God is wonderful and adoption into his family is wonderful. Being holy like Christ is wonderful. There is nothing better that can be because God is the best there is all elese falls short.
Romans 9:18-23 ESV
18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19 You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will? 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, Why have you made me like this? 21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22 What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory
God's glory is what it is about and that is awesome and very good. God always does exactly the best thing possible to be done, so trust in God and be amazed at his works.
Yeah, that's great bro. You wouldn't be saying that if you were one of the "reprobates."
Absolutely! That is exactly what we not only deserve but what we go about blindly running after as hard as we can.Alright, so God should just strike everyone dead right?
Absolutely! That is exactly what we not only deserve but what we go about blindly running after as hard as we can.
Surely you don't think God is obligated to show mercy do you?
The wonder of the mercy of God is that He does show it.
its funny as i watch these threads and see the man centered gospel instead of the God centered one, i have to say amazing grace that saved a wretch like me,then synergists wonder why we cant get a long with monergists its because the systems are almost completely opposite of each other. i suggest maybe have a look at what the other side teaches ask questions instead of just ranting and raving about nothing, there is a lot of seasoned veterens on here that can answer your questionsBut it's already decided isn't it? There's no room for anyone to repent is there? God's already "conformed" who He wanted, right?
So bring on the lightning, right?
No they don't. Tolerance is not the politically correct word that the new agers have made it. You might want to look up Strong's #463. It defines the word anoche as "toleration, forearance." In Webster's ...No it doesn't as you have shown. And my NASB says forebearance not tolerance btw. The 2 words bear a different conotation.
There's nothing ad hominem about the argument. You don't understand the word, I've told you what it means. The fact is that SharonL's quote has the same meaning as it does in the NASB.Ad Hominem arguments such as this are only used because the truth cannot be refuted. I usually ignore them.
It's not circular reasoning.
Hupomone10 said:hmmm...
Maybe I'm slow, but what it sounds like you're saying is
Someone who is accursed is a person who is destined to damnation.
Ok.
To me that's like saying someone who isn't saved is destined to be lost.
Again I ask, define reprobate, for aren't there more that will end up in damnation than just reprobates? If so, I would think there are more defining characteristics of a reprobate than merely "those who are destined to damnation."
If you are still unwilling to define it, I will do so.
If you had bothered to actually read you might have noticed that I didn't say that they don't have the same meaning but that they have diffierent connotations. The word forebear may be obsolete in modern usage but it isn't an obsolete word. If you had bothered to actually study how dictionaries use the word obsolete you would have known that as well. The dictionary writers, or editors if you wish, declare a word obsolete and mark it as such when it is not used in common language but they do not mean the word has no defintion any more. If it had no defintion they wouldn't include it in the dictionary.No they don't. Tolerance is not the politically correct word that the new agers have made it. You might want to look up Strong's #463. It defines the word anoche as "toleration, forearance." In Webster's ...
Tolerance: 1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance, fortitude, stamina
2a : sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b : the act of allowing something : toleration
... the definition fits the PC way of life, but that is not what tolerance or toleration is. In fact, the Webster's definition in 1828 defined it thusly:
Forbearance: The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring.
Search => [word] => tolerance :: 1828 Dictionary
That looks very much like the definition of forbearance in today's Webster's:
1: obsolete : to do without
2: to hold oneself back from especially with an effort <forbore mentioning the incident>
3obsolete : to leave alone : shun <forbear his presence Shakespeare>
By the way, the NASB's last update removed "forbearance" from its pages because, as you can see, the word is almost obsolete and has the same meaning as "tolerance" or "toleration." No, it doesn't have the exact same sentence structure in its definition but we are supposed to be discerning enough about the language to understand they mean the same thing, just as you should be discerning enough about the language to see the previously quoted verses from two different Bibles still say the same thing.There's nothing ad hominem about the argument. You don't understand the word, I've told you what it means. The fact is that SharonL's quote has the same meaning as it does in the NASB.
No they don't. Tolerance is not the politically correct word that the new agers have made it. You might want to look up Strong's #463.
ἀνοχή ἀνέχω
I. a holding back, stopping, esp. of hostilities: pl., like Lat. induciae, an armistice, truce, Xen.
II. (ἀνέχομαι) forbearance, NTest.
ἀνοχή , ἡ, A. [select] holding back, stopping, esp. of hostilities: hence mostly in pl., armistice, truce, X.Mem.4.4.17; ἀνοχὰς ποιεῖσθαι Decr. ap. D. 18.164; “διδόναι” D.H.8.68; “σπείσασθαι” Plu.Pel.29; “αἱ Καλλισθένους ἀ.” Aeschin.2.31; “αἱ ἑξαετεῖς ἀ.” D.H.3.59; cf. ἀνοκωχή.
2. [select] time, opportunity, “οὐκ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ἀνοχὴν ἐμβατεῦσαι” LXX 1 Ma.12.25; ἡμερῶν ἀ. delay of some days, POxy.1068.15 (iii A.D.).
3. [select] pl., ἀνοχαί, = Lat. feriae, D.C.39.30.
4. [select] ἀνοχαὶδικῶν, = Lat. iustitium, Id.55.26.
II. [select] (ἀνέχομαι) long-suffering, forbearance, Ep.Rom.2.4, 3.26.
2. [select] ἀνοχὴν ἀναπαύλης διδόναι permission to rest, Hdn.3.6.10.
3. [select] relief from disease, Philum. ap. Orib.Syn.8.3.4.
III. [select] = ἀνατολή, Poll.4.157, Hsch.
If that's your definition, then it's definitely circular reasoning.A reprobate is a person or angel destined to damnation by God for his good and wise purpose as I said before. Its a simple definition. They are the only ones damned.
its funny as i watch these threads and see the man centered gospel instead of the God centered one, i have to say amazing grace that saved a wretch like me,then synergists wonder why we cant get a long with monergists its because the systems are almost completely opposite of each other. i suggest maybe have a look at what the other side teaches ask questions instead of just ranting and raving about nothing, there is a lot of seasoned veterens on here that can answer your questions
If that's your definition, then it's definitely circular reasoning.
Stop acting like you don't know the meaning of simple words. We all went to school.
well you still have the same outcome at the end, that God created people who will end up hell..it was not a suprised by it.also we need to remember that God was not obliged to save any one, so if we start there then we are amazed and thankfull that he did save us..I am neither. I just don't like it when people try to say that God plans for some people to be damned, or that responding to God's grace is automatic.
I'll take that as a 'yes.' vague, but a 'yes.'Any person who goes to hell is a reprobate who God hates.