Author Archives: osheadavis

God’s Will Failed, Because of Non-faith

“But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him,” (Luke 7:30).

Sometimes when reading, “faith and or, health and wealth,” preachers I notice their complete lack of talking about God’s power and causality on the ultimate level. This goes so extreme at times it becomes an excommunicable offense. They will say things like “God does not give sickness, “ONLY,” the Devil.” They are referring to passages like Acts 10:38 when Peter said Jesus healed all those oppressed by Satan. This is indeed true; however, it is only regarding relative level ontology, not ultimate level causality. What they have correct is that Jesus mostly speaks on this level. Jesus says if you have faith, then the mountain will OBEY YOU. Your, faith saved you. Your, faith healed you. And let us be honest here, Jesus was and is, more God-centered than you. And he mostly speaks on this relative level ontology.

This divide over what “the Will of God,” means is a similar issue. It can mean 2 things. It either refers to God’s decrees (or causality, either by direct force, or to the ordering of what God causes, i.e. “ontology”) and to what God commands (ethics).  Luke refers to the will of God as His commandments. And let us also be honest again, Luke is also more God-centered than you. Luke is not saying the Sovereign God made a decree and the Pharisees used their own self-existence-power (ontology) and overpowered God’s causality (ontology) on the ultimate level. Rather, Luke is saying God has commanded all to repent and be reconciled to God, but the Pharisees “rejected God’s Command.” Ethics (i.e. God’s Commandments) is especially important because the Bible says so. Thus, talking about, ‘the Will of God,’ as His commands is a common and important part of Christian theology.

Thus, when a faith preacher says, “do not reject God’s Will,” or “do not miss out on God’s Will, by unbelief,” or “you will miss God’s Will,” or “you need to accomplish God’s Will,” he is correct in this. Jesus Christ, the most God-centered man who ever lived, spoke on this (ethics, relative ontology) level more than ultimate causality. Let that sink into your thick skulls.

“Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will of God.” Thus, on this level God’s Will Failed, because of unbelief. There is nothing wrong in saying it this way. OR better said, God’s command failed to produce obedience in minds of unbelief.  It is saying the same thing.

I would recommend Vincent Cheung’s essay, “ “Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11.”[1]

Below is a small excerpt from that essay. Notice the “will of God,” is used differently.

1 Samuel 2:25

His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, [precept] for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death. [decree]…

Mark 3:35, For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother. [precept]
1 Peter 3:17, For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. [decree][2]

Paraphrasing Mark and Peter with a more direct meaning of the term “will of God.”

Mark, “Whoever obeys God’s commandments is my brother.”

Peter, “It is better if God causes you to suffer for doing good rather than evil.”

Obviously, the doctrine of God’s sovereign causality over all things, and His commandments revealed to man are quite different categories. To make an equivocation here is a huge category fallacy. It would be like saying my invisible thoughts and rocks are the same category; therefore, all rocks are invisible. It would directly violate the basic laws of logic. It would make all inferences from scripture to be invalid.  If categories were to be violated like this, then it would thrust knowledge into skepticism. Yet, skepticism denies the law of non-contradiction. To be true, it must be false.

Look, what happens if we mix categories up?

If God caused(ultimate ontology) the Apostle Thomas to not believe Jesus’ resurrection, then it is right(ethics) for Thomas to not believe what Jesus commanded to.

God did indeed, referring to ultimate level causality, cause Thomas to doubt. However, to infer an ethic from God’s causality like this, is voodoo, witchcraft divination. It is David Hume empiricism in full display.

Or,

“If God caused(ultimate) Elijah to fail 6 times in his prayer (or your prayers) for rain, then it is not God’s Will (ethic) for Elijah to pray for this miracle and receive it (or yours).” Right?

Or,

“If God caused (ultimate) the disciples to not have enough faith to heal the father’s boy (or caused you to), then it is God’s Will (ethic) for God not to heal the boy (or heal you).” Right?

God did cause the disciples to have a lack of faith, in the ultimate sense, but to act like a voodoo witch-doctor and conclude, it must not be God’s Will to heal the boy, is superstitious rebellion, because Jesus turned around and healed the boy anyway.

OR,

“If God caused (ultimate) Satan[3] to temp David to take a census and God caused David’s heart to be weak (ultimate) to this temptation, then it is God’s will (ethic) for David to take it.” Right?

Or,

“If God caused (ultimate) the leaders of Israel to give a bad report of the Promise Land, then it is God’s will (ethic) for them not to take it.” Right?

Or,

“If God said No, and God gave the Canaanite woman a correct theological reason for not answering her prayer, then it is not God’s Will (ethic) to answer her prayer (or yours).” Right?

You realize how dumb that is, right? You realize if the saints in the Bible where to play this witchcraft, empiricist-superstition with God’s Word, they would have never become heroes of faith.

It is always God’s Will to heal, (it is part of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, Isaiah 53), because it is His standing “commandment.” James 5:14-15, “Are any of you sick? You SHOULD … pray … in the name of the Lord. Such a prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make you well. And if you have committed any sins, you will be forgiven.”[4] The word “should,” is an ethic. You should or ought to do this or that. Thus, it is the Will of God, for you.

Stop playing satanic witchcraft, and start obeying the Will of God; start accomplishing the Will of God, in your life.

 

———Endnotes——–

[1] It is also found in his book, “Sermonettes Vol. 8, chapter 4.” 2015. Pg, 22-32.

[2] Vincent Cheung’s essay, “Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11.” (www.vincentcheung.com). It is also found in his book, “Sermonettes Vol. 8, chapter 4.” 2015. Pg, 22-32.

[3] I am not talking about allowing here, for there is no such thing with God, relative to Him directly causing all things by His own power. There is no such thing as secondary causation, relative to God’s direct causation.

[4] Emphasis added by author.

Lift Up Your Heads, O Gates: Starts with Metaphysics

1 The earth is Yahweh’s, with its fullness, the world and those who live in it,
2 because he has founded it on the seas, and has established it on the rivers. (Psalm 24, LEB)

This famous Psalm, depicting the Father’s announcement of Jesus’ triumphant entry into heaven with, ‘Open up You Gates,’ starts off with an introduction of metaphysics and ontology. That is, before we ask the question about, “ascending the mountain of Yahweh,” or why is this prophecy so important regarding the “ancient Gates” to open to a “Victorious King of glory,” we are given the foundation. God created all things, and thus He owns all things. This is value without end. It is riches without measure. This value of Yahweh is immeasurable when compared to all things and so-called gods. All reality itself, is owned by Him.

The argument is rather simple. If you created all the seas and rivers, and all things, then you own it. It belongs to you. God is this person.

There is a reason why the Scripture starts with Genesis and the creation account. If owning a penthouse and a billion-dollar company is valuable, then how much more is God, who ultimately owns this person, owns his penthouse, and owns his company; but in addition, God owns all other persons and owns all other things?[1] Yet, God also owns all spiritual reality; He owns all invisible propositions and thoughts. He owns the past and He even owns the future itself. How do you put a price tag on that?

That is, the Scripture’s position is that metaphysics matters. It is the foundation, which other big questions of life stream from. And so, I do not need to read some old Greek philosopher to understand the importance and priority of metaphysics, as an ultimate question. The Scripture tells me so. As a quick side point, even things like Jesus’ atonement is a subcategory of metaphysics. It is how God has created new creations by His Son, and how God creates and relates to the reprobates designed for damnation.  Reality is important. I remember a non-Christian woman asking me, “Oshea, you are so talented, why then do you choose to be a Christian.” My response was a short one, “Because, I actually believe, Jesus created the worlds in 6 days.”

Going back to our Psalm. The context of asking ‘who may ascend the hill of God,’ is predicated on that fact, this God is the very one who created reality and owns all of it. Or that is, since Yahweh is the most valuable, richest, exalted person in all reality, then if you are able to ascend to His penthouse and get help and supply from Him, then this would be the best of all outcomes for a created creation like us. Since I do not own the world and am so limited, then if I could approach Him and get help from Him, then I would be in a much better place.

Next, the Psalmist asks a question about ethics, which is really a statement. God’s penthouse in the sky is a holy place. If you are not holy, then no entry to see Him.

It is here in the Psalm the flow is interrupted, as God the Father serenades the heavens, with a call to have the ancient Gates to His kingly palace opened for a person. This person is Jesus Christ ascending the Hill of mount. Zion, after His resurrection. The scene is of a hero in the ending of the movie, with his cape flowing in the wind, with a sword in his right hand, and the severed, bloody head of death in His left. The Father sees Him from afar, scaling the clouds in splendor and says, “Open the doors, Open the Gates, here comes my victorious Son, with value of triumph surrounding Him like the sun bursting forth in its rising from the night.”

In Christ, God does not count men’s unholiness against them. Rather Jesus substitutes Himself in our place and became our sin for us. Then in addition, under Yahweh’s plan, Jesus’ holiness is credited to our accounts. Thus, by Jesus new covenant—an agreement verified by His blood, we are innocent and even righteous in sight of the Person who lives in heaven’s penthouse. Isaiah 53 (Matthew 8:17) puts healing of the body in this category of Jesus substitutionary death and life from the grave, as a mediatory between God and man. The central idea of substitutionary, is that Jesus mediates our sins upon Himself, so that WE DO NOT. Isaiah puts our sickness there. In blood, Jesus mediates our sickness upon Himself, so that WE DO NOT. Jesus ratified this oath in His precious blood, of the new covenant.[2]  We can now approach God for all our needs and help. We can in love, and without fear, give Him true thanks and gratitude for all His benefits toward us. The Psalmist says such persons receive from this infinitely valuable Person, salvation, and blessings. Let us not overly spiritualize what blessings are. Both in the Old and New Covenants, they refer to receiving both spiritual and natural goodies. They are certain on the demand of faith, which always gives you access to this God of salvation and blessings.

 

Who may ascend the mountain of Yahweh?
And who may stand in his holy place?
4 He who is innocent of hands and pure of heart,
who does not lift up his soul to falseness,
and does not swear deceitfully.
5 He will receive blessing from Yahweh,
and justice from the God of his salvation.
6 Such is the sort of those who seek him,
those who seek your face, even Jacob. Selah
7 Lift up your heads, O gates,
and rise up, O ancient doorways,
that the king of glory may enter.
8 Who is the king of glory?
Yahweh, strong and mighty;
Yahweh, mighty in war!
9 Lift up your heads, O gates,
and lift up, O ancient doorways,
that the king of glory may enter.
10 Who is the king of glory?
Yahweh of hosts,
He is the king of glory! Selah

 

——EndNotes——

[1] I say this on the ultimate level. However, on the relative level ontology, it is proper to say, as Jesus taught us, “give to Caesar what he owns, and give God what God owns.” Thus, if you did not receive a miracle, but the medicine help you, then on this same level as Jesus taught us, Medicine is credited with the glory, not God, because ‘give to medicine what it owns.’ If you do not like this, then grow in faith, and make healing part of your common experience.

 

[2] Vincent Cheung, commenting on this topic says,

The Bible teaches that deliverance from damnation is not the only benefit of the atonement, but among many other things, it also offers healing for the body. Matthew 8:16-17 says, “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.'” This applies Isaiah’s prophecy about the atonement to the healing miracles of Christ. Thus it is certain that the atonement offers healing for the body, and that this benefit is manifested in miracles of healing, and not in natural remedies. Since verse 16 also mentions the “demon possessed,” this means that verse 17 – the atonement – applies to both those who are afflicted by physical sicknesses and those who are afflicted by demonic powers. Anyone who denies this doctrine makes himself an enemy of the atonement, and holds the blood of Christ in contempt…

If someone says, “Since faith for salvation is a sovereign gift, I will not come to Christ, but wait for faith. If God wills, he will save me.” We would realize that he is making an excuse for his unbelief, uncertainty, and rebellion. We would answer, “Now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), and “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21). Likewise, although God is sovereign over healing as he is sovereign over everything, this is not an excuse for unbelief, uncertainty, and rebellion. We relate to God on the basis of his precepts, not his decrees. He says, “The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up” (James 5:15), and “Everything is possible for him who believes” (Mark 9:23).

Vincent Cheung. Biblical Healing. 2012. P 8,12

 

Who has Believed Our Message? Took Our Sickness

 

Poor Isaiah, no one would believe his message given by God. Jesus, who’s that? It is said that literally all who came to Him were healed. All. Every last one of them. Luke in Acts, says Jesus healed “ALL” who were oppressed by Satan.  Yet it is said, as a whole, they did not believe Jesus. Isaiah prophesied of it. They did not believe the message. Jesus performed the message in their faces, and they did not believe Him either. Matthew (8:17) says this is a fulfillment of Isaiah 53; yes, the one about Jesus being an atonement in our place, as a high priest.

If you use this passage to rebuke religious legalism, but not failure to receive healing, then you negate forgiveness of sins, because both are produced by the same substitutionary atonement and same Jesus as high priest. God has defined what a substitutionary death is by His word. There is no other definition of it that is an accurate description of reality. Isaiah 53 puts healing as something Jesus mediated between God and man in His substitutionary atonement.

Some might suggest the temporary healing of the body is not as important as forgiveness of sins. First, Jesus (and the Father) was fixated with healing people. It is God’s nature. Do you even know Him? Second, a promise produced by the bloodshed of Jesus is still a blood purchased promise, regardless of the priority of importance. To make little of any of them is to make little of the blood of Jesus and the faithfulness of God to sovereignly uphold God’s Word.

God has been from the beginning of Genesis giving definitions to the world He created and directly controls.  He has given definitions about categorical reality, such as that all plants will produce seeds after their own kinds or species. God has defined new-creations in Christ, as those who “by His wounds are healed.” This definition God etched upon the back of His only Son in stripes. And yet people will look at the scarred back, and still not believe God’s message.

“Who has believed our message…

Surely he took up our [sicknesses] and bore our [pain],
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities…
and by his wounds we are healed,” (Isaiah 53:4-5, NIV).

 

At least King David believed this ancient message that was preached even before Isaiah. Even a Canaanite dog, who was outside the timing to receive the atonement benefits, still believed the message. Yet, to those who it was preached to, rejected it.

“Praise the Lord, my soul, and forget not all his benefits—
who forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases,” (Psalm 103, NIV).

Did you know that the prayer offered in faith will save a sinner? They will be forgiven! Not maybe, but they will be. Do you know why? Because God is sovereign in keeping His promises. Because Jesus has already finished the substitutionary atonement in our place. Thus, you have no problem with me saying that, the prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, right? They will be raised from the sick bed, right?

This is God’s nature, it is the fulfilled atonement, and it is His faithful promise. Yet, who has believed our message?

“And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven,” (James 5:15 NIV).

Vincent commenting on this topic says,

“Settle clearly in your mind the various topics. With something like healing, decide why it is wrong to say that it happens “if it is God’s will.” Your spouse never says, “I know that God promised salvation to anyone who has faith in Christ, but even when there is faith, it happens only if it is God’s will. So it is possible for someone to have more faith than Jesus himself and still be damned to hell.” Your spouse never says this. But the healing of the body stands on the same basis as the forgiveness of sin — the atonement (Matthew 8:17). Therefore, for someone to say that healing happens only “if it is God’s will” regardless of our faith is also a logical repudiation of salvation by faith. In principle, this person cannot be a Christian. The least we can say is that there is a gross inconsistency, and it comes from unbelief. It is the opposite of reverence for God’s will. God was the one who sovereignly sent Jesus to bare our sins and diseases. [1]

The Bible teaches that deliverance from damnation is not the only benefit of the atonement, but among many other things, it also offers healing for the body. Matthew 8:16-17 says, “When evening came, many who were demon-possessed were brought to him, and he drove out the spirits with a word and healed all the sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: ‘He took up our infirmities and carried our diseases.'” This applies Isaiah’s prophecy about the atonement to the healing miracles of Christ. Thus it is certain that the atonement offers healing for the body, and that this benefit is manifested in miracles of healing, and not in natural remedies. Since verse 16 also mentions the “demon possessed,” this means that verse 17 – the atonement – applies to both those who are afflicted by physical sicknesses and those who are afflicted by demonic powers. Anyone who denies this doctrine makes himself an enemy of the atonement, and holds the blood of Christ in contempt…

If someone says, “Since faith for salvation is a sovereign gift, I will not come to Christ, but wait for faith. If God wills, he will save me.” We would realize that he is making an excuse for his unbelief, uncertainty, and rebellion. We would answer, “Now he commands all people everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30), and “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21). Likewise, although God is sovereign over healing as he is sovereign over everything, this is not an excuse for unbelief, uncertainty, and rebellion. We relate to God on the basis of his precepts, not his decrees. He says, “The prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up” (James 5:15), and “Everything is possible for him who believes” (Mark 9:23).[2]

——–Endnotes————

[1] Vincent Cheung. Fulcrum 2017. P.28

[2] Vincent Cheung. Biblical Healing. 2012. P 8,12.

God’s Revealed Definition for Christians

Leave the Past Behind

(Kenneth Copeland, “Faith to Faith, devotion)

…But this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before.

– Philippians 3:13

Failures and disappointments. Aches and pains from the past that just won’t seem to go away. Most of us know what it’s like to suffer from them but too few of us know just what to do about them. So we limp along, hoping somehow they’ll magically stop hurting.

But it never happens that way. In fact, the passing of time often leaves us in worse condition—not better. Because, instead of putting those painful failures behind us, we often dwell on them until they become more real to us than the promises of God. We focus on them until we become bogged down in depression, frozen in our tracks by the fear that if we go on, we’ll only fail again.

I used to get caught in that trap a lot. Then one day when I was right in the middle of a bout with depression, the Lord spoke up inside me and said:

Kenneth, your problem is you’re forming your thoughts off the past instead of the future. Don’t do that! Unbelief looks at the past and says, “See, it can’t be done.” But faith looks at the future and says, “It can be done, and according to the promises of God, it is done!” Then putting past failures behind it forever, faith steps out and acts like the victory’s already been won.

If depression has driven you into a spiritual nose dive, break out of it by getting your eyes off the past and onto your future—a future that’s been guaranteed by Christ Jesus through the great and precious promises in His Word.

…Instead of looking behind you and saying, “I can’t,” you’ll begin to look ahead and say, “I can do all things through Christ which strengthens me!”

 

Oshea

Whether Kenneth knows this or not he is doing fantastic deduction here and avoiding logical superstitions. He puts to shame most of the educated reformed and Christian elites in this one simple devotion.

I will not go long into explaining logic here; however, one or two quick points will be helpful. In logic class or a book on logic, one will soon learn the principle that after one defines a term, they must be consistent to it, or else one will end up in a formal fallacy of a “4 term fallacies,” or informal fallacies such as equivocation.

For example If I say, “ (1) No non-men are smart. (2) All women are non-men. (3) Thus No women are smart.” The issue here is that I changed or equivocated the meaning of non-man (as mankind) from my major premise to just males in the minor premise. By doing this I can make the Bible to superstitiously say whatever I want it to.

Jesus is famous for pointing this issue out in a deduction to the Jewish leaders about the resurrection. Jesus’ deduction hinged on the fact He was consistent with the present tense verb (“I am,” and not I was) in the argument or application of knowledge.

Kenneth correctly points out that past tense, is based off “your” observations. It is merely a descriptive statement about the past. Yet, the promises of God is a truth claim about the present and future.

In other words, saying “[Oshea] is [he who has failed on moral x],” is invalid (equivocation) to say in present or future tense “[Oshea] is [he who will fail on moral x].”

To bring this some context, this is one of the many issues with having empiricism/observation as a starting point for knowledge. To make a statement about past observations to then make a present tense or future tense conclusion is always a logical fallacy; it is always superstitious. To say, “The sun is that which has always risen. The sun is that which as risen today. Thus, the sun will rise tomorrow,” is superstitious nonsense. It is the same as saying, “All trees are organic. Oshea is a tomato. Thus all dogs are clouds.”  Both arguments are making many fallacies, but the biggest issue is the ontological one of “category error.” God’s consistent control over reality stops you from obliviating categories. Example, try saying “I do not exist,” without using your existence? It is ontologically impossible. A radio wave might pass through your desk, but your face is not a radio wave. This is one reason, why you do not slam your face as hard as you can into your desk, because your organic face would not harmlessly pass through it like a radio wave. A radio wave and an organic body are not the same categories.  Past tense is not the same category as future tense. If you do not have the knowledge of future tense given to you up front (as truth), you cannot morph it into the conclusion without being superstitious and irrational.

To put this simply, the problem with saying, “I have failed this many times, thus, I will fail again,” is that you are an empiricist, which is to say, you are an atheist. You are an atheist because your starting point for knowledge is man’s speculations and not with God’s revelation. All the logical irrationality of empiricism is now part of your reasoning. The more foundational issue here is that empiricism contradicts the Scripture as an epistemology. And thus, it is a point of choosing which God will you submit to and worship. Will you submit to God and start with the knowledge He has revealed, or will it be “your” observations (empiricism) and your superstitions (irrational)? Will you be a Christian or will you be an atheist (empiricism).

People often miss these technical points I brought up here, because it involves God’s good promises about aspects of our lives that some are rather emotional about. God’s good promises for overcoming besetting sins, or healing is God’s revealed definition for Christians just as much as this is God’s definition about the weather,  “I will never again destroy all living things. As long as the earth remains… there will be summer and winter, day and night.” ( NLT Ge 8:21–22). This is God’s definition about the earth He created. God’s promises are definitions about His elect. The added layer that sometimes confuses people is the context of relative level ontology. That is, they must believe to receive the completeness of the promises.

Consider the Christians who were sick and dying that Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 11. Paul said God did this because of the dishonor they were doing to Jesus through the Lord’s supper. Paul also says God killed and made them sick (judged) them so that they would not be eternally condemned with the world. These Corinthians are the righteousness of God, as Paul says in chapter 5. It is a categorical fact by God’s definition and power. However, those who died or were currently sick, failed to fully believe the promise of what this meant. That is, there are some aspects of our being adopted and being made the righteousness of God that is intuitive or automatic to faith when we are born again; however, there are further aspects of growing our faith that is acquire by faith taking hold of the promise through maturity.  Paul’s encouragement was to stop sinning so that they would stop being killed off and made sick by God.  Thus, it was not God’s Will for them to be this way. God’s will is our sanctification, not gross sin. God’s will is for our healing not death and sickness. Christian ethics (i.e. God’s Will for us) is what God commands. This exhortation in James is perfect for them and for any in their shoes, “they will be healed, and they will be forgiven,” (James 5:15). James, as does Isaiah 53 and Psalm 103 and other places, puts the forgiveness of sins and healing together in the same gospel, and same atonement benefit. If you negate one you negate the atonement, for both are produced by the same Jesus in the same atonement. And so, weak faith will lead you to fail in accomplishing God’s will. Weak faith will lead you to fail in aspects of ministry, and so on.

It is odd, when the religious elite Christians mock someone like Kenneth, but when it comes to applying God’s promises and truth to our everyday life, he puts them to shame through fantastic systematic theology, Christian epistemology, logic and application. Kenneth, as least here, leaves empiricism and human superstitions behind and starts with scripture as his epistemology and uses systematic theology, to then validity apply God’s definitions to himself. If he is wrong in other aspects of doctrine, it is correct here.

I will be the first person to happily recommend logic books for any Christian to read, but if after all the book reading and systematic theology you find you cannot believe God’s good promises for your life, you seriously messed up something. You failed Christianity. Faith is God’s love upon a person; it is His public support of a person. God’s good promises, even ones like health and wealth is God’s definition of His children. What good is it, to say you believe in God’s overall sovereignty and truth to define the world, but reject God’s definitions when it comes to you? What a worthless piece of trash. ‘You,’ are ‘you.’ If you reject God’s definition of you, then it matters little that you believe God is truthful when He defines what a dog is. Since you mentally assent God gives a definition of a dog, then maybe that’s why you eat your own vomit of superstitions and speculations, like a dog. As for the rest of us, we will mentally assent to God’s good promises and receive them. Keep your empiricism and atheism to your vomit pit. God’s promises are for me, and I will take them by faith, with or without you, because they are God’s definition over me. God is the all sovereign God, who is able to say, ‘what have you done, why did you make me this way”? God is the Potter and I am the clay, and so, who am I to resist God’s definition over this aspect of reality, called ‘His Elect’?

The Order of the Divine Decrees

This is cannibalized from my now retired book: The Divine Decrees(2007, 2013). This book was mainly about going over Jonathan Edwards book: “The Divine Decrees in General and Election in Particular.” I showed how Edward’s was a supralapsarian in the doctrine of God’s decrees broadly, but tried to make a hybrid in the particular points. Therefore, Gordon Clark and Vincent Cheung[1] are better at teaching on this topic, for they are consistent to a logical order. Thus, this original appendix was the result from studying all three individuals. 

This is an important aspect of Christian ontology and so I wanted to put a basic essay on this topic here. The order of the God’s decrees is in philosophy jargon, the logic of ontology. It is the logical order of how God directly controls all reality.

 

Defining the terms:

With the assumption that most who have an interest in this Biblical doctrine will know the terms supralapsarian and infralapsarian, I shall move on; and if you do not know, these will be explain in context through other terms.  These terms are loaded terms and so I will prefer not to use them, but I do mention them so that some might have a vague reference point of where I am coming from.  The lack of this distinction of God’s purpose or goals and historical execution[2] has caused more than a small amount of confusion.  Let us remedy this.

When God’s decrees are laid out from Top to bottom or that is, when they are laid out from the perspective of what God chose as His goals first, then we call this the, “Purpose perspective.”  This is what some know as supralapsarian.

When God’s decrees are laid out from the Bottom up or that is, when they are penned down from the perspective of executing His goals we call this, “historical perspective.”  Although, in the truest since this is not a description of decrees; rather, it is the execution of the decrees: that is, it is the historical execution of God’s intended goals.

 

In our reach for a complete biblical understanding of God’s decrees we need to have the purpose order, for it is the natural meaning of decreeing or planning.  The perspective of God’s “purpose” is greater not only because it is the natural meaning to plan something, but also the historical order is derived from it.  In fact, when we think about an all Sovereign God planning, (not reacting) is this not in terms of choosing ones goals first?  This is why the perspective of God’s goals or purpose in the Decrees are so important and to which the Bible addresses.  I would even go as far to say the historical perspective of God is an incorrect doctrine, if left by itself, because in light of an all Sovereign God “decrees” naturally point to purpose rather than history.  Without the “purpose” perspective in the decree the historical perspective turns God into a God of reaction rather than a God of total sovereign design and working out His original intended goal from top to bottom.  Likewise, without the historical, the purpose perspective looks incomplete for the God’s decrees regard why and how God ordered public reality.

Regarding the purpose or goal perspective what God chose as His first goal is last in execution, and what God purposed last in his goals comes first in execution or history.  I will explain this more.

Take for example a kid after thinking about life decides he wants to be a great baseball player.  This is his first “purpose,” or goal that is.  His second choice to support the first is that he needs to be an All Star baseball player, so that he can be a great player.   Thus, his third choice in purpose is to get great averages in hitting (etc.) so that he gets chosen to be an All Star.  His next is purpose is to be drafted to play in the Major League.  His next purpose is to start playing baseball at his local high school.  See, what he first intended was accomplished last in order, while that which was purposed last was accomplished first in history or in execution.  Ecclesiastes 7:8, “The end of a thing is better than its beginning,” because the end was the original goal.

This analogy with the baseball player is in the perspective of “purpose.”

 Now back to purpose and execution.                                          

For the sake of argument, what is important is that both are to be taught from scripture and that the “purpose” be ordered Top to Bottom and the “historical” be ordered from Bottom to Top. The purpose order needs to be shown as the natural meaning of God Decreeing and the historical order as the effect of this being executed.  The lists need to make sense when read in either direction, whether from the perspective of purpose, or from the perspective of execution. (Or in an argument, The purpose (p) is the antecedent, and the historical is the consequent(q))  Furthermore, the decrees encompass all things, so it is impossible for a simple list to include everything.  Depending on what topic or doctrine I was teaching on I could focus or bring to light these in the decrees: both in the purpose or historical.  What needs to happen is someone puts emphasis on God’s election in a historical perspective and then they emphasize God’s election in the purpose perspective in another sermon or book, then the ordering needs to agree with each other.

Below is a simple list of decrees.  The first section is from God’s Purpose perspective (top to bottom) and the second is the Historical perspective (bottom up.)   You will see how the second list mirrors the first so that what is decreed first in Purpose is executed last in order Execution.

 

TOP DOWN, ORDER of PURPOSE

1.) Glory.  God decrees out of delight in Himself, to create the full displaying of His Glory in a public creation. God decrees to do this particularly by creating the world for His Son: that is, for His Son to be the only living fountain, the Head, the first born, central axis, the Preeminence in all things in His public universe; the invisible God glorifies Himself by making His Son the Public Supremacy.

2.) Jesus Christ.  God decrees to elect Christ to become the Central public-Person; that is, He becomes the preeminence before a public audience. Therefore, God decrees to elect His Son to be the uniting-savior  for a special group, and likewise for the sake of this first group God elects Christ to be a Rock for which another group will be crushed upon.  His uniting-mercy given to one group will lead them to be in the perfect place live in public-joyful love to Christ, and the damnation for another group will support this.  Thus, Christ is elected to be glorified as the central dividing line for all public minds, both human and spiritual, because by this Christ becomes the Central pubic Supremacy.

3.) Election. God then Decrees to unconditionally elect and give infinite happiness to a certain number of persons by unconditionally electing them for and through His Son for salvation; and furthermore, by this they are given both existence and the guarantee for eternal happiness, for from infinite happiness by them being for His Son’s glory by being in His Son, God thought of a certain number.  Furthermore, God elects a certain number of others who He will not show His love to; rather, He decrees to support those in His Son those this certain number: this supporting is by having His wrath and justice displayed one day in them. (Before the twins were born or had done good or bad choices it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.)  Both will be, for there is no other power in the metaphysical.

4.) The Fall. To imprison the whole human race to the slavery of sin and disobedience—so that the pervious decree of unconditional elect practically works out, so that the previous decree of Jesus’ public Saving and judging comes into fruition, so that Christ becomes the central-public-supremacy in a rejoicing public audience who are untied to Him.

5.) Creation. God decrees to bring into being a grand universe suitable and perfect for the grand exhibition of God’s glory through Christ’s public supremacy.

 

BOTTOM UP, ORDER of EXECUTION

6.)  Creation.  God decrees to bring into being a grand universe suitable for the grand displaying of His glory; a gift worthy for His only Son, by giving Christ public supremacy.

7.)  The Fall. God decrees to imprison the whole human race to the slavery of sin and disobedience, by creating Adam in such a way he would not be able to rest all temptations.
8.)  Election/calling.  I say election, but at this point, because we are in history it would be more apt to call it summing or calling.  God now elects or summons for mercy from the disobedient human race the particular people, whom He decreed originally to crown with His infinite love.  Furthermore, to fulfill His election of the reprobate, God now chooses the level of wickedness that each vessel of wrath will fall while on earth.

9.)  Jesus Christ.  In order to accomplish the election of Christ, God calls His Son, to come into the world and provide perfect righteousness, complete forgiveness, and the purchasing of the Holy Spirit for so by this costly mercy and special uniting the elect becomes the perfect audience to ascribe the best eternal love and public praise unto Christ’s supremacy: and likewise, God calls Christ to be a rock for which the non-elect will be crushed upon for the praise of His Son’s supremacy.  The result is that Christ becomes the historical and future center point of the universe before a public audience best suited for His praise, by their enjoyment of Him.

10.)  Glory.  The sending of His Son a second time for the final and compete separation of the people of wrath and children of His love, so that Jesus will have all evil closed off from His presence and the final intimate gathering of His chosen people (and all elect creatures) to Himself—to the Father.  In this Jesus truly becomes the Public Supremacy before all public eyes, and in becoming so He (the image of the Father) causes His invisible Father to be glorified as the Supremacy.

 

Scripture:

Ephesians 1:9, “having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth-in Him.”

Colossians 1:18, “And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence (Supremacy).”

1 John 4:9, “In this the love of God was manifested toward us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through Him.”

Romans 5:8, “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Proverbs 16:4, “The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom.”

Romans 9:21, “Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? 22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 (namely) that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory.”

Romans 11:27, “For this is My covenant with them, When I take away their sins.” Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election, they are beloved for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For as you were once disobedient to God, yet have now obtained mercy through their disobedience, even so these also have now been disobedient, that through the mercy shown you they also may obtain mercy. For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!  “For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?” “Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him?” “For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.”

 

—–Endnotes—–

[1] I would recommend, Vincent Cheung’s essay, Supralapsarian. This essay is from this, Systematic Theology, book.

[2] This particular two word contrast of ‘purpose vs execution’ about ‘top down and bottom up,’ I got from Vincent Cheung, see chapter on Supralapsarianism, in Systematic Theology: 2010, pg 114-118.

The God of All Things

1 Kings 20:23,28

“Meanwhile, the officials of the king of Aram advised him, “Their gods are gods of the hills. That is why they were too strong for us. But if we fight them on the plains, surely we will be stronger than they.

…The man of God came up and told the king of Israel, “This is what the Lord says: ‘Because the Arameans think the Lord is a god of the hills and not a god of the valleys, I will deliver this vast army into your hands, and you will know that I am the Lord.’”

God, the creator of all things, was not pleased when one of His created things  said, “God is only the God of part; His value is only partly; His power is only partly; His domain is only partly; His creator rights have limits; His ability to protect those who serve Him is partly.” The human superstition is easy to see here. Not using knowledge, but starting with the kingdom of self (speculations from the self, i.e. empiricism), this official produced superstitions that were false, invalid and wicked. The premise that “God is the God of hills,” does not validly conclude “God is not the God of the valleys.” The correct premise when starting with God’s revelation is that God is the God of all things; The creator of all things; the predestined order-er of all things; the present controller of all things (etc.). A valid conclusion from this would be the following. Thus, if God is the God of all things, then God is necessarily the God of the hills, valleys, sky, water, invisible heavens, and even such things as evil and sin, and whatever is part of reality.

It is easy to see the mistake in epistemology(speculation) and logic(superstition) this pagan made; however Christians overlook the same type of mental blunders they make in the same categories. Consider how the Apostle Peter made a similar mistake on the water.

Matthew 14:29-31 NLT

“So Peter went over the side of the boat and walked on the water toward Jesus. But when he saw the strong wind and the waves, he was terrified and began to sink. “Save me, Lord!” he shouted.

Jesus immediately reached out and grabbed him. “You have so little faith,” Jesus said. “Why did you doubt me?””

As said before, if God is the God of all things, then God is the God of the calm waves, as much as He is the God of the stormy waves. When Peter saw the stormy waves, he concluded this: Jesus is the God of the calm waves, but Jesus is not the God of the stormy waves. The proof of this is that Peter sank when Jesus (as Peter’s Master) commanded Peter to come to Him. The choice is now gone. It is not a matter of mere suggestion. It was God’s Will for Peter to walk on the water, because the phrase “God’s Will,” in context of ethics is about obeying God’s command.[1] It was God’s Will for Peter to walk on the water; however, Peter’s doubt made him fail to accomplish God’s will in this moment. Jesus rebuked Peter for this failure to accomplish God’s command. The problem that caused this failure was not believing what God said about reality. God said about reality, “if you believe Me you can walk on water.” When Peter saw the stormy waves, He in essence became an empiricist, and then made up a human speculation about reality. The kingdom-of-self was his starting point of knowledge and not God’s word. In addition, the conclusion was also logically invalid; this illogical leap was superstition. The premise, “the waves are stormy,” cannot validly conclude that, “I cannot walk on stormy waves,” or “God cannot help in stormy waves,” (etc.). This is wicked superstition and just outright stupid.

Do not be so quick to lookdown at the foolish pagan official, if you play the same game with God. God is the God of invisible-spiritual things like forgiveness, but not the God of visible-healings. God is the God of the Hills, but not the God of the valleys. God is God of restoring my invisible soul, but He is not the God of restoring my visible finances. Despite the doubts and superstitions, God is the God of all things. His promises apply to all areas of life, both spiritual and physical. James 5:15 (NLT), “Such a prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make you well. And if you have committed any sins, you will be forgiven (Compare with Isaiah 53 and Psalm 103).” Therefore, the issue is not God’s complete sovereignty, and not God’s loyal love, and not God’s sovereignty in keeping His promises just like He said; rather, the issue is that men start knowledge with themselves (empiricism) and then make wild invalid superstitions from these speculations.

Rather than playing games with life, why not operate with reality and start with God’s knowledge and believe Him? Why play games like an irrational empiricist, when knowledge about reality has already be revealed? God’s promises for His children are for all of life, and they are wonderful promises. God is for us. God is for us through His Son, Jesus Christ. In Jesus, as our atonement, all the promises are an answered ‘Yes,’ to the value of God’s Name, and for our joy in Him. God is the God of both the calm and stormy waves. In God’s promise, you can walk on them both. This is the glory that belongs to the heirs of faith. This is the power the belongs to those hidden with Christ right now, at God’s right hand. This is what is available to those who are the righteousness of God. God is the God of all things; and all things have been GIVEN TO YOU; you are Christ’s; Christ’s is God’s (1 Corinth. 3:22-23).

——-Endnotes——-

[1] Regarding ontology, God caused the stormy waves as much as Peter’s doubt, but this causality does not negate the separate category God’s command and Peter’s responsibility to obey God’s command. The same is with a husband whose prayers are hindered due to his mistreatment of his wife. In the ultimate ontology, God caused the husband to behave this way; however, this does not negate the different category of ethics. On this level of command, it is God’s Will for the husband to treat his wife with love, and not have his prayers hindered. Accountability is based on God’s command, and not on God’s causality.
What has been a big help to me understanding this doctrine is Vincent Cheung. See, Healing and The Atonement, and “Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11.”

Christianity Is False, If a Subcategory of Ontology Is Denied

Modus Tollens and why Christianity is falsified if one rejects a subcategory aspect of ontology from the Bible. The big idea is this. Issues of transgender, homosexuality, 6-day creation, how to defeat depression, and Jesus being the only savior of sins, are subcategories of Christian ontology; and if they are denied, will falsify God Himself.

I will not go long into defending or outlining a Christian doctrine of logic. I would for now recommend Vincent Cheung, Ultimate Questions.[1] I will quickly go over a modus tollens, which is a valid deduction. What makes this deduction SOUND is if the “if…then” connection is necessary, and the denied consequent is true. This is called in long hand, Denying the Consequent. As a reference, scientific experimentation uses Affirming the Consequent, which is a logical fallacy. Therefore, all science is false. In addition, a modus tollens argument used on science theories, because it is valid, is why science can only be shown to be false but never obtain knowledge.  But that is for another essay.

Jesus Christ used a modus tollens argument to falsify the Jewish leaders claim that He was the king of demons. Jesus starts with a premise the Jews started with. “(P) Jesus is Satan and is casting out his own demons.” This leads Jesus to the necessary first premise of the argument. “(Q) If Satan is casting out Satan, (R) then Satan is divided against himself.” And so, the argument is really a modus tollens chain argument. A normal syllogism is 3 preemies. But a chain argument (4 or more) works both in a categorical syllogism, or in propositional logic, or in other higher logics, which a truth table will demonstrate. Paul makes a 4-premise argument in Romans 8:30. If it is a modus tollens form, then it does not matter how many premises (as long as they are true) are chained together. If the last is false, then the first is as well.  Thus, the last denied antecedent in our passage would be, “Jesus is not Satan casting out his own demons.”

Luke 11:18-20, “If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Because you say I cast out demons by Beelzebub.”

Modus Tollens

M.1. (R) “If Satan is divided against himself, (~T) then his kingdom does not stand.

M.2. ~(~T) The demonic kingdom is strong and active; and so, It is not the case that his kingdom does not stand.

M.3.~(R) Thus, Satan is not divided against himself.

There were many demon possessed people all around Jesus. Even Gentiles and foreigners are running to Jesus in public to get demons cast out. This is being done for all to see and witness. Thus, the demonic kingdom is not divided, unorganized and weak; rather, it is strong and active.  Thus, the consequent of a divided demonic kingdom is false. Therefore, whatever antecedent would necessary lead this consequent is false.

Jesus’ use of logic is that the Jewish leaders are morons.  In addition, for blaspheming the Holy Spirit they are ethically doomed.

Also note the importance of logic used here by Jesus. Jesus did not quote scripture. He only used a deductive logical maneuver to make His point. To use logic correctly is biblical; it bears the glorious image of the Logos, that is, of Jesus Christ. Reversely, it is human philosophy and speculation to be against logic.

Another example. What if my opponent says that, ‘“x” is a human.” Having blond hair or being exactly 6 feet tall is not a necessary category in order to be a human. However, for predicates that are necessary for the subject, if they are denied in the consequent, then the antecedent is denied.

G.1. “(P) If “x” is a human, (Q) then “x” is warm-blooded.

G.2. ~(Q) This “x” is not warm-blooded.

G.3. ~(P) Thus, “x” is not a human.”

 

Christianity ontology is God’s absolute and direct sovereignty over all reality. Thus, If God controls all things, then God controls x, y, and z.

Because subsidiary ontologies are a necessary result from the ultimate level of Christian ontology (God), then if you deny the subsidiary, it logical denies the ultimate.

 

I often avoid talking with fellow Christians about hot topics in politics, because if I try to bring in Scripture, they oddly become unable to think anymore.  On top of this many so-called Christians do not know logic, even though it is a biblical doctrine they ought to be well practiced in.

The soteriology or the doctrine of salvation is ultimately a sub-category of Christian ontology. That is, salvation is how God is using His absolute sovereignty over all things toward two groups of people. These two groups are the reprobate and the elect. Therefore, the inevitable inference, (as a modus tollens) that happens when one rejects a subcategory of Christian ontology is that they falsify or kill the ultimate level of ontology. If you deny election, then you kill God. If you deny 6-day creation, then you kill God.

If you deny God’s creation of a man and woman in exchange for transgenderism, you falsity God.

H.1. (P) If God created man and women by His definition[2], (Q) then their sexes are fixed.

H.2. ~(Q) you can identify your sex by your feelings; and so, sexes are not fixed.

H.2. ~(P) Therefore, God did not create man and women by His definition.

This argument above should be another chain argument with the first premises being, “(P) If God is the only, ultimate ontology, (Q) then God created all things by His definition. (Q) If God created all things by His definition, (R) then God created man and women by His definition.”  And so, the last antecedent to be denied is that God is not the ultimate ontology.

I have told this to others, and they seemed shocked that if I am required to affirm “x” I will kill my God. That is, if any person or the government forces me to do this, I am being asked to falsify my God. Without Christian ontology I have nothing left. Without God then the world and all things are lost to me. It would all be pointless to me.

At any rate, the same goes for ethics. This time the modus tollens will be put into a chain argument, like how Paul did on in 1 Corinthians 15. A truth table will quickly show the logic to be valid.[3]

J.1. (P) If God is the only God (the Bible says this), (Q) then God is the ultimate lawgiver (the Bible says He is).

J.2. (Q) If God is the ultimate lawgiver, (R) then murder is wrong because He commands it so (Bible says this).

J.3.~(R) Murdering babies is good because you can’t tell a woman what to do with her body; and so[4], It is not the case that murder is wrong because God commands it so.

J.4. ~(Q) And so, it is not the case that God is the ultimate lawgiver.

J.5. ~(P) Therefore, God is not the only God.

God’s direct and absolute sovereignty over all things is His nature itself. (P) If God’s direct and absolute sovereignty is His nature itself, (Q) then God is the metaphysical author and cause of all things. (Q) If God is metaphysical author of all things, (R) then God is the metaphysical author of all subsidiary categories of metaphysics such as creation, man, biological sex, sex, sin, redemption (etc.).

If any of the last is denied then the unavoidable inference is that one kills the top level of Christian ontology, and so God is gone. You cannot simply deny or let go a smaller issue of a Christian doctrine as if it is not so important. One of the biggest Christian tricks have occurred, in that some theologians say we must unite on the core gospel issues, but be open handed on non-core issues. They are more like Loki, the god of mischief, than the God of truth.  The logical implications are heaven and hell level. Jesus says if you deny Him before men, then He will in like manner deny you. If you deny subcategories in the consequent, then you deny God in the antecedent.[5] Because of denying the consequent is a valid deduction you cannot have non-core issues in theology and doctrine. If one says otherwise they are both intellectually broken and spiritually malfunctioned.

I could give countless examples in Scripture to show this, but for brevity consider how Paul quotes a little passage about “do not muzzle an Ox as it treads,” (1 corin. 9:9). Because all Scripture is truth, cannot be broken and is useful for godliness, it is ALL a core issue of life and godliness. Jesus when leaving this world said to the apostles, Matthew 28:20 (NLT), “Teach these new disciples to obey ALL the commands I have given you.”[6] Jesus, as with the rest of Scripture, do not divide “core issues with non-core issues,” but says “all,” that I have commanded. One of the things Jesus commanded, over and over, in John chapter 14-16, is that we pray for whatever we wish and get it in His Name. How many teachers obey Jesus on this point? Are they not disqualified by Jesus’ requirement? These Loki theologians of mischief love the idea of core and non-core issues of unity, precisely because the Scripture does not make this divide; and thus, they (man) gets to be the ones to decide this outcome. They get to play God, but the only god they are playing is one of mischief and rebellion. It is a man-centered view in what it means to be God-centered. It is a theology of man.

Leave the mischief and rebellion to the theologians, but you believe and observe all of God’s definitions.

 

—–END NOTES—–

[1] www.vincentcheung.com  *for clarification, I do quote Vincent often, but I am not officially with him or represent him.
Also, see Norman Geisler and Ronald Brooks, introduction to logic book, “Come Let Us Reason.”

[2]  Vincent Cheung will use “definition” or precepts for ethics, and “decree” for ontology. However, I am using “definition” in a broader sense: definitions about all metaphysic given by epistemology.

[3] Or in a simple Natural Deduction format,
P ⸧ Q / Q ⸧ R / ~R  ⸫  ~P

[4] This must be one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard, especially if from co-called Christians. Every command in the Bible is about God telling you what you do or don’t do with our body and mind. Every law in government is about the government—under penalty—telling men and women what they should do or don’t do with their bodies. I am told by the government not use my body to pick up a hammer and hit a person with it, because it is a violent assault.

[5] The political implication is that Christians cannot deny subcategories of ontology or ethics. And if the government tries to make them deny subcategories of ontology, then the implication is that the government is forcing people to deny their entire Christianity.

[6] Emphasis added by author.

Faith in God’s Promises is an Act of the Utmost Fear of God

 

“These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
Their worship [fear/respect/reverence] of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught.” (NIV Isaiah 29:13)

The NLT footnote on this verse reads. “Greek version reads Their worship is a farce, / for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God. Compare Mark 7:7.”

The key to understand this verse is at the epistemology or presuppositional level. The NIV and some other helpful translation says their reverence/worship of God starts at the “human” presuppositional level rather than at Divine revelation level. That is, it is the epistemology of human speculation as a starting point of knowledge vs God’s revelation.

Today the common phrase for this respect/worship/fear of God is worded as “God-centeredness,” or “gospel-centeredness,” or “for the glory of God” (etc.). What makes this particularly deceptive is that fact that we are dealing with the topic of being humble and respectful to God, which sounds very humble and God-centered. However, the Jews in Isaiah’s time and in Jesus time had a problem with this. Today many still have an issue with it. The cross-roads of this issue is that man starts with himself (human starting points with inductive logic (i.e. superstition)) to come up with what God-centeredness looks like. Vincent has been helpful on this topic saying, “A truly God-centered theology would ask God to tell us what it means to be God-centered, but this is not what we are presented by those who claim to be the most God-centered in their theology. If you ask man what it means to be God-centered, then the product is only a seemingly God-centered religion founded on a man-centered foundation. It is a man-centered opinion on what it should mean to be God-centered. It still ignores what God thinks about himself. It still ignores how God wants us to relate to him. So it is still a man-centered religion, but more hypocritical. What we need is a God-centered religion on a God-centered foundation.”[1]

And so, it is a man-centered view, in what it means to have a God-centered view. This one extra layer of deception confuses many people it seems; however, it does not confuse God.

As the verse says, God knows the heart. Also, as Jesus says the tree will be known by its fruit, and Jesus said this in context of the idle words spoken by the religious leaders. These idle words included the blasphemy of the Spirit when they gave a demonic definition to the holy and awesome work of the Spirit. They thought they were respecting God, but the opposite was the reality, being exposed by their words.

Let us use the example that Jesus used in Luke 14:10. To be humble is to take a place in the back, and if you really are an honorable man in God sight, God will come to you and ask you to come sit closer to the front. You will not need to promote yourself, God will do it Himself. He will say, “you ARE my righteousness,” “you ARE a son of God,” “you have acknowledge me before men, I will now acknowledge you before angels, and elders,” “through My Son’s gift you deserve this.”
The deception in the man-created view of humbleness is glaring.  It will take a seat up front, but then say debasing things like, “I am such a sinful man,” “I am the worst of sinners,” “God’s ways are not like my evil ways,” “I don’t deserve this.” That is, they promote themselves, and give reasons why they deserve this, and they disguise their pride in self-debating phrases. God comes up to this man and says, “yes you have spoken truthfully, you are a rebellious sinner, so go sit in the back.” As an example God told the Israelites that God has given them the Land; that He is with them and against the inhabitants. The Israelites said “they could not do it,” and God in response said, “because your idle word were spoken in unbelief, then you will live out what you said.” You will not be strong enough to take it, just like you said it.

As a contrast to real humility consider the man that John the apostle rebuked for healing in Jesus’ name.   Luke 9:49-50  (NLT) “John said to Jesus, “Master, we saw someone using your name to cast out demons, but we told him to stop because he isn’t in our group.” But Jesus said, “Don’t stop him! Anyone who is not against you is for you.”” To cast out a demon in Jesus name is humility because it is not your name but Jesus’. It is His power, not yours. Jesus’ response is that such a man has God’s approval. Or that is, John took this man and made him sit in the back, but Jesus approached him and took him back to the front. What God and men value is often opposites. Do you remember what God said gives Him glory? “Then call on me when you are in trouble, and I will rescue you, and you will give me glory (Psalm 50:15 NLT).”

Considering David’s gross sins, what did David say? He said what a horrible thing He did. However, also in these contexts, David ask both for mercy and prosperity (Psalm 118). How is asking for prosperity humble in context of asking for mercy for great sins you committed? Many reasons for this, but we will focus on a few. One is that it obeys God, we are commanded to get all we have from God and seek His good promises. We are always to both seek spiritual and natural benefits from God, all the time.  Also, asking God to give shows God as the true value and power. Furthermore, asking for prosperity right after asking for mercy, shows that you truly believe God has imputed Jesus righteousness to you. It means, you believe you are the righteousness of God, and so you have the foundation to ask for all of God’s good things.

The man, who beat is chest in Jesus’ parable, was humble and respectful in the right way, in the context it was given; however, the woman, with the flow of blood problem, is equally as respectful and worshipful of God when she took, without asking (or stole), Jesus’ power for her healing. The fact that God let her have the power for healing, is like God walking to the back of the room and asking this woman to come sit up front. Faith pleases God. When you have faith, it is God’s mark of His approval on you. When you have faith for all of God’s goodies (Psalm 103, James 5:15), it is God showing you off in front of everyone else, by asking such a humble and righteous person to sit up front with the nobles and princes. Faith in God’s promises is an act of the highest respect, fear, worship and reverence of the King of Ages. When you have faith in God, you do not need to self-debase yourself, because you are living what true worship and reverence to God is. Do not look to man. Do not look to human speculations or the kingdom self. Live by faith. Live a life of true worship to God. Forget man’s approval. Get God’s approval.

—————Endnotes——————-

[1] Vincent Cheung. Faith Override. (https://www.vincentcheung.com/2016/04/08/faith-override/) From Sermonettes Vol. 9. 2016 Pg.9

God is Not a Genie, for a Genie Only Gives 3 Wishes

 

Saw this heretical trash today. (See picture below. )

First. In my experience those who rebuke diseases are asking to be healed, which is the same thing to rebuke it. Also, Peter says that Jesus healing multitudes of people was Jesus helping those oppressed by Satan. Acts 10:38, (NLT) “Jesus went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil.” Peter says it, as if most the healings Jesus did (which was so much its hard to put a number on it) was in response to the Devil causing the sickness, cancer, skin deformities, blindness, flow of blood, backs bent over and (etc.). If casting out Satan in order to be healed is not “rebuking our disease,” then I do not know what is.

Second. Because a sickness or a deformity in your health is attributed by scripture as mostly oppression from Satan, then to be healed of this physical “problem” is to “cast” it out, so to speak. Thus, there is nothing in wrong saying it this way.

Third and Forth. James says if you face a trial of lacking wisdom we are to ask in faith, and you will absolutely receive wisdom from the Father.  Remember when Joshua told the sun to stop, this was in essence a “word of faith.” Jesus did this and others in scripture did this as well, even Gentile women in the Old Testament. And so, a word of faith is essentially just a short hand way of praying when one has faith. Such words of faith would be at the same time “speaking into one’s trial.” Nothing wrong with this. The issue is if you have faith for it, or do you say it just as a pragmatic program or wishful hope.

This is the same for claiming success, such as the success promised in Psalm one. If one is doing what Psalm one says, it is perfectly fine to believe and speak the promise over oneself. The issue is again, faith. I believed and so I have spoken. If your faith is weak, it is fine to say such things to practice saying the right thing rather than speaking in unbelief: “this is too hard, we can’t take the Promise Land, they are giants and we are small, there is no way Yahweh, the Lord of Lords, has the power to use us to take the land.” And you know what, God made their “Word of unfaith,” a reality for them. They were to small, and the people were too strong for them.

Six. Yes, of course you can force God to do your will. Now, I would not personally say it this way, either in teaching or in my own prayers; however, there is nothing wrong with this, if understood in relative causality.[1]

God was sovereign when He made the promises. He is still sovereign. God’s sovereignty is absolute and direct, so that He is even the author of sin and evil. God controls all things. God knows all things, because He has predestined everything.  The objector in Romans 9 to Paul was about this arbitrariness of God’s choices to love one but hate the other, among other things. From the same neutral lump, God chooses to make some evil and some good. There is no law for God to follow; there is no authority over Him. There is no one to give Him advice. All created things get their value, or valueless state by God’s own definition of it. This is the God of the Bible. He creates all things and He defines His own creation as He so wishes. He also absolutely and directly controls all things He creates, and thus He controls ‘x’ and ‘y’. Therefore, God controls all thoughts, so that God is the metaphysical author of all evil and sin.[2] All Christian epistemology is God’s revelation. All Christian metaphysics and ontology is God’s direct and absolute sovereignty.

Why is it a correct definition that all people born after Adam were born created with a sinful nature and death, when they did not do the sin themselves? Because God thinks so. Why is it a correct definition that sinful people are credited with Christ’s righteousness, healings, Spirit and blessings, when they did not do it themselves? Because God thinks it so, and defines it so.

Thus, when God sovereignly makes a promise and binds Himself to it, it means He freely wanted to. The Bible says God cannot lie, (Hebrews 6:18). When God sovereignly promised to forgive sin if one believes in His son, then God cannot, not do it. Thus, we can force God to do it, because He promised to do it. We are speaking on the relative level, not ultimate. In ultimate causality, God both gives the promise, and then He causes a person to have faith to believe this promise. However, Jesus Christ when speaking on the relative level (and Jesus was the most God centered man who ever spoke) said, “your faith saved you.”

1 john 1:9 says, “ If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins.” For God to honor both His word to His Son Jesus Christ, and honor His promise to us, He must forgive our sins if we ask in faith for it. This is in essence, forcing God to do what “you” want; that is, “relative” to what “you” want. Now, since God ultimately gives the faith, it is what He wants; however, we are speaking relative to man; the way Jesus often does.

Seven. God is not a genie, because a genie only gives 3 wishes. How small and pathetic! God gives us our daily bread every day. If seek Him first, God will clothe us better than King Solomon and give us the things the “pagans seek after.” If you ask for an enlarged tent and territory in faith, you get it. Genies are too small to compare to God’s power to give good gifts, over and over and forever. God gives us new mercies every morning and evening. Time would fail me to mention all the natural and spiritual wishes God gives us so freely. This person’s critique backfires, and it exposes him as theologically damaged. His god is not the God of the Bible.

Eight. Jesus says if you have faith you can say to this mountain to cast itself into the sea, and if you “OBEY YOU.” Notice this is just faith, not the “gifts of the Spirit.” Also, Jesus was the most God centered man who ever live. But He says statements like the natural world “obeying you.” This is said in relative level ontology, and so it is fine to say it that way. In ultimate level ontology it is God who uses His power to perform the action, or as the Scripture says, “not by power, but by my Spirit (Zechariah 4:6).” And so, when one speaks faith and something happens like a healing, or a demon cast out, or mountain thrown, it is the Spirit who performs this work. Jesus also says, if you ask for anything in His name, in faith, that He will do it, no exception. Jesus, like a broken record says this many times in John 14-16. Thus, if I were to be technical or nitpick over this, the Holy Spirit is “just” ( or faithful, (you could say puppet if meant in this sense) to perform every word spoken in faith, similar in that God is not merely “merciful,” but “just” to forgive us based on His sovereign promise, to do so for Christ’s sake.

 

FB_IMG_1584411802138

Notes—————-

[1] Ultimate level. God caused Oshea to believe and confess Jesus Christ. (Oshea moves white pawn to H3 to take black knight.)

Relative Level. Oshea confessed and made Jesus Lord of his life. (White pawn takes black knight).

Just because the announcer at the Chess tournament says, “white pawn takes black knight,” then should I rebuke the announcer and tell him he should know better because the pawn did not move itself?

The Big idea is that ultimate level causality is God moving everything directly. However, the Bible often speaks of relative level causality, “Oshea buys some gum at the store from Johnny.”

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

[2] I got this phrase “metaphysical author of evil,” from Vincent Cheung.

Be Good Stewards of Pain, Or God’s Promises?

I read this irritating quote from Jerry bridges the other day.

 

“….We usually think of Christian stewardship in terms of money. Some churches have ‘stewardship campaigns’ during which they seek to get their membership to pledge toward the annual church budget. Then the concept of stewardship was broadened to include our time and talents—or as one slogan puts it, ‘Be a good steward of your time, talents, and treasure.’ The idea behind these concepts is that whatever resources God has given us, He has entrusted them to us as stewards to use for His glory.
“Now apply that idea to pain, either physical or emotional. If we believe God is sovereignly in control of all circumstances of our lives, then our pain is something He has given to us just as much as our time or talents or treasure. He has entrusted the pain to us as stewards to be used for His glory.
“How can we be good stewards of the pain God gives us? One way … is to trust Him even though we don’t understand the purpose of the pain…… ”
“Joy of Fearing God.” Pg. 225 Jerry Bridges.

Ontology Is Not Ethics

There are a few problems with this. The first main “if…then,” argument only in essence says, “ If God CAUSES all things, then God CAUSES this thing.” It is a broad but correct deduction. So far, so good. This category is only dealing with ontology. Yet, the conclusion he makes that pain is like stewardship, is an implied “ought.” So that we ought to obey God by using pain in such and such a way. This is now a category or ethics—a different category. Ethics is what God commands. However, Jerry provides no command from God (in what I read) clearly showing we “ought” to treat pain the way he seems to imply. It is made up human superstition and disobedience.

Informal Fallacy

This is an inductive argument in the form of arguing from analogy, which is invalid. [ That is, X, R, T, and F all have characteristic 1, 2, and 3. Also, X, R and T have characteristic 4. Thus, F has characteristic 4 as well. ]
The problem with an invalid argument from analogy is when one takes it further. If we see where it leads it would imply that pain is not merely something to “steward,” but even a “gift.” I surely take my “talent” to play music for God as a gift – and money, and time. Some theologies treat pain like a sick religious fetish. The Kingdom of self rules them. The kingdom of human superstitions (induction) and human starting points of knowledge is their idol and god.

Hanna

We do in fact know –broadly speaking—what to do with suffering that GOD CAUSES in us. Everything in reality is explained by God directly causing it. So What? This gives us no command to know what we “ought to do,” when God causes something. Hannah knew what to do when she dealt with the pain of not having a child, she asked for a miracle and received one – a gift. She did not like the pain and wanted it to go away. God gave her a son, as a gift. The pain stopped. God has commanded us to believe in His promises. Christian ethics is not an inductive conclusion taken from some nebulous notion of what one thinks God’s causality is doing at a given moment.

Hannah, therefore, was a hero of faith and ethics. After speaking of God’s sovereignty (“God kills and makes alive”) she proclaims that for the humble who believe in Him, (1 Sam. 2:9,8) “For the foundations of the earth are the LORD’s; on them he has set the world. He will guard the feet of his faithful servants, but the wicked will be silenced in the place of darkness. It is not by strength that one prevails. He raises the poor from the dust and lifts the needy from the ash heap; he seats them with princes and has them inherit a throne of honor.”
Hannah, therefore, was a faithful steward of the promises of God by believing in them – and giving glory to God as a “GOOD” Father by receiving the very thing she asked from Him (a fish for a fish, bread for bread, an egg for an egg, and a son for a son).

 

God’s Will, Made Me Unwise

 

First a clarification of Christian categories.

Vincent Cheung has been helpful on this topic to me, and he gives some good examples from Scripture on this distinction of Metaphysics/decree versus the different category of Ethics/God’s Precepts. Notice the “will of God,” in Mark 3 and 1 Peter 3 are used differently.

1 Samuel 2:25

His sons, however, did not listen to their father’s rebuke, [precept] for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death. [decree]…

Mark 3:35, For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother. [precept]

1 Peter 3:17, For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God’s will, than for doing evil. [decree]  [1]

Paraphrasing Mark and Peter with a more direct meaning of the term “will of God.”

Mark, “Whoever obeys God’s commandments is my brother.”
Peter, “It is better if God causes you to suffer for doing good rather than evil.”

Second. So the advice is if God sovereignly gives you something you accept it? How stupid can you get. God sovereignly gives and causes all things, even all sin. In this metaphysis sense, God is the metaphysical author of sin.[2] So what? This has nothing to do with human ethics, or that is, what we ought to do.

By God’s sovereign will, He make all of us born as unbelievers and sinners. How are we to “steward” this? The question is an “ought” question (not metaphysics); therefore, we need to know what God commands, and not what He has caused. God commands for us to repent and be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Thus, this is how we steward being born sinners by God’s sovereign will.

If you have a “lack of wisdom,” then God sovereignly caused you to have it. How does one steward this lack of wisdom? This again is asking an ethics question; that is, “what ought I do?” Christian ontology—God sovereignly making you have a lack of wisdom—is not a category of ethics; thus, to conclude from this descriptive premise of ontology into ethics is invalid. Pragmatically speaking it is voodoo and witchcraft.

As for ordinary life difficulties, it is God’s will for victory. James says if you face the common difficulty of lacking wisdom you are to ask in faith, and then God will give it to you. Think about it! It is not God’s will for you to stay in a lack of wisdom. What you “ought” to do is have faith and be victorious over this hardship of confusion by getting wisdom from God. This is not a self-help tip. It is a precept from your Master. The command is that BY YOUR FAITH, YOU are to obtain it.

Give it some thought.

If God directly controls all reality, then everyone who lacks wisdom is due to God’s Will.

(P) If it is God’s will [decree] for me to lack wisdom, (Q) then what I ought to do is accept God’s Will [ethic] and be unwise.

You realize how incredibly moronic this is, right? You realize how disobedient and disrespectful that is toward God, right? What God causes you to experience is not the same category of what you ought to do about it. If you want to know what you should to do, then ask what are God’s commands about this. Obey God. Get some wisdom by your faith. If you do not get wisdom because of your lake of faith, then you are in direct disobedience of God.

James command about healing, since we started about “pain,” is that we not merely pray about it, but that “by your faith” you actually get healed and get forgiven.

 

——–Endnotes———

 

[1] Vincent Cheung’s essay, “Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11.” (www.vincentcheung.com). It is also found in his book, “Sermonettes Vol. 8, chapter 4.” 2015. Pg, 22-32.

[2] I got this phrase, “metaphysical author of sin,” from Vincent Cheung. See, Systematic Theology, And Commentary on Colossians and Reflections on Second Timothy.