This book is more important than Christ- as far as it concerns us, everything is determined by it and nothing by the cross. Amazing - and it isn’t even mentioned in the OT or the NT (Revelation being spurious.) One would that think that something soooo important would be mentioned everywhere in the scriptures.
Actually, it’s mentioned at least once by St. Paul, Ran. Phil 4:3. While the text has some unsettlement there in transmission, that part (about the book of life) is quite stable.
The Vine and the Tree and the River of Life, I would agree, are rather more important than the book. 
But the book isn’t unimportant.
I’m at 20 pages on my commentary, btw, and will hopefully be through sometime Sunday. I’ve still got quite a way to go, not least in talking about the Vine/Tree/River in relation to A’s argument. I’ve been wanting to collect together the posts I’ve written here on the forum, on the topic, in once place for ease of reference, so I’m taking the opportunity to do so now. I expect I’ll post it as a new topic for ease of future reference, too, with a link back here for context. (And a link here to there of course.)
However, now I’ve got to eat. 
So!
The Lamb’s book of life. Why do you think it was called that, Ran? Because all who accept Jesus as Lord and Savior receive the life of God in their spirits. 
Jesus said in Luke 10:20" “Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven’. He was referring to the Lamb’s book of life.
Yes, I ask you also, true companion, help these women, who have labored side by side with me in the gospel together with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life. (Philippians 4:3)
The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. (Revelation 3:5)
And all who dwell on earth will worship [the beast], everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain. (Revelation 13: )
The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to rise from the bottomless pit and go to destruction. And the dwellers on earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will marvel to see the beast, because it was and is not and is to come. (Revelation 17:8)
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. (Revelation 20:1 )
And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. (Revelation 20:15)
But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Revelation 21:27)
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19)
God bless,
Aaron
I don’t think that “not written from the foundation of the world” is the same as “will never be written ever”.
This is how I understand (on a literal level) the events of Revelation:
There are names in the BOL which were written there before the foundation of the world. These are the ones who are “saved” during their existance in this age. I believe this book is also refered to in the OT occasionally as “the book of the living” and “the book of the righteous”. These are the chosen and elect of God–whether you interpret that from a Calv or Arm perspective. They are first fruits of the harvest.
Those who are not written in the BOL from the foundation of the world worship the beast and are thrown into the Lake of Fire. They do not escape the wrath, but must be saved as through fire. These are the ones who are outside the city, but to whom the gates of the city remain open–though they may not enter till they meet the requirements. They are the ones which are healed by the leaves of the Tree of Life. These are the ones invited to the river of living water to quench their thirst–and no one make drink until they obey Christ.
No, nothing says they may not be added to the book–and it takes no “magic”, or at least no more “magic” than it takes for anyone to be saved. If you say they can never be written in the book, then **I **say that you are the one who wants to re-write Scripture to satisfy your itching ears. 
(C’mon Aaron, can we quit with the wild accusations? What are you trying to accomplish with that??)
I rather like MacDonald’s theory that the ‘new name’ is written in the Book of the Living. I’ve considered that theory before, but I think that has to remain (for me) as a mere hypothesis. In fact, there’s not much in John’s Revelation that I’m daring enough to be dogmatic about.
As to the first fruits and the main harvest, I get that from the typology of the OT Feasts as well as the teachings of Jesus and Paul–but I’m not going to tackle that one now–so just ignore that argument if you prefer. It’s a big enough subject to have its own topic–and in any case I don’t have enough time to engage it right now.
Sonia
Sonia
If you choose to believe God adds names to the book of life that is between you and the Lord. IMO, you have not biblically refuted my post, but only argued from an theorectically point of view. Your entitled to your therectical opinions…just don’t make doctrines out of them.
God bless,
Aaron
Aaron37,
There isn’t much point quoting scriptural authority to someone who thinks that particular piece of scripture isn’t authoritative. It would be like someone quoting the Koran to you. Or, more relevantly, the book of Maccabees, which was part of the Jewish canon in the time of Jesus. You DO accept the inspired authority of the several books of Maccabees, among other such texts, right? RIGHT? If you don’t accept the Bible of Jesus, then the majority of Christians on the planet and throughout history would be glad to quote RevJohn at you in order to indict you under a curse of God for removing words “from the Bible”.
(This is aside from the Bible itself “removing” and “adding words” in several other ways.)
If you want to make an argument for Ran to accept RevJohn, then make an argument for it. Quoting it self-referentially is not a worthwhile argument for it. Nor is quoting other texts not specifically referring to it, validating its authority. Both of those attempts are only begging the question.
Jason, no one has biblically refuted my post. I have been bombarded with theorectical opinions and not scripture refutations… the only position UR’s can take is to say God adds names to the book of life ( which is unscriptural) or deny its importance ( your position, which is also unscriptural).
Meanwhile, since I’m at home now and can’t work on the paper, I’ll take the opportunity to ask some questions for clarification of your position.
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).
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.
Thus, for any alteration to be made (entering a new name, for example), either God would not be omniscient after all, or else the book could not in fact represent the final result (only, say, a snapshot of what the situation is at the time of the lake of fire judgment, not necessarily of all possible situations before or afterward).
3.) And God can and does make alterations to the book of life.
You seem to be affirming all three of these positions. Is that right? Or do you deny one or more of them.
I stated that the book isn’t unimportant; therefore I affirmed that the book is important.
And I denied its importance, where? You mean back there, where I was affirming to Ran that the book was important? Or did you have somewhere else in mind?
‘Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness’ is not an appeal to a trope. But tropes, that is is, metaphors are always an appeal to it.
I know the ‘book of life’ metaphor is important to Aaron and he’s quite willing to beat this thing to death - but whoever wrote the Revelation did not have a fine grasp of how to do it. He gets lost in his own fiction and takes his readers along for the ride. Is the book foundational? No, we find that any inclusion in it is about as shifty as his metaphor.
Which brings us back to blood - real stuff, not metaphors - which took away the sins of the world, redeemed mankind and will set the captives (all of them) free from death. Christ is not a metaphor - He is the hero (and Lord) of all mankind. And rather than revocable inclusions in a bad metaphor - we have the irrevocable FACT that all mankind will confess Christ. (Not even God can erase what what He (Himself) has stated as irrevocable.)
Surely, the Paraclete knows what’'s scripture and what isn’t and passes that along to whom will listen.
Aaron,
If you choose to believe God will never add names to the book of life, that is between you and the Lord. IMO, you have not biblically refuted my post, but only argued from a theorectical point of view. You’re entitled to your theoretical opinions… Just don’t make doctrines out of them.
God bless,
Sonia 
And to St. Paul, and to Jesus, as Aaron correctly notes. (Even though Jesus isn’t reported using that specific phrase.)
You’re jumping off the horse on the other side. You’ve made it clear you don’t accept RevJohn as canonical, therefore his argument from RevJohn doesn’t apply to you. Ignoring the fact that the metaphor was important outside RevJohn, is not to your advantage, and only makes you look like you’re being evasive. It’s the opposite problem of A37 continuing to quote RevJohn to someone who doesn’t believe RevJohn is inspired revelation, simply because A37 finds it in the back of his Bible.
Why not check out the refs to it outside RevJohn, and see whether they necessarily imply A’s argument, or whether they actually count as evidence against it, or whether they fit in well enough but RevJohn has to be added to even try making A’s argument? (Jesus and St. Paul not being enough testimony for the argument to work.)
A, instead of quoting RevJohn to Ran, why not try seeing if you can adduce the same argument from the references made by Jesus and Paul?
Thats cute, Sonia…but look at my post again… I used scripture for my foundation…not my theorectical opinions.( God adding names to the book of life and Jason denying its importance…both unscriptural). 
Jason, this one is for you, my brother.
Jesus said in Luke 10:20" Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."
Question: How could Jesus tell the “seventy” to rejoice that their names were written in heaven or the Lamb’s book of life when they were not yet “born again” with the life of God to qualify them to be written in heaven? ( because Jesus had yet to go the cross)
God bless,
Aaron
Or to anyone. I don’t see how a person can remain a universalist and at the same time hold that Rev is scripture (and especially the later parts of it.) I do not see how one can maintain intellectual integrity while in the midst of that juggling act. What most people do is throw up their hands and say the book can mean anything. I don’t find that expression very satisfying.
Frankly, Aaron’s proofs are there in black and white. It’s time to capitulate and toss UR to the dogs - that’s happened before on larger scale when the book was codified by the church or Constantine. History repeating itself.
Ran, this is for you too, my brother. Watch your tongue, young man. 
Jesus said in Luke 10:20" Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven."
Question: How could Jesus tell the “seventy” to rejoice that their names were written in heaven or the Lamb’s book of life when they were not yet “born again” with the life of God to qualify them to be written in heaven? ( because Jesus had yet to go the cross)
God bless,
Aaron
I think people have pointed out before that you didn’t in fact quote RevJohn (or anywhere else in scripture) to say your name can only be written in the book of life before the creation of the world.
That’s a position you reached as an attempted inference. It is, in that sense, your theoretical opinion in just the same way that Sonia’s and other people’s position, based on scriptural reference, is a “theoretical opinion”.
To compare from my list:
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.
2.) You provided exactly zero scriptural citations testifying to any of this either.
3.) And God can and does make alterations to the book of life. – this, you provided scriptural testimony stating.
Your position is a rather distant inferential attempt from the scriptures you quoted, mixed with several tacit metaphysical presumptions. I don’t count that against your attempt, but it’s inaccurate (at best) to claim some kind of high ground over other people’s “theoretical opinions” on the topic after doing so.
Jason, by your tone its sounds like you don’t consider the book of Revelation to be inspired by God? Is this correct? Would you please repond to my question to my post above…
God bless,
Aaron
Because that’s the way His Redemption was going to work - especially for those who believe. You want to make that exclusive - but it’s not.
Hardly a problem for me, since I agree with St. Paul that branches can be grafted in and out of the vine pretty much as the Lord wills. Thus we are not to look down on those He has grafted out of the vine, since we might be grafted out as well and they may yet be grafted back in.
Also, I don’t restrict the zoe eonian of the Son to be something He had to go to the cross first to get. But then, I’m a trinitarian theist who believes that Jesus is the Resurrection and the Life and that He has life and authority in Himself to give zoe eonian, as well as eonian crisis or ‘judgment’ as it is more commonly translated into English, as He wills. A unitarian Christian might disagree with some of that I suppose, but even they would likely agree with it in their own way. Not sure why you’d deny that the Son, the 2nd Person, had such life in and of Himself. {shrug} (The scriptures say He did, and don’t say He didn’t. They do say He receives this life and this authority from the Father as well as being intrinsically this life and this authority, but I don’t recall them restricting this to occuring only after the cross.)