End Time Scenarios

Ok. I just hafta say it.
I am not one of those crazy “Left-Behind” Christians who thinks that the Anti-Christ will come after all the Christians disappear.
That is not what an honest and objectively accurate reading of the Bible would describe.
However, I am one who takes the Bible seriously. While the books of Daniel and Revelation use many cryptic and metaphorically descriptive images, it certainly paints a blurry image of what the world should expect at the time-period just prior to Jesus’ return.

Look around right now. What we have setting up before us is clearly significant and is representative of a potential scenario that could usher in the Anti-Christ.

1. Socialism. While in my other posts I may even admit that Marxist theory is logically a great idea, it is not a human possibility. Why not? Because human sin nature reigns in the world right now. The economic system that is dawning is eerily able to be the type that Rev. 13:17 describes as the inability to “buy or sell without the mark” (of the Beast). Technology today, unlike any time prior in human history, allows for this.

2. Middle East Peace. With elections and a cyclical change over in Israel and the pressure from, basically, the whole entire free world to make peace with the Arab/Palestinian front, this is setting up a perfect storm to usher in the “man of peace.” It is he of whom is written will sweep in a declaration that ‘all is at peace’; then look out for a period of three and a half years.

3. Iran. Why Iran? Because that nation in particular, with satellite-launching capabilities and the urge–no, the insistent compulsion–to develop nuclear material, hates Israel and the United States. Those two nations, respectively are known as the Little and Big Satans to the people. Those same people are also hearing about apocalyptic happenings coming down from the powers that be. While it is not the people of Iran, per se, that seek to spur on World War III, the leaders of the country are Shiites that believe they are uniquely positioned to bring in the “12th Imam” as their Messiah.

4. Comets/Asteroids. This is fuzzy, but there seems to be the presence of some astronomical aspect of the times. C’mon, the Discovery Channel is always telling us it is just a matter of time, right?
Update March 30: my understanding on this has changed a bit… it is still in flux…

5. Earthquakes/Famines/Pestilience, etc. Jesus, Matt. 24-25 described to us what the end of days was to look like. While there has always been these problems in the world, the ability to know about them (technology) is much greater.

6. Technology. I gave this one its own category and for good reason. Daniel told us that “knowledge would increase greatly, and men would travel to and fro.” (Daniel had the uncanny ability to know the future; that much is proved by some of his other statements.) Sounds like the internet and jet airplane travel to me–again, unlike any time in past human history.

7. Apostasy/Secular Humanism. This is the most insidious and completes my rundown. This is the area of thought in modern man that denies the very existence of God, while simultaneously seeking a spiritual aspect of living. The global warming movement and the PETA people are a couple examples of worshipping/equalizing nature and mankind. Also, this ties in with #1 where humans will be unable to conduct commerce unless it is sanctified by the World Government.

I am not one to be living in fear of all this. I hope that everything I stated above is factual and correct. I also know that Christianity and Judaism are uniquely hated by the Secular Humanist, although I think it is possible that the Muslim religions bent toward terror could provide a reason for blowback against ALL religions that are exclusive.

The logical question follows: Doesn’t every system claiming to be the “truth” make an exclusive claim?

(Try telling diehard “climate change” believers that Global Warming is not a real threat. Tell them that credentialed scientists disagree with them. That’ll answer the question right now.)

Why I am against Socialism and Communism.

I need to get down some things that are in my mind. While I agree with Marxist thought in theory, it can never work in the Mankind of today (the masculine form “man” will often be used, but I mean any human-being). Why?

I will begin with a little background of His-Story; we’ll call this History.

*Oneness: Unity in All–A Recap of the Bible as Story*
When finished with Creation on the sixth day, God said it “was very good.”–Genesis 1-2. (I do not believe in six literal 24 hour days, though I am convinced God could have done it if He wanted to. But that is a different post.)

Right before things were “very good,” God had just made man and his foxy companion, Eve.
They were fully:
–>one with God. In beautiful relationship with God, they would freely spend time together.
–>one with each other. In Genesis 2:24, they “become one flesh.” I think “uh-huh, uh-huh,” is the quote we have from Adam, but that isn’t from a primary source.
–>one with themselves. This is verse 25 where they both were naked and unashamed.
–>one with Creation. Man was given dominion over what God had made. This doesn’t mean he owned it, but that he was to steward it. For example, Adam was privileged to give the names to the various animals.

“Dude, I thought this post was about people like Obama, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao! What is up?!”
A couple more minutes please…

This Oneness meshes perfectly with the, for lack of a better word, Nature of God. As He made man as His image and in His likeness, this ability for Oneness was innate and among many, many other traits, was ours from the beginning. This is the longing of Mankind’s heart to this day: to be as One with his/her surroundings. This longing–descriptive words for this could be worship or negatively, idolatry–was set in the place where man’s words and choices emanate, and man has not changed.

*Oneness Broken*
Genesis 3 reveals how this “oneness” became “otherness”.
–>As the first man was deceived, Oneness with himself was the first casualty. They noticed that they were naked; instant shame.
–>That shame spilled over and tainted their Oneness with God, and they hid from Him. (*Note–isn’t it interesting–and awesome!–that God came looking for them, and not the other way around?!) They now had an “other” relationship with God.
–>They started pointing fingers. Adam blamed Eve, and she blamed the serpent–Satan, who deceived her. They now had an Otherness in their relationships with others.
–>God booted them out of Paradise. Evidence of their otherness with Creation, Adam must now labor to feed his family.
Genesis 4-11 is then more history of man’s increasing in “otherness”–with a lot of killing and wickedness goin’ on– and God’s anger and mercy because of it. This is crucial in our understanding.

“But what does this have to do with the Soviet Union?!” Hold on a bit; Keep reading…

*More Brokenness; or basically, You and Me*
The whole middle of the Bible (basically, Genesis 11:27-rest of Old Testament, and most of the New Testament) story is more Otherness and tells us about ourselves. Throughout, God is active and reveals ways that His Love would be shown for all of mankind and creation to bring about Oneness again. Since this is the “clif-notes” version of the Story, I will not tell about the Judges, Kings, Prophets, and Priestly roles that God/Jesus holds.

*Example of Real Oneness*
After a 400 year hiatus from mankind, God through “Wild-man” John, introduces Jesus. During His life, Jesus exemplifies Oneness with God, with others, with Creation and created things, and–we can only assume–with Himself. The reliable accounts we have of His life show a Man unlike any other. Of course, our History and our calender hinges on His life.

(*Important point: revealed throughout Old Testament accounts about the “otherness”, mankind has been told that God’s wrath and justice is appeased by blood (as a symbol of Life. It’s kinda complicated, but not really; see, since “life” needs blood and sin needs “death,” it ties together beautifully).

*Liberals*
Now, even the most liberal scholars agree that the real Jesus:
~died on a Roman cross and was buried.
~the tomb was well guarded and was a well known location.
~the tomb was later found empty.
(The liberals think that the Bible miracles are mythical narratives that explain deeper meanings.)

*Orthodox vs. Liberals*
This is when the liberals and the orthodox Christians begin to disagree. Of course this is an act of faith, but we all have heard the Christian claim that “Jesus died for your sins, and rose again on the third day to conquer death. You can share in His Glory if you put your trust in His atoning sacrifice” is made here. (For what it’s worth, I am in on that claim hold my hand high to proclaim this.)

“Where is all this going?! What does it have to do with the political theories of socialism/communism?”

It’s easy. But you need the rest of the Story.

*Rising on the Horizon*
Jesus, as a real and historical figure, told anyone who would listen that He would be coming back. (He also spoke of an either/or aspect of Reality, and mentioned hell more than anyone else in Scripture.) He said that when He did come back, He’d restore Creation and Mankind back to the Oneness He initially intended.

*Early Christian Socialism?*
In studying the earliest Christians in Acts 2:42-47, we find that they became One together in fellowship after the Holy Spirit came upon them at Pentecost.
(*Note-the books of Luke and Acts–by the same author–are among the most attested-to books in all of ancient literature when looking for a pure narrative of history.)

*The Infinity of the Number 8*
This cycle of Oneness-Otherness-Oneness is representative of the Story that is revealed in Existence. Think of Birth-Death-Rebirth generational relationships, where we grow up, make kids, die, etc. Another way of saying it is Creation-Fall-ReCreation. God likes to bring Life out of Death, for some reason.

“Hold on a minute, man!” you say, “What does this have to do with politics?!”
Well:

*Tying it all together*
Remember Genesis 3, and the initial breakdown of man’s Oneness? Well, Eve was banking on the fact that she would become “like God, knowing good and evil.” Well, we know good and evil alright. We still have in us a longing for Oneness and we possess Eternity in our hearts (though we really can’t grasp it).

Here it is: the political structure of Socialism and it’s logical progression into Communism intends to recreate that Oneness in Mankind. With the commonality of sharing everything, we can theoretically have that Oneness with others.

*Bonus: The Spiritual Aspect of “The Climate Change Movement”*
This is key!
In addition, a further aspect of the Oneness our hearts seek is found in the “Global Warming” movement: a missing piece is Oneness with Creation, and the Global Warming movement intends to restore that Oneness with the “living organism” of the planet Earth which they call Gaia. This is–at its core–a spiritual movement.

The Spiritual aspect of Political Atheism: Gaia

(Google Al Gore’s speech upon his receipt of the Nobel Prize for verification–and read it.)

This spiritual aspect of it all is that final missing piece in the heart of mankind’s Oneness.
And so you have what I will coin the “Trinity of Gaia”–Communism, Earth Worship, and the Mankind who thinks he holds it all together.

*Is Atheism the Answer?*
But is it really mankind that binds it together?
Only if God did not exist would this “Trinity” even remotely work.

But if God does exist (and the attestation for the truth of the Bible in History proves to be the case), then it means that Satan exists, still mixing a bit of Truth with the Lie.

The “common” mistake is when people forget Who really runs things.

Praying for the President

This post by Ligon Duncan out of Jackson, MS is worth noting.

A great summation of why we pray, what we pray for, and for whom.

An Imposing Argument

Who Said It … John Leo

John Leo is a columnist for U.S. News & World Report. His book, How the Russians Invented Baseball and Other Essays of Enlightenment, showcases his humor. He’s also written Two Steps Ahead of the Thought Police, a romp through the irrational world of political correctness, and Incorrect Thoughts, a thoughtful analysis of our wayward culture.

What He Said … An Imposing Argument

I’m struggling to understand the “don’t impose your values” argument. According to this popular belief, it’s wrong to vote your moral convictions unless everybody else already shares them. No-body ever explains exactly what constitutes an offense in voting one’s values, but the complaints appear to be aimed almost solely at conservative Christians, who are viewed as divisive when they try to “force their religious opinions on us.” But as UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh writes, “That’s what most lawmaking is—trying to turn one’s opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law.”

Those who think Christians should keep their moral views to themselves, it seems to me, are logically bound to deplore many praiseworthy causes, including the abolition movement, which was mostly evangelical churches courageously applying Christian ideas of equality to the entrenched institution of slavery. The slave owners, by the way, frequently used “don’t impose your values” arguments, contending that whether they owned blacks or not was nobody else’s business.

Is Satan Pro-Man

Whoa, when I read this the other day, it solidified into words what I have been considering lately about the ideologies of some and how it is ultimately only a benefit for a select few. (I tend to use my other blog to enumerate these).
John Piper says it best (esp. point 1, “Beware that not all philosophies and social movements that talk up man are really good for man.”):

“When the choice is between exalting God or exalting man, Satan is pro-man. When the choice is between exalting Satan or exalting man, Satan is pro-Satan. Here are the texts.

1. In Mark 8 Jesus told his disciples he must suffer. Peter rebuked Jesus! Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man” (Mark 8:33).

So what Satan was standing up for in the mouth of Peter was “the things of man.” He was very pro-man at that point. Beware that not all philosophies and social movements that talk up man are really good for man.

2. In John 8 Jesus said the devil “was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

A person lies and kills to get his way without concern for the good of others. Satan is a liar and murderer because he is totally self-centered. So he cares nothing for man (John 10:13), except where man’s prosperity can draw him away from God.

Is Satan pro-man? Yes, when it serves his God-belittling, self-exalting purposes. But in the process of standing with man he leads him to destruction. “

New years thoughts

The object of a New Year is not that we should have a new year. It is that we should have a new soul and a new nose; new feet, a new backbone, new ears, and new eyes. Unless a particular man made New Year resolutions, he would make no resolutions. Unless a man starts afresh about things, he will certainly do nothing effective. Unless a man starts on the strange assumption that he has never existed before, it is quite certain that he will never exist afterwards. Unless a man be born again, he shall by no means enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

G. K. Chesterton

History and the study of Reality

I was watching the History channel last night. There was a series they created called the Seven Deadly Sins, portraying an early Christian’s synopsis of the sins of the Bible. As there is not a ’standard’ list anywhere in the Bible, the big 7 was capitalized upon by the Romanist system somewhere around 1000 AD. As the topic of the series put on by the History channel is not my purpose, I will speak little more of those sins. History, on the other hand is an important reference point for any thinking person, and this is where I wish to spend this post.

Simply put, there is not a wholly agreed upon ‘truth’ in the rendering of History, as each formulation of what has happened in the past is the result of some ‘mind’. When history is put onto paper, there must be some distillation of facts as an interpretive creation. When a person writes–anything that is written– there is, in essence, a memory that is made in a tangible form i.e. paper/ink, computer/screen, stone/chisel, etc. When I read a history narrative, whether scholarly or biased, or watch an entertaining show on the History channel (subsidiary of the Discovery channel, known Darwinists), I must remind myself that the resulting piece is some ‘thing’ that someone ‘made’, for a reason. As much as I or anyone else would like to believe that the essence of something that happened that was captured in writing, the fact is, like any moment that you or I live, is a moment that is inexorably beyond words. There could not be enough words used to capture some ‘time’ in history.

What is all this about? As much as some one writes a history of something for a purpose–whether to convince, to find solace or therapy, to memorialize, etc.– there is always a mind behind the writing. There is, by necessity, an interpretation of the facts of the Real.

There sits more proof why there must be a Person behind the whole of Reality. The existence of God is quite easy to believe, since the existence of Man is a given. We are, by nature, Biographers, and not Historians.

“There is properly no history, only biography.” Ralph Waldo Emerson

Jonathan Edwards

“Indeed the saints in themselves have no excellence as they are in and of themselves…. They are in themselves filthy, vile creatures and see themselves to be so. they have an excellence and a glory in them because they have Christ dwelling in them…. Tis some. thing of God. This holy heavenly spark is put into the soul in con version, and God maintains it there. All the power of hell cannot put it out…. Though it be small … ’tis a powerful thing. It has influence on the heart to govern that, and brings forth holy fruits in the life, and won’t cease to prevail ’til it has consumed all the corruption that is left in the heart and ’til it has turned the whole soul, as it were, into a pure, holy and heavenly flame.”

christmas perspective of the Puritans

“For preventing disorders arising…by reason of some still observing
such festivalls as were superstitiously kept in other countrys, to the
great dishonor of God, and offence of others, it is therefore
ordered…that whoever shall be found observing any such days as
Christmas or the like, either by forbearing of labour, feasting, or
any other way…shall pay five shillings as a fine.”-Massachusetts
General Court in 1659

Evangelical… what does that mean?

It seems that word is thrown around so loosely sometimes, and with the recently finished election, as with the one before it, the word evangelical has taken on more of a political meaning than a theological one. Is it time to take the word back?

The word evangel comes from the Greek word ‘evangelion’, found in the New Testament, that means ‘good news’, or ‘gospel’. The common use of the word Evangelical starting at the time of the Protestant Reformation. As the movement gained force and momentum, there needed to be a distiction between the Roman Catholics and the non-Romanists (as the term ‘Protestant Reformation’ was a later attribution), thus the term ‘Evangelical’ was used to differentiate between those who held to Scripture and Church tradition (though not necessarily in that order, the Romanists) and those who held strictly to a high view of Scripture as the sole authority (the Protesters). This was the majority meaning of the term Evangelical for centuries.

Within the first half of the 20th Century, the meaning of the term shifted. The term began to include a broader swath of those called ‘Christians’– even those not necessarily holding to a high view of Scripture. It appears to have included many who, seeing that culture has left a centrality of Biblical influence to one that is influenced by a man-centered priority, have been eager to change the message of the Gospel to fit a wider audience. However, within the last decade or three perhaps, a shift back to Bible-centeredness has been the impetus for the ‘Evangelical’ label, and this has roused the ire of those who simply, for lack of a better word, hate the fact that people live among them that place something else besides man/self/humanity at the center of Reality.

Essentially, then, the term has been bandied about lately as more of a pejorative. When a term is used that creates an emotive response to a certain segment of the population, then either a) people are not thinking clearly enough about the words they use, b) people are easily roused up to an emotional and visceral reaction now more than in the past, or c) a mixture of both. Or, is it like Paul said, that the Good News is folly to those who are perishing? (1 Cor. 1:17,18)