 |
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/4/2001 9:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | Neophytes and all-
Mephi, you’re gonna like this.
Behold, Rev. 13.8: “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast-- all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.”
I’ve been arguing (following the lead of J. Sanders) that the death/resurrection of Christ was NOT a fixed certainty (pardon the double positive) in the mind of God before the Fall of Adam. Several (Modes, Mephi, Doc, and Pia) have suggested several texts which they claim make it clear that Christ was destined to die and atone for sin before the Fall and that it therefore follows that the Fall was a certainty before Adam fell, something I think contradicts the OV. (Now THAT’S funny). Don’t worry, you’ll cry in a minute.
I was looking at Rev. 13.8 today (again), which (ala NIV and others) clearly says Christ was “slain from the creation of the world.” Sanders argues (ala RSV, NAS, and others) that this phrase modifies “written” and not “slain.” Our names, he claims, were “written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.” Thus, Sanders’ can continue to argue that the predestined incarnation took on added significance AFTER Adam fell. Obviously, both translations are possible. Sanders goes with the later to escape the implications involved in claiming that Christ’s death was a foregone conclusion before the need for it even arises.
I think Sanders is probably correct on the question of translation. This seems to be confirmed by Rev. 17.8 which, notice, speaks of the “…inhabitants of the earth whose names have not been written in the book of life from the creation of the world.” Same deal, just without any mention of the lamb. The scales are thus tilted in favor of “written…from the foundation of the world” in 13.8.
But…(and the periods encircle the earth)…the problems have just begun for Sanders and myself (actually for the rest of you as well, since you have to deal with 17.8 too). Whether or not “from the foundation of the earth” modifies “written” or “slain” in 13.8 is debatable, but it unquestionably modifies “written” in 17.8. Here’s the problem as I see (and as I think Sanders misses it). Does not the record of the “names” of all the saved from the foundation of the world make EVERY person a Cyrus or a Josiah? Doc granted that God intervened in the naming of Cyrus but that this was obviously a rarity, for obviously God doesn’t name every child in such a manner. Unfortunately, there you have it in Rev. 17.8—the names of everybody who inherits heaven were written down (i.e., known to God as certain) a loooooooooog time ago.
Any interpretation we come up with to explain this I intend to use to explain away the claim that “Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world” must mean Jesus’ death was a “certainty” before the Fall. I win either way!
Have at it folks.
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 7/4/2001 9:41 AM (GMT -6) | |  Say, you seem to be very good at this exegesis thing. How about you help me out with my John 6:37-39 problem in the Theological Q&A section?
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 07/04/2001 2:48:13 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
still_unsure
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54
| Posted 7/4/2001 3:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi TGB:
You raise a good point. These verses obviously imply foreknowledge. I hate to sound like a broken record but again I must note that the open view does not seriously consider General Relativity's implications for God's relationship to time. It seems eveyone here feels that God's foreknowledge depends on His PREDICTIVE prowess. It does not. Dr. Boyd, have you consulted with any physicist or cosmologist who does not believe time was created with space in the big bang?
The simple fact of God's omnipresence precludes any possibility of Him experiencing time sequentially. If you wish to solve this problem please study Einstein's theory (now a law) and it's implications to the open view.
Blessings
Rob
Edited by - still_unsure on 07/04/2001 8:04:27 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/4/2001 5:06 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi-
I've looked at your John 6 post and have thought about it some. Will try to get to it some time..some time! Arrgghh!
Ciao,
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 7/5/2001 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | TGB said
quote:
I’ve been arguing (following the lead of J. Sanders) that the death/resurrection of Christ was NOT a fixed certainty (pardon the double positive) in the mind of God before the Fall of Adam.
I believe this is what Scripture teaches also.
quote:
Several (Modes, Mephi, Doc, and Pia) have suggested several texts which they claim make it clear that Christ was destined to die and atone for sin before the Fall and that it therefore follows that the Fall was a certainty before Adam fell, something I think contradicts the OV.
Yes, I believe that saying that Christ was destined to die before the Fall would be contrary to the open view of the future. Which passages have they used to support their belief that Christ was destined to die before the Fall? I can't think of any passages that necessitate such an interpretation.
quote:
I was looking at Rev. 13.8 today (again), which (ala NIV and others) clearly says Christ was “slain from the creation of the world.” Sanders argues (ala RSV, NAS, and others) that this phrase modifies “written” and not “slain.”
Yes, Sanders is correct. There are several problems with saying that Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. The biggest one being that Heb 9:26 explicitly states that Christ did not suffer (and therefore wasn't slain) from the foundation of the world.
quote:
Hebrews 9:24-26
For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, [which are] copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another -- 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
The Greek for "since the foundation of the world" in Heb 9:26 and "from the foundation of the world" in Rev 13:8 are identical. If Christ was slain from the foundation of the world then it would contradict what the Holy Spirit inspired in Heb 9:26.
Another problem I see is what does it mean to be slain apo any point in time? It seems quite incoherent an idea to me. What do you think of it?
you said
quote:
Our names, he claims, were “written in the book of life from the foundation of the world.”
Who claims this? Are you saying that Sanders does? I don't recall him saying that when he dealt with Rev 13:8. I'll check to see if he said that now....O.K. it seems that he did say that. Sanders says on page 102 of The God Who Risks
quote:
Revelation 17:8 says certain names have been written in a book from the foundation of the world.
Sanders seems to have messed up or perhaps he left out the word not here. It should say "Revelation 17:8 says certain names have not been written..." Rev 17:8 (as well as 13:8) does not say that certain names were written in the Book of Life. It says that the names of those who marvel at the beast are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. The passage does not speak of specific individuals whose names were written, but of a group whose names were never written in the Book of Life.
I (along with the Holy Spirit ;)) believe that it's worth mentioning that there is a difference between those whose names were at one time written in the Book of Life and later blotted out (Rev 3:5) and those whose names were never written (apo the foundation of the world to the present time) in the Book of Life (Rev 13:8; 17:8). I believe that these passages which say a group of people's names were not written in the Book of Life "from the foundation of the world" are equivalent to saying that their names were never written in the Book of Life. My main support for this comes from Is 40:21.
quote:
Isaiah 40:21
Have you not known? Have you not heard? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth?
Obviously the generation that God is addressing at this point in history through Isaiah has not been around "from the foundations of the earth." It seems that God is saying "haven't you always understood?" More specificly, "haven't you always understood that I, the true God, am not like an image that men make with their hands. That I am the One who created everything including the wood and the gold that you make idols out of?"
you said
quote:
Here’s the problem as I see (and as I think Sanders misses it). Does not the record of the “names” of all the saved from the foundation of the world make EVERY person a Cyrus or a Josiah? Doc granted that God intervened in the naming of Cyrus but that this was obviously a rarity, for obviously God doesn’t name every child in such a manner. Unfortunately, there you have it in Rev. 17.8—the names of everybody who inherits heaven were written down (i.e., known to God as certain) a loooooooooog time ago.
Neither of these passages say that God knows the names of specific individuals. Both passages indicate a large group of people. Those names that are said to be written in the Book of Life are also spoken of as a group of people (Rev 21:27) and only when there is the possibility of someone's name being blotted out or removed from the Book of Life does the text become more specific (giving the reason why someone's name may be removed Rev 3:5; 22:19).
I must conclude from the evidence given above that the correct translation of Rev 13:8 is the following
quote:
All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written from the foundation of the world in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain.
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 07/05/2001 3:39:05 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 7/5/2001 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Thought for Chance
Some things. If what you say is true, chance, doesn't this mean that NO ONE starts out being written into the book of life? Let me explain. If you say that there exists people whose names have NEVER been written in the book of Life, then that means that it's possible for human beings to be born, live their entire lives, and DIE without having their name in the book. It would also stand to reason that one has to DO SOMETHING in order to have their name written in the book. (Let's say exhibit faith in God) This would be because it seems that one can do something that gets one "blotted out"
What implications does this have soteriologically? If having the name written in the book is inextricably linked to who will be saved and who will not, wouldn't this strongly imply that there exists some ORIGINAL separation from God that is overcome in order to get written in the book in the first place? Wouldn't this be just like something original sin would implicate?
It would be as follows. A person is born. Their name is NOT in the book. A person does something and THEN gets their name in the book. They are now saved. It is then possible for that person to have their name "blotted" from the book.
So, chance (or anyone else) wouldn't this give the impression that we are damned before we are "saved" and then even after we are saved, we can LOSE it again (become blotted out)? To me, this is what HAS to be said, if your idea is accepted.
So far, we have Tom's take, which seems to imply some type of predestining force. And we have your take that seems to imply some type of original sin separation in effect.
Is this another "pick your poison" scenario?
Meph 
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 7/5/2001 1:47 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi asked
quote:
Some things. If what you say is true, chance, doesn't this mean that NO ONE starts out being written into the book of life? Let me explain. If you say that there exists people whose names have NEVER been written in the book of Life, then that means that it's possible for human beings to be born, live their entire lives, and DIE without having their name in the book. It would also stand to reason that one has to DO SOMETHING in order to have their name written in the book. (Let's say exhibit faith in God) This would be because it seems that one can do something that gets one "blotted out"
That's correct. Keeping the commandments is one thing that distinguishes these circumcision believers that are refered to in the Book of Revelation from everyone else who goes after the beast.
quote:
Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 14:12
Here is the patience of the saints; here [are] those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.
Revelation 22:14
Blessed [are] those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.
I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that those who have not defiled their garments are those who keep the commandments.
quote:
Revelation 3:4-5
"You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. 5 "He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.
It's also worth mentioning that some of the commandments that these saints are to keep are not required to be kept by those of us in the Body.
quote:
Revelation 2:14,20
"But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. 20 "Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
It is O.K. for members of the Body to eat meat sacrificed to idols as long as they do it without giving offense (1 Cor 8; 10:23-33).
quote:
What implications does this have soteriologically? If having the name written in the book is inextricably linked to who will be saved and who will not, wouldn't this strongly imply that there exists some ORIGINAL separation from God that is overcome in order to get written in the book in the first place? Wouldn't this be just like something original sin would implicate?
I don't think original sin has anything to do with this. I believe that Scripture teaches that everyone is born alive to God based upon Rom 7:9 and Deut 1:39.
quote:
Romans 7:9
I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.
Deuteronomy 1:39
'Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.
I don't believe that those who die in infancy or before they acquire "the knowledge of good and evil" are written in the Book of Life. I don't believe that they are condemned either. They may be written in a special book of some kind, but I don't believe that is necessary. I don't view myself as being written in the Book of Life since I'm a member of the Body that is justified through faith alone apart from works (Rom 3:21-26; 4:4-5; Gal 2:16-20; 3:12,22-26; Eph 1:13-14; Tit 3:5-7).
quote:
It would be as follows. A person is born. Their name is NOT in the book. A person does something and THEN gets their name in the book. They are now saved. It is then possible for that person to have their name "blotted" from the book.
Yes, that's what we read of those circumcision believers in the Book of Revelation. A small correction to what you said is needed though.
"A person is born. Their name is NOT in the Book [of Life]. A person does something and THEN gets their name in the Book [of Life]. They are now saved. It is then possible for that person to have their name "blotted" from the Book [of Life]."
We don't know if a dead infants name is in no book at all or if it even needs to be in a book in the first place. Perhaps an infants sufferings will be recorded within the same book that the Psalmist believed his tears were (Ps 56:8).
quote:
So, chance (or anyone else) wouldn't this give the impression that we are damned before we are "saved" and then even after we are saved, we can LOSE it again (become blotted out)? To me, this is what HAS to be said, if your idea is accepted.
This would only be the case if it was necessary for everyone who is saved to have their name written in the Book of Life at the time of their death. I don't see compelling evidence to believe that this is the case so I reject it.
quote:
So far, we have Tom's take, which seems to imply some type of predestining force. And we have your take that seems to imply some type of original sin separation in effect.
Is this another "pick your poison" scenario?
No. I think the difficulty comes from not realizing that the Book of Revelation is not addressing the Body of Christ. Evidence of this is found in passages that give images that are contrary to the images that define the uniqueness of the Body of Christ that is revealed in Paul's epistles. For an example just compare the following passages.
Rev 2:14,20 and 1 Cor 8; 10:23-33
Rev 2:9; 3:9; 12:1; 21:12,14; 7:4-8 and Rom 3:22; 10:12; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11
Rev 12:13-17 and Rom 5:9; 1 Thess 1:10; 5:9
and the most obvious distinction between that which is revealed in Paul's epistles and the Book of Revelation is the difference between mystery and prophecy
practically the entire Book of Revelation (over 300 references to Old Testament prophecy) and Rom 16:25-26; 1 Cor 2:6-8; Eph 1:9; 3:2-9; Col 1:26
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 07/05/2001 6:54:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/6/2001 1:14 AM (GMT -6) | | Chance-
1) Heb. 9.24-26 is very interesting. I wonder how sense of it is to be made on the “timeless” view of God. Still, even if word order prevails (which is not always important, though it sometimes is) in 13.8 and the phrase in question modifies “slain,” everybody still agrees (as Sanders notes) that this is less than literal language. Jesus was not actually slain before/at the foundation of the world.
2) The prep. apo with a following genitive can mean “since,” or “ever since” with respect to time. So, even IF the phrase “apo the foundation…” modifies “slain,” we can still, I think, understand John to refer to God’s “settling on the cross” in response to the Fall. You ask, “Another problem I see is what does it mean to be slain apo any point in time?” One might ask in response what it means to be “written” apo anything. “Writing” and “slaying” are both actions with a clear beginning and end. In any event, all sides agree Jesus wasn’t actually slain at whatever time the apo might indicate. So if it does modify “slain,” it can only refer to God’s settling on the fact that it WILL happen, which in effect would mean we ought to understand the phrase as indicating that the cross was a foregone conclusion at whatever time to which apo refers. I’m not convinced that the apo phrase requires a pre-Fall date.
3) Note the tense of the verb “slain.” It’s in the perfect tense. Anything significant here? If it were modified by the “apo…” phrase, what would it be saying?
4) That 17.8 does not explicitly claim names were written (it only says names were NOT written) in the Book of Life is entirely beside the point. Their names obviously COULD have been written in the Book. It DOES have names in it.
5) Chance, “I believe that these passages which say a group of people's names were not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world’ are equivalent to saying that their names were never written in the Book of Life.” An impossible understanding given a) the OV claim that membership in the elect is eternally predetermined or definitely foreknown, and b) Rev. 3.5. You differentiate between the destinies of those whose names were NEVER written in the Book and those whose names WERE written in the Book but later blotted out (13.5).
6) On Isa. 40.21, why cannot God be holding THAT generation responsible for information they should have/could have known, information that had been around since the beginning of man’s existence? This seems more likely. But still, it certainly cannot mean BEFORE the creation.
7) Chance, “Neither of these passages say that God knows the names of specific individuals. Both passages indicate a large group of people. Those names that are said to be written in the Book of Life are also spoken of as a group of people (Rev 21:27) and only when there is the possibility of someone's name being blotted out or removed from the Book of Life does the text become more specific.” If individual names can be blotted out, individual names exist in the Book. “Names” are names of individuals, are they not? You don’t toss “groups” into hell or blot out “groups” of names. Ultimately, individuals are known by God as his or not his (even IF the Church is predestined “as a group,” which I agree with), and they give an “individual” account of themselves. I’m struggling to see what meaning would there be in John’s referring to “names” of anything other than individuals, EVEN if they’re viewed corporately. Besides, “names” is not corporate language. “Elect,” yeah. “Names”? I don’t think so.
8) I’m happy with your final translation of 13.8. But I’m still empty-handed when it comes to interpreting it.
A few last thoughts:
I’m not sure how helpful it is to speculate on how often a person’s name can be written in and subsequently blotted out of the Book of Life, whether everyone’s name is written in it at birth, or not, then removed, or not. You and Mephi might be chasing rabbits.
I’d disagree with Chance’s claim that Rev. does not address the Body of Christ. I think the preterist claim that it describes God’s wrath of Israel has a lot going for itm but the reference in 3.5 to “names” being blotted out was addressed to the Body of Christ. And given the fact that chapters 1-3 are explicitly addressed to known churches, I’d think you’d be hard pressed to claim that the passages we’re discussing--the entire letter in fact--doesn’t have application to the Church.
The “Book” is not literal, no more than is God’s “throne” a literal throne. So, let’s try to define precisely what the “Book of Life” is before taking off. Does it simply represent God’s knowledge of the righteous? His knowledge of his own? Can we go with that? God knows who HIS own are. LIFE is their chief characteristic. God keeps “track” of them. He keeps account of who his people are and what they’re doing. Having your name enrolled in this book simply amounts to “being a member of God’s elect people.”
WHEN a person’s name GETS written down is one thing, but Rev. 3.5 can ONLY mean that having your name enrolled therein (i.e., entering the elect) is no guarantee that it remains there. What’s recorded CAN be erased. That is, one can forfeit membership in the elect (remember Rom. 11?) This in itself says a LOT. And whatever we interpret 13.8 and 17.8 to mean, it needs to take 3.5 into account. This is what my original post was after. Given the open view claim that individual membership in the elect is not a predetermined or definitely foreknown thing, what are we to make of John’s claim (possibly in 13.8, but certainly in 17.8) that the “names” of these elect were written in the Book of Life (i.e., known definitely to God) since/from/before (doesn’t matter how you translate the preposition!) the foundation of the world? If these are not the individual names of persons comprising the elect, what are they? Are they the “new names” of Rev. 2.17 and 3.12, held in reserve for “whoever” hears and overcomes?
Later,
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/6/2001 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Rob asks: " Dr. Boyd, have you consulted with any physicist or cosmologist who does not believe time was created with space in the big bang? The simple fact of God's omnipresence precludes any possibility of Him experiencing time sequentially. If you wish to solve this problem please study Einstein's theory (now a law) and it's implications to the open view.
Doc: I'd be an utter fool if I hadn't. As a matter of fact, many contemporary physicists and cosmologists argue that Einstein's theory does not posit the unreality of time. For example, Milic Capek, as esteemed an authority in this field as anyone, argues along these lines. His clear and forceful argument is worth quoting at length.
It is true that there are no objective "Now" lines [in relativity theory]; yet it is not the whole truth, and this is precisely what makes the conclusion [that relativity theory requires a determinate future] wrong. Even a superficial inspection of relativistic time-space clearly shows that the past is separated form the future even more effectively than in classical physics: the whole four-dimensional region called "Elsewhere" (which could equally well be called "Elsewhen") is interposed between the causal past and causal future. It is this region which is differently divided by different observers and in which the "Now" lines do not coincide. But no "Now" line of mine can ever cut my own causal past nor my own causal future….The apparently mysterious character of Einstein’s universe disappears when we realize that this denial of absolute "Now" is [only] a denial of instantaneous actions and of instantaneous space…
From this Capeck concludes:
Although there is no absolute "Now," there is such a thing as an absolute future. This is quite obvious for my own "Here-Now," which I actually experience; I can never perceive my own future event, since there are no backward causal actions, no effects preceding their causes. But more than that: my own causal future cannot be perceived by any other conceivable observer…. By the very definition of "Elsewhere," no causal actions from my own "Now"—a fortiori from my own future—can reach the observer unless they move with a velocity greater than that of light, which is excluded by relativity. Conversely, for the same reason, no event from the causal future of any observer located in the "Elsewhere" region can reach my own "Here-Now." Consequently, future events are intrinsically unobservable…
( M. Capeck, "The Unreality and Indeterminacy of the Future in the Light of Contemporary Physics," in Physics and the Ultimate Significance of Time," pp. 306-07. See idem., The Concepts of Space and Time. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 22 (Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1976). Polkinghorne's work on this is very good as well. See also Coveney and Highfield, Arrow of Time, ch.3, "How Time Defeated Einstein," pp. 70-107, who argue that there is a flaw in Einstein’s formulation precisely because he did not factor in the unidirectional flow of time. Others who argue against the "block universe" implications of Einstein’s theory are R. Gale, The Language of Time (New York: Humanities Press, 1968)).
Hope this helps.
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/6/2001 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Chance
I have to say that your recent posts are very impressive. Nice work.
I like the quote you always post.
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Here's one like it, from William James:
"Why, if one act of knowledge could from one point take in the total perspective, with all mere possibilities abolished, should there have been anything more than that act?
Why duplicate it by the tedious unrolling, inch by inch, of the foredone reality?
No answer seems possible."
— W. James, "On Some Hegelisms"
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
unworthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 7/6/2001 1:37 PM (GMT -6) | | TGB, Chance, Mephi (on John 6: 37-39)
I don't have much time, so forgive my general lack of involvement on the site. Ramif. of general relativity will have to wait.
TGB:
Good job. Unfortunately, God did not include the guide "Rules To The Book of Life" as a supplement to the Revelation.
TGB & Chance:
Let me add regarding Rev. 2:14: As you know, this is an analogous reference to O.T. historical events. It is using the deception of Balaam and Balak as a parallel for what is going on with the Nicolaitans. The O.T. example focuses on the Jews being lead into things they knew were wrong. The parallel would indicate the same straying among the Pergamites (?) ....Pergamanians? ....Pergamoids? ; ) This text is not necessarily accusing them of those same exact sins. However, if it were the food issue would probably not the same as Paul talked about in Romans and Corinthians (food bought in the marketplace or eaten at someone's house). This case may be entirely different, with church members actually entering the pagan temples, and participating to some extent in the rituals (eating of the sacrifice, and engaging in sex with temple prostitutes). This passage is also strongly preterist in that the analogy given is historically about Israel's entering the promised land after 40 years in the desert.......which is a parallel for what the church is about to do spiritually (going into all the world) when Jerusalem and the old Jewish system are destroyed 40 years after the crucifixion and resurrection. The unfaithful generation that would not enter the promise are judged.
Mephi:
On John 6: 37-39: Great text! No surprise that most Christians use it over-broadly.
Here's a good way to get a clearer picture of what it's saying: Read through John again. As you do, pay careful attention to both John and Jesus' language regarding believing/faithful Jews v. unbelieving/unfaithful Jews. It's a really interesting dynamic. Also pay careful attention to tense. Now, when you reach John 17 you'll notice a new division in Christ's prayer. He first prays in regards to those the Father had given him, but then ads that he wants these same requests to apply to "those who will believe in me through their message." But this issue of who the Father had given Christ becomes crystal clear in chapter 18 when it says, "This happened so that the words he had spoken would be fulfilled: 'I have not lost one of those you gave me.' "
Unfortunately, reformed and popular evangelical theology tends to press these and many other verses in John into theological service far different from what the context indicates. Christ makes it clear that those who were poor in spirit, who already believed in God and were trying to be faithful to Him were those he was reaching (the sheep who hear his voice). The others WILL NOT respond because they have already hardened their hearts to God (and later end up being hardened by God). Remember John 7:28-29 & John 8:19-24? We might say, that is the "negative" side of the story. John 6:37-38 is its "positive" counterpart. This is also the true context of John 6:44....which must be read at least through 45 for proper application. Verse 45 makes it even clearer he is specifically addressing the Jews of his generation. For an even better overall picture read 6:41-59.
Give it a shot Mephi, see what you think. It's pretty interesting dynamic throughout John's gospel.
Love in Christ,
Unworthy
P.S.
Hermeneutics are the first casualty of dogmatic theological systems. People are the second
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/6/2001 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Unworthy and Chance-
Unworthy: “Tom. Good job. Unfortunately, God did not include the guide ‘Rules To The Book of Life’ as a supplement to the Revelation.”
Tom: You’re quite right. It would be impossible to do a Ph.D. dissertation on this! I didn’t intend for us to speculate so much on the Book itself. But there are implications for the OV that follow from the text’s claim that names (whoever they belong to, at whatever age they were when they were entered, given the possibility of “blotting” out names, and whether or not one takes a Pre-, A-, or Postmill approach to Rev.) are written in the Book (whatever it is and whatever it’s rules) “from the foundation of the world.” Will somebody unpack 13.8 and 18.8 for me?
Unworthy: “TGB & Chance: Let me add regarding Rev. 2:14…. This text is not necessarily accusing them of those same exact sins.”
Tom: I absolutely agree. Cf. 1 Pet. 2.15. There’s nothing about 2.14-15 and 1 Cor. 8 and 10 that requires one adopt a particular overall interpretation to the book of Revelation.
Chance: “I think the difficulty comes from not realizing that the Book of Revelation is not addressing the Body of Christ. Evidence of this is found in passages that give images that are contrary to the images that define the uniqueness of the Body of Christ that is revealed in Paul's epistles.”
Tom: The questions of whether or not Revelation addresses the Body of Christ and whether or not your name is in the Book of Life (along with the question of when or whether or not babies are recorded in the Book) are very interesting, but they really have nothing to do with the implications 13.8 and 17.8 have to the open view. Fact is, the Book is there, it constitutes God’s knowledge of a particular slice of humanity, and it has had names in it “from the foundation of the world.” At least this is what these verses appear to claim. Whether 2.14-15 and the other verses you cite describe a situation that might conceivably take place in a NT church in light of 1 Cor 8 (which I think they DO) says nothing about the question of foreknowledge and 13.8/17.8. Hebrews 9 does, and I’m thinking on how this impacts Rev. 13.8 and 17.8.
However, regarding the “contrary images” found in Revelation:
Chance: Rev 2:14,20 vs 1 Cor 8; 10:23-33.
Tom: What’s contrary here to the uniqueness of the Body of Christ? Only “some” are charged with holding to “Balaam’s doctrine.” And that a genuine NT church would have those who hold to incorrect teachings (and the behavioural consequences) should surprise no one. Besides, this need mean nothing more than 1Pet. 2.15. It doesn’t require the claim that the believers in question were actually teaching believers to “eat things sacrificed to idols” and to “commit fornication.” But if they were, it wouldn’t make the church in question any less a church than the Corinthian aberrations make them other than a church. Lastly, all seven letters are written to believers in Jesus Christ in Asia Minor which, like all of Paul’s churches, were comprised of both Gentile and Jewish believers in Jesus, some with doctrinal and behavioral problems, some faithful.
Chance: Rev 2:9; 3:9; 12:1; 21:12,14; 7:4-8 vs. Rom 3:22; 10:12; 1 Cor 12:13; Gal 3:28; Col 3:11.
Tom: Where’s the irreconcilable difference? Rev. 2.9 and 3.9 are simply a recognition that the believers in question are being persecuted by Jews. Nothing unlike Paul’s churches. Rev. 12.1? What’s there here that drives a wedge between Paul’s concept of the Church and the churches being addresses or subject matter being treated in Revelation? That the names of the 12 apostles would be written on the gates/foundations (Rev. 21.12, 14) of the New Jerusalem (which is NOT a city, but a people) need reflect nothing more than the truth of Eph. 2.20. And if Rev. 7.4-8 is not understood to refer literally to the ethnic tribes of the Jewish people (which is virtually impossible to do anyhow), your left with a reference to the Church itself in Old Testament garb, certainly nothing unusual (cf. 1 Pet. 2.9), and a quite popular take on this passage. There’s nothing in the Rev. passages at variance with the Pauline passages you cited.
Chance: Rev 12:13-17 vs. Rom 5:9; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9.
Tom: I don’t think we share identical eschatologies, Chance. That’s not a problem. I do believe the Church is saved from wrath.
Chance: Practically the entire Book of Revelation vs. Rom 16:25-26; 1 Cor 2:6-8; Eph 1:9; 3:2-9; Col 1:26.
Tom: Well, I think we just differ on interpretation here. No need to pursue it endlessly because though we disagree on the overall interpretation of Revelation, the point still remains that 13.8 and 17.8 ostensibly present both of us as open theists with an obstacle. I hope somebody steps forward and offers something a more sophisticated than “These are to be understood corporately not individualistically.” I actually do think this may provide an answer, but I need to be taken by the hand and walked through the exegesis of HOW one arrives at such a conclusion.
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 07/07/2001 03:44:30 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/6/2001 10:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Chance-
Hey, www.theologyonline.com is a nice site. Nice discussion going on the OV. I see that Sean has yet to respond!
Wish I had the time to follow all such discussion groups! It's not fair! 
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
still_unsure
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 54
| Posted 7/7/2001 1:50 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Doc:
Thanks for setting me straight. I will check out some of the references you mention. Sorry for speaking without first checking it out myself. I wasn't accusing you of being unscholarly, I meant "Do you know of any physicist or cosmologist...". Again, my appologies.
Rob
| | Back to Top | | |
|
accident
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 7/10/2001 11:55 AM (GMT -6) | | How about this explanation:
The Book of Life is a book that God has been keeping from the creation of the world. Adam's name was written in it. As was Eve's. They sinned, and their names were blotted out. I've no way of telling if their names were ever rewritten there, but that's beside the point.
The point is that this is a book that the-Lamb-that-was-slain has been writing in from the Creation. As time progressed and babies were born, more names were written. As these babies grew up and sinned, their names were blotted out. As many as repented had their names written back in.
Then, as history comes to a close, those whose names had not been written in the Book of Life-- from Creation forward-- will worship the Beast.
Does this sound reasonable?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/10/2001 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Accident-
I was kinda thinking along similar lines, that is, "from the foundation of the world" doesn't modify the verb "written" but rather it qualifies "the Book of Life." Thus, the Book of Life (that is, the reality it is a metaphor for) has been around since the beginning of the world, but it's contents constantly change as people enter and/or exit relationship with God. (Or just "enter" if you don't believe in apostasy.) I wonder if it's grammatically plausible to ask "since the foundation of the world" to modify "Book" instead of a verb.
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
accident
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 14
| Posted 7/11/2001 2:54 AM (GMT -6) | | Or the clause could modify "written" in the sense that "from the foundation of the earth" is when the writing began. A similar usage would be, "From the start of the season, Mark McGuire (sp?) has hit 70 home runs." Does this mean he was predestined to do so? I think not.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 7/20/2001 1:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Hello y'all!! I'm back! 
I was away for a while getting some rest and attempting to get some kind of a daily routine established (which isn't easy working on third shift). I chose to get almost all of the online stuff out of my lifeand work it in once I had some regularity in my life established. I've had some success thanks in large part to FreeLife's excellent brand of melatonin  (available at my site http://Ax9.FreeLife.com) and I'm feeling much better and feel up to spending some time everyday on the boards.
GregBoyd said
quote:
I have to say that your recent posts are very impressive. Nice work.
Thanks! You always seem to post excellent work yourself. You and modes do a good job of keeping the standard for discussion in these forums set high.
I'm really looking forward to meeting you this November in Colorado Springs. I may stop by your church sometime in the middle of August. I'll let ya know if I'll be stopping by .
you said
quote:
I like the quote you always post.
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Be sure to thank John Sanders for that one. He used that quote in TGWR and I picked it up from there.
quote:
Here's one like it, from William James:
"Why, if one act of knowledge could from one point take in the total perspective, with all mere possibilities abolished, should there have been anything more than that act?
Why duplicate it by the tedious unrolling, inch by inch, of the foredone reality?
No answer seems possible."
— W. James, "On Some Hegelisms"
Yeah, I like that also. Do you recommend that I read through any of James' works? Is there anything he wrote that really had an impact on you?
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
|
geebob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94
| Posted 7/20/2001 5:55 AM (GMT -6) | | I'd like to point out a verbal difference that I have found researching this passage with my friends who know greek. The word is apo NOT pro. So this is not before the creation. it is after.
furthermore consider how apo is used.
Look at luke 11:50
50 so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this
generation,
51 from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.'
So either we have here predestining activity by the persecuters of the saints in which at one point in the distant past, they figured out who they should torture and kill OR we have a usage of "from the foundations of the world" that indicates an activity that has been going on not just at one point but ever since the world was created.
I believe the second option is most reasonable here and I don't see why we can't treat rev 13:8 in the same way.
I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.
-Wimpy
Edited by - geebob on 07/20/2001 11:01:48 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2001 7:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'd like to point out a verbal difference that I have found researching this passage with my friends who know greek. The word is apo NOT pro. So this is not before the creation. it is after.
Geebob-
I like the Luke example. That's a good example of how to understand the Rev. verses, 1 Pet., and others that use apo. 1Cor. 2, however, uses "pro the ages" and refers, many believe specifically to "Christ crucified" which IS the wisdom of God. So, an argument can be made that here we have Christ crucified BEFORE the ages.
Ciao,
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 7/22/2001 1:42 AM (GMT -6) | | I think that Luke 11:50 is excellent too, definitely better than Is 40:21. I think that the passage from Luke together with the passage from Heb 9:25-26 slams the door shut on the question of how Rev 13:8 and Rev 17:8 should be interpreted.
TGB said
quote:
1Cor. 2, however, uses "pro the ages" and refers, many believe specifically to "Christ crucified" which IS the wisdom of God. So, an argument can be made that here we have Christ crucified BEFORE the ages.
I believe that a thorough search of the use of the words "hidden" (or "secret"), "ages" and "mystery" in Paul's epistles make the argument that "pro the ages" refers, specifically to "Christ crucified", improbable.
Consider the folling passages to see what I mean.
quote:
Romans 16:25-26
Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery kept secret since the world began 26 but now has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has been made known to all nations, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, for obedience to the faith --
Ephesians 3:9
and to make all see what [is] the fellowship dispensation [oikonomia] of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ;
Colossians 1:26
the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints.
It is my understanding that the Body of Christ was what God wanted before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) or before the ages (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:9; Col 1:26). It is the mystery (Eph 3:6) that is the hidden wisdom of God that Paul preached. I believe that Eph 3:8-11 confirms this.
quote:
Ephesians 3:8-11
Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable [it's "unsearchable" because it can't be found by searching through the Old Testament Scriptures] riches of Christ; 9 And to make all [men] see what [is] the dispensation of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: 10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly [places] might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
Now look at 1 Cor 2:7
quote:
1 Corinthians 2:7
But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, [even] the hidden [wisdom], which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
Do you see the similarities between the two passages?
Both passages tell us that
[*]Paul spoke or preached the wisdom of God
[*]Paul spoke or preached a mystery that was hidden
[*]The mystery is the hidden wisdom of God
[*]That the mystery was what God had in mind for His creation before the world began
What do you think of that? I'd especially like to get Sanders' impressions on this one . Yep, I'm refering to this guy, open theist extraordinaire John Sanders.
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 07/22/2001 10:02:42 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
geebob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94
| Posted 7/22/2001 3:05 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not sure if I follow you chance when you say that the mystery is "Christ crucified unpersuasive".
the rest makes good sense to me though.
It seems to me that 1 cor 2:8 pretty much rules out the possibility that before the ages is refering to the crucifixion.
quote:
7 but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages
to our glory;
8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it (refering to the wisdom in the mystery before the ages) they would not have crucified the Lord (indicating that the mystery that was predestined was not the crucifixion) of glory;
I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.
-Wimpy | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/22/2001 3:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I believe that a thorough search of the use of the words "hidden", "secret", "ages" and "mystery" make the argument that "pro the ages" refers, specifically to "Christ crucified", unpersuasive.
Let's hear it. That's what I'm looking for. How do these words, and how they're used, seal the case against the argument that it is "Christ crucified" which is the predetermined wisdom of God?
quote:
It is my understanding that the Body of Christ was what God wanted before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4) or before the ages (Rom 16:25; Eph 3:9; Col 1:26). That God wanted this could not be revealed prior to the revelation of the mystery to Paul because the knowledge of this mystery prior to that would not benefit God's purposes.
How would udderstanding THIS, that God wanted a people, have led the "rulers" (be they human or demonic) to NOT crucify Christ?
Blessings,
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 7/22/2001 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | I've finished editing my previous post. I edited out the last sentence in the paragraph you quoted, TGB, because I want to address the reason why "the mystery" was kept secret and NOT revealed sooner then it was in a new thread that I will start sometime relatively soon.
If anyone else would like to take a stab at why "the mystery" was not revealed prior to when it was revealed to Paul you are more than welcome to .
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth
Edited by - chance on 07/22/2001 10:01:25 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/22/2001 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | |
Chance: Do you recommend that I read through any of James' works? Is there anything he wrote that really had an impact on you?
Doc: I like some of James' stuff, and I think pragmatism has a lot going for it (James was one of the founders of pragmatism). But most of his insights come from Charles Sanders Pierce, as he himself admitted. And, frankly, Pierce is much more insightful (though much more difficult).
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
| 39 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|