I consider the book of Revelation to be inspired by God and a proper inclusion to the canon of the New Testament. I have always done so, and I have never once said anything different. (As you might have learned from doing a bit of research on the site.)
That doesn’t change the fact that you quoted exactly no positive affirmations for either of those first two points, from RevJohn or from anywhere else. You did cite positive affirmation (from RevJohn as it happens) for the third point.
To clarify, I certainly don’t deny that God can and does make alterations to the book of life. I quite robustly affirm it! That includes erasing entries from the book of life, when He judges fit to do so–just as you also affirmed.
When you look at what has been established in God’s word and you say "No, God was saying this or that…Let me tell you what He was trying to say, " and you are theorectically (without sciptural support) saying what you think God is saying…that is rewriting the Bible, my friend. 
You are making it say what it doesn’t say or what you want it to say. 
And yet, many of us do. 
I’ve discussed it quite extensively on this forum myself (with others adding some things I hadn’t noticed before either). I don’t recall you ever discussing it with us, but maybe that happened before you showed up here.
Me neither. 
But I also try to make a point, when arguing for universalism from RevJohn, to remind readers that basing a doctrine on apocalyptic imagery isn’t, intrinsically, the safest way to go–whichever way that might be.
Still, it’s no more difficult than deriving it from Old Testament prophecy–a lot easier in some ways, I’d say! And I don’t recall you being a Marcionite and dissing the OT as canon.
(I know you don’t dismiss RevJohn due to thinking it would mess up your theology to accept it. I’m just saying, it isn’t that bad. )
I know you’re only kidding about throwing UR to the dogs. But neither are his proofs there in black and white, by a long shot. I’ll have lots of detail on that tomorrow.
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… To be written in heaven or in the Lamb’s book of life one must be born again spiritually. No one in the OT including the “seventy” were yet born again because Jesus had yet to go the cross. How so?.. Jesus said in John 7:38 " He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Jesus was prophesying the born again experience that had yet to happen. Notice in verse 39 " (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.) In other words, up to this point no one in the OT including the “seventy” had experienced being born by the regeneration of the Spirit because Jesus was not yet glorified. Jesus could only be glorified after he went to the cross and was raised from the dead.
You want to try again, my brother.( hint the answer is in my OP)
It’s interesting that you say that. The book didn’t mess up my theology - it helped create it. There is a reason why it is banned by some churches and restricted by others (the EO), embraced by Constantine and Rome, and
non-existent in the writings of the early UR promoting fathers. It kills UR by the stroke of a dubious pen. Then and now.
Of course, that wasn’t Luther’s beef, he concluded (in a clearer moment) ‘that there is NO Gospel in it.’ I would argue that that’s the same beef unless one is resigned to letting UR languish in the backwaters as yet another fad and not the Gospel itself. I mentioned history repeating itself and that continues to happen in the hearts and minds of believers. And left unchecked, produces a numbness that freezes the Good News into not a block, but into a blob. Nonetheless, cold and irresolute.
One doesn’t shout an ‘opinion’ from the rooftops. I have ceased to embrace Revelation and it hasn’t hurt me none.
I’ll be interested to see how you reconcile the Gospel with the non-Gospel. It’s been tried and, frankly, I think it’s an intellectual suicide mission with the usual result: a display of mental gymnastics or pyrotechnics with the emphasis on ‘display’. Good luck.
Your position seems to involve (at least) three points.
jasonpratt wrote:
1.) Names cannot even possibly be written into the book of life (whether they are new names of penitent sinners or whatever).
Aaron: For it to be possible don’t you agree we should be able to find it in the Word of God? Based on Rev 17:8 these names were not written before the foundation of the world…therefore the opposite is true. Find scripture to support adding names and I will agree it is possible.
jasonpratt wrote:
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.
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?
jasonpratt wrote:
3.) And God can and does make alterations to the book of life.
Aaron: You got it, based on Rev 3:5 and Rev 22:18-19.
Then and now
Hallelujah, Ran has just received a Revelation from God! 
You got that right, Ran. One down, and 187 to go.
God bless,
Aaron
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.
Perhaps this idea has been already dropped on this thread but I’ll throw it out there anyhow (I’m only on page 3 right now).
I wonder if Paul of Tarsus’ name is in the book of life? Perhaps it’s not, and instead is his name Saul. I recall Talbott speaking along the lines of “born again” in Inescapable Love of God; God killed Paul that he might give life to Saul.
Aug
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. 
Just to clarify:
No, he never said that. He merely said that he wouldn’t blot out the names of those who overcome. It wasn’t a warning but an encouragement. It could’ve been nothing more than a, “I know you will overcome because you are even written in my book and I will NEVER blot you out.”
So your opinion remains theoretical.
So their names are “supposed to” be written in the book even though they turn back later? I don’t understand why this is so, when God knows the beginning from the end, Aaron.
Hey Auggy…Look… my quote feature and smiley feature are working just like everyone else. as you can see I now can create a New post just like everyone else…Yea…freedom… Anyways…What does it matter if Paul or Saul is in the book of life? That would be God’s decision. Who cares. That is not the issue. The issue is: for UR to be true every name of every human being must be found in the Lamb’s book of life or they will not enter eternal glory.Rev 20:15 ; 21:27. Scripture has established that there are peoples names not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world …Rev 17:8 ,therefore, how does UR get those people who are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world… written in the book of life when there is no record of God adding names nor would he need to if you understood His foreknowledge and omniscience.
I wander if you read any of the previous post before you give your responses. You would understand Justin if you understood how God’s foreknowledge and omniscience worked.
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).
Why did Jesus spit and touch a man’s tongue to heal him, Justin? What is the point in that? I don’t know. Ask Jesus why he did it that way. The bottom line is the man got set free and healed. Ask God why he puts names in the book and then blots them out before the foundation of the world. just because you don’t know the fullness of why God does something does not make it any less true…all I know is … you can’t blot a name out of a book that has not been written there to begin with…and this has been established in scripture Rev 3:5 ; 22:18-19.
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:
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.
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
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.
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 
