Author Archives: osheadavis

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. (

[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.

Help the Sick, By Giving Them a Smile?

With this news, strengthen those who have tired hands, and encourage those who have weak knees. Say to those with fearful hearts,
“Be strong, and do not fear,
for your God is coming to destroy your enemies. He is coming to save you.”
And when he comes, he will open the eyes of the blind and unplug the ears of the deaf.
The lame will leap like a deer, and those who cannot speak will sing for joy!
Springs will gush forth in the wilderness,
and streams will water the wasteland.
Isaiah 35:3–6 (NLT)
You do not strengthen and bless the hungry (to take their fear away), by giving them a smile and words of comfort. You bless them, by giving them food. The same for the cold; you give them clothes. The same is for the sick and deformed. You make the blind see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk (etc), by miracle working power. That is what Jesus did, and commands us to do.

Where are You; I’ll Pick You Up?

In Vincent Cheung’s article, Healing the Will of Man[1]:

The Bible writers often identify God’s ability and God’s will. They do not make such a sharp distinction between the two that they always need to say both in order to indicate that something would occur. In many contexts, to state either is to affirm both. They do not refer to God’s ability in a way that the discussion makes no progress until they also refer to God’s will. To affirm that God is able is to affirm confidence in the outcome. Because he is able, it is assumed that the desired result is guaranteed.

Vincent then mentions these verses, with the additional Jude 1:24 that also came to my mind.[2]

“Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” (Hebrews 7:25 NIV)

“Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” (Hebrews 2:18 NIV)

“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.” (Romans 14:4 NIV)

“To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy.” (Jude 1:24. NIV).

The “Trinity” is the only intelligent and rational definition of monotheism, because no other knowledge exists for man except for God’s revelation, so to, with the scripture’s definition of God’s goodness and love. If God is good and God is able, then the specific request of help being asked by a Christian, will be done. God’s revelation is the only knowledge that exist. Thus, there is no other intellectual and rational definition for what it means for God to love and be good to His elect.

Sadly, many Christians interact with God’s sovereign ability and power in a fatalistic relationship, rather than, in a biblical divine decree relationship. Many say, “I will pray, but since God is in control, then what will happen will happen by God’s control.” This might fool simpletons and spiritual perverts, but this is a demonic doctrine of fatalism. God’s order of His decrees teaches us the doctrine of determinism; that is, sovereign decrees by an intellectual mind, that wants to acquire His own ends and purposes. The difference in application is so simple a 1st grade child can grasp it.

1.) To know what is the outcome of one’s prayer in fatalism, then one relates to a nubilous unknown outcome that cannot be stop.

2.) To know the outcome of God’s divine decrees, then one relates to God with the specific definitions and specific commandments about the specific aspect of reality they are asking God for help in, knowing God will do specifically what He said He would do.

To act like God might or might not do what He promised to do, because He is in control, is to negate the sovereignty of God’s absolute decrees, and transform it into eastern fatalism.

God is not pantheism. God is an intelligent mind that has revealed a substantial body of knowledge about reality and His own goals. To transform this detailed and substantial knowledge into a nubilous, unknown fatalism is demonic.

James says in 5:15 that if you ask in faith to be healed, “you will be healed.” This is what the intelligent and rational mind of God sovereignly decreed about this aspect of reality. To take this and say, “I can pray for healing, but since God is in control, He will do what He wants.” This is both stupid and spiritual perversion. It takes God’s personal sovereign choices (the Bible’s definition of what sovereign control means), and negates this, and then replaces it with a fatalism.

Not only does this invalidate the Bible’s teaching on God’s sovereign decrees, but it invalidates God’s good character and atonement of Jesus Christ, among other things.

God, for example, in the sermon on the Mount, defines Himself as “good” and loving by giving us the very things we ask for, not something else. No amount of empiricism or observation is able to change that, because human speculation as an epistemology does not exist.

Whether it is God’s promise of blessing, fame, healing, and prosperity to Abraham (which we have in Christ-Gal. 3) or promises of safety from the terror that stalks at night (Psalm 91), or safety in sanctification (Jude 1:24), or delivered from sickness (James 5:15), God’s policy is rudimentary: if He is able, then He will do it.

The context that makes this work is that God loves/favors us. As Christians, God has revealed He loves us with a HUGE love. He has promised to never stop from doing good to us, in both spiritual and material blessings.

Think about a marriage. Imagine a marriage of 40 years of faithfulness, love and joy. Now imagine the wife calling her husband at 2 am at night, waking him up from sleep and says, “Honey, my car just broke down on the side of the road, I’m afraid.” What do you think the husband will say? Will he give a 10-minute speech about his love for her? Most likely not. Why? Because in the context of this faithful marriage, they already know that. Rather, the husband will likely respond with, “Where are you, I’ll pick you up.” Because he loves/favors her, he will help his wife, because he is able.

This is what God is doing, when He says in our passages, “I am able, I’ll do it.” He shouldn’t have to repeat with every interaction with a 50 page essay that He loves us. He has already proven that with His Son’s atonement, and covenant. Unlike faithful marriages where they trust each other, Christians seem to have a hard time believing in God’s love, which was given to then in the blood contract of His Son. Thus, because of weakness to believe in His love, God will often give long discourses of His love in the Bible and to individuals in the Bible, and then repeat it. God is patient with our slow to believe immaturity, but this patience does not negate the accountability that we are commanded to be mature in faith.  And so, when we call up God in prayer, so to speak, rather than sometimes saying, “where are you, I’ll pick you up,” God will dive into a 10 minute speech about His love for us, so as to help us believe.

Jesus was excessive about healing people and then saying over and over in the gospels, “if you ask in faith, you will get it.” Or that is, “If you are stranded on the road, and call me (this calling is faith), I will be there; I will pick you up just like you asked of me.” Jesus made answers to prayers to be anything you need, whether spiritual or material, with a special emphasis on healing.

Therefore, for those who are mature, for you God is to the point about the width, length, depth and height of His favor. They can cry out to God for help, who sits on His throne of unmerited favor, and they can hear, through faith in His decrees and commands, “My dear child, where are you? I will pick you up.”


[1] Vincent Cheung. 2020 December. Article.

[2] I am not affiliated with Vincent Cheung. These are my own thoughts about the doctrine.

The Decrees of God, vs, Demonic Fatalism

This is from the forthcoming book: Systematic Theology

As said before, affirming God’s absolute sovereignty can be said in one simple deduction and applied in every instance. It is so simple a 2nd grader could do it. The whole section you just read could have been said in one page, if not for wicked, stupid and lazy people resisting the doctrine.

God is absolutely and directly sovereign over all things; thus, God is sovereign over x, y and z (etc.). Why do I need to hold people’s hands to apply this?

I often in this context, refer to this as “God’s causality over all things.” Or in philosophy, Christian metaphysics and ontology. The Scripture usually refers to this in two terms, God’s sovereignty, or God’s decrees. And in particular with the term “decrees,” we are dealing with what is the central issue or the biblical focus on God’s sovereignty. The reason for this is simple, it is a no-brainer, easy to affirm God is totally sovereign over this moment as I write, or as I do anything, whether I sin or do acts of faith. This is painfully easy to understand and affirm. However, sense we are not dealing with mere abstracted fatalism, or pantheism, but an intellectual God, then the core issue of affirming God’s sovereignty is knowing what He decreed. The focus is on an intellectual Mind that had a goal for what He wants and with perfect control over His mind and infinite understanding, set goals and worked the order of reality to accomplish His purposes and intentions.

 Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 

 just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him in love,

 having predestined us to adoption through Jesus Christ to himself according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace that he bestowed on us in the beloved, 

 in whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, 

 that he caused to abound to us in all wisdom and insight, making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure that he purposed in him, 

 for the administration of the fullness of times, to bring together all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things on the earth, in him 

 in whom also we were chosen, having been predestined according to the purpose of the One who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 

 that we who hoped beforehand in Christ should be for the praise of his glory, 

 in whom also you, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also when you believed you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,  who is the down payment of our inheritance, until the redemption of the possession, to the praise of his glory.

Ephesians 1:3-14 LEB

An understanding of some basic logic and understanding of category statements could be helpful here. For example, if I say, “all fish are trout,” is categorically different than saying “all trout are fish.” (See picture for a simple circle diagram.)

When dealing with categories, if all the subject, (not just some) is numerically or by attribute belongs to the predicate, then subject is a smaller circle fully inside the larger predicate circle. Thus, the subject is universally contained in the predicate. The logic is simple.

The first one is false, the other is true. In Genesis God established categories of the things He created. Thus, even if we mix in some specific induction, we know as infallible truth, God created fixed categories for animals, fish, vegetation, and etc.. We know there are many types of each in each of the broad categories. Thus, we know to say, “all fish are trout,” or, “all birds are sparrows,” is false, for there are many types of fish and birds, not just trout and sparrows. Thus, to casually flip the subject and predicate, of categorical truth claims is against Biblical teaching.

This is important to remember, because we are dealing with the ORDER of God’s decrees. It is important not to flip things around. If God decrees “x” as first, then it is not second or seventh. Congratulations, we just left second grade and now we can finally move on to forth grade teaching on God’s sovereignty. It is not bear control. An intelligent Mind ordered the world for His own goals. As we saw with an early circle diagram from 1 Corinthians 3, the order of multiple categories is crucial.

People who keep saying—God is in control, God is in control of my life, God is in control of this situation and even those who affirm with more boldness, God is in control and He is even the author of sin and evil—are spiritual infants. They never left second grade. They are mentally stunted. The question is, “how is God in control,” and “what has God commanded you to do, in light of His control of it.” Just saying God is in control, is of little help if it is applied like pantheism or fatalism. The decrees of God show His control is determinism in accordance to His own good purposes. Knowing God is in control is not boiled down to having a pagan, “Zen state of mind” about life; it is not boiled down to being calm. God was in sovereign control, when He directly and absolutely caused all those people in the gospels to be sick, blind, dead, leprous and demon possessed. What did Jesus do about this, as a man born under the law of God? He healed, resurrected and set those people free by the power of God. He commands us to do the same. If you do not do this, then the doctrine of God’s sovereignty is both wasted on you, and it shows you never believed above an infant level understanding of God’s sovereignty.

To say God is in control is not an ethic. It does not tell you what to do. However, if we say God has used this sovereign control, to DECREE us to be children of God, and DECREED we have bold access to His throne of grace, well then, this actually has huge implications for the person stating it. To say God has used His sovereign control, to DECREE for us to have power over sickness and demons, has huge implications. This shows us how God is in control. And some basic ordering of His control. It gives us understanding about our definition of Christians. God is not pantheism. His control over the world is explained and understand as His ordered decrees about all things.

What good is it for a sinner to realize they are a born a sinner by God’s control over their life, and say, “well, God is in control”? Do they forget God has used His control over reality to DECREE that there is salvation in Jesus Christ, and for those with faith, then a new life, a new soul and a new world is theirs for the taking.

In my experience, when I hear Christians say, God is in control or God’s Will, it has more in common with pagan fatalism than it does with God’s decrees of determinism. They are spiritual perverts and liars. God has used His sovereign control to DECREE that the elect are to be victorious (in everyday life difficulties) over sin, besetting sins, sickness, diseases, terrors of the night or day, demons and poverty. This so-called Christian appeal to, “God is in control,” is in reality an appeal to fatalism, and thus they let the sickness and demons roll right over them. In such acts these spiritual losers, are prostrating themselves to demons and their doctrines. These people are part of Reformed churches as much as they are part of Pentecostal churches. They falsely claim to assent to God’s sovereign control, but in reality they are liars. They believe in fatalism, and use this equivocation to negate the commandments of God. God’s specific descriptions of His sovereign control in His decrees, because of their detailed nature, are often accompanied with commands. That is, with detailed decrees, which are usually about the church, God gives commandments about the specific descriptions of reality He has ordered.  For example, God had decreed salvation for the elect in the atonement of Christ. God therefore commands repentance and faith in the gospel. God is in control, even when He directly caused the elect to be born sinners. However, by the decree of God, the elect believe what God has revealed. They believe by faith in Jesus they are saved. And so they are.  Also, God has decreed healing to be part of the atonement for the elect. With this specific description of God’s decree, God then commands us to have faith to be healed. God is in control, even when He directly caused the elect to have sickness and troubles. However, by the decree of God, the elect believe what God has revealed. They believe by faith in Jesus they are healed and delivered. And so they are.

Fatalism comes in and negates these commands, because God is in control, or, God’s will. Because God is in control, and thus, is ultimately in control over the fact you are sick and diseased, thus, you will pray, but what will happen by God’s control, will happen. This sounds humble and religious to spiritual perverts, but not to God. It is applying a demonic doctrine of fatalism over God’s determinism. God has used His sovereign control to decree that those with faith, will be healed, will cause Satan to depart and be victorious.

Fatalism is used to negate the details of God’s sovereign decrees. These people might be those who are quick to point out how the religious leaders in the gospels negated the commands of God by their traditions. Well, fatalism is a human made doctrine with its own traditions. Our religious leaders of today, mask their human doctrine with a biblical sounding topic—God’s sovereign control—but their wicked and sinister goal is to negate the commandments of God with it. They are sons of hell, leading others to be even greater sons of hell than they are.  


Picture diagram of 1 Corinthians 3:23

By Power, They Testified About Power

And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on them all,”
Acts 4:33 (LEB).
Notice, it does not say, with great love for each other they gave testimony to the resurrection. It does not say, by their bold testimony under persecution, they gave testimony of the resurrection.
Here is a question. What is the resurrection?
Therefore, the passage reads with GREAT POWER ( I.E. healing and miracles) they testified to the resurrection.

By power, they testified about power.

What was the result of this context? GREAT UNMERITED FAVOR was poured on them. Many are asking in America, how can we have God’s unmerited favor poured on us in a great way, because right now we need it. Well, now you know how. By power of healing and miracles testify of Jesus’ resurrection power. In this context we can expect, Great unmerited favor will be poured out. Because God is able, He will do it.

You Are Righteousness, For Believing I Will Prosper You

God: Abraham, I will bless you, I will make you wealthy and prosperous, I will give you supernatural health, I will highly favor you in all things, I will exalt your name before the world, I will give you a son and love your children as I loved you.

Abraham: OK, I believe You are able.

God points His finger at Abraham and says:



“God promised that Abraham would have a son, and that his descendants would become numerous like the stars. He promised that he would make his name great. It was not presented as a promise of salvation or justification as such, and it was not a call to suffering discipleship. It was a promise of healing, prosperity, and glory for Abraham. And Abraham was justified by believing in this promise. The sort of message that false teachers call heresy today has been the foundation for the calling of Moses, the coming of Christ, and the salvation of Christians. Abraham recognized that his own body and his wife’s body were old and barren, but because God said that he would have a son, natural circumstances became irrelevant. He believed that God was able to perform a miracle of healing.

It would have been redundant to believe that God was willing to do what he said. Of course he was willing — he said it. God said, “Abraham, I have made you the father of nations. You are going to have a son. I will make your name great.” Imagine if Abraham had said, “I know you are able, but are you willing to do it?” This would have made no sense, but somehow it has become a pillar in Christian reasoning. “Well…I just said you are going to have a son.” “Right, I heard you. But are you willing to do it?” Should we treat God like a child? It is even more absurd to focus on the will of God for healing given all that the Bible says about the nature of God, the work of Christ, and the ministry of the apostles and the believers. Even the attempt to demonstrate the will of God for healing seems redundant and ridiculous. Abraham believed that God was able to do this thing that was impossible for human power to accomplish. And that was faith.”

Vincent Cheung. “Healing: the Will of Man

Announcing the Lord’s Death

1 Corinthians 11:23–26 (NLT)

For I pass on to you what I received from the Lord himself. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it.”

For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.

Paul says in the Lord’s supper we are not announcing Jesus’ resurrection, but “His Death.” The other crucial point to mark is the emphasis on, “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

The positive focus and command is for us to remember Jesus in the atonement, with an emphasis on HIS broken body, and HIS blood. Then both of these are to be focused in regard to “His death,” rather than resurrection.

What does this mean?

First, it is NOT mainly a focus on you. It is about Jesus. He is asking you, to remember Him!

Second, it is what Jesus’ “death” accomplished at that particular time and place.

After reading and watching some of the faith preachers, I have noticed an abnormal focus on “you” receiving healing when taking the Lord’s Supper. The mistake is not in that one is able to receive healing when they take the Lord’s Supper, but that it is not emphasized that way in the Scripture.

Below is a quick positive teaching on what the “broken bread” and “blood” mean, in light of Jesus’ “death.” One part will deal with Jesus’ body broken for our healing.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (or Christ). Upon hearing the word of Christ, in the Lord Supper, it is more than possible for faith to rise up and receive the promises of God; however, the focus of the Lord Supper is about remembering Jesus’ body and blood, in His death. It is not mainly about you.

Jesus says to remember His broken body. The question then is simple. What does the Scripture say about Jesus broken body? What does the Scripture say about Jesus body and its death? The broken body of Jesus was about the substitutionary atonement. What does the Scripture say about this?

First, is the overall nature of God. God loved us. Jesus loved us.

The Body:

As to the details, Isaiah 53 says some specific things about the body of Jesus in the atonement.

4 Surely He has borne our griefs (sicknesses, weaknesses, and distresses) and carried our sorrows and pains [of punishment], yet we [ignorantly] considered Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God [as if with leprosy]. [Matt. 8:17.]

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole. (Isaiah 53 4-5 AMP).

The fact that our sins were upon His body, is not disputed. In verse 12 it uses the Levitical word (the one used in Lev. 16 about the escape goat) for borne our sins. That is, our sins were transferred off us, and put-on Jesus, by the judgement of the Father. Thus, the Father, broke, beat and punished the “body” of Jesus, all the way to death, for the sin that it carried.

However, the same Levitical word is also used in verse 4, when it says, He borne our sickness and pain. That is, our sicknesses were transferred off us, and transferred to Jesus, by the Judgment of the Father. Then verse 4 concludes that the “body” of Jesus looked like it was “afflicted,” as if “with leprosy.” Thus, the Father broke the “body” of Jesus with affliction for the sickness it bore.

However there is more about this death of Jesus.

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that although he was rich, for your sake he became poor, in order that you, by his poverty, may become rich.” 1 Corinth. 8:9 LEB

This passage cannot be spiritualized away. It is about money. When doing context and systematic theology we read Paul saying something similar about sin and righteousness in his second letter to the Corinthians, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” (2 Corinth. 5:21 LEB). And so, by the substitutionary poverty of Jesus, just as in His substitutionary sin, we become rich and we become righteous.

Jesus borne on His body, our poverty. His body was stripped naked. He was so poor, His body was naked in its death. Jesus in His ministry had so much money, that Judas was able to steal from the money bag and it not cause a problem. In His substitutionary death, Jesus was penniless and naked. He became our poverty so that, now in this place, in Him we might have an abundance to wealth, and in this have an abundance to give to the gospel ministry and poor.

However, there is more about this death of Jesus.

“But it is from Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became God-given wisdom for us—our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, (1 Corinth. 1:30 HCSB)

Here Paul, sums up the substitutionary atonement of Christ as, “Jesus became righteousness for us.” In this list we hear of a new aspect, Jesus became our wisdom for us, in this atonement death. Since this atonement is already defined by Paul as a substitutionary death for all our negative things, when we know in order for Jesus to be our wisdom in us now, we know He was our ignorance on the cross for us first. Jesus did not fight back with words to His accusers. On the cross, Jesus’ body was silent to the mocking. Think about all the cruel things the mocked Him with, when He hung on the cross. The only time He spoke is when the high priest used his authority to make Jesus give an answer. He looked ignorant and stupid. He born that shame on this silent body, on the cross.  Jesus took on our stupidity and ignorance, so that in Him we might become the Wisdom of God.

Time would fail me to mention all substitutionary transfers His body borne for us, such as Jesus taking on our abandonment. His body borne the shame of abandonment. All forsook Him. His body did not have a friend hugging and clinging onto Him in love to comfort Him. No. His body borne our abandonment for us, so that in Him we become the children of God, with endless brothers and sisters!

The main aspect of the Lord’s Supper, about the “body” of Jesus, is not the positive aspect of what we receive; rather, it is about the negative aspect of all the negative things Jesus body received for us! The death focus of this Supper is about what died in the death of Jesus body. Our sin was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body. It died there, once and for all, at the Place of the Skull. Our poverty was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body. Our sickness was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body at that place and time. Our ignorance was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body. Our abandonment was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body.

All these negative things were taken off of us, and DIED in the body of Christ, once and for all. Your sins have already died. Your sickness has already died. Your ignorance has already died. Your poverty has already died, in the body of Jesus.  By announcing the Lord’s death, you are announcing all the negative things that was once yours, were transferred upon the body of Jesus, and died there.

The blood:

The blood of Jesus, as Paul says, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood.”

This phrase about “God being our God, and we His people,” is what God promises in the New Covenant.  Thus, it is not surprising to see Jesus making this phrase and connecting it to the new covenant and then to “His blood.” Why the blood? And what does this have to do with announcing His “death.”

“Now when someone leaves a will,[g] it is necessary to prove that the person who made it is dead. The will goes into effect only after the person’s death. While the person who made it is still alive, the will cannot be put into effect.

That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal.” (Hebrews 9:16-18 NLT)

The reason Jesus mentions us to remember His “blood,” and the New Contract, is that the “DEATH” (blood) of the tester makes the contract “active.” Whereas the body of Christ is purely a negative focus on all the negative things Jesus body borne, the blood is (although negative directly) more of focus on the positive aspect of the New Contract being “effective” in Jesus’ death. Jesus’ bloodshed, not ours, activates the new contract. God promises, in the positive, I will not remember your sins, I will write my Laws upon your heart, I will not stop from doing you good, I will be Your God, and you will be My people.”

The blood and death of Jesus makes this already active for us. We are to remember the blood that poured out of His body, for so many hours. We are to remember, out of love for us, He is letting His blood flow out, so that in His death the new contract of unmerited favor becomes active for us!

When we proclaim Jesus’ death we proclaim that,

In His blood, “God is our God, we are already His people!”

Devil Victimized People with Sickness, God Healed Them

The devil made people sick. God made them well. The devil victimized people with sickness. God destroyed the work of the devil by healing and loosing these oppressed people from Satan’s power. Jesus was the stronger One; He bound and plundered the devil’s house.’
They begged him to let the sick touch at least the fringe of his robe, and all who touched him were healed. Matthew 14:36 (NLT)
A vast crowd brought to him people who were lame, blind, crippled, those who couldn’t speak, and many others. They laid them before Jesus, and he healed them all. Matthew 15:30 (NLT)
 Or how can someone enter into the house of a strong man and steal his property, unless he first ties up the strong man? And then he can thoroughly plunder his house, Matt 12:29 LEB

… Holy Spirit and with power. Then Jesus went around doing good and

healing all who were oppressed by the devil,

for God was with him. Acts 10:38 (NLT)

Let God’s Favor Be On You, as it is in Heaven

May your Kingdom come soon.
May your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.” (LEB Matt 6)

Deduction is an application of knowledge. It is the necessary inference from premise to conclusion. If the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. Deduction does not manufacture new information, not already in the premises, and magically puts into the conclusion like all induction does. If Paul says in Romans 3 that, “(1.) All humans have sinned.” Then I can say, “(2.) Oshea is a human; thus, (3.) Oshea has sinned.” This conclusion is what the Bible asserts, because the information in the conclusion, “Oshea has sinned,” is contained in the Biblical premises, “All humans have sinned.” Deduction applies this knowledge to the specific, or points out a small part of information that is already part of the bigger part that is affirmed in Scripture.

When Jesus instructs us to pray, “Your will be done on earth, as it is in Heaven,” this is obviously meant in the broad category of all things about God’s will being done in heaven (which is done without opposition of demons and unbelief and lack of ability in those who are His), to then it being done on earth. If there is a focus about this, it would be about Jesus’ focus of ushering in the Kingdom of God by defeating the devil in both spiritual and natural victories (both forgiveness and healings, healings, resurrections (etc.)).

An appropriate application (or deduction) of this is how this relates to us. Our lives are in heaven, hidden with Jesus Christ (Colossians 3:3). Thus, to pray for God’s will which is in heaven, reminds us that our lives are in heaven, at the right hand of the Power, in Christ.

Think about the actual prayer that follows. Surely, Jesus is giving words to pray that will usher in God’s Will being done on earth? What does He say?  Jesus teaches us to pray, “gives us our daily bread, and forgive our sins.” The first two things Jesus teaches us to pray for after asking for God’s Will to be done on earth is for OUR spiritual and material blessing. Since few seem to disagree with God wanting to bless us with spiritual things like forgiveness, we will move on to the other point, “our daily bread.” Some super-duper pious people might think that daily bread about our bear minimum food requirements, but this would be both an intellectual and spiritual mistake.

When we do systematic theology to make sure we are not contradicting other parts of the scripture on the same subject, we read Jesus in the same Sermon saying, “Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we wear?,’  for the pagans seek after all these things. … seek first his kingdom … all these things will be added to you,” (Matt 6:31-33). Jesus teaches that He will give us the material blessings the “PAGANS” seek. The pagans do not seek the smallest possible amount of food, clothes and houses. Jesus wants us to seek His righteousness and by this receive what the pagans want. Thus, receiving our daily bread and God’s will being done in this context is not less than praying for God to help us seek His righteousness, not worry and receive the material abundance that the pagans seek. The prayer is that God is the power and ability to give us this prosperity by His favor, and not by mere human effort. This would make Genies in movies blush, for God is giving wish, after wish, after wish, after wish, without end.

God’s will in heaven, for His Son is to overtly bless His Son with favor (aka “love) and blessings. And so, to pray for God’s Will to be done on earth, is to pray for God to overtly bless us with love (or for us this favor is, “unmerited favor/grace”) and blessings. Sure, it means more than this, but not less than (this is the important part). So, when you pray for God’s will to be done on earth for you, as it is in heaven, remember your life is already in heaven in Christ, because God thinks so. The foundation of being favored is God, not something else. God thought about it, made it a reality in Christ’s atonement, and now considers your life in Christ, at this very moment. This is God’s world, and He does what He wants, and this is what He has done with you. Remember, God is super-abundantly favoring Christ in Heaven, and you are there with Him. For God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven, is to have God’s favor rest on you as it rests on Christ in heaven.

Oh what love (favor) God has shown us, that we should be called children of God.

Let Man’s Will be Done on Earth

Matthew 15:28 (LEB)

Then Jesus answered and said to her, “O woman, your faith is great!

Let it be done for you as you [will].”

The Greek here is similar to what Jesus says later in Matthew 26 in His prayer to the Father about letting this cup of the cross pass from Him.

Matthew 26:42 (NKJV) Jesus said, “Your will be done.”

For some reason, the translators, which almost always translates ‘thelo’ and ‘thelema’ (Strongs 2307 and 2309) as “will” puts Jesus words to the Canaanite woman as “desire.” (Maybe bias?) Nothing wrong with the word “desire,” but it might hide the fact it is the same meaning that Jesus uses in His own prayer. And thus, to make sure we do not miss the impact of this we will use the same word of “will” for both verses. It is the same used in the Lord’s prayer, “Your Will be done on earth.”

Jesus referring to the broad category of God’s plan to only minister to the Jews, not the gentiles, says by implication that it is “not God’s will” to heal her daughter. Jesus even goes so far as to argue that it is ethically wrong to take what belongs to someone, and then give it to another person. As Vincent Cheung states, she “asserts an argument of faith.”[1]  Jesus, God in the flesh, God’s Will in the flesh, the most God centered man who ever lived, then does a 180 change about what God’s will is, by ignoring God’s will and says, “woman, your will be done,” instead. Jesus says, “let man’s will be done,” in essence.

When it comes to the promises of God, when people have faith, Jesus kept over and over, affirming the will of man. This is not some overly makeup guy, sitting in a gold chair on TBN. This was God Himself, in direct verbal revelation, affirming the “will of man,” when man engages God’s promise in faith. Your theology must deal with this.

When James says in chapter one of his letter that if you have faith you will be given wisdom, he does not say, “only if it is God’s will.” Rather, he says it is man’s accountability to get wisdom from God, if you lack it. And if you failed to get the wisdom, then the accountability is on “your” lack of faith, not the will of God. That is, if you have faith, in your trial of lack of wisdom, then God’s response is that the will of man (“Lord, I want wisdom”) is to be done on earth. James says the same thing about healing and forgiveness in chapter 5. When man’s faith engages the promises of God, the God Himself affirms “let man’s will be done.”


For more see on this topic, see the essay by Vincent Cheung. (Healing: The Will of Man)
(I am not affiliated or with Vincent Cheung.) 

[1] Vincent Cheung. Faith Override. 2016