:rotfl:
ECT The Mark, The Number and the Name
- Thread starter fzappa13
- Start date
:rotfl:
Good post.
He makes it sound like something? What he's is saying, I know not?
You touch on what, for me, are two of the most important points:
1) Most folks look at the passage in question as if it were some sort of light switch that is suddenly turned on. It does not occur to them that our adversary will use his favorite tool, gradualism, to avoid spooking the sheep until they are already in the catch pen.
2) The love of money is the root of all evil and the Lord will find out just which is more important in our lives ... it or Him. Rev 13 implies a cashless society in that cash allows a monetary autonomy that is precluded by this passage. Those paying attention will note that cash is indeed on its way out. What is left in it's place is a system of accounting totally controlled by others (eventually one other) that may only be accessed under the terms set forth in Rev 13.
That day swiftly approaches.
I'll make you a deal ... don't call me a Dispy and I won't call you a Trinitarian.
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's not quite clear. Is it antinomian to think of it as legislation? It is certainly theocratic to do so. You just need to unpack "Covenantal" (contrast it with the wrong way) and "fulfill" for me, thanks.
You might also restate what you are saying in terms of Gal 3:17 where the problem is that the Promise has been voided and replaced by Judaism. Are you saying 1, the same thing,
2, an additional problem, or
3, unrelated to Gal 3:17.
Since your new pal failed to address you on this - Can you give an intelligent response instead :chuckle:
Interplanner
Well-known member
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I don't recall doing so. My first post was bare without quoting anyone. You are definitely representing Futurist Eschatology, with strong Dispy themes.
Nothing I've said was personal toward you. I primarily address things/topics/doctrines rather than individuals. Do you have a summary label or term as shorthand for what you would prefer?
I'm a Uni-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinitarian, so calling me one is okay. (My beef with most modern professing Trinitarians is that they are functional Tritheists not representing the historical authentic Trinity doctrine with their false nominal conceptualizations of "threeness".)
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
If we begin with an understanding of law from Greek as nomos, then it begins to become more clear. Nomos is distribution, allocation, allotment, assignment, apportionment. And as a noun, it is that which is distributed; which is God's standard for inward character and outward conduct.
The (unilateral) Abrahamic Covenant was Faith. Faith, as a noun, is the thing believed; and the Mosiac Law was the means of outwardly demonstrating the inward disposition of the heart toward the Faith Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was the Decalogue (the Ten Words, not "commandments"), and was the means of faith being demonstrated by/as works.
The religious leaders are those who made the Covenants into codified legislation for a mere do/don't lifestyle that was not according to the faith covenant. The Mosaic Law was a heart issue, not a defiant outer compliance lifestyle with no faith from the heart.
The Pharisees fulfilled the letter of the law, and then some; but their hearts were wretched and devoid of faith. This was their self-righteousness, employing an outer standard that came from their own heart apart from faith. Otherwise they would have known their promised Messiah.
The rich young ruler kept the Mosaic Law in this form, but not according to faith. Jesus fulfilled both covenants.
As for Galatians 3:17 et al, Jesus Christ is the final and personified distribution (law) of God's righteousness as both inward and outward standard for character and conduct. No need for the ordinances when all is accomplished in/by Christ and we are translated into Him, putting on Christ and putting off the old man.
This is the law (distribution) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, which hath made us free from the law (distribution) of sin and death. (Romans 8:2)
Interplanner
Well-known member
Is Paul talking about post-exilic Judaism or is he talking about the Moses era of it?
Could you comment on Gal 3:17?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I know little about Interplanner except that he is not a Dispensationalist or any other flavor of Futurist.
Eschatological views affect one's Hermeneutics for all biblical interpretation and application, etc. as the "lens" of understanding for presuppositions, etc.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I edited the previous post as you were posting this.
If you take the mark (per any of the methods you have listed), not yet knowing that it has separated you from God, then you are already sunk with no hope. Wouldn't matter if you wake up days from that to find out what the mark is all about, you're already sunk with no chance of repenting.
We already use money in multiple methods. No matter what method you use, it's still about spending money.
If using any of the methods to spend your money is wrong to do, then spending money now is wrong.
Why would the method matter?
There would have to be something about it that is directly tied to being separated from God.
Otherwise, making the choice to use one method of spending your money over another method of spending your money has no consequence of being separated from God.
It's not as if you could be caught unawares in the catch pen without knowing that you have agreed to worship the beast.
I mean, say you do get caught in the catch pen and were unaware at the time what it involved.
You now have the mark.
Everything seems fine and going along gradually as usual with spending your money to provide the things your family needs.
Then, over time, you finally learn that taking the mark means you will be separated from God.
You don't want that.
You don't want to worship the beast, you want to worship God.
What do you do now?
You already have the mark.
It will do no good for you to say, "Take it back, I don't want to worship the beast."
Once the mark is taken, you are sunk.
This makes a little more sense ---- "under the terms set forth in Rev 13".
Those terms would include worshiping the beast.
None of the present methods of spending money have included that term.
Until that term is included, all you are doing by using any of the methods is just spending your money.
Yes, I am a Nonismatist.
Nononsensematist
I appreciate what you are saying here and I have heard it many times before. One thing I have noted is that I continually hear folks talk about “the mark” as if it were the only thing in play here. Hence the title of my thread. It is important to remember that we are talking about three different things here. Mark, number … name.
As it concerns “the mark” I think it an unfortunate translational effort that has us thinking “the mark” is taken. This is a mistranslation. The word translated (didomi) means “to give”, not receive. Place this along side the meaning of the word translated as “mark” (charagma) that, in it's day, was used to refer to, amongst other things, a king's signet ring used to press wax melted and poured onto a parchment and pressed into it to seal it and identify it as being from the king and it would seem to indicate that we provide this mark to verify our identity. Not take it as an act of worship … though it would appear that the two ideas intersect during the 3 ½ years that “ the beast” is allowed to flourish.
Apparently you misunderstood what I said. Money is going to be done away with. Money would allow you to freely buy and sell whatever you wanted without restriction. Revelation 13 and 14 precludes this during the time concerned.
Interplanner
Well-known member
While I will fight totalitarianism in any form, your use of the Rev is of no value. It was written, says the first page, for the traumas of the 1st century Christians in Judea. It is resolved when the 'harlot' is attacked by the 'beast' it tried to ride and then the wedding of the Lamb can take place. The thing was written to help those people cope with all the loss of life and friends at that time.
In addition to the wedding event, the long reign of Christ comes. Christians are harrassed at the very end of it, but their enemy is defeated by a word, and the NHNE comes. There is nothing about geo-political events happening in Israel as you hear on so many sermons and TV programs today. Nada, zip, zero. The idea that it is only takes place when the worst techniques of using the Bible are employed, many of them like dropping a Bible open to decide what to do today.
... but hopefully not completely bereft of a sense of humor.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Yes, I remember. Oddly, that's an -ism. LOL.
It's hard to be that validly evasive or nebulous about Eschatology, though many make such claims. You're discussing with a Futurist perspective. It's certainly not a Preterist, Idealist, or Historicist perspective; so there is always some sense of "-ism" because most of the ground has been covered at some point and identified with a label that is generally an -ism.
Even Nonismatism is an -ism.
If you're referring to literal tangible Tribulation events in the future, it's Futurist Eschatology of some kind.