Pleasure In Unrighteousness

Consider the octal partly formed of:

marked∨SAVED&¬marked => elect

Which is supposedly plausible (if "marked" is the "second death" inherited by sinners after their final judgement). Then I would expect the complement of the (empty) middle to be another element of the octal. I.e (marked & elect)-1.

Now, marked <=> faulty & ¬saved (with raptured => saved).

So, as faulty ∨(SAVED & ¬faulty) =>¬saved, which essentially holds during the election of grace, (given the rapture doctrine), then the conjunct (faulty & ¬saved) <=> "marked" is opposed to the element of the octal of (faulty & ¬saved)-1 which is the negated middle.

So, at least one of these two disjunctions is faulty. (Unless faulty <=> marked, making the "mark" independent of timing and therefore opening a hole in the atonement of the cross of Christ, a denial of God's grace which is then become unrighteous in itself.)

So I require an octal that agrees with "marked∨SAVED&¬marked => elect", i.e. formed of "¬faulty ∨(SAVED & faulty) =>elect", which has the result (in the book) that saved <=> ¬elect and elect<=>¬saved. I.e. SAVED∨saved.

I.e. during the election of grace there can be no "rapture". (All faults are still redeemable.)

Or otherwise an octal that agrees with "faulty ∨(SAVED & ¬faulty) =>¬saved", i.e. formed with the disjunction of : "¬marked∨SAVED&marked => saved" where still, saved <=> ¬elect and elect<=>¬saved. I.e. SAVED∨saved.

I.e. the election of grace then suppposedly fails, ¬elect then holds for all "SAVED".

And SAVED∨saved supposedly holds only over "Christians". The sets "marked" or "faulty" are simply negated in place along with "saved".

Yet in both cases, all Christians should be SAVED (elect), and not to be "raptured" at all, for there is no interruption of Christ's grace and the cross is not to be defeated by Satan. The true "second death" is not the curse of such a "mark", but is that rejection of the ungodly after the final judgement of Christ only.

In the latter case also, I would have "marked <=> raptured" as in Chapter 15.8 of the book "Seven Eyes Open" (fourth edition). For the rapture assumes that ¬marked is "universal at rapture" (no one found marked is raptured, all SAVED but "to be marked" are raptured; but only on those "SAVED", hence marked <=> raptured so that raptured => saved.

Given "¬marked∨SAVED&marked => saved", that pleasure in unrighteousness comes from putting SAVED <=> ¬elect.

So, as to that "unrighteousness", if there is no hole in the cross of Jesus (with faulty<=>marked), then in both cases to be "saved" requires a denial that one can be "SAVED", and that leaves the believer somewhat "quasi-marked", denying the cross of Christ can save them. (Yet there is great hope in that rapture and it really comforts those that take pleasure in that doctrine.) Sadly, it is not beneficial.

Then "unrighteousness" as in the dialectic is formed on "marked<=>faulty&¬saved". This, the empty middle (heavy burden) of the disjunction "faulty ∨(SAVED & ¬faulty) =>¬saved". Yet, as a dialectic, there is no virtue in SAVED, so I actually would find the improper disjunction of "faulty ∨(¬faulty=>¬saved)" instead (Or, ¬faulty∨saved instead, as judged positive in the aesthetic). The "fault" is permissible during the election of grace, but in the second dispensation of the "rapture", any such fault is grounds for rapture, i.e. raptured=>saved=>faulty.

Properly, in the election of grace I have the disjunction of:

"¬faulty ∨(SAVED & faulty) =>elect" or the wider disjunction of:

"(¬faulty & judged) ∨(SAVED & faulty & ¬judged) =>(elect & marked)"

where marked is meant in the sense of "damned". Such a fault is judged along the lines of the disjunction in the octal of:

(faulty&¬elect)∨(¬judged & ¬damned) instead (with the virtue not stated).

The virtue "SAVED" applies as to Christians, but (SAVED&elect&¬faulty)=>(¬judged & ¬damned) applies to the holy, whereas "judged" (i.e. "called" vs. "chosen" (elect), cf. Mat 22:14) applies but to sinners, and "damned" applies to those that are never elected.

So, in the dialectic I can reduce to "(¬faulty) ∨(elect & ¬marked & ¬judged)" and I can write a dialectic in N(¬faulty) as rapture supposedly precludes any fault to receive the mark. So, N¬(elect & ¬marked & ¬judged) or "elect&¬judged=>marked" (the modus tollens is surely a heavy burden; a requirement to keep all God's laws?)

...or "elect =>judged & marked" instead, an impossible empty middle and also a heavy burden. This set in the octal only appears as "¬judged&¬marked" instead. (I.e. not damned.) "¬judged&¬marked" actually states there are no judged sinners (tares) and none "damned" whilst there are those so classed as "elect".

2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. (KJV)

So, as to N¬(elect & ¬marked & ¬judged) or "elect =>judged&marked", those rapturists that so consider themselves elect are in a dreadful strait. There is no such logical inference in the octal, "elect" is a closed set, and "(¬judged & ¬marked)" may also act as if virtue. (The gospel will not be reengineered for the sakes of the rapturists.)

So, pleasure in unrighteousness? Given "elect =>judged & marked" in the dialectic, the rapturist has declared that "elect" is no longer sufficient and a second dispensation in the rapture is required, else each will be judged and marked as a sinner and as one damned. That would be unrighteous, and the rapturist takes pleasure in this as "saved <=> ¬elect". The pleasure comes from the release of dopamine with the judging of that heavy burden as positive in the aesthetic sense, in revealing the rapture as the synthesis, for "elect" is become no longer positive, and the rapture is simply become the "freedom" to declare so.

I.e. if "elect" is positive, then so must be "judged & marked" also. This is a contradiction in the dialectic, so I reach N(faulty)<=>N¬(¬faulty) as synthesis and the rapturist thereby (supposedly) escapes without ever becoming faulty in N(elect & ¬marked & ¬judged) or simply also become as N¬(elect & marked & judged) or "elect => ¬marked & ¬judged", yet is this result reached without any contradiction?

I could (just as simply) form a dialectic on: "(elect) ∨(¬faulty & ¬marked & ¬judged)" and reach the result of N¬(elect) or of N(¬faulty & ¬marked & ¬judged) equal to N¬(faulty & ¬marked & ¬judged) or that "faulty => marked & judged". Either way, by the same method of the dialectic the election of grace is denied in "¬elect", and the rapturist denies Christ in their paradigm.

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page