romans 9 study

[beloved57]

Paul is not doing this by accident. Romans 9 and 11 are part of a single argument. So the "vessels fitted for destruction" must be unbelieving Jews. Otherwise the parallels between Romans 9 and 11 are a massive co-incidence.

Paul is speaking about the destinies of Jews and gentiles in romans 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[whitecloud]

Hi,

If that same spirit that rose Christ from the dead dwells in you , He will quicken you mortal body and raise us from the dead. I believe since Jesus rose from the dead all men live forever from then forward. When we die to our mortal self for others well being, do you honestly believe that while walking in the way, God will punish those who loved the ones that God directed them to love? No ofcourse. We shall be His from now to eternaty.They who still carry His murder on them will be seperated as from the sheep and the goats. Sins we committ are not the sins unto death, for we have been appointed to be fully glorified in Him. Apparently it just takes a while like most everything.

It is more time to seek His face than to expound on the colors of angels too toos. He is coming very very soon, ask a Yashua Believer, the times and seasons are here. One generation will not pass till all these things be fullfilled. It is time and He will come at an hour even we know not. Yet we DO know the times and seasons.

Just a note from the Termenal Generation.

 

[Drew]

Paul is not doing this by accident. Romans 9 and 11 are part of a single argument. So the "vessels fitted for destruction" must be unbelieving Jews. Otherwise the parallels between Romans 9 and 11 are a massive co-incidence.

Only in your humanism..again you merely twist scripture since you are not born again

Ah, the familiar refrain of "I cannot engage your argument so I will claim you are on the outside of the kingdom". Do you really think this is a convincing strategy?

..but paul is speaking about the destinies of Jews and gentiles in romans 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

First, this is simply posting the scriptures and merely asserting that they support your point. Do you not feel any obligation at all to explain how it is that Paul uses a very similar construct in Romans 11, as I have shown in detail, where it is Israel, not the pre-destined lost, who effectively are those by whom the Gentiles are blessed.

In any event, I suspect that you are implicitly arguing that because the "vessels of mercy" contain both Jews and Gentiles, then the same must be true of the "vessels of destruction".

Well I agree that the "vessels of mercy" category does indeed contain both Jews and Gentiles. Paul makes this clear in verse 24.

But, verse 24 does not, by any reasonable linguistic interpretation apply to the "vessels of destruction". Verse 24 qualifies verse 23 alone, not verse 22. So you are (again) reading something into this text if you think that Paul is saying that the vessels of destruction is a set with both Jews and Gentiles in it.

Let's be clear: Verse 24 is talking about the "vessels of mercy". Paul has said in 23 that there is this set "the vessels" of mercy. And in 24, he identifies an "us" as being part of that set. And what does he say about that "us"? He says that the "us" contains both Jews and Gentiles.

He is not talking about both groups when he insists on a Jew+Gentile composition. He is only saying this about the vessels of mercy.

The vessels fitted for destruction are unbelieving Jews.

 

[beloved57]

Ah, the familiar refrain of "I cannot engage your argument so I will claim you are on the outside of the kingdom". Do you really think this is a convincing strategy?

I have given you plenty of scripture, you reject it..for your humanism..

 

[Drew]

Ah, the familiar refrain of "I cannot engage your argument so I will claim you are on the outside of the kingdom". Do you really think this is a convincing strategy?

I have given you plenty of scripture, you reject it..for your humanism..

This is not a correct characterization of what is happening here. You present scripture and then basically claim that it supports a certain position. I then present detailed counterarguments. Either unwilling, or, more likely, unable to respond to such counterarguments, you take the only route left to you - dismiss me as using "humanist reasoning".

 

[Drew]

More evidence that the "vessels fitted for destruction" are unbelieving Jews and not the "pre-destined lost".

I trust that I do not need to convince the reader that chapters 9 to 11 is largely Paul's answer to the question "If God has this new covenant family constituted by Jews and Gentiles, and if most Jews have rejected Jesus, and if the covenant promises were really made to Jews, has God really been faithful to his covenant since most Jews are out in the cold?"

Paul anticipates that the reader will be puzzled that most Jews - to whom the covenant promises were made - are now on the "outside", since they have rejected their Messiah. So chapters 9 to 11 addresses the "What is going on with Isreal" question.

And, of course, we get the "vessels fitted for destruction" stuff in the middle of Romans 9.

A number of obvious parallels are drawn between Jesus (Romans 5) and Israel (Romans 11). These parallels make it clear that Paul intends the reader to see the Jews as the "vessels fitted for destruction"

Note what Paul says in Romans 11:

11Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. 12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!
13I am talking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch as I am the apostle to the Gentiles, I make much of my ministry 14in the hope that I may somehow arouse my own people to envy and save some of them. 15For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?

And now lets go back to Romans 5:

10For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life! 11Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation. 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ

Note the following parallels:

1. In 5:10-11, we have the death and resurrection of Jesus described as reconciling us to God. And the exact same language is used in 11:15, where it is Israel that brings reconciliation to the world.

2. In 5:15, Paul says Christ's death benefits the many. In 11:12, he uses similar language in respect to Israel, declaring that the transgression of Israel brings riches to the world. And likewise in 11:11, he refers to Israel's role in bringing salvation to the Gentiles (thus effectively benefiting "the many").

3. In 5:17, Paul says that, through the work of Jesus, we move from death to life. In 11:15, Paul says that the conversion of Jews effectively involves a transition from death to life.

Clearly, Paul sees Israel as acting out the Christ pattern. We always say that Jesus was "made sin" or made to be a "vessel where the sins of the world are laid". But Paul is saying the same thing about Israel in chapter 11!! I am not making this up, people.

What is Paul thinking? Obviously Paul sees Israelites as - you guessed it - vessels fitted for destruction - they are "full of transgressions" and therefore, like Jesus who carries the sins of the world, they are the vessels that will "contain" the sin that is the true target of God's wrath. Remember, God condemns sin on the cross, not Jesus.

And, of course, Israel is spared the destruction that they are "fitted for". Her faithful Messiah Jesus, acting in fidelity with the Abrahamic covenant take on Israel's destiny. And it is Jesus who bears the awful stroke of God's wrath, vented against the sin "in His flesh".

Now I will await the replies of "you are using a humanist argument". Well, I am only following Paul's clear implications.

 

[beloved57]

This is not a correct characterization of what is happening here. You present scripture and then basically claim that it supports a certain position

.

Yes I gave you scripture..and you reject it and then ask me again to support my claim by scripture.. :-? you cant see how irrational that is ?

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Many sincere Bible students have been deceived by the tactics of what has been referred to as the Rapture Cult on many different fronts. One of the most notorious efforts is found in Romans 11 where a casual reading of a single verse, taken out of context, can be twisted to make it appear that at some future point God will miraculously convert all Jewish people to Christianity. This teaching is an abomination as that particular lie is deeply rooted in the Antichrist system we identify as the Rapture Cult.

For openers, the primary difficulty in this understanding the truth of this verse is the Apostle Paul's seemingly abrupt shift in focal points in and around verse 26 - "And so all Israel shall be saved." A close analysis will indicate that what he actually does is make a concluding point to his prior statements in the chapter. It was because of this contextual fluidity that I kept moving further and further back in the chapter in order to reconstruct the flow of his thoughts - thus, a lengthy piece on the subject seemed in order.

Several things can help in understanding this passage. First, recognize you're reading a letter that has ALREADY addressed who Israel is several pages (chapters) previously. Paul has ALREADY elaborated extensively on, and identified the "seed" of Abraham as being fulfilled in the promised Messiah (1:3, 9:8).

Paul has ALREADY elaborated on the fact that "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children." (9:7). Paul has already stated that the "promise" to the SEED of Abraham [which is Christ], "that he should be heir of the world," was not through the law [a phenomena that was peculiar to Israel] but by faith.

Paul has ALREADY clearly stated that "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (9:8)

One may suppose, since Paul has repeatedly instructed the churches in each city to read the epistles written to the other churches (Col 4:16, I Thess 5:27) that the Romans had read the Galatian epistle written several years previously. Thus, Paul has ALREADY stated that "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29).

Thus, by the time we get to chapter 11 of Romans, it has already been established there are two Israels - "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). In a similar vein, it has already been established there are two groups of Jews - "He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly... in the spirit" (Rom 2:28).

All these statements have preceded the statement that "all Israel shall be saved". Had Paul said "and so, all Jews shall be saved," there would probably be no question he was speaking of the "inward" Jews, but because he used the collective term "Israel" immediately after having referred to what could be distinguished as 'natural' Israel, there is some difficulty in recognizing WHICH Israel he is referring to in which "ALL" are saved.

A good question would be, is it consistent to think that Paul has spent chapter upon chapter repeatedly articulating how Israel "stumbled" because they did not embrace the Messiah by FAITH as the seed of Abraham, then abruptly say 'Oh well, they're all going to be saved anyway?' Or another variation would be, 'it won't matter in the long run, because no matter what they do, all Israel shall be saved.'

This 'predestined irresistible grace' is the proposition being put forth by the Dispensationalists. It runs counter to the overwhelming body of Scripture, and the central theme of the New Testament.

The claim that God must save all of physical Israel is usually based on a perceived irrevocable promise to that particular family - but a carrying over into the modern era of a perceived promise to "remember" Israel ignores the fact that the promise to "remember" Israel was already fulfilled in the Messiah's arrival. Furthermore, the "remnant" that is prophesied to be saved among the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" are specified to exist in the early Christian church.

Because Paul has already repeatedly stated there is such a thing as a "remnant" of Israel (11:4,5) and there are two "Israels" with an unbelieving Israel that is not "the Israel of God" (Gal 3:29), it is consistent for him to be referring to the 'saved' Israel when he writes "all Israel shall be saved."

Conversely, it is not consistent with the preponderance of New Testament doctrine to think he is saying all the Jews will be saved, when there is no such promise, prophecy, or explicit statement anywhere in Scripture. The lack of Scripture promising that "all" of physical Israel will be saved doesn't even account for the last two thousand years of history - to say nothing of the fact that every indication we have is that the modern Israeli nation is up to their eyeballs in the present apostasy.

Tthe 11th chapter of Romans is a favorite of the Rapture Cult. They regularly demonstrate their cultic tendencies insomuch as they love to take one verse out of context, attach a superficial rendering of that verse, then attempt to militate against 20 other verses that disagree with the first verse. This is the case with the "all Israel shall be saved" constituency.

Solid spiritual wisdom requires that any seemingly contradictory statements must be harmonized among the totality of the Scriptures - something the Cult teaches, but rarely executes.

The "strong delusion" that has overtaken the church in terms of the great deception of Dispensationalism has brought some to the point of saying that Christians that claim their birthright as the "chosen generation" and the "peculiar people" that Peter told us about (I Peter 2:9), have somehow become anti-Semitic! This lie is so monstrous that it manifests the profound nature of the verse in I John that bluntly informs us that "who is a liar but Antichrist?" (I John 2:22).

The Jewish leaders of the generation that saw Jesus walk among them also claimed an irrevocable birthright when they claimed they were of their father Abraham. Jesus set them straight as to who their real father was. So too, those of this "evil and adulterous generation" that have constructed "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6). The Rapture Cult shall find themselves "accursed" because "they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved" (II Thessalonians 2:10). Soon, the false prophets of pre-tribulationism "shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames" (Isaiah 13:8).

But ye brethren, are not in darkness that that day should overtake you as a thief (I Thess 5:4).

 

[whitecloud]

Dear friends,

How fully encompusing is the mystory of the Grace of God on the face of the earth. How revealing is all of the natural occurances, that one is called and chosen where another must waite upon Him to change our vial natures. Romans 9 is a whopper in explaining many of the works of God in us all.

I am one who as you say, who perverts the gospel and believes anyone can come unto Him with repentance and sorrow untill he recieves the Grace He promises each sinner who will come unto Him. They may have to seek Him as a hidden pearl in the most exspensive piece of property on earth, but God has given us His saints a hope for any man who will hear His voice and come unto Him. He is not a cruel God, when He tells us we must repent and be born again in His Spirit, the you, is the word, sent unto the whole world not just to the ones of us who are His princes on the earth. If we go not, Paul said how shall they hear or how shall they know if His word is not sent and spoke and shown to them. Jesus is the hope of the World, the whole world, but especially unto us who believe.

Yes, we know that many harden their hearts against His love and purposes for this creation. People reap what they sow and God will harden the hearts of those who will not hear His voice and repent. Eassau and Edom, Did Israel have all it's problems with Edom because they and Essau did wrong or is it because God simply knew He hated the essaus Sins more than Jacobs. I think of how Eassau and Jacob was brought back into fellowship after Jacob was born again. Jesus teaches us that if we give even a drink of water to one of His own we will not be denied that reward of one of His own. I concluded many years ago that God used Essau to reprove me of many ill centered activities as well, not as Jacob, but used non the less.. God has shown me the end of a nation who built caves in the hills and would not help their brother in need. God chose Eassau, yet I am incomplete unless I know of my own possible pit falls. To that end, God turned what the devil meant for evil into good.

You do not know Eassuas end, It was said he repented but did not find the grace He sought, was that before he and his brother were reconcielled? Before I can condem a soul to eternal Hell, God must have the last word conserning all things pertaining to our eternal salvation by Grace and the faith He gives us.

I just have a had a time thinking that for whom Christ died for and spilled His blood for does not cover any sin possible except the sin of proclaiming the work of God is of the devil, how can His mercy reach that person.

Jesus is our wisdom, He said all sins will be forgiven except those hidden behind that sin of deep destruction. He procaimed to us before the Father to forgive us because we know not what we do for the kingdom of Heaven sake. None of us really know the end of another persons soul. We only know that eternal life will be different for different people. It may be scripture that many will harden their hearts unto eternal judgement, yet my commision is to speek the Gosple unto the whole world, that who so ever comes unto Him . He will in no wise cast off. We can let God choose whom He will without daming a single soul before their day at the white thrown of God. No matter how damable ones actions may be.

Did Jesus die for Ahabs salvation as well as ... Daniel or you or me? God alone is soviern and He simply asks us to forgive others trustpasses. His word and promises will come to pass, Lazereth, his brothers and nauwing of teeth, fires of hell burning beneath. Eternal rewards and feathers in our caps, please dear friends we need to speek words of peace lest we suffer laps.

Be ware of consisions that gender strife rather than life. The greater consision, is what shall you do since you know that Jesus is indeed God maifested in the flesh. Fellowship not with those in the darkness or walk as they do.

My two and a half cents. Hope it is of help to someone.

Be blessed in Him.

 

[beloved57]

Many sincere Bible students have been deceived by the tactics of what has been referred to as the Rapture Cult on many different fronts. One of the most notorious efforts is found in Romans 11 where a casual reading of a single verse, taken out of context, can be twisted to make it appear that at some future point God will miraculously convert all Jewish people to Christianity. This teaching is an abomination as that particular lie is deeply rooted in the Antichrist system we identify as the Rapture Cult.

For openers, the primary difficulty in this understanding the truth of this verse is the Apostle Paul's seemingly abrupt shift in focal points in and around verse 26 - "And so all Israel shall be saved." A close analysis will indicate that what he actually does is make a concluding point to his prior statements in the chapter. It was because of this contextual fluidity that I kept moving further and further back in the chapter in order to reconstruct the flow of his thoughts - thus, a lengthy piece on the subject seemed in order.

Several things can help in understanding this passage. First, recognize you're reading a letter that has ALREADY addressed who Israel is several pages (chapters) previously. Paul has ALREADY elaborated extensively on, and identified the "seed" of Abraham as being fulfilled in the promised Messiah (1:3, 9:8).

Paul has ALREADY elaborated on the fact that "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children." (9:7). Paul has already stated that the "promise" to the SEED of Abraham [which is Christ], "that he should be heir of the world," was not through the law [a phenomena that was peculiar to Israel] but by faith.

Paul has ALREADY clearly stated that "they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." (9:8)

One may suppose, since Paul has repeatedly instructed the churches in each city to read the epistles written to the other churches (Col 4:16, I Thess 5:27) that the Romans had read the Galatian epistle written several years previously. Thus, Paul has ALREADY stated that "if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal 3:29).

Thus, by the time we get to chapter 11 of Romans, it has already been established there are two Israels - "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom 9:6). In a similar vein, it has already been established there are two groups of Jews - "He is not a Jew, which is one outwardly. But he is a Jew which is one inwardly... in the spirit" (Rom 2:28).

All these statements have preceded the statement that "all Israel shall be saved". Had Paul said "and so, all Jews shall be saved," there would probably be no question he was speaking of the "inward" Jews, but because he used the collective term "Israel" immediately after having referred to what could be distinguished as 'natural' Israel, there is some difficulty in recognizing WHICH Israel he is referring to in which "ALL" are saved.

A good question would be, is it consistent to think that Paul has spent chapter upon chapter repeatedly articulating how Israel "stumbled" because they did not embrace the Messiah by FAITH as the seed of Abraham, then abruptly say 'Oh well, they're all going to be saved anyway?' Or another variation would be, 'it won't matter in the long run, because no matter what they do, all Israel shall be saved.'

This 'predestined irresistible grace' is the proposition being put forth by the Dispensationalists. It runs counter to the overwhelming body of Scripture, and the central theme of the New Testament.

The claim that God must save all of physical Israel is usually based on a perceived irrevocable promise to that particular family - but a carrying over into the modern era of a perceived promise to "remember" Israel ignores the fact that the promise to "remember" Israel was already fulfilled in the Messiah's arrival. Furthermore, the "remnant" that is prophesied to be saved among the "lost sheep of the house of Israel" are specified to exist in the early Christian church.

Because Paul has already repeatedly stated there is such a thing as a "remnant" of Israel (11:4,5) and there are two "Israels" with an unbelieving Israel that is not "the Israel of God" (Gal 3:29), it is consistent for him to be referring to the 'saved' Israel when he writes "all Israel shall be saved."

Conversely, it is not consistent with the preponderance of New Testament doctrine to think he is saying all the Jews will be saved, when there is no such promise, prophecy, or explicit statement anywhere in Scripture. The lack of Scripture promising that "all" of physical Israel will be saved doesn't even account for the last two thousand years of history - to say nothing of the fact that every indication we have is that the modern Israeli nation is up to their eyeballs in the present apostasy.

Tthe 11th chapter of Romans is a favorite of the Rapture Cult. They regularly demonstrate their cultic tendencies insomuch as they love to take one verse out of context, attach a superficial rendering of that verse, then attempt to militate against 20 other verses that disagree with the first verse. This is the case with the "all Israel shall be saved" constituency.

Solid spiritual wisdom requires that any seemingly contradictory statements must be harmonized among the totality of the Scriptures - something the Cult teaches, but rarely executes.

The "strong delusion" that has overtaken the church in terms of the great deception of Dispensationalism has brought some to the point of saying that Christians that claim their birthright as the "chosen generation" and the "peculiar people" that Peter told us about (I Peter 2:9), have somehow become anti-Semitic! This lie is so monstrous that it manifests the profound nature of the verse in I John that bluntly informs us that "who is a liar but Antichrist?" (I John 2:22).

The Jewish leaders of the generation that saw Jesus walk among them also claimed an irrevocable birthright when they claimed they were of their father Abraham. Jesus set them straight as to who their real father was. So too, those of this "evil and adulterous generation" that have constructed "another gospel" (Galatians 1:6). The Rapture Cult shall find themselves "accursed" because "they received not the love of the truth that they might be saved" (II Thessalonians 2:10). Soon, the false prophets of pre-tribulationism "shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames" (Isaiah 13:8).

But ye brethren, are not in darkness that that day should overtake you as a thief (I Thess 5:4).

Very good post..i am in agreement with it..

 

[mondar]

<major snip>
But ye brethren, are not in darkness that that day should overtake you as a thief (I Thess 5:4).

S4C,
I am sure that we would agree on much. I too think that those who read Romans 9 as pertaining only to national issues are very mistaken. I do not deny that there are national implications in Romans 9, but to just dismiss the text as not applying to individuals is to do injustice to the context.

However, I dont think that they who are on the Arminian/Pelagian side of this discussion are dispensationalists. Also, I heard none of them appeal to the Rapture as evidence.

Now to all readers....
However, the context of Romans 8 and 9 is upon the individual. Let me quote chapter 8.
29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This passage would be extremely difficult to isogete into the election or choice of "national" things." God foreknew individuals, he foreordained or predestined individuals. He called (elected) individuals in the passage. Notice the pronoun "he" in the verses. Everyone of them is a singular pronoun.

While I dont wish to present evidence from the rest of Chapter 8, it speaks of the contrast between being in the Spirit, and in the Flesh. To attribute all these things to nations and not individuals is not in the text.

Now the question is this... is there any relation of Chapter 8 to Chapter 9. The golden chain of redemption has been presented in Chapter 8. I can just see the ancient Jews objecting to Pauls argument on the basis that if God chose and predestined those who would be saved, then why were so many Jews opposed to Pauls Gospel. This is the reason he wrote Chapter 9. In Chapter 9 he is writing about Jews. But he is still writing about individual Jews, and only by application in verse 24 to Gentiles also.

The fact that he is writing about individual Jews can be seen in 9:3
3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Paul is not a nation, neither are the individual Jews, his brethren, kinsman according to the flesh nations. They are Israelite s, but they do not compose the entire nation of Israel. This is what Paul is saying also in verse 6.
6 But it is not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
Paul is saying that God is treating Israel is individuals also. There are some Israelites that are believing Israelites, and then there are some that are unbelieving. All of them whether believing or nonbelieving are "of Israel." But not all are "Israel." Only individual believing Israelites are "Israel." This is the concept of a remnant within Israel that is the true Israel. They are individuals. They are elect individuals.

Pauls whole point in Romans 9:6 is that Israel, as a whole nation, is not elect. Only individual Israelites are elect, and it is them that makes up the group to whom the promises belong. Then in verse 24 Paul includes Gentiles as a part of the single elect people of God. So then the people of God are made up of individual Israelites, and also individual Gentiles.

If the illustrations are looked at that follow 9:6 notice that Isaac is not one individual nation.
7 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed.
Isaac had two nations. Jacob became the nation of ISrael, and Esau became the Edomites. The issue of the illustration is that there is an "elect Israelite," Isaac. Pauls illustration is clever because there is also a descendant of Isaac that is not elect, Esau. Paul is still telling us that there are elect ISraelites, and non-elect ISraelites.

All this is to answer the objection from Chapter 8 which applies to all mankind. Remember the Jewish objection that Pauls theology of predestination makes Israels promises invalid? Paul just explained that there are still elect Israelites. They are individuals.

****This is not a new viewpoint. I will admit it is a minority reformed position, but many agree with this. Men such as Hodge (NICNT Romans), Dr James Boice (10th Presb in Phila) and others take the same view.

Mondar

 

[Drew]

Now to all readers....
However, the context of Romans 8 and 9 is upon the individual. Let me quote chapter 8.
29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

This passage would be extremely difficult to isogete into the election or choice of "national" things." God foreknew individuals, he foreordained or predestined individuals. He called (elected) individuals in the passage. Notice the pronoun "he" in the verses. Everyone of them is a singular pronoun.

While I dont wish to present evidence from the rest of Chapter 8, it speaks of the contrast between being in the Spirit, and in the Flesh. To attribute all these things to nations and not individuals is not in the text.

I agree - chapter 8 is about individuals.

Now the question is this... is there any relation of Chapter 8 to Chapter 9. The golden chain of redemption has been presented in Chapter 8. I can just see the ancient Jews objecting to Pauls argument on the basis that if God chose and predestined those who would be saved, then why were so many Jews opposed to Pauls Gospel. This is the reason he wrote Chapter 9. In Chapter 9 he is writing about Jews. But he is still writing about individual Jews, and only by application in verse 24 to Gentiles also.

Your argument here contains a hidden presumption - that Romans 8:28-30 indeed endorses the position that individuals are elected to salvation. I am convinced that Roman 8:28-30 does not support such a position (to the exclusion of other positions). And, of course, we can talk about Romans 8:28-30 if you like - that's a complicated discussion in and of itself.

But if Romans 8 does not endorse pre-destination, the very question you raise here - if God has pre-destined, why does He seem to pre-destine so few Jews - would not be in the mind of the reader.

I think it pretty clear that chapters 9 to 11 form an integrated block that fills in Paul's position on the role of the Jews in the plan of God.

The fact that he is writing about individual Jews can be seen in 9:3

I did not really follow the rest of your argument here. However I will point out the error of this kind of argument:

1. Nations are composed of individuals;
2. Therefore, everything that is said about a nation is also true of the individuals in that nation.

This reasoning is incorrect. Paul indeed does discriminate between Jews who believe and are part of "Israel of the promise". But there is no reason to understand that Paul is not speaking at the "level" of groups here.

Pauls whole point in Romans 9:6 is that Israel, as a whole nation, is not elect. Only individual Israelites are elect, and it is them that makes up the group to whom the promises belong.

This argument, again, rises or falls on the question of whether Paul has indeed argued for individual election in Romans 8. If he has not, as I believe, then Romans 9:6 can be seen as Paul's introduction of the concept of of the "true Israel", with the issue of "individual predestination" not even on the table, since, by hypothesis, Paul never established that doctrine back in chapter 8.

It is important for readers to understand that Paul could be talking at the level of nations here, without necessarily making assertions about individuals. It is demonstrably incorrect to conclude that "what is true of the nation is true of the individuals in the nation".

 

[Drew]

Further to the question of what chapter 9 of Romans is about:

At the end of chapter 4, Paul has arrived at a point in his argument where he has shown that Abraham's true family are not the ethnic Jews, but rather a "Jew+Gentile" family whose badge of family membership is that they share the faith of Abraham.

Now in chapters 9-11, Paul will argue, among other things, that this "Jew + Gentile" family have an obligation to national Israel. And he echoes this in 15:27

27They were pleased to do it, and indeed they owe it to them. For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews' spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings

In chapters 4 to 8 we see this interesting pattern. The very promises, seemingly made to the Jews (reference Romans 9:4) are ascribed to Christ and his worldwide people:
- Sonship (Romans 8);

- Glory (Romans 5 and 8);

- Covenants (Romans 4 and 8);

- Lawgiving (Romans 7 and 8);

- Worship (Romans 5:1â€â€5 and Romans 8);

- Promises (Romans 4);

- Patriarchs (Romans 4).

The overall structure of Paul's argument is the covenant promises have been historically misread as being for the Jews and the Jews only. Instead, Paul argues in chapters 4 to 8, they are for this worldwide "Jew + Gentile" family.

Now, having done this - having transferred the covenant promises from national Israel to "true" Israel (Christians, whether Jew or Gentile), Paul then needs to answer this question which is no doubt burning in the mind of the reader at the end of chapter 8:

If God has transferred the covenant blessings to a people other than national Israel, how is God being fair and true to a covenant made with national Israel?

This, I suggest, is the question that Romans 9 addresses, not the question of why God has elected so few Jews.

 

[mondar]

Now the question is this... is there any relation of Chapter 8 to Chapter 9. The golden chain of redemption has been presented in Chapter 8. I can just see the ancient Jews objecting to Pauls argument on the basis that if God chose and predestined those who would be saved, then why were so many Jews opposed to Pauls Gospel. This is the reason he wrote Chapter 9. In Chapter 9 he is writing about Jews. But he is still writing about individual Jews, and only by application in verse 24 to Gentiles also.

Your argument here contains a hidden presumption - that Romans 8:28-30 indeed endorses the position that individuals are elected to salvation. I am convinced that Roman 8:28-30 does not support such a position (to the exclusion of other positions). And, of course, we can talk about Romans 8:28-30 if you like - that's a complicated discussion in and of itself.

Drew, as you know, and as I have stated many times, I think your denial of individual election is not based upon the text. The text in Romans 8:28-30 has only single case personal pronouns.

Other texts that speak of election have individual election only within view. Such as 2Thes 2:13.
13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, for that God chose you from the beginning unto salvation in sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
To make this a nation election is to make this a national salvation. In this text, the words "from the beginning unto salvation" occur which make the issue of election to be a saved soul. I figure the argument from 2Thes 2:13 is best ignored because it cannot fit into your view, but do you have any comments?

But if Romans 8 does not endorse pre-destination, the very question you raise here - if God has pre-destined, why does He seem to pre-destine so few Jews - would not be in the mind of the reader.

In verse 29 it says...
29 For whom he foreknew, he also foreordained to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren:
If you make a nation be conformed to the image of his son, can you tell me what this would look like? The word "foreordained" is translated predestined in some versions. Who is the first born in the text? IS this not Christ. Because of predestination Christ becomes the first born of those whom he predestines to salvation or justification? Can be honestly say you think the brethren of Christ in this passage is nations and not individuals? Please dont just disagree as a knee jerk reaction, with the personal pronouns, the concept of Christ as the firstborn among the predestined, can you really say you think this is talking about nations?

I think it pretty clear that chapters 9 to 11 form an integrated block that fills in Paul's position on the role of the Jews in the plan of God.

Yes, of individual Jews who are Israelites, but not of the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel is partially and Temporarily rejected.

The fact that he is writing about individual Jews can be seen in 9:3

I did not really follow the rest of your argument here. However I will point out the error of this kind of argument:

1. Nations are composed of individuals;
2. Therefore, everything that is said about a nation is also true of the individuals in that nation.

The error here is that the passage is definately speaking of issues of salvation.
3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 who are Israelites; whose is the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Paul is willing to go to hell, so that his countrymen can go to heaven. Paul is willing to give up his salvation so that individual countrymen can go to heaven.

Drew-------> To make this some sort of national promise not related to individual's is to completely destroy what many of the national promises actually are. No be careful as you read this, I am not denying that the promises relate to national issues. I myself believe in a revival of Jews and that a time will come when many of them will convert to Christ. This will done somehow as a national group. But notice I am still talking about individuals and their salvation. This was called the doctrine of the remnant in the OT.

This reasoning is incorrect. Paul indeed does discriminate between Jews who believe and are part of "Israel of the promise".

Your sentence is confusing. What two groups within believing Jews does Paul discriminate between?

I think you are referring to Romans 9:6? If you want to use the term "discriminate" that is fine. Paul is then "discriminating" between Jews who believe and Jews who do not believe. There are no Gentiles in Romans 9:6. There are no nations. There is only two kinds of Israel in 9:6.
For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
The two uses of the term Israel in 9:6 are as follows.
1-- The term "of Israel" at the end of the verse.... The term "of Israel" is speaking of all Jews. It is speaking of unbelieving Jews and believing Jews. It speaks of the entire nation. It speaks of every Jew living at Pauls time. It is the entire nation of Israel. Paul is saying that the promises in verse 4-5 are not to all of these Jews.
2-- There is also the negative "not." The people that are "not" Israel in verse 6 are unbelieving Jews. The unbelieving Jew is then a part of a group called "not Israel." Now it is true that they are a part of the nation of Israel, but Paul is saying that the promises were not to them.
3-- There is a silent third group not mentioned in the text. The text says who "of Israel" is... they are all Jewish people in the time of Paul. The text speaks of "not Israel" but what about those who believe. In Romans 9:6 they constitute real and true Israel to whom the promises were given. This group is Israel, but they are individuals to whom the promises (of regeneration ---and salvation) belong.
4-- Of course to this group the Gentiles are added in Romans 9:24.

So then, Paul is talking about the saved Jews. He is talking about the elect saved Jewish individuals and saying that they are "Israel" to whom belongs the promises and the covenant. Paul in verse 3 wishes that he could go to hell for all of fleshly Israel, that includes the unbelievers, but of course he cannot do that.

But there is no reason to understand that Paul is not speaking at the "level" of groups here.

LOL, well dude, your gonna have to write more then the word "level" for me to understand the meaning of you words. I have no idea what you are talking about with the term "level." Also, this sentence is a double negative, and that makes it more difficult to understand your meaning. None of us are professional writers. Let me know what your meaning here.

Pauls whole point in Romans 9:6 is that Israel, as a whole nation, is not elect. Only individual Israelites are elect, and it is them that makes up the group to whom the promises belong.

This argument, again, rises or falls on the question of whether Paul has indeed argued for individual election in Romans 8.

I would not agree here either. Romans 9 has sufficient internal evidence to see that the context is about individual people, individual Jewish people, and then also Gentiles. Again, I am not saying that this has nothing to do with the nation, but it is about salvation and individuals.

If he has not, as I believe, then Romans 9:6 can be seen as Paul's introduction of the concept of of the "true Israel", with the issue of "individual predestination" not even on the table, since, by hypothesis, Paul never established that doctrine back in chapter 8.

It is important for readers to understand that Paul could be talking at the level of nations here, without necessarily making assertions about individuals. It is demonstrably incorrect to conclude that "what is true of the nation is true of the individuals in the nation".

OK, I think I get your idea of "level" here. I am commenting as I am reading obviously. In Romans 9:6 he is not talking about level of nations because he is only talking about one nation. He is not actually even making that entire one nation the "elect" nation. Rather as I have been trying to say, it is the remnant, or individual elect Jews within the nation that are true Israel. There is simply no comparison of nations in the context. Look at verse 4-5. Paul is not saying that to the nations belong the promises and covenants, or that they belong to Israel more then others, or that they made Israel higher as a nation. In fact nations are not being contrasted in any way.

You are fond of talking about the later context concerning the pots and the potter. There are not good nations in Romans 9. The potter kind of goofed and slipped on every nation. Where is the righteous nation of our world. Which nation is the one made for the potters glory? If that is Israel, then its a pretty warped Pot that is for glory. There are no nations compared there either. If you were properly following the analogy of the chapter from 9:6 you would see both pots are Jews. He can make one individual Jew into a pot of glory and another for destruction. Your thesis that the pots are different levels of nations ignores the topic sentence, Romans 9:6. There are no gentiles in Romans 9:6, but only believing Jews and unbelieving Jews.

For Gentiles Paul lowers the boom in verse 24. This same principle of election within Individuals that are Jewish also applies to individuals that are gentiles. There are no preeminent Gentile nations either. Drew, I bet its a bummer if I mention that the UK is not actually a Christian nation, and is falling away. It is probably no comfort that my country, the USA, is on the same "level." There are no righteous countries, and no pots of glory among countries. But God makes individual pots for destruction and some for glory within each and every nation.

I hope I have shown that not only is chapter 8 about individual election, so is chapter 9.

Sola glorious deus,
Mondar

 

[Drew]

Drew, as you know, and as I have stated many times, I think your denial of individual election is not based upon the text. The text in Romans 8:28-30 has only single case personal pronouns.

OK there is a lot to deal with in your post. First, I will present a multi-post argument that I claim undermines the claim that Romans 8:28-30 supports the pre-destination of individuals. It is long and I have broken it up into chunks. Here is the first introductory part:

And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. 29For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.

This text is often used to support the assertion that God has pre-destined some to ultimate glorification. We shall see that the text is, at best, only consistent with this view. The text can also be legitimately read in a manner that does not entail the pre-destination of specific people to ultimate glorification.

It is my understanding that the “standard†Calvinist position on this text is this:

God has clearly pre-destined specific individuals to conformance to the image of the Son – that is beyond dispute. Paul then goes on to say a number of things about this same set of individuals, including that they are glorified – this is a clear reference to ultimate salvation. So there is simply no way to read this text except that there is a set of persons pre-destined to ultimate glorification.

Well, this argument does not ultimately work. I will grant that God has indeed pre-destined a “set†of persons to be conformed to the image of Christ. And I will grant that this same set is glorified. But, as we shall see, the text does not endorse the admittedly powerful intuition that this means that we must conclude that some are pre-destined to glorification.

 

[Drew]

Part 2 of my argument about Romans 8:28-30.

Argument Decoupling Pre-Destination to Conformity from Pre-Destination to Glorification

Paul, in this block of text is talking about a group or set of people and saying a number of things about them. There is only one set of persons in view here. This simplifies the analysis.

What is the very first thing that Paul says about this group as he begins what is clearly a tightly integrated block of three verses? He says that they “love Godâ€Â. It is obvious that nothing in the statement “God works for the good of those who love him†rules out the possibility that a measure of human free will is involved in the process of getting to state where one “loves Godâ€Â.

In the second half of verse 28, Paul says something else about “those who love him†– he says that they are called according to his purpose. We cannot legitimately read selective pre-destination into this. Such a reading is simply not faithful to the concept of a “call†which, in English at least, has an invitation sense which effectively pre-supposes the existence of free will on the part of the one called. So, for the present at least, the possibility remains that others were also called and “freely†rejected the call. It would be an obvious error of logic to argue as follows:

1. The people who love God have been called to that state;
2. Therefore, only those people who love God have been called, and can wind up “loving God.

That would be like arguing:

1. The 25 members of the 2008 edition of the New York Yankees were called to training camp;
2. Therefore, only these 25 people were called to training camp.

In verse 29, Paul clearly establishes that those he foreknew, he also pre-destined to be conformed to the likeness of Christ. Clearly, we are motivated to ask precisely what it is that God foreknew about these people. It seems to me that God foreknows who it is that will love God. But I am not sure it matters what God foreknows in the context of a discussion of pre-destination precisely because God’s foreknowledge of “X†does not necessitate pre-destination of “Xâ€Â. If people disagree with this, then we have another issue to settle.

Now comes the crux of my argument. I am going to claim that God’s pre-destination of some to conformity does not require us to conclude that God pre-destined those same people to glorification. At the outset, I will point out that Paul says that those who were pre-destined to conformity are glorified; he does not say that those who were pre-destined to conformity were pre-destined to be glorified.

God can indeed pre-destine a person to conformity to the Son without pre-destining that person will ever come to faith in the Son in the first place. I admit that such a claim seems untenable, but the only reason it seems untenable is that we, quite naturally, do not think through the incredible power God gets by being able to the know the future. Let’s consider a person “Fredâ€Â. I suggest that God can foreknow that Fred will “freely†accept the gift of covenant membership in Christ. And further, God can use this knowledge to pre-destine Fred to be conformed to the image of the Son. God is pre-destining what will happen to Fred (in respect to being conformed to the likeness of the Son) contingent upon His (God’s) foreknowledge of what “free will†choice Fred will make in respect to accepting the offer of salvation. God is using his own fore-knowledge of free will choices made by Fred in order to then pre-destine what will happen to Fred.

I suspect that some readers will see this as wordplay on my part. I know it seems a bit odd – God looking ahead into history to see what Fred will do “freely†and then effectively injecting a measure of pre-destining “control†in respect to Fred being conformed to the image of the Son. It eems like God is “cheating†somehow. Well, I admit it does seem odd in a way, but I see no reason why this is not a possible state of affairs. God is in the fore-knowing business, God is in the pre-destining business.

 

[Drew]

Part 3 (last) of my argument about Romans 8:28-30:

“Those He called, He Also Glorifiedâ€Â

Now the position I am advocating seems to be undercut in verse 30 where Paul writes “those he called, he also justifiedâ€Â. As has been already stated, I am committing to the belief that God calls all people. Well, if that is true, it seems like verse 30 forces me to universalism since Paul says that those who are called are also justified. My response to this is to claim that the overall structure of the verse allows me to legitimately salvage my overall position – namely that while everyone is called, only those who “freely†respond to the call are justified and glorified (and conformed to the image of the Son).

Here is Romans 8:30 as rendered in the Young’s literal translation:

30and whom He did fore-appoint, these also He did call; and whom He did call, these also He declared righteous; and whom He declared righteous, these also He did glorify

The argument against my position is that if God indeed calls all people, as I am suggesting, then the phrase “and whom He did call, these also He declared righteous,…..†strongly implies that all we be declared righteous and hence all be glorified. And that is universalism.

But things are not this simple. Let’s back up to the beginning of verse 30. Paul clearly identifies a specific group – those who are “fore-appointed†to be conformed to the Son. Through the use of the phrase “these alsoâ€Â, Paul then makes another statement specifically about this same group. And that statement is that they are called. So we know that there is a set of persons who are both pre-destined and called. Of course, this, in and of itself, does not require us to believe that all who are called are pre-destined to be conformed to the image of the Son.

Now to the tricky part. If one encountered the phrase “and those whom He did call, these also He declared righteousâ€Â, with no surrounding context, and one believed that all are indeed called, one would then indeed be forced to universalism.

When Paul writes “whom He did fore-appoint, these also He did callâ€Â, he is using a form of speech that suggests that he is not introducing "those who are called" as a general set. Instead, the phrase "these also" strongly suggests that he has not expanded his scope of consideration beyond those who are pre-destined to conformity.

The argument that I am forced into universalism gets its appeal from the notion that all humanity is the reference set for “whom he did call†in the next phrase: "whom He did call, these also He declared righteous". But Paul’s style of writing is at best ambiguous here. It is entirely plausible to assert that when he writes “these also he did callâ€Â, he is focussing on an attribute of the set of the people that were pre-destined, not intending that the reader think he is referring to the general, all humanity encompassing, class of all people called.

And then when Paul writes “whom He did call, these also he declared righteousâ€Â, he intends the reader to understand that he is continuing the thought – saying something further about this set of persons who are pre-destined to be conformed.

In summary, there is no compelling evidence that Romans 8:28-30 supports the assertion that some are pre-destined unto ultimate glorification

 

[beloved57]

Now the position I am advocating seems to be undercut in verse 30 where Paul writes “those he called, he also justifiedâ€Â. As has been already stated, I am committing to the belief that God calls all people.

No God doesnt call all people..but His elect, those whom He has chosen..rom 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24Even us[ the elect], whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

 

[Drew]

Now the position I am advocating seems to be undercut in verse 30 where Paul writes “those he called, he also justifiedâ€Â. As has been already stated, I am committing to the belief that God calls all people.

No God doesnt call all people..but His elect, those whom He has chosen..rom 9:

21Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:

23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

24Even us[ the elect], whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

I am going to change my mind with respect to the statement that all are called. I am going to say that you have to hear the gospel to be called.

However, I wish to point out two things:

1. There is an exceedingly powerful case to the effect that the "vessels fitted for destruction" are not the "pre-destined lost", but rather the nation of Israel, at least that part of it that has rejected the gospel.

2. Even though Paul does here write about vessels fitted for glory - and I grant that "ultimate salvation" is on the table here - there is no necessity whatsoever to see that this entails the predestination of specific individuals to ultimate salvation.

I am prepared to make a case for either of these two statements.

 

[mondar]

1. There is an exceedingly powerful case to the effect that the "vessels fitted for destruction" are not the "pre-destined lost", but rather the nation of Israel, at least that part of it that has rejected the gospel.

2. Even though Paul does here write about vessels fitted for glory - and I grant that "ultimate salvation" is on the table here - there is no necessity whatsoever to see that this entails the predestination of specific individuals to ultimate salvation.

I am prepared to make a case for either of these two statements.

First, there is not even one decent argument, let alone a "powerful case" for your argument.

Drew, your last post in which you tried to answer about Romans 8 was so garbled, I am surprised to hear you talking like this. In your last post, I never saw so many "maybe...could be...possibilities" that ignored the subject of the discussion of the text.

Concerning Romans 9---------
Certainly Paul talks about the subject of Israel in Romans 9. I dont know anyone who disagrees that Israel is at least a part of the discussion of Chapter 9. However, your argument assumes that if you show the word "Israel" in the context that you have proven your point. Such a shallow argument makes mammoth assumptions. You assume that there is no such thing as an individual Jewish person. To date you have never adequately related the people who are "of Israel" yet who are not Israel."
For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel:
Drew, tell me who is "not all Israel?" If the context is talking about an elect nation, then who is those who are "not all Israel?" Why goodness, could they be the "vessels fit to destruction?" Notice the illustrations after verse 6....
ILLUSTRATION #1---7 neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. 9 For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
Now just to point out that the seed of Abraham all became nations is to completely miss how it illustrates the point of verse 6. There is no connection between the way you handle the illustrations and their connection to anything in verse 6. The connection is to illustrate that within each group (Abraham or Israel) are elect and none elect individuals. So Ishmael was a son of Abraham and a vessel fit to destruction and Isaac was chosen as the vessel of glory.
The 2nd illustration does the same.
10 And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, even by our father Isaac-- 11 for the children being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, 12 it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.
Both Jacob were physically descended from their common father Isaac. That is obvious because they were twins. Yes, they both became nations, but that does not relate them to verse 6 in any way. Remember, verse 6 tells us some individuals are of the physical descent of their parents (some are "not all Israel"), or Esau is physically a descendant of Isaac, but he is not the chosen one or elect of God.

Drew, I know your interpretations. You are going to say that the context is about the physical and national descent of the Messiah. But of course this does not relate the illustrations to verse 6, but rather your interpretations violate the context. It does not relate the illustration to what they illustrate in verse 6. The point is that there is a physical descent that is not elect within Israel. You are turning the entire context on its head by making the promises and covenants for genetic Israel, and not individual believing Jews within Israel.

Then when you get to verse 16...
16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercyOf course when you get to this verse, you of necessity have to ignore the individual pronouns force them to speak of nations.

Even the example of someone that is hardened is a person.... Notice verse 17 and the illustration of someone who was a vessel fitted for destruction... It was a person.
17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.

Even the objection presented by one of the vessels of wrath is pictured not as a nation, but as an individual man. Notice verse 20...
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? This objection does not come from a nation, but an individual person.

Finally, Pauls application of this principle of election with individual Gentiles is found in 9:24.
even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles? If Paul were talking about national Israel as the elect of God, which of the Gentile nations is he saying is also pots fitted for glory? Of course he is talking about individuals in verse 24. This parallels with the individual Jews in the rest of the context.

I guess what I am reacting to is your spin. It is total nonsense that there is an "exceedingly powerful case" for your point of view. Actually, I can see what you are doing. You are looking at individual words, and making an argument not from the context, but by looking at individual words and assuming that the term "Israel" cannot relate to individual people within the nation. It is a completely bogus argument.