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. 
So, Aaron, you don’t believe in the eternal security of the believer, once saved always saved?
Just curious.
Richard
Nope.
Aaron,
So, tell me if I have your position correctly stated here:
You believe that before the creation of the world, God wrote in a book the names of each person who would make a profession of faith in this life. Then, every person recorded in the book who does not “overcome” is blotted out. Those are two classes of people. The third class never made any attempt at all to accept Christ, and thus were never written in the book because God knew they utterly rejected Him.
Yes?
Sonia
I used to believe before the foundation of the world because of God’s foreknowledge, but now I’m leaning towards the names being written in the book at the time the person actually believes. 1) people who have their name written 2) people who don’t have their name written 3) people who have their names blotted out.
I honestly think Aaron’s gonna explode soon. 
Okay, we’re the ones who are dogmatic, here. Sure. 
We’ll take that bait, just cuz we’re not offended by that.
But I think pretty much all of the URer’s would tell you that the moment they decided to believe in UR was the beginning of their loss of dogmatism.
Okay, so let me get this straight. You believe that there is a class of people who become new creations, wherein the old creation is completely gone. Then they turn their backs on God, start on a pathway of sin, take on their old creation selves again, and the new creations are then gone? 
So now you don’t believe the verse that says that their names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the world? And now there’s room for peoples’ names being written in later on, especially going by the reference to this happening in Malachi 3?
Aaron,
It appears that you have completely lost this debate. Your views are completely self-contradictory.
sorry,
Richard
Aaron37,
a couple of things. First off, I was being funny with you cause I thought you knew me well enough. I like you, and I like you even being here for reasons of sharpening those of the EU persuasion.
Yes, we understand what you are saying, but according to your first arguments which you seem to have altered, it’s contradictory.
Bet as you stated here it is:
- people who have their name written
- people who don’t have their name written
- people who have their names blotted out.
Stellar is asking - why are no. 3 not in number 2 if no 1 was done from the foundation of the world.
So you have altered by saying,
Yes you also stated
Those are major shifts from your original post.
So we EU would obviously respond, names can be added later so when they’re roasting in hell, God then adds their name and saves em.
So I think Richard is right, technically, you’ve not proven EU/UR wrong but instead have learned not to use the BOL as something to prove your dogmatic view that God cannot save whom he desires when he desires.
Aug
The main problem we had with your original argument, Aaron, was that you were insisting on God’s omniscience applying to the book of life in a way that utterly contradicted what we all AGREED with you (except for Ran who doesn’t accept RevJohn as canonical anyway, or apparently Malachi or Philippians either, or any other place the b-o-l is talked about where it’s clear the book is neither an analogy for Christ nor something in which, analogically, only Christ’s name is included )that NAMES COULD BE BLOTTED OUT.
We weren’t disagreeing with you due to unthinking dogmatism on UR. We were disagreeing with you because you were blatantly wrong–and were mockingly sure that you were entirely correct, and refused at first to listen to any reason from us that your argument made less than no sense.
So now, instead of admitting, okay you guys were in fact correct on that point and I was wrong, sorry, I’ll try again; you don’t admit we were correct and instead accuse us of refusing to believe you due to our unthinking hard-hearted dogmatism.
Which, considering that you are steadfastly insisting on ignoring the wider scriptural contexts being pointed out to you (including across RevJohn, and especially in close topical connection to RevJohn), is essentially the pot calling the kettle marijuana.
This is not likely to inspire anyone to follow your self-professed infallible (apostolic and/or papal level) inspiration, A.
Actually, this is the FIRST TIME you have tried to present THIS notion for us to grasp. Previously you were presenting a logically contradictory notion for us to grasp (and mocking us for not doing so because we were the ones who supposedly didn’t understand God’s foreknowledge and omniscience).
But, addressing your altered position now on its own merits:
Those three groups being (1) those written into it; (2) those not yet written into it; (3) those written out of it.
The only way this could possibly count as a non-EU position, is if you slur #2 over to being those who never were and never will be written into it, and if you slur #3 over to being those who are written out and never written into it again. But you sure didn’t quote any scripture saying that some people’s names will never be written into the book of life (nor never written back in, either); whereas we quoted scriptures indicating that it’s entirely possible and (per RevJohn) even certain that people’s names not originally found in the bol “from the foundation of the world” (per earlier in RevJohn), can and will be written in.
After all, if everyone starts off not written in, then everyone who has been and will be written in also started off not written in. There’s nothing particularly hopeless about not having been written in. Just as I showed in detail from Romans: God can blot out a name and write it back in; and he can write in names that weren’t in there yet. The analogical language is different, but the principles are just the same.
On this topic, we’re the ones operating on a larger scriptural base than you are, spanning OT and NT both (including a wider base in RevJohn itself).
So, if you don’t engage that scripture in your assessment of the case, then who exactly does this description really apply to?
After all, on the topic of the book of life and similar analogies, we’re the ones actually showing where scripture indicates that everyone’s names will eventually be written into the book of life. Your only defense to this so far is to ignore us when we talk about it.
Sure, we all agree that everyone’s name is not found in the bol at the time of the lake of fire judgment in RevJohn. (Even Ran, who has demonstrated in this thread that his grasp of the contents of RevJohn is pretty poor, knows that. ) But we’re the ones scripturally demonstrating, including from RevJohn, that this is not a hopeless situation; and in principle it could only be a hopeless situation if that snapshot of the list was the final possibility for the contents. Obviously, the scriptures don’t say that at all–which is why you originally tried to argue to that position (by invalid logic, as we were trying to tell you from the beginning) as an inference from God’s omniscience.
Once you back off from insisting that the contents at the time of the lake of fire judgment must be intrinsically final due to God’s omniscience–as you are “leaning toward” backing off from now–then you have no particular reason yet established for why we should treat the situation of not being found in the book at the lof judgment as a hopeless situation for such people. Whereas we have shown scriptural reasons for believing that there is and will always be hope for them, too, in and through the love of God.
You insisted on having what I gave to you, along with others, in this and in related threads. Now it’s time to deal with what you insisted we give you. If you just flat refuse to… then who of us is having the difficulty due to blind, unthinking dogmatism?