Contributed by Richard Coords of examiningcalvinism.com
Revelation 13:8 (see also Matthew 25:34)
“All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain.”
Calvinist, John MacArthur, comments: “Seven times in the New Testament, believers are identified as those whose names are written in the book of life (cf. 3:5; 17:8; 20:12, 15; 21:27; Phil 4:3). The book of life belonging to the Lamb, the Lord Jesus, is the registry in which God inscribed the names of those chosen for salvation before the foundation of the world. (This phrase is used as a synonym for eternity past in 17:8; Matt. 13:35; 25:34; Luke 11:50; Eph. 1:4; Heb. 9:26; 1 Pet. 1:20; cf. 2 Thess. 2:13; and 2 Tim. 1:9.) … Believers are doubly secure, because the book of life belongs to the Lamb who has been slain. Not only the decree of election, but also the atoning work of Christ seals the redemption of the elect forever.” (The MacArthur New Testament Commentary: Revelation 1-11, p.50, emphasis mine)
Thus, the Calvinistic paraphrase of Revelation 13:8, and some other passages, is to change the word “from” to the word “before,” but clearly those carry two very distinct meanings. MacArthur similarly comments on Matthew 25:34:
“The Lord designed His kingdom from before the foundation of the world and He designed who would be in it from before the foundation of the world.” (Understanding Election, emphasis mine)
Another verse that demonstrates this point is Matthews 19:8: “He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.’” Evidently, “from” the beginning does not mean before the beginning, but from Genesis.
NOTICE: All statements where “before the foundation of the world” is used, is given with reference to Christ. (John 17:24; Ephesians 1:4; 1 Peter 1:20)
All statements where “from the foundation of the world” is used, is given with reference to man, moving us from a point of reference forward. (Matthew 25:34; Luke 11:50; Revelation 13:8)
Question: What does “from the foundation of the world” mean, and what is the impact of adding “before” the foundation of the world?
Answer: Before the foundation of the world indicates before Genesis, whereas from the foundation of the world indicates from Genesis to present. Therefore, it is incorrect to equate “written from the foundation of the world” with “written [before] the foundation of the world.” Luke 11:49-51 states: “‘For this reason also the wisdom of God said, “I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute, so that the blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation.”’” If you similarly inserted “before” [Greek: pro] then you would have to conclude that the prophets were martyred before they were born. Therefore, it’s reasonable to conclude that the names that were written into the Lamb’s Book of Life (which are said to be “written from the foundation of the world”) were written as people became Christians.
John MacArthur, along with many other Calvinists, have altered the biblical text of “from the foundation of the world,” and made it “before the foundation of the world.” The King James Version reads: “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.”
Question: Why does the Calvinistic leaning English Standard Version [ESV] translate Revelation 13:8 as “before” the foundation of the world, instead of “from” the foundation of the world?
Answer: Unknown. We have to suspect that the Calvinistic led committee felt it better supported their soteriological worldview to translated the greek word “apo” as “before” instead of as “from.”
The Greek word apo = since or from.
The Greek word pro = before.
The Greek word apo is used in Matthew 13:35, 25:34; Luke 11:50; Hebrews 4:3, 9:26; and Revelation 13:8, 17:8.
The Calvinist translation [ESV] seems to be erroneous at Revelation 13:8, as it mistranslated apo as “before.” What’s telling is that in the parallel verses of Revelation 13:8 and Revelation 17:8 (in which apo is used in the same exact way), the ESV properly translates apo at Revelation 17:8 as “from,” but improperly translates apo at Revelation 13:8 as “before.”
Indeed, the “Lamb” is “before the foundation of the world” [as per 1st Peter 1:20], but at Revelation 13:8, “from the foundation of the world” is not modifying the Lamb, but modifying the writing of the names.
When used of time, apo can only mean “from” in the sense of “since”, i.e., the point identified is the beginning point of the period in view. <link>
Richard’s article clearly spells out the differences between Traditionalists and Calvinists, but I also wanted to draw our attention to the problem within the ranks of Calvinism. If you have studied anything about the lapsarian controversy you will recognize right away that interpreting the passages about the Lamb’s Book of Life as being completed BEFORE the foundation of the world would necessitate a high supralapsarian position, which has typically been rejected by mainstream Calvinists (see this LINK).
I would be interested to explore how a Calvinist who is not a supralapsarian would maintain their perspective of the Lamb’s Book of Life being completed by God unconditionally before the foundation of the world.
Thanks Robert.
1. I’m not sure what you mean “Calvin’s view”. Have you since informed yourself of his position on everything?
2. Rarely are people saved in a vacuum (yes there are the cases of the hotel Bible and dreams and vision in the Muslim world). Usually people come to Christ in a context. Mine was in a conservative (non-Calvinistic) Evangelical environment and I later lunged into Calvinism on the wave in the late 70’s like Piper and MacArthur (Calvinist Bible school, Reformed books, etc). AFTER reading the Bible through every year for years did I come OUT of Calvinism. I invite you to read these many pages and see the hundreds of verses and passages that led me out.
3. Ha! It’s not only Calvinists that believe in OSAS (eternal security). So, certainly that cannot be used a Calvin-o-meter.
4. Hummmm…. maybe it’s just me….but I did not quite understand this: “For a while I defended Calvinism, but somewhere along the road I realized that there is a right position, and a wrong position, and you can’t be both, there is also “a saved position”. I no longer consider right or wrong…”
I look forward to hearing some clarification.
Yet still the issue involves God’s foreknowledge of those who will believe
Welcome Joe! Here’s my take on foreknowledge – Verses – future is not completely set in God’s foreknowledge.
Genesis 2:19 NKJV — Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam 👉to see👈 what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name.
Exodus 33:5 NKJV — For the LORD had said to Moses, “Say to the children of Israel, ‘You are a stiff-necked people. I could come up into your midst in one moment and consume you. Now therefore, take off your ornaments, 👉that I may know👈 what to do to you.’ ”
Jeremiah 18:11 NKJV — “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the LORD: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and 👉devising a plan👈 against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” ’ ”
Matthew 24:20 NKJV — “And 👉pray that your flight may not be in winter👈 or on the Sabbath.”
Matthew 26:39 NKJV — He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, 👉if it is possible👈, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”
God’s mind conforms univocally with what He has revealed in His Word. It’s not locked in right now to seeing everything as “will be” or “is”. God’s foreknowledge is dynamic and includes also the truth about what “might be” or “might not be”. This is called – dynamic omniscience.
1. Was God waiting to see what Adam would call the animals, to know what they would be called?
2. Was God waiting to see if Israel would take off their ornaments to know what He would do next?
3. Was God saying He was devising a plan which means making decisions in His mind not made before about the future.
4. Did Jesus affirm the disciples’ prayer could effect the setting of the date of Jerusalem’s fall, indicating Jesus’ believed it might not yet be set?
5. Did Jesus pray about possible changes that could be made in God’s will because He knew such changes were indeed possible?
The answer is an obvious “yes” to all those questions which are based on the clear meaning of those texts. If anyone thinks those texts don’t clearly show those self evident implications it must be because they are biased against the idea of the future being able to work out more than one way.
********
The underlying issue in foreknowledge is if one is willing to believe that there are truly changes taking place in God’s mind in His knowing a “before” that then becomes known as an “after” and a “might be” that then becomes known as either a “will be” or a “could have been”.
Calvinism rejects that such change in God’s mind exists before or after creation. Arminianism rejects that the idea of “before” creation means “before” and illogically accepts that changes in God’s mind exist and don’t exist at the same time. Molinism believes logically that some kind of change existed in God’s mind before creation but which cannot happen now after creation.
Only Dynamic Omniscience offers the idea that God’s mind corresponds with the truth and sequence revealed in His Word univocally. An event declared as “will be” was known only as “will be” in His mind. Once it happened, it became known as “fulfilled”. Those declared as “might be” are only known as “might be”. He will freely choose to cause or permit one “might be” to change in His mind to a “will be” and another “might be” into a “won’t be/could have been”.
The idea the future is limited to and locked in to working out only one way is a falsehood… or that changes happening in God’s mind is imperfection is also a falsehood. God’s Word counters clearly those falsehoods. And God’s mind cannot believe falsehoods as truths.
Brian,
Of course you list SOME, but not ALL of the verses:
Genesis 22:12 (even in the Calvinists ESV) says:
He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for ***now I know*** that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.”
And further down:
“By myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and as the sand that is on the seashore.”
That certainly looks like cause-and-effect and not “all planned out and predetermined”! If God is NOT allowing for cause and effect, He is doing a good job of tricking us with the words in the Word.
Yes, FOM, that verse, Gen 22:12 is a favorite among many of those who believe in dynamic omniscience. Here is my view on that one. Genesis 22:12 (NKJV) …for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
I don’t hold to Gen 22:12 as pointing to God learning the factual knowledge of Abraham’s fear of Him, for God would have had sufficient evidence of that fear of Him in Abraham from before. But I would agree with the premise that God was talking about learning an experiential knowledge of Abraham’s fear of Him, that God “now” came to have. (AMG, Nelson Study, Barnes, Calvin, Lange, Trapp.)
And I do believe that God’s factual knowledge did change from knowing what was previously only a possibility/probability of Abraham sacrificing Isaac to knowing when it became certain Abraham would sacrifice, which was probably right after He commanded Abraham, when He saw Abraham makeup his mind to do it. Then God came to know factually, after He stopped Abraham, that the sacrifice of Isaac was now a past counterfactual, that could have happened, but didn’t.
br.d
Hello Joe and welcome
.
In Calvinism – divine foreknowledge deviates from the orthodox position.
The orthodox position of divine omniscience is that it is an ESSENTIAL attribute
Which means there is not point at which it is lacking.
.
Calvin’s god does not have foreknowledge of what [X] will be – until after he determines what [X] will infallibly be.
So prior to the decree – there is a point in which foreknowledge of what [X] will be is lacking
.
John Calvin explains
-quote
He foresees future events *ONLY IN CONSEQUENCE* of his decree (Institutes 3.23.6)
.
Calvinist Tom Hicks – Founders Ministry
-quote
God cannot know what something will be *UNTIL HE FIRST DECREED* what it will be.
.
Calvinist Paul Helms
-quote
His foreknowledge is simply his knowledge of what he *HAS* decreed.
(Divine Foreknowledge – Four Views pg 12)
.
This kind of knowledge is classified as A-POSTERIORI (knowledge after the fact)
What about the portion of the verse that says all who dwell on earth will worship him? It doesn’t make sense to assume those that had died from the foundation of the world will worship him right?
Right Regan, The angel was telling John that all present on earth, whose names are not written in the book, living at the time of the Antichrist, will worship him. But the verse is not confirming names were in the book at the dawn of creation.
Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Everyone dies in THIS life, so I still fail to see your point of view regarding ONE word…BLOT. If everyone dies, but God states “I will NOT BLOT…”, I see a conundrum in your philosophy regarding the words “NOT BLOT”.
Ed Chapman
Revelation 3:5
He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
Take the verse another way…what it states is:
The UNRIGHTEOUS will have their names blotted out…and it’s not discussing THIS LIFE, becasue everyone dies.
And since the UNRIGHEOUS will be blotted out, there is only ONE conclusion, in that their names were written in that book, in order to be blotted out. And from even that, there is only one conclusion. Everyone’s name was written in that book from the foundation of the earth. That book is about eternal life, not this present carnal life.
You can’t blot out the unrighteous unless they were first written in at some point. And that point would be, just as all the verses indicate, at the foundation of the world/earth, whatever you want to call this spinning ball we live on.
You have two problems with your philosophy, Brian. One, if you think that the book of life is about the present living, everyone dies, so that goes against NOT BLOT.
On the other hand, if you think that the book is about eternal life, you can’t blot what doesn’t exist, and that goes against your “eternal security” philosophy, as well, if it can be blotted out.
You might want to re-think this one out more, Brian. Just say’in!
Ed Chapman
Read closely Ed… “whose names have not been written in the book of life”. 13:8, 17:8. That precludes the possibility of being written and then blotted out. Right?
Brian,
If they are BLOTTED out, then their names are not written in the book of life. So that doesn’t solve the problem. The verse does not say that they were never written. Therefore, you still have a problem with the word “BLOT”
What else is blotted out?
The Old Covenant
Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Sin:
Acts 3:19
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
Which goes with:
Revelation 20:12
And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: … and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
For the righteous, sins were written, but blotted out, but for the unrighteous, sins are NOT blotted out.
Our sins are not written in the book! Why? Not because they were never written in the first place, but because they were blotted out.
Ed Chapman
Two books of life, Ed… one of spiritual life and one of physical life. The phrase “have not been written” does mean “never yet have they been written”.
So, that brings me back to my previous comment from last night…
Everyone dies in THIS life, so I still fail to see your point of view regarding ONE word…BLOT. If everyone dies, but God states “I will NOT BLOT…”, I see a conundrum in your philosophy regarding the words “NOT BLOT”.
The UNRIGHTEOUS will have their names blotted out…and it’s not discussing THIS LIFE, becasue everyone dies.
You can’t blot out the unrighteous unless they were first written in at some point.
In short, you are consentrating on the word “written”, while I’m concentrating on the words “not blot”, or just “blot”. That indicates an eraser of something already written.
Ed Chapman
In short, you still haven’t learned how to listen and learn and admit when you’re wrong… and that’s why I don’t continue conversations with you.
That could be because I’m not wrong. You are confusing books, for one. You can discontinue this conversation. No problem. But I will not admit defeat, since God states “NOT BLOT”.
If the book being discussed is in regards to PHYSICAL LIFE, then NOT BLOT makes NO SENSE, because everyone’s name is blotted out at physical death. So, we can conclude that God isn’t talking about the book of Physical Life here.
If the book being discussed is in regards to SPIRITUAL LIFE, then NOT BLOT would also make no sense in your theology of eternal security, because what NOT BLOT is indicating is that names can indeed be blotted out of the SPIRITUAL BOOK of LIfe, and you don’t believe that. But in order for names to be blotted out of the SPIRITUAL LIFE book, they must have first been written in.
You can’t blot out something that never existed.
I will not admit defeat!
Ed Chapman
Ed, you need to learn that God does indeed make unconditional promises to His children!
Brian,
I’m not a Provisionist, Calvinist, or a Baptist. I don’t believe in that. The promises are NOT unconditional. The promises are based on YOU having FAITH in the promise, and LIVING that faith. If you lose that faith, you lose the promise.
The Bible is FULL of those warnings, and many who have commented on this blog site have even so stated…to you…but they all get brushed aside by you.
You are the Grammar expert, and the sentence clearly states, “NOT BLOT”, not discussing the here and now life, and included the word BUT. But, is a key word. It separates NOT BLOT to Jesus CONFESSING YOUR NAME TO THE FATHER. The unrighteous from the righteous, clearly showing that the unrighteous are blotted out, and they can’t be blotted out unless they had first been written in. You should be able to figure that out, as a grammar expert.
This is not hyperbole.
Ed Chapman
Ed, yes, the grammar gives no indication of a warning in Rev 3:5, but a clear promise. Once you understand God’s salvation includes unconditional promises, you’ll understand the gospel much better. It’s God’s salvation! It’s not about you keeping yourself saved.
I’ve nothing more to add. Don’t expect more from me in this thread. I wish you the best.
Brian,
I want you to focus on the GRAMMAR of the sentence, instead of SPECULATING about unconditional promises. Focus on the grammar. Focus on the structure of the sentence. What you are trying to do is VOID the sentence based on your unsubstantiated beliefs of UNCONDITIONAL promises.
So what you are saying is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a Christian to BREAK the New Covenant. Void the contract. NO FREE WILL. He’s STUCK. He can’t get out.
Are you sure that you are not a Calvinist?
The promises were ALWAYS conditioned on YOUR faith. It will sure be nice if YOU knew that.
You should do an article regarding why you believe what you believe. It would be interesting. And trust me, I’d pick it a part, because I separate Jews from Gentiles. Jesus for Jews (Gospels, most notably, the book of John), Paul for Gentiles. Romans chapter 15.
Ed Chapman
Brian,
You had stated:
“the grammar gives no indication of a warning in Rev 3:5”
My response:
I beg to differ. As soon as he said “NOT BLOT”, that is a warning TO THOSE to whom their names will be blotted out, that Jesus will NOT confess their names to the father.
There is TWO sides of the COIN being told in Rev 3:5.
Ed Chapman
KJV Bible says …
“According as he hath chosen us in him ‘before’ the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:” Ephesians 1:4 (this is talking about us)
It also says…
“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you ‘from’ the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth.” 2 Thessalonians 2:13
“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. Revelation 13:8 (this is talking about Jesus)
So why is Macarthur wrong in teaching that we were chosen in Him ‘before’ the foundation of the world, when this is the clear teaching in Ephesians?
This statement is false> “John MacArthur, along with many other Calvinists, have altered the biblical text of “from the foundation of the world,” and made it “before the foundation of the world.” “We have to suspect that the Calvinistic led committee felt it better supported their soteriological worldview to translated the greek word “apo” as “before” instead of as “from.”
John Macarthur was not a part of the oversight committee of the translation of the ESV, nor did he make any contributions or endorsement of the translation.
This is from Johns footnote in his Macarthur study Bible NKJV “The Lord Jesus who died to purchase the salvation of those whom God had chosen was fulfilling an eternal plan. from the foundation of the world. According to God’s eternal electing process before creation the death of Christ seals the redemption forever. (cf. Acts 2:23;4:27,28).”
We have to suspect that the Greek word pro (before) in ESV was most likely used because it supports the teaching of Ephesians 1:4. Therefore the proper translation should support Ephesians 1:4 which refers to ‘before’ the foundation of the world.
Hello Danny and welcome.
Here is a question for you:
On the text that says “he hath chosen us in him ‘before’ the foundation of the world….”
.
Is there any statement anywhere by a N.T. author – to the affect that people who are NOT CURRENTLY believers – are chosen before for the foundation of the world?
Hey Danny,
You are welcome to comment here, but I will just tell you that everything you mentioned has been covered in our pages many, many times. There easy biblical answers to all that you want to bring up.
There are many former Calvinists on these pages that saw these biblical answer once they stopped reading it the way a Calvinist tells them they must read it.
Exactly!
Well said FOH!
.
The Calvinist mind is conditioned to *ADD* concepts *INTO* the text – which the text actually does not say.
.
This because obvious – when you ask a Calvinist to quote a verse
And the words he quotes for a given verse – are *NOT* in that verse
They are words he was taught by Calvinism.
.
The Calvinist does not *PHYSICALLY* alter verses within scripture.
He does not *PHYSICALLY* erase words in the text – and write over them with words Calvinism dictates.
.
But he does *ALTER* the text – nevertheless
His mind is conditioned to *ALTER* the text while he is reading it – in order to make the verse say what Calvinism needs it to say.
Danny,
We’ve been thru this debate so many times.
What you are missing is sentence STRUCTURE.
You concentrate so much about “from”, or “before”, the “foundation of the world/earth”, that you miss important key words in the sentence. Such as, “to be”, ect.
In other words…
Ephesians 1:4, you miss, “that we should be”.
That is what was “chosen”.
Next…
In 2 Thessalonians 2:13, what is missed is…”through”.
Not that someone is predestined to be saved, but that you were saved THROUGH a process. And that process is…
“sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:”.
No one is predestined to be saved, whether before, or at, the foundation of the world/earth.
Calvinists, and others, in Ephesians 1:4, put a period after the word, “world”, which changes the whole sentence structure, thereby changing the meaning.
Ed Chapman
I believe there are two books; the Book of Life, all who have or ever will live, there names are written down, and the Lambs Book of Life, those who have and will inherit eternal Life
I agree, Joe! Here’s my take – Rev 17:8 – The Lamb’s Book of Life existed “from the foundation of the world”… names were added to it “from” not “before”. See similar use of the iterative use of the perfect in the word “shed” in Luke 11:50-51.
Luk 11:50-51 NKJV – “that the blood of all the prophets which was shed from the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah who perished between the altar and the temple….” All the blood was shed (iterative perfect tense) at different times after (from) the foundation of the world.
A book is a created thing associated with creation. It did not exist before creation. The word “from” is significant and does not mean “before” but has a terminus a quo and goes forward from there.
See the idea of names being added to the Lamb’s Book of Life, which is called being “written with the righteous” in Ps 69:28 using the imperfect tense in Hebrew for the verb “written”, meaning, “not yet written”. That verse also mentions another Book of Life, the Book of the Living, which is the physical life of all humans. That Book of Life is one that names could be blotted out of it, meaning, physical death.
Psa 69:28 NKJV – Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous.
The idea of writing going on now in heaven is found in many places in the Scripture. And there is even a mention of a future event of the writing of new names.
Rev 3:12 NKJV – 12 “He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And [I will write on him] My new name.”
So the premise of names being added after the foundation of the world to the book of life of the Lamb that was slain is consistent with the context and grammar of Rev 17:8. Those in that verse never had their names added to the Lamb’s Book of Life that has existed from the foundation of the world.
Not sure how you get writing a new name on your forehead as a premise that the name was added to the book of life.
By the way…Psa 69:28 NKJV – Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, And not be written with the righteous.
Are babies born lost? No. Original Sin Doctrine states YES.
So, original sin states hell. I’ve seen the mental gymnastics about mercy, etc. But they really don’t know, and playing a guessing game.
But subtract original sin from the conversations, and the default for a baby is heaven.
At what point is that name added?
The words themselves are inconsequential to the meaning of the passage. What I mean is… “‘Before’ the foundation of the world” indicates that ALL the names are written within the mind of God in His book of life totally independent of human existence or activity; the same meaning comes from “‘From’ the foundation of the world. “From” indicates ALL the names were written from when the earths foundation was created, again prior to humanities existence or activity. The real issue here is: what does “foundations of the world” mean? Is it literal creation or is it referring to the foundation as in the conception of creation within the eternal mind of God? I’m hard pressed to lake it literal as in the creation account because of similar uses of the phrase or idea of “foundation”. For example, 1 Samuel 2:8b “For the pillars of the earth are the LORDs, and on them he has set the world.” Pillar is synonymous with foundation. That said, the earth isn’t literally on pillars. Rather, those “pillars” are actually the order in which God established on earth in and through creation, e.i natural law and moral law, of which originate from within the eternal mind of God. The word “before” better fits within the meta-narrative of the text as “from” would fit more literally in a narrow scope. This is an example of translating word-to-idea rather than word-to-word. But again, the meaning remains the same, God wrote the names in His Book of Life, totally independent of any human activity. No new names are written when someone believes, they are simply a sheep who was once lost and is now rejoiced over in being found. The same Greek word (a big mistake I see in a lot of these comments is looking at the Hebrew, Revelation is written in Greek) for written can be found in Matthew 4:4 Jesus and his temptation on the wilderness, “But he answered, ‘It is written'”… Jesus clearly isn’t saying that the prophet continue to write, he is referring to what has already been penned down and is now being fulfilled. In your original post, there seems to be an unwarranted bias against John Calvin that is clouding your reading of the scripture, forget what Calvin might think about in this. Rather, simply read the structure of the sentence, the uses of tenses, and original Greek wording and the melodic line of Revelation.
Hello Evan and welcome