James desired to make room for religious belief if it was pragmatic, even if the entire worldview expressed by a religion was not verifiable.[28] Religion had its practical emotional benefits.[29] As a result of James’ pragmatic philosophy, Paulsen explains that God’s omnipotence is rejected in a traditional sense,[30] but rather God’s omnipotence[31] provides the power to secure the triumph of good,[32] and not the power to bring about any logical state of affairs.[33] Within this view, God’s knowledge of the future[34] is finite and therefore not much different than that of human beings.[35] God would only have knowledge of facts and possibilities.[36] Therefore, a classic view of divine omnipotence would need to be abandoned and God would only be able to bring about a logical state of affairs that would be under constraints based on the actions of other agencies.[37] God is a morally perfect being that is working out history within time.[38] The environment God is working in includes significantly free human beings that have choices that cannot be controlled or absolutely foreknown.[39] For James, human beings and not God alone shape the future of the world.[40] He held to a view that the future was open-ended for both God and humanity. [41] God’s knowledge of the future would be incomplete as far as with what actually will occur.[42]
James’ view on omnipotence, can be considered to be somewhat subjectively based.[43] Roth does raise this legitimate criticism[44] which I do not think is completely answered by James, or by Roth of his behalf.[45] A significantly subjective view of God that assumes he is omnipotent in some way[46] and claims that this view can lead to some power to overcome evil for good for humanity[47] seems on somewhat shaky philosophical ground.[48] A critic[49] can state that there is no objective reason to believe that God, if there is one, has the actual power to rid the world of evil, as James’ view could just be a figment of the imagination and misplaced optimism based in emotionalism and a desire for a God based morally as James desired.[50]
[1] McDermott (1996: 385).
[2] John K. Roth writes that James was a dominant philosopher within James’ time.
[3] McDermott (1996: 385).
[4] McDermott (1996: 385).
[5] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4).
[6] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14).
[7] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14).
[8] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 14).
[9] The article is entitled: ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James.’
[10] Paulsen (1999: 1). The concept that God cannot change is one of immutability. God cannot change in ‘attributes, consciousness, and will’.
[11] Paulsen (1999: 1).
[12] Within the text Writings 1902 – 1910.
[13] I strongly doubt that God as a spiritual being, could ever be proven empirically and physically to exist. Philosophical attempts, in general terms, at proving God’s existence will be discussed briefly in Chapter Four.
[14] James (1902-1910)(1987: 394).
[15] Paulsen (1999: 1). This makes sense since James was one of the founders of pragmatism. McDermott (1996: 385). According to Norman Geisler, James doubted that rational proofs for God’s existence were psychologically convincing as human beings had needs that went beyond the rational. Geisler (1975: 88).
[16] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400).
[17] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). They have no relevance to any vital human concern. Paulsen (1999: 4). James tested the ‘fruits of religious life’ by examining how they contributed to the development of ideal human communities. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 3-4).
[18] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400).
[19] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). Philosophy at times obscures God’s nature and the divine relationship with humanity. Paulsen (1999: 4).
[20] James (1902-1910)(1987: 400). For James the source of religious experience is not important, but rather the fruits that are produced by religious experience are important. Geisler (1975: 60). Therefore, understanding God’s attributes, and in theory God, is not vital for James as are the results within persons that have religious belief.
[21] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).
[22] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12).
[23] Paulsen (1999: 6).
[24] James provides this view within The Will to Believe (1897), which is within a textual compilation of his work entitled The Moral Philosophy of William James. James (1892-1907)(1969: 202).
[25] As would be God’s traditional theories of omnipotence to James.
[26] James (1892-1907)(1969: 202).
[27] James (1892-1907)(1969: 202). Roth admits that James’ theory may seem to reduce truth to subjective opinion. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15). James deals with this criticism by noting truth must be pragmatic as in being expedient, useful and workable over the long haul and in overall terms. Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15).
[28] Blackburn (1996: 201).
[29] Blackburn (1996: 201).
[30] Paulsen (1999: 6).
[31] More so the human idea of God’s omnipotence is meant here.
[32] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).
[33] Paulsen (1999: 6).
[34] Foreknowledge which will discussed throughout the thesis, including by Augustine in Chapter Two.
[35] Paulsen (1999: 9).
[36] Paulsen (1999: 9). I would suggest even if God was finite, his knowledge based on intelligence and years of existence would provide him with better understanding of possible situations in comparison to his creations.
[37] Paulsen (1999: 9).
[38] Paulsen (1999: 9). God works through time and completes his plans, including a plan of salvation.
[39] Paulsen (1999: 9).
[40] Paulsen (1999: 9). Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12).
[41] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12).
[42] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 12). Within The Will to Believe, James explain that there was an ‘endless chain of causes’ in reality but God was the ‘absolute first cause’. James (1892-1907)(1969: 203). For James, there would be many causes within the endless chain not in God’s absolute control.
[43] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15).
[44] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15).
[45] Roth (1892-1907)(1969: 15-16).
[46] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).
[47] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).
[48] I am not stating that there are not human subjective aspects to understanding God’s omnipotence, but that the objective understanding of this concept is still important.
[49] Atheistic or theistic.
[50] James (1902-1910)(1987: 401).
---
GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1975) Philosophy of Religion, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1978) The Roots of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.
GEISLER, NORMAN L. (1996) ‘Freedom, Free Will, and Determinism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.),Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
GEISLER, NORMAN, L (1999) ‘The Problem of Evil’, in Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1892-1907)(1969) The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1893)(2004) William James and a Science of Religions, Wayne Proudfoot (ed.), Columbia University Press, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1902-1910)(1987) Writings 1902 – 1910, The Library of America, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1902)(2002) The Varieties of Religious Experience, Prometheus Books, Amherst, New York.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1904) ‘Does ‘Consciousness’ Exist?’, in Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, and Scientific Methods, Volume 1, pages 477-491. New York, Columbia University.
JAMES, WILLIAM (1907) Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Longman and Green Company, New York.
MCDERMOTT, JOHN J. (1996) ‘James, William’ in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
PAULSON, DAVID (1999) ‘The God of Abraham, Isaac, and (William) James’, in The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 13.2, University Park, Pennsylvania, Penn State University Press.
POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.
ROTH, JOHN K. ‘Introduction’ (1892-1907)(1969) in The Moral Philosophy of William James, John K. Roth (ed.), Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York.
ROTH, JOHN K. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press.
---
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter
Saturday, September 19, 2020: PhD Full Version PDF: Theodicy and Practical Theology 2010, Wales TSD
"James rejected the God of orthodox theology because this being lacked significant practical meaning."
ReplyDelete"James examines many of God’s supposed attributes as distinguished from his moral qualities,[18] and seriously questions how ‘such qualities as these make any definite connection with our life?"
"For James, human beings and not God alone shape the future of the world"
These are just a few of the many quotes I could have pulled out to show how little James understood the Bible. I was never impressed with his philosophical thinking; as for his theological and biblical understanding...forget about it. James is a classic example of the person who comes to the Scripture with a materialitic presupposition and then ports biblical testimony through that grid.
MEH!
I love the genie cartoon. "Impotent" is what these materialistic philosophers are.
GGM
'James is a classic example of the person who comes to the Scripture with a materialitic presupposition and then ports biblical testimony through that grid.'
ReplyDeleteMany of these critics do not let God speak in context in Scripture.
How pragmatic is a finite God when it fails to explain a required/necessary first cause that would be prior to and beyond finite matter and time?
An infinite God would exist prior to the finite one.
The finite God is a more problematic philosophical problem than the infinite one.
The cartoon...good one, GGM.
Cheers.
Hey Russ,
ReplyDeleteI must of overlooked this one for some reason. i am going to have to check my blogroll. I am sure you updated it and i just didn't realize it. How can a person think of themselves as philosophical if they look at things materialitic. This James seems confused to me
Great cartoon.. poor guy!
Thanks, Tamela.
ReplyDelete1. I started writing the article on June 3, 2009. Blogger publishes the article the day the article began. I do not like it, but that is how it is.:)
2. Seconds ago I changed the published date to today. I did not realize this could be done prior to today. This is good news!:)
3. James had some decent ideas but sadly was another philosopher that would not trust God's word in context.
4. The cartoon is cool.
That's a big fish...
ReplyDeleteChucky, have you ever done ocean fishing?
ReplyDeleteI have, but I get sea sick.
Nope, never done ocean fishing.
ReplyDeleteNever caught myself a fish either.
I guess I don't have much talent for catching things, except colds in winter.
Thanks, Sir Chuck.
ReplyDeleteThe truth be told I enjoy going out on the ocean in theory, that is until I become sea sick.
I would need some kind of sickness prevention.
I placed this as my Facebook status and someone commented that Bettman was basically more responsible for his actions than the League. I somewhat disagreed.
Facebook status:
Funny how Mr. Bettman is even booed in Detroit. I personally reason he is a pleasant man, probably nice to have dinner with etc., but he works for a League on the wrong philosophical side of too many issues, that is spending too much time trying to impress non-hockey fans. Good final though.
Comment:
I agree he has some of the input, but with this Hamilton thing for example, it is documented over the web the Leafs and League have a lot of pull.
The NHL's bad philosophy reminds me of the dogmatism of some religious movements. I am a theologian completing my PhD. Similar type errors are made. Those in power do not listen well and do not think objectively well enough. They are too concerned with potential dollars over philosophical and cultural issues.
It is not primarily a Canada versus USA issue. It is difficult to very successfully grow a game in areas where the sport is nowhere near the most popular as even if it grows the more traditional sports are also growing and therefore hockey stays in the background.
The result?
Non-hockey market clubs tend not to be very successful unless they win a cup like Anaheim, Dallas, and Carolina, and are in a huge metropolitan markets like Greater Los Angeles or the San Francisco Bay area.
As Bob McCown has stated, one should not place a team in a city if it is only going to be successful if it wins championships.
I am a philosophical theologian. Philosophically there is no such thing as a best sport or most exciting sport, contrary to what many in the League like to state.
There is also no best or most exciting colour.
Hockey may be the fastest sport of the 'big four', but it is not as fast as car racing or horse racing, and I reason the speed of hockey does not make it the most exciting sport.
That genie cartoon is funny.
ReplyDeleteJeff,
ReplyDeleteI am neither omnipotent (obviously) nor impotent (I assume).:)
Cheers.
Russ, you only just realized that you can change the publish date for your article? I used to write articles and set the date to publish them as much as a month in advance, when I was putting out daily articles.
ReplyDeleteMy dad used to take us fishing every weekend to the Florida Keys when we were little. I've never cared much for fishing, but my dad used to love it. Mostly I have fished from land, though I have tried it from a boat once or twice, and I've never been deep-sea fishing, because that is expensive and is usually an all-day event. I always preferred snorkeling and also canoeing or kayaking, both in the ocean (salt water) and in fresh water (not snorkeling in fresh water, though, because snorkeling in lakes, canals or rivers is boring to me; there are no colorful corals or seaweed or reefs or underwater caves, and not nearly as many fish, or as colorful). I've also been sailing on a one-man sailboat.
I've been snorkeling twice with sharks. One was a 4 ft. nurse shark that was sleeping inside a tire, and the other was a 5 ft. hammerhead shark that was stunned from just being clubbed.
Another time we saw two large fins skimming the water, and some people thought they were 6 ft. sharks. I jumped in with my snorkeling gear to check it out, and found out they were just large tarpon.
I had a 3 ft. barracuda follow me for quite a ways; and I had a tiny but very colorful clown fish swim back and forth across my mask like an annoying fly for about 2 miles while I was snorkeling. I was also bitten in the back by a needle fish; stung by jelly fish; nibbled on in the bathing suit area by large angel fish that I was feeding by hand; and almost bitten by a large moray eel who shot out of a hole at me with his mouth wide open, while I was lobster hunting. I once went in an underwater cave, and there were hundreds of fairly-large, very colorful fish swimming all around me, of various types.
Now I just sit at the computer all day.
'Russ, you only just realized that you can change the publish date for your article? I used to write articles and set the date to publish them as much as a month in advance, when I was putting out daily articles.'
ReplyDeleteYes. I knew I could pre-publish but did not know I could change the date after published. What a dummy I was...but not a wax dummy.
You are just fortunate that there are not tons of 'water spiders' because I reason you would likely have had an incident.
water spiders
You are just fortunate that there are not tons of 'water spiders' because I reason you would likely have an incident.
ReplyDeleteYes, my spider encounters have been far too numerous, but I'm glad that, among all the events mentioned in my previous self-absorbed, narcissistic narration about my past nautical experiences, there were no spiders involved. However, just a few days ago, I encountered the largest spider I've seen at my house yet, in my garage. And just today, there was a huge moth, with a wing span possibly bigger than the palm of your hand, with brown-and-yellow Autumn-colored wings and a body almost as thick as your thumb, on my screen door, the likes of which I've never seen before, with a huge Black Widow spider just 2 inches from him. One wing of the huge moth was actually touching the Black Widow's web.
Sir, as I have told you before...
ReplyDeleteEXTERMINATOR
Just pretend he is a super hero that has come to visit you.
Cheers.:)
Sir, as I have told you before...
ReplyDeleteEXTERMINATOR
Just pretend he is a super hero that has come to visit you.
LMHO!
Yeah, but then I wouldn't have anything to talk about!
LOL that GGM and Tamela are the only ones that have addressed the actual article content.
ReplyDeleteI keep forgetting that this is not S&T.
Ah, well, this is Saturday night...
I am looking for quality theological content and humour and so I am pleased with the comments.:)
ReplyDeleteHi Russ i am glad to be back here tonite though i am pretty tired!! :) God is just soo awesome...isn't He!! I am glad James was born for this purpose to show the attributes of God...i am glad to know each of us have a purpose in this world at this time to show the glorious character of God!! :) Hey Russ that big fishy looks like he is about to have some fun & maybe some lunch!! :) He he..love the genie joke!! :) Hawaii oh i do want to go there!! If i could only go one place outside of Canada it would be Hawaii for sure!! :) Maybe one day God-willing!! :)
ReplyDeleteThanks, Sherry!
ReplyDeleteWell, James believed in a finite God, but yes by discussing the issue we can discuss the infinite nature of God.
Sherry, it would be funny if in Hawaii while in the ocean a shark bumped into Anj and scared her and she then screamed.
Russ;)
Congrats to NHL, Leafs and Bettman...why I am not a fan. Next, KC and perhaps Vegas get teams?
ReplyDelete'It's(supposedly)good for the game'
Hawaii is a beautiful place and in my opinion an incredible getaway from the mundane. I encourage you to go there Russ, the beautiful scenery is breathtaking and truly memorable!
ReplyDelete-Rock-a-Hula-
Yes, incredibly, Hawaii is a place far far away that you have been to that I have not.
ReplyDeleteGolly, thanks.:)
Bettman and the league have their heads up their asses- i heard Phoenix has lost $360 Million
ReplyDeletesince moving in and will not admit they screwed up. sure they'll move Canadian teams stateside
no probs but shifting a losing American team North? NO WAY! how stupid do they think we are?
Not so anonymous Zombie
Excellent points, Sir Zombie.
ReplyDeleteI gather Hamilton will never get in the NHL, as they cannot get in by simply applying for expansion or relocation and cannot get in by legal means. On the make it seven site they are not giving up, but I think they are basically done.
I have also heard that it is likely that the NHL and perhaps all North American sports leagues other than maybe the NFL will not expand past 32 teams. For the NHL, Kansas City may be a pretty good franchise as is Saint Louis also in Missouri and KC has an 18,000 seat arena. Las Vegas is also mentioned but they have no NHL size arena. These two potential sites have been mentioned repeatedly.
Winnipeg has an at least perceived by many undersized arena of 15,000 plus seats. Quebec has no NHL ready arena, and there is no serious talk of putting a second team in Montreal that does not have a second NHL ready arena. Seattle, Portland and Hartford could do fairly well, but I know Seattle and Hartford, at least, would need new arenas.
Many in the media now seem to think it a slam dunk that Toronto 2 will soon exist, but I am not convinced at all.
There is a good chance the NHL will end up for decades with a 26-6 ratio American to Canadian teams.
Pittsburgh-Detroit is a good finals match-up and did well in Canadian television ratings, but I reason by not having more successful Canadian teams winning the Stanley Cup the League is alienating many fans at times in this country.
In my case I am an alienated ex-fan.
Gee, and have we been to an NHL game together recently Sir Z? No. What are we going to see next month?
European Soccer in Vancouver...gee an imperfectly run sport as well, but a sport with a hell of lot more sense than the NHL has demonstrated.
Cheers.
If that gas-powered La-Z-Boy came with a TV in front of it, a beer holder (not that I drink beer), a little fridge on the side, and the seat was also a toilet, it would be perfect ('Tim the Tool Man Taylor' would build it). Of course, if it had all that, there might not be any reason for it to go anywhere.
ReplyDeleteA toilet would make it funnier and more gross.;)
ReplyDeleteCheers, Jeff.
The Monty Python one is funny because, A friend of mine was just telling me today, they have now made a board game based on it, and he wants to buy it.
ReplyDeleteThe Lay-z-boy, Wow That is lazy. Cool they can create it, but still lazy.
A Monty Python and the Holy Grail board game or any Monty Python board game could be fascinating.
ReplyDeleteRuss:)
Gas-powered La-Z-Boy:
ReplyDeleteFor the couch potato who needs to go to the store to get more potato chips, but doesn't want to leave the comfort of his recliner.
That is lazy.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if Benny Hill ever rode in a Gas-powered La-Z-Boy on his TV show? He could chase after women without ever leaving his chair.
ReplyDeleteGood point.
ReplyDeleteI like a minority of Benny Hill, but the phoney medical doctor/hospital scene is classic. I would not dare post it on my blogs although I did link it in satire and theology comments previously.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteI was previously strongly agreeing with everything the Pastor of the Independent Baptist Church that I've been attending lately preached. Unfortunately, during the past couple weeks, I have disagreed with a couple of the things he has been preaching. Last week, he began preaching that we should look for, and pray for, a fresh Pentecost experience to come upon believers. He implied that we should ask God for miracles such as people being healed by a Christian's shadow, such as happened in Acts. His desire seems to be to want to see Christians imbued with power from on high. Personally, I believe that when God's people, the Israelites, were first getting started, God validated (and protected) them by using huge miracles such as the plagues against Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea, the cloud by day and pillar of fire by night, etc. Similarly, when He was first starting His church, in the New Testament, He validated this new thing by tongues of flames over their heads, making them immune to snake bites, people being healed from the shadows of the apostles, etc. But I believe God only did those things with the apostles (including Paul). So, I think that, to look for that to be repeated, is a faulty understanding.
From my own personal experience (backed up by my research), I believe that a person is indwelt by the Holy Spirit when they are saved. I also believe that a person is anointed by the Holy Spirit when they are saved. But I believe the filling of the Holy Spirit is a separate event (though it may happen at salvation as well), and, unlike the indwelling, is not a one-time thing. Some Christians believe that the filling of the Holy Spirit comes by asking God for it. From my experience (and study), I believe it occurs not from asking for it, but from spending intimate, personal, close time with God, in His Word, in prayer, and praising and worshiping Him. I've also experienced it happening when we are in the midst of serving him (I've experienced it while serving in a jail ministry, while witnessing to others, etc.) However, I don't think spending time in God's Word, or in prayer, or singing praises to Him, guarantees that we will be filled with the Holy Spirit. Jesus said the Holy Spirit is like the wind; you never know how or where He moves. But I think that taking out large chunks of personal alone-time to really praise and worship God, to spend quality and quantity time reading and studying His Word, and to really pour out our heart and soul to Him in deep, sincere, heart-felt prayers, is the best way, IMO, to seek to be filled with the Holy Spirit. And I think that's where the power comes from. Because, when we are filled with the Holy Spirit, we are completely under the control of God, and, at least in my experience, we are filled with otherworldly joy and otherworldly peace, and we have His wisdom. I've also experienced the fact that, as soon as we sin, the Spirit is quenched, and from that moment, we are no longer filled with the Holy Spirit. So then we have to get back into fellowship with God (1 John 1:9) and start spending time with Him again, in order to be seek to be filled to the maximum by Him once again.
Russ,
ReplyDeleteAnother thing my Pastor preached on tonight had to do with Election. First, he began pointing out John 17, verses 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, 12 and 24, where Jesus prays to the Father and says such things as "that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given me," "thou gavest them me," and "them which thou hast given me." He pointed out, using these verses, that believers are a gift which the Father has given to the Son (I learned this in BSF years ago, so I fully agree with that).
Then he mentioned Election, and I thought, "Cool! He believes in Election!" But then, he mentioned Rev. 3:5 (and a few others, but I forget the references) that talk about not blotting out their names from the Lamb's Book of Life. He used those verses to say that everyone's name was written in the Lamb's Book of Life before the beginning of time, but the unsaved have had their names blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life, because God knew beforehand that they would not accept Christ.
Now, my Pastor does not believe that you can lose your salvation. He said those whose names were blotted out were not the saved, but the lost.
However, I see multiple problems with this, including:
-If God knew their names would be blotted out, then why did He write them in there in the first place?
-He did mention that Ephesians talks about Election, but I think that a careful study of Romans would show him wrong.
-Although he said that salvation has nothing to do with us, blotting out names because they did not accept Christ certainly does mean that it has to do with us and our free will choices. Not only that, but if names can be blotted out from the Lamb's Book of Life, then there is nothing to say that more names cannot be blotted out, which means there is no security for the believer. (And he does believe in the security of the believer.)
Russ, my main question to you is, what is your take on Rev. 3:5 and similar verses that talk about names being blotted out of the Book of Life?
Hi Jeff,
ReplyDeletentgreek
In bold:
ἐξαλείψω
The translation I will not 'blot' out is from the King James Version. It translated as will not 'blot' out in my Greek interlinear.
My NASB has it as I will not 'erase'.
From:
New Testament Greek Exegesis, Copyright © 2003
BTE - The Bible Translation & Exegesis Institute of America
bt
It did not translate correctly to this blog (format!) so the word can be seen on the paged linked. The link has the same exact word as previous link and also my 'The Interlinear KJV-NIV' and also my 'The Greek New Testament'.
Strong's Concordance (1986) translates as to smear out, obliterate (earse tears, fig. pardon sin), blot out, wipe away. p. 37.
Mounce in his Revelation (1990) commentary explains Walvoord thinks that one cannot lose salvation and that the text does not explicitly state that one will have name blotted out. p 113. Caird, on the other hand reasons there is conditional predestination. p. 113. Mounce takes no stand here...let the text speak. p. 114.
To me the Greek text is stating that God will not blot out the name of one that overcomes in Christ.
All who are elected will have to overcome, to various extents in order to eventually die as saved.
I do not see here a serious challenge to a Reformed position on election/God's choice.
Tough issue though.
Thanks, Russ, for that insight, especially with the Greek.
ReplyDeleteI found this as well:
The Book of Life and Eternal Security
'In summary: Revelation 22:19 does not mean that one who actually possesses a part in the book of life and the New Jerusalem loses it; it means that one who is offered such a part, who has it prospectively, may lose it by rejecting Christ and, instead of repenting and believing the gospel, corrupting the Scriptures and rejecting their teachings.'
ReplyDeleteYes, this may be presented from a human perspective. As we offer the gospel to all hypothetically and prospectively.
It may also be according to Mounce from the perspective of those scholars that reason one cannot lose salvation, a serious warning of the consequences for one that tampers with God's word. p. 396.
Basically, as with related passages, it may be discussing reward and works in grace, as opposed to salvation.
Cheers, Jeff.