Theology Club: Did God know that man would sin?

[chickenman]

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. Rev. 13:8​

This reads, to me, as if the name of the book is:

The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain​

​

It reads that way to me because later we read:

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. Rev. 17:8​

"of the Lamb slain" isn't in that second passage. So the way they read to me, it doesn't at all speak to the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world. That's just part of the name of the book.

Is that a possibility in anyone else's mind?

Thanks,
Randy

 

[2COR12:9]

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. Rev. 18:8​

This reads, to me, as if the name of the book is:

The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain​

​

It reads that way to me because later we read:

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. Rev. 17:8​

"of the Lamb slain" isn't in that second passage. So the way they read to me, it doesn't at all speak to the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world. That's just part of the name of the book.

Is that a possibility in anyone else's mind?

Thanks,
Randy

I can definitely see that as a possibility and is rendered that way in many translations, and even appears in that order in the Lexicon placing the book from the foundation in the possession of the Lamb.
It doesn't change my premise that I believe God knew man would sin, and there are other passages that imply Christ would come and a different kingdom would be setup other then what was made in Genesis. Good call on taking a closer look at that scripture though. Also it's 13:8, you put 18:8 in case you want to change it.

​

 

[chickenman]

I can definitely see that as a possibility and is rendered that way in many translations, and even appears in that order in the Lexicon placing the book from the foundation in the possession of the Lamb.
It doesn't change my premise that I believe God knew man would sin, and there are other passages that imply Christ would come and a different kingdom would be setup other then what was made in Genesis. Good call on taking a closer look at that scripture though. Also it's 13:8, you put 18:8 in case you want to change it.

​

Thanks for the correction. I'll change it now.

 

[Lighthouse]

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. Rev. 13:8​

This reads, to me, as if the name of the book is:

The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain​

​

It reads that way to me because later we read:

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. Rev. 17:8​

"of the Lamb slain" isn't in that second passage. So the way they read to me, it doesn't at all speak to the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world. That's just part of the name of the book.

Is that a possibility in anyone else's mind?

Thanks,
Randy

Exactly!

 

[Pneuma]

Hello Pneuma,
God wanting to, or not wanting to sacrifice His Son, doesn't negate the fact that it was necessary. If it pleased Him also is debatable if you heed the prophecy of:
Isaiah 53:10 (NASB)
10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.
Granted I believe God capable of both grieving His Son's suffering and also being pleased in justice being fulfilled.

Hi 2Cor
Yes it was necessary for the sacrifice, but NOT until after the disobedience of man.

I still don't understand your position, for even if like you said He wanted us to just obey Him instead of getting to the point of a sacrificial system being necessary (even as a foreshadowing of Christ) this presumption would already be void, after the very first human disobeyed. At that point Christ was already necessary, before we even get to as you said

Quote:
If the people had OBEYED HIS VOICE then there would have been no need of burnt offerings and sacrifices.

Yet it is still AFTER the disobedience of man, so how can it be BEFORE the foundation of the world?
The understanding that Christ was slain before the (old) world was ever made it NOT compatible with Christ being slain while we were yet sinners.

God wasn't giving us a second chance before the sacrificial system was installed to work our way back into reconciliation with Him, we had already failed completely with Adam. We were never able to be justified by following any command, statute, decree, ordinance or by sacrificing every animal on the earth. Christ was the only one, and the only way, after Adam, that could reconcile us back to God.

The second chance was not BEFORE the sacrifice system, it was AFTER the sacrifice system was installed.
BEFORE the sacrifice system was installed God gave the command to OBEY HIS VOICE.

So going back to my saying it was a setup, meaning God initiated in the Garden a way man could disobey, as opposed to placing us in a state where no disobedience was possible, but like I said I believe it necessary for our love be genuine that we have the option to choose or reject God. God does not want man to disobey, but with His infinite wisdom being able to see every possible outcome, though not ordaining or foreseeing which possible future that would be chosen, He was able to anticipate that man would eventually sin requiring a Savior. The fact that Satan was cast to earth, prowling around looking for someone to devour, and that there was placed within the Garden a Tree of Knowledge which God forbid us to eat from, it's not too hard to see the inevitable; and to say God didn't see it coming(though not meaning in specifics) would be an insult to His intelligence.

I agree God knew it was possible that man would sin, but He (God) was not sure man would disobey His voice and sin. Therefore the lamb slain could not be BEFORE the foundation of the (old) world.

Though God will bring the ultimate good out of any situation, for He truly loves and wants what's best for us. In doing so He's set up a way for us to be reconciled and to enter into an existence that will fully surpass any reality of life in the Garden of Eden.

Agreed

I can kind of see your premise, that as we went along God said okay now I have to send my Son, though He doesn't want to; you'd still have refute the scriptures like Revelation 13:8, Matthew 25:34, 1 Peter 1:20.

I already gave a different understanding of those scripture brother. If you reread posts 6, 9 and 18 you will see that each post builds on the other and the conclusion imo leads to Christ being slain BEFORE the foundation of the new world not the old world.

 

[Pneuma]

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. Rev. 13:8​

This reads, to me, as if the name of the book is:

The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain​

​

It reads that way to me because later we read:

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. Rev. 17:8​

"of the Lamb slain" isn't in that second passage. So the way they read to me, it doesn't at all speak to the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world. That's just part of the name of the book.

Is that a possibility in anyone else's mind?

Thanks,
Randy

I can definitely see that as a possibility and is rendered that way in many translations, and even appears in that order in the Lexicon placing the book from the foundation in the possession of the Lamb.
It doesn't change my premise that I believe God knew man would sin, and there are other passages that imply Christ would come and a different kingdom would be setup other then what was made in Genesis. Good call on taking a closer look at that scripture though. Also it's 13:8, you put 18:8 in case you want to change it.

​

Exactly!

However the name of the book still shows that of a lamb being slain BEFORE the foundation of the world. And if that is the case imo it shows God foreknew man would sin, not might sin, before He ever created man.

 

[chickenman]

However the name of the book still shows that of a lamb being slain BEFORE the foundation of the world.

Why? God could make a plan before the foundation of the world that involved the Lamb being slain. Why does that necessitate that the Lamb be slain then?

 

[Pneuma]

Why? God could make a plan before the foundation of the world that involved the Lamb being slain. Why does that necessitate that the Lamb be slain then?

I think we all agree that the lamb being slain is speaking of Christ.

So if this slain lamb/Christ was the plan before the foundation of the old world why does God say I will send my son and they will reverence Him? Why did God send all the prophets first?

Yet if as I propose those scriptures are speaking of being slain before the foundation of the new world those questions disapear.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why? God could make a plan before the foundation of the world that involved the Lamb being slain. Why does that necessitate that the Lamb be slain then?

A plan being made of that, would also show that God knew man would fall before it happened.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why? God could make a plan before the foundation of the world that involved the Lamb being slain. Why does that necessitate that the Lamb be slain then?

A plan being made of that, would also show that God knew man would fall before it happened.

Which leaves, either(1) God knew man would fall because He can see the future - and that through the free will given to man, man would choose other than God and fall which resulted in a plan of redemption, or (2)that God planned for man to fall, which would negate free will.

Life and the rest of scripture shows free will clearly imo so i am going with #1.

I cant see a third option that God doesn't know the future, yet makes a plan of redemption without knowing that it would be needed.

 

[chickenman]

A plan being made of that, would also show that God knew man would fall before it happened.

Hi, Angel.

I wasn't arguing that (for or against). I was simply proposing a view of the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" passage.

Randy

 

[Lighthouse]

However the name of the book still shows that of a lamb being slain BEFORE the foundation of the world. And if that is the case imo it shows God foreknew man would sin, not might sin, before He ever created man.

No it doesn't. Rev. 17:8 shows that "from before the foundation of the world" was not referring to the Lamb being slain. And it also shows us the name of the book is, The Book of Life. The Lamb slain is to whom the book belongs, not part of the book's name.

 

[Pneuma]

No it doesn't. Rev. 17:8 shows that "from before the foundation of the world" was not referring to the Lamb being slain. And it also shows us the name of the book is, The Book of Life. The Lamb slain is to whom the book belongs, not part of the book's name.

I still don't see how that matters Lighthouse. For if ones name is not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world would mean that God created man or at least some of mankind who NEVER had their names written in the book of life. Which imo would mean God created man or at least some of mankind sinners.

 

[Lighthouse]

I still don't see how that matters Lighthouse. For if ones name is not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world would mean that God created man or at least some of mankind who NEVER had their names written in the book of life. Which imo would mean God created man or at least some of mankind sinners.

From means "since;" it does not mean He wrote down all the names of those who would be saved at that point, it means He was been writing names in it since then, and in the end there will be people whose names were never written within.

 

[Pneuma]

No it doesn't. Rev. 17:8 shows that "from before the foundation of the world" was not referring to the Lamb being slain. And it also shows us the name of the book is, The Book of Life. The Lamb slain is to whom the book belongs, not part of the book's name.

From means "since;" it does not mean He wrote down all the names of those who would be saved at that point, it means He was been writing names in it since then, and in the end there will be people whose names were never written within.

I understand what you are saying Lighthouse, and you could be right, something for me to think on anyway, but can a book of life exist without the slain lamb? Is not the slain lamb a prerequisite for us to be able to have are names written in the book of life?

 

[surrender]

How do open theists explain that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world?

This would mean He already had a plan of salvation, which infers that He knew already that man would sin.

If He knew already that man would sin, would that not in itself show that God indeed has foreknowledge and can see and as such plan and work those things for His Glory?

If He didn't already know that man would sin, yet made a plan of salvation - would that not infer that He made us sin?

Yes, 1 Peter 1:20 says that the Lamb, Christ, was foreordained before the foundation of the world. If the Lamb was foreordained, then that means the sacrifice was foreordained before the foundation of the world. This simply means that God knew that in every conceivable (finite) scenario, man would sin.

 

[Pneuma]

Yes, 1 Peter 1:20 says that the Lamb, Christ, was foreordained before the foundation of the world. If the Lamb was foreordained, then that means the sacrifice was foreordained before the foundation of the world. This simply means that God knew that in every conceivable (finite) scenario, man would sin.

Unless of course it is from the foundation of the new world as I propose.

 

[surrender]

Unless of course it is from the foundation of the new world as I propose.

I'm not familiar with "new world" "old world"... Isn't there just one world (the present one) for whom the Lamb was foreordained?

 

[Pneuma]

I'm not familiar with "new world" "old world"... Isn't there just one world (the present one) for whom the Lamb was foreordained?

Hi Surrender read my post #6 in this thread.

 

[Pneuma]

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:


In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
.
If the foundation of the world is speaking of the old world why does Jesus say I go to prepare a place for you when it says it was already prepared for them?

But if it is speaking of the foundation of the new world it is easy to understand Jesus going to prepare a place for them, and that it was prepared for them from the foundation of the world.


All that came before Jesus Christ belonged to the old world foundation, all that come through Jesus Christ belong to the new world foundation. The old passes away and He makes all things new.