Mark of the Beast on Fast Track

Bush briefly discussed the ID card option with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, according to insiders. "I can tell you this, the president is very reluctant [to issue a national ID card]," a top White House source said on Sunday. "But we must look at all options." Just as House Democratic Leader Richard Gephardt [D-MO] says Congress should quickly move to open debate on security measures such as a national ID card. "We are in a new world," Gephardt said. "This event will change the balance between freedom and security." The Clinton Administration then extracted the various pieces from the various bills, two of which were illegally passed, and assigned the task to implementing a national drivers license (a clone of the European Union national ID card) to the National Transportation Safety Board. The internal passport will go into effect on October 1, 1999. In 1996 when Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. certain guidelines found in Section 656 (b) of the act. Federal agencies will be required to prohibit the use of state drivers licenses beginning Oct. 1, 2000, unless they comply with the federal standards. The new licenses must use the Social Security number as the driver's license number, for example. The act also calls for digitized biometric information to be a part of each license, or "smart card." Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen said Americans will be forced to make "choices between security and civil liberties." NBC's Tom Brokaw said, "We're going to have to reconsider a lot of our freedoms because of our attack." Representive Frank D. Lucas (R-OK) said, "If we were going to be absolutely safe, we'd have to restrict people's freedoms to the point that it wouldn't be America anymore."

Here is a great explanation of the "mark of the beast" It comes from the late David Chilton in his book, Paradise Restored

The symbolism of the Revelation is saturated with Biblical allusions which were commonly understood by the early Church. Even in those rare congregations that did not have some Hebrew members, the Scriptures used in teaching and worship were primarily from the Old Testament. The early Christians possessed the authoritative and infallible key to the meaning of John’s prophecies. Our modern failure to appreciate this crucial fact is the main cause of our inability to understand what John was talking about.

For instance, let’s take a much-abused symbol from revelation and apply this principle. In Revelation 7, 9, 14 and 22, John sees God’s people sealed on their foreheads with His name; and in Revelation 13:16 he writes of the worshipers of the Beast, who are designated on their right hands and foreheads with his mark. (By the way: Doesn’t it strike you as strange that everybody is so excited about “the Mark of the Beast,” when the clear emphasis in Revelation is on the Seal of God in the foreheads of believers?) Many fanciful interpretations have been made regarding these marks – ranging from tattoos and amusement-park validations to credit cards and Social Security numbers – and all without the slightest notice of the clear Biblical allusions. But what would the first readers of these passages have thought? The symbols would have made them think immediately of several Biblical references: the “mark” of sweat on Adam’s fore-head, signifying God’s Curse on his disobedience (Gen. 3:19); the forehead of the High Priest, marked with gold letters proclaiming that he was now HOLY TO THE LORD (Ex. 28:36); Deuteronomy 6:6-8 and Ezekiel 9:4-6, in which the servants of God are “marked” on the hand and forehead with the law of God, and thus receive blessing and protection in His name. The followers of the Beast, on the other hand, receive his mark of ownership: submission to ungodly, statist, antichristian law. The mark in Revelation is not meant to be taken literally. It is an allusion to an Old Testament symbol which spoke of a man’s total obedience to God, and it stands as a warning that a society’s god – whether it be the true God or the self-deified State – demands complete obedience to his lordship.

That will be the principle of interpretation followed in this book. The Revelation is a revelation: it was meant to be understood. It will not, however, be understood by lazy-minded and undisciplined thrill-seekers, who are in such a hurry that they have no time to study the Bible. Many rush from their first profession of faith to the last book in the Bible, treating it as little more than a book of hallucinations, hastily disdaining a sober-minded attempt to allow the Bible to interpret itself – and finding, ultimately, only a reflection of their own prejudices. But for those who give their attention to the Word of God as a whole, the message is clear. Benjamin Warfield wrote: “John’s Apocalypse need not be other than easy: all its symbols are either obvious natural ones, or else have their roots planted in the Old Testament poets and prophets and the figurative language of Jesus and his apostles.

I gave up, I'll admit, after the first few paragraphs of your screed. It was some feat to pack so much ignorance and misinformation into so few paragraphs, but somehow you managed it.

Dispensationalism's distinctive is that it comes directly from the Bible; it is hated because of its independence of Christianoid traditionalism. Like the critics of Christ and of Luther, you cite names and imply, "See, it can't be true; if it were these men would have taught it." Not necessarily.

Nor should one demand that they would — if one genuinely subscribes to the Reformed slogan of sola Scriptura (which I find most critics of Dispensationalism do not), and to the oft-cited (but little-believed) statement that there yet remains more light to burst from the Word of God. No, modern anti-Biblical neo-Romanist Reformed folk (i.e. amills and postmills) believe that Calvin mined it all, leaving nothing for us but to pick over his leavings.

In fact, George Peters, author of the magisterial The Millennial Kingdom, was Lutheran. If I recall correctly, Chafer was Presbyterian. Certainly J. Vernon McGee -- much-despised by the newly-sprung-up sect of Reconstructionism -- was a Presbyterian.

But what does that matter? Having absolutely NO Scripture to appeal to in context, the Recon gets himself involved in endless historical rabbit-trails, and I as a Reformed Christian care very little for it.

I'd just ask the old question: when you sin, what do you do? Do you bring a lamb to high priest serving an altar in Jerusalem? Or do you confess it to God and trust for the blood of Christ to cover it, making personal restitution if necessary? If the latter, then you believe in dispensations.

All Christians believe in dispensations. ALL Christians. The difference is only in the detail.

I am perfectly content to be in the tradition of the intellectually-alive men who refused to chain themselves to the warmed-over Romanism of so-called "Reformed" eschatology, had the intellectual integrity to look at the Bible afresh and on its own terms, and to go where Scripture led them.

But then, I actually believe in Sola Scriptura. That's why I'm neither amill nor postmill.

Dan
Help for Bible Students

You called me a liberal. That is why you do not know me.
your teachers lie to the masses to sell there books. Worse yet they scare them into church because after all. Jesus is comming soon. But "I ahve not given you a spirit of fear but of power, love and a sound mind!!" Youy religion capitalizes on fear and fantasy "Left behind series" claiming they interpret the Bible literaly yet twisting every event and symbol to fit their modern day belief. You will say back that we twist it to fit the past. i agree but it is not a twist. the only difference between the two is I have Christs words telling the Disciples that it was going to happen in their generation. I have Christs words telling the high priest thet he would see Christ comming "in power and great glory". I have the words of John telling me that "it is already the last hour".

What have you got?
A bunch of ignorant theologins, who do not know Old Testament prophecy and fufilment, telling us that these words are either mistaken or misunderstood. Somehow they twist these words and say that these men are refering to the future although the context never allows for it in any of the passages!

This is not possible since the LORD will not lose a single one of His own. To suggest His child will fall for the mark and serve the Beast is ludicrous and suggests that God is not able to keep His saints to the end (regardless of when you think that end will be). See #110.

Whoa sister Righteousness... I was merely commenting on the text of this thread, which suggests that thumbprints and the like represent the mark of the beast in stealth mode. Perhaps *you* should be ever vigilent of such technology and strive to avoid it lest you make a misstep and receive eternal damnation.

Really, what do you think is going to happen? Some dude like Don LaPrie is going to go on TV and tell people to *literally* get the mark of the beast? I posit that when the prophesy does come to pass, it will go under the radar of most folks. Perhaps that will mean that they weren't that righteous to begin with, eh?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.