Immunity From Demonic Possession

Ok, rather than justify my thinking with scripture, I would simply run through this in a quick argument.

If the least in the kingdom of God is a principal element in every "god-like" set, then He is also principal in the set of all elect Christians that are elected for a positive reason; that is: elected by a positive act of divine virtue; then either becoming "saved" and/or "rested upon" as already saved.

In fact, concerning the very least, the least is principal in all creation: and the complement set of those excluded from election is also the result of divine virtue: i.e. those not becoming saved at all and those never saved. The least is also a member of these set(s); and the final judgement by Christ is a consequence following the completion of his circuit: as the least, he "treads the winepress" and it is found true that the unsaved may not forever simply "vanish", but are possibly preserved for eternity as if in a spiritual cage for "every unclean spirit". They have their paradigm placed under God's wrath and are afterward (by His judgement) not merely placed under that heavy restraint of wrath but they are only free to be perpetually unable to blaspheme God's new name forever; but may be eternally free to gnaw off their tongues doing so in dialectic blasphemy of the old name alone - which is discardable in comparison to Christ's inheritance.

The least, however, is the dividing line between the saved and unsaved: but all are under the authority of the kingdom of God, not only Christians - God's judgement brought by the overcoming of the least ensures that this is also true.

So, given the least is principal overall, if the least were ever "demonically possessed", then as he is proven (and surely so) to be principal, he is in a set all by himself in God's kingdom (under which even the demons are subject to divine authority) yet then he is only under his own authority as he is truly alone in a set by himself, and then cannot be possessed unless the demon is in authority making the demon into God - a contradiction. QED.

As a corollary, If the least is in a set all by himself in God's kingdom, then he is not under God's authority unless he is 100% determined by God the Father in every sense of the word; His free will is the Father's own free will and none other, a fitting angel for Jesus Christ to serve Christ without Christ's own continual determination (unless necessitated) and therefore He is God's own right hand: a servant to God that cannot be replaced.

The least, is then a living potentate - and though he is in a spiritual cage himself until He overcomes, it can be expected that he will never require yet another accounting once he is proven principal - He will "go no more out".

So, are all free from demonic possession?

If every set contains the least then for every saved member (or unsaved also) I may entail from every set that the least is intact in, or under, God's authority.

If this did not follow from every such set, then I would posit a positive property for a person to be possessed. This positive property would also entail the least as in God's authority; and there is no sense that once the least is proven principal that any "negative" property could entail the election of the least as principal, for then if "D" is such a negative, given D=>l (with "l" the least) I would have l-1=>Pos(D-1)=>l, a contradiction. Then every such possession must be positive: yet is this a contradiction?

It can only be so that every possession (or every such possessed) is under God's authority also, for if l=>D-1(l), that the least is never possessed, then given x=>l for all x, D(x)=>D(l) only if "D" is determination by God alone. Why?

I have N(x=>l) by modal necessitation (N). Then N(x) => N(l). if l=>D(l) only if "D" is determination by God, then D-1(l)=>l-1 or that the least is not elected yet. I may only state P(l-1), for then ¬P(l-1) is N(l) as required. Then N(x)=>N(l)=>D(l).

Now, all sets to God as a result of His virtue are a necessity or a consequence of modal collapse; works done and undone. (See chapter four of the book.)

Until the circuit of the least is completed and there is time no longer, I have P(D-1(l)) or P(l-1).

When the least's circuit is complete with N(l) and N(D(l)) I require a modal collapse in the octal to show N(¬D(x)) for all x unless "D" is by God. (Should I show N(D(x)) for all x instead?)

I must either show that D(x)=>D(l) for all D not God (as G) and reach an easy contradiction, or else find modal collapse. However, I must also have D(x)=>G(l) if that is so, for all x entail "l", even if D(x). Then "D" must be positive. I can create a disjunction of virtue: those possessed positively (r) and those positively not possessed (s). I can offset these with their negations (also positive) of those not yet possessed positively (u-1) and those not yet exorcised (v-1).

I must first show that r = s = l. Clearly as G(l) is "possession" this "r" is positive. Then if the leasts circuit without Him elected or determined is "s" with G(l), then this is ok, but if whilst God is not determining the least His adversary appears to be in authority over the least instead, then D(l) in the case of Satan as "D" appears ¬G(l) and G(l) appears ¬D(l). Then Satan does not fulfill the complement(s) as does u-1 for "r" and v-1 for "s" but instead is as the accuser; God will intercede in virtue for His own, without God and His gospel there is merely a vacuum that God will never author; Satan is broken of authority. (Possessions must then all remain positive with the completion of the least's circuit; after the judgement any divinely authored determinism is as such. It is worthy of note that after the least overcomes there is a short period of trial; to sweep up the last remnants of chaff and to ensure a fair and just end to the parable of the sower with God's own harvest.)

And the least is then proven principal in all four sets as required for D(x)=>l=>G(l), but I will simply state that (as in chapter 16 of the book) there is the collapse of:

l-1∨l=>Ω where Ω is the union u&v of the sets "u" and "v". I note r = s = l alone, as by necessity only the least has G(l) logically determined forever (and here a prerequisite for this argument) and only he makes the circuit of the seven churches effective to tread the winepress.

Then u&v is maximal: all are exorcised and all are possibly determined by God; there is a union of bride and spirit as with (r&s)-1 minimised respectively (the least goes no more out). Or, the same two bodies of spirit and bride united as if "the exorcised" are opposed to all those under the wrath and the restraint of being unable to blaspheme the new name of God, those that are not elect and saved.

Then depending on whether "r" and "s" are associated with "D" or "G", either all are under the authority of God, or else all appear under the authority of Satan as if "D". This rests upon the modal collapse ensuring l=>G(l)=>G(Ω) for all sets x in Ω. Note l=>Ω=>l or that l<=>Ω are equivalent.

Then N(l)=>N(l=>G(l)=>G(Ω)) or that N(l)=> N(G(x)) for all x (saved or not), and thus N(l)=>N(¬D(x)) for all "D" not God. Only God will have authority over His own people and as the creator of all, over all people. I.e. N¬D(x) for all x.

To conclude, I simply state that God is a kind, loving and patient Father to all. Cast that love away at your peril.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page