Category Archives: Christian Logic

brooke-cagle-ZuQnhpFjvHI-unsplash

How To Invent Ethics & Reject God

I saw this heretical garbage the other day.

“(1) I see a different interpretation of scripture. Anxiety is a God given emotion. It is useful. It can keep us physically safe and can drive us to God. (2) Jesus had so much anxiety in the Garden of Gethsemane that he sweat blood. Jesus didn’t try sweep away his anxiety, Jesus didn’t blame his anxiety on the enemy, he accepted it and endured it and went to God in prayer – (3) not to get help with anxiety, but to get help with the cause of the anxiety. (4) The Bible never promises prosperity in this life. (5) It does say that we will have trouble and that we should consider our struggles joy. (6) I think accepting our anxiety and learning to live with it while we walk with God will bring about (7) character development and the deepening of our faith.”

I added the numbers to make this easy to follow.

1. The author says if God gives something, then it is helpful to bring us to God. The unspoken premise here is about ethics. If God cause this “x” type of metaphysics, and x type of metaphysics leads us to God, then we “ought” (ethic) to embrace x type of metaphysics.

This is blasphemy. Ethics is only produced by the commands and precepts of God. Any deviation from this is irrational and human speculation. What God creates or causes is not an ethic. If God causes the prophet to give a false prophecy (Ezekiel 14:9) this causation does not make a false prophecy ethically good. A false prophecy is always wrong because God commands man not to give false prophecy. Ethics is produced by God’s command and nothing else.

Also, to go from metaphysics (God created this or caused this) to metamorphic into an ethic, is no less irrational than saying 5s are blue and 8s are slow. It is a category fallacy. A mind can no less comprehend “5 blues” as they can, “God caused x, therefore ethic.” This is how man invents ethics so that they can reject God. Non-Christians do this for obvious reasons; however, so-called Christians to this so that they can look pious as they throw their middle finger at God.

We are commanded to only fear God. We are to feel anxiety, fear and shame if we rebel against God. It is good feel afraid if you do not fear God. This is the only fear we are allowed by the commands of God to experience. Every other anxiety and fear is breaking God’s command. WE are not to feel anxiety or worry about man, money, our health, relationships and the future (etc.) We are to overcome them in faith, joy and righteousness.

(2) Jesus experienced anxiety leading up to the cross, because He was a condemned man, without hope facing God’s punishment. He should never have known this. He experienced it for our sakes, not His. He is experiencing what it means to face the wrath of God, with no way out. This is what we should have experienced. Jesus experienced this, in our place so that we do NOT experience it. Thus, to use this to say we ought to experience anxiety, is to trample on the suffering of Jesus as a worthless thing, in that even the things Jesus substituted for us, we still must go through them ourselves.

(3) This makes no sense? If you get rid of the thing that is causing anxiety, then you get rid of the anxiety. Thus, you get rid of the anxiety. When a person wants to get rid of anxiety, they will directly seek the cause (to get rid of it), with the goal that it will get rid of the anxiety.  Thus, to seek the cause, is (in relation of the person’s goal) seeking to get rid of the anxiety. Why do I need to say this to adults, as if they don’t know this?

(4) This point has no rational connection to the previous 3 points. Also, it is blandly false. There are many such promises, but we will deal with one that is directly tired to the gospel. Paul says in 2 Corinthians that Jesus suffered poverty in our place so that we experience His wealth. It is said to Christians, who Paul was asking for an offering . You cannot spiritualize this away. This statement is mocking the gospel and blood of Jesus Christ.

(5) This statement is true as far as it goes. The bible does make a distinction between common everyday troubles, such as money, health and relationships, and the other category of troubles directly related to persecution for the gospel’s sake. With the first type of troubles we are commanded to be victorious through faith in God’s promise.

(6) The implied connection here, from point 5, is irrational. The author without warrant, manufactured out of nothing that “anxiety” is part of the troubles that God supposedly gives us. After this, the irrational transformation of an ethic from metaphysics comes up again: therefore we ought to embrace anxiety from God as a good thing. Demonic.

(7) Character development is not produced by anxiety. The bible never says this. It comes from inner growth and strength. This is produced by the renewing of the mind. Experience, is the worse teacher there is. God’s word, is however, the only good teacher. Experiences do not give better character, rather is the word of God and faith that gives better character as we seek Him and His promises when we are troubled.

As for faith, the bible explicitly says faith comes by hearing the word of God, and not something else.

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

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.

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 Biblical ultimate questions.

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 either 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 of men.

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.

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.

**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 invalidly denies 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 question. 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?

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

bayzid-ahmmed-Gklygrxsisc-unsplash (crop)

“So…I should throw rocks at gay people?”

Science commits a triple logical fallacy of empiricism, observation and affirming the consequence (i.e. experimentation.) This necessarily leads to denying the law of contradiction because of skepticism, which is impossible.

Even the bible shows man’s observation is not always correct, 2 Kings 3:16-24, John 12:28-29, Matthew 14:25-27, and Matthew 28:16-17.[1] The importance is significant. If I showed one place in the Bible was wrong, then it would move the whole bible into skepticism as a starting point for knowledge. It would mean that I cannot prove any one statement is true. This is skepticism. But skepticism denies the law of contradiction. Try denying your own existence without using it?

The point is this, a contradiction has no being in the mind or in reality. Yet, the bible shows man’s observation (empiricism) is mistaken. It also shows Jesus appealing to the law of contradiction and being called the LOGOS itself. Thus, empiricism is not a starting point for knowledge. And in addition to these fallacies, scientific experimentation uses affirming the consequent. For example, “If I speak there is a sound. There is a sound; therefore I spoke.” Yet, this irrational structure is the foundation for all experimentation. And yet, it is supposed to produce “knowledge?” LOL!

I have skipped many other problems with science but just focused on a few. If you need more reading, then I would recommend Vincent Cheung and the essay, “A Gang of Pandas.”

Johnny responded with:

“So…I should throw rocks at gay people?”

So… how long have you been abusing children? Getting past loaded questions and other informal fallacies, let us focus on the actual issue.

Since you used an ethic by saying “should,” ( I did not ) the burden of proof is on you to prove you have knowledge of what is an ethic without presupposing the bible, or that is, presupposing my worldview that says you are wrong.

The bible clearly defines ethics, and even establishes the ontology of ethics. How can you rationally question me about any ethic whatsoever, if you cannot produce a sound argument to tell me what is an ethic? You cannot. You are intellectually broken and malfunctioned.

How do you know what is an ethic if you use empiricism, without producing multiple category errors? How do you avoid category errors when you use descriptive premises, to then go to an “ought” in the conclusion? Did you smell an ethic? Did you see it? But an ethic is an invisible proposition in the mind about right or wrong revealed by God. To even understand what is an ethic you must presuppose the bible, but the bible says you and all anti-Christian systems are wrong.[2] Thus you are wrong by logical exclusion.

Here is an ethic that corresponds with reality, rather than the delusions you invent. The bible says all who do not believe in Jesus Christ as God’s only Son and repent are already judge by Father.

ENDNOTES

[1] Vincent Cheung first brought this to my attention.
Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg 70.

[2] See Vincent Cheung, Captive To Reason, 2009 pg 44.

agung-raharja-RSwyYi7h8gA-unsplash

A Superior Species

We declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden
and that God destined for our glory
.
1 Corinthians 2:7

Its all fun, joy and praises when I mention we need to glorify God, praise Him, give Him all the credit, and extol His Name above all others, and this is as it ought to be. However, once I mention how highly God has exalted man as a superior species in Christ, then I am attacked. The reason for this is the church being under the oppression of tradition and false humility. People are stuck at the doorway of forgiveness, being centered on their sin; they are centered on themselves.  This doorway into the next life, is so precious and magnificent that they remine there. They never truly inter in the glory and privilege of being children of God. They never experienced what it means to be child and sit at the table of their beloved Father.

The Logic of Denying the Consequent is used throughout the Scripture. If there is a logical necessary connection from the antecedent to the consequent, then if you deny the consequent, you deny the antecedent. The part that makes this work is if the connection is necessary and not merely sufficient. Ultimately, this means it must be a truth, but only God is able to reveal truths. However, since the scripture gives us truth and uses this logic, then so will we.

For example,

Galatians 3:18, “For if the inheritance is of the law, [then] it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”

M.1. (P) If inheritance if of the law, (~Q) then inheritance is not by promise.
M.2. ~(~Q) It is by promise.
M.3. ~(P) Thus, inheritance is not by the law.

This example is given to lead to our present subject. If you deny the consequences of man’s highly exalted position produced by Jesus’ atonement, then you deny the atonement. There is no way around this.

Does Jesus sit in the heavenly places?
So does man (Ep. 2:6, Col. 3:1-3).

Is Jesus blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places?
So is man (1:3).

Does Jesus have the Mind of Jesus?
So does man (1 Corinthians 2:16).

Was the gospel predestined for the glory of God?
Yet, it was also predestined for the glory of man (1 Corinthians 2:7)

Does Jesus have direct access to the Father?
So does man (Hebrews 4:16, 10:19)

Is Jesus heir of the world?
So is man (Romans 4:13).

Does everything belong to Jesus, including time?
It also belongs to man ( 1 Corin. 3:23).

Does Jesus have the intellectual and ethical power to judge all things?
So does man ( 1 Corin. 2:15)

Jesus is the only begotten son of God, but in this context, I ask, is Jesus a child of God?
Yet, so is man (1 John 3:1,9, 4:13)

Is creation liberated into the liberty of God?
Yet, it is also liberated into the glorious liberty of man (Romans 8:21).

How glorious and valuable is the resurrected Jesus Christ?
Man also has this glory and image (Romans 8:30)

Did Jesus have the fullness of the Spirit of God on earth? (Acts 10:38)
So does man (Acts 1:1-8)

Does Jesus dwell in the house of God?
So does man (John 14:1-3)

Does God judge Angels?
So does man (1 Corinth. 6:3)

The same love the Father has loved Jesus, Jesus loves man. (John 15:9)

The same love the Father loves Jesus, the Father loves man. (John 17:23

The same glory the Father gave Jesus, Jesus gives this glory to man. (John 17:22)

The same Spirit of God, who knows God exactly (because it is God’s Spirit), God has given to us, so that we have the Mind of Christ.

If we deny pantheism (as the bible does), then we must affirm, as the Scripture does that God does these glorious thing to man, not Himself. When Peter says to humble yourself under God’s hand, he says God will exalt “you” and not Himself.  It was Jesus, who created all things and sustains all things by His power, who said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” If this is so for a pagan, how much more is this true for all thing magnificent things God as given His children.

God promised to make Abraham’s name great and famous. Abraham became excessively rich and defeated a combination of many armies. Even to this very day Abraham is sung in the songs of millions and millions of Christians. Even in Heaven Abraham is famous (Matthew 8:11). The promise was to make His friend’s name great, not His, and it happened just as God said. God made Moses like a God to Israel and Pharaoh. God promised to do the same for Joshua, by making him great in the eyes of Israel. It was never recorded that Jesus was teleported by the Spirit, but this glory was given to a man, a table bearer named Philip.

To diminish the glory of man, particularly the born-from-above man, is to diminish the glory of God, because God said He has greatly exalted and glorified man through Jesus Christ. It would be to say God is defective and stupid at accomplishing His desires. To trample on the glory, fame and exaltation God has given His chosen ones is to trample on the blood of Jesus Christ as a common and ineffectual thing.

We are part of Abraham’s blessing, fame and glory (Gal. 3-4).

God does not mind sharing His glory, authority and power, for example, with His friend Abraham or giving the disciples 12 thrones, and all saints the inheritance of being His children; however, what God will not share is the credit and praise that belongs only to Him for all the good things He predestined for our value. Praise and credit is one type of glory (there are many types of glory), however, this type of glory, God will not share. Herod learned this the difficult way. Fame, power, favor, thrones, an eternal name, riches God has no issue lavishing these glories on His friends and children.

God has made us a superior species in Jesus Christ. Any denial of the unmeasurable magnitude of this reality is a denial of the gospel and blood of Jesus. There is no risk of pride, for we know God has give all these things to us by unmerited favor and mercy. Jesus loved us to the point of the cross. To accomplish these great things for us He was nailed to our curses. However, by the magnificent promises of God we partake of the divine nature itself. It is our new identity. We are glad to recognize this and praise God for eternity. We are filled with inexpressible joy for all the good things God as lavished so freely upon us. Oh, what great love this is, that God calls us His highly beloved children.

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.

Everlasting Love, A Simple Deduction

From afar Yahweh appeared to me, saying,
I have loved you with an everlasting love.
Therefore I have drawn you with loyal love
,” Jeremiah 31:3 LEB

Let us look at the beauty of this basic deduction.

To have a good deduction you need exact definitions that do not change. This meaning of the “everlasting love,” is both simple and at the same time I could easily do a small book to cover all the systematic depth behind this definition. For simplistic sake we define it as God favoring His elect from the very beginning of His decrees about them. Relating to time, from the very moment of God forming the elect in the womb, God’s plan was to favor them.

The application (or in technical terms, ‘logical inference,’ or ‘deduction’) that God tells Israel is that God will therefore draw them to Himself in the Promise Land with a loyal love.

B.1. All [those God loves with an everlasting love] are [those God draws to Himself in a faithful love].
B.2. All [Israel] is [he who God loves with an everlasting love].
B.3. Therefore, [Israel] is [he who God draws to Himself with a faithful love].

Or to put this into a more readable propositional modus ponens.

C.1. If God loves ‘x’ with an everlasting love, then God loves ‘x’ with a faithful love.
C.2. God loves ‘x’ with an everlasting love.
C.3. Therefore, God loves ‘x’ with a faithful love.

This is a simple example of the unending logical inferences God makes in the Scripture concerning His chosen ones. Because God is the LOGOS or LOGIC itself, He uses logic with absolute perfection, and when the content is about His chosen ones, it is both perfect and filled with hope and love.

When God thinks about anything in reality, it is a logical deduction, and so the Bible, which is the public portion of God’s mind revealed to man, is a rigorous structure of deduction.  However, like the above, the logic most of the time is simple and easy to follow. With basic reading comprehension skills and basic logic, the vast majority of the Scripture can be understood by anyone with faith to believe. It is not that books about biblical exegesis and hermeneutics are bad, but they are often overkill.

Once we read that God is absolutely and directly the cause of all things, then the syllogism is so simple that a 2 grader can do it. Therefore, God directly and absolutely causes evil and sin.

The issue is not that the application (i.e. deduction) of God’s truth is inaccessible; rather, faith is inaccessible for most men, and without faith, one cannot see, accept or want to accept the basic premises and application of God’s Word. However, with faith, then not only is forgiveness of sin accessible, and all doctrines and their application, but the power to move mountains becomes available, along with all the good promises of God including healing, miracles and material blessings.

.

Science: the Fallacy of an Undistributed Middle Term

QUEST. Is the fallacy of affirming the consequent a type of inductive reasoning; or is inductive a type of the fallacy of affirming the consequent; or are the two completely unrelated? Induction is defined as arguing from a particular to a universal.
Affirming the consequent: P ⊃ Q; Q; ∴ P.

ANS. Affirming the Consequent and inductive reasoning are similar or comparable, if we define inductive reasoning as “having more information in the conclusion than what the premises contain.”

In essence, the informal fallacy called, “non-sequitur” – “does not logically follow from the premises”—is what all inductive reasoning is.

Deduction: Conclusion has information only contained in the premises.

Induction: Conclusion has new additional information the premises do not contain.

For example

E1. All [things that comes to pass] are [determined by God]. B is C
E2. [Man’s moral acts] are [things which come to pass]. A is B
E3. Thus, [man’s moral acts] are [determined by God], & [not responsible]. A is C & D

The conclusion “man’s moral acts are determined by God,” is obviously already contained in the original premise, “All that comes to pass are determined by God.” If all things are determined by God, then so is man. Simple enough. However, the term “not responsible” and the necessary connection to it are not in the premises. This the essence of all inductive reasoning, it a non-sequitur.

As for affirming the consequent, depending on the terms and its simplicity many of them can be interchanged with categorical logic. Be forewarned not all can be interchanged like this.  It needs to be a simple,  If A then B is C. (Example, “If A is B, then C is D,” type of arguments will not work. 

The thing to remember is if one does truth tables in Natural Deduction, one will see that the simple forms (modus ponens, modus tollens) do not become invalid with complexity (for example with multiple conjunctions). Thus, the key is to master the basic forms, and realize they will continue to be valid, even in complexity, long as one keeps the form. Since scientific experimentation uses the form of affirming the consequent, and denies theory’s with a modus tollens, all one needs to do is understand these basics. Also, keep in mind, basic propositional logic like modus ponens, focus on the necessary connections, while basic category logic will focus on necessary category realities. If you have one, because these are “necessary,” then you have the other, but they are not the exact same thing. 

This simple modus ponens is stating the B and C terms, the third term, which is missing is an implied fill-in-the-black, ‘A’ subject.

If a mammal, then warm blooded. (B is C)
Is a mammal. ( B )
Thus, warm blooded. ( C )

The argument is based on the presupposition that mammals are warm-blooded (B is C) is a given truth.

M.1 If [Bats] are [mammals], then they [warm-blooded].  A, (B is C)
M.2. [Bats] are [mammals]. A is B
M.3. Thus, they [Warm-blooded]. A is C.

Even though the first line of this Modus Ponens, M.1., has all three terms (A is B is C), the main emphasis is that B is C, like the major premise of a Category Syllogism. Next, M.2. is A is B, which is similar to the minor premise of a Category Syllogism. Finally, the conclusion is A is C.

B is C
A is B
Thus, A is C.

This Modus Ponens is hypothetical in form only. The essence of this argument is the comprehension and extension of the terms, not mainly about the necessary connection from B to C. Thus, we will put this into a bullseye syllogism.

N.1. All [Mammals] are [Warm-blooded]. B is C.
N.2. All [Bats] are [Mammals]. A is B
N.3. Thus, All [Bats] are [Warm-blooded]. A is C.

Now, let us review Affirming the Consequent, which is the structure for scientific experimentation. We will use a simple enough form that it can be used in categorial logic.

H.1. If [Jack] eats [lots of bread], then his [belly gets full]. A, (B is C)
H.2. [Jack’s] [belly got full].  A is C
H.3. Thus, [Jack] ate [lots of bread] A is B

B is C
A is C
Thus A is B.

This of course is a fallacy. It could be that Jack ate lots of durian rather than bread. Let us put this into categorical logic to see the fallacy.

Y.1. All [who eat lots of bread] are [those who belly’s get full]. B is C
Y.2. All [Jack] is [he who belly got full]. A is C
Y.3. Thus, [Jack] is [He who ate lots of bread]. Thus, A is B

If you noticed, the information in the conclusion has more than what the premises provide. This is the fallacy of an undistributed middle term. The picture below will help show a visual of this logical fallacy.

Thus, the fallacy of scientific experimentation, if restated in a category fallacy, is the fallacy of an undistributed middle term.

 

I Reserved 7000 Who Have Not Bowed to Empiricism

They only problem with handling adult doctrines like God’s Sovereignty, predestination, election, reprobation is if you are a child you will end up hurting yourself and those around you. I remember Vincent Cheung saying something like this several years ago and it keeps repeating itself to be true in my encounters with church people.

When knowledge does not increase a person’s faith, it only increases his ability to pretend. Just because someone takes it upon himself to handle an “adult” doctrine does not mean that he is mature spiritually and intellectually. You can let an infant drive a car, but he will probably crash it. Putting him in the driver’s seat does not make him an adult. Likewise, most theologians are spiritual kids, although they handle adult doctrines. They are just pretending. They play around with divine sovereignty, the covenants, the history of redemption, and so on, but when they drive — when they formulate, teach, and implement these doctrines — they wreck faith. [1]

I had another brief conversation with person (we will call them Billy) about faith and healing. I was sharing some verses about faith and healing and encouraging them to grow their faith. I specifically commented on the fact that faith in God’s promises (whether for salvation or healing) always guarantees you will receive what you ask for.

I was quoting 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 it say you will get what “YOU” want (it does not say what GOD wants but what “YOU” want), but Jesus Christ says answers to prayers (for the things “YOU WANT”) is a test of orthodoxy. Jesus says it “proves” you are a disciple if you pray for what “you” want and God gives this to you.

Why is this? Because only insiders of the Covenant can do this. Outsiders do not have this access to the Father. Jesus Christ gives a test of orthodoxy that cannot be mimicked or faked. Only children are able to ask for anything they want, and the Father give it to them.  Reprobates and outsiders to the covenant do not have this precious access or life.

It is the same type of proof that Jesus gave for Himself as the Son of man. The religious fakes and fanboys would wash the outside of the cup, and thus fake this aspect to give proof they are part of the Elect. However, because they are in fact reprobates, they cannot do the true proof of orthodoxy, which is faith. Faith gives direct access to God and proves you are part of the Elect. Jesus gave proof that God heard His prayers, and by this He proved He had the Father’s approval. This proof was not something He did by His own power, but God gave Him the fullness of the Spirit (which we are also commanded to receive) and gave Him the things He asked for in prayer. Jesus therefore, gave proof that the insider status He had with God was of the closest type. Jesus said more than once we ought to believe He is who He claims to be, because of His miracles. And guess what, God commands that we also do something similar to prove we are insiders. He commands His followers, receive answered prayers for miracles as proof they are Elect and not reprobates who are thrown into the fire. He demands a type of proof reprobates cannot mimic.

Apart from this “proof” of discipleship, the precious truth we see is how intimate our Contract insider status is. God so loves us, so considers us as children who sits at His table with Him, that we can ask for what WE want and God will gladly give it to us. The Father sent His only begotten Son, to be crucified in agony and torn apart with scourging; He points His finger at Jesus’ bloody corpse and says, “I will do what I promise.” He goes beyond all measure to give extra assurance that He will do what He promises. He promises to give us what we ask for. Think about how loving and kind God is to us. How loyal is His unmerited favor for those whom He loves!

Billy responded with this:

“Where are all these miracles?
I do not see them.
If what you are saying I true,
then no one is saved.”

In my mind the first thought that came up was, “you David Hume Empiricist prostitute, you spiritual adulterer and spiritual pervert. You have whored yourself to the world at the most fundamental level of your worldview, and rejected God.”

Knowing this person considered themselves “Reformed,” I responded with how God Himself dealt with a similar accusation. First Paul says in Romans chapter 9 that when calculating what we can observe humanly (i.e. empiricism and induction) it could infer that God has failed to save His people. But Paul says God has not failed, because He only promised to bless those who are part of the promise by election, and not by natural birth of being a Jew.  An excessive amount of reprobates does not negate God’s promise to save those whom He elected.

Paul then brings up the example of Elijah and God, as an example. Elijah is a major player in Israel. He is well known. He has been around. He seen and done much in Israel. After all he has been through, he becomes discouraged and says to God that he is the only believer left in Israel.  Like I said, Elijah isn’t some small farmer who has never been anywhere. He as known and see many things in Israel. Thus, from a human evaluation standpoint, he has more credibility than most to make an inductive, albeit irrational conclusion from his observation. He concludes that he is the only one left who believes God. He asserts this conclusion, based on his empiric observation and inductive conclusion to God as a fact. God turns around and rebukes Elijah. God tells Elijah that He has kept for Himself 7000 people who have remained faithful to Him. This is in context of Romans 9, where God says before people are born, or do good or bad, He choses to hate one or love the other, in accordance to His own free choice of election and reprobation.

 “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.

This same answer God gave to Elijah, Paul says it true in his day, and is also true for today.

Thus, when someone says, “I do not see all these miracles and answers to prayers (like Jesus stated and commanded, John 15:7-8)), thus, there are none, and yet I know God will save people, thus what Jesus said cannot mean what it obviously means,” they are acting just as irrational, arrogant as Elijah. God’s rebuke to Elijah is applicable here to. God has reversed for Himself 7,000, or 70,000,000 million for Himself who have not bowed their knee to empiricism (Baal) and rejected Jesus’ command for answered prayers. Despite what Elijah can observe and calculate, what God says is the only starting point for knowledge. God is true when He says there is a remnant according to Election, and Elijah was a liar and false witness against the truth. His false witness against the truth was based off his human empiricism and inductive conclusion.

So what if you do not see and overabundance of answered prayers and miracles? Even if it means there are an excessive amount of reprobates in the church, just like with Paul and the Jews, it does not mean God as failed. It means the reprobates failed to be insiders because of their lack of faith, and the rest, probably because you are a reprobated yourself, you are not around enough to see God’s power working.

Religious fanboys and reformed like to use the doctrine of election and reprobation, but this doctrine is an adult doctrine and so is wasted on children like themselves. This doctrine of reprobation is pointed at their face like a gun, which they are holding. They will hurt themselves and those around them when they use it. Maybe the reason they use the word reprobate so much is because they are reprobates and simply like the word, by God’s providence.

I love God’s providence, because I do not reject have the bible. As Vincent Cheung points out in “Predestination and Miracles,” I am predestined for miracles. But you outsiders of the Covenant, just because you narrowly understand some aspects of God’s sovereignty and reprobation, does not save you from being one.  Just because Satan can teach you about some aspects of Hell, does not save him from being imprisoned there. Maybe he knows about it because he is understands first hand what it is be God’s enemy and under His punishment.

If you are a true disciple, you will whole heartily have faith for all of God’s commands, promises and sovereign faithfulness. Those who have been
“born from above” do not make excuses for their lack of faith if they struggle; rather, they cry out like the father seeking deliverance for his son, “help my unbelief.” The Elect will seek and find stronger faith. They are real disciples, who grown in faith, rather than in unbelief. They progress forward, rather than shrinking back.  They are true insiders; therefore, the Spirit speaks in their souls, “you are a child of God, and so ask! and you will receive. Approach your Father, for He loves you.”

Starting Point for Knowledge.

The other aspect of this person’s response is rejection of God at the deepest level of one’s worldview.  That is, when dealing with the ultimate question of knowledge (I am using knowledge here as truth), what is the STARTING or first principle where you get this knowledge? Every other ultimate question, whether about existence, causality, ethics, value, history, man salvation etc., will come from this starting point of knowledge. To say it is important is an understatement.

The Reformed like to mock the Catholics for boasting about their dual starting point for knowledge with the addition of the Pope. But what is the Pope? He is a man. When the Pope gives additions to the Scripture it is from empiricism (which is a logical fallacy) and then mostly will have addition fallacies of induction in other forms. The terms for these are speculation (for empiricism) and superstition (for any form of inductive logic).  The key point for both is a “man,” starting point for knowledge. In this epistemology man does not start with God’s revelation, but with man. Man, through fallacious empiricism, somehow miraculous get knowledge from observation. Man then uses superstitious induction to formulate a premise to then deduce from. But sense this premise is formulated by speculation and superstition, then applying the logic of deduction cannot rescue it from being non-knowledge. It is a “man” starting point of knowledge versus a God starting point of knowledge that is revealed and not sensed. As Jesus said to Peter, “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father has.”

Just by the simple calculation of logic, empiricism is demonstrated as irrational. And so, as a starting point of knowledge it is ontologically impossible.[2]

However, since the Scripture is my starting point, what does this infallible epistemology say about empiricism? Vincent Cheung, first brought these verses to my attention.

Commenting on 2 Kings 3:16-24[3] he says,

“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 lists John 12:28-29, Matthew 14:25-27, and Matthew 28:16-17.

Even though these are only a few instances of a Divine testimony of empiricism (knowledge starts with sensation) being wrong, it is enough to trash the whole thing into skepticism.

To show the importance of this, then consider if I were able to show just one instance where the Scripture was false. For example, what if it were false that Jesus was born in Israel, but rather born in South Asia? The issue is that it would cast doubt on the rest of the premises in the Scripture. The problem is not that any premise would definitely be wrong; rather, there would be no infallible mechanism to demonstrate how any given premise of Scripture is true. It would trash the whole bible (as a starting point for knowledge) into skepticism. The issue here, is that skepticism denies the law of non-contradiction; and thus, ontologically impossible.

If invisible knowledge comes by sensation is true, then where is the justification? Where is the sound argument to prove it?

To have a picture in the mind of Mt. St. Helens is a copy of it(2); it is not the actual Mountain(1). That is one category, and then another. In addition to this is another categorical leap; that is, to think propositional thoughts about(3) the indirect copy(2) of the real Mt. St. Helens(1). There is no logical justification for these 2 categorical leaps between premises and conclusion. In essence, the syllogism is like saying, “All dogs are mammals. All blue things are color. Therefore, All humans are clouds.” There is no more justification for that syllogism than saying the propositional thoughts in an invisible mind, about the picture copy in my physical brain, is knowledge about the real Mt. St. Helens. Both are playing with categorical reality as if it is play-dough. That might work to sell Fantasy novels, but not so much when asking questions about the reality we live in.

This has been said to demonstrate that our only starting point for knowledge is God. Any starting point that starts with “man,” leads to skepticism, but skepticism is logically impossible and does not exist. All human starting points of knowledge does not exist, except in delusion and fantasy.

Most Christians know this without me having to go into all this technical explanation of it. But when reprobates infiltrate the Church, and deceive people, we need to give a detailed and harsh rebuke to them.

Most will say something like, “the Bible is our final authority.” But what I am saying here is a more foundational statement. I start with the Bible as my only public first principle for knowledge, and only the bible. If you ‘say x’ is knowledge, and cannot show it came directly from the bible or deduces from it, then it is by definition not knowledge you can prove.

Therefore, when the Bible says if I have in God’s only Son to save me from my sin and confess it, then it a truth claim about reality. It is not a probability. It is a truth that will always be sure, and reliable. If Billy says, “well I have seen some Christians who have renounced their faith and now worship Satan. Therefore, the bible is wrong, or people do not understand what the bible says. What the bible really means is that one can have faith in God to be saved and God will still reject them hell.”

The problem with this is at the foundational level. Billy used a “human” starting point to produced so-called knowledge. Then uses this as a higher authority against the Bible, by making the Bible adjust its meaning to this knowledge produced by a human starting point of empiricism and induction. The problem with this that all human starting points to produce knowledge is nothing but speculation and superstition. No knowledge is produced when starting with a human epistemology, not even with things such as what is “tree” or what is a “dog.”

Most Christians hearing what Billy did with this aspect of faith and salvation would be alarmed; they would at least, have a vague idea Billy is using a human starting point to reject what the Bible clearly says about faith and salvation. But when it comes to faith for answered prayers and faith to be healed, then suddenly many Christians revert to using a human starting point for knowledge as if they are a 50 year grand master chess player. They revert to using of empiricism and induction as if they were world champions. They would make David Hume and the Pope blush in envy. If only they could stand on human starting points as reflexively as some Christians do, then maybe they could have brough more over to the side of Satan.

If falling on empiricism to produce knowledge is sooooo natural and reflexive, then it is a good chance, it is your true master and foundation. If you do not start with God for knowledge, how do you suppose you will conclude with His revelation? You will not of course.

If you read Jesus saying that if His words abide in you and you in Him, then you ask whatever you wish and God will give it to you, and you must start with this knowledge and no contradict it. Obviously you cannot just the Scripture to contradict this because it and Jesus say over and over if you have faith, (whether for salvation, healing or whatever you wish), you will have it. Jesus says it is what “YOU” want.

If there is a wrong place for YOU, then it starting with YOU when producing knowledge. If you use YOU to produce the knowledge that “what Jesus says over and over is not what He means, but what Jesus meant is you can ask in faith and God will still reject it,” then you are a reprobate, or at least on this point you are playing the part of one. To revert and say, “I do not see.., or I observe.., or the church fathers did not see or observe,” then you are nothing less than a plagiarized rehashed Pope. You are a spiritual pervert that the foundation level of knowledge. You do not start with God to get truth, you start with YOU. You have used speculation and superstition no less in proportion than some shaman observing the moon and concluding ‘x’ or ‘y.’

Why do people do this. First, this is now reprobates think. They are only doing what is natural for then. Apart from the Scripture as a starting point, all others (including all non-Christian religions) revert to using a human starting point is some way.  Thus, it is natural for reprobates to show their true human foundation when they find things in the Bible they do not like or makes they feel uncomfortable. Secondly, to hide their human starting point they will mock other obvious reprobates with human starting points such as the Pope. They do this to hide their human starting point in the shadow of the more obvious ones. They say solo Scriptura, but this is just a slight of hand to say, sola empiricism. Thirdly, like human approval and because it is natural for reprobates to start with a human epistemology other reprobates will be attracted to them and give them praise, approval and money.

If you are truly not a reprobate, but are only playing the part due to spiritual immaturity, then repent now while you still have a chance.  Tomorrow is not guaranteed. God is willing to forgive and restore. He will do what He promise. If you ask in faith for God to forgive, He will. If you are an insider to His love and covenant, then ask and receive, because He wants you to. He commanded that you do it, because He wanted the situation where you ask and He gives. God wanted this. You do not have beg.

Because of God’s promises, which He sovereignly wanted to make, and the Contacts He made in blood, God willfully made it so that it is necessary for Him to hear your prays in faith and give you what you want, whether spiritual or material. Jesus said it was “necessary” for the daughter of Abraham, (who was bent over for 18 years) to be healed on the Sabbath. The word for “necessary” here is like saying 5+5 necessarily equals 10. That is, 5+5=10 is not just a sufficient or good reason, it is a necessary one. Jesus says because she is an insider to God’s love and covenant it is “necessary” for God to heal her.

Jesus with perfection stood on God’s Word as His knowledge, and those who follow Him will do the same.

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)

Endnotes

[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, 16 and he said, “This is what the Lord says: This dry valley will be filled with pools of water! 17 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. 18 But this is only a simple thing for the Lord, for he will make you victorious over the army of Moab! 19 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.”

20 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.

21 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. 22 But when they got up the next morning, the sun was shining across the water, making it appear red to the Moabites—like blood. 23 “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. www.vincentcheung.com

Good Tree – Good Fruit, Good Fruit – Good Tree

[This is a cannibalized section from the eschatology section from my systematic theology book, about the importance of the baptism of the spirit.]

“You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit,”
(Matt. 7-16-18 LSB).

“But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this age or in the coming one!
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit is good, or make the tree bad and its fruit is bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.
34 Offspring of vipers! How are you able to say good things when you[q] are evil,”
(Matt 12:32-34 LEB).

“For there is no good tree that produces bad fruit, nor on the other hand a bad tree that produces good fruit, 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorn plants, nor are grapes harvested from thorn bushes. 45 The good person out of the good treasury of his heart brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks,” (Luke 6:43-45 LEB).

Jesus puts a focus on bad words and bad doctrine in how He defines bad fruit, because the context is the Jewish leaders committing the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit with a false doctrine that affirmed the works of the Spirit come from Satan. In Matthew 7 this is said in context of obeying God’s law and Jesus showing the true standard God commands, and thus, this is a universal teaching on all obedience and disobedience to God’s commandments. So, although bad fruit is a universal category for all disobedience, Jesus does put a stronger focus on disobedience with affirming false doctrine. Jesus says, “how can you SAY good things, when you are evil.” This statement contradicts Jesus’ truth claims about reality; thus, they cannot say good things, because they are evil, and they are evil and so they say evil things.

In Matthew 7:17-18 Jesus makes 4 truth claims. We will put them from A to D. Since Jesus intends for us to add ourselves or someone else to this, and thus we have 3 terms and a deductive application. We will use hypothetical syllogisms for simplicity with modus tollens, rather than categorical syllogisms and contrapositions, which can be a little more difficult (for understanding why and how) for those who have not studied logic. Example, the contraposition for, “all [good trees] are [good fruit bearers],” in the defined context of Jesus’ truth claims[1], would be “all [bad fruit bearers] are [bad trees].” In natural deduction this rule is transposition or contraposition.[2]

However, beyond this the scripture plainly says in 1 John 3:7, “he one who does what is right is righteous.” Thus, if good fruit, then good tree.

A, If good tree, then good fruit.
B, If bad tree, then bad fruit.
C, If good tree, then no bad fruit.
D, If bad tree, then no good fruit.

Jesus is repeating Himself in premise C and D, because their logical conclusions in Modus Tollens are the same for A and B.

In essence, with premise A and B, with the uses of Modus ponens and Modus tollens, we have 4 deductive conclusion or outputs.

Jesus defines the context in a way that these are opposites, and that there is no other options. When it comes to person and the law of God, there is obedience or disobedience; there is no other option. When it comes to a person and being born again in spiritual life or under spiritual death, there is no other options. Therefore, the negation will be said as “bad fruit or tree,” or “good fruit or tree,” since in context this is what the negation is.

If we only had premise “A” and we did a Modus ponens and tollens (or in categorical contraposition), then we can say “because bad fruit, thus bad tree,” but not, “because good fruit thus, good trees.” However, with premise B, and then with Jesus’ further restating this doctrine in premise C and D, we have the latter conclusion. Also, C and D close off any overlap for the categories of obedience (good fruit) and disobedience (bad fruit) for humans.

Syllogism A.

A.1.(P) If good tree, (Q) then good fruit.
A.2. (P). Good tree
A.3. Thus, (Q) good fruit

Then the Modus Tollens, Ab.

Ab.1. (P) If good tree, (Q) then good fruit.
Ab.2. ~(Q) bad fruit.
Ab.3. Thus, ~(P) bad tree.

Syllogism B.

B.1. (P) If bad tree, (P) then bad fruit.
B.2. (P). Bad Tree.
B.3. Thus, (Q) bad fruit.

Then the Modus Tollens, Bb.

Bb.1. (P) If bad tree, (P) then bad fruit.
Bb.2. ~(Q) Good fruit.
Bb.3.  Thus ~(P) Good tree.

When Jesus says, “you will know them by their fruit,” it is being used as a proof. Jesus is saying, “x” proves that there is “y.” By using the Modus tollens we see bad fruit does prove bad tree, and good fruit proves a good tree. This can sometimes be seen with past, present and future tense verbs. As a category statement, “A good tree DOES or WILL produce good fruit.” Using the logic of double negative in reverse order, “if you produce bad fruit, then you have been or are a bad tree.”

The positive statements are positive statements about “metaphysics.” They are what God has created and sovereignly caused. The modus tollens, are being used as a way for us to discover and “prove” what metaphysics God as put us into, through our obedience or disobedience.

These statements of Jesus are universal; they are all encompassing statements about all good works in obedience and all bad works in disobedience. Jesus takes a few words from the Jewish leaders and says, “this specific bad fruit of false doctrine you said, is proof you are a bad tree.” Thus, applying this knowledge in deduction, any biblical premise that narrowly speaks of one type of bad or good fruit, even if only mentioned in one premise, applies to all four possible combinations shown. Whether it is John in “1st John,” talking about the good or bad fruit of loving God or loving your brother, it applies to all 4 combinations. “The one who hates his brother is in the darkness,” (1 John 2:11 LEB).

The same with Jesus saying,

“7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this: that you bear much fruit, and prove to be my disciples… 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and your fruit should remain, in order that whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. 17 These things I command you.”[3]

Vincent Cheung has a great essay on this called, “Predestination and Miracles.”

God has chosen us, and predestined us. Predestined for what? There was more to what Jesus said: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” God predestined us to bear fruit. What is this fruit? Christian teaching often assumes that fruit refers to spiritual and ethical effects such as improvements in character, works of charity, and also works of ministry, such as saving sinners and building churches. This is not entirely wrong, but the biblical idea of fruit includes much more, and Jesus clearly had other things in mind when he made the statement.

Even in the same verse, we can see that Jesus had in mind not only works of preaching and charity, because he said his followers would produce fruit and that “the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” Gospel life and ministry is characterized by answers to prayers. What kinds of prayers? Wait, this is weaker than the way Jesus said it. The doctrine of prayer in historic unbelief is that “God will answer your prayers if it is his will (regardless of what he promised). Or, you can say that he always answers your prayers — sometimes he says yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe, sometimes later. Or, when you ask for egg, he will give you a scorpion, so that when you ask for spiritual growth, he will give you cancer to teach you a lesson.” Among us, we have never accepted this view of prayer. We recognize it as satanic deception. But Jesus did not even say, “God will answer your prayers” or “God will always answer your prayers.” He said, “God will give you whatever you ask.” This is how God wants us to think about our relationship with him. This is how he wants us to think about discipleship. This is how he wants us to think about faith and prayer. God will give me whatever I ask when I approach him in the name of Jesus. No hiding behind a thousand qualifications. No excuses for me or for him.

God will give me whatever I ask. I will have whatever I ask. What I ask, I get. And I am predestined for this. So I am chosen to get whatever I ask. I am predestined to get whatever I ask. It is my foreordained destiny to receive whatever I ask God in the name of Jesus. If you have never heard this, then you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of predestination, you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of prayer, you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of the name of Jesus, and you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of discipleship. Just several verses earlier, Jesus said, “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples” (15:7-8). Getting whatever we ask from God is intertwined throughout his discourse with the notions of bearing fruit, being his disciples, and loving one another. Thus getting whatever we ask from God is as pervasive as the gospel itself. It cannot be taken out and thrown away without tearing apart the entire gospel, and thus also our salvation. Here bearing fruit is almost the same thing as getting whatever we ask from God, and by getting what we ask from God, we show ourselves to be true disciples of Christ.[4]

The metaphysics that God sovereignly causes, is that a disciple (good tree), produces the (good fruit) of asking and receiving what they ask for.

Jesus defines good fruit as obeying His commandments. His command here, is to disciples (not merely apostles) to pray and get what you pray for. You need to think about that. It is a command from your God; it is not a mere suggestion or self-help tip. Jesus has already defined good and bad people by obedience and disobedience with 4 possible combinations, and thus, the same applies here. Bad fruit is praying and not receiving what you pray for. Thus, if you pray and do not receive because you lack faith, you are producing bad fruit. A continued life of this bad fruit is proof you are not His good disciple. A continued life of this bad fruit is proof Jesus did not predestine or appoint you to bear good fruit. It proves you were chosen by God to be a reprobate.

The apostles said, “then God has granted them repentance to life.” God’s sovereign work caused and predestined these with spiritual life (born from above) and reconciled them to Him, by repentance (faith). It is a statement of metaphysics; they are saved; they live in Spiritual life now; they live reconciled to God. When applied for good or bad fruit, it is the same as has been demonstrated, it is a test of proof.

The same is for baptism of the Spirit. If baptism of the Spirit (good fruit), then proof of the metaphysics that you are did repent and are in the category of spiritual “life” and “saved,” (good tree).  Bad fruit is not being baptized in the Spirit. A continued rebellion and disobedience in not being baptized in the Spirit is proof of reprobation, especially in context of doctrine. If you continue in affirming the false doctrines that God does not command you to love your brother, and that Jesus did not teach that truth does set you free, and Jesus did not teach that you get what you ask for in faith, and that God does not command you to be baptism in the Spirit, then you give strong proof you are a reprobate. If continued affirmation of false doctrine on this doctrine is not repented of, then stronger proof of God’s predestination of your reprobation. The same for hating your brother, (etc.). Hebrews 12 affirms that Christians have besetting sin. “let us lay aside the sins that easily entangle us.” It does happen. But the same chapter says to look to Jesus who is the author and “perfecter” of our faith. We are told to get free. We are told Jesus is able to heal dislocated shoulders. The great danger is not repenting and being arrogant. To be arrogant and unrepentance in continued false doctrine is a great, if not the greatest danger of proof for reprobation. Jesus was very compassionate with those who were at least trying to repent and follow, “lord help my unbelief.” Paul, after correcting the Corinthians for many sinful actions, kept encouraging them to repent and get better. At the end of the letter, he says to double check and make sure your election is sure. If no repentance of your bad fruit, then you give proof of reprobation.  For the false teachers that Paul dealt with, he didn’t record that even prayed for God to save them, but says regarding the coppersmith that God would “repay him” for the harm of the false doctrine and unbelief he was spreading.  Likewise Paul says in Philippians 4 the women and Clement’s names are in the “book of life (v.3),” because of their labor in the gospel. That is, Paul says their election of being saints is certain, because of their good fruit, and not because Paul received a divine revelation about them. We can do the same. Jude, regarding the false teachers, says they are reprobates destined for hell with the demons. However, regarding the Corinthians who were not affirming false doctrines as false teachers, but sinning in sins of passion, Paul corrected them and told them that “temples of God” do not behave that way.

We will now examine these arguments by putting them into syllogism A and B from above, since these two alone will output all the combinations we need.

Love and hating your brother.

Syllogism A.

A.1.(P) If born from above, (Q) then love for your brother.
A.2. (P). Born from above.
A.3. Thus, (Q) Love for your brother.

Then the Modus Tollens, Ab.

Ab.1. (P) If born from above, (Q) then love for your brother.
Ab.2. ~(Q) hates your brother.
Ab.3. Thus, ~(P) proof of being born from below.

Syllogism B.

B.1. (P) If born from below, (P) then hates your brother.
B.2. (P). Born from below.
B.3. Thus, (Q) hates your brother.

Then the Modus Tollens, Bb.

Bb.1. (P) If born from below, (P) then hates your brother.
Bb.2. ~(Q) loves your brother.
Bb.3.  Thus ~(P) proof of being born from above.

Ask and get what You pray for.

Syllogism A.

A.1.(P) If good disciple, (Q) then ask and get what you ask for.
A.2. (P). Good disciple.
A.3. Thus, (Q) ask and get what you ask for.

Then the Modus Tollens, Ab.

Ab.1. (P) If good disciple, (Q) then ask and get what you ask for.
Ab.2. ~(Q) ask and not get what you ask for.
Ab.3. Thus, ~(P) proof of bad disciple.

Syllogism B.

B.1. (P) If bad disciple, (P) then ask and not get what you ask for.
B.2. (P). Bad disciple.
B.3. Thus, (Q) ask and not get what you ask for.

Then the Modus Tollens, Bb.

Bb.1. (P) If bad disciple, (P) then ask and not get what you ask for.
Bb.2. ~(Q) ask and get what you ask for.
Bb.3.  Thus ~(P) proof of good disciple.

Baptism of the Spirit.

Peter and the apostles defined the “good tree” as repentance to be “saved,” and repentance of “life.” Thus the metaphysical category is life and saved. We will call this saved and unsaved.

Syllogism A.

A.1.(P) If saved, (Q) then baptism of Spirit.
A.2. (P) saved.
A.3. Thus, (Q) baptism of the Spirit.

Then the Modus Tollens, Ab.

Ab.1. (P) If saved, (Q) then baptism of the Spirit.
Ab.2. ~(Q) no baptism in the Spirit.
Ab.3. Thus, ~(P) no proof of being saved.

Syllogism B.

B.1. (P) If unsaved, (P) then no baptism of the Spirit.
B.2. (P) unsaved.
B.3. Thus, (Q) no baptism of the Spirit.

Then the Modus Tollens, Bb.

Bb.1. (P) If unsaved, (P) then no baptism of the Spirit.
Bb.2. ~(Q) baptism of Spirit.
Bb.3.  Thus ~(P) thus proof for being saved.

______________ENDNOTES_______________

[1] That is, without context, as you might find in a logic textbook, you would need to say, “all [non-good fruit bearers] are [non-good trees].” However, unlike a logic book, that mostly gives the absolute minimum context of something, in Christianity we have a substantial context of knowledge about the world. We know exactly what Jesus means by “non-good trees” for humans commanded to obey His words, they are “bad trees.”

[2] I have seen some morons in modern logic want to deny the “law of excluded middle,” which is what makes this reverse double negative logic work. Aside from all rules showing this to be valid, included truth tables, it is interesting that those denying this are liberal theologians and atheist and empiricists who do not have an epistemology that is able give them truth in the first place. With a necessary epistemology that gives substantial knowledge about the world, with clearly defined categories, then the law of excluded middle is valid, strong and absolute. But beside all this, Jesus and the Bible assumes the law of excluded middle. Do not let those who do not have truth to begin with, be your teachers. Leave them alone to wonder in their own delusions.

[3]  Emphasis by author.

[4] Vincent Cheung. Predestination and Miracles. From the ebook, TRACE. 2018. Pg. 73-74