Replies

“Paul has already said, “Not all Israel is Israel.” He cannot possibly be speaking of “Not all folks born into the nation are folks born into the nation.””

Now you are cherry picking verses and ignoring context. Paul makes it quite clear he is talking of physical Israel, (according to the flesh), in the beginning of the chapter:

“3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”

He reinforces several times in those three verses that he is referring to national Israel: “my kinsmen according to the flesh”, “of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came”. This reference can’t be spiritualized in face of the clear statements that he is speaking of those called Israelites due to their fleshly lineage.

Now, AFTER those verses, he goes on to talk of the other aspect of Israel:

“6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

8 That is, 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.”

This Israel is contrasted with the “fleshly” Israel, and distinguished as “children of the promise”, by comparing it to the distinctions God made between Abraham’s descendents (”Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children”). Paul then goes on to explain the distinction:

“9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.

10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;

11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, 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 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”

Here Paul explains that although the promise was given based on earthly lineage (a blessing given to Sarah regarding her child), God still did not apply the promise to all of her children and their descendants, but only those whom God elected to bless (Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated). It is reinforced that this choice was not based on their works, but on God’s will (”that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth”).

He’s still speaking of a group of people, the people of the promise, but he is drawing a distinction between those that the world calls “Israel” and those whom God calls “Israel”.

“He is telling Roman believers (Gentiles)...”

Ah, even the verse about gentiles is speaking of nations and groups of people, not individuals. The word itself literally means “nations”, and it is contrasted with the nation of Israel, which would not make sense if he was talking about individual believers, as it would be an “apples and oranges” comparison:

“30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles (nations), which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.

31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.”

“And, you are incorrect (again) on the derivation of “faith”. It is not something a person “does” or it would be a work...”

I didn’t say faith was something that a person does. My point was that our salvation hinges on that faith, not on God making an arbitrary decision that is meaningless and devoid of any judgement. For what meaning could any judgement have if God is playing the roles of the judge, the prosecutor and the defendant? It would have as much meaning as a child making dolls have a conversation with themselves. All it could tell us was about the mind of the child and nothing about the dolls themselves.

“You have removed Paul’s explanation of how salvation works (by the gifting of faith to a person the way it was gifted to Abraham) to another works oriented religion.”

I’ve removed nothing, I simply didn’t mention it. You are trying to seize on my silence on that subject to leap and insert your own guess as to what I might think about it, so that you can argue against a strawman. That isn’t really a proper way to argue.

“I suppose we should ask you where you believe your “faith” came from.”

Well, now that you have asked, it comes from God.