I agree that this is a discussion of semantics. Let that be known from the biginning of this reply!<br><br>the definition of predestination vs. reprobation shows God chosing some and leaving the others to their own innate, wicked ways. The problem I have with double predestination is that it implies God is looking at a neutral individual and labling that person saved or damned. The truth is, though, that there is no neutrality. God knew beforehand not only that He would have His people and those that are not His people, but that we would all be equally totally depraved, and inable without His help to come to Him. Actively He helped (not just helped, but intervened) and saved a people for Himself, and passively, yet still according to His will, did not save those that are not His people. The question comes, though, is the fact that God is not choosing those people to be saved in essence choosing them for damnation? The answer is, [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/shrug.gif" alt="shrug" title="shrug[/img] maybe, maybe not. God knows! The debate is surely a debate over the definition of reprobation, more than it is whether or not the person is chosen for his/her end. We know that nothing happens outside of the will of God. In the same way that we can say He is not the author of evil, but He is still in control of it, it might even be viable to say that He didn't cause the person to be evil in heart, but he did allow it. Semantics games are no fun, let the truth of the matter rest, and let us forget trying to have an "-ism" for everything! That's a huge temptation in both philosophy, and theology, but when terms are simplified as such, they become connotative words, above and beyond denotative words. Anyways, that's my two bits. <br>troy

Grace is but glory begun;
Glory is but grace perfected!
- Jonathan Edwards