Rev 13:8 and Rev 17:8 and the Book of Life

[FutureAndAHope]

I mentioned this in another thread, but it is really a topic on it's own.

Revelation has two verses that appear to have a Deterministic meaning:

Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

It appears at first glance that these scriptures support predestination. Saying the names of the damned we not in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. However as pointed out at Stack Exchange the actual meaning of the word apo G575 the word "from" with the surrounding phrase ("the foundation of the world"), can have the connotation of referring to a span of time leading out from that place over time. As we see in the following two scriptures:

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;

Heb 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.

What this shows is that both Rev 13:8 and Rev 17:8 need not mean the names were in the book at the beginning, but rather were entered in from the point of creation on, they were inscribed as time went by, or in the case of the damned were not entered as time passed.

One objection I saw in the other post was, Rev 13:8, which it was pointed out that the "lamb was slain from the foundation of the world". However, it is better understood as:

Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life [belonging to] the Lamb who was slain, from the foundation of the world.

 

[Josheb]

I mentioned this in another thread, but it is really a topic on it's own.

Revelation has two verses that appear to have a Deterministic meaning:

Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

It appears at first glance that these scriptures support predestination. Saying the names of the damned we not in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world. However as pointed out at Stack Exchange the actual meaning of the word apo G575 the word "from" with the surrounding phrase ("the foundation of the world"), can have the connotation of referring to a span of time leading out from that place over time. As we see in the following two scriptures:

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;

Heb 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.

What this shows is that both Rev 13:8 and Rev 17:8 need not mean the names were in the book at the beginning, but rather were entered in from the point of creation on, they were inscribed as time went by, or in the case of the damned were not entered as time passed.

One objection I saw in the other post was, Rev 13:8, which it was pointed out that the "lamb was slain from the foundation of the world". However, it is better understood as:

Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life [belonging to] the Lamb who was slain, from the foundation of the world.

What does this have to do with Arminianism and Calvinism?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

What does this have to do with Arminianism and Calvinism?

It is a verse often used to support Calvinism.

 

[Josheb]

It is a verse often used to support Calvinism.

Source?

Do you understand the people of Revelation 13:8 are not saved? They worship God, but they are not saved. This is comparable to what happens in Philippians 2:10-11.

Philippians 2:8-11
Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Everyone bows and calls Jesus "Lord," but not everyone calls him, "Savior." In Revelation 13:8 those whose names are NOT written in the book of life (unsaved) bow and worship. What does Revelation later tell us happens to those whose names are not written in the book of life?

Revelation 20:15
And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.


Revelation 13:8 is an example of determinism, but it is eschatological, not soteriological. Those people are not saved.

You have said, "this verse if often used to support Calvinism." If that statement is true, the verse is often used that way then providing a source proving the verse is used to support Calvinism should not be difficult. If it is often used that way, then providing multiple sources doing so should easy.

Give me one.

The Reformed commentator Albert Barnes said the following about this verse,

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him - That is, as immediately stated, all whose names are not in the book of life. On the word "worship," see the notes on Revelation 13:4. Whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb - That is, of the Lord Jesus - the Lamb of God. See the notes on Philippians 4:3. Compare the notes on John 1:29. The representation here is, that the Lord Jesus keeps a book or register, in which are recorded the names of all who shall obtain everlasting life."​

Can you do what I just did? I provided proof a Calvinist stated these people have NOT obtained everlasting life. I can provide others, if you like. Can you first provide proof Calvinists often use this verse to support Calvinist soteriology? If so, then please do so. If not, then please say so.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Can you do what I just did? I provided proof a Calvinist stated these people have NOT obtained everlasting life. I can provide others, if you like. Can you first provide proof Calvinists often use this verse to support Calvinist soteriology? If so, then please do so. If not, then please say so.

The Book of Life is often used as a Calvinistic argument, many Calvinists seem to suggest to me, that they believe the Book of Life was filled out before creation with the saved people's names, and those not saved were not in it before creation. What I am showing above from the Greek construct of the phrase is that the Book was not filled out "before creation", but rather as time progressed. Time progression is a valid way to see the passage.

 

[Josheb]

The Book of Life is often used as a Calvinistic argument, many Calvinists seem to suggest to me, that they believe the Book of Life was filled out before creation with the saved people's names, and those not saved were not in it before creation.

So you say.

Can you provide evidence Rev. 13:8 is often used to support Calvinism?

What I am showing above...

I'm not interested in what you're showing unless and until some evidence "Rev. 13:8 is a verse often used to support Calvinism" is provided. Would you trust a poster who makes baseless claims about others and then refuses to provide evidence for his own words when asked? Me, neither. All of these ops will be read as written by someone comfortable with making divisive and baseless claims if evidence for claims made is not posted.



Can you first provide proof Calvinists often use this verse to support Calvinist soteriology? If so, then please do so. If not, then please say so, and thank you for doing so.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

So you say.

Can you provide evidence Rev. 13:8 is often used to support Calvinism?

I'm not interested in what you're showing unless and until some evidence "Rev. 13:8 is a verse often used to support Calvinism" is provided. Would you trust a poster who makes baseless claims about others and then refuses to provide evidence for his own words when asked? Me, neither. All of these ops will be read as written by someone comfortable with making divisive and baseless claims if evidence for claims made is not posted.



Can you first provide proof Calvinists often use this verse to support Calvinist soteriology? If so, then please do so. If not, then please say so, and thank you for doing so.

What sort of evidence do you need? I have seen many Calvinists use the Book of Life, as proof. I can't provide you with scientific studies on the topic.

 

[Josheb]

What sort of evidence do you need? I have seen many Calvinists use the Book of Life, as proof. I can't provide you with scientific studies on the topic.

Any objective evidence that can be objectively verified will suffice. Personal anecdotal report is worthless. If you have actually "seen" many Cals do what you say, then at should not be difficult to provide some witnesses. You have posted what is, so far, baseless accusation. It is divisive. You KNOW Cals are going to take issue with being misrepresented but the baseless claim was posted absent any evidence (redundancy intended), and when asked once no evidence is forthcoming. When asked a second time the avoidance persists. Asked a third time and a fourth time no evidence exists. ow there's an attempt to put some kind of onus on me and a repetition (argumentum ad nauseam) of the claim still to be proven!

Titus 3:9-11
But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

The op is a foolish quarrel built on a baseless claim to which there's been a refusal to provide any evidence even when asked multiple times. If the premise is wrong, then so too is everything built on the misguided claim and that alone should motivate a poster to evidence his own words.

It is not okay to post false comments others and expect everyone to take your word for it. It is not okay to disrespect others and expect others to respect you or your posts. It is not okay to persist in making baseless claims about Cals when Cals post authoritative evidence proving the claim incorrect (as I did for you).


If you have evidence, then post it. If not, then say so. It's time to resolve this matter and move on to other aspects of the op.

 

[JIM]

If you have evidence, then post it. If not, then say so. It's time to resolve this matter and move on to other aspects of the op.

See John Gill on Revelation 13:8 and Philippians 4:3.

 

[Josheb]

See John Gill on Revelation 13:8 and Philippians 4:3.

Thanks, JIM, but that does not solve the problem of the other poster repeatedly making claims about other he never evidences. The question was not asked because I lack information other than whether or not the other poster has any integrity. Can his posts be relied upon? So far the answer - across multiple threads- is no.

Proverbs 26:17

.

 

[JIM]

Thanks, JIM, but that does not solve the problem of the other poster repeatedly making claims about other he never evidences. The question was not asked because I lack information other than whether or not the other poster has any integrity. Can his posts be relied upon? So far the answer - across multiple threads- is no.

Proverbs 26:17

.

It supports his claim.

 

[Josheb]

It supports his claim.

I know. Your knowledge and my knowledge of that support is not the problem to be solved, and only he can solve that problem.

 

[JIM]

I know. Your knowledge and my knowledge of that support is not the problem to be solved, and only he can solve that problem.

I think perhaps you are conjuring up problems that are not really problems.

 

[Josheb]

I think perhaps you are conjuring up problems that are not really problems.

I think perhaps you've stuck your nose into a matter that's not your business and wrongly imagine you can read my mind AND you've done so when you could be discussing the op and not trying to rescue @FutureAndAHope.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

I know. Your knowledge and my knowledge of that support is not the problem to be solved, and only he can solve that problem.

I really don't know what you want me to prove, I just read John Gill. As I said, the scriptures I discuss in the OP are relevant to the topic of Calvinism. I have not told a lie regarding Calvinists using it as a proof text either.

 

[JIM]

I really don't know what you want me to prove, I just read John Gill. As I said, the scriptures I discuss in the OP are relevant to the topic of Calvinism. I have not told a lie regarding Calvinists using it as a proof text either.

He doesn't necessarily want you to prove anything. He is just upset that you disagree with his Calvinist theology.

 

[Josheb]

I really don't know what you want me to prove, I just read John Gill. As I said, the scriptures I discuss in the OP are relevant to the topic of Calvinism.

One of the many things I would like to see is some evidence you have a clue, know what you're talking about, posting about and have the ability to post that evidence. How easy would it have been to Post Gill's commentary (or just link to it)? Impossible if @JIM hadn't come to rescue you. It's very easy if the knowledge is known.

Were I a synergist, I could have posted Barns and Gil and shown Cals contradict one another..... sometimes. I can do that because I have read them. I can cite them and thereby evidence my claims because I know that information exists and where to find it. I would post it because I want Christians to see the evidence, and it's good for Christians to dwell together in unison.

I have not told a lie regarding Calvinists using it as a proof text either.

That has yet to be proven. Look at the Gill commentary. Gill did not use the verse as a proof text. He used a broad array of scripture, connecting Revelation 13:8 to other scripture as the scripture - not doctrine - makes those connections. He surveyed all of scripture from Genesis and Exodus through the prophets, the gospels, and the epistolary and emphasized Revelation rendering itself. If there were a proof text Calvinists use and rely upon it would be Ephesians 2:8-10, but even then we tend to survey the whole of scripture and not single out one verse, neglecting what surrounds it, ignoring its context.

• A falsehood is a factual error.
• A lie is a falsehood asserted knowing the falsehood to be false, especially with an intent to deceive.

On more than one occasion I (and others) have walked from a single verse you've posted, outwardly through its immediately surrounding text, identifying its contexts, and shown how scripture elsewhere uses the exact same word, terms, or concepts.....

..... so I know you know how to render scripture correctly.

I know the knowledge exists, but willful decisions are made to do otherwise. There is nothing truthful about misrepresenting scripture and Calvinists. The only options for knowing better and doing otherwise are incompetence, deceit, cognitive impairment, or mental illness . If incompetence, then the discussion board is the exact place to be because the trials and errors made in discussion can be corrected.

The solution is very, very, very, very, very simple, easy, and readily available.

1. Never post just one verse and treat that one verse as definitive. NEVER.
2. Always examine any verse within its immediately surrounding text and always do so before ever jumping wantonly to some other text.
3. Always correctly identify the contexts - at a minimum the stated contexts of the author, his original audience, the subject of discourse - and never apply the text apart from the scripturally provided contexts.

It's called exegesis. If just those three principles are practiced, then every post you've written in CCCF and every future op will look radically different. Anecdotal report is never a sound basis for criticizing others' views. This is important because the next claim in this opening post is,

Revelation has two verses that appear to have a Deterministic meaning:

Rev 13:8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Rev 17:8 The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

Are you sure there are two and only two verses in Revelation that appear to have deterministic meaning? What do you mean by "appear"? Appear to who? Is this an insinuation the appearance of determinism is delusion and those who read deterministically-appearing scripture are wrong? What if there are 20 deterministic verses? How about 73? or 216? What if the entire book of Revelation is inevitable?

Cases built on flawed premises tend to be flawed cases that lead to flawed conclusions.

Is that not the essence of your complaints against Calvinism? You think Calvinism starts with flawed premises (flawed reading of individual scriptures) and builds erroneously form that error.

That makes it very important you do better.



And you do not. You are really quite bad at this. But, even though we come from different points of view, I'd like to help you do better. I'd rather you be a good Arminian than a sloppy and incompetent one. Most of us Cals in this forum used to be Arms. We know Arminianism well. As far as I can tell we know it better than you, and we most definitely know Calvinism better. You cannot even post evidence to support this opening post's first premise and John Gil's commentary is readily available. Personal anecdotal reports is worthless. Do better.


Do you understand Calvinism is not determinism? There are determinists among the Calvinist perspective, but they are not representative of all Calvinism. Pink is going to look much different than Sproul, Gill different than Barnes. Calvin wrote quite a lot about the agency of human volition and "free will." He never once denied its existence, and as I have already shown you in other threads, Calvinism affirms the existence of the human will and declares God has done it no violence. Determinism is no more representative of Calvinism than Pelagianism is representative of Arminianism.

It is a verse often used to support Calvinism.

Prove it.