Enter Stage Left, Right, Above, Beneath, Front, Rear and Center: Antichrist

Seems like just recently, a matter of mere months maybe, I've become aware of developments in the world and the church that are all moving toward the final stage setting for the Day of the Lord, the last act of the great drama of Planet Earth. The internet radio ministries I've linked on the right margin are my main sources of this information and anyone who wants to follow all this only needs to go and listen to as many recent broadcasts as you can. Also go to You Tube and watch Chris Pinto's films. [Actually, older broadcasts are as good as the recent ones].

I get the feeling that these events themselves have in fact been proliferating, and that may well be the case. It's like watching the stage hands rushing to get the props in place just before the curtain goes up on the final Act. But on the other hand it may only be that I've become aware of them. The movies by Chris Pinto, for instance, have been out for years and deal with historical events going back centuries, but I've only been learning about them recently.

The main movement is in the direction of the Catholic Church: "Protestants" who are really Catholics (the Archibishop of Canterbury), and Protestants who are leaning toward Rome. Emergent Church tending in that direction. Glenn Beck is a Mormon but there are Christians who say he is a Christian nevertheless, David Barton being one of them. Beck has been getting together with the Pope, and his wide audience gets a pretty heavy dose of ecumenical philosophy, the hope of bringing all the religions under one worldwide religion. Which will of course be headed by Rome.

I've been hearing a lot about the Jesuits recently, who are engaged in all kinds of intrigues on behalf of Rome, political as well as church-related, who apparently even pretend to be Protestants, or whatever seems to be required, all in the service of bringing as many as possible under the Pope.

I've believed for years that the papacy is the Antichrist system. I haven't been completely convinced that the final Antichrist will be the last Pope though that is still a very strong possibility* -- at the very least the Vatican is going to have some kind of dominating position in the finale of Planet Earth -- but lately I feel like I'm watching the machinery in operation to bring about a one world religion with the Pope at its head, whereas previously I just figured it would all come together somehow or other.

What we thought were solid trustworthy Protestant organizations have shown themselves to be soft on Rome. Billy Graham used to seem like one of the most solid evangelicals, but it became apparent years ago that he's been feeding people who convert in his crusades back into the Roman Church if they identify that as their church, directly consigning them to Hell. Then there's Pat Robertson. It's not that I'm a great fan of his but he's a prominent evangelical, and I recently heard a snippet of a program of his in which he claims that the Catholic Church is a Christian Church.

He's also a Mason, and that's another line of influence on the church and the world that I've been learning a lot about recently.

Maybe the most startling revelation for me recently was that George Washington was not only a high-degree Mason -- it's not that I didn't already know that but I've learned a lot more about implications of that fact -- but converted to Catholicism hours before he died.

Then there is this recent revelation that Wycliffe Bible Translators, which works all around the world bringing the gospel to unreached peoples by giving them a Bible in their own language, has been changing the wording of key theological tenets of the Bible in order to make it more acceptable to Muslims. Not "Son of God" for instance because Muslims always think in carnal terms about that. Well, of course, so does EVERYBODY who doesn't believe the word of God. The virgin birth was one of the main objections of the American founders, as it is for oh lots and lots of Bible rejectors today as well, figuring in most debates with the big name atheists for instance. The Mormons simply blasphemously embrace the carnal notion of God being a man who physically impregnated Mary. So there's no excuse for changing the wording, it only falsifies the gospel message and in doing that they deprive the Muslims of the true gospel, the gospel that people down the centuries have been willing to die for, the gospel that would actually save them. This way the Muslims can consider themselves to be "followers of Isa," their false version of Jesus, and continue in their Muslim rituals, and not put themselves in a compromised position within their Muslim community. By doing this, the once-venerable missionary organization is now making the sort of soft converts to a lifeless "Christianity" that would easily put themselves under Rome. That hasn't been suggested in anything I've heard so far, it simply hits me as a likely development as so many other political and religious streams are flowing in that direction these days.

Then there is our President Obama with his leftist and Muslim affiliations, and most of all his lack of a verifiable claim to be qualified for his office, the latest indication in that direction coming through a mailman from twenty years ago who recognized him as the "black foreign student" the Ayers family were putting through school, who also told him that he was one day going to be President of the United States. He also ran for office with a chorus of messianic type adoration behind him (which I blogged on at Faith's Corner). Doesn't scripture say the Antichrist will come to power by "intrigue?"

And then there are all the secret societies I couldn't take terribly seriously until Chris Pinto's films put enough historical fact to their existence and their nefarious plots to convince me. The Masons first of all, the Illuminati -- oh you can just name the usual suspects, they're all there and all working in cahoots to bring the world under a "benevolent" dictator or one world political system and a universal religion. The Jesuits are a secret society too.

Oh and check out the "Georgia Guidestones" if you want to see the plan spelled out in so many words. Number one suggests a lot of bloodshed.

And then there are the warnings of a possible imminent disaster in the US I also recently blogged on. And the Middle East situation COULD soon turn into World War III which is also on the agenda.

We're almost eleven years from 9/11 and I'm not up on God's timetable for His judgments against a nation or at least against America, but the only way we could escape would be with a massive movement of repentance by the churches and that isn't happening.

Come soon, Lord Jesus.

==================================
* According to an ancient prophecy by "Malachy" the last Pope is to be the very next one, after the current Benedict, and he's to be called "Peter the Roman" (which I blogged on some time back at Faith's Corner). Such a prophecy doesn't have to be taken seriously, of course, but it's interesting to consider that there might be truth to it, and the timing is certainly right for the emergence of the Antichrist, which makes this Peter the Roman a fine candidate for the role. I understand that the Catholic Church has been trying to spin this prophecy to claim that this Peter the Roman may well be the Antichrist but that in that case he'd have become Pope through the machinations of anti-Catholic Masons. However, the prophecy itself makes Peter out to be a hero who will suffer great persecution, and Malachy was a good Catholic himself.

Coming Soon to a Planet Near You

When the Antichrist comes will he be like the traditional Maitreya, the messiah expected by the Buddhists, who looks like an Asian with kinky African hair?* Or more like a Middle Eastern man as one would expect of the Imam Mahdi, the messiah figure expected by the Muslims and heralded by Ahmadinejad? Which is also what Benjamin Creme's long-heralded Maitreya more or less looks like, as well as a familiar false image of Christ.

Whatever, he's got to be just about to appear. I suppose he'll mostly be known by his occult powers rather than his looks, but his looks must figure in there somewhere.

==============

*The feature of kinky hair plus black skin, which is also a characteristic of many painted Maitreya images, links him to Krishna (which means "black") and most particularly links him all the way back to Nimrod, son of Cush, who was identified by Alexander Hislop in his Two Babylons as the first Antichrist and the type of all the gods of the world since then. Hislop brings it all down to the Roman Catholic Church as the channel for all the old pagan religions, Mystery Babylon. The "Virgin Mary" demon (who has appeared all over the world this last century) is his candidate for The Beast. And the Protestant Reformers identifed the papacy as the Antichrist system. So we have no shortage of sources for the final evil leader of the world, Satan's masterpiece. Whoever it is will no doubt have to be able to unite all the various messiah expectations under one banner somehow or other.

Some of my old posts at Faith's Corner on this general theme are here.

The Rapture scenario continues to elude me

Just a quick report. I'm struggling through Hal Lindsey's book of 1999, Vanished, which was recommended to me as a help to resolve my ongoing inability to settle the questions involving the idea of a premillennial Rapture. Well, it doesn't resolve it. Yet. But I am having a very hard time reading it. Something about the way it is organized makes it hard for me to follow, and he spends too much time, for my purposes anyway, answering other interpretive schemes that don't persuade me at all anyway -- Dominionism and Reconstructionism for instance. For some time I've found the premillennial interpretation to be the best of the field at elucidating the scripture, just not entirely convincing to me yet.

I'm MOSTLY convinced that scripture does describe the return of Jesus in two different sets of terms such that the idea of the Rapture of the Church's occurring separately from His return to earth as conquering king is a reasonable interpretation. That is not completely resolved for me either because I'm not entirely sure which references apply to which event, and there's one that's taken to apply to the Rapture that has the Lord appearing with a "shout" that hardly sounds like a quiet snatching-away of His people. BUT overall the two-stage return of Christ is plausible. And there is precedent for such a division into two in the fact that Jesus' first advent only fulfilled the Suffering Servant prophecies of the Old Testament, leaving the prophecies of his return as triumphant warrior king for the Second Coming, which wasn't clearly understood until after His resxurrection and ascension. So as we approach the last of the last days it seems perfectly reasonable that a more precise outline of His return should also begin to appear, and also to expect that it too won't be fully understood until it is upon us or even later.

Unfortunately it's hard to point to exactly what it is that gives me the most trouble with Lindsey's presentation. Cobra helicopters are the least of the problem though. There is one place Lindsey makes himself utterly untrustworthy it seems to me, when he brings up Jesus' likening the kingdom of heaven to leaven gradually worked throughout a lump. Lindsey simply insists that scripture ONLY uses "leaven" to refer to sin and evil, without explaining how on earth he can treat its use to represent "the kingdom of heaven" in the same way. The Dominionists no doubt misuse that passage to support their cause but that's no excuse to try to make it refer to something else it obviously doesn't refer to. That lost me completely and shakes my faith in Lindsey's thinking. But it's a minor point in the overall interpretive scheme.

One thing I've always had a problem with concerning Rapture scenarios that put a great emphasis on the completion of God's dealings with Israel, is how to view the covenant of the land God gave to Abraham. Certainly it was given without condition and forever, but there is also the passage in Hebrews where we are told that Abraham was not looking to an earthly land but to an eternal abode -- unless I've utterly misunderstood that passage.

Hebrews 11:8-16: By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God. Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, [so many] as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of [them], and embraced [them], and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that [country] from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better [country], that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

I see present-day Israel on the earthly land and can't help but attribute that to God's own purposes -- what other option is there? But does that make that earthly land the fulfillment of the covenant promise? Aren't Christians also "heirs of Abraham" and as such also heirs of that unconditional covenant, and doesn't that put the covenant on a New Testament footing that changes how we are to understand it? We are to read the Old Testament in light of the New Testament, that's our primary directive for Biblical exegesis.

Yet it's not impossible to my mind that some -- a few -- of the promises to the Jews may not be completely fulfilled in the New Covenant and remain to be fulfilled -- or that there is a double fulfillment in the Church and earthly Israel both. Of course I can't go with any interpretation that seems to imply that the Jews are not to be saved by the same means as all the rest of us, through the death of Christ. Lindsey doesn't seem to make that error but he's a tad ambiguous on that point, and others of his basic persuasion do make that error.

One thing I am very sure of is that there remains a "week" or seven years left over from Daniel's prophecy of the time required to completely fulfill God's plan for Israel, the "seventieth week of Daniel" left after the first 69 were fulfilled in the first coming of Christ. I'm just not completely sure how to understand its purpose. Apparently it includes, or is synonymous with, the Day of the Lord, the time of the Antichrist, a time of unprecedented evil on the earth, also known as the Great Tribulation, during which time the vast majority of believers will be martyred. This idea of the fulfillment of God's plan for israel is hardly a happy one.

This period is also foreshadowed in Isaiah 61, 1 and 2, the first verse of which Jesus read in the synagogue to announce His Messiahship, leaving out the second verse which refers to the Day of the Lord, now clearly to be connected with His second coming:

Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound; 2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;

It appears that it isn't primarily the Rapture itself that's the problem for me, it's the whole scenario in which the Rapture occurs, and especially what supposedly happens AFTER the Rapture. Of course a different understanding of all that could change my acceptance of the timing of the Rapture itself too.

But overall I'm still where I was when I began this book by Lindsey. Well, I'll keep reading and perhaps reread the book, since I don't feel I'm getting anything very clear out of it yet.

A Literal Historical and Future Day of the Lord

Now I'm remembering why I never got very far into studying eschatalogical/end times systems. I pay attention for a while, listen to sermons and lectures from different points of view, read a few books, take some notes, ponder various diagrams and charts, learn some scripture, in fact I learn quite a bit, but eventually I nevertheless get confused, mystified, overwhelmed and give up.

Of course I absorb some of the ideas, I do read the scripture -- I've even read Revelation a number of times -- so it's far from a total loss; in fact I'm much the better off for the studying I've done. It's just that I never felt any of the different systems was completely trustworthy, which means I always end up with objections I can't resolve and that the answer from any particular system just doesn't dispel.

Although there's always been quite a bit of fringey excess in the Pre-trib Rapture camp (mostly interpreting every eruption of violence in the Middle East as a major sign of the End) I never completely gave up on them because much of their thinking makes sense to me, and maybe more important, their critics just never do a fair job on them.

At the same time I pretty much rejected the pre-trib Rapture itself in favor of a post-tribulation rapture because I never could see how the last generation should be allowed to escape tribulation that the rest of the church has gone through for millennia. That's a conclusion based more on reason than on any specific scripture, of course, but most of the scriptures used to buttress the pre-trib Rapture are also never fully convincing, usually seem open to alternate interpretations. NONE of the arguments from ANY camp are FULLY convincing, so although I was predominantly post-trib I had to keep all lines open, and I never settled on any particular system.

So I've been getting discouraged again -- largely a result of spending too much time recently listening to amillennialist arguments perhaps --, but if I step back and assess my current understanding objectively I have to acknowledge that I am a step ahead of the stalemate I've usually fallen into. I did pick up some support for the Pre-trib Rapture after all -- really a pretty big boost for it if I think about it: That is, I HAVE become convinced that the Lord promised to protect His church from His wrath and that the "great tribulation" of Revelation is God's wrath (or most of it is -- there's little I can state with certainty in all this).

The Book of Revelation is about The Day of the Lord, after all, that is prophesied throughout the Old Testament and discussed as well in other books of the New Testament.

The Day of the Lord is undeniably God's wrath against rebellious humanity, or the "heathen" and "sinners" in the King James, and there are at least two clear statements that this certainly doesn't include His own faithful people:

1 Thessalonians 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ,

Revelation 3:10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.

If His church is "not appointed" to wrath, the implication is that He will protect us from it one way or another. This COULD be by removing us from the scene altogether before the wrath begins, as the Pre-trib people argue, or it could be by other means, such as miraculous sustenance and protection during the period of wrath (as He provided for Elijah during the period of the famine). The passage in Revelation does convey a somewhat alarming note of conditionality -- that is, those who have "kept the word of [His] patience" will be kept from it, but SOME of the church will nevertheless not escape it. That's one way to read it anyway.

So I am now this much closer to the Pre-Trib Rapture position. It's a lot closer than I was before I embarked on this exploration a couple weeks ago. So that has to be acknowledged.

I also have to add that this includes the recognition that the Day of the Lord is a specific event in history. God's wrath has certainly come against this world in many ways over the millennia, and scripture tells us that God's wrath "abides on" those who reject Him, that all human beings are "children of wrath" in our fallen nature, until we repent and submit to Him, but the Day of the Lord is something quite above and beyond this "normal" wrath.

Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Romans 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Clearly this doesn't just imply that in our fallen condition we are destined for the final wrath of Hell, as I've sometimes read these verses, but also experience wrath in this world, as we inherit all kinds of suffering for sin through our fallen nature.

The Day of the Lord is presented as an intensification of extreme suffering beyond most of what is normally encountered in this world. And it is indisputably WITHIN this world that it is to be encountered, indisputably within history, and indisputably therefore MUST be yet future.*

=============================================
*I don't know how this is explained by the post-tribulationists and post-millennialists (who say the church is going through the events of God's wrath as laid out in Revelation), and the amillennialists (I'm trying to grapple off and on these days with the amillennialists' peculiarly mystifying ways of thinking and haven't yet come across any systematic treatment of the Day of the Lord) but it seems to me that if they recognize the historicity and future expectation of the Day they would also have to reckon with God's promises to protect His church from it and therefore recognize a major claim for the pre-trib Rapture. Let me guess: They DON'T recognize the historicity and future expectation of the Day of the Lord -- they manage to spread it out over the last 2000 years or spiritualize it in some way.

FOR REFERENCE: SCRIPTURE pertaining to the "DAY OF THE LORD"

Isaiah 2:12 For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low:

Isaiah 13:6 Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

Isaiah 13:9 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

Jeremiah 46:10 For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates.

Ezekiel 13:5 Ye have not gone up into the gaps, neither made up the hedge for the house of Israel to stand in the battle in the day of the LORD.

[What does this say? That it will be possible for some of the "house of Israel" to stand IN the Day of the Lord -- and that more might if they were supported rightly. The point is that the Day of the Lord is going to be survivable by some. Those who repent. Want to include here the commentary from Jamieson Fausset and Brown as it shows clearly the reason why God's own people may come under judgment]: 5. not gone up into . . . gaps--metaphor from breaches made in a wall, to which the defenders ought to betake themselves in order to repel the entrance of the foe. The breach is that made in the theocracy through the nation's sin; and, unless it be made up, the vengeance of God will break in through it. Those who would advise the people to repentance are the restorers of the breach (Eze 22:30; Ps 106:23,30).

hedge--the law of God (Ps 80:12; Isa 5:2,5); by violating it, the people stripped themselves of the fence of God's protection and lay exposed to the foe. The false prophets did not try to repair the evil by bringing back the people to the law with good counsels, or by checking the bad with reproofs. These two duties answer to the double office of defenders in case of a breach made in a wall: (1) To repair the breach from within; (2) To oppose the foe from without.

to stand--that is, that the city may "stand."

in . . . day of . . . Lord--In the day of the battle which God wages against Israel for their sins, ye do not try to stay God's vengeance by prayers, and by leading the nation to repentance.

Ezekiel 30:3 For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.

Joel 1:15 Alas for the day! for the day of the LORD is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.

Joel 2:1 Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;

Joel 2:11 And the LORD shall utter his voice before his army: for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word: for the day of the LORD is great and very terrible; and who can abide it?

Joel 2:31 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.

Joel 3:14 Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the LORD is near in the valley of decision.

Amos 5:18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.

Amos 5:20 Shall not the day of the LORD be darkness, and not light? even very dark, and no brightness in it?

Obadiah 1:15 For the day of the LORD is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.

Zephaniah 1:7 Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord GOD: for the day of the LORD is at hand: for the LORD hath prepared a sacrifice, he hath bid his guests.

Zephaniah 1:14 The great day of the LORD is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the LORD: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.

Zechariah 14:1 Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee.

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:

Acts 2:20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

1Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

2Corinthians 1:14 As also ye have acknowledged us in part, that we are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1Thessalonians 5:2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night.

2Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

NOTE: The Day of the Lord is closely associated with the coming of Christ, both first and second coming, and sometimes the characteristics of the two events get confused because of their close association. I haven't yet sorted all this out myself, but I want to note it here that they need to be kept conceptually separated.