[Nang]

Originally Posted by themuzicman

Once again, you've ignored Romans 9:1-5. Not every reference to "children of the promise" must refer to all of them. Paul has already restricted the scope of Roman 9-11 to the Old Covenant nation of Israel.

And, as already shown, Galatians 4 is a different primary topic (should Christians obey the Old Covenant law) from Romans 9 (has God's word failed with respect to Israel.)

So, for all your attempts to import unrelated contexts into Romans 9, verses 1 through 5 do not allow it.

You've resorted to using Galatians and other verse to refute Romans 9:1-5.

The "children of promise" are the elect of God, including remnants chosen out of all the nations, including the nation of Israel. (See Rev. 5:9 and 7:9)

So not all of the nation of Israel proved to be of the elect of God, evidenced by their unbelief and their unrepentant spiritual adulteries.

Thus, Paul explains, ". . . Not all Israel (national) is of Israel (the children of promise; the elect)." Romans 9:6

Nothing wrong with the Word of God or with God's promises. God keeps His promises perfectly.

But the promises of everlasting life in Christ and His kingdom, were not made to the earthly children of flesh (the nation of Israel at large).

You are having difficulty with Paul's teachings because you reject the doctrine of Unconditional Election , sovereignly provided globally by grace through faith alone, as revealed by Paul to the saints throughout his epistles.

[Colossians]

Nang and AndyC,

Your words and efforts are correct, and appreciated.

However as I have pointed out to Play-it-again-Sam, he simply chooses to ignore what has been said to him and tell us all about v1-5.

So rather than assuming honest motives on his part, you should assume his motives are dishonest, and that he is simply disobedient to what is clearly the truth.

At this point then you should both either cease from discussing things with him, or if you want one more shot at it, challenge him to produce a systematic exposition of Rom 9:1-9, where he will have to explain v6-9 without ending up with egg on his face, which he won't be able to do.

His recent short and cheeky reply to AndyC's long and exhaustive post #59 which pointed out in no uncertain terms that we are the children of promise, should be evidence enough that he is playing games: he simply ignored what AndyC said and returned to his one-liner idea that v1-5 is what the whole thing is about, thus rendering Andy's work a waste of a lot of energy. So he is cheeky, and you are both falling for it.

So you both need to realise that his whole argument is "look at v1-5", and contains nothing else but that simple statement - that he actually has no argument per se. So it is no use proffering argument against him, for he actually doesn't care about argument: his method consists in fact of disallowing argument, of declaring argument inadmissible. Thus his 'argument' simply consists of denial and preclusion, and he is not a worthy opponent, but one who lacks integrity.

Mr Muzic has along time ago hit upon the tactic where he simply keeps quoting you and typing anything he can think of in response, thereby holding you at his will until he exhausts you. He just thinks up something creative within the ballpark of what is being discussed, links in some half-truths and out-of-context grabs from surrounding scripture, packages it as "exegesis" to make him seem learned and responsible for the visitors to the thread, disallows you to resort to universally accepted hermeneutic, logic, and common sense, and then watches you naively respond to what you presume is a genuine and sincere attempt on his part.

I could do the same thing with you both now too: I could take over from him and point to v1-5, make some statement about promises, assert there is a fleshly-spiritual hybrid "national" Israel just because I say so, tell you that you're not allowed to import what is obviously a definition of a referent in Rom 9 from another epistle (thus essentially robbing you of any ability to prove your argument), and then point to v1-5 again when you finally prove your argument anyway.

So let's not be naive: just because we have the heart of Christ does not mean we throw pearls to swine. Understand that just because one says he is a Christian and attends a theology site with numerous posts, does not in fact mean he is indeed born again, or even that his posts are genuine.

Mr Muzic has been defeated many times already in this thread: you need to recognise this so that you don't find yourself attempting to KO him after he is already on the floor. He is essentially a confidence trickster. You need not fear that anyone visiting this thread has been swayed by what he has said. They will see the reasonableness of what you have pointed out, and simply dismiss Mr Muzic. Those who have logic on their side will always win.

So think of him as having a cheeky grin on his face as he types, and then cease to discuss with him on the issue. Consider the whole exercise as having been an opportunity to teach the visitors to the thread who might not have been aware of the topic up until now, or who were perhaps unlearned on it. Now they are learned on it, and you can close the book.

And guess what: he'll quote this as well, and then pretend it doesn't matter - that he is pressing on with the truth regardless: he'll simply employ his "oh that's just silly" trivialisation tactic, whereby he dismisses lengthy posts with a self-indulgent puff of wind, not necessarily out of his mouth.

You see...to him it is all about competitiveness: he has to prove he's the best. It's not about Jesus Christ at all: it's simply about his obsessive-compulsive nature which sees any loss of argument as a loss of self-worth, so he simply cannot afford to and will not accept any defeat no matter how obvious. He likes to win, and simply uses a theology forum to satisfy his ego. In this I have discerned that he is commensurately quite young in the mind: he sees himself on a stage parading his prowess before those he is rescuing on his side of the argument: he's a knight in shining armour.

So let the dead bury their dead, and you move on and follow Christ. You don't need to argue with the devil just because he opens his mouth.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Nang

The "children of promise" are the elect of God, including remnants chosen out of all the nations, including the nation of Israel. (See Rev. 5:9 and 7:9)

As previously shown, not in Romans 9. In this case, it is only those of the Nation of Israel who believe, as that is the context set by Paul in verses 1-5. Again, you continue to import other contexts to change this one.

So not all of the nation of Israel proved to be of the elect of God, evidenced by their unbelief and their unrepentant spiritual adulteries.

Because they did not believe. See the end of chapter 9.

Thus, Paul explains, ". . . Not all Israel (national) is of Israel (the children of promise; the elect)." Romans 9:6

Except that Paul isn't explaining that in verse 6. This is horribly ripped out of its context. This is the first statement Paul makes in explaining why the word of God did not fail, and only asserts that there is a sub-group within Israel, which is further explained in the next few verses.

So, once again, you abuse scripture horribly.

Nothing wrong with the Word of God or with God's promises. God keeps His promises perfectly.

Well, that's what Paul is explaining in Romans 9-11. That's why he says that in verse 6.

But the promises of everlasting life in Christ and His kingdom, were not made to the earthly children of flesh (the nation of Israel at large).

Um.. Ever read Jeremiah 31:34? That promise was made to the nation of Israel. So, your assertion is flat out false.

You are having difficulty with Paul's teachings because you reject the doctrine of Unconditional Election , sovereignly provided globally by grace through faith alone, as revealed by Paul to the saints throughout his epistles.

So, what you're saying is that because I am not imposing Calvinism on Romans 9, I am doing exegesis wrong.

That's so backwards, I almost don't know where to begin. One does not do exegesis by assuming a systematic theology and then imposing that on a passage. One does exegesis apart from systematic theology, and then lets that exegesis inform and change the systematic theology.

Your statement here clearly exposes that you prefer to have your systematic theology impose on the text rather than allowing the text to impose on your systematic theology.

Paul is not teaching unconditional individual election to salvation in Romans 9. Nowhere does it come up, as previously shown.

[themuzicman]

Originally Posted by Colossians

Nang and AndyC,

Your words and efforts are correct, and appreciated.

However as I have pointed out to Play-it-again-Sam, he simply chooses to ignore what has been said to him and tell us all about v1-5.

I guess this was a lie.

Can't blame him, really, having his poor exegetical skills and inability to separate himself from his systematic theology exposed like that. And so he breaks his word, and returns to engage in ad homenim. Not a surprise coming from Collosians, I guess.

[Colossians]

For those interested, I have expanded and fine-tuned the OP.

[Colossians]

Bump owing to creation of companion thread: "ROMANS 11:25,26, THE ‘TARGET’ OF ROMANS 9:6-9"