or as the tubercular patient the stethoscope. Compel yourself quietly to consider whatever evil the Spirit of God discovers to your soul. It may have lurked in the closets and cloisters Of' your being for years, suspected but unjudged. But whatever it be, and whatever its history, be sure that it has brought the shadow over your life which is your daily sorrow.

Does your will refuse to relinquish a practice or habit which is alien to the will of God'?

Do you permit some secret sin to have its unhindered way in the house of your life'?

Do your affections roam unrestrained after forbidden objects?

Do you cherish any resentment or hatred toward another, to whom you refuse to be reconciled?

Is there some injustice which you refuse to forgive, some charge which you refuse to pay, some wrong which you refuse to confess'? (THE SECRET OF GUIDANCE , cps. 8, 2; http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/fbmeyer/ch8.htm http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/fbmeyer/ch2.htm)

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)