• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

New Heaven and New Earth

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Hervey, Jan 15, 2002.

  1. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim: ( My words in red ) >

    Question: Who does 22:14 say enters in through the gates into the city?
    Answer: He that has right to the tree of life.

    Wrong ! Correct answer --> Those who keep his commandments !

    Question: Who does 2:7 say is allowed to eat of the tree of life?
    Answer: He that overcomes.

    Correct, but what you fail to take into your understanding here, is that he was "only" speaking to the seven churches in Asia, not the whole world !

    Question: From what book does 3:5 say he that overcomes will not be blotted out? Answer: The book of life.

    Correct, the book of life, but again I want to point out, that he was "only" talking to the seven churches in Asia here , not the whole world !

    Question: Then what book allows a person to enter in through the gates into the
    city?
    Answer: The book of Life.

    Wrong again ! The "answser" is in Rev. 21:27 - "The Lamb's book of life"

    Question: What book does 21:27 say allows a person to enter into the city?
    Answer: The Lamb’s book of life.

    This is correct, because this is the "other" book of life. #1 - "book of life" and #2 - the Lamb's book of life"

    Question: If the book of life allows a person to enter in through the gates into the city, and if the Lamb’s book of life allows a person to enter into the city, what does that say about the book of life and the Lamb’s book of life?
    Answer: They’re the same book.

    Your answer is above in the previous question and answers . There is "not" one verse , that claims that those whoes names are in the " book of life " will enter into the New Jerusalem through the gates ! The "only" verses that speak about entering into the New Jerusalem through the gates are Rev. 21:7 and Rev. 22:14, and I do not see any mention of the "book of life" in these two verses ! However, I do see the "Lamb's book of life" in Rev. 21:7, "and" , they are "not" the same book. And, there is proof, that there are two books of life.

    In the book of life, their names were written in this book, from the foundation of the world - Rev. 17:8

    In the Lamb's book of life, their names were written in this book, from "before" the foundations of the world. John 17:24 & Ephesians 1:4 - The Father chose them and gave them to his Son, and put their names in the Lamb's book of life. They will become "kings" and they are such that keep the commandments of the Lord, and can enter into through the gates of the New Jerusalem. All others will be encompassed by the coming down out of the New Heaven , the New Earth will encompass all those whoes names were written in the "book of life". The New Heaven was established first, which is called the "kingdom of heaven", and the New Earth is called the "kingdom of God", and this is where his throne is set up, from which he will be King of kings and Lord of lords


    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  2. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    I made this first statement, then you made this statement about "whosever" and included scripture. > (look for new comments in blue)

    Hervey:

    Jim: No - no - and again no ! Your responses , again, change, what the Word of God is saying in the book of Revelation ! There is "nothing" in the book of Revelation which states that – whoever is exempt from the second death is an overcomer! ! Yes, as far as the 7 churches, this is true, but not "whoever" !


    Jim:

    Yes, yes, and again yes! My response is not changing anything. It is pointing out what the text plainly states. The problem you’re having what I’ve said is that it is inconsistent with your interpretive assumptions. Contrary to your interpretive assumptions, there are NOT different sets of rules for different people. The rules are the same for everyone, as is confirmed in the following passages:


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Revelation 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and WHOSOEVER receiveth the mark of his name.

    Devil worhsippers

    Revelation 20:15 And WHOSOEVER was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

    Yes, but that does not mean that there is not another book of life ! And you are still claiming within these comments -> "overcomers", which is just not true ! There were a lot of people who lived in the OT, and they were not all Israelites ! Many of them still have their names in the book of life. Let me ask you this -> "What did they "overcome" ?

    Revelation 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and WHOSOEVER loveth and maketh a lie.

    This verse is self explanitory

    Revelation 22:17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And WHOSOEVER will, let him take the water of life freely.

    In this verse, "ONLY" those who are "in" the New Earth are the "whosoever". So you can eliminate those others who are in the Lake of Fire, because they can not be a part of "these whosoever "

    That is the point Jim ! The "whosoever" needs to apply to those to whom "whosoever" can apply !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  3. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey:


    Hervey:

    Wrong ! Correct answer --> Those who keep his commandments !


    Jim:

    Overcomers do the commandments of Christ. Those who are not overcomers do not do the commandments of Christ. Their part is in the second death. “He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers and idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death [21:7-8].” In Revelation, there are (1) overcomers, who inherit all things, and there are (2) those who suffer the second death. There is no third classification.


    Hervey:

    Correct, but what you fail to take into your understanding here, is that he was "only" speaking to the seven churches in Asia, not the whole world !


    Jim:

    You are mistaken here. Everything said in Revelation is said to the seven churches: “I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches … [22:16].” What is said, however, applies to all people: “… whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely [21:17].”


    Hervey:

    Wrong again ! The "answser" is in Rev. 21:27 - "The Lamb's book of life"


    Jim:

    You might just as well try to convince me that Christ and Jesus Christ are two different people because the names are not worded exactly the same.

    According to 2:7, only those who overcome will eat of the tree of life. According to 21:7-8, only those who overcome will inherit all things. The rest will suffer the second death. Therefore, in accordance with 22:14, only those who overcome, who do the commandments of Christ, will have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. The rest, who consist of those people described in 21:8 and 22:15, are “without” the city in accordance with 22:15. Thus, Revelation divides people into two groups: (1) the overcomers, who are allowed entrance into the city, and (2) the second-deathers, who are not allowed entrance into the city.

    In 3:5, we told that overcomers (who alone will be allowed to eat of the tree of life [2:7] and to enter through the gates into the city [21:14]) are different from second-deathers in that the former are not blotted out of the book of life. In 20:15, those who are not found in the book of life are cast into the second death. Thus, the difference between gaining entrance into the city and not gaining entrance into the city is whether or not one’s name is found written in the book of life. Verse 21:27 confirms this: “And there shall in on wise enter into it [the city] any thing … but they which are written in the Lamb’s book of life.” Thus, the book of life and the Lamb’s book of life are the same book.


    Hervey:

    And, there is proof, that there are two books of life. In the book of life, their names were written in this book, from the foundation of the world - Rev. 17:8 In the Lamb's book of life, their names were written in this book, from "before" the foundations of the world (John 17:24 & Ephesians 1:4).


    Jim:

    What you’ve offered here as proof does not prove anything. In fact, it’s a diversion from the subject being discussed. Nothing is said about the book of life in either John 17:24 or Ephesians 1:4. The former alludes to Christ’s existence prior to the foundation of the world, and that latter alludes to the fact that the plan of salvation, whereby those who are saved are chosen in Christ, likewise predates the foundation of the world. The book of life is not mentioned in either of these two passages.

    In contrast, ‘the book of life” is specifically mentioned in Philippians 4:3 in relation to the Church. In the thread entitled “Blotted out???,” on the second page of this forum’s thread index, in the post dated 01/13/02, 11:16pm, this is what you said regarding this passage:
    Whereas you’ve directed me to those differences in grammatical wording in passages (John 17:24 and Ephesians 1:4) that DO NOT mention the book of life as “PROOF” that there are two books of life instead of one, you’ve DISMISSED as irrelevant those differences in grammatical wording in a passage (Philippians 4:3) that SPECIFICALLY mentions “the book of life” in relation to the Church (to Paul’s “fellowlabourers”). You’re obviously applying a double standard of proof here in order to accommodate the confusion created by your interpretive assumptions.

    If you were to apply to Philippians 4:3 (which discusses “the book of life”) the same standard of proof that you apply to John 17:24 and Ephesians 1:4 (which do not discuss the book of life), you would be forced to conclude that “the book of life” in Philippians 4:3 cannot be referring to some other book of life. It would have to be referring to the same “book of life” that is mentioned in Revelation 3:5. This, of course, would put you in a Catch-22, because such a conclusion would mean that the people described in Philippians 4:3 would not be allowed entrance into the New Jerusalem, as they would NOT be written in “the Lamb’s book of life” in accordance with Revelation 21:27. So what do you do in order to avoid this Catch-22? You violate your own standard of grammatical proof and you conclude that “the book of life” in Philippians 4:3 refers to “the Lamb’s book of life” in Revelation 21:27 even though these two phrases are grammatically different. This allows the people described in Philippians 4:3 to gain entrance into the New Jerusalem. However, it destroys the credibility of your argument that “the book of life” and “the Lamb’s book of life” cannot be the same book because these two phrases differ grammatically.

    Your solution to your dilemma (you allowed the phrase “the book of life” and the phrase “the Lamb’s book of life” to be references to the same book) was correct. However, the dilemma that required you to violate your own standard of proof was a false dilemma that came about as a result of an incorrect interpretive assumption (the assumption that a difference in grammar necessitates a difference in identity). The grammatical difference between the phrase “the book of life” and the phrase “the Lamb’s book of life” no more necessitates a difference in identity than the difference between the name “Jesus Christ” and the name “Christ” necessitates a difference in identity.

    As for your statement that “Revelation 3:5 is written unto the seven churches in Asia, which has nothing to do with the Church,” I’m surprised that anyone would make such a statement. This is what John says:
    I don’t know what I could add to this to be more persuasive. What John says here speaks for itself.


    Hervey:

    [Christians] will become "kings" and they are such that keep the commandments of the Lord, and can enter into through the gates of the New Jerusalem. All others will be encompassed by the coming down out of the New Heaven , the New Earth will encompass all those whoes names were written in the "book of life".


    Jim:

    The text says nothing of the kind. The only way of getting into the New Jerusalem according to the text is through the gates. Your assumption that some of the inhabitants of the city will be beamed into the city Star-Trek-like, or that the city will be built around them or that they will find themselves in the city some other way has absolutely no basis in scripture. It is nothing more than an assumption of your interpretive imagination, which extends far beyond the parameters of the text. You’re just making this stuff up as you go. It may sound OK to you, but it isn’t scriptural.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  4. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    "What did they "overcome" ?


    Jim:

    What does anyone overcome in order to keep his or her heart right before God?


    Hervey:

    In this verse, "ONLY" those who are "in" the New Earth are the "whosoever". So you can eliminate those others who are in the Lake of Fire, because they can not be a part of "these whosoever " That is the point Jim ! The "whosoever" needs to apply to those to whom "whosoever" can apply !


    Jim:

    Yes, of course, whoever ends up in the New Jerusalem will be those who will have responded positively to the invitation “whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” That’s a given. However, between the initial giving of this prophecy and the completion of its fulfillment, the term “whosoever” will have applied to all people, some of whom will have responded positively and thus will have ended up in the New Jerusalem and the rest of whom will have not responded positively and thus will have ended up in the second death. Just as “whosoever” in John 3:16 means anyone, likewise “whosoever” in Revelation 22:17 means anyone.

    The term “whosoever” itself encompasses everyone. It is what grammatically follows that term that distinguishes how each individual responds to the universal invitation as well as the consequence of that response. In John 3:16, “whosoever” [anyone] believeth in him [a positive response] should not perish [a positive consequence] …” Not everyone will respond positively; therefore, not everyone will have a positive consequence. However, the term “whosoever” itself means anyone and applies to everyone, thus making the invitation a universal invitation. The use of this term in Revelation 22:17 is no different than its use in John 3:16; it means anyone, and it applies to everyone. Those who respond positively to this universal invitation to take the water of life freely will end up in the New Jerusalem; those who respond negatively will end up in the second death.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  5. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    A circle - A point at which the line comes back to itself, going nowhere.

    This is pretty much the way our conversation has been going in these last few posts.

    But I still must point out your mistaken claims about the way in which I look at the Word of God.

    You said >If you were to apply to Philippians 4:3 (which discusses “the book of life”) the same standard of proof that you apply to John 17:24 and Ephesians 1:4 (which do not discuss the book of life), you would be forced to conclude that “the book of life” in Philippians 4:3 cannot be referring to some other book of life. It would have to be referring to the same “book of life” that is mentioned in Revelation 3:5. This, of course, would put you in a Catch-22, because such a conclusion would mean that the people described in Philippians 4:3 would not be allowed entrance into the New Jerusalem, as they would NOT be written in “the Lamb’s book of life” in accordance with Revelation 21:27. So what do you do in order to avoid this Catch-22?

    What you just said does not make any sense whatsoever ! You created your own confusion within this explanantion ! In fact, you even contradict yourself within your own catch 22 explanation !

    Philippians 4:3 says - "book of life" - Just like saying, that I have a pencil. Pencils come with different lead softness and or hardness. If I ask you to pass me the pencil, so that I can write something down. I more than likely will not ask you what number is on the pencil. It might be a #2 on the pencil or a # 3 or a #4.

    When a Christian, such as Paul, states , like it does in this verse - "women which labour with me in the gospel, and other fellow labourers" , that he is talking about the book of life that pertains to those who labour with him in the gospel. "THAT" book of life , for those who labour with him in the gospel, is the -> "Lamb's book of life", which is the #2 book of life.

    Those that labour with Paul were chosen from "before" the foundation of the world. They had names, even before they were born, "because" God has foreknowledge". God knew their names, and he wrote them in the book of life of the Lamb.

    We "know" by reading Rev. 13:3 - that - "all that dwell upon the earth shall whorship him (the beast - context of chapter 13.) , whoes names are not written in the book of life of the lamb". If God is no respector of persons, and if God is a God of all love, then why did he not write everyone's name in this one book of life of the Lamb ? You will notice, that God did not blot out any names here ! He just did not write their names in this book of life of the Lamb ! You "must" be able to answer these type of questions, when rightly dividing the Word of God ! The Word of God can "not " contradict itself ! If there is a contradiction, it is either an apparent contradiction , or private interpretation produces contradiction. You need to solve these questions and give an accurate answer to the questions, in order that there is "no" private interpretation , in studying the Word of God.

    In order to solve the questions about as to why God did not write their names in the book of life of the Lamb, and God still be a God of all love ,and be a God who is no respector of persons. Then there "has " to be "another " book of life !

    Then it would be possible for God to blot their names out of the #1 book of life and then this would show us as to why their names are not written in the #2 - book of life of the Lamb .

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  6. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    Carried forward from your last post >

    Hervey:

    In this verse, "ONLY" those who are "in" the New Earth are the "whosoever". So you can eliminate those others who are in the Lake of Fire, because they can not be a part of "these whosoever " That is the point Jim ! The "whosoever" needs to apply to those to whom "whosoever" can apply !


    Jim:

    Yes, of course, whoever ends up in the New Jerusalem will be those who will have responded positively to the invitation “whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” That’s a given. However, between the initial giving of this prophecy and the completion of its fulfillment, the term “whosoever” will have applied to all people, some of whom will have responded positively and thus will have ended up in the New Jerusalem and the rest of whom will have not responded positively and thus will have ended up in the second death. Just as “whosoever” in John 3:16 means anyone, likewise “whosoever” in Revelation 22:17 means anyone.

    Jim: This is why I used the OT people who were 'not' a part of Israel. First, no one is invited to come to the New Earth. Everyone has their name written in one of the two books of life. And only your name being blotted out is "how" you loose the right to be in the New Earth. Those of the OT who were not of the nation of Israel, did not even "know" about God, except that he was very powerful, as they found out from time to time. But some of the nations in the OT did not war against Israel, and they also did not evn know anything about the God of Israel. What did they "overcome", that you have continually pointed out to me ? As if they knew they had some obsticale to overcome in order to enter into the New Earth ? How could that be, if they didn't even know anything about God whatsoever ? ?

    Your name being in the book of life, is "not " because of something that you do or did. If your name is blotted out, it is because of something that you did ! You have to do something against God, in order for your name to be blotted out of the book of life ! You do "not" have to overcome anything, if you know not God, to be a part of the New Earth.

    Those who know God , need to "overcome" with faithfullness. For God has called many, but he has chosen few. What does it not say here ? It does not say that he called , or chose, every human being that ever lived ! We know this is a fact, as we look at the OT, and we know it is also a fact looking at the NT. Not "all " are called to overcome something !

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  7. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    Those that labour with Paul were chosen from "before" the foundation of the world. They had names, even before they were born, "because" God has foreknowledge". God knew their names, and he wrote them in the book of life of the Lamb.


    Jim:

    The “proof” by which you’ve maintained that there are two books of life instead of one has centered on the issue of timing. When were names written in a book of life? Were they written from the foundation of the world, as stated in Revelation 17:8, or were they written before the foundation of the world? However, you go to passages that don’t say anything about the book of life (John 17:24 and Ephesians 1:4) to make your case.

    In John 17:24, Christ says that the Father loved Him from before the foundation of the world, thus indicating that His existence predates the foundation of the world. In Ephesians 1:4, Paul says that the Father has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world, thus indicating that He had in mind our acceptance in Christ even before the foundation of the world.

    However, in neither of these two passages is it either stated or required or even implied in the text that “before the foundation of the world” was when names were written in a book of life. The fact that the Father loved the Son before the foundation of the world neither requires nor implies that this was when names were written in a book of life. The fact that the Father chose us in the Son before the foundation of the world neither requires nor implies that this was when names were written in a book of life either. Paul could simply have been referring to the conception of the plan of salvation in Christ occurring in the mind of the Father before the foundation of the world. We don’t know, since Paul doesn’t say. The only thing that is certain from the text in these two passages is that nothing is said about names being written in a book of life.

    In order to conclude from these two passages that names were written in a book of life before the foundation of the world, we must assume things in these passages that are neither stated nor required nor even implied in the text. An interpretation based on such assumption isn’t proof; it’s just subjective interpretation. Such an interpretation says more about what’s in the mind of the interpreter than it says about what was in the mind of the person who originally spoke the words of a given passage.

    Whereas the “proof” that there is more than one book of life centers on the question of timing, the distinction of more than one book of life in the Bible centers on the issue of grammar. It is concluded in your view that because the phrase “the book of life” and the phrase “the Lamb’s book of life” differ grammatically, they must be different books. Thus, it is concluded that wherever the phrase “the book of life” appears in Revelation, it must refer to one book of life, and that wherever the phrase “the Lamb’s book of life” or the phrase “the book of life of the Lamb” appears, it must refer to another book of life.

    Therefore, “the book of life” in Revelation 3:5, 17:8, 20:12, 20:15 and 22:19 must, according to your view, refer to one book of life, whereas “the book of life of the Lamb” in 13:8 and “the Lamb’s book of life” in 21:27 must refer to another book of life. On what is this distinction based? Grammar. When the word “Lamb” is included in the phrase, one book of life is thought to be in view; when the word “Lamb” is not included in the phrase, a different book of life is thought to be in view.

    The assumption here is that saved NON-Christians are written only in “the book of life,” whereas saved CHRISTIANS are written not only in “the book of life” but also in “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life.” In this view, it is thought that saved CHRISTIANS will have the privilege of participating in “the first resurrection” (20:4-6) and the privilege of “entering” into the New Jerusalem (21:27). It is thought that saved CHRISTIANS will be free to enter and exist the New Jerusalem through its gates. In contrast, it is thought that saved NON-Christians, although avoiding the second death, will not have either the privilege of participating in “the first resurrection” or the privilege of “entering” the New Jerusalem. It is thought that unlike saved CHRISTIANS, these saved NON-Christians will be confined to the New Jerusalem and will not enjoy the privilege of entering and exiting through its gates.

    Thus, to be written in “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life,” is to be written in “the book of life” as well. In contrast, to be written in “the book of life” is not necessarily to be written in “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life.”

    Therefore, according to this view, to say that someone is written in “the book of life” doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she will enjoy the privilege of participating in the first resurrection, as it doesn’t necessarily mean that he or she is a Christian. It merely means that he or she will avoid the second death. That’s all it means. If one wishes to identify someone as a Christian, one should say that he or she is written in “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life.”

    This brings us to Philippians 4:3, where Paul states that his “fellowlabourers” are written in “the book of life.” Does this mean that they are saved NON-Christians? Wouldn’t Paul’s “fellowlabourers” be Christians? Why then does Paul merely say that these people are written in the lesser of the two books: “the book of life?” That would merely indicate that they would avoid the second death. It wouldn’t indicate that they would participate in the first resurrection. Did Paul not know the difference between “the book of life” and “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life?” Was this a revelation that was kept from him? If not, then either Paul was just too tired to express those last three words (“of the Lamb”) or there is only one book of life.

    In Revelation 1:4-9, John clearly identifies the seven churches to whom he is writing the Revelation as his fellow Christians:
    In Revelation 3:5-6, the Spirit encourages these Christians to “overcome” by explaining to them a reward that is associated with “overcoming.” This is what He says:
    This doesn’t make sense from the standpoint of the two-books-of-life theory. Look at what is linked together here: (1) being clothed in white, and (2) not being erased from “the book of life.” Whereas being clothed in white is consistent with a participation in the first resurrection (i.e., the white linen in 19:7-9 and 19:14), not being erased from “the book of life” is NOT consistent with a participation in the first resurrection from the standpoint of the two-books-of-life theory. For a Christian, not being erased from “the book of life” is not a reward for overcoming in the two-books-of-life theory; it’s the consolation prize for not overcoming. It’s a fallback position. It means that the Christian may have gotten erased from “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life,” and thus he or she may have forfeited the first resurrection, but at least he or she can count on avoiding the second death by not being erased from “the book of life.” From the standpoint of the two-books-of-life theory, the promise of being clothed in white is consistent with a reward for getting an “A,” so to speak, whereas the promise of not be erased from “the book of life” is consistent with a reward for getting a “C,” so to speak. These two rewards do not fit together.

    In contrast, if there is only one book of life, whereby only those who participate in the first resurrection are guaranteed an exemption from the second death, and thus an exemption from being erased from “the book of life,” then the promise to be clothed in white and the promise not to be erased from “the book of life” fit together very well as rewards for the excellence of “overcoming.”

    So far I’ve discussed what it means from the standpoint of the two-books-of-life view to be written either in “the book of life” or in “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life.” But what does it mean from the standpoint of this view NOT to be written in one or the other of these books? To NOT be written in “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life,” does NOT mean to suffer the second death; it merely means to forfeit the first resurrection and a certain other privilege regarding the New Jerusalem. In order to suffer the second death, one must NOT be written in “the book of life” according to the two-books-of-life view.

    END OF PART ONE. PLEASE GO TO PART TWO.
     
  8. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    PART TWO


    This brings us to Revelation 13:8, which says this:
    Regarding these beast worshippers, whose distinction is that they are NOT written in “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life,” verses 14:9-11 say this:
    According to the two-books-of-life theory, NOT being written in “THE BOOK OF LIFE OF THE LAMB” does NOT cause one to suffer the second death; it merely causes one to forfeit the first resurrection and a certain privilege regarding the New Jerusalem. However, that is not what Revelation 13:8 and 14:9-11 say. These passages clearly state that those who are NOT written in “THE BOOK OF LIFE OF THE LAMB,” otherwise known as “THE LAMB’S BOOK OF LIFE,” are GUARANTEED TO SUFFER THE SECOND DEATH.

    In contrast, if there is only ONE book of life, so that “the book of life” and “the book of life of the Lamb,” otherwise known as “the Lamb’s book of life,” are THE SAME BOOK, then what is stated in Revelation 13:8 and 14:9-11 makes perfect sense, just as what is stated in Revelation 3:5 and in Philippians 4:3 makes perfect sense.

    Thus, I think that Philippians 4:3 and Revelation 3:5, 13:8 and 14:9-11 make it VERY CLEAR that “the book of life, the book of life of the Lamb” and “the Lamb’s book of life” are all references to THE SAME BOOK.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  9. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    I take it that your explanation was a form of "dichotomy" ? :confused:

    IN Christ - Hervey
     
  10. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    I take it that your explanation was a form of "dichotomy" ?


    Jim:

    You’ll have to explain this statement to me, as I have no idea what it means.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  11. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    A dichotomy is a branching off in two directions. Within your explanation (confusing as it was), you branched off in two complete different directions, while trying to explain your point of view.

    Love IN Christ - HErvey
     
  12. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,

    What point or points did you not understand?

    Sincere,
    Jim
     
  13. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    All of them !

    You use words out of harmony with the scriptures, and I am unable to follow you in your wording.

    You use words like "privilage" constantly throughout your so called explanation, and this is just a form of flattery towards your own belief, and a down play towards mine.

    There is no "privilage" one way or another as to whom is a part of the first or last resurrection.

    If God chose those from before the foundation of the Word to be holy and without blame in him (christ) in love> That is the privilage of God , not use who were chosen.

    The same with those whom God has called.

    You never handled anything that I have said !

    I told you that some names were not written in the Lamb's book of life. If it is so important that one's name be written in "a" book of life. Then why did not God write everyone's name in that book ? If God is a God of all love, and he is no respector of persons, then why did he not write everyone's name in "that" book of life of the Lamb ?

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  14. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Jim (prior post):

    What point or points did you not understand?


    Hervey:

    All of them !


    Jim:

    Pick one, and I’ll try to explain it more clearly.


    Hervey:

    I told you that some names were not written in the Lamb's book of life. … If God is a God of all love, and he is no respector of persons, then why did he not write everyone's name in "that" book of life of the Lamb?


    Jim:

    You’re asking me to answer a question that is not based on the text of Revelation but on your own presuppositions: (1) that there are two books of life instead of one, and (2) that not everyone’s name is written in one of these two books, and (3) that God is a God of all love (you may be suggesting here that God would never allow anything bad to happen to anyone). In order for me to answer your question, I would have to first accept your presuppositions, which may very well be incorrect. Therefore, if you would simply leave your presuppositions behind and ask me to comment on one or more actual statements in Revelation, I’ll be happy to do so.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  15. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    You said >

    Jim:

    You’re asking me to answer a question that is not based on the text of Revelation but on your own presuppositions: (1) that there are two books of life instead of one, and (2) that not everyone’s name is written in one of these two books. In order for me to answer your question, I would have to first accept your presuppositions, which may very well be incorrect. Therefore, if you would simply leave your presuppositions behind and ask me to comment on one or more actual statements in Revelation, I’ll be happy to do so.


    Jim:

    What do you think I have been doing ?

    IN Rev. 13:8 it states that - "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb"

    These who worship the beast , as mentioned in this context here in this chapter. Why did God "not" write their names in the - "book of life of the Lamb" if indeed there is only one book of life ? ? ?

    And if God is a God of all love, then why did he not write their names in this one book of life ( as you claim there to be only one book of life ! ). Because -- if their names are not written in the book of life of the lamb ( according to your understanding that there is only one book of life), then they will end up in the second death. How can God be so cruel and yet claim that he is a God of all love at the same time, that he did not write their names in this book of life ? ? ?

    IN Christ - IN Love, Hervey
     
  16. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    IN Rev. 13:8 it states that - "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb" These who worship the beast , as mentioned in this context here in this chapter. Why did God "not" write their names in the - "book of life of the Lamb" if indeed there is only one book of life ? ? ?


    Jim:

    First, I’d like to say that I think that this verse is proof that there is only one book of life. Verses 13:8 and 14:9-11 state that those who are not written in “the book of life of the Lamb” will burn. This agrees with verse 20:15, which states that those who are not written in “the book of life” will burn.

    Second, I’m unable to answer your question because I can’t find adequate information on the subject in the text of Revelation. I don’t know for a fact whether everyone’s name is written in “the book of life/the book of life of the Lamb” to start with or whether names come to be written in the book as people get saved.

    In 13:8, we’re told that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world. However, we know that He was not actually slain until much later (2000 years ago.) Therefore the phrase “from the foundation of the world” appears to simply mean that the idea of Christ being slain goes all the way back to the foundation of the world, whereas the actual fulfillment of this idea occurred later.

    In 17:8, we’re told indirectly that names were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. As in 13:8, this could simply mean that the idea of names being written in “the book of life/the book of life of the Lamb” goes all the way back to the foundation of the world, whereas the actual writing of the names occurred later, as people got saved.

    If the phrase “from the foundation of the world” has the same meaning in 17:8 that it does in 13:8, then it’s very possible that people’s names don’t actually get written in “the book of life”/”the book of life of the Lamb” until they get saved.


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  17. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    You said >

    Jim:

    First, I’d like to say that I think that this verse is proof that there is only one book of life. Verses 13:8 and 14:9-11 state that those who are not written in “the book of life of the Lamb” will burn.


    No Jim, Verse 13:8 does not state that those whoes names are not written will burn ! Nor does it even mention a book of life in Rev. 14:9 - 11 !

    Your name "must" be first, written, then blotted out, before you end up in the second death ! <-- Rev. 3:5

    Rev. 13:8 says - "not written" and does not say "blotted out"

    Rev. 3:5 states that he will not blot out their name 'if' he "overcometh"

    And Rev. 20:15 says - "not found"

    Your not found in the book of life, "if" your name has been blotted out !

    So we are back to square one.

    Why did God not write their names in the book of life of the Lamb ( which you claim is the only book of life ) ? ?

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  18. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    No Jim, Verse 13:8 does not state that those whoes names are not written will burn ! Nor does it even mention a book of life in Rev. 14:9 - 11 !


    Jim:

    This is what 13:8 and 14:9-11 say:
    “All” who are “not written in the book of life of the Lamb” will “worship [the beast]” and “be tormented with fire and brimstone."

    This divides the world’s population into two categories: (1) those who are in “the book of life of the Lamb,” who participate in the first resurrection (20:4-6), and (2) those who are NOT in “the book of life of the Lamb,” who burn. Whether you like it or not, there is no third category here.

    According to your view, John should have said “the book of life” here instead of “the book of life of the Lamb.”


    Hervey:

    Your name "must" be first, written, then blotted out, before you end up in the second death ! <-- Rev. 3:5 Rev. 13:8 says - "not written" and does not say "blotted out"


    Jim:

    The phrase “not written” means that the names are not in the book. Whether this is the result of names being never written or no longer written in the book, the result is the same: the names are “not written” in the book.

    If a hotel ledger was introduced as evidence in a court of law to show that a certain person did not stay at that particular hotel, and if this person’s name had been in the ledger but then erased leaving no evidence of erasure, then whoever would testify regarding this ledger would truthfully say that this person’s name was “not written” in the book, because that’s what would be true at that point in time. Thus, the phrase “not written” does not necessarily mean never written.

    Then again, as I explained by comparing 13:8 with 17:8, it could be that people’s names don’t get written in the one-and-only book of life, also known as the book of life of the Lamb, until they get saved.

    If that’s so, then what about Christ saying that He will not blot the names of overcomers out of the book? Does this mean that some will be blotted out? I don’t know. What is meant by the word “overcome?” I don’t know.

    One thing I do know is that if all who are written in “the book of life of the Lamb” participate in “the first resurrection” in accordance with 20:4-6, and if everyone else worships the beast and burns in accordance with 13:8 and 14:9-11, then there’s NO THIRD CATEGORY. The absence of a third category in the text of Revelation is inconsistent with your view.

    Those who “overcome” are dressed in white and are exempt from the second death (2:11 and 3:5). Thus, those who participate in the first resurrection (19:14 and 20:4-6) are overcomers. Thus, 13:8 and 14:9-11 divide the world’s population into those who overcome and those who burn. This is consistent with 21:7-8, which likewise divides people into those who overcome and inherit all things and those who burn.

    This is what the text says. Maybe this leaves you with questions; however, the text says what it says. Where does it say that Revelation has to answer all of your questions or meet with your approval?


    Sincerely,
    Jim
     
  19. Hervey

    Hervey Member

    481
    +0
    Hi Jim:

    You said >

    Jim:

    The phrase “not written” means that the names are not in the book. Whether this is the result of names being first written in the book, then blotted out so that they’re no longer found written in the book, or whether it’s the result of names never being written in the book in the first place, the result is the same: the names are “not written” in the book.


    Jim:

    Your now juggling words to make your belief fit a round hole with a square peg.

    When the Word of God says that their names were not written in the book of life of the Lamb, that is what it means ! Plain and simple !

    If one's name is blotted out of the book of life, then they no longer are in the book of life, that their names "were " written in.

    According to Rev. 20:15 it states, that "whosoever" (remember that word ? ) was not found in the book of life was cast into the Lake of fire"

    If their names were not written in the book of life in the first place, that would make God a respector of persons !

    "Only" when one's name is "blotted" out , is one's name not found in the book of life.

    Rev. 13:8 says that their names were "not written " in the book of life of the Lamb.

    You need to stop twisting what is being said within the verse that we are dealing with.

    If their names were "not written" in the book of life of the Lamb, then they must have their names in the "other" book of life ! And because of what we know, these who worship the beast are going to end up in the Lake of Fire - second death. And from Rev. 20:15 it tells us that if one's name (whosoever) is not found in the "book of life" then they end up in the Lake of fire - second death.

    God "had" to blot out their names in order for them to end up in the Lake of fire - second death ! But God did not write their names in the book of life of the Lamb ! This "proves" that God is a God of all love, and that he is no respector of persons, because even though he did not write their names in the "book of life of the Lamb", he "had" to write their names in the other - "book of life". It is just plain logic , and according to "what is written" we never have to change what is written, in order to believe what is written. It is just a matter of 'understanding' what is written !

    The method of putting a square peg into a round hole, just does not work, when you are working the Word of God.

    And I noticed that you refuse to consider the statement within the Word of God - "Many are called, but few are chosen".

    Those who are called "need" to overcome, all others who are "not" called need not "overcome" ! They who were not called, were not called to any responsibilities of overcoming. There were many of them in the OT, as well as those in the NT.

    Those called , knew God and knew their responsibilities.

    #1 - Israel
    #2 - The Church - the body of Christ
    #3- The seven churches in Asia

    All others "follow" these three groups who are "called". The worst thing one could be , was an enemy of Israel, because being an enemy of Israel, was being an enemy of God.

    The same is true with Christians , who are IN Christ, and the same is with the seven churches of Asia, which btw is future.

    Those who worship the beast were enemies of God. And they were treated like enemies of God.

    You need to change your peg, and put a round peg in a round hole, Jim.

    Love IN Christ - Hervey
     
  20. Jim1

    Jim1 Regular Member

    263
    +6
    Christian
    [color=sky blue]Dear Hervey,


    Hervey:

    When the Word of God says that their names were not written in the book of life of the Lamb, that is what it means ! Plain and simple ! … Rev. 13:8 says that their names were "not written " in the book of life of the Lamb. … If their names were "not written" in the book of life of the Lamb, then they must have their names in the "other" book of life !


    Jim:

    What you’re saying here is not consistent with what I’m reading in the text. Verse 13:8 doesn’t say “were not written” (past tense). It says “are not written” [present tense] in the book of life of the Lamb.”

    The noun “all” is the subject of a future-tense clause, in which the verb “shall worship” expresses the future action of the subject “all.” The two adjective clauses that modify the subject “all” use present-tense verbs (“dwell” and “are … written”) to describe the status of the subject “all” at the time that the action of its future-tense verb “shall worship” occurs. Thus, those people who comprise the subject “all” will “dwell upon the earth” and will “not [be] written in the book of life of the Lamb” at the time that they “worship” the beast.


    Hervey:

    If one's name is blotted out of the book of life, then they no longer are in the book of life, that their names "were " written in. If their names were not written in the book of life in the first place, that would make God a respector of persons ! "Only" when one's name is "blotted" out , is one's name not found in the book of life. … If their names were "not written" in the book of life of the Lamb, then they must have their names in the "other" book of life !


    Jim:

    What you’re saying here is not consistent with what I’m reading in the text. Verse 17:8 says that the people of the earth will wonder, whose names “were not written [past tense] in the book of life.” This indicates to me that their names will never have been written in the book of life in the first place.

    I think that this confirms what I suggested in an earlier post: Just as the phrase “from the foundation of the world” does not mean that Christ was slain at the foundation of the world in 13:8, likewise this phrase does not mean that names were written in the book of life at the foundation of the world in 17:8.

    It appears to me from these two verses that the names of people are not written in the book of life until they get saved.

    The people who “shall worship” the beast in 13:8 and the people who “shall wonder” at the beast in 17:8 are the same people. At that future time when they worship and wonder, they will not be written in the book of life of the Lamb and they will not have been written in the book of life. According to 14:9-11, these people will burn, which is consistent with 20:15, as they will not have been written in the book of life.

    Whether or not Christ will blot anyone out of the book of life, I don’t know. However, it seems pretty clear to me that He will not blot the people described in 13:8 and 17:8 out of the book of life, as they will not have been written in the book of life in the first place.

    Revelation never directly says that anyone will be blotted out of the book of life. In order to conclude that Christ will blot people out of the book of life, we must infer this conclusion from His statement in 3:5 that He will NOT blot those who overcome out of the book of life. Whether this statement necessarily implies that Christ will in fact blot people out of the book of life, I don’t know. One thing I do know is that nothing is ever mentioned or implied regarding a blotting out of people from the book of life of the Lamb. However, this silence would be understandable if the book of life and the book of life of the Lamb were the same book; such a silence would simply be the absence of redundancy.

    Sincerely,
    Jim[/color]
     
Loading...