It absolutley amazes me some of the things that come out of your mouth, Ran. That is not my slogan. You misrepresent not only me, but have misrepresented so many others with your thoughtless comments, 
How do you wish to spin it then? Do heretics go to heaven?
Actually, I think he’s been pretty generous. He hasn’t actually accused anyone here of being unsaved that I’ve seen, much to my surprise, since I see that happening quite often in some parts, with some types of people. Feel free to point out where I’m wrong, maybe there has been an exception or two, but I’ve felt blessed to be given the benefit of the doubt.
That’s where I’ve been challenged not to dismiss Aaron as just some blind hypocritical religious fool, or better yet just a troll, because beyond his narrowmindedness (from our viewpoint) and solicitous evangelistic tactics, he actually seems to have a heart. It’s kind of disarming and allows for the fact that fellow sheep aren’t always as we’d personally like them to be. But honestly I’d rather associate with him than a rabid universalist.
It also makes me feel a little bit more comfortable hearing him talk about being filled with the Spirit and so forth, because he’s not totally two-dimensional like I’d usually expect someone wielding those kinds of overly simplistic arguments to be.
I had my reservations (and ready reproofs) at first, but despite not being a very satisfying debate opponent, I don’t totally mind having him around. He’s kinda loveable. haha. (Whoa, did I actually say that? 
)
After having read yet another thread populated with his posts, I take back my overzealous compliment. He’s not all that and a bag of chips, there are a few groundless accusations flying from his direction too. I guess I should give it a little bit more time before I make such all-encompassing statements. 
Was doing pretty good in the Book of Life thread, though, from what I remember.
Aaron37,
I think everyone’s waiting for a response which does not endorse contradiction. When contradiction is accepted, then everyone is right.
The Greek style is substantially different, but that could easily be due to several factors which don’t affect common authorship.
1.) The same author writes both documents at a protracted period of time from each other. (I tend to argue in favor of both docs having been originally composed in the forms we’re familiar with pre-70, so I wouldn’t go with this one. But it would still easily explain a lot of the variance, with GosJohn being more polished, if GJ was written 25-30 years later in a language he’s now far more familiar with.)
2.) The same author writes both documents in a different style purely for stylistic reasons. (The problem here is that the differences are ones of polish. However, both documents show evidence of being very tightly designed, so it’s unlikely RevJohn is being sloppy on purpose.)
3.) The same author wrote one in Greek and one in Aramaic (or both in Aramaic) and we’re looking at a later (but still very early) translation into Greek. (In this case I would incline toward RevJohn having the Aramaic original. But not in anything like wide circulation. Maybe something St. Paul was familiar with at the time he wrote the Thess Epistles.)
4.) The same author dictated both texts, but to different scribes with different styles and capabilities in Greek. (This goes a long way toward explaining huge stylistic differences in some of the Pauline epistles, for example, where we know from internal testimony that Paul was dictating to scribes except for his sign-off autographs for verification against forgery. It’s also just standard operating procedure.)
5.) The same author wrote RevJohn whose ministry is the core on which GosJohn was designed, but someone else wrote GosJohn fusing together several ministry sources in the process. (This is my preferred theory, btw. Not least because one of the two Gospel authors we know by internal testimony or early tradition who did this, was John Mark. Having him involved in one or both of the John texts, and/or the epistles, would go a long way toward explaining unsurety over authorship in subsequent tradition. There are several variants of this theory possible.)
RevJohn shares enough themes and ways of putting things, with GosJohn (and the epistles), even though the grammar is substantially different, for there to be a definite connection between the two. (Though admittedly one could be aping the other; if so, it would just about have to be RevJohn mimicking GosJohn.) They aren’t just night and day.
Edited to add: Ran is correct about not wanting to get the thread offtrack on an analysis of GosJohn vs. RevJohn characteristics. (That might be well worth doing in another thread; you can take the lead on that if you like, Ran! 
Maybe in the Bibliology category.) However, I wanted to affirm that he’s correct about there being substantial grammatic differences which could also be explained (and relatively easily so) by there being two completely different authors unconnected to each other. But there are other relatively easy and historically plausible (even mundanely normal) explanations for the difference, too.
I appreciate you putting it that way, Ran; although to be honest, I think in this case I did put the conclusions rather more strongly than being (only) food for thought.
(I’m putting pieces of data together narratively, linguistically and thematically, with connections across the Testaments elsewhere. It isn’t the final word on the subject by far–I can think of several legitimate challenges myself–but neither am I putting out a list of potentialities such as in the recent list of how the grammar and style can be explained between RevJohn and GosJohn even with one ‘auteur’ behind them both.)
I feel Aaron37 needs to address his non-determinist logic.
If a name cannot be added to the book of life than how is it that those who’s names were not written in the book have real offer from God to have their name in the book of life? If God did not write their name in the beginning and their names cannot be added, then is there a real legit offer from God to be saved?
I find this to be a semi-determinist position (near calvinism) man will do what God makes him do, because God knew man was going to do that anyways.
or
The books are fixed and yet they are open to being written (calminian).
Aug
Logic, period. He’s trying to square a circle and it can’t be done.
Scripture, normally, is symmetrical - the dots connect - of course, that’s assuming that scripture is being studied.
So let’s get out of TheRev and into clarity.
“Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.”
The Book of Life is Christ - the Word incarnate.
Aaron’s argument that it is OUR name that determines salvation. But The Book of Life contains but one name - Christ. Our being is found in Him as it was it Adam. So there is a single name under heaven by which I must be and will be saved from death. Not Aaron or any other name.
It’s interesting that the ‘sinless one’ (as self-proclaimed by Aaron) is pushing for his name written to save him. TheRev has been, and always will be, a book for the self-righteous. “I’m in Christ and you shall burn.” They haven’t got a clue.
But the beauty of the whole setup is, there’s hope for them, too. 
[size=150]HERE IT IS FOLKS:[/size]
Stellar and Aaron37 UFC 431:
OHHHHH KNOCKOUT
3 seconds in the first round.
Congrats to Stellar for a Stellar performance!
Heheheh. 
I’m quick to notice exceptions to the rule.
Lots of “proof texting” going on. Proof texts can be used to lend support to a particular point of view, but all are subject more than one interpretation. I prefer to take a broader point of view. What does the Bible “in general” say about the character of God = judgmental, yet loving and forgiving and just, and all powerful? Then, look for interpretations which are consistent with this view of God.
All this talk about the book of life doesn’t prove anything, really, because the related passages are subject to more than one interpretation.
heavenandhellpage.com/prooftexts.html
Bless you all,
Richard
I only reluctantly believe that names will be blotted out due to scriptural evidence. I was just challenging his point-of-view especially where it appears to be inconsistent.
C’mon Aug, keep it together. I don’t understand…How is this a knockout? All believers who overcome are found in the book of life. The ones who overcome do not get blotted out, Aug & Stellar. The believers who don’t overcome get blotted out. Rev 3:5 ; 22:19-20.
I don’t know what your hehehe about. All believers who overcome are found in the book of life. The ones who overcome do not get blotted out, Aug & Stellar. The believers who don’t overcome get blotted out. Rev 3:5 ; 22:19-20.
Why do you constantly copy and paste? That doesn’t nail your point down anymore than it would be, it just makes people more likely to skip over your posts.
Anyway, you said that all those who are written into the book of life will overcome, and now you’re saying that some won’t and will get blotted out. Which is it?
LOL, It’s a knockout! A37 doesn’t even know what hit him. He’s confused with his own argument.
Ok, this is the last time for you and Auggy to grasp this… I know its hard due to your dogmatic view of UR 1) the believers who overcome ( don’t turn their backs on God) will be found in the book of life. 2) There are people who don’t have their names written in the book of life. ( aka unbelievers) 3) There are believers who have their names blotted out because they turn their backs on God due to living willfully in sin or going to far in false doctrine,etc. You can’t be blotted out from a book that your not written in. 
These are the 3 groups of people that pertain to the book of life. Of course, your not going to accept this because if you do accept what has been established in scripture… then UR goes bye-bye because everyone’s name who ever lived must be found in the book of life for UR to be true and we both know scripture does not support this. 
Auggy, your comments are very disrespectful… your inability to grasp the 3 groups of people that pertain to the book of life based on scripture are blinded due to your dogmatic view of UR. 