Arguing Sovereignty

Concerning the section "The Morning Star" in section [16.12.7] of the book, I would also argue that "owning the essence" has another sense, rather than Pos(x) being just enough to exclude "l" from God, as if l=>Pos(x) were in some sense to entail that God would somehow positively lose sovereignty over all His enemies whilst also making it positive to exclude them from that sovereignty. Surely, God would require total sovereignty to be able to exclude them?

In that case, Satan must state that he owns the essence in that it is positive (for him) to exclude the sovereignty of the God whose essence it is, which by anyone's standards would also include himself if he were truly to own it. Not a problem, if it remains inconsistent and so then God must show otherwise!

So, if l=>Pos(s) where "s" is the sovereignty of the "owner" of the essence, I would rephrase that it must be true that x=>Pos(¬s) for God, and then also, claim x=>Pos(¬s) for Satan, also. Satan would thereby create an interruption in the kingdom of God.

Then l=>Pos(x) must be examined again.

l=>Pos(s&x) most certainly but if I claim that Pos(s&x)=>Pos(x&¬s), "x" must become axiomatically positive as above!

Yet for complete perfection, it is better for God to have sovereignty so N¬Pos(¬s) <=> Pos(s) for God.

Yet, is "l" perfect? He is to be put to the test. Can "s" also remain or become inconsistent (or out of scope)?

If the inconsistency of "s" is positive and follows from such an "x", Satan wins, yet if not so, i.e. "s" is proved consistent so that l=>Pos(s) and that that same sovereignty is not interrupted (not with an act of charity, but by the act of God that proves ¬x(f) for all f=>l) I would find from that work, that l=>Pos(s) shows Pos(s)=>¬Pos(x) or Pos(¬x) for l, and the argument simplifies to one in which God has retained that sovereignty all along, with no interruption and Satan, gets the booby prize of the empty set.

All that is required is to show that l=>Pos(s). (God must act with an essence to show N¬Pos(x(f)) for all f=>l.) Then if l is that same "sovereignty" of God, It would make him (l) the principal element in the kingdom of God. That element also equivocates to the liberty of God or l=L say.

Then l=>G and G=>p such that l v p&¬l=>¬x as before from modal collapse. Christ excuses His hand with the simple equivalence of p=l. ("l" acted in agape, a work of His Father.)

It is not consistent to claim l=>Pos(x&¬s) towards God and also l=>Pos(s&¬x) for towards Satan. (There is only the antinomy and "l" is inconsistent, there could be no "ownership" at all.) God, is perfect and could exemplify no Pos(x) or even Pos(¬s). Satan would already have lost a-priori.

Then interrupting the sovereignty itself is only a brief stay of execution, but it must be shown that "l" is an essence, and that "l" entails that sovereignty. If "l" is truly the least in the kingdom and is put to the test, then these conditions are satisfied.

That nothing positive excludes the election of l, is enough to find that there is no positive property (and virtue) entailing ¬l. Then it is impossible for "l" to entail anything negative. Yet "negative" is inclusive of predicates at rest, as long as there be one positive property extant, Liberty as "l" ensures such a positive outcome.

I.e. ¬N¬(q&l) which is P(q&l) for all positive q.

So, it is impossible for any positive property to entail "¬l" and so if "l" is shown positive then it must be a principal element in every set of positive properties which it is found within, given that the set may be acted upon by liberty and then "l" must be the minimal such set when all else is positively at rest. Then, "l" is an essence by modal collapse in the octal. i.e. l v p&¬l=>l leaves ¬l v p&l=>Ω. Given p=l I am "done". ("l" is the least in p=a and p=a0.)

Then L=l and "l" will surely entail that sovereignty, as the "free choice" of God the Father. (His right hand.)

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page