Authority For The Sons Of God

However the terms in A_y(x) would indicate that if both x and y hold L(G) then they are both redeemable, but the operator "A" is such as to enable 'y' to redeem 'x' if 'x' is at fault. This would be to ensure that L(G) is held correctly: i.e. Y may be substituted for y with Y = H_G(y)

We state that in order for y to be able to correct 'x', the union of redeemed values in Y = H_G(y) with those values in H_x(x) are redeemable to
H_G(H_G(y) ∪ H_x(x)) = H_G(Y ∪ H_x(x)).

This set contains every correct virtue held by x and y, without permitting any faults of virtue by x to persist, and also contains every positive property or virtue known by y. It must also contain L(G), as we considered only the redeemed set Y. So in order for x to be fully corrected, we assume H_x(x) is now redeemed to H_G(Y ∪ H_x(x)).

So what are the implications?

If Y is substituted for y, then the set of correct beliefs of y (held with L(G)) in Y = H_G(y) may be so as to refine those held by H_x(x) to H_G(x). Clearly H_Y(x) are correct if x holds to L(G) also. However A_y(x) would allow 'y' with authority to correct 'x' if 'x' were not to hold to L(G).

Then we see that "A_y(x)" is a forceful operator simply dividing those with "divine authority" to correct others from those without. There is one caveat however, that 'y' may be correct in virtue yet still not hold to L(G). Then, for a redeemable 'x' at fault in contradicting some virtue yet holding L(G), we may perceive that A_y(x) could actually be true whereas A_x(y) is untrue.

However this is never the case! For 'x' must be redeemed if he holds L(G) and 'y' is not redeemed; and not even H_G(G) \ L(G) = H_G(y) will necessarily justify a man before God, (if 'y' could claim to be perfect). x is also necessarily "not God". To have the authority 'x' must have been redeemed rather than merely redeemable: the operator A_x(y) makes no "sense".

We would be able to state in this case that 'y' would have invented his own laws somewhat in common with God's own but not in completeness - 'x' though temporarily in fault presently has no "authority" to correct y.

Rather than justify hypocrisy we should simply state that "redemption is more important that fault": for if H_G(G) \ L(G) does not justify, neither will H_G(y) (a subset of the former) which is without L(G). (All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.)

Then all we should note from this for now is that A_y(x) is true if 'y' is redeemed and 'x' is at fault or not. We may substitute Y = H_G(y) for y and H_x(x) for x in A_y(x) without issue. Likewise we would state that A_y(x) is true only if y is an "l" from the set of chosen elect - the saved.

Thus from the statement regarding hypocrisy above, we note that L(G) if held by an individual indicates salvation as well as the authority to correct any such x, since H_G(G) \ L(G) is also a fault! L(G) implies authority "from God" down over His creations to the individual y.

We note from the universality of A_G(y), that H_G(G) = H_G(y) may hold only if y holds L(G). Rather than put y=G, we simply state that A_G(y) - we require the possibility for y to become virtuous at least. Then L(G) => A_G(y) universally.

So then, given G "God", then A_G(G)<=>L(G) i.e. God is indeed without fault. Therefore in the model A_y(x) is well defined for all y holding L(G). I.e. we may substitute A_G(x) for A_y(x) if and only if y holds L(G).

y holds L(G) => y holds A_G(G) => y holds A_G(y)
=>H_y(y) is redeemed to H_Y(y) => Y is a correct set of virtues with L(G)
=> H_Y(y) is a correct set of virtues => H_Y(y) "may correct" H_x(x)

H_x(x) becomes at best H_G(H_Y(y) union H_x(x)) Which must contain L(G) (y must have been redeemed to Y)
H_x(x) now holds a proper set of virtues in H_G(G) with L(G) whether x previously held L(G) or not.

In the case that the resultant H_x(x) does not then contain L(G) we must have that 'y' did not hold L(G); rather we consider the case Y when y is redeemed in full accord with L(G)<=>A_G(G) and A_G(y). We would assert that the "authority exists" to correct x. And this authority is ultimately equal to A_G(G)<=>L(G) which is over all 'x' and 'y' to correct members in a chain in 'y' down to 'x'. Thus we may indeed substitute A_G(x) for A_y(x) if y holds true to L(G).

Thus the authority for a believer to correct some other's virtues may then be deemed to come directly from God. The "authority" depends fully on the "correctness" one ascribes to the laws of God. Right and wrong are concepts that spring from our virtues, and as we are made in the image of God we would state that virtues are persistent and all men are able to be persuaded as to them:

Correcting each others faults (the speck) in the breaking of commandments is then reliant completely on whether an individual is redeemed in the gospel and has removed the "beam from their own eye" first.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page