Work Yet Undone

Given that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was given to Jesus Christ before being given to John, Christ, had understood all the content of Revelation before the gospel was begun to be taught. So, would I do better to state that Christ understood all of the Revelation's content when He said:

Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (KJV)

I would (if the conjecture is assuredly true) expect no teaching of Christ in the new covenant to contradict the extra-biblical heresy of which I write. Then, nothing in the new testament (itself God-breathed), should contradict it either. In fact, I find enough evidence or "wiggle-room" for the central heresy, that Christ's right hand can be here on Earth and also appear to sin without being imputed with any iniquity. He remains completely holy.

God's sovereignty may also be under question. If it were unjust for Him to save or judge, it would appear that God's actions cannot be justified. Those yet captive that would genuinely repent may also be found caught in a perpetual (even multi-generational) sin (one Christ taught would not be forgiven), blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Whether continuing on from some oath or contract etc, any agreement (even as for a family line) to serve Satan appears to be ongoing even though there may indeed be that genuine repentance. Stating one's self to be forgiven whilst there is the ongoing presence of such a continuing "contract" permits no contrition to be heard without that final justification delivered. Whilst God may well certainly be in the right to state that all such ongoing agreements with His adversary are dissolved without sin, it is up to the very least in the kingdom to carry the logic of that argument - or else for Jesus to choose and judge without any apparent justification. Satan, yet has captives even against the gospel only without this work made of the least.

That this work is done at the end of the age under the worst circumstances does not invalidate it for those that have gone before. The elect are judged and chosen from the judgement seat and sealed into the book of life, itself returned to Christ (to open) from the time starting with the cross. It, as a work, will be fresh in His mind, that's for sure! Mercy certainly abounds.

Mat 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: (KJV)

Christ's grace needs fulfilling in these cases - the very "least in the kingdom" needs to overcome this state in order to carry the gospel as valid and intact to all. There is a good reason made for the least's circuit, and for his tenfold testing under Satan's accusation.

As to the New Testament not indicating any contradiction to this heresy and vice-versa, I have searched through my bible and found only one single verse in the whole of the New Testament to expressly state that ongoing and contractual blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable (along the lines of selling one's soul etc., the very "worst case scenario");

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. (KJV)

Whilst there are - in the broadest sense - numerous other examples along the lines of:

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (KJV)

And the captive may still consider himself beyond the scope of that belief, as these latter verses are statements concerning and qualifying Christ's elect (who and what they are, as chosen by Christ) which are all, without exception, justified by their faith upon Him: because Christ is propitiary atonement (provided only once), which is not, in Christ's own words, provided for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. However, it yet remains that none of these verses exclude atonement for that blasphemy if it is not found to be, but displayed to be provided in full; and there is also no logic to exclude that fact from the cross of Christ providing, quite formally, that grace intact is shown for it - in which case the fulfilment of grace by the least in the kingdom is not a heresy, but a necessary tenet for those with that atonement already!

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (KJV)

Now, if the least is without sin but for that one apparent "non-sin" caused solely by any such agreement entered into by an act of charity, such an agreement, being dissolved for lack of sin by the same initial act of charity of entering into it, carries the logic begotten of that charity that all such agreements are certainly and truly void and dissolved without sin. Sin, continuing by such an agreement is only of the individual and not the "contract" itself, and may then be repented of completely. God's grace is intact, as is His sovereignty. There is otherwise a warning in scripture for denying this fact!

And it is true that a proof of this is not one written on paper, but of one life lived in the gospel.

Is it also blasphemy to state that any man saved from that same contractual blasphemy by God, showing the fruit of the Holy Ghost in himself is not saved but only showing his salvation to be the deceiving work of Beelzebub? It surely is when those verses are taken in context! (In contract, he may say it of himself if his soul is legitimately the property of the devil.) As the only separation between saved and unsaved is God's own sovereignty to choose whosoever He chooses, then to display it in the case of the least in the kingdom of God and to do so without sin is no blasphemy; if it is a work of charity to free those captives and restore all sovereignty to God without any possible accusation, then it is only a small thing.

So, if it is blasphemy to state that a soul is not saved when it is clearly (and outwardly) so shown, by the presence of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and also when that person is also caught in unforgiveable blasphemy; having possibly taken some oath of Satan to perpetually corrupt the body of elect in Christ; then there is a contradiction if that person is truly saved; but then if that person is saved and also found without sin before God (not denying faith or corrupting the body of elect), then the contract only is faulty and not the oathtaker. (Or Satan himself faulty as causing him to sin: Satan continually blaspheming the Holy Spirit with the presence of the contract which states such a one is only the work of Satan, not of God. Then accusing that one as if over his own property, as if that one were the only first cause of it?)

And I attest I have never met such an one "sold to Satan" in Christ; one already with the approval of God and of the Holy Ghost. (Any man redeemed by the least.) As to whether any could be less than I conjecture, I have never received any such testimony. (I have observed a few oaths then repented of, but never anything so bold upon which they would all, in Christ, rely.) The least already has that approval a-priori, and is already the victor in Christ, whether already sent or not so. All are redeemed equally, and there are no exceptions.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (KJV)

Then grace needs fulfilling (and by one without sin) that can carry the same argument logically as then (similarly) to become a "wretch" as without Christ's atonement, then later to be repentant and recognised justified without sin in the act of "falling", and so justifying all. The argument carries because of the least's charity - he is innocent - and all those called in Christ are likewise innocent of Satan's accusations over a mere "piece of paper".//

Whether the "least" is only a "figure" of a vessel simply for the purposes of argument to show all grace is already filled complete (perfect) or, instead, truly an actual and real individual, the logic so carries even if there is no least and all are equal. (Yet there is a least, and the works in his circuit will certainly be fulfilled.) What, then, is left for him to overcome but Satan's only working captivity? I only state that my "heresy" is correct and also never to be deprecated by a word of the Holy Ghost; so would you then hear it? Do you even need to hear it? If there is no least and all are equal, each is as the least and one life justifying any or all others is not enough if grace is not enough for some; all must be guilty likewise, all again, require deliverance.

I note that the accusation of Satan against such atonement is also present to the end of the age. (The verse is to be taken in context as with the least delivered and justified, and those justified with him also.)

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. (KJV)

There is no question of it at all; Jesus Christ is sinless. To fulfil all grace Christ must either send the least in His kingdom or return Himself. The latter does not allow Christ to do a new and "greater work" for His Father (upon Christ's already firm foundation), then only merely repeating the same fulfillment of the law. Even then, were Christ able to fulfil all grace by the repentance of sin (having formerly been caught sinning), He would be so caught without the efficacy of His own covenant of grace; having thereby invalidated it. It would no longer be true that Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever".

No, Christ returns as God to judge, not to repeat the work of salvation a second time over.

I note that in the old covenant the Holy Spirit was not yet given, and blasphemy against Him not yet possible. Christ was fitting propitiation for all and every fault(s) under the old covenant law, but not of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is to speak against Him (not gathering with Him and so scattering abroad). All blasphemy against God is able to be forgiven but for that; which is to blaspheme the saving grace of God through His Holy Spirit when it is shown clearly present.

If that were the case, the covenant would only become justified by the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as Christ, then condemned by any two witnesses (without His own intercession) would be convicted of such sin (simply established by two agreeing witnesses) and the work of the cross wholly undone. It is clear, then, that Christ cannot by Himself justify repentance against blasphemy of the Holy Spirit without another individual (the least), one required to do that "greater work" upon the gospel...

...That is, if blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is also to state one has never sinned when they most assuredly have been found to! (Note Jesus was not picking ears of corn!)

Now I note that picking ears of corn on the sabbath is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but as it stands it is also a "small thing" and to the omnipotent it is hardly an effort to have put them there in creation for the disciples to eat. They, are justified by Christ as Lord over all things in His (own) temple and not to be held guilty for that which is so common. Saving the least is a simple (and easy) exercise of God's own liberty - why should this be causing God to sin at all? God, has all sovereignty as His liberty (in His omnipotence) surely shows.

Then I can state all such sins and contracts entered into by charity alone (and the one overall as also redeemed without sin) are dissolved by the least of all doing likewise as if also carried by a logical necessity! God, must overcome these by propitiation in Christ by the gospel, which requires the least to volunteer and he alone.

Work Yet Undone

Given that the Revelation of Jesus Christ was given to Jesus Christ before being given to John, Christ, had understood all the content of Revelation before the gospel was begun to be taught. So, would I do better to state that Christ understood all of the Revelation's content when He said:

Luk 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. (KJV)

I would (if the conjecture is assuredly true) expect no teaching of Christ in the new covenant to contradict the extra-biblical heresy of which I write. Then, nothing in the new testament (itself God-breathed), should contradict it either. In fact, I find enough evidence or "wiggle-room" for the central heresy, that Christ's right hand can be here on Earth and also appear to sin without being imputed with any iniquity. He remains completely holy.

God's sovereignty may also be under question. If it were unjust for Him to save or judge, it would appear that God's actions cannot be justified. Those yet captive that would genuinely repent may also be found caught in a perpetual (even multi-generational) sin (one Christ taught would not be forgiven), blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. Whether continuing on from some oath or contract etc, any agreement (even as for a family line) to serve Satan appears to be ongoing even though there may indeed be that genuine repentance. Stating one's self to be forgiven whilst there is the ongoing presence of such a continuing "contract" permits no contrition to be heard without that final justification delivered. Whilst God may well certainly be in the right to state that all such ongoing agreements with His adversary are dissolved without sin, it is up to the very least in the kingdom to carry the logic of that argument - or else for Jesus to choose and judge without any apparent justification. Satan, yet has captives even against the gospel only without this work made of the least.

That this work is done at the end of the age under the worst circumstances does not invalidate it for those that have gone before. The elect are judged and chosen from the judgement seat and sealed into the book of life, itself returned to Christ (to open) from the time starting with the cross. It, as a work, will be fresh in His mind, that's for sure! Mercy certainly abounds.

Mat 25:24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed: (KJV)

Christ's grace needs fulfilling in these cases - the very "least in the kingdom" needs to overcome this state in order to carry the gospel as valid and intact to all. There is a good reason made for the least's circuit, and for his tenfold testing under Satan's accusation.

As to the New Testament not indicating any contradiction to this heresy and vice-versa, I have searched through my bible and found only one single verse in the whole of the New Testament to expressly state that ongoing and contractual blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is forgivable (along the lines of selling one's soul etc., the very "worst case scenario");

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. (KJV)

Whilst there are - in the broadest sense - numerous other examples along the lines of:

Joh 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. (KJV)

And the captive may still consider himself beyond the scope of that belief, as these latter verses are statements concerning and qualifying Christ's elect (who and what they are, as chosen by Christ) which are all, without exception, justified by their faith upon Him: because Christ is propitiary atonement (provided only once), which is not, in Christ's own words, provided for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. However, it yet remains that none of these verses exclude atonement for that blasphemy if it is not found to be, but displayed to be provided in full; and there is also no logic to exclude that fact from the cross of Christ providing, quite formally, that grace intact is shown for it - in which case the fulfilment of grace by the least in the kingdom is not a heresy, but a necessary tenet for those with that atonement already!

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (KJV)

Now, if the least is without sin but for that one apparent "non-sin" caused solely by any such agreement entered into by an act of charity, such an agreement, being dissolved for lack of sin by the same initial act of charity of entering into it, carries the logic begotten of that charity that all such agreements are certainly and truly void and dissolved without sin. Sin, continuing by such an agreement is only of the individual and not the "contract" itself, and may then be repented of completely. God's grace is intact, as is His sovereignty. There is otherwise a warning in scripture for denying this fact!

And it is true that a proof of this is not one written on paper, but of one life lived in the gospel.

Is it also blasphemy to state that any man saved from that same contractual blasphemy by God, showing the fruit of the Holy Ghost in himself is not saved but only showing his salvation to be the deceiving work of Beelzebub? It surely is when those verses are taken in context! (In contract, he may say it of himself if his soul is legitimately the property of the devil.) As the only separation between saved and unsaved is God's own sovereignty to choose whosoever He chooses, then to display it in the case of the least in the kingdom of God and to do so without sin is no blasphemy; if it is a work of charity to free those captives and restore all sovereignty to God without any possible accusation, then it is only a small thing.

So, if it is blasphemy to state that a soul is not saved when it is clearly (and outwardly) so shown, by the presence of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and also when that person is also caught in unforgiveable blasphemy; having possibly taken some oath of Satan to perpetually corrupt the body of elect in Christ; then there is a contradiction if that person is truly saved; but then if that person is saved and also found without sin before God (not denying faith or corrupting the body of elect), then the contract only is faulty and not the oathtaker. (Or Satan himself faulty as causing him to sin: Satan continually blaspheming the Holy Spirit with the presence of the contract which states such a one is only the work of Satan, not of God. Then accusing that one as if over his own property, as if that one were the only first cause of it?)

And I attest I have never met such an one "sold to Satan" in Christ; one already with the approval of God and of the Holy Ghost. (Any man redeemed by the least.) As to whether any could be less than I conjecture, I have never received any such testimony. (I have observed a few oaths then repented of, but never anything so bold upon which they would all, in Christ, rely.) The least already has that approval a-priori, and is already the victor in Christ, whether already sent or not so. All are redeemed equally, and there are no exceptions.

1Co 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (KJV)

Then grace needs fulfilling (and by one without sin) that can carry the same argument logically as then (similarly) to become a "wretch" as without Christ's atonement, then later to be repentant and recognised justified without sin in the act of "falling", and so justifying all. The argument carries because of the least's charity - he is innocent - and all those called in Christ are likewise innocent of Satan's accusations over a mere "piece of paper".//

Whether the "least" is only a "figure" of a vessel simply for the purposes of argument to show all grace is already filled complete (perfect) or, instead, truly an actual and real individual, the logic so carries even if there is no least and all are equal. (Yet there is a least, and the works in his circuit will certainly be fulfilled.) What, then, is left for him to overcome but Satan's only working captivity? I only state that my "heresy" is correct and also never to be deprecated by a word of the Holy Ghost; so would you then hear it? Do you even need to hear it? If there is no least and all are equal, each is as the least and one life justifying any or all others is not enough if grace is not enough for some; all must be guilty likewise, all again, require deliverance.

I note that the accusation of Satan against such atonement is also present to the end of the age. (The verse is to be taken in context as with the least delivered and justified, and those justified with him also.)

Rev 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. (KJV)

There is no question of it at all; Jesus Christ is sinless. To fulfil all grace Christ must either send the least in His kingdom or return Himself. The latter does not allow Christ to do a new and "greater work" for His Father (upon Christ's already firm foundation), then only merely repeating the same fulfillment of the law. Even then, were Christ able to fulfil all grace by the repentance of sin (having formerly been caught sinning), He would be so caught without the efficacy of His own covenant of grace; having thereby invalidated it. It would no longer be true that Jesus Christ is "the same yesterday, today, and forever".

No, Christ returns as God to judge, not to repeat the work of salvation a second time over.

I note that in the old covenant the Holy Spirit was not yet given, and blasphemy against Him not yet possible. Christ was fitting propitiation for all and every fault(s) under the old covenant law, but not of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is to speak against Him (not gathering with Him and so scattering abroad). All blasphemy against God is able to be forgiven but for that; which is to blaspheme the saving grace of God through His Holy Spirit when it is shown clearly present.

If that were the case, the covenant would only become justified by the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, as Christ, then condemned by any two witnesses (without His own intercession) would be convicted of such sin (simply established by two agreeing witnesses) and the work of the cross wholly undone. It is clear, then, that Christ cannot by Himself justify repentance against blasphemy of the Holy Spirit without another individual (the least), one required to do that "greater work" upon the gospel...

...That is, if blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is also to state one has never sinned when they most assuredly have been found to! (Note Jesus was not picking ears of corn!)

Now I note that picking ears of corn on the sabbath is not blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but as it stands it is also a "small thing" and to the omnipotent it is hardly an effort to have put them there in creation for the disciples to eat. They, are justified by Christ as Lord over all things in His (own) temple and not to be held guilty for that which is so common. Saving the least is a simple (and easy) exercise of God's own liberty - why should this be causing God to sin at all? God, has all sovereignty as His liberty (in His omnipotence) surely shows.

Then I can state all such sins and contracts entered into by charity alone (and the one overall as also redeemed without sin) are dissolved by the least of all doing likewise as if also carried by a logical necessity! God, must overcome these by propitiation in Christ by the gospel, which requires the least to volunteer and he alone.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page