Theology Club: Book of Life

[Doormat]

Names are not blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life. Rev. 3:5

According to Revelation 22:19 and Psalm 69:28, people can be removed from the Book of Life.

This is a promise to the redeemed in Christ, from Christ.

Every living soul starts out in the Book of Life.
Those who do not believe the gospel will be blotted out.
Those who believe the gospel will not be blotted out.

 

[Desert Reign]

That is only one thing that is settled.

Do you say that each believer will be saved regardless of what he does or believes subsequent to his conversion or do you say that God ensures he will remain faithful and never want to leave the sheepfold? Or perhaps something else?

 

[Lighthouse]

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

:think:

Every living soul starts out in the Book of Life.
Those who do not believe the gospel will be blotted out.
Those who believe the gospel will not be blotted out.

Scripture?

According to Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 there are names that were never written in the Book of Life.

Do you say that each believer will be saved regardless of what he does or believes subsequent to his conversion or do you say that God ensures he will remain faithful and never want to leave the sheepfold? Or perhaps something else?

Simply being a believer means nothing; even the demons believe...

One who is indwelt with Christ will never lose that; Jesus will never let us go. God will remain faithful, even if we do not.

 

[Doormat]

:think:
Scripture?

It's implicit. Why would the wicked be in the book needing to be blotted out if they didn't start out in the book? If a person is added to the book and then blotted out for cause, it implies salvation can be lost. Not so if everyone starts out in the book.

All little children are in the Book of Life. They are God's heritage, so logically they must be written in the book. When they grow up, many will not believe the gospel, and for that reason they are blotted out of the the book. Some will believe the gospel, and for that reason they overcome the world and will never be blotted out.

According to Revelation 13:8 and 17:8 there are names that were never written in the Book of Life.

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

Their names are not written in the book because they were blotted out. Do you think salvation can be lost? If not, then those scriptures must mean they were blotted out, not never written in.

 

[Doormat]

Exodus 32:33 ..."Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."

Implicit in that statement is that every person starts out written in His book.

 

[Lighthouse]

It's implicit. Why would the wicked be in the book needing to be blotted out if they didn't start out in the book? If a person is added to the book and then blotted out for cause, it implies salvation can be lost. Not so if everyone starts out in the book.

That particular verse doesn't state that any names will be blotted out. It is a promise that names will not be blotted out.

All little children are in the Book of Life. They are God's heritage, so logically they must be written in the book. When they grow up, many will not believe the gospel, and for that reason they are blotted out of the the book. Some will believe the gospel, and for that reason they overcome the world and will never be blotted out.

Scripture?

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

And?

"The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is."

And?

Their names are not written in the book because they were blotted out. Do you think salvation can be lost? If not, then those scriptures must mean they were blotted out, not never written in.

Can you back that up with anything?

Exodus 32:33 ..."Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."

Implicit in that statement is that every person starts out written in His book.

No it isn't. That only implies that people can be blotted out of that specific book, it never implies anyone is written in when they are born, or before.

It also doesn't show that to be the Book of Life.

 

[Doormat]

That particular verse doesn't state that any names will be blotted out. It is a promise that names will not be blotted out.

Brother, I have already established that names will be taken out of the book of life. I cited Revelation 22:19. Use that particular verse that states that they will taken out of the book of life and explain why. Answer the following questions in your own words:

Why is a person's name written in the Book of Life?
Why is a person's name blotted out of the Book of Life?

Scripture?

Any scripture against what I've claimed? I have to prove to you that children are the heritage of the LORD? I have to prove to you that some children grow up and believe and some grow up and don't believe? Seriously?

And?

You brought up the verse. I posted the text. You've never proved it means what you claim it means, i.e. that some people have never been written in the book of life. It appears like you are building an argument against eternal security.

And?

Again, you brought up the verse. I posted the text. In both cases I posted the full texts of the verse you made a claim about, then I made an argument against what you claimed.

Can you back that up with anything?

What do I have to back up? It's common sense. You have people being added to a book for some reason and then blotted out for some reason. Once you explain why you think people are added and blotted out, I believe it will be apparent that your position makes no sense.

No it isn't. That only implies that people can be blotted out of that specific book, it never implies anyone is written in when they are born, or before.

It implies that people are blotted out of God's book, which is elsewhere identified as the book of life, for sinning against God. If you imagine people are added to the book of life for a reason and then are blotted out for a reason, you are imagining the loss of salvation. You are also necessarily imagining unborn children are not written in the book of life.

It also doesn't show that to be the Book of Life.

How many books do think God blots people out of?

 

[Lighthouse]

Brother, I have already established that names will be taken out of the book of life. I cited Revelation 22:19. Use that particular verse that states that they will taken out of the book of life and explain why.

Why should I need to explain why? I was referring to a verse that states certain names would not be blotted out, and stated that said verse only states such.

Answer the following questions in your own words:

Why is a person's name written in the Book of Life?
Why is a person's name blotted out of the Book of Life?

What does this have to do with what I was talking about?

Any scripture against what I've claimed? I have to prove to you that children are the heritage of the LORD? I have to prove to you that some children grow up and believe and some grow up and don't believe? Seriously?

I'm asking for Scripture that states the names of all who come into this life are written in the Book of Life. That is the claim for which I want to see verses.

You brought up the verse. I posted the text. You've never proved it means what you claim it means, i.e. that some people have never been written in the book of life. It appears like you are building an argument against eternal security.

What part of "...whose names were not written in the book..." are you having a hard time with? It doesn't read, "...whose names were blotted out..."

If you think my argument is against eternal security you're blind.

Again, you brought up the verse. I posted the text. In both cases I posted the full texts of the verse you made a claim about, then I made an argument against what you claimed.

And your argument is a failure.

What do I have to back up? It's common sense. You have people being added to a book for some reason and then blotted out for some reason. Once you explain why you think people are added and blotted out, I believe it will be apparent that your position makes no sense.

I don't believe anyone is blotted out.

It implies that people are blotted out of God's book, which is elsewhere identified as the book of life, for sinning against God. If you imagine people are added to the book of life for a reason and then are blotted out for a reason, you are imagining the loss of salvation. You are also necessarily imagining unborn children are not written in the book of life.

The Book of Life is that of the Lamb, not the Father.

How many books do think God blots people out of?

:idunno:

 

[Desert Reign]

:think:
One who is indwelt with Christ will never lose that; Jesus will never let us go. God will remain faithful, even if we do not.

I think I can accept a belief that God will never let a person go from salvation, even though I disagree with it. It is a very positive belief. However, in terms of openness theology, I would refrain from saying that the future is therefore and to that extent settled. After all, God can be faithful in many things, not only in the matter of the believer's assurance. Assuming your OSAS doctrine is true, (I'm not saying it is but let's assume so,) the future is still dependent on God's faithfulness - it is not an absolute future that is dependent on nothing at all. It is that absolute future, that the Calvinists speak of - the one decreed by God - or the one the Arminians teach - where God knows it all in advance as some sort of mystical certainty that they are never prepared to explain - it is that absolute future that I abhor because it deprives the world of the life that God gave it.

I'm all for God's faithfulness of course. But it does seem (e.g. Hebrews 6: 4-8) that some people can fall away from faith. We all know of such people, sometimes even close to us. Calvin was at a loss to explain this phenomenon in the face of his 'perseverance of the saints' because 'perseverance of the saints' was a facet of the closed future that he advocated. Similarly, I think OSAS does the same thing, closing the future. But if you predicate it on God's faithfulness then the future is not settled in the same sense. God can be faithful but that doesn't mean the future is settled and it doesn't mean that every one who becomes a Christian will absolutely see the resurrection. I know you disagree but my main concern is keeping the open future truly open.

 

[Doormat]

Why should I need to explain why?

You're asking me to explain why I am asking you to explain something. This conversation doesn't have to be so arduous.

What does this have to do with what I was talking about?

You are asking me a question instead of answering my two questions. I have no idea what you believe. You think you were written into the book at some time, and I want to know when that was. If you don't know, just say so.

I'm asking for Scripture that states the names of all who come into this life are written in the Book of Life. That is the claim for which I want to see verses.

Exodus 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Psalm 69:28 May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.

Common sense and the law of parsimony leads me to conclude that one has to start out written in the book of life at conception for Exodus 32:33 and Psalm 69:28 to make sense.

What part of "...whose names were not written in the book..." are you having a hard time with? It doesn't read, "...whose names were blotted out..."

They are not written in the book because they were blotted out.

Psalm 9:5 You have rebuked the nations and destroyed the wicked; you have blotted out their name for ever and ever.

Do you want to claim that wasn't true when it was written?

If you think my argument is against eternal security you're blind.

No, rather I am uninformed because you will not explain you views or answer my questions, which is what is normally expected in discussions.

And your argument is a failure.

How is my argument that their names were not written in the book of life because they were blotted out a failure? I've shown that God has a book that He will blot sinners out of (Ex 32:33), and have shown that blotted out names already (Ps 9:5).

I don't believe anyone is blotted out.

Why are they added to the book of life, if you believe they are added?

The Book of Life is that of the Lamb, not the Father.

Why don't you just explain what you believe completely so we can have this discussion quickly? Explain how many books there are, what the purpose of each is, and how one gets into those books, and how one is blotted out of any books. Stuff like that. I've already explained my view.

 

[Lighthouse]

I think I can accept a belief that God will never let a person go from salvation, even though I disagree with it. It is a very positive belief. However, in terms of openness theology, I would refrain from saying that the future is therefore and to that extent settled. After all, God can be faithful in many things, not only in the matter of the believer's assurance. Assuming your OSAS doctrine is true, (I'm not saying it is but let's assume so,) the future is still dependent on God's faithfulness - it is not an absolute future that is dependent on nothing at all. It is that absolute future, that the Calvinists speak of - the one decreed by God - or the one the Arminians teach - where God knows it all in advance as some sort of mystical certainty that they are never prepared to explain - it is that absolute future that I abhor because it deprives the world of the life that God gave it.

I'm all for God's faithfulness of course. But it does seem (e.g. Hebrews 6: 4-8) that some people can fall away from faith. We all know of such people, sometimes even close to us. Calvin was at a loss to explain this phenomenon in the face of his 'perseverance of the saints' because 'perseverance of the saints' was a facet of the closed future that he advocated. Similarly, I think OSAS does the same thing, closing the future. But if you predicate it on God's faithfulness then the future is not settled in the same sense. God can be faithful but that doesn't mean the future is settled and it doesn't mean that every one who becomes a Christian will absolutely see the resurrection. I know you disagree but my main concern is keeping the open future truly open.

If Hebrews 6:4-8 is saying what you think then it is also saying those who fall away can never come back.

What are your thoughts on eschatology if you think nothing is settled?

You're asking me to explain why I am asking you to explain something. This conversation doesn't have to be so arduous.

I am asking this of you because you are asking me to explain something I'm not saying, as though it is what I'm saying. That makes no sense.

You are asking me a question instead of answering my two questions. I have no idea what you believe. You think you were written into the book at some time, and I want to know when that was. If you don't know, just say so.

I could have sworn I have already answered this question, before you even asked it. I was written into the Lamb's Book of Life the moment I received His life; the moment I was saved.

Exodus 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Psalm 69:28 May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.

Common sense and the law of parsimony leads me to conclude that one has to start out written in the book of life at conception for Exodus 32:33 and Psalm 69:28 to make sense.

No it doesn't.:nono:

First off, the book in Psalm is the book of the living, according to the most faithful translations, and is not the same as the Book of Life. And the book in Exodus isn't even named.

However, it does make sense the book of the living would contain all the living. The Book of Life, however, would only contain those who had received the Life of the Lamb.

And yet, even so, in order for someone to be blotted out they do not have to be written in at the moment of conception; they only need to be written in at a time before they are blotted out.

They are not written in the book because they were blotted out.

Grammatically speaking the wording means they were never written in.

Psalm 9:5 You have rebuked the nations and destroyed the wicked; you have blotted out their name for ever and ever.

Do you want to claim that wasn't true when it was written?

Nope.

No, rather I am uninformed because you will not explain you views or answer my questions, which is what is normally expected in discussions.

You're asking questions I answered well before you asked them.

How is my argument that their names were not written in the book of life because they were blotted out a failure? I've shown that God has a book that He will blot sinners out of (Ex 32:33), and have shown that blotted out names already (Ps 9:5).

It's a failure because it ignores the grammar, and is a non sequitur. It does not necessarily follow, logically speaking, that the names "were not written" because they had been blotted out.

"Were not written," means, "were never written," especially in light of the fact that it is followed by, "from the foundation of the world."

"..,whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world..,"

Their names are not written in the Book of Life since the foundation of the world. This means they were never written in.

Why are they added to the book of life, if you believe they are added?

Because they have received the Life of Christ. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I honestly can't believe I had to explain that to you. It's the only logical conclusion one can come to about my belief on the subject when I state that I believe the names are not written in at, or before, physical birth.

Why don't you just explain what you believe completely so we can have this discussion quickly? Explain how many books there are, what the purpose of each is, and how one gets into those books, and how one is blotted out of any books. Stuff like that. I've already explained my view.

1. I don't know how many books there are.
2. The Book of Life is for the names of those who are saved.
3. Those blotted out of the book of the living are the dead.

I seriously don't understand how this wasn't clear?

 

[Desert Reign]

If Hebrews 6:4-8 is saying what you think then it is also saying those who fall away can never come back.

What are your thoughts on eschatology if you think nothing is settled?

There's a very simple logical issue here. It is OK to say that a certain thing will never happen. That doesn't make the future closed. A cat will never become a dog. A person who has experienced everything there is from God in Christ and has fallen away can never be renewed. What makes the future closed is in saying that something specific will happen. For example saying that a Christian will absolutely inherit eternal life in the resurrection. As I say, I am not averse to this idea if it is qualified as being dependent on God's faithfulness because that also doesn't make the future closed. (Whether it is Biblical or not is another issue).

As to eschatology, I've never been very clear as to what the Bible teaches. I believe there will be a resurrection. Those who are in Christ will stay resurrected, passing through the judgement. Those who aren't will be thrown into hell, where they will be burnt up (not tortured eternally). Whether this is an individual thing happening as and when people die or a historical event yet to come, I do not know. Probably many or most of the events predicted by Jesus happened by 70 a.d. How much is yet to come in historical terms I do not know, though again, probably, God's purpose for this world has already been realised in the establishment of the church and his purposes are for him to live in the church and bring life to the world through the church. I do not believe there will be a rapture, as that is not merited by Scripture and probably originated from not reading the various passages in context and taking an excessively dispensational view of history, thus reading into the words what was never there.

 

[Doormat]

I was written into the Lamb's Book of Life the moment I received His life; the moment I was saved.

If your salvation cannot be lost, as you've claimed you believe, then why will God take away your part from the book of life if you take away words from His prophecy?

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

First off, the book in Psalm is the book of the living, according to the most faithful translations, and is not the same as the Book of Life. And the book in Exodus isn't even named.

Prove your unsupported claim that those are the "most faithful translations." Prove the words "living" and "life" are substantially different enough in meaning to merit ignoring Occam's razor and claim Psalm 69:28 is not speaking of the "Book of Life."

Mathew Henry's Concise Commentary states:

69:22-29 These are prophecies of the destruction of Christ's persecutors. Verses 22,23, are applied to the judgments of God upon the unbelieving Jews, in Ro 11:9,10.​

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:

28. book of the living-or "life," with the next clause, a figurative mode of representing those saved, as having their names in a register (compare Ex 32:32; Isa 4:3).​

However, it does make sense the book of the living would contain all the living.

Yes, it does make sense. Do you think it matters how we define "living" when discussing God's book?

The Book of Life, however, would only contain those who had received the Life of the Lamb.

Revelation 22:19 presents a problem for your interpretation. And what would be the point of telling someone they will never be blotted out of a book (Rev 3:5) that no one is ever blotted out of?

And yet, even so, in order for someone to be blotted out they do not have to be written in at the moment of conception; they only need to be written in at a time before they are blotted out.

I cannot believe that because I believe life begins at conception.

Grammatically speaking the wording means they were never written in.

Grammatically speaking, you appear to be reading the word never into the scripture when it is not there. The verse means they are not written in the book of life, which is logical if God blotted them out per Psalm 9:5 or if God had taken away their part from the book per Revelation 22:19.

It's a failure because it ignores the grammar, and is a non sequitur. It does not necessarily follow, logically speaking, that the names "were not written" because they had been blotted out.

Does not necessarily follow? Then it's not a non sequitur, but a competing hypothesis. And no grammar has been ignored.

"Were not written," means, "were never written," especially in light of the fact that it is followed by, "from the foundation of the world."

You are adding the word never, and ignoring other uses of the term "from the foundation of the world." If we interpret Ephesians 1:4 in light of your arguments thus far, wouldn't we have to conclude that you were written in the book of life from the foundation of world, not when you believed the gospel?

"..,whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world..,"

Their names are not written in the Book of Life since the foundation of the world. This means they were never written in.

Then Ephesians 1:4 must mean something like you were always written in the book of life.

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

 

[Doormat]

Those blotted out of the book of the living are the dead.

I seriously don't understand how this wasn't clear?

It's not clear because it doesn't make sense. Read the scripture:

Psalm 69:28 May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.

You need to explain what you mean by "the dead." The verse is speaking of blotting out sinners from a book that righteous people are listed. You appear to be viewing the book as a list of all who are physically living, with those who physically die being blotted out.

 

[Lighthouse]

There's a very simple logical issue here. It is OK to say that a certain thing will never happen. That doesn't make the future closed. A cat will never become a dog. A person who has experienced everything there is from God in Christ and has fallen away can never be renewed. What makes the future closed is in saying that something specific will happen. For example saying that a Christian will absolutely inherit eternal life in the resurrection. As I say, I am not averse to this idea if it is qualified as being dependent on God's faithfulness because that also doesn't make the future closed. (Whether it is Biblical or not is another issue).

Jesus will never let us go. How's that?

As to eschatology, I've never been very clear as to what the Bible teaches. I believe there will be a resurrection. Those who are in Christ will stay resurrected, passing through the judgement. Those who aren't will be thrown into hell, where they will be burnt up (not tortured eternally). Whether this is an individual thing happening as and when people die or a historical event yet to come, I do not know. Probably many or most of the events predicted by Jesus happened by 70 a.d. How much is yet to come in historical terms I do not know, though again, probably, God's purpose for this world has already been realised in the establishment of the church and his purposes are for him to live in the church and bring life to the world through the church. I do not believe there will be a rapture, as that is not merited by Scripture and probably originated from not reading the various passages in context and taking an excessively dispensational view of history, thus reading into the words what was never there.

But you don't think there are things that will certainly happen?

If your salvation cannot be lost, as you've claimed you believe, then why will God take away your part from the book of life if you take away words from His prophecy?

Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

He won't. Those to whom this was written did not have their names yet in the Book of Life, but were looking forward to having their names written. If they lost that, that is when, and how, their parts were taken away from the Book of Life.

Prove your unsupported claim that those are the "most faithful translations."

NASB? Everyone I've heard on the subject claims it to be the most faithful translation.

Prove the words "living" and "life" are substantially different enough in meaning to merit ignoring Occam's razor and claim Psalm 69:28 is not speaking of the "Book of Life."

The Book of Life of the Lamb is referring to the Lamb's Life and is for those who have received it. The book of the living is for those who are alive.

Mathew Henry's Concise Commentary states:

69:22-29 These are prophecies of the destruction of Christ's persecutors. Verses 22,23, are applied to the judgments of God upon the unbelieving Jews, in Ro 11:9,10.​

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:

28. book of the living-or "life," with the next clause, a figurative mode of representing those saved, as having their names in a register (compare Ex 32:32; Isa 4:3).​

​

And?

Yes, it does make sense. Do you think it matters how we define "living" when discussing God's book?

Read my post again. I was agreeing with you on this point.

Revelation 22:19 presents a problem for your interpretation. And what would be the point of telling someone they will never be blotted out of a book (Rev 3:5) that no one is ever blotted out of?

They didn't know.

I cannot believe that because I believe life begins at conception.

I was speaking of the Book of Life. The book of the living must contain those who are living, which begins at the moment of fertilization.

Grammatically speaking, you appear to be reading the word never into the scripture when it is not there. The verse means they are not written in the book of life, which is logical if God blotted them out per Psalm 9:5 or if God had taken away their part from the book per Revelation 22:19.

It reads that their names are not written, not that they were blotted out. If He meant that they were blotted out, why wouldn't He say that, since He said it in other instances?

Does not necessarily follow? Then it's not a non sequitur, but a competing hypothesis. And no grammar has been ignored.

It doesn't logically follow. That makes it a non sequitur.

You are adding the word never, and ignoring other uses of the term "from the foundation of the world." If we interpret Ephesians 1:4 in light of your arguments thus far, wouldn't we have to conclude that you were written in the book of life from the foundation of world, not when you believed the gospel?

"From" in those instances means "since." I am not ignoring it. You do not understand my argument.

My name has been written in since; it was not written in before.

Then Ephesians 1:4 must mean something like you were always written in the book of life.

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

See above. And stop reading into my posts.

It's not clear because it doesn't make sense. Read the scripture:

Psalm 69:28 May they be blotted out of the book of life and not be listed with the righteous.
It doesn't say "book of life," it reads "book of the living."

You need to explain what you mean by "the dead." The verse is speaking of blotting out sinners from a book that righteous people are listed. You appear to be viewing the book as a list of all who are physically living, with those who physically die being blotted out.

God was saying that those people should die, and not be counted among the righteous who should live.

 

[Desert Reign]

Jesus will never let us go. How's that?

That sounds more like a diplomatic solution. We would both accept the form of words but each would see different things in them. It's probably not a big deal: the important thing is to recognise the openness of the world, i.e. of history. I am sure we both do that.

But you don't think there are things that will certainly happen?

If there are, then they are only rendered certain on the grounds that God has made an irrevocable plan to carry them out. However, if there are such things, I don't believe the Bible is all that clear on what they might be and teachings such as the parable of the virgins or the house on the sand/rock indicate that our responsibility is merely (if 'merely' is an appropriate word) to carry out Jesus' commandments. It seems that it doesn't really matter what else happens in future history and especially it does not seem to matter which particular end-time scenario anyone believes.

In terms of the history of this world (so, discounting eternal things like the resurrection and judgement on which we seem to be in agreement) I don't know what further purposes God might want us to achieve. The Bible is quite confident that God's plan for salvation, for which he worked in history over a period in excess of 2000 years was fulfilled in the ministry of Jesus and the establishment of the church. If there is more to come, then it would need to come with a logic that was similarly compelling as this salvation history.

I'm not saying that there are no such plans but that the Bible does not seem to witness strongly to anything of that sort. There are many different views as to what will happen in the future but my problem with accepting any of them is that they do not have this compelling logic to them. Some of them indeed would seem to operate counter to logic and actually distract the average believer from focusing on what Jesus taught were the most important things. Some of them lull you into a false sense of security, whilst others seem to indulge in the prediction of disasters. To me, that is not what I call compelling. These scenarios need some really good reasons, that link harmoniously in with the core tenets of our faith and ethics.

 

[Shasta]

According to the grammatical analysis of the NET Bible the BOOK of LIFE belongs to The Lamb and the action that is being spoken about is not His being killed. It is the act of writing of all the names into the book which was said to have been completed “since the foundation of the earth.”

Revelation 13:8 (NET) and all those who live on the earth will worship the beast, 26 everyone whose name has not been written since the foundation of the world 27 in the book of life belonging to the Lamb who was killed.
27 tn

The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed” (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity.

Rev 17:8 (NET) The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth – all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world – will be astounded when they see that

Some have suggested that writing the Book of Life has been an ongoing process of editing and revision. In the current moment we live in it is. The names of faithful believers (the seed in good soil) are entered in. The names of other believers are blotted out either because they turned from Christ into a lifestyle of sin (the seed in the thorns) or because they did not endure tribulation until the end. The names of those who never believed were never entered into the Book in the first place. God did not predestine anyone's name to appear or not but He knew what they would do since the beginning and had the final edition in His mind before any choice was made.

This can be demonstrated in these two verses. Had God meant to say that the Book of Life was a work in progress the verb “HAVE BEEN WRITTEN” would be in the (progressive or durative) PRESENT TENSE which means that writing the names down began in the past and is still in progress but he did not. Instead he used the PERFECT TENSE which means writing the names down began and was completed in the past AND that the finished product (the completed edition of the Book of Life) has remains until the present. Some names were entered others were not based on God’s foreknowledge. Make of it what you will. That is what the text says.

The Lamb to whom the Book of Life Belongs was also forknown BEFORE the creation of the material universe.
1 Peter 1:19
19 …we were redeemed with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. 20For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you

If God before creation knew a lamb had be slain and forgiveness provided, if from the earliest part of the creation of the earth He already completed a list on all those who would receive and who would reject the benefits of His blood.and had already included and excluded names from His Book of Life then He foreknew the identities and final decisions of all that would be born. That is not the views of the latter day doctrines of such teachers as Boyd but they are consistent with the early teachings of those the apostles and their disciples trained.
Justin Martyr (circa 100 – 165 A.D)
First Apology Chapter 28
And that he would be sent into the fire with his host, and the men who follow him, and would be punished for an endless duration, Christ foretold. For the reason why God has delayed to do this, is His regard for the human race. For He foreknows that some are to be saved by repentance, some even that are perhaps not yet born. In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right, so that all men are without excuse before God; for they have been born rational and contemplative. And if any one disbelieves that God cares for these things,
First Apology Chapter 45
And that God the Father of all would bring Christ to heaven after He had raised Him from the dead, and would keep Him there until He has subdued His enemies the devils, and until the number of those who are foreknown by Him as good and virtuous is complete, on whose account He has still delayed the consummation—hear what was said by the prophet David. These are his words: “The Lord said unto My Lord, Sit Thou at My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool.

 

[Desert Reign]

According to the grammatical analysis of the NET Bible the BOOK of LIFE belongs to The Lamb and the action that is being spoken about is not His being killed. It is the act of writing of all the names into the book which was said to have been completed “since the foundation of the earth.”

Nope, that's completely wrong. How many times do people want to dispute the plain meaning of a text? How many more reference works need to be selectively quoted, misquoted or corrupted before pride gives way to a humble acceptance of the inspired words of scripture?

Firstly, there is nothing in the text about anything being completed. That's an absolute invention on your part.

Secondly, it was not the book which was written. Greek, like many languages, have adjectives and participles which must agree in number and gender with their subjects. In this passage it is the names which have been written, not the book. It is impossible to make it say that. The rest of your post is dependent on these mistakes and doesn't need to be commented on.

Thirdly, possession is broad concept and this is true in every language. Only the context determines the exact meaning. The book of life is specifically the book of life of the slain lamb, not just any lamb but the slain lamb. Not even of the lamb that was about to be slain.

But this does not mean that that the lamb had to be slain before the book was written or that God had to already know the names before each of them was written. Consider the following phrase:

My book.

This is the English possessive. It could mean any of the following:

The book that I bought.
The book that was given me as a present.
The book that I am particularly fond of reading. (My preferred book.)
The book that I gave (take note - yes, even this - "did you like my book?").
The book that I wrote.
The book that I published.
The book that was written about me.

It could mean quite a number of other things as well. Possession is just a general concept for a close relationship to. My party, my diary, my garden, etc., etc. These can all mean many different things. This same principle holds true in every language.

The book of all the names written of the slain lamb from the foundation of the world is simply the book of the names of all the people who by faith have been justified by Christ's death on the cross. Abraham for example didn't see what he believed in but he benefited from it just the same so his name written in that book was still the book of the slain lamb even though he lived and died long before Christ.

 

[Desert Reign]

Actually, I will comment on the following:

This can be demonstrated in these two verses. Had God meant to say that the Book of Life was a work in progress the verb “HAVE BEEN WRITTEN” would be in the (progressive or durative) PRESENT TENSE which means that writing the names down began in the past and is still in progress but he did not. Instead he used the PERFECT TENSE which means writing the names down began and was completed in the past AND that the finished product (the completed edition of the Book of Life) has remains until the present. Some names were entered others were not based on God’s foreknowledge. Make of it what you will. That is what the text says.

Once again a misuse of Greek grammar and especially deceptive towards those (the vast majority) who don't know one end of the Greek alphabet from the other.

The fact is that the act of writing down each name is a one off event. And furthermore (I have already stated this in an earlier post) the passage is written from a specific standpoint in the future, namely during the tribulation. Which means that at the time of the tribulation no more names were going to be added to the book so the book was effectively complete at that time. That's two overwhelmingly convincing reasons why the present tense would not and indeed should certainly not be used in this case.

I suggest, get a life and accept that you are wrong. Why devote so much time and energy trying to make the Bible say what you want it to say instead of just sitting back and listening to what it already does say?

But if you want to indulge in speculation as to what the Greek text of Bible should have said had it meant something that your opponents believe, then you might consider that if it meant that God foreknew all these names before the foundation of the world, it would have been easier had it said that in the first place indeed it would be quite simple to say it in Greek. So by this same argument it cannot possibly mean what you assert.

 

[Shasta]

Nope, that's completely wrong. How many times do people want to dispute the plain meaning of a text? How many more reference works need to be selectively quoted, misquoted or corrupted before pride gives way to a humble acceptance of the inspired words of scripture?

I am not absolutely intransigent in my current understanding of the Book of Life. Whenever I hear a lot of conflicting ideas about the word I try as far as possible look at the bare essentials of the text. I like anyone else can find myself in the position of hammering the last pieces of the puzzle in once I think I see the whole picture. Right now I am seeing more than one possible meaning.

I did not start out thinking so much about the book although since the it consisted of a list of names which had been complete since the foundation of the world it seemed that the book would have also been complete. I do not exactly how it all works together could be unless God has true foreknowledge but at any rate it is not my place to alter the grammar to make it fit my paradigm is it?

Secondly, it was not the book which was written. Greek, like many languages, have adjectives and participles which must agree in number and gender with their subjects. In this passage it is the names which have been written, not the book. It is impossible to make it say that. The rest of your post is dependent on these mistakes and doesn't need to be commented on

My interest was primarily on the names and even more on the actions. Were you wanting to initiate a more detailed discussion of of adjectives, participles, gender and number?

Firstly, there is nothing in the text about anything being completed. That's an absolute invention on your part.

The verb"written" brings into the text the sense that the writing of the names has be completed. It is specified by the way the verb is spelled. The perfect tense tells us that the action began was finished in the past and and remains in the present in completed form. I did not make that up. I am not imposing the grammatical rule pedantically. It is perfectly consistent given the context. If I went to the college admissions office and asked "Am I on the class roll or not?" I would not be looking for a general answer but something specific. If they said "You have been enrolled since the first day" I would be reassured whether I saw the actual roll or not. If they were having some computer problem and said "You are being enrolled" I would conclude that the process was not complete but ongoing.

When John spoke of the world who will worship the beast he was standing in his own present looking towards a future event. From the same position he explains it by the fact that their names had been omitted from a list completed in the past. Their action, their final choices were what revealed their place in the eternal scheme of things.

First he looks to the future events in time then backwards to the Beginning of creation when men did not exist. Since it is not God's will that people worship the Beast I assume that He would make them do so but that He simply knew that they would and that those future choices unknown to most of us have been factored into His Plan. Again I remind you that forknowledge without predestination was the view held by the early Church Fathers whom Eusebius and Augustine's followers thought were intellectual inferiors.
.

Thirdly, possession is broad concept and this is true in every language. Only the context determines the exact meaning. The book of life is specifically the book of life of the slain lamb, not just any lamb but the slain lamb. Not even of the lamb that was about to be slain.

I agree.

But this does not mean that that the lamb had to be slain before the book was written or that God had to already know the names before each of them was written. Consider the following phrase:

My book.

This is the English possessive. It could mean any of the following:

The book that I bought.
The book that was given me as a present.
The book that I am particularly fond of reading. (My preferred book.)
The book that I gave (take note - yes, even this - "did you like my book?").
The book that I wrote.
The book that I published.
The book that was written about me.

It could mean quite a number of other things as well. Possession is just a general concept for a close relationship to. My party, my diary, my garden, etc., etc. These can all mean many different things. This same principle holds true in every language.

I agree. Possession is very relational here.

The book of all the names written of the slain lamb from the foundation of the world is simply the book of the names of all the people who by faith have been justified by Christ's death on the cross. Abraham for example didn't see what he believed in but he benefited from it just the same so his name written in that book was still the book of the slain lamb even though he lived and died long before Christ.

Amen