You said Israel means the church in Romans 11.

I'm refuting that by substituting 'the church' for Israel in v7, and showing you that you get absolute nonsense, like the church not obtaining what it seeks, while the elect has obtained it. It's nonsense and logically implies that the church is not the elect and vice versa.

I'm not saying you think the church is different to the elect, I'm saying your stance that Israel = the church leads to that conclusion. You can't accept that. Therefore you must accept the only other alternative, which is Israel = Jews in this chapter. It's the only coherent reading.

It's not like it would even imply anything you don't accept, except that God still has a plan for the Jews, despite their current unbelief.

God does not have any special plan for Satan worshippers or Muslims, or say that they should be regarded as natural branches.

Which is what our debate was about: God has a plan for Jews, and Christians are instructed by scripture not to be arrogant towards them, nor act like that plan is nothing.

You said Israel means the church in Romans 11.

I'm refuting that by substituting 'the church' for Israel in v7, and showing you that you get absolute nonsense, like the church not obtaining what it seeks, while the elect has obtained it. It's nonsense and logically implies that the church is not the elect and vice versa.

I'm not saying you think the church is different to the elect, I'm saying your stance that Israel = the church leads to that conclusion. You can't accept that. Therefore you must accept the only other alternative, which is Israel = Jews in this chapter. It's the only coherent reading.

It's not like it would even imply anything you don't accept, except that God still has a plan for the Jews, despite their current unbelief.

I'm unaware that God has any special plan for Satan worshippers or Muslims, or that they should be regarded as natural branches, which is what our debate was about.

God has a plan for Jews, and Christians are instructed by scripture not to be arrogant towards them, nor act like that plan is nothing, nor that God's calling is revokable.

You said Israel means the church in Romans 11.

I'm refuting that by substituting 'the church' for Israel in v7, and showing you that you get absolute nonsense, like the church not obtaining what it seeks, while the elect has obtained it. It's nonsense and logically implies that the church is not the elect and vice versa.

I'm not saying you think the church is different to the elect, I'm saying your stance that Israel = the church leads to that conclusion. You can't accept that. Therefore you must accept the only other alternative, which is Israel = Jews, in this chapter. It's the only coherent reading.

It's not like it would even imply anything you don't accept, except that God still has a plan for the Jews, despite their current unbelief.

I'm unaware that God has any special plan for Satan worshippers or Muslims, or that they should be regarded as natural branches, which is what our debate was about.

God has a plan for Jews, and Christians are instructed by scripture not to be arrogant towards them, nor act like that plan is nothing, nor that God's calling is revokable.

You said Israel means the church in Romans 11.

I'm refuting that by substituting 'the church' for Israel in v7, and showing you that you get absolute nonsense, like the church not obtaining what it seeks, while the elect has obtained it. It's nonsense and would imply that the church is not the elect and vice versa.

I'm not saying you think the church is different to the elect, I'm saying your stance that Israel = the church leads to ridiculous contradictions that you can't accept, and that therefore you must adopt the only other alternative, which is Israel = Jews, at least in this chapter. It's the only coherent reading.

It's not like it would even imply anything you don't accept, except that God still has a plan for the Jews, despite their current unbelief.

I'm unaware that God has any special plan for Satan worshippers or Muslims, or that they should be regarded as natural branches, which is what our debate was about.

You said Israel means the church in Romans 11.

I'm refuting that by substituting 'the church' for Israel in v7, and showing you that you get absolute nonsense, like the church obtaining what it seeks, while the elect has obtained it. It's nonsense and would imply that the church is not the elect and vice versa.

Not to mention the ridiculous construction of the entire chapter, the problem with 'they' in v28, the obvious allusion to Jews in v8, the explicit link word 'for' in v25 (despite v25 allegedly not even being about the same subject as the prior passage about the branches, etc).

This is eisegesis.

The only coherent reading of Rom 11 has Israel = Jews.

It's not like it would even imply anything you don't accept, except that God still has a plan for the Jews, despite their current unbelief.

I'm unaware that God has any special plan for Satan worshippers or Muslims, or that they should be regarded as natural branches, which is what our debate was about.