How can any divine decree of reprobation exist?

squirrelyguy

Well-known member
Ezekiel 33:11 - "Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’"

In light of the fact that the Lord does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, how can the doctrine of reprobation exist? It's one thing for God to remain passive and allow the wicked to die for their sins which they have chosen of their own free will; it's quite another for God to decree that they will sin in order that He will have a reason to condemn them to eternal suffering. The former does not contradict the statement "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked", but the latter does.
 
Ezekiel 33:11 - "Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’"

In light of the fact that the Lord does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, how can the doctrine of reprobation exist? It's one thing for God to remain passive and allow the wicked to die for their sins which they have chosen of their own free will; it's quite another for God to decree that they will sin in order that He will have a reason to condemn them to eternal suffering. The former does not contradict the statement "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked", but the latter does.
It is a man made false doctrine . That one verse alone and there are many others proves it’s a heretical teaching . That god is by definition unloving , not good .
 
Ezekiel 33:11 - "Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’"

In light of the fact that the Lord does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, how can the doctrine of reprobation exist?

I'm glad you asked.
It's too bad you clearly have no interest in hearing the answer.

It's one thing for God to remain passive and allow the wicked to die for their sins which they have chosen of their own free will;

Where is "free will" taught in the Bible?
I keep asking, but I never get any answers.

it's quite another for God to decree that they will sin in order that He will have a reason to condemn them to eternal suffering. The former does not contradict the statement "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked", but the latter does.

No, there's no "contradiction" there.

"I take no pleasure" is NOT the same thing as, "This is not my will".
All it means is that God's PURPOSE for the death of the wicked is not for "pleasure", it is to demonstrate His justice and holiness, as well as demonstrating His wrath and power (Rom. 9:22).

Suppose the judge in the Tyre Nichols trial gave the Memphis cops the maximum sentence for their crimes. I would hope he didn't do so out of "pleasure", as that would be sadistic and an abuse of power. I would hope that if that happened, he would have sentenced them based on justice and the power of the law to enact justice.

Finally, your proof-text is NOT a universal text, but is referring ONLY to Israel, so it is wrong to try to act like it's a universal proof-text when it actually is not. That's the problem with "proof-texting", it ignores CONTEXT.
 
Where is "free will" taught in the Bible?
I keep asking, but I never get any answers.
That appears to be a false claim

(ARV 2005) but without thy mind I would do nothing, that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(ASV-2014) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Anderson) but, without your consent, I was not willing to do any thing, that your good deed might not be as a matter of necessity, but one of free-will.
(ASV) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(FAA) but I did not want to do anything without your opinion, so that your good deed would not be as it were under compulsion, but of free will.
(GDBY_NT) but without your consent I did not wish to do anything; in order that your good might not be by constraint, but by the free will:
(GW) Yet, I didn't want to do anything without your consent. I want you to do this favor for me out of your own free will without feeling forced to do it.
(csb) But I didn't want to do anything without your consent, so that your good deed might not be out of obligation, but of your own free will.
(LEB) But apart from your consent, I wanted to do nothing, in order that your good deed might be not as according to necessity, but according to your own free will.
(MRC) but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness might not be by necessity, but of your own free will.
(MNT) But without your consent I was unwilling to do anything, so that your kindness to me might be of your own free will, and not of compulsion.
(NTVR) but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Revised Standard ) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.
(RNT) but without your consent I am unwilling to do anything, so that your goodness may not be of necessity but of free will.
(RSV-CE) but I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.
(TLV) But I didn’t want to do anything without your consent, so that your goodness wouldn’t be by force but by free will.
(WEB) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(WEB (R)) But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(Wuest's) Georgia;;14-16 But I came to a decision in my heart to do nothing without your consent, in order that your goodness might not be as it were by compulsion but of your own free will. For perhaps on this account he was parted for a brief time in order that you might be possessing him fully and forever, no longer in the capacity of a slave, but above a slave, a brother , a beloved one, beloved most of all by me, how much more than that by you, both in his human relationship and in the Lord.
(NASB77) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, that your goodness should not be as it were by compulsion, but of your own free will.
(NASB95) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.
(TEV) 14 However, I do not want to force you to help me; rather, I would like for you to do it of your own free will. So I will not do anything unless you agree.
(ERV) 14 but without thy mind I would do nothing; that thy goodness should not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(NHEB) 14 But I was willing to do nothing without your consent, that your goodness would not be as of necessity, but of free will.
(TCE) 14 but without your consent I did not want to do anything, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will.
CT 14 but I would not do any thing without thy consent, that the benefit derived from thee might not be as it were forced, but of free will.
NENT 14 but without thy: mind I wished to do nothing; that thy: goodness be not as of necessity, but of free will.
SLT 14 But without thy judgment I would do nothing; that good might not be as according to necessity, but according to free will.
(NEB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will.
(REB) 14 But I would rather do nothing without your consent, so that your kindness may be a matter not of compulsion, but of your own free will.
 
Ezekiel 33:11 - "Say to them: ‘As I live,’ says the Lord God, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’"

In light of the fact that the Lord does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked, how can the doctrine of reprobation exist? It's one thing for God to remain passive and allow the wicked to die for their sins which they have chosen of their own free will; it's quite another for God to decree that they will sin in order that He will have a reason to condemn them to eternal suffering. The former does not contradict the statement "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked", but the latter does.
It exists and is shown to exist in Romans 1. God "gave them up" is repeated some three times and speaks to the fall of man, the resulting consequences, and God's Sovereign decree to do with the clay as He so desires. Romans 9 also speaks to this effect.

Ezekiel 33:11 was written to a specific people and for a specific purpose. It isn't a proof text against reprobation.

I wish some of you all would learn some 2 Timothy 2:15, steer clear of trying to teach, and actually learn a lot more before you do. This may result in posting less things that show an ignorance of Scripture. Consider James 3:1.

The Bible isn't a bunch of proof-text verses strung together. They weren't written to be used against the Doctrines of Grace that are hated by many. In other words Scripture isn't to be used to attack its own truths. It is ridiculous to have to point this fact out.
 
I'm glad you asked.
It's too bad you clearly have no interest in hearing the answer.



Where is "free will" taught in the Bible?
I keep asking, but I never get any answers.



No, there's no "contradiction" there.

"I take no pleasure" is NOT the same thing as, "This is not my will".
All it means is that God's PURPOSE for the death of the wicked is not for "pleasure", it is to demonstrate His justice and holiness, as well as demonstrating His wrath and power (Rom. 9:22).

Suppose the judge in the Tyre Nichols trial gave the Memphis cops the maximum sentence for their crimes. I would hope he didn't do so out of "pleasure", as that would be sadistic and an abuse of power. I would hope that if that happened, he would have sentenced them based on justice and the power of the law to enact justice.

Finally, your proof-text is NOT a universal text, but is referring ONLY to Israel, so it is wrong to try to act like it's a universal proof-text when it actually is not. That's the problem with "proof-texting", it ignores CONTEXT.
Amen, and thank you!
 
It exists and is shown to exist in Romans 1. God "gave them up" is repeated some three times and speaks to the fall of man, the resulting consequences, and God's Sovereign decree to do with the clay as He so desires. Romans 9 also speaks to this effect.

Ezekiel 33:11 was written to a specific people and for a specific purpose. It isn't a proof text against reprobation.

I wish some of you all would learn some 2 Timothy 2:15, steer clear of trying to teach, and actually learn a lot more before you do. This may result in posting less things that show an ignorance of Scripture. Consider James 3:1.

The Bible isn't a bunch of proof-text verses strung together. They weren't written to be used against the Doctrines of Grace that are hated by many. In other words Scripture isn't to be used to attack its own truths. It is ridiculous to have to point this fact out.
Unconditional election of the few and unconditional reprobation of the many has no grace for the many


It is ridiculous to have to point this fact out.
 
"I take no pleasure" is NOT the same thing as, "This is not my will".
All it means is that God's PURPOSE for the death of the wicked is not for "pleasure", it is to demonstrate His justice and holiness, as well as demonstrating His wrath and power (Rom. 9:22).

Suppose the judge in the Tyre Nichols trial gave the Memphis cops the maximum sentence for their crimes. I would hope he didn't do so out of "pleasure", as that would be sadistic and an abuse of power. I would hope that if that happened, he would have sentenced them based on justice and the power of the law to enact justice.
But how do we know if someone is doing something like this for pleasure or for justice? What if it came to light that the judge had orchestrated the crime in question? Would we be justified in assuming that the judge was indeed a sadist, and took pleasure in the suffering that he caused? The judge's status as a neutral person in this scenario is only possible because he had no role in the event.
 
Ezekiel 33:11 was written to a specific people and for a specific purpose. It isn't a proof text against reprobation.
But let's take that assertion and run it through the calculator. The verse specifically says "Israel". So the Lord does not take pleasure in the wicked among Israel. Fine. How does that help your interpretation of reprobation in Romans 9, where Paul is specifically talking about how Israel has been hardened?
 
It exists and is shown to exist in Romans 1. God "gave them up" is repeated some three times and speaks to the fall of man, the resulting consequences, and God's Sovereign decree to do with the clay as He so desires. Romans 9 also speaks to this effect.

no it is not speaking of the fall but of those who hold the truth in untrighteousness

Romans 1:16–32 (KJV) — 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

and if you are going to quote romans 9 you have to consider

Romans 9:30–32 (KJV) — 30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. 31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. 32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

it was a lack of faith which caused them to fail to obtain righteousness

and if they remained not in unbelief they could have been grafted in again

Romans 11:20–23 (KJV) — 20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear: 21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. 22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
 
Last edited:
But let's take that assertion and run it through the calculator. The verse specifically says "Israel". So the Lord does not take pleasure in the wicked among Israel. Fine. How does that help your interpretation of reprobation in Romans 9, where Paul is specifically talking about how Israel has been hardened?
The person dug himself into a deep hole .
 
Back
Top