Interplanner
Well-known member
We know that Romans 8 is the triumphant declaration that even though we may find ourselves counted as sheep for slaughter for the Gospel's sake, we have actually conquered. It is almost as though Paul meant to introduce Rom 12 right there--the people who are (or should be) spiritual sacrifices. (It is really scandalous that Paul would use the word 'spiritual'!).
But instead Paul at ch 9 takes up the question of whether there is something separate going on for the race of Israel as such, which is not at all a topic in Romans otherwise. (There is the quick reference to how God is not a God of either Jew or Gentile in ch 3's ending). In other words, Paul has anticipated that some people may think there needs to be something continuing for the race as such. By the time 11 ends, it is clear that only those who have faith, no matter what race, are believers. All of that Israel is saved 'in this manner' (of having faith, not being born of a certain race). The NT is unified on this because its first preacher, John B, fired: 'God can make children of Abraham out of these stones!'
Paul didn't slip that concept in at the end of Rom 11 to blindside anyone; it is what ch9 is about. Not all Israel is Israel and not all of the descendants of Abraham are his blessed seed. Now, instead, there is "us" both Jew and Gentile who have faith and are predicted to exist in the 4 OT passages quoted in ch 9. To assert otherwise (about Israel as a race, by others or by Israel itself) is 'establishing its own righteousness' in place of what Christ provided. That's how ch 9 ends and 10 begins.
In the last century, a couple guys produced a doctrine in which there 'two peoples and two programs' in books and sermons, at Dallas Seminary, etc., in the copious margin notes of Bible versions (using more space than the text). This, they said, not Rom 9-11, is what 'makes sense.'
So how exactly do D'ists make their segues from 8-9 and 11-12?
But instead Paul at ch 9 takes up the question of whether there is something separate going on for the race of Israel as such, which is not at all a topic in Romans otherwise. (There is the quick reference to how God is not a God of either Jew or Gentile in ch 3's ending). In other words, Paul has anticipated that some people may think there needs to be something continuing for the race as such. By the time 11 ends, it is clear that only those who have faith, no matter what race, are believers. All of that Israel is saved 'in this manner' (of having faith, not being born of a certain race). The NT is unified on this because its first preacher, John B, fired: 'God can make children of Abraham out of these stones!'
Paul didn't slip that concept in at the end of Rom 11 to blindside anyone; it is what ch9 is about. Not all Israel is Israel and not all of the descendants of Abraham are his blessed seed. Now, instead, there is "us" both Jew and Gentile who have faith and are predicted to exist in the 4 OT passages quoted in ch 9. To assert otherwise (about Israel as a race, by others or by Israel itself) is 'establishing its own righteousness' in place of what Christ provided. That's how ch 9 ends and 10 begins.
In the last century, a couple guys produced a doctrine in which there 'two peoples and two programs' in books and sermons, at Dallas Seminary, etc., in the copious margin notes of Bible versions (using more space than the text). This, they said, not Rom 9-11, is what 'makes sense.'
So how exactly do D'ists make their segues from 8-9 and 11-12?
