Friday, February 08, 2008

Some Thoughts and a Linkfest!

I have been doing a LOT of thinking and reading ever since Mitt Romney dropped his bombshell of an exit from the Republican presidential nomination race at the CPAC convention yesterday.

The moment that Fox News announced that one of Romney's campaign managers confirmed that he would announce his "suspension" (a.k.a QUITTING!!) during his speech to a crowd of cheering conservative Republicans at CPAC, I have to admit that my heart sank. I didn't even vote for the guy! But knowing that Romney saw the writing on the wall, and it said "you don't have a chance against McCain," just saddened my heart. There is something to be said about a person who fights on, despite overwhelming opposition and the creeping realization that the chances for success are slim to none. However, I do admire Romney for two things. First, his motives for dropping out of the race were not selfish. He showed that he loves America more than he hates losing. Second, the fact that he made his announcement after that terrific speech - which was chock full of conservative and moral values talking points - forced a liberal cable news station like CNN to broadcast it to it's audience! Brilliant! They probably hated it, too! Ha!!

When Laura Ingraham came up to the podium, I didn't know whether or not she knew of Romney's intention to announce his withdrawal from the race. Later, I did find out that she was given the word about 10 minutes before she introduced him. How disheartening is that?? I'm sure that she must have been filled with emotions...disappointment, sadness, and the realization that McCain would probably end up being the nominee.

Not so fast!

There is still one other man left standing! His name is Mike Huckabee.

Now, I know that many of my fellow Christian friends don't endorse him. I also know that many of my fellow conservative friends either don't endorse him, or they don't want to endorse him! That's O.K. It's nothing new. People will disagree about politics. The fact that we don't disagree about Jesus Christ or conservative principles still unites us.

Is John McCain's selection as the GOP presidential candidate for 2008 inevitable? It might be. Go ahead and groan. I have been. My friend Matt W. over at Thoughts, Commentary, and other various ramblings states many concerns about McCain.

David Limbaugh over at Newsmax has several articles about the liberalism of John McCain.

However, I really think that there is still a spark of hope. McCain has not yet won the nomination. Mike Huckabee is still committed to continuing on in the race.

My friend Holly over at On the wRite Side shared a Digg post that brought me over to The Conservative Voice article that states, "Why Huckabee Can Win, Like Lincoln Did."

Chuck Campbell wrote:



"Observation likely made prior to Romneys exit from the field but interesting nonetheless. With a little faith and hope anything is possible."


A commenter named these3remain over at Digg had this to say:





This is a God-size task because right now, the numbers are stacked against Huckabee. He only has 192 delegates; to win the nomination , he needs somewhere around 1191. This means he needs 83.3% of the remaining primary delegates while Juan McAmnesty has somewhere in the neighborhood of 703 delegates and therefore only needs to win 40% of the remaining primaries' delegates. God does specialize in the impossible. If this should happen, all the glory should definitely go to Him.


Yep. The Huckabee challenge is indeed one that might just need a miracle!

I like the analogy that Mike shared during his speech after Super Tuesday (paraphrased here):

'It only took one of David's smooth stones, aimed correctly, to defeat the giant - despite Goliath's suit of armor!'

I'm glad that Huckabee is still in it, even though the media naysayers don't think he has a chance. It might be good to see some debates between him and McCain.

This election is serious business. However, we often have the need for comic relief. Where do I go for this? Doug Powers' blog!

Take a look at this posted video over at The Powers That Be - Obama-mania: Is Being a Great Ora-Tater an Accomplishment?

Doug writes:






Monday night, Sean Hannity asked a question of a focus group consisting of over a dozen people who described themselves as Obama supporters.

Q: "Can you name any one specific accomplishment of Barack Obama?"

A: "……. uh……. ummm…… he's a great ora-tater…."

I'll do much better than anybody in that pro-Obama focus group by naming one political accomplishment of Barack Obama: He's convinced a bunch of vacuous boneheads to vote for him — and that's really the only accomplishment any politician has to have on his or her resume, isn't it?


Go look at the video! It would make a great weapon in a GOP campaign commercial!

Commenter "Earl" over there had the best follow-up line:





If hillary has her way the great ora-tater will become the great mashed-tater.


Don't miss Doug's latest post. Obama might need to step to some extra security. The wrath of the Clintons has only just begun!

Well, that was fun. Now, back down to the serious stuff.

I want to share several article links. However, I have been debating in what order I should present them to you.

Perhaps I should present them in the order that I had read them.

1. Over at Laiglesforum, Donald Hank presents the case that the emergent church Christian-left pastors have taken the purpose-driven left turn through embracing the Democrats and their liberal ideals.

Donald writes:





According to the Family Research Council, a new Barna poll shows that the “born again,” whatever that might mean this week, now overwhelmingly support Hillary (20% of the “born again” vote) and Obama (18%).

How is it possible that seemingly devout Christians could support the party that stands like a phalanx behind partial birth abortion and redefining marriage into oblivion and opposes biblical free market principles?

Look no further than “America’s Pastor” and the Saddleback Church, where Obama and Hillary were guests last year. Rick Warren, while claiming to be acting in a Christian, conciliatory manner, treating these leftwing politicians as though they were ideological equals (perhaps they are), was in fact spreading the message that it’s ok for evangelicals to vote for pro-abortion politicians who spurn the free market, because they are decent folks like him, concerned with the same issues, like AIDS, poverty, and peace. Thus his message is in line with the rest of the “religious left,” which, in terms of social issues, can be summed up:

Abortion, marriage and the like social issues pale against the problems of poverty, the environment and world peace. The Democrat message of ending poverty and disease and seeking world peace is a Christian one. It is un-Christian to oppose abortion and gay marriage because this sullies non-Christian sensibilities.


These hopelessly naive people have never learned the lessons of the War on Poverty or the lessons on appeasement taught by the clueless Neville Chamberlain. Sheep-like, their followers fall into line.


I have mentioned in the past that claiming to be "born-again" does not necessarily mean that one genuinely has been born again through Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not to get too far off topic, but Jesus warned us, in the parable of the wheat and the tares, that genuine believers would grow in the churches alongside false converts.




Mat 13:24 ¶ Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:


Mat 13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.


Mat 13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.


Mat 13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?


Mat 13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?


Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.


Mat 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.


It is important to remember that Jesus was talking about those who perceived themselves to be believers.

Back to Donald's article.




When all the celebrating is over, the purpose-driven pastor [refers to Rick Warren] and prosperity-driven pastor,[refers to Joel Osteen] respectively, and their ilk have succeeded in blinding people to the truth, of which older, biblically minded religious leaders once convinced the majority of their flock, namely, that the platforms of the Democrat party are inconsistent with the message of Christ, who did not support killing the unborn, command taxpayers to care for the poor or order nations to make peace with implacable enemies bent on destroying them. In fact He said “you will always have the poor with you,” and that he had come to “bring not peace but a sword.” Unlike Confucius, for example, He was indifferent to the workings of government. He healed the sick and fed the multitude only to show who He was. Thus when some of that multitude followed Him across the sea and asked Him to “show us a sign,” He understood they didn’t really want or need a sign, because He had already fed them miraculously. They hinted that the “sign” should be in the form of handouts, manna from heaven. They wanted socialism, a perfect Kingdom of God free of hunger, i.e., essentially the Democrat platform.


Donald has brilliantly explained how, and why, the emergent church movement exists. The bolded part demonstrates only just a few points of error where the emergent church movement has gone astray.

There is nothing wrong with desiring to help the sick and feed the hungry. As Christians, we are to do what we can to help our neighbors in need. However, the connection Don has made towards socialism cannot be ignored.

Socialism is highly linked to postmodernism. One of postmodernism's highest goals is "tolerance," (which, btw, has a hijacked meaning of complete acceptance with no need to repent of immoral behaviors) being used as an overriding virtue. The belief that everybody's belief system is right for them is more acceptable than any idea of judgment. Therefore, people have come up with the idea that they should be free to pick and choose what to believe about Jesus. This has led people to not only make their own religion, but because they view Jesus as being "big on love," they eliminate the concept of judgment and hell and created their own kind of Jesus...in their own image. People, this is idolatry! Plain and simple.

They create their own "godliness." They believe that no one's opinion[s] should trump anyone elses. The established biblical Christian tenet of absolute truth is out the window.

The "new" and "rethink" Christianity is a do-it-yourself spirituality. This is known as "syncretism," which is the blending of elements from various faiths into a new form of spirituality. Orthodoxy is thrown out the window. Syncretists adopt doctrines that seem appropriate to them and leave behind others that they regard as offensive or outdated. You could label it the eclectic approach towards an unrecognizable form of "Christianity," which, is a far cry from the truth. The historical Jesus has now become a designer Jesus.

Why is biblical Christianity so despised by many today? Precisely because Jesus claimed (and is) the truth. People understand that truth is a belief, story, ideal, or statement that matches up with reality or corresponds to the way things really are. Yet, for some, they want to take a pragmatic viewpoint and believe that whatever works for them is true. But relativism always falls apart, in the end. Relativism cannot be lived out consistently. There is a mismatch between its theory and practice.

For Biblical Christians, the truth is revealed in God's Word and through the Person of Truth, Jesus Christ. It is true even if people don't acknowledge it. Absolute Truth is true even if no one knows it, admits it, agrees with it, follows it, or even fully grasps it.

New Testament scholar Andreas J. Kostenberger wrote:

The very notion of truth has largely become a casualty of postmodern thought and discourse. Truth is no longer "the" truth, in Jesus' terms who claimed to be "the truth." Rather it is conceived of as "your" truth or "my" truth - that is, different yet equally legitimate ways of perceiving reality. Hence truth is simply one's preferred, culturally conditioned, socially constructed version of reality.


[Source: Andreas Kostenberger, gen. ed., Whatever Happened to Truth? (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2005), 9.]

Notice that Kostenberger uses the term socially in his quote regarding "socially constructed version of reality." Right there, we have the mindset and entryway right into the path of socialism. And, what does socialism here in America hold as one of its highest ideals? Liberalism.


Now, keeping all of this in mind, please read this excellent article called A Liberal Christianity Intensifies Radical Islam Threat.


Notice how the article begins:

The Western church’s growing tendency to blur theological differences and not uphold the absolute truth is contributing to the threat of radical Islam to the Western world, said a highly respected expert on Islam.


Patrick Sookhdeo, the director of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, said churches are moving away from central doctrines that teach about separation and instead conforming to secular society’s ideology of inclusion.

“When faced with the uniqueness of Christ we become inclusive. He loves everybody so we talk about love, and hell and damnation goes out the window,” said Sookhdeo. “It becomes too embarrassing. So our church has conformed itself according to society.”


What does this tell us? It tells us that the various tenets, values, and anti-morality socialistic-bent liberalism invading the evangelical churches is attempting to capture the public's attention through a portrait of Jesus that is only nice and loving, while ignoring the fact that He will one day return as the Holy and Righteous Judge of the universe! This new "designer" Jesus does not have any resemblance to the biblical, historical Jesus that has been traditionally embraced by the church over the past 2,000 years.

Sookhdeo isn't afraid to preach the truth:



Christians are afraid to admit that only believers in Jesus Christ will be saved and others – Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists – are lost, because that would be arrogance in a society dominated by secular humanist ideology, Sookhdeo argued.

“If the U.S. church goes the way of Europe and embraces liberalism in its theology then it will embrace liberalism in its life,” said the British Anglican canon. “And if it embraces liberalism in its life then the church will die and not only will the church die, but society around it will also die.”

“What worries me is this,” he added. “I say this to churches in Britain. I can’t say it of the U.S. Is the Lord taking His candlestick from Britain and from Europe? Is the Lord saying: ‘I’m going to vomit you out of my mouth, because your sickness is beyond cure? You are so taken with other gods, you have prostituted yourself enough. I’m finished with you.’ It is a question and a question we must address, not just in Europe but here also.”

Islam is one of these gods which Christians are embracing, said Sookhdeo.


I know. You must be thinking that the last sentence above cannot possibly be true. Think again.

Archbishop of Canterbury seeks adoption of Islamic law
'It is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system'



Commenter John 14-6 sums it up:



Patrick Sookhdeo is absolutely, 100% correct. Christian liberalism bears a huge responsibility for the problems we are facing with Islam. If the church does not stand up strong and present the faith boldly, the absolute truth of Jesus Christ as being the only way, the only truth and the only life, then Islam will run rampant and roughshod across Christendom. It's already happening because of what Christian liberalism has done to the church (what's left of the church) in places like Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark, and most certainly what is happening in England. Today, the Archbishop of Canterbury said England should be "resigned" to accepting partial Sharia Law. I rest my case.


I hope that these thoughts and links have made you aware of the dire consequences that would ensue if either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama become our next president. With their lack of resolve on the War on Terrorism, our nation could be in grave danger. Their socialistic, liberal, "leave Al Qaeda, the Iranian insurgents, the Taliban and Hamas alone and there will be peace" attitudes indicate to me that they could end up being just like that Archbishop - be "resigned" to accepting partial Sharia Law. After all, it would be the inclusive, tolerant, and morally relativistic thing to do...in their spiritually blinded eyes...wouldn't it?

Hat Tips:

Christian Business Daily
World Net Daily
The Powers that Be
LaiglesForum
On the wRite Side
Thoughts, Commentary, and Other Various Ramblings
Newsmax - David Limbaugh
The Conservative Voice
CNN Politics
Digg
The Christian Post

*******
Update @ 4:56 p.m. PT -

GCMWatch has an excellent post up which presents and explains the term "diaprax." Author and Pastor, D.L. Foster, demonstrates how that term (diaprax) is related to both the emergent church movement heresy and the gay "christian" movement heresy. His research on these issues expose the diehard efforts of such groups - through the use of fraudulent and deceitful purposes - to attack and skew the truth of God's Word in their not-so-secret attempts to undermine the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.

*******
Second Update @ 5;45 p.m. PT -


At least someone involved with the clergy over in the U.K. finally had the brains to speak out against the Canterbury Fairytale Archbishop!

'Resign,' clergy tell Archbishop of Canterbury
Call for Williams to quit part of backlash over sharia comments

13 comments:

Neil said...

Hi - I selected you for a Thinking blogger award - congratulations and keep up the good work!

http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/the-thinking-blogger-award/

Christinewjc said...

In case you missed the CPAC speeches by Mitt Romney and John McCain, see "The GOPUSA Loft article:

A Tale of Two Speeches.

Doug said...

Coulter had a great line at CPAC regarding John McCain's conservative "score" vs. other Republicans...

"McCain hasn't come in this low since he was in training at the Naval Academy."

Christinewjc said...

Hi Neil,

Thanks so much!! I'm humbled and honored and really appreciate your kind "good work" words!

Being a woman with a brain buzzing with emotion [ inside joke...see this video!], I'm glad that some "thinking" gets through! heh heh!

Congrats to you for getting two "Thinking Blogger" awards!

Christinewjc said...

Ha ha Doug! What a great quote! Leave it to Ann Coulter to get the good jabs in.

I know that she really dislikes McCain with a passion. She just better not vote for Shrillery! UGH!!!

Christinewjc said...

Oh boy...Ben Shapiro is sure to get in trouble for this article:

Obama the Friendly Black Guy

Pollyanna on steroids?

But that's not even the worst of it:

Ben writes:

Obama is a candidate whose empty bombast could float a fleet of hot air balloons. "We are more than a collection of red states and blue states," Obama spouted on Super Tuesday during his victory speech. "We are, and always will be, the United States of America." This prompted my 14-year-old sister to exclaim, facetiously, "So that's why they call it the United States." Obama is a modern day Warren G. Harding, of whom William McAdoo once said, "His speeches leave the impression of an army of pompous phrases moving over the landscape in search of an idea. Sometimes these meandering words would actually capture a struggling thought and bear it triumphantly a prisoner in their midst until it died of servitude and overwork." The only difference between Harding and Obama is that Obama's speeches never actually capture a struggling thought – and if they did, they'd have to waterboard it for information. Obama's speechmaking isn't deep. It is profundity for dunces.

Obama is a candidate who knows less about foreign policy than Rick Salomon, who at least knows about Paris. He has suggested unilaterally invading Pakistan while inviting Muslim dictators to a sit-down, no questions asked. He points to the gap between "worlds of plenty and worlds of want" as the source of Islamic terrorism. He states that the real threat to peace in the Middle East isn't Islamic extremism, it's "cynicism." He's Pollyanna on steroids.


Obama's speechmaking isn't deep. It is profundity for dunces.

That may not be a politically correct statement, but it's dead on truth!

Matt W. said...

Christinewjc said...
"Ha ha Doug! What a great quote! Leave it to Ann Coulter to get the good jabs in.

I know that she really dislikes McCain with a passion. She just better not vote for Shrillery! UGH!!!"

This brings up two things that I'm kind of sick of. Coulter's idea that Hillary is "More Conservative" than McCain, and would therefore be a better President. Such an outrageous idea. Hillary is less Liberal than Obama, but she's about as Conservative as Josef Stalin, she just doesn't weild the kind of power that he did. So, point one, I'm sick of Conservative, like Coulter, implying that you must either vote for McCain or Hillary. There will be third party candidates, and at least we could make a statement but voting for them, even if they can't win.

The other thing I'm sick of is all the Conservatives I hear saying that they will just stay home and not vote this year. Don't they understand that we still need to elect a congress? Don't they understand that we could mitigate the effects of a liberal President if we had a strong Conservative Congress? This is fed by the hype that the media gives to Presidents, and there is no question, the President is powerful, and who we elect is important, but the Congress, if a strong Congress who will stand up for what is right, can render the President virtually impotent. By the same token, we could elect the best Conservative President in US History, and if we ignore the congress, and allow it to be over run with Liberals and far left loons, it would do us no good.

It may (or may not) be too late for the Presidency, but it's not to late for the Congress. We cannot afford, now more than ever before, for the good people to stay home and not vote. Electing a Conservative Congress is just too important.

Also, thanks for the link. And keep up the good work.
Matt W.

Christinewjc said...

Hi Matt,

Great points in your comment!

I just read a WND article written by Henry Lamb that pretty much sums up the conservative angst in this election year.

However, I agree with you that we cannot just throw up our hands and surrender the election to the Democrats. That would be a catastrophic mistake!

Good point about getting Congress back to being a strong conservative body. But with so many RINOs currently in there, it will probably take several election cycles to do that.

So, what are we to do in the meantime?

Certainly not just stay home and not vote!!

I know that many conservatives do not think that Huckabee is a better choice than McCain. But I would trust him more because of his Christian moral values. He would be strong against terrorism, has pledged to finish building the border fence, is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-business growth, wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. He also wants to champion putting the bloated IRS out of business and replace it with the Fair Tax.

I was encouraged when I saw the Kansas primary and the Louisiana caucus go Huckabee's way. The delegate count is currently low for him, but he's not out of the race yet.

I think that he would do better in any presidential debate against either Hillary or Obama. McCain doesn't have the oratory skills and his anger management problems are legendary. IMO, McCain would be better as Huckabee's VP, but McCain would NEVER humble himself to play second fiddle. That says a lot about his character, too. To me, it says that this election is all about him rather than about America and her people.

Of course, these are all just my opinions. Huckabee winning the nomination seems quite unlikely. It just might take a miracle from God.

The third party alternative never seems to work. In fact, it would backfire drastically...and would probably end up putting either Hillary or Obama in the White House.

Back to the debate issue. So far, Obama has not be asked any hard questions. He has not been pinned down and forced to answer what he was thinking when he made many of his former foreign policy gaffes (i.e. when he commented about bombing Pakistan). Very few people know how green he would be, his dismally ultra-liberal voting record in the Senate, and how racist his church pastor really is.

When people find out about his vote against the Born Alive Infants Act in Congress (I think either 4 or 6 others voted against it too), they will see how inconsistent all of his rhetoric has been in the light of reality. Many of the over 50 million abortions that have been done since 1973 have been black babies. How can Obama stand there and talk about "hope" when he has no problem knowing that millions of black children are not here because of his pro-death position on abortion? What will people think when they learn that Obama stood up in the chambers of Congress and argued against the Born Alive legislation? What will people think of this great "orator" who rejected a piece of legislation that said if a botched abortion occurred and the baby was born alive, the child should then be given medical care and given up for adoption rather than left to die on a cold steel examination table and subsequently thrown out into the garbage?

I have only mentioned just a few of the many, many questions that will be brought up in the future presidential debates between the Republican nominee and Democratic nominee. Obama will not be able to just repeat his ad nauseum mantra about "change" and "hope." He will have to answer the hard questions about his liberalism and how it so obviously doesn't match up with his claim of being a Christian.

Matt W. said...

Christine,
I don't know that it has to take several cycles to elect a good Congress. I think that it will only take as long as it takes to get people to stop being apathetic and get out and vote intelligently. Sadly, this likely means that it will never happen, but I don't think it puts a time limit on it. I think that either it will happen, or it won't, but I really hoping for will.

I also understand about a Third Party Candidate for President being an extreme long shot, but since I will NOT vote for John McCain, and I will be there voting, I'm not going to leave the section blank, so I'll vote for the best 3rd party guy (gal?) I can find. If Huckabee ends up getting the nod, I just might vote for him, but I'd have to think long and hard, and seriously Pray about it first. Additionally I would NOT vote for Hillery or Obama.

This is going to sound like I'm trying to be funny, but I really want to know what you think. Does Obama seem like a man who has been "given the power on Earth to decieve..." to you? I'm not a Prophet, nor am I trying to Prophesy, I honestly want to know what you think.
Thanks,
Matt W.

Christinewjc said...

Matt wrote: "Does Obama seem like a man who has been "given the power on Earth to decieve..." to you? I'm not a Prophet, nor am I trying to Prophesy, I honestly want to know what you think."

Oh yes! Big time! The fact that people are mesmerized by his oratory skills, the capability to win them over to vote for him without exposing so many of the negatives that Christians know about him, and the celebrity status that he currently enjoys could certainly makes him appear to be possess similar traits that Bible prophecy and prophets suggest would be attributes of the anti-christ.

I was amazed when Chris Matthews described his attendance at one of the rallies and actually admitted that listening to Obama was a "spiritual experience" for him!!

Yikes!!!

However, I would not go so far as to label Obama as the Antichrist. A lot of Christians have made that mistake with other politicians and historical figures before.

Scripture does warn us about the spirit of anti-christ; and we are told that such a "spirit" is already in the world.

1Jo 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

We are also told that satan disguises himself as an "angel of light."

2Cr 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

Therefore, when the Antichrist does appear, people are going to be fooled into believing that he's the best thing since sliced bread. The deception will make him appear as a good "angel of light" to unsuspecting non-believers. Then, when he's got them where he wants them, they will take the "mark" which will keep them in bondage to evil, sin and eternal death.


It helps to read the entire chapter of 1 John 4

Take into consideration these verses:

1Jo 4:1 ¶ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.


1Jo 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

Obama's ideas of "change" and "hope" do not include any references to God, Christ, or the gospel. If he is truly a born-again Christian (which I doubt because of the many liberal views he holds that Jesus wouldn't approve of) and spoke like one, then the "world" wouldn't be so mesmerized with him. His political leanings do not match up with what God wants from us as His children...to pursue holiness. Jesus said "if you love me, you will keep my commandments."

Jhn 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Jhn 15:10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

He also told us that the "world" would not love us because we belong to Jesus. They rejected Him, so they also reject those who follow Jesus.

Jhn 15:19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Through the many books that I have read (including those by Ed Hindson and Grant Jeffrey), I have discovered the view often held by Revelation prophecy experts is that the Rapture will occur before the "man of sin" appears on the scene. With the gospel influence of true believers gone, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit Who works within those individuals will be gone, too. That is when those who remain (and are obviously not Christians) will be very vulnerable to the deception of the Antichrist. The world will get what it wants - peace on this earth. But we have to ask, at what price?

The peace agreement with Israel that everyone will celebrate will only last 3 1/2 years. Then, all hell breaks loose. The real identity of this false "messiah" that everyone will be enthralled with will be shown and those who have taken the "mark" of the beast will be lost.

Those who do come to their senses, study the Bible (probably secretly because it would most likely be banned) and become Christians during the tribulation period will most likely be martyred for their faith.

This is just a very brief synopsis of some of the information that I have found through Bible study and reading the commentaries of Bible prophecy scholars.

Matt W. said...

Christine,
Thanks. I wasn't entirely sure how to phrase that question, so I'm really glad that you understood it how I meant it.

That is pretty much how I thought of him also. I do understand that we as Christians can never say with certainty who THE AntiChrist will be as we will not be here when he is made known. But it's hard not to wonder isn't it?

Christinewjc said...

It is hard not to wonder... and/or speculate.

Our discussion here motivated me to pick up Ed Hindson's book "Antichrist Rising: The Coming Global Storm" again and skim back through it.

It is interesting to note that in his introduction to the book, Hindson writes:

"The term Antichrist may be applied both to an individual and the system he represents."

We can see how the Liberal Anti-Bible Democratic "positions" are the polar opposite of the Conservative Christian Republican positions here in the United States.

Hindson continues:

"Since he (antichrist) will control these structures to his advantage, it is also vital that we renew our commitment to serve the cause of Christ in this world until the Savior calls us home. We have no mandate to surrender this world to Satan. On the contrary, we are called to transform society by the power of the gospel until our work here is done.

I'm not sure if you had yet discovered this blog when I wrote this post:

The Religion of the Future...Now Here?

I covered a lot of Hindson's prophecy study in that post.

There are additional links to former blogposts there, too.

I know it's not a laughing matter, but when Hindson lists the following characteristics of the Antichrist, and I thought about Obama...I just had to laugh. Some of them so very obviously do not fit Obama's profile:

1. Intellectual genius (Daniel 7:20) Obama? nope He is smart and savvy, but a genius? No!

2. Oratorical genius (Daniel 7:20) Obama? Possibly... He's a gifted orator, but genius? Questionable.

3. Political genius (Daniel 11:21) Obama? NOT!!!

4. Commercial genius (Daniel 8:25) Obama? Not if he wants to tax us all to death!

5. Military genius (Daniel 8:24) Obama? NOT AT ALL!!! Remember, this is the guy who thought we should bomb Pakistan!

6. Administrative genius (Revelation 13:1-2) Obama? Possibly... but only when considering his current climb up the delegate ladder of success on the campaign trail. He certainly mesmerized Chris Matthews and has cast a spell over many in the audience at his rallies.

7. Religious genius (2 Thessalonians 2:4) Obama? Maybe...if you succomb to the idea of religious pluralism.

Note this. Hindson writes:

"Perhaps the most telling of his characteristics is depicted in Daniel 11:21, which tells us that he will come to power and "seize it through intrigue" ("flatteries," KJV).

Obama? You bet!!

But whether or not he would be the master of deception, empowered by the "father of lies" remains to be seen.

However, believers who have been raptured won't see his (the Antichrist) rise to being Satan incarnate--thus, they would not be fooled by his miraculous recovery prophesied in Revelation 13:3.

However, for the non-believer, it will appear as a "miracle" and they would likely fall for his false Christ (pseudochristos) masquerade as an "angel of light;" only to discover too late that his ultimate goal will be to plunge the world into spiritual darkness.

Hindson: "Like Satan, he is a destroyer, not a builder. Promising peace, he pushes the world into war. In every conceivable way, he is just like Satan who indwells and empowers him."

Matt, have you ever seen the movie called "Judgment"? It's excellent! I highly recommend it!

Matt W. said...

Actually, I have seen Judgement. It was given to me a year or two ago for Christmas, and it was a great movie.
Thanks,
Matt