You seem like a reasonable person that is willing to speak logic for logic. In your view, how does dispensationalism address Romans 9 and Galatians 3?
Specifically we see the concept that only those in Christ are the heirs of Abraham's promises. In some dispensationalism views that have been advocated on this site, there have been false claims presented that Christ is not the sole heir of the promises to Abraham (in contradiction to Gal 3:16).
How do you reconcile that contradiction?
If I may, I would like to address the above (underlined).
I would (and do, often) recommend that one study (in the Genesis text) the distinction found there between "SEED [SINGULAR]" and "SEED [PLURAL]" in order to (better) grasp Paul's use of "SEED [SINGULAR]" in Galatians 3:16.
The article [/commentary] below provides just an added glimpse, after one thoroughly examines
this distinction ^ found in Genesis:
[William Kelly commentary
on Galatians 3:16 "seed [singular]"]
[...]
Now [in Chapter 3's progression] we come to
the question of promise, which is a very different thing. Faith involves, at any rate, the condition of soul in the person who believes;
the promise looks at the dealings of God; and although we have seen that those who have faith are the only receivers of the blessing, and not those essaying to do the law, now we have to consider God
promising, as well as
law given.
"Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; though it be but a man's covenant, yet, if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made" - not the law given. Abraham knew nothing about the law, neither did his seed or son; yet they could not deny that Abraham got the blessing. So that here he stands on a new ground. It is not only that souls which have faith will get the blessing, but why not have faith in the law too?
The latter part of the chapter takes up this question, and shows that God has given promises; and the question is, how to reconcile God's law with His promises. What did He give these two things for? Were they meant to produce the same end? Were they on the same principle?
The Holy Ghost settles these questions. "Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed; which is Christ." Here it is plain, that the allusion is to two distinct and signal occasions in Abraham's history. These two occasions were first to Abraham alone; (Gen. 12 and secondly, to Isaac, or rather in Isaac alone. (Gen. 22) In the last chapter, both the numerous seed and the single seed are referred to. With
the numerous seed God connects the possessing the gate of their enemies - that is, Jewish supremacy,
But this is not what one acquires as a Christian. I do not want my enemies to be overthrown, but rather to be brought to Christ. But the Jews, as such, will have not only blessing through Christ by-and-by, but their enemies put down. Israel will be exalted in the earth, which God never promised to the Gentiles.
In Genesis 22. the two things are quite distinct. Where
the seed is spoken of
without allusion to number, the blessing of the Gentiles comes in; but where they are
said to be multiplied as the stars and the sand, then the character is unequivocally Jewish precedence. Such is, I believe, the argument of the apostle.
Where Christ, typified by Isaac, is meant, it is "thy seed" simply, without a word of seed innumerable as the stars or the sand. "Now to Abraham and his
seed were the promises made;"
namely, of the blessing of the Gentiles, and not merely of the putting down of the Gentiles. The promises were made first to Abraham, and then were confirmed in his
seed. "He
saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and of thy seed, which is Christ." He takes Christ as the one intended by Isaac.
Let me recall the circumstances under which God made
the promise in Isaac as a type of Christ. In Genesis 22 Isaac is ready to be offered as a sacrifice, and Abraham did not know till the last moment but that his son was to die. For three days Isaac was, as it were, under the sentence of death.
Abraham had confidence in God, who had promised that in Isaac he should possess the land; and he was, therefore, certain that in this very Isaac the promise must be accomplished. It was not a question of Sarah having another son, but of this son, his only son.
He was perfectly assured, therefore, that God would raise him up and give him back again, to be the head of the Jewish family. A beautiful type this, of God's sparing not His own Son. Abraham had as good as offered up his son,
and God not only gave Isaac back again, but then and there gave the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed."
Thus it is in Christ risen from the dead that our blessing comes. Christ dead and risen again is perfectly free to bless the Gentiles. As long as He was merely living on the earth, He said, "I am not sent save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,"
but, when risen, all is changed. Accordingly, He commissions His disciples, "Go ye therefore and make disciples of all nations." And so He predicted the gospel must be published among all nations.
The apostle draws attention to the fact, that this early oracle does not connect the numerous seed when God spoke of blessing the Gentiles, but the one seed, Isaac, as the type of Christ, and
of Christ after He had been under death and had passed into resurrection. The importance of this is immense;
because, while Christ was upon the earth, He was under law Himself. Risen from the dead, what had He to do with law? The law does not touch a man when he is dead. The apostle argues that the Christian belongs to Christ in resurrection. When any one is baptized into Christ, this is what He confesses: - I belong to Christ dead and risen, taken out of my old place of Jew or Gentile. The Jews had to do with a Messiah who was to reign over them on the earth; the Gentiles in that day shall be the tail and not the head, and kings shall be the nursing fathers of Zion, and queens the nursing mothers, bowing down to the earth and licking up the dust of Israel's feet; but we, Christians, begin with Christ's death and resurrection. All our blessing is in Christ raised from the dead.
"And this I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ," (or, as it should be rendered, "to Christ,") "
the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect."
God took care that, between the promise given to Abraham and Isaac and the law, there should elapse a period of more than four centuries. Had He given the law a short time after, they might have said it was all one and the same thing. But how could this be thought, seeing that four hundred and thirty years passed between? The promise has its own special object, and the law its design also; and we are not to mingle the two things together. Not that we are to set aside either. On the contrary, I maintain that no man has a right value for the promises of God who could despise His law. I own the exceeding value of the law; but what is its object? This we have here, and are not left to our own conjectures.
The covenant of the law, that came in four hundred and thirty years after the giving of the promise to Abraham, cannot disannul what God had said before.
[...]
--William Kelly, Galatians 3 commentary -
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/kelly/galatians/3.htm
[end quoting; bold and underline mine]
[more at link... continued starting at about halfway down the page]
____________
On the other point (re: "Your father Abraham rejoiced
to see my day: and
he saw it, and was glad.")... consider that Jesus, by referencing "[rejoiced to see]
my day: and
he saw it and was glad," was speaking of [what we now call]
His Second Coming to the earth FOR the promised and prophesied
earthly Millennial Kingdom age (
that [My] "day"); The text does not say (nor suggest), "Abraham rejoiced
to see me on the Cross, and
he saw it and was glad"
or the like.
Hope that helps. = )