Category Archives: Christian Metaphysics

Christology Overlords

I dislike having to give this note of warning on such a wonderful topic and focus, but it needs to be said. The forceful way some people use the hermeneutic and focus of Christ-o-centric, or Christ-centered or the redemptive historical reading of scripture is wrong and heretical. For some people the bible is not Christ-centered enough for them. As odd as it sounds, Christ is not Christ centered enough for them. And so they invent man-made theories to force most or all of the bible to be Christ-centered in a way that the bible is not. By doing this they exalt themselves and exalt man focused theories over the scripture and how the bible interprets itself.

This is pathetic, because when reading the bible with a redemptive historical approach, in a correct way, it can yield some beautiful insights.  However, if you take it too far you end up making Jesus and the Father fight one another, and cause the scripture to devour itself.  

For example the story of David and Goliath is not mainly about Jesus and His defeat of sin and death. This passage is not Christ-o-centric. There can be an additional insight taken from this story about Jesus and His defeat of sin, but it does not replace the original story as the main thing. Because the bible teaches us to moralize the bible for ourselves, then an additional insight or application of this story is to inspire us to use courageous faith to defeat Goliaths in our lives; however, this is not the main point.

There is an important reason for why this story is the main story and why there are grave consequences if you try to make the Christ-o-centric the main thing. David prays to God (a Word of Faith Confession), and thus, God is already the main power and author in the story. David even says by his actions everyone will know there is a God in Israel. The point of the story is for all to know there is a God who has chosen Israel.  Now, carefully think about the implication if you were say that a story where God is already the main power and author, is not the main story, but Jesus is, because Jesus is more central and important.  

The implication is that God is not the main thing, but rather God is. It is contradictive nonsense. Or, God the Father is not the main thing, but Jesus is. This is blaspheme. This is to make the scripture devour and fight itself.  This story with David and Goliath is a story already about God. You cannot therefore make it more God-centered. It is already God-centered to the max. A story where God is already the main author and displayed power does not need your help to make it more God-centered. A story where God is already the main author and power does not need your help by allegorizing God into it, as if God was not already there.

If a person did not already see God as the main author and power of this story, then I understand why they would feel the need to allegorize God into the story by making it Christ-centered. They are reading the story as if they are an atheist. God is not there and so they need to allegorize God into a story where God is not present.  This happens because their Christ-o-centric theories have become so all consuming that when they read the bible they do not even recognize the Father or the Spirit. They do not see God already in the passages, and so they need to allegorize Jesus into it so that the passage now becomes God-centered.  

Vincent Cheung even noticed a pastor bragging about this.

“A well-known pastor and professor was teaching a group of children something about biblical theology. They came upon a passage in which Christ performed a healing miracle. The pastor persisted with one of the children until the poor thing finally surrendered to the interpretation that the passage was not about the healing miracle, but about Jesus Christ. But the passage was already about Jesus. Why did the pastor forbid the child’s initial understanding? The advocates of biblical theology and the redemptive-historical approach are fond of boasting that they find Jesus on every page of the Bible. The problem was that this particular page revealed Jesus Christ the healer, and as one who would heal those who ask by faith. You see, this is what the theologians resent. This is the thing that the pastor and professor refused to permit. He had to destroy it before faith in this Jesus grew in the heart of the child. He had to murder this Jesus before he could take root in the next generation. And so he did it. And then he wrote a book and boasted about it. But Jesus said that someone like this should go kill himself (Matthew 18:6).

He claimed a miracle is only a “sign” that points to Jesus Christ. But which Christ? What does the sign tell us about this Christ? Does the sign “Christ is a healer” point to a Christ who is not a healer? Does the sign “Christ heals those who come in faith” point to a Christ who does not heal those who come in faith? How do you pull this off? Magic! What would a sign have to say to actually tell you that “Christ is a healer” and “Christ heals those who come in faith”? You just won’t let it happen, will you? You will allow Christ to be only that one thing about him you still believe in and nothing else. You will let Christ be only as big as your microscopic faith, instead of increasing your faith to embrace all of Christ. When the Bible reveals a Christ that is bigger than your faith, you cry heresy. This is what you mean by Christ-centered, but you make everything, including Jesus himself, centered on what you decide…”[1]

The issue with their Christ-o-centric theory is that the Father, the Spirit, the Scripture, and even Jesus Christ Himself are not Christ-centered enough.  The scripture is not God-centered or Christ-centered enough for them. Jesus is not Christ-centered enough for them, and so they even end up correcting Jesus by allegorizing passages directly about Jesus to not be about Jesus and what Jesus is doing and teaching, but instead be about Jesus. Nonsense. This nonsense occurs because they have a version of Jesus they like and allegorize all scripture, even Jesus and His own words into this version.

Christ-o-centric theology has become a smoke-screen to allow elites to practice liberal theology by covering it up with the most gospel sounding words possible. They have a doctrine of Jesus that is liberated from the confinement of scripture. They do not like the Christ that the scriptures reveal and so they create a false doctrine of Christ and then force the entire bible into this false doctrine of Jesus. They call it Christ-o-centric and then accuse others for not being Christ-centered when they do not adhere to this anti-Christ version of Jesus they allow. They are the worst of the worst of religious elites.

A Jesus who says, “your faith saved you” (regarding forgiveness of sin) and “your faith healed you,” is a Jesus that they cannot allow to live. If I teach on these verses, then I will get corrected by them, saying I am too man-centered. Since this is a direct teaching from Jesus’, they are correcting Him not me. And if they think, if they were put back in Jesus’ time that they would not correct Him, then they are delusional. They would correct Him with great zeal. Since Jesus it the main protagonist of His own existence, then Jesus serving man, healing man and praising man for their faith, is as Christ-centered as it gets. It is already Jesus to the max. It is already Christ-centered on steroids. The issue for many, is that the Jesus revealed by scripture is a Jesus they hate.

At that time the argument seemed so pious. The church had strayed from the path by paying too much attention to men, holding services for healing, prosperity and marriage, when the purpose of worship should be the glory of God, not the needs of men.

Liturgical music should talk less about us, and more about God and Christ. Preaching should be focused on the person and work of Christ, and not on our instruction for healing and prosperity, for example.

Men need to be degraded and humiliated. God should be the only one to receive glory. That was the message.

It was through Vincent Cheung’s writings that I began to realize the hypocrisy of these people. To paraphrase, if you are more Christ-centered than JESUS Himself, then this whole time you have been only self-centered, and still marveling at being so Christ-centered!…

When a church holds an event to restore marriages or heal the sick. The immediate purpose of such meetings is to use divine resources to meet human needs, and in this sense it seems that God is being used as a springboard.

However, since people are being saved by divine means rather than by human tools, it is clear that the meetings are theocentric. They would be completely man-centered if psychology were used to heal relationships and medicine to heal bodies.

Because it is the wisdom and power of God that is in action — exactly as God wants it to be — it is not God who is being used, it is he who uses human needs and the activities of the church as a springboard to magnify his attributes and results in the world.

Christocentrism is a hermeneutical and liturgical principle that lacks a biblical basis. Nothing in the Bible suggests that the word of God should be interpreted in a Christocentric way or that everything in worship should be Christocentric. The Bible is messianic, not Christocentric. Some things in it are about Christ, others are not. It is not correct to say that Jesus is the subject of the Bible, if by that we mean that every sentence in the Book is about him. It isn’t, and we don’t need to pretend it is. Some sentences, paragraphs, chapters and even books are not about him — although they can be read in his light and may contain specific references to him, whether literal or figurative. For the Bible to be Christocentric to the standard demanded by those who make a big deal about this need, it would have to be a book about Christ and not about us, but the Bible is a book about us too, therefore, it is not Christocentric. Defenders of Christocentrism consider it Christocentric only because they distort it to fit their standards..

This shows that Psalm 24 is not Christocentric. The second part can be taken as referring to Jesus Christ, but in the poem as a whole Jesus shares space with the believer. The Christocentric preacher was forced to distort the passage so that the man would not have space in his exposition. In the process he ended up saying that God’s people are made up of people with dirty hands, impure hearts, who turn to other gods and swear by idols. This is probably true of him and those who approve of him, but it is not true of anyone who actually belongs to God’s people.

Advocates of this principle are often eager to humiliate man, even man who has already believed in Christ. They say, for example, that the believer’s righteousness is like filthy rags, and that our best works are nothing. However, the Bible says that we do good works by the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. When they denigrate our good works, they are attacking the righteousness that God produces in us. In their zeal to offend man they end up offending God.…[2]

In a galaxy not so far away, there exists a breed of theological overlords who wield the “Christ-centered” hermeneutic like a lightsaber, slicing through scriptures with a zeal that would make even Darth Vader blush. These folks have decided that not only is the Bible not Christ-centered enough, but apparently, Christ Himself isn’t Christ-centered enough for their taste.

Picture this: David and Goliath, the ultimate underdog story, gets hijacked. Instead of a tale of faith and divine power, these overlords twist it into a convoluted allegory where Jesus is both the slingshot and the stone, leaving poor Goliath to symbolize… well, who knows? Sin, bureaucracy, or perhaps bad WiFi?

These scripture-twisting maestros have turned the Bible into a one-man show starring Jesus, where even God the Father gets sidelined like an understudy. They’ve created a Christological echo chamber where every story, prophecy, and proverb must echo “Christ” or be deemed heretical.

In their quest for ultimate Christocentrism, they’ve managed to argue that when Jesus heals or teaches, it’s not really about what Jesus is doing but about some abstract version of Jesus they’ve concocted. It’s like saying the main character of a movie isn’t the main character because he doesn’t fit the sequel they’ve already written in their minds.

So here we are, caught in a theological tug-of-war where the Bible’s rich tapestry is reduced to a single thread, and that thread must be Christ, even if it means tying the scriptures into knots. Let us  return to sanity, where logic and categories are not turned into a child’s playdough; let us leave this mono-themed Christ-fest where every page must scream “Jesus!” or be cast into the outer darkness of “not Christ-centered enough.”

Let’s return to scripture and logic and leave these elitist zealots who can’t different that clouds and rocks aren’t the same thing. While Christ is central, He doesn’t need to be the center of every verse to validate His divinity or our faith.

(AI Grok, 2024, summarizing my essay.)

[1] Vincent Cheung. All Things Are Yours.  Sermonettes Vol.9. 2016.  Pg. 16-17

[2] Gabrial Arauto. Translated to English by Google Translate.

I WAS Healed or I Will be Healed?

Abraham said, “I am the father of many nations,” and not “I will be the father of many nations.” Abraham’s confession was exactly what God promised and it was a contradiction to reality. Faith was stronger. He confessed he was already the father of nations before it was true. This is not a lie, because faith in God’s promise is both truthful and is a stronger power than reality.

Jesus’ exchange with the Sadducees, about the resurrection, showed Jesus pointing out a category fallacy with present tense and past tense. The scripture said God present tense, “I am the God of Abraham and Isaac,” even though they had died many years before. But the Sadducees’ presupposition was the passage was recorded in the different category of past tense, “I was the God of Abraham.” After this Jesus publicly shamed them and shut them up. This passage from Jesus shows us how important logic is; it shows us you cannot violate the laws of Contradiction and Identity and have category fallacies.

The importance of this is significant for faith. Faith is assenting to what God has said. You cannot assent to what God has said, if you change the tense of verbs, because then you change categories and thus change the meaning.

What if Abraham said, “I will be the father of many nations?” If he said it, then it would be a confession of unbelief in God’s promise not a faith confession.  Faith, as shown above, is only faith if it confesses what God said, it is not faith if it changes what God said.  Even such a small change, as a verb tense, Jesus shows that you are greatly mistaken about God’s word and power. One change to a verb tense and you have different doctrines. You cannot confess in faith, while being greatly mistaken about the word you are confessing.

Isaiah 53 says in the past tense that Jesus bore our sin, but also past tense bore our sickness and then present tense by His stripes we are healed.  There is no future tense. Regarding our sickness they have been and are healed.  Thus, Peter in his letter says, 1 Peter 2:24, that we were healed by His stripes.

This is why the faith teachers are correct when they teach you to confess, “By the stripes of Jesus I WAS, or I AM healed,” and not that I will be healed somewhere in the future.

Lastly consider Jesus’ teaching on faith itself.

“And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.” So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. 

Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.” (Mark 11:21-24 NKJV)

Jesus teaches us that when we pray that we are to believe (past tense) that we have received what we asked for. He says if you believe that you (past tense) have received, then you will (future tense) receive them. As with the fig tree, they found it, the next day dried up from the roots. It took a day for the full 100-fold manifestation to appear. The presupposition for Jesus is that God’s promise to give us anything we ask for is a past or present tense application, and not future. Even if the answer appears to be delayed, the example of Daniel, shows us that it was answered the moment Daniel prayed, but was delayed by demonic attacks. Thus when you pray believe you have received what you ask for.

This does not mean we never say, “this will happen,” for in some context this would be appropriate, or that God never answers a prayer if the verb tense is wrong; however, we should always strive for perfection in our understanding of God’s promise and speaking it in the same. Faith is assenting to what God has promised, not category changes to it.

Think about Abraham and his confession of faith that he “is” the father of many nations before it happened. This is what faith does. The Israelites shouted and praised God for the defeat of Jericho, before the walls fell down. Faith gives a victory shout before it happens, because we know when we prayed it was answered.  Faith is the contradiction to what we see, but because faith gives us direct contact with God and His power, we know faith is stronger than reality. Because God is sovereignly faithful to fulfill His promise, we know when we ask, God has already given it to us.

Resurrection According The Scripture

Paul says in 1 Corinthian 15:4 that we know Jesus was resurrected because the Scripture says it. This is good reasoning. This is the best type of deductive logic. This is adhering to the laws of Contradiction, Identity and Excluded Middle in perfection. This is thinking like the LOGOS.

Anti-Christians often dislike this type of answer and find it unacceptable. They want you to say, “we know the resurrection is true because of some empirical evidence proves it.” This is of course delusional. Empirical evidence cannot prove any statement of reality because empiricism, observation and scientific experimentation make a triple logical fallacy. This foundation of knowledge makes knowledge impossible. It violates the law of contradiction because it makes knowledge skeptical; and it leads to skepticism, because empiricism, observation and experimentation are fallacious.  Any worldview that uses such a foundation for any knowledge is to be mocked and dismissed.

It is a good thing that resurrection is not proved by our sensations, observations or experimentation, because if it was then resurrection could never be proven. Since our sensations and observations cannot prove any statement of reality, such as water, rocks or trees, then it therefore cannot prove resurrection. Just because some fools use delusional means to interact with the world does not mean you are to follow this example, or compromise by making a bible and delusion into a hybrid. No, you expose how dumb their source of knowledge is and destroy it by logic and the scripture.

The only source of knowledge is God’s revelation. God’s word says there is resurrection and that Jesus was the first born from the dead. Just as He experienced physical resurrection, we also will experience a physical resurrection with a new body. What Jesus experienced we experience. This is God’s love and promise to us.

The Scripture and God are interchangeable, and therefore, Paul says Jesus was raised according to Scripture. We ought to have renewed our minds so that no truth statement about reality has any foundation in our senses, observation or experimentation. As Paul says, we live by faith not sight. This is why Paul says, (Acts 26:8) why should you think it incredible that God raised the dead?

The Gospel Is The Baptism Of The Spirit For Miracles

If Jesus sitting on the throne is the foundation eschatology, and His commands for power still stand, then applied eschatology for Christians is baptism in the Spirit, faith and miracles.

“Always remember that Jesus Christ,
a descendant of King David, was raised from the dead.
This is the Good News (GOSPEL) I preach,”
 2 Timothy 2:8 (NLT).

Tradition and men have a tendency to limit God, man and the gospel. In this case they limit Jesus’ nature, His position of authority and glorification of man in the gospel. Imputed righteousness and being declared righteous is an awesome doctrine, but there is more that the bible defines that belongs to “good news,” than a few narrowly selected pet doctrines. Men are habitually and systematically man-centered, and this leads to limiting God, His gospel and the elect. This happens because their worldview, despite having many scriptural terms, starts with themselves. They see the world from their limited human experience and then force God, the gospel and the elect into this limitation. We know who they serve.

Paul teaches in this passage that the gospel includes that Jesus was raised from the dead “as a descendant of King David.” This refers to the promise God made to “King” David about a descendant that will come from him. There are two aspects of this promised person. One, he will be the saving Messiah. The second, is that He will be a “King” on a throne, ruling in power and authority.

This descendant of King David, according to Paul, is connected to the fact that Jesus was raised. When you and I are resurrected, it is not necessarily connected to us sitting at God’s right hand as King and Judge over all things as what is inherit in us; however, this is precisely what it means for Jesus. Because we are connected to Jesus as part of His body, by God’s decision, then we share in His power and authority. Not as the head, but we do indeed share in what Jesus’ experienced. We are not just sub-heirs, but co-heirs. Jesus judges in authority, and likewise we will also one day judge angels, etc. The point is that what happens to Jesus in resurrection, also happens to us. For example, Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15 because Jesus had bodily resurrection, we to will have a bodily resurrection.

Jesus is raised as the promised King, from King David, who sits on a throne of power. That is, Jesus’ resurrection by the Father from the grave, cannot be disconnected from the fact that His rising is a rising to sit on a throne. The doctrine of Jesus rising from the grave is the same thing as His rising to sit at the right hand of the Power, because the two cannot logically be separated. One cannot separate Jesus’ resurrection from His sitting on the throne as a King. Jesus raised from the grave is not to some nebulous place in the clouds. We are told and know where He was raised to. He was raised to the right hand of the Power. This doctrine for Paul, is “the gospel he preached.”

Also note, this is Paul to Timothy. Furthermore, this is the gospel Paul preached to the gentiles; thus, is not a specific doctrine for Jews or something like that.

Peter, in the first recorded apostolic gospel sermon, harps on this aspect of Jesus being King David’s descendant, who was raised to the position of throne power and authority. Peter devoted a good amount of space to make this point about Jesus. 

Peter sums up Jesus’ rising as the seated King from David as,

“both messiah and King.”

Thus, this promised descendant from David, according to Peter includes both the “saving Messiah” and “King” aspect to it. The resurrection is part of the gospel, most would admit, but the resurrection cannot be separated from that fact that it is a resurrection as a King to a throne. This last part of the gospel is the focus of eschatology, as it pertains to this side of eternity and Jesus ruling. This power the Father “worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavenly places,  above all rule and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this age but also in the coming one, and he subjected all things under his feet,” Ephesians 1:20-22. Again, Peter does not separate the saving and Throne aspect of Jesus Christ as the risen descendant of David. It was the gospel Paul preached and it was also the gospel Peter preached. The promise included both, and thus cannot be separated by theologians without blaspheme.

Peter then makes connection to the baptism of the Holy Spirit. His argument is this. Jesus as the descendant from King David, was raised to the right hand of God. What does Jesus do, sitting at the right hand of the Power?  Peter argues that in His position of power, has poured out power on His chosen ones, through the baptism of the Spirit. What does this newly seated King do with His position of Power? Well, He starts to empower His people. What will this seated descendant King of David do with all this authority and power? Peter’s answer is this: He gives us His power and authority so that we can overcome the world and spread His kingdom to every corner. Jesus gives us power to cast out demons, to heal the sick, and make mountains obey us. This is what Jesus does with power.

Thus, to say, “the gospel is the baptism of the Spirit, for speaking in tongues, casting out demons and healing the sick,” is true and should have no resistance. Jesus had to be cut up into a bloody pulp, under the Father’s wrath, and then resurrected to the right hand of Power, in order to have a contractual right to pour out the Spirit for power.  Thus the gospel is the baptism of the Spirit for miracle power; the gospel includes more, but not less than this. It is no less the gospel than the forgiveness of sins, because both are produced by the same thing, which is the blood, death and resurrection of Jesus to the right hand of the Power. To be against the statement, “The gospel is the baptism of Spirit for miracles,” is to trample the blood, death and resurrection of Jesus to God’s right hand.  To be against the baptism of the Spirit for speaking in tongues and power, is to be against the blood, death and resurrection authority of Jesus Christ. To be against the baptism of the Spirit for miracles, is to mock how the reigning Jesus Christ uses His authority from the right hand of the Power.

Paul said if you deny the resurrection then your faith is destroyed, and your hope is vain. However, there are more subtle ways to deny the resurrection rather than doing it directly. In the logic of Modus Ponens it would be resurrection as the antecedent and the manifestation and effects and application of resurrection would be the consequent. But the logic of Modus Tollens is also valid. If you deny the consequent, then you deny the antecedent. If you deny the baptism of the Spirit for miracles and speaking tongues, then you deny the resurrection of Jesus to God’s right hand.

Men and tradition, who use many scriptural terms, mock the gospel continually. You need to remove such a faithless mocker from your life. They spit on the blood of Jesus, trample on His death and make a mockery of His decisions made from His position of authority. Do not even eat or wash your hands with such people. Instead, honor the decisions that Jesus made, as He sits in all authority, at the Father’s right hand. We must seek to be baptized by the Spirit and to be constantly growing in Spiritual power for miracles and spiritual physics. The Spirit will become your personal instructor, as if Jesus Himself were right there with you, giving you instruction. The baseline spiritual power, as recorded in Acts that all get for being baptized, is speaking in tongues for inward edification (1 Corin 14:4,18). If you must start, then start there, and then seek more than more power. I have heard many ministries say they started after they first had a season of increased speaking in tongues. This gift is a spiritual gateway to other spiritual gifts. In my experience this gift is not utilized as it ought, and many have paid harsh price for its neglecting. And if you don’t care about yourself, then have some compassion and care for others and God’s kingdom expanding. Praying in tongues will help you have power to expand God’s kingdom.

God Is Sovereign OR only Sometimes Sovereign?

If God causes all things,
then God caused x to happen.

Some things are so simple that a child can grasp them and apply them in constant success. Many things in the Scripture are this way. Peter did say some things from Paul (Scripture) are hard to understand, but the presupposition behind such a statement would be that most of the Scripture is not so hard to understand.

The reason simple things become difficult, tedious, and annoying is due to man’s unbelief in God to begin with.  The problem is not due to God’s perfect ability to communicate, produced by God’s infinite mastery of His own mind and understanding of man’s mind (which He created); rather, the problem resides in man’s refusal to believe what God has said. Men truly detest and hate God, even many so-called Christians.

I heard one Andrew Wommack try to boil the entire issue of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty to one quick dictionary lookup, regarding the word for “sovereign.” The dictionary, according to him said it has to do with a king or government ruling a nation. His argument is that because an earthly king does not control all the thoughts and actions of his people God does not. This is a very stupid mistake. When was it a good idea to define things by a mere dictionary lookup? Wommack in other doctrines such as, “You already got it,” (which I find edifying) will define the doctrine how the text and passage does it. Why not do it for God’s sovereignty? Why not define God’s sovereign control how Romans 9 defines it? Before the twins made choices of good or bad God already decided to love and hate one of them. Why not define God’s sovereignty how the bible tells us God uses His power and control? The lesson here is that when you see a pastor boil down an entire doctrine to one dictionary lookup and then apply it to God, then you need to mock it and disregard it as trash. If they call themselves pastors, then they need to define terms how the bible and the relevant passages do.

We will get more into logic in the next section, but we will go over some there, since many pastors and theologians seem to think the Laws of Logic (contradiction, identity and excluded middle) somehow do not apply to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty.

“ FIRST. After going over the attributes of God, in both spiritual and metaphysical aspects, it leads to a clear doctrine about God’s sovereignty or control over all things.

At this point, I could say-

“(1) All dogs are warm-blooded.
(2) This bulldog is a dog.
(3) Therefore, it is warm-blooded,”

-and this entire section on God’s sovereignty could be finished in one short paragraph. However due to the vehement resistance to God by bullying the mind with stupidity, this section must deal with stating, the most painfully obvious things. For those who already have a willing mind to believe what God says, I apologize for this. However, this will be a good practice in critical thinking skills and a refresher for what you do know.  

The Bible teaches that God is absolutely and directly sovereign over all things. Or stated as a modus ponens.


M.1. (p) If God causes all things directly and absolutely, (q) then God caused x, h or w to happen, directly and absolutely.
M.2. (p) God does cause all things.
M.3. (q) God caused x, h and w.

In logic, if the “all” or “some” is not stated (directly or indirectly), then the rule is that your category statement assumes an “all” universally-distributed proposition.

I recently heard some moron say something like, “God sovereignly moves things at the universal level, but allows man to move things at the particular level.”

If I were to say this nicely, the person probably does not know what the terms, “universal” and “particular,” means; they are just talking about things as if they know about them, when they do not have a clue, and are just making things up. However, words have meaning, as the Bible says so. Thus, if we are to take what this person is saying, then it is bottom of the barrel stupid.

Logical inference works because particulars are necessary applications of universals. For example. When the Bible says, “all have sinned,” this is only “universally true” if every “particular” instance is also true. If it is not sometimes true in particulars, then it is not universally distributed to all things in a said category. Logic or deductive inference is an application of the universally distributed premise applied in particulars. Thus, if all men have sinned, then if I refer to any human, I am able to affirm that this human as sinned. Therefore, a correctly done deduction from Scripture is what the scripture asserts, because it is only applying the universal(distributed) premise of scripture to the particulars. It is only pointing out information that is already there.

For example. If I were to say,

“it is universally true that all dogs are mammals.
This bulldog is a dog.
Thus, this bulldog is a fish.”

This syllogism is invalid; however, if the concluding premise is indeed true about reality, then it is not universally true, that all dogs are mammals, for in some “particular” instances dogs are fish, and not mammals. Rather than just a contrariety, this is what a true contradiction is when applied on the same premises. A ‘some are not’ premise is a contradiction to an ‘all’ premise.

Thus, if you say “it is universally true that God is sovereign, but then in some particular cases in man, man is sovereign, then you just denied the universal.” You could say God is mostly sovereign, and mostly moves things; but you cannot say God is sovereign as a universal statement without violating the law of contradiction. Or you could say, although it would be odd—it is universally true that God is sometimes sovereign. It would be odd, because an “all” distribution of category in a predicate is presupposed as a “all” if left unsaid. In mathematics this category distribution of all, is in fact called a “universal statement.”

Subjects in universal propositions refer to all in that category (All men have a worldview), while those in particular propositions refer to some (Some men are theists). But what about the predicates? This is where distribution comes in.

Distribution is to terms what quantity is to propositions. A term is said to be distributed when it refers to all the members of its class. Distribution can be designated by a stated or implied all.[1]

For example, if I said, “ravens are birds,” then it is assumed to be that “all” ravens are contained in the predicate of “birds.”

If a particular denies your universal category statement, then the universal is not a “all” category statement but a “some” category statement. That is, if I said, “this particular raven is not a bird,” then it is not a true statement that “ravens are birds.”  Likewise, if it is true that some particular humans are not sinful, then the Bible’s universal statement that “all” have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory is a false statement of reality. It is not a universal “all” statement.

Some at this point, who have never studied logic might say, “I sort-of already know this, and after thinking about it now, it is what the Bible teaches.”  If you understand this then, you are already leagues above the intelligence and faith of many pastors and theologians.  

Some might also say, “well, maybe the people above, meant universal, how a human authority might issue a policy at the top level, but a lower person directly applies it.” First, if so, then so what? How does “horse crap” have any logical necessity to proving if 2+2=4? To confess the above is to confess you deny God is not sovereign over everything, and that there are other causalities that moves things around, separate from God doing it.

Such an admission, does a slight-of-hand fallacy to make it sound like God is sovereign over reality, when they freely admit God is not. Many seem to gloss over this; God is not man. Let us say that again. God is not man. God’s authority is not like human authority. God’s control is not like human control. What moron would even compare the two? God’s metaphysical transcendence is not compatible to man. You cannot relate the two in an intelligent way. Color has nothing to do with the concept of numbers. Why do I need to say this to adults?

The spiritual, ethical and emotional connection behind all this stupidity is a desire for the praise of men. Rather than just saying, “God is not sovereign over all things,” they perform slight-of-hand fallacies by still affirming the opposite of what they believe, but then deny their doctrinal statement in application. If these people truly believed they honored God with right theology, then they need to say, “God is only sometimes sovereign,” as their doctrine and defend it. Yet, they affirm a contradictory doctrine despite saying they love God. Therefore, we conclude, their love and loyalty to God, cannot be as great as they say. Instead of standing their ground on what they believe, they please men by affirming a doctrine they disagree with. Then in order to affirm their own doctrine, they do a 180 and deny God is sovereign over all things in applications/particulars of life. Their true goal then is to be men pleasures. Their doctrine is a doctrine of men, by men, for the pleasure of men. They live in a kingdom of self. They are thoroughly man centered.  Their condemnation is deserved.

Another fool once said to me, “God IS absolutely sovereign over all things, but in order to let man have free-choice, gave up some of His sovereignty.” Again, this is a self-righteous, man-pleasure. It is a slight of hand, to hide what they are affirming. God IS not absolutely sovereign anymore, because by their own words, God gave up some of His sovereignty over all things. Thus, God WAS sovereign, but IS NOT absolutely sovereign over all things anymore.  Since we are dealing with present reality in most applications, their doctrine is, “God is sometimes sovereign, and sometimes not.” Any affirmation other than this, would be a lie for them.

[1] Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). Come, let us reason: an introduction to logical thinking (p. 30). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

Applying God’s Sovereignty

“8 But the officer said, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come into my home. Just say the word from where you are, and my servant will be healed. 9 I know this because I am under the authority of my superior officers, and I have authority over my soldiers. I only need to say, ‘Go,’ and they go, or ‘Come,’ and they come. And if I say to my slaves, ‘Do this,’ they do it.”

10 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed. Turning to those who were following him, he said, “I tell you the truth, I haven’t seen faith like this in all Israel,” (Matthew 8:8-10 NLT).

If a person claims to be an expert in mathematics, but only succeeds in applying math 2% of the time, would you accept their claim? It would be irrelevant to me if a person went to school and has the approval of other men saying he is an expert in math, if he cannot apply it correctly.

In our passage above the centurion is talking about the sovereignty of God by speaking of Jesus’ power and authority over reality. To cure someone of sickness we are dealing with reality. The centurion says the same way officers and servants obey him, is the same way reality obeys Jesus. The same way an officer goes and comes at his word, is the same way physical tissue and sickness reacts to Jesus’ words. The same way he has authority over people, he implies Jesus has the same authority over reality itself. Jesus reacts to this with astonishment. He praises the centurion for his great faith.

The issue is not if the centurion had a perfect understanding of who Jesus was. He concluded Jesus had authority over reality itself. He understood that reality obeyed Jesus. This is fantastic theology. It is a good understanding of God’s sovereignty. I am not saying it is complete. But as it is, it is a correct theology about God’s sovereignty.

How did the centurion apply this correct doctrine of God’s sovereignty? He applied it with faith to get a miracle. In fact, he was already getting a miracle. He applied God’s sovereignty to upgrade a miracle that was coming in the future to make the miracle happen immediately. Or in modern terms, Jesus promised him an iPhone, and after he applied an argument of faith based on God’s sovereignty, Jesus upgraded it to an iPhone max pro. Also, his argument of faith, based on God’s sovereignty, made time obey the centurion, the way his servants obey him.

Jesus approved the centurion’s understanding of God’s sovereignty and his application of it with faith to receive an upgraded miracle.

Thanks be to God we have examples for how to apply God’s sovereignty in faith for miracles. Therefore, those who claim to understand God’s sovereignty but do not apply it to receive miracles and healing, are liars and frauds. They have no idea what God’s sovereignty is. They have no idea what they are doing or talking about.

Peter

Peter’s application of election is the baptism of the Spirit.

Peter also believed and understood the doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty. He spoke about predestination in the first apostolic sermon in Acts 2.

“Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. THEN you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 

For the promise is for you and for your children, and for all those who are far away, as many as the Lord our God calls to himself,”
(Acts 2:38-39. 38-NLT, 39-LEB).

The crowed said, “what do we do,” in response to seeing the baptism of the Spirit and Peter’s sermon describing why the Spirit is being poured out.  Peter’s response is about the predestination (and reprobation by implication) of God by saying, “as many as the Lord our God calls to Himself.” The interesting thing about his statement of predestination is that it is directly about the baptism of the Spirit and not directly about forgiveness of sins. Peter uses the forgiveness of sins as a stepping stone to get the promised baptism of the Spirit, purchased by Jesus and promised by the Father. Peter says to repent and be forgiven so that “then” you can receive the Holy Spirit of power. It is specifically about receiving this baptism of power that Peter says, “as many as God calls to Himself.” This includes forgiveness because Peter says you need to be forgiven and then you will be received this baptism of power.

And so Peter’s understanding of predestination and election is about the baptism of the Spirit with forgiveness being presupposed. If God has predestined you, then you will be baptized in the Spirit for power. Baptism of the Spirit is proof of your election and disproves you are a reprobate. This is how Peter applies God’s sovereignty. Peter says, “to those whom God has called TO HIMSELF.” If God has called you “to Himself,” then you will be baptized it the Spirit. How can you be called “to God” and you not be with God at the same time?

When God calls someone to Himself, He predestines them to be baptized in the Spirit. This is Peter’s doctrine of election in application.

It is a good thing the bible shows us how to apply the doctrine of God’s sovereignty. It shows us that election and predestination is applied for baptism of the Spirit and this confirms that God has sovereignly called us to be “with Him.”

Therefore, those who claim to understand predestination and do not apply it with the power of the Spirit are lairs and frauds. They say they understand God’s sovereignty, but they cannot apply it at the most basic level.

Jesus

We have seen a gentile and an apostle, but what about Jesus. How did Jesus apply the doctrine of God’s sovereignty?

“You did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name” (John 15:16 NIV).

I will quote Vincent Cheung at large on this verse, because he says it so well and by this helped me understand the doctrine of predestination is for those who live by the Spirit and faith for miracles. It is from his essay, “Predestination and Miracles.”

“Jesus said to his disciples, “You did not choose me, but I chose you” (John 15:16). The Bible teaches a doctrine of election, or predestination. Before we became Christians, we were sinners, wicked to the core, so that in ourselves it was impossible for us to turn toward righteousness. It was impossible for us to choose any spiritual good. If we were to turn from evil to good, some other force outside of ourselves would have had to change us. When we accepted the gospel and decided to follow Christ, it was because God had first chosen us before the creation of the world. If you think that you indeed made a choice to follow Christ, you are correct, but your choice was an effect of God’s prior choice….

This is not the end of it. Predestination is for more than bare salvation, or to say it more correctly, salvation involves more than the mere forgiveness of sins and the promise of heaven. Salvation in Christ is a whole package of blessings and responsibilities. I do not mean that you need to achieve these blessings and responsibilities in order to attain salvation. No, I mean that when you receive salvation, these blessings and responsibilities also come with it. Thus it is not that you need to reach heaven in order to be saved, but that because you are saved by faith in Christ, you will reach heaven.

God has chosen us, and predestined us. Predestined for what? There was more to what Jesus said: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” God predestined us to bear fruit. What is this fruit?

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

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

James

James has something to say about God’s sovereignty and prayer.

“Now listen, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to this or that city, spend a year there, carry on business and make money.”  Why, you do not even know what will happen tomorrow. What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.  Instead, you ought to say, “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or that.”  As it is, you boast in your arrogant schemes. All such boasting is evil.  If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them,” (James 4:13-17 NIV)

James affirms God’s absolute sovereignty over all things. Considering his affirmation of God’s sovereignty what are his commands for us, when we are faced with circumstances like sickness? When tomorrow looks like sickness for us, when seen from our observations, what does James command us to do? Does he say, “you don’t know what will happen, so do not boast about being healed tomorrow, even if you asked God to heal you?” He obviously does not say this, and yet this is how many would abuse James’ teaching on God’s sovereignty.

James chapter 5 says, if you are sick ask for the elders to pray for you, and the prayer of faith will make that person get well. Verse 15 says, “And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven (NKJV).” The command from James is not commanding us to only pray, but is commanding the result of healing. This is like a commanding officer saying to his subordinate, “Call a restaurant and order us some sandwiches for lunch.” The commander is not merely asking you to call, but to get the result of sandwiches for lunch.  Why do I need to explain this to adults?

James’ application of God’s absolute sovereign control over each day, is to apply it to get results in our prayers; to get absolute certain results in prayer.  And yet, I have seen those who quote James to teach about God’s sovereignty only to deny healing when we pray or say it is at best a maybe. But this same James who understands God’s sovereignty and is writing by the Holy Spirit does not apply God’s sovereignty that way. His application of God’s sovereignty is that if we ask for healing in faith, we will certainly get healed as certain as we are forgiven if we ask for forgiveness by faith.  According to James, God’s sovereignty ensures the certainty of both forgiveness and healing by faith. To say, when we ask for healing in faith that it does not result in guarantee healing, would be to undermine God’s sovereignty that ensures forgiveness if we ask for it by faith. The same sovereignty ensures both promises are guaranteed.

James also says if you lack wisdom then ask in faith, without doubting, and God will give you wisdom. If you doubt, then don’t expect more wisdom. If you have no doubts, then expect to get it. Not a maybe, but God will give you wisdom. Thus, if I ask to wake up tomorrow with more wisdom, in faith, I will certainly wake up tomorrow with more wisdom. This means I know certain things will happen tomorrow. I know them by the power of faith. This is how James applies God’s sovereignty.

Those who quote James’ teaching on God’s sovereignty over tomorrow, might be inclined to remind us the example of God’s hidden sovereign providence in the story of Nehemiah. And yet, James being led by the Holy Spirit, does not remind us of Nehemiah, but of Elijah. He says “The earnest prayer of a righteous person has great power and produces wonderful results. Elijah was as human as we are, and yet when he prayed earnestly that no rain would fall, none fell for three and a half years,” (ver.16-17).

If we don’t know about tomorrow because of God’s sovereignty, then would not the hidden providence of God in Nehemiah be more appropriate? Apparently not. This is so, because such an understanding is a presupposed basic understanding for Christians. We know God is sovereign and as His children is always working behind the scenes to help, guide and bless us. This gives us joy and strength to always face the future in confidence.

James, who teaches that we do not know what will happen tomorrow, because of God’s sovereignty, skips Nehemiah and commands us to have faith like Elijah. He instructs us to make certain things happen tomorrow, like healing and turning the rain off or on like a faucet. By faith we know certain things will happen today and tomorrow. He is not saying we control every aspect of reality like God, and so there are many things about tomorrow we do not know; however, he also teaches us that with faith we make reality obey us today and tomorrow, and then by this know some things will certainly happen.  Even if we have perfect faith to ask for everything we want tomorrow, we would still be limited by time and everyday life when asking, and by this not be able to ask for an infinite number of things.

Paul is correct in saying that even time itself has been given to us (1 Corin. 3:22). Just as man was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath for man, so to, time was made and given to man. With faith we make today and tomorrow yield to our prayers.

This is how the bible applies its own doctrine of God’s absolute control over reality and tomorrow. It instructs us to make the uncertain tomorrow be certainly known by faith. James shows us to make sickness, troubles, and lack of wisdom to bow to healing, wisdom and miracles by a prayer of faith. He does not remind us to remember Nehemiah, but to remember Elijah when we face troubles. Elijah was a mere human like us. He turned the rain off and on like a faucet. He turned reality off and on, the way I twist my shower nob. James tells us to be like Elijah when we pray.  

James says you don’t know what will happen because of God’s sovereignty, but then applies this by telling us to use faith to make reality obey us today and tomorrow. When we do this, we will know certain things will happen tomorrow.

Let us be like Jesus, Peter, James, and gentiles who apply God’s sovereignty to get results in prayer, healings, miracles and the power of the Spirit.

Anyone who affirms God’s absolute and direct sovereignty over all things, but does not apply it the way Jesus and the apostles do are frauds and liars. They would not know God’s sovereignty if it smacked them in the face. They are blind leading the blind. Never let such people be your teachers. Excommunication is the least they deserve.

We saw if you affirm God’s predestination, His election, His power to command reality is like a man ordering his servant and that His control is so complete we don’t know what will happen tomorrow, that its conclusion is more miracles, more healing, more baptism of the Spirit and more wisdom.

Let God’s sovereignty be a foundation for more and more healings and miracles.

The Power of the Lord was with Jesus

“The power of the Lord was with Jesus to heal the sick.” (Luke 5:17 NIV)

It was not Jesus’ power, but the power came from God, or more precisely the Father in the anointing of the Spirit. Jesus was baptized in the Spirit to begin His ministry. We know the Spirit’s baptism on Jesus was for “power” because Jesus said He drove out demons by the Spirit of God, not His. He did not drive them out by His name, but by the power of Spirit.  We see again in our original verse that the “power of God” was with Jesus to heal. It was not Jesus’ power, but the Spirit’s power. Jesus came as a man, born under the law, and even ministered God’s power as a saint does, by the power of the Spirit. Jesus says in John 14:10 that “it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” Jesus did not use “Jesus” power and authority, but ministered the works of the Father through power of the Spirit.

Thus, after His resurrection Jesus commanded the disciples, not to minister or spread the news, but to wait in Jerusalem until they were baptized in the Spirit for “power.” It was the same baptism of power He had. It is like that of Elijah and Elisha and the passing of the mantle of power. Elisha received a double portion and Jesus in a similar way said anyone who believes in Him will do greater miracles (double portion). As a human, Jesus received the mantel of power by the baptism of the Spirit; He did the Father’s works by the Spirit. He was the forerunner. He showed us how to do it. He then ascended to heaven and handed the mantle of power to us, for us to complete the works of the Father. We are baptized in the same Spirit to do the same works of the Father, except for the work redemption. We are baptized in the same power of the Spirit to do even greater works, not because we are greater in ourselves, but because Jesus now sits on His throne and in authority directs us to expand His kingdom.

This is why it is dumb to say, “Well, that was Jesus, and this is us and so we can’t do what He did.”

Consider how generous He is with His power! He likes it when we ask for more of His Spirit and power. Ask!

aaron-burden-y02jEX_B0O0-unsplash

GOD IS THE METAPHYSICAL AUTHOR OF ALL THINGS, EVEN SIN.

I got the term “metaphysical author of sin and evil,” from Vincent Cheung. See his Systematic Theology, Commentary on Ephesians and Author of Sin for original source.  I developed my own doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty (even occasionalism) on my own as a teenager from reading bible. It was the word and Spirit that taught me these things, not Calvin or Luther. Vincent helped me to expand my understanding, make adjustments and make it concise. His materials also helped me with the explanation of accountability mentioned below.

Metaphysical is meant in philosophy or systematic theology for reality and even causality (although ontology means directly causality). In our context we are focusing on causality.  For example: If I pick my pen and cause it to write, “trees are blue,” who is the author of it? Is it the object, which the pen? Or is it me, who is causing it to move? We point reader see the separate categories of “cause” and an “object.”

God directly and immediately causes a demon to tempt a person. The demon is the “object.”  God is the “cause,” but the tempter is the object. This is why God cannot tempt anyone, because if God directly Himself tells you to kill person (X) it is not a temptation but a command. There is no such thing as a “secondary cause,” in relation to God Himself. He directly causes all things.

Someone might respond by saying “by authoring sin, sinners could hurl back to Him saying, “You are the real sinner!”

What does “real” sinner even mean? If it means the object that is sinning, it is impossible for God to be a “real sinner.” I am not sure how such a person defines sin, but God defines sin as a man breaking a command given to man (1 John 3:4). God did not command Himself; rather He commanded man. They do not logically apply to Him. Also, there is no authority over God. Because responsibility is defined by “not having freedom from being under an authority who holds you to a definition,” then God is not responsible for anything. Thus, the terms sinning and God are logically impossible terms. God defines sin as lawlessness. Therefore, to accuse God of being a “real sinner,” would be to accuse God of being a “real law breaker,” and “under a real authority.” Fallacy. Dumb. Blaspheme.

Oddly, sometimes I get people who say God is “Ex-lex” (above the law), but in the next breath say God would be sinning if He authored/directly caused me to sin. Often I feel like I am talking to brick walls, when talking to people of tradition. “God is above the law, but if He causes me to sin, then God is under a law, because God would be guilty of sinning, which presupposes a law over God.” Brilliant, mystery, insane.

God did not command Himself, “thou shall not murder, or thou shall not commit adultery.” These are commanded to man, not God: not trees, not monkeys, but man. Therefore, it is a categorial fallacy to say God sinned, for it is impossible for God to break a law that is not applied to Him. Do trees commit sin when they do not confess Jesus the Son of God? Or is it irrational to apply these two things together? It is like saying “can God lift an infinitely heavy rock that He created?” God is not physical thus, the category of heavy cannot logically be applied to Him. The question is nonsense. It is the same with God and sin.  Laws do not apply to Him.

God is not what he authors. If God creates a river. God is not a river. To call God a river because he created it, is again to commit a logcal category fallacy. It also presupposes pantheism. There is no way to show in formal validly that what you create you yourself are. Creating something else and your own being are two different categories. If I create a clay pot, I am not a clay pot. Why do I need to say this to adults?

Likewise, God is not what he causes. That is, if God causes a “lion” to “go” south into valley, then God Himself is not a south bound loin. If “author” is defined as what someone “cause to happen” in a story they are writing, then it is again a category mistake to say they are what they author. If Johnny writes in a novel that a lion walked south into valley, Johnny is not a loin moving south. The same is with God. If God authors/causes a river to flow north, God is not Himself a north moving river. This is logic at the most basic level, of the Law of identity.

Therefore, No one can accuse God of being a sinner even though God causes them to sin or authored them to sin; it would be a logical fallacy—like saying, “wet dryness,” or a “square circle.”

The fact that a person thinks God is accusable because He is the author of all things, exposes how little they think of God it; shows how small God is to them. It exposes that they are insane by mixing up categories, as if reality is their personal playdough. It exposes that they presuppose pantheism in their worldview thinking. They play lip service that God is totally sovereign, but they love God’s sovereignty no more than demons love God’s power.  

Some people have even told me that “if what you say is true, then Ultimately, there will be no human accountability; and thus, no judgment.”

This is like saying, because God directly controls all things it means God does not control the weather. It’s insane. Brick walls are not known for their intelligence.

It is because God is sovereign over man and man is not free from God sovereignly holding man accountable that man is accountable. Man, not having freedom relative to God and God having absolute and direct sovereign control over man is the very thing that make man accountable. Romans chapter 9 deals directly with this issue of God’s sovereign control and man’s accountability. Not indirectly but directly deals with this question. God controls man so much that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and then God punished Pharaoh for this. Paul gives a hypothetical, typical response, “how is man accountable to God, if God is the one controlling man?” Paul answers this question by saying “God is the Potter and man is the clay, and God molds the man How He wants. God takes from the same neutral lump (not already sinful or good, but neutral lump) and then molds one for righteousness and mercy and the other for sin and destruction.”[1] Paul’s answer for why man is accountable considering God’s sovereign control over man, is that God is sovereign, and man is not free from God controlling man. The one thing not part of answer is “freedom.” This is the bible’s answer, and your theology needs to include it.

Human accountability is based upon God’s holding something accountable. The fact that a human is not free from God holding them accountable is the very thing that makes them accountable. Freedom is not the presupposition of accountability, but the lack of freedom from being under a sovereign God is. Men are not free relative to God’s control over them, and this is what makes them accountable. Accountability presuppose a sovereign over you and not freedom.

Tradition teaches us that “the author is accountable,” but the scriptures says the opposite. The Potter molds the clay from the same neutral lump, and molds them how He wants. It is this sovereign freedom of the Potter and lack of freedom of the clay that makes the clay accountable.

Such comments expose a person’s view of God. This is not a word game. People imply they have the right to hold God accountable because He is the author of all things. Defining terms is the least of their problems. Their view of God is so man-cantered and pathetic and distorted that “they” would hold God accountable “because He is the author of your sin.” They are so stupid, that in the context of “God is so sovereign that He causes me to sin,” they think they can “hold God accountable for commuting sin.” But if God is so sovereign already, then you obviously have no justification to hold God accountable to anything. Not only is there the category errors pointed out earlier, but the opponent does not have enough intelligence to apply a critique to the statement; that is, their critique answers their own question.

Where does the Bible say that God being an author makes Him accountable? Accountable to whom? A man? To be accountable only works if there is a sovereign over you. Thus, the only way God “as author” could be “accountable” is if they are an author over God! The blasphemy they uttered is so bad I feel polluted just repeating it. It is very telling that to critique my doctrine they had to put God under their feet and author Him accountable. This is what God will do to all those who rebel against Him.

[1] The last two quotes from Romans 9 was paraphrased by me.

Dominion over Time

“And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.” (Genesis 1:14-16 NIV)

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, What is man that You are mindful of him,
And the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, And You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet.” (Psalm 83-6 NKJV)

The Scripture tells us that God made everything in the beginning by the word of His power. He spoke and then reality was created. In Genesis 14-16 we read how the sun, moon and stars was for time keeping. It was for man to follow time. In Psalm 8, as it mentions the moon and stars by name, it says that God has put all reality under man’s dominion. This is the same we read in the 1 Corinthians 3:22, when referring to Christians.

Because time is part of creation, not God, and creation has been put under the boot and dominion of Christians, then time is subject to man. This is why Joshua told the sun to stop and it stopped. This is why the sun dial went back 10 degrees for the king and why when Jesus made wine from water it was good tasting “aged” wine. In fact, when people are healed time is in effect reversed for them in the healing. Joshua and Calab had time held back for 40 years, because their bodies did not age, and their clothes did not wear out. These aspects of time being dominated were by men who had faith in God. When there is faith, then there is a way out of every trouble. Even if time is standing in the way, yet with faith, time must yield to the will of man.

Time was made for man and not man made for time. Under the curse, time dominated man, but this was not the original creation of time. Those under the curse are dominated by time to the point time is a nightmare. For the reprobated time is a monster that hunts their dreams and never stops chasing them down and stealing their bodies, minds and dreams. Under the curse, time becomes a curse. Time was created by God to be dominated by man and to serve man, not the other way around. For those in Jesus Christ, the curse is reversed and through faith they have access to cause time to serve its original purpose, which is to be a blessing to man. In Jesus Christ the truth that creation is for man (the elect) is even more so, because they are not merely the image of God, the image of Jesus Christ, with His imputed righteousness and adapted as sons and heirs of God.

Let us ever allow man to hinder us in expanding our faith and expanding the Kingdom of God. Let us never put limitations the glory of God, by limiting the glory of man and glory of man’s domination over creation. Let us never see time as a curse, but a servant to the will of man, through faith in Jesus Christ. Reprobates speak of time from a position of fear and defeat, whether it is from false preachers, co-workers, or how it is spoken of in popular movies. Let us recognize, for us, time is under our boots and a servant for those who have faith in Jesus Christ.  

For those who fear time as a monster that ravages their bodies, minds, and dreams in this life, will find it will continue to do the same in the next life. Only those who have been born-from-above and make time serve them now in this life will find it will be so in the next.

When are my Prayers Meaningful?

“The way “sovereignty” is taught today can be a real faith killer. If God controls everything, then our actions are irrelevant, and our efforts are meaningless.”
Andrew Wommack

This has to be one of the dumbest and meaningless objections to God’s absolute sovereignty I come across. The objection is answered in the very statement the critic uses.

For example. “All men have sinned.” If it is true that all men have sinned then to say, “Oshea has sinned” is a logical deduction and thus is true. But if I say, cats have sinned, then we know we have a category fallacy, and thus the conclusion is irrational. Deduction is application of knowledge. “Oshea has sinned,” is knowledge contained in the original statement, “all men have sinned.” All I did was point out this specific knowledge and bring it to your attention.

Unfortunately, basic deduction is lost with most pastors and theologians so that if you say “All men have sinned,” they can say “therefore black cats have sinned.” They are then called intelligent and given a book deal.  Strangely, if I put forward an argument that mixes up categories like the able, that says, “All apples are eatable,” therefore, “because the sun is round like an apple the sun is eatable,” people would mock me? Maybe I should give it a religious terminology and I could get a book deal myself. Maybe something like this, “if God is sovereign over all things, then God does not control squires and human thoughts.” I see millions of copies already being sold.

As for the objection above the major premise is saying “God is sovereign over all things.” Wommack is saying this as the Reformed tradition would mean it. Martin Luther in Bondage of The Will says God is as directly sovereign in causing faith as He is unbelief or sin, as in the Elect or Satan. Thus, we will mean God is sovereign over all things as truly an “all” statement. A category statement is “all,” “some,” or “none.” Here we mean God directly and absolutely controls all things.  When the bible says the category statement “all have sinned and fallen short,” it does not mean only “some,” but “all” have.

And so “if God is sovereign over all things,” then according to Wommack the conclusion is that “our actions are meaningless.” His conclusion has new information in it that is not contained in the premise(s), thus it is irrational and stupid. He makes a category error with the term “meaningless.” It is a fourth term that is thrown in the conclusion with a slight of hand.

I will add an additional premise here that I believe the Bible easily teaches and is presupposed by the statement “God is sovereign over all things.” This premise is that “if God does something, it is meaningful by definition that God is the one who does it.” If not, am I to presuppose that God doing something is not meaningful because He is the one doing it? But I digress.

If God is sovereign over all things and whatever God does has infinite meaning and value, then God controlling my choice is by definition infinitely meaningful and valuable.

God is the only one with intrinsic worth and whose value is without measure. God’s Will, Word and Power are one in the same. As Vincent Cheung says in Only  Believe, “God can never lie, not because there are things that omnipotence cannot perform, as some would put it, but because lying is inapplicable to God, since the will, the power, the word, and the truth are one in him. If God says something, then even if it was not true before, it would become the truth.” Thus God who alone has value creates and controls all things by His thoughts.

Whatever God does by definition is “just” “good” and “meaningful or valuable.”

This should not be a surprise. Even with humans we are similar. When I played in the sand, or played with my Legos and made things and new people and new made up stories, it was meaningful to me, precisely because I was the one doing it.

Wommack is so arrogant that he thinks God’s sovereign control over him is the very thing that makes his choices meaningless, when it is the only thing making them meaningful. He supposes his choices apart from God’s sovereignty control have intrinsic value. I will ignore the issue of ontology on this, for it is impossible for any created thing to move without God’s doing it. God is the only real cause for everything; there is no such thing as secondary causes in the ultimate sense. God is the only real cause. God’s thought and power are the same thing in essence, or there is no dividing them. If God does not think of something, then it does not happen. If God thinks of something and wills it, then it happens. There is no other real causality other than this.

We are responsible and accountable because we are not free relative to God’s command and His sovereignty over us. Romans 9 answers the question why we are responsible even though God can harden or soften our hearts. The answer is that He is the Potter and we are the clay. He does this from a neutral lump of clay, that is neither good or bad. Thus, the Scripture’s answer for why we are accountable is because God sovereignly controls us.

As Vincent says in “More than A Potter,” if you say man is more than a pot, then God is infinitely more than a Potter.  And so the sovereign control aspect is therefore made infinitely stronger. The fact that we are accountable to God is therefore a limitation of our freedom, in the sense it makes it nonexistent. God controls us like a Potter over a pot. Does God form a good pot from a good lump? No. Does God take a nasty lump of clay and form a nasty toilet with it? No. God takes from the same lump of unformed (before they were born) clay and molds it to His own design (good or bad). Thus, there is no paradox, because Divine sovereignty negates human freedom and is the very thing that makes accountability work. The fig tree did not have any freedom, but Jesus held it accountable. Even without freedom, the everything that made it accountable was Jesus being sovereign over it and holding it to a standard. Freedom had no relevance to accountability. Romans 9 refers to our accountability in the same way. This is the opposite of how most understand it; thus, many are in direct public rebellion against God.

God is not accountable because of the very reason He is free.

In summary, God is the ultimate cause of everything. There are no other real causes. We are accountable to God because He has complete control over us. We are like clay in the hands of a potter. God’s sovereignty is what makes us responsible.

The criticism is essentially this, “if I am not the one who ultimately determines my reality then it is not meaningful.” Arrogance. That is, “if God does not give me His divinity then I will hate Him.” They don’t like that fact God has such exhaustive control and they don’t. What fool told you that meaningfulness is by your ultimate determination? The bible? The bible that says God hated Esau and love Jacob before they had made any choices and before they were born. The bible teaches what God does is meaningful, because God does it.

So prayer in the ultimate sense does not change anything. But this is true for all created things. However, on the relative level my prayers moves the heart of God, uproots mountains and makes the waves obey me.

Even though the Scripture informs me of God’s sovereignty over me, God mostly addresses me on the human or relative level. That is, God moving the chess pieces is the very thing that makes such things meaningful. However, God mostly addresses me on the relative level of “(Oshea) went to space b4,” rather than saying, God moves “White Knight to space b4.” Because God is mostly addressing me on this level, it is therefore good, just and meaningful by definition of God doing it. Because God wants me to mainly have relationship and fellowship with Him on this level, then it is good, just and meaningful.

What God has done is atone for all our sins by His only Son Jesus and gave us His Son’s righteousness. What He has done is commanded us to be forgiven and blessed by receiving His Son and all the glorious benefits contained therein. Therefore when I use faith and receive forgiveness, healing and miracles, then it is good and has immeasurable value.