UR's..When was our names written in the book of of life?

SLJ · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Aaron,
I agree with you that Rev says that not all are written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. What I disagree with is that you extrapolate from that to conclude that God will never put them in the book of life. When you go beyond what the text plainly states, it becomes your theoretical opinion. However you seem unable to understand that you are going beyond the text.

Your opinion is that the names of all people who will ever enter Heaven are recorded in the BOL from the foundation of the world. My opinion is that this only refers to the people who are saved in the current age. You and I actually agree on that point. Our point of disagreement rests in that for you the story ends there.

I believe that after judgment (which took place in Rev 20), the people who are ‘outside’ the New Jerusalem (the Bride of Christ–which is the church of those saved in this age) are still being invited to enter–based on Rev 21 and 22… Outside the city are the ones who have been cast into the lake of fire–and yet the gates of the city are never closed to them–they are even invited to come and drink freely of the water of life if they will. Since ‘entering’ requires having one’s name written in the book of life, it seems logical to say that it must be possible for names to be added. That possibility is never excluded by the text, Aaron.

Anyway, I think I’ve spent more than enough time on this topic. I expect this will be my last post on this issue.

Sonia

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

I am already well aware of Rev 17:8, and also of God’s omniscience, thanks.

It’s kind of interesting that you have referenced John 7:38; since I just finished composition on the paper and included my own reference to that as well!–specifically in connection to the positive testimony of the Revelation to John, which as will be shown involves those in the lake of fire judgment being evangelized and saved. But I’ll get to that in the paper, as well as its connections to the book of life and whether people can be grafted into and out of and into it etc. (Er, I mean written. Mixed metaphor there. I was hoping a would go on with you when I reffed St. Paul, but obviously that hasn’t happened yet. Hint: it’s in the message you were replying to.)

It must not be possible to create aircrafts!–that isn’t found in the Word of God!

Actually, I do find the possibility (and even certainty) of being written into the book of life, in the Word of God, but that isn’t the point. (And I’ll get to that later with the big paper.) My point isn’t even that you’re making (as far as you’re currently aware) an argument from silence, which is hugely tenuous for anyone to do, including from scripture. My points, for now, were only first to make sure you’re claiming (1), and second to mention (in regard to your dismissive critique of Sonia and others about “theoretical opinions”) that you provided exactly no scriptural testimony (including in RevJohn) stating that it is impossible for names to be written in.

You’re trying to draw an inference from implications of the data, not citing the data straight out. Leaving aside whether your inference is valid or not, that’s the same thing you’re denouncing in other people as only having “theoretical opinions”.

I am not critiquing your argument for failing to cite evidence straight out. (I don’t critique your argument in my paper either, on that ground.) I am only critiquing your dismissal of other people for trying to draw inferences from implications of scriptural data, when you are doing exactly the same kind of process in your argument.

For example:

Which, aside from NOT citing scripture straight out as testimony for your position, and so being the same as what you denounce as “theoretical opinion” in others, is also logically invalid. The opposite of X’s name not being written in before the foundation of the world (which by the way is not what 17:8 says in the original language–but leaving that aside), is X’s name being written in before the foundation of the world. Or X’s name being written in after the foundation of the world (instead of before).

The opposite is not Y’s name being written in before the foundation of the world. (Or afterward either.) You’ve made an invalid deductive inference. 17:8 has nothing logically deductive to say about the relationship of people being written in and the foundation of the world.

I’m somewhat doubtful you will, but I sure won’t mind if you do.

Which comports exactly with what I wrote in asking about your point above, so far as God’s omniscience goes. The difference is that in your description God takes no action to save anyone at all; but I know perfectly well that you actually believe He does. (Unless you’re denying that Jesus saves!–which I know you aren’t.) You just aren’t talking about that here, and it’s beside the point.

Glad to hear you think God never gives up acting to save anyone! (Since that’s a universalistic position if supernaturalistic theism is true. If God is forced to quit acting to save someone, that could only be true if supernaturalistic theism, including trinitarian theism, is false.) But again, that’s beside the point. If you don’t accept either of the two standard Arminian positions I spelled out, that’s why I included “or some similar Arminian variant thereof”. I was including all Arm positions broadly, spoken and unspoken.

The salient point you’re agreeing to, that I have understood correctly about your argument, is that the book reflects (or at least stands for) God’s omniscience over all who will and will not finally ultimately be saved; the point being (as I put it) that since the book represents what He knows to be the final result, the book cannot possibly be altered, even by God–altered to add a new name, for example. It is what it is, and that’s the end of it, and there’s no possible way it could ever be what it is. Or as you put it,

What indeed!

So, putting it briefly, you have affirmed that your argument depends on the book being unalterable (so that names cannotpossibly be written in, too bad for them); and also that the book can be altered (so that names can be erased, too bad for them).

And along the way, you provide exactly no scriptural testimony that the book cannot be altered (other than a dubious inference from silence), while providing specific scriptural testimony that the book can be altered.

Are you REALLY sure you want to go with the names in the book of life not even possibly being alterable? Because you yourself found positive evidence that it can be altered. If it can be altered, it can be altered; and so you cannot call its intrinsic inalterability in to argue that it cannot be altered one particular way.

Your argument in your original post amounts, in principle, to:

P1: the book of life cannot be altered at all
P2: in order for names to be written in, the book would have to be altered.
P3: the book of life can be altered.
C1: therefore names cannot possibly be written in, even though the book can be possibly altered, because the book of life cannot be altered at all. (from P1, P2, P3)

You would have been (marginally) better off arguing that, yes, the book of life can be altered (God’s omniscience notwithstanding), but that you only find it being altered to erase names not add them.

Or, aka, one of us has done the research, and the other has not.

Aaron37 · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

auggybendoggy:

Perhaps Paul’s name was never written in the lamb’s book of life But Saul’s is? Sure it’s an arugment from silence (purely based on speculation) but so it the premise:

"there is no record of God adding names nor would he need to if you understood His foreknowledge and omniscience. "

Perhaps he does, perhaps he doesn’t.

I’ve already read that people have proved that God must not know the future either. For if he did, why does he write names in the book of life and then blot them out. They should never have been placed there.

Surely, your misunderstanding that the book of life is literal is your problem. If it is then you my friend are an open theist and do not believe God knows the future. For Scripture has established that God blots out names he writes in the book and then later takes them out…He must not have known.

If you deny Open Theism by embracing a mystery argument then I offer this response to your anti-UR argument.

All people can be saved and not all names written in the lamb’s book of life. Often the bible does not make sense but since we KNOW all will be saved, and we know not all names are written in the book of life, it just is. Not all teachings makes sense. We need to just accept them.

Why did Jesus put his fingers in a man’s ears and spit and touch his tongue? Matthew 7:33? Because that is the way Jesus chose to heal this man. Why didn’t he just lay hands on him or just speak the word? I don’t understand it, but it happened and it is established in scripture. Just because we don’t understand the fullness of the reason why God would do something doesn’t make it less true, Aug. How else could God not write peoples names in the book of life before He created the world and the opposite not be true based on Rev 17:8? What other way could God write anyone’s name in the book of life before He created the world unless He saw the end from the beginning? Aka foreknowledge & Omniscience? Therefore why would there be a need to add names if God has seen the end from the beginning, Aug?

Surely, your misunderstanding that the book of life is not literal. UR’s would take this position because they have to or their theology cannot stand based on what has been established in scripture. Ask Ran about this The only way all people can be saved is if all names are written in the book of life and based on scripture not all names are written in the bokk of life…it is also established in scripture that God can and will blot out names from the book of life, therefore leaving UR with a very big problem, my friend.

Why do you think the book of life is called the book of life? Because when people accept Jesus as Lord and Savior they receive the Life of God in their spirits…aka being born again

Aaron37 · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

JasonPratt:

Aaron37:

Jason, my brother, we have a problem. I was hoping the would go off to remind you of Rev 17:8 and God’s omniscience.

I am already well aware of Rev 17:8, and also of God’s omniscience, thanks.

It’s kind of interesting that you have referenced John 7:38; since I just finished composition on the paper and included my own reference to that as well!–specifically in connection to the positive testimony of the Revelation to John, which as will be shown involves those in the lake of fire judgment being evangelized and saved. But I’ll get to that in the paper, as well as its connections to the book of life and whether people can be grafted into and out of and into it etc. (Er, I mean written. Mixed metaphor there. I was hoping a would go on with you when I reffed St. Paul, but obviously that hasn’t happened yet. Hint: it’s in the message you were replying to.)

JasonPratt:

Your position seems to involve (at least) three points.

1.) Names cannot even possibly be written into the book of life (whether they are new names of penitent sinners or whatever). …] You provided no scriptural testimony stating this.

Aaron37:

For it to be possible don’t you agree we should be able to find it in the Word of God?

It must not be possible to create aircrafts!–that isn’t found in the Word of God!

Actually, I do find the possibility (and even certainty) of being written into the book of life, in the Word of God, but that isn’t the point. (And I’ll get to that later with the big paper.) My point isn’t even that you’re making (as far as you’re currently aware) an argument from silence, which is hugely tenuous for anyone to do, including from scripture. My points, for now, were only first to make sure you’re claiming (1), and second to mention (in regard to your dismissive critique of Sonia and others about “theoretical opinions”) that you provided exactly no scriptural testimony (including in RevJohj) stating that it is impossible for names to be written in.

You’re trying to draw an inference from implications of the data, not citing the data straight out. Leaving aside whether your inference is valid or not, that’s the same thing you’re denouncing in other people as only having “theoretical opinions”.

I am not critiquing your argument for failing to cite evidence straight out. (I don’t critique your argument in my paper either, on that ground.) I am only critiquing your dismissal of other people for trying to draw inferences from implications of scriptural data, when you are doing exactly the same kind of process in your argument.

For example:

Aaron37:

Based on Rev 17:8 these names were not written before the foundation of the world…therefore the opposite is true.

Which, aside from NOT citing scripture straight out as testimony for your position, and so being the same as what you denounce as “theoretical opinion” in others, is also logically invalid. The opposite of X’s name not being written in before the foundation of the world (which by the way is not what 17:8 says in the original language–but leaving that aside), is X’s name being written in before the foundation of the world. Or X’s name being written in after the foundation of the world (instead of before).

The opposite is not Y’s name being written in before the foundation of the world. (Or afterward either.) You’ve made an invalid deductive inference. 17:8 has nothing logically deductive to say about the relationship of people being written in and the foundation of the world.

Aaron37:

Find scripture to support adding names and I will agree it is possible.

I’m somewhat doubtful you will, but I sure won’t mind if you do.

JasonPratt:

2.) The book reflects (or at least stands for) God’s omniscience over who He will finally succeed in saving and who He will finally fail to save, or choose to give up trying to save (or some similar Arminian variant thereof). The point being that since the book represents what He knows to be the final result, the book cannot possibly be altered, even by God–altered to add a new name, for example. It is what it is, and that’s the end of it, and there’s no possible way it could ever be what it is.

Aaron37:

No, not my position at all. God’s omniscience does not save one soul. God’s omniscience sees all who will accept Jesus from the end to the beginning and records their names of those who overcome.

Which comports exactly with what I wrote in asking about your point above, so far as God’s omniscience goes. The difference is that in your description God takes no action to save anyone at all; but I know perfectly well that you actually believe He does. (Unless you’re denying that Jesus saves!–which I know you aren’t.) You just aren’t talking about that here, and it’s beside the point.

Aaron37:

I never said anything remotely about God giving up to save.

Glad to hear you think God never gives up acting to save anyone! (Since that’s a universalistic position if supernaturalistic theism is true. If God is forced to quit acting to save someone, that could only be true if supernaturalistic theism, including trinitarian theism, is false.) But again, that’s beside the point. If you don’t accept either of the two standard Arminian positions I spelled out, that’s why I included “or some similar Arminian variant thereof”. I was including all Arm positions broadly, spoken and unspoken.

The salient point you’re agreeing to, that I have understood correctly about your argument, is that the book reflects (or at least stands for) God’s omniscience over all who will and will not finally ultimately be saved; the point being (as I put it) that since the book represents what He knows to be the final result, the book cannot possibly be altered, even by God–altered to add a new name, for example. It is what it is, and that’s the end of it, and there’s no possible way it could ever be what it is. Or as you put it,

Aaron37:

If you understand God’s foreknowledge and omniscience whats there to alter?

JasonPratt:

3.) And God can and does make alterations to the book of life.

Aaron37:

You got it, based on Rev 3:5 and Rev 22:18-19.

Aaron37:

If you understand God’s foreknowledge and omniscience whats there to alter?

What indeed!

So, putting it briefly, you have affirmed that your argument depends on the book being unalterable (so that names cannotpossibly be written in, too bad for them); and also that the book can be altered (so that names can be erased, too bad for them).

And along the way, you provide exactly no scriptural testimony that the book cannot be altered (other than a dubious inference from silence), while providing specific scriptural testimony that the book can be altered.

Are you REALLY sure you want to go with the names in the book of life not even possibly being alterable? Because you yourself found positive evidence that it can be altered. If it can be altered, it can be altered; and so you cannot call its intrinsic inalterability in to argue that it cannot be altered one particular way.

Your argument in your original post amounts, in principle, to:

P1: the book of life cannot be altered at all
P2: in order for names to be written in, the book would have to be altered.
P3: the book of life can be altered.
C1: therefore names cannot possibly be written in, even though the book can be possibly altered, because the book of life cannot be altered at all. (from P1, P2, P3)

You would have been (marginally) better off arguing that, yes, the book of life can be altered (God’s omniscience notwithstanding), but that you only find it being altered to erase names not add them.

Aaron37:

Jason, why do you have to be so redundant? 20 pages, really? Why? AKA smoke screen. It does not take 20 pages to respond to anything. C’mon Jason.

Or, aka, one of us has done the research, and the other has not.

RanRan · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Why did Christ preach to the disobedient dead from the flood while He was with them? You don’t know what He preached. So by what authority are you given the right to pick and choose what people should be in awe of?

JasonPratt · April 9, 2018, 4:26pm

And the Big Reply is now posted up in this thread; where, as noted, I not only address the logical principles and the scriptural accuracy of A37’s argument (which maybe takes up a third of the set of posts), but I also collect together for ease of reference and research, the various things I’ve written on the forum since Fall 2008 on the final chapters of RevJohn. (To which could be appended more commentary on various things, most pertinently the thematic parallels between Christ’s victory over the kings of the earth in Rev 19 with the conclusion of Psalm 23. But I expect I’ll get around to that later.)

RanRan · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

I thought it was a well-done attempt at defining (understanding) the unclear by the clear - I’m sure Aaron would say that you have it backwards as to which is which. But the difficulty and confusion one encounters with his presentation stems from the text itself. Whether one thinks it’s scripture or not is the beside the point in determining clarity.

auggybendoggy · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

I don’t know if I’m to take your argument serious or what? I’m simply arguing that if it doesn’t make sense then anything is possible and you don’t want to acknowledge that. You’re no different in your defense of the gospel than Mormon missionaries who come to my house every tuesday…“Uh we know it doesn’t make sense, just trust us and follow.”

Ok like I said,
I know All are reconciled to God.
I know all reconciled will be saved by his life.

So I know all will worship God and praise him.

Thus Scripture declares all will be saved.

So how do I explain that not all names are in the book of life.

The same way you do…MYSTERY?

Somehow it’s true, not everyone’s name is in the book of life and somehow all will be saved.

Cheers to bad reason.

RanRan · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Actually, God is quite clear about that, states it as such, and declares it irrevocable - so there is no question of the outcome. But as far as THAT foreknowledge goes, Aaron will deny it in favor of something revocable in changing the outcome to something quite different.

The fact that that declaration was made in the OT, reaffirmed in the NT and seemingly forgotten by whomever wrote Revelation is lost on him. He thinks he has the last word on the matter. But God Himself has made it crystal clear that He has given us the last word, not the writer of the Rev, whose ‘ending’ does NOT line up with what is to be.

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Except that whoever wrote RevJohn didn’t forget it (as I demonstrated in detail).

And A37 didn’t present some important points of his argument as clear testimony from RevJohn. He tried to draw inferences to those points, but he did so with logical invalidity, without accounting well enough for the language of what he did reference, and without factoring in enough testimony from RevJohn.

His data set was far too small; not reported accurately enough; and not validly used. (Also his logic on metaphysical principles was faulty.)

Whether the text is canonical or not, or contains principle contradictions or not, he could have done a lot better. Or even a little better; but even doing a little better would have substantially altered his argument to something else (in one or more ways).

stellar_renegade · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Aaron37:

stellar renegade:

Aaron37:

Aaron: No, not my position at all. God’s omniscience does not save one soul. God’s omniscience sees all who will accept Jesus from the end to the beginning and records their names of those who overcome. I never said anything remotely about God giving up to save. If you understand God’s foreknowledge and omniscience whats there to alter?

Okay, then. What’s the point of said book if it doesn’t determine who will overcome, persevere and be saved? Doesn’t God already know who is his and who isn’t? God is omniscient, therefore he doesn’t need the book to inform him of who gets to walk through the pearly gates, am I right? So why even use a book at all?

Also, you still haven’t answered the objection that though you believe that some of us are giving theoretical opinions, you are giving one yourself by saying that God would blot people out of the book of Life even though he never explicitly said that.

Also, even though God knows that some people will eventually turn back, he puts their names in the book to begin with. Why’s that, Aaron?

Your theology seems very confusing to me, to say the least.

Justin, all the names that are recorded in the book of life are all the ones who will accept Jesus and overcome. The book of life is a record of all the people who have received the life of God in their spirits ( aka born again) hint…( that is why it is called the Lamb’s book of life).

No, because some of them will be blotted out, remember?

I imagine that there was a reason for it, just like when he put mud in the guy’s eyes. That’s a throwback to the creation story which says we were made of dust. He was merely recreating the man’s eyes. I don’t know specifically why he spit and touched the man’s tongue, but I assume there was a very good reason. I don’t see the reasoning behind writing someone’s name in, then blotting them out, Aaron. Can you explain it to me? Or do you believe that God lacks rationality?

No; no it hasn’t. You’re still jumping to conclusions about what the text says.

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Well, let’s see. In the past you’ve posted up some quick and shallow point you’re trying to make; you’ve insisted and demanded that people take the time to answer that quick and shallow point; people take the time to do so in-depth; your reply amounts to just laughing them off (plus maybe just restating what you started off with as though nothing had ever been said meanwhile) rather than dealing with the discussion in-depth yourself; people then dismiss you as not being serious about discussing things; and then you complain about people not taking you serious and demanding to be shown where you aren’t taking discussion seriously.

So, where are we now in that process? Hm… stage 4, if I’ve counted up correctly…

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Actually, his main problem is that he’s jumping (invalidly) to conclusions about the book of life being intrinsically unalterable so that no one can possibly be written in; but he has to admit at the same time that the book of life is alterable (because people can be written out of it).

As far as his reasoning goes for what you quoted, that’s okay. But it doesn’t really help his position any, unless he makes invalid jumps from that.

Sherman · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Aaron37:

Sherman:

I thought that I did address your questions, though as Jason mentioned, I disagree with some of your assumptions and interpretations of scripture. I just didn’t point these out specifically, but will gladly do so point by point if you wish.

Aaron37:

I have said all of that to say and ask this:

Scripture has established we have to be born again spiritually and have our names written in the book of life to enter Heaven. Jn 3:3; Rev 20:15.

Actually, Jn 3:3 doesn’t say “to enter heaven”; it says that one must be born again “to see the Kingdom of Heaven”. In order for us to percieve the present reality of the kingdom of God we must be born of the Spirit. It’s not talking about us getting into heaven, but about us being able to percieve, understand the present reality of the rule and reign of God in our lives.

And Rev.20:15 also isn’t about getting into heaven, but about not facing the “lake of fire”. And as I pointed out in my first post, I do not believe that the metaphor of the lake of fire speaks of either annihilation or endless torture; rather, it speaks of remedial punishment, punishment with a positive purpose that brings about positive change in the one being punished.

Scripture has also established from the foundation of the world our names are written in the book of life. Rev 17:8

I too believe in the Sovereignty of God, that God chooses who He will reveal Himself to in this life, who will hear the Gospel, and even who will be predisposed by DNA and circumstances to be receptive to the Gospel. Not only do many people live their whole lives never having an opportunity to know God in this life, there are some people who are virtually forced to know Christ - like Paul. Of course, I also trust that God is a righteous, just and merciful judge and that when we all face the judgment He’ll take all this into consideration. What worries me is I also believe that to whom much is given, much is required; and I’ve been given much. I was - born to Christian parents, loved by both and many others all my life, taught scripture from childhood, gifted in teaching and compassion, blessed with good health and having my physical needs always met, blessed with a good wife, wonderful children, even blessed to fellowship and work among others who love God passionately. “To whom much is given, much is required.” And it was the rich man who suffered in Gehenna though he too was a child of Abraham.

See, instead of applying these scriptures to others, seeking to find certainty of their damnation; I seek to apply scripture to my life so that I might embrace more of the forgiveness and love of God and communicat that love to others.

Scripture has also established that God can and will blot your name out of the book of life if you don’t overcome. Rev 3:5.

Yes, I seek to keep my relationship with God vibrant, alive and growing, so as not to give in to the disease of “hardness of heart” and have to face the judgment of a waisted life. Does this mean that I believe that ultimately Jesus will loose me and Satan will rule me forever? No, of course not. I believe that my and your ultimate salvation rests wholly in the blood of Christ though we might need to go through the fire of remedial judgment.

So, how is everyone’s names written in the book of life from the foundation of the world and enter Heaven…when Rev 17:8 says these particular people were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world? How do people enter Heaven when their names were not written in the book of life…when your name according to scripture can only be written in the book of life before the creation of the world?

As noted before, it’s not talking about “getting into Heaven”. Being born of the Spirit speaks of getting heaven into us. And even the judgment and the Lake of Fire speaks of getting heaven into us, of bringing us to the recognition that we need God, that because of the Lamb we’ve been forgiven and salvation has been provided for us.

Of course, this is interpreting these passages from a present metaphorical view and futuristic view. In Revelation we see that Jesus triumphs, evil is overcome, and we can participate in that victory or be overcome. This is a present reality as well as our future hope.

Of course, if one interprets Revelation from a Preterist or Historical view, all of the metaphors we’ve discussed are interpreted differently.

Sherman

you said: It’s not talking about us getting into heaven, but about us being able to percieve, understand the present reality of the rule and reign of God in our lives.

Aaron: Really? Please show me in scripture where it even remotley teaches this. Here is what scripture teaches about the book of life and getting into heaven:

If you’ll recall, I was speaking of Jn.3.3 which notes that if one is not born of the Spirit then one cannon “SEE” the kingdom of God. To “SEE”, means to percieve, and speaks allegorically of “understanding”, not “entrance into”. Jesus preached that the Kingdom of God is “at hand”, another allegory. f

Yes, Jesus does allude to the Lamb’s book of life. But if you’ll notice, in context Jesus is encouraging the disciples to found their joy upon their relationship with God, and not upon them being able to perform miracles. It is not saying that Jesus fails to save anyone.

The key phrase is the “Lamb’s book of life”. Who did Jesus die for? I believe that scripture affirms that Jesus died for everyone, not just a some. It is by Grace that we are saved, not by how good we are. I do not believe that the atonement is Limited in either Scope or Effect. Jesus dies for everyone thus fully effecting the salvation of everyone.

I’m not joking at all. As alluded to in my previous post, Paul is a good example of someone “forced” into relationship with Christ. In spite of him being hell-bent on destroying the church, having heard and rejected the Gospel, having heard 1st hand accounts of the miracles and ressurection of Christ, having even possibly heard Jesus speak 1st hand, having soundly rejected the Gospel multiple times - Jesus appears to him and blinds him until he repents. If this isn’t “forcing”, I don’t know what is. It is the same way that I “force” my children to do what is good for them. So God applied presure on Paul to repent, until he repented.

Concerning personal comments affirming yourself as a good example, I’ll not comment.

Sherman · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Oh he did. I suppose blinding someone until they do what you want them to do is not “forcing” them to do it. I suppose the Vietnam Vets who were tortured until they confessed that they were “war criminals” were not “forced” to that confession; rather, they chose to.

Yes Jesus was merciful in appearing to Paul and blinding him. But if God loved Paul so much as to appear to him, reveal to him His glory, His holiness, and reveal to Paul his sin in persecuting the church, why would we think that God loves anyone any less. This is why Paul could believe that God truly is the savior of all humanity, especially we who believe (1 Tim.4.10), and repeatedly affirmed that salvation is completely by the Grace of God - not because of anything good we do or choose. Salvation is a gift, not something we earn or deserve. In fact, what we deserve is “death”, for the wages of sin is “Death” but the gift of God is eternal life.

Sherman · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

stellar renegade:

Sherman:

In Revelation one of the most interesting verses that mentions the book of life is 20:11-13:
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books

were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Thought, does “dead” above refer to everyone who has ever died, or only to those who are “dead” because of not having their names written in the book of life, not having that vital connection with God! Either way, the dead are judged according to what they had actually done in their lives. Note that it doesn’t mention the atonement; judgement is related to how we actually live our lives, not to the salvation we have in Christ because of His sacrifice. In other words, we shall all be judged, I believe. We shall all give an account, face a reconing, when we come before the Lord.
Actually, I just realized something - isn’t it saying that the dead which are about to be thrown into the lake of fire are judged by what’s written about them in the book of life!? Thus the metaphor is shown to be inconsistent, since it can mean various things. It’s not an actual book, as someone else said.

Note that Revelation speaks of “books”, one of which is the “Lamb’s book of Life”. The other books speak of a record of all that we all do in this life - the good and the bad. The bad things we’ve done will be burnt up. Scripture does not say in vain that God will dry every tear for we shall all have plenty to weep over when we come face to face with the truth about ourselves!

Actually, I believe that the lake of fire does speak of Remedial Punishment. Note:

Rev.14:10 notes that the LoF is in the presence of the Lamb and the presence of the Angels - a blast furnace of the Atonement of Christ and the supernatural benevolence of God in our lives. Note that it is the Lamb and the Angles that produce the fire - not Satan and demons.
God is understood to be a Fire.
Brimstone (theon, divined fire) (theo = God) was fire created by God, geological fire as in volcanoes, lava, burning oil, fissures in the earth, lightening, etc. All of these have the smell of burning of burning sulfur and thus sulfur was called brimstone. And Brimstone was burnt by the Greeks and Romans as incense for spiritual purification and physical healing. And the healing benefits of the Hot Brimstone (sulfur) Springs were well known and people would travel from all over to bath in them. Even today many medicines are based on sulfur.
Torment - the word torment itself relates to the purification of metal by fire, not the destruction of the metal. Metal was rubbed against a touchstone, tormented, to reveal its purity and determing whether or not it needed any more firing.

So, the metaphor of the lake of fire and brimstone speaks of Purification - the metal is refined and the impurities are burnt up, consumed, removed from the metal. In like manner, souls that face the lake of fire are tormented, purified of their wickedness. And the fire is the very presence of God!

Such facts as the meaning of torment, the postitive uses of fire, and the meaning of brimstone were common knowledge in that day and thus the 1st audience of John’s Revelation would have readily understood the LOF as Remedial Punishment.

Dondi · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

SInce the book of Revelation is written with so many inferences to the Old Testament Scriptures (for example, the two witnesses in Rev. 11as two olive trees in Zech 4), I suggest we look back to what this “book of life” (or book of the living as it is sometimes referred) as it pertains the the OT. The first instance of ‘blotting out’ occurrs in the mouth of Moses after returning from the Mount when it was discovered that the people made and worshiped a golden calf in Exodus 32. God was apparently wroth of the incident that it seemed fit to destroy the people (and presumably to start over with Moses to remake the nation):

*"And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:

Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." - Exodus 32:9-10 *

But the exasperated Moses intervenes telling God that Egypt will mock God for delivering them only to destroy them and reminding God of the Abrahamic Promise, in which case God repents of His intent:

*"And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand?

Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people.

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever.

And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."*

Well, Moses was pretty whiffed when he witnessed himself of the evil in the camp that he threw down the Ten Commandments and shattered the tablets. After siding people up and having the people kill off three thousand, Moses makes another plea to God up on the Mount:

*"And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.

Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin–; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

And the LORD said unto Moses, **Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. **
Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee: nevertheless in the day when I visit I will visit their sin upon them.

And the LORD plagued the people, because they made the calf, which Aaron made."*

A couple things to note here. Moses intercesses to spare the people and forgive them or else blot his (Moses’) name out of “thy book which thou hast written”. We can presume that God does have such a book in which names are already written, which currently includes the name of Moses. Second, God makes the pronouncement that “whosoever sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book”. But it’s obvious that the whole camp of Israel sinned against God, including Aaron, yet God spared the majority of the people, howbeit not without plagues.

Now Aaron37’s contention is that God only blots out names from the book of life, never adds to it. But we all deserve to have our names blotted out as all have sinned.

In Psalm 69, which contains Messianic Prophecies of Christ in the Cross (ex. see verse 21, cf. Matt 27:34), the Psalmist here pleads with God to “Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.” vs 28. Yet what did Jesus on the Cross say? “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.” Not the kind of attitude that is willing to blot out names, now, is it?

But finally, we come to book of Malachi 3. Notice here that it speaks of a refiner’s fire, not to destroy, but *to purify * (vs 3). And later in the same chapter we have this interesting passage speaking to the sons of Jacob which are not consumed (vs 6):

*"And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered.

Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name."*

Here this book of rememberance is being written as people fear the Lord and think upon His name (Now what name might that be, I wonder?). The wicked are delivered from being consumed as they learn that fear, all at the day of His coming! Names can be added!

JasonPratt · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Good point, Dondi: Moses was expecting the blotting to be hopeless; God reassured him, in effect, that the blotting was not hopeless. All those who sinned were blotted out, but that doesn’t mean they weren’t written back in.

(And come to think of it, Moses sinned too, eventually; enough so that he was forbidden to enter the promised land at that time before his death. But no one believes Moses will not ever be allowed in; on the contrary, he’s one of the two prophets talking to Christ during the Transfiguration! So he’s clearly not in any hopeless situation.)

I could have added a bunch more to my report than I did, and one category I thought to include (but didn’t) was discussion of the book of life in the OT; mainly because I didn’t need to refer to it to make my point, and also because doing so would have added a bunch more complex discussion.

Still, yep, Malachi shows God adding names to the book who at some point before then had not been in the book. He exhorted them to repent, and they did, so they got written in (or back in maybe).

To be fair, though, this occurs at the time of Malachi’s prophecy to those people. In terms of narrative logic, it isn’t shown happening in-or-after the day of judgment which Malachi prophesied. Though of course, Mal’s prophecy was about the forthcoming punishment of God in the day of the Lord to come being intended for hopeful refining, just like you said. So in effect the intended result of the day of judgment will be to add names back to the book, just as God added in the names of penitent rebels in Malachi’s own day.

I don’t recall if I mentioned this recently (I know I’ve affirmed it elsewhere, but I don’t recall doing it in this thread, or otherwise recently)–but I agree that Sherman is also correct about the cultural connotations of the language and imagery being used. (This was something else I thought of adding to my report but didn’t in order to trim down its length.)

Dondi · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

Might I also add (pun unintended), that the term 'book of rememberance" recalls the request the repentant thief on the cross made to Jesus, “Lord, remember me when thou cometh into thy kingdom”, to which Jesus replied, “Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” I wonder if the ledger has a notation for that particular date? And do you think perhaps that thief ever read Malachi?

RanRan · March 9, 2018, 1:34am

In the same vein…

“And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward.”

Rewards don’t get ‘blotted out’ even if the act seems unimportant in advancing His kingdom - and rewards, apparently, have nothing to do with faith. ‘He who is not against us, is for us.’