Tag Archives: church

Preaching is Casting Out Demons and Healing the Sick


15 “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” … 23 Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit…
32 That evening after sunset the people brought to Jesus all the sick and demon-possessed…
38 But Jesus replied, “We must go on to other towns as well, and I will preach to them, too. That is why I came.” 39 So he traveled throughout the region of Galilee, preaching in the synagogues and casting out demons. 40 A man with leprosy came and knelt in front of Jesus. (Mark 1:15, 23, 32, 38-40 NLT)

A few quick observations:

After Jesus was anointed as a man by the Spirit for ministry, Mark shows His first church service and ministry involved casting out a demon. Scripture reminds us that judgment begins in the house of God. We are also reminded that churches can become safe houses for demons and prisons for the suffering when the faithless and powerless are in charge. Mark presents a sequence: Jesus declares the Kingdom has come, and His first church ministry is casting out the kingdom of demons, thereby ushering in God’s kingdom. If a space is filled with demons, it is occupied by the kingdom of darkness. The first step, then, is to remove them so the kingdom of God can replace it and take residence. That same evening, Mark shows Jesus continuing to cast out demons and heal the sick; this demonstrates how the kingdom of God comes “near us.”

The next observation comes from verses 38-40. Jesus declares He came to preach the gospel. What’s striking is how Mark defines “preaching” in the following verse. It begins with “therefore” or “so,” implying a necessary consequence of the previous statement. Because Jesus was sent to preach, He went to the next town to “preach and cast out demons.” Mark equates preaching with casting out demons, as if they are inseparable. We’re not saying preaching and casting out demons have identical definitions—nor is Mark. However, Mark is defining the ministry of preaching, which is tied to bringing the Kingdom of God near, as preaching with miracles. Preaching the gospel that brings the Kingdom near, cannot be separated from casting out demons and healing the sick. The next verse reinforces this with a leper being healed. As Paul says, “For the kingdom of God does not consist in words but in power.” Preaching proclaims the power of God unto salvation, which requires the very power it proclaims. To Mark and Jesus, preaching that the Kingdom of God has come near isn’t preaching unless demons are cast out and the sick are healed.

Churches with benches full of depressed and demonized people, or sick members who return week after week unchanged, are churches where the kingdom of God has not come near.

“Mark’s Jesus doesn’t just preach with a mic—he kick drops demons and heals the hurting like it’s all part of the sermon. If your church is a demon daycare and the sick leave sicker, maybe the kingdom’s still social-distancing,” (Grok xAi 2025 summary).

You Are A Child Of The Devil And An Enemy

Ques: “How do new covenant Christians understand and apply psalms 139:21“

Ans:

2 Timothy 4:14, Paul says, “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.”

Acts 5:5-6 “You have not lied to men but to God.” 5 And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his las\

Acts 13: 9-11, “Then Saul, who was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at Elymas and said, “You are a child of the devil and an enemy of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?  Now the hand of the Lord is against you. You are going to be blind for a time, not even able to see the light of the sun.” Immediately mist and darkness came over him, and he groped about, seeking someone to lead him by the hand.”

Paul cursing Elymas (Acts 13:9-11), Peter’s confrontation with Ananias (Acts 5:5-6), and Paul’s prayer about Alexander (2 Timothy 4:14)—illustrate that the early church didn’t shy away from invoking divine judgment against those who blasphemed the Spirit or hindered the ministry of the Word. Jesus’ own words in Mark 3:29 about the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit reinforce this. These aren’t personal vendettas; they’re responses to direct attacks on God’s kingdom and mission. This shows us the imprecatory Psalms also apply to the church after the resurrection of Jesus and Him baptizing us with power.

The context is not about personal pet-peeves or personal hurts. When it comes to believers we are called to love and forgive each other as we have been forgiven in Jesus Christ. We are commanded to be long-suffering. We’re commanded to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44) and forgive as Christ forgave us (Colossians 3:13).

However, the bible, even in the New Testament has a special place for those harming the church, and those directly hindering the ministry of the word and hindering or opposing the power of the Holy Spirit. In fact, Jesus goes out of His way to say those who blaspheme the Spirit will never be forgiven. If God will not forgive them, then I do not forgive either. Who am I to resist God? This would even have some application to governments, but because most Christians lose their minds over the subject I will reframe from this topic. I will only make one quick point. In chapter 4 the disciples ask for God to empower them to fight back at the Jewish government, who were trying to persecute them, by bold preaching, healing and various miracles. God approved of their request. One such miracle was an earthquake that broke prison doors. It damaged government property. The church ought to call on God to act against opposition to the gospel.

There are other ways to apply this, but I wanted to keep it short and on the applicable issue. Paul caused physical harm to a person hindering the gospel and called him cruel names. The Holy Spirit was the power that blinded the man, but Paul is the one who pointed the gun at the person and commanded the blindness, not God. Peter, by the Spirit, killed two people, in church. Paul prays, saying God will repay the coppersmith the harm he caused him in ministry.

Remember the Psalm you quoted? David loves God. Psalm 139 is a deeply personal psalm where David marvels at God’s omniscience, omnipresence, and intimate care for him. Verse 21 arises in this context—David’s zeal for God leads him to despise those who despise the Lord. Then says these wicked people mis-use God’s name. In essence, David hates them, because they hate the God who David admires so much. It is fake love if you are not enraged at someone who hates and targets the object of your love. Imagine a parent who shows no concern when a person hits and abuses their child? You must have the same outrage over people who hate the God, you say you love so much.

In short: Psalm 139:21 calls us to love God so fiercely that we hate what opposes Him. The New Testament examples teach us to channel this anger by prayer and through the Spirit’s power, not our own hands. We forgive personal wrongs but stand firm against assaults on God’s kingdom. Because most do not have power or faith to get their prayers answered, they are left with two bad options. Just do nothing and make kindness your official religion, or become a political zealot. Neither is the way commanded in the book of Acts. When all you have is human power, your options are limited to carnal outcomes. But if you have faith and the Spirit, a whole new world of possibilities opens.

[Grok xAi, aided in some summaries]

The Goal of the Gospel is Happiness?

You Bet It Is!

Someone spotted a church called “The Love Church” and pegged it as a seeker-friendly joint. I quipped it beats “Sad Church.” They fired back with conviction: happiness isn’t the gospel’s goal. Their evidence? An emotional roll call of extended family members—churchgoers all—wrestling with sickness, poverty, and troubles. “Sad Church sounds about right,” they smirked, implying it’s a fitting name for real life.

I could write a theological tome on this, but I’ll keep it short.

First, let’s zoom to the cosmic blueprints—God’s decrees (supralapsarian style). God’s intentions are pure positivity, not a divine Debbie Downer vibe. His original plan? Our joy, happiness, glory, and blessedness in Him. Justice comes first, then injustice. You can’t have a villain without something good for it to attack. God’s intentions are positive. They are positive for us first in the decrees. God’s heart is for our happiness. The gospel was predestined for our glory and happiness. Before we dive into specifics, happiness was already the gospel’s goal. All sunshine, no storm clouds.

Second, the “gospel” (even being declared righteous by God) is about our favor, glory, fame, prosperity, healing, miracles, empowerment by the Spirit, and inheriting the world through Abraham’s blessing. Sin didn’t even get a cameo in Abraham’s story. It was all positive, overflowing like a divine jackpot. Paul calls Abraham’s blessing—where he inherits the world, receives the Spirit, and sees miracles—the “gospel.” Not just for Abe, but for us too. This positivity would make health-and-wealth preachers blush for playing it too safe, shaming every church tradition for underselling the gospel’s joy.

We sinned against God. He brought the law 400 years after Abraham’s blessing-fest to expose our sinfulness. But Jesus arrived to seal both sides of the deal. He crushed sin by grace and ensured Abraham’s blessing flows to Jews and non-Jews alike, all by grace.

Happiness isn’t the gospel’s only goal, but it’s no sidekick either. In fact, forgiveness isn’t even the main event. Peter says forgiveness is the starting line, a springboard to the gospel’s true aim: being baptized in the Spirit for power.

Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins, turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. THEN you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:39)

This Spirit-baptism for miracle power is what Paul calls the “gospel” in Galatians 3. Receiving Abraham’s blessing—healing miracles, financial windfalls, relational breakthroughs, and a whole miracle smorgasbord—fills us with happiness and joy. The gospel’s goal is absolutely happiness. Paul says Jesus became a curse for us (Galatians 3:13) to secure this miracle-soaked joy. That means these blessings have Jesus’ blood sprinkled on them, nailed to that cursed tree. To say happiness isn’t the gospel’s goal is to spit on Jesus’ blood like it’s cheap wine, disrespecting the cross where His hands and feet were pierced. Those who scoff at the gospel of happiness can’t dodge their spit landing on Jesus’ nailed feet.

Let’s skip Isaiah 53 for now, where Jesus, our scapegoat, carries away sickness and heals us by His stripes. Healing in this life is as much the gospel as forgiveness. I’m not saying healing trumps forgiveness in importance, but both flow from the same atonement and resurrection. Slap one, and you slap the blood that bought them both. You can’t curse part of the gospel without torching the whole thing. If Jesus’ blood fails to spark our happiness, what hope does it have to forgive us? Zilch.

Healing alone, a gospel cornerstone, brings joy in spades. Jesus and Acts show people leaping with happiness, entire towns buzzing with “great joy” (Acts 8:8). Jesus Himself says His love brings abundant joy (John 14-17), tying answered prayers to overflowing happiness. We pray and receive whatever we want because of the gospel and Jesus’ blood. The gospel’s goal? Happiness, served piping hot.

David’s Psalms are a happiness playlist, praising God for constant healing, deliverance, and joy in the morning. God is David’s salvation and blessing, sparking loud, happy shouts of praise.

Those who reject the gospel of happiness reject the gospel itself. They’ve got itching ears for a different seeker-friendly church—one that whispers, “God won’t heal you,” or “It’s up to His will, so stay in the dark.” They hand out spiritual comfort blankets to keep you cozy in sickness, defeat, and depression. They make you feel excited when Satan is cockblocking you. A huge crowd seeks this message, craving comfort in their suffering. But they suffer like Israel in the wilderness—not for God’s glory, but for their unbelief and stupidity (we are too small and they are too big). They don’t suffer for the gospel under persecution; they suffer because they reject it.

They claim the gospel is for God’s glory. Duh, even demons nod at that. The real question is how God glorifies Himself through the gospel. He does it by making it a fountain of blessings and miracles, crowning us with glory (1 Corinthians 2:7).

As Gabriel Arauto quips, “If God doesn’t serve you with healing, miracles, prosperity, and happiness, He’ll become your executioner” (John 13:8, paraphrased).

The gospel of happiness isn’t just feel-good fluff—it’s got eternal stakes. Reject it, and you’re dancing on thin ice.

anirudh-_8TNaYeJF58-unsplash

To Reject Christianity is to Reject Thinking

It is always intellectually defective to say anything against the scripture, but recently I heard a comment that was particularly irrational.

Their argument went like this. “Because I have homosexuals in my family, therefore if someone says something against homosexuals, then they are morally wrong, and need public governmental (or an authority) punishment and or to be silenced.”

First. This is a type of ethical dogmatic zealotry, that would make the catholic church portrayed in anime, blush in envy.

Second, the reasoning is so illogical, that it is barely comprehensible.

If I have a family member who is a murderer, then an ethic is produced. It is now morally wrong for any person to say in public that murder is wrong. ??? LoL.

The other ethic they used was “they felt offended.”  However I felt offended that they felt offended at their irrational opposition at a biblical ethic. I feel offended at all persons who disrespect my Lord Jesus. If Hitler was offended at the Jews or if I’m offended at a particular skin color, then it produces a dogmatic ethic that the authority or governments use their power to suppress and silence these people?

If all offenses were used to silence other parties who offended, and since there is somebody who is offended at every known worldview, then it would mean the government would have to silence and suppress everyone, including itself. Such an ethic is implausible with reality.

But beyond the implausibility with reality, the knowledge of such an ethic doesn’t exist, except in delusional fantasy.

Ethics is not the same category as metaphysics or reality (any created reality). Ethics is God’s command. God’s command and what He causes is not the same category. Any anti-Christian definition of ethics is intellectual nonsense and even to understand the nonsense of anti-Christian ethics, these must use biblical intelligibility to do so. However, the Bible they presupposes to make up their ethical nonsense, is necessarily true, and says all anti-Christian thinking is false.  Thus all anti-Christian systems are false by logical exclusion.[1]

However, a simpler example might be helpful. If I say, “(A) All humans have sinned. (2) Oshea is a human. (3) Therefore mockingbirds are trees,” it is easy to see that I made a category fallacy. My first two premises have nothing to do with the category of mockingbirds or trees.  You cannot have different categories in your conclusion and still be rational or intelligible. To have premises about your feelings (being offended), or metaphysical statements about your family, to then conclude in a different category of ethics (something is righteous or unrighteous), is to be intellectually broken.  Yet, this is always the history of anti-Christian thinking. To reject Scripture is to reject truth, reject reality and to reject logic.

To boil it down even further, to have “is” statements about reality in your premises (this is that) and conclude with an “ought,” is always invalid and insane. To go from an “is” to an “ought” is unintelligible. To go from descriptive premises of reality to a different category of ethics in the conclusion is not comprehensible. It does not exist in the mind or in reality. It has no being.

It is no less delusional to say, “all cat blues 15 mist happys are houses, and so all people cloud 5s are super 9 flying backward dog 2s,” than saying, “this offends me, it hurts me, therefore it is wrong.”[2] Do you think the latter is more understandable than the first? Really? If you think the second argument is any less delusional than the first, then you are intellectually broken and deceived in an abyss of delusions. This is the bible’s definition of people like you, therefore it is a true definition of you. Obviously, to reject Christianity is to reject ethics, but is much more foundational than that.  To reject Christianity is to reject thinking itself.  

EndNotes

[1] This understanding of apologetics I got from Vincent Cheung. See Systematic Theology and Ultimate Questions. For a specific reference of the above argument see Captive to Reason, 2009 page 44.

[2] Some might confuse a piece of innate knowledge (Romans 2:15) in them with that is being said in second argument, and by this think it is understandable. Other than presupposing the Scripture to do this, this presupposing of innate knowledge is separate from the argument. The argument as it is, is unintelligible.