When God’s Will, Is Turned into Demonic Divination

We are not dealing with the difference about God’s Will, and its 2 ways the bible uses it, which is causality and command; this has already been dealt with. In addition, Vincent has already done a great article, demonstration the focus of the Bible about healing and such is not the Will of God, but the Will of man; this is positive doctrine the Bible overwhelmingly focuses on.

The focus I wish to bring up is the horrific consequence that happens when one abuses God’s sovereignty to negate Christian accountability and responsibility.

Even though God gives commands and precepts in wonderfully encouraging promises, they are still commands. They are not suggestions; they are not self-help-tips from a spiritual guru. When Paul tells us to live by faith and not sight, it is a precept. You are responsible and accountable to accomplish this by faith. When Jesus tells us not to worry and fear, it is a command. You are responsible and accountable to accomplish this by faith in God. When James tells us if we lack wisdom, to ask God, without doubting, to get wisdom, it is a precept. You are responsible and accountable to get wisdom by faith. If you doubt, you are in disobedience, and this accountability is yours to bear. When James tells us—if you are sick, pray in faith and you “shall be healed”—, he is giving a precept. It is not a self-help tip. James is not a Yoga teacher. He is standing in the place of God giving instruction and commands. You are responsible and accountable to get healed, if you failed, the accountability is yours to bear. The same with the beautiful gospel message. Just because it is wonderful, does not negate it is a command. All bear the responsibility to be saved by faith.

In all the above situations, saying “God’s Will,” will not save you on the day of judgement for disobeying these commands. Either Christ took on these disobedience in His substitution for you, or you will bear them in the fires of hell.

The phrase, “God’s Will,” or “God is in control,” is used to negate God’s command to be saved, to be healed, to get wisdom, to get victories over our troubles and so on. Yet, this is not what I wish to focus on. Another ethical horror, is what is happening when God’s will is used to determine ethics.

First, the irrational use of ontology to ethics.

“Brightman’s argument and all forms of so-called scientific ethics are based on a logical oversight. The premises of these theories are always descriptive statements, such as: I like this, or my friends like this. Science is a matter of observation and description, but scientific ethics depends on empirical observation for its premises. And if the premises are descriptive statements, the conclusions cannot be logically anything else than descriptive. Yet for ethics there must be normative conclusions. It will not suffice to say that you, or I, or Brightman likes this. What is required is a statement that you and I and Brightman ought to like this, and that everyone ought to like this, even though as a descriptive fact nobody likes it. The premises of science are always descriptive propositions; the conclusions of ethics must be normative. And it is a logical blunder to insert terms in the conclusion that did not appear in the premises. Any theory of ethics therefore that attempts to support ideals on observation, experience, or scientific method rests on a fallacy.”

-Gordon Clark. “The Achilles Heel of Humanism.”

Clark is making an obvious but often overlooked point. When thinking intelligently and rationally, you cannot do it if you try to conclude an ethic from statements of existence and casualty. You cannot validly go from ontology to ethics in a conclusion. Or do you cannot rationally go from “is” to an “ought” in the conclusion. The same is true for all category errors. You cannot be in the category of dogs, in your major and minor premise, to then concluded in a category of mathematics. So what if golden retrievers are warm blooded dogs, what does that have to do with 6 + 109 = 115?

Obviously athletic, empiricist, and evolutionist make this mistake, but why are Christians so stupid?

For example:

H.1. All humans are those who were born sinful.
H.2. Oshea is human.
H.3. Thus, Oshea is he who should repent.

This is painfully invalid. It is a four-term fallacy. I have more information in the conclusion, which I did not start with.

The premises are statements about reality, but I concluded with a different knowledge and category of an ethic.

The only rational way for Oshea to know that he should repent is if God commands it, and God does. All Christian ethics are God’s commandments.  

G.1. All humans are those commanded by God to repent.
G.2. Oshea is a human.
G.3. Thus, Oshea is commanded by God to repent.

I bring in this logic lesson, because this illogical (or superstitious) mistake is often made when I hear people say, “God’s will,” or “God is in control.”

Let us continue to see what a mix-up from God’s causality and His commands looks like.

If I say, all [bark] is [silent]. And all [dogs] [bark]. Thus all [dogs] are [silent],” then my syllogism is not sound because I made a 4-term fallacy (with bark), or an equivocation as an informal fallacy. 

For a syllogism to be valid, then the category needs to stay the same. If not, then mental blunders such as a 4-term fallacy, equivocation or a non-necessary connection is made (etc.). For a propositional syllogism to work, it must have a necessary connection and not merely a sufficient one.[[1]] A modus ponens where the “if…then,” connection is merely sufficient but not necessary, is most likely the fallacy of affirming the consequent wrongly disguised as something it is not.[[2]]

For a correct example, consider the Ultimate level.

J.1. (P) If God decrees (Ultimate) Johnny to not believe the gospel, (~Q) then Johnny will choose not to believe(relative ontology).
J.2. (P).
J.3. Thus, (Q).

The antecedent is ontology the on ultimate level. The consequent is ontology on the relative level. The Real level of causality (p), necessarily results in the relative level causality (q). This works, because it is a true cause and effect revealed by Scripture.

Think of a game like checkers, or chess.[[3]] The ultimate level is saying, “Oshea moves white pawn.” But on the relative level, “white pawn moves to E4.” Or in propositional logic, going from ultimate ontology to relative.

K.1. (P) If Oshea directly moves black bishop to B3, (Q) then the necessary result is that black bishop will take white pawn on B3.
K.2. (P).
K.3. Thus, (Q).

This is saying, “God directly causes all things; thus, God directly causes specific x, y or z.” If God ultimately causes all things, then God ultimately is the author for all rain. Or. If God ultimately causes all things, then God ultimately is the author for all sin. Like Vincent Cheung says, “Deduction is more like an application of knowledge, unlike induction, which is a fallacious attempt at arriving at more knowledge.”[[4]]

Now, what if I were to use God’s decree in the antecedent, but then go into a necessary consequent of what man ought to do (ethics)?

L.1.(P) If God commands all to believe in the gospel, (~Q) then Jack is accountable for not believing the gospel.
L.2. (P)
L.3. (Q)

N.1. (P) If God commands(ethics) that no one is to bear false witness, (Q) then Jack is wrong when he bears false witness against Sally.[[5]]
N.2. (P)
N.3. (Q)

The big idea? All [Christian ethics] are [God’s revealed commandments]. God commanded x, y and z; thus, is it always ethical for human (H) to obey x, y and z, and ethically wrong to disobey. NLV 1 John 3:4, “For sin is breaking the Law of God.” Thus, all [sin] is [lawbreaking]. If said in the immediate deduction of contraposition in layman’s terms, “if the law is being kept, then, there is no sin.”

Look, what happens if we mix categories up?

M.1. (P) If God decreed the Apostle Thomas to not believe Jesus’ resurrection, (~Q) then Thomas is not accountable for not believing what Jesus commanded to.
M.2. (P)
M.3. (~Q)

Or in more concise way of saying it,

B.1. If God decreed unbelief, then ok to not believe.
B.2. God decreed unbelief.
B.3. Thus, it is ok to not believe.

Or God’s decreed said more in relation to plan, rather than direct cause.

B.1. If God planned unbelief, then ok to not believe.
B.2. God planned unbelief.
B.3. Thus, it is ok to not believe.

Again, this is unsound and false. It does not matter if it is ontology level 1, regarding God’s sovereign plan about reality, or if it is level 2, regarding God’s direct causality right now. To go from ontology to ethics is not a necessary connection. It is invalid and a false description of reality. It is invalid to conclude an “ought” from your observations, which is an “is.” What you observe is at best what something “is”; although, I do not even say observations are able to even give this, due to the logical fallacy of empiricism and induction. There is not a necessary connection (p), to an (q) ought. Those who practice this fallacy, practice a doctrine of witchcraft and divination. It is demonic stronghold over the mind.  

Necessary Connection of Ethics

 The Scripture often gives explanations (of reality and causality), or that, it gives definitions and context when the commands are given. Yet, the explanation is not the command and vice versa.  In propositional logic, there is not a necessarily connection in “if…then.” Or, in syllogistic logic, either premise 1 or 2 would be a false premise. Therefore, I cannot make a truth claim from scripture that, “All [what God causes] is [human ethics].” And so also, I cannot assert that, “if God caused the Pharaoh to be hard minded to obey, then it is ethically good for Pharaoh to disobey God’s command.”  

 However, there is a NECESSARY connection from what God commands man, to what man OUGHT to do. It always applies. God commands all men to obey Him. Oshea is a man. Thus, Oshea ought to obey God’s commandments.

Here is the right question to ask. “What OUGHT I do in this situation?” An ought, is referring to an ethic, and thus, I need to find God’s relevant commands and promises (which are commands).

Now try this with “God’s Will.”  Notice the category fallacy is now being used like a sleazy used car-salesman; it is like a fallacy called a “slight of hand.” It is hiding the clear definition behind ambiguity and rhetoric.

F.1. (P) If God’s will is for the Apostle Thomas to not believe Jesus’ resurrection, (Q) then necessarily Thomas ought to do God’s will.  
F.2. (P)
F.3. (Q)

What does this mean? Depending how you use “God’s will,” whether for causality or command it will output different conclusions. And this—slight of hand ambiguity—is how I often see people use it. They output the conclusion that fits their favoritism. They find the easiest conclusion to fit their unbelief, rather than, outputting the conclusion that Scripture, with its correct categories, would give.

God’s Command Or Demonic Superstition? 

A simple way to term, the “invalidness” or logical leaps, which are made between premise and conclusion is “superstition.” The reason is that superstition is about making-up-*@#%, I’m sorry, making-up-conclusions that do not belong to what you know. To conclude a weird sound in your darkroom, is a ghost, is invalid; it is superstitious. A category of “sound,” and the conclusion of a ghost in the conclusion is a different category. The conclusion has more information in it, than what the premises provide. In other words, when you commit a category error, you are no less superstitious (invalid) than pagans worshiping the moon.

For example, it is invalid for a voodoo doctor or shaman to go from seeing a red moon, or the sudden motion of sand blowing in the air (a description of metaphysics or ontology, “is”), to an “ought” conclusion of, “we ought to sacrifice an albino baby for good luck for the village.”

Others do the same thing with demonic divinations with a game called Ouija board. Asking dead spirits or demons for advice or knowledge, they wait for board pieces or their hands to move. Hopefully by now, you see the invalidness of this. So what, if you hand moves? So what, if you hand moves 50 miles and then grows and shrinks? Who cares? It gives you no knowledge. It gives you no subjects or predicates. However, leaving the issue of empiricism, to conclude from a premise of metaphysics or ontology about hands moving, to “I should to this, or I need to do that, or I have an idea what to do tomorrow,” is invalid. It is superstitious. The conclusion has more information in it, than what the premises provide.

Christians however play the same game with the terms, “God’s will,” or “God is in control.”

They will say, “Johnny prayed for healing, but did not get; thus it is God’s will for Johnny to accept this (ethic) as part of his life.”  That is invalid. It is pagan superstition. The conclusion does not logically follow. The conclusion has more information in it than what the premises provide. They have a premise of metaphysics or ontology, and then magically produce an “ought” out of it. They are saying, “God move my hand (to have cancer or some disease), and thus, I know what I “ought” to do now. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty is now being used like demonic divination. It is like saying, “I asked if I will be healed, and then the Ouija board moved my hand in this way, thus, it is fate for me not to be healed. I ought to accept this as part of my life.” In both examples what “ought” to be done did not start with God’s commandment about the topic; rather, both used causality and existence and their observations from it, to superstitiously form an “ought” conclusion.  

Sadly, many Christians have more in common with pagans and Satanists, when deciding what they “ought” to do, as compared to obeying God’s commandments. Why would Satan need to infiltrate the church with Ouija boards, when he has already been successful in making Christians practice demonic divination, by abusing the doctrine of God’s sovereignty to live a life of overt superstition. The amount I see so-called Christians abuse, “God is in control, and God’s will,” is unmeasurable. They so often live a life of superstition, they could even help teach voodoo witchdoctors how to be even more superstitious.

If Christians can stop committing spiritual perversion with empiricism and superstition for just one minute, then I pray God will help you see the horror you are committing against your own soul, and extreme level of disobedience you are committing against God’s commands.  Stop superstitiously divining what you ought to do; rather, humble yourself under God’s command and believe Him to be faithful do what He promised.


The gospel of Jesus Christ is not narrowly about the forgiveness of sins, for that is only the doorway into the life of the Spirit. This gospel is about all the benefits it acquired, at that time and place (not another time, and another place), in Christ’s atonement. Galatians says that faith in Jesus grafts one into the promised blessing of Abraham. What does this promise of God mean? This promise includes, according to Paul, the Spirit and miracles. And let us not be naïve; if Paul is mentioning the Spirit and miracles, in context of the New Testament, it must be presupposed this is a common experience in the Galatian church. Yet, Scripture argues this common miracle experience is based on the very old promise that God gave to Abraham. God is merely letting His “Yes be Yes.” He is being faithful to His promise. God is not like man; God does what He promises, even if it is thousands of years later; and even if the people to who God promise did not realize this promise meant an abundant/common experience of miracles and Spirit in the New Testament Church; yet God knew, and He is faithful to do what He promised.

Thus, Jesus’ death and intercession grants this blessing for all individuals who have faith in Him. This is said on the relative level ontology. On ultimate level ontology, it was not accomplished by their faith; rather, Jesus’ atonement did, and it was accepted and declared as final and good by the Father. God’s sovereign choice decided that based on Jesus’ work the Elect are righteous and worthy to be adopted as His son’s. This act is good and righteous for God the judge to do so, because God thinks it is so. Therefore, faith as a purchased gift is sovereignly worked in those to whom this reconciliation was for. The Elect’s souls are far too weak to resist God’s power to awaken their tiny souls into the unstoppable power and life of His Spirit. And so, believe and receive. Read God’s commands and obey they, by acquiring what they promise in faith. Love God by obeying His commands. There is not another way to love God. But for the elect, God will put His laws into their hearts, so that they will not depart from Him. He will be their God, and they will be His people. God will not stop from doing good, and applying the New Covenant to them.



[1] See my website and the essay, “Logic Lesson – Categorical vs. Hypothetical,” by James Creighton

[2] M.1. (P) If my yard is wet, (Q) then it rained.

M.2. (P) Indeed, my yard is wet.

M.3. (Q) Thus, my yard is wet.

This Modus Ponens is really an affirming the consequent that is merely disguised. The connection is not a necessary one. Maybe I watered my yard with the garden hose? Let us restate it as affirming the consequent, which is the correct form when reasoning backwards in pragmatic matters. It is a fallacy and is the basis for all scientific experiments.

N.1. (P) If it rains, (Q) then my yard get wets.

N.2. (Q). My yard is wet.

N.3. (P) Thus, it rained.

[3] I got this initial idea of a chess game from Vincent Cheung. See, “There is No Real Synergism.”

[4] Vincent wrote this to me in an email(2017) regarding a question I asked him about his essay, “Induction and Bible Study,” web. 2016. (www.vincentcheung.com).

[5] Like the other above it, the antecedent is the ultimate ethic (God commands), and the consequent dealing the ethics on the relative level (human x choses to or not obey God’s command)—relative is the human level and not referring to relativism. There is some indirect use of ontology, for ontology, or reality can be predicated to any subject, but this is not the main or direct category here.