Category Archives: Christian Logic

No one is that dumb and evil, right?

Dude: “People in the church have made too many mistakes personally to me, and just mistakes about things in general; therefore, I have abandoned the church and God. The Bible does not necessarily mean truth.”

Me: Ok? Let us play this game with other aspects of reality and see how that works out?

“My math teacher made 16 adding mistakes; one of those were on grading my homework; therefore, I have abandoned the idea that math is correct, or that, 2 + 2 = 4.”

No one is that dumb and evil? No. Wait. Maybe they are.

Its sad people do not play that silly game with any other aspect of reality, but they do so with God and His Word. They will not have an excuse before the Throne of Power.

——–

Logically speaking, this is in the general fallacy of a point of non-relevance. It is type of ad hominem fallacy. People’s mistakes have no necessary connection to the argument. Even without taking a logic class people know this because they do not play that game with math, for example, they only become that debasingly stupid and wicked when God is in the picture.

When all Else Fails, Attack God with Ad Hominem Fallacies

I posted an expert on facebook from Vincent Cheung’s book, “Godliness with Contentment,” (pg.13) about prosperity and the atonement.

…However, we must make a crucial distinction. The Bible never opposes wealth itself, and it never opposes legitimate practices and occupations that produce wealth. As Proverbs 10:4 says, “Lazy hands make a man poor, but diligent hands bring wealth.” In fact, God is one who gives his people “power to get wealth” (Deuteronomy 8:18, ESV). Paul writes that Christ suffered poverty so that we might become rich (2 Corinthians 8:9), and that God would supply our needs according to his glorious riches by Christ Jesus (Philippians 4:19).
Therefore, we denounce those who, in the process of refuting the so-called “prosperity gospel,” blaspheme the word of God by their unbelief and tradition. Their rejection of God’s promises is arguably more sinful and destructive than the love of money, because it entails a direct denial of Christ’s atonement – the context of 2 Corinthians 8:9 is financial wealth, not spiritual wealth, just as Matthew 8:17 refers to physical healing, not spiritual healing. The atonement must include health and wealth, or we would remain sick and poor even in heaven. To deny this is to renounce Christ and the Christian faith.
Although the Bible says, “Forget not all his benefits” – that he both forgives all your sins and heals all your diseases (Psalm 103:2-3), faithless theologians and preachers make it a matter of orthodoxy to reject some of his benefits. They preach a different gospel. They refuse his benefits, and refuse to allow others to reach for them. They persecute those who teach God’s people to have faith in his promises, and to depend on him for health and wealth. They spread unbelief and heresy, thinking that they are doing God a favor, but they have become the servants of demons…[1]

I feel confident to say that Vincent teaches that both wealth and health are part of the atonement of Jesus Christ, and that these benefits, like forgiveness of sins, are available to faith.

A person responded with a critique about this saying, (we will call him Billy)

“This is nonsense. What he says denies Jesus’ words in John 16:33 “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” It demeans the poor woman whom Jesus praised because she gave all she had – which was a tiny gift. It mocks the suffering of the saints (read Hebrews 11, just for one). The only truth I see in it is that God teaches to work, & that in general that brings prosperity to his people. Paul suffered serious health problems, & God denied him healing. We are indeed to depend on God for health & wealth – as Paul did. But that does not mean God will always give it to us – Paul was neither fully healthy nor wealthy. I would not put much confidence to someone who steps so far aside from the full biblical teaching.”

First, I want to say that I do not represent Vincent, nor am I affiliated with him. I do not know how he would respond to this, and if you wish to know, ask him. However, this example is a good one for me to go over how people who go against the Scripture, will often try to defeat you by an onslaught of non-relevant points and arguments. Do not be intimidated; rather, take the knife they tried to stab God’s Word with, and turn it against them, along with your own sword. Here is a maximum that is like Wing Chung. If you see them move toward you, with the same arm you use to defend, attack their central point. Make them defend it. If you sense weakness and they begin to move back, then you still attack their center point. It is right that they defend against the unmovable Word of God that they have conspired against to attack.

I want to give two thoughts about this as we go through it. One is about logic in general. Logically speaking, at every point I am saying to myself, “what does this, logically have to do with that”? They seem to be points of non-relevance, over and over. The second is specific point about ad hominin attacks, which is again a point of non-relevance.

The first point brought up is John 16:33. Jesus said you will have trouble, but to take courage, because He already defeated the world. My first thought is what does this verse logically have to do with refuting the point that prosperity and healing are in the atonement and are accessed by faith? Part of the issue here is defining what Jesus meant by “trouble” and by “I have defeated it.” There are to main categories Jesus dealt with in the gospel of John, and in the immediate context. One is everyday troubles, such as sickness, poverty, demon harassment and (etc.). The other trouble was from persecution for the gospel of Jesus Christ. I will not be dealing with persecution trouble since this is not what Vincent addressed. But needless to say, even in persecution we are not without our weapons. Look at how Paul faced persecution and kept winning against the power of darkness. But that is for another discussion.

If John 16:33 only is referring to “persecution” trouble and Vincent was dealing with the category of everyday troubles, then this verse has no logical connection. If it deals with both, and Jesus “defeating” this only refers to us experiencing this victory in heaven, then this verse again has “no necessary connection” to everyday troubles.

If troubles refers to both(everyday and persecution) and Jesus’ victory has results that effect the present everyday troubles and heaven, then we start to see some logical connections in the right categories.

As for everyday troubles and Jesus’ victory having effects now, the context of John will give us clarity. Jesus says in the SAME chapter (John 16),

I will see you again; then you will rejoice, and no one can rob you of that joy. At that time you won’t need to ask me for anything. I tell you the truth, you will ask the Father directly, and he will grant your request because you use my name. “You haven’t done this before. Ask, using my name, and you will receive, and you will have abundant joy. .. you will ask in my name. I’m not saying I will ask the Father on your behalf, for the Father himself loves you dearly because you love me and believe that I came from God.”

Before this passage, Jesus tells the disciples, they will face persecution. And so, we now have two categories. One is persecution. The other is asking for anything, and then receive this anything so that, not God, but “you” will have abundant “joy.” This asking and receive anything, is in the broad category about everything and having joy from it. Thus, everyday troubles is included in this receiving and experiencing joy, if not the main point.

However, John 16 is in an unbroken dialog of Jesus talking to the disciples starting in John 14. Jesus says more on this topic. For example in John 14 it says, “Truly, truly I say to you, the one who believes in me, the works that I am doing he will do also, and he will do greater works than these because I am going to the Father. And whatever you ask in my name, I will do this, in order that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it,” (John 14:12-13). Vincent makes a critical observation about what Jesus means by “works” in this passage,

… He made a distinction between his words and his works. If you do not believe because of this thing, then believe because of the other thing. So by his works, he did not mean his words, or his ministry of preaching, but his ministry of miracles. Later in the discourse, Jesus said, “If I had not come and spoken to them…” (15:22), referring to his sermons, and then he said, “If I had not done among them what no one else did…” (15:24), referring to his miracles. He again made a distinction between his ministry of preaching and his ministry of miracles. It is not a matter of emphasis, but in this context, his “works” refer only to his miracles, and exclude his ministry in doctrine and charity.[2]

And so, Jesus command to pray and get anything is particularly referring to His types of miracles. What was one type of miracle Jesus did a large number of? Healing? Sickness and defective bodies and constant pain and suffering is indeed a “trouble.” In Acts 10 Peter says Jesus did good and “healed all” who were oppressed by the devil. The devil is described as troubling the people with oppression of sickness and defective bodies. The devil was a strong man, but Jesus was a much stronger man. The devil pushed but Jesus pushed harder. Jesus’ “works” defeated and overcame these persecutions of the devil. “You will face trouble, but take courage, for I have defeated the world.” The world is under the sway of the devil. Jesus says in John 16 that the “ruler of this world” is judged and defeated by Him.

What about money? Jesus needed some money to pay the price of the temple tax. Jesus told Peter to cast into the sea and he will find a fish with some money in it. “But so that we do not give offense to them, go out to the sea, cast a line with a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. And when you open its mouth, you will find a four-drachma coin. Take that and give it to them for me and you,” (Matt. 27:17 LEB). We are still in the “works” that Jesus did and to which are commanded to do in faith; we are still in the category of how Jesus’ works overcome troubles in everyday life. Jesus used a miracle/work to gain money to pay for a tax. Jesus used a miracle to gain money He and Peter did not work for to pay for tax.

Thus, to use John 16:33 against the use of faith to gain healing and money on the basis of the atonement is Plus Ultra stupid, and battles against Jesus’ direct command to be a disciple.

Billy, then says,

“It demeans the poor woman whom Jesus praised because she gave all she had – which was a tiny gift.”

The idea of category fallacies (which is a fallacy of non-relevance) has already been addressed, but it raises its ugly head again. Thus, what does this have to do with any necessary connection to that? Jesus is praising the woman’s faithfulness to give, even in her poverty. That is all that one might categorically say about this. Jesus said if you seek His Kingdom first, that He will give you monetarily (clothes and house) what the pagans seek after. Who knows, maybe right after this God blessed her with an abundance for seeking His kingdom? Maybe on this one issue the lady lacked faith to receive like she ought? Whatever the reason or whatever happened, we do not know! If the lady lacked faith to receive more money, then Billy’s critique amounts to an ad hominin attack against this precious lady.

Many Christians watch more politics than reading the Scripture and so they are more prone to make ad hominin fallacies(as one sees in the media) than valid deductions from Scripture. Just because person x failed to realize a promise, it is on them, it has no logical connection to God being faithful to do what He said. In fact, Paul in Romans 9 is defending such a point. Jesus in John 6, referring to why they do not believe, is defending this point by saying, the Father has not drawn them. The promise is not affected by millions of personal failures to realize the promise. Just because I failed to realize the promise that God has promised a way of escape from every temptation, it is on me; it has no logical connection to God being faithful to keep His promise. When the disciples could not cast out the demon, because of their little perverted faith, it had no logical connection to God being faithful to keep His promise about faith. Jesus turned around and cast the demon out, doing God’s will, and displaying the absolute certainty of God keeping His promise.

Billy then says,

“It mocks the suffering of the saints (read Hebrews 11, just for one).”

Again, how does Hebrews 11 have a logical connection with refuting the doctrine that healing and prosperity is in the atonement and acquired by faith? What necessary connection do birds have to do with refuting that 2+2=4 ?

Hebrews 11 mentions how person after person acquired healings, lands, wealth, children, great power, military victories and etc. What logical connection is there that refutes what Vincent said? Abraham received great wealth by being blessed by God, to make him a nation. How does that refute wealth by faith, when these examples give wealth by faith? Isaac received 100 fold in a time of trouble. Sure, he planted, but the 100 fold was not natural. It was supernatural. Joseph? Did he naturally earn his wealth as the second most powerful man in the greatest kingdom on earth? Did not God, give supernatural and overly abundant favor to him because of his faith? The woman with Elijah, she did work in the most lose term of working, by actually getting jars and pouring out the supernaturally reproducing oil; however, the whole point of this story is that God gave her wealth supernaturally, apart from her working for it, and on the basis of her faith. When Peter did the first cast, to pull out the piece of money from the fish’s mouth, was it work or recreation? How does receiving money supernaturally by faith refute receiving money by faith?

The last few examples of Hebrews 11 is in the category of persecution for the sake of the gospel. As said before, this is a separate category from everyday troubles. The promises of health and wealth and of victories and helps, largely are about these everyday troubles. Thus, these examples of persecution cannot be used as a necessary connection to refute healing on demand by faith, on the basis of the atonement.

If we mention Hebrews 11, why not also mention Hebrews 4, 8 and 10? Does not the preacher in Hebrews 10, after talking about the eternal priesthood of Jesus and the new covenant(contract), conclude with, “boldly approach the throne of grace.” Hebrews 4 shows us that going to God’s throne is not first about us giving God worship by giving Him something, but us going to Him and worshiping Him by receiving help from Him! We do not give to God, He gives to us. Think about that. The preacher makes the first application of Jesus and new covenant, as us going to God to “receive” unmerited favor for ourselves.

Billy then says,

“Paul suffered serious health problems, & God denied him healing. We are indeed to depend on God for health & wealth – as Paul did. But that does not mean God will always give it to us – Paul was neither fully healthy nor wealthy.”

The second thought I wish to address is Billy’s ad hominem attack, as odd as it seems, against the apostle Paul.

Why would I care, what Paul, personally accomplished in healing? I do not care, because it has no necessary connection to a promise that God has given. Paul was not perfect, and so he still sinned. The promise is that God has provided a way of escape from every temptation. Thus, does Paul’s failure to live perfectly have a necessary connection to refuting the promise? Who is at fault? Who is accountable for this? Who is responsible for this? God? Or Paul?

I do not understand why I need to say this! A person’s failure has no logical connection to God’s truth and promises. This is the same for biblical persons! People in the bible are not exempt from this.

Many so-called Christian are so dominated by media and politics, which use an unending use of ad hominem attacks, think more like the world than Scripture. Politics use ad hominem attacks constantly, and they are stupid for doing so. You should NEVER base your argument on a logical fallacy. So what if Hitler enjoyed and used math, it does not give a necessary connection that math is evil. So what, if Satan uses words to speak, there is no necessary connection that words are bad. I do not care if Peter had a failure and for a time went back to the law, there is no logical connection that the gospel is void, and no logical connection that law saves. Peter’s failure gives no necessary connection that God failed the promise to sanctify us. The failure is on the persons. God promises still stands for those with faith.

Bypassing the issue that there is NO passage in the bible that revealed Paul with a sickness, we will deal with the ad hominem issue, and assume Paul had a sickness, for sake of argument. It is telling that so-called Christians are comfortable with attacking Apostles with ad hominem assaults, to refute doctrines. Do you have no fear of God at all? Even if Paul was sick, so what? To attack him personally, is a logical fallacy. To attack him personally equates, you are NOT logically attacking Scripture’s argument of the promise. You have in essence strawman-ed the Scripture and God’s promises. All you have done is made your argument and yourself pointless. For a clarification about the “thorn in the flesh,” see Vincent Cheung, “A Thorn in the Flesh.”

One common issue with this I find is that some try to extract an ethic from God’s sovereign causality. Why would I care, if God sovereignly caused the disciples not to have enough faith to heal the boy? How does their personal failure have any necessary connection to me today? One category is ontology the other is ethics. God’s promise still stands. The lack of faith is their accountability and responsibility; God’s promise to heal by faith takes no collateral damage due to personal failures in this. You do not get ethics from ontology. Seriously, how stupid and wicked can you be? You get ethics from God’s command and promise, not from what God caused, or what you think God is causing. Do you really enjoy demonic divination so much that you force it upon God’s word?

Stop using God’s Word like Ouija board, you spiritual perverts.

The real horror is that such an attack is ultimately a personal attack against God. What their attack infers is that God’s character is the type of character that will give His beloved sons cancers and poverty, as part of His Divine Nature to do so! It also means an attack on God’s faithfulness in that God will give out cancers and poverty to His elect, even if they ask in faith to have it removed. God’s Word ascribe such things as the devils hate to mankind (Acts 10:38), and as God’s curse upon those He hates (Deut 28). This is not God’s thought to the elect, and it is not his promise to them. His thought is a “policy of thought and action”[3] of favor to them, and His promised action is one of salvation, healing, helping and uplifting for all those who call His Name in faith.

[1] Vincent Cheung. “Godliness With Contentment.” 2013. pg 13.

[2] Vincent Cheung. “Predestination and Miracles.”
Found in Trace. 2018. Pg. 75. (www.vincentcheung.com)

[3] Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg 78

“God’s Will,” – Is, A Fish for Fish

If [animal sacrifices provided by the priest] could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared…

For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.

Our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand.

For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.

And the Holy Spirit also testifies that this is so.

For he says, “This is the new covenant I will make
with my people on that day, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.

Then he says, “I will never again remember
their sins and lawless deeds.”

(Hebrews 10:2,10,12,14,16)

First we will discuss what “God’s will”[1] necessitates here, and Secondly, dive more into what it means for “God to be our God” and “we His people,” which is stipulated in the new contract.

Hebrews points out in more than one place that the result of “God’s Will,” (for us to be holy), is for us to approach His throne of grace and receive what we ask of Him

The first mention is in Hebrews 4. What is the application for knowing our high priest has redeemed us? The idea of having peace with God is the ability and position to approach God, in His throne room of grace, to ask and then to receive the help we are asking for. There is no way to spiritualize this away. It is about receiving what we are asking for. Jesus when talking about prayer to God, teaches us something that opposes eastern religious like Buddhism (etc.). Such paganistic religions teach us that even if we do not change God’s will in our prayer, we have changed inwardly for the better, by seeking God. People who say such things are spiritual perverts. They are deceived and blind. Jesus contradicts this superstition about prayer and God, by teaching us that God gives a fish for a fish, and the Spirit for the Spirit. Let Buddha be damned, and Jesus and His teaching be highly valued.

“Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or what man is there among you, if his son will ask him for bread, will give him a stone? Or also if he will ask for a fish, will give him a snake? Therefore if you, although you* are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him? Matthew 7:7–11 (LEB)

Since it is God’s, and not man’s definition that a “good” God gives you the very thing you ask for, anyone who teaches otherwise is spouting a doctrine taught from demons. Some bark up like mad dogs that, “what if you ask for something bad?” Yet this is not a relevant point because James says if you ask God for evil things (“God help me murder this person”), then you are God’s “enemy,” and so prayer is the least of your concerns. Since I am addressing Christians or those who at least claim to be so, and not sworn enemies of God, I will ignore logically non-relevant points. Thus, if you ask you will get what you ask for, Jesus says, in more than one way, in case we missed it. What Jesus is doing here with prayer, is the same He is doing throughout the “Sermon on the Mount.” You have heard it said “do not murder your brother, but I say to you, do not do it, even in your heart.” When Jesus teaches on judging people, His point presupposes that you are able to judge your brother, and to do it without hypocrisy. You do this by removing the wood from your own eye first. Some wicked fools say, “you cannot judge without hypocrisy”; yet, Jesus contradicts this in His sermon. He teaches the true ethical standard God demands for judging, and He expects His disciples to do it. It is good news to see in the new covenant, God promising to give us ethical power, “I will write my laws in your hearts.”

In this context of Jesus repeatedly correcting the low opinion of people’s thinking on God’s commands and standards, Jesus talks about “prayer and faith.” Thus, when we see Jesus saying, “if you ask God in faith, you get the very thing you ask for,” then we can infer the presupposition behind it, at least in the broad sense; and so, Jesus’ teaching is in opposition to the people’s low opinion of what they think prayer and faith should accomplish. It seems little has changed in 2000 years, for who can find a person who values and does prayer the way Jesus demands it? The Jews had a perverted and low view of prayer. From the Mount, Jesus corrects their error and describes the true ethical standard that God commands about faith. Whatever the low valuation of prayer the Jews had, it was not to the standard of, “if you ask in faith, you will get what you ask for.” Jesus is expecting and demanding, (just like He demands us to not even lust in our hearts after another woman), to pray and get what we pray for. Jesus in essence says, “You have heard it said, if its God’s will, then you might get what you pray for. But I say to you, It is God’s Will for prayer, if you ask in faith, you will get the very thing you ask for, because God is the good Father.” This is the type of Being we are dealing with. You must deal with Him and not someone else. Do you know Him?

Back to the two passages in Hebrews.

“So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive his mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most,”
(NLT Heb 4:16).

Next, after several chapters of doctrine and theology about how Jesus accomplished salvation, Hebrews 10, starting in verse 19 gives us the conclusion or result.

“And so, dear brothers and sisters, we can boldly enter heaven’s Most Holy Place because of the blood of Jesus.

By his death, Jesus opened a new and life-giving way through the curtain into the Most Holy Place.

And since we have a great High Priest who rules over God’s house, let us go right into the presence of God with sincere hearts fully trusting him. For our guilty consciences have been sprinkled with Christ’s blood to make us clean, and our bodies have been washed with pure water.

Let us hold tightly without wavering to the hope we affirm, for God can be trusted to keep his promise,”
(Hebrews 10:19–23 NLT)

God being faithful to His promise is in context of the New Covenant. We will talk more about this later.

Here we are again seeing the same thing. Since in “context” of Hebrews 4 defining approaching God’s throne is about getting answers to our prayers for help, it therefore, does not mean the opposite here. The end says, “for God can be trusted to Keep His promises.” The promise that He will not remember our sins, and that He will be our God who loving gives us help when we ask for it. The emphasis is on two points here by the preacher. One is the category fact or truths. You are holy in Jesus right now. You are beloved and stand before God without Him remembering your sins against you. The second, is that you stand firm, believing these truths. You stand believing you are categorically holy, righteous and a child of God. That you believe you can boldly walk into heaven and push the door of God’s throne room open, and then you ask like a beloved son, for Him to help you. And that you stand believing He is the Good Father as He defined Himself to be in His word, so that He will indeed give you bread for bread. The first part is always true, due to Christ’s finished work, whether or not a particular Christian has weak faith about it. However, if one has strong, unmoving faith about Jesus’ finished work, then truly you stand before God and He will answer your prayers.

The point is that Scripture makes the logical (or necessary) connection from Jesus’ atonement that makes us holy, to boldly going to God and getting “fish for fish, healing for a healing,” when we pray for help. Because the connection is not merely sufficient but necessary, then it is a “modus ponens” logical connection. If Jesus made you holy by His body, then you necessarily have access to boldly receive the things you ask for in faith.

If these two are necessarily connected, and they are according to Hebrews, then the logic of modus tollens applies. That is, if you deny the consequent you deny the antecedent. If you negate the application, you negate the foundation. If you negate getting our requests answered at God’s throne, then you negate being made holy by Jesus’ body. Novices play with the Bible like its play-dough. Their pet theories and traditions are not harmless when they make mistakes. They condemn themselves and turn the body of Christ in a spiritual casualty, in order to be fanboys of the past.

So to summarize, Hebrews knows no gospel that does not bring a person who is already perfected and “holy” to the throne of God, to ask and receive what we ask for. “God’s will,” is thrown around much today, but rarely do I see it used how the Scripture uses it. The preacher says it was “God’s Will,” to make us holy; however, we learn more. There was a pre-determined point for why God desired to make us holy and perfected. The necessary result (or a previous in order Decree of God) is a person, according to Hebrews, who by faith (who assents they have been made ‘holy’), stands at God’s throne, to ask and receive what they ask for. The conclusion is obvious, it is “God’s Will” for you to stand in faith, with your head held high, before His throne, to ask and receive a fish for a fish, mercy for mercy, son for a son, health for health, wisdom for wisdom, wealth for wealth, inner strength for inner strength, protection for protection in your time of need. To say this is “not God’s will,” is to logically say it is “not God’s will” for us to be made holy by the body of Jesus Christ.

Many educated people feel proud of their intellect and academia, but in their fanboy affirmation of the past–such things as cessationism and things like “only if it is God’s will” (negating God’s promises)—they expose themselves as plus ultra perverts. They think they know logic and knowledge; however, deductive logic, like math and truth, is not flexible. They try to bend the sword of truth to pervert it; however, they only end up impaled on it. Leave these voodoo practitioners, and return to standing firm in the truth that you are holy, and standing before the throne of grace. God made the world and defines His world as He wants. His Word defines you as already a holy child, who when you ask for help, then you will get the type of help you asked for.

The “Will of God” is that He is your God, and you are His people.

We just discussed the connection of God’s Will to prayer in His throne room (in context of Hebrews), now we will further look at this connection within the new covenant.

Hebrews 8 when quoting the Old Testament about the details of the New Contract says,

“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel on that day, says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their minds, and I will write them on their hearts.
I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

(Hebrews 8:10 -quoting Jeremiah 31)

Hebrews 10 reveals it was “God’s will,” for us to be made holy by Jesus’ body. Then a few verses later it quotes Jeremiah 31 (the new covenant promise) as proof for this, “I will no longer remember their sins.” However, it is important to remember to read this in context. Hebrews 8 quotes the fuller promise of the God’s covenant with the Elect, from Jeremiah. It mentions that “God is our God, and we are His people.” The logical connection is the new covenant. It was God’s Will for us to be made holy by the body of Jesus; the way this is given is the promise of the new covenant. In other words, if it is “God’s Will,” for us to be holy, which is a new contract promise, then the new contract is “God’s Will.” Also, God is not under any pressure or obligation when He makes a promise. He is the only being who has intrinsic self-existence, self-freedom and self-definition. Thus any promise He makes is by definition “His Will,” because in total freedom and foreknowledge and power He made a choice. Also, the new covenant was stipulated by God and not man, thus, it is perfectly what He wants, or the perfect stipulation of “His Will.” This contract given in oath of Jesus’ blood, promises that God will be our God and we His people. What does that mean? This is important because it is “God’s Will” for Him to be this to us. And it equally, God’s Will, for us to be this to God.

Isaiah 41:10 says regarding God “being a God to His people,” which is a commonly quoted promise verse (as it should be) says,

“Don’t be afraid, for I am with you.
Don’t be discouraged, for I am your God.
I will strengthen you and help you.
I will hold you up with my victorious right hand.”

About king Hezekiah it said in a more indirect way through king David, however, the point is the same, God is Hezekiah’s God, and Hezekiah is God’s people.

“Return; you must say to Hezekiah, the leader of my people, ‘Thus says Yahweh the God of David your ancestor, “I have heard your prayer and I have seen your tears. Look, I am about to heal you.” 2 King 20:5

However, the first major stating of this phrase and an explanation of its meaning is found in Leviticus.

“I will look favorably upon you, making you fertile and multiplying your people. And I will fulfill my covenant with you. You will have such a surplus of crops that you will need to clear out the old grain to make room for the new harvest! I will live among you, and I will not despise you. I will walk among you; I will be your God, and you will be my people. I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt so you would no longer be their slaves. I broke the yoke of slavery from your neck so you can walk with your heads held high,
(Leviticus 26:9-13 NLT)

This is a foreshadow of the New. That is, what you see here is much more so in the new blood oath, by Jesus Christ. The freedom from the slavery of Egypt is in the, New Contract, about us being freed from sin. Freedom from the conscience of sin and from Satan’s oppressive accusations, because God remembers them no more against us. So much so, we can march in the throne room of heaven to ask from God what we wish, “with our heads held high.” But that is just one part of “God being our God, and we being His people.” As being freed from Egypt is the foundation for the other blessings, so too within New Covenant. That is, God’s promise is NOT blessing them with surplus crops in Egypt, but in the promise land. Their blessings awaited them in the promised land, not in Egypt. They needed freedom from the yoke of slavery first. Jesus does this for us in the New Contract. He frees us from sin and its guilt, so that He has a righteous foundation to lavish all His other blessings. Our promise land is not so much a place, for it is foundationally being brought near to God. There is however, a place for Jesus’ throne, and yet, the scripture says we have already (past tense) been raised and set with Jesus at God’s right hand. . In 1 John 3 he goes so far as to command us to keep our thoughts where our lives are at, and our lives are not on earth, but are already hidden in Jesus, who is at the Power’s right hand. Thus, even if one wishes to make the promise land heaven, our lives are there. John also says in chapter 4 that “as Jesus is so are we in this world.” Jesus with awesome power, frees us from the law and Satan’s oppressive accusations against us. Now, He gives us a surplus of the Holy Spirit for miracles and healings; which is to say, since we are already in the promise land through Christ, Christ therefore, pours the promise land’s and kingdom’s power into us on earth by the Spirit. Paul even says Jesus became poor for us, so that we might become rich, by His substitutionary death (in context it is decisively about money). Thus, Jesus multiplies our bank accounts and barns, because, in Jesus, our lives are already connected to the promise land. Our lives are even connected right up next to the Power, because our lives are connected to the valuable Person who sits at the Power’s right hand. If the blessings were so great in the Old Contract, then much more now when the Promise Land we are connected to now, is the true heavenly one! He pours over us an ocean of unmerited favor that is all for the taking by faith. How could someone be so depraved, so as to despise the oath of God, confirmed by the blood of His Son?

“For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.”

MADE holy. This causality is God’s doing, and it is His promise. To be holy relative to or “before God,” is more than not being punished. In Ephesians 1 it says holy and “beyond reproach.” This means we are perfectly moral and flawlessly ethical before God, so much so, we are beyond even the hint of an accusation against the demand for absolute perfection. By the body of Jesus, this is now our reality, “BEFORE GOD.” Even if our sanctification is not perfect, it is a non-logical point, because God considers you holy and righteous before Him. And God is not fickle or emotional like man. He promised to treat you as holy and righteous and not something else. Thus He interacts and treats you as perfectly and morally righteous. However, our holiness and righteousness by the body of Jesus, which we have now, is a God-level holiness, because it was performed by Jesus Christ and given to us. And so, our position with God is not us standing somewhere in the back corner of God’s throne room or somewhere even farther; rather, our position NOW, is with Christ at God’s right hand. Do you understand the position you have now in Christ and before the Power?

Christ being at God’s right hand, presently enjoys and partakes of the goodness that rightfully belongs to being in that position. Yet, we are now with Christ! Thus, to be made holy by Jesus, is to be a partaker of the holy God, now.

To be made holy is similar to how Paul said that we were made righteous in Christ in Romans 5:19.

“For just as through the disobedience of the one man,
the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one,
the many will be made righteous (LEB).”

By God’s sovereign control over His own creation, He authored and caused Adam to sin, and then by this He caused all mankind to be made into sinners by His direct and absolute causality. But the reverse is also true, but much more. God sent His Son and by His righteousness (holiness) God caused the elect to be made righteous. God is sovereign. Man has no free choice relative to God’s control on the ultimate level. God without asking humanity, and humanity not being free from God’s causality, made them sinners. Then God made some of them into His righteousness. However, there is even more to this sovereign control of God. In the New Covenant, God, without our consent and without us not being free to do otherwise, also made Himself to “be our God” and “made us to be His people.” This New Contract is a packaged deal. If you negate one part, then you negate the rest.

To see what this means, consider the woman bent over for 18 years. Jesus said, because she was a daughter of Abraham it was “necessary” for God to heal His daughter. God was God to Abraham, and Abraham was God’s people. This is why Abraham was victorious when he defeated the 5 kingdoms and was blessed by Melchizedek, and why the other non-people of God were defeated. To be a true child of Abraham, means God is your God. We are so today in Christ (Galatians 3). This is a categorical truth. Recall an earlier comment about logical connections. A logical connection is only about “necessary” connections; logic is not about sufficient ones, for there is no valid inference with only sufficient connections. Thus, Jesus said it was “necessary” for God to heal this woman, and not merely a good or sufficient reason. If God promises to be your God and you are part of His family, it is “necessary” for Him to benefit you with the goodness He promised.

Not in another place, or in a different time, but here and now, God is our God and we are His people. Act like it. Receive from your Father’s table. If God put you at His table (i.e. in Christ at God’s right hand) then it is God’s Will for you to partake of the fatness of His table. You have heard it said that God disciplines His legitimate children, and this is true; however, the other side of the coin is also true. Taking food from your Father’s table is necessary for you to prove you are His legitimate child. Illegitimate children cannot ask and get what they want from God. You, take and eat. This is what the sovereign God has done. This is the type of Being His is. These things already belongs to you. It is NOT God’s will that you do not take it. It is His will, that you ask and receive what you ask for, knowing God is your God and you are His holy beloved child.

Endnotes——————

[1] I will not deal with the teaching that “God’s Will” can categorically mean two things in Scripture, for I have done that elsewhere. For a quick read, then see Vincent Cheung, “Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11.” The problem I often see is that most make a category error by mixing these two categories up. Conveniently, this fallacy is most often made when people try to avoid Jesus’ demand for us to get what we want in faith.

Jesus Finishes the Syllogism

Jesus Finishes the Syllogism:[1]

“Behold, a leper approached and worshiped him, saying,
“Lord, if you are willing, you are able to make me clean.”
And extending his hand he touched him, saying,
“I am willing, be clean.”
And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.” (Matthew 8:2-3)

The leper presents a partial logical argument or enthymeme. Most arguments are given in partial format for convenience. In this 3 premise modus ponens argument, the leper gives the first compound premise. The next two silent premises, is in reality the leper’s faith.

The partial argument when finished out relative to the leper:

H.1. (P) If You are willing, (Q) then necessarily you are able to make me clean.
H.2. (P) You are willing.
H.3. (Q) Thus, You are able to make me clean.

The interesting and precious thing here, is that Jesus finishes the man’s argument! That is, the leper gives H.1., and when Jesus engages the man, He finishes the argument with H.2. and H.3.

The leper says, H.1 (P) “If You are willing, (Q) then you are able to make me clean.” Jesus then responds, H.2. (P) “I am Willing.” And then the conclusion. H.3. (Q) “Be cleansed.”

H.1 (P) “If You are willing, (Q) then You are able to make me clean.”
H.2. (P) “I am willing.”
H.3. (Q) “Be cleansed.”

In logic books and in logic class there were often boring and unrelative arguments for examples, and which did not have an practical application to me. Yet, here before us, Jesus the LOGOS itself, when He teaches logic, not only helps us with our syllogism, but the logic lessons are relatable arguments that affects our lives with good, in the land of the living.

Endnotes—————-

[1] This is technically a Modus Ponens, or propositional logic, and not 3 premise categorical logic.

Deduction simply applies the knowledge

Helped a friend work out a syllogism yesterday, regarding God’s absolute sovereignty or causality. The important thing to remember here is that deduction is an application of knowldge, or that is, deduction does not manufacture new information and then add it to the conclusion, which is what induction does. For this reason all induction is a non-sequitur, that is, all inductive conclusion are, “it does not logically follow.” By importing new information not from your source premises, you just ruined all validity.

Deduction simply applies the knowledge already stated to particular instances. If the bible says, all men have sinned, then to say this to the particularly man Oshea (Oshea has sinned), is simply “applying” the knowledge. It does not makeup or manufacture new information to shove into the conclusion like induction does. Thus, when the Scripture shows a doctrine that God is the ulitmaite sovereign and absolutely controls all things, then to “apply” this knowledge one would need to affirmed it on every particular instance.

G.1: All [things that happened/ens] are [ caused by God].

G.2.: All [Adam’s fall] is [a thing that happened].

G.3. Thus, [Adam’s fall] is [caused by God].

Or since this is about causality, or ontology, I personally put such into propositional arguments. Here, I would put an extra conjunction in the antecedent, and so it would technically be a Natural Deduction format, but for simplicity, we will look at it as a basic Modus Ponens.

H.1. If (P) God caused/s all things to happen, and (Q) Adam’s fall is a thing that happened, then (R) God caused Adam’s fall.

H.2. P and Q.

H.3. Thus, R

Falling With the Rocks, Sinking With the Waves

“Though the mountains be shaken
and the hills be removed,
yet my unfailing love for you will not be shaken
nor my covenant of peace be removed,”
says the Lord, who has compassion on you. (Isaiah 54:10 NIV)

I posted this verse yesterday; however, I wanted to make some points about it. The most obvious point of this passage that God is saying centers on a simple use of logic. God’s logic lecture is this: Category (A) and its necessary connections, is not the same category (B) with its necessary connections. They are not the same; therefore, whether something is affirmed or denied in category (A), then it does not logically infer this other category (B) is affirmed or denied in the same way.

I happen to read this excerpt from Vincent Cheung yesterday, in which he was giving a similar logic lecture:

“We reject the positive thinking of self-help psychology. Yet there is a biblical faith, which indeed produces a positive outlook, and constitutes a spiritual and psychological power in the Christian. The two are different, and it requires some misunderstanding of both to mix them up. If you reject Budd[h]a, do you have to renounce Jehovah? What does one have to do with the other?”[1]

Psalm 91 says although 10,000 people perish at my feet, what does that have to do with me? There is no logical connection of 10,000 people dying right next to me, to me dying. The Psalmist is sitting under the shadow of God’s wing. He is in a different category, in a different location, in a different reality from these other people. Those people were under their own strength. He is under the promise of Yahweh to strengthen him and protect him. What applies to them, has no necessary connection to him. The Psalmist is logically saying this: “Even if there is no light in a deep cave, it does not logically infer that there is not a frog in my pond.” What does one have to logically do with the other?

Christians can forget that the consistency of this world we live, stands only on the word, and promise of God. God promised after the flood that there would be seasons on earth. This constant reality that the whole world revolves around, in which billions of people plan their calendars by every year, stands solely on the mere word and promise of God to do it.

Back to our verse. God is addressing a category error in the thinking of His beloved children. The mountains shaking is a different category of God’s promise being shaken. What does one have to do with the other? In the new testament this vast category difference is clearer. Paul tells us that we are (here and now) the righteousness of God. We are a new creation, so that the old has indeed past away, (past tense). Paul’s point is the old is gone, the new is here and now. You are already a child of God. Paul says he does not even consider Christians as mortals anymore, because they have been so drastically made into a new category of reality, in Christ. And as Vincent points out in “The “Already / Not Yet” Fallacy,”[2] the necessary consequent of being a new creation and a child of God is here and now, and not over there, and not some time in the future. Jesus’ resurrection of life, is not spiritual now and physical for later; rather, His lecture to Martha was that His resurrection is physical. It is for here and now. It is for those who believe.

So from now on we regard no one from a [human] point of view. …Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God… God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:16-18,21 NIV)

A good example of this is seen with Peter walking and then sinking on the water. Calm waves and stormy waves have no logical connection to the promise of Jesus commanding him to walk on the water. The only necessary connection of sinking in the water or walking on it that Jesus made was, “faith.” So what, if the whole world is shaken and stormy, the only necessary connection here for the child of God, is faith. God will do, what He said He will do.

It is interesting that many who think themselves spiritual have this necessary connection flipped upside down. They deny Jesus’ claim about the necessary connection of faith in the storm. To make it worse, they affirm the shaking mountains and stormy waves, infer that it is “God’s Will” for you to suffer, that it is “God’s will” for you to die with the 10,000. Their Satanic connection is for you to fall with the shaking rocks upon the mountain, and to sink in the stormy water, for the “glory of God.” Their condemnation is just..

As for us, let us sit in the secret place of Yahweh. Let us sit at His feet and be teachable children. Let us enjoy the safety under the promise of God’s wings. If we must, then let us cry out, “help my unbelief,” but let us never excuse our unbelief and then encourage others to join in our rebellion.

——-Endnotes——-

[1] Vincent Cheung. Sermonettes Vol. 2. 2010. Pg. 7

[2] Vincent Cheung. “The “Already / Not Yet” Fallacy.” From, TRACE. 2018. Chapter 2.

I say this sometimes for clarity, Vincent is the main pastor I read, and so I quote him often; however, I am not officially with him or represent him.

Revelation and Logic : Heirs with Christ

Romans 8:16-17, The Spirit himself confirms to our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, also heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer together with him so that we may also be glorified together with him. (LEB)

The NLT has this written more like a category logic, rather than how the LEB states in more in propositional format. However, the things being said are better stated as necessary category realities, rather than necessary “connections,” as in propositional logic. This is like the difference between metaphysics vs ontology; both indirectly imply other, but they are not the same thing.

This is another chain syllogism, like the one Paul makes a few verses later in 29-30.

This gives us a glimpse in the mind of God; into His goodness and boundless unmeritable favor given to His elect Children. What sort of inheritance does Jesus Christ get? Well, we get it to.

This also illustrates how truth claims cannot be observed but only revealed, so that category fallacies are not made. If one has a premise, “I am led by the Spirit of God,” and we know this is a positive thing, yet there is no way to conclude/infer into the category of “heirs with Christ” without being invalid and making fallacies. Thanks be to God, He has revealed such precious knowledge to us, so that we can make deductions and apply ourselves to them in hope; and we know Christian hope does not disappoint. This inheritance now include all sorts of things, even miracles (healings, resurrections, prosperity) and the power of God’s Spirit (Galatians 3:2-7).

All [those with the Spirits testimony] are [children of God].
All [children of God] are [heirs of God].
All [heirs of God] are [heirs with Christ].
Thus, all [those with the Spirit’s testimony] are [heirs with Christ].

The Fluidness Of Fluidness

Douglas Wilson commenting on the culture says,

“Euro-centric Truth?
The central driving engine of all this current pomo madness is the idea that a commitment to fixed, objective truth is itself a Euro-Western form of racism and oppression. …”[1]

This has been my experience of the culture as well.

First. Their “fluidness,” is a revised version of the white Greek philosopher, Protagoras, and his skepticism and relativism. The exception is that instead of public debates of the Skeptics Vs Plato or St. Augustine, Protagoras’ philosophy is applied in a political strong-armed way. I do not use inductive historical arguments, but for sake of argument we are assuming it. The point is that they are using a Euro-centric philosophy to say Euro-centric philosophy is bad. Stupid.

Secondly, they cannot attack objective truth without using objective truth; otherwise, their attack would also be an endorsement of what they are attacking. But if they are endorsing my position, then they are celebrating the fact Jesus is Lord, and they are wrong and under God’s judgment.

For their position to be true it would have to be false at the same time. If they attack my position it would mean their mom is a fish, and all dogs are trees, therefore, all cars are fingers.

In addition, fluidness must be, well, fluid. For example, a position of progressivism to be true, then the foundation of “progress” itself would also have to progress. Maybe it has already done so? And so, for fluidness to be true as a foundational standard, then the standard must also be fluid, so that fluidness might already mean to be rigidness.

Moreover, if they wish to say, all things are fluid except fluidness, and since this cannot be validly inferred from the standard, it would mean they must appeal to a higher first principle to produce such terms and knowledge. Will it be irrational empiricism, that when used with science commits a triple fallacy, and itself also falls into skepticism? But skepticism denies the law of contradiction.[2]

Third. Because skepticism (and all its siblings of relativism, fluidness, etc) denies the law of contradiction, it means their epistemology gives no knowledge period. Forget abstract concepts of ethics, and truth, their epistemology cannot give them terms such as “sky,” “man,” “tree,” or “dog.” A contradiction both affirms and denies the same term, thus, they cancel each other out in an infinite regress. Thus, you cannot affirm or deny anything. You cannot affirm your own position or deny your opponents. It means if they are thinking anything, they are denying their own position. Also, the laws of logic are not only laws of thought, they are also laws of reality. Back to our point of affirming or denying. Skepticism does not allow one to affirm or deny anything, but, to even say this with intelligence, one must affirm it or deny it. They use the very thing their position denies. A more pragmatic example might help. If one tries to deny their own existence, (“I do not exist”), they are forced to use their own existence to do it. Their use of it proves it, despite what their lips say. Thus, reality stops them from doing a contradiction in this world. A contradiction is something that has no being in the mind or in the world. A contradiction is implausible with metaphysics.

Lastly, Christianity has a doctrine of logic, and intelligence. The Bible also says that all others are false, and only God has revealed truth. If they must borrow the things necessary for any intelligence from the Bible, and because it also says all others are false, it means they are false by logical necessity.[3]

—–EndNotes—–

[1] The Grace of White Privilege. Blog. Nov. 18. 2019.

[2] Also, did not this philosophy of empiricism come from David Hume, and thus is Euro-centric? Did not this Euro-centric philosophy drive much of the colonialism, and evolution and science-materialism; but I digress, because I do not rest my arguments on induction.

[3] This is a modified argument I got from Vincent Cheung (Captive To Reason. 2009. 44). www.vincentcheung.com

Psalm 91:14-16 (Revelation & Logic)

Psalm 91
14 Because he loves me, therefore I will deliver him;
I will protect him because he knows my name.
15 He will call upon me and I will answer him;
I will be with him in trouble;
I will rescue and honor him.
16 With ⌊long life⌋ I will satisfy him,
and show him my salvation. (LEB)

The logical inference is simple. Stating this as a syllogism, (although it is more proper as a propositional argument), we have an A term, B, and a C term. That is, all (A) is (B) and all (B) is (C). The difference with this and the typical syllogism is the multiple ands or conjunctions. A simple conjunction is easy to prove with a truth table (see pic below). It does not matter if it is one extra “and,” or “many ands,” the validity will prove to be valid via truth tables—it does not matter if the conjunctions are (p) or (q) or (r). What matters is if all the extra conjunctions terms are true to begin with, which is the foundational issue with all syllogisms.

Instead of making a Natural Deduction or First Order Predicate logic with it—because we know the form is valid—will just put this into a basic Modus Ponens for simplicity sake. Also, the logical emphasis seems to be on the causality or necessary connection and not merely a categorical inference. It is not merely a sufficient reason, but a necessary ontology to which God insures absolutely. That is, by God’s causality Person X (A), will “necessarily” receive all the good (C) promised if they love and know Him (B).

Antecedent Premises:

(B) [ if a person loves God] and (C) [ …. know God’s Name]

Consequent premises

D [then this person is a person God delivers]
and, E [… God protects]
and, F [… God answers]
and, G [… God honors]
and, H [… God satisfies with long life]
and, J [… God shows His salvation]

M.1. IF B & C, THEN necessarily results in D & E & F & G & H & J.
M.2. B & C.
M.3. Thus, D & E & F & G & H & J.

M.1. (B) If a person loves God and (C) knows His name, (D) then God will deliver him, and (E) protect him, and (F) answer him when he prays, and (G) honor him, and (H) will satisfy him with His salvation and (J) will show him His salvation.
M.2. It is true that I do love God and know His Name.
M.3. Therefore, God will deliver me, and protect me, and answer me when I pray, and honor me, and will satisfy me with His salvation and God will show me His salvation.

Logic & Scripture: Psalm 46:1-2

Psalm 46:1-2

The categorical reality of not fearing trouble.

God is our refuge and strength, A very present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear. NKJV

The NJKV footnotes this phrase “present help,” as an “abundantly available help.” That is, God’s helping his chosen ones is very near and there is an overflowing amount of it.

The syllogism here is a basic E.A.E. or (negative, affirmative, negative) argument. We are told there is a category of people who fear trouble—because they ought to, and because it is proper for them to fear trouble if they are weak and have no one to help them against stronger troubles. However, God’s chosen ones are helped by Almighty God. The God who created the universe in 6 days can help. But more than able to help, the Lord of angel armies has promised to do so for His chosen ones. His help to them is overflowing and nearby. Since God is the greatest metaphysical and ontological reality, then there is no one, or no thing stronger. And so, there is no trouble that is greater than God. God at His weakest is stronger than man at his best. God’s Son has already defeated death and sin. Jesus has already make a public spectacle of Satan. In ultimate level ontology the scripture says, all move, live and have their existence in God (Acts 17).

And so, the “middle term,” that separates God’s chosen ones from any fear of any trouble is that God is completely on their side with an abundance of available help for them. One verse that sum this up in another argument, in a much more than form is Romans 5:10). “For since our friendship with God was restored by the death of his Son while we were still his enemies, we will certainly be saved through the life of his Son, (Rom 5:10 NLT).” Also, “If God is for us, who can ever be against us? Since he did not spare even his own Son but gave him up for us all, won’t he also give us everything else? Rom 8:31-32 NLT).” This is referring to both spiritual and natural blessings. See James 5:13-15. Also, Jesus in John 14-16 says several of times, to ask for anything in faith and then you receive it. And in other places He says if you ask for a fish, then you get a fish. All the promises are yes and to God’s glory in Jesus, yes, even all those promises in the Psalm (etc.) about God being our help, because the N.T. interrupters them as being so. Also, we have been grafted into the blessing of Abraham (Gat. 3).

This argument is dealing not directly with ethics or axiology—although it is indirectly doing so; rather, it is directly dealing with metaphysics. Salvation and God’s blessings for His children is a sub-category under metaphysics and ontology. It is about how God uses His absolute creation of existence and His absolute control over causality toward this group of people called the chosen ones.

The argument it is not saying you “ought,” not fear; rather, it is stating a categorical reality for God’s children. It is like saying, Lions do not eat stars, and, trees do not use glass to make food. And, God’s children do not fear trouble.

G.1. No [ persons who God is their present help ] are [ those who fear trouble ].
G.2. All [ we ] are [ persons who God is their present help ].
G.3. Thus, No [ we ] are [ those who fear trouble].

Or in plain English. We do not fear trouble.

Oshea Davis

Systematic Theology. Logic. Faith. Healing. Power.