The Book of Life & Calvinism

[Samie]

. . .

So, again, what reality is being ignored by the Calvinist or the Reformed believer?

AMR

I think it is the reality that there are non-overcomers among those for whom Christ died, hence the call for them to overcome, otherwise they get blotted out from the book of life because only overcomers won't be blotted out (Rev 3:5).

 

[God's Truth]

Are the names of the elect body of Christ the only names written in the book of life? If Yes, then why is there blotting out of names from the book of life, as these verses seem to suggest?

KJV Exodus 32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book

KJV Revelation 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.

Excellent question.

 

[God's Truth]

The counterfeits will be bloted out of the book of life because they were not able to persevere.

They do not obey.

 

[God's Truth]

good one samie

Catholics do not obey, they do what God says not to do...

They bow to statues, they call their brothers in Christ 'father', they make Mary another Mediator, and other such things.

 

[jamie]

Salvation is our choice. We are free to choose live or we can choose death.

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life that both you and your descendants may live. (Deuteronomy 30:19)​

Israel had a choice and we have a choice.

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

How so? When we say God is omnipresent this indicates the repletive presence of God in all created places and in relation to the limited presence of all creatures.

God's repletive presence means He is incapable of being judged or measured by circumscription or defined by physical limitations or spatial boundaries, but rather identified as filling space or acting upon space while at the same time transcending it. Naturally, God is eternally present everywhere, yet without the finite creation there is no “place.” Thus, theologians refer to God’s eternal presence, or His filling of all things, as His immensity, whereas omnipresence speaks to God’s relation to His creation. God’s immensity and omnipresence are in one respect the same, yet immensity emphasizes God’s transcendence, while omnipresence emphasizes his immanence. This distinction is actually quite important because it clarifies that God was everywhere present at creation of the temporal world. And, now, as the Creator and Sustainer of His creation, God must be present to all space with the fullness of His being in order that it may exist at all.

God, as non-embodied spirit, is everywhere present. God does not extend himself—this would be to divide himself into part, which is impossible—nor does God defuse himself like the sun does its rays. God fills all space. In other words, the limitations of space have no reference to him. He is not absent from any portion of space, nor more present in one portion than another (See Hodge, Theology). God’s omnipresence is not a quantifiable thing but rather it is part of His very nature. God is not present in things as their (the thing's) essence—this would make God pantheistic, but He is present in the fullness of His essence in that He fills and sustains all things.

Contrary to some open theist's odd notions, God, being everywhere present, does not literally come or go to or from specific places. Where such language is employed (e.g., Gen. 11:5; Isa. 64:1–2), it must be recognized for what it is—metaphorical language indicating or invoking a special manifestation of God’s working either in grace or judgment.

Since God is not a physical being who takes up space, it would be wrong to think of God as a sort of gas that fills up the universe. In that sense, He is not everywhere, since God is not a thing, like water or air, that can take up space. Rather, God is everywhere insofar as He is not limited by a spatio-temporal body, knows everything immediately without benefit of sensory organs, and sustains everything that exists. In other words, God’s omnipresence logically follows from his omniscience, incorporeality, omnipotence, metaphysical uniqueness, and role as Creator and Sustainer of the universe. Although neither identical to creation (as in pantheism) nor limited by it…God is immanent, spiritually and personally present at every point of the universe. (See, Francis J. Beckwith, “Mormon Theism, the Traditional Christian Concept of God, and Greek Philosophy: a Critical Analysis,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44.4 (2001), Questia, Web, 5 Apr. 2012.)


The future, for us, is yet to come. As you agree God knows the future. Why? Because He ordained it, else He would not infallibly know it as a proper object of His knowledge, His fore-knowing. Thanks be to God who knows what is to come such that His glory will be made manifest.

So, again, what reality is being ignored by the Calvinist or the Reformed believer?

AMR

The calvanust view simplifies the future as if it already happened to God. My hypothesis on how God sees the future I admit I really beyond our comprehension. Calvin views that everything is predetermined is skewed by His belief that there is no free will. Free will does not negate His sovereignty it glorifies it and His love. God could have forced His angels, the Isrealites, but He did not. He lets us choose. Jesus was emphatic that the Father listens and acts in accordance with His Children's requests. He also was very clear that time the future of His return was in a time that He didn't even know. He's either a robot maker or a loving Father that reacts for the future good of His love. Its impossible to be both ways.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The calvanust view simplifies the future as if it already happened to God. My hypothesis on how God sees the future I admit I really beyond our comprehension. Calvin views that everything is predetermined is skewed by His belief that there is no free will. Free will does not negate His sovereignty it glorifies it and His love. God could have forced His angels, the Isrealites, but He did not. He lets us choose. Jesus was emphatic that the Father listens and acts in accordance with His Children's requests. He also was very clear that time the future of His return was in a time that He didn't even know. He's either a robot maker or a loving Father that reacts for the future good of His love. Its impossible to be both ways.

You would need to better understand how we Calvinists define free will versus what you may be assuming free will means. There is not a single Calvinist among the common majority of Calvinists, including the now long dead John Calvin, that denies free will. I readily admit there are a few wing-nuts out there that deny any idea of free will, but let's confine ourselves to the Calvinist majority view. For the Calvinist, free will is the liberty of spontaneity, the ability to choose according to one's greatest inclinations at the moment of so choosing.

You have lumped in all the usual anti-Calvinist canards in your short post. Now that you have that out of the way, how about some actual discussion on the actualities versus the usual rhetoric? Firstly, the Lord's speaking of not knowing the time of the eschaton was in His humanity, not His divinity. Two natures, one fully human, one fully divine, comprised our Incarnate Lord. His humanity hungered, thirsted, grew weary. Do you think His divinity did the same? Of course not. Let's not confuse the contexts of our Lord's recorded words in Holy Writ and import meanings the passages do not carry. Secondly, no one is a robot, a souless machine with pre-determined outputs. Robots are not moral agents. We are moral agents. We choose according to our inclinations. Our choices carry moral consequences to He who is the Moral Lawgiver and holds us responsible. Thirdly, that God knows the future is because He ordained the future, else where would His infallible knowledge of the future rest? Do you deny God's infallibility? Do you deny God can see past, present, and future equally vividly?

AMR

 

[Samie]

. . . Secondly, no one is a robot, a souless machine with pre-determined outputs. Robots are not moral agents. We are moral agents. We choose according to our inclinations. Our choices carry moral consequences to He who is the Moral Lawgiver and holds us responsible. . . .

AMR

Calvinism teaches that Jesus died only for the elect. Those not among the elect are therefore NOT "in Christ" and so are spiritually dead being separate from Him Who is our life (Col 3:4). They could not be held responsible since being spiritually dead they cannot be given any spiritual responsibility in the first place.

So the only ones the Moral Lawgiver will hold responsible are the elect. In what possible ways can one who is among the elect be held responsible? Are you saying he could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if he chooses to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Calvinism teaches that Jesus died only for the elect. Those not among the elect are therefore NOT "in Christ" and so are spiritually dead being separate from Him Who is our life (Col 3:4). They could not be held responsible since being spiritually dead they cannot be given any spiritual responsibility in the first place.

So the only ones the Moral Lawgiver will hold responsible are the elect. In what possible ways can one who is among the elect be held responsible? Are you saying he could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if he chooses to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

You are confusing "ought" with "can" as a requirement for being held responsible. That is a category error.

Dig a wee bit deeper:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...been-and-will-be/page30&p=2823854#post2823854

AMR

 

[Samie]

You are confusing "ought" with "can" as a requirement for being held responsible. That is a category error.

Dig a wee bit deeper:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...been-and-will-be/page30&p=2823854#post2823854

AMR

Sorry, this babe can't dig deeper where the wise and the prudent are. Looks like only the wise and the prudent can understand what the Shepherd requires of His Sheep. But the Shepherd proclaims otherwise:

KJV Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Again, are you saying that among the elect there may be some who could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if they choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Sorry, this babe can't dig deeper where the wise and the prudent are. Looks like only the wise and the prudent can understand what the Shepherd requires of His Sheep. But the Shepherd proclaims otherwise:

KJV Matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

Again, are you saying that among the elect there may be some who could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if they choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

That whole "overcome" bit of yours is tiresome and replete with error. Please refresh yourself on the matter.

AMR

 

[Jamie Gigliotti]

Calvinism teaches that Jesus died only for the elect. Those not among the elect are therefore NOT "in Christ" and so are spiritually dead being separate from Him Who is our life (Col 3:4). They could not be held responsible since being spiritually dead they cannot be given any spiritual responsibility in the first place.

So the only ones the Moral Lawgiver will hold responsible are the elect. In what possible ways can one who is among the elect be held responsible? Are you saying he could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if he chooses to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

If wishes none should perish, and He gives us free will to choose life through Him, and it is only through Him by the most gracious blood of Christ, and the most gracious gift of His Spirit, and His most gracious heart of love; it could be said that beyond question it is dependent upon His Grace and our choosing power that He gave to us. Do we agree on that?

Calvin's irresistible grace doctrine, eliminates free will and amounts to arbritrary choosing on Who burns and who does not. Do you agree with that?

Seeing every possible outcome of the future if that is in fact the truth, would also make Him infallible. This would be in line with Him working and fighting for our hearts and minds, as well the Spiritual War the Bible clearly indicates is going on. Also how God reacts to His children because of His great love and promises.

 

[Samie]

That whole "overcome" bit of yours is tiresome and replete with error. Please refresh yourself on the matter.

AMR

Already refreshed here before you even asked, brother. I think I have shown your error in that civil-register-thing of yours.

It's you I guess who need refreshing, don't you think?

 

[Samie]

That whole "overcome" bit of yours is tiresome and replete with error.

AMR

I don't think you are getting tired with and considers replete with error the Revelation of Christ mentioning for 17 times what you call my "overcome" bit, do you?

Again, are you saying that among the elect there may be some who could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if they choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

 

[Lon]

I don't think you are getting tired with and considers replete with error the Revelation of Christ mentioning for 17 times what you call my "overcome" bit, do you?

Again, are you saying that among the elect there may be some who could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if they choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

opcorn: Peanut gallery comment:

Stacking up a house of cards is no biggy then to knock it down. Everybody seems to think they are going to knock another's Systematic Theology down to the ground in one-fell-swoop. It is a delusion of grandeur. There are members here who are looking for the proverbial nail or attempting the winning Jenga move instead of intelligent and careful dialogue and I reckon you might be relegated to that poor crowd? I've a few on ignore only interested in their own egos and self-agendas. If you prove to be of this kind of thin veneer, you too are easily ignored. All the back-pats are also after the same meaningless platitude of 'knocking down another's systematic theology in one-stroke. You frankly, aren't listening, Sammie. AMR has given you substance and you just want to do Jenga with chess pieces... lain:

 

[Samie]

opcorn: Peanut gallery comment:

Stacking up a house of cards is no biggy then to knock it down. Everybody seems to think they are going to knock another's Systematic Theology down to the ground in one-fell-swoop. It is a delusion of grandeur. There are members here who are looking for the proverbial nail or attempting the winning Jenga move instead of intelligent and careful dialogue and I reckon you might be relegated to that poor crowd? I've a few on ignore only interested in their own egos and self-agendas. If you prove to be of this kind of thin veneer, you too are easily ignored. All the back-pats are also after the same meaningless platitude of 'knocking down another's systematic theology in one-stroke. You frankly, aren't listening, Sammie. AMR has given you substance and you just want to do Jenga with chess pieces... lain:

Thanks for your comment, bro.

Now, why not do Jenga with what AMR seemed to have ignored?

Again, are you saying that among the elect there may be some who could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if they choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have provided two responses on the matter. The issue is your claim "...that there is blotting of names, therefore names to be blotted were initially written." I disagree and explained it to you. There really isn't anymore to say. You are stuck on that one point and remain immovable.

AMR

 

[Lon]

Thanks for your comment, bro.

And thanks for calling me bro. I think it a good sign.

Now, why not do Jenga with what AMR seemed to have ignored?

Again, are you saying that among the elect there may be some who could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if they choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

:idunno: He said no.

I have provided two responses on the matter. The issue is your claim "...that there is blotting of names, therefore names to be blotted were initially written." I disagree and explained it to you. There really isn't anymore to say. You are stuck on that one point and remain immovable.

AMR

1 John 2:19 to me, logically means "no." You 'could' ask how that works, but doesn't 'no' answer your question?

Does it matter, really, since it is a difference only, of whether or not something is or isn't written in which book ( Remember in Revelation when 'other books' were opened - Revelation 20:12)? I personally think the details far from adequately discussed and well spelled out to try to be shooting for a quick closer. This is the problem I have with quick proverbial-nail threads. They just aren't honest or just or even that entertaining when a real discussion is incredibly more meaningful and Christ-honoring, imho.

 

[Samie]

I have provided two responses on the matter. The issue is your claim "...that there is blotting of names, therefore names to be blotted were initially written." I disagree and explained it to you. There really isn't anymore to say. You are stuck on that one point and remain immovable.

AMR

Well, firstly, that there is blotting out of names is not simply my claim. God the Father told Moses about it. Here again:

Exodus 32:33 33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book.

Isn't it simply logical that that which to be blotted had to be written down first? Otherwise, there is nothing to blot.

Secondly, you disagreed. And I respect that. You are entitled to it. But it looks like it's not just me you're disagreeing with but also the plain words of God Himself. And I won't press you to explain having decided not to say anything more.

And finally, you are correct that I remain immovable in this issue. Please understand that it is natural for me, and perhaps you too, to stand firm in what I believe is truth. But that is until someone clearly shows me from Scriptures that I am in error. And I'm sorry to say you have tried and seemed to have failed.

 

[Samie]

And thanks for calling me bro. I think it a good sign.


:idunno: He said no.

Since you surmised AMR answered "no", and he said he has nothing more to say, can you elaborate for him, since it appears you want to take up the cudgels for him? Again, the question you said he answered with a "no" is:

Are you saying that among the elect there may be some who could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if they choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it?

I request that you tell me whether I am understanding him correctly:

1. AMR is NOT saying that among the elect there may be some who could possibly be blotted out from the book of life if they choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it.

2. If #1 is a correct understanding of AMR's response, then, please tell me which of the following do you think correctly reflects AMR's position:

a. None among the elect will choose to be overcome of evil, therefore no one will be blotted out.
b. There are among the elect who will choose to be overcome of evil instead of overcoming it, yet their names will not be blotted out from the book of life.

3. If #1 is NOT a correct understanding of AMR's response, then what do you think is the correct one?