Category Archives: Christian Logic

christophe-rollando-qjwd5VipY64-unsplash

A Miracle is an End to Itself

I posted this statement today and had some interesting responses. I will deal with one of them. “One small miracle by a Charismatic by faith is more valuable than 1000 Reformed sermons.”

Billy responded with:

“(1) A miracle is not an end to itself.
(2) A miracle (physical healing or any charismatic supernatural scenario) can mean nothing if the crowd misses the point. Many in the crowd, where the miracle of multiplication of bread and fish, missed the point that Christ is the Bread of Life. (3) Meanwhile, the preaching of the Word under the operation of the Holy Spirit inwardly regenerates a sinner. (4)True conversions born anew with the genuine and observable fruit of sanctification and evidential maturity leading to glorification of the saints is more important that a miracle (even if the miracle is from God).”

(1) Miracles happen for different reasons. Some miracles, a small minority of them are to confirm a ministry or a future promise. One such miracle is when Jesus said, “know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” So he said to the paralyzed man, “Get up, take your mat and go home,” (Matt. 9:6). Yet Jesus says statements that indicate most of His miracles were to fulfill His ancient promise to Abraham (Luke 13:10-17, Mark 7:25-29, Galatians 3). There is a category difference between a sign miracle to “confirm” a future promise or ministry versus a miracle to “fulfill” a promise already given.

With that being said people who find the Bible and God is not humble enough for them will always ignore God in order to make them sound more humble by appealing to things such as God centeredness. Usually, the people who hate God the most surround themselves with religious talk and activities, but are never able to produce true fruit that proves election such as miracles, the baptism of the Spirit and healing. Just like the religious leaders in Jesus’ day, they are masochists but surrounding themselves with outward displays of the person they hate the most.

Also, miracles are for God’s glory. However, this is misleading in the sense all things are for God’s glory, in the ultimate sense. Even my unbelieving family members burning in hell are to the glory of God. Just as you can always answer any question about reality with God’s sovereignty on the ultimate sense, you can do the same with God’s glory for the ultimate purpose for everything. It is like saying “things are things that exist.” Such statements are true, but also unhelpful. Even imaginary trees exist in my mind, so what? Thus, such an immeasurably broad answer is not helpful if a specific question is being asked. It is like my mom asking “what would you like to eat for lunch tomorrow” and then I answer with “food.” Yet, this is how most Reformed people answer biblical questions, and they think they are intelligent. LOL!

I could go into more detail, but will deal with this in one brut slap. “Until now you have not asked for anything in my name. Ask and you will receive, and your joy will be complete, (John 16:24).

Jesus says by asking and receiving miracles that the end result will be to our joy.  Early, Jesus said it would bring the Father glory. Yet, Jesus the most God-centered man who ever lived, has no issue saying, miracles are for your joy, as an end to itself. People who cannot receive God’s love for them have a hard time with this, because receiving from God takes a level of wisdom and maturity they do not have. This might be a surprise, but Jesus thinks many loving thoughts toward His children, and wants them to be full of joy. He wants to answer prayers with miracles and make their hearts burst with joy, simply because He loves us. God gave us His Son, how will He not freely give us all things? God’s love is an end to itself. God’s love to Himself is an end to itself, and the Father loves us with the “same love” He loves Jesus with. And in this sense, His love to give us miracles for “our joy,” is an end to itself.  To say otherwise is to say God’s love for Himself is not an end of itself.

It is also an end to itself in the same way healing is according to the will of man, is an end to itself. For more of this see Vincent Cheung, “Healing: the Will of Man.” For quick summary remember the woman who Jesus told her she was a dog. Jesus correctly told her it was “not God’s will” to minister to gentiles at this time. Yet, after she gave an argument based on faith, Jesus relented and said, “Women, your will be done.” In this sense, the miracle was for her joy, in accordance with the will of man. Jesus the most God-centered man did a 180, going from, “this plan is the “will of God,”” to the “will of man be done on earth.”

Also, the statement of Jesus to receive miracles so that our joy is complete is not a suggestion, but a command. You are commanded to receive miracles and to be overjoyed by them in thankfulness, as an end to itself. If you do not do this, you are in rebellion against the command of God. Miracles is a proof of election and the lack thereof a proof of reprobation.

(2) This is just so stupid I feel befouled just answering it. The passage mentioned about the feeding and the crowd not understanding cuts both ways. Jesus also preached and taught, and they still did not understand. Thus, I should conclude that preaching is a lesser thing than x or y? But this was the argument he used against the miracle. Dumb.

It is true that preaching is foundational in the sense of knowing the truth. But my comment about miracles is not addressing the “foundational issue of knowing the truth.” Thus, this section of critique is a non-relevant fallacy, and shows they are intellectually incompetent. I am talking about “a” and then they either stupidly or they knew, but then tried to do a slight-of-hand fallacy and made it about “h” instead.

(3) This is a ridiculous critique against my original statement. Again, this cuts both ways.  The blind man Jesus healed believed because of the miracle. Of course the Holy Spirit was behind the invisible rebirth, but the miracle is what was highlighted, not preaching. Jesus said more than once even if you do not believe what He is saying, you should believe because of His miracles. In either case, the preaching or the miracles, if one believes it is because of the invisible work of the Spirit. However, we not talking about that ultimate level. We are dealing wit the argument of Jesus, who was the most God-centered man who ever lived. He said miracles should lead you to believe in Him. John records more than once in his gospel that miracles were the catalyst for many people believing in Jesus (Lazarus for example), not the preaching.  In fact, on the day of Pentecost, where the baptism of the Spirit came down with miracles, and the crowed asked about the miracle, 3000 were saved. Peter’s ending remark was to be forgiven, and “then” they can receive the miracle of baptism of the Spirt, if they have been predestined for it.  

(4) This is so stupid its funny. “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.  This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, [proving] yourselves to be my disciples, (John 15:7-8).

Billy’s argument is that “fruit” which prove your sanctification and thus prove your confession is true, is more important than miracles. This is like saying “how long have you been hitting your wife” loaded question.

Jesus says by asking and receiving miracles, you prove to be His disciples. Thus, by Billy’s own standard miracles are the most important thing we can be pursuing. According to Jesus, if you do not have miracles, then you prove you are chosen to be a reprobate.

I say this often, but fighting against God will always make you lose.

Points 2-3 are non-relevant points to my statement, and I only answered them to show the stupidity of them. Point (1) is the real issue.

It is true that God has made it so that pouring His love into us, is what gives Him glory. This is the ultimate end. However, like I said before, “for the glory of God” is so broad, it is meaningless unless defined. This is going to be obvious, but it needs to be said in light of the above stupidity. Because the way God ultimately glorifies Himself in us, is by pouring His love into us (the details), then if we truly want our life to be “for the glory of God,” then we need to receive the abundant love of God. Just being a theological troll by going to every site and posting “for the glory of God,” does not do the thing that brings God’s glory, which is to receive His love in our life. Paul in Ephesians 3 in the context of talking about the width, length, height, and depth of God’s love says that God will answer our request exceedingly beyond what we ask. Therefore in a miracle of financial provision, there were 12 large baskets left over. This is how God loved Jesus when His Son asked for help. We are now sons of God. God loves us as much as He loves Jesus, and as much as the Father loves Jesus, Jesus loves us the same love (John 15:9, 17:26).

You glorify God, not by how much you give love to God, but by how much you receive from God’s love. It is true that we love God by obeying His commands, and yet, it is these very commands that commands us to ask for miracles and receive them so that our joy my be full. God’s command includes more than this, but not less than. It is true that it is more blessed to give in human relationships, but with God it is more blessed to receive. Therefore Jesus rebuked Martha, because she had this backwards. Receiving is the “better part” in relation to God. When you are blessed, enriched and healed by receiving from God’s love, you glorify Him the most.  Human superstition and speculation in pagan religions give to the gods to honor then, but in Christianity, we receive His abundant life and love and by this we honor the true God.

Thus, one miracle by a charismatic receives God’s love 1000 times more than 1000 reformed sermons, and thus glorifies God 1000 times more than 1000 reformed sermons. Solo Deo Miracles is how to give us all the joy. Solo Deo Miracles is how God loves us so much, as an end to itself. Solo Deo Miracles is how God gives Himself all the glory.

bruce-mars-cpx9uOEitiU-unsplash

Logic Is God

To start this section, I will shamelessly quote Gordon Clark, “God and Logic,” because he says it so well:

“Psalm 31:5 addresses God as “O Lord God of truth.” John 17:3 says,” This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God….” 1 John 5:6 says, “the Spirit is truth.” Such verses as these indicate that God is a rational, thinking being whose thought exhibits the structure of Aristotelian logic.

If anyone objects to Aristotelian logic in this connection-and presumably he does not want to replace it with the Boolean-Russellian symbolic logic-let him ask and answer whether it is true for God that if all dogs have teeth, some dogs-spaniels-have teeth? Do those who contrast this “merely human logic” with a divine logic mean that for God all dogs may have teeth while spaniels do not? Similarly, with “merely human” arithmetic: two plus two is four for man, but is it eleven for God? …

… It was God’s eternal purpose to have such liquids, and therefore we can say that the particularities of nature were determined before there was any nature.

Similarly in all other varieties of truth, God must be accounted sovereign. It is his decree that makes one proposition true and another false. Whether the proposition be physical, psychological, moral, or theological, it is God who made it that way. A proposition is true because God thinks it so.

Perhaps for a certain formal completeness, a sample of Scriptural documentation might be appropriate. Psalm147: 5 says, “God is our Lord, and of great power; his understanding is infinite.” If we cannot strictly conclude from this verse that God’s power is the origin of his understanding, at least there is no doubt that omniscience is asserted. 1 Samuel 2:3 says, “the Lord is a God of knowledge.” Ephesians 1:8 speaks of God’s wisdom and prudence. In Romans16: 27 we have the phrase, “God only wise,” and in 1 Timothy 1:17 the similar phrase, “the only wise God.” 

Logic Is God

It is to be hoped that these remarks on the relation between God and truth will be seen as pertinent to the discussion of logic. In any case, the subject of logic can be more clearly introduced by one more Scriptural reference. The well-known prologue to John’s Gospel may be paraphrased, “In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God…. In logic was life and the life was the light of men.”

This paraphrase-in fact, this translation-may not only sound strange to devout ears, it may even sound obnoxious and offensive. But the shock only measures the devout person’s distance from the language and thought of the Greek New Testament. Why it is offensive to call Christ Logic, when it does not offend to call him a word, is hard to explain. But such is often the case. Even Augustine, because he insisted that God is truth, has been subjected to the anti-intellectualistic accusation of “reducing” God to a proposition. At any rate, the strong intellectualism of the word Logos is seen in its several possible translations: to wit, computation, (financial) accounts, esteem, proportion and (mathematical) ratio, explanation, theory or argument, principle or law, reason, formula, debate, narrative, speech, deliberation, discussion, oracle, sentence, and wisdom.

Any translation of John 1:1 that obscures this emphasis on mind or reason is a bad translation. And if anyone complains that the idea of ratio or debate obscures the personality of the second person of the Trinity, he should alter his concept of personality. In the beginning, then, was Logic.

That Logic is the light of men is a proposition that could well introduce the section after next on the relation of logic to man. But the thought that Logic is God will bring us to the conclusion of the present section. Not only do the followers of Bernard entertain suspicions about logic, but also even more systematic theologians are wary of any proposal that would make an abstract principle superior to God. The present argument, in consonance with both Philo and Charnock, does not do so. The law of contradiction is not to betaken as an axiom prior to or independent of God. The law is God thinking.

For this reason also the law of contradiction is not subsequent to God. If one should say that logic is dependent on God’s thinking, it is dependent only in the sense that it is the characteristic of God’s thinking. It is not subsequent temporally, for God is eternal and there was never a time when God existed without thinking logically. One must not suppose that God’s will existed as an inert substance before he willed to think.

As there is no temporal priority, so also there is no logical or analytical priority. Not only was Logic the beginning, but Logic was God. If this unusual translation of John’s Prologue still disturbs someone, he might yet allow that God is his thinking. God is not a passive or potential substratum; he is actuality or activity. This is the philosophical terminology to express the Biblical idea that God is a living God. Hence logic is to be considered as the activity of God’s willing.

Although Aristotle’s theology is no better (and perhaps worse) than his epistemology, he used a phrase to describe God, which, with a slight change, may prove helpful. He defined God as “thought-thinking-thought.” Aristotle developed the meaning of this phrase so as to deny divine omniscience. But if we are clear that the thought which thought thinks includes thought about a world to be created-in Aristotle God has no knowledge of things inferior to him-the Aristotelian definition of God as “thought-thinking-thought” may help us to understand that logic, the law of contradiction, is neither prior to nor subsequent to God’s activity.

This conclusion may disturb some analytical thinkers. They may wish to separate logic and God. Doing so, they would complain that the present construction merges two axioms into one. And if two, one of them must be prior; in which case we would have to accept God without logic, or logic without God; and the other one afterward. But this is not the presupposition here proposed. God and logic are one and the same first principle, for John wrote that Logic was God. At the moment this much must suffice to indicate the relation of God to logic. We now pass to what at the beginning seemed to be the more pertinent question of logic and Scripture…

… On this basis-that is, on the basis that Scripture is the mind of God-the relation to logic can easily be made clear. As might be expected, if God has spoken, he has spoken logically. The Scripture therefore should and does exhibit logical organization. For example, Romans 4:2 is an enthymematic hypothetical destructive syllogism. Romans 5:13 is a hypothetical constructive syllogism. 1 Corinthians 15:15-18 is a sorites. Obviously, examples of standard logical forms such as these could be listed at great length.

There is, of course, much in Scripture that is not syllogistic. The historical sections are largely narrative; yet every declarative sentence is a logical unit. These sentences are truths; as such they are objects of knowledge. Each of them has, or perhaps we should say, each of them is a predicate attached to a subject. Only so can they convey meaning.

Even in the single words themselves, as is most clearly seen in the cases of nouns and verbs, logic is embedded. If Scripture says, David was King of Israel, it does not mean that David was President of Babylon; and surely it does not mean that Churchill was Prime Minister of China. That is to say, the words David, King, and Israel have definite meanings.[1]“

——-

The important take away from this is elementary level easy. The Bible actually as a doctrine and teaching about logic. Some doctrines only have a few verses, but this topic on logic has many. Thus, any Christian who refuses to understand what the bible teaches on this subject and not obey it, is to be excommunicated. Since all thinking about scripture involves logic, then it is important to know what our God says about this and then follow it

The basic laws of logic are nothing more than faithful motions of the Mind of God. These are motions that His Mind always moves within. We then point out one of these particular constant motions and then give it a name like, The Law of Contradiction or Law of Identity (etc.). Some of these motions are so constant and rudimentary for God’s Mind, that if we who are made in His image do not think using these motions, we simply stop thinking altogether, because we stop being a mind. A mind is a system of propositions. The laws of logic are structure or motions that these propositions are to move in. Some mistakes are worse than others. There are some so basic, that if you do not use them, then the system of proposition’s stop working completely, or there is no movement. It becomes nothing more than a unthinking page from a book.

To say God is logic, is like saying God is the I AM. It is so part of His Mind, you cannot remove it without removing God. It is also like saying superman is Clark Kent, or Clark Kent is Superman. In this case it is rare in that it can be said either as a prediction (to give us understanding), but also as an identity “is” statement.

[1] Gordon Clark, God and Logic. 

Copyright © The Trinity Foundation, http://www.trinityfoundation.org. Post Office 68, Unicoi, Tennessee 37692. Phone: 423.743.0199 Fax: 423.743.2005

You have Fear, Thus You have No Faith (Logic)

Mark 4:30, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?”

When put in a syllogism it shows Jesus Christ is stating premises 2 and 3 of a Modus Tollens.

This little syllogism shows the positive first (faith) and the negative in the consequent (fear). This is a statement about reality about stating a positive in antecedent and denying the contradiction as a necessary consequence. Very basic, but very important foundations for having a correct understanding of reality.

Thus, faith and fear do not belong together. Any teaching that tries to put these together is false. We also see the moral lesson from Jesus. Jesus expects a return on His investment. He has deposited faith into His children and expects a return of faith being produced and not the contradiction of fear.

(1) (p) If you have faith, (~q) then you do not have fear.

(2) ~(~q) You have fear.

(3) ~(p) Thus, You have no faith.

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.

.