Exactly. Could Paul have been any more clear than he was in Romans 9:6-8 that being a child of God has absolutely nothing to do with one's nationality? How does someone miss that except for their extreme doctrinal bias blinding them from seeing it?
I never said what you claim I said. For the moment, I will assume that you are just not able to read my posts sympathetically, i.e. in order to understand what I intend to say. I would hate to think that you are purposely twisting my words.
I never suggested or even implied that nationality had anything to do with being a child of God. Earlier I was making a distinction between the "people" of God and "the sons of God" because the Bible makes that distinction.
But I also take issue with your interpretation of Romans 9, where you argue that Romans 9 has nothing at all to do with one's nationality. It most certainly does. The central point in Romans 9 is this. While the "Adoption of Sons" belongs to Paul's kinsmen of the flesh, the application of that promise is ultimately God's choice.
In order to prove his case, Paul cites TWO examples: God chose Isaac over Ismael, and God chose Jacob over Esau. All FOUR of these boys are descended from Abraham. If Paul wanted to make the point you want him to make, he would have cited an example of God choosing a Gentile over an offspring. But instead, Paul cites two examples where God chose one offspring over another offspring.
Paul is not arguing for "inclusion" here in Romans 9. He already argued for inclusion in the first 8 chapters. He already argued for salvation by grace through faith apart from works of the law. Here in Romans 9, Paul is dealing with another question entirely. Does God's promise to bless Jacob fail if some of Jacob's descendants are not blessed? The answer is no, whether or not to bless a child of Abraham is always God's choice.
Paul said: "It is not the children by physical descent who are God's children". Which clearly means that being a child of God has NOTHING to do with one's nationality. As Paul indicated in Galatians 3:26-29 it has to do with having faith in Christ and belonging to Him.
No. That is not what Paul said.
Here is what Paul said, "That is, it is not the
children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants." What does Paul mean by "flesh" here in this context? According to Paul's vernacular, phrases like "in the flesh," or "of the flesh" have a special meaning. We can see an example of this one chapter earlier where Paul talks about people who are "of the flesh" as opposed to those who are "of the Spirit." He compares those who walk according to the flesh, with those who walk according to the Spirit. The difference is between those who have the spirit of Christ in them and those who don't: those who have the indwelling of the spirit as opposed to those who don't.
The "children of the promise" according to Paul are those who are "
kata pneuma", that is, "according to the Spirit." He is arguing that
among the physical descendants of Jacob, one might find some individuals who are "
kata sarka", that is, "according to the flesh" and others who are "
kata pneuma," that is, "According to the Spirit." Those among Jacob that are "
kata sarka" are children of the flesh, and those among Jacob who are
kata pneuma, are children of the promise.
The next three chapters of Romans remain focused on Israel, the nation. Paul isn't arguing that physicality doesn't matter. His argument assumes that it DOES matter, just not in the way that his detractors might think.
People like CadyandZoe and marks say: "It is the children by physical descent who are God's children".
No, I did not say that the children by physical descent are God's children. I said that the children of physical descent are God's people. I am drawing a distinction between "the people" of God and "the children" of God because the Bible does.
Implying that one's nationality has a bearing on one's salvation, which completely contradicts what Paul taught.
You drew the wrong conclusion from what I said. One needs only to read the first five verses of chapter 9 to understand the topic under Paul's review. His focus has shifted to Israel, his kinsmen of the flesh. And Paul never uses the term "Israel" in this epistle except for chapters 9 through 11. Ethnicity has a bearing on a promise God made to an ethnicity. To deny this is to deny reason itself.
With regard to the ethnicity under review, Paul says, not all members of that ethnicity are children of promise. He isn't saying "ethnicity doesn't matter" as you seem to suggest. Ethnicity does matter, just not in the way that people might think.
