Tag Archives: God

bayzid-ahmmed-Gklygrxsisc-unsplash (crop)

“So…I should throw rocks at gay people?”

Science commits a triple logical fallacy of empiricism, observation and affirming the consequence (i.e. experimentation.) This necessarily leads to denying the law of contradiction because of skepticism, which is impossible.

Even the bible shows man’s observation is not always correct, 2 Kings 3:16-24, John 12:28-29, Matthew 14:25-27, and Matthew 28:16-17.[1] The importance is significant. If I showed one place in the Bible was wrong, then it would move the whole bible into skepticism as a starting point for knowledge. It would mean that I cannot prove any one statement is true. This is skepticism. But skepticism denies the law of contradiction. Try denying your own existence without using it?

The point is this, a contradiction has no being in the mind or in reality. Yet, the bible shows man’s observation (empiricism) is mistaken. It also shows Jesus appealing to the law of contradiction and being called the LOGOS itself. Thus, empiricism is not a starting point for knowledge. And in addition to these fallacies, scientific experimentation uses affirming the consequent. For example, “If I speak there is a sound. There is a sound; therefore I spoke.” Yet, this irrational structure is the foundation for all experimentation. And yet, it is supposed to produce “knowledge?” LOL!

I have skipped many other problems with science but just focused on a few. If you need more reading, then I would recommend Vincent Cheung and the essay, “A Gang of Pandas.”

Johnny responded with:

“So…I should throw rocks at gay people?”

So… how long have you been abusing children? Getting past loaded questions and other informal fallacies, let us focus on the actual issue.

Since you used an ethic by saying “should,” ( I did not ) the burden of proof is on you to prove you have knowledge of what is an ethic without presupposing the bible, or that is, presupposing my worldview that says you are wrong.

The bible clearly defines ethics, and even establishes the ontology of ethics. How can you rationally question me about any ethic whatsoever, if you cannot produce a sound argument to tell me what is an ethic? You cannot. You are intellectually broken and malfunctioned.

How do you know what is an ethic if you use empiricism, without producing multiple category errors? How do you avoid category errors when you use descriptive premises, to then go to an “ought” in the conclusion? Did you smell an ethic? Did you see it? But an ethic is an invisible proposition in the mind about right or wrong revealed by God. To even understand what is an ethic you must presuppose the bible, but the bible says you and all anti-Christian systems are wrong.[2] Thus you are wrong by logical exclusion.

Here is an ethic that corresponds with reality, rather than the delusions you invent. The bible says all who do not believe in Jesus Christ as God’s only Son and repent are already judge by Father.

ENDNOTES

[1] Vincent Cheung first brought this to my attention.
Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg 70.

[2] See Vincent Cheung, Captive To Reason, 2009 pg 44.

benjamin-davies-FiZTaNTj2Ak-unsplash (crop)

Offended At God’s Lavish Giving

Jesus replied to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those with leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor are told the good news,
and blessed is the one who isn’t offended by me.

Matthew 11:4-6 CSB

Let us not be offended by Jesus healing people, and causing them to have great joy. Let us not be offended by Jesus healing all who came to Him. Let us not be offended by Jesus healing every single person who asked. . Let us not be offended by Jesus raising the dead back to life, and causing their mothers to have great joy. Let us not be offended by Jesus preaching good news to the lowly.

Let us not be offended that Jesus healed, healed, healed and healed some more, rather preaching the gospel more, or talking about sin or hell.

Jesus would not have said this, if there was not an issue of people being offended by Him healing so much.

He is not warning about being offended at His doctrine of sin or hell, but offended at Him freely giving so much good things to people with faith. This lines up with Paul’s definition in 1 Corinthians 2 that a message of wisdom for mature people is a message about freely receiving all the good things from God, and not a message about us sacrificing or giving. Immature and unspiritual people are offended at God freely giving good things. They are offended because they lack the intellectual aptitude and spiritual strengthen to freely receive healing, forgiveness, wealth and blessings. They then spend their time hindering God’s true children from receiving God good things out of spite and rebellion.

karsten-winegeart-HbDy6Jkqm0M-unsplash(cropped)

It is a confession of unbelief to say, “in my humanity I can’t.”

I read this today and had these thoughts.

“You have probably heard all your life that God won’t put any burden on you greater than you can bear. Don’t mark me off as a heretic just yet, but I don’t believe it. I believe that God will put heavier burdens on you than you can bear, especially when He is trying to bring you to the place of brokenness. God will allow the burden to be greater than you can bear so that you will finally allow Him to bear it for you. God’s purpose in the breaking process is to bring you to the end of your own resources so that you will be ready to understand that He is the only resource you need in life. As long as your own abilities are sufficient to rise to the challenge, you will never understand that He doesn’t just give strength. He is your Strength. In the breaking process, God has no intention of helping you get stronger. He wants you to become so weak that He can express Himself as the strength you need in every situation.”
-(Billy)

This is one of those statements that I agree with it (in part) because I understand what they mean, despite it not being said well, (I say this in a kind way, for I could be harsher with my criticism).

This answer is like the Reformed answer of compatableist, where it answers the question, by not directly dealing with the specific question, by answering another question, and then acting like they directly answered your question.

When the Paul says to the Corinthians that God will not tempt you beyond what you can endure, it is implied or presupposed you are under the grace, supply and power of God as a Christian. The Christian can take burdens that will kill non-Christians, such as an untreatable sickness. They can survive because they are already born-again and have faith. It does not necessarily mean they every Christian will always win, but that they have the tools and free supply from God to always be successful if they have faith.

Sickness can be a temptation to give into a sin of confessing unbelief. The non-Christian, has no hope, but the Christian can confess Isaiah 53:4 in faith.

I understand the idea of wanting to say “humanly, I can’t do this etc”.. and there is proper place to remind ourselves how we use to be before Jesus saved us. However, If you are a Christian you are not just a human any more, therefore it is a confession of unbelief to say “in my humanity I can’t,” as a correct statement about your present reality. If you are a Christian you are a new creation, a superior species. You are gods; you are a child of God who has God’s DNA in you. You do not have the right to see yourself as only human with human limitations. That old man is dead.

Are burdens too hard for God? Then they are not too hard for you. Are things impossible for God? Then they are not impossible for you. Even if God gives impossible temptations as burdens, then so what? All things are possible for those who believe. God is compassionate and knows if one of His children are weak on faith, and will help them mature. However, the way to grow from immature to maturity is seeing your high identity in God.

God does not want or send you weakness or sickness. Jesus died to free you from weakness and sickness, not give them to you. God sent His word, and healed them. The same for strength. God sends His word (not weakness) and by this we are made strong. Sure, if you are a disobedient child who refuses to be made strong by resting and receiving His Word, He might send Satan to make you weak, and by this cause you to do what you were suppose to do to begin with, which is rely on His Word in faith and by this be strong.

A person who only learns God is their strength by burdens and weakness is not a Christian by definition but a reprobate. A Christian learns God is their strength, ONLY and I mean only, by the Word of God and believing it. Experience is the worst teacher you can have. God’s word is only teacher for the Christian.

Jesus is the Vine, we are the branches. Jesus does not seen up weakness and sickness through the root to the branches, or is Jesus a minister of sickness and weakness and burdens? Not Jesus sends an unmerited and unending supply of righteousness, healing, joy, power, soundness of mind, strength, freedom and love. The Father prunes the branches. He does not give unfruitful branches and grafts them into us. No. We produce unfruitful branches and all the Father does is remove them, so that we can be more fruitful. God takes away burdens and weakness, by giving us freedom and strength. Being a branch grafted into Jesus the vine, is a reality for me; I do not go in and out of being one. I am citizen of heaven, without one line of a sinful record attached to my name. I am a child of God. I am heavenly royalty.

Let the weak say, “I am strong in the strength of the Lord (Eph 6:10.,” and that you always fill my heart with songs of deliverance (Psalm 32). Not that the weak, “will” be strong, but” now” is strong. Not that God is strong, but that in God, “I am” strong.

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.

cody-doherty-XkZIoiJV60Q-unsplash

Defining Epistemology

Defining Epistemology

By definition, of being a “STARTING point,” it cannot be deduced. Consider this from a 3 premise syllogism or chain syllogism. Where does the major premise come from that starts the argument? Or if we start with a syllogism and ask where does the major premise come from, one might say, “well it comes from this previous syllogism, or premise.” We can do this for a while, and we will have three options. The first, is to say it is an infinite regress. This ends up in skepticism, and thus denies the law of contradiction.[1] Second, is to say, “I do not know.” This seeming authentic answer hides the fact that you are really saying, “I know that I do not know.” This option is stupid and a self-contradiction, and thus, it has no existence. To know that we do not know is a contradiction. To be true, it must be false at the same time. It ends up in an infinite regress of affirming and denying the same thing.[2] This problem is not limited to thinking; rather, it has ontological implications as well. For example, try saying, “I do not exist”? “You” cannot do it without using “your” existence. This shows the ontological impossibility. That is, reality stops me from doing this contradiction. It does not, and cannot exist. A square circle does not exist in my mind or reality. The law of contradiction is not only a law of thinking, it is a law of reality. If you have a contradiction, you have something that has no existence. Such stupid, non-existence is to be dismissed and tossed in the recycle bins of our minds.

Now though these are called laws of thought, and in fact, we cannot think except in accordance with them, yet they are really statements which we cannot but hold true about things. We cannot think contradictory propositions, because we see that a thing cannot have at once and not have the same character; and the so-called necessity of thought is really the apprehension of a necessity in the being of things. This we may see if we ask what would follow, were it a necessity of thought only; for then, while e.g. I could not think at once that this page is and is not white, the page itself might at once be white and not be white. But to admit this is to admit that I can think the page to have and not have the same character, in the very act of saying that I cannot think it; and this is self-contradictory. The Law of Contradiction then is metaphysical or Ontological.[3]

Since the first & second options are a thinking and ontological impossibility, then consider the other. In this third option, if we keep going back, we must eventually hit the starting point or origin of knowledge. This starting point cannot be deduced, because it is a starting premise and not a conclusion.

There are some irrational comments about this floating around, for some anti-Christian commentaries say that a first principle is not “provable” in any sense. However, provable, in the context of philosophy, logic and doctrine has a strict meaning. It means a deduction. This is true, as far as it goes. However, just because something is not deducible does not mean it is not provable in the sense of giving a logical justification or warrant for why one should pick this first principle over all others.  For example, consider the aspect of the self-authenticating principle of the law of noncontradiction, that we just went over. It is not a deduction. It is not circular, because we never left from doing the law of noncontradiction.[4] Yet, it was justified as true because of its necessary and self-authenticating nature.

For a quick comment about this self-authentication of the LoC. It only works because we are only considering it on this narrow slice of reality, and we are ignoring some of the presuppositions that are needed to discuss this in the first place. For example, logic does not even give us knowledge about itself, because it is dealing with the structure of thought, and not the content (terms and premises) of thought. But more on this later.

And so, a worldview or system-of-thinking about the world, must start somewhere. The option of not knowing is implausible with reality. Thus, the next question is if your epistemology is a good one or a bad one. That is, does the starting point of your worldview make knowledge possible or not possible?

Some try to make this point vague or blur it by saying a worldview might be an interconnection of several starting points like a bridge with many supports. This appeal is a red-herring or sleight-of-hand fallacy, to divert attention away that their epistemology is in ruin. It is irrelevant, because even if so, some points would be more foundational than others; thus, if we were to discover one of these foundations were compromised, then the whole structure would fail.

For example, if one attempted to make a dual epistemology with the Scripture and something else “x,” and this “x,” was shown to be faulty, then it would falsify the scripture, which was said to have taught this hybrid epistemology.

Additionally, if one wishes to claim more than one starting point for knowledge, then if one of the epistemologies (K) makes a judgement about one of the other epistemologies (B bible), then in fact this (K) is a higher or more foundational starting point. It is the true starting point that judges the others. If empiricism (or my observations and emotions, or skin color (etc)) gives me additional knowledge that I use to judge the Bible, (if the Bible is correct on this point or that point), then empiricism is a higher starting point over the Bible. Empiricism would be my major premise in a syllogism.

In the quote below, Vincent is using the term “worldview,” but the context is relating more directly to the first principles or the presuppositional level of worldviews. His context is about “how a starting point is completely true versus only partly,” but the overall point addresses our present topic.

Suppose a given system of thought includes the following propositions: (1) X is a man, and (2) X is an accountant. If, in reality, (1) is true but (2) is false, how will a person know to affirm (1) and deny (2), unless he is already acquainted with X? Unless the system is completely true (or false), there is no way to tell which proposition is true (or false) without importing knowledge from outside of the system, and if one imports knowledge from outside of the system, then he would be evaluating the system in question by the second system from which he has gained the knowledge to evaluate the first.

That is, if worldview A is not complete true or false, then there is nothing within worldview A by which we can accurately judge a particular proposition within worldview A as true or false. If we bring in something that we know from worldview B by which we judge something within worldview A, then we are making worldview B to stand in judgment over worldview A. But if one has already obtained knowledge that is accurate, relevant, and extensive enough from worldview B by which to evaluate worldview A, then he cannot meaningfully learn anything from worldview A. He is judging it, not learning from it.[5]

To summarize, even in a so-called multi-structure of starting points, there will be one that is more foundational, and that stands first above the others to judge and evaluate them.  The question is, if the starting point of your philosophy makes any knowledge possible? If not, then not only do you not have a worldview to discuss, you do not even have the knowledge to discern “if cats are planets” and “if rocks are clouds.” You have nothing.

END NOTES

[1] This impossibility of infinite regress will rear its ugly head when dealing with other ontological issues, such as if matter always existed. It is not impossible to progress forwards in time for infinity; however, if matter was eternal, then today would have never reached. You cannot say ‘matter has existed for an unreachable amount of time,’ to then say, ‘it has now reached today’. As said before, a contradiction has no existence. How stupid men become when suppressing God’s truth.

[2] To affirm the proposition, “Adam is a man” (X), is to deny the contradictory proposition, “Adam is not a man” (Y, or not-X). Likewise, to affirm the proposition, “Adam is not a man” (Y), is to deny the contradictory proposition, “Adam is a man” (X). Now, to affirm both “Adam is a man” (X) and “Adam is not a man” (Y) is only to deny both propositions in reverse order. That is, it is equivalent to denying “Adam is not a man” (Y) and “Adam is a man” (X). But then we are back to affirming the two propositions in reverse order again. When we affirm both, we deny both; when we deny both, we affirm both.

Therefore, there is no intelligible meaning in affirming two contradictory propositions. It is to say nothing and to believe nothing.

-Vincent Cheung. Systematic Theology. 2010. Pg. 21

[3] H.W.B. Joseph. 1906. An introduction to LOGIC. Pg.13

[4] “Think about this. If the law of contradiction is the “ultimate” or foundational law of logic, then how can we prove the law of contradiction? Can you prove it without using it? If you can, then the law of contradiction would necessarily be a secondary law. But if you must use it to prove it, then are you being circular? Where is the circle? For something to circle back, you need to move away from it first, but how can you depart from the law of contradiction, so that you can circle back to it to make the fallacy happen? If you can understand this, then you can apply it to biblical apologetics. The only difference is that the law of contradiction has no content, so it is less likely to confuse you. But the principle is the same.”

Vincent Cheung. From his blog post in http://www.vincentcheung.wordpress.com. Sept. 2016.

[5] Vincent Cheung. The Light of Our Minds. 2004. Pg 36 (www.vincentcheung.com)

clem-onojeghuo-CJtNSIOicD0-unsplash

There Is No Essential “Me” Left

To sound pious one fool quoted Romans 7 where Paul says, “in me nothing good lives,” to suggest that Christians cannot look inward to see glory, honor, righteousness and immortality.  

First Paul was referring to a hypothetical typical Jew, and not to himself after being born from above. Mistaking this for Paul after being re-created in the image of Jesus Christ has caused destructive conclusions and blasphemies.

Second, their conclusion is “apart from God, there is nothing good in me.” There is a serious problem with this.  Since “my” inner man is born-from-above and the image of Jesus, and “my” mind is the Mind of Christ, then apart from God, there is no essential “me” left. My old-man is dead, and no longer my identity. This does not mean I live in pragmatic sinlessness, but that my definition and reality is spiritual, divine, and holy. Example, apart from God upholding my body into existence, with the exception of my socks, I have nothing left. The clothes on my body is not my identity or definition. And so, if God destroyed me right now, except my socks, I have nothing essential of my identity and definition left.

Likewise, Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 3 about the fire burring away things not built upon Christ. These dead works are not part of my essential definition and new creation in Christ. Thus, they can be burnt away, and I am still fully “me” and not half of me.

If you have any essential anything that is not your identity being the nature of God and the Mind of Christ, then you are not saved.

If you have been re-created in God’s nature and the Mind of Christ and out of your belly is flowing rivers of living waters, then if you look inward, you will see glory of the image of Jesus. The only way for this not to be true, is if your identity has not been re-created in a new, heavenly reality.

Your inner-man is a new reality, your outer tent that clothes your inner-man, the flesh, and its attraction to empiricism/emotions is not your essential reality. It is secondary, dead, and wasting away. To define “yourself” by the old-man as your essential identity is to define “you” as the old-man, and thus “you” cannot be a new reality in Christ.

To glorify God for the power of the gospel, you must look inward and see “you” as a new divine creature, a superior species, a child of God, being birthed with His nature as your nature. You cannot diminish this reality without destroying the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 The gospel is not too good to be true. It is very believable because God says it true, and God is trustworthy. Satan and the old-man are liars. God tells you the truth. He tells you correct definitions about reality. Emotions are a lair. God describes reality as it truly is.

agung-raharja-RSwyYi7h8gA-unsplash

A Superior Species

We declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden
and that God destined for our glory
.
1 Corinthians 2:7

Its all fun, joy and praises when I mention we need to glorify God, praise Him, give Him all the credit, and extol His Name above all others, and this is as it ought to be. However, once I mention how highly God has exalted man as a superior species in Christ, then I am attacked. The reason for this is the church being under the oppression of tradition and false humility. People are stuck at the doorway of forgiveness, being centered on their sin; they are centered on themselves.  This doorway into the next life, is so precious and magnificent that they remine there. They never truly inter in the glory and privilege of being children of God. They never experienced what it means to be child and sit at the table of their beloved Father.

The Logic of Denying the Consequent is used throughout the Scripture. If there is a logical necessary connection from the antecedent to the consequent, then if you deny the consequent, you deny the antecedent. The part that makes this work is if the connection is necessary and not merely sufficient. Ultimately, this means it must be a truth, but only God is able to reveal truths. However, since the scripture gives us truth and uses this logic, then so will we.

For example,

Galatians 3:18, “For if the inheritance is of the law, [then] it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”

M.1. (P) If inheritance if of the law, (~Q) then inheritance is not by promise.
M.2. ~(~Q) It is by promise.
M.3. ~(P) Thus, inheritance is not by the law.

This example is given to lead to our present subject. If you deny the consequences of man’s highly exalted position produced by Jesus’ atonement, then you deny the atonement. There is no way around this.

Does Jesus sit in the heavenly places?
So does man (Ep. 2:6, Col. 3:1-3).

Is Jesus blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places?
So is man (1:3).

Does Jesus have the Mind of Jesus?
So does man (1 Corinthians 2:16).

Was the gospel predestined for the glory of God?
Yet, it was also predestined for the glory of man (1 Corinthians 2:7)

Does Jesus have direct access to the Father?
So does man (Hebrews 4:16, 10:19)

Is Jesus heir of the world?
So is man (Romans 4:13).

Does everything belong to Jesus, including time?
It also belongs to man ( 1 Corin. 3:23).

Does Jesus have the intellectual and ethical power to judge all things?
So does man ( 1 Corin. 2:15)

Jesus is the only begotten son of God, but in this context, I ask, is Jesus a child of God?
Yet, so is man (1 John 3:1,9, 4:13)

Is creation liberated into the liberty of God?
Yet, it is also liberated into the glorious liberty of man (Romans 8:21).

How glorious and valuable is the resurrected Jesus Christ?
Man also has this glory and image (Romans 8:30)

Did Jesus have the fullness of the Spirit of God on earth? (Acts 10:38)
So does man (Acts 1:1-8)

Does Jesus dwell in the house of God?
So does man (John 14:1-3)

Does God judge Angels?
So does man (1 Corinth. 6:3)

The same love the Father has loved Jesus, Jesus loves man. (John 15:9)

The same love the Father loves Jesus, the Father loves man. (John 17:23

The same glory the Father gave Jesus, Jesus gives this glory to man. (John 17:22)

The same Spirit of God, who knows God exactly (because it is God’s Spirit), God has given to us, so that we have the Mind of Christ.

If we deny pantheism (as the bible does), then we must affirm, as the Scripture does that God does these glorious thing to man, not Himself. When Peter says to humble yourself under God’s hand, he says God will exalt “you” and not Himself.  It was Jesus, who created all things and sustains all things by His power, who said, “give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” If this is so for a pagan, how much more is this true for all thing magnificent things God as given His children.

God promised to make Abraham’s name great and famous. Abraham became excessively rich and defeated a combination of many armies. Even to this very day Abraham is sung in the songs of millions and millions of Christians. Even in Heaven Abraham is famous (Matthew 8:11). The promise was to make His friend’s name great, not His, and it happened just as God said. God made Moses like a God to Israel and Pharaoh. God promised to do the same for Joshua, by making him great in the eyes of Israel. It was never recorded that Jesus was teleported by the Spirit, but this glory was given to a man, a table bearer named Philip.

To diminish the glory of man, particularly the born-from-above man, is to diminish the glory of God, because God said He has greatly exalted and glorified man through Jesus Christ. It would be to say God is defective and stupid at accomplishing His desires. To trample on the glory, fame and exaltation God has given His chosen ones is to trample on the blood of Jesus Christ as a common and ineffectual thing.

We are part of Abraham’s blessing, fame and glory (Gal. 3-4).

God does not mind sharing His glory, authority and power, for example, with His friend Abraham or giving the disciples 12 thrones, and all saints the inheritance of being His children; however, what God will not share is the credit and praise that belongs only to Him for all the good things He predestined for our value. Praise and credit is one type of glory (there are many types of glory), however, this type of glory, God will not share. Herod learned this the difficult way. Fame, power, favor, thrones, an eternal name, riches God has no issue lavishing these glories on His friends and children.

God has made us a superior species in Jesus Christ. Any denial of the unmeasurable magnitude of this reality is a denial of the gospel and blood of Jesus. There is no risk of pride, for we know God has give all these things to us by unmerited favor and mercy. Jesus loved us to the point of the cross. To accomplish these great things for us He was nailed to our curses. However, by the magnificent promises of God we partake of the divine nature itself. It is our new identity. We are glad to recognize this and praise God for eternity. We are filled with inexpressible joy for all the good things God as lavished so freely upon us. Oh, what great love this is, that God calls us His highly beloved children.

The Path of Faith & the Spirit

It just dawned on me, that when I learned about (or that God personally taught me) God’s sovereignty and occasionalism and decrees, was when I was a teenage and had never heard of John Calvin or any reformation. It was a time I was praying in tongues and experiencing the anointing presence of God, and often hearing prophecy in my church. It was in this environment God revealed to me these doctrines from His word, without any man involved. The Spirit taught me these doctrines; no man or system or book did. It was in the power of the Spirit I learned them.

I now see how the evil one took advantage of my overall ignorance and immaturity to lead me to the reformed world to try and snuff this out with unbelief (and contradictive theology). I thanked God I never stopped my belief in faith and the Spirit, but it was being chocked by an onslaught of unbelief material. I was deceived to think reformed material would help me fight sin, when it was the very thing weakening my ablity to fight.  I thought Reformed doctrine would not only give me some more knowledge but help with things such fighting besetting sin. Oh boy, was I wrong.

God in His kindness did not forget me. I was in the middle of transcribing Jonathan Edward sermons for Yale University, and even asked by John Piper’s team for possible collaborations, that the Spirit of God overwhelmed me in my house and I fell to the ground. I felt a hand touch my back and I heard Jesus say to me 3 times. “Oshea I love you, and I have forgiven you of all your sins.” I was then aware that despite all the reformed theology I was reading it was not translating into inner growth and faith. In my heart I wanted out, but didn’t know how. I knew something was wrong.

I few years later Vincent Cheung began his transition to faith and inner strength and God worked on my heart to completely leave the reformed world and showed me a better way. I saw that the way of faith and the Spirit was always the good path, the right path. It is a path that will cause God to stop and boast about you, exalt you and uplift you. It is a path that will fill you with joy, power and glory.

Basic doctrines like God’s sovereignty, occasionalism, and the eternal decrees is child level easy to understand, and no one should boast about understanding it as a great intellectual feat. Faith and miracles is something to boast about; indeed, even God will boast about you if you have faith.

Suggested reading:
God Will Boast About You.

clay-banks-R9zE2mTAqs8-unsplash

Only Believe

“Do not fear; only believe, and she will be well.”
– Jesus

Faith and fear do not exist in the same place together. This is why Jesus said, “only believe.” Some have a mixture of faith and fear, and thus, their faith is not pure and only partial. Partial faith will get partial results, because of God kindness. However, if you want true success in miracles, then do not fear, but “only believe.”

kelly-sikkema-FqqaJI9OxMI-unsplash

A Disciplined Son, Sitting In His Room, In His Father’s House

What is the fear of the Lord? The fear of the lord is defined by its context. At times is simply means to worship the lord, as Jesus quotes to the devil. But at times it means awful dread of judgment. And lastly it can mean, as a legitimate son, to fear the discipline (not condemnation) of your father.

Vincent Cheung writes regarding a besetting sin,

It is good that instead of excusing yourself, you admit your sin and you are taking it seriously. Even if the sin persists, remember to never lose this – never begin to make excuses or to think that it is not a sin.

It is correct that true faith in Jesus Christ leads to holiness. However, a stubborn sin – or two or three – can tend to capture our attention to the exclusion of other aspects of our lives. When you take your entire life into account, is the basic disposition toward holiness? Is there an overall growth in knowledge, reverence, purity, and good works? If so, then this is consistent with a genuine faith in Christ. Instead of allowing a stubborn sin to become a stumbling block for your whole faith, you should consider the fact of your continuing growth in Christ to draw strength and encouragement in the ongoing battle against the remaining evil… So even if you draw on the strength and pressure of a Christian community, see to it that your main focus remains on Jesus Christ. He is the sole Mediator, the Lord of the conscience, and the Shepherd of your soul.[1]

“Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a huge crowd of witnesses to the life of faith, let us strip off every weight that slows us down, especially the sin that so easily trips us up. And let us run with endurance the race God has set before us. 2 We do this by keeping our eyes on Jesus, the champion who initiates and perfects our faith…
7 As you endure this divine discipline, remember that God is treating you as his own children. Who ever heard of a child who is never disciplined by its father? 8 If God doesn’t discipline you as he does all of his children, it means that you are illegitimate and are not really his children at all. 9 Since we respected our earthly fathers who disciplined us, shouldn’t we submit even more to the discipline of the Father of our spirits, and live forever?[g]
10 For our earthly fathers disciplined us for a few years, doing the best they knew how. But God’s discipline is always good for us, so that we might share in his holiness. 11 No discipline is enjoyable while it is happening—it’s painful! But afterward there will be a peaceful harvest of right living for those who are trained in this way,”
(Hebrews 12:1-3,7-11. NLT)

“Then Jesus answered, “Will you really lay down your life for me? Very truly I tell you, before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times!
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God[a]; believe also in me.  My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?  And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.  You know the way to the place where I am going,”
(John 13:38, 14:1-4. NIV)

“He will judge everyone according to what they have done.  He will give eternal life to those who keep on doing good, seeking after the glory and honor and immortality that God offers.”
(Romans 2:6-7 NLT)

“But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord,”
1 Corinthians 1:30-31.

So right after Jesus tells Peter that Peter will betray Him (people have forfeited their souls for less), Jesus says not to worry, but remember He is preparing a room in His Father’s house for all the disciples, including Peter.

Peter did suffer the disgrace and sorrow for what he, but Jesus restored him, and Peter upon receiving this freely given love, freely gave it back to the brethren by strengthen them.  Peter never stopped from having a room in the Father’s house.

When I was disciplined by my parents, my mom would make me wait in my room for my dad to come and give me a spanking. As Hebrews 12 says, discipline is not pleasant. How obvious this is. It is proper to “fear” the unpleasantness of discipline. The point to remember is this, it is discipline, and not condemnation. For those in Christ Jesus we never fear condemnation, because Jesus was already condemned in our place. [2] This is a fear a Christian should never experience, and any voice or feeling that says otherwise is a lie from Satan. Our judgment has already happened. Only grace and life are before us. It is a bight day, today in Christ. It is a brilliant future.

However, I want to bring your attention to this aspect.  I waited for my dad’s discipline, in my “room” in my “father’s house.” Think about that. The same is for our heavenly Father. For all those truly born-from-above, we never leave our Father’s house. Even if we wait for discipline, we wait as sons, in the safety of our own rooms.  And even in the extreme example of the parodical son, when the son left his room on his own, the father’s always had a room waiting for the son’s return.

Any discipline is to help you mature as a son. That is, the good things you are seeking, such as blessings, health, prosperity (etc.) God our Father wants to give this to us, more than we want to receive it. We are already in Christ, righteous in God’s sight, reconciled and co-heirs with Jesus. By faith, at any time we can approach God’s throne; our sins do not negate this. However, if our sin is to often or too big, it can hinder our conscience to be sin focused and not righteousness focus, and this will hinder our faith, and this will hinder us freely receiving all the good things from our Father. God’s discipline for His sons, is not to remake us as sons because our sins stopped us from being sons; no, our Father desires to mature us to understand we are beloved sons through Jesus and on this foundation, in faith freely receive the good things promised us. God wants to give more than you want to receive.

When we are sick, we need to have a relentless focus on our healing, on the word of God about healing day and night. We are not to focus on our sickness, we are to focus on the healing already accomplished by Jesus in His finished atonement. We are not to focus on the pain, but the how much God loves us and wants our healing more than we want it. Sickness is from the devil, it is a curse of the law and Jesus started to demolish it in His ministry and has commanded all His disciples to continue this battle. We are commanded to have faith to be healed.

The same for sanctification, even in besetting sins. We need to have a relentless focus on our righteousness in God, and not our sin. Hebrews 12 in context about the sins that so easily ensures us, says to focus on Jesus who began and will strengthen our faith. The application is obvious. We do not focus on what our eyes see, or minds feel, or body experiences; rather, we focus on all the promises of God that are yes through Jesus Christ. We focus day and night that we are the righteousness of God in Jesus, that we are children of God, beloved and reconciled once and for all time. We can march into the throne of heaven at any time and place to ask and receive from Almighty God, as dear children.  We need to see that even all our future sins are forgiven, forgotten and gone. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1 that not only did Jesus become our righteousness for us, but also our “sanctification.” Jesus did not only start our faith, but He will be faithful, (not you), HE will be faithful to mature and finish our faith. In blood, Jesus promises in the New Contract, that God will write His laws on our minds so that we love God, by obeying His commands. This was not your promise to God, but God’s promise to you. The Father pointed to His Jesus’ bloody corpse and said on that day, I promise I will cause you to love Me. This is love, not that we loved God, but that God so loves us that He sent His son to be a wrath appeasing atonement for us. The old man has already died, and the new man is already here. We are free from the law of sin and death and now we reign in this life through Jesus Christ.

This does not diminish our sickness by focusing on our healing promised in Jesus, instead of the pain, but is obedience to focus on what God tells us to focus on. The same for sin and righteousness. It is obedience to focus on our righteousness, sonship and value in Christ and not sin conscience.  Psalm 1 says you will have success in all that you do if you think on God’s word day and night. We know the way. It is Jesus. It is a relentless focus on our beloved identity in Him, and that all the good promises are our definition and yes through Jesus.

ENDNOTES

[1] Vincent Cheung. Habitual Sin. Sermonettes Vol. 6. 2012. Pg.81.

[2] Now, if you are in extreme, gross sin (there are degrees of sin), it is not wrong to remember the dread of condemnation, in the sense that Paul says, check and see if your election is sure; yet, these are extremes that most Christians should not relate to (2 Corinth. 11:20-22, 27, “guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.”). Yet, even in this extreme, God killed them with sickness before they could forfeit their salvation. And yet, in this extreme James 5:15 still applies, “Such a prayer offered in faith will heal the sick, and the Lord will make you well. And if you have committed any sins, you will be forgiven,” NLT. God wants you to prosper.