Tag Archives: category

Don’t Waste The Gospel

Ah, John Piper. The man who’s made a career out of turning theological somersaults to explain why God might hand you a lemon and call it lemonade. He says, “God does not give bad. And I mean, ultimately hurtful. This tests our faith to the limit, doesn’t it?… I asked for healing. I asked for a job…. This isn’t what I wanted. And my theology from every part of the bible. I know God only gives what is good for his children. Painful as it has been. This brings us stability in our lives. I am thankful for you having embraced that sovereign goodness and grace of God.”

This isn’t just nitpicking; it’s about the heart of the gospel. Piper’s teaching trains believers to settle for Satan’s leftovers and call them God’s feast. Imagine praying for healing, getting more pain, and then thanking God for “stability” in suffering. That’s not faith; that’s resignation dressed up as piety

He’s essentially patting folks on the back for accepting pain as a divine gift wrap. This isn’t biblical theology; it’s a clever dodge that hybridizes good and evil until they’re indistinguishable, like mixing chocolate milk with motor oil and calling it a smoothie. The Bible doesn’t play that game. God’s goodness isn’t some cosmic bait-and-switch where sickness or hardship gets relabeled as “ultimately good.” No, Scripture draws a sharp line: good is good now, just as it’ll be in heaven, and bad things like pain and disease? Those have the devil’s fingerprints all over them, not God’s.

In Acts 10:38, Peter delivers the first apostolic sermon to the Gentiles, painting a childlike yet profound picture of the gospel: “how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him” (NIV). Here, goodness is tied directly to healing, while sickness is oppression from the devil. It’s not ambiguous—Jesus’ ministry was a relentless campaign against disease, not a distribution of it. If Piper’s view holds, we’d have to imagine Jesus handing out tumors as tokens of grace, but the text says the opposite: sickness victimizes people under Satan’s thumb, and Jesus smashes it as an act of divine goodness. This isn’t just narrative flair; it’s a partitioning line in theology, as fundamental as affirming that all things exist for God’s glory. To mix them up is to confuse the kingdom’s advance with the enemy’s attack. It is to look at a police lineup, when asked who hurt you, and you point to Jesus rather than Satan. This isn’t a minor theological mistake; it is seeing reality upside down. It is a worldview issue. It is a different view of reality than the Christian one.

Consider Isaiah 54:15, where God speaks to His covenant people: “If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing; whoever attacks you will surrender to you” (NIV). God assumes His ultimate sovereignty quietly in the background, as He often does, but on the human level—where He commands, relates, and expects us to live—He declares plainly that attacks aren’t from Him. This echoes through the New Testament. In Luke 13:16, Jesus heals a woman bent over for eighteen years, declaring, “Then should not this woman, a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years, be set free on the Sabbath day from what bound her?” (NIV). Notice the emphasis: she’s an insider under Abraham’s covenant, which promises blessing and health, not curse and pain. Satan bound her, not God, and Jesus frames her healing as a necessity—a “must”—because God’s covenants don’t break. If sickness were God’s “painful but good” gift, Jesus would be contradicting His Father’s mission, but instead, He treats it as an affront to the Father’s promises, demolishing it wherever faith allows.

God is in a Contract with us, and therefore, relative to our interactions with God, and God’s interaction with us, He does not send sin to us—otherwise, Jesus would be a minister of sin. Jesus does not send poverty to us—otherwise, Jesus would be High Priest of poverty. Jesus does not minister sickness to us—otherwise, His ministry would be a ministry of sickness, pain, and death. There is a being who does minister such things, and that is Satan. He has a ministry of death, sickness, poverty, and pain. He comes to steal, kill, and destroy. But Jesus comes to give life and even abundant life.

The argument God gives in Isaiah 54 is simple. On the relative level, God did not send the trouble; therefore, when trouble comes to you, command it to leave. Jesus gives us a clear picture of this in His faith doctrine. What does it mean to refute every tongue that accuses you? Jesus commands us to “speak” to our mountains and tell them to get out of our way. Jesus also says that we can use His Name to ask for whatever we want and get it to increase our joy and give the Father glory. Peter therefore said, “What I have, I give, In Jesus Name, Walk.” Thus, because the trouble did not come from Jesus, when troubles—or that is, when mountains—come, condemn it, refute it, and tell it to cast itself in the sea.

This brings us to the heart of the issue: Piper’s hybridization of good and bad under the banner of sovereignty. On the ultimate metaphysical level, yes, God controls all things directly, as Vincent Cheung aptly notes in his work on divine sovereignty: “God is the metaphysical author of evil,” meaning nothing escapes His decree (vincentcheung.com). All things are things God directly and absolute controls, including all human thoughts, actions and evil. When you say God absolutely and directly controls all things as category truth claim, you can only say it as an  “all, some, or none.” The bible says it is all, regarding the ultimate or only real cause level. However, the Bible speaks mostly on the relational, human level, where God relates to us through Contracts sealed in blood and promise of good. In the New Contract, God promises to deal with us always in goodness—like a father giving a fish for a fish, not a stone (Matthew 7:9-11). Jesus, as our eternal High Priest, ministers healing, not torment; if He sent sickness, His priesthood would include pain and suffering as promised ministry, which it doesn’t. The curses of the law, including sickness and poverty, are bad—plain and simple—as Deuteronomy 28 outlines, while Abraham’s blessings, which Galatians 3:14 applies to us, are good: health, prosperity, victory. Jesus bore those curses in our place (Galatians 3:13; Isaiah 53:4-5), so attributing ongoing sickness to God’s goodness is like saying the atonement half-worked. It’s not faith-testing; it’s faith-denying.

Think about it this way: when Joseph told his brothers, “You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good” (Genesis 50:20, NIV), he didn’t say God intended harm and then God flipped the harm into good. The evil came from human (and likely demonic) intent, while God orchestrated the outcome for blessing. Piper’s approach risks congratulating believers for accepting Satan’s “bi@#h slap and graffiti” as God’s artistry, but as I argue in my Systematic Theology (2025), sickness is Satan’s glory, not God’s. It sidelines Christians, stalls the kingdom, and turns soldiers into casualties that drag others down—like wartime tactics where injuring is more disruptive than killing. If we label that “good,” we’re cheering for the wrong side in this cosmic showdown. Jesus saw sickness as a direct insult to His atonement, where He took 39 stripes for our healing (Isaiah 53:5; Matthew 8:17), bearing our diseases as the scapegoat did sins (Leviticus 16). To say God continues it for our benefit dishonors that finished work, making the cross a partial payment rather than a finished work.

Piper’s words aim for stability, and there’s a kernel of truth in trusting God’s sovereignty amid trials. The problem is conflating the trial’s source with its resolver. The Bible never frames sickness as paternal discipline for believers; it’s the devil’s opportunism under the curse, which Jesus came to destroy (1 John 3:8). James 5:15 promises healing and forgiveness together: “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” (NIV). God wants prosperity, not pain—His goodness is consistent from Eden to eternity, where no sickness exists (Revelation 21:4).

Faith isn’t passive acceptance; it’s active resistance against bad, sickness, pain, evil and lack. Jesus commanded us to heal the sick (Matthew 10:8), not endure them as lessons. If you’re facing illness or lack, don’t redefine it as God’s “painful good”—confess the promises, and command the mountain to move (Mark 11:23), and watch reality bow to the King’s decree. Piper’s theology, encourages believers to give glory to Satan, letting the devil conqueror them in pain and suffering. However the scripture tells a different story. We are called co-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17), seated above every power (Ephesians 2:6), with all things possible (Mark 9:23).

In wrapping up, Piper admits the pain is real and unwanted—something you’d never pray for if you thought it was better—but then insists it’s still God’s good gift. This is a category error of epic proportions, folks. The Bible defines goodness consistently from Genesis to Revelation. In the Garden, goodness meant abundance, health, and harmony without a hint of pain or curse. Abraham’s blessing, which Galatians 3:14 says is ours through Christ, included prosperity and healing as unequivocal goods. Deuteronomy 28 spells it out: blessings are health, wealth, and victory; curses are sickness, poverty, and defeat. Jesus didn’t come to hybridize them; He came to redeem us from the curse entirely (Galatians 3:13). When Piper says “painful as it has been” and calls it God’s goodness, he’s essentially saying God gives curses wrapped in blessing paper. But Isaiah 54:15 shoots that down: “If anyone does attack you, it will not be my doing; whoever attacks you will surrender to you” (NIV). God explicitly disowns the attackers—be they relational strife, financial woes, or cancerous tumors. If pain, loss or sickness is knocking on your door, it’s not a delivery from heaven; it’s fiery arrows from the enemy, and Piper’s theology is handing Satan the quiver while crediting God for the attacks.

Piper’s congratulating his audience for embracing this is like high-fiving someone for eating spoiled food and calling it gourmet. It gives Satan glory by attributing his works to God. But the Bible’s worldview is clear: Jesus heals because it’s good; the devil afflicts because it’s bad. No hybridization. In my “Systematic Theology,” I build this out: epistemology from revelation, metaphysics of sovereignty without compromise, logic deductive, ethics obedient faith. The thesis? All things possible to believers. Piper’s view limits God by redefining His gifts by the devils works.

As Vincent Cheung says so well, “Don’t waste your Redemption,” in response to Piper’s book, Don’t Waste Your Cancer. The benefits of the atonement are already purchased by Jesus and freely given to you. I have sympathy with hurting Christians, but sickness and lack does not negate the commands of God. The command is to pray and make the sickness, purchased by the strips of Jesus, to go away and be healed. My sympathy and God’s compassion, does not give an excuse for disobedience. You fully obey God when you are healed. The same is for conversion. It is a command to be forgiven of your sins. A hard life, depression and peer pressures might draw sympathy, but it is not an excuse to not repent of your sins and receive salvation. Until you are fully healed, you are wasting the gospel, or that part of the gospel, in your life. The call to maturity, is to correct this and get better. God wants this more than you and will help you improve.

So, what’s the takeaway? Ditch the muddled mess. Embrace God’s unmixed goodness. If pain shows up, declare, “Not from my Father!” Pray in faith, resist the devil, and watch him flee (James 4:7). Stability comes not from enduring bad but from receiving good. Let me say that again, Stability comes not from enduring bad but from receiving good. Don’t let theologians turn your theology into therapy for defeat—let Scripture turn it into triumph. God’s not sending the pain; He’s sending the power to overcome it. Believe that, and you’ll see mountains move, not just molehills managed.

—

Vincent Cheung has some fantastic passages about John Piper’s, “Don’t Waste Your Cancer,” and I will post here them.

“Don’t waste your cancer? Are you kidding me? Don’t waste your redemption! Don’t waste the blood of Christ! Jesus took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses (Matthew 8:16-17). Every point in this small book is either misleading or the opposite of what the Bible teaches. If you do not want to “waste” your sickness, then get healed from it and testify about the miracle. Don’t crucify Christ afresh so you can make yourself look like a religious hero. Don’t urinate on the face of Christ just so you can make yourself feel better in your unbelief and defeat. Don’t waste your life romanticizing unnecessary suffering. Don’t waste the sacrifice of Christ with your stupid fake piety.”
(Backstage, 2016, pg 7).

“One Christian author wrote, “Don’t waste your cancer.” What a demonic message. This is counter-gospel. This is fake religion. The Bible never calls sickness a gift from God, but it says that sickness is satanic bondage and oppression. Sickness is a demonic attack, not a divine gift. Jesus devoted an inordinate amount of effort to obliterate it everywhere he went. Would that author accuse Jesus of wasting everyone’s sickness? Behold the demeaning effect of unbelief. This fake teacher calls upon thousands of people to waste the blood of Christ, who took our infirmities and bore our sicknesses to obtain healing for us. Unless you “waste” your sickness, you waste your redemption. Behold the perverse theology of tradition. This fake teacher romanticizes sickness and suffering, and urges thousands of God’s people to embrace bondage and oppression, surrendering to Satan to do all his will. Because he weakens people’s faith and urgency in receiving healing from God, the author has become directly responsible for their suffering and even deaths. He is a sadist and a murderer. But spiritual poison like this is usually presented as profound piety and scholarship.

Jesus never said, “Don’t waste your sickness,” but he said, “Do you want to be healed?” And then he said to the invalid, “Pick up your mat and walk.” He never said, “Let the will of God be done,” but he said, “What do you want me to do for you?” And then he said to the blind man, “Your faith has healed you.”
(Platitudes as Orthodoxy, web 2018).

Science is Anti-Logic

Recently, I have been reminded that people think science is deductive and logical.

Empiricism, Observation and affirming the consequent are logical fallacies.  Because they are the epistemology, order and systematic practice of science, it means science has no knowledge. Science has no body of knowledge.  These logical fallacies are built into the nature of empiricism and science. For example, because the bible is God’s revelation given to us, deduction is therefore pre-baked or built into our worldview. We do not discover or observe truth, God reveals it and we apply (i.e. deduction) this knowledge to us and the world around us. We do not formulate generalizations because God already gives us the truth up front.

If your epistemology starts with the five senses (which is a fallacy), then fallacies of induction are pre-baked or built into your worldview. No amount of crying about this, will make the fallacies go away. You do not have knowledge because it was not revealed and given to you. And so, you must observe and attempt to find it. You must use particulars (‘some’ (in addition to being private, transient descriptions)) and generalize (‘all’ category statement). However, to do this you violate the law of contradiction by saying ‘some’ and ‘all’ are the same thing. The only way to avoid this is if you are omniscient, or can observe all things in all past, present and future with perfect understanding of all you observe. Unless this is the case, then the premises of observation are always a ‘some.’ However, category statements need to be ‘all’ statements if you want knowledge about reality. All conclusions produced by induction do not logically follow from the premises. This means all induction is a non-sequitur fallacy. This means all induction is anti-logic, because it violates the law of contradiction and violates the law of valid inference. The logical void between premise and conclusion is the place where the laws of logic are violated. Induction is anti-logic.

The statement “trees are rocks” is primarily a category mistake because it misclassifies trees, which are living organisms, as rocks, which are inanimate objects. Trees and rocks belong to fundamentally different categories and have distinct properties. However, it can also be seen as a contradiction because trees and rocks have inherent, distinct properties. Trees grow and reproduce, while rocks do not. Therefore, saying that a tree is a rock contradicts the essential properties that define each category. The primary issue is the misclassification of categories, but it can also be seen as a contradiction due to the inherent properties of trees and rocks.

The inherent properties of knowledge are not material. However, sensations and reality are material. To have premises about material things to then conclude with knowledge, is primarily a category mistake, but also a contradiction because of the inherent properties of these categories. Thus, observation and empiricism are anti-logic.

Empiricism is a fallacy. What you see is not the same as the thing you are seeing; they are different categories. Also, the visual or audio sensation is not knowledge, but you understand what you are seeing by invisible propositions of true and false. Sensations are not propositions, and thus you have multiple category fallacies when you go from the thing itself, to sensation and then to knowledge. This results in a repeated systematic denying of the law of contradiction. To say the category of a “the thing itself,” a “sound” and a “proposition” is the same, is a category error and so it also denies the law of contradiction. Category errors in one’s epistemology would lead to skepticism, and this would also deny the law of contradiction. Empiricism is anti-logic.

Scientific experimentation is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I want to give credit to Vincent Cheung for helping me understand this below, from his essay, A Gang of Pandas.

A. If chemical Y is present, then this solution will explode.
B. The solution exploded.
C. Thus, I verified that chemical Y is present.

This is a fallacy. Maby chemical ‘k’ was present and it was the reason for the explosion. We are on the topic of logic. Logically, controlled tests do not eliminate the infinite number of variables that could be affecting the experiment. Controlled tests have no bearing on removing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The only way for a scientist to know if his controlled test does eliminate all other variables, is to already have more knowledge than his experiment, but if that is the case then he doesn’t need science anymore, because he already knows all things.

A scientist will then take the conclusion produced by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and then restate it as a Modus Ponens in their scientific journal. Scientist want to be deductive and logical so they restate their fallacy in a deductive form. However, the reformulation is in name only. Logic must match up with reality.  Affirming the consequent is experimentation.

D. If his solution explodes, then chemical Y is present.
E. This solution exploded.
F. Thus, chemical Y was present.

 Thus, to restate such statements as Modus Ponens in scientific publications is nothing less than a delusion. They state their experiments as category statements to be used in deduction.  This gives them the appearance that they have knowledge. However, the first premise of their Modus Ponens was produced by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Thus, their deduction is unsound.  There never was a body of knowledge to begin with. But they want to have a body of knowledge and so they transform categories and necessary connections not present in their premises and illogically put in their conclusions. They are anti-logic. 

Using “deduction” without knowledge or with false premises means the syllogism is unsound. To use deduction without knowledge is delusional and insane. For example, for me to say, “All box-jellyfish are jellyfish. I am a box-jellyfish. Therefore, I am a jellyfish,” would be deductive but also delusional. It is vain to use deduction or logical inference, unless you have a body knowledge to begin with. Knowledge is something science never had. You cannot use the triple fallacy of empiricism, observation and affirming the consequent and then produce knowledge; it is logically impossible. It is anti-law-of-contradiction to say a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises produces knowledge.  

Always God’s will To Heal Someone

Joe Carter at TGC, when talking about Bill Johnson at Bethel Church says,

The Johnsons are frequently criticized for their teachings, which often veers from the suspect to the outright heretical. A prime example is Bill Johnson’s….it is always God’s will to heal someone:”[1]

Some educated people, like the famous Erasmus, who was defeated by Martin Luther over an informal fallacy of a category error[*], are dumb at the most fundamental level. Or as Luther says, dumber or less educated than grammar school children, swinging on the monkey bars.

The gospel they use to condemn others of being heretical would make them twice as guilty, if not more. To shoot their opponent with their bb gun, they must shoot themselves with a .50 cal. pistol. Yet they do it anyway, somehow thinking they, “got them”?

I do not know the whole teaching of Bill, and so will not comment on him, but only on this one thing being said.  What Bill said is correct, if “God’s Will,” is meant as ethics, since “God’s Will” can mean either Christian ontology or ethics. And from my limited exposure, it seems to me, this is how Bill means it. (Let me give this quick side note. If Bill meant “God’s Will,” as God’s precept and when you criticize him, taking it to be ontology, then congratulations, you just committed the sin of slander and bearing false witness.) When asking what God’s will is for me, then the context is about ethics. Christian ethics is what God commands us to do. The bible commands us to have faith to be healed. It is not a suggestion, just as it is not a suggestion to repent of your sins in Jesus name, in faith. It is a command. James 5 says if you are sick then pray in “faith.” James is not merely saying to pray if you are sick, and then “see what happen.” James command is to get healed by faith, and if you have sinned you will also be forgiven.

Because it is always God’s command for healing when you are sick, then it is always God’s Will for healing.

When the disciples failed to heal the boy in Mark 9, due to their lack of faith, Jesus went behind them and healed the boy anyway. Why? Because it is always God’s Will to heal by faith. It is always God’s will to forgive sins, because it is His commandment to us. God is still alive, even if some Christians do not like this fact. Thus, God’s commandments still stand today.  If it is always God’s will for His commandments to be believed and obeyed, then healing and forgiveness is always God’s will.

On ultimate level causality, God causes all things. This is sometimes referred to as, God’s will. God caused, Thomas the Twin, to doubt Jesus resurrection; this was “God’s Will,” on the ultimate or only real level of causality. But God’s Will in regards to ethics, (what you ought to do) is to believe God. And so, Jesus rebuked Thomas, even though Thomas went along with God’s Will (causality) by not believing in Jesus’ resurrection. Even when God causes us to sin, for God causes all things, it is invalid to conclude this is what we “ought to do.” Paul clearly says in Romans 5 that God caused all people to be born as guilty sinners, and causes them to do sin. However, God’s commands all to repent, despite that He causes all to be born sinners, separate from their freedom and choice, (Acts 17 “he now commands all people everywhere to repent”). You cannot conclude, “Because God caused me to be born guilty and caused me to be control by sin, that it is “God’s Will,” for me to be a sinner.” No, what God causes and what He commands are not the same category. Color and numbers are not the same category. Why do I need to say this to grown adults?

Jesus rebuked Thomas, not on grounds of God’s causality, but of ethics. Jesus told him to do God’s revealed command, which is to believe in the Son of God.

Look, what happens if we mix categories up?

G.1. (~P) If God caused(ontology) the Apostle Thomas to not believe Jesus’ resurrection, (~Q) then it is right(ethics) for Thomas to not believe what Jesus commanded.
G.2. (~P)
G.3. Thus. (~Q).

Or in a simply form:

B.1. If God planned unbelief, then ok to not believe.
B.2. God planned unbelief.
B.3. Thus, it is ok to not believe.

Again, this is unsound and false. It does not matter if it is ontology level 1, regarding God’s sovereign plan about reality, or if it is level 2, regarding God’s direct causality right now. To go from ontology to ethics is not a necessary connection. It is invalid and a false description of reality. It is invalid to conclude an “ought” from your observations, which is an “is.” What you observe is at best what something “is”; although, I would be cautious to even affirm this, due to the logical fallacy of empiricism and induction. There is not a necessary connection (p), to an (q) ought. Those who practice this fallacy, practice a doctrine of witchcraft and divination. It is a demonic stronghold over the mind. It has similarities to ouija board practitioners.

God caused the Pharaoh to not obey His command, by making the Pharaoh’s soul hard. However, this secret causality of God, does not negate His command(ethic), to let His people go. The same is with the gospel call to repentance. God might decree, and then cause human reprobate F or H or O, to not believe the gospel; however, what they “ought” to do is what God commands and not what God causes or decrees. The Pharaoh was a lawbreaker by disobeying God’s command to let His people go; therefore, He is accountable. Now, Responsibility is not based on Pharaoh’s freedom, but on God’s sovereign control to hold Pharaoh accountable to His command, period. Pharaoh did not resist God’s causality, because nothing can. Pharaoh is guilty because he disobeyed God’s command.

This is a similar stupid mistake that Erasmus made in mixing up ontology with ethics. Even if God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, Pharaoh is judged by God’s Will, that is, by God’s command to let His people go. We are also judged by this same impartial standard. We are judged by God’s commands.

This gospel of Jesus Christ is not narrowly about the forgiveness of sins, for that is only the doorway into the life of the Spirit. This gospel is about all the benefits it acquired, at that time and place (not another time, and another place), in Christ’s atonement. Galatians says that faith in Jesus grafts one into the promised blessing of Abraham. What does this promise of God mean? This promise includes, according to Paul, the Spirit and miracles. And let us not be naïve; if Paul is mentioning the Spirit and miracles, in context of the New Testament, it must be presupposed this is a common experience in the Galatian church. Yet, Scripture argues this common miracle experience is based on the very old promise that God gave to Abraham. God is merely letting His “Yes be Yes.” He is being faithful to His promise. God is not like man; God does what He promises, even if it is thousands of years later; and even if the people to who God promise did not realize this promise meant an abundant/common experience of miracles and Spirit in the New Testament Church; yet God knew, and He is faithful to do what He promised.

Thus, Jesus’ death and intercession grants this blessing for all individuals who have faith in Him. This is said on the relative level ontology. On ultimate level ontology, it was not accomplished by their faith; rather, Jesus’ atonement did, and it was accepted and declared as final and good by the Father. As stated earlier about God’s direct and arbitrary-sovereignty that gives all things their definition, the same is true here as it is for all things. God’s sovereign choice decided that based on Jesus’ work the Elect are righteous and worthy to be adopted as His son’s. This act is good and righteous for God the judge to do so, because God thinks it is so. Therefore, faith as a purchased gift is sovereignly worked in those to whom this reconciliation was for. The Elect’s souls are far too weak to resist God’s power to awaken their tiny souls into the unstoppable power and life of His Spirit.

Isaiah says that Jesus as a High Priest, accomplished healing for His elect. In fact, Matthew 8:17 quotes this passage as demonstrating Jesus fulfilling what God promised. The point is that the blood and intercession of Jesus purchased this healing gift for those who take it by faith. Thus, it is not surprising to discover that faith for forgiveness of sins is accomplished by the same way. Jesus’ blood and intercession purchased it and all individuals predestined to be in the Covenant, will have faith to take it. Jesus says in John 15 we are “appointed,” or that is predestined for good works.[2] To Jesus this predestination of fruit includes loving others and having faith to ask and get anything from God.

Hebrews 10:29  (NLT)
“Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings God’s mercy to us.”

“To say you can have faith, but God still might not heal you,” logically means, you trample the bloodshed of Christ as trash. It despises the compassionate nature of God. Healing is a provision of the Blood of Jesus as a High Priest, which is stated in Isaiah 53, and reaffirmed in the New Testament (Matt 8:17).  At the time and place of Jesus’ atonement (not something else), both forgiveness of sins and healing was accomplished.  Furthermore, the blessing of Abraham was accomplished by the same means. Both are based on the finished atonement of Jesus Christ. Therefore, if you negate “faith healing,” because it is produced by the bloodshed of Jesus as a high priest, then you logically negate “faith forgiveness,” because the bloodshed of Jesus is the cause of both. If you throw out one, you throw out the other. Bye, bye, forgiveness of sins: see you later.  There is only one Bible and one definition of the atonement. And this definition makes both healing and forgiveness based on the finished work of Jesus and received by faith.”[3]

The truth of the matter is the God is “obligated,” to answer our prayers once God makes a sovereign promise to do so. (i.e. Obligated to His nature that cannot lie.) 1 John says that God is “just,” to forgive us our sins, not “merciful.” 1 John 1:9 (LEB), “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, so that he will forgive us our sins.” Because of God’s sovereign promise to honor Jesus’ atonement and honor the promise of forgiveness of sin, when one asks in faith, God therefore, is “just” and “faithful” to forgive. You could be weird and call it, “forcing God to do our will,” but that would be a strange way to say it. God cannot lie. God is faithful. When God makes a promise, then He must fulfill it, or contradict His own nature. It was in God’s own freedom and sovereignty to make the promise to begin with. And so, He will sovereignly and happily keep His sovereignly made promise.  To sovereignly break the promise, would be to deny Himself.

What pathetic moron will say, “even if you believe in faith for salvation in Jesus, because God is sovereign, He might not forgive you, because it is arrogant to assume, God’s Will.” Lord forbid, we believe in “faith-forgiveness,” because it would mean God is not sovereign, right?”

Despite their rhetoric, the Bible is not their (non-faith-people, traditionalist, atheist) first principle for knowledge. Rather, it is their experiences, emotions, traditions and human empiricism. The kingdom of self dominates their tiny souls, because they start with their human speculations first, rather than God’s word. They would do us all a favor if they came out from the closet and just said, “Sola Empiricism,” and “David Hume alone.”

However, some do not even try to hide the fact that they are spiritual sluts with empiricism and human speculation and human superstition. With a straight face they ask me, “why do we not see so many miracles today, unless God does not want it?” They are like the people from Jesus’ hometown who said, “This is Joseph’s and Mary’s son,” and then in unbelief demand He prove by miracles who He claims to be. But their unbelief made that impossible. These peers did not start with God’s revelation; rather, their starting point for knowledge was their human observations. Scripture records it was due to their lack of faith, and not the lack of Jesus being willing and able to heal. With such people I am asking myself, what happen to starting with God’s revelation for knowledge? Where did God go? Why is it so automatic for them to start with a “human” speculation and “human” superstition? If they only mean to do a personal attack (a logical fallacy) by saying, “Oshea (or Johnny), how many miracles have you done,” then why do they default to argumentation that the politicians use?  Is it because politicians are such good examples for how to argue for truth?  They are like the religious leaders who slapped Jesus and demanded He prove His claim as God by prophesying. They harlot themselves with David Hume’s empiricism in the open streets, and then march back in their pulpits, and after wiping off their sweaty faces, they say with a straight face, “solo scriptura.”  Maybe if they could stop humping on empiricism for just a few seconds, they might wake up and realize the disgrace they are committing against their own souls, and against those who hear them.

But for you. Start with God’s revelation and believe Him. He wants you to know about all His benefits and to rely on Him to be faithful to fulfill all His promises, including both the spiritual and material one. Paul says in the prayer in Ephesians 3 that as we trust in Jesus’ great love for us, He will make our souls His home, and by this we become strong in the inner man. Trust in God’s policy of thought and action of favor to you[4], that always triggers on the highest, lowest, longest and widest application of life.

——-END NOTES——-

[1] Joe Carter, “9 Things You Should Know About the Bethel Church Movement.” www.thegospelcoalition.org

[*]Martin Luther’s point about confusing the category of an imperative and indicative is the first I know of who shows a category mistake with God’s causation and command. Vincent Cheung has been a help to me to understand this is greater clarity. See his, Systematic Theology, Healing and Atonement, and the essay called, “Ezekiel 18:23 and 33:11

[2] Vincent Cheung helped me to see this clearly in this passage. See, Vincent Cheung, Predestination and Miracles.

[3] Oshea Davis. Intercession and Predestination.

[4] This definition, I do not know if it is original to Vincent or not, but I learned it from him in his Systematic Theology book. “Love is God’s policy of thought and action of favor.”