The Tree of Life and Exile

Status
Not open for further replies.
No - no wager, Tim, I am more interested in you answering the matters rather than trying to skim the surface.

Access to the Tree of Life is given only to the Elect. The context in Rev 22:19 indicates that one will be denied access because he/she "takes away from the words of the prophecy of this book."

No other passage in Scripture references such a denial. However, being blotted out of the Book of Life fits the theology and context of Rev. 22:19.

Grace and Peace,

Rob
 
No - no wager, Tim, I am more interested in you answering the matters rather than trying to skim the surface.

Hmmm..you brought it up, but now you're dropping it. Well, OK. Please be aware that the CT is regularly condemned, including here, by people who use for proof the moral failings of W&H. And my observation is that they love to dish it out, but have a hard time taking it. Another sign of the internal weakness of the AVer theory.

Access to the Tree of Life is given only to the Elect. The context in Rev 22:19 indicates that one will be denied access because he/she "takes away from the words of the prophecy of this book."

Exactly.

No other passage in Scripture references such a denial. However, being blotted out of the Book of Life fits the theology and context of Rev. 22:19.

Yes, there is another passage. The Bible begins and ends with this parallel.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
Gen 3:24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

And the overwhelming number of Byzantine texts bear this out. Not that an AVer cares about numbers. Well, they do care about numbers, but only when defending their pet theory. Number are a legitimate "proof" for the TR being God's authentic Word. But numbers are airily brushed aside when they are used against the AVer position.
 
No - no wager, Tim, I am more interested in you answering the matters rather than trying to skim the surface.

Hmmm..you brought it up, but now you're dropping it. Well, OK. Please be aware that the CT is regularly condemned, including here, by people who use for proof the moral failings of W&H. And my observation is that they love to dish it out, but have a hard time taking it. Another sign of the internal weakness of the AVer theory.

Access to the Tree of Life is given only to the Elect. The context in Rev 22:19 indicates that one will be denied access because he/she "takes away from the words of the prophecy of this book."

Exactly.

No other passage in Scripture references such a denial. However, being blotted out of the Book of Life fits the theology and context of Rev. 22:19.

Yes, there is another passage. The Bible begins and ends with this parallel.

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
Gen 3:23 therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
Gen 3:24 He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

And the overwhelming number of Byzantine texts bear this out. Not that an AVer cares about numbers. Well, they do care about numbers, but only when defending their pet theory. Number are a legitimate "proof" for the TR being God's authentic Word. But numbers are airily brushed aside when they are used against the AVer position.

Tim - you are not making much sense here.

The Genesis quotations are from the Beginning of the Created World. The passages in the Book of Revelation indicate that the Elect will be granted access to the Tree of Life. Only the Elect have this privilege:

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Rev 22:2 is post Judgment Day, and only those who enter into God's Garden will have access to the Tree of Life. They are those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life:

Rev. 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

I read nothing in all the passages you cite that the Elect will not receive a portion of the Tree of Life after Judgment Day. Quoting Genesis does not make your case. Genesis is pre-Judgment Day.

Reading "Tree of Life" in Revelation 22:19 does not fit the context or the theology of the Scriptures. So, even though the majority of MSS evidence this reading, the reading is incorrect. The Bible cannot contradict itself.

The Elect will not be denied access to the Tree of Life post Judgment Day. The non-elect are blotted out of the Lamb's Book of Life.

Book of Life fits the context and theology better.

In other words: Your interpretation of Revelation 22:19 states that some of the Elect will be denied access to:

1) The Tree of Life
2) Heavenly Jerusalem
3) The blessings written in "this book."

That is bizarre to say the least.

Blessings,

Rob
 
Where are these statistics coming from? I looked at Metzger's text commentary and it said that no Greek manuscripts contained "book." Also, I thought Rev. 22 was pretty scarce in the manuscript evidence. Is there some kind of central database where you can look this up?
 
Where are these statistics coming from? I looked at Metzger's text commentary and it said that no Greek manuscripts contained "book." Also, I thought Rev. 22 was pretty scarce in the manuscript evidence. Is there some kind of central database where you can look this up?

Herman C. Hoskier's Text of the Apocalypse goes through all the textual variations in all of the passages of the Book of Revelation.

It is a massive 2 volume work - I don't know where you can get a copy. I had to do an inter-library loan for it.

Why Bruce Metzger does not refer to it - I don't know.

Blessings,

Rob
 
Tim,

I'm not going to get into this debate, but I want to quickly address your repeated accusation that some people are accusing elders of being in violation of their ordination vows. That is simply not true, and I haven't heard anyone make that accusation. If their church and denomination understands the confession to mean a certain thing or to be inclusive of a certain position, then they are simply not violating anything. Do you accuse baptists of being in violation of their ordination vows since you don't think they rightly teach the word or administer the sacraments? No, because that's how they, as a church and denomination, understand their vows. You can think they are wrong, but you wouldn't say they are violating their ordination vows.

Disagreements can be brought up and discussed without assuming the other is accusing people of violating an vow before God. I'm pretty sure no one (or at least very few) here assert what you're thinking they do. I hope that reading this can perhaps help to set your mind at ease; I certainly understand that such an accusation, if it were truly present, would unsettle you, as it would me.

Anyway, Grace and peace, brother.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to get into this debate, but I want to quickly address your repeated accusation that some people are accusing elders of being in violation of their ordination vows. That is simply not true, and I haven't heard anyone make that accusation.

Wow, Paul. Thanks. Instead of enjoying my lunch I have to go and look this up

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/wcf-1-8-ct-40915/index7.html

From a thread you started, so that those who didn't follow THAT thread know I'm not making things up. 23 people on the silly poll YOU started said that Elders in Reformed churches HAVE to use the TR or they are in violation.

I'm not sure whether it's a semantic problem, one of memory, comprehension, back peddling or something else, but not only did many of the Elders here see it clearly that way, but James White mentioned the thread YOU started, and also saw clearly what the poll has to mean.
 
That's fine, Tim.

Like I said, I don't want to get into this again. All that poll meant was that 23 people interpret the confession differently: that's not an accusation. As I stated repeatedly, I've accused no one of anything at all. I'm sorry you think my question was silly. I was just trying to understand the authorial intent of the confession.

Just please, don't say I've accused anyone of anything. Okay? I'm very sorry you've taken an academic question that way. Just believe me when I say that I have nothing against any pastor or elder who uses a CT translation. None. Nothing at all. The copy of the New Testament I use most is the UBS text, just because that's what I've always used and that's where my notes are written. So I certainly can't have anything against people who use it. Peace, brother.

Over and out. I just really don't the energy right now to defend anything. If you want to say I've accused people, that's fine, go ahead. I won't stop you. This is the last time I'll say it: I never have, and I'm not planning on it.

Grace and peace, brother in Christ.
 
I'm not going to get into this debate, but I want to quickly address your repeated accusation that some people are accusing elders of being in violation of their ordination vows. That is simply not true, and I haven't heard anyone make that accusation.

Wow, Paul. Thanks. Instead of enjoying my lunch I have to go and look this up

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/wcf-1-8-ct-40915/index7.html

From a thread you started, so that those who didn't follow THAT thread know I'm not making things up. 23 people on the silly poll YOU started said that Elders in Reformed churches HAVE to use the TR or they are in violation.

I'm not sure whether it's a semantic problem, one of memory, comprehension, back peddling or something else, but not only did many of the Elders here see it clearly that way, but James White mentioned the thread YOU started, and also saw clearly what the poll has to mean.

Tim,
It is a pretty common view here that the Westminster Confession is an EP document. Now the overwhelming majority of churches in the large conservative Presbyterian denominations are not EP. So those who are not EP should either take an exception or become EP. Those who do not would seem to be in violation of their oaths.

Would you attempt to argue contra EP by saying that since the vast majority of people do not practice such, then the Westminster Confession could not have meant such?

Or that people could not argue for the Westminster Confession being EP because it would put them into an overwhelming minority?

CT
 
Moderator Note.
CT’s post is not off topic as an earlier moderator ruling, that some may have seen, may have implied. That moderator, I, and others, have come to a different consensus after discussing the matter. However, that topic may be worth a new thread.

Asking the historical question of whether the Westminster Divines in their productions held to a particular position is fair game as a discussion of original intent. But, it should be an academic discussion (not a knee jerk or emotional one). The poll question that has been noted was simply that; looking toward the original intent of the WCF.

However; I'm concerned as are others about the imputing of implications regarding violation of vows and what not beyond that simple question. As Rich recently noted, “It's also good to remember that you can't [i.e. shouldn't] charge a person with holding to all the implications of his statements.” I think that more than applies here. Vow violation involves animus imponentis (intention of the imposing body) of any particular church imposing the vows per their constitutional documents. It is another question and one not asked by that poll. PB members will not "hang" anyone with that implication unless a person commits himself clearly to it. And then that question should be able to be fairly discussed based on denominational rulings and other documentation.

N.B. This charge of vow violation implied against the 23 who voted yes on that poll will not be cast about any more.

Thread reopened.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top