The Power Of Contract

This page is somewhat a summation of the writings in the Revelation area's, "The Angels Mechanism To Salvation" page.

Imagine for a moment the statement that a human is either elect in Christ or belongs to the enemy satan. (Not a natural state of the unbeliever, they being able to be redeemed, but one of contract, say.) So, as satans property, in order to display the sovereignty of a redeeming God that works salvation, we may state without equivocation that if the least in the kingdom of God "l" is chosen then the following holds.

N(l belongs to God) v N(l belongs to satan.)

However we do not have to stop there, for if l is chosen then l must certainly belong to God rather than satan, else satan as a created being is "not fit for purpose" Thus the use of the modal operators of necessity, as D(l) may only hold if N(l belongs to satan) Thus also, how do we break this contract that appears to be in satans favour, that appears to break the sovereignty of God?

Well, we have to remove the dialectic paradigm and simply deduce the following.

(N(l belongs to God) & D(l)) v (N(l belongs to satan.) & E(l))

Now, D(l) we should be familiar with as the "mark of the beast" or "the second death". E(l) however, is the emnity l has towards all evil, which essentially has an upper bound in positive properties, such that emnity with evil is coincident with the laws of God, thus l is at emnity with sin. So, we may deduce that E(l) <=> L(G). That is, such that "l" is chosen fit for purpose also!

Now, despite the statement of ownership of l, we may now simply put.

D(l) v (E(l) <=> L(G))

Since D(l) is a matter of Gods own law, we posit that God's hands are tied unless they are bound, so (D(l) & (L(G)) v L(G) and thus L(G) appears completely deficient to save l, and also is thus rendered inconsistent. God's sovereignty is denied in that statement D(l), which assumes God's ability to choose is also then derived inconsistent.

However, then there is an excluded middle in that argument, which is L(G).

So, returning to our statement N(l belongs to God) v N(l belongs to satan.), we may put:

L(G) <=> D(l)

Since D(l) is a matter of law and we may do so on both sides of D(l) v (E(l) as then God is consistent, and thus as l is chosen, satans ownership fails on all such l.

(N(l belongs to God) & D(l)) v (N(l belongs to satan.) & E(l)) is then consistent only on the left hand side of the disjunction.

And simply place the excluded middle (L(G)) in the disjunction N(l belongs to God) v N(l belongs to satan.) which renders one statement. If the second death holds for a human, they are not satans property, as only God may lay claim to all His creations; satan also belongs to God and all under him aswell. Then the least "l" as formerly captive to that contract has become a work of the truth of salvation found in Jesus Christ. (Thanx!)


L(G) => x belongs to God, for all x.

Since satan is not his own property!

The other working assumption is that the law of God (as of Moses) is equivalent to the hatred of all evil, and that excludes the virtue found in Jesus Christ whom fulfilled it all alone. In other words, God alone is good. When a person recieves L(G) as the kingdom of God, then for one reason or another, for love of good or hatred of evil, the seed sown finds fertile ground.

Return To Section Start

Return To Previous Page