Book of Life?

[Guest]

Damon,

You may be reading the modifier "of life" into too many "books" in the Old Testament. It is possible that "the book of the living" (Ps.69:28) merely means those who are alive at any moment, and being blotted out of that book would mean being killed. It would seem that the New Testament's "Book of Life" has a different meaning from that one.

There is no obvious reason for seeing "the book of remembrance" as "the earthly counterpart" of the book of life, since neither is said to be on earth any more than the other.

Other references to God's "book," in various passages, might be referring to the "book of life," or to the "book of remembrance," or to some other concept. In any case, God probably doesn't have a library in heaven of literal "books." I think it more likely that this is a metaphor of God keeping a ledger of various facts about people, meaning that God keeps track of them.

I am not sure what you mean by those who "can never be resurrected." It is my understanding that all who have ever lived on earth will be resurrected (John 5:28-29/ Acts 24:15). Is that your view?

[Guest]

(...oops this was written after Steve's last post)

Thanks to everyone’s input. There are a lot of things for me to think over and study. Having said that there are a couple things I would like to give my two-cents on real quickly:

Steve,

First I hope I didn’t come off in a negative or deceptive tone saying I was trying to “bait” you in my last post. I just very much enjoy hearing your take on things and these thoughts have been bouncing in my head for awhile now and this is the first place I have been able to share them and not feel stupid about doing so.

Second you said “If I were to fall away next year, and to die in apostasy (which I am certain will not be the case—but hypothetically), that would not mean that my Christian status and faith over the past 40 years have been a sham all along.” Caring on with this hypothetical thought I would have to say that the work that God did through you in ministering to people over those 40 years was not a sham and a very real work of God using you as His instrument but I would have to say that your personal testimony of being God’s would be a shame and your apostasy would proof of that. It would appear that God could work through anybody (Phil 1:15-18) or anything (Balaam’s donkey) to accomplish his purpose not just a Christian or someone who says they are and I can’t help but think of Judas (again) who’s work with the disciples, I am sure, really helped people at the time but that he himself was a sham.

Damon,

I have never heard that take on Matthew 7:21-23 and will have to take a look at the more closely but I do know that the word for “knew” there is ginosko which is used through out Scripture in a wide variety of ways (and no I’m definitely not a Greek buff) and the idea that it is used to meaning testing here doesn’t seem to me to be the most natural way to read it. I say this based on the idea that the people that God says he never knew in v.22 seem to me to be asking God why He doesn’t seem to recognize them or know them threw the things they supposedly did for Him and God responds by saying, no I didn’t not recognize/know you because you did those things but only those who does My will (v.21).

I do appreciate what you said about the Book of Life which seems to lean toward my interpretation that everyone’s name is in it but is blotted out if you refuse the gift of Christ not that your name is written in it once you are saved and possibly blotted out and rewritten back in depending on where you stand with Christ.

Erich <><

[Guest]

The view you are presenting on this topic is the Calvinistic position called "perseverence of the saints." You are in very good company in your believing it, though I personalloy do not find the doctrine to be scripturally compelling.

I hope that no one will deny that there are people who fall away from an outward Christian profession and the truth of their case is that they were never truly saved. The Scriptures speak of people like this, and say that there will be many in this category(Matt.7:23/ 1 John 2:19).

But their case does not exhaust the possible scenarios. Among those who fall away are those, as well, who really did "believe for a while" but "fall away" (Luke 8:13); who really have known the way of righteousness so as to "escape the pollutions of the world," but who become "entangled again"(2 Pet.2:20); who really are addressed as "holy brethern, partakers of the heavenly calling" (Heb.3:1), but who "depart from the living God through an evil heart of unbelief" (Heb.3:12); who have been grafted into the covenant tree, and are partakers of the root and fatness of the root of that tree, but who must beware that they also may be "cut off" (Rom.11:17, 22).

Such a category is affirmed to exist in Scripture, just as there are those who fell away without being truly saved. There is no reason to be more reductionistic than are the Scriptures on this matter.

[Guest]

Steve,

Again thanks for your insight and even though I may sound pretty set in my ways on this point I really am still very open which is why I posted this question to begin with; not to try and prove a point but seek other points of understanding this very controversial topic. One last thing though that I couldn’t help but notice is that some of the passages you point out with descriptions about others who may/will fall away seem to describe some of the other seeds in the parable of the sower and the seeds which was something I had mentioned in a earlier post: That there are those who "believe for a while" but "fall away" (the second seed?), those who “escape the pollutions of the world," but who become "entangled again" (third seed?), but that none of them, although partakers or having the appearance of, never produced the true fruit (the fourth seed) of a believer. I know each one of the verses you mentioned should be looked at individually (which I plan on doing) but as I read your post I couldn’t help but think of that possible parallel.

Erich <><

[Guest]

I don't disagree that the second and third kinds of soil may be represented in the cases of many who fall away. Your assumption that only the fourth seed really depicts regeneration does not commend itself to my thinking. Three of the four types of soil hosted germinated seeds. These three categories of seeds actually came to life and grew—but some did not continue to maturity for various reasons. This seems to be a warning to Christians. They alone are alive, and can, therefore, die spiritually, as the second and third categories of seeds did.

If Jesus wished to say that the second and third seed groups represent people who hear the gospel, but who never come to life (are not regenerated), then His choice of imagery for the parable was certainly unfortunate and misleading.

The devil stole the ungerminated seed from the first group, "lest they should believe and be saved" (Luke 8:12). Unlike them, the second group of seeds actually came to life and "believed for a while." Jesus seemed to say that believing is being saved, so He introduces confusion if He intended to say that the second group actually DID believe, yet (intending us to know without being told) their believing failed to save them, where the first group's believing would have saved them.

I try to maintain a simpler approach to Jesus' words, as His original peasant listeners would have done, bringing no theological agendas to muddy the waters. When this is done, it appears that three of the four kinds of soils promoted and produced living seeds. Life speaks to me of regeneration, and salvation.

[Guest]

Steve,

That is a very good point in regards to the implication that germination and growth pictures regeneration and salvation and I don’t disagree that it can but I don’t know that you can make that statement as something that is always a given throughout scripture. For example what about the parable of the wheat and the tares, which is interestingly, the next parable mentioned in Matthew (13:24)? Here we see germination and growth yet what is grown is a tare which as I have come to understand it grows and has all the appearances of wheat but will never produce fruit (the actual heads of wheat). So if this is true (which I understand it may not be) than going back to the sower parable you point out in Luke that Jesus explains that the first seed the devil took so that those wouldn’t believe and be saved which would lend to the idea that the second seed upon believing was saved, although it doesn’t say that. Does the fact that someone says they believe (second seed) always mean that they are saved though (James 2:19)? Now I agree that, that could be the case as God knows whether that person’s heart is sincere or not (thief on the cross) but for us it would seem that the only way we could hope to claim that someone is saved is not because they say they are but whether or not there is fruit in their life (James 2:17, 18 ). Also I don’t know how simple it was for the peasant listeners to have understood the parable of the sower when Jesus first presented it (Matt 13:10-17) seeing how the disciples didn’t seem to understand it’s meaning or at least not enough since that had to seek Jesus for the interpretation.

Erich <><

[Guest]

Hi Erich,

It's me again. I just wanted to address one of things you said because I think the other points may have already been answered in previous posts.

You wrote:

That is a very good point in regards to the implication that germination and growth pictures regeneration and salvation and I don’t disagree that it can but I don’t know that you can make that statement as something that is always a given throughout scripture. For example what about the parable of the wheat and the tares, which is interestingly, the next parable mentioned in Matthew (13:24)? Here we see germination and growth yet what is grown is a tare which as I have come to understand it grows and has all the appearances of wheat but will never produce fruit (the actual heads of wheat).

The difference in these parables is the type of seed that was sown. In the parable of the sower, it was the same type of seed, and it was good seed.


11 "Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God.
NKJV

In the parable of the wheat and tares, notice that the farmer sowed the good seed (vs.24), and His enemy sowed a completely different type of seed (tares vs.25). Jesus explains this to His disciples later on in this chapter:

Matt 13:37-39
37 He answered and said to them: "He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
NKJV

So, in my opinion, these two parables cannot be compared in the way you described.

I have to tell you, I so appreciate your taking time to do a thorough search for answers on this topic. I wish more Christians would do this instead of taking the first good argument they hear as truth without comparing others. I wish I would have done this sooner in my own walk as well.

God bless.

[Guest]

Christopher,

I had a feeling that this would be the response that would be made and I do have to concede that yours and Steve’s point is very convincing and again although it sounds like I’m pulling for the other side I do acknowledge the point of view you have issued. I just wanted to try and exhaust any possibility that there isn’t room for another interpretation. The main point of my last post was to more or less try and issue that possibility with the idea that a seed growing doesn’t always seem to picture regeneration (but maybe it does and I just need to think on it more, which I will).

In the end I’m all for abiding and staying as close to Christ as possible which seems to be the safest place no matter what view you take and I have no problem with being concerned or sharing that concern with a “Christian” that may not be in that position. Either way, if that person fell away because they were never saved or have since lost their salvation the end result is the same. So as Steve had mentioned earlier it is a pretty moot point. So how does this sound: if you want to be eternally secure than just abide in Christ.

I’m just very grateful for this forum and the people in it where we can bring these issues up and search them out, making, for me at least, a clearer picture of what the truth is one issue at a time.

p.s. Steve if you read this post there was a question I had on one of your other posts to a question of mine. Just curious if you seen it or had any input on it? Here’s the link: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=515

Erich <><
[/b]

[Guest]

Damon,

You may be reading the modifier "of life" into too many "books" in the Old Testament. It is possible that "the book of the living" (Ps.69:28 ) merely means those who are alive at any moment, and being blotted out of that book would mean being killed. It would seem that the New Testament's "Book of Life" has a different meaning from that one.

But you're building assumption upon assumption here. Right?

In any case, the "Book of Life" had a very well-known and well-understood meaning in Jesus' time. That's why we don't have a clear-cut explanation of what it is in the New Testament. According to the commonly accepted understanding of that time (which still persists today among the Jews, I might add), the "Book of Life" was what God used to write down the deeds of all those who had ever lived, just as I said in my previous post. I agree that this may not strictly be literal, but nevertheless, the idea is that we are to be judged according to our deeds. And that's precisely what we find in Revelation 20:12-13. The "books" that are opened in this passage are the books of the bible which contain the covenant between us and God giving the standards by which we are to live. The Book of Life contains the record of our deeds, by which we are to be judged.

There is no obvious reason for seeing "the book of remembrance" as "the earthly counterpart" of the book of life, since neither is said to be on earth any more than the other.

The "Book of Remembrance", according to Malachi 3:16, is a book which is to be written because of those who do revere the Lord who are in the midst of the perverseness of those who don't revere the Lord and consider spiritual things important. Now, here's the important question. Who's this book written for? For God, or for those who "often spoke, one to another"? The answer should be quite obvious, and that's why it's an earthly book and not a heavenly book.

Now, one of the interesting elements that comes out of the first century cultural millieu of Israel is that the Book of Deuteronomy was regarded as a (in other words, not the) "Book of Remembrance". Why? Because it was an enduring witness (a means to "remember" that is) against the Israelites who would later break the covenant between themselves and God because they wouldn't value it or consider spiritual things important. It was literally a record of Moses' accounting of the deeds of the Israelites who wandered in the wilderness for forty years, as they were about to enter into the Promised Land. IT WAS AN EARTHLY COUNTERPART OF THE HEAVENLY BOOK OF LIFE, IN OTHER WORDS.

What the "Book of Remembrance" that Malachi speaks of is, is another such book. The Book of Malachi itself is such a book! And since the end of Malachi speaks of "the day that burns as an oven" - referring to God coming down among men to rule over them forever (2 Pet. 3:10-13; etc.) - then the Book of Remembrance can also refer to a book that is to be written just prior to Christ's coming, for the purpose of preparing the Bride of Christ for the coming of the heavenly Bridegroom.

I am not sure what you mean by those who "can never be resurrected." It is my understanding that all who have ever lived on earth will be resurrected (John 5:28-29/ Acts 24:15). Is that your view?

I should clarify, then. Remember "The Ten Commandments" where the Pharaoh decrees that Moses' name be struck from all of the monuments and erased from history, never to be spoken again? The same general idea is going on here. For God to blot the names of the unjust out of the Book of Life is figuratively as if they had never been born and had never lived. That's not true, of course, and they'll have their day to stand before the throne of judgment, judged according to their deeds which have been recorded for posterity, but it's the symbolism that's to be understood here, not the details.

Does that make sense now?

Damon

[Guest]

Damon,

I remain unconvinced of your theories (which you present as facts), but I am not interested in refuting them, since they do not relate to life in any way discernible to me. I am not sure why you think that I am presenting "assumption upon assumption" more than you are. We both are making certain assumptions. The difference is that I don't claim to actually know more than I do.

I have to say that your dogmatism and professed certainty of information on biblical subjects where the Bible does not provide such information is always difficult for me to read. Although I disagree with almost everything in your last post, yet, because the Bible is silent on most of it, I would not think myself capable or brazen enough to even think of refuting you opinions. You speak of such speculative things with the air of one who thinks he knows what cannot really be known, and talks condescendingly to those who admit they do not know.

Thankfully, most of the things you write are on etherial theological matters, unrelated to practical living, so I can't bring myself to care too much about whether you are right or wrong (however, when you give advice for living, as you sometimes have, that is a different story). Like Jesus, you speak "as one having authority." Unlike Jesus, however, you give no evidence that there is any real authority behind your opinions. Pardon me (again) if I (again) am unimpressed with the basis of your theories.