Left Behind Controversy

Lisa, I have heard comments before by those who are anti-catholic about the inverted cross, the "twisted cross" and the Pope receiving a dot from a Hindu. To make these into objects that are antichrist is in MHO ludicrous.

I recently checked out a new book from the library on the Vatican city and found out a lot of amazing, wonderful details about the art work that is displayed there and the history behind the city - very fascinating - you should check it out.

This is moving away from the topic at hand which is okay, but we can discuss this further if you like, and anything else regarding the teachings of the catholic church or why the Pope uses a "twisted cross" if you would like to join in on the discussions in the King's Tavern Catholic forum threads.

Interesting reading. This thread shows the condition of the church, and its many members, quite graphicly. Starts off with the premise that the Left Behind series is truth not understood. Some have dared question the reasoning of some that hold these as the latest books of the Bible. Some have admitted continuing to read and glean from its pages something that will inspire them, as long they hold close to the truth.

The truth? It is fiction. The truth? This is nothing more than a group of people way to make a heavy profit. The truth? As long as you all want to buy there books and debate fiction, those who profit from it love it.

It does not amaze me in the least that some would squabble over the "truth" contained in the pages of this fictional tale. Most who are squabbling over this would do the same over passages of scripture, and never come to agreement. So, nothing new under the sun, just a different group of people aiming to profit from our inability to discern.

Think about just who's pocket your next $20.00 bill will go the next book you buy in thgis series. Just where does that money go? I've asked forthrightly on several occasions, but I am still awaiting an answer. I think that is one piece of knowledge they don't want us to know about. Does it go to the Vatican? UPC headquarters? Their own individual checking accounts? Where? Do we not as members of the body of Christ have an obligation to ask these questions and be given the answer if this book series is being touted as a tool for the church?

Maybe we have just reached a point where deception, and nuggets of truth, must be packaged in frilly boxes with bows in order for us to give it credence. I think I'll go buy me a WWJD T-shirt to feel good about myself reaching out to the world.

Eric

If you're going to write about Scripture, you become a teacher. And teachers have a BIG obligation in the eyes of God. They will be judged more harshly because of their positions. I don't think these 2 writers are living up to their obligations with this series.

Click to expand...

At first when I read this, I differentiated between the fictional book series, and those that teach scriptural truths. Then I re-read it, and I see that you believe the authors are in essence acting as teachers, even through the means of fictional writing.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that these folks have every right to profit as they are. Why not, it is the going trend. And if it is great entertainment, then who is to fault that either? Never read a book yet. Just watched the movie and have researched this whole movement out. My research kinda ended when I could not get a response to where my money would go if I bought a book. (Yeah, the Vatican thing was kinda a dig, but hey, we're dealing with fantasy, so anything goes, right?)

We aren't called sheep without a reason. Sometimes a voice calls out to us and asks us to follow him a while. Why the herd follows after is a mystery, but some of the flock hold their ground waiting to hear the true shepards voice. This fictional fad reminds me of the same spirit of the role playing game Dungeons and Dragons. People become so consumed in the fantasy, it becomes their reality. They have to play it out to its final conclusion. That of course is a matter of degrees the delusion carries out, depending on the person. Wanna believe the truth, or a fictional tale? Has always been the offer on the table to the children of God.

Here is my real view of the entire series: why bother getting wrapped up in end times calamities via fiction? Why become engulfed in the lives of imaginary people living out the last days? If we'd open our eyes, we'd see a world full of real people getting ready to experience the real thing. There is no escaping it, the Word of God is not idle. If Yahweh said it, we'd better believe it will be fulfilled to perfection.

Wrong time to be focused on a fantasy, when we have reality staring us right in the face. In my opinion....

Eric

Dear friends,

I'm pasting a quote by Mr. Jenkins Lily Lamb put on one of her posts:Quote:

"Trust me, you have heard only Chang's side of this story. Do you think if one of the characters discovers a true account of what happened that it will jibe with Chang thinks he remembers? Do you really think we who have been as careful with Scripture as we know how would suddenly veer off course in book 8 and imply something wholly unbiblical?

This plot twist was my idea and of course I checked it with the best living resource a writer could have. Dr. LaHaye liked it and combed the Scriptures to be sure nothing there precluded it. I warned him to be ready for the fire storm before the whole thing was played out.

That's where we stand now. Employing the best advice from Verbal Judo, I should have said, "Is there anything I can say (without giving the story away) that will get you to trust us until this is played out in book 9?"

AS CAREFUL WITH SCRIPTURE AS WE KNOW HOW?!

I don't think so, and that is why the Lord had me start God's Word on Left Behind at: www.libertytothecaptives.org/discus

Is being defiant when one is presented with taking the mark of the beast "a mark in itself" (presumably a mark of belonging to God)? See LB pg. 421. (The pastor, Bruce Barnes made this statement, lending much more authority to it.) Hmmm, it seems this plot turn in The Mark was already prepared for in the very first book in the series.

Chang was quite defiant, wouldn't you say, when he was given the mark? He certainly didn't agree to it, and indeed fought to get away. But was his DEFIANCE enough to render the mark of the beast null and void? Is DEFIANCE of the mark of the beast a "mark in itself" (of God)? No, but the book is teaching its readers this unbiblical reasoning.

Chang did not admit to being a Christian, or refuse the mark on that basis and accept martydom. Instead, he loved his own life, he denied Christ in action by not denouncing the Antichrist and confessing Christ before men. But he was indeed DEFIANT, and that supposedly is "a mark in itself."

I'm writing about this subject here for the very first time because I know Lily Lamb was concerned (and rightfully so!) about this and its implications. Finding out that the reader was primed for this teaching back in the first book gives me cause for grave concern. It is sin to plant these thoughts in the minds of believers and unsaved alike so that at a time of crisis these implanted subliminals (that's what they are!) will be retrived by the mind involuntarily and the person won't really know why they think this way.

The books also teach (by the example of the Christian characters) that it is acceptable to outwardly give the honor to Antichrist that only the Lord Jesus Christ is worhty of to "get along" when Antichrist rules the world. Where does it say this? I'm going to write about this soon.

Bring your Bible and visit: God's Word On Left Behind at: www.libertytothecaptives.org/discus

Sincerely,

Lisa

This statement simply is not true:

The books also teach (by the example of the Christian characters) that it is acceptable to outwardly give the honor to Antichrist that only the Lord Jesus Christ is worhty of to "get along" when Antichrist rules the world. Where does it say this? I'm going to write about this soon.

Click to expand...

I know that this is overlooked very easily, but in the pretrib scenario, the only folks left when all the stuff happens in the books are unsaved, correct? They then got saved, correct? What about Jesus' admonition in Matthew 24 to flee? Had those folks fled when they realized they were dealing with the Antichrist in Nicolae, then the mark couldn't have been forced on them and there wouldn't be an issue. They didn't flee.

The Bible doesn't say a word about believers not being able to get the mark forced onto them nor does it mention "accepting the mark." As long as you use terminology that makes you believe that there is a choice, then you will miss it, imo. It says he will force them to take the mark. Jesus said when you see him, flee. If they fled and are in hiding, then he can't force them.

Just my 2 cents.

Since the command to flee is to Israel, that would have nothing to do with this issue.

The guys was Asian, IIRC, not Israelite.

Carma,

It is not to Israel. It is to everyone "left behind" after the rapture - according to the pretrib scenario since the claim is that Matthew 24 is for those who are left behind for the tribulation. Is it not? It does not say Israel, flee. It says when you see this guy set himself up as God, then flee. It doesn't say, Hey Israel when you see this...flee....

And it still never says that a believer cannot have the mark forced on them. That is naught but opinion.

Nope, the command is to Israel.

Remember, the warning about the sabbath and the winter...that is strictly to Israel.

I think Svg Grace made a good point about the Bible saying to flee. Most definitely this is must be done, and all believers would have to flee to avoid being faced with taking the mark or being executed.

But for those who are faced with it, the authors are teaching IN REAL LIFE, some unscriptural things:

There is The Mark Live Global Chat - Transcript
from November 15, 2000, 8:00 - 9:00 EST P.M. on the official LEFT BEHIND website, at: C:^#92;web page info^#92;The Mark Live Global Chat - Transcript.htm

Someone asked about Chang and the result of his taking the mark of the beast:

05:30:33 PM> MODMSG ru4ou2:in the case of young chang will he be held accountable or is he doomed for a life in hell

05:30:56 PM> The_Authors:God looks on the heart. He was a believer first, and thus, always.

The authors are saying essentially that even though Chang was marked with the mark of the beast, because he was a believer when thus marked, he would remain a believer and remain sealed unto the day of redemption. The authors DENIED the inerrant word of God.

This is REAL LIFE teaching, not a teaching encased in fiction. Dr. LaHaye is teaching believers that as long as a Christian is genuine in his faith, his taking the mark will not result in the fate scripture describes for ALL who take the mark of the beast!

Yes, overcoming is one who "believeth that Jesus is the Son of God" -1 Jn. 5:5, but an overcomer also keeps Jesus' works unto the end: "And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:"-Rev. 2:26

Lest anyone misunderstand the consequences of taking the mark of the beast, God's word is explicit in its warning to ANYONE who takes this mark: "If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormentd with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worhsip the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."-Reve. 14:9-11

Perhaps the authors might say in their next book Desecration (released on October 30, 2001 the eve of the most powerfully evil "Satanic high day" of the year) Chang did not worship the beast; in fact he confesed Christ later on after he was marked when he said, "Christ is risen indeed" when everyone else was saying "He is risen indeed" in reference to Antichrist. (See The Mark, page 146) The authors depicted Chang declaring his loyalty to the TRUE Christ AFTER receiving the mark of the beast. This is like teaching people they can still turn their lives over to the Lord Jesus Christ after they are physically dead! Taking the mark of the beast is a "no-turning-back" situation, and there will be no turning back, and no remorse and desire to serve the true, living, Lord Jesus Christ, who is God!

Chang did NOT declare his loyalty and allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ, King of Kings and Lord of Lords when it was time to take the mark of allegiance to Antichrist. In real life,it would be for this reason, and none other, that he was marked. He would have received the mark IN REAL LIFE, because he was not willing to lose his life on this earth in order to save it, as Christ taught all his disciples. In the book, Chang did not scream out that he was a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ (the book, The Mark, depicted a believer commending him for NOT doing this! see The Mark page 353)and thus was not putting Christ first, above his own life. He did NOT have the "victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, and over the number of his name,"! (See Rev. 15:2)

The scenario of being forced to take the mark of the beast WILL NEVER HAPPEN if the believer does what God's Word commands every true Christian to do and that is to confess Christ before men and accept the consequences. Satan will not force his mark upon any believer who declares their allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ! No true Christian will be held down and forcibly marked! Why? Because taking the mark is an act of worship in itself, and worship can only come from the will and the heart.

Satan demands worship and a believer resolutely standing firm in his love for and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the one true God and only savior of mankind, is worship to Christ and NOT to Satan!

This "believer first, and thus always" mentality (highly popular teaching but in direct contradition to scripture) is also behind the "two books of life" and false definition of overcomer taught in Dr. LaHaye's non-fiction works such as: Are We Living in the End Times?, The Time LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible: King James, and Revelation Unveiled.

Sincerely,

Lisa -God's Word On LEFT BEHIND: www.libertytothecaptives.org/discus

Perhaps the authors might say in their next book Desecration (released on October 30, 2001 the eve of the most powerfully evil "Satanic high day" of the year)

Click to expand...

And the problem with the book being released on October 30th?

The book, The Mark, was done in April and has been sent to Tyndale House Publishers. It is unnecessary to plan the release of the book on the pre-Halloween date.

Occultists use high days in order to get power from Satan so they may accomplish certain goals. Why would a Christian even want to release their book on such an evil day? (The entire last week of October is the time occultists revel in added power from Satan: The 31st is merely the climax with horrendous human sacrifice.)

What the authors are saying about Chang taking the mark is more important than the observation about the book's release date.

I have information about other release dates that just happen to be occultic high days as well. I don't feel led to go into it now; I'm just grieved and burdened by this. The world is watching and Christians are to be separate...set apart from the world and Satan in their ways, and yes, in their book writing and release dates too.

Sincerely,

Lisa

The book, The Mark, was done in April and has been sent to Tyndale House Publishers. It is unnecessary to plan the release of the book on the pre-Halloween date.

Click to expand...

The Mark has already been released.

Occultists use high days in order to get power from Satan so they may accomplish certain goals. Why would a Christian even want to release their book on such an evil day? (The entire last week of October is the time occultists revel in added power from Satan: The 31st is merely the climax with horrendous human sacrifice.)

Click to expand...

So anything that is done on Oct 30th is evil? You aren't even talking about Oct 31st, which wouldn't matter anyway, you are talking about the day before, why not push it to the week before or the entire month?

What the authors are saying about Chang taking the mark is more important than the observation about the book's release date.

Click to expand...

You are the one that made the point about the release date, you were very clear in what you meant about it.

I have information about other release dates that just happen to be occultic high days as well. I don't feel led to go into it now; I'm just grieved and burdened by this. The world is watching and Christians are to be separate...set apart from the world and Satan in their ways, and yes, in their book writing and release dates too.

Click to expand...

You better be careful there....you are treading on dangerous ground, IMO. Attributing evil to children of God, not a good thing.

What if, Weary, his non-fiction books line up with this? Are We Living In The End-Times? and Revelation Unveiled.

And don't you think, that as a teacher and at least a former pastor, that, at the very least, he's is being very irresponsible if he writes a fictional book that doesn't have good doctrine?

According to what Jerry Jenkins said on the message board, though, LaHaye considers everything he has written thus far to be completely okay doctrinally. So, yeah, we're judging him based on what he wrote in a "Christian" fiction book series.

the mark of the beast is the chi xi stigma, which is the CROSS and it means you agree to die to the BEAST in you so you can live to the son of God; the whole world is gathered to the WAR OF ARMAGEDDON and the antichrist fools the whole world; we are all bearing the mark of the beast and we must OVERCOME IT to get to Zion and the only way to overcome it is to be crucified with Christ.

the church has no clue about this stuff, because they didnt experience the RETURN of CHRIST and I have; you dont have to believe me but I tell you the truth.