Michael Fights Back With His Angels

We defined D(x) as a fault under the law of God upon "x" that is irredeemable. It becomes implausible to suggest that (D&~D)(x), i.e. that D could be inconsistent, and it carried weight that D is universal and like "the mark of the beast", that once undertaken it is indelible and without exception, damning.

We saw how the rapture doctrine was such that the faith that avoids the mark and is placed in a false God is none other than worship of the dragon that bears the "mark of the beast" from fellowship to fellowship as by permissive acceptance, in a transitive form.

However, can D be applied to an l, a "least of the flock"? Does D become inconsistent? It could be argued from scripture that it is impossible to repent of the mark once you have accepted it. But holding fast to ones faith in God and avoiding the mark is easy enough, even if it results in something much harder, the leaving of all ties with former fellowships.

Now, the argument as to whether the God of scripture has sovereignty would demand that His mechanism of redemption is universal. God can not return until the devil has been defeated by the least as per the revelation script - what remains is that the least must overcome the mark. We may assume the least leaves the church and joins the one flock instead, but does this eliminate the mark? We see it is actually defensible that the mark is inconsistent even if it can be applied to the least "l". (I.e. D(l))

Essentially we have D(l) => "there exists no God that is free to choose l". I.e. if H_G(l) => L(G) there is no reason why pos(G~l) is false. (It is positive for God to know of "l", "l" respects God.) However, if then ~pos(l~G) because l must of necessity be punished by God, we would consider this inconsistent. (Because pos(l~G) is axiomatically true, as God is "good".) God is free to punish or not as He sees fit at the judgement.

In effect we require that if D is consistent upon l, then L(G) must suffer inconsistency as l must be necessary to God - there is no God that would fill the office that would save that l. Also, If God saves l, then there is no D that is consistent to damn l. These give us essentially the two statements of inconsistency

(G & ~G) v (D & ~D),

Either God, or the sin of l is inconsistent.

However, God is consistent always (we would expect) so we would write that G & ~G actually refers to an inconsistent "false" god (satan). We would place the true God "G" upon the right, i.e. ~D(l) => "l belongs to G", (since God saves, and l is chosen.) If God is inconsistent we would assume then that l belongs to satan and satan "stands somewhat" in the form of an enemy to God.

So we have two disjunctions.

N(l belongs to G) v ~N(l belongs to G)

and the similar counterpart

N(l belongs to satan) v ~N(l belongs to satan)

Which are coincident with either;

A) N(l belongs to G) & D(l)

or

B) N(l belongs to satan) & E(l)

Where E(l) is the state of enmity between l and satan - (satans perceived fault in "l" towards his own wretched self by symmetry.) as l is to overcome satan - the enmity is against the consistency that l is satans own, (satan in truth must hold l his enemy also.) E(l) indicates essentially L(G) as excluding all else, as E(l) is enmity between l and satan, in view here as lies and false gospels. - only G&L(G) (and what is entailed) is excluded from E(l).

Addendum
Take note that either side of the dialectic here (A v B) as above may exclude in principle L(G). God is both "unable to choose "l" " and N(l belongs to satan) rather than E(l) excludes L(G) (though E(l) holds L(G) as "unattainable" by it constituting mere emnity, even if say, hatred of satan could imply the whole of the law is able to be kept except by faith L(G)). Then the excluded middle L(G) proves the disjunction (as undecidable) Therefore the disjunction has an excluded middle and B is inconsistent if D(l) is just another fault "f" - either the least is both damned and saved by the law of God or satan has a fight on his hands! What is more to the point is that the question of Jesus' own right hand's necessity to belong to God Himself is also in question... it has been ignored so far! Note that D(l) is far from a necessary truth, being applied rather than reasoned. It makes more sense then to assume God the victor a priori. (Jesus has not lost one of His own but the "son of perdition" Judas only.) Jesus' right hand can never necessarily belong to satan if it already belongs to God in a necessary mode already).

N(l belongs to G) implies the sin D(l) of l is inconsistent, and by symmetry as D&~D v G&~G we must have that N(l belongs to satan) renders ~L(G) or that God is inconsistent. Simply put, God is always consistent. (E(l) is consistent, therefore given l is chosen and saved, N~(l belongs to satan & D(l)) or put simply: D(l) => l does not belong to satan. The second death has no power over anyone that has part in the first resurrection, (ie that hold to L(G) as displayed by Christ.).

Then the part N(l belongs to G) of statement A is essentially equal to ~D(l) and the analogue part N(l belongs to satan) of B is equal to ~E(l). (Which immediately looks fishy because satan is the enemy of l. satan does not "choose" l.) We have a bias to statement A.

So our statements form a dialectic along the lines of

(N(l belongs to G) & D(l)) v (N(l belongs to satan) & E(l))

Can we lighten both sides of this by D(l) and/or E(l)? If these two may be equivalences then we have an excluded middle. Clearly we could assume that D(l) may be removed with its counterpart N(l belongs to satan) and E(l) with N(l belongs to G) by symmetry (although this is tricky - there is no symmetry, yet we will quash the claim of it.) . This would leave the two disjunctions

(N(l belongs to G) ) v E(l)

D(l) v (N(l belongs to satan)

And both these appear to clearly have an excluded middle. In both cases the excluded middle is decided by N(l belongs to G) & D(l) rather than N(l belongs to satan) & E(l). We state then the former proves both disjunctions and then dialectic logic has deduced that l is truly chosen (and saved despite D(l)).

Returning to (N(l belongs to G) & D(l)) v (N(l belongs to satan) & E(l))

This can only be symmetric if D(l) takes the correct form that satan actually owns the least in the kingdom of heaven (perhaps by contract?) and that l is the enemy of satan and will only give his worship to God. (There are essentially no G v p statements, "l" holds true the word of the Lord's patience with him. I.e E(l) = L(G))

Then given that satan "owns" l outright, we have that if l is saved then it is necessary that l belongs to God in order that he be saved.

However our second statement N(l belongs to satan) & E(l) is not the analogue of its counterpart. Certainly E(l) is not up for debate, yet the existence of satan is not knowable a-priori. In that statement, satan may be logically inconsistent with regards to perfection. There is no logical law holding that satan be as so consistent always. In this way we see that if for l, enmity against satan is inconsistent (~E&E), there is then logical requirement that (~E&E)(l) implies that N(l belongs to G) & D(l) and that the inconsistency of D(l) and the Liberty of God's election of l follows.

Of course if the right side of the logical XOR statement above is inconsistent then one would assume the left is consistent, but then

(N(l belongs to G) & D(l)) v (~E(l) & E(l))

implies

(N(l belongs to G) & D(l)) must be consistent. Hence L(G) => (D&~D)(l) and l is forgiven everything. Does satan play any role? If enmity with satan in an inconsistency it could be argued He is not the true devil, (forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those...) whereas we would then prefer to assert the inconsistency of satans ownership of l instead. (We forgive others because we belong to God.)

But the analogue is that if the mark or fault on l is inconsistent then there is no benefit in resisting satan - as if the enemy of God is not His enemy? Really? How are we then to never be bothered by satan? God uses satan as His stick to discipline us once in a while - we are told this in scripture. Of course, we also have that we have chosen the wrong article of our conjunction.

So more clearly, ~N(l belongs to satan) & N(l belongs to satan) if and only if D(l) is inconsistent.

Therefore, satan can not consistently own any soul. (Enmity with God's enemy is not grounds for salvation, but it is advisable!)

In short, E&~E is not an inconsistency - because satan is God's enemy and God hates satan coherently and without contradiction. Therefore it must be an inconsistency that satan may own any soul that God saves. (as an l).

So,
E(l) is consistent & satan owns only nothing. The god of this world (satan) has no place in heaven.

Yet satan remains an enemy whilst satan may logically resist God. After satan is defeated there is no more enmity necessary - satan is damned and to be forgotten. E(l) is more a statement that the "war continues on", and when satan is defeated E(l) has as much a requirement as D(l). (I.e. satan is completely disposable, the enmity is not necessary.) The statement that God is inconsistent G & ~G, is the statement that G is such that L(G) is incoherent because D(l) is "necessary". The reasoning continues that simply put, satan can not create anything (life) in God's own creation that could not repent and turn to God. (God is good.)

So, if the least overcomes being "owned by satan" then likewise satan owns nothing and no-one. Satan has no claim to any of God's elect, or to any of those he has deceived. God owns His whole creation and satan is left in the dust.

"l" overcame by holding true to L(G) and keeping intact his enmity with evil in its forms.

More concisely, if "l"was "sold to satan" at time t1, then there is no fault before t1 or after t1 that can logically render God non-existent. Simple huh? Given that there exists such an l that is necessary to God - the set of saved elect is closed with a least member we know that because our faults do not render God non-existent we are assured of the defeat of the enemy through the example of Christ.

Jesus never had to pay the price for such an "l" on the cross, that of damnation; rather the life that is well-pleasing to God is displayed to be possible and may be emulated by any such l, aside from whether l is the property of another or not. It is true then that it is positive for God to save people whom respect and honour Him correctly in small things. They will be rewarded with larger things.

So, why the title of the page that Michael fights back? We know that Michael argued with the enemy over the body of Moses. Likewise Michael resisted or will resist satan in heaven - the least may overcome without fear as we know the devil is to be cast down to the world. We perhaps prefer to think of battles and victory by bloodshed, but it is most likely that being in the right of truth to begin with - that the defending God's right to choose is that which gives the victory. Michael and His angels (those that agree with him as opposed to those that agree with the dragon) won straight off the bat.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page