If you are going to tell a story, at least get the facts straight.
You seem to be confused. What did Paul say based on the Greek?
Rom 11:20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:
G3779
οὕτω
houtō
hoo'-to
Or, before a vowel, οὕτως houtōs hoo'-toce.
From G3778; in this way (referring to what precedes or follows): - after that, after (in) this manner, as, even (so), for all that, like (-wise), no more, on this fashion (-wise), so (in like manner), thus, what.
Your doctrine only works by changing "so" which is an adverb of manner into "then" which is an adverb of time.
Your buddy Stam printed it that way in his book "Things That Differ".
In this case, the "thing that differs" is Stam's corruption of the text.
You and yours continue down the same wrong path even though you have been shown you are headed the wrong way by Paul's words in the Greek.
.
BAB2, my apology for the tough words, in advance..
2 Timothy 4:
2. Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort
with all longsuffering and doctrine.
The only thing you continue to prove by the above continued assertion of yours as to "the Greek" is that you do not know how to properly study this issue out.
That is
not how the Greek is to be used, but is when someone wants to assert their error through a fault in relaying on "the Greek" in an incorrect manner.
"The Greek" lends itself to the pick and choose of which definition better suits one's assertion.
As a result, that is not how String's Concordance is to be approached.
The correct approach is to use it as what its name implies - as a Concordance, and that, in a
secondary nature, just behind "the Greek" definitions.
First, you get the overall context out of the way - you identify it. And, normally, some passages will identify what that context is.
And what I mean by overall context is actually a reference to overall scope but context has been twisted into meaning scope so I'll go with that for my purposes here.
Example - what is the overall scope/context of Matthew - identify that through passages that do exactly that, and keep that ever in mind as you study. This may result in further refining as other passages shed their contributing light as to what the actual overall scope/context is.
You apply that to the sense of any word or words, using Strong's Concordance as to where the same word is used elsewhere in the narrative - words that "concord," thus Strong's title.
Once you have that out of the way,
then you go to the Greek - and nine times out of ten, you find that of the multiple senses of a given word that Strong found through this very means towards his Concordance's Dictionary at the back, the above process has already given you the proper one.
You find you are neither at the mercy of picking and choosing which is the proper "Greek" sense, but you are also forced to reckon with the sense all the above gave you - you find that you just can't pick and choose what ever sense your tradition causes you to want to pick and choose from.
And guess what the scope of Romans 11:23 and 26 are - a ton of passages promising Israel's redemption - Paul is not laying out a condition, he is reminding the Gentiles of God's promise to that nation - a promise of redemption that He promised; that He would one day enable those of that nation who turn back to Him during and through those events that passages like Malachi 3 and 4 repeat the prophecy of [which, as Daniel well knew as evidenced by the content of his prayer in Daniel 9 are based on Moses, so that Moses has to be studied out as to this].
No, BAB2, there is far more to Romans 11:26's "And so" then you have apparently studied out, no matter how you assert otherwise.
I've been at this some twenty-five years - in Scripture - not - books - about - and I still find THE BOOK further refining my understanding of theses issues.
In fact, that is the
only reason I recommend Stam's "Things That Differ." Years in the Word confirmed both before and after I first read it that it is
mostly sound, far and away more than most books out there.
I know that does not hold water with you. At this point, I could care less. I post this for those with ears to hear, as that appears to be one of our responsibilities.
As a result of
all the above, personally, I do not see you as a Berean Too,
yet, simply because all you post is the same old books based tradition that is read into the Word by so many from any camp do - including, I might add, many within Mid-Acts who spout Stam because they read one of his books and it made sense to them, in contrast to their having arrived at same from Scripture on their own, after having first, studied out Scripture Itself as to how It is to be studied out to begin with!
But, you go right ahead and lump all together; that is just the cognizant mis-fire of its practice forced on Scripture as some sort of one size fits all, at work once more.
Again, my apology for the tough words...
More importantly, what is your understanding of the gospel of the grace of God - do you believe a person can lose their salvation? Have you always or did you pick that up at some later point in your understanding? This distinction is important. The rest do not matter without this one. The best to you in this, Rom. 5:
8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9. Much more then,
being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10. For if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved
by his life.
