PDA

View Full Version : from the foundation of the world



divaD
Oct 2nd 2008, 04:16 AM
I feel I found something rather interesting tonight, well at least for me, it was like a light bulb went off in my head. I'd be interested to hear what others might think. Before we decide it's nothing, which it may very well be, please give it some serious consideration, because I feel that it makes these Scriptures actually make more sense now. Perhaps you will see what I mean, perhaps not, and then perhaps you already understand. Doing a phrase search of "from the foundation of the world", these are the various verses that come up.


Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.



What did I notice tonight? Actually what I noticed was, 3 simple English terms. And these would be "from", "since", and "before".

Let's look at the word "before" first. This is used in John 17:24, Ephesians 1:4, and 1 Peter 1:20.
This seems to imply before the foundation of the world existed, which I agree, that's exactly what it means.

Now these other verses don't use the same word "before", they use "from" and "since". We then should be able to deduce that these other verses are not speaking of before the foundation of the world existed but since it has existed, otherwise "before" would have been used in all these other verses as well.

Now look at Hebrews 9:26. This is the only verse that uses the English word "since", but if you look in the Greek, you will find that "from" in the other verses are the same as the word "since" is in Hebrews 9:26.

If you haven't figured at what I'm getting at by now, it's pretty simple. All the verses that contain"from", change that rendering to "this" and see if it doesn't make these verses make more sense. For example.


Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain since the foundation of the world.

Doesn't that make more sense? The Lamb wasn't slain before the foundation of the world existed. The Lamb has been slain since the foundation of the world. IOW, after
the foundation of the world existed. And that's exactly when He was slain.

If you still don't get it, look at this verse.


Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Let's be real here. This verse doesn't make much sense like this, if we define "from" as in before, like some do with Revelation 13:8 and Revelation 17:8. But if we render it like this, then we can see how it makes sense, and why would should render the other verses in the same manner.


Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed since the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Now we can clearly see that it's talking about the blood of every prophet that has been shed since the foundation of the world has existed.

Now here's my point, and it's related to the meaning of Revelation 13:8 and Revelation 17:8. Does this really mean that names were written or not written in the book of life before the foundation of the world existed? If so, then why wasn't the English rendered word "before" used here, which is an entirely different Greek word than the Greek word used for "from"? So the question is, do names get written in the book of life before the foundation of the world ever existed, or do they get written in the book of life since the foundation of the world has existed, as in an ongoing thing? It appears to me it's the latter, but I'm not going on record as claiming it is so, but it sure appears to be so.

With the above in mind, let's look at Revelation 17:8. What is this really saying?

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life "since" the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

It seems simple enough to me. Since the world has began, none of these people have ever been written in the book of life. Why? Because they either have never accepted Christ, or perhaps even, they may believe that they have accepted Christ, but many of these may be those that Christ says to them that He never knew them.

divaD
Oct 2nd 2008, 10:58 PM
Apparently since no one is commenting one way or the other, perhaps no one sees my point. So let me try it from this perspective, concerning ourselves with the names written in the book of life. Were these names written before the foundation of the world existed, or have they been written after the foundation of the world has existed? What I'm basically getting at, do we get written and or blotted out of in realtime, or did all of this occur before the foundation of the world had ever existed? I'm pretty certain that those that hold to the doctrine of predestination believe it to be the latter. The truth is, this has been how I've always basically seen it as well. Now I'm not so certain.


But after looking at this a little closer "from" doesn't seem to be problem afterall. How "foundation" is defined, this is where the problem with the correct interp seems to lay. In order to come to the correct def, we need to define it according to context. So once again, let's look at Revelation 13:8.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


foundation---katabolE

1) a throwing or laying down

a) the injection or depositing of the virile semen in the womb

b) of the seed of plants and animals

2) a founding (laying down a foundation)

According to context, the only def that really seems to fit is #1 a throwing or laying down, as in disruptive, Down-Casting. So let's see how this might fit.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the disruption of the world.



world-------kosmos

1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2) ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the
heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3) the world, the universe

4) the circle of the earth, the earth

5) the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6) the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and
therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7) world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

a) the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures,
etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God
and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8) any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

a) the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)

b) of believers only, John 1:29; 3:16; 3:17; 6:33; 12:47 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Cor. 5:19



Perhaps #6 fits best here?

keck553
Oct 2nd 2008, 11:19 PM
I think the choice is ours.

My heart's Desire
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:38 AM
Not sure what to think but is an interesting word study. I LIKE word studies! Have to have a closer look when I get time.

RogerW
Oct 3rd 2008, 04:05 AM
I feel I found something rather interesting tonight, well at least for me, it was like a light bulb went off in my head. I'd be interested to hear what others might think. Before we decide it's nothing, which it may very well be, please give it some serious consideration, because I feel that it makes these Scriptures actually make more sense now. Perhaps you will see what I mean, perhaps not, and then perhaps you already understand. Doing a phrase search of "from the foundation of the world", these are the various verses that come up.

Matthew 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.

Matthew 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Ephesians 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Hebrews 4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

1 Peter 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.



What did I notice tonight? Actually what I noticed was, 3 simple English terms. And these would be "from", "since", and "before".

Let's look at the word "before" first. This is used in John 17:24, Ephesians 1:4, and 1 Peter 1:20.
This seems to imply before the foundation of the world existed, which I agree, that's exactly what it means.

Now these other verses don't use the same word "before", they use "from" and "since". We then should be able to deduce that these other verses are not speaking of before the foundation of the world existed but since it has existed, otherwise "before" would have been used in all these other verses as well.

Now look at Hebrews 9:26. This is the only verse that uses the English word "since", but if you look in the Greek, you will find that "from" in the other verses are the same as the word "since" is in Hebrews 9:26.

If you haven't figured at what I'm getting at by now, it's pretty simple. All the verses that contain"from", change that rendering to "this" and see if it doesn't make these verses make more sense. For example.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain since the foundation of the world.

Doesn't that make more sense? The Lamb wasn't slain before the foundation of the world existed. The Lamb has been slain since the foundation of the world. IOW, after
the foundation of the world existed. And that's exactly when He was slain.

If you still don't get it, look at this verse.

Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Let's be real here. This verse doesn't make much sense like this, if we define "from" as in before, like some do with Revelation 13:8 and Revelation 17:8. But if we render it like this, then we can see how it makes sense, and why would should render the other verses in the same manner.

Luke 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed since the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;

Now we can clearly see that it's talking about the blood of every prophet that has been shed since the foundation of the world has existed.

Now here's my point, and it's related to the meaning of Revelation 13:8 and Revelation 17:8. Does this really mean that names were written or not written in the book of life before the foundation of the world existed? If so, then why wasn't the English rendered word "before" used here, which is an entirely different Greek word than the Greek word used for "from"? So the question is, do names get written in the book of life before the foundation of the world ever existed, or do they get written in the book of life since the foundation of the world has existed, as in an ongoing thing? It appears to me it's the latter, but I'm not going on record as claiming it is so, but it sure appears to be so.

With the above in mind, let's look at Revelation 17:8. What is this really saying?

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life "since" the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

It seems simple enough to me. Since the world has began, none of these people have ever been written in the book of life. Why? Because they either have never accepted Christ, or perhaps even, they may believe that they have accepted Christ, but many of these may be those that Christ says to them that He never knew them.

Greetings Diva,

"From" or "since" are not the only words we must reconcile in our understanding of when names are written. You must also reconcile "foundation", which is the same rendering in every verse you quote. What does that mean?

Foundation - katabole a deposition, i.e. founding; figuratively, conception:--conceive, foundation.

It's not whether we say the names were written "since" or "from", what does Scripture say?

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation [founding or conception] of the world.

Re 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation [founding or conception] of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

So while it may not be exact to say names were written in the book of life before the foundation of the world, it is absolutely accurate to say names were written in the book of life at the founding or conception of the world.

Rev 13:8 isn't really clear because it can be argued that it was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, and not the names written. But the same argument cannot be made regarding Rev 17:8. It helps to look at other translations when it seems we have a poor translation. Here is how Rev 17:8 is translated in the Concordant Version.

The wild beast which you perceived was, and is not, and is about to be ascending out of the abyss and to be going away into destruction. And those dwelling on the earth, whose names are not written on the scroll of life from the disruption of the world, will be marveling, observing the wild beast, seeing that it was, and is not, and will be present.

Darby Translation - Re 17:8 The beast which thou sawest was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go into destruction: and they who dwell on the earth, whose names are not written from the founding of the world in the book of life, shall wonder, seeing the beast, that it was, and is not, and shall be present.

One more thing to consider is how the verse is structured. "Names were not written" or "names are not written" speak in past tense. We can't re-write this to say, "whose names are being written."

Many Blessings,
RW

The Preacher
Oct 3rd 2008, 04:42 AM
Mat 13:35 from= apo


NT:575
apo (apo'); a primary particle; "off," i.e. away (from something near), in various senses (of place, time, or relation; literal or figurative):


(X here-) after, ago, at, because of, before, by (the space of), for (-th), from, in, (out) of, off, (up-) on (-ce), since, with. In composition (as a prefix) it usually denotes separation, departure, cessation, completion, reversal, etc.


John 17:24 before = pro

NT:4253
pro (pro); a primary preposition; "fore", i.e. in front of, prior (figuratively, superior) to:


above, ago, before, or ever. In comparison it retains the same significations.

Heb 9:26

since = apo (same as mat 13:35)

1 Peter 1;26 is interesting since it clearly uses "pro" in describing Christ as being preordained BEFORE the foundation of the world.

However there are schools of thought that disagree with the way "katobole en o cosmos" is translated. They actually believed that this statement refers to the destruction of the preadamic world(we get our world catastrophe from the greek word 'katabole" which is rendered as "foundation" in most translations.) They use the preadamic theory as an explanation for the age of the earth. It is somewhat justified by the actual meanings of the hebrew words in the genesis account in gen 1.


However, I think there is a better way to deal with predestination. When you look a the verses dealing with predestination you see that it's not the individual that is predestined but what will take place in the individual.

Lets look at Romans 8:29
Rom 8:29

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

We see there very clearly that those who are foreknown are not predestined to be saved but predestined to go through events to conform them to Christ's image. In short, everybody has the same chance to make a free choice. Oh, sure God does choose individuals. After all Jesus said I chose you 12 and yet one of you is a devil. That shows that being chosen doesn't always guarantee a ticket to heaven. Ask Judas.

BroRog
Oct 3rd 2008, 04:45 AM
I get it Diva. It's like saying the world has been spinning since the foundation of the world. It's something that began at the beginning and continues even now. Is that it?

9Marksfan
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:24 AM
I think the choice is ours.

How does that tie in with Eph 1:4, which teaches that the choice was God's? BEFORE the foundation of the world.

The Preacher
Oct 3rd 2008, 10:03 AM
What it actually says us that we were chosen in him before the foundation of the world That we might be blameless before him in love. This choice only shows God's decision to justify all that accept him by making them holy and blameless by his love. This verse actaully show how awesome forgiveness is and the depth to which it is given but it has been misunderstood to mean that God has chosen one person over another.

9Marksfan
Oct 3rd 2008, 10:07 AM
However there are schools of thought that disagree with the way "katobole en o cosmos" is translated. They actually believed that this statement refers to the destruction of the preadamic world(we get our world catastrophe from the greek word 'katabole" which is rendered as "foundation" in most translations.)

This is incorrect - katastrophe IS a Greek word that means "overthrow" or literally "down (kata) turn (strophe)" - actually in effect we have made that literal meaning a synonym for catastrophe in our own language eg "some are calling the recent DOWNTURN in the markets a CATASTROPHE" - the word "bole" in katabole is a gentler word, from which we get "bowl" - like the sower sowing seed. Katabole is always used positively, katastrophe negatively - the words are really opposites. When a female is inseminated (one meaning of katabole), it is creative - an overthrow is always destructive. If John had meant the Fall in Rev 13:8 and 17:8, then he would have used katastrophe, not katabole.


They use the preadamic theory as an explanation for the age of the earth. It is somewhat justified by the actual meanings of the hebrew words in the genesis account in gen 1.

Ah yes, the notorious homage to the old Earth and millions of years of evolution idea known as the "gap theory"....

:OFFT:


However, I think there is a better way to deal with predestination. When you look a the verses dealing with predestination you see that it's not the individual that is predestined but what will take place in the individual.

Lets look at Romans 8:29
Rom 8:29

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Actually it's both. See below.


We see there very clearly that those who are foreknown are not predestined to be saved but predestined to go through events to conform them to Christ's image. In short, everybody has the same chance to make a free choice.

But are we really free? How free is a prisoner to get out of jail? Are we not imprisoned by sin and Satan?


Oh, sure God does choose individuals. After all Jesus said I chose you 12 and yet one of you is a devil. That shows that being chosen doesn't always guarantee a ticket to heaven. Ask Judas.

But they were chosen for the office of apostle - choice to a spiritual office doesn't guarantee salvation - THAT was His point.

As far as being chosen to be saved, we were:-

But we are bound to give thanks always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation.... 2 Thess 2:13a NKJV

The Preacher
Oct 3rd 2008, 12:35 PM
- the word "bole" in katabole is a gentler word, from which we get "bowl" - like the sower sowing seed. Katabole is always used positively, katastrophe negatively - the words are really opposites. When a female is inseminated (one meaning of katabole), it is creative - an overthrow is always destructive. If John had meant the Fall in Rev 13:8 and 17:8, then he would have used katastrophe, not katabole.


foundation: Greek word #2602 katabole (kat-ab-ol-ay'); from #2598 (see below); a deposition, i.e. founding; figuratively, conception: KJV-- conceive, foundation.

Greek word #2598 kataballo (kat-ab-al'-lo); from #2596 (see below) and #906 (see below); to throw down: KJV-- cast down, lay.

This word kataballo is used individually only twice in the Bible:

Every occurrence of kataballo Greek word #2598 in the Bible (KJV):

2 Cor 4:9
9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down [kataballo], but not destroyed (KJV)

Heb 6:1
1 Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying [kataballo] again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God (KJV)

Greek word #906 ballo (bal'-lo); a primary verb; to throw (in various applications, more or less violent or intense): KJV-- arise, cast (out), X dung, lay, lie, pour, put (up), send, strike, throw (down), thrust. Compare 4496.

Greek word #2596 kata (kat-ah'); a primary particle; (prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case [genitive case, dative case or accusative case] with which it is joined): KJV-- about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, and, X apart, (even, like) as (concerning, pertaining to touching), X aside, at, before, beyond, by, to the charge of, [charita-] bly, concerning, + covered, [daily-], down, every, (+far more) exceeding, X more excellent, for, from ... to, godly, in (-asmuch, divers, every, -to, respect of), ... by, after the manner of, + by any means, beyond (out of) measure, X mightily, more, X natural, of (up-) on (X part), out (of every), over against, (+your) X own, + particularly, so, through (-oughout, -oughout every), thus, (un-) to (-gether, -ward), X uttermost, where (-by), with. In composition it retains many of these applications, and frequently denotes opposition, distribution, or intensity.

Hopefully you can see by the in-depth definition of the word translated to "foundation" regarding our study that the word means the overthrow, the destruction of that first earth age and the beginning of the second (our current one). Very little is written in the Bible about that destruction of the first earth age. A couple places that do, are {2nd Pet 3:4-7, and , Jer 4:23-27}. I hope that helps you to understand why there is a division in the middle of {Gen 1:2} across two separate earth ages.

Below, the first earth age is in blue and the second earth age in red:, divided by || for the color blind:

Gen 1:1-2
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. || And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (KJV)

Below is every occurrence of the word katabole (foundation):

Every occurrence of katabole, Greek word #2602 in the Bible (KJV):

Matt 13:35
35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. (KJV)

Matt 25:34
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: (KJV)

Luke 11:50
50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation; (KJV)

John 17:24
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. (KJV)

Eph 1:4
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (KJV)

Heb 4:3
3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. (KJV)

Heb 9:26
26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. (KJV)

Heb 11:11 (THIS ONE IS INTERESTING!)
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised. (KJV)

1 Pet 1:20
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, (KJV)

Rev 13:8
8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (KJV)

Rev 17:8
8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. (KJV)

Below is Appendix #146 from the The Companion Bible that explains this Katabole of the first earth age:


Foundation of the World
This Is Appendix 146 From The Companion Bible.

To arrive at the true meaning of this expression, we must note that there are two words translated "foundation" in the New Testament: (1) themelios, and (2) katabole.

The Noun, themelios, occurs in Luke 6:48-49, 14:29, Acts 16:26, Romans 15:20, 1Corinthians 3:l0-12, Ephesians 2:20, 1Timothy 6:19, 2Timothy 2:19, Hebrews 6:1, 11:10, Revelation 21:14,19. It is never used of the world (kosmos) or the earth (ge). The corresponding Verb (themelioo) occurs in Matthew 7:25, Luke 6:48, Ephesians 3:17, Colossians 1:23, Hebrews 1:10 and 1Peter 5:10. The verb is only once used of the earth (ge). Hebrews 1:10.

A comparison of all these passages will show that these are proper and regular terms for the English words "to found", and "foundation".

The Noun, katabole, occurs in Matthew 13:35, 25:34, Luke 11:50, John 17:24, Ephesians 1:4, Hebrews 4:3, 9:26 , 11:11, 1Peter 1:20, Revelation 13:8, 17:8 and the corresponding Verb (kataballo) occurs in 2Corinthians 4:9, Hebrews 6:1 and Revelation 12:10.

A comparison of all these passages (especially 2Corinthians 4:9 and Revelation 12:10) will show that kataballo and katabole are not the proper terms for founding and foundation, but the correct meaning is casting down, or overthrow.

Consistency, therefore, calls for the same translation in Hebrews 6:1, where, instead of "not laying again", the rendering should be "not casting down". That is to say, the foundation already laid, of repentance, etc., was not to be cast down or overthrown, but was to be left and progress made unto the perfection.

Accordingly, the Noun katabole, derived from, and cognate with the Verb, ought to be translated "disruption", or "ruin".

The remarkable thing is that in all occurrences (except Hebrews 11:11) the word is connected with "the world" (Greek kosmos. Appendix 129.1), and therefore the expression should be rendered "the disruption (or ruin) of the world", clearly referring to the condition indicated in Genesis 1:2, and described in 2Peter 3:5-6. For the earth was not created tohu (Isaiah 45:18) but became so, as stated in the Hebrew of Genesis 1:2 and confirmed by 2Peter 3:6, where "the world that then was by the word of God" (Genesis 1:1) perished and "the heavens and the earth which are now, by the same word" were created (Genesis 2:4), and are "kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment" (2Peter 3:7) which shall usher in the "new heavens and the new earth" of 2Peter 3:13.

"The disruption of the world" is an event forming a great dividing line in the dispensations of the ages. In Genesis 1:1 we have the founding of the world (Hebrews 1:10 = themelioo), but in Genesis 1:2 we have its overthrow.

This is confirmed by a further remarkable fact, that the phrase, which occurs ten times, is associated with the Preposition apo = from (Appendix 104. iv) seven times, and with pro = before (Appendix 104. xiv) three times. The former refers to the kingdom, and is connected with the "counsels" of God; the latter refers to the Mystery (or Secret; See Appendix 193) and is connected with the "purpose" of God (see John 17:24, Ephesians 1:4, 1Peter 1:20).

Ample New Testament testimony is thus given to the profoundly significant fact recorded in Genesis 1:2, that "the earth became tohu and bohu (i.e. waste end desolate); and darkness was on the face of the deep", before the creation of "the heavens and the earth which are now" (2Peter 3:7).



Actually it's both. See below.
I missed the "below" that showed your point. Can you repost that?



But they were chosen for the office of apostle - choice to a spiritual office doesn't guarantee salvation - THAT was His point.

As far as being chosen to be saved, we were:-

But we are bound to give thanks always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation.... 2 Thess You make the classic error of all those who hold your position. That is you take a statement that was clearly applied in a plural sense( see "you" in the greek) and attempt to apply it to singular individuals.

divaD
Oct 3rd 2008, 02:00 PM
I get it Diva. It's like saying the world has been spinning since the foundation of the world. It's something that began at the beginning and continues even now. Is that it?


LOL! Laughing at myself of course. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say anymore, after reading the other responses in this thread. All of them bring out some excellent points, in which I'm attempting to see how they may or may not apply to Rev 13 and 17. Even tho preacher also made some excellent points, I don't buy the idea of a prev earth age, as in gap. I don't believe that's taught anywhere in the Bible.

But now I see 3 possibilities since reviewing what RW wrote. 1. Names were written in the book of life before the world existed. 2. Names were written in the book of life when the world first existed. 3. Names were written in the book of life since the world has existed, and continues to be written as in on ongoing sense. Perhaps there's even more possibilities. I sure hope not, as this may prove hard enough to sort out as is.

BroRog
Oct 3rd 2008, 02:40 PM
LOL! Laughing at myself of course. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say anymore, after reading the other responses in this thread. All of them bring out some excellent points, in which I'm attempting to see how they may or may not apply to Rev 13 and 17. Even tho preacher also made some excellent points, I don't buy the idea of a prev earth age, as in gap. I don't believe that's taught anywhere in the Bible.

But now I see 3 possibilities since reviewing what RW wrote. 1. Names were written in the book of life before the world existed. 2. Names were written in the book of life when the world first existed. 3. Names were written in the book of life since the world has existed, and continues to be written as in on ongoing sense. Perhaps there's even more possibilities. I sure hope not, as this may prove hard enough to sort out as is.


If the book of life documents who is alive at any one point, then to be born is to be written in the book of life. To die is to be erased from the book of life.

What is the book of life? Is that how it works?

divaD
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:21 PM
One more thing to consider is how the verse is structured. "Names were not written" or "names are not written" speak in past
tense. We can't re-write this to say, "whose names are being written."



RW, you mentioned paying attention to sentence structure also. I agree, even tho I sometimes have a hard enough time understanding sentence stucture in the English language, let alone the Greek or Hebrew, in which I'm pretty much clueless there. I noticed that you seem to be suggesting, that since the text in Rev 13 and 17 states "are not written", "were not written", that this means as in the past only.


Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world


What I notice here is this, by trying to observe the sentence structure also. The text states "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Notice the "are" here. It doesn't state "were" as in the past.

Now look at Revelation 17:8.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is


Here we see just the opposite. The text states "whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world". This time it states they were not written, instead of are not written. The reason for that being, if one looks at this verse, this is something that has already occured after the fact, the fact being Rev 13:8. Notice what it states here at the end of the verse. "when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is". Why does it state this? Because "behold" here seems to imply to discern. Why? Because we're told that this beast goes into perdition. The ones that worshipped now sees it for what it is, except now it's too late, because they were never written in the book of life, because they worshipped this beast instead of God.

divaD
Oct 3rd 2008, 03:27 PM
If the book of life documents who is alive at any one point, then to be born is to be written in the book of life. To die is to be erased from the book of life.

What is the book of life? Is that how it works?



I was always under the impression that the book of life is referring to eternal everlasting life, and to be not written in it, means that one will end up in the lake of fire, which is the second death.

9Marksfan
Oct 3rd 2008, 06:58 PM
Thanks for your fascinating post - I've not really heard this before and will need to do some research before coming back to you on it. In the meantime, I'm guessing you're in the pastoral ministry - do you mind my asking whihc denomination? Or if non-denom, who your main influences are?


I missed the "below" that showed your point. Can you repost that?

It was the 2 Thess 2:13 quote - we are chosen to be conformed to Christ AND chosen for salvation.


You make the classic error of all those who hold your position. That is you take a statement that was clearly applied in a plural sense( see "you" in the greek) and attempt to apply it to singular individuals.

No I'm not. I realise the "you" is plural - yet I don't believe that corporate and individual election negate one another. Groups are made up of individuals!

You didn't respond to my challenge about whether we're really free or not.....

drew
Oct 3rd 2008, 07:12 PM
No I'm not. I realise the "you" is plural - yet I don't believe that corporate and individual election negate one another. Groups are made up of individuals!
I know that the "group is made up of individuals" has an intuitive appeal, but it is not a valid argument. I will illustrate by analogy:

1. Can God pre-destine that a group of 1000 competent and skilled baseball players, healthy and motivated to be members of the New York Yankees, will be interested in going to spring training for the New York Yankees in March 2017? Obviously yes. These are 1000 specific persons.

2. Can God pick 50 names from these 1000 players out of a hat - that is, by random. Obviously, He can do this.

3. Can God "force" the owner of the NY Yankees to invite these 50 specific 50 persons to training camp? Again, obviously yes.

4. Therefore, we can correctly state that a group has been pre-destined to be invited to training camp, with no specific individuals being pre-destined to be invited to training camp.

I suggest that this argument, unless refuted, shows that the "a group pre-destined to X must be made up of specific persons predestined to X" is, in fact, erroneous.

RogerW
Oct 3rd 2008, 08:31 PM
I know that the "group is made up of individuals" has an intuitive appeal, but it is not a valid argument. I will illustrate by analogy:

1. Can God pre-destine that a group of 1000 competent and skilled baseball players, healthy and motivated to be members of the New York Yankees, will be interested in going to spring training for the New York Yankees in March 2017? Obviously yes. These are 1000 specific persons.

2. Can God pick 50 names from these 1000 players out of a hat - that is, by random. Obviously, He can do this.

3. Can God "force" the owner of the NY Yankees to invite these 50 specific 50 persons to training camp? Again, obviously yes.

4. Therefore, we can correctly state that a group has been pre-destined to be invited to training camp, with no specific individuals being pre-destined to be invited to training camp.

I suggest that this argument, unless refuted, shows that the "a group pre-destined to X must be made up of specific persons predestined to X" is, in fact, erroneous.

Drew,

Why would you conclude that a group of people, whether 1000 or 50 is not made up of individuals? That makes no sense.

If God predestinates 1000 specific individuals, all 1000 will become saved through Christ. Therefore all 1000 have been predestined to receive eternal life. Since God has predestined all 1000 specific individuals then God will not limit the number to only 50 specific individuals. In your analogy all 1000, not merely 50 specific individuals will be invited to training camp. Therefore we can rightly conclude that whosoever God predestines to be saved (competent skilled baseball players) will receive eternal life (play for the NY Yankees).

Many Blessings,
RW

Emanate
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:21 PM
Therefore we can rightly conclude that whosoever God predestines to be saved (competent skilled baseball players) will receive eternal life (play for the NY Yankees).

Many Blessings,
RW


Uh Oh, I guess I better start playing baseball so I can go to Heaven.


Seriously though, is it not borderline heresy to compare the Yankees, of all teams, to Heaven?

drew
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:31 PM
Deleted own post

RogerW
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:54 PM
RW, you mentioned paying attention to sentence structure also. I agree, even tho I sometimes have a hard enough time understanding sentence stucture in the English language, let alone the Greek or Hebrew, in which I'm pretty much clueless there. I noticed that you seem to be suggesting, that since the text in Rev 13 and 17 states "are not written", "were not written", that this means as in the past only.

Revelation 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world

What I notice here is this, by trying to observe the sentence structure also. The text states "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world". Notice the "are" here. It doesn't state "were" as in the past.

Now look at Revelation 17:8.

Revelation 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is

Here we see just the opposite. The text states "whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world". This time it states they were not written, instead of are not written. The reason for that being, if one looks at this verse, this is something that has already occured after the fact, the fact being Rev 13:8. Notice what it states here at the end of the verse. "when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is". Why does it state this? Because "behold" here seems to imply to discern. Why? Because we're told that this beast goes into perdition. The ones that worshipped now sees it for what it is, except now it's too late, because they were never written in the book of life, because they worshipped this beast instead of God.

Greetings Diva,

I see what your saying. I'm not prepared to argue against this position. However I am prepared to introduce more Scripture, hoping to show that names are indeed written in heaven at the creation of the world.

Looking at this first verse from your perspective, I would ask, is Christ speaking in the past tense? Therefore this verse may not convince you. From my perspective I believe Christ is saying something has already occured, and not that something is occuring. If He is speaking in the present tense, it would make more sense to say something like "your names are being written in heaven".

Lu 10:20 Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

This verse will be a little more difficult for you to assign to the present. Since all believers are "the general assembly and church of the firstborn" why does this say "which are written in heaven"? If your opinion is correct shouldn't this say "which are being written in heaven" or "which will be written in heaven"? It seems clear to me that the ekklesia or called out ones are already written in heaven. This would be true even if this text is speaking specifically to the Hebrew church.

Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Some use this verse to prove believers can be blotted out of the book and therefore lose their salvation. I am of the opinion that this is not a threat, but rather a promise to the overcomers that they will not be blotted out. Christ is writing these words to the church in Sardis historically, but I believe this is written to all the church throughout history. How can Christ promise not to blot out names, unless names are already written in His book? If names are written throughout time, as you assume, it would make no sense to say names will not be blotted out. If you are right then this should say "I will not write your name in my book of life".

Re 3:5 He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Many Blessings,
RW

RogerW
Oct 3rd 2008, 09:55 PM
Uh Oh, I guess I better start playing baseball so I can go to Heaven.


Seriously though, is it not borderline heresy to compare the Yankees, of all teams, to Heaven?

Uh Oh indeed! :lol:

drew
Oct 3rd 2008, 10:06 PM
My argument contained a major error.

Here is a simpler version that I think is correct.

Imagine that some agent A has 100 golf balls, each marked with an integer from 1 to 100 inclusive.

That agent has the ability to pre-destine things.

So the agent A pre-destines that he will hit 10 golf balls.

It is perfectly coherent for agent A to pre-destine "that 10 golf balls will be hit by agent A".

Now, agent A decides to put the 100 golf balls in a black bag and randomly draw out 10 golf balls. And it is those 10 golf balls that will ful-fill his pre-destination that "10 golf balls will be hit". Does this method of selecting golf balls invalidate his pre-destination that he will hit 10 golf balls? Of course not, by hook or by crook agent A will hit 10 golf balls (he is an agent who is immortal and can overcome any attempt to deny him the goal of hitting 10 golf balls). So come heck or high water, 10 golf balls will indeed be hit.

Must he also pre-destine which specific golf balls will be hit.

No, he need not.

Let's say he pulls out balls 3,17,23,56,67,61,65,71,72, 82.

He hits those balls. And, of course, his pre-destination that 10 golf balls will be hit has come true.

Let's say that instead he pulls out balls 4,18,24,57,68,62,66,75,77, 89.

He hits those balls. And, of course, his pre-destination that 10 golf balls will be hit has come true.

I trust you can see where I am going.

Now, I boldly claim that this proves that a group be pre-destined to X without specific individuals being pre-destined to X.

Now one thing at at a time. Assuming my argument here is indeed solid, you guys can still claim that in specific texts, it is clear that not only is a group being pre-destined to something, the specific members of that group are likewise pre-destined.

Good luck.....

RogerW
Oct 3rd 2008, 10:35 PM
My argument contained a major error.

Here is a simpler version that I think is correct.

Imagine that some agent A has 100 golf balls, each marked with an integer from 1 to 100 inclusive.

That agent has the ability to pre-destine things.

So the agent A pre-destines that he will hit 10 golf balls.

It is perfectly coherent for agent A to pre-destine "that 10 golf balls will be hit by agent A".

Drew,

How many agent A's are there? I ask because it makes no sense for agent A to predestine agent A will hit 10 golf balls. He doesn't have to predestine himself does he? Doesn't he know that he is going to hit 10 golf balls, since he is the one hitting them?



Now, agent A decides to put the 100 golf balls in a black bag and randomly draw out 10 golf balls. And it is those 10 golf balls that will ful-fill his pre-destination that "10 golf balls will be hit".

Agent A represents God. Right? 100 golf balls represents humanity. Right? Those 10 golf balls represent God's predestined elect? Right? Being hit represents eternal life. Right? If I understand your analogy then, yes, the 10 hit, are hit because God elected them and predestined them to receive eternal life.




Does this method of selecting golf balls invalidate his pre-destination that he will hit 10 golf balls?

If you mean that God (agent A) predestined He would save (hit 10 balls),
then yes, I would agree it is God Who determines who will be saved because He has predestined them to be saved.



Of course not, by hook or by crook agent A will hit 10 golf balls (he is an agent who is immortal and can overcome any attempt to deny him the goal of hitting 10 golf balls). So come heck or high water, 10 golf balls will indeed be hit.

I agree.



Must he also pre-destine which specific golf balls will be hit.

Since predestinated means to limit in advance or determine before, how can he predestinate unless he specifically knows in advance who will be predestinated?



No, he need not.

This does not make sense! In order for him to know in advance or determine before, or ordain, he must know who is being predestinated unto eternal life.



Let's say he pulls out balls 3,17,23,56,67,61,65,71,72, 82.

He hits those balls. And, of course, his pre-destination that 10 golf balls will be hit has come true.



Let's say that instead he pulls out balls 4,18,24,57,68,62,66,75,77, 89.

He hits those balls. And, of course, his pre-destination that 10 golf balls will be hit has come true.

I trust you can see where I am going.

Now, I boldly claim that this proves that a group be pre-destined to X without specific individuals being pre-destined to X.

The X we are predestined to receive is eternal life. Therefore God must know who specifically is predestined to give them eternal life. Not only does He specifically know His predestined elect, but He calls them by name.



Now one thing at at a time. Assuming my argument here is indeed solid, you guys can still claim that in specific texts, it is clear that not only is a group being pre-destined to something, the specific members of that group are likewise pre-destined.

Good luck.....

If God doesn't know by name all whom He has predestinated to receive eternal life, how can He call them through His Word and save them?

Many Blessings,
RW

drew
Oct 3rd 2008, 11:14 PM
How many agent A's are there? I ask because it makes no sense for agent A to predestine agent A will hit 10 golf balls. He doesn't have to predestine himself does he? Doesn't he know that he is going to hit 10 golf balls, since he is the one hitting them?
There is one agent. And I think the example is properly analogous to the issue of God pre-desting people to salvation.

God does something. He pre-destines that He (God) will save a certain person (on your view).

Agent A does something. He pre-destines that he will hit a golf ball.

So I think the analogy is good. Remember, agent A can also be described as pre-destining that "10 golf balls will be hit" just like "God pre-destines that people will be saved" (on your view)


Since predestinated means to limit in advance or determine before, how can he predestinate unless he specifically knows in advance who will be predestinated?
I have shown in my argument that God does not need to pre-destine who will be in an "elect" even though he does indeed pre-destine an "elect". You are really simply denying my argument without actually showing how it is wrong.


This does not make sense! In order for him to know in advance or determine before, or ordain, he must know who is being predestinated unto eternal life.
No, you are simply re-asserting your belief, and not engaging my argument.


If God doesn't know by name all whom He has predestinated to receive eternal life, how can He call them through His Word and save them?
I am not claiming that God does not know who will be saved, I am saying that He does not pre-destine who will be saved.

I empathize with your intuition that if God pre-destines a group to some fate X, he must also pre-destine the specific members of that group.

It is an appealing intuition. But, I submit, my argument shows that it simply does not hold up to careful analysis.

If I am wrong, you should be able to explain where the error is in my argument.

RogerW
Oct 3rd 2008, 11:43 PM
There is one agent. And I think the example is properly analogous to the issue of God pre-desting people to salvation.

God does something. He pre-destines that He (God) will save a certain person (on your view).

Agent A does something. He pre-destines that he will hit a golf ball.

So I think the analogy is good. Remember, agent A can also be described as pre-destining that "10 golf balls will be hit" just like "God pre-destines that people will be saved" (on your view)

Drew,

God does not predestine that He will predestine people for eternal life. God predestines people for eternal life.



I have shown in my argument that God does not need to pre-destine who will be in an "elect" even though he does indeed pre-destine an "elect". You are really simply denying my argument without actually showing how it is wrong.

Your argument does not make any sense! Since predestinated means to limit or predetermine, ordain in advance, those predestinated unto eternal life MUST be known by God, or He cannot give them eternal life, which of course is what they have been predestinated for.



No, you are simply re-asserting your belief, and not engaging my argument.

It's difficult to argue with something that makes no sense.



I am not claiming that God does not know who will be saved, I am saying that He does not pre-destine who will be saved.

Yes, I am very much aware this is what you are arguing for. If God is not predestinating who will be saved, just what the heck is He predestinating?



I empathize with your intuition that if God pre-destines a group to some fate X, he must also pre-destine the specific members of that group.

Intuition? How about logic. God is predestinating those who will be conformed to the image of Christ; also those who are called, justified, and glorified; to adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself; all this according to His purpose, after the counsel of His own will. How can He conform them to the image of Christ, call, justify and glorify, adopt through Christ, according to His purpose and will...if He doesn't know who they are? He predestinated His ekklesia, or called out ones, the church. The church is made of individual members of the same body, they are individuals with names. (Ro 8:29,30; Eph 1:5,11)



It is an appealing intuition. But, I submit, my argument shows that it simply does not hold up to careful analysis.

If I am wrong, you should be able to explain where the error is in my argument.

My argument relies on logic and biblical proof texts, not intuition. You are the one who seems to be relying upon intuition or perhaps a gut feeling. But your argument lacks all credibility because it cannot be defended through the Bible.

Many Blessings,
RW

divaD
Oct 4th 2008, 12:37 AM
Hopefully you can see by the in-depth definition of the word translated to "foundation" regarding our study that the word
means the overthrow, the destruction of that first earth age and the beginning of the second (our current one). Very little is
written in the Bible about that destruction of the first earth age. A couple places that do, are {2nd Pet 3:4-7, and , Jer
4:23-27}. I hope that helps you to understand why there is a division in the middle of {Gen 1:2} across two separate earth
ages.



The Preacher, to be honest, I am very familiar with this teaching. As a matter of fact, the only one I know that teaches it is Arnold Murray of The Shephard's Chapel. He and his students also use the Companion Bible, which I'm assuming is the works of Bullinger. Is this where you learned of this teaching?

drew
Oct 4th 2008, 06:07 PM
Your argument does not make any sense! Since predestinated means to limit or predetermine, ordain in advance, those predestinated unto eternal life MUST be known by God, or He cannot give them eternal life, which of course is what they have been predestinated for.
I think the reader will be suspicious that you have not been able to point to an error in my argument.

OK. Let's take it one step at a time.

Here is a question for you:

Is it possible for God to pre-destine that He will randomly pick 10 cards from a deck of 52 cards?

If your answer is no, please explain why.

BroRog
Oct 4th 2008, 06:14 PM
I was always under the impression that the book of life is referring to eternal everlasting life, and to be not written in it, means that one will end up in the lake of fire, which is the second death.

That could be. It is interesting, also, that according to Psalms 69:28 and Revelation 3:5, a person can be erased from the book of life. If the book of life is the book of eternal life, then this has serious implications for those who aren't listed.

9Marksfan
Oct 4th 2008, 06:45 PM
I know that the "group is made up of individuals" has an intuitive appeal, but it is not a valid argument. I will illustrate by analogy:

1. Can God pre-destine that a group of 1000 competent and skilled baseball players, healthy and motivated to be members of the New York Yankees, will be interested in going to spring training for the New York Yankees in March 2017? Obviously yes. These are 1000 specific persons.

2. Can God pick 50 names from these 1000 players out of a hat - that is, by random. Obviously, He can do this.

3. Can God "force" the owner of the NY Yankees to invite these 50 specific 50 persons to training camp? Again, obviously yes.

4. Therefore, we can correctly state that a group has been pre-destined to be invited to training camp, with no specific individuals being pre-destined to be invited to training camp.

I suggest that this argument, unless refuted, shows that the "a group pre-destined to X must be made up of specific persons predestined to X" is, in fact, erroneous.

I accept it doesn't HAVE TO, following your analogy. but your analogy does not folow biblical soteriology and stumbles on your insistence on alleged unfettered free will. Rather than assuming that this concept is true and then trying to make the Bibel fit around it, why not set aside ALL presuppositions (except that you will "let God be true and every man a liar" and that God speaks FINALLY through the Bible) and see what Scripture REALLY says.......

Pleroo
Oct 4th 2008, 06:55 PM
That could be. It is interesting, also, that according to Psalms 69:28 and Revelation 3:5, a person can be erased from the book of life. If the book of life is the book of eternal life, then this has serious implications for those who aren't listed.

Or perhaps, the Lamb's "Book of Life" is another way to say the Lamb's "Autobiography".

The other books that are being opened in Revelation are the accounts of the lives of individuals. But the Lamb's Book is the story of his Life ... what he accomplishes. And the ones who are included in that book are those who participate in His work (the good works which were prepared for us from the beginning).

In Exodus, Moses pleads with God not to blot out the people from that Book but if He does, then to blot out his name as well. Moses wasn't asking to be sent to hell. He was saying that if the people he was leading weren't going to be able to participate in God's Story, then surely he must forfeit his place in that HiStory as well.

Romans 9-11 tells us that the Jewish nation was, indeed, finally blotted out of that book (the natural branches were cut off) ... the Jews as a nation were denied the privelege of participating in the work of the Lamb because, except for a remnant, they denied him.

Perhaps, then, being written in the Lamb's Book of Life refers to whether or not we participate in the the work of Christ, to whether or not what we do is built on that one Foundation. If not, then all the things we do, all the things "written in our books", are hay and wood and stubble and are burnt up.

Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire

9Marksfan
Oct 4th 2008, 06:58 PM
Or perhaps, the Lamb's "Book of Life" is another way to say the Lamb's "Autobiography".

The other books that are being opened in Revelation are the accounts of the lives of individuals. But the Lamb's Book is the story of his Life ... what he accomplishes. And the ones who are included in that book are those who participate in His work (the good works which were prepared for us from the beginning).

In Exodus, Moses pleads with God not to blot out the people from that Book but if He does, then to blot out his name as well. Moses wasn't asking to be sent to hell. He was saying that if the people he was leading weren't going to be able to participate in God's Story, then surely he must forfeit his place in that HiStory as well.

Romans 9-11 tells us that the Jewish nation was, indeed, finally blotted out of that book (the natural branches were cut off) ... the Jews as a nation were denied the privelege of participating in the work of the Lamb because, except for a remnant, they denied him.

Perhaps, then, being written in the Lamb's Book of Life refers to whether or not we participate in the the work of Christ, to whether or not what we do is built on that one Foundation. If not, then all the things we do, all the things "written in our books", are hay and wood and stubble and are burnt up.

Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire

It's an interesting hypothesis, but the emphasis is on NAME - not the person or their life - it is a Heavenly ROSTER.....

Pleroo
Oct 4th 2008, 07:03 PM
It's an interesting hypothesis, but the emphasis is on NAME - not the person or their life - it is a Heavenly ROSTER.....

If I say "John Doe", am I only referring to a name? I'm referring to a person. If someone's name is not included, then they are not included. The question is what they are or are not included in, and that is what I was speaking to.

9Marksfan
Oct 4th 2008, 07:19 PM
If I say "John Doe", am I only referring to a name? I'm referring to a person. If someone's name is not included, then they are not included. The question is what they are or are not included in, and that is what I was speaking to.

OK, I follow you now - good point - esp in context of the preceding verse in Rev 20 - in fact the NKJV makes it even clearer "anyone not written" - wow! This has been a bit of a revelation (sorry, no pun intended)!

drew
Oct 4th 2008, 08:23 PM
I accept it doesn't HAVE TO, following your analogy. but your analogy does not folow biblical soteriology and stumbles on your insistence on alleged unfettered free will. Rather than assuming that this concept is true and then trying to make the Bibel fit around it, why not set aside ALL presuppositions (except that you will "let God be true and every man a liar" and that God speaks FINALLY through the Bible) and see what Scripture REALLY says.......
Well, of course. But this critique can be equally be directed at you. And, of course, I do not accept your assertion about the nature of Biblical soteriology. Precisely why, and I mean precisely why, would you think that I am doing engaging in any more "pre-suppositoin" than the "Calvinist" has here.

BroRog
Oct 4th 2008, 09:04 PM
Is it possible for God to pre-destine that He will randomly pick 10 cards from a deck of 52 cards?

If your answer is no, please explain why.

One can certainly defend the idea that true randomness doesn't exist in the first place. But even if true randomness were to be found in this universe, it doesn't make logical sense for God to predestine random events. After all, if God knows the exact count of the number of hairs on my head (which is getting easier to track on a daily basis) he can certainly know the exact order of a deck of cards.

That is, when Jesus says that God knows how many hairs I have on my head, he is using a particular example to illustrate a general principle. God knows everything -- omniscience. Having prior knowledge of the order of the cards, he can't very well pick 10 "at random." What seems random to me, isn't necessarily random to him.

When discussing and thinking about God's nature I need to adjust my perspective a little bit and resist my anthropomorphisms.

SIG
Oct 5th 2008, 10:14 PM
My head hurts....