Category Archives: Christian Axiology

priscilla-du-preez--mCXEsLd2sU-unsplash

Do Not Manipulate God Like This

There is much bad teaching about the “will of God,” regarding prayer and faith, and so I do not fault you for being confused and looking for direction. 

Due to the large volume of bad teaching on this I could write a book about it. However, for brevity I will say a few generalized things, and then address your specific question about Jesus’ prayer.

1. The term “will of God,” can either mean, “God’s sovereign decree or control (etc),” or it can refer to God’s commandments and precepts. These are vastly different subjects. The context will determine this. Thus, make sure that you do not have confusion about this because you are making a category fallacy by mixing this up with specific passages. Even seasoned theologians make this mistake.  

2. When it comes to healing and faith in prayer, the bible, almost never, and referring Jesus, NEVER refers to the “will of God.” Instead, the reference is to the “will of man.” This is the main hilltop the bible address. Jesus never said, “according to the will of God,” you are healed, or saved from sins. Jesus kept saying things like, “your faith has saved or healed you.” Your faith to be healed is about your “will” to be relieved from this pain and to feel better. Jesus says it is your faith (your will) that heals you, not God’s.

3. When we address God specifically in prayer to ask for things, we relate to Him on the issue of the “will of man,”[1] because this is how God has relationship to us. Of course, we are never to forget the sovereignty of God and His decrees, but we do not directly talk to Him and receive from Him on this level. Jesus said, if “you” seek, the “you” will find. If “you” ask, then “you” will receive. Jesus said if His words abide in you and you in Him, “you” will ask whatever you want and “you” will get it. This “will of man,” or the human level, is how God has “direct” relationship or fellowship with “you.” The super prophet Isaiah told king Hezekiah that he was going to die. This was obviously God’s will because God said it, or is God a liar? Even if God is testing, God does not lie. King Hezekiah, did not have direct relationship with God by saying, “This is your “will,” so I accept this.” No, he asked God to have mercy on him and heal him. Hezekiah had relationship with God on the foundation of “the will of man.” God accepted both his relationship and faith, and God added 15 years back to him.

About your specific question when Jesus prays, “not my will, but your will be done.”

Two things.

One is the context. Jesus is already in a formal contract and agreement with the Father for ministry. Most of us are NOT in this context. Let that sink in. The apostle Paul, was in this context. The Holy Spirit said he would go to specific cites to preach and would suffer. Paul accepted this ministry call from God. After Paul accepts this ministry, he is not “free” to leave. He gave God his word or vow, and so he must fulfill it. Thus, you read Paul in end of Romans saying, he wants to go to Spain, if “the Lord wills.” In context of his specific ministry call and the things he has promised to do for God in ministry, this makes sense. If going to Spain was not part of the original call and agreement, then Paul can only ask if God would make an amendment to the original agreement. In this type of “context,” God might or might not. The same for Jesus. Jesus has already agreed to do the “will of God,” (sovereign plan of redemption). In this context it makes sense to say, “if there is a way to change the contract so that I do not have to go through this, then do so, but since I have already agreed to this, I will do it no matter what.” In essence, Jesus ends this prayer in a prayer of dedication, so that the prayer as a whole, is based on “dedication,” with a particular point, “if there can be an amendment to the contract.” The next point will show the significance of this. Most of us, and even many in ministry are not in these types of binding agreements with God. And thus, in this alone, Jesus’ prayer is not applicable to the vast majority of all types of prayer. The fallacy people make here is to take a particular type of prayer and context and apply it in a general way.

This is obviously not applicable to normal everyday troubles, where God explicitly gives many promises that He wants to answer the prayers of the “will of man,” to be helped, healed and blessed.

Second. Prayer has 2 basic mode types. One is a prayer of dedication and other is petition. (Even praise could be categorized as dedication). If you do one type, you cannot do the other. They exclude the other. You either do one or the other.

Dedication is asking God for His plans and will to be done.

Petitions is asking God to do you plans and will.

It is true that sometimes we have overlapping desires. In our human relationships, even if there is mutual desires, if we want to be “sincere,” for example in buying a gift for a family member, we will do all we can to buy the gift we know “they” want, and not us. Therefore, if you are to be “sincere” with God in prayer, you must either do a dedication prayer or petition type prayer, and not mix them up. People will mix them up and play the part of a hypocritical Pharisee. They asked God to bless their will, but, in order to appear more humble than they are, will reverse their petition prayer into a dedication prayer by saying, “if it is your will.” Logically, such a prayer is not even a prayer, because the contradictory prayers cancel each other out. Its like saying this to your husband, “I bought this dress for me, but not my will, but yours be done, therefore, this dress is for you.” Not only does it not make since, it comes across as false humility.

You do not need to manipulate God like this. Pray with clarity and to the point. If you dedicate something like praise, or time, money or hard work to God’s will and desires, then let it be just that. If you are asking for God to bless your will and desire, then let it be just that.

God’s will and plan is to bless your will and plan, when they are asked in sincere faith, in accordance with God’s promise. Because God gave promises to bless us, we know that God has already convinced Himself to bless our will and plans. He wanted this. If you have faith, the Father will give you what you ask. He wants to bless you. He likes faith. God does not like convoluted, contradictory, manipulated and false humanity prayers.

Asks and receive. It really is that simple. God likes this.

[1] This phrase and focus of the “Will of man,” by Vincent Cheung, from his essay, “Healing: the Will of Man.”

Nazism, Communism and Christianity

Hitler used the emotional pull of nationalism (appealing to nationalism is something almost all governments in all times have done—in some form– from its people since the dawn of time), as a slip of hand, to enforce his Darwinian Eugenics.

When the Japanese government wants to protect the Japanese way of life and its borders through rallying the people, (thus engage in nationalism) it is not as though they are now Nazis. When Israel says it ought to protect their way of life and its borders from those around them (i.e. nationalism), it is not as if they are Nazis. Or does nationalism make Jews Nazis? That would be a logical fallacy in more than one way. If a liberal gets their wish and this very hour the government is transformed into their ideal form of government, does it make them a Nazi or fascist because they are now proud or like their government? But I digress.

Nationalism is a tool to be used. It is a sub, sub category of other philosophy questions: it is not an ultimate question about First Principles of knowledge, Logic or of Metaphysics or Ontology or Ethics.

In America, biblical principles were used to form the government, although it was only partial, for there were other philosophies used as well. For example, I do not believe the bible supports a democracy. This is where things get a little convoluted. To “conserve” (i.e. conservatives, or conservatism) means to stay with your initial or original starting point, or standard or epistemology. This is often called the “right.” To be liberal means to liberate from this original starting point because you believe all or part of it is false. This is often called the “left.”

Therefore when referring to the scripture, it is always wrong to be liberal, and always right to be a conservative. However, with governments, this get complicated because their starting points are often mixed and or unclear. Since the Western world was so heavily influenced by Christianity, and the much modern liberal movement (for the last 100 years) is about liberating Christianity from the government, homes and culture, we will broadly define the terms from this point, although there is more to it.

Thus any philosophy of government that liberates from biblical principles is “liberal,” “left,” and any attempts (as imperfect as they are) to stay with biblical ones are conservative or right. Thus, Nazism and Communism are both far left or liberal governments, for both heavily liberate from the Biblical and its worldview.

Totalitarianism is ruling a people, with all power given to one or a few. King David as a king ruled by totalitarianism. Jesus does as well. But neither King David or Jesus are Nazis or Karl Marx. Just because a star is round and an apple is round, does not make them the same thing. Since the bible is the starting point for all knowledge, then any correct aspect of government was first stolen from the bible, and then corrupted with additional speculations from men.

We will deal with Nazism in particular, but fascism is the same. It is categorically impossible to say fascism(or Nazism) is right and communism left because both fascism and communism are founded on the epistemology of empiricism and the metaphysical of Darwinism’s evolution and survival of the strongest.  Hitler’s form of fascism argues a more direct connection from Darwinism to fascism but fascist like Mussolini went from Darwin to Nietzsche to fascism. Nietzsche using Darwinism said God is dead and man is a “superman” who rules by strength and not weak things such as kindness. Thus all forms of fascism is a denial or contradiction of Christian epistemology, metaphysics, logic and ethics. All forms of fascism are liberal to all Christian foundations and doctrines about reality. Every answer of ultimate questions that Christianity gives, fascism liberates from it.

Let us go over the basics of these government’s ultimate questions.

**Nazism: is Darwinism plus Eugenics with the ethic that they ought to force natural selection and survival of the fittest with totalitarianism. Fascism, in general would replace direct Darwin ethics with Nietzsche ethics, which are founded on Darwinism.

Nazi Epistemology – Empiricism (knowledge through sensation).
Nazi Metaphysis – naturalism and natural selection
Nazi Ethics – People OUGHT to enforce a natural selection for the good of man by totalitarianism. (or Fascism (Nietzsche: The new superman ought to rule by might)

**Communism: is Darwinism plus the theological idea that man is inherently good, plus the ethic that man ought to have this goodness in man ensured by the force of totalitarianism.

As a side note I must say as irrational as Hitler was in making a “ought” from descriptive premises of metaphysics, at least I understand his invalid, inductive direction. He sees survival of the fittest (thinks he does), and then metamorphoses (invalidly) this into an ethic. Marx was beyond stupid and irrational. He believed in evolution and Darwinism, but instead of embracing survival of the fittest as an ethic as Hitler did, he decided to neutralize the metaphysics he affirmed as an ethic. LOL? So he both invalidates what he affirms as a metaphysics, and then metamorphoses this into an ethic. Its like saying, “humans are organic. This is a human. Therefore, we will use government to replace their bodies with non-organic material, because it is morally good to not have an organic body.” Beyond stupid. There are so many category fallacies its hard to keep up.

Communism Epistemology – Empiricism (knowledge through sensation)
Communism Metaphysics – is naturalism and Darwinism.
Communism Ethics – it is morally good to oppose survival of the fittest observed in Darwinism and use government to force (people who are born inherently good -whatever that means) to be economic and social equals.

**Christianity: The scripture is the only starting point. Metaphysics is God’s absolute and direct control over all things. And ethics is God’s command.

Christian Epistemology – Contradicts Empiricism.
Christian Metaphysics – Contradicts Naturalism, national section and contradicts that man is inherently good.
Christian Ethics – contradicts government “ought” to use force to ensure natural section, and contradicts that government “ought” to enforce the inherent goodness of man by equalizing economic and social levels.

Thus, Christianity has no contact with Nazism or Communism in any important aspect of ultimate questions. To conserve to Christianity would be to liberate from both Nazism and Communism. Also to conserve to either Nazism or Communism would to be liberate from Christianity.

The question is who does have contact with the important philosophy topics of these two systems? American liberals. Liberal theologians.

Who has empiricism for their Epistemology?
Who has naturalism or Darwinism for their metaphysics?
Who has Nietzsche as their ethics?

Those who do, have foundational contact with Nazism/fascism and communism the ultimate questions of life. These are liberal, left government philosophies, for they liberate from the ultimate questions given by scripture and conserve to anti-biblical epistemologies and metaphysics.

anirudh-_8TNaYeJF58-unsplash

To Reject Christianity is to Reject Thinking

It is always intellectually defective to say anything against the scripture, but recently I heard a comment that was particularly irrational.

Their argument went like this. “Because I have homosexuals in my family, therefore if someone says something against homosexuals, then they are morally wrong, and need public governmental (or an authority) punishment and or to be silenced.”

First. This is a type of ethical dogmatic zealotry, that would make the catholic church portrayed in anime, blush in envy.

Second, the reasoning is so illogical, that it is barely comprehensible.

If I have a family member who is a murderer, then an ethic is produced. It is now morally wrong for any person to say in public that murder is wrong. ??? LoL.

The other ethic they used was “they felt offended.”  However I felt offended that they felt offended at their irrational opposition at a biblical ethic. I feel offended at all persons who disrespect my Lord Jesus. If Hitler was offended at the Jews or if I’m offended at a particular skin color, then it produces a dogmatic ethic that the authority or governments use their power to suppress and silence these people?

If all offenses were used to silence other parties who offended, and since there is somebody who is offended at every known worldview, then it would mean the government would have to silence and suppress everyone, including itself. Such an ethic is implausible with reality.

But beyond the implausibility with reality, the knowledge of such an ethic doesn’t exist, except in delusional fantasy.

Ethics is not the same category as metaphysics or reality (any created reality). Ethics is God’s command. God’s command and what He causes is not the same category. Any anti-Christian definition of ethics is intellectual nonsense and even to understand the nonsense of anti-Christian ethics, these must use biblical intelligibility to do so. However, the Bible they presupposes to make up their ethical nonsense, is necessarily true, and says all anti-Christian thinking is false.  Thus all anti-Christian systems are false by logical exclusion.[1]

However, a simpler example might be helpful. If I say, “(A) All humans have sinned. (2) Oshea is a human. (3) Therefore mockingbirds are trees,” it is easy to see that I made a category fallacy. My first two premises have nothing to do with the category of mockingbirds or trees.  You cannot have different categories in your conclusion and still be rational or intelligible. To have premises about your feelings (being offended), or metaphysical statements about your family, to then conclude in a different category of ethics (something is righteous or unrighteous), is to be intellectually broken.  Yet, this is always the history of anti-Christian thinking. To reject Scripture is to reject truth, reject reality and to reject logic.

To boil it down even further, to have “is” statements about reality in your premises (this is that) and conclude with an “ought,” is always invalid and insane. To go from an “is” to an “ought” is unintelligible. To go from descriptive premises of reality to a different category of ethics in the conclusion is not comprehensible. It does not exist in the mind or in reality. It has no being.

It is no less delusional to say, “all cat blues 15 mist happys are houses, and so all people cloud 5s are super 9 flying backward dog 2s,” than saying, “this offends me, it hurts me, therefore it is wrong.”[2] Do you think the latter is more understandable than the first? Really? If you think the second argument is any less delusional than the first, then you are intellectually broken and deceived in an abyss of delusions. This is the bible’s definition of people like you, therefore it is a true definition of you. Obviously, to reject Christianity is to reject ethics, but is much more foundational than that.  To reject Christianity is to reject thinking itself.  

EndNotes

[1] This understanding of apologetics I got from Vincent Cheung. See Systematic Theology and Ultimate Questions. For a specific reference of the above argument see Captive to Reason, 2009 page 44.

[2] Some might confuse a piece of innate knowledge (Romans 2:15) in them with that is being said in second argument, and by this think it is understandable. Other than presupposing the Scripture to do this, this presupposing of innate knowledge is separate from the argument. The argument as it is, is unintelligible.

kelly-sikkema-FqqaJI9OxMI-unsplash

A Disciplined Son, Sitting In His Room, In His Father’s House

What is the fear of the Lord? The fear of the lord is defined by its context. At times is simply means to worship the lord, as Jesus quotes to the devil. But at times it means awful dread of judgment. And lastly it can mean, as a legitimate son, to fear the discipline (not condemnation) of your father.

Vincent Cheung writes regarding a besetting sin,

It is good that instead of excusing yourself, you admit your sin and you are taking it seriously. Even if the sin persists, remember to never lose this – never begin to make excuses or to think that it is not a sin.

It is correct that true faith in Jesus Christ leads to holiness. However, a stubborn sin – or two or three – can tend to capture our attention to the exclusion of other aspects of our lives. When you take your entire life into account, is the basic disposition toward holiness? Is there an overall growth in knowledge, reverence, purity, and good works? If so, then this is consistent with a genuine faith in Christ. Instead of allowing a stubborn sin to become a stumbling block for your whole faith, you should consider the fact of your continuing growth in Christ to draw strength and encouragement in the ongoing battle against the remaining evil… So even if you draw on the strength and pressure of a Christian community, see to it that your main focus remains on Jesus Christ. He is the sole Mediator, the Lord of the conscience, and the Shepherd of your soul.[1]

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a huge crowd of witnesses to the life of faith, let us strip off every weight that slows us down, especially the sin that so easily trips us up. And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us. 2 We do this by keeping our eyes on Jesus, the champion who initiates and perfects our faith…
7 As you endure this divine discipline, remember that God is treating you as his own children. Who ever heard of a child who is never disciplined by its father? 8 If God doesn’t discipline you as he does all of his children, it means that you are illegitimate and are not really his children at all. 9 Since we respected our earthly fathers who disciplined us, shouldn’t we submit even more to the discipline of the Father of our spirits, and live forever?[g]
10 For our earthly fathers disciplined us for a few years, doing the best they knew how. But God’s discipline is always good for us, so that we might share in his holiness. 11 No discipline is enjoyable while it is happening—it’s painful! But afterward there will be a peaceful harvest of right living for those who are trained in this way,”
(Hebrews 12:1-3,7-11. NLT)

“Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? Very truly I tell you, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me.  My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.  You know the way to the place where I am going,”
(John 13:38, 14:1-4. NIV)

“He will judge everyone according to what they have done.  He will give eternal life to those who keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers.”
(Romans 2:6-7 NLT)

“But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord,”
1 Corinthians 1:30-31.

So right after Jesus tells Peter that Peter will betray Him (people have forfeited their souls for less), Jesus says not to worry, but remember He is preparing a room in His Father’s house for all the disciples, including Peter.

Peter did suffer the disgrace and sorrow for what he, but Jesus restored him, and Peter upon receiving this freely given love, freely gave it back to the brethren by strengthen them.  Peter never stopped from having a room in the Father’s house.

When I was disciplined by my parents, my mom would make me wait in my room for my dad to come and give me a spanking. As Hebrews 12 says, discipline is not pleasant. How obvious this is. It is proper to “fear” the unpleasantness of discipline. The point to remember is this, it is discipline, and not condemnation. For those in Christ Jesus we never fear condemnation, because Jesus was already condemned in our place. [2] This is a fear a Christian should never experience, and any voice or feeling that says otherwise is a lie from Satan. Our judgment has already happened. Only grace and life are before us. It is a bight day, today in Christ. It is a brilliant future.

However, I want to bring your attention to this aspect.  I waited for my dad’s discipline, in my “room” in my “father’s house.” Think about that. The same is for our heavenly Father. For all those truly born-from-above, we never leave our Father’s house. Even if we wait for discipline, we wait as sons, in the safety of our own rooms.  And even in the extreme example of the parodical son, when the son left his room on his own, the father’s always had a room waiting for the son’s return.

Any discipline is to help you mature as a son. That is, the good things you are seeking, such as blessings, health, prosperity (etc.) God our Father wants to give this to us, more than we want to receive it. We are already in Christ, righteous in God’s sight, reconciled and co-heirs with Jesus. By faith, at any time we can approach God’s throne; our sins do not negate this. However, if our sin is to often or too big, it can hinder our conscience to be sin focused and not righteousness focus, and this will hinder our faith, and this will hinder us freely receiving all the good things from our Father. God’s discipline for His sons, is not to remake us as sons because our sins stopped us from being sons; no, our Father desires to mature us to understand we are beloved sons through Jesus and on this foundation, in faith freely receive the good things promised us. God wants to give more than you want to receive.

When we are sick, we need to have a relentless focus on our healing, on the word of God about healing day and night. We are not to focus on our sickness, we are to focus on the healing already accomplished by Jesus in His finished atonement. We are not to focus on the pain, but the how much God loves us and wants our healing more than we want it. Sickness is from the devil, it is a curse of the law and Jesus started to demolish it in His ministry and has commanded all His disciples to continue this battle. We are commanded to have faith to be healed.

The same for sanctification, even in besetting sins. We need to have a relentless focus on our righteousness in God, and not our sin. Hebrews 12 in context about the sins that so easily ensures us, says to focus on Jesus who began and will strengthen our faith. The application is obvious. We do not focus on what our eyes see, or minds feel, or body experiences; rather, we focus on all the promises of God that are yes through Jesus Christ. We focus day and night that we are the righteousness of God in Jesus, that we are children of God, beloved and reconciled once and for all time. We can march into the throne of heaven at any time and place to ask and receive from Almighty God, as dear children.  We need to see that even all our future sins are forgiven, forgotten and gone. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1 that not only did Jesus become our righteousness for us, but also our “sanctification.” Jesus did not only start our faith, but He will be faithful, (not you), HE will be faithful to mature and finish our faith. In blood, Jesus promises in the New Contract, that God will write His laws on our minds so that we love God, by obeying His commands. This was not your promise to God, but God’s promise to you. The Father pointed to His Jesus’ bloody corpse and said on that day, I promise I will cause you to love Me. This is love, not that we loved God, but that God so loves us that He sent His son to be a wrath appeasing atonement for us. The old man has already died, and the new man is already here. We are free from the law of sin and death and now we reign in this life through Jesus Christ.

This does not diminish our sickness by focusing on our healing promised in Jesus, instead of the pain, but is obedience to focus on what God tells us to focus on. The same for sin and righteousness. It is obedience to focus on our righteousness, sonship and value in Christ and not sin conscience.  Psalm 1 says you will have success in all that you do if you think on God’s word day and night. We know the way. It is Jesus. It is a relentless focus on our beloved identity in Him, and that all the good promises are our definition and yes through Jesus.

ENDNOTES

[1] Vincent Cheung. Habitual Sin. Sermonettes Vol. 6. 2012. Pg.81.

[2] Now, if you are in extreme, gross sin (there are degrees of sin), it is not wrong to remember the dread of condemnation, in the sense that Paul says, check and see if your election is sure; yet, these are extremes that most Christians should not relate to (2 Corinth. 11:20-22, 27, “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”). Yet, even in this extreme, God killed them with sickness before they could forfeit their salvation. And yet, in this extreme James 5:15 still applies, “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,” NLT. God wants you to prosper.

mi-pham-FtZL0r4DZYk-unsplash

Flooding the Gospel with Funding

2 Corinthians 8:9 NLT,
“You know the generous grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. Though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty he could make you rich.”

2 Corinthians 9:8 LEB,
“And God is able to cause all grace to abound to you, so that in everything at all times, because you have enough of everything, you may overflow in every good work.”

“The more you gain financially, the more you’re a threat to the devil.”
(Kenneth Copland. Twitter, Aug 2022)

“This shipwrecks people’s faith. It’s a mockery of what it means to ­­follow Jesus. Jesus was not rich, nor His disciples; and yet, nobody was a bigger threat to the devil and Him.”
(Johnny Billy)

Part of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus is the aspect of Jesus taking on (being imputed) our poverty and in exchanging crediting His elect with His wealth. Paul’s statements above, are in context of money, and giving this money to fund the gospel ministry and aid. Paul says the foundation of this, is not the Corinthians working hard for their own money, but just like with sin and righteousness, Jesus worked hard by taking on their poverty, and in exchange freely credited wealth to the Corinthians. Paul argues part of the reason Jesus deposited such financial excess to His elect, (not the only reason), is for the purpose of giving this excess to fund the church and gospel ministry.

Peter said it was not good for him and the apostles to focus on serving tables, but rather on the ministry of the word and prayer. The reason is because the ministry of the word is the most powerful ministry. The bible always shows this to be the case; indeed it is God’s gospel (the word) that is powerful to save. Peter’s short sermon in Acts 2 brought in 3 thousand souls out of the kingdom of darkness and conveyed them into Kingdom of God’s unmerited favor. The point is this, severing tables is a good thing (and those who do this will not lose their reward), but a focus on a ministry of the word is always the most important. Therefore, how obvious it is to see that a ministry that lacks money and thus, must divert time away from a ministry of the word, to other do things, is a ministry that is being hindered. A ministry that is fully funded and is able to and does focus on the ministry of the word with power, will be a very fruitful ministry.

It is not a secret how poorly the church overall gives tithes. Many pastors end up begging for financial help. God sees their pain. However much that Satan rejoices in a defunded police, that allows the innocent to be unprotected, Satan much more rejoices in a defunded church, so that the preaching of the Word is hindered. The funding of the church is 100 times more on the hearts of Christians than the funding of any other organization.

“Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty” (James 5:4).

The money that you withhold from preachers who proclaim the word of God to you, who teach you sound doctrine, who defend you against assaults and deceptions, and who pray for you, so that your faith would not fail, now testifies against you before the Lord. It will stand as a witness against you in the day of judgment, as evidence of your injustice and cruelty. God will hold you responsible for every lack that they endure. He will charge to your account every occasion that their wives worry about the future. He will punish you for every night that their children go to sleep hungry. And what about those who have to do without the ministry of preachers who lack the resources to reach them? Surely their blood is on your hands.”
Vincent Cheung. “Preachers and Their Wages.”

Those who oppose Christians seeking, teaching and asking Jesus to give them financial prosperity, are those who have sided with Satan, and are enemies of the gospel and blood of Jesus Christ. Logically, Prosperity is no less the gospel, than the forgiveness of sins and healing. Because financial abundance is produced by the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is received in the same way forgiveness and healing is, by faith.

Jesus said,

Luke 16:9 NIV, “I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.”

He is instructing us to use earthly prosperity to gain spiritual friends (the chief of friends is God) so that when you died, God will welcome you to His eternal house. You can either set your mind on money and by your own effort attain it (the love of money), or in “faith” in the gospel receive an abundance of wealth by God’s power, so that you can use it fund the ministry of the Word, help those in need and use it even for your own enjoyment. Yes, you can use money on earth in such a way as to exchange it for eternal blessings.

Johnny Billy’s statement is an attack of the blood of Jesus Christ. It is also mis-leading and stupid. Jesus’ type of ministry is one that even many missionaries do not follow. How many go from town to town, nonstop preaching, healing the sick and casting out demons? Jesus said He had nowhere to lay His head, because of this specific way to do ministry, and not as a general statement about ministry itself. Also, Jesus and the disciples had enough money to fund them with all the people following them, and so much extra that Judas was able to steal from the money bag and it not be a problem. This might not be a definition of wealthy, but they were not poor either. And lastly, their specific ministry does not negate the doctrine that Paul taught saying Jesus exchange His wealth for our financial lack, so that we have His wealth to fund the gospel.

In addition to these mis-leading statements it is self-damning.  Johnny says that Jesus and the disciples, did not have prosperity, but they were still a bigger threat to the devil than anyone.

This is stupid for a few reasons. Jesus and the disciples were funded by money for their ministry. Many people and women followed, supported and provided for them. This is the very reason why Paul said Jesus died with our poverty and gave us His wealth, so that we can support the gospel.

Kenneth Copeland often teaches on healing and even casting out demons. Jesus and the disciples were supported and funded for their ministry. What did they focus on in their ministry that was such a threat to Satan?

“And you know that God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the 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.

Jesus was a treat to Satan being able to victimize people, by healing thousands of them.

Jesus said He was opposing the kingdom of Satan by casting out devils and healing. Jesus said God anointed Him to heal, heal, heal, resurrect the dead and preach the gospel. I wonder how many of those who criticize the prosperity gospel, heal the sick, heal the sick, heal the sick, resurrect the death and cast out demons? If they do not, then their ministries are not a gospel ministry and their ministries do not oppose a threat to the devil. So when they are opposing ministries that do focus on healing, casting out demons and encouraging faith to receive money through the gospel to finance a real gospel ministry, they are in fact mouth pieces for Satan. They have sided with the devil to oppose ministries that are the only true threat their god victimizing people.

Let us instead focus on being a true threat to Satan by healing the sick and teaching God’s chosen ones to have faith in the gospel of Jesus to receive financial help, and then to use this to fund gospel ministries that are pushing back the darkness and shining the light of heaven on the earth.

Indeed, you can tell the false gospel from the true gospel, by the sounds it produces. The false gospel will produce sounds of demons yelling and foaming out the mouths of people in joy, as people scream in pain, fear and poverty. However, the biblical gospel will produce sounds of demons screaming in fear, and the saints shouting for joy, in healing, forgiveness, blessings and prosperity!

“Many evil spirits were cast out, screaming as they left their victims.
And many who had been paralyzed or lame were healed.
So there was great joy in that city.”
(Acts 8:7-8).

And when you hear this sound, then flood such gospel ministries with funding.

Let the demons scream and the saints shout for joy.

yoann-boyer-eFP9G9d7OM4-unsplash

Submit To Being A Sinner, Or to God’s Command?

“If God be our sovereign, we ought to subscribe to his afflicting will without debates. . . . It is God’s part to inflict, and the creature’s part to submit. . . . It is an unreasonable thing not to leave God to the exercise of his own dominion.”
— Stephen Charnock

I saw this quote on social media, and will assume it is correctly attributed and quoted.

Let me see here. The argument being presented here is God’s causality (afflicting), which is the major premise, and the conclusion is an ethic (man submitting). I have already written at length about this issue of making a category fallacy with ontology (God causing) to ethics (what man ought to do). You cannot go from God causing in the premise, to concluding ethics in the conclusion, without human delusion and superstition. The bible does not do this, and the bible does not violate the laws of logic.[1]

Therefore, leaving this broad issue, I want to just show the superstition of this statement by using this statement against itself. We will use the same category of God causing something, and then concluding with another type of ethic.

“If God be our sovereign, we ought to subscribe to his afflicting will without debates. . . . It is God’s part to inflict all mankind with being born sinners, and the creature’s part to submit to this; or that is, to be sinners. It is unreasonable to fight God’s sovereignty. If God sovereignly afflicted you to be a sinner you ought to resign yourself to this and be one.  If God wills, then maybe one day God will remove this from you, until then be the sinner God caused you to be.”

The problem is obvious. Christian ethics, “what we ought to do,” is based on God’s commandments, not on divining the stars and His causality. It is true God has sovereignly afflicted all mankind to be born with Adam’s sinful record and even with a sinful nature (Romans 5). However, what we “ought” to do about this is not divined from human speculation like voodoo; rather, it comes from what God has commanded us to do in this situation. Pagan superstition will take metaphysics and ontology and conclude an ethics with it. However, it is logically invalid to conclude in a category that is not part of the premises. This logical fallacy is best termed as superstition. A pagan witch doctor will look at reality and causality and superstitiously conclude an ethic. Example: the stars are in this position, an albino animal was seen doing this or that, therefore, we “ought” to do this x or y.

Christianity is not superstition; it starts with God’s revelation and concludes using God’s logic. So what, if God caused you to be born a sinner? There is no promise or command in such a statement about reality, and thus, there is no conclusion for what you ought to do. What has God commanded and promised? God has commanded all to repent and to believe in His Son Jesus Christ for salvation. Even though God caused us to be sinners, He has commanded us to stop being sinners by believing in His Son.

Another problem with the above, is that it disrespects God, by shoving His commands aside. It abuses God’s sovereignty to remove the responsibility of obeying God’s command. This will not work.

The same problems as the above are true, when we apply God’s sovereignty to God inflicting us with sickness and everyday troubles. On the relative level, or from our perspective, Satan causes much or all sickness (Acts10:38). However, on the ultimate level, God causes all things. Even though it was the evil spirit that deceived the false prophets and Ahab, God manipulated it, sent it and even controls its mind.

Thus, God sovereignty afflicts with sickness and troubles, if we are talking about the only real level of causality, which we are because God causes all to be born with Adam’s sinful record and to be sinful in nature.

Back to sickness.

“If God be our sovereign, we ought to subscribe to his afflicting will without debates. . . . It is God’s part to inflict all mankind with sickness, and the creature’s part to submit to this, as their ethic; that is, to be sick, until God’s does something different about it…”

Again, this abuses God’s sovereignty to remove the responsibility to obey God’s command. God commands repeatedly in the scripture to get healed. James says if you’re sick, you are to give a prayer of faith, (along with the elders) and God will heal you. And if you have sinned, God will also forgive you. James is not telling you to merely pray about your sickness, but is commanding you to pray and get healed. It is not a suggestion. It is not a suggestion to praise God, when God has done good things for you. God promises to heal when we ask in faith. This is Christian ethics. God’s promises are the new creation, the new identity of the Christian in Christ. It is not optional to get healed, because it is not optional to disobey God, and not optional to operate in your new identity in Christ. It is your responsibility to use your own faith and be healed.

Jacob wrestling God, even when God told him to let Him go, was accepted because God always accepts faith. The lepers and blind men were not healed because God’s sovereignty saved them, but because their faith saved them. This is how Jesus, the most God-centered man who ever lived, framed the issue. Therefore, this is how we will frame the issue. Healing and victory over the troubles of life, are the will of man, not God. This is how God wants you to see it. The blind and lepers did not go to Jesus because God sovereignly healed them first, and thus, conclude from this it is ethical for them to submit to health because God sovereignly caused it. No. They heard the promise of God, which is true Christian ethics, and had faith to obey God. Faith is super high-level obedience to God. Without it, you cannot please God, because without it you are disobeying Him.

Abusing God’s sovereignty to cast aside these commands is of no use. All will be held accountable to submit to them.

The quote talked about “submitting” and “pledging” yourself to what God causes. Why not submit yourself to God’s commands and obey them? Why not resign yourself to obey God’s promises, without debates. How unreasonable would it be to not let the Sovereign Creator command His subjects and expect them to obey Him? Human tradition will use all sorts of biblical language (particularly about God’s sovereignty) to try and remove their accountability from obeying God’s commands. This is a demonic abuse of God’s sovereignty.

Jesus and the apostles repeatedly said we ought to “submit” to obeying God’s commandments. We love God by obeying Him. No amount of abusing God’s sovereignty can remove this accountability off your shoulders. Sure, there is some broad ideas of God’s providence we need to keep in mind, knowing He will work all things and troubles of life to our good. This should give us, not only longsuffering, but also meekness and faith to acquire the promises of God for victory. But even if we are under our Father’s discipline, we are commanded to submit to this by submitting to His commands to repent, overcome and then be blessed. But if you ignore God’s commands that tell you what to do in specific troubles, and you cast them aside like a common thing, then have no confidence God will work all things for the good, for a reprobate like you.

Here is a pro tip. If you are talking about ethics, go to God’s commands and promises and obey them. If a person is talking about submitting to God’s sovereignty, but not His promises, avoid them as if they were dipped in a vat of deadly plague. They have no clue what they are talking about. They stand in the town square calling out to the simple minded. They have perfumed their books and studies with spices, but under the covers of their books they are filled with witchcraft and superstition. The stairs of their houses lead to hell, and their churches to hades. Flee spiritual immorality.

ENDNOTES

[1] For clarity I am referring to deductive logic and basic laws of logic (which is how God’s mind is structured). Deductive logic starts with God revealing, or a God starting point for knowledge. I am not referring to inductive logic, which presupposes a human starting point. Some use the term “human logic,” as including all logic, but that is blaspheme, because God is Logic itself. However, inductive logic (including the scientific method that uses the fallacy of affirming the consequent) presupposes a human starting point of knowledge. Thus, in this sense, inductive logic can be termed “human logic.” Likewise, the laws of logic and deductive logic, because it presupposes a God starting point for knowledge, can be called God’s logic.

Think On These Things: Think on Healing & Miracles

“Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are right, whatever things are pure, whatever things are pleasing, whatever things are commendable, if there is any excellence of character and if anything, praiseworthy, think about these things. And the things which you have learned and received and heard about and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you,”
Philippians 4:8-9 LEB.

Thoughts of sickness are a lie against the promise of God; thoughts of sickness are not honorable, not right and they are not pure of heart. Thoughts of sickness are not pleasing, and not commendable. They are not excellence of character and or praiseworthy.

Thoughts of Healing are an agreement that the promises of God are true. They are honorable. Thoughts of healing are right, are pure and pleasing. Thoughts of healing are commendable, and they are excellence of character. Thoughts of healing are praiseworthy.

Does this sound strange to you? If it does you are out of touch with reality; you do not know God, the gospel or scripture.

Healing is part of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, (Isaiah 53:4, Matthew 8:17); it is by biblical definition part of the gospel. The gospel is good, it is trustworthy, praiseworthy, excellent, and so forth.

Sin is not good, not praiseworthy, not excellent and so forth. For a Christian forgiveness of all their sins by Jesus’ finished work is a stepping stone; a doorway into the next life. To stay at this doorway, means you do not believe you are forgiven, which is why you never enter into or believe the gospel. The only correct way for a Christian to think of sin, is being already judged and buried in Jesus’ death. Sin, death and judgment are behind the Christian. Value, unmerited favor and joy is before the Christian. Hebrews 10:2-3 says that the Old Testament yearly sacrifices reminded the minds and thoughts of the practitioners of their sin. The writer of Hebrews says this was not a good thing for the mind to be reminded of our sins. To be reminded of ones sins, if you are indeed forgiven, is not excellent or praiseworthy. They were reminded of their sins, because Christ had not yet come. Hebrews later states that Jesus once and for all removes our sins from us. The pragmatic implication is that our minds and thoughts are not reminded about or sins; rather, we are reminded of our new identity in Christ. We are the righteousness of God and co-heirs with Jesus. By His great love we are children of God.  Thus, it is not a good thing to be mindful and dwell on your sins. You are to be renewed by thinking about Jesus, and who are “presently” in Him. This is praiseworthy and excellent.

Paul says in Romans 6 we are to assent that we were buried in Jesus’ death. Our sin, by His atonement, was dealt with and buried. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5, that we at one time knew Jesus from a human point of view, but we do NOT know Him this way any longer.  He is on the throne, ruling and pouring out the baptism of the Spirit. Our thoughts are to be on this present reality of Jesus. Paul extends this to us. The old man is gone, with all our sin and judgment for that sin. Our new creation is our present reality, and this is where our thoughts ought to be. Thus to “think on these things,” is not thinking about our sin, but how righteous God sees us as. God interacts with us, as the righteousness of God.

The pragmatic application is if your circumstances or Satan tries to remind you of your sins, you are not indulge this temptation by thinking about your sins; rather, you are put off this old-man way of thinking, and put on the new-man, who thinks about how completely forgiven he is and how boldly he can march into the throne room of God and ask and receive.

The same is true for healing and sickness. Sickness is part of curses of Adam and of the Law (Deut. 28). Jesus, by substitutionary atonement, became our curses. Jesus was nailed to our curses of sickness. Even when leapers who needed to be healed, under the Law, a blood sacrifice was given. Healing is shown under the Law, that a substitutionary sacrifice is needed. Jesus was our substitutionary sacrifice to redeem us from all sickness.  Isaiah 53:4 says Jesus “bore” (same word for the substitution atonement for the escape goat in Lev. 16) sickness and pains.[1]

Curses are not honorable, excellence, praiseworthy, etc. And yet, sickness is a curse.

Sickness is a curse; it is not excellent. Sickness is a curse; it is not praiseworthy. Sickness is a curse; it is not honorable. Sickness is a curse; it is not “true” regarding what God has promised.

When tempted by circumstances and the devil to keep rehearsing your sickness over and over in your mind, do not sin by doing this; rather, be obedient and put on the new-man who thinks on the finished work of Jesus who bore all your sickness and pains, who was nailed to your sickness and how these died with Him, on His body, so that you are freed and released from all of them. God is for your body, so much so, He made it part of the gospel. He is the God who heals you.

To indulge on thoughts of your sins or sickness is in direct disobedience of the Scripture commanding us to “think on these things.” Rejoice! You are commanded to think on righteousness, healing, blessings, miracles, peace with God, Joy and unending unmerited favor upon you.  Rejoice.

[1] For more see, Christ our Healer. FF Bosworth.

The Spirit tells our spirit about the …..?

 The Spirit tells our spirit about the …..?

“No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the
wonderful things
God has
freely given us,”

(1 Corinthians 2:11-12 NLT)

For sake of context, what are some “things” Paul mentions in his letters to the Corinthians about the things God has freely given us? Paul says, Jesus became our sin so that we are freely given God’s righteousness. Paul also says the Holy Spirit freely gives us gifts, such as healings, miracles, prophecy and tongues etc. Paul says that Jesus became our poverty so that God freely gives us money so that in an abundance of wealth we can freely give to the ministry. Paul says God has freely given us Christ’s mind so that we have the Mind of Christ. Paul says God has freely given us all things, even the past, present, future, heaven, eternal life and all reality.

This is why, even though we study theology and doctrine, we also keep focusing on devotions and faith, because the Spirit is relentless in directing our hearts to all the good and free things available to us in Christ. This is why fanboys, become lost in theology and especially of men and tradition, because that is where their hearts are directed; to the things “men” give them.

If your thoughts and mind are not constantly turned to these freely given things by God such as healing, wealth, righteousness, citizenship in heaven, spiritual powers, then what spirit is in you? How can you rationally claim it is God’s Spirit? Not having your spirit moved by God’s Spirit to freely receive such things as health and wealth means you must be an illegitimate child; you are and outsider to the love of the Spirit. But for us who do have God’s Spirit we are overwhelmed with love of God as the Spirit directs our thoughts to all the freely given things for us to receive. And after receiving them, we give in the same free manner that it was given to us.

I Reserved 7000 Who Have Not Bowed to Empiricism

The only real problem with tackling adult doctrines like God’s sovereignty, predestination, election, and reprobation is that if you’re still a spiritual child, you’ll predictably end up injuring yourself and everyone in your vicinity. I recall Vincent Cheung dropping a line like this a few years back, and it just keeps ringing true every time I bump into churchgoers who prove the point.

When knowledge fails to amplify a person’s faith, it merely enhances their talent for faking it. Simply because some self-appointed expert decides to wrestle with an “adult” doctrine doesn’t automatically grant them spiritual or intellectual maturity. Sure, you could hand a baby the keys to a Ferrari, but he’s bound to total it in seconds. Plopping him behind the wheel doesn’t magically age him up. In the same vein, the vast majority of theologians are nothing more than spiritual toddlers clumsily juggling adult concepts. They toy around with ideas like divine sovereignty, the covenants, and the grand arc of redemption history, but the moment they try to drive—when they start formulating, teaching, and applying these doctrines—they cause massive pileups in people’s faith. [1]

I recently had another short exchange with a person (we’ll dub them Billy for anonymity) on the topics of faith and healing. I was laying out some key Bible verses about faith and healing, while encouraging them to actively cultivate and strengthen their own faith. I made a particular point about how faith in God’s promises—be it for forgiveness or physical healing—ensures you receive what you’ve asked for in prayer.

I pulled directly from John 15:7-8: “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever YOU want and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this: that you bear much fruit, and prove to be my disciples.”

Not only does this passage explicitly state that you’ll receive what “YOU” personally desire (it doesn’t limit it to what GOD might want, but emphasizes “YOU”), but Jesus Himself positions these answered prayers—for the very things “YOU WANT”—as His genuine test of orthodoxy and discipleship. The gospel is Jesus’ Creed, and answered prayers is His test to see if you are legitimate. He declares that it “proves” you are truly His disciple if you pray for what you want and God provides them.

And why is that the case? It’s because only those who are true insiders within the Contract enjoy this level of privileged access to the Father. Outsiders simply don’t have the clearance. Jesus is offering up a test of orthodoxy that’s impossible to counterfeit or simulate. Only legitimate children of God can casually ask for anything they desire, and watch as the Father delightedly grants it. Reprobates and those outside the covenant are barred from this access and the vibrant life it brings.

This mirrors the kind of proof Jesus provided for His own identity as the Son of Man. The religious phonies and obsessive fanboys would obsess over external rituals, like washing the outside of a cup, to fabricate an appearance of being part of the Elect. But since they are, in reality, reprobates, they can’t deliver the authentic proof of orthodoxy, which boils down to genuine faith. Faith provides unhindered, direct access to God and serves as irrefutable evidence that you’re among the Elect. Jesus demonstrated that God was listening to His prayers, and through that, He showcased the Father’s full approval. This wasn’t something He achieved through His own isolated power; rather, God bestowed upon Him the fullness of the Spirit (a gift we’re also explicitly commanded to pursue and receive), and granted Him every request He made in prayer. By doing so, Jesus proved that His insider relationship with God was of the most intimate variety possible. Jesus urged people to believe Him, precisely because of His miracles. “Don’t believe me unless I carry out my Father’s work. But if I do his work, believe in the evidence of the miraculous works I have done, even if you don’t believe me,” John 10:37-38. And here’s the kicker: God commands us to do something similar, to receive answered prayers for miracles as tangible proof that we are indeed Elect insiders, rather than reprobates destined for the flames. He insists on a form of proof that no reprobate could replicate.

Aside from Jesus’ Creedal “proof” for discipleship, there’s also the truth about just how intimate our status as Contract insiders truly is. God loves us deeply; He views us as cherished children who sit at His family table. We can boldly ask for whatever WE want, and He will joyfully hand it over. The Father destroyed His only begotten Son by the agony of crucifixion. He was scourged and torn apart. He motions toward Jesus’ bloodied body and declares, “This is how seriously I take my promises.” He goes to great lengths to provide assurance that He will fulfill what He has pledged. And He has pledged to give us whatever we ask for in faith. Pause and reflect on the sheer lovingkindness of God toward us, on the unwavering loyalty of His unmerited favor for those He has chosen to love!

Billy came back with this retort:  
“Where are all these miracles? I do not see them. If what you are saying is true, then no one is saved.”

In my head, the immediate reaction was, “You David Hume empiricist whore, you spiritual adulterer and faithless pervert. You have sold out your soul to worldly philosophy at the most bedrock level of your worldview, outright rejecting God in the process.”

Aware that this individual prided themselves on being “Reformed,” I chose to respond by drawing on how God Himself addressed a comparable accusation in Scripture. First off, Paul in Romans chapter 9 acknowledges that if we’re just going by human observation (that is, empiricism and inductive reasoning), it might appear God has failed to save His people. But Paul counters that God hasn’t failed at all, because His promise was always to bless those included in the promise through election, not merely those born naturally as Jews. An overwhelming surplus of reprobates in no way invalidates God’s promise to save His elect ones.

Paul then references the story of Elijah and God as a prime illustration. Elijah was no minor figure in Israel—he was a heavyweight prophet, widely recognized, extensively traveled, and deeply experienced in the nation’s affairs. After enduring so much, he hits a low point of discouragement and complains to God that he is the sole remaining believer in all of Israel. As I mentioned, Elijah wasn’t some isolated rural farmer with limited exposure; he had seen and interacted with Israel. So, from a purely human evaluative perspective, his credibility for drawing an inductive—though fundamentally irrational—conclusion from his observations is better than most. He concludes, based on empirical data and inductive logic, that he is the last faithful one, and he presents this as truth before God Himself. But God rebukes Elijah, informing him that He has personally reserved 7,000 individuals who have stayed loyal. This ties directly into the Romans 9 framework, where God asserts that before people are even born or have done anything good or bad, He sovereignly chooses to love some and hate others, according to His election and reprobation. The lump was neutral; it wasn’t already bad or good. From this neutral lump God then creates good or bad things.

“God has not rejected his people, whom he foreknew! Or do you not know, in the passage about Elijah, what the scripture says—how he appeals to God against Israel? ‘Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life!’ But what does the divine response say to him? ‘I have left for myself seven thousand people who have not bent the knee to Baal.’ So in this way also at the present time, there is a remnant selected by grace,” Romans 11:2-5.

The very same response God gave to Elijah, Paul affirms, held true in his own era and continues to apply today.

Therefore, when someone whines, “I don’t see all these miracles and answered prayers (as Jesus described and commanded in John 15:7-8), so they must not exist, and so what Jesus said can’t possibly mean what it plainly states,” they’re behaving with the same irrational arrogance as Elijah did. God’s rebuke to Elijah is perfectly applicable here as well. God has reserved for Himself 7,000—or perhaps 70,000,000—who have not bowed the knee to empiricism (that modern Baal) and who haven’t abandoned Jesus’ directive for answered prayers. Regardless of what Elijah could observe and compute through his senses, God’s declaration is the sole valid starting point for all knowledge. God is truthful when He proclaims a remnant according to election, while Elijah was acting as a liar and a false witness against the truth. His false testimony stemmed directly from his reliance on empiricism and inductive conclusions.

So what if you personally don’t witness an abundance of answered prayers and miracles? Even if that implies there’s an excessive number of reprobates infiltrating the church, just as Paul noted with the Jews, it doesn’t indicate any failure on God’s part. It simply means the reprobates have failed to attain insider status due to their deficient faith, and as for the rest, it’s likely because you yourself are a reprobate, which explains why you’re not positioned to witness God’s power in action.

Religious fanboys and self-proclaimed Reformed enthusiasts love to bandy about doctrines like election and reprobation, but since these are mature, adult-level truths, they are utterly wasted on childish minds. This doctrine of reprobation is like a loaded gun pointed straight at their own faces, and they are the ones gripping the trigger. They will end up harming themselves and bystanders whenever they mishandle it. Perhaps the reason they fling around the term “reprobate” so freely is that, by God’s ironic providence, they themselves are reprobates and feel an unconscious affinity for the word.

I absolutely cherish God’s providence, especially because I don’t reject half the Bible to suit my preferences. As Vincent Cheung insightfully observes in “Predestination and Miracles,” I am predestined to experience miracles. But you outsiders, just because you have grasped a narrow sliver of God’s sovereignty and reprobation doesn’t exempt you from being reprobates yourselves. Similarly, just because Satan could lecture you on certain facets of hell doesn’t spare him from eternal imprisonment there. He might know it intimately because he’s experiencing it firsthand as God’s enemy.

If you are a genuine disciple, you will embrace with wholehearted faith all of God’s commands, promises, and His sovereign faithfulness. Those who have been “born from above” don’t fabricate excuses for their faltering faith if they encounter struggles; instead, they echo the desperate father seeking deliverance for his son, crying out, “Help my unbelief.” The Elect will pursue and obtain stronger faith. They are authentic disciples who mature in faith rather than in unbelief. They advance forward instead of retreating in fear. They are true insiders; thus, the Spirit whispers within their souls, “You are a child of God, so ask! And you will receive. Draw near to your Father, for He loves you deeply.”

There is a divine daycare drama: Spiritual losers are crashing theology cars, while the elect grown-ups cruise on miracle highways, leaving empiricist whiners in the dust.

Starting Point for Knowledge.

The other glaring issue in this person’s response is their rejection of God at the most profound level of worldview construction. That is, when confronting the ultimate question of knowledge (here using “knowledge” is exchangeable for truth), what serves as the foundational starting point or first principle from which you derive this knowledge? Every other ultimate question—whether concerning existence, causality, ethics, value, history, humanity, salvation, and beyond—will flow directly from this epistemological foundation. To call it merely important would be a massive understatement.

The Reformed cult loves to ridicule Catholics for their boastful dual starting point for knowledge, which adds the Pope to Scripture. But let’s dissect that: What is the Pope, really? He’s just a fallible man. When the Pope appends additions to Scripture, it’s rooted in the Pope’s observation and empiricism (a blatant logical fallacy) and often layered with additional fallacies of induction. The technical terms here are speculation (for empiricism) and superstition (for any inductive logic). The crucial element in both is a “man”-centered starting point for knowledge. In this epistemology, man does not begin with God’s direct revelation but with himself. Man, through some fallacious empiric process, magically extracts invisible true and false propositions from mere observation. Then, he employs superstitious induction to craft a premise from which to deduce further. But since this premise is built on speculation and superstition, even applying deductive logic can’t salvage or transform it into knowledge. It’s fundamentally a “man” starting point versus a God-revealed starting point that’s divinely disclosed, not sensorily derived. As Jesus told Peter, “Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father has.”

By a straightforward logical analysis, empiricism is exposed as inherently irrational. Therefore, as a starting point for knowledge, it is ontologically impossible. It doesn’t exist.[2]

However, since Scripture is my starting point, what does my epistemology declare about empiricism? Vincent Cheung was the one who first drew my attention to these pertinent verses.

Commenting on 2 Kings 3:16-24 [3], he explains: “What did the Moabites see – blood or water? The Moabites thought they saw blood, but their senses deceived them. We know that they saw water that looked like blood because this is what the infallible testimony of Scripture says. Thus the passage points out that the senses are unreliable, and shows that we depend on divine inspiration to tell us about particular instances of sensations.” [4]

Vincent also references John 12:28-29, Matthew 14:25-27, and Matthew 28:16-17.

Even though these represent just a handful of divine revelations where empiricism (knowledge beginning with sensation) is shown to be erroneous, it’s enough to consign the entire approach to the trash heap of skepticism.

To underscore the gravity, consider if I could demonstrate even one instance where Scripture was false. For instance, what if it turned out Jesus was born in South Asia rather than Israel? The problem isn’t that every other premise would automatically be wrong; rather, there would be no infallible mechanism to justify any premise from scriptural. It would plunge the entire Bible (as a starting point for knowledge) into skepticism. But skepticism inherently denies the law of non-contradiction and is thus ontologically impossible.

If the notion that invisible knowledge arises from sensation is true, then where is the justification? How is this possible without violating the laws of contradiction and identity? Where is the sound argument to prove it?

Having a mental image of Mt. St. Helens is merely a copy of it (2); it’s not the actual mountain itself (1). That’s one categorical distinction, and then there’s yet another leap: forming propositional thoughts about (3) this indirect copy (2) of the real Mt. St. Helens (1). There exists no logical justification for these two categorical jumps between premises and conclusion. Essentially, the syllogism is as absurd as stating, “All dogs are mammals. All blue things are colors. Therefore, all humans are clouds.” There’s no more valid justification for that nonsense than for claiming that propositional thoughts in an invisible mind, based on a pictorial copy in my physical brain, constitute genuine knowledge about the actual Mt. St. Helens. Both are manipulating categorical realities as if they were malleable play-dough. That might fly in selling fantasy novels, but it falls flat when analyzing the reality.

This exposition has established that our sole viable starting point for knowledge is God Himself. Any starting point originating with “man” inevitably leads to skepticism, but skepticism is logically impossible and nonexistent. All human-initiated starting points for knowledge are illusory, existing only in realms of delusion and fantasy.

Most Christians intuitively grasp this without requiring all this technical breakdown. But when reprobates sneak into the Church and mislead the flock, it becomes necessary to deliver a thorough and scathing rebuke.

Many will affirm something like, “The Bible is our final authority.” But what I’m articulating here is even more foundational. I begin with the Bible as my exclusive public first principle for knowledge, and nothing else. If you claim ‘x’ is knowledge but can’t demonstrate it derives directly from the Bible or logically deduces from it, then by definition, it’s not knowledge.

Thus, when the Bible states that if I believe in God’s only Son for salvation from my sins and confess it, that’s a definitive truth claim about reality. It’s not a mere probability; it’s an eternally sure and reliable truth. If Billy counters, “Well, I’ve observed some Christians who renounced their faith and now worship Satan. Therefore, the Bible must be wrong, or people misunderstand it. What the Bible really means is that one can have faith in God for salvation, yet God might still reject them to hell.”

The core problem here is foundational. Billy has employed a “human” starting point to generate supposed knowledge, then uses that as a superior authority to override the Bible, forcing the Bible to conform its meaning to this human-produced “knowledge” via empiricism and induction. The fatal flaw is that all human starting points for epistemology yield nothing but speculation and superstition. No authentic knowledge emerges from a human epistemology—not even basic identifications like what constitutes a “tree” or a “dog.”

Most Christians, upon hearing Billy’s twist on faith and salvation, would be rightly alarmed; they’d at least have a hazy sense that he’s using a human starting point to dismiss what the Bible clearly teaches about faith and salvation. But when the conversation shifts to faith for answered prayers or faith for healing, suddenly a slew of Christians flip to human starting points as if they’re lifelong experts. They wield empiricism and induction like undisputed champions, enough to make David Hume and the Pope turn green with envy. If those historical figures could have clung to human foundations as instinctively as some Christians do, they would have lured even more souls to Satan’s side.

If resorting to empiricism for knowledge production feels so natural and automatic, then there’s a strong likelihood it’s your actual master and foundational bedrock. If you don’t commence with God for knowledge, how on earth do you expect to conclude with His revelation? You won’t, naturally. What you start with is your ultimate authority. If you don’t start with scripture, its not your authority.

When you read Jesus declaring that if His words abide in you and you in Him, then you can ask whatever you wish and God will grant it, you must begin with this as unassailable knowledge and refuse to contradict it. Obviously, you can’t pit other Scriptures against this, because the Bible and Jesus repeatedly affirm that if you have faith—whether for salvation, healing, or whatever you desire—you will obtain it. Jesus specifies it’s what “YOU” want.

There is a wrong place to start: it’s in starting with YOU when generating knowledge. From this place, you can ask in faith and God might still deny it. To fall back on “I do not see…, or I observe…, or the church fathers did not see or observe,” makes you nothing short of a recycled Pope. You’re a spiritual pervert at the foundational level of knowledge. You don’t initiate with God to acquire truth; you begin with YOU. You’ve relied on speculation and superstition in equal measure to some primitive shaman gazing at the moon and deducing ‘x’ or ‘y.’

Why do people engage in this? First, it’s how reprobates naturally think and operate. They’re simply acting in accordance with their inherent nature. Apart from Scripture as the starting point, all alternatives (including every non-Christian religion) revert to some form of human starting point. Thus, it’s instinctive for reprobates to reveal their true human foundation when encountering biblical truths that unsettle them or provoke discomfort. Secondly, to camouflage their own human starting point, they’ll mock more blatant examples like the Pope. This allows them to hide in the shadows of obvious reprobates. They chant “sola Scriptura,” but it’s a magician’s misdirection for “sola empiricism.” Thirdly, they crave human approval, and since it’s natural for reprobates to favor human epistemologies, other reprobates will gravitate toward them, offering praise, validation, and financial support.

If you are truly not a reprobate but merely imitating one out of spiritual immaturity, then repent immediately while opportunity remains. Tomorrow isn’t promised. God is eager to forgive and restore you. He will fulfill what He has promised. If you ask in faith for God’s forgiveness, He will grant it. If you are an insider to His love and Contract, then ask and receive, because He desires you to do so. He commanded it precisely because He wanted to create scenarios where you ask and He provides. God orchestrated this dynamic, because He sovereignty wants it. He wants you to ask, while He pays the bill. You don’t need to grovel or beg.

Because of God’s promises, which He sovereignly chose to issue, and the Contract sealed in blood, God has made it necessary for Himself to heed your faith-filled prayers and bring you what you desire, be it spiritual or material. Jesus stated it was “necessary” for the daughter of Abraham (who had been bent over for 18 years) to be healed on the Sabbath. The term “necessary” here is akin to saying 5+5 necessarily equals 10. It’s not just a sufficient or preferable reason; it’s an inescapable one. Jesus asserts that because she is a Contract insider to God’s love, it is “necessary” for God to heal her. God set it up this way because He wants it.

Jesus, in perfect alignment, stood firmly on God’s Word as His source of knowledge, and those who truly follow Him will emulate that stance.

“And this woman, who is a daughter of Abraham,
whom Satan bound eighteen long years—
is it not necessary that she be released
from this bond on the day of the Sabbath?” (Luke 13:16 LEB)

Epistemological smackdown central: Where empiricist pretenders build crumbling sandcastles of sense-data delusion, Scripture loyalists fortify unbreachable truth citadels, laughing at the skeptical tide washing it all away.

————-

[1] Vincent Cheung. Faith Override. From the ebook, Sermonettes Vol. 9. 2016.

[2] Even the secular philosopher David Hume admitted as much about his starting point of empiricism leading to skepticism.

[3] While the harp was being played, the power of the Lord came upon Elisha, and he said, “This is what the Lord says: This dry valley will be filled with pools of water! You will see neither wind nor rain, says the Lord, but this valley will be filled with water. You will have plenty for yourselves and your cattle and other animals. But this is only a simple thing for the Lord, for he will make you victorious over the army of Moab! You will conquer the best of their towns, even the fortified ones. You will cut down all their good trees, stop up all their springs, and ruin all their good land with stones.”

The next day at about the time when the morning sacrifice was offered, water suddenly appeared! It was flowing from the direction of Edom, and soon there was water everywhere.

Meanwhile, when the people of Moab heard about the three armies marching against them, they mobilized every man who was old enough to strap on a sword, and they stationed themselves along their border. But when they got up the next morning, the sun was shining across the water, making it appear red to the Moabites—like blood. “It’s blood!” the Moabites exclaimed. “The three armies must have attacked and killed each other! Let’s go, men of Moab, and collect the plunder!”

[4] Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg 70. http://www.vincentcheung.com

Scripture Uses God’s Transcendence to Shove His Nearness In Your Heart

I was re-reading this essay from Vincent below. It struck a chord in my mind because I had recently read a passage of Scripture in Ephesians 3 that said and concluded the same thing.

First the quote from Vincent,

“Those who claim to provide a God-centered theology are often proud of their theological prowess, but in reality their solution is superficial… For this reason, they seem to think that God-centered religion usually stresses God’s transcendence. God himself does not think so. That is not how he presents himself in Scripture. That is not how he tells his own story. A God-centered theology listens to what God says about himself, and in his narrative, he stresses both his transcendence and his immanence.

He could be aloof, but instead he is closer than your own heartbeat. He could forget about you, but instead he counts your hairs. He could let you fend for yourself, but instead he feeds you and heals you, and works miracles for you. He could be too important to have anything to do with you, but instead he wants you to have faith in him and ask from him. He is so spiritual that he does not even have a body, but he promises he will strengthen yours. He is so transcendent that he created the world, but he is so immanent that he walked and talked with Adam. He is so transcendent that he could destroy Sodom, but he is so immanent that he engaged Abraham to negotiate with him. He is so transcendent that he could wipe out Israel, but he is so immanent that he allowed Moses to stand in his way and stop him. This is how he wants you to know him. This is God-centered theology.

I do not say that we should find the right balance, because it is not a matter of balance. It is not a matter of finding the right point on a scale, but a matter of right or wrong doctrine. Jesus was the most God-centered person who ever walked the earth. He was God himself, but more than anyone in Scripture, he was also the one who told us to pray for our needs and ask God for what we want. The “God-centered” people declares, “God is not Santa!” and they think that this is God-centered theology. It is true that God is not Santa, but this is because he is far better than Santa. Jesus said he is our Father, and it is his pleasure to give good gifts to his children. He does not bring us gifts only once a year, but Jesus told us to ask for our daily bread. They say, “God is not a cash machine!” It is true that God is not a cash machine, but this is because you only withdraw your own money from a cash machine. Paul wrote that God supplies all our needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus. This is God-centered theology, because it listens to what God says about himself, rather than shoving divine transcendence back in his face no matter what he says.”
(Vincent Cheung. Faith Override. Sermonettes 9. 2016. Pg. 9-10)

It is obvious that when the Scripture reveals propositional truths and premises about His Transcendence, Sovereignty and Power it is directly revealing truths about them. There is no higher spiritual activity than theological reflection. We are to reflect on the truths about God’s divine nature, including His transcendence.

However, what I wish to focus on is a mistake people make when thinking about His transcendence, and that is the emphasis.  When the bible reveals or emphasizes His Transcendence (and here is the IMPORTANT PART) to His chosen ones, and to those seeking Him in sincerity, what is a common or if not the most common application or consequence or command given in light of this? Think carefully about it.

As Vincent points out in general, God’s interaction and teaching with His children has a focus on His transcendence and nearness. Likewise, even when God speaks of His transcendence to His chosen ones, the emphasis leads to a conclusion of God’s nearness and love.

Paul in Ephesians chapter 3 does exactly this. After talking about the transcendent God who uses His church to show off how manifold His wisdom is to all the powers at be, Paul’s first conclusion is “come boldly and confidently into God’s presence.” Then Paul’s next reaction is “when I think of all this, I fall to my knees and pray to the Father, the Creator of everything in heaven and on earth. I pray…,” and Paul prays that they will be made strong by His Spirit and love, and they both understand His and also experience His love greatly.

This is how Paul used the doctrine of God’s transcendence in relation for the saints.

And if that was not enough, Paul concludes a third time with this famous statement, “Now all glory to God, who is able, through his mighty power at work within us, to accomplish infinitely more than we might ask or think.”

So, after theological reflection on God’s predestination and grace (chapter 1) and His secret plan revealing how God uses the Church (now made up of gentiles) to show off the transcendent great wisdom of God (for His glory), the application is not to fall on our faces and beg or say self-deprecating statements to impress God with our humility; rather, we are given a true application of humility which is to boldly approach God’s throne and ask, knowing not only will God give us what we ask for, but super abundantly more than that, even beyond what we can image.

This is like Jesus’ teaching on the sermon on the mount but on steroids. Jesus kept commanding us in that sermon to pray and expect to get what we ask for. A fish for a fish, and bread for a bread. Now we are told we will get the bread we ask for and even more bread, not something different, but more of the good things we asked for. God uses His transcendence to shove His love into our hearts, which causes us to trust in His love more, and cause us to have more boldness in asking for what we want.

It is demonic for the religious fanboys to mostly emphasis God’s transcendence to highlight self-deprecation and farness, when Scripture regularly uses God’s sovereignty and transcendence to highlight His nearness to His children and their bold access to Him. If you see God’s transcendence and then feel hesitation to approach God you are acting like an outsider, as if you have no covenant with God. For God’s contracted insiders and children, His power and sovereignty is a motivation to approach boldly, quickly, constantly and with their heads held high.  God’s transcendence for God’s children is motivation to receive what they ask for and then even much more.

“I was chosen to explain to everyone[c] this mysterious plan that God, the Creator of all things, had kept secret from the beginning.

God’s purpose in all this was to use the church to display his wisdom in its rich variety to all the unseen rulers and authorities in the heavenly places.  This was his eternal plan, which he carried out through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Because of Christ and our faith in him, we can now come boldly and confidently into God’s presence.  So please don’t lose heart because of my trials here. I am suffering for you, so you should feel honored.

When I think of all this, I fall to my knees and pray to the Father, the Creator of everything in heaven and on earth. I pray that from his glorious, unlimited resources he will empower you with inner strength through his Spirit.  Then Christ will make his home in your hearts as you trust in him. Your roots will grow down into God’s love and keep you strong. 18 And may you have the power to understand, as all God’s people should, how wide, how long, how high, and how deep his love is.  May you experience the love of Christ, though it is too great to understand fully. Then you will be made complete with all the fullness of life and power that comes from God.

Now all glory to God, who is able, through his mighty power at work within us, to accomplish infinitely more than we might ask or think.  Glory to him in the church and in Christ Jesus through all generations forever and ever! Amen,”
Ephesians 3:9-20