Thanks so much everyone for taking the time to discuss this.
I have come from a Calvinist ECT background to my current EU position. I am still endeavouring to see some of my old Calvinist passages with new eyes. I have come to see many problems with my former understanding of Rom 9-11 but am still struggling to put some of the pieces together.
I have read a few things on Rom 9-11 -Parry, Talbott, Bonda as well as some non-universalist Calvinist and Arminian authors- but that doesn’t mean that I understand them! . I feel as though I am still missing something despite the many helpful things I have read from the commentaries and from your replies.
My main question at this stage is still the same one I tried to express in my OP. It has to do with WHY Paul says what he says in 9:6 and following.
WHY does he say “for not all Israel are Israel in 9:6” I am assuming he means that not all those who are physical descendants of Jacob are truly Israel, truly believers, truly God’s children. (From 9:8 and 2:28,29). How does this help to show that God’s word has not failed? How does the choice of Isaac over Ishmael, and the choice of Jacob over Esau, show that God’s word has not failed?
My paraphrase of the main point of 9:6-8:
“It seems like God’s word has failed, but really when you think about it, God’s word has not failed - because not all who are physically descended from Jacob are truly Israel or truly children of Abraham. It is not the physical descendants of Jacob, but rather the children of the promise who are truly children of Abraham and truly children of God.”
My previous interpretation of this was that God’s word has not failed because God’s promises never related to the unbelieving part of Israel but only to the believing remnant. This makes sense when applied to my paraphrase but has other problems. Jan Bonda discusses this interpretation and its problems on p141 and 142 of “The One Purpose of God”.
He discusses his alternative view on p143
I feel it is a bit strained to read it this way, or perhaps I don’t follow what he is saying? Any comments? Is this the way you all understand it?
I can see the problems in my old understanding, but not sure of how better to understand Paul’s reasoning.