Kay

Mark,
Honestly, I didn’t know whether to laugh or to cry over your reply…that wasn’t the only point of agreement we had. Here are our quotes side by side:
————-
Mark – “Yes the Edomites were ‘hated’ because of their wickedness (since God hates all wickedness), but God’s unconditional election of Jacob over Esau had nothing to do with works and was determined before they were even born or had their ‘nations’.

Kay – “Paul even states that the reason God told Rebekah this was “in order that God’s purpose in election might stand” (v. 11).
Paul means to exclude personal merit from consideration of Jacob and Esau’s election. Such election is “not by works, but by him who calls.” God was perfectly free to choose either Jacob or Esau.”

Kay – “In Rom.9:7, Paul quotes Gen. 21:12 to explain that, even before Isaac was born, God had determined that Abraham’s offspring would be “reckoned” through Isaac. The original context of this passage, God reassures Abraham in the very next verse (Gen. 21:13) that “I will make the son of the maidservant into a nation also, because he is your offspring.” In the following verses we read that “God heard the boy [Ishmael] crying …. ‘I will make him into a great nation’ …. God was with the boy as he grew up”(Gen. 21:17-18, 20)
In Romans 9:8, Paul quotes Gen. 18:10, 14 to establish that the promise had indeed occurred before Isaac’s conception.
Paul’s use of Isaac and Ishmael is not primarily intended to be a statement of their individual eternal election, nor to be typical of the elect and reprobate. It rather establishes that the Jewish people have no reason to trust in their *physical descent* from Abraham to guarantee inclusion in the covenant”

Mark – “I think you need to go back to the end of chapter 8. Paul is clear there that nothing can seperate us from God. That is the lead in poin to chapters 9-11. Now if that statement is true, then what has happened with Israel the nation- it would appear that God is a liar because through Jesus he has seperated himself from the nation of Israel. This is where you are missing a vital ingredient.

With this in mind then one can understand Paul’s argument in chapter 9. God’s word has not failed because salvation was never granted to the nation of Israel, but only’true’ Israel- the children of the promise. Paul defines this clearer in Gal 3:29, where Abraham’s seed or children are those in Christ.”

Kay – “Notice that this interpretation of Paul’s argument makes perfect sense of the Jewish questioner’s sense of injustice. No Jew would see injustice in God’s gratuitous election of Isaac over Ishmael or Jacob over Esau . The only thing about the argument that would have caused them to view God as unjust is the implication that “not all who are descended from Israel are Israel” (9:6), and for Paul, of course, to be a true descendant of Abraham was to follow him in *”faith”* (4:11-12, Gal. 3:7-8).”

Kay – “Rather than being a pleasant assurance of God’s favor, the statement, “Jacob I loved but Esau I hated,” forms part of God’s indictment—that even though God had chosen to work through Israel, nevertheless Israel had been unfaithful, and was under judgment.

Paul uses these quotations to oppose those Jews who would say that, if the Gospel were correct, then “God’s word had failed” (9:6). His response to them is that God had never made the unconditional promises, based either on “works” or *ethnicity*, that they were claiming. God sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael; He sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau; and by implication, He can sovereignly choose on the *basis* of “faith in Christ”, as opposed to works of the law or ethnicity. To the Jewish questioner, God’s apparent change (from law and ethnicity to faith) would appear to be unjust (v.14).”

Mark – “Therefore when we read Israel in verse 6 this is clearly Pauls usage. Not all of his ‘brothers’ or ‘people’ are true Israel. True Israel are not the natural children of Abraham but the ‘children of the promise’. These children are the one’s who are considered Abraham’s children.”

Kay – “Paul has shown in Romans 1-8 the fallenness of both Jew and Gentile, and justification not by the “works of the law” (3:20) but rather by “faith in Jesus Christ” (3:22). He uses Abraham as an example of justification by faith (Paul explains, Abraham is pronounced righteous by God *before* ‘circumcision’), and the practical implications of justification by faith.”

Kay – “Paul’s response is simply to demonstrate that God never chose descendants of Abraham, merely as descendants of Abraham, for inclusion in the covenant community. This is clear because not all the descendants of Abraham were included, but only the descendants of Isaac, and then of Jacob.”

Mark – “Pauls argument in 9-11 is to show how God’s word has not failed because he has not seperated himself from ‘Israel’ (in the true sense). That is why i said to go back again to the again of chapter 8.”

Kay – “Paul uses these quotations to oppose those Jews who would say that, if the Gospel were correct, then “God’s word had failed” (9:6). His response to them is that God had never made the unconditional promises, based either on “works” or *ethnicity*, that they were claiming. God sovereignly chose Isaac over Ishmael; He sovereignly chose Jacob over Esau; and by implication, He can sovereignly choose on the *basis* of “faith in Christ”, as opposed to works of the law or ethnicity. To the Jewish questioner, God’s apparent change (from law and ethnicity to faith) would appear to be unjust (v.14).”
—————

So, it seems to me, that the problem you have with my view is not that my points are not valid – since many are the same as your’s – but that you don’t really have time to examine what I actually say to see the fact that I can come to them without calvinism(ie. #291 “I would love to write more but i’ve run out of time. Sorry”). Having time constraints myself, I really understand .

So, for now, it seems to me, more resonable and beneficial that you continue to carry on slowly with only the “John” discussion. And we can resume later, dv.