Nothing New Under The Sun

Given the least is under accusation as if the "property" of Satan, and that the least is identified as principal; I would state that if that contract or oath is as "x", with the least as "l" and blamelessness as "c" then x => (l => ¬c) holds. This, also N¬(x&P(l&c)) rearranges to N¬(l&c&x) for the perfect (this must stand positive before God). (Surely blamelessness in c, the election as of l and judgement against sin in x is positive: no-one is assumed blameless and elect with such an x, unless it be found inconsistent.)

Then N¬(l&c&x) is also l => (c => ¬x). If the least is blameless then there is no sin in any such x. (I assume an initial positive act of charity to be the cause of x, to show this x is irrelevant, and logically so. That cause is positive and permits blamelessness in this case.)

Then the least is blameless and has no sin. Satan however, has two arguments:

(1) either Satan as y, entails that he "owns" the essence and therefore y => (l => ¬c) (for the least is then his "servant" in his own kingdom and his kingdom is completely sinful). Yet if there was an act of charity causing "x" then "l" is easily judged blameless by rearranging as above! l => (c => ¬y). It is not possible for the election of Satan as y to be positive, and this would supposedly exclude the election of the least in "l" (a non-sequitur, a negative may entail a positive, as by that same rearrangement.)

And it is not under question that y => l, as l is principal in the kingdom of God; and that l is the least of all, even inclusive of Satan. God's sovereignty over all is always intact.

(2) or, Satan is likewise justified by the least overcoming: that if "l" is freed, then so must Satan be freed also from his damned state. I.e. if it is necessity to damn Satan, if there is found a positive property to elect Satan as "y", one completely sinful with a kingdom of evil then Pos(l)=>Pos(y)=>Pos(z) holds for all z, where l is in modal collapse and z is as every member of Satan's kingdom.

Now if it is "positive" for some "¬Pos(y)" to be Satan (that one spirit must be damned for evil's sake) then I would not challenge l => Pos(¬y) as it is included in the modal collapse made in the least's circuit: it is also true that the chain in the possible "z" is logically limited to Satan (y) alone. I would also state that "y" is damned because it is become positive in that case for one never to be saved. As in Rev 3:9 all such unrepentant (but otherwise justified) z are to give the least worship: I would include "y", Satan, in this also. Therefore it is positive that all z (and possibly Satan in "y" for all the good it will do him) is to "Love the least with all their heart, all their mind, all their soul, and with all their strength".

If Satan (as damned) were meant never to give the least such adoration, then Satan is truly the arbiter of the very last positive property. It is good for Satan to not to give the least his worship: and positive for him to be made to do so in example also. The very worst thing he can do is truly and meaningfully give the least all worship and acknowledge the new name of God (least inclusive). That would really throw a spanner in the works. (I say "let him never cease to do so".) Satan, must devour the least or give Him worship (or both as would Herod perhaps?).

And as the chain in all "z" must end with Satan as "y" guilty of causing the "apparent" sin of the least (as under all accusation), it is then positive for Satan to do anything except "Love the least with all his heart, all his mind, all his soul, and with all his strength". The only opposition to God is for Satan to do just that.

As the very end of the chain in all "z" (as "y"), Satan serves God by being His enemy to lay the blame at Satan's door. That is positive if it acquits all "z" (including "l"). Giving the least all worship appears Satan's only option toward the negative. I have to chuckle, for Satan cannot otherwise be "converted" but to loose his captives whilst he stands to devour the least as soon as he is delivered and yet Satan's presence merely accelerates the process of that very delivery.

It is positive to eschew evil, and that means making an enemy of Satan. If Satan's only logical recourse is to give the least worship as if he were also God, Satan must do that which is positive and become such an enemy; else there is no chain in Pos(l) => Pos(y) => Pos(z). Satan, must resist any such worship of the least to the uttermost, and not give any ground: there should be no "worship by degrees" or half measure. Satan must be ready, at least until he realises the least will not be delivered until the very moment Satan moves to devour him.

I note Pos(l) => [Pos(y)=>Pos(z)] and note the brackets! Also note that this is the proper mechanism, for it is not true "l" must convert "y" and also convert all "z", for Pos(y)=>Pos(z) is a separate mechanism rather than a logical consequence of "l" himself. If "l" had agreed that there were some debt to convert all z and y (to give the least all worship as above), and "l" was damned unless it were fulfilled; that too, is also just such a mechanism but the modus tollens holds and only within the brackets as Pos(l) is not in question, for "l" is principal and no positive set entails Pos(¬l) without contradicting the person of "l" as principal and the least. (The least could simply define his way out of it.) Then I will treat this as simply the reduced case of l => y. To give the benefit of the doubt.)

In both cases (1) and (2) the election of the least '"l" remains positive, but its after-effects may not be (which is inconsistent). Satan hopes to destroy God's kingdom by supplanting his own in the place of the principal element.

And I may equate these (1) and (2) to exclusive arguments, for if y=>l=>y then y <=> l and the least is become the whole kingdom of evil or he is the devil himself: not the case if he is such property and worked an act of charity which Satan would argue is beyond the point. If "l" were that kingdom, he would simply dissolve it without sin by his election; there being no devil or evil to damn him but himself; his repentance and charity is then readily acceptable!

I.e. Pos(l) still holds, and so does a predicate of self-identity. There is a devil, and a piece of paper will not make him to disappear or his kingdom reduce to the principal!

So, [y => l ∨ l => y]. This rearranges to [N¬(y&¬l) ∨ N¬(l&¬y)] or, [N¬(y&¬l) => P(l&¬y)∨N¬(l&¬y) => P(y&¬l)], say. And where is the problem?

If Pos(y) holds, this is at first sight inconsistent (Satan cannot be elect). Given N¬(l&¬y), as Pos(l) would entail a negative it is also inconsistent and negative.

And then P(y&¬l) is impossible also; for the least is no worse an evil than Satan. So N¬(y&¬l) holds and to possibly elect Satan as y is to possibly elect l, for y => l, but, this does not make Pos(l) impossible, even if ¬Pos(y). Once again, the least is saved by his initial act of charity, the inference rearranged with "l" blameless as above.

Now, if Pos(y) held by (2); that the least had been bound to that wretched devil so completely, as with an "alpha" contract, say, then I would find a middle in N¬Pos(N¬(y&¬l&l&¬y)) in the octal.

Then, N¬(A&¬A) is simply self-identity; thereby I find N¬Pos(l&y), breaking neither the closure of "y" or that of "l" as principal. Who would judge (with any difficulty) between the two now? Pos(l) must remain, therefore (naïvely) Pos(l) => ¬Pos(y) and the free choice of Pos(l) or Pos(y) stands before God. (If it is merely positive to elect "l", then Pos(l), yet as long as Christ's conditions are met as in the Revelation's seven letters, this is satisifed.)

Then l ∨ y and this is freely decidable as y is assumed positive (there is a virtue for this). Yet again, Pos(l) holds and is judged extant. God will show mercy and compassion to those whom He chooses to. (Any "z" will do for "y" in this disjunction! The condition is simply that original assumption of Pos(l) => Pos(y) => Pos(z) as in (2).)

And concerning the least, he need not repeat the argument that p&¬l => z, for that charity of p employed is that same effort of that charity of "l" (that charity is principal and in modal collapse in (2)). I.e. without breaking the closure of "l", I have the inference l&¬l => z or, just as simply rearranged to l => l&z or again, simply, that as l is blameless and l => c, N(Pos(c&z)) holds and "l" has covered the sin of all z with his own logical redemption entailing their election positive, but for that one element y of Satan that opposes the election of "l". I.e. [Pos(y) ∨ Pos(l)=>Pos(z)] must remain freely decidable; the election of all "z" is positive. (then (1) or l => (c => ¬y) yet holds.)

There can be no chain l => Pos(y) => Pos(z), as every z is such an l, for l is principal and election is open. Pos(z) => Pos(l) => ¬Pos(y). I.e. l => (Pos(y) => Pos(z)) holds and reearranges to: Pos(z) => (Pos(l) => Pos(¬y)).

And "l" finds his act of charity; all "z" are blamelessly electable Pos(l) <=> Pos(z) <=> c, all contracts as "x" are dissolved without sin.

Then simply because N¬(z&c&x) holds for all z unless x is inconsistent, this would damn all z unless there was such a redemptive act of "l" entailing "c" over electing all z. Hence, the least "l" carries the argument that all "x" are dissolved without sin, as "l" is principal and x is inconsistent or irrelevant.

Now, with the least that essence (as necessarily existent) in circuit through the seven churches of Revelation as in the seven Holy Spirits of God, every possible positive property is accounted for in modal collapse in that circuit; and this is done at the end of the age to justify the salvation of all who have relied and all who still (and still could) rely on that proof. God, has always been freely making His choices in a justified manner; this final justification could not be done on paper if there is any genuine possibility of an empty essence for God; with the partition of the octal as forming all possible positive predicates, the incompossible empty essence is excluded from the compossible least and as "l" (the least) is a living soul and no invention, salvation follows with Jesus Christ's atonement intact with all the redemption necessary completed ready for the judgement of those same elect, their final reward, and the rejection of all those refusing it.

And if N¬(Pos(l&y)) holds positive, the only freely chosen alternative is an analogue of p&r&s => Pos(u&v) with r = l and s = y for some virtue p. There are other disjunctions in the octal with N¬Pos(l&y) acting as a virtue (N¬Pos(l&y) is not freely decided in those other disjunctions in which it appears as virtue).

Given a modal collapse in (2), I would find the analogue of p&r&s=>u&v, which is become p&l =>Ω and the unique virtue p=l is sufficient for modal collapse (unique by axiom of virtue). Without breaking closure, p = l holds and agrees completely with the dialectic formed in the same four predicates of twice l, and twice Ω. Pos(l) => Pos(Ω), God defeats His enemy Satan with His hand tied behind His back!

[Pos(y) ∨ Pos(l)] is freely decided in "l"'s favour, just as [Pos(z) ∨ Pos(l)] also freely decided in "z"'s favour! Then y and z become separate cases: the purpose of that virtue formed of p = l.

Now, may Satan effect his own modal collapse? He would have to be principal; and then self-identity would again hold. Satan is not the least in the kingdom of God, nor is He God himself. Satan, should properly be left without any "z", God may freely take all He chooses, even the shirt off Satan's back: leaving Satan with no kingdom remaining. (And what God doesn't want, the least can keep.) Then, quite clearly, Pos(l). Restated: are you, a "brand plucked from the fire"?

Concerning N¬(P(l&c)&x) I have the following:

Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (KJV)

And if any two people surely elected agree on the method required for their redemption; it is become a certainty before God (x is become arbitrary). The possible in P(l&c) is become a certainty with ¬x and N(l&c) or l <=> c.

Now, as Satan is broken of everything and without authority (it may seem ludicrous to believe), and if, to Satan, something that doesn't belong to him therefore belongs to everyone else; and (equally so) therefore it all stinks and simply so to his logic, you may begin to realise why not even tormenting Satan in hell has much point. (For this "stinky logic" is actually the case; torment is reserved for the "devil and his angels", and not for the common sinner.)

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page