The Last Positive Property

1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: (KJV)

Now in case you have a bad or poor idea of being "devoured" and are thinking some form of spiritual cannibalism , think again. The onus here is on Satan tempting away the weak of God's flock, those young in faith or old (and infirm) in faith or to steal away those limping along behind - the poor of God's flock are those most easily taken by such a lion, and Satan only aims to pick off the least of us all. Whether by unbelief or lack of faith, in despair or fear, the weak devoured are only separated from the love of God: yet there is comfort in Christ for all as:

Rom 8:38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
Rom 8:39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (KJV)

Now, if the least's work is to break Satan of any sense of a kingdom, then that is a good thing, and the devil is prophecised to be waiting to devour the least (the man child of John's vision of the woman and the dragon). It is not a good thing for that to happen and the least's work to fail, so it is a good thing instead for God to deliver him. (For the least eschews evil - "be zealous therefore and repent"...)

Now, if there was no such positive property for the least to be delivered, the lack of such a property is then evident, and it would be a good thing (a consequence of a divine act of virtue) instead for its lack or negation to be present. It would be a good thing for the least to be devoured and for him to survive it: but that would separate him from the love of God and that is not a good thing unless he survives it in faith.

Yet that itself is deliverance and a positive thing.

Therefore, to be devoured by Satan is positive if one is also at once delivered; whether strengthened and surviving or delivered as if by some "rapture".

Now, as for Satan - Satan examples nothing positive but opposes every work of Christ with a construction born of nullity and contradiction - there is no positive property consistent in him and no truth of any also.

But to be delivered from Satan as in the Lord's prayer is a positive thing. I would expect therefore, that if the deliverance of the least "l" is as "g" then Pos(g(l)). In fact I would state it is "possibly" positive and that P(Pos(g(l))).

And of course, ¬P(Pos(g(l))) <=> N¬(Pos(g(l))), with P and N the modal possibility and necessity operators.

and also, ¬P¬ <=> N and ¬N¬ <=> P etc.

Yet if there is anything positive it is necessary in God's new name that: N(Pos(f(l))) for all Pos(f). I.e., if Pos(f) => Pos(l) and f is positive it must entail Pos(l). Then every application of virtue in the new name must entail that the conjunction of every such set of virtues applied to all believers (in all f) is also a positive property (virtue) and that there is no such positive property that can never be applied to the least. For just as it is possible that all believers in the kingdom may be ministered to in any way, it must be possible for all such ministry to be unto the least who is principal, else such a set of believers is not in the kingdom and not positive. I.e given some set of positive properties entailed of virtue "f" over a set of believers "x" then P(f(x)) for all f and x in the kingdom, and the conjunction "g" of all "f" is positive and therefore because x=>l for all x (or f), P(Pos(g(l))) and this is found a necessity, for N(P(Pos(g(l)))).

Yet the salvation of "l" itself is a necessity, and I also have by modal collapse that l => x for all x in the kingdom.

Then P(Pos(g(l))) <=> P(N(Pos(g(l))) as because "l" is also positive and self identical as if operating on itself; needs must that such a conjunct g occur in the circuit of the least under that modal collapse, no matter what the property "g" really is. As this is true for all "g", I may write N(Pos(g(l)) quite happily. Then as by the modus tollens, I have P(Pos(g(l))) <=> P(N(Pos(g(l))) <=> N(Pos(g(l))).

Now that is no mistake, for now the least is necessarily delivered from the dragon and plausibly "raptured".

Yet if "l" has no deliverance and to be devoured is a positive property, then for devourment "D", I would not have g(l) <=> ¬D(l) for some positive g, but if D is positive I anticipate some virtue in the lack of "g" or of "D" by symmetry.

But as every positive property entails "l", D is positive only if to be delivered is not positive. Then D must entail "l" also, and it is possible if "l" is principal that he may be turned upon himself in destruction somehow as he is principal.

Yet if ¬Pos(D) => D(x) =>D(l) for any x in the kingdom of God, then N(D(l)) and D must be positive - a contradiction, so ¬N(D(l)) for all x in the kingdom. Is this a reason for all to always pray for deliverance?

Yet if God would not deliver the least, then D(l)=>N(D(x)) for all x, as D must be positive and every set x must in part be devoured along with l - a contradiction, surely?

Assuming Pos(D) or in some sense as if for all N(D), then I may force a variable and state N¬(G&¬D(x)) or G=>D(x), that if God exists as if "G", say, then the devil devours all for all x.

Yet G is just such an x, so there is something wrong in that sense. If G => D, then D is positive. But if Satan exercises no virtue he has no such positive property: for that is the domain of God, not of the dialectic or of wormwood. Then "g" or "G" is positive, that God will deliver all from the evil one if He delivers the least. That is a surety; but it is not the same as delivering all without the least: for there will be a last day without the least and the saints can only wait with patience and faith.

So, now it is simply stated that Satan cannot devour "l", or indeed any "x" after "l" overcomes, for it is no good thing for D(l)=>D(x) as if also by modal collapse (there is always l=>x).

So, if P(D(x)) => P(D(l)) then ¬P(D(l)) => ¬P(D(x)) as required.

And Satan has no sovereignty over anyone in the kingdom, they are delivered as prayed for. (But all are under God's authority, especially all sinners and they are then freed also - Satan is broken of all sense of a kingdom.)

So, if Pos(D) then x => l for all x implies Pos(D(x)) => Pos(D(l)).

Pos(D(l)) <=> Pos(D(x)) for all x as x=>l=>x.)

Then N(D(l)) <=> N(D(x)) or N¬(G&¬D(x)), and G=>D(G) a contradiction. God is always delivered.

So ¬Pos(D) and Pos(l) entails that "l" is necessarily delivered, I.e. Pos(¬D(l)) etc.

Then it is not positive for any to be devoured, and it is positive to deliver all from evil.

l=>x for all x. (All are under the authority of God, none may challenge it as does Satan falsely: there is no such "D" even to be exercised over ones' own self.)

And Pos(¬D(x)) for all x, including "l". Then N¬(D(x)) for any "x", once "l" overcomes the world and overcomes the God of this world whom would no longer be so afterward.

Satan, has challenged God's sovereignty but there is no deliverance for Satan from God. Satan, is broken of any sense of a kingdom as simply as an argument is postulated. There is a use for the least, whether logically or actually; if the proof is demonstrable then it will carry. "l", must be sent, and "l" must be a living soul.

Satan has one hope, that the least can be made to destroy himself. This is not death but destruction (as the least is plausibly NE, it is not possible).

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (KJV)

And here is another tid-bit! If Satan can destroy a thing, only if (perhaps) he owns it (i.e. it is possible) but then if that be X=>P(Y) (he may destroy him entails possible ownership), and N¬(X&¬P(Y)) holds; in the case that the least is necessarily existent, I find if it be necessarily false that he does not possibly own that least thing (he is given the benefit of the doubt as by contract etc.,) then X (as destroying the least) must have been arrived at by forcing a variable or similar. (It is intrinsically false, yet God has never lost one of His own). Then from N.E. as of that least, the modus tollens of ¬P(Y)=>¬X must hold with the contrapositive, i.e. ¬P(Y)<=>¬X. I.e. N¬(¬P(Y)&¬¬X) must hold (in fact, N(¬X&¬P(Y)) holds overall). Given N¬(Y) (the matter is over ownership rather than NE which hangs in the balance but is approved a-priori for the least) I must have found this simply from N¬P(Y) and the circuit of the least requires a working in order to show N(¬X), that the least cannot be destroyed, or that same (given Y=>P(Y)). I require N¬(P(Y)) => N(¬X) from the modal rule of N(a=>b) being equal with N(a)=>N(b). (Modal modus ponens.)

God, turns the tables by showing N¬(X) and that ¬P(Y) is reached only by meaninglessly forcing the variable P(Y) (as by a contract?).

Then the least is not owned by the enemy if he is saved. If he (the least) overcomes everything that Christ "somewhat has against him" and is reinstated elect simply for those same reasons given in the seven letters, he is free. If Satan can instead destroy the least, he should turn him from repentance into worshiping a deception. That, is done in the church itself and in the name of Jesus Christ but is where "the devil has his seat" - the scarlet beast system warned of within the Revelation itself.

By simple contradiction, when the angel becomes a member of such a "church" rather than saved by Christ, he is to move on or exit. (He is entailed of a set in the old name never: but instead the least would lose his place in the new name if that were truly the case.) The least, then, does not fail at any fellowship by "falling" to the "old name", but that fellowship ceases to be blessed by God whose right hand must then leave it as become "no longer of God", i.e., not moving in His new name - a fellowship found of the "born again" - .

By overcoming the "Church" as supplied by Satan Himself in all his subtlety, the enemy's failure is completed; it cannot destroy the least and no law of the state can force him back: it is an open door out that no one may shut, leading to complete approval in Jesus Christ instead.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page