None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

A Trick Of The Light

Now, in the book I posited (i.e. conjectured) that the very "least in the kingdom of God" must overcome the world under the very worst circumstances to show the sovereignty of God absolute over His own creation. To do so, he must remain completely sinless (a heavy constraint unless found so in Jesus Christ). In order for this "angel" to be justified he must also be accused of every conceivable sin without having any answer against that accusation, and must then also overcome that wretched state unaided. (Without the Holy Spirit.)

Is this even possible?

In order for the least to overcome under the very worst circumstances, I need somehow to conjecture (the sole heresy again) a dichotomy; I need that the least be seemingly and perpetually guilty of everything and also able to overcome the world despite it. There is a very subtle logical "trick" that accomplishes this! The least must be found sinless; as well as to have apparently sinned quite guiltlessly through a pure (or necessarily positive) act of "charity" that equivalently would convict of sin in every possible way if sin is ever established (Yet only Christ has the judgement and determines guilt).


The "trick" requires that the least be completely sinless before God! As God's servant, having been sent (or sent of himself) for making such an act of charity, this is truly possible.

Mat 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. (KJV)

So, what manner of accusation has Satan in store for such a one? If such a one remained completely and necessarily sinless as sent from God the Father to accomplish and perform (that is to do) His work, then it would be logically true that N¬("x is a sinner") as God may not initiate a sin as if He were the sole cause as if it were to be found obedience before Him.

And then an arbitrary conjunctive term is open to inclusion, for example: N¬("x is a sinner" & ¬"x is guilty of all sin"). I.e. N¬(A&¬B) is equal to "A implies B" or A=>B.

I.e. If "x" is accused of sin, He is accused guilty of all sin (it is arbitrary). A miserable wretch; pitiful, poor, blind and naked as without Christ's sure intercession before His Father.

The converse is true, that any sinner claiming himself to be holy is found guilty of all sin. This, is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and accordingly it cannot be forgiven. (Unless the claimant is, actually, truly holy.) Applying the same law to the holy (or made holy by God) as under accusation is that same "blasphemy" of the Holy Spirit in Mat 12:32.

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)

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to claiming the Holy Spirit is not there when He surely is - accusing one of some concord with Beelzebub instead for instance (as to casting out demons). Equal to this blasphemy is the similar statement that a man is as Holy as the Holy Spirit yet also in truth as plainly fallen as is Beelzebub. Simply making one's self to be as the Holy Spirit in behaviour is blasphemy. (Unless one is actually, truly holy.) This would break the same law of N¬("x is a sinner" & ¬"x is guilty of all sin") whereby N("x is a sinner" & ¬"x is a sinner") is claimed to be in place! That inconsistency is to blaspheme the Holy Spirit (and everything respected as Holy).


However, the least is perfectly disposed to make an act of charity to fall from some great height to this wretched state and not cause himself to continue in sinning in it excepting only as by under accusation.

Then only, say, through an act of charity and that same act made without any sin, the least "x" may be accused by the adversary of being guilty of everything sinful by a "concord"; including the unforgivable blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. (Yet this is entailed from that same act of charity even, as it were, purely motivated of or possibly by "agape" love.)

This still does not and cannot convict the least "x" of sin, the least ever keeping faith in the Lord, not denying His (new) name to carry the work itself (see the book): and there is an observation made by Christ as experiencing something similar to that blasphemy or something of the like:

Rev 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan. (KJV)

Then, any accusation is not only blasphemy of the "least" as sent of God, but blasphemy of God Himself in all Holiness in the equivalence, as He, is just as sinless in this work as His servant sent to it! Christ, also, was apparently found guilty of blasphemy and executed most unjustly.

Now, it makes no sense to declare this "sin" so cut and dried that God would or must intervene to rescue His least to anull it. Rather, the least is required to justify his own works and the Father will supply by the throne an accounting for the least (of the least's own making) and the requisite conditions to be present in the world for those works to be met.

Rev 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (KJV)

Now what if, for example, that act or "sin" was committed only through an act of charity; one which would fulfil all grace and loose those similarly caught in any such sin of blasphemy, those that would truly and genuinely repent and are already promised God's salvation (but are as yet unjustified from that continuing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit)?

In such a case where I expect there to be no sin, there is still the accusation of sin; Satan would not release those that are his own captives.

Then every accusation "x is guilty of all sin" is yet to be shown false against each of these captives. If the conditions in Christ's letters are all met and the angel overcomes showing no sin, then Christ is satisfied as are his (the angel's) two witnesses; those similarly justified and also the other witness of the Holy Spirit leading them. The Lord's new name is sufficient to show the least sinless, justifying that name as Holy and able, righteously, to save.

Could the two witnesses then be the pair of the "spirit and the bride" (cf. Rev 22:17)? I.e. where the "bride" is the body of Christ having exited the "churches" to remain separate (following the right hand) and the Holy Spirit (the left hand convicting them), is found to be present with the ministration of those "angels" (in the works of the gospel) restricted only to the elect and including those that are to follow them out? After that manner those two are made one body by the least's crown, that being the "marriage of the lamb".

It becomes clear that I can honestly deduce an equivalence in the work (to which the least is sent) of:

"x made an act of charity" <=> "every accusation of sin against x is false".

Then "x is not a sinner" <=> "x made an act of charity" leads me to infer from N¬("x is a sinner" & ¬"x is guilty of every sin") that:

N¬("x is a sinner" & ¬"no accusation of sin found established in x is false") or

N¬("x is a sinner" & ¬"no sin by x is a fault of the accuser") as the results entailed are likewise just as arbitrary.

Simply because, if "no accusation against x is true", they would or must equally entail that "x is not a sinner" as this fact is necessary.

As the least is no sinner, I may righteously judge N¬Pos("x is a sinner") so that N¬Pos(x is guilty of any conceivable sin), so that, to God as judge, N(Pos("x is without sin")) holds firmly in all truth. Then N(Pos("all sin by x is a fault of the accuser")) likewise!

However, this is not so easily proven but it is only ever shown true in the angel's circuit of the seven churches (see the book).

The rules are certainly inverted. The accuser must (as his only remaining device against the circuit) instead repeat the single pointless act of causing x to sin, to show x (once so induced) would continue to sin and that afterward he would sin independently of his accuser. It does not so occur! (Or even occur to any saved in Jesus Christ!) There is but one work - for a "crown of life" for which the least is faithful until death whilst tested tenfold. Then "the devil made me do it" (as if the least were his property) may not be such a spurious claim in this one case. The devil remains guilty of all sin so irrelevantly "placed" which does not or cannot continue on by inducing itself. (Iniquity is not imputed to the least.)

The least, then, may appear to sin through an act of charity beforehand, which is always to be found necessarily positive. Then N¬Pos("x is a sinner") and Pos("every accusation of sin found in x is false under the law"), as the least's sin is reconcilable to a far greater work. (And this is why the letters do not apparently convict any such "angel of the church" of any sin.)

The accuser initiates the sin to see if the accused will continue in it. As to that "law" - see the next page.

And this is also logically the case even if it appears to all observers (but for Christ Himself) that "x sins". Then the least can appear to sin through being forced to do so under such accusation as if he were the property of the accuser. God is also apparently accused of His sovereignty being incomplete thereby - but that sovereignty may be resolved through that test of the least - the circuit of the angel. The angel through His act of charity always remains the servant of God the Father, despite being forced (in the interim) by the adversary.

So, any such sin made of charity and its consequences are apparently "without sin" before God.

And it is for Christ alone to search the reins and hearts.

Luk 6:22 Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake. (KJV)

I also note that not only is a man condemned under the mosaic law (i.e. of Moses) by two witnesses, he is also freed from all accusation by a greater witness: that of Christ. Because of, say, a work of charity necessarily positive, every sin following (i.e. made of accusation to falsely establish a "real sin" (i.e. rebellion) of x, rather than one forced only through such accusation) would lead me to understand that only the "good" or "positive" then results (follows) from charity, and any sin thereby perceived (though truly unfortunate) is not the fault of the least in his work (only Satan's), but instead "everything works for good".

The sin of "x" is the product of placing him in a state of "sin" so that he would continue in it; however, the angel has a-priori overcome, and Satan is left with paying the bill.

Truly a conjecture indeed, but is there any scripture for this dichotomy? Indeed there is.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page


'