Tag Archives: Dogmatic

The Prayer Exam: Jesus’ Real Creed of Orthodoxy

“If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.” (John 15:7-8)

“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.” (John 14:12)

See also Matthew 17:20, 21:21, Mark 11:23, Luke 17:6, and a whole constellation of others.

There it is—straight from the King’s mouth. Not some footnote in a creed. This is the creed. Jesus didn’t hand us a theology pop quiz as the test of orthodoxy. Nope. He gave us a prayer exam. Answered prayer is the ultimate litmus test. You will do greater miracles than Me. Abide in Me. My words will abide in you. Ask big, get big. Boom—you’re proven Mine.

Jesus created a creedal test that only real believers can actually pass: greater works and answered prayer. The faithless cook up creeds that even their total depravity can still clear like a low limbo bar. But Jesus wrote His creed in the stars so that only the righteousness of God can reach it. Mortals design hurdles the old flesh can still hop over. Jesus built a creedal hurdle that only Spirit-empowered super-humans can clear.

Vincent Cheung nailed it: 

“Most Christians find this basic gospel doctrine very strange. Just weird. In fact, except for those associated with the “faith movement” or “word of faith” theology, it seems almost all Christians would consider this biblical doctrine outright wrong. In other words, it appears almost every person who calls himself a Christian also considers Jesus Christ a false teacher. From the intellectual perspective, and when it comes to concern for orthodoxy, the teaching is highly revealing. The controversy shows that the critics affirm an essentially non-Christian worldview. Any worldview that disagrees with the “faith confession” doctrine is not a Christ-view, and contradicts Christ’s view of reality. Thus it in fact qualifies as one test of orthodoxy.

Jesus did not think it was strange to tell a tree to die, or to rebuke a fever or a storm. This was his view of reality, and it makes perfect sense to me. It is normal for me to tell a sickness to get out or to tell a body part to change a certain way. And if someone is willing to accept it, I can do it for him. It seems rather funny to me, in fact, that a person could call himself a Christian and not live this way. This is an ordinary aspect of the Christian worldview, and anyone who calls himself a Christian should take this for granted,”
(Vincent Cheung. The Extreme Faith Teacher).

Here’s the heart of it: Jesus flat-out declares in John 14:12, “Anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these…” Right before the mountain-moving line in Matthew 21:21, He’s commanding fig trees to wither with a word. That’s not “more sermons” or “bigger crowds.” That’s greater quality and power of miracles—through faith, done by Jesus Himself working in “anyone” who believes. Not just the apostles. Not just the first century. Cheung shows how mainstream orthodoxy (Reformed, Evangelical, the whole crew) twists it smaller to protect the system. Why? Because admitting the plain reading would mean everyday believers wielding that kind of authority in Jesus’ name—and that scares the socks off a man-centered setup that secretly worships the apostles as untouchable mini-gods while keeping the rest of us on a short leash.

Now picture Jesus literally flipping through one of those dusty historical creeds—Apostles’, Nicene, Westminster, whatever you’ve got. He scans the sections on God, salvation, Trinity… and finds *zero* mention of the greater-works and answered-prayer test He just spelled out as the disciple-prover.

How does He respond? 

Same way He always does with false teachers: zero sugar-coating, full harsh-rebuke mode. He’d look up and drop something like, “You are greatly mistaken. You brood of vipers don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God” (echoing His Mark 12 mic-drop on the Sadducees). Why? Because skipping His own litmus test creates a flat-out contradiction in their document. They claim to follow Him but left out the very proof He built in. Omitting it isn’t a harmless oversight—it’s rewriting the Owner’s Manual while pretending it’s still His book.

The faithless hand us a user agreement demanding we confess and  “follow the CEO,” but they quietly deleted the one job requirement Jesus posted in bold letters. Jesus’ extreme faith dogmatic is not only His creed, but the litmus test to determine if a person or a supposed document is orthodox. The creed either lines up or it doesn’t.

Only someone who truly trusts the finished work of the cross passes this test. Jesus became sin so we could become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21). He became curse so we could walk in blessing (Gal 3:13). He became poverty so we could walk in prosperity (2 Cor 8:9). Isaiah 53 spells it out: by His stripes we are healed—present tense, New Contract normal. When you believe that exchange actually happened, self-condemnation shuts up. You stand there like a son, not a beggar, and sickness hears your voice and packs its bags. Rain obeys. Mountains move. That’s not “name it and claim it” hype. That’s New Contract baseline.

The faithless can fake “cross-centered” language all day, abuse us with give self-deprecating sermons with tears, quote creeds and scripture in perfect ESV, and still have zero power. But they can’t fake results. Faithless people fail this test by definition—because it demands faith, not self-deprecating statements. You either abide, ask, and receive… or you don’t. Jesus said the unfruitful branch gets cut off and thrown into the fire (John 15:6). Brutal? Yes. Liberating? Absolutely. Do the  same and cut them out of your life.

And that’s exactly why the creeds, seminaries, and half the pulpits quietly buried Jesus’ test centuries ago. If John 15:7-8 was the standard, the fraud would be visible in 4K. No power? No fruit? No answers to prayer that actually move reality? Not My disciple, says Jesus. The modern church swapped the prayer of the righteous for the prayer of the “humble realist” who hedges every request with “if it be Thy will” like the sovereign God needs an escape clause. They turned petition into polite suggestion and then act shocked when the weather doesn’t listen, the sick stay sick, and the lost stay lost.

The faithless of Jesus’ day had the right paragraphs about the Messiah. They could debate atonement theology until the sun went down. But when the real deal showed up healing the sick and raising the dead, they called it Beelzebul, committing the unforgivable sin.

Any so-called creed that fails to include or bow down to Jesus’ own test of orthodoxy isn’t orthodox, no matter how many fanboys defend it. If any creature in heaven or earth insists that some man-made confession is the standard of sound doctrine while ignoring the King’s litmus test of abiding, asking, and receiving undeniable answers, and doing greater works they’ve just lifted their skirt and exposed their spiritual filth and adultery before your eyes. Cut them out of your life, the way the Father cuts off unfruitful branches.  Excommunicate them. Boycott.

Jesus created a dogmatic test that only believers can do. Greater works and answered prayers. The faithless create creeds that humans in their today depravity can still perform. But Jesus gives a creed that only the righteousness of God can perform. Faith-fumblers pledge allegiance to a creed that the old-flesh can sing to. Jesus gives us a dogmatic that only a saint who is born-from-above can arrange into joyful melodies. Mortals design a creed so that human limitations can still jump over it. But Jesus wrote a creed in the stars that only Spirit-empowered superhumans can aim for.

Your Father isn’t limiting you—He’s waiting for you to stop limiting Him. Faith to move mountains isn’t optional; it’s the proof you’re walking in your new identity. The atonement didn’t just forgive you—it qualified you as a prince of heaven. The cross didn’t just save your soul—it empowered your mouth. The Contract didn’t just cover sin—it clothed you in God’s righteousness that does greater works. This is why the prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. Not because you’re sinless in your old-man, but because the old-man is dead and gone. Now you’re a new creation, empowered and righteous in Christ. When you pray, miracles happen.  That is Jesus’ extreme faith dogmatic. And it’s the orthodoxy that glorifies the Father.

Devil Dogmatics

1 Timothy 4:1-3 NIV

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.”

We are not talking about denying the resurrection of Jesus, the Trinity, or the forgiveness of sins. Instead, we examine denying people their carnal desires for good sex in marriage and good food. Keeping Christian men from penetrating women in marriage is demon business. According to the Good Book, some morons will ditch faith faster than a priest at a strip club, chasing after demon whispers, from those whose consciences are as burnt as last night’s lasagna.

Marriage offers the pleasure of sex and the joy of family. Although God is a God of fertility and family joy, the biblical emphasis in marriage is on sex. Hence, this becomes our basic emphasis. The Bible has an entire book, the Song of Songs, dedicated to this, not family. Think about that. The Spirit of God, who wrote the Bible, gave the high title, “The Song of Songs,” to celebrate the romance and sex between a man and a woman, not to praise Jesus. Your worldview should include this. Christian sex should be world-envied.

These doctrines did not originate from men but from demons. The concept of restricting sex and food was so vile, a demon conceived it. They’re straight from Satan’s playbook. Only a demon would come up with banning burgers and apple pie. God’s all about the bangin’ and the breedin’, but these fools say no, you can’t enjoy your steak or your spouse.

Some have conspired with demons to spread these doctrines, making them human too. This is the opposite of Isaiah 55. These demon thoughts are too low for a human to think it. Only a demon could think it, and by demon manipulation humans think Satan’s thoughts after him.

The passage states these men have seared their souls with a hot iron. These trash have seared their own souls, not from too much sex or food, but from denying it to others. That’s some twisted stuff! This could mean they become perverted after searing their souls, or teaching such doctrines does this, or both. Either way, the horror is the same. I’ve never heard a pastor use the phrase “seared their conscience with a hot iron” in this context. What else do our pastors not tell us?

Not rejecting the resurrection, but rejecting carnal sex and food is so dark, vile, and rebellious it’s labelled a demon doctrine.

From this, we learn demon dogmatics withhold good things meant for Christians. These doctrines oppose the blessings given to God’s elect. God has given good things in creation, in Abraham and in Jesus, but demon dogmatics are designed to snatch and steal this knowledge. The goal is to ensure faith never has a chance to receive them.

Thus, “how much more,” would rejecting good things, such as miracle ministry, faith and the baptism of the Spirit, be demon doctrine. These good things have the blood of Jesus stained on them, and so they would be greater. If withholding sex is demonic, how much more so is withholding healing and miracles, which Jesus’s blood bought? If withholding a juicy steak is devil’s work, imagine what denying healing or miracles means – that’s like Satan on steroids!

Healing is good; it was part of the atonement, and Jesus spent much time healing, when He could have spent more time preaching. As Peter said, Jesus went about doing “good,” healing all oppressed by the devil. Supernatural healing is a very good thing in the Bible.

And so, to teach healing by putting it behind a paywall of, “if God wills it,” is a demon dogmatic. They block healing’s door, like bouncers at a club you can’t get into. Such a thing is so delusional that only a mind as perverted as a demon, could imagine it.

Jesus said, “if you are not with me, then you are against me.” He said this in context of blaspheming a ministry of healing, miracles and casting out demons. It is the ultimate devil dogmatic.

Those who evangelize these doctrines deserve all the harsh rebukes scripture gives them. Cut them out of your life as you would any demon. Demons cannot enjoy God’s good things and out of envy, they use pastors to propagate their dogmatics, keeping you from God’s gifts.

So, if you’re with Jesus, you’re all about the healing, the miracles, the good stuff his blood paid for. If not, you’re with the other team, the one with the horns and pitchforks.

Cast them out. Expose them for who they truly work for.

[1] Grok Ai 2025 personal editing. Grok aided with proof-reading and some witty summaries.

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.