An Apology For Heresy

The heresy presented in this section is not a "thought experiment". There is no such argument of intellectual assent. What it brings instead is perhaps an important question to the sinner more so than the saint. If or when told there is grace in Jesus Christ for salvation, a entrenched sinner could ask, "Really? How much?". It is to this end that the Revelation is placed in the New Testament. Rather than state what sins will bring the "end", it is a book about how much is permitted before the sure and certain grace becomes unworkable in the "Church" rather than grace anulled by Satan when it is firm as rock.

So, how should one test the limits of grace if it is given in a metaphysical language? None should "do evil so that good may come". Instead only reason upon the scriptures is of any use. Whether that is 99% scripture or 99% reason, the last 1% made of the other is 100% effective. By finding a primer, a real and genuine primer to the Revelation of Jesus Christ, has left me with 100% reason, but not 0% scripture. Instead I can state that there is no contradictory verse in the Revelation found against the primer and that use which it is used for and put to: Christ was fulfilling hundreds of prophecies and so what if His right hand completes a few more? What could be wrong with that? Even Christ's followers did not know He Himself fulfilled such verses until he explained them on the Emmaus road: how then can the clearly God-authored mathematics and ontology lie without any of the scripture contradicting it?

It is no easy thing fearing to be labelled a false prophet: but these are not the words of the Holy Spirit, they are my words. I only state that they are not at all necessary for your salvation, there is only the grace in Jesus Christ alone for salvation (unless you are as caught in contract as would the angel, the least, one also under accusation). So, to circumvent any similar accusation of my "false-prophet" status, I state "Do not follow after false Gods!" continue in your faith, read the scripture - and always seek to make it stronger (Cf. Rev 3:2). So:

Deu 13:1 If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
Deu 13:2 And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Deu 13:3 Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Deu 13:4 Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deu 13:5 And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. (KJV)

"No prophecy is of any personal interpretation." The maths cannot lie and it will never change, the letters are already written to the angel: verse Rev 22:6 and 22:16 are both fulfilled to John: for all these things happen "in the churches". If my heresy is to "sell" the least to Satan, what good would it obviously do and why then, is it such a fit? Such agreements and contracts surely exist: a masonic degree for instance could be considered such. Where is the heresy in positing the very worst circumstances for the least of all to overcome? That least is defined by those that should be convicted by his leading out of corrupted churches, followed out by all. Could you imagine such a one damning your own fellowship for a fault you instituted and then dissolving all ties, leaving in disgust whilst his "betters" gossip around you over his failings? Consider such an one and be quick to recognise conviction without the Holy Spirit when it happens near you too.

The least arrives to glorify God, making Christ's grace certain, justifying His second coming and bringing in the new name of God with the judgement, and with it an end to the age and a new system of things (aeon or world). None of these works are necessary for the continuation of the age and God's grace, but thhese surely happen in the Revelation at a time of God's choosing. So, what actually changes all of that? The primer answers that in full.

The book completes with a metaphysical purpose for the posited "angel of the church" (the least in the kingdom and "right hand of God"). The extra-biblical heresy of which I write is not that the "angel" could be sent to the world and then into the church in the last days, but that he is either, in all truth, as one found remaining completely sinless or instead he is only a wretched sinner. Both would be heretical to conceive any idea upon (as upon Christ's right hand); even if his arrival is indeed truly necessary and also as prophecised. So, in declaring some apparent truth to both: I am, actually, become a heresiarch; yet (though this may not surprise), I do not owe anyone else anything for this doctrinal heresy as it is laid out in the book "Seven Eyes Open" (Fourth Edition). I state I wrote it and not the Holy Spirit; so, take it or leave it - it as a mechanism fulfills all of the requirements of the maths in the Revelation itself.

Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: (KJV)

I only have one other example of such a repeat visitation: of John the Baptist as Elijah reborn - and if this was such an episode with which we have little problem (though he himself denied he was the prophet Elijah) cooming to terms with, may we also say the same of Christ's right hand? Would Christ's own angel deny this fact? Is he free to? It would appear that he very well could and still keep his crown! (Christ Himself said the least in the kingdom was greater than John!)

So, without excusing myself of this heresy, I make mention that things are not always so black and white but that there are certainly two constants to Christ's instructions given in the seven letters. Firstly, the angel must never deny the mechanisms of his own salvation (i.e. those being Christ and of His - and also His Father's - new name(s)) and secondly, he must never corrupt the universal church (spiritual Israel) with false doctrine by remaining lukewarm.

There is no conviction of sin in the letters beyond these requirements; which would reckon true for the principal and least: one that only has to ensure the logical inference that no positive predicate may entail that he, the least (as "l"), cannot be saved. I.e N¬(Pos(x)&¬l^-1), and under modal collapse in his circuit this is always the case due to his spiritual person: the right hand.

If this makes no sense then I do apologise for it, read the book.

No one can convict John the Baptist of sin from the scriptures besides only a little extra worrying; is not this a lesson for us all? Yet it is true that he indeed must have been a sinner also; yet the least is greater in any such respect; not only because his sins are not counted for him as iniquity (as they are struck out as those of his accuser only), but also because of his being sent to the world with a necessary work of charity; and I cannot supply scriptural evidence for that either!

That work is, itself, part of the mechanism of his own salvation and of all others left still captive in "hell" and (damned aside from Christ) along with him. Why? Simply because I conjectured the least to overcome under the very worst circumstances and in this respect the least has a use where Christ cannot otherwise justify grace to save, except through justifying the least sinless by those same mechanisms. This may seem self-fulfilling and indeed it is: yet there is no reason why it may not be!

Were I to claim the angel a sinner I would be blaspheming the Father that sent him. Likewise, to claim to the contrary is to beggar belief! I instead claim that there is a mechanism of charity that surely keeps him blameless. For this, I commit that heresy.

So, to put this bluntly, if you wish to read heresy read on; if you wish to go without then do so! Whatever you do, don't accept the ideas that follow as if they are scripture; they are not. Yet if you read them, is there wriggle room there for an angel of God to remain blameless?

I would only ask you to remember that Satan has waited a long time for the "end" and it is rapidly closing in on the world. The justification of the least requires the heaviest constraints that God may permit upon any servant of His own; to all others in Christ, we all (every one of us) greatly benefit from our equality!

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start