Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Churchgoer]

If we combine ot and nt looking at this, "all Israel " is those that God predestined before the foundation of the world.
"All" is the key word.
How did "Israel" come about, from Jacob, a sinner, Abraham, a sinner.

A sinner that is saved by God, by grace, through faith, not through human ethnicity. But through Jesus blood.

Plus noah, job, seth.....

 

[Beekeeper]

The issue isn't whether the ingredients belong in one olive tree. We both agree they do.
The issue is whether "all Israel" refers to the remnant alone or to the full people of God composed of both natural and grafted-in branches. That's the point still under discussion.

I would ask which understanding harmonizes best with the book of Galatians.
how would you tackle it?

 

[HeIsHere]

Here is an except from Margaret's vision if anyone's interested:

"...now look out for the sign of the Son of man.

Here I was made to stop and cry out, 0 it is not known what the sign of the Son of man is; the people of God think they are waiting, but they know not what it is. I felt this needed to be revealed, and that there was great darkness and error about it; but suddenly what it was burst upon me with a glorious light I saw it was just the Lord himself descending from Heaven with a shout, just the glorified man. even Jesus; but that all must, as Stephen was, be filled with the Holy Ghost, that they might look up, and see the brightness of the Father's glory. I saw the error to be, that men think that it will be something seen by the natural eye; but 'tis spiritual discernment that is needed, the eye of God in his people.
... be filled with the Spirit."

(Margaret MacDonald’s handwritten account of her 1830 revelation, as included in Robert Nortons Memoirs of James & George MacDonald of Port-Glasgow (1840). pp. 171-176.)

I had to check to see if she was not related to the writer George MacDonald,(1825- 1905) Lilith is one of my favourite novels.

Whew... George is her brother!!

 

[HeIsHere]

The issue isn't whether the ingredients belong in one olive tree. We both agree they do.
The issue is whether "all Israel" refers to the remnant alone or to the full people of God composed of both natural and grafted-in branches. That's the point still under discussion.

Either way the branches are individuals, not a nation.

But I will go with the remnant of that time... most rational and logical, along with being consistent with the rest of Paul's writings.

 

[OMC]

I would ask which understanding harmonizes best with the book of Galatians.
how would you tackle it?

That's a good question because Galatians is probably the strongest argument for your position.
Galatians emphasizes that the true children of Abraham are those who share Abraham's faith (Gal. 3:7), that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile (Gal. 3:28), and that believers are heirs according to the promise (Gal. 3:29).
So if I were arguing your side, I would say Romans 11 should be read through Galatians: one people of God, one olive tree, one inheritance, and therefore "all Israel" refers to the completed covenant people composed of believing Jews and Gentiles together.
My hesitation is that Romans 11 still spends considerable time distinguishing Israel from the Gentiles and speaks of a future grafting in of natural branches.
That keeps me from concluding the issue is completely settled by Galatians alone.
So I would say Galatians strongly supports the unity of God's people in Christ.
The remaining debate is whether Romans 11's "all Israel" refers to that unified people, or to a future large-scale conversion of ethnic Israel into that unified people.
That's where the discussion remains for me.

 

[OMC]

Either way the branches are individuals, not a nation.

But I will go with the remnant of that time... most rational and logical, along with being consistent with the rest of Paul's writings.

I can see why you'd take that position.
The branches in Romans 11 are indeed individual Jews and Gentiles who either remain in, are broken off, or are grafted into the olive tree through faith.
My hesitation is that Paul explicitly distinguishes the remnant in verse 5 from "all Israel" in verse 26. If "all Israel" means only the remnant that already existed in Paul's day, then verse 26 seems to add little beyond what he had already established.

That's why I think the argument has to explain why Paul changes terms.
If the remnant and "all Israel" are identical, what new point is Paul making in verse 26?

I agree that whatever "all Israel" means, it must remain consistent with Paul's teaching elsewhere, especially Galatians and the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ.
The question is whether that consistency points to the remnant alone or to the completed people of God.