Theology Club: Did God know that man would sin?

[zippy2006]

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

But it's not part of the title of the book, which I pointed out already. So I replied to your point, then you replied to my reply by presenting a wholly different point.

OP: How could the lamb be slain from the foundation of the world?
CM: Actually the verse means that there was a book entitled "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain."
DR: Actually the verse means that the names were written from the foundation of the world, not that the lamb was slain from the foundation.
zip: CM is wrong, DR is probably right.

 

[chickenman]

But it's not part of the title of the book, which I pointed out already. Again, it has nothing to do with your last post.

OP: How could the lamb be slain from the foundation of the world?
CM: Actually the verse means that there was a book entitled "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain."
DR: Actually the verse means that the names were written from the foundation of the world, not that the lamb was slain from the foundation.
zip: CM is wrong, DR is probably right.

DR wasn't contradicting me. He was simply proving his position (that the lamb wasn't slain before the foundation of the world) by focusing on the phrase "from the foundation of the world" and how he sees that. I was demonstrating my position (also, that the lamb wasn't slain before the foundation of the world) by focusing on another point about "from..." not modifying "the lamb...", appearing instead to be part of the name of the book. We weren't saying two different things. We were addressing the same issue, on the same side of the issue, in two different ways.

Anyway, your and my exchange here isn't furthering the discussion any. It's only showing how one or both of us is misunderstanding the other too easily. So I'll end my part in this particular exchange here.

Thanks,
Randy

 

[Desert Reign]

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.

Thanks Zippy. However, the text does not say that the names were written 'at' the foundaton of the world but 'from' the foundation of the world, i.e from that time and onwards.

I accept that grammatically speaking, there is ambiguity in the phrase but that ambiguity does not centre around the meaning of the preposition 'from'. 'From' is quite clear in its meaning: from that time and onwards.

Hope this helps explain.

 

[Desert Reign]

DR wasn't contradicting me.

Thanks,
Randy

Yes, that's correct. Yours is an interesting idea which, whether or not correct, is on the same side of the fence. I do have a few thoughts on the subject but that would only sidetrack the discussion. Cheeeers.

 

[chickenman]

Thanks, DR. By the way, I changed a word in the parentheses in my previous post ("from" to "before") to be clearer and to be consistent with your point.

 

[chickenman]

Yes, that's correct. Yours is an interesting idea which, whether or not correct, is on the same side of the fence. I do have a few thoughts on the subject but that would only sidetrack the discussion. Cheeeers.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Maybe a new thread in this same Club.

 

[zippy2006]

DR wasn't contradicting me. He was simply proving his position (that the lamb wasn't slain before the foundation of the world) by focusing on the phrase "from the foundation of the world" and how he sees that. I was demonstrating my position (also, that the lamb wasn't slain before the foundation of the world) by focusing on another point about "from..." not modifying "the lamb...", appearing instead to be part of the name of the book. We weren't saying two different things. We were addressing the same issue, on the same side of the issue, in two different ways.

Anyway, your and my exchange here isn't furthering the discussion any. It's only showing how one or both of us is misunderstanding the other too easily. So I'll end my part in this particular exchange here.

Thanks,
Randy

I understand that you both had the same end in mind, but with a completely different means. So what? You can't just ignore my reply to your point and adopt a completely different strategy halfway through as if nothing had happened. It isn't logical and it betrays an agenda/bias.

 

[Nang]

I understand that you both had the same end in mind, but with a completely different means. So what? You can't just ignore my reply to your point and adopt a completely different strategy halfway through as if nothing had happened. It isn't logical and it betrays an agenda/bias.

Yep . . .

As a debate observer, it disturbs me to see original debate points presented and then changed through the convenience of the "edit" feature, instead of being intellectually and biblically countered.

Nang

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks Zippy. However, the text does not say that the names were written 'at' the foundaton of the world but 'from' the foundation of the world, i.e from that time and onwards.

I accept that grammatically speaking, there is ambiguity in the phrase but that ambiguity does not centre around the meaning of the preposition 'from'. 'From' is quite clear in its meaning: from that time and onwards.

Hope this helps explain.

Okay that makes more sense and certainly presents a plausible interpretation imo. :idunno: :thumb:

 

[chickenman]

I understand that you both had the same end in mind, but with a completely different means. So what? You can't just ignore my reply to your point and adopt a completely different strategy halfway through as if nothing had happened. It isn't logical and it betrays an agenda/bias.

So it's not possible there was a misunderstanding. Gotcha.

 

[Nang]

Thanks Zippy. However, the text does not say that the names were written 'at' the foundaton of the world but 'from' the foundation of the world, i.e from that time and onwards.

I accept that grammatically speaking, there is ambiguity in the phrase but that ambiguity does not centre around the meaning of the preposition 'from'. 'From' is quite clear in its meaning: from that time and onwards.

Hope this helps explain.

Do any of you consider the concept of "from the foundation of the world" pertaining to "before the foundation of the world?"

Or that perhaps God actually decreed the events that would occur in His creation, before He created?

 

[zippy2006]

So it's not possible there was a misunderstanding. Gotcha.

Perhaps I was being a bit rash, it has been a long week. Your idea about the title of the book seems somewhat contrived, but perhaps the same implicit idea was contained in both of your posts. I was frustrated by the fact that the means to your end required you to translate Rev 13:8 as referring to a book entitled "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain" (and when I asked you about it you didn't defend the interpretation). Taking such hermeneutical liberties does not reverence scripture imo--hence my frustration. If you are going to interpret scripture, it should not be merely to support a separate idea you have.

But in any case DR has given a plausible reply to the OP.

 

[Lighthouse]

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.

Go back and read your post to which I was replying.

You posted something about names being written at the foundation of the world, and I pointed out the verse is speaking of names that are not written, which is the opposite of names that are written. And I also made the same point as DR regarding the meaning of the usage of "from" in the verse: that it means "since" and not "at."

 

[Desert Reign]

Do any of you consider the concept of "from the foundation of the world" pertaining to "before the foundation of the world?"

Or that perhaps God actually decreed the events that would occur in His creation, before He created?

It is just possible that the meaning is that the effect of God writing the names all in at one moment lasts for ever. E.g. The book of the names of all those who ever lived from the time of the foundation of the world and onwards who were written in by God before the foundation of the world.

However, the problem for this is that there is no evidence for it. The text simply doesn't say this. The only reason it would work as an interpretation is your own presuposition. In other words, if you presuppose that those names were all predestined then you could make the text mean something that supports you. But this is true of anything and is why I don't usually use scripture to support my theological views. It is just proof texting. The meaning of any particular passage must be determined solely from its local context, otherwise there is nothing of any certainty to rely on. Proof texting = hate the Bible, not love it. Proof texting = abuse of the Bible.

 

[Shasta]

Hi A4T, I have a different take on what is being said, for your consideration.

Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8
8 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.

What is this scripture really saying?

Is it talking about the foundation of the old world or is it talking about the foundation of the new world?

If it is speaking of Christ being slain from the foundation of the old world then why did He have to be slain AGAIN 2000 years ago?

If He was slain from the foundation of the old world why do the scripture say:

Hebrews 9:25-26
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

But NOW ONCE in the end of the WORLD/AGE He appeared to put away sin by the SACRIFICE of HIMSELF.

If Christ was sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the old world then sin was already put away and He would not have had to come in the END of the world/age.

Rev.13:8 is not talking about Christ being sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the old world, it is talking about Christ being slain from the foundation of the NEW WORLD.

This is brought out more fully when we read 1 Peter 1:20

1 Peter 1:20
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


This scripture point out that Christ was NOT slain from the foundation of the old world, but that He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be slain/sacrificed in the last time for us.

If He was already sacrificed/slain then it would not say He was foreordained to be sacrificed/slain in the last times for us.

Jesus Christ is our foundation, and not only our foundation, but also the capstone on which the foundation is laid.

Isaiah 28:16
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Rev.13:8 is speaking of Christ being sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the NEW WORLD and that foundation was laid 2000 years ago when He was sacrificed/slain and access to the kingdom of heaven was given unto men through Him.
*
The scriptures state while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.


So if Christ died for us from the foundation of the old world then He died for us BEFORE we were sinners and NOT while we were sinners.

Christ is the foundation of the Church. The "world" is never used to mean the Church. If you mean that His work on the Cross made it possible for the new (physical) world to be made then you are wrong as well because nowhere does the Bible say that God will need to lay another foundation for the world to come. The world to come will be built on the current foundation.

A foundation” of anything is the stabilizing base upon which any kind of structure rests. This could be applied to a dwelling, a temple, a Dynasty which is founded upon a king (e.g.,“House of David”) or nation (“The House of Israel”) which is rests on a common culture and history, the Church or the planet. When it is used in the phrase is “foundation of the WORLD” it is referring specifically to the the creation of matter which formed the geological substrata of the planet (Genesis 1:1-2). There are abundant examples of this in scripture.

Job 38: 4-6
Psalm 102:25-.
Isa 48:13 .
Zec 12:1
Matthew 13:35
Hebrews 1:10-12 .

It is the same today. When an individual speaks of something happening at the "foundation of the earth” we naturally assume he was speaking of something that took place at the beginning of this world not to something that WILL happen at some point in the future at the construction of some NEW world. It points to the past; not the future. The only way the phrase could be construed to mean anything else is if a qualifying word were added such as the world NEW.

Isa 65:17-19
Rev.21:1-3 1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them

When the Bible says there will be a NEW earth it does not mean that God will make entirely new planet but that He is planning a massive renovation of the current one. The Greek word “new” used in this the passage, KAINOS, means “new or renewed,” not new in existence. Had the John wanted to say the earth was absolutely new he would have used the word NEOS which means “new in existence.”

To remodel the earth God will first clear away the surface with fire. The term “passed away” “(Gr, APERCHOMAI) means to pass or change from one condition to another. The earth will be renovated not annihilated. The same word is used in II Peter 3:7-13

Hebrews 1:10-12 says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, (Gr. apollumi; to be destroyed or ruined; not annihilated) but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. (transformed not destroyed) But you remain the same, and your years will never end

2 Peter 3:10-13 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar

Pass away = dissolve, melt, figuratively, to flow, dwindle, vanish -- consume away, be corrupt, dissolve, pine away.

Isaiah 34:4 (NASB) And all the host of heaven will wear away, And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; All their hosts will also wither away As a leaf withers from the vine, Or as one withers from the fig tree

2 Peter 3:12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

Hebrews 12:26-29 ...but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven. removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire.”

Though the foundation of the earth will be shaken it will remain. If the foundation of the earth were to be demolished the entire planet would fall apart just as and it would revert to the disorganized wreck it was in the Beginning. A picture of is Jesus parabolic reference to the collapse of a house which lacked a foundation.

Sometimes before a house can be built a forest must be cleared. In the same way God will clear the surface of the original world with fire.

2 Peter 3:12 and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells,"

The word “passed away” “(Gr, APERCHOMAI) means to pass or change from one condition to another. Again the earth will not be annihilated but renovated. Before the new can be constructed the old must be deconstructed. Greek word for both “melt” and “dissolved” is LUO, which means to “loosen” (a necessary part of the bring down of a building). The word melt is TEKO, which means to “liquefy.”

The unstable things which will collapse and turn to rubble are the surface features including the works of men, the glory of it which Satan offered Christ. Men by their devotion to the present world turned it into on idol.

Despite the devastation the Bible never says God will undo and demolish the foundation of the physical earth which He laid in the beginning. The foundation is the stable base for the entire planet. Were He to destroy it the entire planet would fall apart, undoing all He did from Genesis 1:1-2 onward. This will never happen.
God will never lay another foundation. To make a new world He will burn the current one to the ground and build the new on on its foundation. The original foundation, the one that currently exists is under a warranty (signed by God Himself) that guarantees it will last forever.

Psalm 104:5
Ecclesiastes 1:4

These scriptures show that when the Bible speaks of something happening “before the foundation of the world” it is referring to the time of the original creation not to some future time. This, causes your interpretational theory to collapse and reinforces the doctrine of true foreknowledge as it has been universally known all the way back to the time of the Church Fathers

Even further, the word “before” places these events such as the slaying of the lamb, the choosing of the saints prior to the the creation of the cosmos suggesting that man's sin did not catch God off guard and that the redemptive plan was not an afterthought.


Ephesians 1:4
Romans 8:29

 

[Desert Reign]

These scriptures show that when the Bible speaks of something happening “before the foundation of the world” it is referring to the time of the original creation not to some future time. This, causes your interpretational theory to collapse

The problem is that the scriptures we have been discussing in the Apocalypse don't say this at all. They say that the lamb's book of life is the book of the names that have been written there from the time of the foundation of the world and onwards. Do you agree that this is what they say?

and reinforces the doctrine of true foreknowledge as it has been universally known all the way back to the time of the Church Fathers

If God knows before the foundation of the world what individuals will be born and which ones will choose Christ, what is the mechanism by which he knows this?

 

[Pneuma]

Christ is the foundation of the Church. The "world" is never used to mean the Church. If you mean that His work on the Cross made it possible for the new (physical) world to be made then you are wrong as well because nowhere does the Bible say that God will need to lay another foundation for the world to come. The world to come will be built on the current foundation.

A foundation” of anything is the stabilizing base upon which any kind of structure rests. This could be applied to a dwelling, a temple, a Dynasty which is founded upon a king (e.g.,“House of David”) or nation (“The House of Israel”) which is rests on a common culture and history, the Church or the planet. When it is used in the phrase is “foundation of the WORLD” it is referring specifically to the the creation of matter which formed the geological substrata of the planet (Genesis 1:1-2). There are abundant examples of this in scripture.

Job 38: 4-6
Psalm 102:25-.
Isa 48:13 .
Zec 12:1
Matthew 13:35
Hebrews 1:10-12 .

It is the same today. When an individual speaks of something happening at the "foundation of the earth” we naturally assume he was speaking of something that took place at the beginning of this world not to something that WILL happen at some point in the future at the construction of some NEW world. It points to the past; not the future. The only way the phrase could be construed to mean anything else is if a qualifying word were added such as the world NEW.

Isa 65:17-19
Rev.21:1-3 1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them

When the Bible says there will be a NEW earth it does not mean that God will make entirely new planet but that He is planning a massive renovation of the current one. The Greek word “new” used in this the passage, KAINOS, means “new or renewed,” not new in existence. Had the John wanted to say the earth was absolutely new he would have used the word NEOS which means “new in existence.”

To remodel the earth God will first clear away the surface with fire. The term “passed away” “(Gr, APERCHOMAI) means to pass or change from one condition to another. The earth will be renovated not annihilated. The same word is used in II Peter 3:7-13

Hebrews 1:10-12 says, “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. 11 They will perish, (Gr. apollumi; to be destroyed or ruined; not annihilated) but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. 12 You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. (transformed not destroyed) But you remain the same, and your years will never end

2 Peter 3:10-13 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar

Pass away = dissolve, melt, figuratively, to flow, dwindle, vanish -- consume away, be corrupt, dissolve, pine away.

Isaiah 34:4 (NASB) And all the host of heaven will wear away, And the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; All their hosts will also wither away As a leaf withers from the vine, Or as one withers from the fig tree

2 Peter 3:12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

Hebrews 12:26-29 ...but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven. removal of those things that are being shaken, as of things that are made, that the things which cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. For our God is a consuming fire.”

Though the foundation of the earth will be shaken it will remain. If the foundation of the earth were to be demolished the entire planet would fall apart just as and it would revert to the disorganized wreck it was in the Beginning. A picture of is Jesus parabolic reference to the collapse of a house which lacked a foundation.

Sometimes before a house can be built a forest must be cleared. In the same way God will clear the surface of the original world with fire.

2 Peter 3:12 and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up. 11Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, on account of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells,"

The word “passed away” “(Gr, APERCHOMAI) means to pass or change from one condition to another. Again the earth will not be annihilated but renovated. Before the new can be constructed the old must be deconstructed. Greek word for both “melt” and “dissolved” is LUO, which means to “loosen” (a necessary part of the bring down of a building). The word melt is TEKO, which means to “liquefy.”

The unstable things which will collapse and turn to rubble are the surface features including the works of men, the glory of it which Satan offered Christ. Men by their devotion to the present world turned it into on idol.

Despite the devastation the Bible never says God will undo and demolish the foundation of the physical earth which He laid in the beginning. The foundation is the stable base for the entire planet. Were He to destroy it the entire planet would fall apart, undoing all He did from Genesis 1:1-2 onward. This will never happen.
God will never lay another foundation. To make a new world He will burn the current one to the ground and build the new on on its foundation. The original foundation, the one that currently exists is under a warranty (signed by God Himself) that guarantees it will last forever.

Psalm 104:5
Ecclesiastes 1:4

These scriptures show that when the Bible speaks of something happening “before the foundation of the world” it is referring to the time of the original creation not to some future time. This, causes your interpretational theory to collapse and reinforces the doctrine of true foreknowledge as it has been universally known all the way back to the time of the Church Fathers

Even further, the word “before” places these events such as the slaying of the lamb, the choosing of the saints prior to the the creation of the cosmos suggesting that man's sin did not catch God off guard and that the redemptive plan was not an afterthought.


Ephesians 1:4
Romans 8:29

Shasta I am not talking about a physical new world, I am talking about a spiritual world and the foundation is Christ. And it was only upon Him being slain 2000 years ago that any one could have their names written in the book of life of the lamb slain.

 

[Nang]

It is just possible that the meaning is that the effect of God writing the names all in at one moment lasts for ever. E.g. The book of the names of all those who ever lived from the time of the foundation of the world and onwards who were written in by God before the foundation of the world.

However, the problem for this is that there is no evidence for it. The text simply doesn't say this. The only reason it would work as an interpretation is your own presuposition.

In other words, if you presuppose that those names were all predestined then you could make the text mean something that supports you. But this is true of anything and is why I don't usually use scripture to support my theological views. It is just proof texting. The meaning of any particular passage must be determined solely from its local context, otherwise there is nothing of any certainty to rely on. Proof texting = hate the Bible, not love it. Proof texting = abuse of the Bible.

You deny my beliefs are scripturally founded, and then deny me any opportunity to present that scripture; warning me I will be accused of proof texting.

Can't win with you DR.

You think you have things all locked up, but in actuality you are just narrowed minded and will thus remain in your condition of spiritual blindness.

So be it . . .

Nang

 

[Desert Reign]

You deny my beliefs are scripturally founded, and then deny me any opportunity to present that scripture; warning me I will be accused of proof texting.

Can't win with you DR.

You think you have things all locked up, but in actuality you are just narrowed minded and will thus remain in your condition of spiritual blindness.

So be it . . .

Nang

Well, firstly, I thought this forum was the one where we didn't resort to ad hominem. If I believe the Bible and I disagree with Calvinism, then it is logical that I would deny that your beliefs are founded scripturally. But that doesn't mean that I am accusing you of anything. It sounds like you can't take a real discussion where the scripture is laid bare for what it is and it becomes clear what you have to read into it to make it conform to your beliefs. We all come to the Bible, indeed any text, with presuppositions and all I was doing in my previous post was pointing out what the presuppositions were that would imply the interpretation that you suggested. If you can't discuss this without taking it personally, then this forum, I respectfully suggest, is not the place for you.

 

[chickenman]

Perhaps I was being a bit rash, it has been a long week. Your idea about the title of the book seems somewhat contrived, but perhaps the same implicit idea was contained in both of your posts. I was frustrated by the fact that the means to your end required you to translate Rev 13:8 as referring to a book entitled "The Book of Life of the Lamb Slain" (and when I asked you about it you didn't defend the interpretation). Taking such hermeneutical liberties does not reverence scripture imo--hence my frustration. If you are going to interpret scripture, it should not be merely to support a separate idea you have.

But in any case DR has given a plausible reply to the OP.

The means to my end was not the title of the book. Rather, my speculation about the title of the book was derived from how I see that the phrase "from..." doesn't modify the phrase "the lamb slain." That interpretation leads me to conclude that the lamb was not slain before creation, and it also leads me to speculate about the title of the book. So in misunderstanding me, you've created your own frustration.