Category Archives: Extra Thoughts

God promises to be a GOOD FATHER

“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 wordGood.”

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

Effective Prayer

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.

Enemies of person Vs Enemies of the Gospel Ministry

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.[1]

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.

[1] Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 79

Live by Faith, Not Atheism

“…as you have believed, so let it be done for you...,” (Matthew 8:13).

Live by faith, not by sight,” (2 Corin 5:7).
The woman with the defective “flow of blood,” (Luke 8:48) first believed then received. She lived by faith, not sight. Think about it? She had a 100% failure rate. If she was going by experience, then she had no reason believe to be healed. Even if she sought Yahweh before in the temple, she was not healed, and so, had a 100% pragmatic reason to believe it was not God’s Will to heal her. God told Jacob to let Him go. Thus, that was God’s will, right? God gave the Canaanite woman a, ‘no’ answer, and He went has far to give a correct (redemptive historical) theological reason for the no. Thus, it was God’s will not to heal her daughter, right? Elijah’s prayer for rain failed 6 times, thus, God said no 6 times. thus, it was God’s will not to answer Elijah’s prayer, right? God told Moses He was going to wipe Israel off the face of the earth; thus, it was God’s Will, right?
Again, she first believed then received from God. It was not first received then believed later. Hebrews says, that you must believe God is. Good for you if you do this, I bet even the demons believe that God “exists.” But do the demons believe God will reward them with salvation and resurrection, and healing and victory over their enemies and riches and lands and all sorts of goodies?
Hebrews 11:6 also says, AND believe God rewards, FAITH. James 5:15 says, if you have faith, you will be healed, and that you will be forgiven of your sins. Here, God is rewarding faith with healing and forgiveness. Do you believe God is a rewarder and giver to faith? God rewards faith for both natural and spiritual realities. It is a certainty. Both those promises are made certain, for both are ratified in the blood oath of God in Jesus’ blood. Did you take time to see what God rewarded faith in Hebrews 11?
Some disobedient persons live by sight. They will say, “Well, I don’t see this this when I pray. I don’t see it in history. I don’t see it in others.” Yet, this is empiricism, which is the starting point for atheism. It is the starting axiom for all human philosophy. It is Satan’s axiom. Such people outdo the Pope for being a dual epistemology with Scripture. They make the Pope look good in regards to respecting the Scripture. LOL. HAHAHAH. They need to come out of the closet and just say, “Sola empiricism”, and “To David Hume be all the glory.” They might actually believe God exists. But, who cares? In order to “please God” they must yield and submit to God’s description of reality; they must believe He rewards faith. But since this is not yielding to empiricism, their true master, they will not do it.

Word of Faith Confession.

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.[1]

“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 3:1619, 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.[2]

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!


[1]  I got the basic idea of this definition from reading Vincent Cheung, Systematic Theology. 2010. 78

[2] 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.

When God’s Will, Is Turned into Demonic Divination

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?

For example:

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.[[1]] 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.[[2]]

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.2. (P).
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.[[3]] 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.2. (P).
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.”[[4]]

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.
L.2. (P)
L.3. (Q)

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.[[5]]
N.2. (P)
N.3. (Q)

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.
M.2. (P)
M.3. (~Q)

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.  
F.2. (P)
F.3. (Q)

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.



[1] See my website and the essay, “Logic Lesson – Categorical vs. Hypothetical,” by James Creighton

[2] 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.

[3] I got this initial idea of a chess game from Vincent Cheung. See, “There is No Real Synergism.”

[4] Vincent wrote this to me in an email(2017) regarding a question I asked him about his essay, “Induction and Bible Study,” web. 2016. (

[5] 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.

Help the Sick, By Giving Them a Smile?

With this news, strengthen those who have tired hands, and encourage those who have weak knees. Say to those with fearful hearts,
“Be strong, and do not fear,
for your God is coming to destroy your enemies. He is coming to save you.”
And when he comes, he will open the eyes of the blind and unplug the ears of the deaf.
The lame will leap like a deer, and those who cannot speak will sing for joy!
Springs will gush forth in the wilderness,
and streams will water the wasteland.
Isaiah 35:3–6 (NLT)
You do not strengthen and bless the hungry (to take their fear away), by giving them a smile and words of comfort. You bless them, by giving them food. The same for the cold; you give them clothes. The same is for the sick and deformed. You make the blind see, the deaf to hear, the lame to walk (etc), by miracle working power. That is what Jesus did, and commands us to do.

Where are You; I’ll Pick You Up?

In Vincent Cheung’s article, Healing the Will of Man[1]:

The Bible writers often identify God’s ability and God’s will. They do not make such a sharp distinction between the two that they always need to say both in order to indicate that something would occur. In many contexts, to state either is to affirm both. They do not refer to God’s ability in a way that the discussion makes no progress until they also refer to God’s will. To affirm that God is able is to affirm confidence in the outcome. Because he is able, it is assumed that the desired result is guaranteed.

Vincent then mentions these verses, with the additional Jude 1:24 that also came to my mind.[2]

“Therefore he is able to save completely those who come to God through him, because he always lives to intercede for them.” (Hebrews 7:25 NIV)

“Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” (Hebrews 2:18 NIV)

“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.” (Romans 14:4 NIV)

“To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy.” (Jude 1:24. NIV).

The “Trinity” is the only intelligent and rational definition of monotheism, because no other knowledge exists for man except for God’s revelation, so to, with the scripture’s definition of God’s goodness and love. If God is good and God is able, then the specific request of help being asked by a Christian, will be done. God’s revelation is the only knowledge that exist. Thus, there is no other intellectual and rational definition for what it means for God to love and be good to His elect.

Sadly, many Christians interact with God’s sovereign ability and power in a fatalistic relationship, rather than, in a biblical divine decree relationship. Many say, “I will pray, but since God is in control, then what will happen will happen by God’s control.” This might fool simpletons and spiritual perverts, but this is a demonic doctrine of fatalism. God’s order of His decrees teaches us the doctrine of determinism; that is, sovereign decrees by an intellectual mind, that wants to acquire His own ends and purposes. The difference in application is so simple a 1st grade child can grasp it.

1.) To know what is the outcome of one’s prayer in fatalism, then one relates to a nubilous unknown outcome that cannot be stop.

2.) To know the outcome of God’s divine decrees, then one relates to God with the specific definitions and specific commandments about the specific aspect of reality they are asking God for help in, knowing God will do specifically what He said He would do.

To act like God might or might not do what He promised to do, because He is in control, is to negate the sovereignty of God’s absolute decrees, and transform it into eastern fatalism.

God is not pantheism. God is an intelligent mind that has revealed a substantial body of knowledge about reality and His own goals. To transform this detailed and substantial knowledge into a nubilous, unknown fatalism is demonic.

James says in 5:15 that if you ask in faith to be healed, “you will be healed.” This is what the intelligent and rational mind of God sovereignly decreed about this aspect of reality. To take this and say, “I can pray for healing, but since God is in control, He will do what He wants.” This is both stupid and spiritual perversion. It takes God’s personal sovereign choices (the Bible’s definition of what sovereign control means), and negates this, and then replaces it with a fatalism.

Not only does this invalidate the Bible’s teaching on God’s sovereign decrees, but it invalidates God’s good character and atonement of Jesus Christ, among other things.

God, for example, in the sermon on the Mount, defines Himself as “good” and loving by giving us the very things we ask for, not something else. No amount of empiricism or observation is able to change that, because human speculation as an epistemology does not exist.

Whether it is God’s promise of blessing, fame, healing, and prosperity to Abraham (which we have in Christ-Gal. 3) or promises of safety from the terror that stalks at night (Psalm 91), or safety in sanctification (Jude 1:24), or delivered from sickness (James 5:15), God’s policy is rudimentary: if He is able, then He will do it.

The context that makes this work is that God loves/favors us. As Christians, God has revealed He loves us with a HUGE love. He has promised to never stop from doing good to us, in both spiritual and material blessings.

Think about a marriage. Imagine a marriage of 40 years of faithfulness, love and joy. Now imagine the wife calling her husband at 2 am at night, waking him up from sleep and says, “Honey, my car just broke down on the side of the road, I’m afraid.” What do you think the husband will say? Will he give a 10-minute speech about his love for her? Most likely not. Why? Because in the context of this faithful marriage, they already know that. Rather, the husband will likely respond with, “Where are you, I’ll pick you up.” Because he loves/favors her, he will help his wife, because he is able.

This is what God is doing, when He says in our passages, “I am able, I’ll do it.” He shouldn’t have to repeat with every interaction with a 50 page essay that He loves us. He has already proven that with His Son’s atonement, and covenant. Unlike faithful marriages where they trust each other, Christians seem to have a hard time believing in God’s love, which was given to then in the blood contract of His Son. Thus, because of weakness to believe in His love, God will often give long discourses of His love in the Bible and to individuals in the Bible, and then repeat it. God is patient with our slow to believe immaturity, but this patience does not negate the accountability that we are commanded to be mature in faith.  And so, when we call up God in prayer, so to speak, rather than sometimes saying, “where are you, I’ll pick you up,” God will dive into a 10 minute speech about His love for us, so as to help us believe.

Jesus was excessive about healing people and then saying over and over in the gospels, “if you ask in faith, you will get it.” Or that is, “If you are stranded on the road, and call me (this calling is faith), I will be there; I will pick you up just like you asked of me.” Jesus made answers to prayers to be anything you need, whether spiritual or material, with a special emphasis on healing.

Therefore, for those who are mature, for you God is to the point about the width, length, depth and height of His favor. They can cry out to God for help, who sits on His throne of unmerited favor, and they can hear, through faith in His decrees and commands, “My dear child, where are you? I will pick you up.”


[1] Vincent Cheung. 2020 December. Article.

[2] I am not affiliated with Vincent Cheung. These are my own thoughts about the doctrine.

By Power, They Testified About Power

And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on them all,”
Acts 4:33 (LEB).
Notice, it does not say, with great love for each other they gave testimony to the resurrection. It does not say, by their bold testimony under persecution, they gave testimony of the resurrection.
Here is a question. What is the resurrection?
Therefore, the passage reads with GREAT POWER ( I.E. healing and miracles) they testified to the resurrection.

By power, they testified about power.

What was the result of this context? GREAT UNMERITED FAVOR was poured on them. Many are asking in America, how can we have God’s unmerited favor poured on us in a great way, because right now we need it. Well, now you know how. By power of healing and miracles testify of Jesus’ resurrection power. In this context we can expect, Great unmerited favor will be poured out. Because God is able, He will do it.

You Are Righteousness, For Believing I Will Prosper You

Isaac wealthy on account of Abraham’s blessing:

” And Isaac sowed in that land and reaped in that same year a hundredfold, and Yahweh blessed him. And the man ⌊became wealthier and wealthier⌋ until he was exceedingly wealthy.”

Genesis 26:12–13 (LEB).

“And Yahweh appeared to him that night and said, “I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you, and I will bless you and make your descendants numerous for the sake of my servant Abraham.:

Genesis 26:24 (LEB).


What did God promise Abraham?

“And Yahweh said to Abram, “Go out from your land and from your relatives, and from the house of your father, to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great. And you will be a blessing.

Genesis 12:1–2 (LEB).

God promised, not to make His name Great, but Abraham’s Name, and to bless him and make him a blessing to others. (etc)



God: “Abraham, I will bless you, I will make you wealthy and prosperous, I will give you supernatural health, I will highly favor you in all things, I will exalt your name before the world, I will give you a son and love your children as I loved you.”

Abraham: “OK, I believe You are able.”

God points His finger at Abraham and says:



You are part of Abraham’s blessing.

Therefore does the one who gives you the Spirit and who works miracles among you do so by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, 7 then understand that the ones ⌊who have faith⌋, these are sons of Abraham. 8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, proclaimed the good news in advance to Abraham: “In you all the nations will be blessed.” 9 So then, the ones who have faith are blessed together with Abraham who believed.

Galatians 3:5–9 (LEB)

Miracles are almost always physical and material. Isaac reaping 100 fold was a miracle

of favor in physical and material. Peter getting money from a fish’s mouth is a material miracle to pay taxes with money they did not work for. Healing for the body is a physically and material blessing. Yes, God is still sovereignly and faithfully keeping His promise that He made to his covenant friend, Abraham’s. God is sovereignly keeping His promise to bless with favor for all the children of faith.


“God promised that Abraham would have a son, and that his descendants would become numerous like the stars. He promised that he would make his name great. It was not presented as a promise of salvation or justification as such, and it was not a call to suffering discipleship. It was a promise of healing, prosperity, and glory for Abraham. And Abraham was justified by believing in this promise. The sort of message that false teachers call heresy today has been the foundation for the calling of Moses, the coming of Christ, and the salvation of Christians. Abraham recognized that his own body and his wife’s body were old and barren, but because God said that he would have a son, natural circumstances became irrelevant. He believed that God was able to perform a miracle of healing.

It would have been redundant to believe that God was willing to do what he said. Of course he was willing — he said it. God said, “Abraham, I have made you the father of nations. You are going to have a son. I will make your name great.” Imagine if Abraham had said, “I know you are able, but are you willing to do it?” This would have made no sense, but somehow it has become a pillar in Christian reasoning. “Well…I just said you are going to have a son.” “Right, I heard you. But are you willing to do it?” Should we treat God like a child? It is even more absurd to focus on the will of God for healing given all that the Bible says about the nature of God, the work of Christ, and the ministry of the apostles and the believers. Even the attempt to demonstrate the will of God for healing seems redundant and ridiculous. Abraham believed that God was able to do this thing that was impossible for human power to accomplish. And that was faith.”

Vincent Cheung. “Healing: the Will of Man

Announcing the Lord’s Death

1 Corinthians 11:23–26 (NLT)

For I pass on to you what I received from the Lord himself. On the night when he was betrayed, the Lord Jesus took some bread and gave thanks to God for it. Then he broke it in pieces and said, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, he took the cup of wine after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood. Do this in remembrance of me as often as you drink it.”

For every time you eat this bread and drink this cup, you are announcing the Lord’s death until he comes again.

Paul says in the Lord’s supper we are not announcing Jesus’ resurrection, but “His Death.” The other crucial point to mark is the emphasis on, “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

The positive focus and command is for us to remember Jesus in the atonement, with an emphasis on HIS broken body, and HIS blood. Then both of these are to be focused in regard to “His death,” rather than resurrection.

What does this mean?

First, it is NOT mainly a focus on you. It is about Jesus. He is asking you, to remember Him!

Second, it is what Jesus’ “death” accomplished at that particular time and place.

After reading and watching some of the faith preachers, I have noticed an abnormal focus on “you” receiving healing when taking the Lord’s Supper. The mistake is not in that one is able to receive healing when they take the Lord’s Supper, but that it is not emphasized that way in the Scripture.

Below is a quick positive teaching on what the “broken bread” and “blood” mean, in light of Jesus’ “death.” One part will deal with Jesus’ body broken for our healing.

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God (or Christ). Upon hearing the word of Christ, in the Lord Supper, it is more than possible for faith to rise up and receive the promises of God; however, the focus of the Lord Supper is about remembering Jesus’ body and blood, in His death. It is not mainly about you.

Jesus says to remember His broken body. The question then is simple. What does the Scripture say about Jesus broken body? What does the Scripture say about Jesus body and its death? The broken body of Jesus was about the substitutionary atonement. What does the Scripture say about this?

First, is the overall nature of God. God loved us. Jesus loved us.

The Body:

As to the details, Isaiah 53 says some specific things about the body of Jesus in the atonement.

4 Surely He has borne our griefs (sicknesses, weaknesses, and distresses) and carried our sorrows and pains [of punishment], yet we [ignorantly] considered Him stricken, smitten, and afflicted by God [as if with leprosy]. [Matt. 8:17.]

5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole. (Isaiah 53 4-5 AMP).

The fact that our sins were upon His body, is not disputed. In verse 12 it uses the Levitical word (the one used in Lev. 16 about the escape goat) for borne our sins. That is, our sins were transferred off us, and put-on Jesus, by the judgement of the Father. Thus, the Father, broke, beat and punished the “body” of Jesus, all the way to death, for the sin that it carried.

However, the same Levitical word is also used in verse 4, when it says, He borne our sickness and pain. That is, our sicknesses were transferred off us, and transferred to Jesus, by the Judgment of the Father. Then verse 4 concludes that the “body” of Jesus looked like it was “afflicted,” as if “with leprosy.” Thus, the Father broke the “body” of Jesus with affliction for the sickness it bore.

However there is more about this death of Jesus.

“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.” 1 Corinth. 8:9 LEB

This passage cannot be spiritualized away. It is about money. When doing context and systematic theology we read Paul saying something similar about sin and righteousness in his second letter to the Corinthians, “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” (2 Corinth. 5:21 LEB). And so, by the substitutionary poverty of Jesus, just as in His substitutionary sin, we become rich and we become righteous.

Jesus borne on His body, our poverty. His body was stripped naked. He was so poor, His body was naked in its death. Jesus in His ministry had so much money, that Judas was able to steal from the money bag and it not cause a problem. In His substitutionary death, Jesus was penniless and naked. He became our poverty so that, now in this place, in Him we might have an abundance to wealth, and in this have an abundance to give to the gospel ministry and poor.

However, there is more about this death of Jesus.

“But it is from Him that you are in Christ Jesus, who became God-given wisdom for us—our righteousness, sanctification, and redemption, (1 Corinth. 1:30 HCSB)

Here Paul, sums up the substitutionary atonement of Christ as, “Jesus became righteousness for us.” In this list we hear of a new aspect, Jesus became our wisdom for us, in this atonement death. Since this atonement is already defined by Paul as a substitutionary death for all our negative things, when we know in order for Jesus to be our wisdom in us now, we know He was our ignorance on the cross for us first. Jesus did not fight back with words to His accusers. On the cross, Jesus’ body was silent to the mocking. Think about all the cruel things the mocked Him with, when He hung on the cross. The only time He spoke is when the high priest used his authority to make Jesus give an answer. He looked ignorant and stupid. He born that shame on this silent body, on the cross.  Jesus took on our stupidity and ignorance, so that in Him we might become the Wisdom of God.

Time would fail me to mention all substitutionary transfers His body borne for us, such as Jesus taking on our abandonment. His body borne the shame of abandonment. All forsook Him. His body did not have a friend hugging and clinging onto Him in love to comfort Him. No. His body borne our abandonment for us, so that in Him we become the children of God, with endless brothers and sisters!

The main aspect of the Lord’s Supper, about the “body” of Jesus, is not the positive aspect of what we receive; rather, it is about the negative aspect of all the negative things Jesus body received for us! The death focus of this Supper is about what died in the death of Jesus body. Our sin was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body. It died there, once and for all, at the Place of the Skull. Our poverty was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body. Our sickness was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body at that place and time. Our ignorance was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body. Our abandonment was transferred off of us, onto the body of Jesus, and it died on His body.

All these negative things were taken off of us, and DIED in the body of Christ, once and for all. Your sins have already died. Your sickness has already died. Your ignorance has already died. Your poverty has already died, in the body of Jesus.  By announcing the Lord’s death, you are announcing all the negative things that was once yours, were transferred upon the body of Jesus, and died there.

The blood:

The blood of Jesus, as Paul says, “This cup is the new covenant between God and his people—an agreement confirmed with my blood.”

This phrase about “God being our God, and we His people,” is what God promises in the New Covenant.  Thus, it is not surprising to see Jesus making this phrase and connecting it to the new covenant and then to “His blood.” Why the blood? And what does this have to do with announcing His “death.”

“Now when someone leaves a will,[g] it is necessary to prove that the person who made it is dead. The will goes into effect only after the person’s death. While the person who made it is still alive, the will cannot be put into effect.

That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal.” (Hebrews 9:16-18 NLT)

The reason Jesus mentions us to remember His “blood,” and the New Contract, is that the “DEATH” (blood) of the tester makes the contract “active.” Whereas the body of Christ is purely a negative focus on all the negative things Jesus body borne, the blood is (although negative directly) more of focus on the positive aspect of the New Contract being “effective” in Jesus’ death. Jesus’ bloodshed, not ours, activates the new contract. God promises, in the positive, I will not remember your sins, I will write my Laws upon your heart, I will not stop from doing you good, I will be Your God, and you will be My people.”

The blood and death of Jesus makes this already active for us. We are to remember the blood that poured out of His body, for so many hours. We are to remember, out of love for us, He is letting His blood flow out, so that in His death the new contract of unmerited favor becomes active for us!

When we proclaim Jesus’ death we proclaim that,

In His blood, “God is our God, we are already His people!”