Kurieuo wrote:Not even the fact Revelations is itself full of pictures and symbols, a book of prophecy (1:3) wherein the events described were "signified" by God's angel to John (1:1)?
No, that doesn't imply, much less prove, that the mark is figurative. Obviously, there is a good amount of symbolism in the book, but that doesn't mean that everything is symbolic. Further, those things that are symbolic are extremely plain to see. This is one of my problems with most non-literal interpreters. They act as if symbolism is some mystical code that can't be identified. Thus, not only can we not be sure what is and isn't symbolical, but we can only guess at its meaning!
I don't buy it. I read the Revelation very literally, and I have absolutely no problem picking up what is symbolic and what is literal. It's a matter of common language. Nothing more, nothing less. As for the word "signified" in the verse, it doesn't mean that everything is symbolic. It just means "taught" or "explained."
Kurieuo wrote:In Revelation 14:1— we also have: "Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads." I don't know what you believe about this verse, but if being marked for God here is spiritual then it seems strange to say being marked for Satan is physical.
But there is an obvious contrast here. These are standing in the very presense of the Lamb, which tells us one of two things:
1. They've all been martyred, as implied by 13:7, and thus they are in heaven. However, they have not yet received their glorified bodies in the Resurrection, so it seems doubtful that this mark would be physical.
2. This is a picture of them hiding from the beast's persecution in 13:7; thus, their refuge is in God. They are marked by Him as He protects them. Regardless, the symbolism throughout in this understanding is obvious. If they are not standing with the Lord physically on the actual Mt. of Zion playing physical harps and learning an actual song, there would be no reason to assume that the mark was an actual mark, either.
Further, regardless of which interpretation you take, this mark is standing in clear contrast to the mark of the beast. The beast is not God, and thus he cannot mark people's hearts. Do remember that he is a physical ruler over a physical kingdom. Against this, these tribulation saints are marked by a spiritual God for a future kingdom. The mark was given in chapter 7 by the Holy Spirit, so there is little reason to assume things should be different now. Marks of those flesh are on the flesh. Marks of the Spirit are on the spirit.
Kurieuo wrote:Further, I wonder how this literal mark fits in with your soteriological beliefs where once a Christian is saved by faith at any one time, they are always saved regardless of whether they loose such faith, convert to Islam, Buddhism or what have you. If a Christian obtained the mark of the beast (as physically understood), how would this impact upon their salvation within your theology?
It doesn't. None of the people who receive the mark have believed in Christ, and thus, none of them ever have been saved. Note the 2 Thess. passage already mentioned. They believe the lie, and thus receive the mark. This believing of a lie constitutes the rejection of the Truth. Never believing, they are never again offered the chance to believe.
However, those who do reject the lie and believe on Christ for salvation are eternally secure.
Bizzt wrote:On top of that then how can one be Saved then Reject the word of God. After knowing of him and his splendor then how can one go back and say I do not believe in Jesus
Sure he can. That's why we have explicit warnings throughout Scripture to hold fast in the faith.
As for the verse you provided, the entire context is with reference to false teachers. How do you know who a false teacher is? He is the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ, which, for the record, is exactly what the problem was that John was combatting. Teachers had come in with the idea that sin wasn't real, that they had never sinned, that you could live however you want and still be in fellowship with God, etc. Of course, all of this is flatly false. These people are antichrists. To take this reference to them and apply it to fallen believers is unjustified. That is simply not what John was talking about in this passage.
On the other hand, we have verses like 2 Pet. 2:21-22, "It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit,"and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud." (NIV)
Here we have believers who have forsaken their faith. I take the same for the three warning passages in Hebrews, as well as for Paul's many exhortations to hold fast in the faith.
God bless
