Category Archives: Christian Epistemology

I Win No Matter What

I remember Vincent Cheung saying in Blinded by Atheism, “Apologetics is so easy that if it is the main focus of your life and if you become any good at it, you might become disillusioned with boredom and with a lack of purpose.”

He is correct; if you use biblical deductionalism or rationalism. If I choose not to be nice and always take apologetic arguments to the presuppositional level straight away (supposing my opponent even has the intellectual ability to go there), I win no matter what happens. If I stick to the scripture, I win. It doesn’t matter what my opponent says; if they say anything, I win. Even if all they say is the word “as,” I win.

The presuppositional level has to do with your starting point for knowledge and to a larger degree the things you must have in order to have any intelligence. My worldview is not their worldview. My Bible says it is true and all others are false. It says knowledge comes from God, not observation or empiricism. Thus, my worldview disagrees with all other worldviews about the presupposition of knowledge. Because other worldviews always disagree with my worldview about knowledge and the Bible is always right, then any knowledge they use does not come from their worldview, and so they never have logical justification for any knowledge they have. It does not matter if it is their own name, if it is knowledge about a tree, bird, or something abstract like “as,” “the,” or logic, or math; all such knowledge does not come from their worldview. Their worldview has no intelligence, or true or false premises about anything in reality; it has no subjects or predicates; it has no logic or math.

Even if I argue my position in a poor way, I still win. If we consider the worldview argument like a tree, the presuppositional level is the axe laid at the trunk of the tree. Even if I poorly argue for a point and my opponent seems to win a small point, they only manage to save a small twig at the top of the tree. However, one swing with my axe and the whole tree comes down.

If they make any statement about reality, or ask any question about reality or my worldview, I am not allowed to accept it, because the Bible says only it is true, says all others are false, and only it has knowledge. They do not have knowledge, and so they cannot use knowledge to make a statement about anything. If an atheist says rock layers show… (it does not matter what the conclusion is; the important thing is the knowledge of the terms rock and layers), I cannot receive his statement without presupposing his epistemology gives him knowledge. But the Bible clearly says only God gives knowledge; all others are false. If I accept his epistemology gives him the ability to use the terms “rock” and “layers,” then I reject the Bible at the same time because the Bible says only it gives knowledge (via God’s direct power) and all others are false. To use empiricism with my opponent is to reject my God at the same time. To use empiricism is to give the tree trunk to my opponent, so that the very best I can do is cut down some of his worldview branches, because I have now lost the ability to chop down the foundation of his worldview.

I would tell my opponent,

I do not use your epistemology of empiricism, which you used to produce the terms of rock and layers. If you are going to question me using an anti-biblical epistemology (the very thing we disagree about), then the logical burden of proof is on you to justify the knowledge of rock and layers. I admit, if I were to use or assume with you your empiricism, I must also reject my Christianity. But this is the very thing we disagree about, or will you just accept the Bible is the only starting point for knowledge? Because if you do, then I win, and you will be saved. I don’t believe in your worldview. I refuse to go further, because the burden of proof is on you. If you do not have knowledge of rock and layers, it is pointless what the conclusions are. You attacked me with the certainty that you have the knowledge of rocks and layers. I do not believe you. I don’t presuppose your worldview.

Ultimate Authority


Imagine being so stupid that when you read 2 Corin. 8:9 you think it is about “spiritual” wealth rather than financial wealth. The words say wealth and poverty. Reading comprehension? Read the words first, before determining what the words say. First rule of reading: read the damn words! Paul’s out here collecting cash, so yeah, it’s about money, not some ethereal nonsense. Only a pastor or theologian could be this delusional.

Even if you can get additional insights from a redemptive historical reading of this passages, it is only indirect and secondary, and it would have zero relevance is negating the direct teaching of the passage.

This money substitute was part of the atonement of Jesus. He took our poverty, and gave us His wealth. It was part of the substitutionary exchange with Jesus. Also, curses included poverty. And Jesus took our curses of poverty, being nailed to a tree, and gave us the gospel of Abraham, which included miracle money. Jesus took our poverty, nailed it to the cross, and gave us his bling. It’s part of the whole Jesus substitution package deal. Mock the money part, you mock Jesus and trample His atonement. You’re not just wrong, you’re God’s enemy, an anti-Christian piece of trash. Such people have an anti-Christian worldview.

They leap from money to a spiritual category so fast, they don’t even bother to read the passage to learn from it. The Bible isn’t their authority; their observations are. The bible is not their final authority or first principle of knowledge, which is why they don’t even try to pretend to read the text. They have a different worldview. They will say things like, “I don’t see all Christians prospering.” They appeal to their observations as their final authority because the bible is not their authority. It never was. They use the bible to make their observations the highest judge. They are ruled by emotions, not scripture, and it shows with “reprobate” written all over their face.

Imagine you manage an Apple store. You hire a new employee, and the next day, you notice Microsoft products displayed on the counter. You pull the employee aside and ask what is going on. “This is an Apple store, and you affirmed that we only sell Apple products during the hiring process, why did you display Microsoft products?”

They affirm “we only sell Apple,” but then say “Microsoft also has keyboards and screens and so we can sell their stuff.” Of course, it doesn’t matter what the excuse is, it is irrelevant. There is no excuse. They affirmed we only sell Apple products. Thus we have 2 options. They really are that stupid that they don’t see the contradiction of their action to sell non-Apple products. Or they are wilfully trying to destroy the store.

The person I described is a typical Christian, pastor or theologian.

They say the Bible is their only starting point for knowledge and authority on truth, but they interpret a passage so that it doesn’t matter what the terms say or the context. When you point this out, they appeal to what they observe.

2 Corinthians 8:9 is about finances and the context is also about finances. They change the category to spiritual, as if the Bible was breathed out by their words and categories, not God’s.

Imagine how proud Satan is to see a person affirming the Bible is God breathed, but you steal God’s breath and change it to your breath.

Later they say, “but we don’t see all prospering,” or regarding the promises of healing, “we don’t see all healed.” And then they conclude, “it must not be God’s will to heal all,” or “even if you have faith to move mountains, God will do what He wants despite if you believe.” They say God is their authority, but they appeal to the authority of observation and sensation. Like the new hire, they affirm we only sell Apple products, but keeps displaying Microsoft products. Has an Apple new hire been so perverted and hypocritical as to sell Microsoft? I doubt it. And yet Christians are this perverted and hypocritical when they appeal to observation as an authority.

This is a worldview issue. To have different authorities will make your entire worldview different.

I do not address them as Christians but as reprobates and outsiders. I say this, not to be harsh, but to be exact and frank. A worldview is determined by one’s starting point for knowledge. If a person uses their observations for this, then we have a fundamentally different worldview. Not just small difference; we have an entirely different way to view reality. Not just a different take, we’re on different planets here. The moment they say, “I don’t see all prospering or healed,” it is not a matter of theology, but it is now a worldview issue. It is an ultimate authority issue. We have different ways to understand reality, not just reading text. Until they can prove they can get knowledge from observations and defend the irrational use of induction and empiricism, they have no justification for knowledge.

The biblical worldview reveals itself as the only epistemology and rejects all others, including observations. The bible rejects my use of observations to determine if something is knowledge. The bible does not allow me to observe and then use this to determine if something is false or true. If a so-called Christian appeals to their observation, “I don’t see all healed,” it means we view reality differently. The reason an atheist and I have different worldviews, is because I appeal to scripture for knowledge, and they appeal to observations.

The bible does not allow me to appeal to observations, “if I see people healed or not,” as an epistemology or an authority. Thus, if a so-called Christian appeals to observations to obtain any knowledge or authority, we are now as far apart as atheism is from Christianity. Because we appeal to different authorities, we have different worldviews. Because we appeal to different foundations of knowledge, we have different realities. It is not a matter of context of a text, but of worldviews. My worldview does not allow me to appeal to the authority of my observations, but the other so-called Christian is allowed. It is a matter of ultimate authority, not context. Because observations are not consistent, or justified, and because induction is not a valid conclusion, the dual authority of observation will always leave you room to make the text say what you want. This is why atheist and evolutionist love the authority of observation, because it lets them craft their worldview in their image.

These types of people appeal to the reprobate authority of observation, because, their worldview is a reprobate reality.

Different Worldviews

“The Catholic Church is the norm of faith. The Catholic Church is the teacher of truth. The Catholic Church is the security of salvation. The Catholic Church is the judge and interpreter of Scripture — which is neither defined nor interpreted. It is not necessary to read the Bible. It is necessary to listen to the Church.” (Some Catholic guy)

I saw this quote from a Catholic yesterday. The point to take away from this is basic. This is an entirely different worldview. It is not a matter of wrong interpretation of a few verses, the above is as distinct from Christianity as any other worldview or religion. When engaging them, you must engage them as you would a reprobate liberal atheist.

I will not go into all the wrong things, nor all the reasons why it is a different worldview, except this one comment.  Your starting-point for knowledge (i.e. epistemology) determines all the knowledge about your worldview. For this reason a worldview can simply be referred to its epistemology, because it is the source for the worldview’s knowledge. The above shows the Catholic’s epistemology in a dualism of the bible and men (Catholic church leaders). At this point I am not even saying if this is bad or good, but only stating what it is. Also because of St. Thomas, most Catholics have a third epistemology of empiricism. However, when there is a contradiction in this triple epistemology, the Catholic’s use Catholic leadership to make a final decision, and so, their true first-principle of knowledge is a human starting point. This is no different than atheism, with their human starting point for knowledge with empiricism. From a human point of power and money, it is clear why men want to be the final gate keepers, but this is irrelevant. The issue is that any deviation with starting points means you have completely different worldviews.  A worldview can be the same view of the world, if the starting point for knowledge is 100% the same. Even with a small 1% difference, because a worldview gives substantial knowledge about reality, the end result will be significant, and thus, different views about reality.

Also, I noticed something with Catholics that I also noticed with Reformed traditions, and that is, the arguments are mostly centered on men. My experience with Catholics and Reformed traditions is like Vincent Cheung’s essay, “Blinded by Atheism.” After their arguments, I am left saying to myself, “Where did God go? God is my defining foundation for reality, epistemology, salvation, praises and ethics, but in all your arguments, God isn’t there.”

 It is all about men. The Catholics and Reformed share this in common, they are a religion of men, focused on men.

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.

cody-doherty-XkZIoiJV60Q-unsplash

Defining Epistemology

Defining Epistemology

By definition, of being a “STARTING point,” it cannot be deduced. Consider this from a 3 premise syllogism or chain syllogism. Where does the major premise come from that starts the argument? Or if we start with a syllogism and ask where does the major premise come from, one might say, “well it comes from this previous syllogism, or premise.” We can do this for a while, and we will have three options. The first, is to say it is an infinite regress. This ends up in skepticism, and thus denies the law of contradiction.[1] Second, is to say, “I do not know.” This seeming authentic answer hides the fact that you are really saying, “I know that I do not know.” This option is stupid and a self-contradiction, and thus, it has no existence. To know that we do not know is a contradiction. To be true, it must be false at the same time. It ends up in an infinite regress of affirming and denying the same thing.[2] This problem is not limited to thinking; rather, it has ontological implications as well. For example, try saying, “I do not exist”? “You” cannot do it without using “your” existence. This shows the ontological impossibility. That is, reality stops me from doing this contradiction. It does not, and cannot exist. A square circle does not exist in my mind or reality. The law of contradiction is not only a law of thinking, it is a law of reality. If you have a contradiction, you have something that has no existence. Such stupid, non-existence is to be dismissed and tossed in the recycle bins of our minds.

Now though these are called laws of thought, and in fact, we cannot think except in accordance with them, yet they are really statements which we cannot but hold true about things. We cannot think contradictory propositions, because we see that a thing cannot have at once and not have the same character; and the so-called necessity of thought is really the apprehension of a necessity in the being of things. This we may see if we ask what would follow, were it a necessity of thought only; for then, while e.g. I could not think at once that this page is and is not white, the page itself might at once be white and not be white. But to admit this is to admit that I can think the page to have and not have the same character, in the very act of saying that I cannot think it; and this is self-contradictory. The Law of Contradiction then is metaphysical or Ontological.[3]

Since the first & second options are a thinking and ontological impossibility, then consider the other. In this third option, if we keep going back, we must eventually hit the starting point or origin of knowledge. This starting point cannot be deduced, because it is a starting premise and not a conclusion.

There are some irrational comments about this floating around, for some anti-Christian commentaries say that a first principle is not “provable” in any sense. However, provable, in the context of philosophy, logic and doctrine has a strict meaning. It means a deduction. This is true, as far as it goes. However, just because something is not deducible does not mean it is not provable in the sense of giving a logical justification or warrant for why one should pick this first principle over all others.  For example, consider the aspect of the self-authenticating principle of the law of noncontradiction, that we just went over. It is not a deduction. It is not circular, because we never left from doing the law of noncontradiction.[4] Yet, it was justified as true because of its necessary and self-authenticating nature.

For a quick comment about this self-authentication of the LoC. It only works because we are only considering it on this narrow slice of reality, and we are ignoring some of the presuppositions that are needed to discuss this in the first place. For example, logic does not even give us knowledge about itself, because it is dealing with the structure of thought, and not the content (terms and premises) of thought. But more on this later.

And so, a worldview or system-of-thinking about the world, must start somewhere. The option of not knowing is implausible with reality. Thus, the next question is if your epistemology is a good one or a bad one. That is, does the starting point of your worldview make knowledge possible or not possible?

Some try to make this point vague or blur it by saying a worldview might be an interconnection of several starting points like a bridge with many supports. This appeal is a red-herring or sleight-of-hand fallacy, to divert attention away that their epistemology is in ruin. It is irrelevant, because even if so, some points would be more foundational than others; thus, if we were to discover one of these foundations were compromised, then the whole structure would fail.

For example, if one attempted to make a dual epistemology with the Scripture and something else “x,” and this “x,” was shown to be faulty, then it would falsify the scripture, which was said to have taught this hybrid epistemology.

Additionally, if one wishes to claim more than one starting point for knowledge, then if one of the epistemologies (K) makes a judgement about one of the other epistemologies (B bible), then in fact this (K) is a higher or more foundational starting point. It is the true starting point that judges the others. If empiricism (or my observations and emotions, or skin color (etc)) gives me additional knowledge that I use to judge the Bible, (if the Bible is correct on this point or that point), then empiricism is a higher starting point over the Bible. Empiricism would be my major premise in a syllogism.

In the quote below, Vincent is using the term “worldview,” but the context is relating more directly to the first principles or the presuppositional level of worldviews. His context is about “how a starting point is completely true versus only partly,” but the overall point addresses our present topic.

Suppose a given system of thought includes the following propositions: (1) X is a man, and (2) X is an accountant. If, in reality, (1) is true but (2) is false, how will a person know to affirm (1) and deny (2), unless he is already acquainted with X? Unless the system is completely true (or false), there is no way to tell which proposition is true (or false) without importing knowledge from outside of the system, and if one imports knowledge from outside of the system, then he would be evaluating the system in question by the second system from which he has gained the knowledge to evaluate the first.

That is, if worldview A is not complete true or false, then there is nothing within worldview A by which we can accurately judge a particular proposition within worldview A as true or false. If we bring in something that we know from worldview B by which we judge something within worldview A, then we are making worldview B to stand in judgment over worldview A. But if one has already obtained knowledge that is accurate, relevant, and extensive enough from worldview B by which to evaluate worldview A, then he cannot meaningfully learn anything from worldview A. He is judging it, not learning from it.[5]

To summarize, even in a so-called multi-structure of starting points, there will be one that is more foundational, and that stands first above the others to judge and evaluate them.  The question is, if the starting point of your philosophy makes any knowledge possible? If not, then not only do you not have a worldview to discuss, you do not even have the knowledge to discern “if cats are planets” and “if rocks are clouds.” You have nothing.

END NOTES

[1] This impossibility of infinite regress will rear its ugly head when dealing with other ontological issues, such as if matter always existed. It is not impossible to progress forwards in time for infinity; however, if matter was eternal, then today would have never reached. You cannot say ‘matter has existed for an unreachable amount of time,’ to then say, ‘it has now reached today’. As said before, a contradiction has no existence. How stupid men become when suppressing God’s truth.

[2] To affirm the proposition, “Adam is a man” (X), is to deny the contradictory proposition, “Adam is not a man” (Y, or not-X). Likewise, to affirm the proposition, “Adam is not a man” (Y), is to deny the contradictory proposition, “Adam is a man” (X). Now, to affirm both “Adam is a man” (X) and “Adam is not a man” (Y) is only to deny both propositions in reverse order. That is, it is equivalent to denying “Adam is not a man” (Y) and “Adam is a man” (X). But then we are back to affirming the two propositions in reverse order again. When we affirm both, we deny both; when we deny both, we affirm both.

Therefore, there is no intelligible meaning in affirming two contradictory propositions. It is to say nothing and to believe nothing.

-Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 21

[3] H.W.B. Joseph. 1906. An introduction to LOGIC. Pg.13

[4] “Think about this. If the law of contradiction is the “ultimate” or foundational law of logic, then how can we prove the law of contradiction? Can you prove it without using it? If you can, then the law of contradiction would necessarily be a secondary law. But if you must use it to prove it, then are you being circular? Where is the circle? For something to circle back, you need to move away from it first, but how can you depart from the law of contradiction, so that you can circle back to it to make the fallacy happen? If you can understand this, then you can apply it to biblical apologetics. The only difference is that the law of contradiction has no content, so it is less likely to confuse you. But the principle is the same.”

Vincent Cheung. From his blog post in http://www.vincentcheung.wordpress.com. Sept. 2016.

[5] Vincent Cheung. The Light of Our Minds. 2004. Pg 36 (www.vincentcheung.com)

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

Obedience Proves you Understand the Scripture

“All who follow his precepts have good understanding,”
(Psalm 111:10 NIV).

“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,”
(John 15:7-8 LEB).

 Ethics are the conclusion of one’s worldview. Without knowledge, there is no knowledge of ethics. Without a reality, then there is no reality for ethics to exist in. Without man, there is no man to command. Thus, on the major premises of epistemology and metaphysics, ethics conclude from this.

We read something interesting Psalm 111:10b. We are told that by obeying God’s precepts (i.e. Ethics) it “proves” that a person has good understanding or intelligence. Since obeying God is Christian ethics, it means obeying God concludes from “understanding” Christian epistemology and metaphysics. This is why the greatest test for exposing if a so-called Christian pastor, or historically famous theology is truly intelligent and understanding can be seen in their obedience of God. In obedience they prove they have understanding of Christian epistemology and metaphysics. However, like the religious hypocrites in Jesus’ day, some Christian ethics can be outwardly mimicked, at least to a degree. However, some ethics cannot be mimicked by hypocrites. For example, one such ethics is mentioned by Jesus in John 15. Jesus’ presupposes that bearing fruit for the Father is a command or precept. It is a Christian ethic. Jesus says by doing this ethic you “prove you are His disciples.” The ethic mentioned here is having faith to ask God for anything and then God give you this anything.

Even Jesus said it was more difficult to speak healing to the sick than speaking forgiveness of sins, because if you say, “get up and walk,” there is an immediate point of verification. False Christian converts do not have faith, thus, they cannot ask for God for anything and then get it. They cannot do the miracles that Jesus did, because they do not have faith or understanding.

The more difficult ethics that cannot be mimicked by false converts (such as healing, miracles and answered prayers), are ethics that give greater proof of greater understanding of God’s truth and greater Christian intelligence. It means you need to understand more of God’s sovereignty and Christian epistemology, and to believe them, in order to do such ethics. These ethics prove, you truly believe what the bible claims about God.

Thus, the real proof for a persons claim to ministry is not a degree, which is mere human approval, but doing the more difficult ethics. These prove such a Christian has great understanding of Christian epistemology and metaphysics. It does not mean they are perfect in their understanding, but as the Scripture says, it does prove they understand God. If your pastors and favorites theologians do not have such ethics in their life, they do not give Scriptural proof they understand God’s sovereignty, or biblical epistemology as well as they claim.

Do not let such disobedient weaklings be your instructors, in particular, if they directly teach against such ethics, or merely hold them back. 

First Principles of a Worldview or First Spirits?

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

LSB Colossians 2:8

Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon: (elementary principles),

4747 στοιχεῖον [stoicheion /stoy·khi·on/] n n. From a presumed derivative of the base of 4748; TDNT 7:670; TDNTA 1087; GK 5122; Seven occurrences; AV translates as “element” four times, “rudiment” twice, and “principle” once.

1 any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal. 1a the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds. 1b the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe. 1c the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside.
1d the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline. 1d1 i.e. of mathematics, Euclid’s geometry.[1]

In the verse, the word “philosophy” is actually used, not “spirits or angels.” In addition to philosophy being used by Paul, which is about philosophy, the context is about “traditions of men,” that are conclusions from “elementary principles.” In Philosophy 101 you learn that ethics (or in this case religious ethics as “traditions”) are a conclusion from the rudimentary principles of metaphysics(reality) and epistemology(knowledge). To talk about ethics, as Paul does here, coming from elementary foundational principles of a human system, is as philosophy as it gets.  In fact you can start any Intro to Philosophy book or college class with this statement, “Philosophy is the study of the fundamental principles, or ultimate questions about life.” The first two biggest questions are almost always about “starting point for knowledge,” and then the “starting point for reality.” With these two big fundamental principles laid down, then one can easily proceed to ultimate question about ethics.

The whole structure of this premise and those immediately around, is strong philosophy, or ultimate question language. Thus, “stoicheion,” due to context should mean what it normally means and not some other meaning, like “elementary spirits.” It means ultimate or rudimentary/first principles of a worldview. Think about the philosophy word, “epistemology.” It means, “first or starting principle of knowledge.”

Thus, the last part of the Strong’s Lexicon (1D) is best definition of this word, that fits the context of Paul’s premise. Paul is therefore, referring to the first and foundational principles of a humanly made worldview, and then the “traditions” men conclude from the first principles of their humanly devised worldview.

Paul is contrasting “human” versus “Christian” first principles, and then human conclusions from their humans first principles versus Christian ethics from its first principles.

Men have their own speculative statements of first principles of knowledge and reality, and from this they superstitiously conclude human traditions as their ethics. Their traditions are false, because their first principles of their worldview about reality and knowledge are false; and therefore, their traditions/conclusions are false.

Christians on the other hand, have Christ, who is hidden all the treasures of knowledge. The Scripture reveals the starting principles about knowledge(epistemology) and reality(metaphysics) to us, and from foundation, God reveals His commands(ethics) to us. Christians ethics are founded on reality and truth, whereas, non-christians ethics are founded on a delusion of reality and skepticism as knowledge.

[1] Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Christian Intelligence Is the Only Intelligence

Intelligence is not measured by what some boil down to an IQ test. For this to be proven, empiricism as an epistemology must be proven and induction must yield necessary conclusions. When has this happened? Or can one show in formal validity that the bible teaches an IQ test, or a mere narrow applied skill is how the Bible defines intelligence? Where is this proof?

If a Christian presupposes empiricism, like a spiritual adulteress, to understand what intelligence is, we are to rebuke and dismiss such a person. We know where they presuppose knowledge from. It is not God; it is not from the scripture. No. Their starting point for knowledge is human and sensual; it is from below; it is not from above. They are the pinnacle of what it means to be man-centered. They are spiritual perverts.

Below are a few quotes from Vincent Cheung, from his Systematic Theology. See actual reference for more Scriptural quotations.[1]

On the other hand, Scripture teaches, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding” (Psalm 111:10). Proverbs 9:10 says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Thus Christians have wisdom and understanding. They are intelligent people. But since the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and the Bible acknowledges only the Christian God, this means that non-Christians have not even started to have wisdom. They do not have even a little of it. They are completely unintelligent and uneducated.

The biblical assessment of non-Christians is that they are both stupid and sinful. They are intellectually and ethically inferior. They demonstrate their lack of intellectual aptitude in failing to agree with the Christian faith. And in denying the Christian faith despite the innate knowledge that God has placed in their minds and despite the irrefutable arguments of biblical apologetics, they show that they are not only intellectual ostriches but that they actively suppress the truth about God….[2]

Supralapsarianism is the biblical and rational order. Infralapsarianism confuses logical conception with historical execution, so that not only is it contrary to fact, but it makes nonsense of some of the divine decrees. For any given decree, it leaves the purpose of the decree unspecified until the next decree. But then there is no reason for the present one, so that it becomes arbitrary. Thus infralapsarianism is blasphemous by implication, since it insults God’s intelligence and denies his rationality…[3]

The mind of man, his intelligence or rationality, is the image of God. It is impossible to deny this, but some people attempt to add other elements to it, such as morality and dominion. This is, in fact, consistent the biblical position (Ephesians 4:24); however, rationality remains the basic element in the definition of the image of God. Man’s moral nature distinguishes him from the animals, and so it seems that it is a part of the image of God. But what is the basis of this moral nature, and how does it operate? Even animals “obey” God’s commands, but instead of doing so on the basis of understanding and volition, they are compelled by instinct. On the other hand, man receives and understands a divine command, and then decides to obey it or defy it. He can comprehend the concepts of good and evil, and he can discuss them by the use of language. This means that man is moral precisely because he is rational. Morality is a function of intelligence or rationality. Therefore, although to have a moral nature is part of what it means to be a human person, it is not necessary to include it as part of the basic definition for the image of God…[4]

For more insight into this, Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, will give us some more knowledge.

For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the intelligence of the intelligent I will confound.”

 Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. For indeed, Jews ask for sign miracles and Greeks seek wisdom,  but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a cause for stumbling, but to the Gentiles foolishness,  but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
(1 Corinthians 1:18-24 LEB

And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.  And I came to you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling, and my speech and my preaching were not with the persuasiveness of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and power, in order that your faith would not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Now we do speak wisdom among the mature, but wisdom not of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are perishing, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, which God predestined before the ages for our glory).
(1 Corinthians 2:1-7 LEB)

Paul is contrasting “HUMAN” wisdom and intelligence with “GOD’s” wisdom and intelligence. Depending on the translation you have, wisdom, understanding and intelligence being used. All are appropriate, because we get them defined in context of this passage.

Starting with the foundation, God’s “wisdom” is defined in His perfect understanding of Himself, and also His logical ordering of decrees. God’s Spirit knows Himself. Also, we are dealing with God’s predestination, which is a logical ordering of the world, from purpose to execution. This is God’s wisdom and understanding. God has an infinite amount of propositions and an infinite amount of connections between these propositions. When God thinks a specific thought about reality, it is a deduction (Rational) thought, because it is an application of His total knowledge.[5] That is, it is not an addition of information (outside of God’s mind) into the conclusion (i.e. application); rather, the specific knowledge in the conclusion is only pinpointing out knowledge already contained in God’s total knowledge. The order of the decrees is rational, because it goes from God’s purpose/goal to execution. This is God’s understanding and intelligence.

This is contrasted to HUMAN wisdom. Human wisdom and intelligence start with man’s observations, man’s feelings and man’s sensations. From this starting point, man irrationally formulates categorial and universal premises for reality. For the Greeks this was the Socratic method, and today a modified version of this is called Scientific Experimentation.

Paul specifically attacks two points of their human wisdom. First is the empty flowery sounding rhetoric, “persuasiveness of wisdom.” Paul did not rely on a super eloquent sounding speech to convince the Corinthians. The second is attacking how humans try to make “demonstrations” without God’s revelation. Paul attacks by a positive. He does this by saying his logical proof, using God as a foundation means the Corinthians faith is in God, not man. Paul uses philosophy words to further the contrast of human wisdom vs God, and to show were the presuppositional issue is.[6]

Aristotle is famous for defining a “sound” argument in two ways. First, universal truth premises come from human starting points, observations and induction. It has similarity to the Socratic method and scientific experimentation. Second, once this is established then we are to use deduction to apply these truths in specific applications/conclusions. Since the Bible presupposes and uses deductive logic almost nonstop, we also will use deduction.  However, the issue is how do you get your initial truth claims about reality. Paul, is starting with God’s revelation. Man starts with man’s observations (along with induction) to formulate them.

The LEB says “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will confound.” Thus, the intelligence of the Greeks was according to Paul’s own use of the term “moron” in this passage, were well, morons. That is, despite the fact some of the Greeks tried to used deduction (or tried to be rational, or tried to make “SOUND” arguments “demonstrations”), they ended up un-intelligent and morons. How is that that case? Because they started with a HUMAN starting point for knowledge rather than God’s revelation.

Paul is defining the Christian’s wisdom and intelligence as two things. One, starting with God’s revealed truth about reality. Then secondly from there, making rational or deductive applications of these truths. Aristotle and the Greeks were unintelligent morons, because the so-called truth premises about the world, were nothing more than human delusions and speculations.  No amount of deductions afterwards can compensate for this. In fact, to keep making deductions from false premises is how to be insane and delusional.

Example: “All humans do not exist. I am a human. Thus. I do not Exist.”

Or “All humans are clouds. You are a human. Thus, You are a cloud.”

So try jumping off a cliff next time you see one, because you will float like a cloud.

The logical application here is indeed deductive, but it is not sound. It is NOT intelligent to attempt to be rational while using make-believe delusions for your premises. Insane people are right at home with this: “All humans are dogs. I am a human. Thus, I am a dog. Ruff, Ruff, Ruff.”

This is how the Scripture would define intelligence and non-intelligence. The Scripture would define a person with a so-called high IQ or particular skill, but does not use correct premises to know the world as it truly is, as unintelligent and moronic. Because of the pragmatic usefulness of science, people are often blinded by the fact that its premises about reality are produced by induction and speculations. Thus, to use science to produce true conclusions about reality is just as insane and moronic as the above syllogisms. “ruff, ruff!”

Some do not like this, just as they do not like the rest of Scripture and God, but their rebellion will be fruitless. I can say, for sake of argument, “let us only consider intelligence in regard to understanding math, or and IQ test, or how much computer code one can apply without mistakes,” but that is the issue. The “for sake of argument” here is to pretend the rest of reality out of the equation. Life and reality does not work that way. God does not work that way. You cannot pretend the majority of God out. Or you cannot pretend major presuppositions out of the consideration and argument and still sanely think you have a “good” definition of something.  I can say, “for sake of argument if addition and subtraction did not exist,” then proceed to talk about math, but I am only pretending. It is a delusion, that has no application for truth. Let us leave pretending and delusions behind and reach for the truth.

Paul put an emphasis on how God has made us wise and intelligent, though His Spirit, by revealing the things that are freely given to us.

“(1) All those saved by Jesus are those with Abraham’s blessing. (2) Oshea is saved by Jesus. (3) Thus, Oshea has Abraham’s blessing.” When we define what Abraham’s blessing means, by the definition of Paul gives in Galatians, such as the “Spirit and miracles,” then we can conclude, “Oshea gets the blessing of the Spirit and miracles”. Or “(1) All righteous persons are those whose prayers avails much. (2) All Christians are righteous persons. (3) Oshea is a Christian. (4) Thus, Oshea is a person whose prayers avails much.” Let us use Jesus’ modus ponens argument in John 15. “(P) (1) If My words abide in you and you abide in Me, (Q)then YOU will ask whatever YOU want and YOU will get it. (2) Christ’s words do abide in YOU and YOU abide in Him. (3) Thus YOU ask for whatever YOU wish and get it.” (Etc.).

Wait? Your experience does not line up with this? Who is the liar here, Jesus or what you humanly conclude off your experience in prayer? You must choose. Jesus has drawn a line in the sand. Will you pick intelligence or insanity? You pick a side. You must decide if you will choose a HUMAN OR GOD’s starting point for knowledge. You will be judged if you truly take your stand on God’s revelation and make a biblical and sound application of it for your life, or if you are a spiritual pervert and begin knowledge with your sensations and superstitions.

This is how the Spirit defines wisdom and intelligence, anything else is moronic, insanity and unintelligent. In Jesus we truly have the “Mind of Christ.” The Biblical worldview only defines Christians as intelligent, or as least those with the ability to be intelligent to some degree. The Christian is so superior and privileged by God as their Father, that only they are intelligent, wise and full of understanding. The rest of the world, no matter how accomplished they are, are nothing more than morons. They are nothing more than an insane person in an insane asylum, who bark at doors, eat their own poop, try to eat their mom because they think she is fish, think they are clouds (etc) and who have accomplished the skill of stacking 2 blocks on top of each other. Such people are to be mocked and dismissed.

___________________________

END NOTES

[1] Even those I will quote Vincent much below (because he as help me on these topics), I am not affiliated with him in any way.

[2] Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 50-51.

[3] Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg.116

[4][4] Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 120

[5] The deductive nature of God’s thinking about reality was pointed out to me by Vincent Cheung in a email correspondence about the essay, “Inductive Bible Study.” Once you consider it, it is rather obvious.

“I added that statement because someone said that I was wrong, since God does not perform deduction, but only direct intuition. In other contexts, I myself have taught that God knows all things directly but the focus here is induction vs. deduction in the context of theology. The person nitpicked at me because he wanted to sound clever and throw himself into the discussion. You know how people are. But it showed that he really didn’t know what deduction is. Would he say the same thing about a discussion on the order of the eternal decrees? When we talk about that, we sometimes qualify it by reminding people that the order is a logical order, not a chronological one, since there is no process of reasoning in God, as if he does not have in mind premise #3 when he is still on premise #1. No, he is directly aware of all premises at the same time, but it remains that he is aware of them, and of the logical relationships between premises. But whether we remind people of this or not, it is always assumed. This person did not understand deduction so he thought he had room to show off his knowledge. So I added this in case other people failed to assume the obvious. I was surprised, in fact, since it was so basic.

Deduction always produces correct conclusions, because the conclusions never produce information not already in the premises. Deduction is more like an application of knowledge, unlike induction, which is a fallacious attempt at arriving at more knowledge. So when applied to God in this context, deduction is the same as his intuition. Using the same example, when we talk about the eternal decrees, we are talking about God’s deduction. But if we, like the person who complained, cannot even talk about God in terms of deduction, then we cannot even discuss the topic of the eternal decrees, because it would all be just one “thing.” Take it to the extreme, we cannot even talk about God thinking, speaking, acting, or anything about God. Everything would just be one eternal “thing” in God’s mind. But of course we can talk about God’s deduction, thinking, speaking, acting, his before and after, and all that, just like the way he talks about himself. Several times I have pointed out that some Christians, after learning a little, makes what little they know the whole thing, and then try to police everyone else with it, including their expressions. Many Calvinists are like that. They become trapped in their own personal terminologies. It happens when they talk about justification, predestination, and many other things. This is a sign of ignorance, not knowledge or orthodoxy.”

[6] Vincent helped me immensely to understand this passage. To see his argument, Vincent Cheung, “Proof of the Spirit,” which is found the book, “Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians.” 1 THESSALONIANS 1:5b. 2008. Pg 24-27.

“Paul deliberately slips into philosophical terms in verse 4, asserting that his preaching was shown true, not by speculative and fallacious arguments, but by the “demonstration” of the Spirit. The word indicates a logical proof, as in philosophy and geometry. The English translation is appropriate, since “demonstration” denotes a “logical proof in which a certain conclusion is shown to follow from certain premises.”

His point is that he insisted on presenting a message that was based on divine revelation instead of one that was based on human speculation.

Bullinger writes, “Here, it denotes the powerful gift of divine wisdom, in contrast with the weakness of human wisdom.” This is the issue at hand. Paul’s preaching differs from the orators both in method and content, but his arguments are nevertheless logical and persuasive. Unlike the fallacious “proof” of the sophists, the apostle provides sound “proof” for his message that is powerful to effect conversion in his hearers…” pg. 26

Timelessness:

[This is a first draft from a small section of my upcoming Systematic Theology book]

“Praise the Lord, the God of Israel,
who lives from everlasting to everlasting,”
Psalm 41:13 NLT

“there he worshiped the Lord, the Eternal God
Genesis 21:33 NLT

God is timeless, or exists in an “eternal state.” What does that mean?

God is Spirit, Power and intellectual. Thus, what is timeless is spiritual, intellectual force.

Time is a measure of change. Without any change, in any degree, there is nothing to measure, and if there is nothing to measure, then the concept of time is meaningless and nonsense.

Thus, all material existence is automatically ruled out in being attributed with timelessness, because all material things change. Even invisible things like the mind of man, changes as man learns new things; however, we will focus on the issue that matter is not timeless.

Vincent Cheung commenting on this says,

Matter cannot be eternal, in the sense of being timeless, for there is no before and after with that which is timeless. And if there is no before and after with matter, then it would be impossible for it to be one way before and another way after. Therefore, if matter changes at all, it cannot be eternal. And matter could not have existed forever, for if matter is bound to time but has existed forever, then it would have an infinite past. But if it has an infinite past, it could never have reached the present. If it has reached the present, the past cannot be infinite. Therefore, matter is not eternal, but bound to time, and it originated at some point in time.

God is uncreated. He is eternal, timeless, and immutable. And he created the universe out of nothing, that is, without the use of any existing materials, since there were no existing materials when he created. All linguistic and historical arguments that attempt to suggest an opposing view must be wrong. In fact, these kinds of arguments are irrelevant unless the logical arguments based on the very ideas of matter and creation are demonstrated to be inconclusive.[1]

To further explain this. By this we know that any naturalistic or evolutionary claim that matter has “always existed” is bottom of the barrel stupid. To always exist with change, would mean an “infinite” chronological measurable time/distance. Another way to say infinite in regard to time or distance, would be “an unreachable distance.” If it is reachable, then it is not infinite; matter’s history of change is not an unreachable distance, if the distance to the past is reachable. Evolution teaches matter has always been here; they say this because if it was not, then either matter was created, or “self-created,” which is a contradiction. Either is not acceptable for evolution. Thus, since timeless is out of the question, they make matter eternal. However, that is a contradiction, and as shown before, a contradiction does not exist in the mind or in reality. To say matter has an “unreachable” distance going into the past, yet, we have “reached” this “unreachable” distance by being here today, is Plus Ultra Stupid.

God, as the Scripture says, exists from “everlasting to everlasting,” and this is as the “I AM who I AM.” He is also said to be immutable. And so, the I AM who I AM, has always been that way, and will forever be that way. Thus, God’s existence is not eternal properties that might change; rather, God’s existence is an eternal state. For this reason, “emotions,” are not part of the Divine Nature. Emotions change, but God does not change. God is timeless; yet, emotions by definition are measurable, and thus, are not timeless.

Therefore, what is timeless is God’s mind, or what is timeless is God’s powerful thoughts about all things. There is nothing to measure in God’s eternal state, because there is no change. Thus, God’s thoughts are not learned. God’s thoughts are not in a linear progression like man is with his limitations. God has always self-existed as intuitively knowing all things in “one thought” (i.e. “eternal unchanging state”), without progression. God did not have to wait to create, to see (although this is wrong because God does not have eyes) images to associate certain thoughts with things to know them better. God has always known that He would create. Included in God’s thoughts about all things, as an intuitive and never changing thought, was creation. This is why after creation, God does not change. This is why God is not different between the Old Testament or the New Testament. The eternal state of God’s intuitive thought about all things, has not changed.

God is also said to be perfect. And thus, for God to change is not only a denial of His timelessness, but it would be a change for the worse; it would be to liberate from perfection; it would make Him less valuable; it would be a serious downgrade. If you have been following what has been said about God’s nature, for God to change it would mean God would have to exchange a truth for a lie.  This is an impossibility.

This does not mean there is no such thing as logic or order to God’s mind; rather, it means the logical order of God’s mind was not chronological in time, but always known intuitively as one thought. For example, the decrees of God. God ordered the history of the world, before it was created. But this ordering has always self-existed with God as one intuitive thought. For man, who is not timeless and has a limited about of thoughts they can think in any given moment needs time and a progression of thoughts to see this ordering. This will be discussed more later, but the same is for logic and God. Because God has already known all things, it means any thought applied to creation is a deduction[2] for God, because it is merely pinpointing specific information that was part of God’s original timeless intuitive thought. For God, any specific thought about creation, does not add more information to His conclusion. For my readers, this section is dealing with many abstract concepts, however, to help see this, consider it with Jesus. Starting with Jesus’ divine mind before creation and His timeless eternal intuitive thought about all things, then go down to the incarnated Jesus who limited His mind (but the Divine Mind did not stop or change), any thought He had is still just a deduction from His timeless intuitive thought about all things (Even what He would think and say as His time as incarnated Jesus).

End-notes————–

[1] Vincent Cheung. Sermonettes Vol 1. Chapter 2. “Creation: In the Beginning.” 2010.  Pg. 7

[2] Vincent Cheung in an email first brought this to my attention, when I was discussing logic with him. Once I thought about it, it was rather obvious God’s thoughts are deductive by plain definition.