The simple among us do not understand what you just said. Let's try this!

Do you believe repentance is the gift of God and is not the responsibility of the subject hearing the gospel as a condition for regeneration?

Do you think it (repentance {edit}) is possible for someone who is NOT elect before the foundation of the world?

It is God who grants repentance and praise be to God who raises to life those who were once dead in trespasses and sins unto newness of life in the Lord Jesus Christ.
_

You have no more followed my complaint than the man in the moon. YOU HAVE JUST MADE MY POINT!

Did you even read the points of the two posters I mentioned? They believe what you just wrote about repentance being the gift of God, yet they say the problem is that the street preachers and the pulpiteers do not present it as a condition for salvation! Gifts by grace are not given on conditions except the giver sets the conditions. Is repentance a condition for regeneration? The two posters say yes in their comments.

The fact is if you were to speak much on the subject you would say it is also. Why? Because the tenets of calvinism is good for debate as long as the practicale applications are not brought to bear on it. The only true calvinists, or those true to calvinism are those we refer to as super hypers who do not believe in sharing the gospel with anyone lest they encroach upon the realm of God's sovereignty.

Ukman wrote:
Since
this is so, the remedy for sin—and with it the necessity for true
repentance and godly sorrow for sin—is not recognized either. If
the pulpit fails to declare it, then it follows that the hearer will
neither acknowledge nor understand the need for repentance.

The argument here has been for unconditional election to salvation as a matter of irresistible grace and then these last two posters are bemoaning the problem that repentance is not being preached as a condition for true salvation.

Now, someone please tell me if it is possible for a dead man to repent any more than it is for him to believe? And if you say it isn't then we both know that the process of salvation, that is regeneration, has already taken place in the subjects heart and he can do nothing under the sovereign hand of God but repent and believe. Otherwise, he is contributing to his own regeneration, repentance, belief, and conversion.

I have told you that calvinists cannot have an intelligent conversation if they are true to what they teach. These last two fellows and DJC49 before them have been very diligent to prove my point.

Alan H wrote:
"A verse which has been grossly perverted by many of our moderns is John 7:39, "The Holy Spirit was not yet given, because that Jesus was not yet glorified." It seems passing strange that with the Old Testament in their hands, some men should place the construction which they do upon those words. The words "was not yet given" can no more be understood absolutely than "Enoch was not" (Gen. 5:24); they simply mean that the Spirit had not yet been given in His full administrative authority.

I am reminded of another commentator of Scripture who said, "Yea, hath God said," Ge 3:1.

Here is the full statement and the reader may decide for himself if these words can be believed.

37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. 38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. 39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

I know what the gospel is and I know how to present it. The gospel that Jesus and John the baptist preached was not the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Give me a break! The Holy Spirit was not present to convince of sin, righteousness, and judgment to come during their ministry. And you accuse me, how did you say it, "You aren't familiar with the Holy Spirit's ministry, and you use lots of words to basically say nothing." Good grief man!

You wrote:
Matt. 4:17-this, btw, was the first sermon preached by Christ. No one knows they're sick until a doctor gives them a diagnosis, likewise, sinners aren't aware of their deadly condition of sin until they are shown through scripture.

Where does he mention either sin or salvation? He said he began preaching the gospel of the kingdom to the Jews and doing kingdom miracles to convince them that the king was present.

Listen to this statement by Jesus Christ about the Holy Spirit spoken 3 1/2 years after Matt 4:17!

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

enough already wrote:
JD-how much emphasis to you put on repentance? This gospel of love you say you preach will not bring anyone under conviction, and without conviction, there is no godly sorrow which leads to repentance. {2 Cor. 7:10}.

Think about it.

On second thought, JD, don't bother yourself thinking about it ... you might hurt yourself.
____

"Lovingly," Ha Ha.

Please feel free to accuse me of anything you desire but don't try to intimidate me with your accusations and scoffing and condescension.

However, the thought has occured to me that this text has ambiguity, especially for a person like you and it is not wise I think to draw a battle line of dogmatism, (and you are as dogmatic as I am, BTW). From my conversations with you I actually think you have not given much thought to some of the things you comment on.

Nevertheless, the text is not the same as Jn 3:16 where one such as myself must draw the battle line and defend the faith and the character of God and the integrity of his word.
_
You wrote
Wrong, Brother Smith! It's neither one soul more nor one soul less. The elect comprise the entire population of all those to be saved ... the "whosoevers."

_

Easy, big guy. Don't bust a gut.

There is no distinction "IN CHRIST JESUS". However, it would have been impossible for Paul to have written the NT and explained the myster which is the church had he not used the terms Jews and gentiles. And while those terms did not mean much to you and me in this century and on this continent, it did mean plenty to them of the first century Asia.

The church of Jesus Christ sprung from the covenants of Israel. It was a new thing for the Jews. It took a long time for them to come to grips with having gentiles included on an equal basis with them.

23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit

You wrote:

It does appear that your arguments seem to be with Calvinists. Am I wrong?

_

No, you are not wrong but Mike is a much more gracious commentator than I am. I could learn from him.
_

You wrote

And, with JD, it appears to be proving the Gentiles having replaced, and/or are now the true Israel. Am I wrong?
_

Yes you are wrong. Israel is Israel no matter what the context and the church of Jesus Christ is separate and apart from it. The only exception is when God makes application of the types in Ro 9 and those in this age who are the offspring of Jacob, the spiritual seed, he that was born second, after the flesh, Esau, and is a child of God (in type) because of it. These are called the Israel of God but that does not mean there is not still an Israel after the flesh. The context does not make that argument, it makes just the opposite. The spiritual of Israel, the "Israel of God" are still Israel and are one of the two parts that make up the church of Jesus Christ, the gentiles being the other.

Eph 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Jew and gentile in context.

God does love the world! He says so! That is good enough for me.

DefenderofTruth wrote:
Thank you for focusing my attention on the original question. I got side-tracked by the contentions between Calvinists and Arminians.

DJC49

Have you never read the book of Acts? It is the history of the beginning of the Church of Jesus Christ. It had it's beginning when the Holy Ghost was sent and he began to indwell believers in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The first and only believers in the first few years were Jews. After 7 or 8 years, God began to broaden the influence of the gospel and included the Samaritans and the Hamites in Acts 8. Later in Acts 10 he included the gentiles. This was always the plan see Acts 1:8.

Now, for you to say the Jews were not the firstfruits of the Spirit is just being either hard headed and stubborn or way ignorant. I do not think you are ignorant so you must be stubborn.

Do you men even accept the historical context of Scripture important at all?

DefenderofTruth wrote:
Just read Zechariah - God has a plan for the Jewish people.

__

quote wrote:
Are Peter and Paul one of these very 'religious' people you wrote about as I never read of them telling their hearers in Acts as they proclaimed the Gospel that God loves you.

He had said to the disciples
Joh 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Paul said

Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

2Co 12:1 It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.

It was Paul who had to correct Peter concerning the Jews proper response to gentiles, See Ga 1.

I could not help noticing that you did not deal with any of my Scriptrure references and you did not say why Paul made a distinction of those who received the "firstfruits" of the Spirit in Ro 8. Do you not believe the things he recorded in Romans resulting from the ministry of Jesus Christ took place in a historical scenario? Do you even think there was a "firstfruits of the Spirit? See Ja 1:18 addressed to the 12 tribes of Israel and read the church beginning history of Acts.

It is quite easy to scoff at someone else and attempt to gain a following, like the lone wolf, who thinks your saying nothing is a great sign of intelligence and spirituality but it is much more difficult to present a reasoned and studied opinion. You must know that because you seldom try it.

You have proven your propensity to rewrite Scripture to align with your adopted theology system and to interpret it rather than believe it. A very dangerous trait if I do say so myself.

BTW, the creatures are more than gentiles, they are everyone under heaven!

Lone wolf,

Israel are called Sheep. They were in Israel when Jesus Christ ministered to them and sent his dicsiples to them.

5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Gentiles are called "creatures". They are in the world. (God loves them)

Mr 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

If the creature was not in the world, why did Jesus tell the disciples to go into the world to preach to each of them? They were already in Israel.

Paul thought the creature were all peoples under heaven. That is quite braod.

Col 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and [be] not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, [and] which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;

DJC49 wrote:
There ARE no "proof texts" to be found in all of Romans 8 concerning a distinction between Jews & Gentiles! The subject is never even touched upon.

Oh ... wait a minute ... perhaps the word "creature" found in vv. 19, 20, and 21 refers to the Gentiles. Right,
Silly me.

Your stubborn denial of truth is why you do err.

Read these words carefully and see if your above statement is correct.

Ro 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Ro 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,

The Romans were gentiles! Paul, a Jew! We in Ro 8:23 = Jews.

Ro 11:13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:

Ga 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

That statement by God says that God so loved the world. He did not just love the world, but he "so" loved the world that he gave his own son to save it.World means world, everyone.

Jesus, his son, agrees!

46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

It would be silly to think the elect could reject him. But some have not received his words, they have changed them right here before our eyes.

Ro 5:8 says God died for sinners because of the love of God and for them it is somehow an exclusionary statement

Mike from New York has tried to point out to you that God is applying the types that these two brothers reprersent but you will not listen. This is a NT truth that God is presentiung to us here in Romans. The epistle was written in AD 58, long after the beginning of the church in AD 30. Paul, the apostle, is the only person in the world at this time that could have presented these truths to and about Israel in this present age.

For you men to make this about calvinists with your perverted view of God is an absolute crime against heaven. And for you men to suggest that God hates Israel with a hatred like you and I have for an object of our disdain only proves you have not read and considered the whole passage of Ro 9-11 and noted where he says that 11: 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in", and that he could not have meant what you say by this staement Ro 9:6 For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:" What kind of sense would it make for Paul to still be calling the fleshly and lost Israel by the name Israel if he did?