The physical descendant of Abraham Israel are not the children of God Rom 9:8
The thing is, Nang has suggested that election can be removed and bypassed the idea of denying passage after passage in scripture where the Jews are specifically called elect by their birth heritage.
I'm keeping it simple here by citing one place where they are called elect, but you are holding to a place 2 chapters earlier which is explained 2 chapters later.
You either must concede that election can be removed, or that there is merit to the Romans 11 verbiage in light of the way it explains these things.
You have a quote under every post you make that suggests Calvin is the final say in the Gospel. How can we further discussion about scripture and it's literal meaning when you feel obligated to defend the theology of a man that came 1500 years after Jesus?
In denying literal Israel, you are fighting for ground to defend Calvin.
Here's the question... How much is in the Bible about Israel and the Jews and how much is in the Bible that says John Calvin would come and clarify Jesus's message as a prophet of final theological word?
In fact, Jesus merely warned that many would come after Him and that following them in place of Him would be bad.
Are you sure you want to continue this thread?
It appears you may be headed for some theological scars you weren't intending to bear.
1 Chronicles 17:20-21
"O LORD, there is none like You, nor is there any God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears. "And what one nation in the earth is like Your people Israel, whom God went to redeem for Himself as a people, to make You a name by great and terrible things, in driving out nations from before Your people, whom You redeemed out of Egypt?
...... This is one verse out of many that specifies the election of the people brought from Egypt.
The fact is, when you set your faith on a mere man, you have a middle man between Jesus and the Scriptures when you read. Are you here to deny Israel the literal as elect so that you may usurp their election, to defend John Calvin's theological opinions, or to discuss these verses in their literal context as they were written in exegesis of OT verses that contest your claim of Israel never being elect?
I see you as thoughtful and capable of going straight to scripture without a need to gratify a dead mans theology. I see you as serving the risen Savior alone.
But... if your final scriptural measure is summed up in the quote you have chosen to define your voice, I can only move forward with the knowledge that you are as inflexible as those that choose Joseph Smith or any human form of biblical intercession in their understanding of scripture.
It will be impossible to really discuss this factually and openly with you when you are denying literal world events in place of defending one mans efforts that stood for a movement to eliminate all men from all intercession positions in theological understanding.
I sense that our back and forth will become exceedingly rocky if you trade historical accuracy and scriptural search of personal vigor with Christ alone for the sermons of men and the defense of an ism that is contained within volumes of bible commentary that assemble scripture in theologically annotated order and format to bolster doctrines of men.
