Tag Archives: tree

I Win No Matter What

I remember Vincent Cheung saying in Blinded by Atheism, “Apologetics is so easy that if it is the main focus of your life and if you become any good at it, you might become disillusioned with boredom and with a lack of purpose.”

He is correct; if you use biblical deductionalism or rationalism. If I choose not to be nice and always take apologetic arguments to the presuppositional level straight away (supposing my opponent even has the intellectual ability to go there), I win no matter what happens. If I stick to the scripture, I win. It doesn’t matter what my opponent says; if they say anything, I win. Even if all they say is the word “as,” I win.

The presuppositional level has to do with your starting point for knowledge and to a larger degree the things you must have in order to have any intelligence. My worldview is not their worldview. My Bible says it is true and all others are false. It says knowledge comes from God, not observation or empiricism. Thus, my worldview disagrees with all other worldviews about the presupposition of knowledge. Because other worldviews always disagree with my worldview about knowledge and the Bible is always right, then any knowledge they use does not come from their worldview, and so they never have logical justification for any knowledge they have. It does not matter if it is their own name, if it is knowledge about a tree, bird, or something abstract like “as,” “the,” or logic, or math; all such knowledge does not come from their worldview. Their worldview has no intelligence, or true or false premises about anything in reality; it has no subjects or predicates; it has no logic or math.

Even if I argue my position in a poor way, I still win. If we consider the worldview argument like a tree, the presuppositional level is the axe laid at the trunk of the tree. Even if I poorly argue for a point and my opponent seems to win a small point, they only manage to save a small twig at the top of the tree. However, one swing with my axe and the whole tree comes down.

If they make any statement about reality, or ask any question about reality or my worldview, I am not allowed to accept it, because the Bible says only it is true, says all others are false, and only it has knowledge. They do not have knowledge, and so they cannot use knowledge to make a statement about anything. If an atheist says rock layers show… (it does not matter what the conclusion is; the important thing is the knowledge of the terms rock and layers), I cannot receive his statement without presupposing his epistemology gives him knowledge. But the Bible clearly says only God gives knowledge; all others are false. If I accept his epistemology gives him the ability to use the terms “rock” and “layers,” then I reject the Bible at the same time because the Bible says only it gives knowledge (via God’s direct power) and all others are false. To use empiricism with my opponent is to reject my God at the same time. To use empiricism is to give the tree trunk to my opponent, so that the very best I can do is cut down some of his worldview branches, because I have now lost the ability to chop down the foundation of his worldview.

I would tell my opponent,

I do not use your epistemology of empiricism, which you used to produce the terms of rock and layers. If you are going to question me using an anti-biblical epistemology (the very thing we disagree about), then the logical burden of proof is on you to justify the knowledge of rock and layers. I admit, if I were to use or assume with you your empiricism, I must also reject my Christianity. But this is the very thing we disagree about, or will you just accept the Bible is the only starting point for knowledge? Because if you do, then I win, and you will be saved. I don’t believe in your worldview. I refuse to go further, because the burden of proof is on you. If you do not have knowledge of rock and layers, it is pointless what the conclusions are. You attacked me with the certainty that you have the knowledge of rocks and layers. I do not believe you. I don’t presuppose your worldview.

Tell It What You Want

“What I do have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”
(Acts 3:6)

 “Jesus Christ heals you. Get up and roll up your mat.”
(Acts 9:34)

“Stand up on your feet!”
(Acts 14:10)


Truly I tell you, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. 22 If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.”
(Matt. 21:21)

The fig tree was a real fig tree, and it dried up when Jesus spoke to it. Jesus didn’t ask God; He spoke to the tree, and it died. It wasn’t a spiritual fig tree. Thus, the category is material or physical. When facing mountains in the material world, Jesus didn’t ask God for help but spoke directly to the problem. He then instructs the disciples to do the same: to speak to the mountain or problem and command it in faith, knowing God’s power will back their words. Jesus didn’t tell the disciples to inform God of their problem or mountain or to present a sad sob story about how bad it is. Rather, He said to speak to the problem and tell it what you want it to do.

After the baptism of the Spirit in the opening salvo of the Book of Acts, the disciples did just that. In Acts 3, Peter didn’t tell God how awful it must be for the cripple to suffer so long and beg God to find it in His will to heal the man. No. Peter spoke to the mountain or problem—sickness. He said, “What I have, I give.” It’s not what God has or what God gives. Peter declared the power to heal is what he has and what he gives. He then said, “In Jesus’ Name, walk.” He spoke to the mountain and told it what he wanted: “Walk.” This is exactly what Jesus instructed.

In Acts 9, Peter says, “Jesus heals you, get up.” Peter doesn’t tell God about the mountain of sickness; rather, he tells the sickness what he wants: “Get up.” Peter obeys Jesus’ instructions for interacting with material mountains and problems. In faith, tell them what you want them to do, whether it’s killing a tree, casting it into the sea, healing the sick, or telling a fish to bring you money.

In Acts 14, Paul looks at the mountain of sickness and speaks to it like Peter, saying, “Stand up on your feet!”

These commands are both spoken to the mountain and serve as instructions for the person to act on faith. Because they believe they are healed, then they need  to do something they couldn’t do before. This is integrated into speaking to the mountain of sickness. It’s a powerful way to administer healing.

God gave Moses the Staff of God. When they were backed against the sea, God told Moses to stop monologuing about His help and use the Staff of God to divide the sea. Thus, it was not God who divided the sea in the most direct sense, but Moses divided the sea, using God’s power. However, what we have is greater than the Staff of God. We have the name of Jesus Christ engraved on our tongues. We are part of Jesus and so we use His Name as our own.


Jesus didn’t whine to God about fig trees or mountains—He told them what to do, and they obeyed. In Acts, Peter and Paul channel that vibe, bossing sickness around like pros: “Walk!” “Get up!” “Stand!” No sob stories, just faith-fueled commands backed by Jesus’ name. Speak to your problem, not about it—whether it’s a tree, a mountain, or a coinless fish, tell it who’s boss and watch God’s power roll.

All Things Are Possible for Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Tree – Good Fruit, Good Fruit – Good Tree

[This is a cannibalized section from the eschatology section from my systematic theology book, about the importance of the baptism of the spirit.]

“You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorn bushes or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit,”
(Matt. 7-16-18 LSB).

“But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him either in this age or in the coming one!
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit is good, or make the tree bad and its fruit is bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.
34 Offspring of vipers! How are you able to say good things when you[q] are evil,”
(Matt 12:32-34 LEB).

“For there is no good tree that produces bad fruit, nor on the other hand a bad tree that produces good fruit, 44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorn plants, nor are grapes harvested from thorn bushes. 45 The good person out of the good treasury of his heart brings forth good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure brings forth evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks,” (Luke 6:43-45 LEB).

Jesus puts a focus on bad words and bad doctrine in how He defines bad fruit, because the context is the Jewish leaders committing the blaspheme of the Holy Spirit with a false doctrine that affirmed the works of the Spirit come from Satan. In Matthew 7 this is said in context of obeying God’s law and Jesus showing the true standard God commands, and thus, this is a universal teaching on all obedience and disobedience to God’s commandments. So, although bad fruit is a universal category for all disobedience, Jesus does put a stronger focus on disobedience with affirming false doctrine. Jesus says, “how can you SAY good things, when you are evil.” This statement contradicts Jesus’ truth claims about reality; thus, they cannot say good things, because they are evil, and they are evil and so they say evil things.

In Matthew 7:17-18 Jesus makes 4 truth claims. We will put them from A to D. Since Jesus intends for us to add ourselves or someone else to this, and thus we have 3 terms and a deductive application. We will use hypothetical syllogisms for simplicity with modus tollens, rather than categorical syllogisms and contrapositions, which can be a little more difficult (for understanding why and how) for those who have not studied logic. Example, the contraposition for, “all [good trees] are [good fruit bearers],” in the defined context of Jesus’ truth claims[1], would be “all [bad fruit bearers] are [bad trees].” In natural deduction this rule is transposition or contraposition.[2]

However, beyond this the scripture plainly says in 1 John 3:7, “he one who does what is right is righteous.” Thus, if good fruit, then good tree.

A, If good tree, then good fruit.
B, If bad tree, then bad fruit.
C, If good tree, then no bad fruit.
D, If bad tree, then no good fruit.

Jesus is repeating Himself in premise C and D, because their logical conclusions in Modus Tollens are the same for A and B.

In essence, with premise A and B, with the uses of Modus ponens and Modus tollens, we have 4 deductive conclusion or outputs.

Jesus defines the context in a way that these are opposites, and that there is no other options. When it comes to person and the law of God, there is obedience or disobedience; there is no other option. When it comes to a person and being born again in spiritual life or under spiritual death, there is no other options. Therefore, the negation will be said as “bad fruit or tree,” or “good fruit or tree,” since in context this is what the negation is.

If we only had premise “A” and we did a Modus ponens and tollens (or in categorical contraposition), then we can say “because bad fruit, thus bad tree,” but not, “because good fruit thus, good trees.” However, with premise B, and then with Jesus’ further restating this doctrine in premise C and D, we have the latter conclusion. Also, C and D close off any overlap for the categories of obedience (good fruit) and disobedience (bad fruit) for humans.

Syllogism A.

A.1.(P) If good tree, (Q) then good fruit.
A.2. (P). Good tree
A.3. Thus, (Q) good fruit

Then the Modus Tollens, Ab.

Ab.1. (P) If good tree, (Q) then good fruit.
Ab.2. ~(Q) bad fruit.
Ab.3. Thus, ~(P) bad tree.

Syllogism B.

B.1. (P) If bad tree, (P) then bad fruit.
B.2. (P). Bad Tree.
B.3. Thus, (Q) bad fruit.

Then the Modus Tollens, Bb.

Bb.1. (P) If bad tree, (P) then bad fruit.
Bb.2. ~(Q) Good fruit.
Bb.3.  Thus ~(P) Good tree.

When Jesus says, “you will know them by their fruit,” it is being used as a proof. Jesus is saying, “x” proves that there is “y.” By using the Modus tollens we see bad fruit does prove bad tree, and good fruit proves a good tree. This can sometimes be seen with past, present and future tense verbs. As a category statement, “A good tree DOES or WILL produce good fruit.” Using the logic of double negative in reverse order, “if you produce bad fruit, then you have been or are a bad tree.”

The positive statements are positive statements about “metaphysics.” They are what God has created and sovereignly caused. The modus tollens, are being used as a way for us to discover and “prove” what metaphysics God as put us into, through our obedience or disobedience.

These statements of Jesus are universal; they are all encompassing statements about all good works in obedience and all bad works in disobedience. Jesus takes a few words from the Jewish leaders and says, “this specific bad fruit of false doctrine you said, is proof you are a bad tree.” Thus, applying this knowledge in deduction, any biblical premise that narrowly speaks of one type of bad or good fruit, even if only mentioned in one premise, applies to all four possible combinations shown. Whether it is John in “1st John,” talking about the good or bad fruit of loving God or loving your brother, it applies to all 4 combinations. “The one who hates his brother is in the darkness,” (1 John 2:11 LEB).

The same with Jesus saying,

“7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you want and it will be done for you. 8 My Father is glorified by this: that you bear much fruit, and prove to be my disciples… 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit, and your fruit should remain, in order that whatever you ask the Father in my name he will give you. 17 These things I command you.”[3]

Vincent Cheung has a great essay on this called, “Predestination and Miracles.”

God has chosen us, and predestined us. Predestined for what? There was more to what Jesus said: “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit — fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” God predestined us to bear fruit. What is this fruit? Christian teaching often assumes that fruit refers to spiritual and ethical effects such as improvements in character, works of charity, and also works of ministry, such as saving sinners and building churches. This is not entirely wrong, but the biblical idea of fruit includes much more, and Jesus clearly had other things in mind when he made the statement.

Even in the same verse, we can see that Jesus had in mind not only works of preaching and charity, because he said his followers would produce fruit and that “the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” Gospel life and ministry is characterized by answers to prayers. What kinds of prayers? Wait, this is weaker than the way Jesus said it. The doctrine of prayer in historic unbelief is that “God will answer your prayers if it is his will (regardless of what he promised). Or, you can say that he always answers your prayers — sometimes he says yes, sometimes no, sometimes maybe, sometimes later. Or, when you ask for egg, he will give you a scorpion, so that when you ask for spiritual growth, he will give you cancer to teach you a lesson.” Among us, we have never accepted this view of prayer. We recognize it as satanic deception. But Jesus did not even say, “God will answer your prayers” or “God will always answer your prayers.” He said, “God will give you whatever you ask.” This is how God wants us to think about our relationship with him. This is how he wants us to think about discipleship. This is how he wants us to think about faith and prayer. God will give me whatever I ask when I approach him in the name of Jesus. No hiding behind a thousand qualifications. No excuses for me or for him.

God will give me whatever I ask. I will have whatever I ask. What I ask, I get. And I am predestined for this. So I am chosen to get whatever I ask. I am predestined to get whatever I ask. It is my foreordained destiny to receive whatever I ask God in the name of Jesus. If you have never heard this, then you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of predestination, you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of prayer, you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of the name of Jesus, and you have never heard the Bible’s doctrine of discipleship. Just several verses earlier, Jesus said, “If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be given you. This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples” (15:7-8). Getting whatever we ask from God is intertwined throughout his discourse with the notions of bearing fruit, being his disciples, and loving one another. Thus getting whatever we ask from God is as pervasive as the gospel itself. It cannot be taken out and thrown away without tearing apart the entire gospel, and thus also our salvation. Here bearing fruit is almost the same thing as getting whatever we ask from God, and by getting what we ask from God, we show ourselves to be true disciples of Christ.[4]

The metaphysics that God sovereignly causes, is that a disciple (good tree), produces the (good fruit) of asking and receiving what they ask for.

Jesus defines good fruit as obeying His commandments. His command here, is to disciples (not merely apostles) to pray and get what you pray for. You need to think about that. It is a command from your God; it is not a mere suggestion or self-help tip. Jesus has already defined good and bad people by obedience and disobedience with 4 possible combinations, and thus, the same applies here. Bad fruit is praying and not receiving what you pray for. Thus, if you pray and do not receive because you lack faith, you are producing bad fruit. A continued life of this bad fruit is proof you are not His good disciple. A continued life of this bad fruit is proof Jesus did not predestine or appoint you to bear good fruit. It proves you were chosen by God to be a reprobate.

The apostles said, “then God has granted them repentance to life.” God’s sovereign work caused and predestined these with spiritual life (born from above) and reconciled them to Him, by repentance (faith). It is a statement of metaphysics; they are saved; they live in Spiritual life now; they live reconciled to God. When applied for good or bad fruit, it is the same as has been demonstrated, it is a test of proof.

The same is for baptism of the Spirit. If baptism of the Spirit (good fruit), then proof of the metaphysics that you are did repent and are in the category of spiritual “life” and “saved,” (good tree).  Bad fruit is not being baptized in the Spirit. A continued rebellion and disobedience in not being baptized in the Spirit is proof of reprobation, especially in context of doctrine. If you continue in affirming the false doctrines that God does not command you to love your brother, and that Jesus did not teach that truth does set you free, and Jesus did not teach that you get what you ask for in faith, and that God does not command you to be baptism in the Spirit, then you give strong proof you are a reprobate. If continued affirmation of false doctrine on this doctrine is not repented of, then stronger proof of God’s predestination of your reprobation. The same for hating your brother, (etc.). Hebrews 12 affirms that Christians have besetting sin. “let us lay aside the sins that easily entangle us.” It does happen. But the same chapter says to look to Jesus who is the author and “perfecter” of our faith. We are told to get free. We are told Jesus is able to heal dislocated shoulders. The great danger is not repenting and being arrogant. To be arrogant and unrepentance in continued false doctrine is a great, if not the greatest danger of proof for reprobation. Jesus was very compassionate with those who were at least trying to repent and follow, “lord help my unbelief.” Paul, after correcting the Corinthians for many sinful actions, kept encouraging them to repent and get better. At the end of the letter, he says to double check and make sure your election is sure. If no repentance of your bad fruit, then you give proof of reprobation.  For the false teachers that Paul dealt with, he didn’t record that even prayed for God to save them, but says regarding the coppersmith that God would “repay him” for the harm of the false doctrine and unbelief he was spreading.  Likewise Paul says in Philippians 4 the women and Clement’s names are in the “book of life (v.3),” because of their labor in the gospel. That is, Paul says their election of being saints is certain, because of their good fruit, and not because Paul received a divine revelation about them. We can do the same. Jude, regarding the false teachers, says they are reprobates destined for hell with the demons. However, regarding the Corinthians who were not affirming false doctrines as false teachers, but sinning in sins of passion, Paul corrected them and told them that “temples of God” do not behave that way.

We will now examine these arguments by putting them into syllogism A and B from above, since these two alone will output all the combinations we need.

Love and hating your brother.

Syllogism A.

A.1.(P) If born from above, (Q) then love for your brother.
A.2. (P). Born from above.
A.3. Thus, (Q) Love for your brother.

Then the Modus Tollens, Ab.

Ab.1. (P) If born from above, (Q) then love for your brother.
Ab.2. ~(Q) hates your brother.
Ab.3. Thus, ~(P) proof of being born from below.

Syllogism B.

B.1. (P) If born from below, (P) then hates your brother.
B.2. (P). Born from below.
B.3. Thus, (Q) hates your brother.

Then the Modus Tollens, Bb.

Bb.1. (P) If born from below, (P) then hates your brother.
Bb.2. ~(Q) loves your brother.
Bb.3.  Thus ~(P) proof of being born from above.

Ask and get what You pray for.

Syllogism A.

A.1.(P) If good disciple, (Q) then ask and get what you ask for.
A.2. (P). Good disciple.
A.3. Thus, (Q) ask and get what you ask for.

Then the Modus Tollens, Ab.

Ab.1. (P) If good disciple, (Q) then ask and get what you ask for.
Ab.2. ~(Q) ask and not get what you ask for.
Ab.3. Thus, ~(P) proof of bad disciple.

Syllogism B.

B.1. (P) If bad disciple, (P) then ask and not get what you ask for.
B.2. (P). Bad disciple.
B.3. Thus, (Q) ask and not get what you ask for.

Then the Modus Tollens, Bb.

Bb.1. (P) If bad disciple, (P) then ask and not get what you ask for.
Bb.2. ~(Q) ask and get what you ask for.
Bb.3.  Thus ~(P) proof of good disciple.

Baptism of the Spirit.

Peter and the apostles defined the “good tree” as repentance to be “saved,” and repentance of “life.” Thus the metaphysical category is life and saved. We will call this saved and unsaved.

Syllogism A.

A.1.(P) If saved, (Q) then baptism of Spirit.
A.2. (P) saved.
A.3. Thus, (Q) baptism of the Spirit.

Then the Modus Tollens, Ab.

Ab.1. (P) If saved, (Q) then baptism of the Spirit.
Ab.2. ~(Q) no baptism in the Spirit.
Ab.3. Thus, ~(P) no proof of being saved.

Syllogism B.

B.1. (P) If unsaved, (P) then no baptism of the Spirit.
B.2. (P) unsaved.
B.3. Thus, (Q) no baptism of the Spirit.

Then the Modus Tollens, Bb.

Bb.1. (P) If unsaved, (P) then no baptism of the Spirit.
Bb.2. ~(Q) baptism of Spirit.
Bb.3.  Thus ~(P) thus proof for being saved.

______________ENDNOTES_______________

[1] That is, without context, as you might find in a logic textbook, you would need to say, “all [non-good fruit bearers] are [non-good trees].” However, unlike a logic book, that mostly gives the absolute minimum context of something, in Christianity we have a substantial context of knowledge about the world. We know exactly what Jesus means by “non-good trees” for humans commanded to obey His words, they are “bad trees.”

[2] I have seen some morons in modern logic want to deny the “law of excluded middle,” which is what makes this reverse double negative logic work. Aside from all rules showing this to be valid, included truth tables, it is interesting that those denying this are liberal theologians and atheist and empiricists who do not have an epistemology that is able give them truth in the first place. With a necessary epistemology that gives substantial knowledge about the world, with clearly defined categories, then the law of excluded middle is valid, strong and absolute. But beside all this, Jesus and the Bible assumes the law of excluded middle. Do not let those who do not have truth to begin with, be your teachers. Leave them alone to wonder in their own delusions.

[3]  Emphasis by author.

[4] Vincent Cheung. Predestination and Miracles. From the ebook, TRACE. 2018. Pg. 73-74