Tag Archives: Freedom

Tell It What You Want

“What I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”
(Acts 3:6)

 “Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and roll up your mat.”
(Acts 9:34)

“Stand up on your feet!”
(Acts 14:10)


Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
(Matt. 21:21)

The fig tree was a real fig tree, and it dried up when Jesus spoke to it. Jesus didn’t ask God; He spoke to the tree, and it died. It wasn’t a spiritual fig tree. Thus, the category is material or physical. When facing mountains in the material world, Jesus didn’t ask God for help but spoke directly to the problem. He then instructs the disciples to do the same: to speak to the mountain or problem and command it in faith, knowing God’s power will back their words. Jesus didn’t tell the disciples to inform God of their problem or mountain or to present a sad sob story about how bad it is. Rather, He said to speak to the problem and tell it what you want it to do.

After the baptism of the Spirit in the opening salvo of the Book of Acts, the disciples did just that. In Acts 3, Peter didn’t tell God how awful it must be for the cripple to suffer so long and beg God to find it in His will to heal the man. No. Peter spoke to the mountain or problem—sickness. He said, “What I have, I give.” It’s not what God has or what God gives. Peter declared the power to heal is what he has and what he gives. He then said, “In Jesus’ Name, walk.” He spoke to the mountain and told it what he wanted: “Walk.” This is exactly what Jesus instructed.

In Acts 9, Peter says, “Jesus heals you, get up.” Peter doesn’t tell God about the mountain of sickness; rather, he tells the sickness what he wants: “Get up.” Peter obeys Jesus’ instructions for interacting with material mountains and problems. In faith, tell them what you want them to do, whether it’s killing a tree, casting it into the sea, healing the sick, or telling a fish to bring you money.

In Acts 14, Paul looks at the mountain of sickness and speaks to it like Peter, saying, “Stand up on your feet!”

These commands are both spoken to the mountain and serve as instructions for the person to act on faith. Because they believe they are healed, then they need  to do something they couldn’t do before. This is integrated into speaking to the mountain of sickness. It’s a powerful way to administer healing.

God gave Moses the Staff of God. When they were backed against the sea, God told Moses to stop monologuing about His help and use the Staff of God to divide the sea. Thus, it was not God who divided the sea in the most direct sense, but Moses divided the sea, using God’s power. However, what we have is greater than the Staff of God. We have the name of Jesus Christ engraved on our tongues. We are part of Jesus and so we use His Name as our own.


Jesus didn’t whine to God about fig trees or mountains—He told them what to do, and they obeyed. In Acts, Peter and Paul channel that vibe, bossing sickness around like pros: “Walk!” “Get up!” “Stand!” No sob stories, just faith-fueled commands backed by Jesus’ name. Speak to your problem, not about it—whether it’s a tree, a mountain, or a coinless fish, tell it who’s boss and watch God’s power roll.

aaron-burden-y02jEX_B0O0-unsplash

GOD IS THE METAPHYSICAL AUTHOR OF ALL THINGS, EVEN SIN.

I got the term “metaphysical author of sin and evil,” from Vincent Cheung. See his Systematic Theology, Commentary on Ephesians and Author of Sin for original source.  I developed my own doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty (even occasionalism) on my own as a teenager from reading bible. It was the word and Spirit that taught me these things, not Calvin or Luther. Vincent helped me to expand my understanding, make adjustments and make it concise. His materials also helped me with the explanation of accountability mentioned below.

Metaphysical is meant in philosophy or systematic theology for reality and even causality (although ontology means directly causality). In our context we are focusing on causality.  For example: If I pick my pen and cause it to write, “trees are blue,” who is the author of it? Is it the object, which the pen? Or is it me, who is causing it to move? We point reader see the separate categories of “cause” and an “object.”

God directly and immediately causes a demon to tempt a person. The demon is the “object.”  God is the “cause,” but the tempter is the object. This is why God cannot tempt anyone, because if God directly Himself tells you to kill person (X) it is not a temptation but a command. There is no such thing as a “secondary cause,” in relation to God Himself. He directly causes all things.

Someone might respond by saying “by authoring sin, sinners could hurl back to Him saying, “You are the real sinner!”

What does “real” sinner even mean? If it means the object that is sinning, it is impossible for God to be a “real sinner.” I am not sure how such a person defines sin, but God defines sin as a man breaking a command given to man (1 John 3:4). God did not command Himself; rather He commanded man. They do not logically apply to Him. Also, there is no authority over God. Because responsibility is defined by “not having freedom from being under an authority who holds you to a definition,” then God is not responsible for anything. Thus, the terms sinning and God are logically impossible terms. God defines sin as lawlessness. Therefore, to accuse God of being a “real sinner,” would be to accuse God of being a “real law breaker,” and “under a real authority.” Fallacy. Dumb. Blaspheme.

Oddly, sometimes I get people who say God is “Ex-lex” (above the law), but in the next breath say God would be sinning if He authored/directly caused me to sin. Often I feel like I am talking to brick walls, when talking to people of tradition. “God is above the law, but if He causes me to sin, then God is under a law, because God would be guilty of sinning, which presupposes a law over God.” Brilliant, mystery, insane.

God did not command Himself, “thou shall not murder, or thou shall not commit adultery.” These are commanded to man, not God: not trees, not monkeys, but man. Therefore, it is a categorial fallacy to say God sinned, for it is impossible for God to break a law that is not applied to Him. Do trees commit sin when they do not confess Jesus the Son of God? Or is it irrational to apply these two things together? It is like saying “can God lift an infinitely heavy rock that He created?” God is not physical thus, the category of heavy cannot logically be applied to Him. The question is nonsense. It is the same with God and sin.  Laws do not apply to Him.

God is not what he authors. If God creates a river. God is not a river. To call God a river because he created it, is again to commit a logcal category fallacy. It also presupposes pantheism. There is no way to show in formal validly that what you create you yourself are. Creating something else and your own being are two different categories. If I create a clay pot, I am not a clay pot. Why do I need to say this to adults?

Likewise, God is not what he causes. That is, if God causes a “lion” to “go” south into valley, then God Himself is not a south bound loin. If “author” is defined as what someone “cause to happen” in a story they are writing, then it is again a category mistake to say they are what they author. If Johnny writes in a novel that a lion walked south into valley, Johnny is not a loin moving south. The same is with God. If God authors/causes a river to flow north, God is not Himself a north moving river. This is logic at the most basic level, of the Law of identity.

Therefore, No one can accuse God of being a sinner even though God causes them to sin or authored them to sin; it would be a logical fallacy—like saying, “wet dryness,” or a “square circle.”

The fact that a person thinks God is accusable because He is the author of all things, exposes how little they think of God it; shows how small God is to them. It exposes that they are insane by mixing up categories, as if reality is their personal playdough. It exposes that they presuppose pantheism in their worldview thinking. They play lip service that God is totally sovereign, but they love God’s sovereignty no more than demons love God’s power.  

Some people have even told me that “if what you say is true, then Ultimately, there will be no human accountability; and thus, no judgment.”

This is like saying, because God directly controls all things it means God does not control the weather. It’s insane. Brick walls are not known for their intelligence.

It is because God is sovereign over man and man is not free from God sovereignly holding man accountable that man is accountable. Man, not having freedom relative to God and God having absolute and direct sovereign control over man is the very thing that make man accountable. Romans chapter 9 deals directly with this issue of God’s sovereign control and man’s accountability. Not indirectly but directly deals with this question. God controls man so much that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and then God punished Pharaoh for this. Paul gives a hypothetical, typical response, “how is man accountable to God, if God is the one controlling man?” Paul answers this question by saying “God is the Potter and man is the clay, and God molds the man How He wants. God takes from the same neutral lump (not already sinful or good, but neutral lump) and then molds one for righteousness and mercy and the other for sin and destruction.”[1] Paul’s answer for why man is accountable considering God’s sovereign control over man, is that God is sovereign, and man is not free from God controlling man. The one thing not part of answer is “freedom.” This is the bible’s answer, and your theology needs to include it.

Human accountability is based upon God’s holding something accountable. The fact that a human is not free from God holding them accountable is the very thing that makes them accountable. Freedom is not the presupposition of accountability, but the lack of freedom from being under a sovereign God is. Men are not free relative to God’s control over them, and this is what makes them accountable. Accountability presuppose a sovereign over you and not freedom.

Tradition teaches us that “the author is accountable,” but the scriptures says the opposite. The Potter molds the clay from the same neutral lump, and molds them how He wants. It is this sovereign freedom of the Potter and lack of freedom of the clay that makes the clay accountable.

Such comments expose a person’s view of God. This is not a word game. People imply they have the right to hold God accountable because He is the author of all things. Defining terms is the least of their problems. Their view of God is so man-cantered and pathetic and distorted that “they” would hold God accountable “because He is the author of your sin.” They are so stupid, that in the context of “God is so sovereign that He causes me to sin,” they think they can “hold God accountable for commuting sin.” But if God is so sovereign already, then you obviously have no justification to hold God accountable to anything. Not only is there the category errors pointed out earlier, but the opponent does not have enough intelligence to apply a critique to the statement; that is, their critique answers their own question.

Where does the Bible say that God being an author makes Him accountable? Accountable to whom? A man? To be accountable only works if there is a sovereign over you. Thus, the only way God “as author” could be “accountable” is if they are an author over God! The blasphemy they uttered is so bad I feel polluted just repeating it. It is very telling that to critique my doctrine they had to put God under their feet and author Him accountable. This is what God will do to all those who rebel against Him.

[1] The last two quotes from Romans 9 was paraphrased by me.

When are my Prayers Meaningful?

“The way “sovereignty” is taught today can be a real faith killer. If God controls everything, then our actions are irrelevant, and our efforts are meaningless.”
Andrew Wommack

This has to be one of the dumbest and meaningless objections to God’s absolute sovereignty I come across. The objection is answered in the very statement the critic uses.

For example. “All men have sinned.” If it is true that all men have sinned then to say, “Oshea has sinned” is a logical deduction and thus is true. But if I say, cats have sinned, then we know we have a category fallacy, and thus the conclusion is irrational. Deduction is application of knowledge. “Oshea has sinned,” is knowledge contained in the original statement, “all men have sinned.” All I did was point out this specific knowledge and bring it to your attention.

Unfortunately, basic deduction is lost with most pastors and theologians so that if you say “All men have sinned,” they can say “therefore black cats have sinned.” They are then called intelligent and given a book deal.  Strangely, if I put forward an argument that mixes up categories like the able, that says, “All apples are eatable,” therefore, “because the sun is round like an apple the sun is eatable,” people would mock me? Maybe I should give it a religious terminology and I could get a book deal myself. Maybe something like this, “if God is sovereign over all things, then God does not control squires and human thoughts.” I see millions of copies already being sold.

As for the objection above the major premise is saying “God is sovereign over all things.” Wommack is saying this as the Reformed tradition would mean it. Martin Luther in Bondage of The Will says God is as directly sovereign in causing faith as He is unbelief or sin, as in the Elect or Satan. Thus, we will mean God is sovereign over all things as truly an “all” statement. A category statement is “all,” “some,” or “none.” Here we mean God directly and absolutely controls all things.  When the bible says the category statement “all have sinned and fallen short,” it does not mean only “some,” but “all” have.

And so “if God is sovereign over all things,” then according to Wommack the conclusion is that “our actions are meaningless.” His conclusion has new information in it that is not contained in the premise(s), thus it is irrational and stupid. He makes a category error with the term “meaningless.” It is a fourth term that is thrown in the conclusion with a slight of hand.

I will add an additional premise here that I believe the Bible easily teaches and is presupposed by the statement “God is sovereign over all things.” This premise is that “if God does something, it is meaningful by definition that God is the one who does it.” If not, am I to presuppose that God doing something is not meaningful because He is the one doing it? But I digress.

If God is sovereign over all things and whatever God does has infinite meaning and value, then God controlling my choice is by definition infinitely meaningful and valuable.

God is the only one with intrinsic worth and whose value is without measure. God’s Will, Word and Power are one in the same. As Vincent Cheung says in Only  Believe, “God can never lie, not because there are things that omnipotence cannot perform, as some would put it, but because lying is inapplicable to God, since the will, the power, the word, and the truth are one in him. If God says something, then even if it was not true before, it would become the truth.” Thus God who alone has value creates and controls all things by His thoughts.

Whatever God does by definition is “just” “good” and “meaningful or valuable.”

This should not be a surprise. Even with humans we are similar. When I played in the sand, or played with my Legos and made things and new people and new made up stories, it was meaningful to me, precisely because I was the one doing it.

Wommack is so arrogant that he thinks God’s sovereign control over him is the very thing that makes his choices meaningless, when it is the only thing making them meaningful. He supposes his choices apart from God’s sovereignty control have intrinsic value. I will ignore the issue of ontology on this, for it is impossible for any created thing to move without God’s doing it. God is the only real cause for everything; there is no such thing as secondary causes in the ultimate sense. God is the only real cause. God’s thought and power are the same thing in essence, or there is no dividing them. If God does not think of something, then it does not happen. If God thinks of something and wills it, then it happens. There is no other real causality other than this.

We are responsible and accountable because we are not free relative to God’s command and His sovereignty over us. Romans 9 answers the question why we are responsible even though God can harden or soften our hearts. The answer is that He is the Potter and we are the clay. He does this from a neutral lump of clay, that is neither good or bad. Thus, the Scripture’s answer for why we are accountable is because God sovereignly controls us.

As Vincent says in “More than A Potter,” if you say man is more than a pot, then God is infinitely more than a Potter.  And so the sovereign control aspect is therefore made infinitely stronger. The fact that we are accountable to God is therefore a limitation of our freedom, in the sense it makes it nonexistent. God controls us like a Potter over a pot. Does God form a good pot from a good lump? No. Does God take a nasty lump of clay and form a nasty toilet with it? No. God takes from the same lump of unformed (before they were born) clay and molds it to His own design (good or bad). Thus, there is no paradox, because Divine sovereignty negates human freedom and is the very thing that makes accountability work. The fig tree did not have any freedom, but Jesus held it accountable. Even without freedom, the everything that made it accountable was Jesus being sovereign over it and holding it to a standard. Freedom had no relevance to accountability. Romans 9 refers to our accountability in the same way. This is the opposite of how most understand it; thus, many are in direct public rebellion against God.

God is not accountable because of the very reason He is free.

In summary, God is the ultimate cause of everything. There are no other real causes. We are accountable to God because He has complete control over us. We are like clay in the hands of a potter. God’s sovereignty is what makes us responsible.

The criticism is essentially this, “if I am not the one who ultimately determines my reality then it is not meaningful.” Arrogance. That is, “if God does not give me His divinity then I will hate Him.” They don’t like that fact God has such exhaustive control and they don’t. What fool told you that meaningfulness is by your ultimate determination? The bible? The bible that says God hated Esau and love Jacob before they had made any choices and before they were born. The bible teaches what God does is meaningful, because God does it.

So prayer in the ultimate sense does not change anything. But this is true for all created things. However, on the relative level my prayers moves the heart of God, uproots mountains and makes the waves obey me.

Even though the Scripture informs me of God’s sovereignty over me, God mostly addresses me on the human or relative level. That is, God moving the chess pieces is the very thing that makes such things meaningful. However, God mostly addresses me on the relative level of “(Oshea) went to space b4,” rather than saying, God moves “White Knight to space b4.” Because God is mostly addressing me on this level, it is therefore good, just and meaningful by definition of God doing it. Because God wants me to mainly have relationship and fellowship with Him on this level, then it is good, just and meaningful.

What God has done is atone for all our sins by His only Son Jesus and gave us His Son’s righteousness. What He has done is commanded us to be forgiven and blessed by receiving His Son and all the glorious benefits contained therein. Therefore when I use faith and receive forgiveness, healing and miracles, then it is good and has immeasurable value.

God’s Authority & Not Man’s Freedom Makes Man Accountable

Before going over a more positive stating of God’s sovereignty, we will deal with this idea of man’s responsibility and accountability to God, since the wrong doctrine of this is used to negate what the Bible says about God’s sovereignty and man.

This is both an ultimate question about God’s sovereignty and Christian ethics, and so, this will be dealt with more in that section.

Man is responsible and accountable to God, not because man is free from God’s direct control; rather it is the complete opposite. Man is accountable, because man is not free to God’s sovereign authority to hold man accountable.[1] Accountability does not presuppose freedom; rather, it presupposes a sovereign authority that you cannot escape from. Without a parent, how is child (if you can still call them that) responsible? Without teachers, students (if you can still call them that) are not accountable. Without a government of some sort, citizens (if you can still call them that) are not responsible.  

The point is, if you take the authority away, accountability is not merely partially removed, it is completely removed. On the other hand, I can hold my clay vase accountable for not talking to me, by slamming against the wall, and then throwing it into the fire. Whether or not you like this, is not the question. The issue is painfully obvious, even without freedom, my sovereign authority over the clay vase, is all that is needed to make it accountable. 

And in fact, this is exactly what Paul says in Romans 9 when the issue of how is man being accountable to God, when man is not free from God controlling man (like how God controlled Pharaoh, by hardening his heart).

Also, if you recall earlier comments about God’s transcendence, God is not merely above being accountable; God is categorically not even related to such a category. There is nothing above God. There is no other power. There is no other causality. There is no possibility for God not to be absolutely sovereign, and so it is impossible for there to even be a possibility or another power or metaphysical dualism. Because the possibility is not even possible, it means God is categorically separate from such a term. Is color above the concept of numbers, or do they have no necessary relation to even be considered in such a way? Because God is transcendent to man in this regard, we therefore know, when a person tries to apply accountability to God, by relating how it works with man, just made a metaphysical, intellectual and ethical no, no (to say it nicely).

First, Paul brings in the example of the twins who were, one chosen for mercy and the other damnation—before they were born or had done good or bad choices—to show God’s choices and His resulting causation from these choices includes both good and bad; both light and dark; both mercy and damnation. Paul then brings in additional examples of the old testament regarding a positive choosing and then also a negative choosing. Moses is the example for mercy and the Pharaoh is the example of damnation.

This is classic systematic theology. Paul is bringing in different passages ranging over the Scripture that address the same theological category. From this Paul then gives a summary of a doctrinal statement that is to be believed and obeyed. “God chooses to show mercy to some, and he chooses to harden the hearts of others, so they refuse to believe.” And this doctrinal comprehension includes what Paul stated before in the formation of it: “before they are born or had done good or evil.”

If some say that the twins were a representation of nations, then Paul’s point is made even more so, for then it would mean, before millions were born or had made choices of good or evil that God chose some would obtain mercy and some damnation.[2] This point, logically therefore, is a point of non-relevance. However, this objection shows that such a person not only is defective in their objection but demonstrates they miss the entirety of what Paul is doing here. Paul is doing systematic theology. He brings many individuals and then asserts with logic and divine inspiration, that these are not an exception of God’s power and active; rather, Paul shows this is how God uses this power of causality over all humans for all time. That is, categorical premises of “all,” not some. 

Back to Paul’s doctrinal statement. He does not wish for people to miss the point. One can see how Paul bracketed the part about the twins (before they had made choices of good or evil) in the verse. Paul wanted to head off the misinterpretation that despite being born, God looked ahead and considered the twins choices of good or evil, to then decide who to show mercy and who to dam to hell. And so, Paul stops the flow of the statement to clarify that God did not consider their choices in determining their future of heaven or hell. 

God punishes the Pharaoh after saying He first hardened (first mention in Exodus) the Pharaoh’s heart. To this Paul’s opponent says,

“if Pharaoh went along with God’s causality(ontology)

—that is, to be hard hearted and resist God’s command(ethic)

—then why is Pharaoh punished?”

This objection is bottom of the barrel stupid and displays a mind that is spiritually broken and mentally faulty.  Again, this is like saying trees and cats are the same, therefore, why don’t’ trees walk? It is a category fallacy.  All Christian ethics are God’s commandments. The Pharaoh was a lawbreaker by disobeying God’s command to let His people go. He is guilty, not because He did or did not resist God’s causality, but because He resisted obeying God’s command.

Some say that man is “more than a clay pot.” This is true, but only if whole analogy is taken up together.[3] Thus, if man is more than clay, then God is infinitely much more than a mere potter. Therefore, as much as man is more than clay, it is not a true infinite. God however is truly infinitely more than a mere man. Thus, if the analogy is taken up then the point of God’s sovereign control over man’s destinies apart from man’s choice is literally made “infinity” stronger.

This clay analogy reminds of how teachers and preachers today directly contradict the Scriptures teaching. They are blasphemers who would rather suffer the Scripture to nonsense, than let their cowardly souls suffer from confessing their unbelief. It appears popular in many Christian traditions to say God takes a wicked clay lump and God chooses to let some remain in this wicked lump state and make them into wicked pots. In addition, God chooses to take some of this wicked clay lump save them and make them into a good clay pot.  How obvious that this is not what the verse says. The lump is not already wicked or good. It is unformed, without choices of good or evil. It is a neutral unformed lump. It is like what is said about Jacob and Esau, “before they had done good or evil,” God decided to love one and hate the other.

This lines up with the objection Paul’s opponent brings up.

“If the Creator takes me from a neutral clay lump(that is not already bad) and makes me into a wicked pot, and I obviously go along with God’s causality, then why does God find fault with me, even if He commanded me to do good?”

This question of “responsibility” is precisely what Paul’s opponent asks in Romans 9:19.

…Therefore you will say to me, “Why then does he still find fault? For who has resisted[o] his will? (LEB)

…Well then, you might say, “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?” (NLT)

We will now put into the verse the clear terms for command(responsibility) and God’s absolute causality: or Christian ethics and Christian ontology.

“Why does God [hold people responsible] for not responding [to His command]?

Haven’t they simply done what [He absolutely directly causes them to do]?

or

“Why then does he still find fault? [Ethics]

For who has resisted[o] his will? [Ontology]

Thus, Paul’s opponent is dealing with the issue of man’s responsibility when man is considered relative to God controlling and causing man to do. Paul’s opponent correctly restates Paul’s position about God’s absolute sovereignty saying “who has resisted God’s will (causality/sovereign control). Paul’s opponent understands that Paul position is that God is actively and absolute controlling man. The opponent says that “no person has resisted God’s will.” God’s will here is defined in context to me God’s causality not command, because it is painfully obvious people resist obeying God’s commands.

Thus, the opponent is saying,

“Paul, your position is that no person has never resisted God’s causality, in causing them to make good or evil choices; but, if that is true, then why does God still hold us responsibly for things He sovereignly caused us to do?”

On the contrary, O man, who are you who answers back to God? Will what is molded say to the one who molded it, “Why did you make me like this”? Or does the potter not have authority over the clay, to make from the same lump a vessel that is for honorable use and one that is for ordinary use?
(Romans 9:20-21 LEB)

Paul’s reply is interesting because it ignores the fallacy of the opponent, and simply gives a positive answer about God’s authority and power. The fallacy of the opponent lies in what we disused earlier about God’s transcendence over commands given to man.  God is not merely above the laws; rather, laws do not categorically apply to Him. The Bible defines sin and evil as lawlessness. Thus, you cannot accuse God of sin or a wrong, without a law being transgressed by God. But laws do not categorically apply to God. Thus, it is categorically impossible for God to do sin or evil. It is not that God can do evil but chooses not to. No. The possibility does not even exist.

“Who are you who answers back to God?” Paul ignores this, in that He does not address it directly; rather, Paul rebukes the opponent in this way: “as a man you are acting like God and as a man are trying to put God under a law.” The opponent has the role of God and man flipped. That is, the opponent’s position is not merely a little bit wrong, it is upside-down wrong.

“The potter [has] AUTHORITY over the clay, to make from the same lump…” Remember the context is about why is man responsible. If ever there was a time for the Bible to say man’s accountability is based on freedom or freewill, now is the time. Now is the foundational issue or linchpin about man’s responsibility. Paul gives his positive answer to why man is responsible to God. God is an AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN. The answer given is NOT “God gave man freedom.” NO. The contradiction of this is given. Man is NOT free from God’s AUTHORITY to make man however He wants.

The way Paul does answer this presupposes what we just went over; that responsibility presupposes a higher authority and not freedom. If you are responsible, then it means you are not free, but under an authority. Paul’s answer to why people are responsible—even like Pharaoh, by performing the works God causes them to perform—is that God is an authority over them. That is, Paul appeals to that fact that God is a sovereign authority over us. We are responsible precisely because we are not free, but under God’s authority.

It can be said that God makes it—as an additive—that having more knowledge makes us guiltier. This can be said about metaphysics on a relative level when said about us. That is, we are led away by “OUR” own desires. However, both additives only work as adding to our responsibility because God as an “authority” over us commands it so! That is, without us being free from God’s sovereign authority and control over us, He adds additional rewards and condemnation if we have more knowledge (knowledge that He chose to give or not give us).

For the God’s elect children, the point is that though Jesus Christ’s imputed righteous (ethics) they have completed the requirement of obeying God. They have been credited with a perfect Christian ethic that is fulfilled and the receipt printed off. After new birth they are given the Holy Spirit that causes(ontology) them to behave in accordance with the perfect obedience already credited to their accounts. That is, as Pharaoh could not resist God causing him to reject His command, the Elect cannot resist the Holy Spirit causing them to be sanctified

—-Endnotes——

[1] I learned to say this doctrine in this way from Vincent Cheung (and some from Gordon Clark). See Vincent’s many mentions of this in his books. (www.vincentcheung.com)

[2] I learned this argument from Vincent Cheung. See, “More than a Potter.”

[3] This basic idea of taking the analogy up with both parts was brought to my attention by an essay of Vincent Cheung, “More Than A Potter.” Found in “Author of Evil.” 2014. Ch.18.