As usual, BABerean2 had derailed this thread with his constant attack, and refuses to submit to explicitly stated scripture which says the very opposite to what he imagines is meant by the scriptures he constantly quotes.
If he had even one scripture which actually states what he imagines these scriptures mean, it would be different. But the language of scripture is very precise. It means what it says, and it says what it means. And it does not mean what it does not say.
Throughout Romans chapter 11, the Apostle Paul shows that one must be grafted into the Olive Tree to gain salvation.
The Olive Tree is a symbol of the New Covenant Church of Christ.
The branches broken off can be grafted back into the tree through faith in Christ.
In order to make their doctrine work, many Dispensationalists will change one little word in Romans 11:26. Most of those promoting the doctrine have no idea who or where this change was first made. It actually goes back to the document used by Edward Irving to originate the Two Peoples of God doctrine. Since this book is now available online, it is a simple matter to verify the information that will now be presented. Edward Irving had gained access to the Spanish version of the book “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty” written by Manuel Lacunza, who was a Jesuit priest. Irving had the book translated into English and added his own commentary to Lacunza’s work, before having it published in English during 1827. On page 124-125 of Irving’s commentary we find him reporting that he had taught doctrine from Lacunza’s book at the Albury Prophetic Conference held the year before.
On page 170 of the 2007 edition of his book “Dispensationalism”, Dr. Charles C. Ryrie connects John Nelson Darby to Irving and the Albury Conference.
“It was not until several years after leaving the Church of England that Darby became interested in prophecy. His interest was piqued through conferences at Albury, out of which the Irvingian movement grew.”
In 1966 Brethren Historian F. R. Coad wrote a paper detailing the origin of John Darby’s doctrine. In the early years of the Plymouth Brethren movement Benjamin Newton and John Darby worked together. Edward Irving died as a result of tuberculosis in 1834. Sometime after 1834 John Darby adopted the “Secret Rapture” doctrine of the Irvingites and divided scripture into that for the Jews and that for the Church. When Newton would not accept Darby’s new doctrine, Darby made a personal attack on Newton that split the movement into two groups.
(from pages 23 and 24 of the paper by F.R. Coad)
PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418
"Darby’s solution was to project considerable sections of the New Testament away from the Church, as applicable only to a future dispensation of the restored Jewish remnant, which the Secret Rapture adherents envisaged. This would remove all the difficulties, and those Scriptures in the Gospels and elsewhere which presented such difficulty to adherents of the new teaching were thus simply explained: they referred not to the Church at all, but to the future Jewish remnant. The solution was too facile. If Darby had hoped for Newton’s glad acceptance he was sorely disappointed. Newton saw its weakness at once:—
‘At last Darby wrote from Cork, saying he had discovered a
method of reconciling the whole dispute, and would tell me when
he came. When he did, it turned out to be the “Jewish
Interpretation”. The Gospel of Matthew was not teaching Church
Truth but Kingdom Truth, and so on. He explained it to me and I
said “Darby, if you admit that distinction you virtually give up
Christianity.” Well, they kept on at that until they worked out the
result as we know it. The Secret Rapture was bad enough, but this
was worse.’
The damage was indeed done, and for a moment dispensationalising ran riot, as Tregelles has explained in his accounts of those times. But worse resulted, for Darby, finding his teachings challenged, reacted by vigorous attacks on Newton’s position, until a form of pamphlet war developed."
Around the time of the American Civil War, Darby brought his new doctrine to America. Several decades later the doctrine was incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible and as they say… “The rest is history.” Since that time the doctrine has spread through much of the evangelical Church in America, especially Baptist church bodies. Dallas Theological Seminary was built to promote John Darby’s doctrine, as one of its main goals.
On page 349 of Lacunza’s book we find the following change to Romans 11:26.
“When this fulness hath entered in, or the time of the nations are concluded, then all Israel shall be saved.”
Let us compare Lacunza’s words to those of the Apostle Paul.
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:
The Greek word translated to the English word “so” is the Greek word “houto”, which means… “in this manner”.
By switching this one word Lacunza attempted to change the meaning of the passage. He changed the word “so”, which is an adverb of manner, to the word “then”, which is an adverb of time. I have heard pastors make the same change during television broadcasts by saying… “And
then all of Israel shall be saved.”
This change is necessary to produce a future time of “national salvation” for the modern descendants of Jacob. There is still just one little problem. Let us look at the next verse.
Rom 11:27 For this
is my
covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
Which “covenant” is the covenant in Romans 11:27?
Heb 8:6 But
now hath
he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first
covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord,
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and
their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith,
A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old
is ready to vanish away.
Heb 12:24 And to
Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than
that of Abel.
The Dispensational interpretation must change the word "so", which is an adverb of manner, to the word "then", which is a adverb of time in order to make the passage work. This change in scripture cannot be allowed.
If the covenant in Romans 11:27 is the New Covenant fulfilled in the blood of Christ at Calvary, the Dispensational interpretation of the passage cannot be correct.
Based on Hebrews 8:12, we find that the New Covenant, now in effect, took away sin.
Paul refers to this same covenant in 2nd Corinthians.
2Co 3:5 Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God,
2Co 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (ESV)
Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
http://www.regal-network.com/dispensationalism/pdfs.htm
.