Category Archives: Extra Thoughts

Sola Scriptura: The Soiled Diaper of the Reformation

Until the Reformed renounce the WCF, they are no less Catholic, with their triple epistemology. Because “SOLA SCRIPTURA” is no less a triple epistemology than the Catholics, it is not redeemable. It cannot be saved. It is to be trashed. God might have temporarily used sola scriptura, like a dipper, in the early days, but He has long ago thrown this soiled diaper in the trash. The Reformation took the idea of only standing on Scripture for knowledge and soiled it with empiricism and tradition. Sola scriptura is now God’s target practice. We ought to do the same.

Their cessationism alone soiled the Scripture as the only starting point for knowledge. But their boast about leaving Catholicism is also naive and delusional. They could not leave it alone. Man (WCF) and empiricism managed to be equal starting points for knowledge. They were abused under Catholicism and when they tried to leave, they became the abusers and abused Scripture with addition starting points, despite their honest intention to solely use scripture. Its tragic, but it is also demonic. They blasphemed. Also, the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, which Martin Luther largely got correct, (except faith and miracles) the Reformed soiled that diaper too with the WCF.  They served their purpose that God ordained for them, and afterwards God discarded them. The proof is that in application God did not predestine them for faith, healings and casting out demons, when Jesus said you give proof you are a disciple and that He “chose you” by you asking getting what you want (John 15). Jesus said the ones he predestined will bear fruit. Jesus says, you will know them by their fruit.

“…If anti-faith and anti-miracle ministers and groups were ever useful, they are not useful anymore. God has exploited them for his own purpose. The salt now has no flavor, and it is ready to be thrown out and stepped on by men. They are holding people back, and they should be discarded and forgotten. The church has recovered to a point that we no longer need teachers who refuse to teach the word of God as it is written. It has reformed indeed, and then reformed again. There are those who refuse to continue after the first small step, who after they have rejected Satan, refuse to continue with Christ and welcome him in all his fullness. But there is only one Christ. If you do not receive him — all of him, since he is one — then you reject him. For the church to move forward, it must cast aside these useless people like wet dog poo, and leave them behind to die….”
Vincent Cheung. “The Primacy of Healing Ministry.”
From ebook. Contract, 2020.

[The below, is slightly out of context from the source, but should be followable. It is a person, Johnny, who was offended by uncle Vincent Cheung’s teaching on God’s sovereignty and saying God is by logical necessary the metaphysical author of sin and evil.]

1.  I agree with Johnny’s analysis of Gordon Clark. The traditional definition of “sola scriptura,” does not mean what we mean by saying, “the Scripture is our sole epistemology.” They mean the scripture plus, what God sovereignly caused the Reformers to say and doctrinally formulate at the time. (In this, the Reformed are nothing more than a rehashed version of Catholicism, with their dual and even triple epistemologies.) The main sovereign work of these men forming doctrine is the WCF. And it is clear the WCF, (in addition to other heresies, such as cessationism) affirms secondary causes relative to God. Clark, because he was a Presbyterian must affirm the WCF. Thus, his only recourse was to irrationally make the WCF affirm the type of sovereignty that Martin Luther and himself taught. What Clark and Luther taught contradicts the WCF: thus, somebody is teaching the truth and the other a blasphemy. But the WCF is almost Arminian level weak on God’s sovereignty. It is blasphemy. There is no rescuing it. Clark was grasping at straws in order to make himself look like a good Presbyterian. The author is correct that Clark’s remarks to make the WCF be as sovereign as the Bible teaches was a failure.

2. Johnny’s remarks on Luther, however, are incorrect. Luther clearly teaches God both creates and causes/moves evil and sin in people and demons, and not merely “lightly nudges some evil that ontologically was put there in the man, apart from Himself.” To Luther, the same directness God uses to cause “faith” is the same sovereign directness God uses to cause unbelief (i.e. sin) in a person or demon. Luther, who was writing in non-stop syllogisms and the necessary connections of arguments clearly states that God is not what He creates and causes, by logical deduction. According to Luther if God creates or cause evil, it has no logical necessary connection that God is that Himself. The author does not know what Luther taught.

“……But what do they effect by this playing upon words” This is no more than saying, the act is not God Himself. This remains certain, that if the action of God is necessary, or if there is a necessity of the consequence, everything takes place of necessity, [then] how much [more] the act be not God Himself. But what need was there to tell us this? As though there was any fear of our asserting the things done were God Himself….” [2]
[i.e. God is not what He causes. If God creates a river and directly causes it to move north, then God Himself is not a north flowing river. The same with men and their good and evil choices that God directly causes. Or if God causes a man to choose evil, then God is not that.]

“…Paul teaches that faith and unbelief comes to us by no work of our own, but through the love and hatred of God (228).”
[God the author of all good and evil, of all things by direct causation]

“…What I assert and maintain is this: that where God works apart from the grace of His Spirit, He works all things in all men, even in the ungodly; for He alone moves, makes to act, and impels by the motion of His omnipotence, all those things which He alone created; they can neither avoid nor alter this movement, but necessarily follow and obey it, each thing according to the measure of its God-given power. Thus all things, even the ungodly, cooperate with God(267).”
[God the author of all good and evil, of all things by direct causation]……..”

3. Johnny says Vincent’s argument infers God made Adam defective and this infers something further, saying,

“If the defect of man is something caused by God, then God must have this defect in itself…”

This connection in this hypothetical syllogism is not a “necessary connection.” At best it might be said to be a sufficient one, but a syllogism only works if the connection is necessary. The only way for this connection to be necessary is if God is “NOT” separate from His creation as taught by pantheism (etc.). That is, unless the author proves the Bible teaches pantheism, he has no necessary connection in his argument. But if what he says is true, then by implication if God creates a north flowing river then God Himself is a north flowing river.

(3.a) John Calvin clearly taught that God could have created Adam in a type of perfection that would have given Adam the “strength” to not commit the original sin. Calvin says it is the height of injustice to suggest God had to create Adam with the strength to not fall to sin. So not only does Calvin contradict the author, he but provides a counter argument. If God did not create Adam with the strength to withstand a nuclear bomb, is that a “defect”? No, it is not a defect. It is a matter of strength and weakness. That fool has no idea what he is talking about. And as Romans 9 shows, God loved and hated in order to show His previous goal of showing His power and mercy. This original goal for the elect is truly perfect, compete and God-level valuable. Since the order of the decrees are in logical order, then if we were to talk about defect or perfection, it is the original decree for the elect that is to be evaluated, and not the last decree, which is last, in a long list of decrees to get to this perfect original goal.

(3.b) Also, as Luther shows, it does not logically follow that what God creates and causes, proves that God Himself is what He creates and causes. Luther even points out that His opponents understood this logical inference, and is asking why they need to state something so painfully obvious. Since, Johnny contradicts this obvious thing, when even Luther’s opponents agree with him, then he must be dumber than a litter child.

He also slanders and bears false witness to what Luther actually taught. He commits the same mistake he accuses Gordon Clark of. Luther is still considered part of the Reformed, and so to a degree, Luther is nebulously part of the “sola scripture’s” triple epistemology Catholic copycat. He slandered Luther to make him say what the WCF says. This is the result for having people, like the Pope, and empiricism, part of your “sola scriptura.” When there are contradictions between two divine fathers, you have to pick a side and bear false witness of the other to make them say the same thing. These are lovers of men, and the approval of men. They have their reward.

However, whether Luther this or Calvin that, I do not care. I do not bear the label of Reformed or Presbyterian. I do not adhere to “sola scriptura,” because no one has proved the Bible teaches that men and empiricism are a triple epistemology with itself.

4. The person, despite his rhetoric, keeps meta-morphing God’s commands, epistemology and ontology together like a child, the very thing Luther accuses Erasmus of. This person is a delusional and not some biblical hero.

5. “…Cheung, recognizes that the reformed doctrine denies that God is the author of sin….”

I agree with the author. When the Reformed chose the WCF (over Luther’s Bondage of the Will) as its creed, it publicly and formally denied God is the metaphysical author of sin, along with faith and expansionism. There is no rescuing this. The Reformed willfully chose this, they bear it. As long as the WCF stands the Reformed are no less Catholic than the Catholics.

Vaccine: Lest We Offend Them.

Once you believe God heals on demand by faith in His promise, then one is free for many options. By faith, God is able to keep me from the virus and heal me. If some say the vaccine has a small percentage to cause problems, then so what? God can heal me of that to. Since taking or not taking the vaccine is a freedom for me and taking the vaccine helps me to not give unnecessary offence to my secular society, then I am freed to do this. Faith in God’s promises gives me the freedom to not give unnecessary offense, which Jesus often did. Without faith in God to do what He promised, then one is always limited and enslaved to circumstances, and his own fears. He will be enslaved to self-fulling prophecies of unbelief, just like children of Israel when peered over the edge of glory and said, “these people are too big and strong for us,” and God made it so for them. In this limitation and fear, man will focus on man, and governments that are made up of man, and protests that are made up of man. God was never in the picture for them.

Vincent explains more on this issue of, “lest we offend them.”

“…Let me say more about this. The New Testament teaches that we should be concerned about public opinion, not in the sense that we should cater to the false beliefs and wicked desires of the non-Christians, but that we should present the Christian faith in the best light possible, maintaining the impression that our God is one that teaches us to live in faith, in peace, in compassion, and in integrity. This teaching is perhaps unfamiliar to a great number of Christians, so here is a partial list of relevant verses: 2 Samuel 12:14, Nehemiah 5:9, Romans 2:24, 1 Corinthians 10:32-33, 2 Corinthians 6:3, 1 Timothy 5:14, 1 Timothy 6:1, Titus 2:5, 1 Peter 2:12, 1 Peter 3:16. There are many more. Jesus himself did some things “lest we should offend them.” He never hesitated to offend the religious leaders. In fact, he contradicted their creeds and violated their customs on purpose. However, he avoided unnecessary offense toward those who could not have understood. It was the same with Paul. Several times he said that we ought to behave this way or that way so that “the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” Of course, some unbelievers would blaspheme God no matter what, but Christians should not add fuel to the fire. And indeed, in some aspects it is possible to achieve a positive reputation. For example, if Christians never cheat in business, unbelievers might still consider them fools for believing in God, but they will say, “At least they always honor their word.” If Christians never cover up sexual abuse that occur in their midst, but speedily and publicly punish the offenders, and make a point of hunting down the criminals to bring them before the authorities, the unbelievers would say, “Well, if they say this never happened, of course it never happened.” But Christians do cheat in business, constantly. And Christians do cover up sexual abuse, so much so that we do not even know how much has been covered up. And now we are so indignant about religious freedom! We have not followed the example of Jesus and the apostles. We have not cared about integrity and public opinion about the Christian faith. To the world, the Christian faith represents hypocrisy, not integrity. Be ashamed, not indignant. Be embarrassed, not self-righteous. If we have cared about how outsiders perceive the faith that the Lord entrusted to us, we would have behaved differently through the centuries. Then the unbelievers would say, “I still do not believe what they say, but I will have to admit, they are a peaceful and productive people. They are an asset to society.” If this is the best that we can achieve among those who refuse to believe, we should still attempt it. It is right to offend the unbelievers as much as possible, as often as possible, if it is for the truth, but Christians often offend because of pride and self-righteousness, or they stand up for what they wish is right in their minds after they have contradicted what they knew to be right in the word of God. And Jesus has to pay for our mistakes with his reputation.

Since the churches have worked hard through the centuries to establish themselves as the most useless institutions in a time of widespread disease, when they randomly grow a spine and stand up for a principle that no outsider cares about, one that is not even necessarily biblical, this is not going to give them a positive impression about the faith of Jesus Christ. When outsiders think about Christians, healing almost never comes to mind. On the rare occasions when they see some Christians that pray for the sick, immediately they see even more Christians attack them. So at a time when healing is the most relevant thing to the entire world, Christians become nothing other than a public nuisance, nay, a public hazard, when they defy medical opinion and insist on a practice that to the outsiders is the very thing that threatens healing the most. Christians have ceded the entire domain of healing the sick to the heathens, abiding by the Hippocratic Oath instead of the Great Commission. This is the worst time to grow a spine for a principle that is unrelated to healing the sick. It is an invitation for maximum contempt. Christians have offered no extended and intelligent explanation on healing the sick to the non-Christians, followed by demonstrations and evidences that would withstand scrutiny by medical experts — and indeed, although we believe that human science is severely flawed, healing miracles performed by the power of Christ can satisfy their standards. Thus if we suddenly defy medical advice, the unbelievers would not consider us principled, but backward and selfish. They would think that not only the Christians would be the ones that perish, but they would contribute to the spread of this contagious disease to all others. Concerning most Christians, who have no faith that the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin and death, this assessment by the heathens would be correct.

Do not be angry with your governments. They are trying to save lives, including yours. They are trying to save you from the fallout of your stupid religious tradition and unbelief. Be angry with your churches. Be angry with your pastors and theologians. Be angry with your orthodox heroes, both historic and modern. Be angry with all those who opposed healing by faith in Jesus Christ. Be angry even with those who merely neglected to teach it. All of them have sinned against God, and against all of humanity. Will you finally exorcise these people from your life? You will not, right? So you should be most angry with yourself. Be angry with yourself. You have the same Bible. You have the same message from God as all these other people. If they did not believe God, you could have believed God. But you have not done your part to believe what he said and to teach others. The more angry you are with your governments, and the more you defy them at this time, the more you condemn yourself. You reap what you sow. You have been sowing messages and attitudes of sickness, and now this is what you reap. Your theology is so masochistic that you are even proud to be sick. Jesus called it satanic bondage, but you think it is some badge of holiness or some gift from God. And you have attacked those who believe in biblical healing. Now when people get sick, Jesus is the last thing they think of — because of people like you. So when they attempt to stem the spread of disease by enforcing isolation, and Christians insist on gathering, the churches do not appear as solutions to anything, but only as problems in the eyes of unbelievers. You are guilty. You have allowed this situation to develop. The only innocent ones are those who have promoted biblical healing as hard as they could, but have been drowned out by the voices of unbelief. If you have been faithful to the teachings of Scripture on healing, and if you are indignant that the government does not offer you an exemption or consider you essential, then from now on work hard to distinguish yourself from others who claim to be Christians, but who are in fact no-healing and anti-healing heretics.”[1]

[1] Vincent Cheung. “A Matter of Public Health.”
From the ebook, Contract. 2020. 82-83

“God’s Plan is to answer Your Plan”

I saw this quote today,

“do not pray for God to bless your plan; rather, pray for God’s plan.”

If this was the case, then there would have been no enlarged tent for Jabez(What does this have to do with “gospel centered? “God blessed Him anyway.), no healing King Hezekiah, no son for Hannah or Elizabeth, no healing for the Gentile woman, no rain from Elijah and etc. , etc..
How many people did Jesus not approach, but they went to Him, with their plan for God to heal them? Hundreds? Thousands? The scripture records that Jesus healed “all” who came to Him. That is, there was a 100% chance God blessed their plans, when faith was involved. Jesus says to pray and never give up in regards to God blessing your plan.
God’s plan for you is simple. God’s plan is that you—in your everyday life business and difficulties—pray for your plans, through the promises, and get them by faith.
If you don’t do this, you are disobeying and deviating from God’s plan for you. Jesus says, you “prove” you are His true disciples if you pray and get anything (including your plans) you wish by faith. (John 15)
This is true humility. True humility starts with epistemology, which is God’s revelation. It commands us to submit our wants to Jesus and get them in faith (John 14-16). Not doing this is pride and arrogance.  Humility is submitting our plan (to get healed for example) to God in faith in His promise, and God giving us our plan. Not doing this is pride and arrogance.

Sola Scripture or Sola Circumstances?

The word of God portrays Christians as wielders of miracle healing power. They can heal the sick in the name of Jesus when no one else can. If they even sneeze “JESUS!” a cripple nearby gets up. This is the one thing that even unbelievers knew about Christians before they learned about our doctrines. But now…not so much. There are indeed churches that teach the word of God on healing, but they have been so diluted by false churches, the anti-healing cults, that Christians are no longer known for healing the sick. In fact, they are known for being sick, and for surrendering to being sick, because it is “the will of God.” They talk about a “God,” but instead of interpreting circumstances by some divine verbal revelation, they regard whatever circumstances they face as the will of this “God”; therefore, their “God” is Circumstances. That is what they worship. It is paganism…
Vincent Cheung.
“A Matter of Public Health.” From the ebook, Contract. 2020. pg 77
———————————————-
This is a good example when the phrase “will of God” is turned in to pagan worship and into a satanic doctrine.
Let us test this out with sickness. If the phrase, “will of God,” makes you think more about your circumstances, and then from this you decide what you ought to do, rather than directing your mind to God’s verbal public revelation and to an actual command/promise for you to put your faith in,
(such as “And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven” James 5:15),
then you are, pragmatically no different than a pagan going to demons on a Ouija board looking for “directions” in your “circumstances.”
This is the essential difference for a Christian with the category of knowledge. God’s revealed truth is the only knowledge of the world, for the Christian. It is the only starting place for knowledge, nothing else. Not human circumstances, not human observations, not science, not you divining human circumstances with a demonic doctrine of “god’s will,” and not David Hume’s empiricism. All of these use a human starting point for knowledge, rather than God’s Word. All of these live by sight rather than by faith.
At the end of the day, the Christian will chose the Scripture alone as their epistemology rather than circumstances, by this we know who belongs to God and those who belong to the world.  By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of the anti-Christ. Those who shout loudest, “sola Scriptura,” are often the ones who out do the Catholics for having more epistemologies than Hindu gods.
With the category of “what I ought to do in this circumstance,” the knowledge given to Christians is found in God’s “commandments and promises”(which are essentially commandments). As with sickness there are clear commands and promises in what to do. There is no amount of creeds, degrees, tradition and human approval that can save you from the accountability and responsibility to obey God’s command to be healed. There is no excuse you can give to evade obeying God. Appealing to a nebulous “will of God,” in your circumstance does not remove your accountability and responsibility from obeying God’s commands. Nothing does.
When God gives precepts in the form of promises, they demonstrate a God who is rich in kindness and love. To be commanded to repent and be saved by our faith in Jesus is such a loving and wonderful kindness from God. The same with healing and with all the wonderful promises of God to help us.
Yet, the great kindness and love of God in giving promises for help does not negate our accountability and responsibility in obeying them.

The Confidence to Receive our Requests

By this, love has been perfected with us, so that we may have CONFIDENCE in the day of judgment, because as He is, so also are we in this world. (1 John 4:17 LSB)
.
This is the CONFIDENCE which we have before Him, that, if we ask anything according to His will (i.e. commands/precepts), He hears us.
And if we know that He hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests which we have asked from Him. ( 5:14-15)
.
What does , the “will of God” mean in this passage? In the Scripture this means one of two things, (1) God’s causality/decrees or (2) God’s commandments/precepts. What does John mean? In the context of the immediate chapter John keeps bringing up, loving God by obeying His commands. And then for extra context, in the Gospel of John chapter 15, where John records Jesus saying something similar (if my words abide in you, and you abide in Me), the context is Jesus’ words abiding in us. That is, Jesus reveals who He is and who we are in Him, and he commands we “believe” His revelation. Jesus command in the gospel of John, that John keeps recording is to “believe in the Son of God,” and to obey His commands. Thus, the context for “will of God” for John is about His commands and percent and believing and obeying them.
.
A quick note about promises being commandments.
When Jesus gives the promise in John 14, “whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these,” it is a truth claim about YOU in JESUS. Promises like this are at the same time a truth claim about you in Christ, and a command for you to obey. If you believe this, then this obedience is you “abiding” in Christ. You just qualified yourself to ask and get what you ask for.
.
In fact, this is exactly what John says in chapter 3:23
“And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.”
.
Thus, if we obey God’s command to believe in the Son of God, and love our Christian brothers, then we have every confidence to ask and get the exact thing we ask for. John is making answers to prayers easy for those born from above. He is not making perfection of your life the requirement; rather, John is making the requirements for answered prayers rest on what God causes us to BE when are born from above. John putting answers to prayers rest on God metaphysics of our new creation, rather than a list of what we do. John says in chapter 4 that those who are born of God, listen to God. They listen and believe in Jesus as the Son of God, by their very nature of being born for God. Also, John also says if you are born from God, then by the newly created nature in you, you love your brother. John’s teaching is if GOD has indeed birthed you, then out of your new creation, you will believe and you will love, just as much as a tree will produce leaves to soak up sunlight.
.
John, is being like Jesus, as John recorded Jesus in his gospel in chapters 14-16. Jesus kept taking the limiters off of prayer, and making it easy to ask for anything and get this anything in faith from God. John is doing the same here. He is not limiting, but expanding our hope of answers to prayer and making the requirements so easy to get.
Those who see such passages and think, “Oh well, I guess I have little confidence to ask for healing or monetary help form God and actually get it, because of “God’s will,”” have spiritually perverted its meaning and direction.
.
Here is the big idea! John used and meant the phrase “God’s Will,” to give you CONFIDENCE to get what you ask for, not the opposite. Think about it. Most have this completely flipped on its head. Most preach the opposite of Jesus and John; they teach a doctrine of demons. If you think “God’s will” and it gives you the smallest hesitation to get that healing or help you are asking for, then you have a perverted doctrine not taught by Jesus or the apostles. You need to rebuke and correct yourself.
Let us be instructed by Jesus and John. Let us believe in the Son of God, love our brother, and by this take off every limiter to prayers by getting what we ask for and 7 times more.

Father, Give us our Eschatology Bread

Joshua and Caleb marching in the promise land is an illustration of eschatology, particularly with how Vincent clearly defined it with “expansionism.” How did Caleb look at the kingdom of God expanding?

“…the people of the land, ..are our bread;

their protection has departed from them, and the Lord is with us.”

If Jesus taught how to pray for our daily bread, then Caleb has also taught us how to pray for our eschatology bread. All reprobates, (whether by conversion, or by defeating them in intellectual, moral or spiritual power) and devils, and all thoughts against Christ, are our eschatology bread. God is with us, but He has departed them.

Jesus saved us, as he saved Moses and Israel from the Egypt. But when it came to the promise land, He instead gave them His promise and put a sword in their hand. Jesus has done the same with us. He has armed us with the baptism of Spirit in our right hand, and a faith that can move mountains in our left, and a promise engraved on the tablet’s of our soul.

 

Endnotes—————

Vincent Cheung’s definition on expansionism. 
https://www.vincentcheung.com/2017/02/13/expansionism-a-gospel-manifesto/

Pagan-Level-Seeking Wealth

“Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?,’ for the pagans seek after all these things. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first his kingdom and righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.”
Matthew 6 31-33.
Heard another mentally broken mind trying to rebuke the health and wealth teachers by bring up Moses in Hebrews 11. Their point was that “Moses gave up the treasures of Egypt for God, who Moses considered a greater treasure (this is correct). Thus the health and wealth guys are wrong, because they ask and believe God will bless them financially.”
Jesus says that you cannot serve God and money, or that you cannot have two masters. Jesus does not say, you cannot have Jesus as your master and not have money, or not ask for it believing God will help you. If this person works 40-50 hours a week to get money, then are they not seeking money more than God, who they might seek a few hours a week at best? Ah’, but they seek the money to be blessed, be a blessing to their family and be a blessing to the church. Ok, so they can do this while working all week doing it, and a person cannot do this by seeking GOD, by seeking HIS promise and asking GOD to help them finically by a miracle and favor, so that they can be blessed, be a blessing to their family and a blessing to the Church? They are delusional.
Jesus says if you seek Him first He will bless you financially with what the pagans seeks after. The pagans do not seek the smallest amount; they seek much wealth. Let us look at Moses as a good example of this, since this is the example the non-faith person brought up. Moses sought God first rather than the world. His master was God, not the riches of the world. Thus, Moses fulfilled the requirement to seek God’s kingdom first in faith. What happened? Not only did Moses walk out with the treasures of Egypt, but all Israel pillaged and walked out of Egypt with their pagan treasures lined in their pockets and packs. They had so much pagan-level-seeking wealth, the could easily make the tabernacle and the whole system that went with it. That is financial abundance. The Bible and what Jesus said is not complicated, but unbelief takes the simplest of truths and use them defectively and perversely.

The Pinnacle of a Spiritual Life

Evil is when you talk against what God has said. Do not agree with wrong words. Cut off negative words quickly, say “all is well.”
 
Every obstacle in your life is now an opportunity. Faith filled words are the highest form of spiritual life.
 
Bill Winston. Twitter. July/04/2021
 
___________________
“For to us God has revealed them through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God. For who among men knows the things of a man, except the spirit of the man that is in him? Thus also no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, in order that we may know the things freely given to us by God, things which we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual people. But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. Now the spiritual person discerns all things.” (1 Corinthians 2:10-15 LEB)
 
“Is anyone among you suffering misfortune? He should pray. Is anyone cheerful? He should sing praise. Is anyone among you sick? He should summon the elders of the church and they should pray over him, anointing him with olive oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins he will be forgiven” (James 5:13-15 LEB)
 
Bill is correct here. Faith filled word’s are truly the pinnacle of a “spiritual life.” Whether he realizes it or not, this is the high intellectualism that bible teaches. Being “spiritual” is being intellectual. As Paul teaches in 1 Corn. 2, to be spiritual is having the Spirit of God (who alone knows God) reveal to you, the premises that God knows and understands to you, so that you have these premises and that you intellectually understand them and agree with them. But there is more to it. Paul specifically focus on the premises that deal with all the free goodies God is giving to us in Christ. To know these premises of freely given goodies, understand them and agree with God that He has indeed given them to you here and now in Christ, is according to Paul, the height of being intellectual, spiritual, so that such a person has the “Mind of Christ.”
 
This is why obstacles are food for the elect to be victorious over.
And why, since epistemology is the starting point, the beginnings of evil starts there, before it gets into behavior. As James says, if you are suffering misfortune, then ask for prayer, and agree your misfortune will go away. To intellectually agree and speak that your “misfortune” is who you are, that it will persist, is to think and speak evil. James says to speak in faith, and make it go away. This is goodness, this is intellectual; this is spiritual.
James says the same with with sickness and sinning. You are not to intellectually agree and speak that your sickness, is who you are, and that it will persist and defeat you. That is evil, this is anti-intellectualism; it is unspiritual. James says faith “WILL” make the sick healed. This is good; this is spiritual. The same with sin. You are not to intellectually agree and speak that sin, is who you are, and that it will persist and defeat you. That is evil, this is anti-intellectualism; it is unspiritual. You are to pray in faith and intellectually agree that in Christ you are forgiven and will mature in your behavior. This is goodness, this is intellectual; this is spiritual.

Jesus became Our Poverty, We become His Prosperity Today

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)

Christian Intelligence Is the Only Intelligence

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.[1]

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….[2]

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…[3]

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…[4]

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.[5] 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.[6]

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.

___________________________

END NOTES

[1] 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.

[2] Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 50-51.

[3] Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg.116

[4][4] Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 120

[5] 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.”

[6] 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