|
I am pasting Jerry Jenkins' quotation taken from
his very own Left Behind Message Board: (This quote is from The
King's Tavern Message Board)
"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"?
No, they are not being careful with scripture, but actually priming the
reader to accept what scripture condemns! Dr. LaHaye said nothing in the
scripture precluded them having a Christian take the mark of the beast and still
be saved?
Is having a defiant attitude when presented with the mandate to receive
the mark of the beast "a mark in itself" (presumably a mark of
belonging to God)? See Left Behind pg. 421. Let's look at the context so you can
see why I am placing "of God" in parentheses.
Pastor Bruce was explaining to Chloe, a brand
new convert: "There will come a time, Chloe, that followers of
Antichrist will be required to bear the sign of the beast. There are all
kinds of theories on what form that might take, from a tattoo to a stamp on the
forehead that might be detected only under infrared light. But obviously
we would refuse to bear that mark. That very
act of defiance will be a mark in itself."
Now the obvious implication, and a most
disturbing one, is that being defiant about receiving the mark of the
beast is a mark of God. When the Lord led me back to this portion in the
first book, I almost fell out of my chair. This is setting the reader up
for the eighth book when defiant Chang, putting up a terrible fuss, but received
the mark of the beast nonetheless. . . and get this. . . still retaining the seal of
God!
Hmmm, it seems that preparation
for the plot twist in The Mark was underway in the very first book in the series.
Here's the quote: "That very act of defiance will be a mark in
itself." What is the act of defiance? Refusing to bear the mark.
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 rationalization.
Let's look at this for a moment. Chang certainly made it clear that he didn't
want the mark, didn't he? He fought to get away and they literally had to hold
him down. According to Pastor Bruce Barnes' wording, Chang's act of defiance was
"a mark in itself." Now, the context lets us know for sure that the
"mark in itself" is not the mark of the beast, but the mark of God.
How sneaky of them to do set up
their readers at the beginning of the book to view defiance as the rejection of
the mark of the beast, and then later, to present a scenario where a believer
had the mark of defiance and thus the beast's mark did not take away the seal of
God (their salvation)!
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, according to the alleged scripturally-based
storyline is "a mark in itself."
Finding out that the reader was primed for this teaching back in the first book
gives me cause for great 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 or trigger words (that's what they are!) will be retrieved by the
mind involuntarily and the person won't understand they have been conditioned to
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 worthy of in order to "get along" when Antichrist rules the
world. (In other words, when the kingdom of Antichrist, the New World
Order, comes into power, the Christian had better play along.) Where
in the Left Behind series does a Christian give verbal honor to Antichrist?
See the article called
Is Chang in a Special Category?
Edited Dec. 21,
2001. There are several times in the Left Behind series where Christian
characters "go along with the program" and give outward honor to
Antichrist. These are detailed in my (now free) book,
GOD'S
WRATH ON LEFT BEHIND -Lisa Ruby
return to:
Exposing False Doctrines in the Left Behind Series |