The Dragon Defeated

What can we immediately say about the deciding of the disjunction N(l belongs to G) & D(l) v N(l belongs to satan) & E(l) ?

Clearly if we may equivocate L(G) with E(l) by assuming evil (false gospels) are excluded by E(l) to the result that only L(G) remains, then we have equivalence and may consider N(l belongs to God) v N(l belongs to satan).

Now, we can also state that if the angel does overcome then God exists, since the enmity between l and satan is coherent with God's own - It is decided that N(l belongs to G) therefore G must exist first.

We can state that God exists necessarily, so that He could not conceive of His own non-existence. (which excludes the consideration of the argument that God not existing could imply the angel would not overcome. - Even from the judgement seat there is no such easy answer!)

What we may state is that it is pointless to be at enmity with satan in all his falsehood unless God exists. That is, ¬Pos(H_G(l) <=> E(l))

I.e. N(G) => N(Pos(E(G)) We expect then that God exemplifies the positive property E(G) perfectly. That is, E(l) may be consistent, (and is as consistent as L(G).)

But correct faith necessarily has N(H_G(l) <=> L(G)) for all saved l. Hence E(x) privates no positive properties of any such chosen x.

Given H_G(l) <=> E(l) Then we may assume that since L(G) is positive (at least for God) it follows that D is inconsistent if L(G) <=> H_G(G). (and as a matter of fact, We ensure that l is saved if and only if l holds to the correct gospel. E(l) => L(G) therefore D(l) is necessarily inconsistent.)

Therefore Pos(E(l)) since H_G(l) <=> E(l) <=> L(G). So if D is inconsistent then this is a result of L(G) in H_G(G) only.

Now, if l belongs to God then all other chosen x belong to God also, by the well ordering principle and that f&¬f for all such x follows from L(G).

Now we can state that it is positive, i.e. Pos(l belongs to God) because "l" has taken the place of the principal element (L(G)) in the Kingdom of God. L(G) generates the ultrafilter and is the "essence of faith".) That principal element is such that it keeps intact every law of God without logical privation, delivers the ownership of the world from satan to God, and without fallacy of equivocation, does a work of salvation (for those that are captives of satan and are soulless.) made possible by the cross of Christ but followed after it in example. The faith of the angel was placed solely upon Christ.

Now, L(G) is indeed the principal element of an ultrafilter, so there exists no ultrafilter finer than that generated by L(G). Therefore the salvation of l (despite D(l) being critical) is equal solely to the liberty of God. D(l), therefore is as just another f and is forgiven. QED.

D(l) is "not a fault" but we may safely assume the cause was a decision made in virtue. In requiring only the agreement of L(G) the angel finds his salvation in Christ. Now, the "salvation of l" or the proposition that D(l) as a fault could even possibly exist is enough for God to completely sever from grace His right hand in the person of the angel, (the very least in His kingdom). If thine right hand cause you to sin, cut it off - i.e., God does a work to show that there is no sin unforgiveable of the form of D(l) or the mark of the beast.

Likewise If Jesus states "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out." If your judgement and clearsight (L(G)) fails you, (is "l" truly satans?) Then you may easily put aside L(G). Such a fault is not down to your choice exercising L(G), it is necessary that in God's case before His judgement the fault is unforgiveable only because it is not a fault. (Suspend judgement, and retain your salt, have peace in yourself. - To paraphrase Jesus)

Considering satan accusing God that the angel is his own property and should be made to show similar behaviour according to his basest nature, makes me wonder what precisely is "the good fight", (c.f. 1 Timothy 1:18). We could easily assume that God could sit back, relax and say "fine, satan... keep digging that bottomless pit..." - I have a feeling that the angel would approve, rather than merely accept the situation and nod at the demoniac in the mirror. Scripture gets fulfilled,.. there is no need to make a drama of it.

That said there is some sense in which even satan is "taken with the hand" as are all his captives. (For is satan greater than his property?) I have a slight smile at the thought of Jesus' right hand signing some contract in the knowledge it is never binding when done for freeing those captives, (but also everything that is satan's and satan himself as become God's property). That Jesus may state the hand did it by "itself" and He has "cut it off" and also "suspended His judgement" (L(G)) gives me that smile. Whilst the "fact of the matter" is to be decided, (concerning who owns the angel) it may be said the episode has no true reason for mirth, unless perhaps the right hand signed Jesus' name. (Then there would at least be some irony.)

Whilst the cries of "blasphemy, blasphemy" may follow this line of reasoning it makes sense along the lines of the form of a mathematical substitution. We would not have quantum theory unless someone had made the substitution E = hv. Similarly, I see no harm in considering the gospel's strength made perfect in the worst circumstances. I love the thought of that angel, knowing the outcome that he be finally blameless,.. leaving satan a big bill for God's dry cleaning.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page