Christian academic cattle: “Ignore context and manipulate categories as if you are God, so even if the category and context is about giving money transform it to be about invisible spiritual things. Moralize the text to oblivion and back, so the direct meaning is lost. Ok., Just pretend you are God, and make it say whatever you want.”
LOL !!! Don’t get me wrong, I like a nice fairytale or anime like the next guy, but do you have no fear of God that you invalidate God’s commandments by your tradition? The categories and context is about financial giving. Paul says Jesus took on our poverty ((Jesus was poor His life relative to heaven, but not poor relative to others around him; His true monetary poverty came at the cross when he was penniless and naked)) so that by taking our poverty on Himself, we take on His riches. It was an atonement of substation! Jesus as a substitute atonement for our poverty, means we get His prosperity. The same is for our healing, as said in Isaiah 53:4-5 (Jesus as a substitute atonement for our sickness, means we are healed). Our poverty became His, and His riches becomes ours. Paul says this is for the church today, and not merely in heaven.
Paul says something similar a few chapters earlier, therefore context is huge here. Jesus as a substitute atonement for our sin, means we get His righteousness. If we apply the principle of first mentions, then this becomes even a stronger hermeneutic. But alas, Christian academic cattle simply get to make things up and moralize ever text into only spiritual things. Jesus took on our sin, so that we become His righteousness. He became our sin, we become His righteousness. Paul says this is for the church today, and not merely for heaven.
“He made the one who did not know sin to be sin on our behalf, in order that we could become the righteousness of God in him,”
( 2 Corin. 5:21 LEB).
“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that although he was rich, for your sake he became poor, in order that you, by his poverty, may become rich…
So now also complete [your financial giving] of it, in order that just as you have the eagerness to want to do it, thus also you may complete [your financial giving] from what you have,”
( 2 Corin. 8:8-9,11 LEB)
“And God is able to cause all grace to abound to you, so that in everything at all times, because you have enough of everything, you may overflow in every good work [your financial giving].
Just as it is written, “He scattered widely, he gave to the poor; his righteousness remains forever,”
( 2 Corin. 9:8 LEB)
Intelligence is not measured by what some boil down to an IQ test. For this to be proven, empiricism as an epistemology must be proven and induction must yield necessary conclusions. When has this happened? Or can one show in formal validity that the bible teaches an IQ test, or a mere narrow applied skill is how the Bible defines intelligence? Where is this proof?
If a Christian presupposes empiricism, like a spiritual adulteress, to understand what intelligence is, we are to rebuke and dismiss such a person. We know where they presuppose knowledge from. It is not God; it is not from the scripture. No. Their starting point for knowledge is human and sensual; it is from below; it is not from above. They are the pinnacle of what it means to be man-centered. They are spiritual perverts.
Below are a few quotes from Vincent Cheung, from his Systematic Theology. See actual reference for more Scriptural quotations.
On the other hand, Scripture teaches, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding” (Psalm 111:10). Proverbs 9:10 says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.” Thus Christians have wisdom and understanding. They are intelligent people. But since the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and the Bible acknowledges only the Christian God, this means that non-Christians have not even started to have wisdom. They do not have even a little of it. They are completely unintelligent and uneducated.
The biblical assessment of non-Christians is that they are both stupid and sinful. They are intellectually and ethically inferior. They demonstrate their lack of intellectual aptitude in failing to agree with the Christian faith. And in denying the Christian faith despite the innate knowledge that God has placed in their minds and despite the irrefutable arguments of biblical apologetics, they show that they are not only intellectual ostriches but that they actively suppress the truth about God….
Supralapsarianism is the biblical and rational order. Infralapsarianism confuses logical conception with historical execution, so that not only is it contrary to fact, but it makes nonsense of some of the divine decrees. For any given decree, it leaves the purpose of the decree unspecified until the next decree. But then there is no reason for the present one, so that it becomes arbitrary. Thus infralapsarianism is blasphemous by implication, since it insults God’s intelligence and denies his rationality…
The mind of man, his intelligence or rationality, is the image of God. It is impossible to deny this, but some people attempt to add other elements to it, such as morality and dominion. This is, in fact, consistent the biblical position (Ephesians 4:24); however, rationality remains the basic element in the definition of the image of God. Man’s moral nature distinguishes him from the animals, and so it seems that it is a part of the image of God. But what is the basis of this moral nature, and how does it operate? Even animals “obey” God’s commands, but instead of doing so on the basis of understanding and volition, they are compelled by instinct. On the other hand, man receives and understands a divine command, and then decides to obey it or defy it. He can comprehend the concepts of good and evil, and he can discuss them by the use of language. This means that man is moral precisely because he is rational. Morality is a function of intelligence or rationality. Therefore, although to have a moral nature is part of what it means to be a human person, it is not necessary to include it as part of the basic definition for the image of God…
For more insight into this, Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 1 and 2, will give us some more knowledge.
For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the intelligence of the intelligent I will confound.”
Where is the wise person? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe. For indeed, Jews ask for sign miracles and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a cause for stumbling, but to the Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.
(1 Corinthians 1:18-24 LEB
And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I decided not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and with much trembling, and my speech and my preaching were not with the persuasiveness of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and power, in order that your faith would not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Now we do speak wisdom among the mature, but wisdom not of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are perishing, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a mystery, which God predestined before the ages for our glory).
(1 Corinthians 2:1-7 LEB)
Paul is contrasting “HUMAN” wisdom and intelligence with “GOD’s” wisdom and intelligence. Depending on the translation you have, wisdom, understanding and intelligence being used. All are appropriate, because we get them defined in context of this passage.
Starting with the foundation, God’s “wisdom” is defined in His perfect understanding of Himself, and also His logical ordering of decrees. God’s Spirit knows Himself. Also, we are dealing with God’s predestination, which is a logical ordering of the world, from purpose to execution. This is God’s wisdom and understanding. God has an infinite amount of propositions and an infinite amount of connections between these propositions. When God thinks a specific thought about reality, it is a deduction (Rational) thought, because it is an application of His total knowledge. That is, it is not an addition of information (outside of God’s mind) into the conclusion (i.e. application); rather, the specific knowledge in the conclusion is only pinpointing out knowledge already contained in God’s total knowledge. The order of the decrees is rational, because it goes from God’s purpose/goal to execution. This is God’s understanding and intelligence.
This is contrasted to HUMAN wisdom. Human wisdom and intelligence start with man’s observations, man’s feelings and man’s sensations. From this starting point, man irrationally formulates categorial and universal premises for reality. For the Greeks this was the Socratic method, and today a modified version of this is called Scientific Experimentation.
Paul specifically attacks two points of their human wisdom. First is the empty flowery sounding rhetoric, “persuasiveness of wisdom.” Paul did not rely on a super eloquent sounding speech to convince the Corinthians. The second is attacking how humans try to make “demonstrations” without God’s revelation. Paul attacks by a positive. He does this by saying his logical proof, using God as a foundation means the Corinthians faith is in God, not man. Paul uses philosophy words to further the contrast of human wisdom vs God, and to show were the presuppositional issue is.
Aristotle is famous for defining a “sound” argument in two ways. First, universal truth premises come from human starting points, observations and induction. It has similarity to the Socratic method and scientific experimentation. Second, once this is established then we are to use deduction to apply these truths in specific applications/conclusions. Since the Bible presupposes and uses deductive logic almost nonstop, we also will use deduction. However, the issue is how do you get your initial truth claims about reality. Paul, is starting with God’s revelation. Man starts with man’s observations (along with induction) to formulate them.
The LEB says “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the intelligence of the intelligent I will confound.” Thus, the intelligence of the Greeks was according to Paul’s own use of the term “moron” in this passage, were well, morons. That is, despite the fact some of the Greeks tried to used deduction (or tried to be rational, or tried to make “SOUND” arguments “demonstrations”), they ended up un-intelligent and morons. How is that that case? Because they started with a HUMAN starting point for knowledge rather than God’s revelation.
Paul is defining the Christian’s wisdom and intelligence as two things. One, starting with God’s revealed truth about reality. Then secondly from there, making rational or deductive applications of these truths. Aristotle and the Greeks were unintelligent morons, because the so-called truth premises about the world, were nothing more than human delusions and speculations. No amount of deductions afterwards can compensate for this. In fact, to keep making deductions from false premises is how to be insane and delusional.
Example: “All humans do not exist. I am a human. Thus. I do not Exist.”
Or “All humans are clouds. You are a human. Thus, You are a cloud.”
So try jumping off a cliff next time you see one, because you will float like a cloud.
The logical application here is indeed deductive, but it is not sound. It is NOT intelligent to attempt to be rational while using make-believe delusions for your premises. Insane people are right at home with this: “All humans are dogs. I am a human. Thus, I am a dog. Ruff, Ruff, Ruff.”
This is how the Scripture would define intelligence and non-intelligence. The Scripture would define a person with a so-called high IQ or particular skill, but does not use correct premises to know the world as it truly is, as unintelligent and moronic. Because of the pragmatic usefulness of science, people are often blinded by the fact that its premises about reality are produced by induction and speculations. Thus, to use science to produce true conclusions about reality is just as insane and moronic as the above syllogisms. “ruff, ruff!”
Some do not like this, just as they do not like the rest of Scripture and God, but their rebellion will be fruitless. I can say, for sake of argument, “let us only consider intelligence in regard to understanding math, or and IQ test, or how much computer code one can apply without mistakes,” but that is the issue. The “for sake of argument” here is to pretend the rest of reality out of the equation. Life and reality does not work that way. God does not work that way. You cannot pretend the majority of God out. Or you cannot pretend major presuppositions out of the consideration and argument and still sanely think you have a “good” definition of something. I can say, “for sake of argument if addition and subtraction did not exist,” then proceed to talk about math, but I am only pretending. It is a delusion, that has no application for truth. Let us leave pretending and delusions behind and reach for the truth.
Paul put an emphasis on how God has made us wise and intelligent, though His Spirit, by revealing the things that are freely given to us.
“(1) All those saved by Jesus are those with Abraham’s blessing. (2) Oshea is saved by Jesus. (3) Thus, Oshea has Abraham’s blessing.” When we define what Abraham’s blessing means, by the definition of Paul gives in Galatians, such as the “Spirit and miracles,” then we can conclude, “Oshea gets the blessing of the Spirit and miracles”. Or “(1) All righteous persons are those whose prayers avails much. (2) All Christians are righteous persons. (3) Oshea is a Christian. (4) Thus, Oshea is a person whose prayers avails much.” Let us use Jesus’ modus ponens argument in John 15. “(P) (1) If My words abide in you and you abide in Me, (Q)then YOU will ask whatever YOU want and YOU will get it. (2) Christ’s words do abide in YOU and YOU abide in Him. (3) Thus YOU ask for whatever YOU wish and get it.” (Etc.).
Wait? Your experience does not line up with this? Who is the liar here, Jesus or what you humanly conclude off your experience in prayer? You must choose. Jesus has drawn a line in the sand. Will you pick intelligence or insanity? You pick a side. You must decide if you will choose a HUMAN OR GOD’s starting point for knowledge. You will be judged if you truly take your stand on God’s revelation and make a biblical and sound application of it for your life, or if you are a spiritual pervert and begin knowledge with your sensations and superstitions.
This is how the Spirit defines wisdom and intelligence, anything else is moronic, insanity and unintelligent. In Jesus we truly have the “Mind of Christ.” The Biblical worldview only defines Christians as intelligent, or as least those with the ability to be intelligent to some degree. The Christian is so superior and privileged by God as their Father, that only they are intelligent, wise and full of understanding. The rest of the world, no matter how accomplished they are, are nothing more than morons. They are nothing more than an insane person in an insane asylum, who bark at doors, eat their own poop, try to eat their mom because they think she is fish, think they are clouds (etc) and who have accomplished the skill of stacking 2 blocks on top of each other. Such people are to be mocked and dismissed.
 Even those I will quote Vincent much below (because he as help me on these topics), I am not affiliated with him in any way.
 Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 50-51.
 Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg.116
 Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 120
 The deductive nature of God’s thinking about reality was pointed out to me by Vincent Cheung in a email correspondence about the essay, “Inductive Bible Study.” Once you consider it, it is rather obvious.
“I added that statement because someone said that I was wrong, since God does not perform deduction, but only direct intuition. In other contexts, I myself have taught that God knows all things directly but the focus here is induction vs. deduction in the context of theology. The person nitpicked at me because he wanted to sound clever and throw himself into the discussion. You know how people are. But it showed that he really didn’t know what deduction is. Would he say the same thing about a discussion on the order of the eternal decrees? When we talk about that, we sometimes qualify it by reminding people that the order is a logical order, not a chronological one, since there is no process of reasoning in God, as if he does not have in mind premise #3 when he is still on premise #1. No, he is directly aware of all premises at the same time, but it remains that he is aware of them, and of the logical relationships between premises. But whether we remind people of this or not, it is always assumed. This person did not understand deduction so he thought he had room to show off his knowledge. So I added this in case other people failed to assume the obvious. I was surprised, in fact, since it was so basic.
Deduction always produces correct conclusions, because the conclusions never produce information not already in the premises. Deduction is more like an application of knowledge, unlike induction, which is a fallacious attempt at arriving at more knowledge. So when applied to God in this context, deduction is the same as his intuition. Using the same example, when we talk about the eternal decrees, we are talking about God’s deduction. But if we, like the person who complained, cannot even talk about God in terms of deduction, then we cannot even discuss the topic of the eternal decrees, because it would all be just one “thing.” Take it to the extreme, we cannot even talk about God thinking, speaking, acting, or anything about God. Everything would just be one eternal “thing” in God’s mind. But of course we can talk about God’s deduction, thinking, speaking, acting, his before and after, and all that, just like the way he talks about himself. Several times I have pointed out that some Christians, after learning a little, makes what little they know the whole thing, and then try to police everyone else with it, including their expressions. Many Calvinists are like that. They become trapped in their own personal terminologies. It happens when they talk about justification, predestination, and many other things. This is a sign of ignorance, not knowledge or orthodoxy.”
 Vincent helped me immensely to understand this passage. To see his argument, Vincent Cheung, “Proof of the Spirit,” which is found the book, “Commentary on 1 and 2 Thessalonians.” 1 THESSALONIANS 1:5b. 2008. Pg 24-27.
“Paul deliberately slips into philosophical terms in verse 4, asserting that his preaching was shown true, not by speculative and fallacious arguments, but by the “demonstration” of the Spirit. The word indicates a logical proof, as in philosophy and geometry. The English translation is appropriate, since “demonstration” denotes a “logical proof in which a certain conclusion is shown to follow from certain premises.”
His point is that he insisted on presenting a message that was based on divine revelation instead of one that was based on human speculation.
Bullinger writes, “Here, it denotes the powerful gift of divine wisdom, in contrast with the weakness of human wisdom.” This is the issue at hand. Paul’s preaching differs from the orators both in method and content, but his arguments are nevertheless logical and persuasive. Unlike the fallacious “proof” of the sophists, the apostle provides sound “proof” for his message that is powerful to effect conversion in his hearers…” pg. 26
“But this is the new covenant I will make with the people of Israel after those days,” says the Lord. “I will put my instructions deep within them, and I will write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 And they will not need to teach their neighbors, nor will they need to teach their relatives, saying, ‘You should know the Lord.’ For everyone, from the least to the greatest, will know me already,” says the Lord. “And I will forgive their wickedness, and I will never again remember their sins.”
(Jeremiah 31:33-34 NLT)
“And I will make an everlasting covenant with them: I will never stop doing good for them. I will put a desire in their hearts to worship me, and they will never leave me. “
(Jeremiah 32:40 NLT)
God says He will not stop from doing “good to us”, on the foundation of the New Contract, made active in the bloodshed of Jesus Christ.
Pay close attention to the word “Good.”
How does God define this for Himself, and how do religious cattle and fanboys define it? No-faith people usually find ways to neuter this word, so that it only means invisible spiritual “good” things. It is good things for the next life, for another time; it is not now and not here. Martha tried this fallacy with Jesus, regarding the resurrection. She put it in a different place and time. Jesus rebuked her and said, resurrection is here and now, because He is here and now with us. Jesus presupposes that if God is here with you, He is able and will help. Thus, even resurrection, which seems like such a spiritual thing for the next life, Jesus says it for now. God is able, and God will help. And the last thing is this, in Jesus, God is here now with us. He is the defining difference, not man and his limitations.
Matthew 7:7-11 NLT
7 “Keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened.
9 “You parents—if your children ask for a loaf of bread, do you give them a stone instead? 10 Or if they ask for a fish, do you give them a snake? Of course not! 11 So if you sinful people know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good gifts to those who ask him.
God defines His goodness as always answering your prays with the exact thing you as from Him. The only exception is if you ask for sin (God give me strength to murder, steal and commit adultery), which means you are not even God’s friend but His enemy. But since I am talking to people who claim to be God’s friends, I will move one. This is the infallible testimony of Scripture about God and goodness. Because religious cattle do not believe the Scripture is the infallible word of God, nor the only source of knowledge, they therefore, do not accept this testimony from God. Because they dislike this aspect of God, they dislike goodness itself. The goodness from demons and pagan eastern religious teach that if you ask, then the gods might or might not give you what you ask for, and even if they do, it might come as a cost in another area of your life. Religious cattle are fodder for Satan.
By not believing this testimony from God you rob Him of His glory of “goodness.” That is, God will, is to display His goodness by your faith in prayers to get the very thing you ask for. If you do not obey this, then you cheat God of His value; you steal from Him of one of the chief ways He displays His definition of “goodness” to the world and principalities.
The encouragement is found in the promise. God promises to never remember our sins against us in the new contract. Hallelujah! You do right to believe this and stand on this promise. But do not stop there. God promises to never stop from doing “good” to you. He promises therefore, to never stop from answering your prayers with yes, and give you what you ask for (and even more). Do not be fodder for devils; rather, let your life to be the displaying of God’s goodness in your life by answered prayers.
Was asked a question, and I decided to post it here. Even without context, the positive doctrine explains itself.
“Vincent Cheung explains that according to the Bible the greatest love and hate is an intellectual love and hate.
Most Christians do not understand in what sense we are to love non-Christians and in what sense we are to hate them. But now it is clear that we love the non-Christians in the restricted sense of natural benevolence, but we hate them in the broad sense, that we are hostile to everything about them. The “love” that God and Christians show toward nonChristians is limited to natural and temporal kindness, but on the spiritual and ideological level, God and Christians are completely opposed to the non-Christians. Of course, Christians can pray that the non-Christians be converted. But it remains that as long as they are non-Christians, it is impossible to show brotherly love toward them, since they are not brothers. Rather, the only “love” that God and Christians can show them is the kind that we show to animals – we feed them, house them, and clean up after them.
Complete hostility to another person’s thoughts and actions, including his beliefs, desires, ambitions, preferences, values, lifestyles, habits, and so on, which is the same as hating the person himself, is hatred at the deepest level. This hatred is much deeper than the kind that would strip him of his natural welfare. By this definition, God and Christians hate nonChristians at the deepest level possible, and likewise, non-Christians hate God and Christians at the deepest level possible.
This has foundational importance. If someone disagrees with our Christian worldview, then there is no greater hate they can show us. Likewise, by affirming their worldview is false, we hate them in the greatest possible way.
Recall how people are often mistaken about attributing particular human moral attributes to God; for example, like not decreeing evil. However, if there is an attribute God is He is jealous about, and wants men constantly attributing to Him, apart from His sovereignty, it is His truth, or faithfulness. Hebrews says it is impossible for God to lie. There is not even the possibility for God to lie. None. Jesus’ sermon on the mountain, stresses that men are to emulate this by letting their, Yes be Yes, and No be No.
When men worship an idol or do not believe the Scripture, they are testifying in the public world that “God is a liar.” There is no greater way to hate God than this. To humble yourself, by rejecting what you see and observe, and accept what God has said is true, testifies that God is true. This is the greatest way to love Him. When asked what does God want from men, (John 6) Jesus says it is to believe in Him. Of course, the Spirit causes us to do this.
We must start with what is the greatest hate and love. The reprobate and unbeliever hate us in the greatest possible way, even if they do not see it that way; this is God’s world and how He has defined it. There is nothing they can do, (no physical harm) that is a greater hate than not believing the Bible with us. This where we start on this subject.
The bible does seem to show a distinction between “personal” persecution and persecution done directly to hinder the gospel ministry. If someone is personally annoying, then I would still seek their good, pray for their blessing, unless they got to a point of vexing my soul.
But gospel hindrance is a different thing. Remember how the church asked (Acts 5) God to apply Psalm 2 in the form of healings and miracles “TO” the government oppressing them. Some of these miracles open government owned prisons (with property damage), blinded reprobates and etc. Paul prayed for the harm which the coppersmith did to Paul, (and the context is the harm done in hindering the ministry of the Word of God), would be repaid back to the coppersmith. This is a vindictive Psalm prayer 101.
So at the very least, in cases of persecution and harm that directly effects gospel ministry, hate is prayed to be applied back to the reprobates, even in judgment miracles. The Church needs faith for both healings, and judgment miracles. Without this, the church is weak and vulnerable. In most cases in your lives, this not the case; rather, you do your best, in the pragmatic application, to live at peace and even help the unbelievers, who hate you with the greatest hate possible. This love will either save them or heap coals upon their heads. This love will either lead to an aroma of death or life for them.
 Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 79
“…as you have believed, so let it be done for you...,” (Matthew 8:13).“Live by faith, not by sight,” (2 Corin 5:7).
One of the things I would tell my younger self, would be to do more devotional material and do weekly, if not daily word of faith confessions over God’s promises. To do them and never stop. Below, is a WOF confession I do regularly. I would encourage you to do this, if you are not already in the practice. The “I will” list is largely from a list I saw the Vincent Cheung Ministry Team post on their blog. I have expounded on this with things that I know I need to confess for my specific areas of building faith. You should make a list with both general promises and ones you specifically need.
Definition: God’s Love is His policy of thought and action of favor to His Elect.
“Just as sin [dominated you] in death, so also [unmerited favor] will [dominate you] through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 5:21 (HCSB)
“I pray that from God’s valuable, unlimited resources He will empower you with inner strength through His Spirit. Then Christ will make his home in your hearts, as you trust in Him. Your roots will grow down into God’s (policy of thought and action of favor to you), and (this will) keep you strong. And may you have the (ability) to understand, as all God’s people should, how wide, how long, how high, and how deep is His (policy of thought and action of favor to you) is. May you experience the love of Christ, though it is too great to understand (in its infinity). Then you will be made complete with all the fullness of life, and powerful ability that comes from God.” (Ephesians 3:16–19, NLT)
Father, You have given me Your limitless supply of unmerited love and put in me Your powerful ability. By Your Will You have made me holy by Your Son’s body, and because You are able, You have already made the New Contract active for me. The Same power you used in endless power of life to put Christ above all powers at your right hand, now works in me. You love me beyond measure. Your Son died to atone for my sins, in Love. You gave me the gift righteousness, out of love. Unmerited favor rules over all my life. Yes, you love me so much as to call me a child of God!
You say in a blood oath Contract that,
I will never remember yours sins against you,
I will write my laws upon your heart so that you will not depart but Love Me,
I will Be your God, and you my People,
I will be with you to heal and favor you,
I Will never stop from doing Good to you.
And you even say,
I AM your righteousness,
I AM your unmerited favor,
I AM your throne of grace and power that you have direct access through My Son.
“I believed, and so I have spoken.”
Therefore, Father I say with love and confidence back to You, as I look to You for more maturity in these things. You made the worlds. You alone define reality with your Word, for there is none beside You. You have defined me as a son of God in Christ, as one in Him and He in me, as an heir of God.
I am what I am,
I am the righteousness of God,
by the unmerited favor of Christ,
Because You are able and will do it, Father I will:
…walk in Christ and not without him,
…walk in faith and not unbelief,
…walk in hope and not fear,
…walk in your peace and not anxiety,
…walk in your joy and not depression,
…walk in your freedom and not bondage of sin,
…walk in your abundant supply and not lack,
…walk in your health and not sickness,
…walk in your power and not my own strength,
…walk in your unmerited favor
& not self-righteousness,
…walk in confidence before you and not condemnation,
…walk in submission to your will and not to men’s
…walk in obedience to you and not rebellion,
…walk in your love and not bitterness,
…walk in your forgiveness and not resentment,
…walk in your healing and not infirmity.
…walk in your abundant prosperity, and not reliance on human effort,
…walk under the shadow of you wings and not be afraid of terrors,
…walk directly to the throne of grace and receive what I ask for,
and not act like I don’t have a Contract with God.
…walk in the fullness of Christ and not my own sufficiency,
…walk in the spirit and not the flesh,
…walk in your truth, and not the devil’s lies,
…walk in your friendship, & not enmity against you,
…walk in the law of the Spirit of life and not sin and death,
…walk in purity of mind, and not the cares of this world,
…walk in your unfailing mercy, and not mere human kindness,
…walk in storing up treasures for heaven with Christ & not the things of this world
…walk in my “beloved” identity in Christ & not as a mere mortal
…walk as a king in this life through Christ
and not as a slave to sin,
…walk in spiritual revelation, and not spiritual dullness,
…walk in your presence and not self-assurance,
…walk in your light and not in darkness,
…walk with you and not alone.
Father this is your definition of the world and of me. I speak your definition back to you, for You are more than able, oh Father of unstoppable Power!
 I got the basic idea of this definition from reading Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology. 2010. 78
 In fellowship to the Father, listen to His words of love and promise to you. Then in faith, speak back to Him your love and promise to Him, knowing He is able to strengthen you in all areas of life.
There are reasons to do a word of faith confession. (1) You already believe and so you speak it. (2). You admit you faith is weak, and you admit your mind needs to be renewed, and so, you speak God’s word and speak God’s promises, in order to renew you mind and to strengthen your faith. (3) You enjoy fellowship with God. You enjoy reading His word, and enjoy speaking in faith back to your beloved Father.
We are not dealing with the difference about God’s Will, and its 2 ways the bible uses it, which is causality and command; this has already been dealt with. In addition, Vincent has already done a great article, demonstration the focus of the Bible about healing and such is not the Will of God, but the Will of man; this is positive doctrine the Bible overwhelmingly focuses on.
The focus I wish to bring up is the horrific consequence that happens when one abuses God’s sovereignty to negate Christian accountability and responsibility.
Even though God gives commands and precepts in wonderfully encouraging promises, they are still commands. They are not suggestions; they are not self-help-tips from a spiritual guru. When Paul tells us to live by faith and not sight, it is a precept. You are responsible and accountable to accomplish this by faith. When Jesus tells us not to worry and fear, it is a command. You are responsible and accountable to accomplish this by faith in God. When James tells us if we lack wisdom, to ask God, without doubting, to get wisdom, it is a precept. You are responsible and accountable to get wisdom by faith. If you doubt, you are in disobedience, and this accountability is yours to bear. When James tells us—if you are sick, pray in faith and you “shall be healed”—, he is giving a precept. It is not a self-help tip. James is not a Yoga teacher. He is standing in the place of God giving instruction and commands. You are responsible and accountable to get healed, if you failed, the accountability is yours to bear. The same with the beautiful gospel message. Just because it is wonderful, does not negate it is a command. All bear the responsibility to be saved by faith.
In all the above situations, saying “God’s Will,” will not save you on the day of judgement for disobeying these commands. Either Christ took on these disobedience in His substitution for you, or you will bear them in the fires of hell.
The phrase, “God’s Will,” or “God is in control,” is used to negate God’s command to be saved, to be healed, to get wisdom, to get victories over our troubles and so on. Yet, this is not what I wish to focus on. Another ethical horror, is what is happening when God’s will is used to determine ethics.
First, the irrational use of ontology to ethics.
“Brightman’s argument and all forms of so-called scientific ethics are based on a logical oversight. The premises of these theories are always descriptive statements, such as: I like this, or my friends like this. Science is a matter of observation and description, but scientific ethics depends on empirical observation for its premises. And if the premises are descriptive statements, the conclusions cannot be logically anything else than descriptive. Yet for ethics there must be normative conclusions. It will not suffice to say that you, or I, or Brightman likes this. What is required is a statement that you and I and Brightman ought to like this, and that everyone ought to like this, even though as a descriptive fact nobody likes it. The premises of science are always descriptive propositions; the conclusions of ethics must be normative. And it is a logical blunder to insert terms in the conclusion that did not appear in the premises. Any theory of ethics therefore that attempts to support ideals on observation, experience, or scientific method rests on a fallacy.”
-Gordon Clark. “The Achilles Heel of Humanism.”
Clark is making an obvious but often overlooked point. When thinking intelligently and rationally, you cannot do it if you try to conclude an ethic from statements of existence and casualty. You cannot validly go from ontology to ethics in a conclusion. Or do you cannot rationally go from “is” to an “ought” in the conclusion. The same is true for all category errors. You cannot be in the category of dogs, in your major and minor premise, to then concluded in a category of mathematics. So what if golden retrievers are warm blooded dogs, what does that have to do with 6 + 109 = 115?
Obviously athletic, empiricist, and evolutionist make this mistake, but why are Christians so stupid?
H.1. All humans are those who were born sinful.
H.2. Oshea is human.
H.3. Thus, Oshea is he who should repent.
This is painfully invalid. It is a four-term fallacy. I have more information in the conclusion, which I did not start with.
The premises are statements about reality, but I concluded with a different knowledge and category of an ethic.
The only rational way for Oshea to know that he should repent is if God commands it, and God does. All Christian ethics are God’s commandments.
G.1. All humans are those commanded by God to repent.
G.2. Oshea is a human.
G.3. Thus, Oshea is commanded by God to repent.
I bring in this logic lesson, because this illogical (or superstitious) mistake is often made when I hear people say, “God’s will,” or “God is in control.”
Let us continue to see what a mix-up from God’s causality and His commands looks like.
If I say, all [bark] is [silent]. And all [dogs] [bark]. Thus all [dogs] are [silent],” then my syllogism is not sound because I made a 4-term fallacy (with bark), or an equivocation as an informal fallacy.
For a syllogism to be valid, then the category needs to stay the same. If not, then mental blunders such as a 4-term fallacy, equivocation or a non-necessary connection is made (etc.). For a propositional syllogism to work, it must have a necessary connection and not merely a sufficient one.[] A modus ponens where the “if…then,” connection is merely sufficient but not necessary, is most likely the fallacy of affirming the consequent wrongly disguised as something it is not.[]
For a correct example, consider the Ultimate level.
J.1. (P) If God decrees (Ultimate) Johnny to not believe the gospel, (~Q) then Johnny will choose not to believe(relative ontology).
J.3. Thus, (Q).
The antecedent is ontology the on ultimate level. The consequent is ontology on the relative level. The Real level of causality (p), necessarily results in the relative level causality (q). This works, because it is a true cause and effect revealed by Scripture.
Think of a game like checkers, or chess.[] The ultimate level is saying, “Oshea moves white pawn.” But on the relative level, “white pawn moves to E4.” Or in propositional logic, going from ultimate ontology to relative.
K.1. (P) If Oshea directly moves black bishop to B3, (Q) then the necessary result is that black bishop will take white pawn on B3.
K.3. Thus, (Q).
This is saying, “God directly causes all things; thus, God directly causes specific x, y or z.” If God ultimately causes all things, then God ultimately is the author for all rain. Or. If God ultimately causes all things, then God ultimately is the author for all sin. Like Vincent Cheung says, “Deduction is more like an application of knowledge, unlike induction, which is a fallacious attempt at arriving at more knowledge.”[]
Now, what if I were to use God’s decree in the antecedent, but then go into a necessary consequent of what man ought to do (ethics)?
L.1.(P) If God commands all to believe in the gospel, (~Q) then Jack is accountable for not believing the gospel.
N.1. (P) If God commands(ethics) that no one is to bear false witness, (Q) then Jack is wrong when he bears false witness against Sally.[]
The big idea? All [Christian ethics] are [God’s revealed commandments]. God commanded x, y and z; thus, is it always ethical for human (H) to obey x, y and z, and ethically wrong to disobey. NLV 1 John 3:4, “For sin is breaking the Law of God.” Thus, all [sin] is [lawbreaking]. If said in the immediate deduction of contraposition in layman’s terms, “if the law is being kept, then, there is no sin.”
Look, what happens if we mix categories up?
M.1. (P) If God decreed the Apostle Thomas to not believe Jesus’ resurrection, (~Q) then Thomas is not accountable for not believing what Jesus commanded to.
Or in more concise way of saying it,
B.1. If God decreed unbelief, then ok to not believe.
B.2. God decreed unbelief.
B.3. Thus, it is ok to not believe.
Or God’s decreed said more in relation to plan, rather than direct cause.
B.1. If God planned unbelief, then ok to not believe.
B.2. God planned unbelief.
B.3. Thus, it is ok to not believe.
Again, this is unsound and false. It does not matter if it is ontology level 1, regarding God’s sovereign plan about reality, or if it is level 2, regarding God’s direct causality right now. To go from ontology to ethics is not a necessary connection. It is invalid and a false description of reality. It is invalid to conclude an “ought” from your observations, which is an “is.” What you observe is at best what something “is”; although, I do not even say observations are able to even give this, due to the logical fallacy of empiricism and induction. There is not a necessary connection (p), to an (q) ought. Those who practice this fallacy, practice a doctrine of witchcraft and divination. It is demonic stronghold over the mind.
Necessary Connection of Ethics
The Scripture often gives explanations (of reality and causality), or that, it gives definitions and context when the commands are given. Yet, the explanation is not the command and vice versa. In propositional logic, there is not a necessarily connection in “if…then.” Or, in syllogistic logic, either premise 1 or 2 would be a false premise. Therefore, I cannot make a truth claim from scripture that, “All [what God causes] is [human ethics].” And so also, I cannot assert that, “if God caused the Pharaoh to be hard minded to obey, then it is ethically good for Pharaoh to disobey God’s command.”
However, there is a NECESSARY connection from what God commands man, to what man OUGHT to do. It always applies. God commands all men to obey Him. Oshea is a man. Thus, Oshea ought to obey God’s commandments.
Here is the right question to ask. “What OUGHT I do in this situation?” An ought, is referring to an ethic, and thus, I need to find God’s relevant commands and promises (which are commands).
Now try this with “God’s Will.” Notice the category fallacy is now being used like a sleazy used car-salesman; it is like a fallacy called a “slight of hand.” It is hiding the clear definition behind ambiguity and rhetoric.
F.1. (P) If God’s will is for the Apostle Thomas to not believe Jesus’ resurrection, (Q) then necessarily Thomas ought to do God’s will.
What does this mean? Depending how you use “God’s will,” whether for causality or command it will output different conclusions. And this—slight of hand ambiguity—is how I often see people use it. They output the conclusion that fits their favoritism. They find the easiest conclusion to fit their unbelief, rather than, outputting the conclusion that Scripture, with its correct categories, would give.
God’s Command Or Demonic Superstition?
A simple way to term, the “invalidness” or logical leaps, which are made between premise and conclusion is “superstition.” The reason is that superstition is about making-up-*@#%, I’m sorry, making-up-conclusions that do not belong to what you know. To conclude a weird sound in your darkroom, is a ghost, is invalid; it is superstitious. A category of “sound,” and the conclusion of a ghost in the conclusion is a different category. The conclusion has more information in it, than what the premises provide. In other words, when you commit a category error, you are no less superstitious (invalid) than pagans worshiping the moon.
For example, it is invalid for a voodoo doctor or shaman to go from seeing a red moon, or the sudden motion of sand blowing in the air (a description of metaphysics or ontology, “is”), to an “ought” conclusion of, “we ought to sacrifice an albino baby for good luck for the village.”
Others do the same thing with demonic divinations with a game called Ouija board. Asking dead spirits or demons for advice or knowledge, they wait for board pieces or their hands to move. Hopefully by now, you see the invalidness of this. So what, if you hand moves? So what, if you hand moves 50 miles and then grows and shrinks? Who cares? It gives you no knowledge. It gives you no subjects or predicates. However, leaving the issue of empiricism, to conclude from a premise of metaphysics or ontology about hands moving, to “I should to this, or I need to do that, or I have an idea what to do tomorrow,” is invalid. It is superstitious. The conclusion has more information in it, than what the premises provide.
Christians however play the same game with the terms, “God’s will,” or “God is in control.”
They will say, “Johnny prayed for healing, but did not get; thus it is God’s will for Johnny to accept this (ethic) as part of his life.” That is invalid. It is pagan superstition. The conclusion does not logically follow. The conclusion has more information in it than what the premises provide. They have a premise of metaphysics or ontology, and then magically produce an “ought” out of it. They are saying, “God move my hand (to have cancer or some disease), and thus, I know what I “ought” to do now. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty is now being used like demonic divination. It is like saying, “I asked if I will be healed, and then the Ouija board moved my hand in this way, thus, it is fate for me not to be healed. I ought to accept this as part of my life.” In both examples what “ought” to be done did not start with God’s commandment about the topic; rather, both used causality and existence and their observations from it, to superstitiously form an “ought” conclusion.
Sadly, many Christians have more in common with pagans and Satanists, when deciding what they “ought” to do, as compared to obeying God’s commandments. Why would Satan need to infiltrate the church with Ouija boards, when he has already been successful in making Christians practice demonic divination, by abusing the doctrine of God’s sovereignty to live a life of overt superstition. The amount I see so-called Christians abuse, “God is in control, and God’s will,” is unmeasurable. They so often live a life of superstition, they could even help teach voodoo witchdoctors how to be even more superstitious.
If Christians can stop committing spiritual perversion with empiricism and superstition for just one minute, then I pray God will help you see the horror you are committing against your own soul, and extreme level of disobedience you are committing against God’s commands. Stop superstitiously divining what you ought to do; rather, humble yourself under God’s command and believe Him to be faithful do what He promised.
The gospel of Jesus Christ is not narrowly about the forgiveness of sins, for that is only the doorway into the life of the Spirit. This gospel is about all the benefits it acquired, at that time and place (not another time, and another place), in Christ’s atonement. Galatians says that faith in Jesus grafts one into the promised blessing of Abraham. What does this promise of God mean? This promise includes, according to Paul, the Spirit and miracles. And let us not be naïve; if Paul is mentioning the Spirit and miracles, in context of the New Testament, it must be presupposed this is a common experience in the Galatian church. Yet, Scripture argues this common miracle experience is based on the very old promise that God gave to Abraham. God is merely letting His “Yes be Yes.” He is being faithful to His promise. God is not like man; God does what He promises, even if it is thousands of years later; and even if the people to who God promise did not realize this promise meant an abundant/common experience of miracles and Spirit in the New Testament Church; yet God knew, and He is faithful to do what He promised.
Thus, Jesus’ death and intercession grants this blessing for all individuals who have faith in Him. This is said on the relative level ontology. On ultimate level ontology, it was not accomplished by their faith; rather, Jesus’ atonement did, and it was accepted and declared as final and good by the Father. God’s sovereign choice decided that based on Jesus’ work the Elect are righteous and worthy to be adopted as His son’s. This act is good and righteous for God the judge to do so, because God thinks it is so. Therefore, faith as a purchased gift is sovereignly worked in those to whom this reconciliation was for. The Elect’s souls are far too weak to resist God’s power to awaken their tiny souls into the unstoppable power and life of His Spirit. And so, believe and receive. Read God’s commands and obey they, by acquiring what they promise in faith. Love God by obeying His commands. There is not another way to love God. But for the elect, God will put His laws into their hearts, so that they will not depart from Him. He will be their God, and they will be His people. God will not stop from doing good, and applying the New Covenant to them.
 See my website and the essay, “Logic Lesson – Categorical vs. Hypothetical,” by James Creighton
 M.1. (P) If my yard is wet, (Q) then it rained.
M.2. (P) Indeed, my yard is wet.
M.3. (Q) Thus, my yard is wet.
This Modus Ponens is really an affirming the consequent that is merely disguised. The connection is not a necessary one. Maybe I watered my yard with the garden hose? Let us restate it as affirming the consequent, which is the correct form when reasoning backwards in pragmatic matters. It is a fallacy and is the basis for all scientific experiments.
N.1. (P) If it rains, (Q) then my yard get wets.
N.2. (Q). My yard is wet.
N.3. (P) Thus, it rained.
 Like the other above it, the antecedent is the ultimate ethic (God commands), and the consequent dealing the ethics on the relative level (human x choses to or not obey God’s command)—relative is the human level and not referring to relativism. There is some indirect use of ontology, for ontology, or reality can be predicated to any subject, but this is not the main or direct category here.