Why the Blindness?

This verse is quoted a lot in the last few months. Well, part of it is anyway. Maybe we could look at it.

Revelation 13:8 "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

What is this verse talking about?

Let me add Youngs translation...

13:5 And there was given to it a mouth speaking great things, and evil-speakings, and there was given to it authority to make war forty-two months,

13:6 and it did open its mouth for evil-speaking toward God, to speak evil of His name, and of His tabernacle, and of those who in the heaven tabernacle,

13:7 and there was given to it to make war with the saints, and to overcome them, and there was given to it authority over every tribe, and tongue, and nation.

13:8 And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;

 

Thank you for agreeing with me. I don't think your comment about my being "full of error" would stick considering you just restated what I said in your own words.

BTW, I checked -- "eternity past" is not found in scripture. It is a human concept.

Eternity is scriptural, like Psa 90:2, "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

There is no point in time known as "eternity past." Therefore, God's decision was at a time certain in the past and not, as your theology suggests (or at least what I can make of your theology) with God from the everlasting.

skypair

 

No problem nor with your insertion, rippon. It must be in the interpretation that we differ, eh?

Did God hate Esau? or did He hate his descendants? Well, if you go back, you will see that God blessed Esau. When Jacob came back, Esau was wealthy in his own right and accepted Jacob despite Jacob's earlier usurpation of the birthright. How do you say that God hated Esau, the man?

Do you know where "Jacob have I loved but Esau have I hated" comes from, rippon? Malachi 1:2-3. It speaks of Esau's "heritage -- that God laid waste to it. Again here, Calvinist have taken something regarding a nation and applied it on an individual level.

God doesn't "hate" anyone person -- "hate is as the sin of murder," right? He hates what they do -- what their legacy is. He hates that they "know not what they do" which is precisely what Christ died for.

skypair

 

One of God's attributes is immutability. God does not change. Therefore, God never has a new thought. What God thinks today he has always thought. What he knows now he has always known.

If one holds this truth, he cannot also hold that God decided something at a point in time. I confess that I do not have the capacity to absorb this and understand it. I plan to ask God about it when I see him.

 

Again, Tom, "immutability" applies to God's CHARACTER, not His mind.

Your argument is patently false because if God chose some to salvation, then there was a time when He hadn't chosen yet, right? when His mind wasn't "made up." He had a different thought than He did the instant before.

That's a good attitude -- just make sure you are open to learn and not just regurgitating dogma if God does provide an answer. :thumbs:

skypair

 

It depends how you entered if you entered through your understanding of predestination which is another way in or you entered the way God planned it.

See I entered through the simple truth that God loved the world not me that He gave His only begotten So that whosoever (anybody) believes in Him shall be saved. See i entered through the truth of God's word and my trust in Him, and He directs my path. See we trust and He leads us to the truth. We are depended on God and His word.

See I can not go against what God has convinced me of in my youth.

None of those, we must not trust in our own understanding but in Jesus and His word, to come as a child

See we must come to Jesus as a child. We cannot hope that God will open our eyes if we come any other way, but to blind us from the truth.

Throne, I do not want a throne, but to be at His feet to cast any crown i might have at His feet. God blinds the proud.

Calvinist believe those who do not believe they way they do is blind and immature if they have not come to thier understanding, but when you face God you might find out that it is you who are blind. I have not judged any of you. Those who trust in Jesus will not be disappointed. You cannot prove that I am blind or that you are, but we can know who are God's children by which they love one another as Christ loved them

 

This verse is dealing with God's omniscience / omnipresence...not declaration. If it's declaration, then you have problems...
Rev 3:5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels.

 

I Sam 15:29 says: [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind."

I can agree that immutability applies to God's character. But the passage above says he doesn't change his mind, either.

I don't see how you can separate God's character from his mind, as if the two are on separate paths. It doesn't make sense to me that there is a part of God which is immutable, but another part is not.

If there was a time when God was neutral, with his mind not made up, then the moment he made it up, he changed. The moment he knew something he didn't know before, he changed. And he wasn't omniscient.

There is a school of thought called Open Theism, which, as I understand it, holds that God knows everything that is knowable. That is, some things just can't be known in advance. I doubt if you embrace Open Theism, So, will you explain how your view is different?
[/FONT]

 

God change His mind?

With the truth of His word, God doen't have to change His mind.

He is going to save believers in His Son and condemn those who do not.

 

I figured since it came up on another thread about early church fathers being Calvinistic would play a little more so into this thread as I came across this by chance - (as if there is such a thing). Eusebius speaks of Israel and its blindness - Here he is speaking not of Israel making Him their National Head but in relation to those who rejected Him as Savior. He remarks that when they rejected the light of salvation they became blinded and it was THEN their love for God waxed Cold. Their lack of love was the out come of rejection to revealed truth. I think we can see principles at work in both instances as the Nation and individuals. Once they (people or nations) choose unbelief (cause) there is an effect (blindness) which corresponds to that choice and vise-versa.

This is the quote from Eusebius (260-340): Speaking On Israel's blindness

I am only giving the back ground to show how I came across this. Nothing more. So please keep this on the topic of blindness.

Now I know it is not SPECIFIC to the OP about God blinding Israel as a Nation to accepting Christ as King but I believe it is correlary somewhat to the OP.

Also I don't want to get this thread off track into what another person might have said canserning this issue. I just thought is was interesting being written in the early 300's.

Didn't mean to go off. Now back to our normal conversations.

 

I can still follow that ...

But you still have yet to give biblical evidence as to why God blinded them. We ALL agree God did it and we ALL agree it was a decision made in eternity past. Were we are loosing cohesiveness is why it was done. You state, cause God wanted to...fine but why does scripture SAY God wanted to. God did not MAKE them to seek out unbelief as I'm sure you will agree because He was Constantly pleading with them to turn for years before He gave Isaiah the prophesy that they would not heed anymore.

What I am saying is that God knowing what will be (their unbelief) is it not part of His plan for His purpose that IN their unbelief He would blind them.

This brings again the older question... Why blind someone from seeing something if they can not or could not see it anyway unless God remove their blindness first? Could it be they were not always blinded??

To say God does something just to do it for no other reason than He can, makes God out to be a mindless childlike being who does things on whim. I'm not saying you hold that or any Calvinist does, but to when a question arises to give an explanation as to WHY God did something the typical answer is cause He is soveriegn. He is I agree, but He does not do anything without reason or purpose and quite often we find the reason God does something explained in the scriptures. Yes, I agree there are times where scriptures do not say why God did something but MANY are the times we see that it does.

Are we ignore those scriptures that explain the 'why's" that God does/did many of things (the predeterminded means for or the cause of His actions) that we may cling to our doctrines?

 

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with salvaiton but the choosing of whom the Nation the Messiah would come through. As is constantly noted God did not Choose Israel (the Nation) for salvation but to be His people through whom He would bring forth His Word both written and in manifested flesh.

God choosing between them was in accordance to His plan of redemption NOT for their individual salvation. We know this because God chosen Jacob (Israel) over Esua BEFORE they had done anything wrong (SINNED). You would have to hold to hyper-Calvinism to say this is about salvation. This about the plan of redemption and through whom it will come. Jacod have I loved (chose) Esau have I hated (not chose) to bring forth the promised seed.

 

Wrong again Allan . Romans 9 is indeed about election of individuals and the converse . It is one of the clearest testiomonies in Scripture regarding election and God's sovereignty superintending all .

 

ooops. we were talking about Rev 13. Some how we skipped to Rev 3. Lets try again.

Who is Rev 13:8 talking about? Who shall worship him?
(him, being the one that makes war with the saints)

Again I give you Youngs translation...

13:5 And there was given to it a mouth speaking great things, and evil-speakings, and there was given to it authority to make war forty-two months,

13:6 and it did open its mouth for evil-speaking toward God, to speak evil of His name, and of His tabernacle, and of those who in the heaven tabernacle,

13:7 and there was given to it to make war with the saints, and to overcome them, and there was given to it authority over every tribe, and tongue, and nation.

13:8 And bow before it shall all who are dwelling upon the land, whose names have not been written in the scroll of the life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world;

 

Wrong yet again Rippon. Since you come to those scriptures with presuppositions and assumptions it is no wonder you come away such misunderstandings. You are absolutely correct that it is about Gods sovereignty but NOT about election unto salvation but in fulfilling His plan or purpose (election of whom He will use for His purpose).
We find in Romans there are three chapters which deal with Israel’s spiritual history (as a Nation): past (chap. 9), present (chap. 10), and future (chap. 11). Paul’s purpose in this is to explain how God could set aside His chosen people and save the Gentiles (as a people). The he elaborates on how He will restore the nation of Israel at some future date.
We find with Paul speaking on election, God exercises His sovereign will to accomplish His perfect plan. However, please keep in mind that the election discussed in Rom. 9-11 is national and not individual. To apply all the truths of these chapters to the salvation or security of the individual believer is to miss their message completely.

However since traditional Calvinism (which is also Presbytarianism) holds that God replaced Israel with the Church (replacement theology) and that He will deal with Israel No more but cast it aside. Is it is no wonder those who followed after that same doctrine held the same viewpoint with regard to those chapter and verses. You HAVE to change the context in order to come away with a different rendering.

 

James, No one disputes God foreknew all who would be His or are His. All of this was before He began Creation.

I am lost as to what you are seeking to clarify. I read through the thread but still don't get it. Are you debating the time thing again with Webdog?

 

Well, I guess I am hyper calvinist because Allan says so.

Allan, this is your opinion. One does not have to be hyper calvinist to hold that Romans 9 is speaking to not only the Jewish nation. When the point of the discussion comes to Pharoah, was he a Jew?

Again, this is your opinion. There are plenty more biblical scholars who do not hold your view. Where do you get off telling someone that they are wrong? Where did the IMHO go?

 

Hello Allan,

Well, this indeed is webdogs point. This comes up each time we talk about "choosen"....as seen in his quote.

“the lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

I'm asking you to take a close look at the phrase. What is this talking about? When did this happen?

1st...One idea would be to say that we are justification before we are born. Is this the right view? Has Christ always been slain? Was Christ a unblumished Lamb, before He went to the cross?

2nd..What creation is this? Is this the creation of Genesis 1? Or is this the creation ...as in the new creation? Some say that "the foundation of the world" found in the NT, always talks about Christ making of the new man and the new world. But if this is the case, Eph 1 is changed as well. But both would read right.

3rd..What is the phrase "from the foundation of the world" linked to? In the KJV it is linked to "slain". The ASV and the NASB link the phrase to "written". If the phrase is linked to "written" it changes the meaning all together.

I have good reason to believe the 3rd view is right. What do you think?

 

When?

I think the event (word) you are looking at was more of a 'what' event rather than a 'when' event.

 

Then consider this, Tom -- God became man and dwelt among us. Was that a change for God in your view? Did God have to change His location in order to walk among us? Did God have to change His status vis-a-vis the angels? All are true, right? God changed in many ways. He might even have dicided not to have a chocolate for breakfast one day.

He knew everything that could be known at the time, right? He knows the beginning from the end "from before the foundation of the world" as reformb likes to use. That doesn't mean that He knew before some point in time when He decided to create the world.

All things can be known in advance, as soon as God chooses to know them. He knows everything about all that He chooses to create. Imagine, for instance, the things He could have made but didn't. Why didn't He? They wouldn't "work" with His plan. Imagine the sin He could have done but didn't. Why didn't He? Because it is not in His character, right? In fact, He doesn't do these things because He knows of the dreadful consequences.

skypair