Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | bowler | 206237 | ||
Doc Interesting url, trying to see how it answers whether or not the names of the wicked were ever in the book, or just the elect? Perhaps you have more links? Truly interested in this. Enjoyed all your other links and thread numbers so far. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
2 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 206279 | ||
Hi, Bowler... Since the book of life is a metaphor, why not work on understanding the doctrine of election? Any metaphor has its limits. However, election is thoroughly taught from one end of the Scriptures to the other. Consequently, the metaphor will make better sense when studied in the clear light of the didactic teachings on election. Here's another A. W. Pink book that does an excellent job of explaining the doctrine: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Election/election.htm In Him, Doc |
||||||
3 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | bowler | 206286 | ||
Doc I am well aware and understand the doctrine of election as being that God elects those whom He has foreknown and predestined to be saved. I will read all that theologian Aruthur Pink has to say on the matter simply because you suggested it and because I am interested in what this man is teaching that you admire so much in an effort to see how the book of life is just a metaphor. I would like to take the Bible literaly as much as possible and do not see how the book of life is a metaphor, although I believe other things in Revelation are figurative language for real things and events. Honest question not meant to foster a debate - If we do not take the book of life as being a literal book, then what is to prevent us from taking the lake of fire figuratively? However, I will also read Arthur Pink on this. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
4 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | DocTrinsograce | 206321 | ||
Dear Bowler, I commend you in your effort to literally interpret the Scriptures. There are many metaphors, similes, idioms, etc. in Scripture. We interpret Scripture in a literal sense by understanding the grammatical, historical, and cultural context. Sometimes the idioms are phenomenological. For example, when the Bible says that the "sun rose" (Jonah 4:8), we do not assume that the Bible is asserting that the sun orbits around the earth. We use the expression today in English, with the common understanding that it is a reflection of what we observe, not what is literally happening. The Scripture employees many analogies: The Kingdom of God is like a mustard tree (Matthew 13:31); the elect are like sheep (John 10:15); the sun is like a strong, running man (Psalm 19:5); the sound doctrine of Scripture is like armor (Ephesians 6:11); wisdom is like a hostess (Proverbs 9:1-5); God is like a strong tower (Psalm 61:3); etc. etc. We would not, of course, say that all these things are literal equivalences! :-) Now, the list goes on and on. I could talk about Biblical euphemisms, ironies, or hyperboles. They are all over the place. I had a Mormon tell me, once, that God was a man because the Bible spoke of His arm (Psalm 98:1), His hand (Exodus 9:3), His fingers (Psalm 8:3), His feet (1 Kings 5:3), His ears (1 Samuel 8:21), and His eyes (Genesis 6:8). I asked the young fellow if God's feathers and wings in Psalm 91:4 didn't indicate that God was really a chicken. The poor kid -- actually I think he called himself an "elder" -- had never been taught about anthropomorphisms. A student of Scripture will make an effort to understand these figures of speech, in order to render a sound exegesis of the Word. We want to interpret history as literal history, epistles as literal letters, poetry as literal poetry, etc. Okay, now, regarding the "book of life." It was the Hebraic practice to record the names of everyone born to the twelve tribes. That information was used to properly divide the land of promise, to provide for rightful inheritance, and allocate responsibilities. Probably of greatest divine importance was being able to identify the properly identify the lineage of the Lord Jesus. Ever wonder why no one challenged Mathew's genealogy, for example? It would have been an easy way to eliminate this claim of Christians that Jesus was Messiah? Because all anyone had to do was go to the temple and check out the names themselves. (Of course, all of those records were destroyed when the temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.) Being blotted out of the book might take place when a descendant was disowned or ostracized for specific reasons. Handling this name blotting thing the way you are is pushing the analogy beyond its proper limits. It would certainly be an enormous error to build doctrine on the basis of a metaphor. I placed a number of "cliff notes" on Biblical interpretation in the thread #156916. I think you might find them handy. Nevertheless, you might want to pick up a copy of "How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart. In Him, Doc |
||||||
5 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | bowler | 206329 | ||
Doc I would like to take as my priciple that where the Bible leaves us no choice but to take something figuratively, like when Jesus says eat my flesh, and drink my blood - in other words when the Bible is clear that it is making an anaology then it is. But where ever we can take the Bible literaly we should take it literaly when it is being straight forward. If we don't do this then things like the lake of fire could be an analogy also. Jesus mentioned this book of life as well as others. I went and borrowed the book from an elder that you mentioned some time ago and have yet to return it. I agree that we need to interpret Biblical literature according to its Biblical genre. I agree with Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart the following - How To Study The Bible For All Its Worth, by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, page 202 - Upon reflection, one can see that Paul is driving at an anaology. He is saying, in effect, "That the rock was to them as Christ is to us - a source of sustenance in the same way Christ at his tables sustains us." Paul's language is metaphorical. We, however, are not simply inspired writers of the Scripture. What Paul did we are not authorized to do. The allegorical connections he was inspired to find between the Old Testament and the New Testament are trustworthy. But nowhere does the scripture say to us, "Go do likewise." However I disagree with Gordon D. Fee's statement, as he is the NT writer and as Douglas Stuart is the OT writer in compiling information for their joint book, that - pages 262 through 263 - The fall of Rome in chapter 18 seems to appear as the first chapter in the final wrap-up, and many words or ideas that also imply the final judgment are interlaced with words or ideas that also imply the final end as part of the picture. Here we have the writers of the book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, taking the fall of Rome as being the fulfillment of prophecy, without qualifying that John unequivocaly meant Rome to be the object of the scripture, thus relegating John's description to John's knowledge of Rome as an oppressor, rather than on John simply recounting what he is being told to recount as it states in chapter one he is doing. They go on to say the following - 1. We need to learn that the pictures of the future are just that - pictures. The picture expresses the reality, but are not themselves to be confused with reality, nor are the details of every picture necessarily to be "fulfilled" in some specific way. Thus when the first four trumpets proclaim calamities on nature as a part of God's judgment, we must not neccessarily expect a literal fulfillment of all of these details of these pictures. The question must raise at this point of what the nature of prophecy is - is it a depiction of future real events in figurative language, or is it pictures of the future that do not have to come true in the details because they are only pictures? There is not one prophecy of scripture that has not come true, however picturesque the language may have been, the details all did come true. Now, here for me, becomes a problem of interpretation, where the authors of the book declare that we cannot take the liscence to take scriptures and be "inspired" to redefine terms, or draw analogies, or to render certain uncertain aspect, or to render all things in a prophetic presentation in scripture to be pictures that may not come true in their parts. Paul can and Jesus can and even John could, but we cannot. They themselves now take prophecy, call them pictures of the future and declare that we cannot expect them to come true in a specifc way as described by scripture. While we can probably all agree that Revelation uses figurative language, the authors do not seem to quite agree that the prophecies clothed in figurative language will come true as to the details promised in the Revelation. I find this somewhat objectionable and do not see the difference between this view and taking "inspired liscence" in redifining what prohpecy is in scripture. But I found what you presented as your own understandings and the links to be most engaging and interesting reading and have most thoroughly enjoyed your posts on this subject and on others. I happily agree to disagree with you on this and would like to end the discussion from my end, but would not mind at all hearing more from you or anyone else on it and would receive it. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
6 | Were all names once in the book of life? | Rev 3:5 | Hank | 206335 | ||
Hi, bowler :: I've peeked in on this thread from afar off, so to speak, find it absorbing, but don't really have any ambition to jump into the conversation. I can readily identify with the assessment of C. S. Lewis in calling these waters of High Theology well over my head and would sooner be an observer than a participant. ..... So, to dive into these deep waters isn't my objective at all. I'm merely tip-toeing into the thread, bringing with me only two small points to lay before you. The first is to welcome you to Study Bible Forum and extend every good wish that you may discover in this website a rich opportunity to share with Christians of kindred mind the blessed word of God. And, secondly, to applaud your gentle spirit of cooperation and consideration of others that is exemplified by your stated desire not to become involved in debate or controversy. That's so commendable. I appreciate it, and without a doubt so do others. Again, welcome aboard. --Hank | ||||||