Time No Longer

Could it be argued that the only thing lesser than the angel of the church in the kingdom of heaven is the "church" itself? I of course refer to the agency of a corporation - an artificial being. Is it logically consequent that God would lovingly forgive a corporation as He would a child, so that a "church" could also become necessary to God's plan of salvation, with the end that God "Most High" is owner of all corporations on earth? Is it feasible that we could substitute the corporation for the angel despite the fact that the corporation was created by government on the state's own terms? (I.e. even if after that initial slip-up the corporation "did no harm" and was not a cause of sin to those who are cosigners of the charter that created it.)

A corporation can not repent of that initial slip, so does there exist a perpetual fault? If the members of the church (the corporation) say they are free from condemnation of the perpetual fault - because they permit it to continue over them, they sin,.. but without knowledge of the slip are they excusable?

More in question is that the church as if it were an "l" takes the form of;

N(c belongs to God) & D(c) v N(c belongs to satan) & E(c).

Clearly c does not belong to God, but was created by the government - it has no life so it is impossible for the corporation itself to be at enmity with evil, and to become sinless by predestination - there is a perpetual fault because it may not repent. We may lighten our scales by N(c belongs to God) and E(c). Rather, D(c) is consistent and E(c) is not.

Yet then the church "c" belongs to satan only. A church can not overcome and as the least require all multinational corporations to obey God's laws out of principle, but the laws of the world only, if that.

There is no requirement that the church must universally be incorporated for the sake of establishing God as creator - (as to be His creation, "l" is God's - the reason why it is necessary that "l" belongs to God.) Rather there is no call for every church to unincorporate because one such church has done so.

The problem concerns the statement of the christian, "I belong to the church of". Does he mean he belongs to that church literally, or does he refer simply to membership of the elect but the statement of membership is true in God's judgment because the christian attends the church?

If we substitute the church for the least of the flock once the least has left the church under conviction from God - then surely there is no "salvation" remaining in that church because it contains a corporation as it's least member - and one that can not repent of its perpetual fault. (If a congregation can not save it's own least member, then it is inconsistent in the kingdom of God, is it not?)

Is the angel less than the corporation? Indeed I would argue, yes. If there was no conviction upon the angel to leave until the church was incorporated then we may state that the angel left because his position as least was supplanted by the corporation - He found it untenable that it should be always ministered to and not he himself at all. It follows that the corporation will be the very last of its "elect" members to leave (to become unincorporated) and is therefore greater than the angel. If the corporation is indeed greater than the angel then the flock (those greater than the angel) would all certainly need to unincorporate or separate themselves to obey God. The church corporation itself as a least member is not itself under conviction to unincorporate after the angel leaves, merely the chosen of the flock; and those in the church that should be convicted to leave serve the corporation if they remain.

If however the corporation is less than the angel then the angel as "least in the flock" leaves not because of the corporation but only the actions of the flock instead. We see this in the letters to the angel, (We know them by their fruits, God is not present with them) but the result in both cases is that the corporation (the purpose driven fallacy) is become the image of the beast, and is representative of the desolate state of the whole flock once the angel leaves. As the church is gone all the way bad and the angel is separate, the angel is less than the corporation - rather than simply unable to find a "better church".

However, God saves the least of His flock and once the least is exeunt from the church, he is saved without the question that he may be "owned by a corporation" - as a slave to the church corporation that will never obey the laws of God despite the "purpose driven" attempts to serve it with works until it will.

However in terms of global church unity - if there is only the single legal type of corporation left that may call itself christian - Do we in effect demand God come and play ball with us using our rules? Heaven forbid.

In the kingdom of God, in all truth when the angel of the church overcomes the world - when it is finally displayed that N(l belongs to God) & D(l) v N(l belongs to satan) & E(l) is decided one way or the other (And God is still the victor either side of the XOR - It is then true that there is a set of saved in the kingdom, open or closed) - it is true that the church as a corporation is unfit for purpose.

When the angel is saved (for He is a creation of God) and it is decided that for all the saved "they are God's chosen" and for the damned, their judgement is just, there is only the result that the "church" is below standard whether the bar rests to include the angel or exclude him. The "remnant" left in the church are under obligation to leave and join the Lord's flock outside. Those in churches are as saved as the corporation they are in agreement with - I.e. not at all. (I.e. Heaven forbid they become what they once were: God's elect, (now they are not) and because only one end is set for them - that they will be proud that they are in power over God as God's only option to name anyone His people.)

I know that the time between the angel exiting the church and overcoming as in the letter to philadelphia is short, since the text tells us the angel swears there should be "time no longer". Why? If God be consistent then He must convict all His children to be separated from the end times churches, not just the angel only. If this is not immediately the case - then the effort of the angel is totally spent in vain. (There is no necessity of logic in the spiritual conviction to be separate.)

There is one way to test this principle, that the disjunction N(l belongs to God) & D(l) v N(l belongs to satan) & E(l) is decided. The truth is reckoned only one way, in seven thunders which are a movement in heaven. The utterance of the thunders revealed to John were sealed up, Yet John summarised in his own words the outcome. That the mystery of God (His mechanism of salvation) should be laid open before the last of God's wrath is poured out.

Depending on whether the ownership by satan of any "thing" is inconsistent is decided, or that the church age will continue forever until the least overcomes the dragon, (if a least is lost or spent along the way he will be freed by the next to fill the requirements.) If the angel is unique though, then I add my hands to God's own and bless Him, that there should be time no longer. Or else there is no more to be done by us all but pale away.

Consider E(l), does enmity with the devil only perpetuate D(l) where it is mere blasphemy against the Holy Ghost by the devil?

What if simply put,

N(l belongs to God) v N(l belongs to satan) & E(l)

Independent of D(l)? What if D(l) is slander? shouldn't E(l) be universal to all, without requiring D(l) for a cause? I would be careful with where those modal operators are placed. Likewise if all belongs to God of necessity then D(l) is baseless anyway! and of a truth satan owns nothing.

So, no wonder the devil waits to devour the child as it is born and the angel overcomes. If the devil has no confidence in D(l) himself then He already owns nothing. Logically the dragon must act to prevent God's mechanism of salvation. Clearly the longer he waits, the more predestined the angel becomes under the Holy Spirit. If he fails to act at all then the mechanism is in effect unbroken, independent of D(l). The result is that the dragon has to put the Lord to the test. He can't touch Jesus again to take His life - so the angel will easily overcome him.

All the Lord has to do is wait. He may even stay silent. He has already finished the work of salvation.

The least in the kingdom of heaven leaves the flock that he was a member of, yet there is a period in which the "church" recognises other fellowships, bearing the mark of the beast from fellowship to fellowship, "leavening the whole." When there is only one body, then the action by the angel leaving demands of every fellowship that all the chosen within must come out.

This filtration - the process of assembling (joining) fellowships (as by co-recognition) convicts those within to leave, there are yet a "few names that have not defiled their garments" Yet the dragon has this time period to interrupt the angel. The angel comes out, but the child is delivered of the woman rather than the woman the child - it is the child that is caught up, not the woman (to dwell with Christ in heavenly places.)

Before the child was convicted to leave; the woman was "Israel" as first depicted and after the child is born (as she flies into the wilderness) the woman is ministered to by the two witnesses. When they have finished their ministry and the ten kings strip her naked, she is become the woman riding the beast.

So, when does the devil have time to interrupt the mechanism of salvation? clearly the devils chance comes before the action of the angel is complete - and before every fellowship merges to a corporate whole. There will be unincorporated churches, yet I doubt they will ever then incorporate and are excluded from conviction - as in the letter to sardis quoted above. In philadelphia however the angel has exited and merely has to be patient, he will go no more out. The dragon (the longer he waits) in effect loses his grip on the elect that remain within what will be the image. This interval is co-incident with the sealing of the saints, and simply makes the ministry of the two witnesses easier.

The angel has essentially finished his cycle within philadelphia - the only option for the dragon is to decide the truth of who owns the angel. Clearly this must occur as the elect are sealed and as or before the (and all) churches are stripped naked of the saved. Why? If the devil can not devour the least of the flock (as the angel) then his house is not divided,.. he has no house at all. This is decided of the saved with the cycle of the angel as regards the church,.. it is decided of those that are not saved (as not owned by satan) by the overcoming of the angel with regards being the least. The mechanism of salvation is not able to be changed by the dragon - only that the angel belongs to his creator.

In saying that; D(l) itself is inconsistent because D(l) is an accusation against the angel before His creator (God), under His creator's law.It must be noted that satan is under that same judgement. Can you see the inconsistency? satan has no way to deliver the angel out of God's judgement and into or under his own - there is no possibility that God will recognise satan as sovereign in His own courts. The angel as far as it can be reckoned, escapes free under the law of grace, and not of the letter of D(l).

D(l), by definition is inconsistent as it requires the angel to forego election as (subsequently) chosen by God, when God was not a cause of D(l). (God is perfect.) In any agreement to perform D(l) the angel would sign away God's liberty to later choose Him - a clearly (and logically) inconsistent act. There is no way that D(l) is a consistent fault, because God is always at liberty to do with His own as He sees fit. In the foreknowledge that God may consistently save Him, by sending the least (Christ's right hand) in the kingdom of heaven to justify those in captivity to satan, God redeems all those (presumeably everyone and every thing) greater than His least within the same captivity.

One note,.. D(l) => N~(l belongs to satan)

and if therefore the contrapositive P(l belongs to satan) => ~D(l). Then the sin of l is not the fault of l. It is the fault of satan.

P(l belongs to satan) => HG(l) <=> ~L(G)

but then P(l belongs to satan) => ~L(G) & ~D(l).

but ~P(l belongs to satan) as l is chosen so, L(G) & ~D(l) v L(G) & D(l)


Yet for any fault f, we may easily repeat P(l belongs to satan) => f(l)

So, ~P(l belongs to satan) implies L(G) & f(l) v L(G) & ~f(l).

In deciding the strength of salvation upon D, there is a similar well-ordering of all faults "f" as "lesser faults than D". Yet, if the faults of f are inconsistent because l is chosen, then there is an excluded middle in L(G) & f(l) v L(G) & ~f(l).

The inconsistency of f&~f is indeed an excluded middle that follows from L(G), yet upon the least there is an alternate cause - that the fault is inconsistent logically.

So if N(l belongs to God), every fault f followed from D(l) is actually the fault of satan, and a result of the enemy's accusation and slander.

Consider the verse:

Isa 29:16 Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter’s clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? (KJV)

Essentially the verse summarises G&~G v D&~D or as with the equivalence of L(G), (the axiom of the kingdom of God) as framed by the understanding.

Essentially "D" is an impossible fault to make, as it would demand that God be not just inconsistent but non-existent. The subsequent faults "f" derived from the process of overcoming D(l) are a matter of God's own law and easily forgiven. If deciding the matter of D(l) caused all manner of f to be made by the least, such f are then as logically inconsistent as D - inconsistent only if D(l) is inconsistent, (as D is also chosen to be "an f". under the law) If D persists then so does an f, likewise if D does not persist then L(G) is consistent.

So if D(l) => f(l) for many f,.. all such f following from D(l) are likewise inconsistent independent of L(G) and the self-consistency of God's perfection. God merely asserts that His grace is enough to forgive a fault that can not logically be made, and that the angel of the church is able to state "the devil made me do it").

Then,.. curiously enough, satan owns nothing at all. (God comes as a thief, and the angel is least - even less than a soulless corporation, as globally, all corporations are equal.) It could be possible that the dragon could wash his hands of ownership of the angel entirely to remain consistent - to assert that he was not the cause of the angel's sin. What would Jesus do? Certainly not pay the price of D(l), yet He has shown that selling yourself in this world is not necessary to live blameless before God. Either D(l) has no punishment because it is nonsense to God (if the price must be paid) or fulfilling the law of God does not complete the gospel and work like that of the angel remains to be done, (if the example that overcomes is the work of the gospel.)

If the angel was without iniquity in knowing this, does selling your talent to those that buy and sell money in order to return the Lord interest with His own a sin?


Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Ok, a little short on scripture, but good none the less.

Then if the least of the flock is holy, and without sin, then are all without sin and the gospel is correct. The mechanism works.

The angel of the church is the right hand of Jesus Christ. The assertion that N(l belongs to God) may be related to "If thine right hand cause you to sin, cut it off...". Could this be inverted in Christ to become: "If My right hand can stay as sinless as you may truly become, I will join you on"? Food for thought certainly.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page