Tag Archives: sovereign

I Apologize for the Diversion

[This section was part of my Systematic Theology, but I decided it was to much of a rabbit trail to leave in the book; and so, I published it here as extra reading material]

I am not alone in saying this. The famous John Calvin says in his institutes, as I paraphrase, “that God with His infinite power, could have created Adam to resist the temptation in the garden, but willfully chose to create Adam in such a way, that Adam did not have the power to resist the temptation. And it is wicked to question or look for a further reason why Adam sinned.” Martin Luther, not directly dealing with Adam’s sin speaks of Satan. Satan’s sin is relevant, because as Adam is the original sinner for mankind, Satan is for angels. “So that which we call the remnant of nature in the ungodly and in Satan, as being a creature and a work of God, is no less subject to Divine omnipotence and action than all the rest of God’s creatures and works. Since God moves and works all in all, He moves and works of necessity even in Satan and the ungodly.[1] Martin is saying, regarding the only real level causality, God directly works evil, in evil creatures, just as directly as He works good, in good creatures. As direct as God is, as He works faith in an elect, it is the same as He works unbelief in the reprobate.

Some modern Reformed people, such as R.C. Sproul, call this hyper-Calvinism[2]. This is self-damming because the Bible teaches this, and so it is an attack on God. It is also stupid because Calvin teaches this, and so now we have a history manmade mess, where we need to keep talking about what man said what. God and the bible become secondary at best. Calvin says there is NO such thing as “permission will” with God about anything in reality, thus, God is not permissive with the reprobate. Calvin clearly taught that God is as directly involved in reprobation as He is in the elect. God does not, merely leave the reprobate, yet actively works in the elect. Calvin says,  

Finally, he adds the conclusion that “God has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills” [Rom. 9:18]. Do you see how Paul attributes both to God’s decision alone? If, then, we cannot determine a reason why he vouchsafes mercy to his own, except it so pleases him, neither shall we have any reason for rejecting others, other than his will. For when it is said that God hardens or shows mercy to whom he wills, men are warned by this to seek no cause outside his will.[3]

So, whether it is the elect or reprobate, Calvin says you cannot go beyond, “God Willed it.” God willed it, and not that man willed; God will, and not that God left it, and a nebulous neutral power, outside of God, willed it. God did it directly, by His will and power. Calvin applies God’s will and direct working power, as equally to the elect as reprobate. Thus, if Martin Luther and Calvin are correct, then the WCF teaches a false doctrine, when it talks about secondary causes. I do not want to linger long on history and people, because Christians, like the Jews in Jesus’ day, use traditions to negate the Scripture. However, it might be worth saying that Martin Luther thanked Erasmus for attacking his teaching on God’s direct sovereign power in man, and with the gospel, and not attacking non-relevant issues. That is, Luther saw this teaching about God’s absolute sovereign power that directly works in the saint as it works in the sinner and Satan, as the central argument. Calvin, it seems, saw the importance as well. The WCF, which came later, contradicted what they taught.

Calvin actually gives a summary of this doctrine saying,

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.[4]

…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.[5]

…When I say that God bends all the reprobate, and even Satan himself, at his will, some object that 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.

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.

Some say, if God causes the counsels and affections of the reprobate, 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. Such an objection makes a category mistake made between God’s will (decree) and his command, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them.

What we formerly quoted from the Psalms, to the effect that he does whatever pleases him, certainly extends to all the actions of men.[6]

Calvin is defining “providence” as this category proposition, “All things that are caused are things caused by the will of God.” This is not how I hear some Reformed people say it; they use it in a softer, vaguer, and more fatalistic way. I do not know if Calvin is truly representing Augustine about his use of “permission,” however it is not relevant, for the only point I wish to make is that Calvin is saying this because he agrees with the doctrine. Calvin is defining “God’s Will,” as only meaning a “active willing.” This of course lines up with Calvin saying that God does nothing by permitting it. This is important for there are people who use the word for “active” predestination for the elect and “passive” for the reprobate, such as R.C Sproul.  Calving contradicts this in both his negative and positive definition in what “God’s will” means. (1) It never means permission, and it always means active. In addition to this Calvin defends God’s active will, by saying if God’s will is not active, then it cannot logically be defined as a real “cause” of something. That is, if God only permits Pharaoh’s heart to be hard, and Pharaoh only permits, his heart to be hard, then there is no cause for it, which is nonsense. Calvin, like Luther, says that as God uses His power and force to make the saints believe and do, God uses the same power and force to make the reprobates and Satan to not believe and do.  Thus, when Calvin says God willed something he means God causes it, and not something or someone. When Calvin says that God will is the cause of all things, he means that it is the real, primary and active cause of it.

Even if you disagree with my points and copyediting, Calvin says God’s will does not mean permission, and that God’s will always means the same thing applied to all reality. This means you cannot say Calvin taught predestination one way for the Christian and then something less for the reprobate.

Martin Luther says that God is the one who put the evil in man originally. Additionally, as active as God is in causing “faith” in the Christian he is as active in causing “unbelief” in the reprobate. The way Luther talks about God’s causality with faith and unbelief, being the same, we conclude there is no room to say active will this and permissive will that. God makes the reprobate as a defective hammer from scratch, and not that the hammer made itself. God then picks up this defective hammer and uses it (causes them to will and do in life). The hammer makes defective hits, and God judges them for it.

Seriously, if all you do is a word search for “permission” in Calvin’s institutes, you will see Calvin over and over, in many different ways and with many passages say, God’ will does not involve permission for anything, relative to Him. Then modern Reformed people, like Sproul come around and say, God actively wills election, but only is passive or permits the reprobates. To deny passive or permissive will of God for the Reprobate, is for them is hyper-Calvinism. If you read Calvin and Luther a few times, and then read modern reformed fanboys, then you will become as appalled as I have in how much they speak in a continual and habitual slander and false witness against them. Why don’t they just say Calvin and Luther are heretics and just own up to it?

Calvin gives a category proposition for Christian metaphysics. He defines what it means and what it does not mean. All things are things caused by God’s active will. How simple and to the point that is. Modern reformed guys trying to complete this by coming up with phrases like, “active and passive,” “double predestination,” “soft this hard that,” “equal ultimacy” (etc.). They do this to make themselves look smart and academic, and to hide their unbelief under long, complicated loaded phrases.

Here is a pro-tip. If you truly want to communicate clearly, just use basic category statements. All, Some or None. The Scripture, along with Calvin and Luther, define Christian metaphysics as “All things are things directly caused by God.” The only two options for disagreement are “Some things are things directly cause by God, and some are not,” or “No things, are things directly cause by God.” Rather than saying “soft this and hard that,” just say “God determines all things by His will,” or “He does not,” or “He sometime does, and sometimes does not.” See, how simple and clear that is?

Calvin says, “the will of God is the cause of all things.” This will is defined as active by “God’s” “force” and “power,” and “never by permission.” Therefore, Calvin denies “secondary causes.” He does affirmed “secondary objects,” like Satan, that are themselves moved by God’s active force and power, but denies secondary cause as it is relative to God. Calvin also says, along with Luther, that the category of God’s decree and command, removes any human complaining about injustice done to them, when God punishes them for things that He causes them to do. Thus, both Calvin and Luther are in direct contradiction to the WCF, when it affirms secondary causes.

The WCF says,

“God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.”

This is outright blasphemy. It denies the absolute and direct sovereignty of God over all things. They are trying to avoid calling God the author of sin, but since God directly controls all things, then He is precisely the metaphysical author of sin and evil. There is no logical maneuver to avoid this. If they affirm God decreed and caused all things directly by his sovereignty, then of course God is the author of sin. One fool tried to tell me that the WCF, in this place, is affirming God and sin are not categorically plausible, the way Gordon Clark would teach on this topic.[7] Yet, this is not the context. The “context” is about metaphysics or ultimate causality, “God ordaining all things by His choice.”

If the WCF by saying “ordaining,” does not mean that God is the only absolute direct cause for all things, then it up-fronts admits that it is affirming Arminianism, and that there is dualism in Christian ontology. I will be kind here, and assume it is affirming God’s absolute and direct sovereignty over all things.

They try to affirm God’s decree and control over all things, but then say God is not the controller of sin—this is said in CONTEXT to God decreeing and controlling all things. They contradict themselves, to affirm a human superstition, which says God cannot be the author of sin and unbelief in the same direct causality, since He is the author of faith and holiness. Some who see the insanity of this try to affirm a mystery or paradox. LOL! You cannot say God ordains or causes “all things,” and then say, God does not ordain or control sin. You cannot say, “All things are things directly controlled by God,” and “This thing is a thing God does not directly control.” Or, “God does control all things, but at the same time God does not control some things.”  Let us try this with something else. “All persons who are saved are saved by Jesus. This saved person is a person not saved by Jesus. This statement is not contradictive or blaspheme, it is a “mystery and a paradox.”” Wow, I am on my way to be a great theologian!

Again, in CONTEXT to the category of God directly causing all things, it is said, “the freedom and possibility of secondary causes are not taken away.” Therefore, we will stay in this same category, so as not to commit a category fallacy.

If God is the direct causality of all things, then all secondary causes do not exist, and there is no freedom or possibility of any created object to do or cause anything; God takes away all secondary causes, because He along directly causes all things.

Some have mentioned to me that the phrase “secondary causes” was used in two different ways a few hundred years ago. One means what the noun phrase naturally says (relative to God there are secondary ontologies), the other meaning is similar to pointing out the category fallacy issue that Gordon Clark often points out. There is no historical evidence this second meaning was widely used and popular, other than a few insistences (as far as I have been able to research it, and even then, I am not totally convinced it wasn’t just a typo or accidently used that way). This is an interesting point, but ultimately a non-relative point for interpretating the WCF’s statement, because the authors all knew how Calvin in his Institutes answered it, and his answer did not use this phrase, or the category of ontology.

John Calvin later in his life wrote a book about predestination, and he does seem to distance God as the author of sin from His predestination, or at least, making contradictive statements about it. It was less popular and less read as compared to his Institutes. However, because it was Calvin’s Institutes that all pastors and theologians were required to read, and that greatly influenced Europe, we will refer to his teaching in this book, as “Calvinism.” History shows the Institutes as hugely popular and influential.  As pointed out in the quote above, Calvin, when addressing the question of author of sin, does not use “secondary causes” (ontology) language, but said, “Such an objection makes a category mistake made between God’s will (decree) and his command, though it is obvious, from innumerable examples, that there is the greatest difference between them.” Calvin does not refer to causes to refute the accusation of God being the author of sin, but merely says it is a category fallacy to combine these. The WCF, was written by pastors who had to read Calvin’s Institutes in school. Yet, they chose to use “secondary causes” (ontology) rather than the concise and easy explanation from Calvin’s Institutes, which they all read and studied.

Seeing these pastors and theologians all studied logic and philosophy, the phrase “secondary causes” would still have ontology as its most direct meaning, even if some used is differently. The WCF chose to use a noun phrase, when its main meaning is about ontology, (and phrase naturally means ontology), in context about ontology. When the Institute’s dealt with ontology and the author of sin, Calvin answered with a category fallacy; yet, when the WCF answered this, it did so with another point about secondary ontology. These are two very different ways to answer the question. The conclusion is that even as early as the WCF the doctrine of God’s sovereignty was already defective and compromised.

It seems beyond reasonable to me that highly schooled pastors, who read the Institutes, Logic and Philosophy, when writing about ontology, would immediately answer with a phrase “secondary causality” or “secondary ontology” and not mean the category of ontology. Maybe an amateur, who is not good at communicating, but a room full of very educated pastors, I do not see that mistake happening.

To avoid this biblical outcome of the author of sin, the WCF commits the blasphemy of affirming secondary causes, at the ultimate level with God. They are pagans who affirm metaphysical dualism with God. Martin Luther is famous for pointing out the category fallacy that Erasmus made with ontology and ethics. It seems the WCF, with their category fallacies and paradoxes (and how modern Reformed people try to excuse this section) has more in common with the Catholic, than Martin Luther.

Again, think about a chess game.

This WCF passage is talking about the real level causality, which would be “Johnny moves white bishop to b4.” This passage is not talking about the relative level, which would be, “white bishop moves to b4.” In order to save the WCF many do the same category error that Arminians do to many passages of Scripture, by changing real level causality to relative level. The Armenians are morons for doing this, and so are the Reformed teachers who try to salvage this WCF passage, when it cannot be saved.

Vincent on this WCF passage says,

…I believe that if a person is a Christian and somewhat intelligent, then if we were to repeat, “If God is not the direct metaphysical cause of something, then something else is,” to his face over and over again, eventually he would realize what this really means and would become just as alarmed and repulsed at the notion as we are. But perhaps both faith and intelligence are rare, and the combination even less likely.

As for secondary causation, I have addressed this a number of times. If all else fails, I can say that I did not write the books, but my computer did. The fact that I was typing on it when the books appeared does not nullify the authorship of the computer or its moral responsibility, but only establishes it. If the reply is that the computer is not an intelligent mind but a dead object, I would insist that Dual Core is superior to a lump of clay (Romans 9). In any case, if God’s authorship is only so distant (I did not make the computer, the software, nor did I make or control the electricity), he might not be so clearly the author of sin….

If I am right, then they must be wrong. The question is, how can they be right without self-contradiction — that God controls all things, but he really doesn’t, that God causes all things, but he really doesn’t? The Reformed is fond of appealing to “mystery,” “paradox,” and “antinomy,” which are nothing but more dignified and deceptive terms for saying, “Clearly, I contradict myself, but I don’t care.” Instead, it seems to me that divine sovereignty is an altogether clear and coherent doctrine. It is so easy to understand. I have also answered the almost universal abuse of James 1:13. Temptation and causation are two different things, and the topic is causation, not temptation.

We must submit to the direct teachings of Scripture and its necessary implications, and not the traditions and good intentions of men.[8]

I apologize for the diversion. Although I do not call myself a Calvinist, I do not like false witnesses and un-needed complexities and un-needed phrases. We can see from this the importance to leave history and fanboys with their slanders, loaded phrases and complexities to themselves. We will focus on making doctrinal statements (all, some or none) and making easy deductive application for ourselves, so that we can walk by the commands of God in joy.

[1] Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will; translated by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston; Fleming H. Revell ,1957. 204

Also see my website for an article called, “Martin Luther- The Bondage of the Will – Commentary,” for more about the Bondage of the Will.

[2] R. C. Sproul, Chosen by God; Tyndale House Publishers, 1986; p. 142.
 “The Reformed view teaches that God positively or actively intervenes in the lives of the elect to insure their salvation. The rest of mankind God leaves to themselves. He does not create unbelief in their hearts…”  
Sproul also in page 142 says active reprobation is “hyper” and “sub” Calvinism.

[3] Calvin, Institutes. p. 947.

[4] Calvin’s Institutes. CCEL ebook edition. publish domain. (www.ccel.org). Book 1, Chapter 18.
I have done a medium copyedit on the English (to modernize it), on this material. See original for comparison.

[5] Ibid. Book ,1 Chapter 16.

[6] Ibid. Book 1, Chapter 18

[7] Gordon Clark, in order to make the WCF affirm the correct level of sovereignty he taught, had to bear false witness against the WCF to make it say what it does not. His slander is the opposite of most Reformed teachers, who slander Calvin and Luther, by falsely saying they teach the same thing as the WCF. The WCF is their creed; it is their gate keeper, but Calvin and Luther are also their divine fathers. Yet, they contradict one another. And so, this back-and-forth slander is how it ends up being for fan boys, and traditionist.

Leave them and their tradition, they have their reward.

[8] Vincent Cheung. “WCF, secondary causes, etc.”

From the ebook, Sermonettes, Vol. 1. 2010. Page. 82-83.

Extra Baskets Left Over #2

*17 In my experience, no matter how farfetched a heresy may seem, it almost always limits God. The only exception is if the doctrine directly takes glory that belongs to God and assigns it to man. Because God’s infinity, is well, infinite, and His sovereignty is direct and absolute, there is no bigger way to describe God and His ability than what the bible teaches. Take for example the Mormons teaching on us becoming a god and owning a planet. Despite what it might look like, this is a slap in the face of God by limiting Him. Only one planet? You got to be kidding me! Make it at least 100,000 planets, and then maybe the insult won’t be so bad.

God will not give up His praise, and we will never be worshiped as God, but God has highly exalted and glorified man in the gospel (1 Corinth 2:7, 3:22). In the next life there is no limit for good things God will give us. No man has seen or even considered how big it is. One planet. You might as well slap God in the face and be direct with your insults rather than play games like that.  Reality, and even time itself has been given to me in Christ, and you want to limit it to one small planet. Only a brain the size of a pea could think so small.

The lesson here is that all liberal theology, whether it is cessationism, free will, one planet, evolution, directly attacks God by limiting Him and by limiting who we are in Christ and limiting what we are able to accomplish in Him. 

*18 The sad truth is that people still think the blood and resurrection of Jesus is worthless and does nothing to affect us today. If “your” righteousness is still nasty rags, then you are a reprobate on their way to hell.

I remember the first time I understood Christians referring to their righteousness as filthy rags and it shocked me. Did Jesus do nothing for you? Are you not a new creation? Are you not God’s righteousness? Does not the Spirit empower you to do righteous acts? Do you not have the Spirit and the Mind of Christ? Do you still think God sees you as unrighteous?

No wonders Christians can’t heal the sick and cast out demons and perform miracles, they can barely believe they are forgiven, if even that. They don’t believe any good thing God’s say about them.

Some ere by thinking their limited power is stronger than God. God has put His power and Name on you. The Father planned your salvation, and Jesus did it, and the Spirit makes you do it. The Spirit empowers you to do righteous acts. If not, then you must admit your weakness out powers God’s ability to work in you to perform righteousness. It is about God’s power not yours.

*19 Why does Hebrews focus on faith rather than some other ethic that God is so pleased with and turns humans into everlasting heroes, whom the world was not worthy to have known.

There are a few reasons, but I want to focus on one aspect. Faith testifies about a certain attribute of God, that God is very concerned with. God’s word is true. God’s word is faithful. God’s word does not fade away, while everything else fades. God’s word is 7 times tested and sure. God’s word is permanent and absolute. God is a God of truth and faithfulness.

God is not a physical Body. He is Spirit, or a Mind. Or in a technical way, an infinite, eternal, immutable system of propositions. Truth is at the very heart of who God is!

This is why you will see commands (ethics) that state “ABOVE ALL, let your yes be yes,” (James 5:12). Or Jesus saying in the sermon on the Mount., “let your yes be yes and no be no,” (Matthew 5:37). OR the many commands to know, believe and speak the “truth.” Or in proverbs there are 6 things that Yahweh hates, and two of them directly deal with the issue of truth (“A lying tongue, false witness.”)

Faith not only directly obeys God’s command, but it is a loud testimony of the surety, faithfulness, permanent and enduring nature of God’ Word. Such a testimony greatly pleases God. This is why, unbelief toward the good promises of God, (forgiveness, healing, prosperity, miracles etc), is so hateful to God. It not only is direct rebellion to the command of God, but it is also a testimony against the faithfulness, permanence, and enduring nature of God’s Word.

Therefore, in Hebrews 11:6 we are told if you please God you must believe He rewards those who seek Him. Faith like this, is a testimony of glory of God’s Word. Let our lives be continual acts of faith in God’s rewards, so that not only do we have joy, but our lives become continual shouts to the faithfulness, permanence, and everlasting nature of the Word of God.

This is also why it is good to practice faith confessions. Confess Psalm 23, and 103. “My Cup overflows.” “You forgive all my sins, and heal me of all my sicknesses.” When you confess and praise God, like Israel about the walls of Jericho falling down (before they fall down), your life becomes a loud broadcast to the world and God, that His world is more faithful, more permanent, more tested, more true and more enduring than anything we see or anything related to man’s speculations.

Let us strive for such a loud broadcast in all our lives.

*20 “Timothy, my son, here are my instructions for you, based on the prophetic words spoken about you earlier. May they help you fight well in the Lord’s battles.”

(1 Timothy 1:18)

“This is why I remind you to fan into flames the spiritual gift God gave you when I laid my hands on you. For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.”

(2 Timothy 1:6-7)

Paul commands Timothy to remember, the scripture? No, he said to remember the prophecy, regarding his life in ministry, and to remember the gifts and spiritual power God conferred on him when Paul prayed for him. By remembering these, Timothy will be empowered to fight the Lord’s battles and be effective in ministry. This is how God, not man, but how God sets people apart for ministry. It cannot be faked, or given by man’s recognition. The scripture is assumed here by Paul. Why was the scripture not enough to fight the Lord’s battles? Because the scripture tells us to be baptized in the Spirit for power and to chase after spiritual power and miracles. This includes specific prophecies given to us, that we are to follow and obey. Without it you will fail to fight God’s battles in life and ministry.

If you are going to obey God, then you cannot chase Him without also chasing miracles and healing.

*21 Chasing God, without chasing miracles, is a God that does not exist, a delusion of human speculation. God commands that we be healed, ask for anything and get it, and to chase for the gifts. To think you can chase after God without obeying Him, is insanity. You might as well call it atheism or Satanism, but the one thing it is not, is Christianity.

*22 People are waiting on God, however, at the same time God is waiting on them.

God is waiting for their faith. Thus, they will be waiting forever.

God waits for faith, after this we stop waiting, because God gives us whatever we ask in faith.

With faith the waiting stops. Even aged wine, which takes a long time, took no time when Jesus turned water into wine. The same for many types of healing.

If you have faith, you have no wait.

—

This is an area where even those who think they have mature faith can keep growing. Let us always strive for 100 fold in faith, and not be settled with anything else. It’s is fine to start with 30 fold, or even 10, we all must start somewhere. But let us never be satisfied accept with the impossible standard that Jesus promised that we can achieve with faith. There is too much of our own joy and His glory at stake for anything less.

*23 Arminianism is so stupid. I hear stuff like this all the time.

“I affirm God is sovereign, however, God limited himself to what He can do through man.”

Then God was “past tense” sovereign but not anymore, otherwise you have a true contradiction.

One thing that is so bad about this, is that the faith teachers who are correct in reminding us not to limit God, affirm that God is already limited. What a big mess.

Hahahahaha.

Arminianism is the piss of Satan. Stop standing in that stream.

*24 “When Jesus becomes bigger than your sickness, then miracles happen.

When Jesus becomes bigger than your problems, then the problems go away.”
-Benny Hinn

“For we live by faith, not by sight.” 2 Corinth. 5:7

When people’s faith became bigger than their sickness and troubles Jesus said, over and over, “Your faith saved you, or, Your faith healed you.”

*25 “Everyone bumps into reality eventually. So, if the ultimate reality that God has envisioned is benevolent, we can bump around in the dark as many times as we want to, but we will eventually fall into benevolence because that’s at the foundation”  — Rachel M. Rasmussen

This is incomprehensible to the Christian definition of God.

God and His decree would be the only definition for “ultimate reality,” not creation. Yet, “ultimate reality” in this statement seems to be undefined, or creation itself, or at the very least not “God and His decrees.” If God decreed to be benevolent to all persons, then God, who is ultimate reality makes it happen by His decision and His unstoppable power. There is a way to keep categories separate without making an error with ultimate reality and the relative level. However, because ultimate reality is mentioned, then for the Christian God it is only by God’s decree and power. It is intellectual and determined. God has not decreed all to know His benevolence (salvation, Romans 9), thus the statement is not true.

If taken as un undefined, broad statement it is hard to say the consequent (reductio ad absurdum) makes the antecedent false. “Ultimate reality” is undefined. How you define “benevolent” would be the key if what you see around equates to absurdity or not. Also, if all ultimate reality is benevolent and ultimate reality is all there is, then of course you will find it; in fact you are already in it. But if it is just one part of ultimate reality and ultimate reality is infinite, then even an infinite amount of time will not be enough to find it.

*26 I want to see proof.

Let those who like to make truth skeptical or relative or non-binary, deny the law of contradiction without using it.

Let them deny their existence without using their existence? Show me.

Let them program a program or an AI, but the AI or program cannot apply the law of contradiction and identity to binary 0s and 1s. Even in quantum computing, they must use the LoC to say what they want to communicate, otherwise they deny their own statements, otherwise quantum computing works, means it does not work.

Prove it by drawing a square circle. Show me.

If they can do this then I will believe them.

*27 “Oshea, don’t be so harsh in your rebukes. “

Ok. I will just quote the Bible when I rebuke.

Ezekiel 23:3,18 ,20 NET

 They engaged in prostitution in Egypt; in their youth they engaged in prostitution. Their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there…

 When she lustfully exposed her nakedness, I was disgusted with her, just as I had been disgusted with her sister…

 She lusted after their genitals – as large as those of donkeys, and their [cum] was as strong as that of stallions.

Jude 1:10-13 NIV

Yet these people slander whatever they do not understand, and the very things they do understand by instinct

—as [dumb] animals do—will destroy them. Woe to them! They have taken the way of Cain; they have rushed for profit into Balaam’s error; they have been destroyed in Korah’s rebellion. These people are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm—shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted—twice dead. They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.

Jesus, “Your bind morons.” Matthew 23:19

Jesus, “Your father is Satan.” John 8:44

Paul, “you teach a doctrine of demons.” 1 Timothy 4:1

I could keep going but then the post would get long.

*28 Unbelief Makes You A Liar

“Look, I am giving all this land to you! Go in and occupy it, for it is the land the LORD swore to give to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to all their descendants.’” (Deuteronomy 1:8 NLT)

“Then the Lord said to Moses, “Leave this place, you and the people you brought up out of Egypt, and go up to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’ 2 I will send an angel before you and drive out the Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites.” (Exodus 33:1 NIV)

“Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, But those who deal truthfully are His delight.” (Proverbs 12:22)

“But Caleb tried to quiet the people as they stood before Moses. “Let’s go at once to take the land,” he said. “We can certainly conquer it!”
But the other men who had explored the land with him disagreed. “We can’t go up against them! They are stronger than we are!”  So they spread this bad report about the land among the Israelites.” (Numbers 13:30-32 NLT)

“Now tell them this: ‘As surely as I live, declares the Lord, I will do to you the very things I heard you say. 29 You will all drop dead in this wilderness (Num.14:28 NLT)

In proverbs we learn that God hates lying lips. Lying is an abomination to God. We also read over and over in the scripture that truth is only revealed by God and never produced by any other means. Truth is not produced by man’s observations or experiments, which commits the triple fallacy of empiricism, observation and affirming the consequent.

God revealed the truth to Abraham that He was giving Canaan (Promise Land) to him and his descendants. God restates this truth to Moses when He calls him to lead the Israelites from Pharaoh into Canaan. These were not by man’s observations or speculations. This knowledge came by God’s revelation, the only source of truth.

Caleb and Joshua had faith in God’s revelation and so affirmed they can take the land, even though they saw with their eyes the large inhabitants and fortified cities. Their faith has a by product that is not often stated as much as it should. Their faith makes their lips tell the truth. Their faith makes them testify that God word is truth and man is a liar. God loves people to tell the truth.

The other elders were filled with unbelief and said they could not take The Land (Hebrews 4:2). Their unbelief led them to an inevitable consequence. Their lips poured out lies. God alone made and controls reality. God knows the truth about the material world because He made it and controls it; He decreed its beginning to its end. So of course, God alone knows the truth about reality. God revealed that He gave Israel the land and took the inhabitant’s protection away from them.

Thus, when the leaders spoke unbelief, they lied about reality. They testified that God’s word is not true. They testified that what they saw and heard by their human observation was a correct statement of reality and what God said was not a correct statement of reality. To not believe God’s good promise of health, wealth, property, fame and miracles is to call God a liar. Although  John 3:33 and 1 John 5:10 are specifically about Jesus the same can be applied to all of God’s revelation, when it contradicts man’s observation.  There are two testimonies that contradict, which is God’s revelation and man’s observation. You cannot pick both because Jesus shows in Mark 12:35-37 that a contradiction invalidates your interpretation of scripture. You must pick a master for knowledge. This choice is automatically made by faith or unbelief. If you believe, then you testify God is truthful, if you doubt then your lips utter lies about God and reality. Love rejoices in the truth. And God considers liars an abomination.

* 29 Yeses For God’s Glory

“For all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through us,” 2 Corin. 1:20 NKJV.

How do we give glory to God? We give glory to God when God’s promise manifests as a no, through Jesus, in us, when we ask for healing, right? This is obviously not what it says, and yet this is how some teach about the promises of God. They teach that when God’s promise is a no, in the name of Jesus through us, that it somehow gives glory to God. What a scam! What a lie. It is a lie from Satan to steal the glory of God, and so-called Christians fall for it all the time.

If the glory of God is so important to you, then let every promise be a yes in the Name of Jesus, through you. Let every promise for healing be a yes in the Name of Jesus, in you, to God’s glory. We give glory to God when His promise manifest as yesses, in our life, through our faith in Jesus. Do not deceive yourself that noes through Jesus, in you, give glory to God. They do not. Only yesses, give God glory and exalt the name of Jesus.  When we consider this we realize, some who scream about the “glory of God,” give Him the least amount of glory.

* 30

God did not kill your child.
God did not make you sick.
Satan killed your child.
Satan made you sick.

This is as true and needing no qualification or correction as much as Jesus’ statement, “whom Satan has bound for 18 years,” is true, needs no qualification and needing no correction.

If you want to bring in ultimate level ontology, you better do it in a way that doesn’t slap Jesus, correct Him or trample His blood.

* 31

How can a person belittle prosperity gospel, which is made possible by Jesus’ substitutionary atonement (2 Corin.8:9), without belittling forgiveness gospel, which is produced by the same substitutionary atonement (2 Corin.5:21)?

The answer is painfully obvious.

Since both are produced by the same thing, you cannot “logically” belittle one without the other. The gospel is a packaged deal, by the sovereign work of God. No man is able to subdivide it. You either believe the substitutionary atonement of Jesus worked or it did not. The stakes for believing the prosperity gospel are as high and important as believing Jesus’ atonement was a substitutionary exchange all of me and not just part of me.

* 32

When Peter, (even after baptized with the Spirit), commanded the man’s sickness to leave (stand up), Peter did not speak to God about the problem; rather it was more like Peter spoke to the problem about God. In the broad sense, a word of faith command like this, is just a shorthand way to pray without hedging. And because it is a prayer, you are aware God is listening to you and that you are using His authority and that you are standing on His promise. However, in the most direct sense, these types of prayers are spoken to the problem, and not God. Jesus did not say to “speak” directly to him about your mountain, “oh God, I am nothing and I need your help.” No, Jesus told us to “speak” to the mountain and tell it to get out of your way. Is this Jesus not God-centered enough for you, or are you more God-centered than Him? Jesus teaches us that we already have His authority and His approval to pray like this and get powerful results. To command and get what we want. The fact many Christians do not pray like this, means they are disobedient to God’s command and do not believe or understand their identity in Christ. They do not understand prayer. So the lesson to learn here is this, when you have a problem you speak directly to it. It is not wrong to go to God in prayer about your problem, but Jesus has officially instructed us how to pray in such situations. It is like the sermon on the Mountain. Jesus is raising the bar for His teaching about how we pray and get results. Who am I to alter Jesus’ instructions? Therefore, speak to your problems about God, telling them to throw themselves into the sea.

*33 Don’t Waste Your Faith

One spiritual pervert said, “Don’t Waste Your Cancer.” Jesus said “don’t waste your faith.” (Matt 17:20)

 Paul said if you give up your body to suffer fire, but do not have love, then you profit nothing. For “love” defined by Paul is a love that works spiritual power for healing, prophecy and miracles. With power you are to love, rather than being a self-centered show-off. With power to heal, you love by making the suffering of your neighbor stop. Love Never Fails. The bible does not know of a love that does not heal the sick and produce miracles to make those who suffer to stop suffering. If you give up your body to suffer sickness, but do not have powerful-love to be healed, then you profit nothing.

*34 You Do it.

God gave dominion and authority to Adam and told him to name the animals. God said, “you do it.”

God gave Moses the Staff of God. When he was crying out for help, God told him to stop crying, “stretch out the staff” and “You divide it.” God said, “you do it.”

Jesus said we do not tell God about our mountain, rather we tell our mountain about God and command it to move. Jesus commanded us, “you do it.”

Jesus had the fullness of the Spirit to do ministry, and He gave the same Spirit He had to us, to be filled with power. He said we were to tear down the gates of hell, heal the sick and cast out demons. Jesus said, “you do it.”

This only works if Jesus already gave us the power and authority to do this, and He has. Therefore, Peter in Acts 3 says, “what I do have, I give to you.” Peter commanded the man to stand up and walk. Peter had the power and authority to heal, thus he gave what he already had. He wasn’t waiting for God to move, because God already moved and was waiting for Peter to use what he already had. We have the same authority and power (baptized in the Spirit) they had. We are not waiting for God to do something (such as helping us with healing), because God already did something. He is telling us to do something, because it already belongs to us. We have the Staff of God. This staff of God is in our mouth when we speak faith. Stretch out your mouth and command it to move.

*35 Observation never judges the Bible

“… I don’t think human observation and lack of experience should play a part in determining that. I’d rather the debate be centered around the text,” (Objective Believer, from Facebook.).

This is correct, because the bible gives infallible testimony of human observations being incorrect. The subject is our source of knowledge, or epistemology. It is significant if only one time your source is mistaken, because then it means you have no way to know if any given instance of knowledge from that source is now true. For example, if the bible was shown to be wrong one time, in that Jesus was born in Corinth rather than Bethlehem, the whole bible would be shoved into the category of skepticism. Since the source was wrong, then any knowledge from that source has no way to prove if it is true or not, because the source is not reliable.

However, 2 Kings 3:22 the bible gives an infallible testimony that Moab thought they saw blood, when in fact it was just water. The source of the Moabites knowledge (epistemology) was empiricism and observation, but this led to them being incorrect about reality. Because empiricism/observation has been shown to give false results, there is no way for any given instance of observation to prove that it is true. This means you must know that you do not know. And so, empiricism/observation as an epistemology leads to skepticism. But to say “you do not know that you know,” is to deny the law of contradiction. But even Jesus appealed to the law of contradiction in Mark 12:35-37. Thus, if you have violated the law of contradiction you are wrong.

This is why it is always wrong and dumb to use observation to negate the bible on any point of truth. Observation leads to skepticism and skepticism denies the law of contradiction, and so of course it should never be used as a source of knowledge. The idea that what you observe leads to knowledge is superstition. To use observation to disprove the bible on any given point, is using superstition and skepticism to disprove the bible; it is never intelligent to do this.

*36

I always find it odd that so-called Christians want to affirm how awful they are.

Such a confession would logically lead back to God, and how ineffective He is, at forgiving, sanctifying and empowering His chosen ones. There also could be some connection to the unforgivable sin against the Spirit, by connecting your confession of sinfulness, worthlessness, and patheticness to the Spirit who lives in the believer.

At the end of the day God gets to play with reality and define reality the way he wants. God credited His righteousness to me and not Himself. I am what I am, by the grace of God. The Bible rejects pantheism. This means when God creates a frog, it is a frog and God is not a frog. Thus, what God creates and gives me, are now part of my DNA, my very definition. I am the righteousness of God. I am a child of God, a prince of heaven, with free access to the throne, while other created beings do not have this access. This is me. I am what I am, by the grace of God. When God credits me with His righteousness, it is just as part of my definition as me saying, “I am 6 feet tall.” I do not need to qualify this by saying, “I am 6 feet tall, by the sovereignty and grace of God,” as if to distance this aspect of my definition from me, as if it is somehow not 100% my definition.

God sovereignly caused me to be born as a sinner, (Rom 5) and this was part of my definition. But now in Christ my definition is righteousness. Or is my past definition of being born a sinner, more permanent and foundational than God sovereignly causing me to be righteous? My definition and reality is based on God’s thoughts about me. When God thinks of me, He thinks I am holy; He thinks I am righteous with His righteousness, blameless, and empowered with His power. God thinks I am amazing and glorious. Who am I to disregard God, unless I’m a reprobate?

It is for this reason, the word of faith confessions of reprobates is a confession in how sinful God sees them, because that is who they are.

*37

Peter Masters interpretation of Galatians is faulty because Paul’s argument was that all Christians were given the blessing of Abraham and this combined with faith produced miracles among them. Paul did not say, “because Paul was given the blessing of Abraham and Apostleship therefore Paul worked miracles among the Galatians.” No. Paul said they were given this blessing because of faith in Jesus. Paul made it about Jesus. Its all fun and games, when it comes to being gospel-centered and God-centered, until we find out that being Jesus centered means we are all to be baptized in the Spirit and work constant miracles.

As usual, the theological maximum for traditionalist is that man (Paul and Apostles) is the foundation for miracles; however, the Bible says God (God giving the blessing of Abraham to all through Jesus) is the foundation of miracles. Tradition hates God for this because they are the original “little gods” heretics. By making all believers filled with the Spirit and given the same power and authority to heal and work miracles, the traditionalist do not have an excuse to call their founders “fathers” and worship them as little gods. They don’t have an excuse to elevate their creeds as more equal than the scripture.  

*38  Sovereignty like a mere human King?

Andrew Wommack says God’s “sovereignty” is defined correctly by the dictionary. The definition Wommack quotes has to do with a king or government ruling a nation. His argument is that because an earthly king does not control all the thoughts and actions of his people, then God does not.

This is a careless mistake. When was it a good idea to define things by a mere dictionary lookup? Wommack, in teaching other doctrines such as, “You already got it,” (which I find edifying) will define them by how the text and passage does it. Why not do it for God’s sovereignty? Why not define God’s sovereign control how Romans 9 defines it? Before the twins made choices of good or bad God already decided to love and hate one of them. Why not define God’s sovereignty how the bible tells us God uses His power and control?

The lesson here is that when you here a pastor boil down an entire doctrine to one dictionary lookup and then inductively apply it to God, then you need to mock it and disregard it as trash. If they call themselves pastors, then they need to define terms how the bible and the relevant passages do. In this case the “p” for pastor stands for theological “pervert.”

Wommack also has the same category errors when talking about God’s command and His causality. He also wrongly assumes that responsibility presupposes freedom, which is still one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

At any rate, Wommack as a faith teacher has some good things to say on the narrow aspect of faith and healings, but beware anytime he speaks about God and His nature.

*39

“… I pray you may
prosper concerning everything
and be healthy,
just as your soul prospers.”
(3 John 1:2. LEB)

Some people like to spiritualize the bible to oblivion and back, but verses like the above show they are wicked and stupid. They want to say the “prosperity” and “health” in this verse is about “spiritual” prosperity and health, but this is obviously wrong, because the last part of the verse mentions the spiritual prosperity of the soul. To those who are accustomed to reading and believing scripture, we recognize God is smart enough to communicate truth to us in a precise and coherent way. If God wants to talk about spiritual prosperity, it will make it plain by calling it prosperity of the soul. We normally use health and wealth to refer to it as health for the body and money to buy things; this is why the verse above had to make a point to call it soul prosperity, because that is not how it is normally used. The first use of prosperity and health, in the verse, is how we normally use the words and so no clarification is needed. The verse also shows us there is a category difference between the two. It shows us, through the Apostle John, God’s own desires for us to prosper in material things as well as our souls; in fact, the verse boldly says, “just as.” That is, as much as I want your soul to prosper, I want your body to be healthy and abound in money.

“For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that although he was rich, for your sake he became poor, in order that you, by his poverty, may become rich.”

Thus, when we hear a person saying that poverty and riches in 2 Corinthians 8:9, is about spiritual poverty and riches, we know they have conspired with wicked men to revolt against God.

Thomas Jefferson is infamous for cutting out parts of the bible to make it agree with his own personal worldview. However, our leaders are cowards, so that rather than making it clear they are cutting out parts of the bible, which they do not like, they say things like, “this prosperity is a spiritual/soulish prosperity.” They spiritualize the parts of the bible Jefferson would have boldly cut out, so as to give the appearance they still respect the bible, all-the-while they trample it.

They are the worst type of trash and sum.

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.

God Is Sovereign OR only Sometimes Sovereign?

If God causes all things,
then God caused x to happen.

Some things are so simple that a child can grasp them and apply them in constant success. Many things in the Scripture are this way. Peter did say some things from Paul (Scripture) are hard to understand, but the presupposition behind such a statement would be that most of the Scripture is not so hard to understand.

The reason simple things become difficult, tedious, and annoying is due to man’s unbelief in God to begin with.  The problem is not due to God’s perfect ability to communicate, produced by God’s infinite mastery of His own mind and understanding of man’s mind (which He created); rather, the problem resides in man’s refusal to believe what God has said. Men truly detest and hate God, even many so-called Christians.

I heard one Andrew Wommack try to boil the entire issue of the doctrine of God’s sovereignty to one quick dictionary lookup, regarding the word for “sovereign.” The dictionary, according to him said it has to do with a king or government ruling a nation. His argument is that because an earthly king does not control all the thoughts and actions of his people God does not. This is a very stupid mistake. When was it a good idea to define things by a mere dictionary lookup? Wommack in other doctrines such as, “You already got it,” (which I find edifying) will define the doctrine how the text and passage does it. Why not do it for God’s sovereignty? Why not define God’s sovereign control how Romans 9 defines it? Before the twins made choices of good or bad God already decided to love and hate one of them. Why not define God’s sovereignty how the bible tells us God uses His power and control? The lesson here is that when you see a pastor boil down an entire doctrine to one dictionary lookup and then apply it to God, then you need to mock it and disregard it as trash. If they call themselves pastors, then they need to define terms how the bible and the relevant passages do.

We will get more into logic in the next section, but we will go over some there, since many pastors and theologians seem to think the Laws of Logic (contradiction, identity and excluded middle) somehow do not apply to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty.

“ FIRST. After going over the attributes of God, in both spiritual and metaphysical aspects, it leads to a clear doctrine about God’s sovereignty or control over all things.

At this point, I could say-

“(1) All dogs are warm-blooded.
(2) This bulldog is a dog.
(3) Therefore, it is warm-blooded,”

-and this entire section on God’s sovereignty could be finished in one short paragraph. However due to the vehement resistance to God by bullying the mind with stupidity, this section must deal with stating, the most painfully obvious things. For those who already have a willing mind to believe what God says, I apologize for this. However, this will be a good practice in critical thinking skills and a refresher for what you do know.  

The Bible teaches that God is absolutely and directly sovereign over all things. Or stated as a modus ponens.


M.1. (p) If God causes all things directly and absolutely, (q) then God caused x, h or w to happen, directly and absolutely.
M.2. (p) God does cause all things.
M.3. (q) God caused x, h and w.

In logic, if the “all” or “some” is not stated (directly or indirectly), then the rule is that your category statement assumes an “all” universally-distributed proposition.

I recently heard some moron say something like, “God sovereignly moves things at the universal level, but allows man to move things at the particular level.”

If I were to say this nicely, the person probably does not know what the terms, “universal” and “particular,” means; they are just talking about things as if they know about them, when they do not have a clue, and are just making things up. However, words have meaning, as the Bible says so. Thus, if we are to take what this person is saying, then it is bottom of the barrel stupid.

Logical inference works because particulars are necessary applications of universals. For example. When the Bible says, “all have sinned,” this is only “universally true” if every “particular” instance is also true. If it is not sometimes true in particulars, then it is not universally distributed to all things in a said category. Logic or deductive inference is an application of the universally distributed premise applied in particulars. Thus, if all men have sinned, then if I refer to any human, I am able to affirm that this human as sinned. Therefore, a correctly done deduction from Scripture is what the scripture asserts, because it is only applying the universal(distributed) premise of scripture to the particulars. It is only pointing out information that is already there.

For example. If I were to say,

“it is universally true that all dogs are mammals.
This bulldog is a dog.
Thus, this bulldog is a fish.”

This syllogism is invalid; however, if the concluding premise is indeed true about reality, then it is not universally true, that all dogs are mammals, for in some “particular” instances dogs are fish, and not mammals. Rather than just a contrariety, this is what a true contradiction is when applied on the same premises. A ‘some are not’ premise is a contradiction to an ‘all’ premise.

Thus, if you say “it is universally true that God is sovereign, but then in some particular cases in man, man is sovereign, then you just denied the universal.” You could say God is mostly sovereign, and mostly moves things; but you cannot say God is sovereign as a universal statement without violating the law of contradiction. Or you could say, although it would be odd—it is universally true that God is sometimes sovereign. It would be odd, because an “all” distribution of category in a predicate is presupposed as a “all” if left unsaid. In mathematics this category distribution of all, is in fact called a “universal statement.”

Subjects in universal propositions refer to all in that category (All men have a worldview), while those in particular propositions refer to some (Some men are theists). But what about the predicates? This is where distribution comes in.

Distribution is to terms what quantity is to propositions. A term is said to be distributed when it refers to all the members of its class. Distribution can be designated by a stated or implied all.[1]

For example, if I said, “ravens are birds,” then it is assumed to be that “all” ravens are contained in the predicate of “birds.”

If a particular denies your universal category statement, then the universal is not a “all” category statement but a “some” category statement. That is, if I said, “this particular raven is not a bird,” then it is not a true statement that “ravens are birds.”  Likewise, if it is true that some particular humans are not sinful, then the Bible’s universal statement that “all” have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory is a false statement of reality. It is not a universal “all” statement.

Some at this point, who have never studied logic might say, “I sort-of already know this, and after thinking about it now, it is what the Bible teaches.”  If you understand this then, you are already leagues above the intelligence and faith of many pastors and theologians.  

Some might also say, “well, maybe the people above, meant universal, how a human authority might issue a policy at the top level, but a lower person directly applies it.” First, if so, then so what? How does “horse crap” have any logical necessity to proving if 2+2=4? To confess the above is to confess you deny God is not sovereign over everything, and that there are other causalities that moves things around, separate from God doing it.

Such an admission, does a slight-of-hand fallacy to make it sound like God is sovereign over reality, when they freely admit God is not. Many seem to gloss over this; God is not man. Let us say that again. God is not man. God’s authority is not like human authority. God’s control is not like human control. What moron would even compare the two? God’s metaphysical transcendence is not compatible to man. You cannot relate the two in an intelligent way. Color has nothing to do with the concept of numbers. Why do I need to say this to adults?

The spiritual, ethical and emotional connection behind all this stupidity is a desire for the praise of men. Rather than just saying, “God is not sovereign over all things,” they perform slight-of-hand fallacies by still affirming the opposite of what they believe, but then deny their doctrinal statement in application. If these people truly believed they honored God with right theology, then they need to say, “God is only sometimes sovereign,” as their doctrine and defend it. Yet, they affirm a contradictory doctrine despite saying they love God. Therefore, we conclude, their love and loyalty to God, cannot be as great as they say. Instead of standing their ground on what they believe, they please men by affirming a doctrine they disagree with. Then in order to affirm their own doctrine, they do a 180 and deny God is sovereign over all things in applications/particulars of life. Their true goal then is to be men pleasures. Their doctrine is a doctrine of men, by men, for the pleasure of men. They live in a kingdom of self. They are thoroughly man centered.  Their condemnation is deserved.

Another fool once said to me, “God IS absolutely sovereign over all things, but in order to let man have free-choice, gave up some of His sovereignty.” Again, this is a self-righteous, man-pleasure. It is a slight of hand, to hide what they are affirming. God IS not absolutely sovereign anymore, because by their own words, God gave up some of His sovereignty over all things. Thus, God WAS sovereign, but IS NOT absolutely sovereign over all things anymore.  Since we are dealing with present reality in most applications, their doctrine is, “God is sometimes sovereign, and sometimes not.” Any affirmation other than this, would be a lie for them.

[1] Geisler, N. L., & Brooks, R. M. (1990). Come, let us reason: an introduction to logical thinking (p. 30). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House.

aaron-burden-y02jEX_B0O0-unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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