Tag Archives: logic

Science: the Fallacy of an Undistributed Middle Term

QUEST. Is the fallacy of affirming the consequent a type of inductive reasoning; or is inductive a type of the fallacy of affirming the consequent; or are the two completely unrelated? Induction defined as arguing from a particular to a universal.
Affirming the consequent: P ⊃ Q; Q; ∴ P.

ANS. Affirming the Consequent and inductive reasoning are similar or comparable, if we define inductive reasoning as “having more information in the conclusion than what the premises have.”

In essence, the informal fallacy called, “non-sequitur” – “does not logically follow from the premises”—is what all inductive reasoning is.

Deduction: Conclusion has information only contained in the premises.

Induction: Conclusion has new additional information the premises do not contain.

For example

E1. All [things that comes to pass] are [determined by God]. B is C
E2. [Man’s moral acts] are [things which come to pass]. A is B
E3. Thus, [man’s moral acts] are [determined by God], & [not responsible]. A is C & D

The conclusion “man’s moral acts are determined by God,” is obviously already contained in the original premise, “All that comes to pass are determined by God.” If all things are determined by God, then so is man. Simple enough. However, the term “not responsible” and the necessary connection to it are not in the premises. This the essence of inductive reasoning it a non-sequitur.

As for affirming the consequent, depending on the terms and its simplicity many of them can be interchanged with categorical logic. Be forward not all can be interchanged like this. At any rate, Let us take this for example. It needs to be simple If A then B is C.

This simple modus ponens is stating the B and C terms, the third term, which is missing is an implied fill-in-the-black, ‘A’ subject.

If a mammal, then warm blooded. (B is C)
Is a mammal. ( B )
Thus, warm blooded. ( C )

The argument is based on the presupposition that mammals are warm-blooded (B is C) is a given truth.

M.1 If [Bats] are [mammals], then they [warm-blooded].  A, (B is C)
M.2. [Bats] are [mammals]. A is B
M.3. Thus, they [Warm-blooded]. A is C.

Even though the first line of M.1. has all three terms (A is B is C), the main emphasis is that B is C, like the major premise of a Category Syllogism. Next, M.2. is A is B, which is similar to the minor premise of a Category Syllogism. Finally, the conclusion is A is C.

B is C
A is B
Thus, A is C.

This Modus Ponens is hypothetical in form only. The essence of this argument is the comprehension and extension of the terms, not mainly about the necessary connection from B to C.

N.1. All [Mammals] are [Warm-blooded]. B is C.
N.2. All [Bats] are [Mammals]. A is B
N.3. Thus, All [Bats] are [Warm-blooded]. A is C.

Now, let us review Affirming the Consequent, which is the structure for scientific experimentation. We will use a simple enough form that it can be used in categorial logic.

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

B is C
A is C
Thus A is B.

This of course is a fallacy. It could be that Jack ate lots of durian rather than bread. Let us put this into categorical logic to see the fallacy.

Y.1. All [who eat lots of bread] are [those who belly’s get full]. B is C
Y.2. All [Jack] is [he who belly got full]. A is C
Y.3. Thus, [Jack] is [He who ate lots of bread]. Thus, A is B

If you notice the information in the conclusion has more than what the premises provide. This is the fallacy of an undistributed middle term.

Thus, the fallacy of scientific experimentation, if restated in a category fallacy, is the fallacy of an undistributed middle term.

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

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

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

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

Calvin Institutes, And God Being the Cause of All Things

Calvin Institutes[1]

Chapter 18, Book 1.

The sum of the whole is this,

since I say the will of God is the cause of all things,

all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence. Therefore, just as God exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, He also exerts force in the reprobate to do him service.

When I say that God bends all the reprobate, and even Satan himself, at his will, some object that on The sum of the whole is this,—since the will of God is said to be the cause of all things, all the counsels and actions of men must be held to be governed by his providence. Therefore, as God exerts his power in the elect, who are guided by the Holy Spirit, He also exerts force in the reprobate to do him service.

..only happens by the permission, not by the will of God…

[Those who are against the will of God that causes all things, counter this by saying] this is done only by the permission of God, and not by the will of God. However, God himself, openly declares that he does this, and thus, rebukes their evasion of this doctrine.

What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him, certainly extends to all the actions of men.

David, not murmuring against God, but acknowledging him to be a just judge, confesses that the curses of Shimei are uttered by his orders. “The Lord,” says he, “has bidden him curse.” Often in sacred history whatever happens is said to proceed from the Lord, as the revolt of the ten tribes, the death of Eli’s sons, and very many others of a similar description. Those who have a tolerable acquaintance with the Scriptures see that, with a view to brevity, I am only producing a few out of many passages, from which it is perfectly clear that it is the merest trifling to substitute a bare permission for the providence of God [i.e. God’s will causes all things], as if he sat in a watch-tower waiting for fortuitous events, his Judgments meanwhile depending on the will of man.

2. With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither, as God sees meet, certainly applies to the whole human race, and has the same force as if he had said, that whatever we conceive in our minds is directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God. And certainly, did he not work internally in the minds of men, it could not have been properly said, that he takes away the lip from the true, and prudence from the aged—takes away the heart from the princes of the earth,

Many passages which declare, that God blinds the minds of men, and smites them with giddiness, intoxicates them with a spirit of stupor, renders them infatuated, and hardens their hearts. Even these expressions many would confine to permissions as if, by deserting the reprobate, he allowed them to be blinded by Satan. But since the Holy Spirit distinctly says, that the blindness and infatuation are inflicted by the just Judgment of God, the solution is altogether inadmissible. He is said to have hardened the heart of Pharaoh, to have hardened it yet more, and confirmed it.

[This is a good catch 22 Calvin brings up.]

Some evade these forms of expression by a silly objection, because Pharaoh is elsewhere said to have hardened his own heart, thus making his will the cause of hardening it; as if the two things did not perfectly agree with each other, though in different senses—namely that, man, though acted upon by God, at the same time also acts. But I retort the objection on those who make it. If to harden means only bare permission, the contumacy will not properly belong to Pharaoh. Now, could anything be more feeble and banal than to interpret as if Pharaoh had only allowed himself to be hardened? We may add, that Scripture cuts off all handle for such cavils: “I,” saith the Lord, “will harden his heart,” (Exod. 4:21).

I admit, indeed, that God often acts in the reprobate by interposing the agency of Satan; but in such a manner, that Satan himself performs his part, just as he is impelled, and succeeds only in so far as he is permitted.

3. I have said what is plainly and unambiguously taught in Scripture, those who are quick to defame what is taught by scripture, had better beware what their actions mean. If they want human praise for being humble, because they claim mysteries in scripture, then what greater anti-humility can there be, other than to utter one word in opposition to the authority of God—to say, for instance, “I think otherwise.”

—-

Chapter 23, Book 3

Here they repeat the distinction between will and permission, the object being to prove that the wicked perish only by the permission, but not by the will of God. But why do we say that he permits, but just because he wills? Nor, indeed, is there any probability in the thing itself—viz. that man brought death upon himself merely by the permission, and not by the ordination of God; as if God had not determined what he wished the condition of the chief of his creatures to be…  The first man fell because the Lord deemed it meet that he should…however, it was just, because he saw that his own glory would thereby be displayed. When you hear the glory of God mentioned, understand that his justice is included.

——-

Chapter 16, Book 1.

[ Not sure if I agree with Calvin that this is what Augustine taught, however, Calvin says it, to say he agrees with it. And I agree with Calvin this doctrine is correct. If God’s will is not the active/direct/primary, then it cannot be said to be a true cause of anything. ]

When [Augustine] uses the term permission [He means] that the will of God is the supreme and primary cause of all things, because nothing happens without his order or permission. He certainly does not figure God sitting idly in a watch-tower, when he chooses to permit anything. The will which he represents—if I may so express it—is an active will; for if God’s will is not active, then God’s will could not be regarded as a cause.

Chapter 18, Book 1.

[God’s decree and command is not the same thing, and thus, God is not unjust even though He is the author of sin]

4. Some say, if God causes the counsels and affections of the wicked, he is the author of all their sins; and, therefore, men, in doing what God has decreed, are unjustly condemned, because they are obeying his will. Here ‘will’ is improperly confounded with precept, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them … Thus we must hold, that while by means of the wicked God performs what he had secretly decreed, they are not excusable as if they were obeying his precept.

[Calvin is in context of affirming God causes all things. He is answering the objection, if God cause all things and God’s cause is not passive but active, then God is the author of sin, “by decreeing people to sin, and then punishing them for “obeying” His will.” God decrees/causes the wicked to sin. He answered is by saying God is not author of sin, (aka, “does evil by punishing people for obeying His will”) because of the category fallacy of decree vs precept. Calvin denies the author of sin, because of a category fallacy. Calvin does answer the objection by removing God as the ultimate/real cause from the definition. Thus, Calvin does not have an issue with God being the author of sin by decreeing and causing the wicked to sin, his issue is saying God is unjust by committing a category error. If you get rid of the category error, you get rid of the objection for calling God the author of sin (i.e. unjust), in the first place. Calvin is attacking the author is sin objection, not by removing God as ultimate cause from the objection, but removing the category error. Calvin’s argument reminds me of how Vincent Cheung might.

The author of sin is in the category of ultimate cause only real cause, because it refers in context here to God’s decree. If God’s decree does not mean ultimate/real cause, then you are mistaken, and if Calvin defines God’s decree as not ultimate cause then he is mistaken. It is possible the Calvin contradicted or changed the author of sin to not relate to ultimate cause in other places, but here he does. It is clear that saying “authorship in Calvin’s thought refers to secondary agency,” is false; rather, Authorship here refers to God’s decree. Again, God’s decree is about the only real cause, or that is ultimate cause. God’s decree does not refer to God being secondary to Himself in ontology; God’s decree does not refer to secondary objects or dual causes.]


ENDNOTE

[1] Calvin’s Institutes. CCEL eBook edition. publish domain. (www.ccel.org)

I have down a modern copy edit (light paraphrasing on some parts) on the English, on this material. See original for comparison.

Cannot Throw a Hammer at God’s Face…

What is humility before God? What is confidence before God? Good questions, but unfortunately such easy questions for Christian masochist’s become a den of demons.

I will protect the person behind this comment below and just call them Billy.

You can read at the end of this the original post, where Billy read and then gave this response to it.

4 Blessed [are] those who mourn, For they shall be comforted.
5 Blessed [are] the meek, For they shall inherit the earth. Matt 5:4-5.

You might want to get your intellect around the fact that Jesus does not promise these blessings to the confident, but to the humble. Consider the story he told of the Pharisee and the tax collector. It was the super humble tax collector who went home justified
“I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” Luke 18:14

If you read my original post used I the term “super humble,” to refer to those who think and act in false humility. I said, “super-humble people never receive God’s salvation, let us leave them to their religious masochism.”

The usual fallacies of ambiguity and non-relevance hide a doctrine of demons in this short comment.

Let us define humility. Humility is submission to God. We are told to “humble ourselves under the mighty hand of God, so that He will lift us up” (1 Peter 5:6). Humility is not a feeling or an emotion. Humility is an intellectual understanding of yourself relative to God. You understand God is big and you are dependent on Him. God’s hand is mighty and yours is not. But in this command to humble ourselves we are told to do it so that God will “exalt us.” Think about that. In this command to humble ourselves it is commanding us to seek our self-desire to be exalted. The command is not seeking God to be exalted, but us. We desire our own exaltation, but we are weak in and of ourselves, so we are commanded to submit ourselves to God’s so that His power will exalt us.

Again, super humble people have a problem with this, which is why they do not receive salvation or any other promise form God.

Let us define “confidence.” I mean the word the way it used in Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see, (NIV).

The term “confidence” is a relative word, like big or small. Confident in what? Confidence in self is obviously both stupid and wicked. The Scripture tells us we are created, and are dependent, and are weak. Non-Christians, and Christians before they were Christians, were intellectually blind and morally darkened. Thus, to have confidence in the self is a delusion and sinful.  When Christians are saved and renewed in the Spirit, are not intellectually blind anymore and the state of their soul is not darkness, otherwise they are not Christians. This does not mean they are perfect, but that their new-creation is radical transformation.

Since I am addressing Christians, I will deal with it from this position. Even though our minds are renewed and we are filled with God’s truth, and (hopefully) are baptized in the Spirit with powers from heaven, we do not have confidence in ourselves because every positive thing just stated is given and continually supplied by God’s power to us. This is something so painfully obvious that I wonder why I need to even say this. Therefore, our confidence is in God. He sent His Son for us, even when we were sinners to be a wrath appeasing atonement, simply because He favored us so much. He caused us to be born from above, with the washing and renewing of the Spirit. Jesus from the throne of David, at God’s right hand, pours the baptism of the Spirit to endowed us with heavenly powers and weapons. Every morning His tender mercies are new; His rod and staff comforts us as we walk in the valley of death. He is so faithful; the sun’s daily rising looks like a cheap copy.

I say this because any Christian can see this. They have read Hebrews 11:1 about faith is confidence in what God said. They understand some terms are relative. Even preschool unbelievers know this. Thus, why is it when I write about a confidence in Jesus, so-called Christians try to rebuke me by saying confidence is bad? What? Why is it when I write about God promising to give me the “mind of Christ,” and “the Power of Spirit,” and that I am confidence God works this in me so that “I have Mind of Christ” and “I have the Power of the Spirit,” I am publicly attacked by Christians by saying confidence is bad?

Ok, let me try this out. Confidence in God’s promise is good, except all the times it is not? I remember Vincent Cheung saying something to the effect of, “welcome to this mad-house called Christian theology.” Indeed, it truly is.

When I deal with some “Christians,” I feel like I am dealing with the most ridiculous stupid, bottom of the barrel insane people. Can you fault me for this? First they are not Christians. They are reprobates. You cannot actively attack God’s Word, which is attacking God over and over, without giving proof of your reprobation. You cannot keep attacking God and claim you are with Him at the same time. It doesn’t work that way.

Super humble people like to emphasis that “confidence” is only or mostly relative to man’s confidence in himself. However, this not the emphasis in Scripture. It is true, the Scripture mention at times how some have confidence in themselves, and by doing so they condemn themselves to burn in hell.

Scripture has a positive and not a negative emphasis. The Scripture’s positive message is God, with all this power and grace, and the message that for those with “confidence” in His many promises they will not be disappointed. The Scripture’s focus on confidence is a positive one, as it repeatedly highlights those with confidence in God.

In fact, our passage in Hebrews 11 is all about this focus. Jesus in the gospel does condemn those with confidence in themselves, but it also underscores repetitively those with faith (i.e. confidence) in God to heal them.

Thus, faith and confidence in God are referring to the same thing. To rebuke confidence is to rebuke faith. This is why I said the above is demonic. It is the job of demons to rebuke faith, ..well, and those who follow them. Since my topic was faith/confidence in God, to rebuke me, even if using a sleight of hand fallacy and make it “relative” to self rather than God, is to still rebuke faith by a sleight of hand fallacy. You cannot rebuke God, even by proxy, even by fallacies that put you one step back from directly slapping God and be in delusion that you will escape condemnation. You cannot throw a hammer at God’s face and claim the hammer did it.

And this brings us back the other term, “humility.” Humility is also a “relative” word. I have made this point before, and it bears repeating. Humility starts with Christian epistemology. Humility starts by submitting to the Word of God. Humility is acknowledging that you do not produce truth, you cannot obverse truth, you cannot calculate truth from science, and you do not have truth inherently; rather, God is truth, and the only starting point of knowledge for mankind.  You are exchanging your human starting point for knowledge with God’s promise and definition. This is where humility starts, and without this no action you do can intellectually or spiritually be defined as humble.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of understanding. How do you expect to obey without understanding Him? Take your human speculation and submit yourself to God as your starting point for all knowledge.  Do this and we can at least start to talk about humility. If I do not see this from you on any one topic in Scripture, then humility is no longer part of the picture, at least on that topic.

Thus, if you want truth, you submit yourself to God and God will exalt you with His truth, His understanding and His intelligence.

This will be another painfully obvious point, but super humble people seem to miss this. Thus, to submit yourself under God’s command to repent and be saved is humble. “You” want to be “exalted” so high up that “you want” to be at peace with God and boldly approach the King of Kings, thus you submit yourself under God’s command for repentance and then God exalts you to be His son and even a co-heir with Christ forever.  You are not seeking to exalt God, but you are seeking for God to “exalt you” with salvation. Of course, this in the larger context exalts God. Here is the main point, this act of humility is also true for EVERY COMMAND and PROMISE, no matter how awesome and grandiose the promise is.

Jabez praying for God to enlarge his tent and give him peace, is an act of the most holy and debasing humility as defined by God’s word. Let that sink deep into your soul. To seek God to heal you based on His promise in James 5:15, is humility at its finest. Why? Because you are trading in your human speculation (my body is sick, and seems to want to stay this way for the future) and you are lowering and debasing yourself, by giving up your observations and your conclusion from them and bowing to submit to God’s definition (that says Jesus already took your sickness and if you ask in faith you will be healed). It is hard to lower oneself, greater than this.

I know some are thinking about the phrase, “in His own time,” from 1 Peter 5:6. But again, this is also defined relative to God’s own definitions and promises. The promise in James 5:15 is referring to a “miraculous” healing. That is, if not in the very moment, at least soon. Thus, to submit yourself under God’s mighty promise in this context means His timing is quick by definition, the whole new testament shows this. Any promise that conveys an immediate or fast response has the same definition to “God’s timing.” God’s timing for healing is fast; there is no way to remove this context out, unless you remove the Scriptures, or that is to remove God. The same for faith in the gospel and being born again. Stop letting excuses keep you out of healings and heaven. You only have one life.

If you are looking for God to exalt you by submitting your faith and confidence in God’s mighty promises, you are the pinnacle of humbleness. Do not let anyone steal this from you. Do not let Satan or those sided with him steal God’s definition from you. Be humble and seek God’s mighty hand to faithfully do all the things He promised. Be a Christian.

If you find it humble to ask God for forgiveness, knowing that if you ask in faith God will absolutely exalt you with forgiveness and adoption, but not humble to do the same with healing you or prospering you, then you are very definition of arrogance and pride. You have sided against God. You are a legacy of pride.

Be humble and seek God’s mighty hand to faithfully do all the things He promised. Be a Christian.

——————-

Original Post:

This foundation of Jesus is important, because He is head of the church; He is the Image that God’s chosen ones are created in. Everything else the saints gained from their new creation in Christ is built on this “Logos” foundation. We have already discussed, in the doctrine of man, what intelligence means. We learned the foundation of the Spiritual aspect of man is in this intellectual foundation. This foundation is to have true premises from God’s revelation and logically apply them to the world and oneself.

Jesus’ ability to think in this spiritual and intelligent way, is freely given to the saints, so that Paul even says we “have the mind of Christ.” Christ’s ability to be Spiritual and intelligent becomes the Saints’ ability to be Spiritual and intellectual. This is made reality by the Spirit of God poured into the saints and the “truth”; however, there is a particular emphasis on the “truth” of all the good things freely given them.

This theme we will see more and more. God’s ability becomes the Saints’ ability. The realm of impossibilities that are possible by God’s ability, becomes the saints’ realm possibilities. The power of God becomes the saints’ power. As Jesus was anointed by the Spirit with power to do His ministry, the saints’ have the same Spirit given to them to minister in the same power of Christ, with the one exception that Jesus promises they will have even greater power for miracles than Him. Super humble people have a problem with this, but since super humble people never receive God’s salvation, let us leave them to their religious masochism, for it is all they will receive in this life or the next.

This Logos of intellectual light and wisdom that made and logically decreed the whole future of the reality, is the logos that John says became flesh and stepped into the world He made. John says He was full of “truth” and “unmerited favor.” These themes of truth and grace will repeat themselves in John’s gospel, and the conclusion John gives is for us to believe in God’s Son and be saved.

 Desire vs Faith

We can define “desire” as one of two main ways, as “feelings / emotions,” or as “a want or wishful hope.”

Both of these definitions have the same non-relevance in regards desire being non-intellectual and having no necessary connection to faith, or no necessary connection to receiving the promise.

Faith is simply a mental assent to God’s truth. Having a desire or wishful hope to be saved, and mentally assenting to the gospel propositions as truth, is not the same thing.

The bible does speak of a “sound mind” and that we are to renew our minds. This is in two ways. The first and foundational meaning is to know the propositions of Scripture and assent to them, and deductively apply them to yourself and to decisions of good and evil about reality. You remove false propositions and replace them with true propositions from Scripture, and you remove invalid reasoning with deductive reasoning. The second part is what we call the psychological state of the mind. A renewed/mature mind will experience a more stable state of joy, and without even trying will keep gravitating towards wanting or desiring to please God rather than the self or man. However, as John says in 1st John 3, our hearts or that is, our irrational emotions and thoughts can condemn us, even when it is not true. Thus, you never base what is true or false by your emotions or by your up and down desires. You base what is true on “faith.” You do not base truth by sight for sensations is no truth or produces truth. Or simply put because we live by faith alone, and since sight is not faith, we do not live by sight. By the same reasoning, we do not live by feelings and desires, because these not faith. To go from sight to a proposition is invalid; however, it is just as invalid to go from desire/feelings to a proposition. In both case one is making a category error and denying the law of identity.

A wishful hope for healing is not faith. A wishful hope is not a mental assent to the fact that in Christ’s atonement “you” are already healed (Isaiah 53); that is faith. To desire to be healed, is on one hand something Jesus presupposes that people want; however, because desire to be healed is a command then even if you do not “feel” the desire to be healed, you can be obedient, if by nothing else, by pragmatically seeking to be healed by faith, in how the bible says to grow faith.

The desire would and often should be there, but it is not faith, and it is not needed to obey God’s commands. We should desire and seek for a sound mind, both in the intellectual, spiritual aspect, and also for a constant state of joy and desire for God. However, we do not start off with a mature mind when we are born again. We renew our minds by the means God has given us. If we do not start off with a perfect state of mind when born again, and having such a mind is required for us to ask and obtain our requests from God, then it would never happen. Think about the examples of faith in the Bible? Samson, when his eyes were stabbed out and bound in chains of slavery, was his mind in perfect joy? All he did was believe God would be faithful to His promise to use Samson. His faith was so great he is mentioned in Hebrews 11 with David, Moses and Abraham as a man who the world was not worthy to have utter Samsons’ name on their filthy lips.  It is true that having a joyful and peaceful state of mind for good things is able to help, so that even prophets asked for music to be played, and David would retreat and quietly meditate on God’s goodness; however, with or without the perfect desire, only one thing is needed, a mental assent that God will do what He said, without doubting it. When this is done you can ask for 100 mountains to throw themselves into planet Saturn and it will happen.

Also, like assenting to the fact that bananas are your favorite fruit, it is either mental assent that you do, or if they are not and you still affirm, “bananas are my favorite fruit,” you mentally assented to a lie or a delusion. A mental assent does not merely mean you affirm something like (2 plus 2 equals 4), if the context demands it. It is one thing to assent that figs exist, and a different thing to assent that figs are “my” favorite snack. This is either true or false; if false and you say it in your mind anyway, then all you have done is indulged in a mental delusion.

When we realize our faith is not where it should be we are told to renew our minds. We take off the old falsehoods and replace them with the truth. We “confess” them, even when we know we have doubts, not because we are delusional, but because the promise of God is that we can renew our minds and that the Spirit will help to strengthen us. We confess God’s promises, knowing God will be faithful to sanctify our minds so that soon, we can assent to them without doubts. Because the “foundation” is not us, but GOD, we have the confidence to read God’s promises, and confess them knowing God will renew and strengthen us, so that soon the doubts will be gone and an indomitable faith remains.