|
In my article called DESECRATION: CAUTION, I wrote:
If you really believe Chang was
justified in taking the mark (Remember he never declared he was a Christian and
he never denounced the Antichrist either so the fact that he was "forced" was
really because they thought he was afraid of the
procedure and not because they thought he was afraid of the one True, Most High
God!)) then you have already made provision
in the back of your mind to take the mark of the beast yourself! Upon
further reflection about Chang, I must say the "forcing scenario"
would never have happened if he had confessed Christ before men and taken the
consequences. Instead, he denied Christ by his silence, and after being
"forcibly marked", we can see he came to terms with this sin and began
to consider possible benefits of it! (see THE MARK, page 353)
Now that Desecration
has been released, the authors have revealed to the readers the full story about
Chang being marked with the beast. It is very interesting to me that the
authors allowed the readers to think about and discuss on the Left Behind
messageboard for close to one year about how a
Christian could possibly have the mark of the beast and still be
saved. I did not see any administrator step in on the official Left Behind
messageboard and correct the posters and tell them that no, a Christian may not
have the mark under any circumstances, and Chang's situation is only pretend,
and they must take care to not take this seriously.
Even as I work on this article the administrators at the
Left Behind messageboard are soliciting thoughts from posters and they want
to know among other things, "What truths did you learn to apply to your own
spiritual walk now?"
Obviously the administrators on the official Left Behind
website are not passing the series off as strictly fiction, not to be taken
seriously, as my critics always use to try to dismiss my findings when I bring
up the false doctrines in the series. They want to know how the book,
DESECRATION, is affecting the spiritual walk of the reader!
I assure you, this is the my concern as well, and more
importantly the concern of our Lord Jesus Christ who tenderly loves and cares
for his beloved church and desires that she live by every word that
proceeds out of the mouth of God.
Now, according to the full story in DESECRATION,
Chang was not afraid of the needle his Father injected into him quickly
and without Chang's knowledge or consent. This injection was used to drug
Chang so he would be easily maneuvered into Building D where he was to receive
the mark of the beast.
Nor was Chang afraid of saying "NO!" to taking
the mark. He answered his father regarding whether Carpathia was the son
of God or not, "He is not! I know no such thing! He could be
the son of Satan for all I know!"
In response to his father telling him, "You saw the
man resurrected! You will worship him as I do!" Chang
responded, "Never!"
Then what was Chang afraid of so that he did not voice his
allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ to his father at the very mention of the
mark? He was afraid for his sister, Ming. He did not want his father
or the GC to know she was a believer.
Now let's back up for a moment. Earlier, Chang had a
conversation with his mother about he (and Ming too) not believing in the
Supreme Potentate and that he would tell his Father he was a "Judah-ite if
he tried to make him take the mark. (DESECRATION
page 65)
Chang's mother responded, "Oh, Chang, don't do
this. I will lose both of my children!"
Chang replied, "Mother, you must read what Rabbi
Ben-Judah writes too! At least look into it. Please!"
"Maybe, but you cannot cross your father today.
You take the mark. If you are right, your God will forgive
you."
Chang's response: "It doesn't work that
way. I have already made my decision.
Mr. Wong returned. "Let's go. Mr. Moon is
waiting.
"Not today, " Mrs. Wong pleaded. "Let
Chang think about it awhile."
"No more time for thinking. He will embarrass
the family."
"No! I won't! You can't
make me."
We need to stop right here. This is a key sentence,
and this relates directly to another key sentence way back in the very first
book in the series: LEFT BEHIND.
Chang was being DEFIANT about taking the mark, wasn't
he? The authors want the reader to think that being defiant
is a mark (of God) in itself, and they implanted this thought into the reader's mind
in the very first book in the LEFT BEHIND series.
In LEFT BEHIND, page 420 and 421, Bruce Barnes explained to
Chloe about Antichrist and the upcoming mark of the beast:
"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 Chang admitted to his mother his lack of loyalty to
Carpathia, and when his mother asked him if he was a Judah-ite too (like his
sister) Chang admitted this and said he would tell his father that if he tried
to make him take the mark. (see page 65)
So we can see Chang fully intended to tell his father he
belonged to the Lord Jesus Christ IF he was going to be made to take the
mark. We also can see that Chang had made his decision beforehand, that he
would NOT take the mark. Chang had a defiant attitude about taking the mark already in his heart and was committed to this
defiance.
When his Father began to make it clear he wanted Chang to
take the mark, Chang began to outwardly defy him and say he would not take it
and his father could not make him do it.
Now we can see that Chang had been defiant all along about
taking the mark of the beast, but he never told his father the reason for
his defiance. He never told his father of his love for and allegiance to
the Lord Jesus Christ who is the true God and Savior of all who will call upon
Him in faith. The reason the reader is given is so that Ming would not be
exposed as being a Christian. The reader is always given a rationalization
for blatant sin by the characters in the series, and in this case, Chang's
neglect to confess Christ before men was shown to be done to protect his sister. Chang ended
up being desecrated with Antichrist's mark because his loyalty to the Lord Jesus
Christ was not stated.
What kind of an example is this to millions
who would desperately desire to protect their family when the mark of the beast
becomes the law of the land?
This is a huge, glaring omission, and of great
importance for the reader to take note of. Chang did not confess Christ
before men at this crucial time (only when his mother asked him in private) and
thus lose his own life that he might find it.
In DESECRATION,
page 66, we read of Chang's father quickly, without his consent or knowledge,
injecting Chang with a tranquilizer to make him more docile and manageable for
the "enforced" marking with the beast's mark. This was terribly
unfair and the reader understandably empathizes with Chang in this unjust treatment.
Now
empathy with the characters is normal when reading a work of fiction. The
Christian must beware, however, of empathizing with the character if he
does something in the story that violates the word of God and especially if this
violation will result in eternal damnation. This is when empathy must end
and critical analysis must begin!
Even at that point in time Chang did not confess Christ
while he still had the capability of faltering speech. He had the ability
to say "I will not. . . take. . . the. . . mmm. . ." which his father
(and the reader) understands to mean he will not take the mark, but again,
no verbal confession of loyalty to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This is VERY IMPORTANT to remember because
later in the book Chang denies Christ before men (and not just once mind you)
and the authors manipulate the dialogue in such a way as to justify this in the
reader's mind.
Now Chang did make some physical signs of loyalty to Christ
(although the Bible doesn't mention any "crossing of oneself" to
indicate allegiance to Christ!) but his last effort to use his failing voice was to
again defy taking the mark, which reinforces the misleading statement in LEFT BEHIND:
"That
very act of defiance will be a mark in itself."
IS
DEFIANCE BEING TAUGHT TO BE A MARK (of God) IN ITSELF?
When Jerry Jenkins was questioned by a concerned reader about
how he could have a Christian take the mark of the beast and still be saved, his
answer contained the assertion that this "plot twist" was his
idea: "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?"
Well, it is certainly does not look like some kind of spur-of- the moment
plot twist. The first book actually set the reader up to swallow
the "being defiant while being forced to take the mark of the beast is a
mark of God in itself" lie. And as far as trusting them until this is
played out in book 9, one's trust must always be in God and his Word, and not in
man (let God be true and every man a liar). . . ESPECIALLY when man uses fiction
as a vehicle for promoting the "hell sending" lie that the mark of the
beast can be forced upon a defiant Christian and that he will still be saved!
For those who think this single instance of Chang being
forced to take the mark of the beast and remaining a Christian is not enough evidence to
conclude the authors are promoting this damnable
false teaching (one instance is plenty of evidence!), please notice that
on page 78 of DESECRATION,
the authors had Chang express Dr. Ben-Judah's (spiritual mentor of the
Tribulation
Force and a Bible scholar) concern of other believers being forced to take the mark in a
letter: "Dr. Ben-Judah
concurs that the record vindicates me, though he fears Carpathia and his
henchmen are devious enough to come up with the idea of doping known believers
and forcing the mark on them, and that would be a catastrophe."
The
authors drove the point home to the reader that a Bible scholar believed
the exception to the rule (Chang being forced to take the mark) could very well become the rule.
In reality, deliberately entertaining ideas such as an exception to the rule of Holy
Writ (there
is no such thing, and what is more this is REBELLION!) must never be in the heart and mind of
a genuine Christian!
Now, in answer to the question, IS
DEFIANCE BEING TAUGHT TO BE A MARK (of God) IN ITSELF?
let's go to DESECRATION, page
10, where Chang is trying to compare what happened in his life to the Bible's
teaching, and Tsion Ben-Judah is reassuring him. Please understand Chang's
objections to believing he is still saved are those of the Bible-believing
Christian reader! His objections (and thus the readers) are being
countered and explained away by Tsion Ben-Judah:
Chang: "The problem is the mirror, Dr.
Ben-Judah! I thought I could do this! I thought the mark that was
forced on me would be an advantage. But it mocks me, and I hate it!
I want to take a razor blade and slice it from my head, then slit my wrists and
let God decide my fate."
Tsion Ben-Judah: God has decided, my
friend. You have the seal of God upon you, according to our trusted
brothers. You did not accept the mark of the Antichrist, nor will
you worship him."
Chang: "But I have been studying your own
writings, Doctor! The mark of the beast brings damnation, and the Bible
says we can't have both marks!
Tsion Ben-Judah: "It says we can't take
both."
The authors have chosen to
emphasize the words accept and take.
Chang: "But the heroes,
the martyrs, the brave ones accepted death for the sake of the truth! You
said a true believer would be given the grace and courage to stand for his faith
in the face of the blade."
Tsion Ben-Judah: "Did you
not resist? God is no liar. I have told people that they cannot lose the
mark of the seal of God and that they need not worry they will lose heart
because of their human weakness, but that God will grant them peace and courage
to accept their fate."
Tsion's remarks prove that
yes, the LEFT BEHIND book series is promoting the lie that a defiant attitude
regarding having the mark of the beast is a mark of God in itself! Tsion told Chang he
did not accept or take the mark of the beast, and he reminded him that he
resisted (defied) the mark. Please notice the statement, God
is no liar" is placed right after the "Did you not resist?"
question and directly before the statement: "I have told people that they
cannot lose the mark of the seal of God. . ."
So God not being a liar is connected
with resisting the mark and Tsion's teaching that people cannot lose the mark of
the seal of God? It's a strategic spot to put the sentence, "God is
no liar" in my view. What is God not lying about specifically in this
context? (We know God never lies; the authors want the reader
to believe what is being put across in the dialogue!) Could it be that
resisting means that one stood for his faith and is therefore still saved
even if he ended up with the mark? Yes, Tsion said so. Most
certainly "God is no liar" is directly rendering the next statement to
be authoritative in the minds of the reader: "I have told people that they cannot lose
the mark of the seal of God. . ."
Before I go on, please note the Holy
Bible does not say "mark of the seal of God", but "seal of
God." In the New Testament, "the mark" refers to
Antichrist's mark, and "seal of God" refers to God's seal on his
servants.
Please note that nowhere does the Bible state
this seal is visible, but it does state the foundation of God stands sure and
has a seal that is visible in the behavior of those who name the name of
Christ: "Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal,
The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of
Christ depart from iniquity." 2 Timothy 2:19
Did God ever indicate in his Holy
Word that a Christian cannot, under any circumstances, lose the seal of
God? (No.) If not, then that statement, "God is no liar" is a
deliberate attempt to manipulate the reader into believing that God has promised
that his seal cannot be lost. . . even when one has the mark of the beast.
DESECRATION
has more in the storyline about the subject of Chang and his continued
cooperation with the New World Order as well as many other significant things that have not yet been addressed that are just as serious, in
my view. These and the observations God has graciously given me from the
other eight books in the LEFT BEHIND series will be shared with you in the
upcoming book, God's Wrath on Left Behind.
return to:
Exposing False Doctrines in the Left Behind Series
|