Objections To The Proof

The first objection I raised myself to the proof is that it is not necessary to be faulty to be marked. The axiom "marked => (¬saved)&faulty" or indeed "(¬saved)&faulty => marked" requires some extra care. As I use both inferences I must be able to somewhat justify the sense of "faulty" with respect to the "mark" taught of the rapture doctrine.

Clearly if it were not necessary to be guilty or faulty to be marked and the mark was not a fault under the law of Moses (or of faith), then it is possible (in extremis) that Jesus Christ may Himself have received the mark as if made under the immediate accusation of Satan (but that Christ overcame it). The result is that Christ was certainly raised to life blameless and so there is then no "sinful" residue found of the mark as there isn't such a one! (Not even in all possibility, as Christ was indeed raised to life blameless.)

Then the mark is possibly of no effect. (A contradiction?)

Conversely, if the mark is not a fault, it is possible to be "perfect" or "sinless/innocent" whilst having that "mark", yet such a one would also remain damned. (Also, a contradiction?)

Without any disrespect shown to God in the above, Christ would never have been marked. Does Christ play chicken with the devil? I daresay not! By that, I take it that to deny any fault in such a mark, Satan would certainly have overcome the ministry of Christ unless Christ had so played chicken, and had merely gambled on never being marked by simply avoiding it or not having it "forced upon" Himself, thereby avoiding taking the mark which would otherwise wait until the end. But there is a fault that brings the mark.

Also, if there is no fault in taking the mark, then there is no need for duress (forcing the fault). Either that or you defer your judgement to others. (As in the image system.)

So, may a proof that "marked => (¬saved)&faulty" hold? I would assert "¬faulty => ¬marked". Is this enough?

I would now assert that as in the book, (¬faulty) v (SAVED&faulty => elect) holds for the election of grace.

If "SAVED v marked" holds, may I ever equate "marked <=> ¬faulty"? Not so, for I would also include that Christ, the "firstborn of the resurrection" is possibly also marked as if it were done so "by the work of God". And ¬SAVED is empty of all positivity, being a negation of virtue. It is then not true that the negative ¬SAVED or marked is accessible from the ultrafilter of the positive "¬faulty" (condition U4).

U4) If X is a set in U, then so is every set that is a superset of X, (All sets that properly contain X as a subset)

This properly formed disjunction is the inversion of the rapture logic, for: (faulty) v (SAVED&¬faulty => ¬saved) supposedly holds before the "rapture".

So, who turns the world upside down all over again? Is it Satan or God?

I state it is not possible to be marked without a given fault. I.e. N¬(marked&¬faulty). Else, Jesus fulfilling the law may have been forcefully marked Himself yet so without sin, which is an impossibility during the election of grace, as it began with Christ perfect! (And Rome, had their mockery of Christ as permitted in full. Christ scorned all the shame of the cross.)

The thread of redemption remains intact: for effectively "marking" a Christian is to break Christ's sacrifice made for them: an impossibility. (It would place the "mark" on Christ instead as if it were a possibility - an accusation of Satan; He would not have been "sanctified" and shown guiltless in preaching the forgiveness of sins.)

The only remaining option is to claim that "faulty" <=> "faithless" or indeed: "faulty" <=> "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit".

Yet it is possible to repent of these two and to be elect (and most certainly so when either is done without knowledge). Both are faults under the law of faith. I would assert that in the sense of the mark: "faulty <=> sin" and a perpetual sin at that. All sins (of any like) are forgivable in Christ if they are repented of.

(Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit must be repented of before death, yet grace ensures intercession is ongoing for every other sin after death.)

Returning to the main thread; the converse ¬faulty => ¬marked, i.e. that Christ in fulfilling all of the law must of logical necessity be totally unmarked is a given.

The axiom holds for Christ, then it holds for all the elect in Him during the election of grace.

Why? Well, it is now a circular argument, the rapture denies the cross, the cross the rapture etc. Yet (¬faulty) v (SAVED&faulty => elect) shows that the intercession of Christ is needed or made only for sins. Where there is fault there is salvation. The sinless are without fault, and this is positive: unlike "¬SAVED" which is a negation of virtue. Then as all are predestined to obedience, as the axiom holds for Christ, it holds for all the elect.

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)

Else, if it was not possible to mark Christ because technology had not reached the level of today, I would yet state that God still does not play chicken. The axiom that the mark must be a fault under the law of Moses holds, as there is no mark found until the unjust are damned after the last day. There will be "time no longer" and the second coming will arrive and take the world directly to the final judgement. (Christ states "behold, I come quickly").

It actually turns out that the true mark is unknowingly received as a token that a person accepts the image system and its worship, accepting false doctrines and has part in Satan's insult made to God. I would assert marked => ¬SAVED and ¬SAVED holds on those with false doctrine at the very least, without the added insult held to their charge.

Rev 2:24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan, as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden. (KJV)

I would also assert that holding false doctrine equates to worshipping a false God (an idol). Then the "mark", or worship of the image is a fault under the law of Moses by the first of the ten commandments:

Exo 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Exo 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (KJV)

So, the mark is truthfully a fault under the law of Moses.

Yet if it were not, there would be no mark by the scripture and the verse following takes precedence and holds over all. (Those keeping the law have no mark or "second death".)

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them. (KJV)

Then salvation is found keeping the law, and this was fulfilled in Christ. It is true that life in God is now found within Christ, not the law, yet then there is no "fault" that may interrupt that life in Christ, i.e. if one does not lose faith or blaspheme as above.

I also assert that the mark must deny Christ, it asserts such a fault in denying that the law was fulfilled in Christ (which was fulfilled in whole) and teaches a different God, even the image system itself or its "son of perdition". The mark then has its fault.

There is now the blunderbuss, that marked <=> faulty & ¬saved. If there were no fault that brought the mark, could those without faith have equally been raptured?

If again, SAVED v marked holds, I would state "no". Yet (¬faulty) v (SAVED&faulty => elect)

If there is no fault must everyone be raptured? Restricted to Christians alone I continue:

if elect => raptured and the sinless also, "¬faulty => raptured" then "¬faulty => not marked", so which fault (if any) will hold if all are forgiven sins in Christ? What will initiate the rapture?

Without assuming a fault, SAVED v marked is equally SAVED v ¬saved. If there is no such fault to bring the mark

But "saved" is apparently virtue, i.e. "marked v saved&¬marked => raptured".

So N(SAVED & saved).

But for non-Christians, with no fault to be found marked, there is no sin in the law of Moses to condemn them other than a false "God" or lack of God under the law of Christ instead, which has superseded that of Moses.

What I require now, is not ¬faulty => not marked, which was fulfilled by the perfect example of Christ, but I must show that faulty&¬saved => marked.

I.e. there must be a specific fault that initiates the rapture of those to be rescued from the mark.

That fault amongst all would be found to simply be "not elect" or "¬SAVED". This is found opposing N(SAVED & saved) which was stated above. (If there is no separate fault that brings the mark.) Then "N(SAVED & saved & ¬faulty) v marked" or indeed, because marked => ¬SAVED holds, which is a negation of virtue; therefore "marked => ¬saved & faulty".

Then all that remain afterward are surely to be marked and there is then no "great tribulation" of a remnant (none remain). This is actually final damnation altogether, and the last day has occurred and the judgement with it. (If only tares remain (the non-elect) not in the book of life, what is the point of further tribulation? There is no such "mark" until after the judgement.)

Yet to be faithless is to be not elect, so there is a fault under the law of Moses and of faith. Again, this has no enduring residue (mark) of sin or power over those at the moment they are called (chosen, a "green thing") to God in the first resurrection and the mark is simply final damnation after the last judgement once again (a contradiction to the "mark" having no fault beyond faithlessness or blasphemy of the Holy Spirit).

And of course; SAVED => saved => raptured => ¬faulty so faulty => ¬saved => ¬SAVED => marked => faulty.

Then there is certainly a fault that brought the mark. marked <=> faulty&¬saved.

Assuming the rapture and given "faulty<=>¬SAVED", I would find marked <=> faulty. So all require intercession. (It is yet offered if there is any greater tribulation, and certainly offered so if there is none.)

(I note it is positive for God to judge the sinner as faulty, but not to initiate their sin as the fault.)

I could now also assert as a corollary:

If the only fault that brings the mark is ¬SAVED, then the mark may be repented of.

Clearly, N(SAVED & saved & ¬faulty) v marked. or N(marked & faulty & ¬saved)

given ¬SAVED, (the fault) there is only N¬(saved&SAVED & marked) on the right side of the disjunction.

Then SAVED&saved => ¬marked => "saved &¬faulty" for those marked. (No salvation?)

Yet if "¬faulty" applies, then ¬faulty => ¬marked. Then SAVED & saved <=> ¬marked .

Yet saved cannot hold if SAVED is sufficient to overcome the mark and vice versa.

marked=> N¬(saved&SAVED) or SAVED => ¬saved and saved => ¬SAVED so saved => faulty

So, "marked" (if at all possible) ensures SAVED v saved.

the rapture becomes necessary if the gospel cannot save at all. Yet SAVED <=> ¬faulty

So, SAVED v (saved & faulty) paired with SAVED v marked renders P(saved&¬saved) which is that "saved" becomes inconsistent.

Else, if given "marked" I have "SAVED v saved", then given SAVED v marked, I would find "N(saved & marked)".

Then N¬(saved&¬marked) and also N¬(marked&¬saved) I.e. saved<=>marked, a contradiction. Why?

From the book and above, by axiom; raptured => ¬marked => ¬saved => ¬raptured (Axiom 15.8.1 and 15.8.2) then raptured becomes inconsistent as equally does the mark (by the modus tollens).

So, "saved" is certainly inconsistent.

All that remains now is faulty <=> marked. Those faulty are merely those without faith.

All is resolved with SAVED v marked, i.e. SAVED v ¬SAVED. Unless SAVED itself is inconsistent, but then that is the denial of Christ.

So, given "P(marked)" there is yet "SAVED v marked" (and salvation in the gospel for all fault(s) is a certainty of redemption.)

I would find from the disjunction "¬faulty v SAVED&faulty => elect" that every fault is atoned for in Christ; and yet "marked", whilst empty of possibility is never instantiated by God during the election of grace (it is merely strong delusion). Property U4 of an ultrafilter ensures that "marked <=> ¬SAVED" cannot be attained in the filter of "not faulty". Likewise it is never to be found in that of "elect".

Then the disjunction would appear to state "SAVED v SAVED&¬SAVED => elect". SAVED is apparently inconsistent but the empty set, can it prove every disjunction? It would become as N(elect). Or, without breaking closure found of virtue;

"SAVED v (SAVED => SAVED&elect)", or indeed N(SAVED => elect) Is this legal? Is this the choice of Christ or a necessity?

Is there a distinction? Are the "SAVED & elect" the "very elect"?

Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. (KJV)

Every such fault ¬SAVED in the set of elect is merely as a "sin not atoned for". As this is done once and for all in Christ, I would assume amongst the elect that if there are sins not yet repented of, the equivalent is that the "SAVED => elect" are necessary in this regard, as these are "covered" of necessity: that set on believers is empty. All such sins are necessarily covered (by the righteousness credited to faith) and so the surety of election is necessarily provided.

I.e. there is no such freely decidable disjunction for God found in "SAVED v marked" but only that of "N(Pos(SAVED))". Every fault is redeemable if salvation is still provided.

Every fault is then redeemable. SAVED - i.e. the provision of virtue (grace) is easily decided.

Then SAVED & faulty => elect becomes properly expected of virtue for any other fault(s) that do not entail ¬SAVED. Grace continues through to the judgement. The property U4 of the ultrafilter in "¬faulty" on the other side of the disjunction does not allow the ultrafilter to contain Pos(¬SAVED) and the ultrafilter is closed. So, "marked" is then impossible to apply to the "not faulty", i.e. the "not SAVED" that are certainly elect but needing no intercession for that particular fault(s).

It remains to state that in "SAVED & saved => marked" there is possibly a virtuous disjunction. Then "marked" is actually equally become as the "quasi-mark" of the book; it becomes virtue to reveal the salvation in Christ to the rapturist by showing them the "error of their doctrine".

Then the left hand side of the virtuous disjunction would have Pos(¬saved) instead, requiring no intercession.

Eze 33:7 So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.
Eze 33:8 When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Eze 33:9 Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul. (KJV)

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page