God's Sovereignty Questioned

There is a little returning to the subject of metaphysics on this page and in particular - concerning the rapture. This is necessary to determine the reason for the "war in heaven". We have received a dichotomy in the passage of the woman delivered before the dragon.

Firstly if the woman represents the church complete with it's false doctrine of the rapture then the child is delivered of (from) the woman. The child escapes to what we assume is Philadelphia, seated with Christ in heavenly places. If the woman as Israel is likewise to be delivered of the child (a subset that holds to doctrine of rapture) then the woman is being delivered of (from) a child which is in fact "raptured" (almost).

But then if there is no rapture, if the child represents the least in the kingdom of heaven, then God must necessarily rapture the least to prevent the child being "marked" or devoured by the dragon, then God will logically be under requirement to rapture "all", and then there is a logical basis for the rapture. Otherwise, the least may not have the mark forced on him. Why? because then the rapture of the least would become necessary.

If the least then absolutely can not have the mark forced on him then the least must exist on earth only before the tribulation (the hour of trial). It then makes sense that God does not demonstrate He has the mechanism for resisting the mark of the beast with His spirit upon the least of the flock.

Yet then if God can not save the least under the worst circumstances, then technically His mechanism of redemption (and salvation) fails and God's sovereignty is called into question over the world. God, has not "defeated" the dragons devices. In fact by God's own word God can not return to this world until the least overcomes the mark.

The problem then, is that God has a different idea of the "mark of the beast" than we traditionally have been led to believe in. The mark is not a physical diadem or totem, but is a spiritual position where one justifies ones own freedom to worship God within groups permitted by government only.

So, onto metaphysics.
Assuming that 'l' is the least of the flock, and D(l) refers to the mark of the beast applying to l, with rap(l) meaning l is to be raptured then we simply have that logically, (*)

N(D(l)) => N(rap(l)).

However, we have to separate our terms from assuming God is God, or God is some other God, we must separate the doctrine of satan as some other God than the God of scripture instead.

Then assuming we have the God of the "rapture" (satan) as simply put G&rap(l) rather than the God of scripture G&L(G). (Where L(G) is the principle that God is at liberty to act however he sees fit. "L" is for "liberty" here).

Then N(G&rap(l)) v ~N(G&rap(l)).

Now, G is necessary, and we do not separate the terms "God" and "doctrine" when they are logically coherent. We may simply rephrase then

~N(G&rap(l)) => G&(~N(rap(l)))

Now taking the contrapositive of the above (*)

N(G&rap(l)) v G&(~N(rap(l)))

N(G&rap(l)) v G&(~N(D(l)))

But then if N(G&rap(l)) Then as modal status is always necessary

N~(G&(~N(D(l)))) <=> N(G&rap(l))

Therefore if the rapture of the child is necessary then G => N(D(l)) . I.e. God would judge the child to have the mark of the beast.

We have shown that N(D(l)) => N(rap(l)). results in N(D(l)) <=> N(rap(l)).

So, where is the error? Clearly the error is in choosing G&rap(l).

If we likewise chose G&L(G) then ~N(G&rap(l)). => N~(G&N(rap(l))). therefore G => ~N(rap(l))

Simply put, we may substitute G&rap(l) with an inconsistent God that can not save the least of His flock. N(D(l)) is a contradiction or inconsistency. we may name G&rap(l) as satan.

The downside is that if l is not in the flock at all, (and is say, some x) then D(x) is part and parcel with the rapture doctrine. D(x) => rap(x) only if rap(x) => D(x). The logical result is that the mark is consistent with the rapture upon worshipping satan (G&rap(x)).

Satan doesn't need to have everyone worshipping the rapture - merely God must be supplanted with satan by proxy - replacing the God of the gospel with one that is permissively inclusive of those that worship satan (as G&rap(x)).

So, the dragon states that if the child is raptured then he must have the mark of the beast. Does the child worship the rapture? Evidently not if the child does not worship satan. It then makes sense that God is at liberty to catch up one to His throne whenever He acts to; The dragon accuses God of requiring all to be lifted up, something he is not required to do. (Although the passage indicates God does so anyway in the case of the child.)

We then have the flip side that N~(G&catch(l)) where catch(l) is the ability of God to catch up one to heaven, on an individual basis.

Surely G=>~catch(l) can not make sense when G&L(G) is consistent (coherent).

Therefore ~N~(G&catch(l)) <=> P(G&catch(l))

And who is going to tell God He can not do as He wishes?

And who is to say the least has not overcome the mark already in both exiting the church and refusing the rapture doctrine?

Now in the garden of Gethsemane Jesus prayed;

Now, can we imagine a logical reason why God "must" lift up the child? Surely if the devil may torment the child (as he stands ready to devour him) then we could posit some operator E(G) which is upon the limit of evil God will permit satan to inflict upon l. (There is premise; God restricted the extent satan would act against Job.)

Then E(G) say, is true if the evil permitted by God is too great, and false if that is not the case.

Then E(G) => N(G&catch(l)). Then we have a similar case, yet in this manner, as long as E(G) is false we preserve L(G). The moment E(G) is true we immediately have f(G) where f is a fault in God.

How then, may f be stated? simply that God has failed l somewhat. However I much prefer that God has failed Himself. for E(G) => ~L(G) if E(G) is true. But then God is always at liberty and has therefore never been under that condemnation that His sovereignty is under question.

God may display His liberty L(G) in several ways. First, He could catch up the child while E(G) is false. Second, He could create human (and all) life to be too fragile to permit E(G) to be true. He could also simply state that the child in being delivered has overcome the mark of the beast by exiting the church.

If the child does not worship on G&rap(l) , that does not imply catch(l) <=> rap(l) since l holds fast L(G). The least of the flock has a different God than that of the rapture cult.

So, is the child (the angel of the church) really raptured, or is this just a parable - a word picture proof of the reason for the child exiting the churches? The war in heaven is over the sovereignty of God upon earth- as to when or even if (at all) He may return.

God is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, the dragon has no argument against logic: What is self evident is that the war in heaven is started because of the child - whose catching up is related only to his exit from the church - and God knows when the church is judged as he showed John the judgement of the Church. The angel truly declares that there will be "time no longer" after His overcoming. In exiting the church the angel gives God reason for Christ’s return - that the dragon has no argument against His sovereignty.

On the last day, there will be no other things left to overcome except death, which Christ overcame for us.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page