Tag Archives: faith

All Induction is Anti-Logic.

Deductive logic consistently applies the laws of contradiction, identity and excluded middle. This is why the conclusion of deduction is valid and necessarily follows from the premises.  The point is that valid inference (deduction) is built on the laws of logic, not the other way around.

Inductive logic is anti-logic. We call it inductive “logic” as a way to separate it from deduction, but it is not logic. The term “rational” technically means to be deductive, and the term “irrational” means to be inductive. All inductive conclusions do not follow from its premises, and thus, all induction is a non-sequitur fallacy. To be inductive is to be anti-logic. It is not even pseudo-logic, it is opposed to logic. If you affirm that induction’s conclusion produces knowledge, then at the same time, you deny the law of contradiction.

A quick example. Induction takes premises of “some,” and manufacturers the new information of an “all” in the conclusion. But to say  “all” and “some” are the same thing at the same time, is to deny the law of contradiction. Induction is anti-logic. You cannot deny the law of contradiction without using it, and so we know any system of thinking that uses induction produces no knowledge, let alone a body of knowledge. Thus, even before we get to scientific experimentation, the inductive observations, which science uses already systematically denies the laws of logic over and over. Science uses induction, and so science is also anti-logic. To affirm that science produces knowledge, is at the same time to deny the law of contradiction.

Also scientific experimentation is the fallacy of affirming the consequent.  For example,

H.1. If [Jack] eats [lots of bread], then his [belly gets full]. A, (B is C)
H.2. [Jack’s] [belly got full].  A is C
H.3. Thus, [Jack] ate [lots of bread] A is B

This is wrong. It could be that Jack ate a bowl of apples, and that is why his belly is full.  If you take this basic propositional logic and turn it into a classical syllogism, you will see that it commits the fallacy of an undistributed middle term.  Induction adds information into the conclusion that is not in the premises, this is where the laws of logic get violated.  In other fallacies it is easier to see, such as “some” in premises and then this gets changed to “all” in the conclusion. In affirming the consequent, (or an undistributed middle term in classical logic) the added information is the connection between the major and minor terms.  The premises do not provide a necessary connection between the major and minor terms, but the conclusion adds this new information. To say “there is not a necessary connection” and “there is a necessary connection,” is a contradiction.  

We have skipped the fallacy of empiricism, and only quickly dealt with induction and scientific experimentation.  Thus science is anti-logic. Science is anti-law-of-contradiction.  To say science produces knowledge is to kill logic, but you cannot deny logic without using it. Thus, science does not produce knowledge. To say science produces knowledge is a delusion and superstition.

Christian Sex Ought To Be the Envy Of The World

A few quick thoughts on sex.

I have never heard a pastor preach a sermon on sex and how much sex we ought to have, without negating the scripture with their experience. Imagine me saying, “after you have worked through your emotional history and talked out your disappointments and after you have visited the doctor, then you are to obey God and repent of your sins.” Or imagine if I said, “after a person has warmed you up with nice words, then you are to love them as yourself.” Most would recognize the error of this. We are to obey God’s commands regardless of our feelings, history or any other excuse. The compassionate thing to do, is to tell someone to obey God regardless of anything else. We are promised if we obey, God will reward and bless us.

When you read “breaking of bread” it sometimes refers to the church taking the lord’s supper, such as Acts 2:42. When you take of the Lord’s supper you are remembering His substitutionary atonement for you. Jesus in John 17 refers to His sanctifying work results in Him and His people becoming “one,” and prays that we become one with Him and the Father. We are also told we are “one spirit” with Jesus in Corinthians 6. The context of this passage is about sex. We are warned not to be one flesh with someone not our spouse, because we are one spirit with Jesus. Sex is the act of being one flesh. It is the only way to be one flesh. Although this chapter is spoken of in the negative we can draw out some general presuppositions or doctrines.

The way the New Testament speaks of breaking of bread, as referring to communion, we understand they did it often, if not daily. By partaking of the Lord’s supper, it is a reminder we are one spirit with God. By faith, when we partake of the Lord’s supper, we do, or behave as one spirit with Him. However, beyond the Lord’s supper, every time we focus our faith on Jesus Christ, every time we praise Him in faith, every time we have our morning devotional, every time we pray in tongues, every time we approach God’s throne to ask and receive, we behave as one spirit with God. Faith in God is our acting like one spirit with God. A Christian who is faithful in His love to God, frequently behaves as one spirit with God.

If we consider the commandment of God to be one flesh, unlike the multitude ways to apply faith with God, there is only one way to be one flesh. This is sex. It is not mainly about having children, but the command is firstly and simply, to be one flesh in pleasure. Imagine only having faith in God one time a week? How about once a month? I would be hard pressed to say a person who only had one moment of faith in God a month, could still be called a Christian. A healthy disciple of Jesus is frequently placing their faith in God, and by this, they are constantly being one spirit with God.

The amount of sex is only determined by one thing, as it is for everything else regarding Christian ethics. It is determined by the command of God. The command is to be and act like one flesh. There is only one way to do one flesh. There is no excuse to make God’s commands not apply to you.

There is an entire book in the bible about sexual attraction and sex. Solomon is like the protagonist of a hero story. His heroic adventure is about sex with his wife. A husband’s sexual escapades with his wife is the bible’s hero story. Solomon gives a public call for us to gather in the public square to hear Solomon describe his sexual adventures with his wife. This book is to be our example as well. It is a command to follow the biblical examples. Also, if we consider that most fasts are only a day, or a few days, we realize the presupposition of scripture is frequent sex, because it says to come back quickly so that Satan does not tempt you (1 Corin. 7:5).

So far, we have mainly focused on the positive way to obey God’s command to be one flesh by sex; however, there is more. The scripture says that when you are married you give up the rights of your body and give those rights to your spouse. If one spouse wants sex, the other spouse has given up the rights to say no. You cannot say, “well, then I want my spouse’s body not to want sex.” If you play that game, then you have an infinite regress, and the verse has no meaning. If you cannot obey God, then it is better not to marry. The reason we repent of our sins and ask God to save us, is because God commands us (Acts 17:30). Christian behavior and ethics is determined by only one thing, which is God’s command.

In all this we never negate the situation where a spouse is sick and needs help. If one gives selfish demands in this situation, they are worse than an unbeliever. However, to be sick is a curse and an attack of Satan (Acts 10:38). One reason the devil attacks us with sickness, is that we are busied helping our family, rather than devoting our time to serve God and expand His kingdom. One strategy used in war is to injure soldiers rather than kill them, because healthy soldiers are taken away from fighting to help the wounded. Satan does the same in his fight against Christians with sickness, injuries, and cancers. We are commanded to be healed, just as much as we are commanded to praise God, James 5:15. James is not commanding that we pray, but is commanding we get healed. It is not optional to apply or reject the gospel, and healing is part of the gospel. Other things can be the gospel, such as forgiveness, however something cannot be more gospel than healing is. Because healing is the gospel and we are commanded to be healed, it is wrong to stay sick. It is wrong to allow Satan to steamroll over you with sickness and pains, and by this force others in prolonged care of you, when they could use their time in serving God. You are commanded to do the opposite. You are to storm the gates of hell and tear them down. You are to heal the sick, cast out demons, raise the dead, and set the prisoners free. Thus, staying sick or in pain is no excuse to not have sex. It is wrong not to constantly be one flesh for the act of pleasure.

If you read Song of Solomon you realize Christian sex and orgasms, ought to be the envy of the world.

You Said Something

There is nothing wrong in the statement, “I was once a sinner who was saved by grace.” However, if you stop there it is unbelief. The same gospel that saves is the same gospel that gives me a new identity in Jesus and baptizes me in the Spirit. Therefore, I am the righteousness of God. I am not affirming God is God’s righteousness, but that “I,” am God’s righteousness. God gave it to me and it is now mine. I am righteous like God is righteous. This is who I am.  This is important because the gospel is not mainly a negative belief. It is not mainly about past forgiveness. It is mainly a positive belief. I am righteous. I am empowered by the Spirit for miracles. I have authority to cast out demons and heal the sick. I am a child of God. I boldly march in God’s throne room and ask and then receive.

This is important for prayer. James says that the prayer of a righteous man is effective. If your focus is that “I am a sinner saved by grace,” then according to James, your prayers will not be effective. I am not a sinner. I am righteous. The focus is that I am present tense, righteous. The focus is not a negative belief of my past forgiveness, but a positive declaration of my present righteousness. It is to this type of Christian who will have effective prayers.

Jesus teaches on prayer in Mark 11:22-24, saying, “ Say to this mountain; and, whatever you ask, believe you have received it, and it will be yours.” The focus is not God’s goodness. The focus is not begging and crawling to God, waiting to see what God does. The focus is not God, but you. Jesus puts the focus on “believe you have received it,” when you said it.  As with James only a person who knows they are righteous in God’s sight, God’s child and has contractual rights, is able to put the focus on them and get answers to prayers. The focus is not problems. The focus is not telling God your problems, trying to prick His heart and see what He does. No.

Jesus did not instruct you to tell God about your mountain. Jesus commanded you to open your mouth and tell the mountain to move. The focus is on your mouth to say it, and your mind to believe it. Your mouth is Moses’ Staff of God. Stretch out your mouth and say something. Say it. What you want, say it. Jesus’ says the focus is not waiting to see what God does, but believe (past tense) you have received. The focus is not your problem or God. The focus is that someone so righteous as you, just spoke something in faith. The focus is that you opened your mouth. It is that simple.

This is Jesus’ teaching on prayer. Jesus is the extreme faith preacher.

The Bible Distinguishes The Elect From Reprobate Trash, By Praying In Tongues

Jude 1:18-21
“In the end time there will be scoffers…”
These…not having the Spirit.
But you, building yourselves up in your most holy faith, by praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God.”

Jude says mockers (and this is a continuation of his condemnation of false teachers) do not have the Spirit, which is referring to the baptism of the Spirit (Acts 1-2, Paul in 19:2 refers to “The Spirit” as the baptism of the Spirit and speaking in tongues (v.5)). Jude refers to those born again as “the called,(v.1).” In conversion the Spirit works on you to receive Jesus. In this sense you have Jesus, or you do not have Jesus. In baptism of the Spirit, Jesus works on you to receive the Spirit. In this sense you do have the Spirit, or do not have the Spirit.

In contrast to mockers, who do not have the baptism of the Spirit, Jude instructs the saints to pray in the Spirit, which is the baptism of the Spirit, which refers to praying in tongues. By praying in tongues, you keep yourself in God’s love. Think about that. Consider the consequence for not praying in tongues.

Paul says something similar in Ephesians 6:17-18. He says to “receive” the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit by “praying in the Spirit.” Receiving the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit are important. Paul says to do this by always praying, by praying in the Spirit. We know what Paul means by praying in the Spirit, because in 1 Corinthians 14 he defines “praying in the Spirit,” as “praying in tongues.” Thus, we continually receive the helmet of salvation and the offensive power of the Spirit, by praying in tongues.

Lastly, Paul says in Corinthians 14 that by praying in the Spirit we edify and encourage our inner man. This was one way Paul was able to encourage himself in context of all his hardships.

Paul therefore says I thank God I pray in tongues more than you all, to the Corinthians.

By praying in tongues, we keep ourselves in God’s love, strengthen our inner man, and keep receiving the helmet of salvation  and are continually empowered with the sword of the Spirit.

This does not mean a person cannot be saved without the baptism of the Spirit. However the same unstoppable God who causes an elect to receive Jesus for salvation will cause the same to have faith to receive the Spirit. Peter argues in Acts 2 that forgiveness is a stepping stone to receive the Spirit. To this Peter brings in the doctrine of election and predestination making the connection to the baptism of the Spirit. Some might think Peter’s connection is this: Those whom God calls to Himself are those born-again, however, this is not correct. Rather, Peter’s connection is, those whom God calls to Himself He gives them the baptism of the Spirit, with speaking in tongues. This isn’t how religious elites use predestination, but it is how the scripture uses the doctrine. And so God is faithful to call his elect to Himself, by causing them to receive the Spirit.

If a Christian has not received the Spirit, they do so by ignorance and unbelief. By unbelief and disobedience the Christian has pragmatically caused their Christian experience to be second class. The baptism of the Spirit enables one to fight with power to expand God’s kingdom. Praying in tongues causes one to continually receive the sword of the Spirit. To not have this while others are doing the hard work is spiritual negligence.

This is something mockers cannot do, and refuse to do. First of all, they are two busy mocking and making fun of the faith teachers, who are praying in tongues, to keep themselves in God’s love. Secondly, they hate the Spirit and so they refuse His gifts and powers.  False teachers and heresy hunters mock the very thing which the bible uses to distinguish the Called, from the reprobate.

Christology Overlords

I dislike having to give this note of warning on such a wonderful topic and focus, but it needs to be said. The forceful way some people use the hermeneutic and focus of Christ-o-centric, or Christ-centered or the redemptive historical reading of scripture is wrong and heretical. For some people the bible is not Christ-centered enough for them. As odd as it sounds, Christ is not Christ centered enough for them. And so they invent man-made theories to force most or all of the bible to be Christ-centered in a way that the bible is not. By doing this they exalt themselves and exalt man focused theories over the scripture and how the bible interprets itself.

This is pathetic, because when reading the bible with a redemptive historical approach, in a correct way, it can yield some beautiful insights.  However, if you take it too far you end up making Jesus and the Father fight one another, and cause the scripture to devour itself.  

For example the story of David and Goliath is not mainly about Jesus and His defeat of sin and death. This passage is not Christ-o-centric. There can be an additional insight taken from this story about Jesus and His defeat of sin, but it does not replace the original story as the main thing. Because the bible teaches us to moralize the bible for ourselves, then an additional insight or application of this story is to inspire us to use courageous faith to defeat Goliaths in our lives; however, this is not the main point.

There is an important reason for why this story is the main story and why there are grave consequences if you try to make the Christ-o-centric the main thing. David prays to God (a Word of Faith Confession), and thus, God is already the main power and author in the story. David even says by his actions everyone will know there is a God in Israel. The point of the story is for all to know there is a God who has chosen Israel.  Now, carefully think about the implication if you were say that a story where God is already the main power and author, is not the main story, but Jesus is, because Jesus is more central and important.  

The implication is that God is not the main thing, but rather God is. It is contradictive nonsense. Or, God the Father is not the main thing, but Jesus is. This is blaspheme. This is to make the scripture devour and fight itself.  This story with David and Goliath is a story already about God. You cannot therefore make it more God-centered. It is already God-centered to the max. A story where God is already the main author and displayed power does not need your help to make it more God-centered. A story where God is already the main author and power does not need your help by allegorizing God into it, as if God was not already there.

If a person did not already see God as the main author and power of this story, then I understand why they would feel the need to allegorize God into the story by making it Christ-centered. They are reading the story as if they are an atheist. God is not there and so they need to allegorize God into a story where God is not present.  This happens because their Christ-o-centric theories have become so all consuming that when they read the bible they do not even recognize the Father or the Spirit. They do not see God already in the passages, and so they need to allegorize Jesus into it so that the passage now becomes God-centered.  

Vincent Cheung even noticed a pastor bragging about this.

“A well-known pastor and professor was teaching a group of children something about biblical theology. They came upon a passage in which Christ performed a healing miracle. The pastor persisted with one of the children until the poor thing finally surrendered to the interpretation that the passage was not about the healing miracle, but about Jesus Christ. But the passage was already about Jesus. Why did the pastor forbid the child’s initial understanding? The advocates of biblical theology and the redemptive-historical approach are fond of boasting that they find Jesus on every page of the Bible. The problem was that this particular page revealed Jesus Christ the healer, and as one who would heal those who ask by faith. You see, this is what the theologians resent. This is the thing that the pastor and professor refused to permit. He had to destroy it before faith in this Jesus grew in the heart of the child. He had to murder this Jesus before he could take root in the next generation. And so he did it. And then he wrote a book and boasted about it. But Jesus said that someone like this should go kill himself (Matthew 18:6).

He claimed a miracle is only a “sign” that points to Jesus Christ. But which Christ? What does the sign tell us about this Christ? Does the sign “Christ is a healer” point to a Christ who is not a healer? Does the sign “Christ heals those who come in faith” point to a Christ who does not heal those who come in faith? How do you pull this off? Magic! What would a sign have to say to actually tell you that “Christ is a healer” and “Christ heals those who come in faith”? You just won’t let it happen, will you? You will allow Christ to be only that one thing about him you still believe in and nothing else. You will let Christ be only as big as your microscopic faith, instead of increasing your faith to embrace all of Christ. When the Bible reveals a Christ that is bigger than your faith, you cry heresy. This is what you mean by Christ-centered, but you make everything, including Jesus himself, centered on what you decide…”[1]

The issue with their Christ-o-centric theory is that the Father, the Spirit, the Scripture, and even Jesus Christ Himself are not Christ-centered enough.  The scripture is not God-centered or Christ-centered enough for them. Jesus is not Christ-centered enough for them, and so they even end up correcting Jesus by allegorizing passages directly about Jesus to not be about Jesus and what Jesus is doing and teaching, but instead be about Jesus. Nonsense. This nonsense occurs because they have a version of Jesus they like and allegorize all scripture, even Jesus and His own words into this version.

Christ-o-centric theology has become a smoke-screen to allow elites to practice liberal theology by covering it up with the most gospel sounding words possible. They have a doctrine of Jesus that is liberated from the confinement of scripture. They do not like the Christ that the scriptures reveal and so they create a false doctrine of Christ and then force the entire bible into this false doctrine of Jesus. They call it Christ-o-centric and then accuse others for not being Christ-centered when they do not adhere to this anti-Christ version of Jesus they allow. They are the worst of the worst of religious elites.

A Jesus who says, “your faith saved you” (regarding forgiveness of sin) and “your faith healed you,” is a Jesus that they cannot allow to live. If I teach on these verses, then I will get corrected by them, saying I am too man-centered. Since this is a direct teaching from Jesus’, they are correcting Him not me. And if they think, if they were put back in Jesus’ time that they would not correct Him, then they are delusional. They would correct Him with great zeal. Since Jesus it the main protagonist of His own existence, then Jesus serving man, healing man and praising man for their faith, is as Christ-centered as it gets. It is already Jesus to the max. It is already Christ-centered on steroids. The issue for many, is that the Jesus revealed by scripture is a Jesus they hate.

At that time the argument seemed so pious. The church had strayed from the path by paying too much attention to men, holding services for healing, prosperity and marriage, when the purpose of worship should be the glory of God, not the needs of men.

Liturgical music should talk less about us, and more about God and Christ. Preaching should be focused on the person and work of Christ, and not on our instruction for healing and prosperity, for example.

Men need to be degraded and humiliated. God should be the only one to receive glory. That was the message.

It was through Vincent Cheung’s writings that I began to realize the hypocrisy of these people. To paraphrase, if you are more Christ-centered than JESUS Himself, then this whole time you have been only self-centered, and still marveling at being so Christ-centered!…

When a church holds an event to restore marriages or heal the sick. The immediate purpose of such meetings is to use divine resources to meet human needs, and in this sense it seems that God is being used as a springboard.

However, since people are being saved by divine means rather than by human tools, it is clear that the meetings are theocentric. They would be completely man-centered if psychology were used to heal relationships and medicine to heal bodies.

Because it is the wisdom and power of God that is in action — exactly as God wants it to be — it is not God who is being used, it is he who uses human needs and the activities of the church as a springboard to magnify his attributes and results in the world.

Christocentrism is a hermeneutical and liturgical principle that lacks a biblical basis. Nothing in the Bible suggests that the word of God should be interpreted in a Christocentric way or that everything in worship should be Christocentric. The Bible is messianic, not Christocentric. Some things in it are about Christ, others are not. It is not correct to say that Jesus is the subject of the Bible, if by that we mean that every sentence in the Book is about him. It isn’t, and we don’t need to pretend it is. Some sentences, paragraphs, chapters and even books are not about him — although they can be read in his light and may contain specific references to him, whether literal or figurative. For the Bible to be Christocentric to the standard demanded by those who make a big deal about this need, it would have to be a book about Christ and not about us, but the Bible is a book about us too, therefore, it is not Christocentric. Defenders of Christocentrism consider it Christocentric only because they distort it to fit their standards..

This shows that Psalm 24 is not Christocentric. The second part can be taken as referring to Jesus Christ, but in the poem as a whole Jesus shares space with the believer. The Christocentric preacher was forced to distort the passage so that the man would not have space in his exposition. In the process he ended up saying that God’s people are made up of people with dirty hands, impure hearts, who turn to other gods and swear by idols. This is probably true of him and those who approve of him, but it is not true of anyone who actually belongs to God’s people.

Advocates of this principle are often eager to humiliate man, even man who has already believed in Christ. They say, for example, that the believer’s righteousness is like filthy rags, and that our best works are nothing. However, the Bible says that we do good works by the power of Christ and the Holy Spirit. When they denigrate our good works, they are attacking the righteousness that God produces in us. In their zeal to offend man they end up offending God.…[2]

In a galaxy not so far away, there exists a breed of theological overlords who wield the “Christ-centered” hermeneutic like a lightsaber, slicing through scriptures with a zeal that would make even Darth Vader blush. These folks have decided that not only is the Bible not Christ-centered enough, but apparently, Christ Himself isn’t Christ-centered enough for their taste.

Picture this: David and Goliath, the ultimate underdog story, gets hijacked. Instead of a tale of faith and divine power, these overlords twist it into a convoluted allegory where Jesus is both the slingshot and the stone, leaving poor Goliath to symbolize… well, who knows? Sin, bureaucracy, or perhaps bad WiFi?

These scripture-twisting maestros have turned the Bible into a one-man show starring Jesus, where even God the Father gets sidelined like an understudy. They’ve created a Christological echo chamber where every story, prophecy, and proverb must echo “Christ” or be deemed heretical.

In their quest for ultimate Christocentrism, they’ve managed to argue that when Jesus heals or teaches, it’s not really about what Jesus is doing but about some abstract version of Jesus they’ve concocted. It’s like saying the main character of a movie isn’t the main character because he doesn’t fit the sequel they’ve already written in their minds.

So here we are, caught in a theological tug-of-war where the Bible’s rich tapestry is reduced to a single thread, and that thread must be Christ, even if it means tying the scriptures into knots. Let us  return to sanity, where logic and categories are not turned into a child’s playdough; let us leave this mono-themed Christ-fest where every page must scream “Jesus!” or be cast into the outer darkness of “not Christ-centered enough.”

Let’s return to scripture and logic and leave these elitist zealots who can’t different that clouds and rocks aren’t the same thing. While Christ is central, He doesn’t need to be the center of every verse to validate His divinity or our faith.

(AI Grok, 2024, summarizing my essay.)

[1] Vincent Cheung. All Things Are Yours.  Sermonettes Vol.9. 2016.  Pg. 16-17

[2] Gabrial Arauto. Translated to English by Google Translate.

Any Form of Cessationism is Anti-Christ

Mark Driscoll criticizes cessationism, but his position is still cessationism. Mark says that we can pray but it is determined by a case by case sovereign choice from God, even if we have faith.

There are degrees of cessationism, but all forms deny the biblical doctrine of Expansionism (See Vincent Cheung for more); thus, all forms of cessationism is an excommunicable sin.

Cessationism denies the baptism of the Spirit for spiritual power, which includes the gifts as portrayed in 1 Corinthians 12-14 (etc.). They deny Scripture’s command to seek all of these gifts. Thus cessationism is a contradiction to the text.

It denies Abraham’s blessing. Abraham’s blessing makes it necessary for its heirs to be healed (Luke 13:12-15). Abraham’s blessing makes miracles a regular activity in the church by faith, made possible by Jesus’ substitutionary death (Gal.3). God’s promise to Abraham makes it necessary for miracles to happen on the demand of faith. Cessationism denies this and so it denies God’s faithfulness to His Promise to Abraham and tramples the blood of Christ.

Jesus’ substitutionary atonement included things like healing (Isaiah 53:4-5 James 5:15), and so, healing always happens by the will of man through faith. By denying this cessationism denies the substitutionary atonement of Jesus, and/or its effectiveness, and thus by logical implication it denies the forgiveness of sins.

It denies Jesus’ faith doctrine that says, whatever you ask in faith, will be given to you. Jesus says this many times in many ways. This is Jesus’ direct teaching and command but it also deals with our identity in Him that we have such authority to command demons, sickness and mountains out of our way. No one is as extreme as Jesus when it comes to faith. Your theology must include Jesus’ extreme faith doctrine. Jesus also uses His faith doctrine as a test for orthodoxy (John 15:7-8); thus, any Creed that does not include Jesus’ test, cannot claim to be orthodox. By denying this, cessationism denies Jesus’ command and faith doctrine itself, our identity in Christ and Jesus’ personal test of orthodoxy.

Your theology must include “man’s will being done on earth by faith,” is as God-centered as Jesus Christ is God-centered, because He is the one who taught the doctrine. The issue people have man’s will being done on earth by faith in God’s promise, is that Jesus is too God-centered for them. There is just too much God involved. They hate that God gets to do whatever He wants, and what He wants is man’s will to be done on earth, by faith.

Cessationism is an anti-Christ, anti-scriptural, anti-gospel and and anti-God doctrine.

How Does Jesus Apply Predestination ?

“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit–fruit that will last–and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you,” (John 15:16).

Jesus is talking in the topic of election and predestination. We did not choose Him; rather, He chose us (Romans 9-11).

What is interesting, (as, Vincent Cheung, points out in “Predestination and Miracles”) is how Jesus applies the doctrine of election and predestination. Jesus’ application of God’s sovereign predestination is not how most apply it. In fact, Jesus, the most God centered man who ever lived, applies God’s predestination in the opposite way most apply God’s sovereignty. Those who champion themselves as experts on God’s predestination when they are in context of prayer apply it by saying, “you can pray, but based on the Father’s choice, He might or might not grant it.” Jesus does the exact opposite of this. He says, God chose you, or that is “predestined you so that you can ask whatever you want, and the Father will give it to you.”

Why does Jesus and the self-appointed experts on God’s predestination say the opposite? Who is wrong, and who is right? And if Jesus is right, then be free to use God’s predestination and election to embolden you to pray and get whatever you ask for. Let Jesus’ teaching on God’s sovereignty be an encouragement to build faith and grant your request. Mark those who contradict Jesus’ application of predestination as servants of the faithless and remove them from your life.

Jesus Expects Us to Have No Fear about Life

When Jesus said to Jairus, “Do not fear, only believe,” it was said regarding a supernatural miracle of resurrection. The passage says, “While he was still speaking to her, messengers arrived from the home of Jairus, the leader of the synagogue. They told him, “Your daughter is dead. There’s no use troubling the Teacher now.” But Jesus overheard them and said to Jairus, “Don’t be afraid. Just have faith.”” (Mark 5:35-36 NLT).

The man was just told his daughter was dead, and Jesus’ tells him not to be afraid, not even a little bit, but “only,” have faith in God.  If I said this to a parent who just lost their child, they would call me uncaring and a jerk; yet, this is how Jesus expects us to view such a situation. It is this same Jesus who will judge us all one day. This is a good example because this is one of the worst types of life troubles we can face, the death of a child, or a spouse or parent. Since Jesus is applying this teaching to the worst type of life troubles, then we obviously can apply it to lesser troubles.

Let us quickly address the point of “just have faith.” Jesus is not saying have faith in God like a fatalist. He is not saying to just have faith in the broad idea that God is sovereign and just go with the flow like a fatalist. No, Jesus is not telling us to abuse God’s sovereignty like that. Rather, He is telling Jairus, do not fear, because your faith in God will lead to a supernatural resurrection of your daughter. Why be afraid by the death of a child, if they will be resurrected? Obviously there is no fear of a child’s death if the death is overpowered by resurrection. Obviously, there is no fear of cancer if it is healed.  Obviously, there is no fear of Jesus paying the temple tax if he can just get the money from a random mouth of a fish.

Jesus is talking about faith in a supernatural miracle for specific trouble you need help with. Not human help, but God’s miracle help.

Jesus’ reasoning for why we should have no fear and only faith, is because miracles make the troubles of life go away. Jesus expects us to view life in this way. No wonder the religious elites hated Jesus, He was a miracle and faith fanatic.

Jesus’ presupposition is that with faith in God we do not fear life’s troubles, because God will destroy the troubles with supernatural power.

In the finished atonement, Jesus has already forgiven us, has given us His righteousness, already healed us, already exchanged our curses for the blessing of Abraham, and already exchanged our poverty for His riches. This is already about new creation, new reality, and identity. We are this right now.

Thus, what you believe God will do for you, God will do for you. The supply for all these supernatural miracles have already been laid up for you. Jesus said “only believe.” Thus, if Jairus stopped believing and gave into fear over his child’s death, thinking, “there is no more hope, and I will just go with whatever God sovereignly caused,” then that is what God would give him, no hope. But because He believed God could help with miracle power, even in the death of his child, then that is what Jesus gave him.

As Vincent Cheung said in his essay (Faith is The Answer), “God wants us to live life thinking that there is no reason to fear, but that we should have faith only. God wants us to live life thinking that all things are possible to the one who has faith… You are never a victim. You are never limited. You are never doomed. You are never desperate. You are never alone. God will come to you. God will answer you. God will rescue you. God will heal you and prosper you. God will increase your spiritual power and fruit. God is the answer to all your problems. And beyond your problems, God will give you the desires of your heart. How can you know? Faith! The faith in your heart is God’s answer.”

I WAS Healed or I Will be Healed?

Abraham said, “I am the father of many nations,” and not “I will be the father of many nations.” Abraham’s confession was exactly what God promised and it was a contradiction to reality. Faith was stronger. He confessed he was already the father of nations before it was true. This is not a lie, because faith in God’s promise is both truthful and is a stronger power than reality.

Jesus’ exchange with the Sadducees, about the resurrection, showed Jesus pointing out a category fallacy with present tense and past tense. The scripture said God present tense, “I am the God of Abraham and Isaac,” even though they had died many years before. But the Sadducees’ presupposition was the passage was recorded in the different category of past tense, “I was the God of Abraham.” After this Jesus publicly shamed them and shut them up. This passage from Jesus shows us how important logic is; it shows us you cannot violate the laws of Contradiction and Identity and have category fallacies.

The importance of this is significant for faith. Faith is assenting to what God has said. You cannot assent to what God has said, if you change the tense of verbs, because then you change categories and thus change the meaning.

What if Abraham said, “I will be the father of many nations?” If he said it, then it would be a confession of unbelief in God’s promise not a faith confession.  Faith, as shown above, is only faith if it confesses what God said, it is not faith if it changes what God said.  Even such a small change, as a verb tense, Jesus shows that you are greatly mistaken about God’s word and power. One change to a verb tense and you have different doctrines. You cannot confess in faith, while being greatly mistaken about the word you are confessing.

Isaiah 53 says in the past tense that Jesus bore our sin, but also past tense bore our sickness and then present tense by His stripes we are healed.  There is no future tense. Regarding our sickness they have been and are healed.  Thus, Peter in his letter says, 1 Peter 2:24, that we were healed by His stripes.

This is why the faith teachers are correct when they teach you to confess, “By the stripes of Jesus I WAS, or I AM healed,” and not that I will be healed somewhere in the future.

Lastly consider Jesus’ teaching on faith itself.

“And Peter, remembering, said to Him, “Rabbi, look! The fig tree which You cursed has withered away.” So Jesus answered and said to them, “Have faith in God. For assuredly, I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be removed and be cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things he says will be done, he will have whatever he says. 

Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them.” (Mark 11:21-24 NKJV)

Jesus teaches us that when we pray that we are to believe (past tense) that we have received what we asked for. He says if you believe that you (past tense) have received, then you will (future tense) receive them. As with the fig tree, they found it, the next day dried up from the roots. It took a day for the full 100-fold manifestation to appear. The presupposition for Jesus is that God’s promise to give us anything we ask for is a past or present tense application, and not future. Even if the answer appears to be delayed, the example of Daniel, shows us that it was answered the moment Daniel prayed, but was delayed by demonic attacks. Thus when you pray believe you have received what you ask for.

This does not mean we never say, “this will happen,” for in some context this would be appropriate, or that God never answers a prayer if the verb tense is wrong; however, we should always strive for perfection in our understanding of God’s promise and speaking it in the same. Faith is assenting to what God has promised, not category changes to it.

Think about Abraham and his confession of faith that he “is” the father of many nations before it happened. This is what faith does. The Israelites shouted and praised God for the defeat of Jericho, before the walls fell down. Faith gives a victory shout before it happens, because we know when we prayed it was answered.  Faith is the contradiction to what we see, but because faith gives us direct contact with God and His power, we know faith is stronger than reality. Because God is sovereignly faithful to fulfill His promise, we know when we ask, God has already given it to us.

God Is Sovereign OR only Sometimes Sovereign?

If God causes all things,
then God caused x to happen.

Some things are so simple that a child can grasp them and apply them in constant success. Many things in the Scripture are this way. Peter did say some things from Paul (Scripture) are hard to understand, but the presupposition behind such a statement would be that most of the Scripture is not so hard to understand.

The reason simple things become difficult, tedious, and annoying is due to man’s unbelief in God to begin with.  The problem is not due to God’s perfect ability to communicate, produced by God’s infinite mastery of His own mind and understanding of man’s mind (which He created); rather, the problem resides in man’s refusal to believe what God has said. Men truly detest and hate God, even many so-called Christians.

I heard one Andrew Wommack try to boil the entire issue of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty to one quick dictionary lookup, regarding the word for “sovereign.” The dictionary, according to him said it has to do with a king or government ruling a nation. His argument is that because an earthly king does not control all the thoughts and actions of his people God does not. This is a very stupid mistake. When was it a good idea to define things by a mere dictionary lookup? Wommack in other doctrines such as, “You already got it,” (which I find edifying) will define the doctrine how the text and passage does it. Why not do it for God’s sovereignty? Why not define God’s sovereign control how Romans 9 defines it? Before the twins made choices of good or bad God already decided to love and hate one of them. Why not define God’s sovereignty how the bible tells us God uses His power and control? The lesson here is that when you see a pastor boil down an entire doctrine to one dictionary lookup and then apply it to God, then you need to mock it and disregard it as trash. If they call themselves pastors, then they need to define terms how the bible and the relevant passages do.

We will get more into logic in the next section, but we will go over some there, since many pastors and theologians seem to think the Laws of Logic (contradiction, identity and excluded middle) somehow do not apply to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty.

“ FIRST. After going over the attributes of God, in both spiritual and metaphysical aspects, it leads to a clear doctrine about God’s sovereignty or control over all things.

At this point, I could say-

“(1) All dogs are warm-blooded.
(2) This bulldog is a dog.
(3) Therefore, it is warm-blooded,”

-and this entire section on God’s sovereignty could be finished in one short paragraph. However due to the vehement resistance to God by bullying the mind with stupidity, this section must deal with stating, the most painfully obvious things. For those who already have a willing mind to believe what God says, I apologize for this. However, this will be a good practice in critical thinking skills and a refresher for what you do know.  

The Bible teaches that God is absolutely and directly sovereign over all things. Or stated as a modus ponens.


M.1. (p) If God causes all things directly and absolutely, (q) then God caused x, h or w to happen, directly and absolutely.
M.2. (p) God does cause all things.
M.3. (q) God caused x, h and w.

In logic, if the “all” or “some” is not stated (directly or indirectly), then the rule is that your category statement assumes an “all” universally-distributed proposition.

I recently heard some moron say something like, “God sovereignly moves things at the universal level, but allows man to move things at the particular level.”

If I were to say this nicely, the person probably does not know what the terms, “universal” and “particular,” means; they are just talking about things as if they know about them, when they do not have a clue, and are just making things up. However, words have meaning, as the Bible says so. Thus, if we are to take what this person is saying, then it is bottom of the barrel stupid.

Logical inference works because particulars are necessary applications of universals. For example. When the Bible says, “all have sinned,” this is only “universally true” if every “particular” instance is also true. If it is not sometimes true in particulars, then it is not universally distributed to all things in a said category. Logic or deductive inference is an application of the universally distributed premise applied in particulars. Thus, if all men have sinned, then if I refer to any human, I am able to affirm that this human as sinned. Therefore, a correctly done deduction from Scripture is what the scripture asserts, because it is only applying the universal(distributed) premise of scripture to the particulars. It is only pointing out information that is already there.

For example. If I were to say,

“it is universally true that all dogs are mammals.
This bulldog is a dog.
Thus, this bulldog is a fish.”

This syllogism is invalid; however, if the concluding premise is indeed true about reality, then it is not universally true, that all dogs are mammals, for in some “particular” instances dogs are fish, and not mammals. Rather than just a contrariety, this is what a true contradiction is when applied on the same premises. A ‘some are not’ premise is a contradiction to an ‘all’ premise.

Thus, if you say “it is universally true that God is sovereign, but then in some particular cases in man, man is sovereign, then you just denied the universal.” You could say God is mostly sovereign, and mostly moves things; but you cannot say God is sovereign as a universal statement without violating the law of contradiction. Or you could say, although it would be odd—it is universally true that God is sometimes sovereign. It would be odd, because an “all” distribution of category in a predicate is presupposed as a “all” if left unsaid. In mathematics this category distribution of all, is in fact called a “universal statement.”

Subjects in universal propositions refer to all in that category (All men have a worldview), while those in particular propositions refer to some (Some men are theists). But what about the predicates? This is where distribution comes in.

Distribution is to terms what quantity is to propositions. A term is said to be distributed when it refers to all the members of its class. Distribution can be designated by a stated or implied all.[1]

For example, if I said, “ravens are birds,” then it is assumed to be that “all” ravens are contained in the predicate of “birds.”

If a particular denies your universal category statement, then the universal is not a “all” category statement but a “some” category statement. That is, if I said, “this particular raven is not a bird,” then it is not a true statement that “ravens are birds.”  Likewise, if it is true that some particular humans are not sinful, then the Bible’s universal statement that “all” have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory is a false statement of reality. It is not a universal “all” statement.

Some at this point, who have never studied logic might say, “I sort-of already know this, and after thinking about it now, it is what the Bible teaches.”  If you understand this then, you are already leagues above the intelligence and faith of many pastors and theologians.  

Some might also say, “well, maybe the people above, meant universal, how a human authority might issue a policy at the top level, but a lower person directly applies it.” First, if so, then so what? How does “horse crap” have any logical necessity to proving if 2+2=4? To confess the above is to confess you deny God is not sovereign over everything, and that there are other causalities that moves things around, separate from God doing it.

Such an admission, does a slight-of-hand fallacy to make it sound like God is sovereign over reality, when they freely admit God is not. Many seem to gloss over this; God is not man. Let us say that again. God is not man. God’s authority is not like human authority. God’s control is not like human control. What moron would even compare the two? God’s metaphysical transcendence is not compatible to man. You cannot relate the two in an intelligent way. Color has nothing to do with the concept of numbers. Why do I need to say this to adults?

The spiritual, ethical and emotional connection behind all this stupidity is a desire for the praise of men. Rather than just saying, “God is not sovereign over all things,” they perform slight-of-hand fallacies by still affirming the opposite of what they believe, but then deny their doctrinal statement in application. If these people truly believed they honored God with right theology, then they need to say, “God is only sometimes sovereign,” as their doctrine and defend it. Yet, they affirm a contradictory doctrine despite saying they love God. Therefore, we conclude, their love and loyalty to God, cannot be as great as they say. Instead of standing their ground on what they believe, they please men by affirming a doctrine they disagree with. Then in order to affirm their own doctrine, they do a 180 and deny God is sovereign over all things in applications/particulars of life. Their true goal then is to be men pleasures. Their doctrine is a doctrine of men, by men, for the pleasure of men. They live in a kingdom of self. They are thoroughly man centered.  Their condemnation is deserved.

Another fool once said to me, “God IS absolutely sovereign over all things, but in order to let man have free-choice, gave up some of His sovereignty.” Again, this is a self-righteous, man-pleasure. It is a slight of hand, to hide what they are affirming. God IS not absolutely sovereign anymore, because by their own words, God gave up some of His sovereignty over all things. Thus, God WAS sovereign, but IS NOT absolutely sovereign over all things anymore.  Since we are dealing with present reality in most applications, their doctrine is, “God is sometimes sovereign, and sometimes not.” Any affirmation other than this, would be a lie for them.

[1] Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). Come, let us reason: an introduction to logical thinking (p. 30). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.