Tag Archives: healling

Empowered by the Spirit to Shine God’s Salvation to THE END OF THE EARTH

“And he says,
“It is trivial for you to be a servant for me,
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to bring back the preserved of Israel.
I will give you as a light to the nations,
to be my salvation to the end of the earth.””
(Isaiah 49:6 LEB)

Notice the last phrase, “THE END OF THE EARTH.”

This passage is directly about Jesus, God’s servant who would redeem and save His people. However, take special notice how both the apostle Paul and Jesus Christ use this passage of Scripture. They both quote it in the book of Acts, and both use it to refer to the church and not merely about Jesus. That is, Jesus through His redeemed church, will shine the Father’s salvation to the end of the earth.

First Paul.

“For so the Lord has commanded us,

‘I have placed You as a light for the Gentiles,
That You may bring salvation to THE END OF THE EARTH.’”
(Acts 13: 47 LSB)

Paul says that God commanded him and his ministry team, on the basis of Isaiah 49:6 to preach the gospel to all who will listen. How can this be, if the passage was about Jesus. The church is one body with Jesus. Jesus prays in John 17, in more than one way, that as the Father and Jesus is one, that the church be made one in Jesus. Jesus working through the Church, is Jesus working.

Next, we will see how Jesus command this passage for all disciples, and then ‘how’ this will happen.

“But [Jesus] said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father has set by His own authority;
but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to THE END OF THE EARTH.”
(Acts 1:7-8 LSB)

Jesus say it is by the baptism of the Holy Spirit that his followers will fulfill His command to expand His light to the end of the earth. In the next chapter, when the Baptism of the Spirit arrived, the Apostles only made up a small percentage. Thus, we are shown His baptism and command extends to all Jesus followers.

Three things. One, this gives proof that baptism of the Spirit is for all, for Jesus connects TO THE END OF THE EARTH kingdom expansion to the baptism of the Spirit.

Second, as long as this command stands, to obey God by expanding His salvation to the ends of the earth, the baptism of the Spirit still stands.

Third, without the baptism of the Spirit, one cannot obey this command to shine God’s salvation to THE END OF THE EARTH.

Matthew 4 shows something similar. Isaiah 9 is quoted about a light shining in Capernaum. Well, what happened in Matthew 4 and in Capernaum? Jesus is led by the Spirit to be tempted and filled by the Spirit for ministry. Jesus started His ministry only after He was empowered by the Spirit. Jesus said that He cast out demons by the “power of the Spirit” and not merely by His Son of God authority.  After this anointing of the Spirit for ministry, Jesus goes to Capernaum to (1) preach repentance and to (2) heal the sick. It is in this context that Isaiah is quoted by saying a “Great Light has Dawned.”

Thus, Jesus Christ “great light shining” is summed up with being empowered by the Spirit, preaching and healing the sick. Jesus’ command for His redeemed followers is the exact same thing. They are commanded to be baptized in the power of the Spirit, to preach and heal the sick.

The same thing He did, and the same way He did it.

Scripture: Sufficient to Condemn John MacArthur & Justin Peters

Justin Peters recently had an interview with John MacArthur. They touched on the subject of faith and miracles.

The first thing MacArthur says about the Charismatics is that their miracle seeking is “doubt looking for proof” and “looking for a sign to validate it.”

This is calling good is evil, and evil is good. It is saying black is white and white is black. This is a slight of hand fallacy to shift blame from oneself to something else. In the bible it was not those doing miracles and seeking to do more miracles, that Jesus said, “an evil generation seeks a sign,” it was said against those who did believe or do miracles and were asking Jesus and His followers to perform more signs for them. MacArthur and Peters are the same Pharisees today. They do not believe, and they are the ones who keep asking for a sign, (which is empirical evidence) to give proof if a doctrine is true for false. The Charismatic already believe, they do not seek signs, just as much as Jesus and the New Testament church did not seek signs, because they already believed. Paul said that Jesus was raised, not on empirical evidence, but because the Scripture’s say so. Empirical evidence can never give proof if any biblical doctrine is true or false; it cannot give a truth claim about any aspect of reality. People who ask for a sign, not only show them selves to be spiritual perverts and unbelieving, it shows they commit spiritual harlotry with empiricism as a starting point of knowledge over Scripture. Thus, when they say, “solo scriptura” what they really means is “solo empiricism,” or “sola David Hume.”

I would recommend these essays by Vincent Chung for more reading on this issue of who is really seeking a sign, and who is not. (I am not affiliated with Cheung, only recommending his material). The reformed have it in reverse order. Their doctrine is a 180 contradiction to scriptural doctrine.

The Sign of Jonah

Signs of an Apostle

The Miracle Majority

Behold, I Give You Power

Another issue brought up was the sufficiency of Scripture. I agree it is an important issue but for the opposite reason they state.  Peters said, “a growing battle today is not inerrancy of the Bible but the sufficiency of the Bible.” MacArthur then responds, “The bible gives you everything.” Other things don’t give you this such as, “philosophy or politics, or waiting around for a prophecy.”

Interestingly, considering how sufficient the bible is, the remark is then given by Peters, “the charismatic prophets do not have a good track record.” Yet, this is an appeal to a human starting point (empiricism)(& the fallacy of attacking the person not the argument). What it is not, is an appeal to the “sufficiency of bible,” and the Bible as their epistemology. Like I said before, ‘solo scriptura’ really means, ‘solo empiricism.’ It is a natural reflex for them to be stupid and sinful by appealing to empiricism rather than the Scripture, because they are reprobates. This is who they really are. They are men centered on men.

With a straight faces similar people have asked me, “why do we not see so many miracles today, unless God does not want it?” They are like the people from Jesus’ hometown who said, “This is Joseph’s and Mary’s son,” and then in unbelief demand He prove by miracles who He claims to be. But their unbelief made that impossible. These peers did not start with God’s revelation; rather, their starting point for knowledge was their human observations. Scripture records it was due to their lack of faith, and not the lack of Jesus being willing and able to heal. With such people I am asking myself, what happen to starting with God’s revelation for knowledge? Where did God go? Why is it so automatic for them to start with a “human” speculation and “human” superstition?

If they only mean to do a personal attack (a logical fallacy) by saying, “Oshea (or Johnny), how many miracles have you done,” then why do they default to argumentation that the politicians use?  Is it because politicians are such good examples for how to argue for truth?

They are like the religious leaders who slapped Jesus and demanded He prove His claim as God by prophesying. They harlot themselves with David Hume’s empiricism in the open streets, and then march back in their pulpits, and after wiping off their sweaty faces, they say with a straight face, “solo scriptura.”  Maybe if they could stop humping on empiricism for just a few seconds, they might wake up and realize the disgrace they are committing against their own souls, and against those who hear them.

For a detailed explanation for how Scripture is sufficient to condemn Peters and MacArthur read the following essays.

Scripture: Sufficient Against Cessationism

Prehistoric Orthodoxy

Lastly, MacArthur responds with this,

If God gave miraculous gifts, why would He give it to people with such bad theology?”

I remember a quote from Vincent Cheung that gives a reason why God does such things.

“Christian ministers who teach this are often far from perfect, and subject to many criticisms, but this does not invalidate the point. Why do you think God allows many of these teachers to be so flawed and unrefined? He places a stumbling block to trip up those who walk in religious pride, who thumb their noses at those who do not present the promises of God in the way they like. God will put his blessings right in front of them, and they will fail to receive. This is his way to withhold the gospel from the unbelieving and hard-hearted.”[1]

——END NOTES——-

[1] Vincent Cheung. “God’s Extravagant Blessings.” Fulcrum. 2017 pg.33

Think On These Things: Think on Healing & Miracles

“Finally, brothers, whatever things are true, whatever things are honorable, whatever things are right, whatever things are pure, whatever things are pleasing, whatever things are commendable, if there is any excellence of character and if anything, praiseworthy, think about these things. And the things which you have learned and received and heard about and seen in me, practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you,”
Philippians 4:8-9 LEB.

Thoughts of sickness are a lie against the promise of God; thoughts of sickness are not honorable, not right and they are not pure of heart. Thoughts of sickness are not pleasing, and not commendable. They are not excellence of character and or praiseworthy.

Thoughts of Healing are an agreement that the promises of God are true. They are honorable. Thoughts of healing are right, are pure and pleasing. Thoughts of healing are commendable, and they are excellence of character. Thoughts of healing are praiseworthy.

Does this sound strange to you? If it does you are out of touch with reality; you do not know God, the gospel or scripture.

Healing is part of the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ, (Isaiah 53:4, Matthew 8:17); it is by biblical definition part of the gospel. The gospel is good, it is trustworthy, praiseworthy, excellent, and so forth.

Sin is not good, not praiseworthy, not excellent and so forth. For a Christian forgiveness of all their sins by Jesus’ finished work is a stepping stone; a doorway into the next life. To stay at this doorway, means you do not believe you are forgiven, which is why you never enter into or believe the gospel. The only correct way for a Christian to think of sin, is being already judged and buried in Jesus’ death. Sin, death and judgment are behind the Christian. Value, unmerited favor and joy is before the Christian. Hebrews 10:2-3 says that the Old Testament yearly sacrifices reminded the minds and thoughts of the practitioners of their sin. The writer of Hebrews says this was not a good thing for the mind to be reminded of our sins. To be reminded of ones sins, if you are indeed forgiven, is not excellent or praiseworthy. They were reminded of their sins, because Christ had not yet come. Hebrews later states that Jesus once and for all removes our sins from us. The pragmatic implication is that our minds and thoughts are not reminded about or sins; rather, we are reminded of our new identity in Christ. We are the righteousness of God and co-heirs with Jesus. By His great love we are children of God.  Thus, it is not a good thing to be mindful and dwell on your sins. You are to be renewed by thinking about Jesus, and who are “presently” in Him. This is praiseworthy and excellent.

Paul says in Romans 6 we are to assent that we were buried in Jesus’ death. Our sin, by His atonement, was dealt with and buried. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 5, that we at one time knew Jesus from a human point of view, but we do NOT know Him this way any longer.  He is on the throne, ruling and pouring out the baptism of the Spirit. Our thoughts are to be on this present reality of Jesus. Paul extends this to us. The old man is gone, with all our sin and judgment for that sin. Our new creation is our present reality, and this is where our thoughts ought to be. Thus to “think on these things,” is not thinking about our sin, but how righteous God sees us as. God interacts with us, as the righteousness of God.

The pragmatic application is if your circumstances or Satan tries to remind you of your sins, you are not indulge this temptation by thinking about your sins; rather, you are put off this old-man way of thinking, and put on the new-man, who thinks about how completely forgiven he is and how boldly he can march into the throne room of God and ask and receive.

The same is true for healing and sickness. Sickness is part of curses of Adam and of the Law (Deut. 28). Jesus, by substitutionary atonement, became our curses. Jesus was nailed to our curses of sickness. Even when leapers who needed to be healed, under the Law, a blood sacrifice was given. Healing is shown under the Law, that a substitutionary sacrifice is needed. Jesus was our substitutionary sacrifice to redeem us from all sickness.  Isaiah 53:4 says Jesus “bore” (same word for the substitution atonement for the escape goat in Lev. 16) sickness and pains.[1]

Curses are not honorable, excellence, praiseworthy, etc. And yet, sickness is a curse.

Sickness is a curse; it is not excellent. Sickness is a curse; it is not praiseworthy. Sickness is a curse; it is not honorable. Sickness is a curse; it is not “true” regarding what God has promised.

When tempted by circumstances and the devil to keep rehearsing your sickness over and over in your mind, do not sin by doing this; rather, be obedient and put on the new-man who thinks on the finished work of Jesus who bore all your sickness and pains, who was nailed to your sickness and how these died with Him, on His body, so that you are freed and released from all of them. God is for your body, so much so, He made it part of the gospel. He is the God who heals you.

To indulge on thoughts of your sins or sickness is in direct disobedience of the Scripture commanding us to “think on these things.” Rejoice! You are commanded to think on righteousness, healing, blessings, miracles, peace with God, Joy and unending unmerited favor upon you.  Rejoice.

[1] For more see, Christ our Healer. FF Bosworth.

God will boast about you!

I do not know you and so I will keep my thoughts on a basic level.

I will pray for you.

I am glad to hear you know your wrongs and desire to correct them. This self-awareness and disposition of your soul, about your mistakes and seeking God for help and restoration is something you must not lose, at all costs. This is a must have for proof you are saved.

If you read my essay, “God Rekindles Smoldering Wicks,” you know I once struggled with deep depression and came close to suicide. I know what it is to have a battle within the soul. I talked about having a relentless focus on God and His promises and His positive definition of me as a child of God in His Son. I still go over the promise verses listed there, almost daily. I make them my daily food. This was Vincent’s basic advice to me and it was great advice. I also take the Lord’s Supper almost daily in worship. I read faith devotions and materials, a few times daily.

And this brings me to my next point. Although I quote Vincent Cheung often, what got me out of my pit, had nothing to do with being a good little Clark or Cheung. Your statement about being a “good little Clark,” concerns me. It seems you being centered on “men” rather than “God,” is more natural for you. You might want to disagree with me on this, but in my experience people who say what you did, are in fact centered more on man than God. I am not saying you are unsaved by this, but that, at the very least, the natural tendency of your mind is not going to God first. If you want out of the pit, you must put off this old man, that thinks of man, and put on the new man, that is renewed by putting a mind that first thinks and sees yourself as a child of God standing in the very throne room of Yahweh. It must become secondhand nature for you to see yourself as a prince who belongs in the throne room of God your Father.

When I was getting out of the pit, I did not think of Vincent or Clark or any man. I pounded my mind with the word of God, and from this foundation began to pray in line with who God says I am, and all the good things He has blessed me with. Also having spiritual strength and faith to command demonic attacks and oppressive thoughts to leave is important, if that is how the evil one is attacking you. I could have memorized all that Vincent Cheung has ever wrote, but when I approach God in prayer, it means nothing. What matters are the promises of God and taking an immovable stance on them. When I approach the holy throne of God, what matters, is that I see myself as the righteousness of God, in Christ, so that this throne is a throne of grace and favor for me. Vincent, Clark, nor any man can help me or do this for me; they cannot do this for you either. When I approach God, I am clothed with the precious righteousness of Jesus Christ, who loves me. This is my faith, my hope and my shout of victory as I stand in the presence of God, asking for help. You should get to a point when standing in front of God, in His majestic throne room, before the elders, saints and angels, is more natural and reflexive than approaching any man.

Both in a divine trance/vison God gave me, and from advice from Vincent Cheung, I had to make a change to study more faith-based materials and devotionals and less theology. I needed to work on inner Spiritual strength more than going deeper in theology. I still study theology (and everyone is commanded by God to pursue theology), but my greater focus is inner strength now.

Systematic Theology is easy. Seriously, is it super easy! (This doesn’t mean there is no single point where it can be a little complicated). The older I get the more I realize this. Once I got it, I know it, and no one or demon can take it from me. God’s absolute and direct sovereignty over all things, is a child’s doctrine. Men ought not to boast about understanding it, as if it is a big accomplishment.

Faith is another issue. If you have faith to move mountains, then like the people mentioned in Hebrews 11, you are a man whom the world was not worthy to have known. That is worth boasting about! Like the gentile woman (or the Roman Centurion) who had with faith when Jesus sad it was not God’s will to heal her, but she took it anyway, God will publicly praise you! With faith, God will boast about you! Think about that. Rather than you wasting time boasting about men, with faith, God will use His time to boast about you. If you truly want God’s praise more than men, take an indomitable stance on faith. God’s approval, is the only type of praise that you should seek. Be a hero of faith.

Everyday I read devotions from those infamous health and wealth (word of faith) preachers, that everyone makes fun of. I obviously do not recommend them for overall Systematic Theology (for that see Vincent Cheung), but for basics of faith in God’s promises, I would recommend them to all. They are the only ones out there who obey and respect God by taking those promises of faith, deliverance, healing and material blessing with any kind of seriousness.

Vincent recommended me to leave my Reformed church, focus on spiritual strength with God’s word and faith-based devotions, and this was in addition to a divine vision I received from God about this. I encourage you to do the same. Even though this is not directly about how to deal with the immoral sin you committed, broadly speaking, it will be the way out of the pit. It will keep you out of the pit. It will even thrust you on top of the mountain of God, where God takes you by the hand and delivers you from all your troubles. God wants to do this. He said so. He promised it. He made all those wonderful promises and in blood ensures us He will always perform them, because He wanted to.

The promises are your definition. Listen carefully to me on this. God’s promises are not suggestions, they are in essence a technical definition of God’s children. They are you!

If turn your mind to this, so that these promises (definitions of you) are second nature to your thoughts, you will find yourself standing beside God on mount. Zion, looking down on all your troubles.  Turn you mind to the Jesus Christ in the gospels and book of Acts. He never left. He is waiting for you there.

-from email

Vincent Cheung & Our Loyalty to the Reformation

Below are some select quotes from Vincent Cheung and his loyalty or anti-loyalty to the protestant Reformation. Keep points to remember: the Protestant Reformation did not have a good doctrine on “justification by faith,” nor did they have a good doctrine on the “sufficiency of the Scripture,” or “the formation of Scripture.” Also their “reformation” had much to do with an “outward” reformation and not an inward reformation faith, power and Scripture. They did not have a great doctrine of justification, and this is an important doctrine. A correct doctrine on epistemology is of great importance, and the Reformation failed to have a great doctrinal formation of this. What narrow statements that seemed to be good on the subject, showed them to be just that, very narrow. If the doctrine was truly fleshed out correctly, then the proof would have been an explosion of miracles (i.e. fruit). The Reformation therefore, has no proof or right, to say they have a good doctrine on Scripture or righteousness.  The lack of constant miracles showed pragmatically their doctrines were false and/or compromised doctrines, because if they were, then the “fruit” of miracles would have been produced. The lack of miracles is proof the Reformation was outward and not inward Reformation of the heart and faith. So, both the fruit of their lips and life was not nearly as abundant as fanboys make it out to be.  We owe the reformation no allegiance or loyalty. We should have little concern for it.

I am not saying the Reformation had no good statements etc. but that their statement are not as great as fanboys make it out to be. Their doctrines of the formation of Scripture and its sufficiency are childish and bad. Cessationism shows they did not understand what the authority or sufficiency of Scripture truly is. As for being declared righteous by God, apart from works, it is original to Scripture not the Reformation. And the lack of miracles shows they did not believe what it really meant. There are some single statements, or maybe a few sentences that can be plucked here and there from the Reformation on such topics that I could agree with, but so what? Even a child could do something like this.

I have a few issues, one is that much of their statements was not a positive statement of Scripture, but a reactionary and restriction from Catholic errors. This causes many of their famous doctrines to be only narrowly true, or as half-truths, badly applied to the whole Christian life and misleading. This can be seen in their doctrine of justification by faith, apart from works. The bible presents our being declared righteous, in a positive context for God’s good pleasure for His elect. This context is for us to have the foundation to inherit the gospel of Abraham, that is, the gospel of the Spirit and the gospel of miracles (see Vincent Cheung’s essay “The Edge of Glory,” and my own essay called, “I Am your Exceedingly Great Reward, Righteousness”). A gospel of justification by faith without the baptism of the Spirit and faith for constant miracles, is not a biblical presentation of being declared righteous by God. The statement in itself (declared righteous by grace not works), is a truth, however, considering how the bible presents it, with necessary consequences of the Spirit and miracles, then it ends up being a half-truth (which is what Satan often does to deceive people). It is like talking about fire, and never mentioning there is light, so that when someone sees fire they don’t believe it is fire, because they did not know light came from fire.

The Reformation is not as good on their pet doctrines, such as God’s sovereignty. I like some statements from Martin Luther in Bondage of Will, but even he failed to apply it in spiritual things such as faith and the gifts. Their best doctrines are compromised and amateurishly applied to the Christian daily life. They do have some basic doctrinal statements that I have no issue affirming. The issue is that they are so bad at applying their doctrinal statements, that I do not want to affirm “their” doctrinal statements, unless it looks like I consent to how badly they applied them. It is like some famous guy, Johnny Billy, who affirms 2 + 2 = 4. I have no issue affirming this. However, there are 4,689 instances of Johnny Billy not correctly applying  2 + 2 = 4 in the math book he published. I would not affirm that I affirm “Johnny Billy’s” statement, not because it is false, but because I do not want to be associated with his terrible application of it. Here is the big idea, I do not need to affirm what Johnny Billy says, because  2 + 2 = 4 is not original to him. Thus, I could care less what Johnny affirmed. The same for justification by grace through faith, and God’s absolute sovereignty and etc. It is original to the Scripture. In fact, I formulated my own basic doctrine of God’s absolute sovereignty and even occasionalism, by simply reading the Bible, and not from reading any man or reformer.

I put these quotes together as a reminder that you owe the reformation no loyalty. And not to let anyone bully you with reformation tradition (which is nothing more than peer pressure from the grave) to make you give any loyalty to the reformation or to any man.

As a reminder, I am not with Vincent Cheung in any way, I only read his stuff often. The above were my own thoughts. The emphasis below is mine.

_____________

“Christians revere the Reformation heritage. However, when people do not cling to Jesus Christ with a simple faith, then they will only turn from Catholicism to Pharisaism. But is that the point of all this? Do we turn from idolatry, only to become murderers? What is it then? The religious hypocrites who look to human approval and human authority rather than the Lord Jesus will say to me, “Who are you? Where do you come from? Which man authorized you to do these things? Which institution approved your doctrine?” I will answer, “I am Ananias. I am Vincent Cheung, a disciple of Jesus Christ. Now you and what legion of demons will stop me from following the heavenly vision?””[1]

“The Pharisees considered themselves experts in the word of God, but Jesus said, “You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” Indeed, they were the ones who reformed the people of God at that time from idolatry and licentiousness to the law of God, but it was an outward reformation. As in the time of Jeremiah, they had abandoned the spring of living water, and had built for themselves cisterns that could hold no water. You can reform and reform and reform, but unless you reform into faith in the word of God instead of the tradition of men, unless you reform into miracles instead of rituals, and unless you reform into a revelation of truth instead of a mere restriction from error, you will reform yourself straight into hellfire. And if you forbid people from entering into what your tradition regards as falsehood, when it is the evident word of God, even the gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, then you practically guarantee your damnation. You claim to protect Scripture with your tradition, but the truth is that you replace Scripture with your tradition. Then you judge and attack others on the basis of your tradition, and not on the basis of Scripture. You do this in the name of Scripture, even when those you criticize are more in line with Scripture. When you are challenged on this, you answer with something about the importance of tradition. I want you to show me how you are even saved. It is futile to come against us with the historic scholars and creeds when we are correct and you are wrong.”[2]

“When you feel so “right,” nothing can stand in your way. When you are so “right,” you cannot conceive of any reason why God would not answer your prayers for success and miracles. You cannot conceive of any reason why a sickness or demon would not depart when you command it to go. You have the “right-ness” of God. This is how God feels about himself, and he wants to share this feeling with you, through Jesus Christ. This is the power of the righteousness of God. It has been untapped for almost two thousand years. As much as the Reformation harped about justification by faith, it had no idea what it is. It did not get anywhere close to what the righteousness of God could mean to Christians, and to the world. God’s righteousness is a thing of horror to Satan, but he is not nervous when it remains only a formal principle in Christian theology, rather than a vital power and a superhuman righteous feeling and confidence in every single believer. The prayer of a righteous man is effective indeed, but it is futile if no one actually feels righteous, or if this righteousness is only a theological principle and not a supernatural reality in man. What do we have in Christ? What Satan says about me is irrelevant, because I am God-centered, and I think about how righteous God is in me. This is the only basis on which I live. When Satan pokes at me with his little wrinkly finger, I slam his head off with the fist of God. Then I clobber his face into the ground over and over again like a madman until he is only a puddle of goo. This is the righteousness that we have in Christ Jesus.”[3]

If anti-faith and anti-miracle ministers and groups were ever useful, they are not useful anymore. God has exploited them for his own purpose. The salt now has no flavor, and it is ready to be thrown out and stepped on by men. They are holding people back, and they should be discarded and forgotten. The church has recovered to a point that we no longer need teachers who refuse to teach the word of God as it is written. It has reformed indeed, and then reformed again. There are those who refuse to continue after the first small step, who after they have rejected Satan, refuse to continue with Christ and welcome him in all his fullness. But there is only one Christ. If you do not receive him — all of him, since he is one — then you reject him. For the church to move forward, it must cast aside these useless people like wet dog poo, and leave them behind to die. If reformation after reformation still leaves so much trash around, then a revolution is in order. Don’t reform, revolt! We shall do this without hesitation or regret. We follow God, not men. And we want to continue with God. We will not be respectful toward worthless scums and their wet dog poo theology. You give yourselves a bunch of degrees and titles, and now you think you can dictate to me what I must or must not obey in God’s commands, and what I can or cannot believe in God’s promises? You wish! Go jump off a cliff. Listen, go put all those certificates and credentials that your stupid friends gave you in a suitcase, tie it around your neck, and jump off a cliff.”[4]

“Christians should have been the ones leading the charge to save lives in the name of Jesus, and do it with a divine power that others cannot replicate unless they join us in the faith. After more than 1500 years of apostasy in this most basic of the gospel ministries, and after reformations upon reformations, revivals upon revivals, when we have had multiple opportunities to examine our doctrines and practice over and over again, most Christians still have not awaken to righteousness. Now unbelievers are leading the charge to save lives. They do not give up even though their measly science fails again and again. They do not give up even though research proves to be expensive, and the process arduous. They keep marching forward even though some of their comrades perish in the way. And with all their fumbling efforts and blasphemous theories, they have saved countless “Christian” lives. As these so-called Christians boast about how “the will of God” has made them sick, and how all the promises of miracle healing in their infallible Scripture have lost all relevance, the wicked evolutionists shake their heads and save their lives anyway. This is not common grace, but common wrath. Both groups despise the precious promises of God, secured by the blood of Jesus for all those who would have faith in him. Neither camp can escape the outpouring of divine judgment.”[5]

“John the Baptist was also speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees when he said, “Produce fruit in keeping with repentance” (Matthew 3:8, 10). He told them to stop saying, “We have Abraham as our father.” Now people say they have Augustine, or Calvin, or this or that theologian as their father in the faith. So what? God can raise up ten thousand of them from a bunch of rocks. But was Calvin correct about everything? And what does that have to do with you, when you are wrong about everything? Why should I care about your Reformation heritage, or Methodist heritage, or some other heritage? Why would I be impressed, when it produced someone like you? Jesus was speaking against those who criticized him. They attacked his ministry of healing and miracles (Matthew 12:24), and he replied, “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:33-34). He said, “A tree is recognized by its fruit.” The teaching that we must judge the “fruit” is often used to attack charismatics, televangelists, and prosperity preachers, but Jesus directed it against the traditionalists and the religious establishment. It mainly applies to the cessationists, the theologians, and the heresy hunters — the self-appointed defenders of the faith.” [6]

“Cessationism is founded on the traditional defective account of the divine inspiration of Scripture. Although we make the usually harmless generalization that the apostles and prophets wrote the Bible, significant portions were not written by them, or not known to be written by them. To address this, Christians invent the principle that these documents were nevertheless written by those who were closely associated with the apostles and prophets. However, they arbitrarily dictate this principle without warrant, and they also arbitrarily decide how closely associated with the apostles and prophets these other authors needed to be. In addition, the relationships of these authors to the apostles, and the scribes to the prophets, are often uncertain, and offer a weak foundation for something as weighty as divine inspiration. The entire difficulty is self-inflicted due to the false assumption that every word in the Bible must be written or approved by apostles and prophets…

The traditional theory of inspiration is fatally fallacious. It is theologically amateurish, and curiously incompetent. This is the doctrine of historic orthodoxy and the creeds. It begins with the exaltation of the apostles. Maintaining this idolatry as non-negotiable, it adjusts everything else to accommodate it. As a result, it paints itself into a corner and leads to the destruction of the doctrine of biblical inspiration, the very doctrine that it claims it wishes to protect. The error is so obvious and avoidable, it is amazing that centuries of scholars and creeds have committed themselves to something so outright stupid. Perhaps it is not so amazing, but what we ought to expect from man-made traditions. Religious bias against biblical teaching makes people stupid. They were stupid to have invented this doctrine. They pretended to secure the divine inspiration of Scripture, but in reality they conspired to enforce a false narrative concerning the cessation of the powers of faith and of the Spirit.

When we discard the historic orthodox idolatry that places the Bible on men, but instead place the Bible on God, and God alone, the difficulties disappear. Divine inspiration applies to all of the Bible, not because the whole thing was written or approved by apostles and prophets, but because the whole thing was written by God. All Scripture was written by God, even breathed out directly by him (2 Timothy 3:16)….”[7]

“The cessationist makes at least three attacks against Scripture in this one argument that supposedly defends Scripture. First, contrary to the Bible’s own claim, he declares that the Bible was never sufficient until completion. Second, because the Bible indeed declares itself sufficient before completion, but the cessationist claims that anything that is beyond sufficient is unnecessary, and not in the same class as biblical prophecy, he declares that all portions of Scripture produced after what Timothy had in his infancy are unnecessary and uninspired. Third, because he claims that prophecy that repeats the information contained in Scripture as in a different or lower class than the prophecy of Scripture, or even not prophecy at all, he declares that all portions of Scripture that repeat the words or ideas that were already contained in previous portions of Scripture are unnecessary and uninspired. Any one of these offenses, if made clear to a cessationist, and if he refuses to repent, is a sufficient basis for excommunication.”[8]

“The scribes were the teachers of the people. They were supposed to study and explain God’s word, and so spread his wisdom throughout the land. However, instead of promoting God’s agenda and message, they had their own agenda, and so they mishandled his message and advanced their own ideas.

Theologians commit this same error when they allow the sinful desires of their own hearts and the traditions of their groups to control their interpretation of God’s word. Instead of God’s commands, they relate distorted versions of his holy requirements in order to excuse themselves. Suddenly, what the Bible explicitly condemns becomes something that God heartily approves. And instead of God’s doctrines, they teach the creeds and traditions of their organization. But these often do not fit, so they take the Bible and twist some ideas here, impose several strange principles there, add a few epochs and a bunch of covenants, then divide his revelation as it fits them and force the whole thing into schemes that they invented.

This happens not because theologians as such are incompetent and dishonest, although many of them are, but because all men are by nature incompetent and dishonest.” [Vincent Cheung. “The Lying Pen of the Scribes.” Web 2012.]

“When we have a disagreement with the WCF — such as with its cessationist heresy, passive reprobation, covenant of works, liberty and contingency of second causes, mysticism in baptism and communion, and so on…
The framers were prepared for idolaters like you. Even if the statement was not mainly intended as a kill switch, it can function as one when people make the creed a rule instead of a mere tool, since it declares that the Westminster council could be wrong. Of course, even if there were never any kill switch, the Bible grants us the authority to shut down the whole thing. Repent, and return to God. Return to the gospel of Jesus Christ. If the creed has become an idol, flip the switch. If you do not, I can always flip it for you.”
[ “The Westminster Kill Switch.” Fulcrum. 2017. Pg 54-54. ]

“On the other hand, I have no such loyalty to the WCF, not even a little bit. I could not care less if I contradict Westminster, or Dort, or Calvin, or whoever or whatever. I find the very idea that I should care to be puzzling to me, and everyone who presses me to side with a tradition always seems like a pathetic loser, just a rubbish believer. There are people who consider this attitude sacrilegious, but this is because their orthodoxy is human tradition, and it is this kind of attitude that crucified Jesus Christ. Human religious tradition, when it grows strong, becomes the spirit of slander, and when it grows stronger, becomes the spirit of murder — not always the physical act of killing, but a hatred that wishes to get rid of someone, often by dishonest means. We see this with every Christian tradition, and it is strong in the Reformed. There is something alarmingly wrong, defective, and broken in the person who insists that we ought to subscribe to a human tradition such that we must submit our conscience to it and then judge other people by it. When he does this, he becomes anti-Christ.

This is why, although I would admit that much of my theology agree with the Reformed, I do not call myself Reformed. On many things, the Reformed are not unique, so when I agree with the Reformed, I also agree with many others. Agreeing on these things would not make me Reformed. Then, on other things, I clearly contradict them. Some people call me Reformed and then attack me for not fully agreeing with the Reformed, but this is a strawman, because I prefer to do without the label, and have said so. This tactic is absurd and desperate. In fact, given what I have seen in the Reformed, including their doctrines, attitudes, and actions, I would be ashamed to be identified with the Reformed. Given how awful some of these people are, both intellectually and ethically, I am embarrassed that some people would think that I am one of them. Although I sometimes appear to accept this label in my writings — if I have done so, it was not done eagerly, but grudgingly for the sake of convenience — in all the years of my life and ministry, I have never introduced myself as Reformed. I also do not introduce myself as a Calvinist.” [ Vincent Cheung. Half-way Catholic. web. 2015]

——-Endnote——-

[1] Vincent Cheung. I Am Ananias. From the ebook, “Sermonettes Vol. 7.” 2012 Pg. 51.

[2] Vincent Cheung. Jargonized Theology. From the ebook “Trace.” 2018. Pg. 58.

[3] Vincent Cheung. The Christian and the Self. From the ebook “Contract.” 2020. Pg. 34.

[4] Vincent Cheung. The Primacy of Healing Ministry. From the ebook, “Contract.” 2020. Pg. 88.

[5] Vincent Cheung. A Matter of Public Health. From the ebook, “Contract.” 2020. Pg. 67-68.

[6] Vincent Cheung. By Their Fruit You will Know Them. From the ebook “Backstage.” 2016. Pg. 44-45

[7] Vincent Cheung. Prehistoric Orthodoxy. From the ebook, “Contract.” 2020. Pg 94.

[8] Vincent Cheung. “Scripture: Sufficient Against Cessationism.” From the ebook, Fulcrum. 2017. Pg. 15

The Human Ministry of Jesus Empowered by The Spirit

In this video ( Why We Won’t Sing Bethel Music in Our Church ),[1] Costi Hinn and friends accuse Bill Johnson of heresy concerning the incarnation or humanity of Jesus.

They quote Johnson saying, “laid His divinity aside,” “as a man,” and “did these miracles.” They say from this Johnson and other Charismatics like him teach the false doctrine we are to be like Jesus, by being filled with the Spirit and working miracles like Him.

Costi Hinn (along with Dale Thackrah Kyle Swanson) concludes that Johnson’s statements mean, “Jesus was not God, when He did these miracles,” and therefore it is “heresy to say Jesus was not God.”

I will not stay long on this point, other than to say, from what was quoted, (not regarding the totality of what Johnson says, for I have not read the book) Cosit slandered and bore false witness against Johnson. The phrase “laid His divinity aside,” could as easily mean, Jesus was still God, but did not chose to use all that was available to Him as God. For example, “Jesus grew in knowledge and wisdom,” does not mean Jesus “was not God”; rather, it means Jesus as a man, laid His infinite knowledge/wisdom aside, (i.e. chose not to use it), while the eternal Son of God still had His infinite knowledge (more on how this works later).

Jesus said that He “cast out Satan by the Spirit,” and not His own power. It was the Spirit who empowered the man Jesus Christ, for ministry, it was not Jesus’ own power that empowered Him for ministry. Jesus chose to use the power of the Spirit for ministry. This does not mean Jesus never used His own authority or power, in any way whatsoever, but that Jesus born as a man, under the Law, chose to operate in that limitation, and so was anointed by the Spirit (Isaiah 61) to do ministry and miracles. Jesus grew in knowledge like a normal man would; and this does not mean Jesus was not God or stop being divine. Example, I can choose to not use my right arm, without my arm ceasing to exit.

I do not know what all Johnson teaches on this, and I have no reason to care. What I care about it that these men claim to be intellectually and morally superior, and they are not; they are intellectually broken and morally wicked. They are slanderers.

For a more detailed look into what it means for the Son of God to be clothed in humanity, look at Vincent Cheung’s Systematic Theology (2010) pages 140-142.  Here are some selected quotes from this book.

“…In a similar way, the doctrinal formulation for the personhood and incarnation of Christ states that he is one in one sense, and two in a different sense. That is, he is one person who possesses two natures. To ensure the clarity and coherence of this doctrine, we need to define the terms and relate them to the doctrine of the Trinity. The way “nature” is used in the doctrine of the incarnation is similar to the way “essence” is used for the Trinity. They refer to the definition of something, and the definition of something refers to the attributes or properties of something. A “person” is again defined by the consciousness or intellect.

In the incarnation, God the Son took up a human nature, or human attributes. The divine and the human natures did not combine or mingle, so that both sets of attributes remained separate. His divine nature was not diminished by his human nature, and his human nature was not deified by his divine nature. Since the divine nature was not modified by the human nature, as indeed the divine nature cannot be modified, this doctrinal formulation reaffirms the immutability of God the Son. And indeed, a human nature cannot be deified, and neither can deity be conferred. Since deity is eternal, if a person is not deity to begin with, he can never become deity.

God the Son took up a human nature, and a human nature must include a human soul or mind. Although a “person” is defined in terms of the mind or intellect, the doctrine is that Christ remains one person even though he possesses two natures. This is so because of the definition of a person as a system of consciousness, and because of the nature of the relationship between the divine mind and the human mind.

First, we must insist that Christ is one “person,” because the Bible never refers to him as “they,” as it sometimes does the Trinity. Based on the way that the Bible refers to him, the way that he refers to himself, and the way that he behaves, there is no reason to think that he is not one person. Thus there is a need to arrive at a formulation that retains the view that Christ is one person even though he has two centers of consciousness. This need is not arbitrary, but it is necessitated by the biblical data.

The proper formulation is to state that God the Son took up a human nature, including a human mind, in such a manner that the human mind is contained by the divine mind, although the two are not in any way mingled or confused. Whereas the divine mind has complete control over the human mind, the human mind does not have free access to the divine mind, but it receives special information and capabilities only as granted by the divine mind…”

The important point of Vincent’s formulation is this, Jesus’ “human nature was not deified by his divine nature.” This doctrine is immune to contradiction. It still affirms the full deity of the Son of God and that His deity never stopped existing in all its fullness.

Thus, I can say, in context of the explained doctrine, “Jesus put aside His deity,” and “as a man, was filled with the Spirit, and did miracles as a man empowered by the Spirit.” Jesus commands us to be men (albeit born-from-above men), filled with the Spirit, and work His same miracles. Jesus says He did His whole ministry by the Spirit, quoting Isaiah. Peter says in Acts 2 that Jesus has given us this empowerment of the Spirit, as a promise of the Father. Paul says this Spirit and miracle power for us, is part of the ancient promise to Abraham. Jesus our forerunner, showed us how to be men born-from-above, filled with faith and the Spirit of power.

“Third, since that time the promise of the Father — the Holy Spirit — has been poured out. The effect of this baptism of the Spirit (Acts 1:5) is to infuse the followers of Jesus with the same power to work miracles (Acts 1:8, Luke 24:49) that Jesus himself possessed (Luke 4:14, 8:46, Acts 10:38). This power could heal the sick and cast out demons (Acts 10:38, Matthew 12:28), and it also produces visions, dreams, prophecies, and speaking in tongues (Acts 2:4, 2:17-18).”[2]

Even if some Charismatics do not explain the incarnation in perfect precision, I couldn’t care less, and it does not matter. Tradition is not as great as they think are in their statements about the humanity of Jesus; therefore, tradition is less than unimportant to me. Seriously, if I cared any less, I’d be dead. And despite some narrowly correct statements about the incarnation by the Reformed, any Charismatic, with their less precise doctrine, but who works miracles in faith and power of the Spirit, 10,000 more times apply a correct doctrine of the incarnation than all the Reformed tradition and books, and churches combined. This is the legacy of faith and shout of value to the Spirit, which the Charismatics have (as imperfect as they are).

The issue is this, the Bible explains the doctrine. Those who criticize the Charismatics either slander them, or make non-relevant personal attacks, while ignoring the Biblical doctrine that is clearly taught by others, like Vincent Cheung. Because the Bible correctly explains the incarnation, and the human ministry of Jesus, and Jesus’ own command for us to do His works (even doing greater works) the Reformed’s attack on the Charismatics (despite some of their sloppy or undetailed explanations) is ultimately an attack on the Bible itself. This is the Reformed’s legacy and damnation.

————–Endnotes————

[1] Why We Won’t Sing Bethel Music in Our Church ep. 10.

[2] Vincent Cheung. Behold I Give you Power. From the ebook, Hero. 2022. pg 89

God Commands Us To Get Healing

Mark 14:35 (LEB), “Yet not what I will , but what you will [God’s Command].”

John 14:31. LEB, “[Jesus said], so that the world may know that I love my Father and… just as the Father has commanded me, thus I am doing [i.e. going to the cross].”

John 10:18 (LEB), “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down voluntarily. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take possession of it again. This commandment I received from my Father.”
______
In Jesus’ context, praying “your will,” means, “I will do what you command Me.” It does not refer to ontology, or that is, God’s sovereign plan or causality —although that is presupposed in the definition. If you are praying or saying, “this is God’s will for me,” if it is to be like Jesus, it means you are referring to a command [ or a promise—which are commands] you are obeying.

“I am sick or lack wisdom, thus, let God’s will be done,” should mean, what does God command me in the Bible that I do with sickness or confusion. God commands us that by our faith, we are to actually get wisdom and actually acquire healing. This is what it means to say, “God’s will,” be done in my life–it means obeying His commands like Jesus Christ did.  Just as we are commanded by God to us our faith to be saved from God’s wrath and enjoy endless life and joy. Servants are not greater than their Masters.

The Spirit tells our spirit about the …..?

 The Spirit tells our spirit about the …..?

“No one can know a person’s thoughts except that person’s own spirit, and no one can know God’s thoughts except God’s own Spirit. And we have received God’s Spirit (not the world’s spirit), so we can know the
wonderful
things
God has
freely given us,”

(1 Corinthians 2:11-12 NLT)

For sake of context, what are some “things” Paul mentions in his letters to the Corinthians about the things God has freely given us? Paul says, Jesus became our sin so that we are freely given God’s righteousness. Paul also says the Holy Spirit freely gives us gifts, such as healings, miracles, prophecy and tongues etc. Paul says that Jesus became our poverty so that God freely gives us money so that in an abundance of wealth we can freely give to the ministry. Paul says God has freely given us Christ’s mind so that we have the Mind of Christ. Paul says God has freely given us all things, even the past, present, future, heaven, eternal life and all reality.

This is why, even though we study theology and doctrine, we also keep focusing on devotions and faith, because the Spirit is relentless in directing our hearts to all the good and free things available to us in Christ. This is why fanboys, become lost in theology and especially of men and tradition, because that is where their hearts are directed; to the things “men” give them.

If your thoughts and mind are not constantly turned to these freely given things by God such as healing, wealth, righteousness, citizenship in heaven, spiritual powers, then what spirit is in you? How can you rationally claim it is God’s Spirit? Not having your spirit moved by God’s Spirit to freely receive such things as health and wealth means you must be an illegitimate child; you are and outsider to the love of the Spirit. But for us who do have God’s Spirit we are overwhelmed with love of God as the Spirit directs our thoughts to all the freely given things for us to receive. And after receiving them, we give in the same free manner that it was given to us.

I Reserved 7000 Who Have Not Bowed to Empiricism

They only problem with handling adult doctrines like God’s Sovereignty, predestination, election, reprobation is if you are a child you will end up hurting yourself and those around you. I remember Vincent Cheung saying something like this several years ago and it keeps repeating itself to be true in my encounters with church people.

When knowledge does not increase a person’s faith, it only increases his ability to pretend. Just because someone takes it upon himself to handle an “adult” doctrine does not mean that he is mature spiritually and intellectually. You can let an infant drive a car, but he will probably crash it. Putting him in the driver’s seat does not make him an adult. Likewise, most theologians are spiritual kids, although they handle adult doctrines. They are just pretending. They play around with divine sovereignty, the covenants, the history of redemption, and so on, but when they drive — when they formulate, teach, and implement these doctrines — they wreck faith. [1]

I had another brief conversation with person (we will call them Billy) about faith and healing. I was sharing some verses about faith and healing and encouraging them to grow their faith. I specifically commented on the fact that faith in God’s promises (whether for salvation or healing) always guarantees you will receive what you ask for.

I was quoting from John 15:7-8,

“If you remain in me and my words remain in you,

ask whatever YOU want and it will be done for you.

My Father is glorified by this:

that you bear much fruit,

and prove to be MY disciples.”

Not only does it say you will get what “YOU” want (it does not say what GOD wants but what “YOU” want), but Jesus Christ says answers to prayers (for the things “YOU WANT”) is a test of orthodoxy. Jesus says it “proves” you are a disciple if you pray for what “you” want and God gives this to you.

Why is this? Because only insiders of the Covenant can do this. Outsiders do not have this access to the Father. Jesus Christ gives a test of orthodoxy that cannot be mimicked or faked. Only children are able to ask for anything they want, and the Father give it to them.  Reprobates and outsiders to the covenant do not have this precious access or life.

It is the same type of proof that Jesus gave for Himself as the Son of man. The religious fakes and fanboys would wash the outside of the cup, and thus fake this aspect to give proof they are part of the Elect. However, because they are in fact reprobates, they cannot do the true proof of orthodoxy, which is faith. Faith gives direct access to God and proves you are part of the Elect. Jesus gave proof that God heard His prayers, and by this He proved He had the Father’s approval. This proof was not something He did by His own power, but God gave Him the fullness of the Spirit (which we are also commanded to receive) and gave Him the things He asked for in prayer. Jesus therefore, gave proof that the insider status He had with God was of the closest type. Jesus said more than once we ought to believe He is who He claims to be, because of His miracles. And guess what, God commands that we also do something similar to prove we are insiders. He commands His followers, receive answered prayers for miracles as proof they are Elect and not reprobates who are thrown into the fire. He demands a type of proof reprobates cannot mimic.

Apart from this “proof” of discipleship, the precious truth we see is how intimate our Contract insider status is. God so loves us, so considers us as children who sits at His table with Him, that we can ask for what WE want and God will gladly give it to us. The Father sent His only begotten Son, to be crucified in agony and torn apart with scourging; He points His finger at Jesus’ bloody corpse and says, “I will do what I promise.” He goes beyond all measure to give extra assurance that He will do what He promises. He promises to give us what we ask for. Think about how loving and kind God is to us. How loyal is His unmerited favor for those whom He loves!

Billy responded with this:

“Where are all these miracles?
I do not see them.
If what you are saying I true,
then no one is saved.”

In my mind the first thought that came up was, “you David Hume Empiricist prostitute, you spiritual adulterer and spiritual pervert. You have whored yourself to the world at the most fundamental level of your worldview, and rejected God.”

Knowing this person considered themselves “Reformed,” I responded with how God Himself dealt with a similar accusation. First Paul says in Romans chapter 9 that when calculating what we can observe humanly (i.e. empiricism and induction) it could infer that God has failed to save His people. But Paul says God has not failed, because He only promised to bless those who are part of the promise by election, and not by natural birth of being a Jew.  An excessive amount of reprobates does not negate God’s promise to save those whom He elected.

Paul then brings up the example of Elijah and God, as an example. Elijah is a major player in Israel. He is well known. He has been around. He seen and done much in Israel. After all he has been through, he becomes discouraged and says to God that he is the only believer left in Israel.  Like I said, Elijah isn’t some small farmer who has never been anywhere. He as known and see many things in Israel. Thus, from a human evaluation standpoint, he has more credibility than most to make an inductive, albeit irrational conclusion from his observation. He concludes that he is the only one left who believes God. He asserts this conclusion, based on his empiric observation and inductive conclusion to God as a fact. God turns around and rebukes Elijah. God tells Elijah that He has kept for Himself 7000 people who have remained faithful to Him. This is in context of Romans 9, where God says before people are born, or do good or bad, He choses to hate one or love the other, in accordance to His own free choice of election and reprobation.

 “God has not rejected his people, whom he foreknew! Or do you not know, in the passage about Elijah, what the scripture says—how he appeals to God against Israel? “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have torn down your altars, and I alone am left, and they are seeking my life!” But what does the divine response say to him? “I have left for myself seven thousand people who have not bent the knee to Baal.” So in this way also at the present time, there is a remnant selected by grace,” Romans 11:2-5.

This same answer God gave to Elijah, Paul says it true in his day, and is also true for today.

Thus, when someone says, “I do not see all these miracles and answers to prayers (like Jesus stated and commanded, John 15:7-8)), thus, there are none, and yet I know God will save people, thus what Jesus said cannot mean what it obviously means,” they are acting just as irrational, arrogant as Elijah. God’s rebuke to Elijah is applicable here to. God has reversed for Himself 7,000, or 70,000,000 million for Himself who have not bowed their knee to empiricism (Baal) and rejected Jesus’ command for answered prayers. Despite what Elijah can observe and calculate, what God says is the only starting point for knowledge. God is true when He says there is a remnant according to Election, and Elijah was a liar and false witness against the truth. His false witness against the truth was based off his human empiricism and inductive conclusion.

So what if you do not see and overabundance of answered prayers and miracles? Even if it means there are an excessive amount of reprobates in the church, just like with Paul and the Jews, it does not mean God as failed. It means the reprobates failed to be insiders because of their lack of faith, and the rest, probably because you are a reprobated yourself, you are not around enough to see God’s power working.

Religious fanboys and reformed like to use the doctrine of election and reprobation, but this doctrine is an adult doctrine and so is wasted on children like themselves. This doctrine of reprobation is pointed at their face like a gun, which they are holding. They will hurt themselves and those around them when they use it. Maybe the reason they use the word reprobate so much is because they are reprobates and simply like the word, by God’s providence.

I love God’s providence, because I do not reject have the bible. As Vincent Cheung points out in “Predestination and Miracles,” I am predestined for miracles. But you outsiders of the Covenant, just because you narrowly understand some aspects of God’s sovereignty and reprobation, does not save you from being one.  Just because Satan can teach you about some aspects of Hell, does not save him from being imprisoned there. Maybe he knows about it because he is understands first hand what it is be God’s enemy and under His punishment.

If you are a true disciple, you will whole heartily have faith for all of God’s commands, promises and sovereign faithfulness. Those who have been
“born from above” do not make excuses for their lack of faith if they struggle; rather, they cry out like the father seeking deliverance for his son, “help my unbelief.” The Elect will seek and find stronger faith. They are real disciples, who grown in faith, rather than in unbelief. They progress forward, rather than shrinking back.  They are true insiders; therefore, the Spirit speaks in their souls, “you are a child of God, and so ask! and you will receive. Approach your Father, for He loves you.”

Starting Point for Knowledge.

The other aspect of this person’s response is rejection of God at the deepest level of one’s worldview.  That is, when dealing with the ultimate question of knowledge (I am using knowledge here as truth), what is the STARTING or first principle where you get this knowledge? Every other ultimate question, whether about existence, causality, ethics, value, history, man salvation etc., will come from this starting point of knowledge. To say it is important is an understatement.

The Reformed like to mock the Catholics for boasting about their dual starting point for knowledge with the addition of the Pope. But what is the Pope? He is a man. When the Pope gives additions to the Scripture it is from empiricism (which is a logical fallacy) and then mostly will have addition fallacies of induction in other forms. The terms for these are speculation (for empiricism) and superstition (for any form of inductive logic).  The key point for both is a “man,” starting point for knowledge. In this epistemology man does not start with God’s revelation, but with man. Man, through fallacious empiricism, somehow miraculous get knowledge from observation. Man then uses superstitious induction to formulate a premise to then deduce from. But sense this premise is formulated by speculation and superstition, then applying the logic of deduction cannot rescue it from being non-knowledge. It is a “man” starting point of knowledge versus a God starting point of knowledge that is revealed and not sensed. As Jesus said to Peter, “flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father has.”

Just by the simple calculation of logic, empiricism is demonstrated as irrational. And so, as a starting point of knowledge it is ontologically impossible.[2]

However, since the Scripture is my starting point, what does this infallible epistemology say about empiricism? Vincent Cheung, first brought these verses to my attention.

Commenting on 2 Kings 3:16-24[3] he says,

“What did the Moabites see – blood or water? The Moabites thought they saw blood, but their senses deceived them. We know that they saw water that looked like blood because this is what the infallible testimony of Scripture says. Thus the passage points out that the senses are unreliable, and shows that we depend on divine inspiration to tell us about particular instances of sensations.”[4]

Vincent also lists John 12:28-29, Matthew 14:25-27, and Matthew 28:16-17.

Even though these are only a few instances of a Divine testimony of empiricism (knowledge starts with sensation) being wrong, it is enough to trash the whole thing into skepticism.

To show the importance of this, then consider if I were able to show just one instance where the Scripture was false. For example, what if it were false that Jesus was born in Israel, but rather born in South Asia? The issue is that it would cast doubt on the rest of the premises in the Scripture. The problem is not that any premise would definitely be wrong; rather, there would be no infallible mechanism to demonstrate how any given premise of Scripture is true. It would trash the whole bible (as a starting point for knowledge) into skepticism. The issue here, is that skepticism denies the law of non-contradiction; and thus, ontologically impossible.

If invisible knowledge comes by sensation is true, then where is the justification? Where is the sound argument to prove it?

To have a picture in the mind of Mt. St. Helens is a copy of it(2); it is not the actual Mountain(1). That is one category, and then another. In addition to this is another categorical leap; that is, to think propositional thoughts about(3) the indirect copy(2) of the real Mt. St. Helens(1). There is no logical justification for these 2 categorical leaps between premises and conclusion. In essence, the syllogism is like saying, “All dogs are mammals. All blue things are color. Therefore, All humans are clouds.” There is no more justification for that syllogism than saying the propositional thoughts in an invisible mind, about the picture copy in my physical brain, is knowledge about the real Mt. St. Helens. Both are playing with categorical reality as if it is play-dough. That might work to sell Fantasy novels, but not so much when asking questions about the reality we live in.

This has been said to demonstrate that our only starting point for knowledge is God. Any starting point that starts with “man,” leads to skepticism, but skepticism is logically impossible and does not exist. All human starting points of knowledge does not exist, except in delusion and fantasy.

Most Christians know this without me having to go into all this technical explanation of it. But when reprobates infiltrate the Church, and deceive people, we need to give a detailed and harsh rebuke to them.

Most will say something like, “the Bible is our final authority.” But what I am saying here is a more foundational statement. I start with the Bible as my only public first principle for knowledge, and only the bible. If you ‘say x’ is knowledge, and cannot show it came directly from the bible or deduces from it, then it is by definition not knowledge you can prove.

Therefore, when the Bible says if I have in God’s only Son to save me from my sin and confess it, then it a truth claim about reality. It is not a probability. It is a truth that will always be sure, and reliable. If Billy says, “well I have seen some Christians who have renounced their faith and now worship Satan. Therefore, the bible is wrong, or people do not understand what the bible says. What the bible really means is that one can have faith in God to be saved and God will still reject them hell.”

The problem with this is at the foundational level. Billy used a “human” starting point to produced so-called knowledge. Then uses this as a higher authority against the Bible, by making the Bible adjust its meaning to this knowledge produced by a human starting point of empiricism and induction. The problem with this that all human starting points to produce knowledge is nothing but speculation and superstition. No knowledge is produced when starting with a human epistemology, not even with things such as what is “tree” or what is a “dog.”

Most Christians hearing what Billy did with this aspect of faith and salvation would be alarmed; they would at least, have a vague idea Billy is using a human starting point to reject what the Bible clearly says about faith and salvation. But when it comes to faith for answered prayers and faith to be healed, then suddenly many Christians revert to using a human starting point for knowledge as if they are a 50 year grand master chess player. They revert to using of empiricism and induction as if they were world champions. They would make David Hume and the Pope blush in envy. If only they could stand on human starting points as reflexively as some Christians do, then maybe they could have brough more over to the side of Satan.

If falling on empiricism to produce knowledge is sooooo natural and reflexive, then it is a good chance, it is your true master and foundation. If you do not start with God for knowledge, how do you suppose you will conclude with His revelation? You will not of course.

If you read Jesus saying that if His words abide in you and you in Him, then you ask whatever you wish and God will give it to you, and you must start with this knowledge and no contradict it. Obviously you cannot just the Scripture to contradict this because it and Jesus say over and over if you have faith, (whether for salvation, healing or whatever you wish), you will have it. Jesus says it is what “YOU” want.

If there is a wrong place for YOU, then it starting with YOU when producing knowledge. If you use YOU to produce the knowledge that “what Jesus says over and over is not what He means, but what Jesus meant is you can ask in faith and God will still reject it,” then you are a reprobate, or at least on this point you are playing the part of one. To revert and say, “I do not see.., or I observe.., or the church fathers did not see or observe,” then you are nothing less than a plagiarized rehashed Pope. You are a spiritual pervert that the foundation level of knowledge. You do not start with God to get truth, you start with YOU. You have used speculation and superstition no less in proportion than some shaman observing the moon and concluding ‘x’ or ‘y.’

Why do people do this. First, this is now reprobates think. They are only doing what is natural for then. Apart from the Scripture as a starting point, all others (including all non-Christian religions) revert to using a human starting point is some way.  Thus, it is natural for reprobates to show their true human foundation when they find things in the Bible they do not like or makes they feel uncomfortable. Secondly, to hide their human starting point they will mock other obvious reprobates with human starting points such as the Pope. They do this to hide their human starting point in the shadow of the more obvious ones. They say solo Scriptura, but this is just a slight of hand to say, sola empiricism. Thirdly, like human approval and because it is natural for reprobates to start with a human epistemology other reprobates will be attracted to them and give them praise, approval and money.

If you are truly not a reprobate, but are only playing the part due to spiritual immaturity, then repent now while you still have a chance.  Tomorrow is not guaranteed. God is willing to forgive and restore. He will do what He promise. If you ask in faith for God to forgive, He will. If you are an insider to His love and covenant, then ask and receive, because He wants you to. He commanded that you do it, because He wanted the situation where you ask and He gives. God wanted this. You do not have beg.

Because of God’s promises, which He sovereignly wanted to make, and the Contacts He made in blood, God willfully made it so that it is necessary for Him to hear your prays in faith and give you what you want, whether spiritual or material. Jesus said it was “necessary” for the daughter of Abraham, (who was bent over for 18 years) to be healed on the Sabbath. The word for “necessary” here is like saying 5+5 necessarily equals 10. That is, 5+5=10 is not just a sufficient or good reason, it is a necessary one. Jesus says because she is an insider to God’s love and covenant it is “necessary” for God to heal her.

Jesus with perfection stood on God’s Word as His knowledge, and those who follow Him will do the same.

And this woman, who is a daughter of Abraham,
whom Satan bound eighteen long years—
is it not necessary
that she be released from this bond on the day of the Sabbath?”
(Luke 13:16 LEB)

Endnotes

[1] Vincent Cheung. Faith Override. From the ebook, Sermonettes Vol. 9. 2016.

[2] Even the secular philosopher David Hume admitted as much about his starting point of empiricism leading to skepticism.

[3] While the harp was being played, the power of the Lord came upon Elisha, 16 and he said, “This is what the Lord says: This dry valley will be filled with pools of water! 17 You will see neither wind nor rain, says the Lord, but this valley will be filled with water. You will have plenty for yourselves and your cattle and other animals. 18 But this is only a simple thing for the Lord, for he will make you victorious over the army of Moab! 19 You will conquer the best of their towns, even the fortified ones. You will cut down all their good trees, stop up all their springs, and ruin all their good land with stones.”

20 The next day at about the time when the morning sacrifice was offered, water suddenly appeared! It was flowing from the direction of Edom, and soon there was water everywhere.

21 Meanwhile, when the people of Moab heard about the three armies marching against them, they mobilized every man who was old enough to strap on a sword, and they stationed themselves along their border. 22 But when they got up the next morning, the sun was shining across the water, making it appear red to the Moabites—like blood. 23 “It’s blood!” the Moabites exclaimed. “The three armies must have attacked and killed each other! Let’s go, men of Moab, and collect the plunder!”

[4] Vincent Cheung. Presuppositional Confrontations. 2010. Pg 70. www.vincentcheung.com

Love Never fails – To Heal by Miraculous Power

Paul says this famous premise in 1 Corinthians 13. This love chapter is sandwich between the chapters on Paul’s teaching on the gifts of the Spirit. I remember Vincent Cheung saying something to the effect of, (as I paraphrase from memory) “if this chapter is read at a wedding, it is only proper to have a healing and miracle service afterwards, because that is the context of Paul’s teaching on love.” I agree.

It is odd that pastors and theologians who scream the loudest for “context” only do it on their few pet doctrines, but ignore it on everything else. The context for this doctrine of love is about God’s people having overwhelming spiritual power. Paul’s instruction is for God’s people, who have great power, is to use this great power in love, toward each other.

This next statement might be a shock for some, but it needs to be said. For those who do not have great heavenly powers of the baptism of the Spirit, Spiritual Gifts, Faith to move mountains, and are practiced in manifesting the Anointing Presence of God, this chapter of love is not applicable to them, or at the very least, it is mostly not applicable to them.

Paul starts the chapter by presupposing the audience does have faith to move mountains, give prophecies, speak in tongues, give to the poor and sacrifice themselves for each other. Those who do not fit the above presuppositions are those Paul is not addressing. He is addressing those who have spiritual power. This does not mean if you do not have spiritual power you are free from obeying God’s command to love your neighbor as yourself. What it does mean, is that for the Christian, love (like with the Sermon on the Mount) is elevated to a higher standard. There is no such thing as Christian love, that is not favoring others as yourself with healing, miracles and prophecies. A love that is without spiritual power is not a Christian love, by definition. Such a definition of love might the standards of non-Christians, but we are not non-Christians.

Jesus showed compassion and love over and over and over in the gospels, and it was always with the power of healing and miracles. Love without miraculous power is an anti-love, it is a love that Jesus does not know or lived. It is a love the apostles did not know or live. It is a love the New Testament church did not know or lived. Non-Christians live this type of love, but we are not non-Christians, unless you really are.

Love is to favor. Loving your neighbor is to favor them, the way you want to be favored. Jesus filled with the Holy Spirit for ministry, had power. When He saw a sick person, He favored them by using power to heal them and remove their suffering. This means, if I was sick and in pain, and I had power, I would favor myself by removing the sickness and pain from me. This is how Jesus favored those around them. This is how the apostle favored those around them. This is how the New Testament favored those around them.

Jesus commanded we pray in His name and get whatever we wish so that God is glorified, and we are filled with joy (John 14-16). Love others by praying for others to receive whatever you want for them, so that by Jesus giving this to them, God makes their joy full. Jesus was filled with the Sprit for ministry, and so commanded His followers to be baptized in the Spirit for power.

The gospels take the time to repeatedly show that Jesus demonstrated love and compassion by healing and using heavenly power to help people. Jesus then commands us to do the same. Then for extra measure Paul used the chapter on “love” in context of using spiritual power in church to help people. This is how the Bible defines Christian love. God’s love is not a powerless love. Before creation and after creation God’s love is not a powerless love. The Godman Jesus Christ, who the saints are imaged after, did not and does not love with a powerless love. The love that Jesus commanded the saints to use was not a command to have a powerless love.

God’s love is using power to favor others with help and salvation. Jesus’ love is using power to favor others with help and salvation. God commands us to love in the same way. We are to love the way God loves, which is to use heavenly power to favor others.

Remember when the Israelites went in to take the Promise Land? Do you remember that “they failed” to completely eradicate all the inhabitants? Did they fail or did God fail? God in the ultimate sense decrees everything; therefore, even their failure to obey His command to completely eradicate all inhabitants, was by God power and decree. However, the “failure” was theirs not God’s. “God’s command,” which is what “He wants for them,” is to completely take the Land and enjoy it. Both the moral accountability, and the failure to bring God’s desire for their good, was their failure and accountability.  God is not the objects He creates, thus, God’s command to man, does not categorically apply to Him, just as blue does not apply to the number 7. They failed to fully enjoy all the goodness of the Promise Land, because they failed to obey God. That failure is their accountability and responsibility, not God’s. That is, their failure is not God’s failure. The public failure of God’s people to fully enjoy what Almighty God promised, was on them.

The same with this phrase “love never fails.” If the saints are truly empowered and full of faith, the way “God commanded” them to be, then indeed “love never fails.” Love will see the need for a revelation, miracles, healing, truth or resurrection and because it has power to support all this favor surging in their hearts, then the blind see, the lame walk, the prisoner is set free, the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them. However, if the saints are not in obedience to God’s command to have mountain moving faith and crowned with Spiritual power, so that they fail to love each other in miraculous power, then that accountability and responsibly is on them and not God’s definition of what love is. In such cases, God’s definition of love did not fail; rather, a person failed to obey God commandments, just like with the Israelites.

The Corinthians were prideful, however despite this, at least people were being healed and miracles were performed so that God’s people were favored with help and deliverances. If I were sick and in pain, I would pick a prideful Corinthian who has power to heal me, 1 million times over a so-called saint who was humble but lacked God’s power, and thus, lacked the ablity to love me by removing the pain. Neither, is a true definition of love, but the Corinthians were at least able to relieve suffering saints with the Spirit of God. That is, the Spirit of God did not leave the Corinthians, even though they had some selfish intentions. Paul corrected them and told them to seek even more power. The finger of God, was still moving to help those around them with power, despite some of their faults. However, without this power, then the finger of God does not break in with power, because the power is not there to begin with.

Let God’s people not repeat the mistakes that Israel committed in desert and Promise Land. Let us be filled with faith and the Spirit for heavenly power. Let us love like Jesus. Let us love by the definition revealed in the Scripture. Let us love like God. Let our favor be with power, so that “love never fails.” Let us favor our fellow saints as much or more than ourselves, and with this desire, let us be filled with faith and power. Let us fulfill our desire to help by wielding the power of God as our own, which is our rightful inheritance. Let our actions be the Finger of God that expands His Kingdom with love that never fails.