Theology Club: Did God know that man would sin?

[surrender]

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).

Rev. 3:5 implies names can be blotted out from the Book of Life. Is that how you interpret that as well?

 

[Nang]

Rev. 3:5 implies names can be blotted out from the Book of Life.

Not at all.

Revelation 3:5 is the Lord's promise that those named in His book will NOT be blotted out.

This verse is not a threat, but a promise.

Nang

 

[Lighthouse]

Rev. 3:5 implies names can be blotted out from the Book of Life. Is that how you interpret that as well?

Actually it states that the names never will be. There is never an implicit statement that they could be, nor any other implied statement as such.

 

[surrender]

Not at all.

Revelation 3:5 is the Lord's promise that those named in His book will NOT be blotted out.

This verse is not a threat, but a promise.

Nang

I agree it's a promise. But how is it a promise if there's no real possiblity Jesus cannot keep it?

 

[Nang]

I agree it's a promise. But how is it a promise if there's no real possiblity Jesus cannot keep it?

The promise is based upon the surety that Christ can keep it.

What is the surety?

Jesus Christ resurrected from death to be the surety of life for all those named in His Book of Life.

 

[surrender]

The promise is based upon the surety that Christ can keep it.

What is the surety?

Jesus Christ resurrected from death to be the surety of life for all those named in His Book of Life.

In other words, Christ would not be able to keep it had he not been resurrected? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Nang]

In other words, Christ would not be able to keep it had he not been resurrected? Is that what you're saying?

There would be no everlasting life for humanity, if Christ had not resurrected from death.

Entertaining any other speculative thoughts regarding this truth, is nothing but a gross denial of the gospel.

Nang

 

[Pneuma]

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)

Well if you can answer them then please answer them.

, 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.

Your judgment of me here is wrong brother. The article I wrote about the foundation I wrote about 10 years ago. For the last 5 or 6 years I have debated on another board the total goodness of God and about 1 year ago a brother on that board asked me if I held believe in open theism. I goggled open theism because I had never heard of it before and read a little about it and told that brother that it sounded like some of the things I believed. About 6 months ago I decided to look more closely at open theism and bought 2 book on it, 1 by Sanders and 1 by Boyd. I still see thing a little different then they do but all in all you could say I hold to the open view.

The point being, is that I did not try to FIT those scriptures to an open view, it was the other way around, it was because I saw those scriptures the way I do that helped lead me to the open view.

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.

That makes no sense, if God thought they would reverance His son how could He foreknow before the old earth that Jesus was slain from that foundation.


God wanted obedience NOT sacrifice. See post #18 of this thread.

 

[Pneuma]

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?

Because they were those who had laboured with him.

 

[Pneuma]

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.

Well Jesus seemed to believe God did not think it was going to happen.

 

[surrender]

There would be no everlasting life for humanity, if Christ had not resurrected from death.

Of course.

Entertaining any other speculative thoughts regarding this truth, is nothing but a gross denial of the gospel.

The point is not about “entertaining speculative thoughts,” the point is about understanding the point of your post #85. And that’s what I’m trying to do, understand your point in post #85.

If the Book of Life has permanent ink, so to speak, where’s the power in the promise that names won’t be erased? Sounds like the names can be erased.

 

[zippy2006]

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

The standard English translation claims that the book of life belongs to the lamb that was slain, and this is a reading that makes more sense to me than your interpretation. I don't even understand how a book entitled "The book of life of the lamb slain" makes sense?

And the Lamb (Christ) as the author of the book of life makes perfect sense, since in the OT we see that God is the author.

 

[zippy2006]

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.

That makes sense to me DR, good point. :thumb: I will consult a scripture scholar first, but your point seems valid and it seems to deny the OP.

Granted, it does raise another problem that Totton tried to address: the names were written at the foundation of the world. I understand that your interpretation avoided that problem but I don't believe that particular aspect of your translation is very strong. I don't think John was claiming that the names get added as time goes on and eventually catch everyone.

 

[Lighthouse]

Granted, it does raise another problem that Totton tried to address: the names were written at the foundation of the world.

It doesn't say that.

It makes mention of those whose names have not been written since the foundation of the world; i.e. all those who have come into the world since and have never had their names written in the Book of Life.

 

[Desert Reign]

It doesn't say that.

It makes mention of those whose names have not been written since the foundation of the world; i.e. all those who have come into the world since and have never had their names written in the Book of Life.

That's correct. The text doesn't talk about anything happening 'before' the foundation of the world. This applies whether in reference to Jesus dying or to people's names being written down. So Zippy, I appreciate your qualified approval of my post but if you think I have a good point in relation to the Lamb being slain, then surely you would agree that the same point applies to the names being written?

The ambiguity in the text is not to do with whether anything was done before or after the foundation of the world. Whatever was done was done from the foundation of the world and onwards. It has to do with whether it was the Lamb who was slain or the names that were written 'from' the foundation of the world. It is certainly possible to read the text as meaning that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world and onwards as some kind of continuous event but that is simply absurd (as well as refuted by a number of scriptures elsewhere) and the alternative that the book is the record book of all the names written from the foundation of the world and onwards is so meaningful as to eliminate the awkward alternative.

 

[chickenman]

The standard English translation claims that the book of life belongs to the lamb that was slain, and this is a reading that makes more sense to me than your interpretation. I don't even understand how a book entitled "The book of life of the lamb slain" makes sense?

And the Lamb (Christ) as the author of the book of life makes perfect sense, since in the OT we see that God is the author.

The standard English reading shows, in Rev 17:8, that "from the foundation of the world" modifies "written in the book of life". So in Rev 13:8 which includes the phrase "of the lamb slain" but is otherwise the same message as 17:8, it seems to me we should conclude the same thing. It modifies "written in the book of life", just like 17:8; it doesn't modify "of the lamb slain." Therefore, one can't rightly conclude from 13:8 that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. He was slain once, when we witness the act in the first century.

 

[Desert Reign]

The standard English reading shows, in Rev 17:8, that "from the foundation of the world" modifies "written in the book of life". So in Rev 13:8 which includes the phrase "of the lamb slain" but is otherwise the same message as 17:8, it seems to me we should conclude the same thing. It modifies "written in the book of life", just like 17:8; it doesn't modify "of the lamb slain." Therefore, one can't rightly conclude from 13:8 that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. He was slain once, when we witness the act in the first century.

Yes, for example Rom 5:6:

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->[FONT=&quot]For while we were still helpless Christ died at the appointed time for the ungodly.[/FONT]<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

Hebrews 1:2

<sup class="versenum">2 </sup>but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son,

Gal 4:4

But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

It really flies in the face of the obvious to assert that Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world.

 

[zippy2006]

It doesn't say that.

It makes mention of those whose names have not been written since the foundation of the world; i.e. all those who have come into the world since and have never had their names written in the Book of Life.

It does say that. It says that everyone whose name has not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will worship the beast. The ones who are not written are precisely the lost.

That's correct. The text doesn't talk about anything happening 'before' the foundation of the world. This applies whether in reference to Jesus dying or to people's names being written down. So Zippy, I appreciate your qualified approval of my post but if you think I have a good point in relation to the Lamb being slain, then surely you would agree that the same point applies to the names being written?

Why would I have to agree to both? I don't think they are both correct.

The ambiguity in the text is not to do with whether anything was done before or after the foundation of the world. Whatever was done was done from the foundation of the world and onwards. It has to do with whether it was the Lamb who was slain or the names that were written 'from' the foundation of the world. It is certainly possible to read the text as meaning that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world and onwards as some kind of continuous event but that is simply absurd (as well as refuted by a number of scriptures elsewhere) and the alternative that the book is the record book of all the names written from the foundation of the world and onwards is so meaningful as to eliminate the awkward alternative.

Reading the text to say "God had a book at the foundation of the world, and as time went on He wrote more and more names into it" is simply not what the text says. The text says the names were written at the foundation of the world.

 

[zippy2006]

The standard English reading shows, in Rev 17:8, that "from the foundation of the world" modifies "written in the book of life". So in Rev 13:8 which includes the phrase "of the lamb slain" but is otherwise the same message as 17:8, it seems to me we should conclude the same thing. It modifies "written in the book of life", just like 17:8; it doesn't modify "of the lamb slain." Therefore, one can't rightly conclude from 13:8 that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. He was slain once, when we witness the act in the first century.

Right. That has nothing to do with your previous post where you claimed that the title of the book was "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain." I was replying to that post, which I specifically quoted.

 

[chickenman]

Right. That has nothing to do with your previous post where you claimed that the title of the book was "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain." I was replying to that post, which I specifically quoted.

Hi, zip.

It has everything to do with my last post. That post showed how, as I see it, the verse can't be used to conclude that the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, since "of the Lamb slain" seems to be part of the name of the book as opposed to being a statement about the lamb being slain from the foundation of the world.

Thanks,
Randy