Tag Archives: Bible

Obedience Proves you Understand the Scripture

All who follow his precepts have good understanding,”
(Psalm 111:10 NIV).

If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want and it will be done for you. My Father is glorified by this: that you bear much fruit, and prove to be my disciples,
(John 15:7-8 LEB).

 Ethics are the conclusion of one’s worldview. Without knowledge, there is no knowledge of ethics. Without a reality, then there is no reality for ethics to exist in. Without man, there is no man to command. Thus, on the major premises of epistemology and metaphysics, ethics conclude from this.

We read something interesting Psalm 111:10b. We are told that by obeying God’s precepts (i.e. Ethics) it “proves” that a person has good understanding or intelligence. Since obeying God is Christian ethics, it means obeying God concludes from “understanding” Christian epistemology and metaphysics. This is why the greatest test for exposing if a so-called Christian pastor, or historically famous theology is truly intelligent and understanding can be seen in their obedience of God. In obedience they prove they have understanding of Christian epistemology and metaphysics. However, like the religious hypocrites in Jesus’ day, some Christian ethics can be outwardly mimicked, at least to a degree. However, some ethics cannot be mimicked by hypocrites. For example, one such ethics is mentioned by Jesus in John 15. Jesus’ presupposes that bearing fruit for the Father is a command or precept. It is a Christian ethic. Jesus says by doing this ethic you “prove you are His disciples.” The ethic mentioned here is having faith to ask God for anything and then God give you this anything.

Even Jesus said it was more difficult to speak healing to the sick than speaking forgiveness of sins, because if you say, “get up and walk,” there is an immediate point of verification. False Christian converts do not have faith, thus, they cannot ask for God for anything and then get it. They cannot do the miracles that Jesus did, because they do not have faith or understanding.

The more difficult ethics that cannot be mimicked by false converts (such as healing, miracles and answered prayers), are ethics that give greater proof of greater understanding of God’s truth and greater Christian intelligence. It means you need to understand more of God’s sovereignty and Christian epistemology, and to believe them, in order to do such ethics. These ethics prove, you truly believe what the bible claims about God.

Thus, the real proof for a persons claim to ministry is not a degree, which is mere human approval, but doing the more difficult ethics. These prove such a Christian has great understanding of Christian epistemology and metaphysics. It does not mean they are perfect in their understanding, but as the Scripture says, it does prove they understand God. If your pastors and favorites theologians do not have such ethics in their life, they do not give Scriptural proof they understand God’s sovereignty, or biblical epistemology as well as they claim.

Do not let such disobedient weaklings be your instructors, in particular, if they directly teach against such ethics, or merely hold them back. 

Prayer of Petition VS Dedication: When prayer becomes Non-prayer

Below, is a quick contrast between a prayer of “dedication,” that Jesus prayed in the garden, and a prayer of “petition” (John 15:7, Luke 18:1).

These are two different categories. They do have some overlap, depending if you are looking at the only real level of causality, or from the human relative level, and ethics. There is also some overlap between the direct meaning and indirect or presupposition behind it; however, we will keep it at this relative and direct perspective for simplicity, because it is this level that Jesus mostly spoke about.

When Jesus prayed in the garden, it was a dedication prayer, like Hannah dedicating her son, or when we dedicate our tithes and offerings to God. We will focus on the two necessary qualifications from these types of prayers, which is important for our present topic.

 

Dedication:

One, the person dedicating knows specifically what the plan or will of God they are dedicating to. The point is about a “specific” plan, “revealed from God,” not revealed from human speculation. Second, the person is directly giving up something of theirs to aid God’s specific plans and goals.

As for the first qualification Hannah knew God’s plan about having an ongoing ministry to God with ministers.  There was no mystery about what God might or might not do about having a church and ministry. God instituted it and commanded it. It was His goal and plan. There are no vague notions about it. Hannah dedicating her son to the service of God, was Hannah dedicating to a clear and specific plan of God she understood. The same with tithing.  You know exactly what God’s plan is when it comes to tithing. There is no mystery here. God’s plan is to support His ministry and ministers. You are dedicating your money to His plan, a plan you know about in precision and clarity. The same with Jesus in the Garden. Jesus knew the specific plan of God about His death for the salvation of the elect. There was no mystery here. There were no nebulous notions of what God might or might not do. Jesus says in effect, “I am not here for Myself, to ask for something, I am here to dedicate Myself to Your plan Father, however, in Me giving Myself to aid Your plan, if there is a way for Me not to suffer so horrifically, then grant this to Me, however, I am here to aid Your specific goal Father, so I will do it no matter the cost.

In all these examples the plan of God is known from infallible divine revelation, and not personal superstitions from observations. Thus, one important point about a prayer of dedication is knowing about a specific plan of God as revealed truth (as infallible divine revelation), and giving something you have to aid this plan.

The second point is about who is giving to who. God owns all things, however, even Jesus when talking about the relative level said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar,” and not “Give Caesar’s things to God, because God ultimately owns it.” The bible does not teach pantheism. God is not what He creates, although He directly and absolutely controls every aspect of it, so that He is even the author of sin and evil. Thus, when God gives “you” something, because God is separate from the things He creates, God gave it to “you,” and “not Himself.” It is yours, not God’s, in this sense.  God gave money to Caesar, not to Himself, and thus, it is Caesar’s. The same with our money. When we tithe and give extra offerings, we are giving to God in this sense. God has said what His plan is about the ministry and ministers, and we obey Him by giving a portion of our money to aid God’s plan.

 

Petition:

A prayer of petition has the two same foundational points from above, but the object has changed. First, it is our specific plan, not God’s. Second, God is giving to us, and not us to God.

For the first point, the direct focus is our plan. We have a specific plan, and we are asking God to help, give it and establish it. Think about healing. When King Hezekiah was praying to be healed, was he praying for the idea of healing for all people, all animals and all theoretically possible aliens in the broadest sense possible? No. He was praying for healing for himself. (I know this sounds obvious, but people still miss these sort of things). As with the prayer for dedication, the plan is a specific one, and not a mystery, not might this or might not that.

I recall one time I was praying for help against a temptation to God, however, I was not clear in how I wanted God to help me. I suddenly felt the Spirit of God rebuke and say to me, “What do you want?” I then said, “I want my friend (Chris) to call me in the next 5 minutes, and read a Psalm to me and pray for me.” Exactly 5 minutes later my friend Chris called, and said he called because he suddenly felt the holy Spirit move him to call me, and read me a Psalm; and so he did.

God is often kind to us in our lazy prayers; however, this kindness of God does not remove the accountability from us that we are to specifically make our request known to God and receive them in faith.

As for the second part is obvious. God is the one giving to us. We are not referring to mysterious hidden providences of God; rather, we are referring to what Jesus said in the sermon on the mount.  Jesus said God is a good Father, in that what we ask for, God gives us this exact thing and not something different. God gives to us, and gives what we ask for. God hears our plan and our will, “Lord, heal me of this sickness,” and God aids our plan, by giving us a healing. Just like we see Jesus doing over, and over, and over, and over again in the Gospels. These people were stocking him, overcrowding Him, even interrupting Him (the person lowered through the roof), and He would stop what He was doing, and blessed their plan by giving them the healing they were asking for.

By staying on this level, we learn an important lesson: one type of prayer will negate the other. You are doing one or the other. You are in the direct sense, either giving to God, or God is giving to you. You are either knowing God’s exact plan (as divine revelation) and aiding it, or God is hearing your exact plan and aiding it.

Many when they pray, are in fact not praying, because they act like they are praying a petition, but then they refer to, “Lord, your will be done,” which is a dedication type prayer. When praying about the same these prayers cancel each other, therefore it is as if they prayed nothing. If this is the majority of your prayers, then you are not praying. If you are not praying, you are not a Christian. If you are not a Christian you will endure eternal suffering.

Since this is exactly the WOF doctrine, the WOF is right, and the others are wrong. Unless you are making a prayer of dedication, it is often wrong to pray “if it is your will,” as if you do not already know his will. In a prayer of petition, it can be an indication of unbelief and rebellion.

When you came to Christ, how come you did not pray, “God, I am a sinner. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and he came to this earth to die for sinners. If it is your will, save me, but if not, let me burn in hell”? Now when you sin, how come you do not pray, “God, I have sinned. If it is your will, forgive me, but if it is not, then revoke my salvation and damn me to hell.” How come? Because you know Jesus already suffered for your sins and paid for your forgiveness. God tells you this in his word. You knew God’s will before you asked, and you received by faith. Well, Jesus paid for a whole lot of other things, and God also tells you about them in his word.[1] 

This point we have been highlighting is a point that is different from the category error of mixing up ontology and ethics. If you do not know a specific divinely revealed truth, then an appeal in prayer to “ if the will of God,” is almost always nonsense. One could refer to the will of God in the broadest sense possible, such as “all things for God’s glory,” but the person who says this, could by the “will of God,” blaspheme the Spirit in the next breath and be sent to hell for the “glory of God.” Thus, a dedication prayer, is not meant to be said in this broadest sense possible, unless you are fine with giving your life to God, for God to cause you to blaspheme the Spirit, so that your burning body in hell is for His glory. No, you need something more specific.

Both types of prayer have in mind a specific plan, and is seeking to aid that plan. Because both are specific, to pray one type is not to pray the other type. To pray, “Lord heal me,” is seeking your specific plan, not God’s plan, in this direct sense. In this sense, you are indeed asking for “your will to be done” not God’s will. You are asking for God to give to you, and not you giving to God. Just like those who lowered the paralyzed man through the roof, and interrupted Jesus, they were asking for their will to be done[2]; they were not looking for God’s will to be done, in the direct sense by giving to a specific revealed plan of God.

I apologize for having to say such obvious things, but some have so abused the “will of God,” and so abused God’s sovereignty that I must go over this.

If you are NOT thinking about a specific decree and plan of God from Scripture (like tithing for support of the ministry), or a specific prophecy God has given you about your own ministry, then there is little context and little to no intelligibility to pray a dedication prayer. You are just mumbling at this point. You are praying like a mumbling pagan.

To ask for healing, and then say, “but your will be done,” is nonsense. In essence it is saying, this prayer is about “me knowing” my specific plan for healing and knowing “You giving” me that healing: however, it is also about “me giving” to You my circumstance and my “my not knowing” your specific plan to heal or not heal me?” LOL!

Again, this type of prayer has now become non-prayer. You are not saying anything. You are praying things that cancel each other out. If you pray like this, you are not praying, and if you do not pray you are not a Christian.

What is odd is that many cessationist and traditionalist (and sadly even Pentecostals) often refer to the “will of God,” as if they are praying a dedication prayer, when they are asking for something in a petition prayer. Thus, they are not praying. Getting past this point, we see another problem. If they are not receiving divinely given prophecies/visions/dreams concerning specifics for their ministries, then what “specific” plan from Scripture are they using to dedicate themselves to, by giving something to “God’s revealed plan”?  Take healing for example. What Scripture says God will not give healing when asked in true faith? Where? Remember a rebuttal only works if you can show a scripture that only means no healing with faith, and not a mere possibility.

These persons now have a real problem. They need a specific plan of God to dedicate themselves to, so as to feel really humble about themselves.

Sadly, the only thing left for such persons to acquire a “specific” plan of God, is to humanly divine it from the movements of circumstance, similar to how Satanists humanly divine the future with movements of a Ouija board. Their circumstances move this way, their bodies and hands move this way, thus, it is God’s specifically revealed plan not to heal me. Starting with an epistemology of human empiricism/observation (not scripture) they superstitiously conjure up a specific plan of God to their liking, such as, “its not God’s plan to heal me of this sickness.” Thus, many so-called Christians have more in common with demonic cults than with Christianity.  They are one step away from entering into the fellowship of demons, if they are not already there.

Be true Christians. Pray dedication prayers when applicable, and pray petition prayers when applicable and do not blur them into the same thing. Be Children of the light.

 

Dedication: Lord I give this to you.
Petition: Lord give this to me.

 

Dedication: Lord your will be done.
Petition: My will be done.

Dedication: I know Your plan, so I want to give this to You, to aid Your plan.
Petition: I know my plan, here is something I need You to give me, to help my plan.

 

———-END NOTES———-

[1] Vincent Cheung. Prayer and the Word of Faith.  From the ebook, Sermonettes Vol.8, 2015, pg.45.

[2] See Vincent Cheung. Healing: the Will of Man.

  Jesus Does the Marvelous “Works,” that the Father Does.  

[This section is from the “Works of God” section,
from my Systematic Theology book]

…This mighty work of God is mirrored in Jesus Christ and His saving of the Elect. Indeed there are even two baptisms in the New Contract with Jesus. One for the removal of slavery and sins, and one for the power of God’s Spirit.

  Jesus Does the Marvelous “Works,” that the Father Does.

John 5:16–30 (NET)
16 Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began persecuting him.
17 So he told them, “My Father is working until now, and I too am working.”
19 So Jesus answered them, “I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.
20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he does, and will show him greater deeds than these, so that you will be amazed.
21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.
22 Furthermore, the Father does not judge anyone, but has assigned all judgment to the Son,
…27 and he has granted the Son authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.
…30 I can do nothing on my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.

 Luke 4:16-20 NET
4:16 Now Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 4:17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and the regaining of sight to the blind,
to set free those who are oppressed,
4:19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”

4:20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. 4:21 Then he began to tell them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read.”

  A few quick things about the works Jesus is doing.

The Father “works on the Sabbath.” Back the Exodus and wilderness story, on the Sabbath God first worked by giving them “food” to eat.[1] God then worked on the Sabbath to provide “sanctification”[2] for them. Thus, according to first mentions hermeneutics “God working on the Sabbath” on the behalf of man, is 1st a material-miracle blessing and then 2nd a spiritual blessing.  Most have this flipped upside down, or do not even consider the first because their parents are the same ones who complained in the wilderness. They do not like how God “works” on the behalf of man. The have the same attitude toward Jesus and His followers.

Also, in context of Exodus 16, we have in chapter 15 God healing them, and declares that He is “Yahweh who heals you.” Jesus does these same works the Father did.

Jesus Christ mirrors this in His working on the Sabbath. Our text starts with a common experience in the gospels. Jesus is healing on the Sabbath. Jesus is working material-miracle blessings on the Sabbath, just like His Father did.  Just like the Israelites in the wilderness who hated God for helping them, these in John 5 also hated God’s Son for helping them. Those who follow after the Father, and the Son by doing these same “works” to help man, are often persecuted by those who claim to follow God.

I know this sounds strange, but you need to let that sink in. The Father was providing one miracle supply after another for the Israelites; the responded with complaints and hating the Father.  God was richly helping them and they turned around and hated Him for it.  Jesus on the Sabbath was doing exactly what the Father did. He was richly supplying both material miracles and spiritual ones, and the Jews hated Him for helping them. They did the same thing to the disciples in the book of Acts. The same happens today.

Our verse in Luke shows that Jesus quotes Isaiah’s prophecy as being fulfilled by Him. The is about God healing, setting people free, preaching truth to them. This is God richly supplying every sort of material and spiritual blessing. The Father has been doing this works through the Scripture, and now Jesus is doing them as the Son of Man. In fact, when question by John’s disciples if Jesu was truly the one they were looking for He responded by saying,

“Luke 7:22–23 (NET) So he answered them, “Go tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them. Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.”

Think about what Jesus is saying about being offended. He is not preaching on hell, and saying do not be offended by this; rather, just like in Exodus and the Sabbath provisions, Jesus is preaching and providing great miracle supplies, and then says do not be offended. That is, do not hate God for richly providing material and spiritual blessings, as the Israelites did in the wilderness. Do not be offended at God richly pouring out goodies, if you do, then you burn in hell. Your body will be left in the wilderness just like the rest.

Jesus started His ministry, as the Godman, after He was empowered by the Holy Spirit. He did His ministry, not by the mere power of the Son of God, but as a “man,” born under the law, “empower by the Spirit.” After Jesus’ baptism and the Holy Spirit coming down to rest on Him, He became an explosive ministry of miracles, healings, truth and power. This was an antitype for how God’s chosen ones would follow in Jesus’ footsteps. Jesus commanded the disciples to wait in Jerusalem until they are baptized in the Holy Spirit for missional/miracle power. Jesus was baptized and empowered by the Spirit, as a man, and commands His followers to do the same.

I could go on and on about this, but this will have to suffice for now. We will transition to the “works that man will do” by quoting Jesus speaking of this very thing.

John 14:10–14 (NIV)
Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.


[1] Exodus 16:22-30.

 He said to them, “This is what the Lord has said: ‘Tomorrow is a time of cessation from work, a holy Sabbath to the Lord. … See, because the Lord has given you the Sabbath, that is why he is giving you food for two days on the sixth day, (v. 23,29 Net). 

The first mention of the “Holy Sabbath,” is here. The first mention of Sabbath being a “holy” day is the day God provided so much miracle material provision, they stayed home and ceased from working. God worked so hard to provide for them miracle food, they were able to cease from their work.  This ceasing from material work, due to God’s abundant miracle provision, “sets them apart to Yahweh, (i.e. Holy)” and makes them a “cut-above” all peoples of the earth.

It is true that in Jesus’ atonement, He becomes the spiritual provision of forgiveness, sanctification, adoption and redemption; however, this does not negate the first mention of this is about material provision. Thus, the teaching about the first mention of God providing on the Holy Sabbath, is more than, but not less than, God providing abundant material miracle provision.

Fools often use one Scripture to cancel out another. But as we see here, as it often is, the Scripture for the sake of God’s love to man, keeps adding not subtracting blessings. Let us be true children of God, and in faith, obtain all the provisions of God, and by this become “Holy people of God.”

 [2] The next big mention about the Sabbath and God’s supply is in Exodus 31. God just gave Moses instructions about the Tabernacle, and all the symbolic parts that represent God’s mercy, salvation and nearness to them. In verse 12 it says, “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, speak also to the Children of Israel, saying: “Surely, My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you (NKJV).”

At first God is the abundant material supply through miracles; next, is the abundant spiritual supply of mercy, salvation and nearness.

Thus, we can conclude the Sabbath was designed by God to be a day where “God works” by supplying so much material and spiritual blessings, that man rests from their works. Their “receiving” and “trusting” in God’s abundance miracle supplies, makes them “holy,” set-a-part to God as His chosen people.

Therefore, in Gospel of Jesus Christ, not only imputed righteousness is provided(spiritual) but also healing (material) (Exodus 15:26, Isaiah 5:4-5, James 5:15), and finances (Exodus 36:5, 2 Corinthians 8:9)

First Principles of a Worldview or First Spirits?

“See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”

LSB Colossians 2:8

Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon: (elementary principles),

4747 στοιχεῖον [stoicheion /stoy·khi·on/] n n. From a presumed derivative of the base of 4748; TDNT 7:670; TDNTA 1087; GK 5122; Seven occurrences; AV translates as “element” four times, “rudiment” twice, and “principle” once.

1 any first thing, from which the others belonging to some series or composite whole take their rise, an element, first principal. 1a the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech, not however the written characters, but the spoken sounds. 1b the elements from which all things have come, the material causes of the universe. 1c the heavenly bodies, either as parts of the heavens or (as others think) because in them the elements of man, life and destiny were supposed to reside.
1d the elements, rudiments, primary and fundamental principles of any art, science, or discipline. 1d1 i.e. of mathematics, Euclid’s geometry.[1]

In the verse, the word “philosophy” is actually used, not “spirits or angels.” In addition to philosophy being used by Paul, which is about philosophy, the context is about “traditions of men,” that are conclusions from “elementary principles.” In Philosophy 101 you learn that ethics (or in this case religious ethics as “traditions”) are a conclusion from the rudimentary principles of metaphysics(reality) and epistemology(knowledge). To talk about ethics, as Paul does here, coming from elementary foundational principles of a human system, is as philosophy as it gets.  In fact you can start any Intro to Philosophy book or college class with this statement, “Philosophy is the study of the fundamental principles, or ultimate questions about life.” The first two biggest questions are almost always about “starting point for knowledge,” and then the “starting point for reality.” With these two big fundamental principles laid down, then one can easily proceed to ultimate question about ethics.

The whole structure of this premise and those immediately around, is strong philosophy, or ultimate question language. Thus, “stoicheion,” due to context should mean what it normally means and not some other meaning, like “elementary spirits.” It means ultimate or rudimentary/first principles of a worldview. Think about the philosophy word, “epistemology.” It means, “first or starting principle of knowledge.”

Thus, the last part of the Strong’s Lexicon (1D) is best definition of this word, that fits the context of Paul’s premise. Paul is therefore, referring to the first and foundational principles of a humanly made worldview, and then the “traditions” men conclude from the first principles of their humanly devised worldview.

Paul is contrasting “human” versus “Christian” first principles, and then human conclusions from their humans first principles versus Christian ethics from its first principles.

Men have their own speculative statements of first principles of knowledge and reality, and from this they superstitiously conclude human traditions as their ethics. Their traditions are false, because their first principles of their worldview about reality and knowledge are false; and therefore, their traditions/conclusions are false.

Christians on the other hand, have Christ, who is hidden all the treasures of knowledge. The Scripture reveals the starting principles about knowledge(epistemology) and reality(metaphysics) to us, and from foundation, God reveals His commands(ethics) to us. Christians ethics are founded on reality and truth, whereas, non-christians ethics are founded on a delusion of reality and skepticism as knowledge.

[1] Strong, J. (1995). Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon. Woodside Bible Fellowship.

Look Jesus! there are Crumbs: YOU SAID IT, NOT ME

“But she came and bowed down before him and said, “Lord, help me!”

“It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs,” he said.

“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”

Then Jesus answered her, “Woman, your faith is great! Let what you want be done for you.” And her daughter was healed from that hour.”
(Matthew 15-25-28 NET)

.
Jesus, the greatest teacher who ever lived, Jesus the greatest prophet who ever lived, Jesus the greatest man who knew God’s Will perfectly and set His face like a flint to accomplish it at all cost,–said to this outsider woman, “woman, not God’s Will be done (His plan to only minister to the Jews before the atonement), but your Will Be Done.”

JESUS: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs.

WOMAN: “Jesus, these are Your words not mine. You said with Your words, there are dogs in the house beneath the table. Even if you did not intend it, you have me under your table. Even if you did not intend it, there are always crumbs that fall down from the table. You SAID IT, not me! If You are to be faithful to Your word, then you ought to let me have the crumbs, because I am there under that table with those crumbs, and I want them. YOU SAID IT, not me!!”

This woman, even if she is commandeering Jesus’ analogy to go farther than Jesus intended it, she does something that most people lack, which is engaging God’s word with importance. In FAITH she treats the Lord’s word with SERIOUSNESS! God just spoke. God cannot lie. She is banking on the fact that Jesus must be faithful to His words, even if Jesus did not intend them to the length she is asking for. Most would have been too offended at being called a “dog,” to treat Jesus’ word with reverence and importance.

Despite the errors the health and wealth guys have, they are not mistaken on taking the divine promises, from God’s word, and treat them with importance. Those who often criticize these faith teachers, are often to offended at Jesus’ words calling them dogs and unbelieving perverts (Matt.17:17), to take His promises on health and wealth seriously. You cannot please God without faith, says the preacher in Hebrews 11. These despite their faults, have faith in God’s promises. To have faith in God’s promise, even for health and wealth, is at the same time to treat God with reverence and seriousness. Those, who do not, dishonor Him and treat His word as a little and light thing.

Jesus, after seeing this woman use His analogy against Him, rather than rebuking her, praises her. Think about that. How often did Jesus do that? Jesus gets out maneuvered and out argued by a woman taking His analogy farther than He intended, and He praises her “FAITH” for doing so. Unlike many around Him, at least she was engaging His word with great importance and seriousness.

Jesus says to her, “Woman, God’s will/pan is to only minister to the Jews first, but not His Will be done; rather, your will be done on earth.”

Your theology must include this Jesus, or you are not a Christian. Your faith must treat God’s every promise with this level of importance, or you are not a Christian. However, when Jesus comes, will he find faith, will He find people treating His word with this level of importance with healing and casting out demons as this women did?

‐——————–

Endnote.

Vincent Cheung points out in the essay, Faith Override (sermonettes vol. 9), that faith is the first doctrine. Similar to how the Mosaic Covenant cannot override God’s promise to Abraham, the same is with faith. God made a Covenant or contract with man about faith. It is the first primordial doctrine.

In fact, this is Satan’s first temptation to Adam, “did God say?” Thus, every other doctrine and Covenant that comes later will not override it; rather the opposite, God’s first doctrine of faith, if a man engages it, will override doctrines that come later, because they only add to this first doctrine, and not replace it.

Thus, behind Jesus saying not God’s will be done, in regard to His plan to only minister to the Jews before the atonement, is God’s standing doctrine of faith. God’s will is to honor the will of man, when man engages God’s doctrine of faith in His word. When the woman engaged Jesus’ word with absolute importance, it triggered this first doctrine of faith.

Thus, behind Jesus saying, “woman your will be done,” is God’s will being done by His faithfulness to always honor faith, His first doctrine established with man.

God Owns it All, the Saints Receive it All

God Owns it All, the Saints Receive it All.

Recall an earlier quote from Vincent, from “On Good and Evil,”

The Bible says that, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). It also says that, “God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone” (James 1:13), but that, “Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows” (James 1:17). This means that God’s nature is inherently good, and it is the objective standard of goodness on which all judgment on these issues must be based.[0]

I would like to point out from this an inference about how God’s children image Him.

There are a few reasons why God cannot be tempted. I will skip the issue that sin is not applicable to God. One reason why God cannot be tempted by evil, is because God already owns it all. How can God be tempted to steal something when He already owns it? The temptation of stealing happens because you perceive a lack in something, and you are tempted you to gain this lack in a manner that breaks God’s law, to lie and/or harms someone to get it. How can God be tempted to lie to get something, when He already owns it, and has no lack in anything? God has infinite power and value. If He does not already have it, if that is possible, then He can just create it. That is, by God’s nature itself, temptation for more than one reason, cannot be applied to God.

Remember Paul’s comments in Corinthians 1-3. He says there is a “wisdom” for the “mature” believer. He defines this maturity as the power, by the Holy Spirit, to know and receive all the goodies God has freely given us in Jesus Christ. This includes all of them, both spiritual and material goodies and favor. Paul goes on to say that, “all things are yours.” Then in context of this mature wisdom in knowing and receiving all God’s goodies, we are told we “think spiritually” and even have the “Mind of Christ.”

Jesus also, talked about degrees of faith. When commenting on the Roman soldier, Jesus said He had not seen such great faith in all of Israel. There is such things as weak and strong faith. With both examples, strong wisdom and strong faith was not related to suffering for Jesus, but the opposite. It was a “knowing and believing” that causes you to receive God’s freely given benefits.

Another example. “

Against hope Abraham believed in hope with the result that he became the father of many nations according to the pronouncement, “so will your descendants be.” Without being weak in faith, he considered his own body as dead (because he was about 100 years old) and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He did not waver in unbelief about the promise of God but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God,” (Romans 4:18-20 NET)

When Christians are strong in wisdom and maturity like this, they truly become Godlike, relative to our example above. God is not tempted because He already owns it all. Likewise, mature Christians, strong in faith and wisdom, receive all they ask from God. Thus, God owns it all, and Christians receive it all.

How can a Christian be tempted to steal, cheat their neighbors, and lie when whatever they are being tempted with they have the faith and maturity to receive it? Whether spiritual things like a hopeful mind, a joyous mind and a sound mind, the Christian can grow and receive this in faith. What about healing, finances, a spouse and help from everyday troubles? How can these tempt them in fear and lack to do something evil and sinful, when they can just easily receive it in faith?

There is more to having strength to resist temptation, but this is one aspect many foolishly overlook to their own damnation.

This is something that mature Christians do that truly makes them Godlike, and true image bearers of Christ. When they live this type of mature wisdom and faith, they think God’s thoughts after Him, and walk in His pathways. Leave the milk and elementary things like forgiveness of sins and move on to maturity.[1] Receive not only the doorway (forgiveness) but march to into house of God and sit at His table prepared for you. Receive the bread and wine, where God promises to “be your God, and you His people,” and promises to “never stop from doing good to you.” He defines Himself as a Good Father, in that whatever you ask for, you receive it, and not something different.


[0] Vincent Cheung. On Good and Evil. 2002. Pg. 6-7 (www.vincentcheung.com)

[1] (Not moving on in the sense of casting it aside, but having truly believed it as a foundation, you build on it.)

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

Expansionism: Applied Eschatology

 

This doctrine is reserved the Section on “Ethics,” however, I will briefly define it here for context.

I am using the term as Vincent Cheung as defined it, since his term properly encompass what I also believe the Scripture teaches on this subject. He was the first to use it, and it is a clear definition, thus I will use his.
I will let him define it here:

Expansionism is the Bible’s explicit doctrine on the subject of spiritual gifts, powers, and miracles. This is the only biblical perspective. I am unaware of any official recognition of the doctrine, so I have selected the term for it. The word is sometimes used in a political sense, but I mean it in a spiritual sense. It is applied to every aspect of the advance of the gospel, but in this context we will focus on the supernatural powers and miracles that God works in association with his people. This is the biblical doctrine that supernatural powers and miracles are to increase in God’s people beyond what Jesus Christ himself exercised. They are to multiply exponentially in quantity and frequency, in intensity and magnitude, in the diversity of representation, and in the scope of jurisdiction. There should be an accumulated momentum, so that compared to Jesus and the apostles, and compared to each previous generation, the church should demonstrate more miracles, greater miracles, miracles performed by more kinds of people, and miracles performed in more areas of the world…

Jesus would perform a miracle, and then he would say that the one who has faith can perform the same miracle, and even a greater miracle — a greater miracle than the one he did. It was as if he wanted to erase every doubt and condemn every excuse. He emphasized this doctrine again and again, and he formulated it in explicit terms. He referred to his miracles (John 14:11), and then he said, “I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father” (14:12). This leaves no room for cessationism, but it is much more than continuationism. It is expansionism.

The Bible contains statements that promise us the ability to perform specific kinds of miracles by faith. For example, James 5:15 is a promise for miracles of healing. In fact, it is a command to perform miracles of healing as much as it is a promise. However, even before we learn about these promises, or even without them, John 14:12 guarantees the continuation and expansion of the miracles that Jesus performed. Even without Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23, and every other passage like these, the one who has faith possesses an irrefutable and permanent basis to perform the same kinds of miracles, such as to command a sickness to leave someone, or to command the restoration of a damaged or missing organ. John 14:12 encompasses all the miracles of Christ, so that miracles of prophecy, miracles of nature, and all other miracles, are also included and promised to those who have faith. That said, we indeed have Matthew 17:20, Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23, and many other passages that dictate the doctrine of expansionism. It is inescapable….

… Before Christ ascended to the throne of God, he declared that the Holy Spirit would come upon the disciples, and they would receive the same power that he exercised in his ministry (Acts 1:8). Keep in mind that he had already promised that anyone could perform the same and even greater miracles by faith, and the disciples had already been performing miracles by faith, healing the sick and casting out demons in his name. Jesus did not want this to merely continue. He wanted more, much more. This would add still another dimension of spiritual power to their lives — faith upon faith, power upon power. Jesus was not satisfied until his followers had attained an excessive and ridiculous level of charismatic endowments. He refused to accept a mere continuation of his ministry, but he demanded an expansion, an escalation. He wanted the power they demonstrate to be outright absurd. He told them not to leave the city until the Spirit arrived. Then they were to expand, and carry this power “to the ends of the earth.”

When we come to the events after the ascension of Christ, we need to move quickly, because too many things happened for us to consider them in detail. The disciples were no longer just talking about it, but they were doing it. Expansion in every aspect was happening — the quantity of the miracles, the quality of the miracles, the diversity of believers, and the immensity of territories. There was an explosion of supernatural power, and miracles splattered all over the place.

On the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit arrived in a spectacular fashion upon the group of believers. Only ten percent of them were apostles (Acts 1:15), but all of them were directly infused with the same power to receive revelations and to perform miracles that infused Jesus Christ (Luke 4:14, 24:49, Acts 1:8, 2:4). Since the first day, the overwhelming majority of those who had prophetic gifts and miraculous powers were not apostles. Peter explained that it was exactly what was supposed to happen. He referred to the prophet Joel: “In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18). The anointing of the Spirit had spread beyond a few kings and prophets, to Christ and his disciples, and now it would expand in power and scope to all kinds of people, penetrate all levels of society, invade all areas of the world, for all times in the future….[1]

Let me give a quick summary of this.

Expansionism is thus, the combination of the (1) discipleship “faith” Jesus mentions in “…whoever believes in Me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these,” John 14:12 (NIV).[2] This basic discipleship faith is meant for all disciples of Christ. First it says, “whoever believes in Me,” and the context is paralleled with loving each other—or is loving our Christian brothers only for the 12 original apostles?  (2) The combination of “baptism of the Spirit” that Jesus commanded, and Peter through the Joel prophecy, says it for all whom God calls to Himself in salvation.  (3) The combination of the “gifts of the Spirit” as mentioned briefly in Corinthians 12-14.

There is even more, such as what some call the mode of the “anointing presence of God,”(etc.) but we will just keep it to 3 for simplicity.

These 3 combinations are not meant as static; rather, they are meant as an ever increasing[3] expansion in and through the Church to bring the Kingdom of God on earth. That is, the millennium started when Jesus sat on His throne, at the right hand of the Power. He commands the ever increasing expansion of His kingdom on earth by commanding all to repent (baptism of faith), to be empowered (baptism of the Spirit). By these two baptisms, the chosen elect are to be filled with intellectual, ethical and missional power to expand His kingdom on earth, like the Israelites expanded into the Promise Land. This expansion will continue until the fullness of the gentiles are complete and the Jews experience an accelerated repentance in Jesus Christ.

This is what postmillennialism is missing; it has the structure without the content. It has the building but no people. It has a body but no soul. Since for about 1500 years the church has labeled expansionism as a heresy, then no classical doctrine of eschatology is able to be salvaged by combining it with expansionism and still calling it by its classical name, since the classical name contradicts expansionism.

Because expansionism is the correct application of eschatology, then one can simply term expansionism, as Biblical Eschatology and it would be sufficient.  However, for this book I will term the whole meaning of eschatology as “Right-Hand-of-the-Power-ology.” Or for short, Throneism, or Powerism. I would rather use these words, because the doctrine of expansionism, is a consequent of the antecedent, of Jesus as He sits at the right hand of the Power, and from this position, commanding and giving us His power to expand. Depending on, if one defines Jesus sitting at God’s right hand as much as a definition as what the church does, by expanding in power, faith, and miracles, then expansionism can be used as a complete term for biblical Eschatology. 

Also, from this doctrine of expansionism, we can throw the entire various definitions of cessationism into the garbage as blasphemy and rebellions against God. When all definitions fall horrifically short, it does not matter the version of it. Thus, when I rebuke cessationism, I am lumping all of them together, (ranging from those who say “all miracles and gifts have stopped,” to those who say “the gifts have mostly stopped, some miracles still might happen when we ask”), as heretics and deserving of judgment.  It does not matter if one arrow was 50 miles from the bullseye and the other 56 miles, and another was 59 miles. All are completely and ridiculous failures. At least with modern day Pentecostals and Charismatics their arrow was only 30 feet from the bullseye. Still, to miss the target that far off is embarrassing, yet, there is a significant difference of 30 feet compared to 50 miles. The cessationist were not even trying to aim for the Scripture.

Endnotes———————

[1] Vincent Cheung. “Expansionism: A Gospel Manifesto.”

From the ebook, Fulcrum. 2017. Ch. 1. Pg.5-11.
I quoted this at large, because I wanted to make sure there was plenty of context for Vincent to define this doctrine in his own words, thus, if I were to teach something different or disagree there is ample context to demonstrate.

[2] Compare this to John 3:16.

“…whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
John 3:16 (NIV)

“…whoever believes in Me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these.”
John 14:12 (NIV)

[3] Some might recognize the Smith Wigglesworth book title, Ever Increasing Faith.  Thus, it is not as if Vincent was 100% original in this, but that his definition is a fuller definition, in addition to being concise and clear

“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.