Theology Club: Did God know that man would sin?

[zippy2006]

I do believe that God knew that it was likely man would sin and had a plan in place for that eventuality.

That's not what the scripture says. It says he was slain. God slayed his Son based on a possibility? That makes no sense. :idunno:

Good OP.

 

[surrender]

That's not what the scripture says. It says he was slain. God slayed his Son based on a possibility? That makes no sense. :idunno:

Good OP.

Jesus wasn't literally slain before the foundation of the world. He wasn't born yet.

 

[zippy2006]

Jesus wasn't literally slain before the foundation of the world. He wasn't born yet.

Therefore? :liberals:

 

[Totton Linnet]

The RSV has it.
and all who dwell upon the earth will worship [the beast] everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

The Lamb was not slain before the foundation of the earth but the names had not been written in the book before the foundation of the earth.

It shows that God did foreknow in that He set up the book in which the names were/were not written

It disposes of the idea that God did not foreknow and predestine each one individually who would be born again.

 

[zippy2006]

The Lamb was not slain before the foundation of the earth but the names had not been written in the book before the foundation of the earth.

Wishful thinking.

and all who dwell upon the earth will worship [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life

It says some names have not been written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. In Bible-speak that simply means the lost, but if you want to read it literally it at least implies that others were written there which presents another problem for Open Theism.

The Lamb was not slain before the foundation of the earth

It does not say that. Furthermore, the Greek clearly indicates the Lamb was slain from the beginning. You are misreading the translation.

 

[Totton Linnet]

It is one of those verses which has confounded translators down the centuries, I personally think the RSV has it right.

 

[zippy2006]

It is one of those verses which has confounded translators down the centuries, I personally think the RSV has it right.

The RSV is a great translation, I'll give you that. What you are undoubtedly wrong in concluding even if you lean totally on the RSV is that God had a book at the beginning, but no names. That's just not Biblical.

 

[Totton Linnet]

The RSV is a great translation, I'll give you that. What you are undoubtedly wrong in concluding even if you lean totally on the RSV is that God had a book at the beginning, but no names. That's just not Biblical.

No the names of those who worshipped the beast, THEIR names were not written before the foundation of the earth in the book of life of Lamb slain.

 

[surrender]

Therefore?

Therefore, the Son wasn’t literally slain based on a possibility. I don’t think it was a possibility, anyway. I think it was certain that the Lamb would be slain (1 Peter 1:19-20). In other words, God knew man would sin and foreordained the sacrifice of the Lamb before the foundation of the world.

It says some names have not been written in the book of life before the foundation of the world. In Bible-speak that simply means the lost, but if you want to read it literally it at least implies that others were written there which presents another problem for Open Theism.

The Book of Life poses a problem for every view. If Rev. 13:8 & Rev. 17:8 say that the lost have not been written from the foundation of the earth in the Book of Life, this contradicts Psalm 69:28 that implies that everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life. But if everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life from the beginning, why does Paul speak of his fellow workers as those “whose names are written in the Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3). If everyone’s written in the book until they reject God, why would Paul use this phrase to distinguish these particular believers? Then, of course, we have Jesus saying he will not blot out of the Book of Life those who overcome. This implies that everyone's name is written in the Book of Life.

Perhaps the Book of Life metaphor means different things in different places.

 

[Pneuma]

No, you can’t say the same thing, because there is a precedence set in Scripture with the definition I adhere to. Christ Jesus tells us what “foundation of the world” means in John 17:24. When we get to 1 Peter 1:20, we can turn to Jesus to know what Peter means by “foundation of the world.” On the other hand, we never see “new earth” without also seeing “new heavens” along beside it. So, if Peter meant “new earth” he would have included “new heavens” as well.

That is your preconceived idea of a precedence brother.
Jesus tells us

33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?


If God knew from the foundation of the world (according to your understanding) why does He say they will reverence my son?

This parable is a great parable for the open view as it shows God actually thought they would reverence His son.

So if God thought they would reverence His son how can He be foreordained before the foundation of the world be as you believe?

I don’t understand the question.

See above example. If God foreordained Jesus sacrifice before the foundation of the old earth why did He send all His other servants first? Why does He say they will reverence my son?

Why is that? His sacrifice was foreordained, not his brutal execution.

Excellent, we agree.

 

[Pneuma]

Therefore, the Son wasn’t literally slain based on a possibility. I don’t think it was a possibility, anyway. I think it was certain that the Lamb would be slain (1 Peter 1:19-20). In other words, God knew man would sin and foreordained the sacrifice of the Lamb before the foundation of the world.

The Book of Life poses a problem for every view. If Rev. 13:8 & Rev. 17:8 say that the lost have not been written from the foundation of the earth in the Book of Life, this contradicts Psalm 69:28 that implies that everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life. But if everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life from the beginning, why does Paul speak of his fellow workers as those “whose names are written in the Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3). If everyone’s written in the book until they reject God, why would Paul use this phrase to distinguish these particular believers? Then, of course, we have Jesus saying he will not blot out of the Book of Life those who overcome. This implies that everyone's name is written in the Book of Life.

Perhaps the Book of Life metaphor means different things in different places.

There is no problem with the book of life from my view point.

 

[chickenman]

That's not what the scripture says. It says he was slain. God slayed his Son based on a possibility? That makes no sense. :idunno:

Good OP.

Hi, Zippy! :wave2:
I hope you're doing well.

What did you think of this previous post?

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

 

[surrender]

If God knew from the foundation of the world (according to your understanding) why does He say they will reverence my son?

This parable is a great parable for the open view as it shows God actually thought they would reverence His son.

So if God thought they would reverence His son how can He be foreordained before the foundation of the world be as you believe?

First, to be clear, I’m pro open view. Okay, this is the deal, even if I couldn’t reconcile what you’re asking above (which I believe I can), it doesn’t mean I am going to force Peter’s definition of “world” into one that fits the open view doctrine. There is absolutely nothing in Scripture to convince the reader that Peter is talking about the new earth. On the other hand, we have Jesus speaking of the Father loving him from the foundation of the world, which is clearly the “old” earth (using your terminology). Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that when Peter says the Lamb was foreordained from the foundation of the world, he is also speaking about the “old” earth.

Just because God thought/hoped they would reverence His son doesn’t mean He wouldn’t foreordain the Lamb from the foundation of the world. The Lamb had to be slain for the sin of the world whether they reverenced him or not. The Father and the Son wanted to sacrifice the Son for the sin of the world. Without it, the world would not have been reconciled to God.

 

[surrender]

There is no problem with the book of life from my view point.

I assume you believe everyone’s name is written from the foundation of the world (Psalm 69:28)? Great. But if everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life from the beginning, why does Paul speak of his fellow workers as those “whose names are written in the Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3)? If everyone’s written in the Book until they reject God, why would Paul use this phrase to distinguish these particular believers?

 

[glorydaz]

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?

It seems to me that when God declares something, it will come to pass. It's as good as done by His Word alone.

Isaiah 48:3-4
I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass. Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass

Isaiah 48:5
I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them.

 

[Desert Reign]

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

What is critical for me as I read the Greek text is the preposition "apo", meaning from. If it had meant that the lamb had been slain at or at some time before the foundation of the world, then a different preposition would have been used. Even in English translation it makes no sense to say "slain from the foundation of the world" as if that one phrase were to be read together.

'From the foundation of the world' has a clear meaning - that no one escapes: the book captures everyone who belongs to the lamb, who has new life in Jesus. The moment you have faith in Jesus, you get written into that book and because this book captures everyone from the foundation of the world (from time immemorial as we might say) no one can say on the day of judgement 'But I believed in Jesus, it's just that the book didn't include me.'

That is really the only meaning that this text will allow. It is quite impossible that it means that Jesus was slain beforehand. The 'from' preposition means at all times forwards of a defined point. Jesus being slain was a specific event at a specific time and certainly not a continuous event.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

Surely it wasn't because God didn't know what would happen. We see the same parable played out all throughout scripture.
Jer. 26:31-23, 2 Chron. 24:21

Luke 20:13
Then said the lord of the vineyard, What shall I do? I will send my beloved son: it may be they will reverence him when they see him.

 

[Desert Reign]

The RSV has it.
and all who dwell upon the earth will worship [the beast] everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

The Lamb was not slain before the foundation of the earth but the names had not been written in the book before the foundation of the earth.

It shows that God did foreknow in that He set up the book in which the names were/were not written

It disposes of the idea that God did not foreknow and predestine each one individually who would be born again.

Unfortunately, the translation you have quoted is incorrect. The Greek text says 'from' not 'before'. Changing 'from' to 'before' is a wilful and gross mistranslation. 'From' means that the names began to be written at the foundation of the world and they were added from that time onwards. The Book of Life is a record book. As I said in my previous post, it means that there's no escape for from the judgement (or the beast, as the case may be) if your name was not written in the book.

 

[glorydaz]

Therefore, the Son wasn’t literally slain based on a possibility. I don’t think it was a possibility, anyway. I think it was certain that the Lamb would be slain (1 Peter 1:19-20). In other words, God knew man would sin and foreordained the sacrifice of the Lamb before the foundation of the world.

The Book of Life poses a problem for every view. If Rev. 13:8 & Rev. 17:8 say that the lost have not been written from the foundation of the earth in the Book of Life, this contradicts Psalm 69:28 that implies that everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life. But if everyone’s name is written in the Book of Life from the beginning, why does Paul speak of his fellow workers as those “whose names are written in the Book of Life” (Phil. 4:3). If everyone’s written in the book until they reject God, why would Paul use this phrase to distinguish these particular believers? Then, of course, we have Jesus saying he will not blot out of the Book of Life those who overcome. This implies that everyone's name is written in the Book of Life.

Perhaps the Book of Life metaphor means different things in different places.

Revelation says there are "books", and your quote from Psalm 69:28 says that they be blotted from "book of the living" (speaking of physical death.) And, that they not be written with the righteous (Lamb's Book).

 

[Lighthouse]

That's not what the scripture says. It says he was slain.

No it doesn't.

"The Lamb slain," is to whom the Book of Life Belongs. Revelation 17:8 shows that "The Lamb slain" is not part of the subject to which, "from the foundation of the world," is directed.

The RSV is a great translation, I'll give you that. What you are undoubtedly wrong in concluding even if you lean totally on the RSV is that God had a book at the beginning, but no names. That's just not Biblical.

He had two names: Adam and Eve.

What is critical for me as I read the Greek text is the preposition "apo", meaning from. If it had meant that the lamb had been slain at or at some time before the foundation of the world, then a different preposition would have been used. Even in English translation it makes no sense to say "slain from the foundation of the world" as if that one phrase were to be read together.

It makes sense only if one reads it as it is presented in Rev. 17:8, as pertaining to the names written, or in this case not written, in the Book of Life.

'From the foundation of the world' has a clear meaning - that no one escapes: the book captures everyone who belongs to the lamb, who has new life in Jesus. The moment you have faith in Jesus, you get written into that book and because this book captures everyone from the foundation of the world (from time immemorial as we might say) no one can say on the day of judgement 'But I believed in Jesus, it's just that the book didn't include me.'

That is really the only meaning that this text will allow. It is quite impossible that it means that Jesus was slain beforehand. The 'from' preposition means at all times forwards of a defined point. Jesus being slain was a specific event at a specific time and certainly not a continuous event.

:thumb: