Calvinism is Gospel !

[Genez]

So Oh Wise One...what was God's purpose in Nineveh?

To save the people.

 

[Cameron143]

To save the people.

Isn't that what I have said all along?

 

[Genez]

You have zero understanding of total depravity.

Not your version of total depravity.

Throw in God's grace, and suddenly souls will be made free of the flesh's dominance over the soul.
If it were TOTAL depravity? Then no soul could ever believe with or without grace.

 

[Genez]

Isn't that what I have said all along?

I like to dig a little deeper than you do...

 

[Inquisitor]

No, but you confuse the addresses with the subject matter. For example, Paul addresses the Jews in order to teach both them and Gentiles about spiritual circumcision aka saving faith.

No I don't.

You keep babbling about the Gentiles but that is not really what Paul is talking about.


If we follow your approach and begin with Paul's own audience markers, there is a strong case that a major theme running from Romans 2 through Romans 11 is the condition of Israel under the Law and the question of why Israel, despite possessing the covenants and promises, has largely failed to obtain the righteousness of God.


Romans 7 opens:

"Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,)" (Romans 7:1)

Paul explicitly states that he is speaking to those who know the Law. That immediately places the discussion in the sphere of Israel and those familiar with the Mosaic covenant.


Going back to Romans 2, Paul addresses those who boast in the Law:

"Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God." (Romans 2:17)

Romans 3 continues:

"What advantage then hath the Jew?" (Romans 3:1)

Romans 3:19 says:

"Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law."

Romans 4 discusses Abraham as the father of the circumcision.


Romans 5 introduces Adam and Christ.


Romans 6 discusses whether those under grace should continue in sin.


Romans 7 returns directly to those who know the Law and describes the Law's relationship to sin and death.


Then Romans 9–11 explicitly turns to Israel:

"For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites..." (Romans 9:3–4)

The question is then stated:

"Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect." (Romans 9:6)

Paul is defending God's faithfulness despite Israel's widespread unbelief.


Romans 10:

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." (Romans 10:1)

Romans 11:

"Hath God cast away his people? God forbid." (Romans 11:1)

Viewed this way, Romans 9–11 is unquestionably about Israel's stumbling, God's faithfulness, the remnant, the inclusion of Gentiles, and Israel's future restoration.


The question is whether Romans 2–8 is only about Israel.


There are verses that broaden the scope beyond Israel:

"For there is no difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:22–23)

"Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." (Romans 3:29)

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God." (Romans 5:1)

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." (Romans 8:1)

These statements encompass both Jew and Gentile believers.


So from the text itself, Romans 2–11 appears to have two intertwined themes:

1. The universal problem of sin and justification by faith for both Jew and Gentile.
2. The specific question of Israel's failure under the Law and God's faithfulness to His promises to Israel.

The second theme becomes increasingly dominant as Paul moves into Romans 7–11.


Therefore, it would be difficult from the text alone to say Romans 2–11 is only about Israel. But it is certainly fair to say that Romans 7–11 is heavily focused on explaining the Law, Israel's stumbling, and why possession of the Law did not produce the righteousness that God required.


Indeed, Paul's own summary of Israel's failure is:

"But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness." (Romans 9:31)

"Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law." (Romans 9:32)

That question—why Israel, with the Law, failed to attain righteousness—stands at the center of Paul's argument in Romans 7–11 and provides important context for interpreting individual verses within those chapters.

 

[Magenta]

Romans 15 v 4 ~ Everything that was written in the past was written for our instruction, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures, we might have hope.

 

[brightfame52]

Yes John the baptist did preach repentance so did Jesus want the verses?

Yes they preached repentance, and your point? The Apostles preached repentance, Jesus told them to preach repentance Lk24:47

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. So whats your point ? I preach repentance as well

 

[brightfame52]

Just like 95% of my post you just responded to was hid to you!

As long as one is in a lost condition, they cannot believe the Gospel. Once one is saved they will believe the Gospel 1 Cor 1:18

18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Notice Paul said but UNTO US which are SAVED the preaching is the power of God

 

[GWH]

No I don't.

You keep babbling about the Gentiles but that is not really what Paul is talking about.


If we follow your approach and begin with Paul's own audience markers, there is a strong case that a major theme running from Romans 2 through Romans 11 is the condition of Israel under the Law and the question of why Israel, despite possessing the covenants and promises, has largely failed to obtain the righteousness of God.


Romans 7 opens:




Paul explicitly states that he is speaking to those who know the Law. That immediately places the discussion in the sphere of Israel and those familiar with the Mosaic covenant.


Going back to Romans 2, Paul addresses those who boast in the Law:




Romans 3 continues:




Romans 3:19 says:




Romans 4 discusses Abraham as the father of the circumcision.


Romans 5 introduces Adam and Christ.


Romans 6 discusses whether those under grace should continue in sin.


Romans 7 returns directly to those who know the Law and describes the Law's relationship to sin and death.


Then Romans 9–11 explicitly turns to Israel:




The question is then stated:




Paul is defending God's faithfulness despite Israel's widespread unbelief.


Romans 10:




Romans 11:




Viewed this way, Romans 9–11 is unquestionably about Israel's stumbling, God's faithfulness, the remnant, the inclusion of Gentiles, and Israel's future restoration.


The question is whether Romans 2–8 is only about Israel.


There are verses that broaden the scope beyond Israel:










These statements encompass both Jew and Gentile believers.


So from the text itself, Romans 2–11 appears to have two intertwined themes:

1. The universal problem of sin and justification by faith for both Jew and Gentile.
2. The specific question of Israel's failure under the Law and God's faithfulness to His promises to Israel.

The second theme becomes increasingly dominant as Paul moves into Romans 7–11.


Therefore, it would be difficult from the text alone to say Romans 2–11 is only about Israel. But it is certainly fair to say that Romans 7–11 is heavily focused on explaining the Law, Israel's stumbling, and why possession of the Law did not produce the righteousness that God required.


Indeed, Paul's own summary of Israel's failure is:






That question—why Israel, with the Law, failed to attain righteousness—stands at the center of Paul's argument in Romans 7–11 and provides important context for interpreting individual verses within those chapters.

Yes, I agree that Romans is about both God’s plan of salvation and Israel’s failure to cooperate with it.

 

[brightfame52]

so you wont answer because you don't know, O.K.

Are you going to explain or not ? Quit dodging and evading

 

[brightfame52]

You are at a lost understanding the answer I gave you.

No you at a lost.

 

[GWH]

No you at a lost.

No both y’all atta loser but what do it matta?

 

[Vucesa]

When does God know you according to Galatians 4?
9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?

There is a point in time when God knows someone. Obviously, it's not before the foundation of the world.

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

 

[John146]

If God wanted to destroy Nineveh He would have done so, just like He did with Sodom and Gomorrah. He didn't send a prophet to to Sodom and Gomorrah. He simply destroyed them.

I'm sorry you don't understand simple scripture. Isaiah 55:11 makes it clear that when God sends forth His word, it accomplishes what He sent it forth to do. Since God's word was sent forth to Nineveh, and since they did get saved, God's purpose must have been salvation.

Verse 9 you quoted is a confession of faith on behalf of the Ninevites. That faith came by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. That we be the word of God that God sent by Jonah.

You forget that God has other attributes, like grace. When man makes a decision to heed God's word, God shows grace. God no longer needed to destroy Nineveh because they repented at the preaching of his word. See Hezekiah for another plain example.

Because Hezekiah cried out to the Lord, the Lord heard his prayer and instead of dying as the Lord stated, the Lord spared him and added 15 more years to his life.

2 Kings 20
1 In those days was Hezekiah sick unto death. And the prophet Isaiah the son of Amoz came to him, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Set thine house in order; for thou shalt die, and not live.
2 Then he turned his face to the wall, and prayed unto the Lord, saying,
3 I beseech thee, O Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth and with a perfect heart, and have done that which is good in thy sight. And Hezekiah wept sore.
4 And it came to pass, afore Isaiah was gone out into the middle court, that the word of the Lord came to him, saying,
5 Turn again, and tell Hezekiah the captain of my people, Thus saith the Lord, the God of David thy father, I have heard thy prayer, I have seen thy tears: behold, I will heal thee: on the third day thou shalt go up unto the house of the Lord.
6 And I will add unto thy days fifteen years; and I will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the king of Assyria; and I will defend this city for mine own sake, and for my servant David's sake.

 

[John146]

Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Yes, he knew Jeremiah in the womb, before he was formed, as a small undeveloped fetus/child. Your point? This is not an example of Galatians 4. We are talking about salvation and becoming a son of God.

 

[rogerg]

Because they chose to repent. It was their choice to repent at the preaching of Jonah. It was not predetermined by God.

No, it wasn't by their choice, it was by God.

If Ninevah's repentance didn’t come from God but instead came from their choice, then for what purpose—and for whose purpose—was Jonah made a sign for the Ninevites - why did God want to give them a sign at all if their repentance was solely from themselves and Jonah's preaching? In fact, as a sign, Jonah foreshadowed and was a picture of Jesus’s sacrifice - for just as Jonah spent three days and nights in the belly of the whale so Jesus would spend three days and nights in the heart of the earth. Jonah did not seek or desire this calling; indeed, he tried to flee from it. Yet God would not permit him to do so and forced him to serve in that capacity - God demonstrating His determination for it. So, God also moved within the Ninevites and placed faith into their hearts to be able to comprehend the sign, and from that faith and through the sign was given to them a basic comprehension of the gospel. Had God not done so, and had He left them in the spiritual state they were in, they would never have recognized Jonah as the sign he was - him being a reflection of Christ and the gospel message. Accompanying that, was repentance also freely granted to them. This demonstrated that it was all accomplished by God.

[Luk 11:30 KJV] 30 For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation.
[Mat 12:39-40 KJV]
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

[Vucesa]

Yes, he knew Jeremiah in the womb, before he was formed, as a small undeveloped fetus/child. Your point? This is not an example of Galatians 4. We are talking about salvation and becoming a son of God.

My point was that he was known before he was a believer, same with John the baptist. He was filled with the Holy Ghost from his mothers womb.

How did he get the Holy Ghost without believing first?

 

[brightfame52]

Yes, he knew Jeremiah in the womb, before he was formed, as a small undeveloped fetus/child. Your point? This is not an example of Galatians 4. We are talking about salvation and becoming a son of God.

Jeremiah is a picture of all them who shall believe So was Paul Gal 1 15

15 ;But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,

 

[rogerg]

@brightfame52

Was that a good wow or a bad wow?

 

[HeIsHere]

You are asking all the right questions. If John is right, then that would be a logical conclusion. So, Yes.

So then human can absolve themselves of any responsibility for the actions or their deeds?