We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded by your direct support for ReKnew and our vision. Please consider supporting this project.

Revelation 13:8 refers to “everyone whose names have not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life.” How does that square with open theism?

Three possibilities exist in terms of reconciling Revelation 13:8 with open theism.

1) First, the “from the foundation of the world” clause can attach to either “everyone whose names have not been written” or to “the lamb that was slain.” For example, the TNIV translates this passage “All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. ” So it is with many translations of this passage. If this is correct, the passage suggests that the crucifixion of Christ was part of Gods’ plan from the beginning, but not that people’s names were or were not written in “the book of life” from the foundation of the world.

2) The phrase “from the foundation” (apo kataboleis) can mean “from before” or “from the time of” (=since). So even if we attach the phrase to “everyone whose name has not been written…” the passage need only refer to those who didn’t enter into eternal life from the beginning of the world – that is, throughout history. As history progresses, God (metaphorically of course) puts into his “book of life” all people who enter into a life-giving relationship with him.

3) Several times in Scripture God warns people that he may blot their names out of the book of life (Exod. 32:33; Rev. 3:5, cf. Rev. 22:18). In this light, it seems we should not think that having one’s name in or out of “the book of life” is a permanent thing. On a side note, if names were written (or not written?) in the book of life before the world began, and if one can’t add or detract from this book, one might legitimately wonder what these passages mean.

Applied to the foreknowledge debate, if God foreknew from all eternity that certain names would be “blotted out” of his book, one has to wonder why God bothered to put them there in the first place? If God may indeed “take away [a]… person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city” (Rev. 22:19), and God knew this would happen, why did he give them a share in the first place? If names can be added and/or deleted from the book of life, it suggests that the eternal destiny of these people was not fixed in God’s mind (=in “the book”) from the start .

Related Reading

Re-Thinking Predestination

In Ephesians, we read that God predestined that there would be a church. It reads: “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in…

Shouldn’t preachers rally Christians to fight political injustice?

Question: My pastor has publicly supported your book The Myth of a Christian Nation. But he’s recently called on the church to take a stand against the injustice of our local government cutting funding for inner city recreational facilities. This seems right to me, since we’re suppose to defend the cause of the poor and…

What’s the significance of Acts 17:26-27?

This passage is frequently cited by determinists, for Paul here states that God “marked out” the “appointed times in history and the boundaries” of nations (Ac. 17:26). This doesn’t entail omni-control on God’s part, however. It only entails that God is involved in setting temporal and geographical parameters around nations. Moreover, nothing suggests that God…

Topics:

What About the Contradictions Found in the Gospels?

It’s quite common for people to question the veracity of the Gospels because there are contradictions between them. In fact, an interaction between Steven Colbert and Bart Erhman, a scholar who makes a big deal of these contradictions, has become quite popular. While Colbert’s comedic response is entertaining, we must say more. And Greg has done…

Podcast: Defending the Manifesto (4 of 10)

Greg responds to challenges by William Lane Craig from Craig’s podcast “Reasonable Faith.“ Greg discusses what it means to say that Jesus is the full revelation of God. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0059.mp3

Why Bart Ehrman Doesn’t Have to Ruin Your Christmas (Or Your Faith) Part 6

This is the sixth of several videos Greg put together to refute Bart Ehrman’s claims published in the article What Do We Really Know About Jesus? In this segment, Greg addresses the apparent discrepancies in the genealogies of Luke and Matthew and the implausibility of the idea that they were simply fabricated. We’ve been hearing that people are using…