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?
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.)
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?
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.’
I suppose you’re right, since other verses seem to indicate that names may be blotted out as well. I was just making the point that that verse doesn’t literally say that they would be, thus he is guilty of the same thing he accused us of.
Thank you for that encouraging interpretation, brother. Hitherto I have only skimmed over those interpretations because of lack of time on my part. I may have to come back to this because I’ve done the same here, but just to let you know, I wasn’t negating that. I just didn’t think that Aaron37 himself wanted to make that implication. 
I think you over-rate your skills at times. If UR is Good News, THE Good News - as news goes - it has been lost and not found in TheREV by everyone. For centuries. Your demonstration will go in the stack of opinions that is a mile high and will be equally lost in the shuffle. Hiding the light under a bushel is a crime against humanity. Which is what that book basically is…and has been.
The same person who wrote the book of Revelation also wrote the Gospel of John. The writing styles are identical. The Gospel of John is one of the most loved books of the Bible, and the book of Revelation, perhaps the most confusing. I believe it’s purpose may have been to present the truth in a veiled form. It took the form of a vision/dream and wasn’t meant to be taken literally. Even Jesus said that some of his parables were not meant to be understood by everyone. Why does God keep so many of us “guessing” in this way about what to us are very important doctrines, including universal reconciliation? I believe very strongly that because of Calvary everyone is at some point along the road that leads to ultimate glory. The primary focus of Jesus’ teaching was that right living, and right attitudes towards God and one’s neighber were much more important than correct theology. As we progress along our journey back to God, He will fill in the gaps in our theological knowledge at the appropriate times. If correct theology were all that important to God, I believe He would have presented it to mankind in the very beginning, and made it very plain and easy to understand. Why did God keep us, for the most part, completely in the dark for millennia concerning these important doctrines which have become so precious to us? Practically no mention at all in the Old Testament about the afterlife, no promises of Heaven, no threats of judgment in Hell. For millennia, it was all about the here and now. God wants us to be good because we have become genuinely good. He does not want rewards and punishments, whether in the here and now, or in the afterlife, to be the “primary” motivators of our actions.
Just my two cents.
And where is Aaron now? Banned again because he’s an offense to the elite. Cowards. Let me guess. You banned him because he might upset the fragile sensibilities of our newest elite member, Sherman. Aren’t we special?