666 and the Man of Sin
By now if you are a regular or even semi-reader of the Apologia Christi blog you could easily come to the conclusion that I do not have much interest into eschatology. Rather than get heated over an issue in the church that tends to cause nothing but strife and division*, the only conviction I have in the matter is this: "One day Christ will return and fulfill His promise to save His beloved. Satan will be defeated once and for all. Redemption and justification will be finalized. And lastly, we will forever be in the midst of our Heavely Creator." The details of when, how, where, and what countries will be involved are perochial matters that I would rather wait to find out than to speculate and cause unnecessary division.
Do not get me wrong, though. I do believe particular views sound more convincing than others and I am open to hearing their arguments and the evidence for the view they take. One such view I find pretty convincing, though not exhaustive enough to completely persuade me is the amillenialist view put forth by Kim Riddlebarger.
Today marks the day (pun intended) that Kim Riddlebarger releases his new book entitled, "Man of Sin." Here is the description given by Riddlebarger:
"In my book, The Man of Sin, I attempt to make the case that the church has faced many "antichrists" from the days of the apostles (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 7).
I also contend that the beast from the land is imperial Rome (Revelation 13:1-10) and the beast from the sea is the emperor cult in Asia Minor (Revelation 13:11-18) when John was given the vision we now know as the Book of Revelation, about A. D. 95. The dragon empowers the state and its leader (the false prophet) to turn on all those who confess "Jesus is Lord." To confess "Jesus is Lord" is to simultaneously confess that "Caesar isn't!"
John implies that what is represented by the beast (a satanically energized state waging war on the church) will reoccur throughout the course of this age (Revelation 17:9-18), and will finally culminate in a great apostasy and out-pouring of evil at the end of this age (Revelation 20:7-10), when Satan is released from the Abyss, only to go to his final destruction.
Paul's discussion of the "man of sin" (lawlessness) in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, fits with this as well. Paul speaks of someone in the church (the temple of God--which I believe is not a reference to the temple in Jerusalem, either in AD 70 or in the future), who proclaims himself God, demands worship, and deceives many through Satanic power. Paul likewise ties this to a final apostasy (2 Thessalonians 2:3). While image of a deceiver in the church surely fits with the papacy (which is an antichrist institution), Paul ties the revelation of this particular individual to the time of the end (2:8). The appearance of the man of sin and the final apostasy are harbingers of the end."
Instead of boosting the opening day ticket sales of the new movie "Omen", divert your money into a better investment by purchasing Kim Riddlebargers new book, "Man of Sin." I bought it this morning, and I am enjoying every page.
Footnote: *Division alone is not inherently bad. Take for instance the division Christ made with the Pharisitical teachings. The division I mentioned here pertains to unnecessary and non-productive change. In otherwords, Christ was not the reason for the change, but man's convention drived the split.
*********************************
Cross-blogged at Apologia Christi
*********************************
Technorati Tags: Man of Sin, Antichrist, End Times, Eschatology, Israel, Prophecy, 666, Theology, Mark of the beast
Comments
Thanks
Do you belive in unicorns? If not, what is the best evidence you have that supports your claim?
Layman ~ The world is much older than the 150 or so years since photography! There are other avenues of evidence.
Because that is the case, I cannot take very seriously your statement that we be able to take pictures of something for it to really exist.
Second, I never argue that unicorns don't exist -- I just acknowledge that there is no evidence for their existence and no one seriously believes that unicorns exist. But God is a different story. There is much evidence that he exists even if -- like dark matter in physics -- we have not been able to directly perceive Him. Rather, we know of His existence through the signs that He has left.
One of the signs, and one that I find quite convincing, is the historical evidence that Jesus Christ lived on this earth about 2,000 years ago, preached that he was God incarnate, performed many miracles, was crucified, died and was buried, but on the third day he self-volitionally rose again from the dead and appeared to many people after his death. Quite a strong case for God -- unicorns have nothing on that. :)
Do you believe in unicorns? If not, what is the best evidence you have that supports your claim?
I suspect your answers would mirror mine for not believing in any mythological creatures.
There are different degrees of evidence for claims made, and the more extraordinary the claim (Magical little green folk at the end of the rainbow? Colorful flying horse-like animals with a pointy horn? An invisible man that lives in the sky?), the more extraordinary evidence is required!
I'm sure you apply this reasoning to most things. Otherwise, you'd fall for anything!
I think you misunderstood me. I said nothing about concepts. I merely agreed with you that there are other avenues for proving that something exists beyond the present ability to take a picture of it.
I have never had any reason to believe in Unicorns. So yes, obviously I have not fallen for "anything."
And it may help you to know that argument by contempt is not all that persuasive. In fact, it is not an argument at all. It is an insult. There are many reasons people believe in God, and they are not reasons that lend themselves to belief in unicorns. This should be obvious because billions of people believe in God yet no one believes in unicorns.
To feign ignorance of the arguments for God's existence and to pretend they are the same as those for unicorns just comes across as petty. Either you know of these arguments and are ignoring them or you are really one ignorant freethinker.
Here are many of the nonexperiential ones.
BK ~ Of course not. Love, laws, logic are abstract concepts, not "creatures."
Do you belive in unicorns? If not, what is the best evidence you have that supports your claim?
Layman ~ The world is much older than the 150 or so years since photography! There are other avenues
>>>hey guess what? God's not a creature either. So why do we need evidence?
I suspect your answers would mirror mine for not believing in any mythological creatures.
There are different degrees of evidence for claims made, and the more extraordinary the claim (Magical little green folk at the end of the rainbow? Colorful flying horse-like animals with a pointy horn? An invisible man that lives in the sky?), the more extraordinary evidence is required!
I'm sure you apply this reasoning to most things. Otherwise, you'd fall for anything!
2:22 PM
>>> trying to compare God to items in the universe is like trying to measuer c speed with a speedometer. You can't do it becasue it's the constant by which all speed is measured. God is the basic framework of reality, "he" will always be off scale.
when you show me scientific data to prove that we are not brains in vats, or buttlerflys dreaming we are men, then I'll listen to you. Until then you don't know what you are you are talking about.
It's not a date, get over it.