The Crushing Defeat

To re-iterate:

God has set up His kingdom with a legal and wholly valid "dialectic" - one with a middle which entails nothing positive (being of the death of Christ). However, the law was fulfilled by Him in so doing, being used falsely against the one whom quite rightly was not a blasphemer - (though condemned as such), the kingdom of Israel was moved (translated) to the words of the new covenant in Christ which He spoke of His Father's instruction, thereby superseding the old testament with the new testament of His "blood", that sprinkling in figure of the dedication of that same spiritual house of Israel now in the new covenant under grace for the remission of sins.

So, to take a look at that:
a = a man free under the old covenant
c = a man free under the new covenant
e = the word of the law fulfilled
g = the testimony of Jesus for the forgiveness of sins

Now, g is blasphemy under the law, but fulfilled by one blameless (Christ). It makes "sense" for Christ to die to fulfill that law to show Him approved before God and to deliver His elect from under the condemnation of the law. In every other individual case, there is "g v e". The law condemns in truth and grace is merited, credited to faith.) It is also true albeit dialectically, that I find "a v c", as one covenant is in effect at any time! (No simultaneity.) This requires e&g to prove the middle (a&c)-1, and e&g is found in one person only - Jesus Christ.

Now, one of the octal or the dialectic must be a corruption of the other, yet God alone judges, God alone chooses. That corruption is not found in the octal: but in a fiat ultrafilter instead. God, it appears, does well in Himself judging what is "best"! The octal itself is wholly positive, and without the dialectic: Then, I find a class of legal dialectics wherein the whole octal agrees! Yet the ultrafilter of virtue is herein maximised and made of the highest charity. Should it not then provide a legal dialectic for sinners also? "a&c" are together virtues, so Pos(a&c)-1 is empty or negative of all positivity. Instead of providing corruption, (the bait) the cross excludes any "authority" to undermine the kingdom of God. Satan, loses from the starting pistol!

So, dialectically e&g => (a&c)-1 which is truly an empty middle between covenants. (There was "darkness over the land" whilst Christ was on the cross.) "a&c" is inactive, as the law and His testimony should have acquitted Him. Then dialectically the empty middle (by the bait being as Christ condemned from showing "a") justifies the disjunction of e v g, and the dialectic would falsely bring in "Antichrist" as from the cross itself. Christ would be dead legally (permanently) or just as yet another sinner coming "to nothing" (See Acts Ch:5v34-39). In either case, there would be no sense of "c", and Satan would have falsely supposed his victory.

However, to Satan this was the golden ticket (God had set the baited trap) - to diminish both covenants by killing an immortal Christ (not possible on the cross, He would be raised), but in every holy deed and under every accusation in the complete appearance of total blasphemy.

Then Satan's goal of the failure of "a" - proving the "empty" middle of "e v g" by the denial of the one (Christ) in whom these two things meet is "Antichrist" and I recognise it as such. There would then be no "c" without e&g. (Yet both a and c are virtues!)

Yet these (a, c, e, g) are as sets of positive properties and instead the act of grace has "c" superseding "a". After Christ, no man is under the law! And the group is of disjoint sets of positive properties, as only one person, that same Christ is holy in fulfilling the law, and His is the only word by which men can be saved: A man under the new covenant must build only on the foundation of Christ, and of His blamelessness. (Christ is the way, the truth and the life, none come to the Father but by Him.)

Yet, the dialectic is also truly present, as whilst Christ was dead, there was no comfort, for the prophets were not yet fulfilled with His resurrection. The "new covenant" had not yet superseded the old (in fullness). God had yet to pour out His spirit on all flesh. (A covenant finally completed with the pouring out of His Holy Spirit upon the gentiles - a covenant confirmed some time after His death in the midst of Daniel's seventieth week.)

Yet until the new covenant was in effect, there was a logically empty middle - there was no positive property in that wait between covenants, for we know who we worship. That Christ breathed on His disciples, saying "accept the Holy Ghost" is the completion of every condition of His resurrection, there is little else beside the further pouring out upon all.

That dialectic Satan may not deny, else He admits his utter defeat: The dialectic itself as a method must stand rather than its instantiations. Satan's last device of the day was to minimize the cross' significance in the new covenant and to provide a mixture of the covenants. (The only option available to him.)

So, if the least is also the least under Satan's captivity, and also saved in Christ, then if Satan denies his captivity, all are freed and if Satan asserts his captivity then the cross always saves him (the least) else the dialectic itself fails and God's kingdom is the only kingdom remaining.

Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. (KJV)

Without captivity, there is no accusation against the elect in Christ. Satan's kingdom exists only of those captive within, deceived or not so. If there is no kingdom there is none captive and so also, if there are none captive there is no such kingdom. Assume then that Satan has a kingdom with captives and I will ask, "is it consistent?" The cross is certainly so, will Satan claim that he was crucified instead?

The cross is not a kingdom left to any other men,.. it is not broken in pieces but breaks all these other kingdoms of the world in pieces instead. It, also, will not pass away before the end of the world.

God's kingdom is eternal.

So I simply reason that because the kingdom of God exists beforehand as well as after: Gods kingdom is the only true kingdom remaining: and Satan, (still "small potatoes") has lost it all. In fact, if the least is obedient and completes his circuit, Satan's kingdom does not reset its count and it fails as divided, "an eighth of the seven" as it were. That eighth beast of "MYSTERY BABYLON" is fallen twice over, constructed in perdition and as built upon the sand and not on the rock of Christ.

So, without the opportunity to hold anyone logically captive (as deceived) Satan has no kingdom - and the least simply shows that the whole world would prefer the deeds of their flesh rather than to have the faith in Christ offered freely for eternal life.

I simply need to show that Satan cannot deny the K4 group of [c, e, g] is present already! Given the kingdom now set up which is by a dialectic, that kingdom is "c" (obviously!)

So, with "c" in the dialectic "as wine" (with a as oil), and both covenants in effect (a&c) proves "e v g" and by the dialectic!
(a&c&e) v (a&c&g) is in the balances as "g v e" and c=>a-1. This has the synthesis of (c&e&g). (Which was what was wanted!)

With "c" as oil instead, a as "wine"
(a&c&e) v (a&c&g) is in the balances as "g v e" and a=>c-1. This has the synthesis of (a&e&g). (grace "rests" when a man has repented and is free of legal condemnation!)

So, either covenant is dialectically found in a disjunction, and they "oppose" each other rather than one supersede the other. Grace to the unbeliever becomes lawlessness and the law becomes the condemnation of the faith. (The covenants are not compatible in the dialectic, "new" doctrines are required by such liars to mask their dialectic paradigm.) Christ, exercising the keys of Hell and Death has overcome these two in us by His Holy Spirit instead.

Mat 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. (KJV)

So if the old covenant is still in effect is His angel still captive? Truth is, it is not in effect and has not been so since Christ. And grace, is not lawlessness. Christ operates in "grace". and the law does not condemn those found in it: it (the law) is still present - it will not pass away.

So the sets c, e, and g are all necessary and kept intact; that allows Satan to sow his tares and to diminish the work of the cross. They, as sets of positive properties in a K4 group are not going away! Satan needs to affirm these two to diminish the two in the centre.

So, as long as the angel overcomes these deceptions in dialectics (Pos(c) => Pos(a) in all truth) , He is as saved as any other and Satan may not deny one fact: that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. (Resist Satan, and he will flee from you.) That is, unless His resurrection is truly lawlessness and His testimony not the spirit of prophecy. In being unable to deny either covenant but only able to poison the empty middle of the two, what else does Satan state over and over already? He, in opposition affirms his utter defeat by his presence in that same middle. In holding captives, he then admits they are captive and therefore loosed by the cross if so elect.

Satan requires there to be captives not in the middle of the two kingdoms, but only in his own and as all are condemned under a law of faith, they are condemned likewise by the overcoming of the world by all saints, not just the least.

"Captivity" then, is only possible when God has not so chosen. This does not apply to the least. The least knows Christ is come and is the truth of all prophecy!

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page