Butch5
Member
If you trying to prove that the context of Romans 9 is not about salvation do you realize you might have to deal with the context of Romans 9. Is it a difficult concept that Romans 9 is about the context of Romans 9? I am not protesting you going to other contexts, but do you understand the process of exegesis? Do you realize that to demonstrate what the context is in Romans 9 that you will have to deal with the words, phrases and grammar of Romans 9? Nevertheless, feel free to include any portion of scripture, apocryphal texts, the bhagavad gita, the Quran, or the Enuma Elish, or anything else you wish. Of course that will not demonstrate very much about the coherence of the internal content and the context of Romans 9. To demonstrate what Romans 9 is about you have to go verse by verse, even phrase by phrase in that context. You should be relating the development of Pauls argument and relating all portions of the context to the common theme you are proposing. Only then have you demonstrated your proposed theme.
LOL, shoot, Butch, you have not even made a concrete proposition of what you think the theme of Romans 9 actually is yet. The only thing you have done is denied that it is about salvation or individual election. That is not even proposing a common theme in Romans 9, it is just a statement about what it is not about. Then to prove your point you go all over the bible talking about the Arbahamic Covenant. When I say that the Abrahamic Covenant has soteriological issues in it, do you demonstrate that these issues are not in the text by showing the common theme of Romans 9? No. You just continue going all over the scriptrues talking about the Abrahamic Covenant. Also, I have already said that there are Jewish issues, covenant issues, and things like that in Romans 9. I have been long aware of the Covenants and promises to Israel in verses 3-5. In fact, I would go further then you and mention the issues concerning Israel in Romans 9:6 and the illustrative material in verses 7-13. But even though I would go further then you in relating the text to Israel does not prove that the text has no issues concerning soteriology. That would be to join you in your non-sequitur thinking. Please show who the covenant issues in Romans 9 do not relate to the salvation and election of Israel. If you wish to continue harping and harping on the Abrahamic Covenant, feel free, but it definitely does not prove anything about the internal theme of the material in Romans 9. All that does is show a relationship between the concepts of Covenant between different contexts. It does not one thing to demonstrate the internal message of Romans 9. Somehow, I do not think you understand the internal exegesis of a passage. Am I right? Do you do contextualization by relating the internal parts to one another? I was looking to discuss the context of Romans 9. Do you discuss the internal message of Romans 9 by discussion of 24 other texts? Do you establish the context of Romans 9 by a discussion of Malachi, Genesis, and other texts but only quote 3 verses in Romans 9? I honestly must admit that your method of discussing the context totally escapes me. The offer of my previous post is still valid. If you honestly admit you cannot relate the parts of Romans 9 internally, I will be happy to do it for you.
Seriously, Mondar? I really want to believe that you're just not understanding what it is I'm saying. However as I read you posts I'm not so sure anymore. So far all I've seen is an outright dismissal of everything, I've not seen any attempt to address anything I've said. That suggests to me that I have made my case and that you see what it is I'm saying. I suspect that you don't want to accept what I've said. I think it's pretty clear. If you want to address what I've said and show me where it's wrong feel from but to simply deny I've made any attempt I think is bogus.