Tag Archives: Jesus

All Things Are Possible for Man

No, this was not taken from Kenneth Copeland or Kenneth Hagin sermon. It came from a more extreme faith teacher than even these infamous teachers. It came from the greatest faith zealot of them all. This was a doctrine taught by the most extreme faith who ever lived. It came from Jesus Christ.

Christians do not let Jesus get in their way, in their goal to formulate doctrine based on their sensations, observations and feelings. Thus, they do not allow lesser faith teachers to inform their doctrines.  Most Christians are carnal, or that is, most Christians formulate doctrine based on their observations and feelings rather than the scripture. They say, “well, I don’t see all being healed, thus, the scripture cannot mean you will get healed, even if you have faith for it.” They hide their epistemology adultery behind phrases such as, “God-centered,” “Christ-centered,” and “gospel-centered,” as if we are too stupid to not see their spiritual perversion. They hump on David Hume’s empiricism in the open streets, march back into the pulpit, wipe off their sweaty faces, and then say, “sola scriptura.” Little do they know the true horror they are doing to their souls.

  “Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father,” John 14:12. NIV

“If you abide in Me, and My words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you.  by this… you… prove to be My disciples,” John 15:7-8 LSB

“He replied, “Because you have so little faith. Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you,”” Matt.17:20. NIV

Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Matt.19:26 NIV

“And Jesus answered and said to them, “Truly I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ it will happen. And all things you ask in prayer, believing, you will receive,”” Matt.21:21-22

“What do you mean, ‘If I can’?” Jesus asked. 
“Anything is possible if a person believes,” Mark 9:23. NLT

“Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask in prayer, believe that you have received it [past tense], and it will be yours” Mark 11:23-24

And the Lord said, “If you have faith like a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and be planted in the sea’; and it would obey you,” Luke 17:6. LSB

Jesus’ thesis statement on faith is this, “All things are possible for the man who has faith,” and “Whatever a man asks for in faith, it will be given to him.” Because Jesus said this doctrine many times and in various ways, because He tied this doctrine into believing in Him, proof of connection to Him and proof of discipleship, then it is necessary to make this a proof of Orthodoxy. Because Jesus made this a proof of discipleship (John 15:7-8), then it is indeed a test of orthodoxy.  If any church or creed does not state and affirm this doctrine, they are non-Christians and anti-Jesus. You ought to excommunicate them from your life immediately. If they are a church, then pray a Psalm of Judgement over them and boycott them.

Because many churches would call Jesus’ faith doctrine heresy and excommunicate you over it, they expose themselves as a den of demons. Thus, many churches have already divorced themselves from Jesus Christ. As Vincent Cheung says,

 “The controversy shows that the critics affirm an essentially non-Christian worldview. Any worldview that disagrees with the “faith confession” doctrine is not a Christ-view, and contradicts Christ’s view of reality. Thus it in fact qualifies as one test of orthodoxy…

You want to test people with your stupid creed? I will test you by Matthew 21:21 and crush your creed. You want to cite your idol theologian? I will slap his head off with Mark 11:23. Change your creed to agree with Jesus. Throw your theologian into the dumpster if he does not teach this kind of faith. If Jesus is not your Lord but just your mascot, you will die in your sins and burn in hell. Your church will not save you. Your seminary and denomination are themselves under judgment. Unless you have faith, you will die in your sins.” (The Extreme Faith Teacher)

We will finish this up with the positive doctrine. In my experience I much more hear people say, “All things are possible for God.” This is true. It is a fantastic doctrine, and deserves much meditation and praises. However, if that is all that is said in relation to man, because Jesus said more about it in relation to man, then it is only a half-truth; because it is a half-truth, it is also false. Jesus also said, “All things are possible for man.” Consider Jesus in Matthew 17 saying nothing is impossible for man, who has faith.  This context is not about asking God to do something, and then saying God’s potential to grant your prayer is endless, and so, if He will’s it, then the potential is there. No. That is not what Jesus teaches. He says, if a person with faith commands a mountain to move, it will move and obey them. From this premise, Jesus concludes by saying, “nothing is impossible for man.” Jesus is not talking about mere potential, but is saying with faith, anything you command will happen. Again, this is Jesus, the most God-centered man who ever lived. This was not Kenneth Hagin.

As we continue in a few chapters later in Matthew 19 Jesus says the often-quoted verse, “with man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” The context is about a rich man who would not enter the kingdom because he loved his money too much. Thus, the context is about the narrow context of salvation or conversion. This is why Ephesians 2 says that even faith itself is a sovereign gift from God. In our sinful dead state, we do not even have the faith to be saved. This is why in context of salvation it is impossible for man, but possible for God. Jesus’ syllogism is simple. 1. All things are possible for God. 2. Salvation is a thing. 3. Thus, salvation is possible for God.

When we see the two different categories of these passages, it is obvious they do not contradict. A sinner has no possibility to save themselves. However, in the category of a Christian, who is an insider to God, under His New Contract, all things are possible for them. Jesus’ statement of man’s impossibility, deals with a category about salvation, but a Christian is already saved, and thus, all things are now possible for them.  If a so-called Christian views the world in limitations and impossibilities, they have an anti-Christian worldview. They still view themselves as a non-Christian, within a non-Christian view of reality. They still see themselves as outsiders to God and to His contract.

As we progress a few more chapters in Matthew 21 Jesus again says “all things you ask, will be given to you.” This is just another way to say, “all things are possible for man, with faith.” Jesus’ statement here is more extreme and emphatic. Some fools might think, “all things are possible for man,” is just about mere possibility, but Jesus’ statement here gives no room for that. “All things you ask in faith, will be given.” Seriously, how could I or anyone teaching about faith and prayer say it more extreme than that?

This statement is really a conclusion from Jesus’ two examples. One is His cursing of fig tree. Jesus says you will do the same with faith. Then He says you can command a mountain and it will obey you. A fig tree died when Jesus cursed it in faith. It was not a metaphorical fig tree, but a real one. Jesus said you will do the same. Then to press the point harder, He gives a second example so that He is not misunderstood. He says the same can be done to a mountain. There is nothing bigger than mountains, in relation to our experiences. Thus, if we can command mountains by faith, we can command everything else. This is why Jesus’ conclusion from these premises is, “All things you ask in faith, will be given.”

To make it even more extreme, in Mark’s account he records Jesus using the past tense for this conclusion about faith. “All things you ask in faith, believe you have received, and you will have it.” This is a contradiction to how faith and prayer are taught today. They say we ask, “but we do not know if we have received it, until God decides it is His will and then He grants it. Only after He grants it, do we know if we have what we ask for.”  If that is true, then Jesus is a false prophet and teacher. Jesus says you know if God has granted your prayer, the moment you pray it, because you opened your mouth and said something. Jesus says, you will receive (future tense), if you believed you have it (past tense), and not when God gives it.

There are other passages that say the same thing but in different ways such as in John 14 and 15; however, the main focus has been dealt with. Yes, “all things are possible for God,” but “all things are possible for man,” as well.

This does not sound gospel or God centered, does it? Why does tradition and religious elites sound more God-centered than Jesus? Are they more gospel-centered than the Son of God, or is their definition of God-centeredness polluted with human speculation? And for sake of argument, let us say it is man-centered. Yet, Jesus taught it. Jesus made man’s endless possibilities and glory and power a test of orthodoxy. No matter what you do or say, you must deal with Jesus.

The positive point is simple. Because Jesus commanded this, then it means He expects that His insiders can do it. Because He expect His insiders to do it, it means we can do it.

Sickness Is Satan’s Glory, Not God’s

The Arminians are wrong about God’s sovereignty. God does directly and absolutely control and predestine all things. However, this is about ultimate metaphysics, which the Bible only mentions a little, while it mostly talks about the human level. That is the level where God commands us, relates to us, and where we deal with things day-to-day; it is how the Bible mainly speaks to us. We will follow that pattern here. Not talking this way most of the time means not talking like the Bible.

God says in Isaiah 54:15, “They will surely gather against you, but not by Me.” He quietly assumes His own sovereignty but speaks straight to us on our level. God is more God-centered than anyone, and He has no problem saying, “I didn’t cause them to gather.” Jesus, the most God-centered man ever, said about both healing and forgiveness, “Your faith saved you.” In Acts 10:38, Peter says all the sick people Jesus healed were “victimized” or oppressed “by the devil.” So, the Bible has no issue saying sickness isn’t from God; it is from Satan or the curse.

This matters because if we think sickness comes from God, we won’t fight it. That is one reason Jesus battled sickness so hard while tradition doesn’t. Jesus saw sickness as Satan’s direct attack on Him, His Father, and His people. So, He smashed it wherever He found it. The only time He didn’t stomp out sickness—which Satan was causing—was when unbelief blocked Him. Think about that: unbelief stopped Jesus, but Satan couldn’t. Jesus was a one-man wrecking crew against all the sickness the devil threw around.

So, sickness is Satan flipping the bird at Jesus’ atonement. Healing is Jesus slamming His fist into Satan’s face, again and again. There’s a real war here. As Jesus said, if you’re not with Him, you’re against Him (Isaiah 53:4-5, Luke 13:16, Acts 10:38).

In the substitutionary atonement, Jesus took 39 stripes in exchange for our healing. It is already done. In the Father’s mind, He decided our sicknesses were taken off us and put on Jesus as those 39 stripes. Jesus carried our sickness in our place. The verse before, as the Spirit explains through Matthew, says He “bore” (nasa) or took our sicknesses and diseases away. It is the same word used in verse 12 for Jesus bearing our sins, and in Leviticus 16 for the scapegoat, when the high priest transferred the people’s sins to it, and it carried them off into the desert. It is a word for substitutionary atonement, and Isaiah 53 applies it to our sickness and healing.

Yet, many pin sickness on God—not just in the ultimate metaphysical or decree sense, but on the human, relational level. That is wrong. In our New Covenant with God, sealed by oath and blood, God promises to always deal with us in certain ways. We are promised forgiveness, imputed righteousness, but also healing, the blessing of Abraham, and constant good—like a fish for a fish, healing for healing. If Jesus is my High Priest and mediator forever, He doesn’t switch in and out of that role. If He gave me sickness, He would be a minister of sickness in His ministry to me. If Jesus gives sickness, then His gospel ministry is one of pain and torment. But Jesus is only a minister of healing—He takes sickness away; He doesn’t hand it out.

This last point stands out in one example. Jesus sometimes told certain Jews or crowds they weren’t Abraham’s children because they refused to believe—proof they did not belong. So, it’s a big deal when He calls someone a child of Abraham. Take the woman bent over for 18 years. Jesus said she was a child of Abraham—not an outsider, but part of the blessings in God’s covenant with Abraham. In that context, He said Satan made her sick, not God. God’s covenant with Abraham included supernatural healing, not sickness—it was the opposite. So, in God’s relationship with her, Satan delivered the sickness, not God. Jesus used the Abraham covenant as the reason she had to be healed, saying it was necessary—not just a nice idea, but a must. God keeps covenants; He doesn’t break them. The covenant with Abraham must include healing, or it wouldn’t be necessary for Jesus to heal her.

Because she had a standing covenant with God for healing, and because Satan gave her sickness as a curse and middle finger against God’s kingdom, Jesus wiped it out. Unless we see things like Jesus did, we won’t hit sickness hard with God’s healing power. If someone doesn’t get their insider status with God—or that sickness is Satan’s attack to ruin them and, by extension, a middle finger to God’s kingdom—they will let Satan roll right over them. They will accept his attack, slap a “for God’s glory” label on it, and call it a day. That’s demonic.

When Satan attacks someone with sickness, it sidelines a Christian and stalls God’s kingdom. As with warfare, an injured soldier also takes other soldiers away from the front lines to help carry and tend to the injured one. This is why in war it’s often better to injure more than to kill. Satan plays the same war game tactics with Christians by attacking them with sickness. Just as injuries in our army are the glory of the enemy, sickness in Christians is Satan’s glory, not God’s.

A person’s mind is seriously broken when they can’t tell good from evil, God’s glory from Satan’s. When a so-called Christian doesn’t attack sickness with God’s healing power, they’re letting Satan hammer God’s kingdom—and they’re okay with it.

Sickness is not God’s autograph—it’s Satan’s victory lap. Jesus did not just patch up boo-boos; He threw haymakers at the devil’s disease factory. If you are calling it “God’s will” while Satan’s racking up points, you are not just off-script—you’re cheering for the wrong team in this cosmic cage match.

Eschatology In A Nutshell

If someone sums up eschatology without baptism of the Spirit for power, they have no idea what they are talking about.

Acts 1:6-8 NIV. “ Then they gathered around him and asked him, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses… to the ends of the earth.”

The context is about eschatology. Jesus has sat down on his eternal throne and is ruling. The disciples did what most do, they made eschatology about politics. However, Jesus rebukes them and says eschatology is about being baptized in the Spirit for power and miracles.

The important part to note is that in eschatology the followers made it political and Jesus made it about miracles and the Spirit for power. By making it about politics they made it about man. Religious elites make the baptism of Power belong only to the apostles, and thus they still make it about man. They use religious words, but the result is a man-centred doctrine in what it means to be God-centred. In Peter’s sermon on Pentecost, he made baptism of power about Jesus and His eschatology position, sitting at the right hand of the Power. It had nothing to do with the apostles, thus, the baptism of power still remains, because Jesus still remains at the right hand of the Power. The Power was faithful to His promise to give Jesus the authority to pour out power.

Jesus is still faithful in pouring out power on “all whom the Power calls to Himself,” (Acts 2:39).  The Baptism of power is connected to God predestination of the elect. Peter’s point is not directly about repentance, but baptism of the Spirit and to this Peter directly connects, as many as God calls to Himself. This is why Peter says the gentiles were granted salvation and eternal life when He witnessed them speaking in tongues (Acts 10:44-47). In His Pentecost sermon Peter already said that being baptised in the Spirit is about God calling His predestined ones to Himself. Thus, when Peter saw the gentiles speaking in tongues, and then he told the other disciples, they concluded God elected them to eternal life (11:15-18).  In fact, Peter said because the Spirit was given to them, it was proof they should be baptised in water. And let us not forget that water baptism is a sign that they have died and were raised in new life with Jesus. Speaking tongues was proof they were elected to eternal life.

Peter’s argument for the baptism of power is based on two points. One is the Father being faithful to His promise (2:33) to Jesus, so that Jesus has the authority to pour out power. The second part of the argument is that Jesus is sitting on His throne, at the right hand of the Power (2:31-36). These are the 2 relevant factors, in Peter’s argument, for the conditions in pouring out the baptism of power.  Peter, who is an Apostle, gives no scriptural quotes or logical connections, that the baptism of the Spirit is connected to the apostles. Zero.  What do the religious elites know that Peter did not?

In addition to the Spirit baptism of power, there is the issue of authority. Jesus gave the disciples the authority to heal the sick. In fact, it was a command, because He said, you “heal the sick,” and “cast out demons,” and “preach the gospel.” Then Jesus did the same with 72 others, and so no one can logically say it was only for the apostles. To further insure this, Peter in Acts 3, after commanding a healing, says it was by “faith in Jesus,” and not by the authority of an apostle.  Faith in Jesus is what causes a person to receive salvation, and it is the same faith that commands sickness to leave. It is heavily God-centred. It is not man-centred on the apostles. It is centred on Jesus and His position of authority, while He is sitting at the Father’s right hand.

The next major event after the baptism of the Spirit Acts 3-4, shows how Jesus’ plan for power is how to apply His eschatology.

After being released from prison the Christians got together and prayed. They quoted Psalms 2, a militaristic Psalm, and asked that God would apply this to their situation of government opposition, by healing the sick, miracles and boldness to preach the gospel. God responded back with a resounding Yes.

This is how they applied eschatology. This is how they applied the doctrine that Jesus is on His eternal Throne and rules forever. This is how they applied the doctrine that King Jesus gave them power to advance His Kingdom when they face opposition, even when their enemies use the government to persecute them.

In context of eschatology advancement under King Jesus, they mentioned 3 things, healing, miracles and bold preaching. Many only preach (and they are not even good at that), which is only 1/3rd of the disciples applied eschatology. It is no surprise they fail at kingdom advancement.

The Will OF GOD is Irrelevant

The bible teaches that God has absolute and direct control over all things. He is the only real cause for all things, and there is no such thing as secondary causes. God is the metaphysical author of sin and evil. God has predestined all things by His own goals and choices, and decrees all reality in a logical order in relation to His goals (supralapsarianism).  There is no such thing as free-will. Man is responsible because he is not free but under God’s sovereign control and command.  Because God absolutely and directly causes all things, He absolutely and directly causes the predestination of the elect and reprobate. Logic and deduction are so easy. As Romans 9 says, God takes from the neutral lump (before good or evil) and by the same power and choice makes some to be evil reprobates and some to be righteous elect.  God has not given up some of His control to man, because free-will does not exist, because the bible never says He made this choice, and because the nature of God insures that there is no difference in how direct and absolute He causes one thing or another in creation. God’s thoughts, power and choice are one and the same. Because He thinks about it and decides on it, it is reality. Therefore, in the ultimate sense, God Will is the only relevant issue.

I say all of this to state a broad and correct doctrine of God’s sovereignty, so that I am not misunderstood in my following comments.

When we pray for healing, miracles or forgiveness the “will of God,” (referring to His causality, not commands), is irrelevant. As Vincent Cheung points out in “Healing: The Will of Man,” to talk about the “will of God” in this context is already a partial defeat, because the bible talks about man’s will, not God’s will.

The bible’s positive doctrine is that healing is about the will of man, not the will of God. This is how the scripture presents the subject. Jesus never asked the Father if it was God’s will to heal a particular person; rather, He always asked if it was the man or woman’s will to be healed.  Jesus then said to his disciples and followers, “you heal the sick.” The will of God (referring to His decrees/causality) was never brought up; only “man’s will,” was brought up. The will of God was simply irrelevant. Jesus, who is more God-centered than you or your favorite pastor, taught us the “will of God,” was irrelevant, and that “man’s will” was the relevant issue.

Some are more accustomed to think about the atonement and forgiveness and so we will start here. The big idea, is that healing (Isaiah 53, Matth 8, James 5, Gal. 3) is as much the gospel and substitutionary atonement as forgiveness is, if not more so.

So here is the question: is the “will of God,” relevant for salvation or conversion? It is not relevant, if I am the one answering it. I am not asking a broad doctrinal question. I am asking it as Jesus would ask a person, “do you want to be healed”? Do you want to be forgiven? I am asking it the way Moses says, “I have presented to you life and death,” now make a choice. I am asking it the way the bible personally addresses me with its promises and commands, telling me that I must respond to it.

The “will of God” is irrelevant for my salvation, because what God decrees and causes is irrelevant in my response to obey the command of God to repent. Paul in Acts 17 commands us to repent of our sins. It is not a choice or suggestion. When I evaluate how I should behave I only use the commands of God to do this, not God’s secret decrees or causality. For example, in Romans 5 Paul says God caused me to be born a sinner, with a sinful heart, because of what Adam did. If I were to use the “will of God,” as a relevant factor in my decision to repent of my sins or not, then I would recognize it was the will of God to decree and cause me to be born a sinner, thus I will choose to stay a sinner until God decrees and causes me to repent.

I will assume most will see the error of this.  It is obvious that God’s Will is irrelevant in my consideration if I should repent of my sins. The relevant issue is God’s command for me to repent.  If a person uses the “will of God” as a relevant issue to exempt them from having to repent of their sins, we would see this as an excuse to be rebellious and unbelieving.

The same is for healing and other various miracles and supernatural experiences.  Healing is provided by the same atonement that provided forgiveness. Both are already accomplished and both are received on the demand of faith. God is sovereign over our faith, but on the demand of faith God always does what He promises. Faith always receives, and God is sovereign over faith. However, even though God is sovereign over faith (God’s Will), we are never told to consider it as relevant knowledge when we choose to believe a promise or not.  When we are in the context of a “should” or “ought” the category is always about God’s command.

In John 15 Jesus uses God’s predestination as an encouragement to ask whatever we want and get it.  Peter does the same thing in Acts 2 about the baptism of the Spirit for power. And so the Will of God is relevant in the topic of valuing God’s encouragement and explanation. Even though God’s Will is used by scripture to encourage our confidence for miracles and answered prayer, yet, when dealing with the topic of the scripture commanding me to repent and commanding me to receive healing and the gospel (James 5:15, John 14,15, Gal.3, Acts 2) the only relevant category is God’s command, not God’s Will.

Thus, when we pray for healing, God’s Will is irrelevant. The Will of God, is a non-issue. To have the Will of God, pop up into your head when praying for healing, is like having the decree of God that made you a sinner(Rom 5), pop into your head as a relevant issue if you should repent or not, and question if God would forgive if you had faith in Jesus.  It is insane and delusional.

The Will of God is irrelevant when considering if God will save you if you repent in faith; it is a non-issue. The Will of God is irrelevant when considering if God will heal you if you command sickness to leave with faith; it is a non-issue.

“Oh, God, please forgive me. I am powerless. You have done nothing yet, but you could do something, Oh powerful and eternal God. You made me a sinner because of Adam’s sin, and so, I don’t know if You have decreed me to be saved or not, and so, If it is your Will, please forgive my sins.”

This insane prayer is how many pray about healing. They are stupid and sinful. The bible never tells us to pray like this. Such a person should not expect to be forgiven of their sin. And if they pray for healing like this, they should not expect to be healed. To pray, while using the Will of God as a relevant issue, will divorce you from being forgiven and healed; It is a prayer of death.

When Peter said, “What I have, I give, in Jesus Name, walk,” the Will of God never came up, because the Will of God is irrelevant. Jesus commanded His followers to heal the sick. This command is the relevant issue, not the Will of God. The Will of God is a non-issue in the context of my healing, or your healing. When you bring in the Will of God as a relevant issue for healing or forgiveness the end results in God’s command being negated. The category of God’s decree and command are different and so should never be used to void each other out, or mixed together.

“Oh God, by Your Will I was made sick, and so I don’t know if I should be healed or not, but please, heal me if it is Your Will.”

 This is a prayer of death. It is a prayer of insanity and disobedience. This prayer uses God’s decree as an excuse to avoid obeying God’s command to be healed.  To use God’s decree to excuse yourself from obeying any of God’s commands such as receiving forgiveness or receiving healing, is stupid and wicked.

Although, there is nothing wrong for a salvation prayer to “ask God into your heart,” yet there are more precise ways to describe it.  Peter in his Pentecost sermon gives direction for a salvation prayer. He instructs the audience to ““Repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ.” Notice Peter did not instruct them to “ask” God to forgive them; rather, he tells them to repent in Jesus’ Name to be saved. Why? Because Jesus already died and was resurrected. The forgiveness already happened. We are not asking God to crucify His Son again to forgive us, because it already happened.  We are not asking God to do anything in the present tense to forgive us, because Jesus already accomplished it. Because it has been accomplished all we do is repent.  In this context we do not ask or beg. It is when a person has confidence in Jesus’ finished atonement, they repent of their sins in Jesus’ Name. Salvation in this sense is a confession, and not asking and begging. We confess our sins and that is all it takes. Faith is about God letting you know He has already forgiven you, and by repenting you are agreeing with God.  It is foundationally about agreeing and confessing and not asking.

Other gospel benefits such as a healing, and the authority to cast out demons and cast down mountains is the same. They have been accomplished by Jesus’ finished atonement. We do not ask and beg for them, because they have been accomplished by Jesus and given to us. It is irrational to beg for something that already belongs to you.  It was the stripes on Jesus’ back that healed us. And so, it is irrational to ask God to heal us, as if He needs to break out the whip again and start slashing Jesus in the throne room. God accomplished our healing in Jesus’ atonement. Thus, we don’t beg for it, because it is already ours.  As with salvation, we repent as a confession of confidence in Jesus finished atonement, rather than beg and ask forgiveness. The same with healing. It is the Will of Man to command sickness to leave. We confess and agree with God, rather than beg and ask. This is why Jesus tells us to “heal the sick, and cast out demons.” When we command healing and command demons to leave, we are giving a confident confession in the finished atonement of Jesus, which has given us the healing and authority to do such things.

Point The Gun At Satan & Pull The Trigger

No analogy is perfect, but faith to heal is like God giving us a gun. No one says to themselves, “it is my power that blew up this apple, when I shot it.”  Rather, it is painfully obvious to all that the power was the gun powder and bullets. Yet, when a person shoots something or someone, then they are blamed, and rightly so, as “this person destroyed this,” and or “they hurt this other person.” Even though it was not their power, they directed the power to a target. If an Olympian sharpshooter wins gold, the medal is awarded to them and not to their gun.

It is similar when Jesus commanded us to heal the sick, rebuke demons and cast down mountains using His Name and authority. God and creation are not the same, or that is to say, we deny pantheism. Jesus gave us His power and authority. The Spirit was not given to God, to have rivers of life and power flow from His belly, but from ours. Because healing was produced by the stripes on Jesus, in substitutionary atonement for our healing, then it means we do not ask for healing, because it has already been accomplished and given to us.  We do not ask God for forgiveness, but rather, we repent of our sins, because the forgiveness has already been accomplished.  

Adam and Eve, did not beg God for food, because the food was already provided and given. They could beg all they want, but God was not going to grab a pear and shove it down their throats. They had to grab the provided food and eat it themselves. The same is for healing. The atonement provided the healing, it is our responsibility to grab it and partake of it. The way we do this is by faith and then opening our mouths and commanding the sickness to leave and healing to take place. Jesus said “you heal the sick.” He did not say, “ask God to heal them.” He said, “you do it.” Jesus did not tell us to tell God about our mountains, but to use our given authority and power, and then command them to move. Most Christians are in direct and explicit rebellion to Jesus on this doctrine. This is why Peter in Acts 3 says, “what I have, I give to you, in Jesus Name, walk.” Peter did not even pray, or not pray in the usual way. He commanded the healing, just like Jesus told him. We are under the same gospel and the same commandments.

Because the power, authority and healing has been given to us, it is us who pulls the trigger, not God. It is us, who climbs into the driver’s seat and makes things happen, not God. Thus, God is not holding back your healing, you are. God is not the one who is going to heal you and those around you, you are. Jesus said, “You heal them.”

This does not mean that God never works independently of our faith, because a “gift of faith” and or healing is to help us in our weakness. We seek them and gladly use them. However, the bible speak of the gifts in the least amount, as compared to something like normal discipleship faith in God’s promise. Faith is the master key.  And so, the point remains, God is not holding back your healing, because He has commanded that you pull the trigger. The same is for something like the forgiveness of sins. God is sovereign and controls all things. God is sovereign over our faith, but on the demand of faith God always does what He promises, whether forgiveness or healing.

The power and authority has been provided to us to heal, just as much as food was provided for Adam and Eve. God has put the gun in our pocket, but it will not fire itself. It will fire, when we use faith and point it as sickness and command it to leave. God has commanded us to resist the devil and cast him out. His power is already in our bellies and His authority is already stamped upon our tongues.  God is not holding you back from being freed from demonic harassment, because He commands you to point the gun at Satan and pull the trigger. He tells you to command demons to leave. You resist the devil, not God. You command them to leave, not God.  

When we do, we are praised for the results and God is credited as the ultimate power, just like Peter said, “what I have, I give, In Jesus name, walk.” Jesus Christ says the mulberry tree, would not obey “God,” but that it will “obey, you,” when you command it. God will praise us, when we use our faith to use the authority that He has given us. When we pull the trigger, He has nothing but praises. “Your faith has saved you, and it has healed you.”

Many Christians are begging God to heal them, as if Jesus stripes did not already provide healing, and God needs to do something to give the healing. God does not need to re-crucify Jesus, because the atonement is a finished deal. Just like with forgiveness, because it is already done, you simply repent and receive forgiveness and righteousness by faith. God does not need to do something to forgive you, it has already been accomplished, and so you do not ask and beg God to forgive you.

They think prayer is like an Uber Driver, asking the driver (Jesus) to take them to the healing location. But this is wrong. The problem is that Jesus has already provided the healing (location) and the means to get there, which is faith (the car). They must get in the driver’s seat and drive it themselves.  God is not withholding their healing, or righteousness. It is already done.

And yet, they pray asking and begging, as if they expect God to pluck off a pear (healing) and shove it down their throats (faith) and force their jaws to chew.  This is why their prayers go unanswered. The pear tree is looking at them in the face, and they are begging God for a pear. If I saw a person like this, I would think they have a few screws loose in their head and likely be silent, not knowing how to respond to such bizarre behavior. This is one reason why God seems silent when you pray. Many Christians pray as if they are insane and delusional.

Let us obey Jesus’ extreme faith and prayer doctrine. Let us sound like intelligent Children of God. Let us not beg for something that God has already given us.

——–

* I want to give credit to Andrew Wommack for helping me understand some basics of this teaching, “You already Got It.” The example of the food in the garden, and silent prayers I got from him.

Jesus Was the Real Victim in this Story

 He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” (Mark 4:40 NIV)

Jesus told him, “Don’t be afraid; just believe.” (Mark 5:36 NIV)

The saying is true, you are either in faith or fear. Jesus puts these as opposites. He says, “only believe,” with no mixture of fear. He says in Mark 4 that the disciples had fear and zero faith. They don’t mix well. If you have fear in your heart about a sickness, then you realize you don’t have faith. This is how it works.

Jesus was the real victim in this story. He was asleep with His head on a cushion and was woken up for something He expected the disciples to deal with, without disturbing Him. I am not trying to be funny here. It is no joke being woken up from a good nap from something so minor as a deadly storm, which only a little faith could destroy and remove.

The prayers of many people are like the disciples in this story. They pray as if Jesus is teaching that He likes it, if we cry out in fear for His help over something like deadly weather or sickness. People repeat the disciples fearful cry as a model for prayer, when Jesus rebukes it as how not to pray. Jesus was upset with their fearful cries for help. Think about that. Because God is merciful He might answer some fearfully cries of unbelief, but don’t expect it.

The point that made it a bad prayer was no faith. It is ok to ask for Jesus help if you have faith, but here is Jesus’ point. If they had faith, then they did not need to ask for Jesus’ help. That’s how you know you have faith.

 We do not have every lesson Jesus told the disciples at this point, but Jesus’ reaction gives us enough details that He expected them to use their faith, and deal with the situation, without waking Him up.

This also brings up the issue of where the storm came from. Of course in the ultimate level God causes all things, but the bible mostly deals with the human level. Peter in Acts 10:38 said it was not God, but Satan who was victimizing all the people in Israel with sickness and diseases. When Jesus was casting out diseases He was fighting demons, not God, because the sicknesses came from demons not God. When you have an insider relationship with God He relates to you in blessings. The contract in Jesus’ blood stipulates that God only relates to us in blessings (it could include discipline, but not curses). Thus, whether it is a sickness, or a deadly storm, in human level, it was not from God. When you rebuke it, you are not rebuking God but demons and the curse. Jesus teaches us to not tell God about our mountains, or sickness or deadly storm, but to use our faith and we command it to move and die. Jesus has given us the power and authority to do it, and expects us to do something. Don’t wake Him up and tell Him about a storm, when you have the Staff of God in your mouth. Open your mouth. You divide it. You heal it. You cast it out. You calm it.

Carnally Minded and Sickness

If you believe a doctor’s report over the promise that Jesus has already healed you, then you are the definition of fleshly or carnally minded.  Stop condemning adulterers for being carnal, until you can remove the oak tree of carnality from your own eye.

But you say, the doctor says its stage 4 cancer.  If you are carnally minded then I understand why that seems so serious. The bible says to be carnally minded is death. But we are to be spiritually minded. Spiritual and intellectual are really the same thing. We are intellectual by using the bible as our only starting point for knowledge. The Spirit enables us to believe His promises. This is spiritual minded.  Does the bible say a stage 4 tumor is not included in the stripes of Jesus that healed us? Where?

To be carnal or fleshly has two meanings. One is about sinning according to bodily desires such as adultery or giving into anger. This carnal sinning is a consequent of the other meaning. The other is to center your choices on your sensations rather than the Spirit and the Word. This does not always mean an automatic sin. Just because you slept an extra hour more, because you were tired is not a sin. However, if the bible addresses the same topic and gives a command and gives a promise that contradicts, then it becomes a sin at this point to choose the fleshly desire over the scripture. To be carnal means your source of knowledge is empiricism. Atheism is to be carnally minded. The Christian is defined by their starting point being the Word and being led by the Spirit. This is a contradiction to being carnal.

A doctor is only telling you what they see and hear and feel. This is carnal. They give you knowledge based on carnality. Because the bible addresses sickness and healing, then to choose the so-called knowledge based off the flesh over the scripture is to be carnally minded. Your mind is focused on sensations and feelings and not focused on scripture and the Spirit. This is the definition of a carnal mind. When a person worries, they are replaying knowledge produced by the flesh. They are carnally minded. This carnal focus on empiricism will lead to fleshly sins such as worry, fear, unbelief, anger and then to other behavioral sins such as outburst of anger and drowning out worries with entertainment and lust.

To be carnal is more than just adultery. The foundation of a carnal mind is about knowledge. Where do you get knowledge? If you use your feelings and five senses, then you are the pinnacle of carnality.  To hide behind a doctor, who is carnally minded does not remove your guilt. There is a line drawn in the sand. On one side is the Word and the Spirit, the other is what you can see, feel and touch. The scripture has drawn that line and so you must choose. As Jesus said, if you are not with Him, you are against Him.

My Power My Choice

Acts 3:4-6 NIV

Then Peter said, “Look at us!” 

….what I do have I give you.
In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.

First. Peter said, “look at us.”  I thought we were to direct attention away from us and point to Christ? Why is Peter so focused on himself?

Second. Peter says “what “I,” have, “I,” give to you.” I thought it was, “what God has, He will sovereignly will or choose to give?” I thought it was God’s power, and God’s choice, not Peter’s power and Peter’s choice?

Peter said it was Peter’s power, “what I have,” and it was his choice, “I give.” Peter claims it was his power and his will. Why does Peter pray in a contradictory way as compared to the theologians? Who is right?

The Bible rejects pantheism. God is not what He creates; He absolutely and directly controls all things, but He is not what He controls. God gave his followers the power to heal the sick, and cast out demons. He did not give this power to Himself. Jesus commanded both the apostles and followers to heal the sick. Jesus commanded both is disciples and 77 others to “heal the sick and cast out demons.” Some stop at Matthew 10:7 when Jesus command them to “preach the kingdom of heaven.”  Jesus is commanding them, and us by extension, to preach the gospel. So far, so good. But Jesus continues by saying, “heal the sick, cast out demons, and raise the dead.” Jesus was not going to do this; He was commanding them to do it. If someone was going to get healed, it was up to their power and choice.  Thus to heal the sick and raise the dead is as much as a command as it is to preach the gospel. If it was not clear enough Jesus after His resurrection, commanded them to receive power, Acts 1:8. Most of them were not apostles, because it had nothing to do with the apostles, but Jesus sitting as the right hand of the Power.  Not only did they have the power, it was their will or choice to administer it. It was not up to God’s power and will to heal, it was their power and will.

This is how Jesus spoke on this topic and it was how Peter spoke on it. However if I spoke like Jesus and Peter in most American churches I would be labeled a heretic.

Yes, on the ultimate level the power is God’s, just as the power in my hand to type this essay is ultimately God’s power and by His direct control. However, Jesus and the Bible rarely mention this ultimate level; they mostly speak on the human level. I will do the same.  Thus, it was not God who typed this, but it was I, who typed with my power and choice. Likewise , the sick are not healed by God’s power and choice, but my power and my choice.  Anyone who has a problem with this rejects a doctrine directly taught by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Cut such a person out of your life. They are servants of demons.

Peter sums this up by saying faith in Jesus name brought the healing. It was a person’s will to have faith that brought the healing, not God’s will. For more on this topic see, Vincent Cheung, “Healing, The Will Of Man.”

Also, Peter did not even pray, at least not in the traditional way. He simply commanded the healing. This is what Jesus told us to do. “You heal the sick.” It was the same with Moses and the Red Sea. God said, “You divide it.” Many do not pray by commanding and this is why their prayers go unanswered. This is why many have died before their time by sickness and troubles. Jesus commanded us to do the healing, not God.

Jesus’ faith doctrine is extreme. He does not instruct us to pray to God and tell Him about our mountain; rather, Jesus tells us to move the mountain by using faith and commanding it to move.  Jesus said, “it will obey you.”

This is not a suggestion. It is a command from our God. Because of this, when many pray they are in rebellion against God. Jesus commands us to move and heal. However, many respond back saying, “No, God, You do it, if You are willing.” By praying like this, they have ensured their sickness has already gained victory over them. On rare occasions God might still heal such a prayer, out of extreme pity, but it would be an exception. If you are sick and pray like a beggar, asking God to heal, you have already lost. You are a dead man walking. Sickness has already defeated you for the glory of Satan.

When some pray, they pray confessing unbelief rather than faith. If you are born-again then you are not a worm, not a beggar, not a nobody and you are not a sinner. James says the prayer of a righteous person is very effective; however, if your prayer is confessing how pathetic you are, then of course you will not pray knowing how righteous you are, and thus, your prayers will not be effective.  Prayer is a good confession of faith in God’s truths and promises; and yet, people often pray confessing who they were, before they were born-again. They say, “I am a worn and sinful and nothing, but God is everything and powerful.” This takes no faith; it is a coward’s way out. It is a religious maneuver to remove you from God’s command and responsibility. If you are nothing and sinful then you need to get born-again so that you become righteous and have privileges that come from being a son of God.

To illustrate this think about asking God for the forgiveness of sins, or a salvation type prayer. Although, there is nothing wrong for a salvation prayer to “ask God into your heart,” yet there are more precise ways to describe it.  Peter in his Pentecost sermon gives direction for a salvation prayer. He instructs the audience to ““Repent and be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ.” Notice Peter did not instruct them to “ask” God to forgive them; rather, he tells them to repent in Jesus’ Name to be saved. Why? Because Jesus already died and was resurrected. The forgiveness already happened. We are not asking God to crucify His Son again to forgive us, because it already happened.  We are not asking God to do anything in the present tense to forgive us, because Jesus already accomplished it. Because it has been accomplished all we do is repent.  In this context we do not ask or beg. It is when a person has confidence in Jesus’ finished atonement, they repent of their sins in Jesus’ Name. Salvation in this sense is a confession, and not asking and begging. We confess our sins and that is all it takes. Faith in this sense, is about God letting you know He has already forgiven you, and by repenting you are agreeing with God.  It is foundationally about agreeing and confessing and not asking.

Other gospel benefits such as a healing, and the authority to cast out demons and cast down mountains is the same. They have been accomplished by Jesus’ finished atonement. We do not ask and beg for them, because they have been accomplished by Jesus and given to us. It is irrational to beg for something that already belongs to you.  It was the stripes on Jesus’ back that healed us. And so, it is irrational to ask God to heal us, as if He needs to break out the whip again and start slashing Jesus in the throne room. God accomplished our healing in Jesus’ atonement. Thus, we don’t beg for it, because it is already ours.  As with salvation, we repent as a confession of confidence in Jesus finished atonement, rather than beg and ask forgiveness. The same with healing. We confess and agree with God, rather than beg and ask. This is why Jesus tells us to “heal the sick, and cast out demons.” When we command healing and command demons to leave, we are giving a confident confession in the finished atonement of Jesus, which has given us the healing and authority to do such things.

Some people are asking God to do things that He told us to do. They have it flipped upside down. And yes, we see examples of Jesus in John 14-16 telling us to ask in His name. However, in my experience it is only those who already know their authority in Jesus, who already are healing the sick, who are able to ask God for things in prayer, without asking as if they are a beggar or outsider.  Those how can heal the sick and cast out demons are better equipped to march boldly to God’s throne of grace and confidently ask for things as a son who belongs there.

Science is Anti-Logic

Recently, I have been reminded that people think science is deductive and logical.

Empiricism, Observation and affirming the consequent are logical fallacies.  Because they are the epistemology, order and systematic practice of science, it means science has no knowledge. Science has no body of knowledge.  These logical fallacies are built into the nature of empiricism and science. For example, because the bible is God’s revelation given to us, deduction is therefore pre-baked or built into our worldview. We do not discover or observe truth, God reveals it and we apply (i.e. deduction) this knowledge to us and the world around us. We do not formulate generalizations because God already gives us the truth up front.

If your epistemology starts with the five senses (which is a fallacy), then fallacies of induction are pre-baked or built into your worldview. No amount of crying about this, will make the fallacies go away. You do not have knowledge because it was not revealed and given to you. And so, you must observe and attempt to find it. You must use particulars (‘some’ (in addition to being private, transient descriptions)) and generalize (‘all’ category statement). However, to do this you violate the law of contradiction by saying ‘some’ and ‘all’ are the same thing. The only way to avoid this is if you are omniscient, or can observe all things in all past, present and future with perfect understanding of all you observe. Unless this is the case, then the premises of observation are always a ‘some.’ However, category statements need to be ‘all’ statements if you want knowledge about reality. All conclusions produced by induction do not logically follow from the premises. This means all induction is a non-sequitur fallacy. This means all induction is anti-logic, because it violates the law of contradiction and violates the law of valid inference. The logical void between premise and conclusion is the place where the laws of logic are violated. Induction is anti-logic.

The statement “trees are rocks” is primarily a category mistake because it misclassifies trees, which are living organisms, as rocks, which are inanimate objects. Trees and rocks belong to fundamentally different categories and have distinct properties. However, it can also be seen as a contradiction because trees and rocks have inherent, distinct properties. Trees grow and reproduce, while rocks do not. Therefore, saying that a tree is a rock contradicts the essential properties that define each category. The primary issue is the misclassification of categories, but it can also be seen as a contradiction due to the inherent properties of trees and rocks.

The inherent properties of knowledge are not material. However, sensations and reality are material. To have premises about material things to then conclude with knowledge, is primarily a category mistake, but also a contradiction because of the inherent properties of these categories. Thus, observation and empiricism are anti-logic.

Empiricism is a fallacy. What you see is not the same as the thing you are seeing; they are different categories. Also, the visual or audio sensation is not knowledge, but you understand what you are seeing by invisible propositions of true and false. Sensations are not propositions, and thus you have multiple category fallacies when you go from the thing itself, to sensation and then to knowledge. This results in a repeated systematic denying of the law of contradiction. To say the category of a “the thing itself,” a “sound” and a “proposition” is the same, is a category error and so it also denies the law of contradiction. Category errors in one’s epistemology would lead to skepticism, and this would also deny the law of contradiction. Empiricism is anti-logic.

Scientific experimentation is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. I want to give credit to Vincent Cheung for helping me understand this below, from his essay, A Gang of Pandas.

A. If chemical Y is present, then this solution will explode.
B. The solution exploded.
C. Thus, I verified that chemical Y is present.

This is a fallacy. Maby chemical ‘k’ was present and it was the reason for the explosion. We are on the topic of logic. Logically, controlled tests do not eliminate the infinite number of variables that could be affecting the experiment. Controlled tests have no bearing on removing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. The only way for a scientist to know if his controlled test does eliminate all other variables, is to already have more knowledge than his experiment, but if that is the case then he doesn’t need science anymore, because he already knows all things.

A scientist will then take the conclusion produced by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and then restate it as a Modus Ponens in their scientific journal. Scientist want to be deductive and logical so they restate their fallacy in a deductive form. However, the reformulation is in name only. Logic must match up with reality.  Affirming the consequent is experimentation.

D. If his solution explodes, then chemical Y is present.
E. This solution exploded.
F. Thus, chemical Y was present.

 Thus, to restate such statements as Modus Ponens in scientific publications is nothing less than a delusion. They state their experiments as category statements to be used in deduction.  This gives them the appearance that they have knowledge. However, the first premise of their Modus Ponens was produced by the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Thus, their deduction is unsound.  There never was a body of knowledge to begin with. But they want to have a body of knowledge and so they transform categories and necessary connections not present in their premises and illogically put in their conclusions. They are anti-logic. 

Using “deduction” without knowledge or with false premises means the syllogism is unsound. To use deduction without knowledge is delusional and insane. For example, for me to say, “All box-jellyfish are jellyfish. I am a box-jellyfish. Therefore, I am a jellyfish,” would be deductive but also delusional. It is vain to use deduction or logical inference, unless you have a body knowledge to begin with. Knowledge is something science never had. You cannot use the triple fallacy of empiricism, observation and affirming the consequent and then produce knowledge; it is logically impossible. It is anti-law-of-contradiction to say a conclusion that does not logically follow from the premises produces knowledge.  

All Induction is Anti-Logic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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