Category Archives: christian soteriology

All Things Are Possible for Man

No, this was not taken from Kenneth Copeland or Kenneth Hagin sermon. It came from a more extreme faith teacher than even these infamous teachers. It came from the greatest faith zealot of them all. This was a doctrine taught by the most extreme faith who ever lived. It came from Jesus Christ.

Christians do not let Jesus get in their way, in their goal to formulate doctrine based on their sensations, observations and feelings. Thus, they do not allow lesser faith teachers to inform their doctrines.  Most Christians are carnal, or that is, most Christians formulate doctrine based on their observations and feelings rather than the scripture. They say, “well, I don’t see all being healed, thus, the scripture cannot mean you will get healed, even if you have faith for it.” They hide their epistemology adultery behind phrases such as, “God-centered,” “Christ-centered,” and “gospel-centered,” as if we are too stupid to not see their spiritual perversion. They hump on David Hume’s empiricism in the open streets, march back into the pulpit, wipe off their sweaty faces, and then say, “sola scriptura.” Little do they know the true horror they are doing to their souls.

  “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father,” John 14:12. NIV

“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.  by this… you… prove to be My disciples,” John 15:7-8 LSB

“He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you,”” Matt.17:20. NIV

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matt.19:26 NIV

“And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive,”” Matt.21:21-22

“What do you mean, ‘If I can’?” Jesus asked. 
“Anything is possible if a person believes,” Mark 9:23. NLT

“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it [past tense], and it will be yours” Mark 11:23-24

And the Lord said, “If you have faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you,” Luke 17:6. LSB

Jesus’ thesis statement on faith is this, “All things are possible for the man who has faith,” and “Whatever a man asks for in faith, it will be given to him.” Because Jesus said this doctrine many times and in various ways, because He tied this doctrine into believing in Him, proof of connection to Him and proof of discipleship, then it is necessary to make this a proof of Orthodoxy. Because Jesus made this a proof of discipleship (John 15:7-8), then it is indeed a test of orthodoxy.  If any church or creed does not state and affirm this doctrine, they are non-Christians and anti-Jesus. You ought to excommunicate them from your life immediately. If they are a church, then pray a Psalm of Judgement over them and boycott them.

Because many churches would call Jesus’ faith doctrine heresy and excommunicate you over it, they expose themselves as a den of demons. Thus, many churches have already divorced themselves from Jesus Christ. As Vincent Cheung says,

 “The controversy shows that the critics affirm an essentially non-Christian worldview. Any worldview that disagrees with the “faith confession” doctrine is not a Christ-view, and contradicts Christ’s view of reality. Thus it in fact qualifies as one test of orthodoxy…

You want to test people with your stupid creed? I will test you by Matthew 21:21 and crush your creed. You want to cite your idol theologian? I will slap his head off with Mark 11:23. Change your creed to agree with Jesus. Throw your theologian into the dumpster if he does not teach this kind of faith. If Jesus is not your Lord but just your mascot, you will die in your sins and burn in hell. Your church will not save you. Your seminary and denomination are themselves under judgment. Unless you have faith, you will die in your sins.” (The Extreme Faith Teacher)

We will finish this up with the positive doctrine. In my experience I much more hear people say, “All things are possible for God.” This is true. It is a fantastic doctrine, and deserves much meditation and praises. However, if that is all that is said in relation to man, because Jesus said more about it in relation to man, then it is only a half-truth; because it is a half-truth, it is also false. Jesus also said, “All things are possible for man.” Consider Jesus in Matthew 17 saying nothing is impossible for man, who has faith.  This context is not about asking God to do something, and then saying God’s potential to grant your prayer is endless, and so, if He will’s it, then the potential is there. No. That is not what Jesus teaches. He says, if a person with faith commands a mountain to move, it will move and obey them. From this premise, Jesus concludes by saying, “nothing is impossible for man.” Jesus is not talking about mere potential, but is saying with faith, anything you command will happen. Again, this is Jesus, the most God-centered man who ever lived. This was not Kenneth Hagin.

As we continue in a few chapters later in Matthew 19 Jesus says the often-quoted verse, “with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” The context is about a rich man who would not enter the kingdom because he loved his money too much. Thus, the context is about the narrow context of salvation or conversion. This is why Ephesians 2 says that even faith itself is a sovereign gift from God. In our sinful dead state, we do not even have the faith to be saved. This is why in context of salvation it is impossible for man, but possible for God. Jesus’ syllogism is simple. 1. All things are possible for God. 2. Salvation is a thing. 3. Thus, salvation is possible for God.

When we see the two different categories of these passages, it is obvious they do not contradict. A sinner has no possibility to save themselves. However, in the category of a Christian, who is an insider to God, under His New Contract, all things are possible for them. Jesus’ statement of man’s impossibility, deals with a category about salvation, but a Christian is already saved, and thus, all things are now possible for them.  If a so-called Christian views the world in limitations and impossibilities, they have an anti-Christian worldview. They still view themselves as a non-Christian, within a non-Christian view of reality. They still see themselves as outsiders to God and to His contract.

As we progress a few more chapters in Matthew 21 Jesus again says “all things you ask, will be given to you.” This is just another way to say, “all things are possible for man, with faith.” Jesus’ statement here is more extreme and emphatic. Some fools might think, “all things are possible for man,” is just about mere possibility, but Jesus’ statement here gives no room for that. “All things you ask in faith, will be given.” Seriously, how could I or anyone teaching about faith and prayer say it more extreme than that?

This statement is really a conclusion from Jesus’ two examples. One is His cursing of fig tree. Jesus says you will do the same with faith. Then He says you can command a mountain and it will obey you. A fig tree died when Jesus cursed it in faith. It was not a metaphorical fig tree, but a real one. Jesus said you will do the same. Then to press the point harder, He gives a second example so that He is not misunderstood. He says the same can be done to a mountain. There is nothing bigger than mountains, in relation to our experiences. Thus, if we can command mountains by faith, we can command everything else. This is why Jesus’ conclusion from these premises is, “All things you ask in faith, will be given.”

To make it even more extreme, in Mark’s account he records Jesus using the past tense for this conclusion about faith. “All things you ask in faith, believe you have received, and you will have it.” This is a contradiction to how faith and prayer are taught today. They say we ask, “but we do not know if we have received it, until God decides it is His will and then He grants it. Only after He grants it, do we know if we have what we ask for.”  If that is true, then Jesus is a false prophet and teacher. Jesus says you know if God has granted your prayer, the moment you pray it, because you opened your mouth and said something. Jesus says, you will receive (future tense), if you believed you have it (past tense), and not when God gives it.

There are other passages that say the same thing but in different ways such as in John 14 and 15; however, the main focus has been dealt with. Yes, “all things are possible for God,” but “all things are possible for man,” as well.

This does not sound gospel or God centered, does it? Why does tradition and religious elites sound more God-centered than Jesus? Are they more gospel-centered than the Son of God, or is their definition of God-centeredness polluted with human speculation? And for sake of argument, let us say it is man-centered. Yet, Jesus taught it. Jesus made man’s endless possibilities and glory and power a test of orthodoxy. No matter what you do or say, you must deal with Jesus.

The positive point is simple. Because Jesus commanded this, then it means He expects that His insiders can do it. Because He expect His insiders to do it, it means we can do it.

Sickness Is Satan’s Glory, Not God’s

The Arminians are wrong about God’s sovereignty. God does directly and absolutely control and predestine all things. However, this is about ultimate metaphysics, which the Bible only mentions a little, while it mostly talks about the human level. That is the level where God commands us, relates to us, and where we deal with things day-to-day; it is how the Bible mainly speaks to us. We will follow that pattern here. Not talking this way most of the time means not talking like the Bible.

God says in Isaiah 54:15, “They will surely gather against you, but not by Me.” He quietly assumes His own sovereignty but speaks straight to us on our level. God is more God-centered than anyone, and He has no problem saying, “I didn’t cause them to gather.” Jesus, the most God-centered man ever, said about both healing and forgiveness, “Your faith saved you.” In Acts 10:38, Peter says all the sick people Jesus healed were “victimized” or oppressed “by the devil.” So, the Bible has no issue saying sickness isn’t from God; it is from Satan or the curse.

This matters because if we think sickness comes from God, we won’t fight it. That is one reason Jesus battled sickness so hard while tradition doesn’t. Jesus saw sickness as Satan’s direct attack on Him, His Father, and His people. So, He smashed it wherever He found it. The only time He didn’t stomp out sickness—which Satan was causing—was when unbelief blocked Him. Think about that: unbelief stopped Jesus, but Satan couldn’t. Jesus was a one-man wrecking crew against all the sickness the devil threw around.

So, sickness is Satan flipping the bird at Jesus’ atonement. Healing is Jesus slamming His fist into Satan’s face, again and again. There’s a real war here. As Jesus said, if you’re not with Him, you’re against Him (Isaiah 53:4-5, Luke 13:16, Acts 10:38).

In the substitutionary atonement, Jesus took 39 stripes in exchange for our healing. It is already done. In the Father’s mind, He decided our sicknesses were taken off us and put on Jesus as those 39 stripes. Jesus carried our sickness in our place. The verse before, as the Spirit explains through Matthew, says He “bore” (nasa) or took our sicknesses and diseases away. It is the same word used in verse 12 for Jesus bearing our sins, and in Leviticus 16 for the scapegoat, when the high priest transferred the people’s sins to it, and it carried them off into the desert. It is a word for substitutionary atonement, and Isaiah 53 applies it to our sickness and healing.

Yet, many pin sickness on God—not just in the ultimate metaphysical or decree sense, but on the human, relational level. That is wrong. In our New Covenant with God, sealed by oath and blood, God promises to always deal with us in certain ways. We are promised forgiveness, imputed righteousness, but also healing, the blessing of Abraham, and constant good—like a fish for a fish, healing for healing. If Jesus is my High Priest and mediator forever, He doesn’t switch in and out of that role. If He gave me sickness, He would be a minister of sickness in His ministry to me. If Jesus gives sickness, then His gospel ministry is one of pain and torment. But Jesus is only a minister of healing—He takes sickness away; He doesn’t hand it out.

This last point stands out in one example. Jesus sometimes told certain Jews or crowds they weren’t Abraham’s children because they refused to believe—proof they did not belong. So, it’s a big deal when He calls someone a child of Abraham. Take the woman bent over for 18 years. Jesus said she was a child of Abraham—not an outsider, but part of the blessings in God’s covenant with Abraham. In that context, He said Satan made her sick, not God. God’s covenant with Abraham included supernatural healing, not sickness—it was the opposite. So, in God’s relationship with her, Satan delivered the sickness, not God. Jesus used the Abraham covenant as the reason she had to be healed, saying it was necessary—not just a nice idea, but a must. God keeps covenants; He doesn’t break them. The covenant with Abraham must include healing, or it wouldn’t be necessary for Jesus to heal her.

Because she had a standing covenant with God for healing, and because Satan gave her sickness as a curse and middle finger against God’s kingdom, Jesus wiped it out. Unless we see things like Jesus did, we won’t hit sickness hard with God’s healing power. If someone doesn’t get their insider status with God—or that sickness is Satan’s attack to ruin them and, by extension, a middle finger to God’s kingdom—they will let Satan roll right over them. They will accept his attack, slap a “for God’s glory” label on it, and call it a day. That’s demonic.

When Satan attacks someone with sickness, it sidelines a Christian and stalls God’s kingdom. As with warfare, an injured soldier also takes other soldiers away from the front lines to help carry and tend to the injured one. This is why in war it’s often better to injure more than to kill. Satan plays the same war game tactics with Christians by attacking them with sickness. Just as injuries in our army are the glory of the enemy, sickness in Christians is Satan’s glory, not God’s.

A person’s mind is seriously broken when they can’t tell good from evil, God’s glory from Satan’s. When a so-called Christian doesn’t attack sickness with God’s healing power, they’re letting Satan hammer God’s kingdom—and they’re okay with it.

Sickness is not God’s autograph—it’s Satan’s victory lap. Jesus did not just patch up boo-boos; He threw haymakers at the devil’s disease factory. If you are calling it “God’s will” while Satan’s racking up points, you are not just off-script—you’re cheering for the wrong team in this cosmic cage match.

The Will OF GOD is Irrelevant

The bible teaches that God has absolute and direct control over all things. He is the only real cause for all things, and there is no such thing as secondary causes. God is the metaphysical author of sin and evil. God has predestined all things by His own goals and choices, and decrees all reality in a logical order in relation to His goals (supralapsarianism).  There is no such thing as free-will. Man is responsible because he is not free but under God’s sovereign control and command.  Because God absolutely and directly causes all things, He absolutely and directly causes the predestination of the elect and reprobate. Logic and deduction are so easy. As Romans 9 says, God takes from the neutral lump (before good or evil) and by the same power and choice makes some to be evil reprobates and some to be righteous elect.  God has not given up some of His control to man, because free-will does not exist, because the bible never says He made this choice, and because the nature of God insures that there is no difference in how direct and absolute He causes one thing or another in creation. God’s thoughts, power and choice are one and the same. Because He thinks about it and decides on it, it is reality. Therefore, in the ultimate sense, God Will is the only relevant issue.

I say all of this to state a broad and correct doctrine of God’s sovereignty, so that I am not misunderstood in my following comments.

When we pray for healing, miracles or forgiveness the “will of God,” (referring to His causality, not commands), is irrelevant. As Vincent Cheung points out in “Healing: The Will of Man,” to talk about the “will of God” in this context is already a partial defeat, because the bible talks about man’s will, not God’s will.

The bible’s positive doctrine is that healing is about the will of man, not the will of God. This is how the scripture presents the subject. Jesus never asked the Father if it was God’s will to heal a particular person; rather, He always asked if it was the man or woman’s will to be healed.  Jesus then said to his disciples and followers, “you heal the sick.” The will of God (referring to His decrees/causality) was never brought up; only “man’s will,” was brought up. The will of God was simply irrelevant. Jesus, who is more God-centered than you or your favorite pastor, taught us the “will of God,” was irrelevant, and that “man’s will” was the relevant issue.

Some are more accustomed to think about the atonement and forgiveness and so we will start here. The big idea, is that healing (Isaiah 53, Matth 8, James 5, Gal. 3) is as much the gospel and substitutionary atonement as forgiveness is, if not more so.

So here is the question: is the “will of God,” relevant for salvation or conversion? It is not relevant, if I am the one answering it. I am not asking a broad doctrinal question. I am asking it as Jesus would ask a person, “do you want to be healed”? Do you want to be forgiven? I am asking it the way Moses says, “I have presented to you life and death,” now make a choice. I am asking it the way the bible personally addresses me with its promises and commands, telling me that I must respond to it.

The “will of God” is irrelevant for my salvation, because what God decrees and causes is irrelevant in my response to obey the command of God to repent. Paul in Acts 17 commands us to repent of our sins. It is not a choice or suggestion. When I evaluate how I should behave I only use the commands of God to do this, not God’s secret decrees or causality. For example, in Romans 5 Paul says God caused me to be born a sinner, with a sinful heart, because of what Adam did. If I were to use the “will of God,” as a relevant factor in my decision to repent of my sins or not, then I would recognize it was the will of God to decree and cause me to be born a sinner, thus I will choose to stay a sinner until God decrees and causes me to repent.

I will assume most will see the error of this.  It is obvious that God’s Will is irrelevant in my consideration if I should repent of my sins. The relevant issue is God’s command for me to repent.  If a person uses the “will of God” as a relevant issue to exempt them from having to repent of their sins, we would see this as an excuse to be rebellious and unbelieving.

The same is for healing and other various miracles and supernatural experiences.  Healing is provided by the same atonement that provided forgiveness. Both are already accomplished and both are received on the demand of faith. God is sovereign over our faith, but on the demand of faith God always does what He promises. Faith always receives, and God is sovereign over faith. However, even though God is sovereign over faith (God’s Will), we are never told to consider it as relevant knowledge when we choose to believe a promise or not.  When we are in the context of a “should” or “ought” the category is always about God’s command.

In John 15 Jesus uses God’s predestination as an encouragement to ask whatever we want and get it.  Peter does the same thing in Acts 2 about the baptism of the Spirit for power. And so the Will of God is relevant in the topic of valuing God’s encouragement and explanation. Even though God’s Will is used by scripture to encourage our confidence for miracles and answered prayer, yet, when dealing with the topic of the scripture commanding me to repent and commanding me to receive healing and the gospel (James 5:15, John 14,15, Gal.3, Acts 2) the only relevant category is God’s command, not God’s Will.

Thus, when we pray for healing, God’s Will is irrelevant. The Will of God, is a non-issue. To have the Will of God, pop up into your head when praying for healing, is like having the decree of God that made you a sinner(Rom 5), pop into your head as a relevant issue if you should repent or not, and question if God would forgive if you had faith in Jesus.  It is insane and delusional.

The Will of God is irrelevant when considering if God will save you if you repent in faith; it is a non-issue. The Will of God is irrelevant when considering if God will heal you if you command sickness to leave with faith; it is a non-issue.

“Oh, God, please forgive me. I am powerless. You have done nothing yet, but you could do something, Oh powerful and eternal God. You made me a sinner because of Adam’s sin, and so, I don’t know if You have decreed me to be saved or not, and so, If it is your Will, please forgive my sins.”

This insane prayer is how many pray about healing. They are stupid and sinful. The bible never tells us to pray like this. Such a person should not expect to be forgiven of their sin. And if they pray for healing like this, they should not expect to be healed. To pray, while using the Will of God as a relevant issue, will divorce you from being forgiven and healed; It is a prayer of death.

When Peter said, “What I have, I give, in Jesus Name, walk,” the Will of God never came up, because the Will of God is irrelevant. Jesus commanded His followers to heal the sick. This command is the relevant issue, not the Will of God. The Will of God is a non-issue in the context of my healing, or your healing. When you bring in the Will of God as a relevant issue for healing or forgiveness the end results in God’s command being negated. The category of God’s decree and command are different and so should never be used to void each other out, or mixed together.

“Oh God, by Your Will I was made sick, and so I don’t know if I should be healed or not, but please, heal me if it is Your Will.”

 This is a prayer of death. It is a prayer of insanity and disobedience. This prayer uses God’s decree as an excuse to avoid obeying God’s command to be healed.  To use God’s decree to excuse yourself from obeying any of God’s commands such as receiving forgiveness or receiving healing, is stupid and wicked.

Although, there is nothing wrong for a salvation prayer to “ask God into your heart,” yet there are more precise ways to describe it.  Peter in his Pentecost sermon gives direction for a salvation prayer. He instructs the audience to ““Repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ.” Notice Peter did not instruct them to “ask” God to forgive them; rather, he tells them to repent in Jesus’ Name to be saved. Why? Because Jesus already died and was resurrected. The forgiveness already happened. We are not asking God to crucify His Son again to forgive us, because it already happened.  We are not asking God to do anything in the present tense to forgive us, because Jesus already accomplished it. Because it has been accomplished all we do is repent.  In this context we do not ask or beg. It is when a person has confidence in Jesus’ finished atonement, they repent of their sins in Jesus’ Name. Salvation in this sense is a confession, and not asking and begging. We confess our sins and that is all it takes. Faith is about God letting you know He has already forgiven you, and by repenting you are agreeing with God.  It is foundationally about agreeing and confessing and not asking.

Other gospel benefits such as a healing, and the authority to cast out demons and cast down mountains is the same. They have been accomplished by Jesus’ finished atonement. We do not ask and beg for them, because they have been accomplished by Jesus and given to us. It is irrational to beg for something that already belongs to you.  It was the stripes on Jesus’ back that healed us. And so, it is irrational to ask God to heal us, as if He needs to break out the whip again and start slashing Jesus in the throne room. God accomplished our healing in Jesus’ atonement. Thus, we don’t beg for it, because it is already ours.  As with salvation, we repent as a confession of confidence in Jesus finished atonement, rather than beg and ask forgiveness. The same with healing. It is the Will of Man to command sickness to leave. We confess and agree with God, rather than beg and ask. This is why Jesus tells us to “heal the sick, and cast out demons.” When we command healing and command demons to leave, we are giving a confident confession in the finished atonement of Jesus, which has given us the healing and authority to do such things.

Point The Gun At Satan & Pull The Trigger

No analogy is perfect, but faith to heal is like God giving us a gun. No one says to themselves, “it is my power that blew up this apple, when I shot it.”  Rather, it is painfully obvious to all that the power was the gun powder and bullets. Yet, when a person shoots something or someone, then they are blamed, and rightly so, as “this person destroyed this,” and or “they hurt this other person.” Even though it was not their power, they directed the power to a target. If an Olympian sharpshooter wins gold, the medal is awarded to them and not to their gun.

It is similar when Jesus commanded us to heal the sick, rebuke demons and cast down mountains using His Name and authority. God and creation are not the same, or that is to say, we deny pantheism. Jesus gave us His power and authority. The Spirit was not given to God, to have rivers of life and power flow from His belly, but from ours. Because healing was produced by the stripes on Jesus, in substitutionary atonement for our healing, then it means we do not ask for healing, because it has already been accomplished and given to us.  We do not ask God for forgiveness, but rather, we repent of our sins, because the forgiveness has already been accomplished.  

Adam and Eve, did not beg God for food, because the food was already provided and given. They could beg all they want, but God was not going to grab a pear and shove it down their throats. They had to grab the provided food and eat it themselves. The same is for healing. The atonement provided the healing, it is our responsibility to grab it and partake of it. The way we do this is by faith and then opening our mouths and commanding the sickness to leave and healing to take place. Jesus said “you heal the sick.” He did not say, “ask God to heal them.” He said, “you do it.” Jesus did not tell us to tell God about our mountains, but to use our given authority and power, and then command them to move. Most Christians are in direct and explicit rebellion to Jesus on this doctrine. This is why Peter in Acts 3 says, “what I have, I give to you, in Jesus Name, walk.” Peter did not even pray, or not pray in the usual way. He commanded the healing, just like Jesus told him. We are under the same gospel and the same commandments.

Because the power, authority and healing has been given to us, it is us who pulls the trigger, not God. It is us, who climbs into the driver’s seat and makes things happen, not God. Thus, God is not holding back your healing, you are. God is not the one who is going to heal you and those around you, you are. Jesus said, “You heal them.”

This does not mean that God never works independently of our faith, because a “gift of faith” and or healing is to help us in our weakness. We seek them and gladly use them. However, the bible speak of the gifts in the least amount, as compared to something like normal discipleship faith in God’s promise. Faith is the master key.  And so, the point remains, God is not holding back your healing, because He has commanded that you pull the trigger. The same is for something like the forgiveness of sins. God is sovereign and controls all things. God is sovereign over our faith, but on the demand of faith God always does what He promises, whether forgiveness or healing.

The power and authority has been provided to us to heal, just as much as food was provided for Adam and Eve. God has put the gun in our pocket, but it will not fire itself. It will fire, when we use faith and point it as sickness and command it to leave. God has commanded us to resist the devil and cast him out. His power is already in our bellies and His authority is already stamped upon our tongues.  God is not holding you back from being freed from demonic harassment, because He commands you to point the gun at Satan and pull the trigger. He tells you to command demons to leave. You resist the devil, not God. You command them to leave, not God.  

When we do, we are praised for the results and God is credited as the ultimate power, just like Peter said, “what I have, I give, In Jesus name, walk.” Jesus Christ says the mulberry tree, would not obey “God,” but that it will “obey, you,” when you command it. God will praise us, when we use our faith to use the authority that He has given us. When we pull the trigger, He has nothing but praises. “Your faith has saved you, and it has healed you.”

Many Christians are begging God to heal them, as if Jesus stripes did not already provide healing, and God needs to do something to give the healing. God does not need to re-crucify Jesus, because the atonement is a finished deal. Just like with forgiveness, because it is already done, you simply repent and receive forgiveness and righteousness by faith. God does not need to do something to forgive you, it has already been accomplished, and so you do not ask and beg God to forgive you.

They think prayer is like an Uber Driver, asking the driver (Jesus) to take them to the healing location. But this is wrong. The problem is that Jesus has already provided the healing (location) and the means to get there, which is faith (the car). They must get in the driver’s seat and drive it themselves.  God is not withholding their healing, or righteousness. It is already done.

And yet, they pray asking and begging, as if they expect God to pluck off a pear (healing) and shove it down their throats (faith) and force their jaws to chew.  This is why their prayers go unanswered. The pear tree is looking at them in the face, and they are begging God for a pear. If I saw a person like this, I would think they have a few screws loose in their head and likely be silent, not knowing how to respond to such bizarre behavior. This is one reason why God seems silent when you pray. Many Christians pray as if they are insane and delusional.

Let us obey Jesus’ extreme faith and prayer doctrine. Let us sound like intelligent Children of God. Let us not beg for something that God has already given us.

——–

* I want to give credit to Andrew Wommack for helping me understand some basics of this teaching, “You already Got It.” The example of the food in the garden, and silent prayers I got from him.

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.

Predestination & No Freewill: Means Healing, Speaking in Tongues & Miracles

“When they were released, they went to their friends and reported what the chief priests and the elders had said to them. And when they heard it, they lifted their voices together to God and said,

“Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and everything in them, who through the mouth of our father David, your servant, said by the Holy Spirit, ‘Why did the Gentiles rage, and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’ – for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place.

 And now, Lord, look upon their threats and grant to your servants to continue to speak your word with all boldness, while you stretch out your hand to heal, and signs and wonders are performed through the name of your holy servant Jesus.”

And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness. (Acts 4:23-31)

Unless you go directly to Romans chapter 9, its difficult to find a stronger focus on Calvinism, predestination and that God controls man’s choices, more than a programmer writing his code.

This passage starts by affirming God is sovereign in creating everything. Then it affirms that God sovereignly foretells the future. Then it affirms that God is sitting on a throne and laughs at people who try to work against His dominion. Then it affirms that God predestined the Jews and gentiles to kill and crucify His only Son. To kill and crucify God’s Son took many individual choices of men to make this happen. The apostles said God predestined all of this; and so, the choices of men are at God’s disposal to do what He decides. There is nothing free “relative” to God.

After the apostles affirmed and praised God for his sovereign predestination over everything, how do you suppose they responded to such knowledge? They do not respond the way the Reformed respond to God’s predestination. The Arminians do not affirm the sovereignty of God that the apostles affirmed in this passage, and so they cannot rationally respond to it. Even if some Arminians concluded with a similar response the apostles did, it is only by dumb luck and God’s kindness, because they cannot do it by following the scripture.

The apostles conclude by asking God to consider their threats by empowering them to preach, heal the sick and perform various miracles. God responds with a resounding “yes,” by flooding their meeting place with the anointing presence of the Holy Spirit.  

In my experience when I hear a traditionalist preach on God’s sovereignty, predestination and that man does not have free will (which are the doctrines the apostles above affirmed), they usually conclude by saying, because God caused these things to happened, then it is God’s will (His command) that we go along with it and let Satan steamroll over us, and then praise God as we die of cancer. And if they do suggest action, it is usually something political or cultural, or just keep going to church and watch the world burn. This is the opposite that the apostles do.

After affirming God controls the actions and choices of men, in context of Jesus atonement and of political powers, the apostles conclude that it is time to attack back with preaching, healing the sick and more miracles.

Even though the Reformed, might have a few top-level statements about God’s sovereignty correct, because they conclude the opposite from the scripture, then it shows they have no idea how to apply the doctrine.  They have no idea what is in their hands. On the other hand, the Arminian charismatics sweep the whole issue of God’s predestination and election under a rug, and then just skip straight to the conclusion or practical application. Both are wrong, but the reformed are more so, because at least with the charismatics you still have a small chance to get healed and find a miracle to help you.

The Apostles affirmed God’s predestination over men’s choices and political struggles. In response to this, they put in a military request to attack back with preaching, healing and miracles. God said, Yes!  Thus we already know God likes and will answer such requests when faced with political difficulties, which He caused. Think about that. The apostles affirmed the political problems they were facing was by God’s predestination that led the Jews and gentiles against His only Son. They are with Jesus, and so now the Jews have turned against them.  They did not say, “well, God predestined this, and so we can’t fight against them.” Rather, they asked to fight against their opponents with preaching, miracles, and healing.

They did not respond with a cultural or political reaction, when faced with political problems. They put in a request to God, as their military power, to attack back with preaching, healing and miracles. God the king, approved of their attack plan.

Thus, the doctrines of God’s absolute sovereignty, predestination and control over men’s choices, is to conclude with more preaching, more healing, more miracles, and more with God responding with outpourings of the Holy Spirit upon our meetings. Deviations from this are to be mocked and dismissed.

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.

Justification Without and by the Law

(This is from the 1st rough draft from my systematic theology book, and so likely to have some future changes)

Justification like healing is overengineered in the gospel, not because God did not know what He was doing and went too far, but He did this for our sakes. He did this to assure us of our benefits in Christ; He did this to help our faith. The reason God swore by Himself, when He did not need to, was done for our benefit so that we “would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.” (Heb 10:18)

Isaiah 53:4-5 says that Jesus carried our sickness away from us as a substitute. The word for carried is the Levitical word for the escape goat on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16. The sins of the people were transferred off the people onto the goat and then the goat carried the sins with it outside the camp. This is the word used in Isaiah 53 for Jesus carrying off our sicknesses. Then in the next verse it says that by Jesus’ stripes we are healed. This is again substitution. Thus, here are 2 different ways in which our sicknesses were removed from us in the atonement.

However, there is a 3rd way. In Galatians 3 Paul tells us that Jesus became a curse for us in our place so that in substitutionary exchange we receive the blessing of Abrham. The curses of the law, as stated in Deut. 28, includes all sicknesses. And so we have 3 different ways that Jesus removed sickness off of us, in the atonement, so that we are healed and healthy. 

This is like Jesus and the feeding of the 4 and 5 thousand. Why was there so many extra baskets left over? God is an extravagant giver. Paul says in Ephesians that He answers our prayers exceedingly, abundantly and beyond all that we ask and think. This is how God is. God overengineered our healing in the atonement excessively and beyond what was needed, to help our faith to be absolute and unwavering. With 3 ways to ask for healing based on the atonement, even if one way seemed iffy, there are still 2 others for your faith to grab on to, allowing you to receive healing by faith.  This is healing on the demand of faith that our sicknesses were already removed from us in Jesus’ atonement. This is by faith in a promise, not a “gift.”

As a side note, this is why Churches and pastors who do not heal the sick and who teach against healing on the demand of faith, are false teachers. With this one heresy they trample the blood of Jesus 3 times. There is no excuse for not teaching and being regular practitioners of healing.

There is also a 4th way that healing is in the atonement that is the “gift of healing,” that comes from gifts of the Spirit, when one is empowered by the baptism of the Spirit. Peter in Acts two says this outpouring of power was a promise of Father given to the Son when He sat at His right hand. Thus, it is tied into the gospel of Jesus. The bible gives this aspect the least amount of time and attention. Most of the attention the bible gives for healing, is faith in a simple promise or understanding in God’s word.

The same is with justification, or God declaring us righteous. God overengineered our justification so that there is no way for any Elect to not know how righteous they are in Christ.

There are 2 main ways we are justified by God. One is separate from the Law of Moses and the other is by the Law.  The way the reformation teaches this doctrine is distorted by the context of their fight with the Catholic church. It is understandable why they focus on certain aspects and not others in such a context, but it is not how the bible teaches the topic. It is not as if a basic statement of “we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone,” is wrong. There is no way to disagree with such a statement as it is.  However, the bible’s teaching on this doctrine is much bigger than a simple statement; for example, in a similar way that “healing by the gift of healing,” is true as far as it goes, but the bible has much more to say about healing and faith and the atonement than a “gift of healing.”

The bible introduces justification, or God declaring someone righteous in His sight, with Abrham. We read this in Genesis and Paul refers to this in Romans 4. God promises only good things to Abraham. This is an understatement. God promises the world, life, riches, fame, glory, supernatural health, military victories and unending children, with God showing the children the same favors. There is nothing about sin or forgiveness. God promises all good things. Abraham says he believes God will do it. And then at this, God declares Abraham righteous in His sight.

The important part of this is that there is no law. The law came 400 years later, as a temporary teaching aid (a temporary contract), to show how sinful we were. The big idea is that Abraham was declared righteous, separate from the law. And this is exactly what Paul says in Romans 3. “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed… David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works,” (Romans 3:21, 4:6 NKJV).  One verse mentions “separate from the law, then the other says “apart by works.” Both are true.  Then in chapter 4, mentions again that it is not through the Law. “(13)For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Thus, God declares people righteous separate from the Law. It is not merely apart from our works, but apart from the law, we are declared righteous.  “Apart from works,” we do not earn forgiveness by works we do. “Apart from the Law,” means God gave His righteousness to our account that is not related to the Law of Moses. This is how Abraham received righteousness and this is how we receive it.  

However, we are also declared righteous by the Law in another way. What is this way? It is by being forgiven of our sins. The Law contained both sins of omission and commission. We are commanded to avoid things like theft, but we are also commanded to love God and love our neighbors.  Thus, when we are forgiven for breaking the laws of the Law, we are forgiven for not having loving God above all things. Some speak of being forgiven as only being made neutral before God, or only at point 0. We have 0 bad works, but also 0 good works. But this is misleading. If you are a human and lived, your record, in regard to the law, is never neutral or at 0. If your record is at 0, then it would be the equivalent to saying you never lived. Furthermore, this could only be true if the Law only had sins of commission and not omission.  To be forgiven for not having loved God and our neighbor, is at the same time declared that we have loved God and our neighbors, otherwise we are still law breakers. The “blood” on the Day of Atonement, (which is part of the Law), provided Atonement/ forgiveness (covering over sin) and not 611 positive acts of a foreign righteousness added to the Israelites; accounts.  When Ephesians says, “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace, (1:7 NKJV), it means to be declared righteous by the Law at the same time. If the law declares you innocent then it declares you as doing good things.

However, the Law was a temporary Contract (Gal. 3:19-25) to get us ready for the gospel of Abrahams’ blessing, given to us in Jesus’ atonement. This is why we read in Colossians 2:14 about the law (or record against us) as being nailed to the cross. The Law was nailed to the cross (as being finished), because it was 400 years after Abraham, as a temporary measure; therefore it had a expiration date.  In Jesus we are forgiven of all our lawbreaking, and by this not only is the Law just neutral toward us, but it has declared us righteous. Because the Law is an extension of God, by it declaring us righteous, God declares us righteous.

By the “blood” of Jesus we are forgiven. By the blood of Jesus the Law is fulfilled by us, by us being forgiven. Jesus’ blood forgives us and by this the laws of omission are positive, and by this the law declares us righteous. This is what Romans 5:9 means when it says “justified by His blood.” The blood justifies us when we are forgiven by His blood. You cannot be forgiven, in relation to the Law, without being declared righteous at the same time by the Law.  This being justified by the blood and forgiveness is different from being justified “separate (3:21;4:6)” from the law. In both cases we are justified without our works. Jesus’ work of atonement forgives us, apart from anything we do. Likewise when we are justified apart from the Law, it is also without any we do. Both types of justification are worked by Jesus and freely given without works that we have done.

There is still the issue of 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Paul speaks of an “exchange” for our sin for “God’s righteousness.” Since all benefits we have are from Jesus in the gospel, then this righteousness must refer to Jesus and in particular to His righteous acts as a man. Jesus became one of us, for many reasons, and this appears to be one of those reasons; to have a human category exchange of sins for righteousness.  

Some teach this credited righteousness is the specific acts of Jesus credited to our accounts, in relation to the Law. Indeed, Jesus was born as a man under the law and came to fulfill the law in obedience as a man. Was this only for His sole benefit when the context is about being one of us to save us and bless us? That would be more than strange.  Since the Law already declares us righteous, by simply being forgiven, then in this aspect it is not necessary for Jesus’ righteous acts, line by line, to be credited us in relation to the Law.  However the more important parts involve two things. One, we are declared righteous “apart from the law.” The second is that 2 Corinthians 5:21 says we are given/credited with “God’s righteousness.” If the Law is only for humans and human righteousness, then how, according to the Law, is “God’s” righteous given to us? If the Law is God’s commands given to humans, not God, then how can the Law that only deals in human sins and human righteousness declare someone with “God’s” righteousness? The point is that it does not.  Yes, God can do whatever He wants, but God does not lie or break promises. God is free to arbitrarily hold a tree accountable for not bearing figs, but it is not based on previous commands given to man. God is still rational and truthful.

Jesus was a human, and as a human obeyed the Law perfectly. This was because our sins were done as humans. He became one of us, to be a final and perfect “escape goat” and “atonement in blood” for us. But regarding His obedience under that Law, it was also done as human. But we are told we are credited with “God’s righteousness,” not merely a human obedience to the Law.

The Law, in the Day of Atonement, allowed for “atonement,” or forgiveness. This is why the blood of bulls and goats cannot truly provide forgiveness, because they were animals not human. Jesus as a human, provided a human atonement, in the category of human forgiveness. This forgiveness is at the same time a justification.  Since the Law does not have the category to declare person with God’s righteousness, there needs to be another way. There is a different justification, that came first with Abraham. And this justification includes, not merely a human righteousness, but God’s.  

What exactly is “God’s righteousness?” Jesus was human but He also was God. He was the God-man. His mind, even though restricted, was still God’s mind.  Thus everything He did still had a God-ness attached to it. So there can be a case made that Jesus’ life obedience was also God’s righteousness. It will be mentioned later, but at least some of Jesus actions were directly tied us being declared righteous. However, since this is separate from the Law, God is free to arbitrarily credit any aspect of His righteousness to us.   

One thing to mention is that not all contrasts in the gospel are a one-to-one ratio. Take for example Romans 5. Paul says Adam’s death is credited to us, but in Christ His righteousness is credited to us. If it was one to one, it would be death and life, or sin for righteousness.  Thus, the contrast is not a perfect one to one.  Second, part of what God does is arbitrary. God does and saves and blesses how He wants, in the specific way He likes the most. And so, our sins were credited to Him in relation to the Law, but we were credited with God’s righteousness separate from the Law.

 “…the gracious gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ…. so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Romans 5:17, 21 NKJV).

This passage in Romans 5 is not about the Law. It is about us being declared righteous that is separate from the law (3:21). In Adam we were credited with death apart from the Law. Abraham, (and his children) were given righteousness apart from the Law. Then the temporary Law came in to show how sinful we were. Christ’ blood fulfills the Law and forgives us. But His righteousness is credited to us like it was with Abraham, apart from the Law.

On this passage you can at the very least say the righteousness of Jesus given to us includes His righteous behavior in face of His unjust treatment (5:16) of men in His atonement. Some traditions say that Jesus’ righteous acts, every action and thought He did, was credited it our account. This is interesting, but difficult to prove by a strict deduction/application of scripture. As just stated from Romans 5 we can say at the very least Jesus righteous act in facing the atonement is credited to us. However, I have not see a good argument from scripture alone that deduces every act of Jesus was credited to us. With just one act of Jesus credited to us, apart from the law, we can say we have the righteousness of God. Maybe it does include it all, but I will need a valid deduction from scripture to say that it does, not because some person or tradition says it. Some say we need to have all His actions credited to us because we need every part of our record replaced with one of His corresponding righteous acts. The bible does not say this. Also, this is impossible. Not impossible because God lacks power, but a category error impossibility. Jesus was not a father or mother, or a husband or a wife. Therefore, Jesus did not love child, or spouse with righteous acts of a parent or spouse. Thus, anyone who was a parent or spouse cannot have Jesus’ righteous acts of a parent or spouse added to their account. Therefore, no matter what position you take, all must affirm there are some righteous acts of Jesus not credited to our accounts. Thus, I cannot be accused of limiting Jesus imputed righteousness when all must affirm some level of it. The important part is simple, with least one righteous act from Jesus credited to our account, apart from the law, have the righteousness of God.

It is not relevant if it means more, if the point is to say Jesus’ righteousness is credited to us separate from the law, as our sins were credited to Him in relation to the Law. That is, even if Jesus righteousness was done to fulfill the Law as a man, it is credited to us separate from the Law. Since Jesus was still God when He did this, it is not only done by a human, but with a soul of a God, and so in this sense, it is a God type of righteousness. This credited righteousness that is called the “righteousness of God,” qualifies us to reign in life, just as Jesus reigns in life. Romans 4:25 says “who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” This “for our offenses,” is our forgiveness by the standard of the Law, by His blood that at the same time justifies us. The second part of the verse, “raised for our justification,” is the crediting of God’s righteousness to our account, that is separate from that law.

This second type of justification has the potential to include all sorts of God’s righteousness credited to us, and not merely Jesus’ direct fulfillment of a particular law of Moses. Because this crediting is not directly connected to the law, it means God is able to credit any sort of God’s righteousness to us as He so desires. If this was only by the Law, then you would have to find a specific instance of Jesus that obeyed that law and then credited to Oshea’s record of the Mosaic law. The point made before, is that it does include specific acts of Jesus obeying God, but that it also has no limits to what it can include. By making it only about the law, with “human righteousness,” it has been made too small, to what has been credited to us in Jesus.  But the scriptures clearly say it is “separate from the law” we that are made “God’s righteousness,” and so what can potentially be credited to us apart from that Law is without limit. What God can credit to us, in this application, is not limited by the categories of the Law. Potentially (not saying the scripture teach this) if God wanted to credit us with Jesus’ righteousness, done as God, before the incarnation, then it could be possible, because it is not restricted by the Law. Also, in one sense Jesus’ actions in the atonement are about loving God and man (the Law), but some of these actions are directly about Jesus loving the Father to do this before the incarnation and then fulfilled on earth. Both acts of obedience, theoretically, could be credited to us apart from the Law. These actions are God’s righteousness. In a short summary, Jesus Christ was deposited to our account by grace. This is the value we now have.

Because this credited righteousness, separate from the law, makes us reign in life as Jesus does, I believe this is likely connected to the other doctrine of “adoption as sons.” To be forgiven and declared righteous by the Law would absolutely give you many privileges by God, but to rule over life itself like Jesus, is something different. This works well with Abraham being declared righteous apart from the Law, who was a “friend” of God, and God was like a father to Abrham. It is speculating, but I believe this second type of credited righteousness is related to the doctrine of being children of God, while the first aspect is not.

This brings us back to Abraham. God promise had nothing to do with the law or sin. It had everything to do with God promising extraordinary abundance, fame, health and blessings. God declared Abraham righteous in His sight because Abraham believed God would do all the good things He promised. Abraham was made God’s righteousness separate from the law. This is why in Jesus we also are made God’s righteousness separate from the law. We are Abraham’s children and so we are made righteous in the same way. By believing all the good things given to us in Jesus, including the blessing of Abraham, God declares us righteous apart from the Law.

However, because the Law, albeit temporary, was given, then it must be dealt with. The law exposed sin. And thus, this must be dealt with. Romans 3 deals with this.

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus,” (Romans 3:21-26)

Justification started with Abraham and it did not have to do with forgiveness but a positive statement of righteousness. By righteousness I mean thoughts and actions that value God above all things (John 5:30). And in Abraham’s context it is believing God will do what He said. In the law, this is technically done by obeying all laws of commission and omission. We often think of forgiveness first, but the scripture starts off with a positive declaration of righteous acts freely credited to an account. In this way justification (being declared righteous in God’s sight) is a positive, with forgiveness assumed or presupposed.

With the Law, to be forgiven is to be declared righteous. However, (this does have a small amount of complexity here) for Abraham to be declared righteous, is to be forgiven at the same time, because you cannot be both righteous and unrighteous at the same time. Even one act of lawbreaking or devaluing of God is at the same time negating a “righteous record.” James says if you break one law from the Law, then you break them all. The same with innate knowledge apart from the Law. If you have one mistake it is no longer a righteous record. Because God’s standard is perfection, then you cannot have a righteous record without it being perfect, and this is true for the Law and without the Law.  And so, to be credited with God’s righteousness is to also be blameless.

Looking at justification from the Law, it is looking at this is from a standpoint of being born into time, within a history of these things already at play. Looking justification from Abraham’s view is seeing it from the larger picture of God’s decrees (logical order, not historical) and original intentions. Because God’s original decrees and intentions were for us to be sons of God in Jesus, being highly loved, then of course it would include being blameless.

With Abraham God imputes righteousness to a person’s account while they still have unrighteous acts, so that both are present (this was part of the dilemma of Romans 3:21-26, from man’s perspective. From God’s part, He looked like He was not following His own rules about sin and punishment.) Abraham’s record appeared to have both righteousness and unrighteousness. However, because a “perfect or blameless record” is part of being righteous, then when God declared Abraham righteous, it includes God dealing with the imperfections of Abraham’s record. Because we are children of Abraham, we had the same issue. However, because justification included forgiveness, forgiveness was finally dealt with at the cross. When speaking of being declared righteous by God, blamelessness is assumed. The two are woven together as a packaged deal.

The application of knowing how righteous you are is for the ethics section; however, as Hebrews chapter 10:1-2 says, if you are forgiven by God, then you should have no more consciousness of your sin. You are to forget and dismiss them the same way God has. You are not replay your sins in your mind. Rather, what should be on a permanent replay in your mind is how righteous you are. Jesus has made “you” righteous, and this should constantly be in your thoughts day and night.  A person who does not see themselves righteous now, by constantly thinking how righteous they are, is a person who does not believe they are saved. If you are sin conscience it means you believe you are sinful and disregard Jesus’ substitution as ineffective.  Faith is a mental assent in the mind. The proof you have faith in Jesus’ atonement is your mind is constantly conscience how righteous and awesome you are in Christ.

The proofs for how righteous you are, are obvious, such as a sound mind, and effective prayers (James 5).

Also, Vincent Cheung shows us a great summary for this saying,

“When you feel so “right,” nothing can stand in your way. When you are so “right,” you cannot conceive of any reason why God would not answer your prayers for success and miracles. You cannot conceive of any reason why a sickness or demon would not depart when you command it to go. You have the “right-ness” of God. This is how God feels about himself, and he wants to share this feeling with you, through Jesus Christ. This is the power of the righteousness of God. It has been untapped for almost two thousand years. As much as the Reformation harped about justification by faith, it had no idea what it is. It did not get anywhere close to what the righteousness of God could mean to Christians, and to the world. God’s righteousness is a thing of horror to Satan, but he is not nervous when it remains only a formal principle in Christian theology, rather than a vital power and a superhuman righteous feeling and confidence in every single believer. The prayer of a righteous man is effective indeed, but it is futile if no one actually feels righteous, or if this righteousness is only a theological principle and not a supernatural reality in man. What do we have in Christ? What Satan says about me is irrelevant, because I am God-centered, and I think about how righteous God is in me. This is the only basis on which I live. When Satan pokes at me with his little wrinkly finger, I slam his head off with the fist of God. Then I clobber his face into the ground over and over again like a madman until he is only a puddle of goo. This is the righteousness that we have in Christ Jesus.”[1]


[1] Vincent Cheung. The Christian and the Self. From the ebook “Contract.” 2020. Pg. 34.