Heading back to the matter of names being added/subtracted from the Book of Life, is it possible that the verses that say “from the foundation of the world” speaks of a foreknowledge of what occurs after all of the adding/subtracting occurs. That the other verses refer to what occurs from the human point of view. Don’t know how well I put that together, but…give it a ponder?
Oh, you literalists!
We’re way past that part now.
Roofus,
Could you clarify that? When you speak of foreknowledge, do you mean something like what Aaron was originally saying: that God knew who would believe from the beginning, and that’s who’s in the book?
And which verses would you say are showing what occurs from the human pov?–you mean the adding/subtracting part?
Sonia
Hey, look, I can just repost something I already wrote, too!–in this case to your mere repetition to something I already answered the first time around.
Gosh, that was easy. Next up…
Jason
Your view is being exposed, my friend. Answer the question, Jason!
Aaron37 wrote:
Jason, Jesus slayed them in Rev 19:21 because they took the mark of the beast. They did not get saved prior to Jesus slaying them and died spiritually dead. Those who worship and receive the mark of the beast their names are not written in the book of life (Rev 13:8; 14:9-11; 17:8.) If you die spiritually dead your name is not written in the book of life. In Rev 20:11-15…these kings of the earth in Rev 19:21 stood in final judgment with every human who has ever lived and was not found in the book of life and was cast into the lake of fire.
So, insofar as your postion goes, explain how the kings could have been saved before the general resurrection and the lake of fire event in Rev 20:11-15… as you reveal in the answer above? Where in the bible does it record this possibility?
Maybe you can help Sonia,( she got this from you) and answer this relative to your view, Jason!
How can this be when all the people who were not found in the book of life were cast in the lake of fire in Rev 20:11-15? The people you claim to be literally outside the gates of the city are in the lake of fire. How did these people leave the lake of fire and be all the sudden “outside” the gates of the city? The evangelism theory is ridiculous because you have to explain how these people were set free from the lake of fire judgment to get outside the gates to be evangelized. Therefore, if they repented and were set free from the lake of fire…why are they still outside the gates of the city and need to be evangelized if they have already repented and been saved and set free from the lake of fire? Do you see the fallacy in this, Sonia? Where in the bible does it record all this happening if this were possible to happen?
A while back, A, as you may or may not recall, you created a thread called “UR’s…When was our names written in the book of life?”.
Your argument in your initial post depended on a position the rest of us disagreed with, but which you insisted was absolutely correct and that we were just trying to avoid having to admit was right so that we could be universalists. After hammering on your error relentlessly, you eventually admitted you were wrong and (tried to) adjust your argument appropriately.
Before you did that, though, I compiled together an analysis of your argument, critiquing it both directly in regard to its logic and accuracy to scriptural data, and then indirectly by providing an extremely in-depth scriptural analysis of the end of RevJohn, chapter and verse. As you may or may not recall, this was provided in the thread called “JRP on the Final Chapters of John’s Revelation. This latter portion (Part 4, comprising about half my reply) was pulled together from posts I had already written on this forum, which you hadn’t bothered to look up yourself. (But I had been wanting to pull them together into one place for a while anyway, so this was a good excuse to do so. 
)
In that thread:
1.) I argued that blotting out of the Book of Life is a real possibility, referring point by point in eight references to six verses of scripture (Rev 3:1-6). I also compared this result favorably to another set of scriptural verses (Rev 2:1-6).
2.) In considering a hypothetical defense you might try (although frankly I was sure you wouldn’t–correctly sure, as it turns out ), I argued that being erased out of the book of life isn’t necessarily a hopelessly final judgment. In doing so I referred at least ten times in detail to five verses (within the group of Rev 3:14-22); plus again at least four times back to 2:5, 3:3, 3:5; plus once to at least five verses from Heb 12 (5-11, as a set, though not explicitly mentioned as those verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses from Heb 12 I was talking about.) I also made a passing comparative reference to Rev 18:16 (though not explicitly mentioned as that verse, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verse or verses from scripture concerning the whore of Babylon, including in RevJohn, I was talking about there.)
3.) Before summarizing Part 2 (Part 1 having been a clarification of how I would NOT be critiquing your argument, in your favor); I briefly mentioned a line of approach (although I also said my critique doesn’t require this line of approach) where I adduced Rev 2:17 as evidence that everyone entering the kingdom of heaven after having not had their names found there in judgment, in the sense that all who are finally saved must have new names written into the book, commensurate with the salvational change wrought in us. Since I didn’t positively use this in my own argument, nor use this directly against your position, I won’t count it in the tally; but being a completist, I’m mentioning it here in passing.
4.) Before finishing up this Part, I mentioned that your references to Matt 10:32 and Luke 12:8 weren’t going to help shore up the fatal weakness of your argument–but since I didn’t go any farther discussing 10:32, I won’t count this in the tally. I did go farther discussing some relevant material and content from 12:8-10 in three references; but since I didn’t directly marshal that against your argument (or in favor of my own), calling it “a whole other discussion”, I won’t count those references in the tally. (But being a completist, I’m mentioning it here in passing.)
Now moving into Part 3:
5.) I agreed with what you said in regard to John 3:3 and Rev 20:15. I think I can fairly count those refs in the tally; but in the interest of being conservatively minimal (since I didn’t remark on them in any detail), I won’t count those as scriptural references on my part of the discussion.
6.) I did however refer, in more detail than you did–correctly against your incorrect application of this verse, as you later finally admitted–to Rev 17:8, as well as to Phil 4:3 and Rev 20:15. Call it two references (some people have names recorded; some do not) to three verses (two of which testify to the same thing). Though not explicitly mentioning Phil 4:3 and Rev 20:15, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses concerning people’s names being found in the Book of Life I was referring to.
I reiterate this point a little later, as well as referring back to my discussion on early chapters of RevJohn, but I won’t count those as extra references.
I will however count as detailed reference to relevant verses, this paragraph:
For sake of being conservatively minimal, I will only count this as one reference, and won’t try to tally up all the scriptures I was thereby referring to (again). I was, of course, entirely correct in this reference (as you yourself eventually had to admit, though you avoided admitting I, among others of us here, was right about this all along.)
Moving into Part 4:
7.) No less than five detail references to Rev 22:17.
8.) No less than four detail references to Rev 22:14. Plus one composite reference to an important detail (where those outside the New Jerusalem may wash, i.e. the river(s) of life) testified in at least Rev 7:17, 22:1 and 22:17. I didn’t explicitly mention those three verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to (especially at the end of RevJohn) showing where those whose robes need washing can wash their robes, one verse of which I had just explicitly discussed on this topic in the preceding paragraph. Beyond this, I also made no less than four detail references to three verses from GosJohn 7:37-39.
9.) one reference to Rev 22:15, in context with at least three details (one each) from 22:14, 22:17, and 22:11, as well as one passing comparative detail reference to at least Rev 21:27 and Rev 21:8. For sake of conservative minimism, I’ll count that last one as only one detail reference to only two verses (the ones within the range of immediate discussion), although by saying “the typical list in RevJohn and elsewhere” I could fairly add more verses to that composite reference. I didn’t explicitly mention those latter five verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to (especially since I had just recently explicitly mentioned some of them contextually.)
10.) At least two detail references to Rev 21:8 (in context with previous details, as before, and afterward of course).
11.) At least two detail references to Rev 21:27.
12.) At least two detail references to Rev 21:25.
13.) No less than seven detail references to Rev 21:24,25. Plus one detail reference to a whole bunch of scriptural testimony in RevJohn and beyond, i.e. that the “nations” are typically the pagans who do not yet know God. For sake of conservative minimism, I will count that as one composite reference to only two scriptural verses, namely Isaiah 60:3 and 5, which shows the nations under great darkness turning to the light and so coming out of their darkness into the light of the New Jerusalem. (Since as you may or may not recall, Isaiah 60 has a close relationship with the details and meaning of Rev 21 & 22. ) I didn’t explicitly mention those two verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to: ones where “the nations” mean those who do not yet worship God, or who at the time of the reference are converting to worship God.
14.) At least two detail references to Rev 19:19; plus two detail references to 19:21; plus one (extremely important) detail reference to 19:15; plus one general comparative reference to at least two verses from Psalm 23:4, 6. I didn’t explicitly mention three of those verses, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to.
15.) I next spend some time discussing contexts from various RevJohn verses so far, including at least 8 details from 10 verses most of which had been previously discussed in detail (Rev 21:22-26; 22:1, 5, 14-15, 17); plus a comparative detail reference to at least three verses from Romans 10:6-8 (which I could expand upon beyond those verses). I didn’t explicitly mention any of those references with chapter-and-verse cues, since I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to: especially since most of them were ones I had just explicitly discussed.
16.) After referring yet again to at least five details from at least three verses (Rev 22: 14-15, 17) in the developed context with at least three more verses (Rev 21: 24-26), I add in at least one contextual detail reference from Rev 22:2, and at least five contextual details from Rev 21:6; as well as at least seven contextual details from Rev 21:4-5. I only explicitly cited chapter and verse references for three of those scriptures because I–apparently wrongly–assumed in your favor you would easily know already, or at least could easily find, which relevant verses I was referring to: especially since most of them were ones I had just explicitly discussed.
17.) I now compare this contextually with no less than 36 details (maybe more) from four verses of Rev 7:9-12 and Rev 27:7. For sake of conservative minimism, I won’t count further reference nearby to a host of important details from scriptural references I have already discussed, nor will I tally in a comparative reference of several details to Rev 2: 1-7–but being a completist, I will still mention here that I did in fact discuss them in this portion of the article.
18.) Next up: no less than 16 details contextually mentioned from the seventeen verse set of Ezekiel 47:1-17. Plus a comparative textual reference to at least Rev 13:1. Plus a detail from at least Rev 21:11. Plus a detail from Rev 4:6. Plus at least fifteen details from the four verses of Rev 15:1-4. Plus at least fourteen details from Deut 32:34-43 (arrived at from reference in RevJohn, and of which I could have gone into more detail on). Plus a comparative reference to Heb 10:30-1.
19.) I go back “to recap a bit” for the next paragraph. For sake of a conservatively minimal tally, I won’t count this host of details referenced from many scriptures–but only because it would take me a while to tally them up, and I’m getting more than a little bored having to do this against the (frankly) insane or willfully irresponsible claim that I am not referencing scripture and its contexts in making my position.
20.) I compare at least one detail from Rev 21:24 to at least two details from Rev 1:6 and 5:10; as well as to at least two details from John 3:31 and 8:23-24 (among several other refs I could mention, but won’t for sake of a conservatively minimum tally). Along the way I contextually mention at least two details from Rev 22:14-15, 17 again; as well as a hugely important contextual detail from Rev 19:15 again.
21.) Next up: discussion of at least four very important details (one of which is routinely obscured in English translations from the Greek) from Rev 21:27; as well as referring to at least four details from 21:25-26.
22.) A contextual recap of details already mentioned from chapter 22, especially five details from 22:14-15, 17 again.
23.) At least three details discussed while checking differences between the (so-called) Textus Receptus and more extensively grounded modern text-critical editions of RevJohn (the UBS or the Nestle/Aland) on verse 21:24. Plus reference to at least one detail from verse 23. At least seven details from Rev 21:25 and 22:1-2, 14-15, 17, are mentioned again.
24.) An extensive comparison is made, porting language from RevJohn into equivalent statements from Rom 11:16-24. No less than 27 details are mentioned along the way.
That brings us to the end of only those four parts of what I wrote concerning the final chapters of RevJohn. The conservatively minimum running tally so far: no less than 236 references to details from no less than 150 scripture-verse references. (Actually somewhat more in both cases, as I didn’t tally up some things I could have included.)
This total absolutely does NOT include all the references to details from scriptures I have made elsewhere in (what can only be most loosely described as) conversation with you on this particular topic (i.e. what’s going on at the end of RevJohn). For example, it does NOT include all the references I made when detailing correspondences between Isaiah 60 and the end of RevJohn, in the same thread you are currently reading (which work you have chosen to ignore); and it does NOT include all the references I made when (somewhat more briefly) working out this same analysis again from a different direction (starting at the beginning of Rev 21 and going forward, instead of starting near the end of Rev 22 and working backward)–which can also be found in the thread you are currently reading, and which again you have chosen to simply disregard.
If you want to find out the content of all that, then GO READ THE POSTS! I am not going to reproduce all the content here.
Already done, long ago. This shows how much you cared to pay attention. In other words, you didn’t want to pay attention. And when it became painfully obvious, even to you, that I was actually citing scripture more accurately and more validly than you, you decided to try to rig the game by asking for something other than “intelligent results with scriptural references attached to them”, “compiling all the accurate data and logical validity in putting together data”.
Instead, you decided to insist upon ultra-simplistic non-contextual answers to complex questions: a ridiculously game-rigging tactic (as I exemplified when I used the same protocols back in counter-challenges which you couldn’t answer either without voiding your own protocols). Because that was the only way you could figure out to “beat” me.
If I actually answer according to the quote I just reproduced from you, you pretend I never answered or just wave the attempt off as worthless. If I answer according to the ridiculously game-rigging protocols, and provide NO compilation of data and validity, then you don’t go on to ask for contexts. You immediately pat yourself on the back on having “beat me” and laughingly chide me.
The only person impressed by this tactic around here, however, is you.
I will repeat one more time: if you aren’t lying about caring about the contexts, then GO DISCUSS THE CONTEXTS I HAVE ALREADY WRITTEN EXTENSIVELY ABOUT WITH TONS OF SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE!! If you don’t care about the contexts, and only want to feel to yourself like you’ve “won” somehow, then it really does not matter a single solitary bit what I do, you’ll find some way to wriggle it around in your mind to protect yourself, at any cost, including logical absurdity.
But then so much for any serious conversation from you.
You’re the one reading in the idea that they have to have gotten “out of” the lake of fire in order to be “outside” the gates of the city to be then evangelized. It is certainly not a constraining detail you are directly quoting from scripture, and it is also certainly not something directly inferrable from scriptural context.
My extremely detailed analysis of the verses in that area (which you continue to conveniently ignore) indicate that they are still in the lake of fire and also outside the gates of the city. They leave the lake of fire (or the experience of the fire as a “lake of fire” anyway) when they repent, slake their thirst in the river of life, and so obtain permission to enter the city and be healed by the leaves of the log of life.
The reason Sonia doesn’t see the “fallacy” in this, is because she was paying attention, and you haven’t been.
Absolutley! Rev 14:9-11 ; 13:8 ;17:8. The beast will be worshiped and they will take his mark 666.
Oh really, are you saying the lake of fire is right outside the NJ, Jason?
Considering that I have long stated in agreement with the Hebraist that “our God is a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29), and with the Baptist that Jesus shall baptize in Spirit and in fire (Matt 3:12, burning up the chaff with unquenchable fire v.12), and that we all shall be salted with fire (which can only grammatically be the same unquenchable fire of Gehenna), Mark 9:49–then my answer is yes, everyone who is forbidden to enter the gates of the New Jerusalem is in the lake of fire and suffering the lake of fire punishment. Everyone who can go in and out of the New Jerusalem, on the other hand, is cooperating with the Holy Spirit (our God Who is the consuming fire) rather than rebelling against Him, and so to them the fire is light from the lamp of Christ which enlightens everyone and by which they are walking.
You keep trying to reduce the notion of inside and outside the NJ to a mere spatial relationship, but this is NOT AT ALL how it is presented at the end of RevJohn. This has been explained to you in detail several times. But you refuse to listen.
Such as, when :o you didn’t even try to compare it to what your own source had talked about. You merely waved him off with a lightly mocking dismissal, basically accusing him of having no intellectual integrity, and went on your way.
So basically God wants his world to be wrapped up like a Lovecraft novel and will cast the majority of the population into the flames for being afraid. How fun. 
Too bad the Word doesn’t tell us what color Sharpie the mark of the beast will be written in so we know which one to boycott.
How can fire create a lake, anyway? It’s not liquid.
Oh really, are you saying the lake of fire is right outside the NJ, Jason?
The lake of fire judgment happened in Rev 20:11-15 after the Millennial reign on the first earth and before the NJ and NE in Rev 21.
Lets take a look in Rev 21:1-5 and see what happens after the lake of fire judgment on the first earth:
1And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
4And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
5And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Jason, notice what I have underlined.
-
How can the lake of fire be outside the gates of the city ( NJ) when in Rev 21:1 the first heaven and the first earth were passed away? Was not the lake of fire apart of the first earth?
-
Does not the lake of fire ( that was apart of the first earth) involve death, sorrow, crying and pain? If yes, how can this be apart of the New Heaven and New Earth when in Rev 21:4-5 says there is no more of this going on in the New Heaven and Earth because the former things are passed away and All things are made new?
And what did you think of my answers to this that I have already long since presented, multiple times? (Because I have certainly already done so, including in this thread.)
You should have noticed (multiple times already) that I could have (rather simplistically ) appealed to those verses, especially in conjunction with 2 Peter 3:13 (which I have also already discussed in contextual application here, along with its preceding verses), to prove that sooner or later the lake of fire itself must cease to exist–precisely on the ground your yourself recognize, that it is part of the old earth which is remade to a new earth where, as you yourself recognize, “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”
But rather than call a triumphant coup right there and pat myself on the back, I was willing to go on and allow that the lake of fire still was in effect after this point. So, you should have read my extensive discussion of those points already (including the verses you brought up). Let’s take a look at what I have already answered, and you can decide if you disagree with me or not on the lake of fire still existing notwithstanding these verses.
Let me know when you’re ready to comment on what I’ve already written, in detail, about these verses.
Just answer the questions, please.
Meanwhile, I have helpfully provided the very very very very very beginning of as “simplistic” walk through that analysis as I feasibly can, over in this thread:
On the Final Chapter of RevJohn (“Hostile Witness” version)
You’ll find this a lot easier than trying to read a whole 20 pages worth of careful and meticulous thinking, I promise.
I already did. Several times before. Compare my answers with your question, please. I don’t feel like writing it again, and having it conveniently ignored again.
(The fact is, you have exactly no idea that I’ve already talked about those verses in detail multiple times, do you? I might as well have not wasted my time, then. So why would it make any more difference now?)
I assure you, I did. Already. Multiple times. And thought more about them than you apparently have.
But fine, if you insist on calling such specially emphasized attention to those underlined verses
You mean, the first earth that has now passed away and been remade into something new? Then the lake of fire (by your emphases here) has also passed away and been remade into something new. It hasn’t even been merely annihilated. In effect, it has been redeemed. It is a new creation: the same phrase used to describe redeemed souls who are saved.
Doubtless!
By that conclusion, the lake of fire NO LONGER EXISTS AT ALL WITH ITS PUNISHMENT! And those in it are no longer being punished, but are being consoled by God with the blessings of the saved.
The ironic thing, is that I know perfectly well you do NOT believe the implications of what you are insisting on emphasizing here. The more ironic thing is that I have no problem believing the lake of fire is still operational at this point!
I have already explained, however, what the reconciliation of those two factors is (namely a common mistranslation from the Greek into English). You didn’t pay attention to what I was saying then; I see no reason to believe you will bother to pay any more attention now. You haven’t even paid enough attention to add up the contexts of the portions of scripture you insisted on emphasizing–which every universalist who accepts RevJohn is very familiar with (myself included).