Of course, I am of your same view. I simply wanted to establish the conclusion that at that point that I was referring to, there was absolutely no denying that man deserved to be condemned - though such a man might have been found guilty and been brought under such condemnation much earlier, when he had chosen to sin.
The context for Rom 9:14-15, begins before the 9th chapter itself - which is why I've summarized all the chapters leading to the 9th. The core doctrines(apart from many more important ones) handled in the first 8 chapters are - "justification apart from the Law" , "justification and life by grace, through faith in Christ Jesus" and "adoption as children and the consequent assured hope of final glorification".
Rom 1 - All those practicing ungodliness and unrighteousness openly even though they knew God, made evident within them, deserve God's wrath.
Rom 2 - All those who judge the above group but are themselves just the same in action, deserve God's wrath too - for it is not the expressed intent but the doers of the Law who are found Just. The gentiles have the law written in their hearts. The Jew is found a transgressor of the Law given to him.
Rom 3 - From the above, All the world is found guilty before God under the Law. Therefore, man is justified by faith, apart from the Law.
Rom 4 - Examples to support Rom 3 justification by faith, apart from the law.
Rom 5 - The Law was given to reveal sin - but grace abounds much more over sin. Therein, man is now no longer under the law(further supporting Rom 3 justification apart from the Law) - but under grace.
Rom 6 - Disproving anticipated erroneous implications raised against the above Rom 5.
Rom 7:1-6 - Final evidences and conclusion that man is now indeed justified apart from the Law.
Rom 7:7-25 - Disproving anticipated erroneous implications raised against the above. Man is now justified apart from the Law not because the law is sinful (the Law is of the Spirit and is holy) - but because man is sinful, in the flesh.
Rom 8:1-13 - Therefore, apart from the Law and sinful flesh - man(in the spirit) is justified(no longer condemned) and has life in Christ Jesus.
Rom 8:14-17 - The Glorious result of the above - adoption as children, where man is an heir of God and a fellow heir with Christ - through suffering unto the final glorification.
Rom 8:18-39 - Manifold assurances of and reasons for - the definite realization of the above hope - as children of God, unto their final glorification .
So, let us begin Rom 9 where we ended Rom 8 - with the manifold assurances of the final glorification, being the children of God. As is the pattern, this chapter deals with disproving anticipated erroneous implications against the preceding points made. What is the anticipated erroneous implication/objection?
If Paul's fellow Israelites received the above promises and adoption as children of God(Rom 9:4) - but are now accursed from Christ (Rom 9:3) - does it not nullify God's promised word and all the assurances of Rom 8:18-39?
Can you see the significance of this implication/objection? Paul painstakingly writes Rom 8:18-39 to assure his intended readers(most probably gentiles, given that they're Romans) of their hope of final glorification, as children of God - but these readers then could point to his fellow Israelites(also children of God) and their current state of being accursed from Christ inspite of the same promises and assurances to Israel - and applying that scenario to themselves, they could question the very validity of such assurances and promises from God in Rom 8:18-39.
So, Paul has to clarify what happened with respect to his fellow Israelites, upholding God's promised word and assurances - so that these readers can then apply the same scenario to themselves in confidence.
Here begins Paul's defense with a declaration refuting the above objection -
Rom 9:6a - Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect...
And the reason follows -
Rom 9:6b .....For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
So Paul's line of argument is that God's assurances and promised word to His children have Never failed. He simply clarifies that not all the people of Israelite origin are children of God, rather only a subset of all these people make up the actual "Israel" - which can lay claim to the promises and assurances, as the children of God.
That might have seemed quite convenient of Paul to sidestep an objection, by introducing seemingly new concepts - unless he is able to back this with Scriptural evidence that there indeed is a subset selected that the promises are made applicable to.
Paul presents Rom 9:7-9 - showing not all are children of God just because of fleshly descent - rather, only a subset who are covered by God's promises(example cited here is the Gen 21:12 promise) are children of God.
He further presents Rom 9:10-13 to bolster the same point, with the additional information that God's selection of these subsets is not based on anything done by the recipients, rather is in accordance to His own purposes in selecting such subsets.
Let's pause here and take stock of the argument so far - Paul's reader is talking about the Israelites being accursed from Christ(Rom 9:3) inspite of the same God's promised word to him - and applying that to himself, he wants to see if he can be assured against a similar fate. And Paul clarifies, paralleling Scriptural evidences in Isaac and Jacob, that God's Word has never failed with the 'real/actual' Israelites who are part of the selected subset to be covered by God's promises. This seems to have validated Rom 8:18-39 and the reader's confidence in what he hopes, as an heir/child of God.
But the reader then probably jumps the gun and starts applying Paul's paralleling Scriptural evidences to his own scenario of concerns over final glorification(salvation unto the end) - leading to the inference that the selection of the current subset of people(jew and gentile) too as children of God is not based on anything done by the recipients, rather is in accordance to His own purposes in selecting such subsets - and the reader understandably objects in Rom 9:14.
If this were not to be meant so, Paul could have easily disarmed the objection by stating - "Hey, that was only a paralleling illustration on the fact that God does select subsets according to His purposes - and it so happened that in Jacob's and Esau's case, God chose the subset before they were even born, independent of what they were to do - but that doesn't lend itself to application in our core argument - because here, though God does still select subsets, it's not completely independent of what we do" - and the argument ends there. Simple, right?
But what does Paul do - he defends the argument by talking about mercy! Where is the need to talk about mercy if it were meant to be applied only to Jacob and Esau - and Jacob's selection into the subset independent of what either of them were to do? Paul has done the improbable - he actually has pre-empted the Rom 9:14 objection arising out of a parallel application of Rom 9:11 to the reader's own selection and salvation - and he responds to that in his defense of Rom 9:15.
And this is why I presented these 2 verses, Rom 9:14,15 to contextually answer your queries on this. As it is, this post is quite verbose, so I'll stop here - please share what you find to be illogical or inconsistent in this so far.
