When Is One's Name Written In The Book Of Life?

[justlookinla]

Stay in the word...you *may* get your answer. Like Ephesians 1:3-6.

I realize it's a question which may make one uncomfortable. No reason to evade it though, it's legitimate.

 

[2KnowHim]

The book (or name) cannot be separated from the life that he is which itself is endless in it's portion as is ours; as it says, Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

There is only one book, and then there are the books, one of life (or who has life in himself), ones that are full of labor; it is relative to every son and the process Paul said he was called to from his mothers womb which extends itself back to the first Adam.

Words that are spirit and life become finite when we use that which is outside of us through our own Babylon to determine what they are.

This is the book/scroll that is opening in us, the revelation of the son (the victory that swallows death) ... just as much as it is the holy of holies, or the throne out of which proceeds the river of life (or the spirit of truth, which the father is), or as Jesus put it in one place, a well of water springing up into everlasting life (which is to know this Father).

We all have a name that is finite as we all have a name that is infinite, as there is one book of life and many books of works. These like the kingdom are inner truths, and no more literal then a lamb with seven eyes and seven horns.

David said ... Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

But John said ... Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

We are to be Living Epistles read of All men, and that Epistle should be One Life, One God, One Lord, One baptism, One Spirit.....ONE!!

 

[x141]

We are to be Living Epistles read of All men, and that Epistle should be One Life, One God, One Lord, One baptism, One Spirit.....ONE!!

It is the singleness of the gospel of life ...

 

[x141]

I agree, the book isn't literal, but imagery. Yet the message is still there, one is chosen from/before the foundations of the world, their name is written in the 'book' and it's possible to have it removed from the 'book'.

If you don't believe it to be literal why do you still seek a literal answer ...

 

[ebedmelech]

I realize it's a question which may make one uncomfortable. No reason to evade it though, it's legitimate.

I'm not evading the question. However when it's obvious a person hasn't understood properly, I won't keep going around in circles about the same question. That's why I encouraged you to keep reading, you may find your answer. There was no sarcasm in that response.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, they were. Was everyone's name written though? Any of those billions who would never ever hear of Jesus Christ?

I'm not evading the question. However when it's obvious a person hasn't understood properly, I won't keep going around in circles about the same question. That's why I encouraged you to keep reading, you may find your answer. There was no sarcasm in that response.

"Hasn't understood properly" doesn't address the question, it only smears the questioner, intentionally or not.

Again, if you do not wish to answer the question, that's your choice.

 

[justlookinla]

If you don't believe it to be literal why do you still seek a literal answer ...

Simply because something isn't literal doesn't dismiss the possibility that it's indicative of a literal truth.

 

[x141]

Simply because something isn't literal doesn't dismiss the possibility that it's indicative of a literal truth.

How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. (this was spoken to those who Paul had earlier said that they were still on the breast).

It would appear Jesus felt quite a bit the same about Nicodemus, that is according to his words, which indeed were God's (that again, was) according to him.

 

[ebedmelech]

"Hasn't understood properly" doesn't address the question, it only smears the questioner, intentionally or not.

You're assuming you do understand. However, as one reads this thread, it's easy to see rather than really examine what another says or refers you to in scripture, you simply reject it out of hand if it doesn't satisfy you. Naturally, that is your choice to do..yet scripture interprets itself *if* one allows it to. My example would be the fact that while scripture says one's name will not be blotted out of the book of life, it NEVER presents a case where that has happened. Therefore one has to examine that in light of scripture, and that takes effort. One can put forth that effort, or dismiss it...never really knowing the answer.

Again, if you do not wish to answer the question, that's your choice.

I say (again), if you don't want the answer by at least examining that which others say (which may or may not be correct), then putting in your own effort...that is your choice...and you remain without an answer.

 

[justlookinla]

How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more. (this was spoken to those who Paul had earlier said that they were still on the breast).

It would appear Jesus felt quite a bit the same about Nicodemus, that is according to his words, which indeed were God's (that again, was) according to him.

Yet, this isn't addressing the issue of one's name being written in the Book of Life, indicating a choice by God which we had nothing to do with.

 

[justlookinla]

You're assuming you do understand. However, as one reads this thread, it's easy to see rather than really examine what another says or refers you to in scripture, you simply reject it out of hand if it doesn't satisfy you. Naturally, that is your choice to do..yet scripture interprets itself *if* one allows it to. My example would be the fact that while scripture says one's name will not be blotted out of the book of life, it NEVER presents a case where that has happened. Therefore one has to examine that in light of scripture, and that takes effort. One can put forth that effort, or dismiss it...never really knowing the answer.

While it may not list names and dates of those names blotted out of the Book, that doesn't negate the fact that scripture indicates how one's name is blotted out of the Book. The second issue not addressed is the one of who's name is written in the Book in the first place. Were any names of those God knew would never hear of Jesus written, for example?

I say (again), if you don't want the answer by at least examining that which others say (which may or may not be correct), then putting in your own effort...that is your choice...and you remain without an answer.

I remain without discussion from you. Of course this is a free forum, one can choose to interact with issues raised...or not.

 

[x141]

Yet, this isn't addressing the issue of one's name being written in the Book of Life, indicating a choice by God which we had nothing to do with.

Actually it does, but why do you limit it just to this ... God creates man on the earth and then is sorry that he did, so he kills all but eight. He forbids to eat of the tree of knowledge, and when the commandment is broken drives them from the garden, but then says his people perish for the lack of it. He says if you reason with him your sins become white as snow, but (by what some deem the literal blood) he had to send his only son (God does not have two, which is what the inheritance of a son was by Adam and Eve divided up into) to shed his blood for the forgiveness of them, as if it were something he was unable to do, yet created everything, and everyone anyway knowing this, which the same picture of his hate for Esau and his love for Jacob (even though Jacob was a thief and a liar) who he knitted together both these two sons in the same womb.

There is difference between God and our perception of God.

 

[2KnowHim]

Yet, this isn't addressing the issue of one's name being written in the Book of Life, indicating a choice by God which we had nothing to do with.

By George, I think you have it.

 

[justlookinla]

Actually it does, but why do you limit it just to this ... God creates man on the earth and then is sorry that he did, so he kills all but eight. He forbids to eat of the tree of knowledge, and when the commandment is broken drives them from the garden, but then says his people perish for the lack of it. He says if you reason with him your sins become white as snow, but (by what some deem the literal blood) he had to send his only son (God does not have two, which is what the inheritance of a son was by Adam and Eve divided up into) to shed his blood for the forgiveness of them, as if it were something he was unable to do, yet created everything, and everyone anyway knowing this, which the same picture of his hate for Esau and his love for Jacob (even though Jacob was a thief and a liar) who he knitted together both these two sons in the same womb.

There is difference between God and our perception of God.

That's not addressing His choosing the names of those who are written in the Book of Life.

 

[justlookinla]

By George, I think you have it.

And now it begs the question, were any names written of the billions who have never heard of Jesus?

 

[Job8]

So, God knows who isn’t, but is unsure who is, so he writes their names in a book anyway (just in case), so much for God declaring the end from the beginning (which makes him a liar as well). It appears that God is just as fallible as his creation is. This would make another rebellion in heaven inevitable.

That's good humanistic "logic". But since God desires the salvation of all men, and Christ died for the sins of the world, all may be saved if all will repent and believe. Therefore all are in the Book of Life until they fail to obey the Gospel. When the books are opened and a name is not found in the Book of Life, we may assume that God will ask that individual, "Did you obey the Gospel"? The answer will be "No". This will confirm God's just decision to blot that name out of the Book of Life.

 

[Phil B]

Ahh yes this question cannot be answered if viewed from the point of accepting Christ. God chose the elect before the foundations of the earth. The elects names will never be blotted out.

 

[justlookinla]

Ahh yes this question cannot be answered if viewed from the point of accepting Christ. God chose the elect before the foundations of the earth. The elects names will never be blotted out.

Would there be a difference between the elect and non-elect in the sense of salvation? In other words, both saved but different categories?

 

[Phil B]

Would there be a difference between the elect and non-elect in the sense of salvation? In other words, both saved but different categories?

No, not at all. The reformed faith is based on election and reprobation. The elect will be in heaven but the reprobate will burn in the lake of fire ( Hell)

 

[justlookinla]

No, not at all. The reformed faith is based on election and reprobation. The elect will be in heaven but the reprobate will burn in the lake of fire ( Hell)

The non-elect wouldn't be chosen though, would they?