  |
|
Metamath
|
 Forgive Us Our Sins... From the metaphysics area I had shown that every fault is to make God into another God that would permit lawlessness, and we may deduce in every case that the same K4 structure on positive properties is in place, where virtue excludes fault, rather than fault excluding virtue. The sense in which fault excludes virtue we have seen, but does virtue exclude fault? It does in the law of Moses. If we then assert that L(G) implies all virtue as exampled in Christ, (and this is actually a matter of faith rather than of construction.) L(G) is dependent on the one gospel and not on personal choice, It has been revealed to us from heaven and we are blessed beyond measure to live after the coming of Christ. The latter part of the prayer "As we forgive those that sin against us" is harder to describe, we would equate that we sin against God by holding to some L(H) where H is less fine a filter than G. Likewise to be sinned against by another is to be trespassed upon by another with L(X) less fine that our L(H). Of course if in every case each hold L(L(G) v L(H)) the virtue of faith that may be excluded is actually L(G) and not as it were, the set of virtues entailed by L(G) and not by L(H). To be able to freely choose L(G) or L(H) one would (or must) have to retain L(G). So, being sinned against is to have ones liberty taken from them with regard to virtue. This is true of God in the mind of the believer and true of the believer when they are placed in the position where there is a fault f on an individual x, is x ever cut off? If it is so, where is the authority for that? False positive properties in an L v p statement filled much of the metaphysics area on the grace offered in Christ. Here, we can take a deeper look into the character God expects of His people in forgiving others, not as a matter of fault to be corrected - for to be sinned against is not to be at fault, rather one's virtue is put to the test. We are tempted by others sinning against us to make light of the forgiveness offered us by God (for our own misconceptions of His character, removing His liberty by transmitting L(H) less fine than L(G).) It is obviously incorrect to put God's virtue (perfection) to the test, (we do this by making G v p statements clearly shown to be faults in the metaphysics area.) Of our own virtue, we may state we are tempted to retaliate against those that wrong us - though as Jesus taught of the debtor smiting another over next to nothing, we are required to forgive instead. So, how does holding or accepting some faulty L(X) imply our virtue is put to the test? We could assume that a union of L(G) and L(X) would contain a set of virtues with false positives, likewise an intersection may exclude L(G). In either case we have our virtue put to the test when we exclude our own virtues in L(G) to hold to the set in L(X). (Given it is less fine a filter). Our virtue then as before is to be refined back to a subset of those in Christ, whether we return to a set in L(X) generated by L(G) or merely those virtues in L(X) that are not false positives. We must regain the similar argument that faults are the opposite of virtue and vice versa, but this is not found so simply. God, is not tempted - yet it is true of us that L(X) may shift us from our fixed position of virtues in Christ found from holding L(G). Our virtue is not put to the test so much that a subset of those virtues in Christ are put to the test in us. Our own virtue is put to the test in that we are both tested as to whether we accept someone in a fault as if they were to equally have the gospel to correct ourselves: Or, to merely excuse the fault as freedom or liberty under God. In both cases our own virtue is tested. Our liberty to live without fault is put to the test. Then, in saying that we would have to "chain up" to the virtue in Christ. We proceed as we did before with virtues and perfections. As we equated faults to false positive properties made to suit ourselves, me may identically do so in comparison to our K4 filter on positive properties. In accepting a fault as positive or accepting another at fault as an ambassador for Christ we could dilute L(G). However the man in Christ must accept that some fault 'f' may be equated to some false-positive property 'p' made to suit the individual. Given the forgiveness in Christ that we have, anyone may try to substitute ~f for a virtue 'q'. If we can justify that that keeping the law without fault (Holding L(G) as before to justify the law given) is analogous to the holding of virtue, we must understand that iniquity is the opposite of virtue. Iniquity is not the result of the fault 'f', but the cause of it. What is iniquity except the desire and lust to break the commandment, if that commandment be one to have virtue? That there is freedom to decide between alternative positive properties is not iniquity, rather iniquity is the desire to show no virtue as positive. So rather than make matters of fault as the only law given us, (rather than that under grace) we have to exclude the letter of the commandment and live by the intent of the Spirit, to live a life without iniquity, holding faith in Christ intact. So, iniquity is the sin that no one ever desires to repent of, (if they have iniquity.) Other past sins repented of are transgressions. We are to forgive transgressions, but to exclude those with iniquity from our fellowship. As the apostle stated, "There is a sin unto death, I do not say he should pray for it." So, as we do not pray to be forgiven when we are yet iniquitous, likewise we can not be expected to forgive those with iniquity intact, unless we are called to forgive those whom we do not know will yet repent. Christ’s virtue is not so tested - He knows all that are His own and needs show forgiveness only to those to whom He chose to forgive. For us though, we have no such wisdom. Excluding then those that are iniquitous and forever without forgiveness, (Because the grace of God does not apply to them) we are to forgive on the basis that all will repent, and we may treat iniquity as an argument void. In this manner, we believe that divine authority is present to correct everyone to salvation, and we find a contradiction - that the world should be considered without iniquity whilst it yet is. However, there is nothing false in the gospel due that contradiction, for the world itself is contradictory by iniquity, and not faith by its example. Then our virtue is tested on the basis that there is no unforgivable iniquity, and every virtue may be stated to be the keeping of a commandment, or set of commandments. (Although we know this is not the case, for the lack of iniquity is the virtue, and not the lack of the fault.) So we are to treat ~f as q and ~q as f. For the former is the outward appearance of virtue, and the latter the exclusion of virtue with the appearance of fault. Then all iniquity is dismissed and we have a simple substitution for the requirement of the K4 filter on perfections. However the ultrafilter of divine authority makes no sense under the law of Moses unless found in Christ whom judges all to salvation or exclusion. As we find only a subset of the virtue in Christ, we have liberty to forgive those with iniquity, So that we have liberty to forgive or not. Yet, L(G) is such that all were forgiven whom are to be forgiven. We find then that is we were to forgive someone at fault, we would have a virtue that would attest pos(¬f) <=> ¬pos(p) for some positive p. Such a virtue must similarly appear as L(¬f v p). As both are positive properties, p would be equal to the exclusion of those with iniquity, and ¬f the forgiveness of the transgression. The liberty to choose one's own fellowship is intact, and there is no requirement of L(G) other than for Jesus to be able to choose those for whom He has fellowship Thus we have an election of grace and we have chained up properly. |
 |
|
