Theology Club: Did God know that man would sin?

[Angel4Truth]

How do open theists explain that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world?

This would mean He already had a plan of salvation, which infers that He knew already that man would sin.

If He knew already that man would sin, would that not in itself show that God indeed has foreknowledge and can see and as such plan and work those things for His Glory?

If He didn't already know that man would sin, yet made a plan of salvation - would that not infer that He made us sin?

 

[Lighthouse]

How do open theists explain that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world?

He wasn't.

This would mean He already had a plan of salvation, which infers that He knew already that man would sin.

This is now moot as you began from a false assumption.

If He knew already that man would sin, would that not in itself show that God indeed has foreknowledge and can see and as such plan and work those things for His Glory?

Again, this is moot.

Also, we never said God is completely void of foreknowledge. We just say He does not have exhaustive, or definite, foreknowledge of that which is yet to come.

If He didn't already know that man would sin, yet made a plan of salvation - would that not infer that He made us sin?

Moot, as your premise is a false assumption.

Though it is perfectly plausible that He would make a plan for the possibility. He is God of the possible, after all.

 

[Angel4Truth]

He wasn't.

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."

Ephesians 1:4 According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

This is now moot as you began from a false assumption.

False, please answer the op.

 

[Lighthouse]

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."

Ephesians 1:4 According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:


False, please answer the op.

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
-Revelation 17:8

Try again.

 

[Guildenstern]

This would mean He already had a plan of salvation, which infers that He knew already that man would sin.

I don't see how this inference is a necessity. Could it also not be that God knew it was possible that it could occur, and as a result of this possibility instituted a reality in which salvation would be provided?

In other words, if Plan A didn't work, Plan B, C, etc. could. Our future is contigent, not on God alone, but also on our own compatible, conscious effort to remain with God

God very well know all possible worlds since before they began. He knew every possible consequence of every possible action. Even in the worst possible world, I believe God still would have a divine plan instituted in which mankind would not be lost. Think about it, any other alternative would mean that God made it possible for Himself to lose; a "rock to heavy for Himself to lift".

Since all life is valuable to Him, I think it was destiny that He instituted solutions for errors outside of His direct control. This, as I see it, is what it means when God knows the alpha & omega.

 

[Pneuma]

How do open theists explain that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world?

This would mean He already had a plan of salvation, which infers that He knew already that man would sin.

If He knew already that man would sin, would that not in itself show that God indeed has foreknowledge and can see and as such plan and work those things for His Glory?

If He didn't already know that man would sin, yet made a plan of salvation - would that not infer that He made us sin?

Hi A4T, I have a different take on what is being said, for your consideration.





Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Revelation 13:8
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 scripture really saying?

Is it talking about the foundation of the old world or is it talking about the foundation of the new world?

If it is speaking of Christ being slain from the foundation of the old world then why did He have to be slain AGAIN 2000 years ago?

If He was slain from the foundation of the old world why do the scripture say:

Hebrews 9:25-26
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

But NOW ONCE in the end of the WORLD/AGE He appeared to put away sin by the SACRIFICE of HIMSELF.

If Christ was sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the old world then sin was already put away and He would not have had to come in the END of the world/age.

Rev.13:8 is not talking about Christ being sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the old world, it is talking about Christ being slain from the foundation of the NEW WORLD.

This is brought out more fully when we read 1 Peter 1:20

1 Peter 1:20
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


This scripture point out that Christ was NOT slain from the foundation of the old world, but that He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be slain/sacrificed in the last time for us.

If He was already sacrificed/slain then it would not say He was foreordained to be sacrificed/slain in the last times for us.

Jesus Christ is our foundation, and not only our foundation, but also the capstone on which the foundation is laid.

Isaiah 28:16
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Rev.13:8 is speaking of Christ being sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the NEW WORLD and that foundation was laid 2000 years ago when He was sacrificed/slain and access to the kingdom of heaven was given unto men through Him.
*
The scriptures state while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.


So if Christ died for us from the foundation of the old world then He died for us BEFORE we were sinners and NOT while we were sinners.

 

[Lighthouse]

Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8
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 scripture really saying?

Is it talking about the foundation of the old world or is it talking about the foundation of the new world?

If it is speaking of Christ being slain from the foundation of the old world then why did He have to be slain AGAIN 2000 years ago?

Read Revelation 17:8 and think this over again.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Hi A4T, I have a different take on what is being said, for your consideration.





Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.


Revelation 13:8
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 scripture really saying?

Is it talking about the foundation of the old world or is it talking about the foundation of the new world?

If it is speaking of Christ being slain from the foundation of the old world then why did He have to be slain AGAIN 2000 years ago?

If He was slain from the foundation of the old world why do the scripture say:

Hebrews 9:25-26
25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

But NOW ONCE in the end of the WORLD/AGE He appeared to put away sin by the SACRIFICE of HIMSELF.

If Christ was sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the old world then sin was already put away and He would not have had to come in the END of the world/age.

Rev.13:8 is not talking about Christ being sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the old world, it is talking about Christ being slain from the foundation of the NEW WORLD.

This is brought out more fully when we read 1 Peter 1:20

1 Peter 1:20
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,


This scripture point out that Christ was NOT slain from the foundation of the old world, but that He was foreordained before the foundation of the world to be slain/sacrificed in the last time for us.

If He was already sacrificed/slain then it would not say He was foreordained to be sacrificed/slain in the last times for us.

Jesus Christ is our foundation, and not only our foundation, but also the capstone on which the foundation is laid.

Isaiah 28:16
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.

Rev.13:8 is speaking of Christ being sacrificed/slain from the foundation of the NEW WORLD and that foundation was laid 2000 years ago when He was sacrificed/slain and access to the kingdom of heaven was given unto men through Him.
*
The scriptures state while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.


So if Christ died for us from the foundation of the old world then He died for us BEFORE we were sinners and NOT while we were sinners.

The verses are seperate, one says he was slain before the foundation of the world and the other that we are in him before then and i think its saying because He knows who choose Him and already had a plan of salvation because He already knew we would sin.

Thanks for your response though and great meeting you!

 

[Pneuma]

Read Revelation 17:8 and think this over again.

Read it, it changes nothing.

33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?


If God knew from the foundation of the world (according to your understanding) why does He say they will reverence my son?

This parable is a great parable for the open view as it shows God actually thought they would reverence His son.

So if God thought they would reverence His son how can the foundation of the world be as you believe?

 

[Pneuma]

The verses are seperate, one says he was slain before the foundation of the world and the other that we are in him before then and i think its saying because He knows who choose Him and already had a plan of salvation because He already knew we would sin.

Thanks for your response though and great meeting you!

It does not make a difference A4T. Cannot one be in Christ before the foundation of the new world?

As a matter of fact is that not what the gospel is about? being in Christ that we might gain the new world.

Great meeting you also.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It does not make a difference A4T. Cannot one be in Christ before the foundation of the new world?

As a matter of fact is that not what the gospel is about? being in Christ that we might gain the new world.

Great meeting you also.

Being in Christ before the world, is just Him knowing we will be imo.

 

[Pneuma]

Being in Christ before the world, is just Him knowing we will be imo.

OK. but can it not be God knowing before the foundation of the new world?

Why does it have to be the old world? and can it be the old world as Jesus showed in the parable that God thought they would reverence him?

 

[Angel4Truth]

OK. but can it not be God knowing before the foundation of the new world?

Why does it have to be the old world? and can it be the old world as Jesus showed in the parable that God thought they would reverence him?

I didnt say anything about an old or new world and i think the verses i posted are about this current one.

 

[Pneuma]

I didnt say anything about an old or new world and i think the verses i posted are about this current one.

Morning A4T.

In you opening post you asked

How do open theists explain that Christ was slain before the foundation of the world?

This would mean He already had a plan of salvation, which infers that He knew already that man would sin.

If He knew already that man would sin, would that not in itself show that God indeed has foreknowledge and can see and as such plan and work those things for His Glory?

If He didn't already know that man would sin, yet made a plan of salvation - would that not infer that He made us sin?

If you reread my first post to you, you will see I answered those questions. It is ok if you do not agree with my understanding but your question where answered.

 

[Lighthouse]

Read it, it changes nothing.

Really?

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
-Revelation 17:8

How does that not change anything?

Do you see anything missing from this verse when compared to Rev. 13:8?

This question is for you too, Angel.

33Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?


If God knew from the foundation of the world (according to your understanding) why does He say they will reverence my son?

This parable is a great parable for the open view as it shows God actually thought they would reverence His son.

So if God thought they would reverence His son how can the foundation of the world be as you believe?

My understanding? You need to learn to read. I never said God knew from the foundation of the world. In fact, I don't believe He did. I hold to the open view theology for which this particular sub-forum was created.

 

[Pneuma]

Really?

The beast that you saw was, and is not, and will ascend out of the bottomless pit and go to perdition. And those who dwell on the earth will marvel, whose names are not written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
-Revelation 17:8

How does that not change anything?

Do you see anything missing from this verse when compared to Rev. 13:8?

This question is for you too, Angel.


My understanding? You need to learn to read. I never said God knew from the foundation of the world. In fact, I don't believe He did. I hold to the open view theology for which this particular sub-forum was created.

It still changes nothing to what I wrote lighthouse

Whether it says

whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Or
hose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world

Changes nothing from what I wrote.

Maybe you could tell me where you are having a problem with what I wrote, compared to the two different scriptures.







Sorry for the misunderstanding lighthouse, what I wrote has an open view concept and when you challenged it I assumed (should not do that I know) you were against that concept.

It seems I also hold an open view of things even though I never heard the term until about a year ago. On another board I was defending God being only good and a brother asked me if I believed in open theism. I had to google it to see what open theism was about. Told the brother on the other board that is sounds a lot like I believe. About 6 mo. Ago I decided to look into what is termed open theism and bought two book on it, one by Boyd and one by Sanders. Although I do not fully agree with everything they said what I believe matches up with this view far closer then any I have seen before. So for the most part you could say I also believe in an open view.

 

[2COR12:9]

Yes. The premise that God has an open view on the future, does not denote that He has no plans set in place for the future and it's creation. My open view is in line with what Boyd teaches on that God's infinite wisdom allows Him to know very possible outcome of every situation; meaning that in God instituting creation, He could see within His omniscience that someone at sometime would sin, thus requiring a need for a savior. Though I would go even further to speculate that God perceiving the possibility that man would sin, knowingly instituted a way in which they could disobey, which falls within the parameters of what He deemed for his creation as having the ability to choose or reject God making love for Him possible and genuine. The fact that I believe it was a setup from the onset, does not detract from what I see as God's final outcome as always being what was first intended for mankind, us coming to Him from the ground up(unlike angels), and solidifying our being within that eternity upon the new heaven and earth with Him forevermore in glory. People have a tendency to look at the Garden as a missed chance for something wonderful, when I believe they can not foresee the big picture, of what God has planned for us will transcend the Garden of Eden and the first creation on so many levels.​

 

[Pneuma]

Yes. The premise that God has an open view on the future, does not denote that He has plans set in place for the future and it's creation. My open view is in line with what Boyd teaches on that God's infinite wisdom allows Him to know very possible outcome of every situation; meaning that in God instituting creation, He could see within His omniscience that someone at sometime would sin, thus requiring a need for a savior. Though I would go even further to speculate that God perceiving the possibility that man would sin, knowingly instituted a way in which they could disobey, which falls within the parameters of what He deemed for his creation as having the ability to choose or reject God making love for Him possible and genuine. The fact that I believe it was a setup from the onset, does not detract from what I see as God's final outcome as always being what was first intended for mankind, us coming to Him from the ground up(unlike angels), and solidifying our being within that eternity upon the new heaven and earth with Him forevermore in glory. People have a tendency to look at the Garden as a missed chance for something wonderful, when I believe they can not foresee the big picture, of what God has planned for us will transcend the Garden of Eden and the first creation on so many levels.​

Hi 2Cor.

For your consideration about it all being a set up from the beginning.


God did NOT want to sacrifice His son
, but because man would NOT obey His voice God had to do that which He NEVER intended in the first place.


KJV
Jer 7:22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.


First thing I would point out is God gave the Law written in stone BEFORE He gave the commands concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

In the day God brought the people out of Egypt He gave commands for us to OBEY HIS VOICE but the people would not listen to OBEY HIS VOICE so God commanded burnt offerings and sacrifices for the people.

If the people had OBEYED HIS VOICE then there would have been no need of burnt offerings and sacrifices. But because of the peoples disobedience God instituted/made provision/weaved a way for man to come before Him in repentance by burnt offerings and sacrifices.

We see this very principal brought out in

1 Samuel 15:22
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.


God has far more delight in our obedience then He has in us having to offer up burnt offerings and sacrifices for our sins. If we OBEY Him we have no need of sacrifices.





Now we know that the sacrifices given in the OT are a shadow of Christ sacrifice for us. Thus, God says that when He brought the people out of Egypt (God taking man from the dust of the earth OUTSIDE the garden[Egypt] and putting man into the garden) He did NOT command concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.

Why?

Because He commanded them to Obey my voice.

The sacrifice and offerings only came into play AFTER the disobedience of man. Thus, He says to obey is better than sacrifice.

God did NOT want to sacrifice His son, He wanted obedience, but because man disobeyed His voice, He gave them a means of coming before Him through sacrifice.


Hosea 6:6
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

God did NOT desire sacrifice; therefore God did not desire the sacrifice of His son.

Psalm 40:6
6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Again it say sacrifice and offering God did NOT desire, but it even go farther and says that they were NOT required.

If God planned all along for Jesus to be sacrificed for us why do scriptures say that offerings were NOT required?

Because if man had of obeyed His voice sacrifices and offering would NOT have been required.


Psalm 51:16
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Again we see the same thing, God did NOT desire sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:5-6
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Jesus said it Himself, sacrifice and offering God did NOT want, and He(God) found NO pleasure in them.

Now we all know that God had pleasure in the outcome of Christ sacrifice, so what is Jesus saying here? Is He not saying that God had NO pleasure in the need of sacrificing His son.

Why did He(God) have NO pleasure in sacrificing His son?

Because He wanted obedience and NOT sacrifice.

 

[2COR12:9]

Hi 2Cor.

For your consideration about it all being a set up from the beginning.


God did NOT want to sacrifice His son
, but because man would NOT obey His voice God had to do that which He NEVER intended in the first place.


KJV
Jer 7:22 For I spoke not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.


First thing I would point out is God gave the Law written in stone BEFORE He gave the commands concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.

In the day God brought the people out of Egypt He gave commands for us to OBEY HIS VOICE but the people would not listen to OBEY HIS VOICE so God commanded burnt offerings and sacrifices for the people.

If the people had OBEYED HIS VOICE then there would have been no need of burnt offerings and sacrifices. But because of the peoples disobedience God instituted/made provision/weaved a way for man to come before Him in repentance by burnt offerings and sacrifices.

We see this very principal brought out in

1 Samuel 15:22
22 And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.


God has far more delight in our obedience then He has in us having to offer up burnt offerings and sacrifices for our sins. If we OBEY Him we have no need of sacrifices.





Now we know that the sacrifices given in the OT are a shadow of Christ sacrifice for us. Thus, God says that when He brought the people out of Egypt (God taking man from the dust of the earth OUTSIDE the garden[Egypt] and putting man into the garden) He did NOT command concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices.

Why?

Because He commanded them to Obey my voice.

The sacrifice and offerings only came into play AFTER the disobedience of man. Thus, He says to obey is better than sacrifice.

God did NOT want to sacrifice His son, He wanted obedience, but because man disobeyed His voice, He gave them a means of coming before Him through sacrifice.


Hosea 6:6
6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.

God did NOT desire sacrifice; therefore God did not desire the sacrifice of His son.

Psalm 40:6
6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Again it say sacrifice and offering God did NOT desire, but it even go farther and says that they were NOT required.

If God planned all along for Jesus to be sacrificed for us why do scriptures say that offerings were NOT required?

Because if man had of obeyed His voice sacrifices and offering would NOT have been required.


Psalm 51:16
16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.

Again we see the same thing, God did NOT desire sacrifice.

Hebrews 10:5-6
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Jesus said it Himself, sacrifice and offering God did NOT want, and He(God) found NO pleasure in them.

Now we all know that God had pleasure in the outcome of Christ sacrifice, so what is Jesus saying here? Is He not saying that God had NO pleasure in the need of sacrificing His son.

Why did He(God) have NO pleasure in sacrificing His son?

Because He wanted obedience and NOT sacrifice.

Hello Pneuma,
God wanting to, or not wanting to sacrifice His Son, doesn't negate the fact that it was necessary. If it pleased Him also is debatable if you heed the prophecy of:

Isaiah 53:10 (NASB)
10 But the Lord was pleased
To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
He will see His offspring,
He will prolong His days,
And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand.​

Granted I believe God capable of both grieving His Son's suffering and also being pleased in justice being fulfilled.

I still don't understand your position, for even if like you said He wanted us to just obey Him instead of getting to the point of a sacrificial system being necessary (even as a foreshadowing of Christ) this presumption would already be void, after the very first human disobeyed. At that point Christ was already necessary, before we even get to as you said

If the people had OBEYED HIS VOICE then there would have been no need of burnt offerings and sacrifices.

God wasn't giving us a second chance before the sacrificial system was installed to work our way back into reconciliation with Him, we had already failed completely with Adam. We were never able to be justified by following any command, statute, decree, ordinance or by sacrificing every animal on the earth. Christ was the only one, and the only way, after Adam, that could reconcile us back to God.

So going back to my saying it was a setup, meaning God initiated in the Garden a way man could disobey, as opposed to placing us in a state where no disobedience was possible, but like I said I believe it necessary for our love be genuine that we have the option to choose or reject God. God does not want man to disobey, but with His infinite wisdom being able to see every possible outcome, though not ordaining or foreseeing which possible future that would be chosen, He was able to anticipate that man would eventually sin requiring a Savior. The fact that Satan was cast to earth, prowling around looking for someone to devour, and that there was placed within the Garden a Tree of Knowledge which God forbid us to eat from, it's not too hard to see the inevitable; and to say God didn't see it coming(though not meaning in specifics) would be an insult to His intelligence.

Though God will bring the ultimate good out of any situation, for He truly loves and wants what's best for us. In doing so He's set up a way for us to be reconciled and to enter into an existence that will fully surpass any reality of life in the Garden of Eden.

I can kind of see your premise, that as we went along God said okay now I have to send my Son, though He doesn't want to; you'd still have refute the scriptures like Revelation 13:8, Matthew 25:34, 1 Peter 1:20.

​

 

[Lighthouse]

It still changes nothing to what I wrote lighthouse

Whether it says

whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Or
hose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world

Changes nothing from what I wrote.

Maybe you could tell me where you are having a problem with what I wrote, compared to the two different scriptures.

Neither verse is giving any indication that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, in any way, shape or form. Both verses are referring to the names that have not been written in the book, from [since] the beginning.

So, even from an open view, there is no basis for any explanation of what it "really means" regarding the Lamb being slain from the foundation of the world.

Sorry for the misunderstanding lighthouse, what I wrote has an open view concept and when you challenged it I assumed (should not do that I know) you were against that concept.

Apology accepted.

It seems I also hold an open view of things even though I never heard the term until about a year ago. On another board I was defending God being only good and a brother asked me if I believed in open theism. I had to google it to see what open theism was about. Told the brother on the other board that is sounds a lot like I believe. About 6 mo. Ago I decided to look into what is termed open theism and bought two book on it, one by Boyd and one by Sanders. Although I do not fully agree with everything they said what I believe matches up with this view far closer then any I have seen before. So for the most part you could say I also believe in an open view.

I'd never heard of it until I joined TOL. I was actually leaning toward a similar view, but still believed God was outside of time and could see all of time if He chose to. Thankfully I came here and quickly learned how illogical and un scriptural that view was.