Replacement theology? Yes or No.

[Churchgoer]

Scripture absolutely tells us to love, pray for, and seek the good of Israel, but we must quote the Word accurately and understand what it means in context. The verse you’re referring to is Psalm 122:6 — “Pray for the peace of Jerusalem.” That command is real, and Christians obey it because Jerusalem is the city where God placed His name, the city of David, the city of the Messiah’s return. But Scripture never says “pray for the peace of Israel” as a slogan, nor does it teach blind political loyalty.

Definitely not blind political loyalty. You got that right.

Now what is peace, sexual immorality is peace, murdering is peace? Stealing is peace? Rejecting Jesus is peace? Worship golden budda is peace? Sex exchange is peace? Pedophile is peace? Mocking Jesus is peace? Spitting to Christians is peace? Bomb over bomb is peace?

Hope not.

 

[OMC]

it depends on the reason for unbelief. If one has been shown why this belief is heresy and dangerous and even led to the Holocaust and they still refuse, you do have to wonder if it's a heart issue.

“if someone has been shown the danger of a belief and still refuses, isn’t that a heart issue?”—is real, but Scripture teaches me to handle it differently than you’re framing it.
I acknowledge that persistent refusal in the face of clear truth can reveal a heart problem; Scripture says, “Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,” and Jesus rebukes those who “refuse to come” to Him even when the evidence is overwhelming. But I confess that Scripture never gives me permission to conclude that someone’s disagreement with my interpretation of Romans 9–11 proves a defective heart, because Paul explicitly warns me in Romans 11 not to interpret Israel’s blindness—or anyone’s doctrinal resistance—as proof of spiritual inferiority. I see Paul saying their blindness is “partial,” “temporary,” and “within God’s plan,” and that they remain “beloved for the fathers’ sakes,” which means their unbelief—even when it leads to horrific historical consequences—does not authorize me to judge their hearts. So I reject the idea that someone’s refusal to accept a theological argument, even one with serious historical implications, automatically reveals a corrupt heart; Scripture teaches that only Christ judges the heart, and Romans 11 specifically forbids me from drawing the very conclusion you’re suggesting.

 

[OMC]

Now what is peace, sexual immorality is peace, murdering is peace? Stealing is peace? Rejecting Jesus is peace? Worship golden budda is peace? Sex exchange is peace? Pedophile is peace? Mocking Jesus is peace? Spitting to Christians is peace? Bomb over bomb is peace?

Hope not.

not everything called “peace” is peace, because Scripture teaches that “there is no peace for the wicked,” and that sin—whether sexual immorality, murder, idolatry, blasphemy, or cruelty—is never peace but rebellion against the God of peace; yet I confess that this means I must define peace the way God does, not the way culture does, because Christ says true peace is found only in Him, and Paul says the “peace of God” belongs only to those justified by faith. I therefore reject the idea that rejecting Christ, worshiping idols, harming the innocent, or celebrating perversion can ever be called peace, because Scripture says such things are enmity against God; but I also refuse to conclude that every person who clings to false definitions of peace has a permanently corrupt heart, because Jesus says some are blind, some are deceived, some are hardened, and some are still being drawn. So I stand by this: sin is never peace, Christ alone gives peace, and only He can judge the heart that refuses Him—even when the refusal is expressed in things that are violently opposed to His holiness

 

[Churchgoer]

not everything called “peace” is peace, because Scripture teaches that “there is no peace for the wicked,” and that sin—whether sexual immorality, murder, idolatry, blasphemy, or cruelty—is never peace but rebellion against the God of peace; yet I confess that this means I must define peace the way God does, not the way culture does, because Christ says true peace is found only in Him, and Paul says the “peace of God” belongs only to those justified by faith. I therefore reject the idea that rejecting Christ, worshiping idols, harming the innocent, or celebrating perversion can ever be called peace, because Scripture says such things are enmity against God; but I also refuse to conclude that every person who clings to false definitions of peace has a permanently corrupt heart, because Jesus says some are blind, some are deceived, some are hardened, and some are still being drawn. So I stand by this: sin is never peace, Christ alone gives peace, and only He can judge the heart that refuses Him—even when the refusal is expressed in things that are violently opposed to His holiness

You got this right brother!!!!
Absolutely !!!

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Now what is peace, sexual immorality is peace, murdering is peace? Stealing is peace? Rejecting Jesus is peace? Worship golden budda is peace? Sex exchange is peace? Pedophile is peace? Mocking Jesus is peace? Spitting to Christians is peace? Bomb over bomb is peace?

@OMC here is the issue we are dealing with on the other side. They come to the place of understanding RT. They then say that they don't hate Jews or have an issue with Jews. Then they come up with every reason why you shouldn't like a Jew. That's what I mean when I say it's a heart issue. These posters have been pointed to Romans 11 a thousand times saying that Jews are blinded until the fullness of Gentiles come in. Then they turn, point their fingers and say " Look what awful sinners the Jews are, they deserve what they get"! It's an underlying racism baked in by early church fathers and Martin Luther, more than any other.

 

[OMC]

here is the issue we are dealing with on the other side. They come to the place of understanding RT. They then say that they don't hate Jews or have an issue with Jews. Then they come up with every reason why you shouldn't like a Jew. That's what I mean when I say it's a heart issue. These posters have been pointed to Romans 11 a thousand times saying that Jews are blinded until the fullness of Gentiles come in. Then they turn, point their fingers and say " Look what awful sinners the Jews are, they deserve what they get"! It's an underlying racism baked in by early church fathers and Martin Luther, more than any other.

the behavior you’re describing is real, ugly, and historically documented—but Scripture still forbids me from drawing the conclusion you’re drawing. I acknowledge that when someone claims “I don’t hate Jews” and then immediately lists reasons to despise them, mocks their blindness, or treats their unbelief as proof that they “deserve what they get,” that pattern reveals something deeper than mere doctrinal confusion; Jesus says that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,” and Paul warns that boasting over Israel’s stumbling is a sign of arrogance, not insight. But I confess that Scripture never allows me to diagnose their heart as corrupt simply because they refuse Romans 11, even when their rhetoric is soaked in the same anti‑Jewish hostility that infected parts of the early church and Luther’s later writings; instead, Paul commands me to confront the sin, expose the arrogance, and remind them that Israel’s blindness is partial, temporary, and within God’s saving plan, and that any Gentile who gloats over Jewish unbelief is violating the very warning God gave. So I reject the idea that I can declare their heart “wrong,” but I stand firmly on this: their speech reveals a sinful posture Scripture condemns, and Romans 11 identifies that posture as arrogance, not righteousness—and Christ alone judges the heart behind it.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

“if someone has been shown the danger of a belief and still refuses, isn’t that a heart issue?”—is real, but Scripture teaches me to handle it differently than you’re framing it.
I acknowledge that persistent refusal in the face of clear truth can reveal a heart problem; Scripture says, “Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light,” and Jesus rebukes those who “refuse to come” to Him even when the evidence is overwhelming. But I confess that Scripture never gives me permission to conclude that someone’s disagreement with my interpretation of Romans 9–11 proves a defective heart, because Paul explicitly warns me in Romans 11 not to interpret Israel’s blindness—or anyone’s doctrinal resistance—as proof of spiritual inferiority.

Paul is talking about the very idea I am speaking about. Believers thinking they are superior to the Jews, that they replace the Jews. This is a very dangerous teaching. I don't think it's a matter of inferiority. I think it's a matter of a belief that is heresy. A heresy that is spreading in the church at a very alarming rate at the moment. It's something the church needs to acknowledge. We are not to boast in our position because as @cv5 noted , salvation is to the Jew first.

I see Paul saying their blindness is “partial,” “temporary,” and “within God’s plan,” and that they remain “beloved for the fathers’ sakes,” which means their unbelief—even when it leads to horrific historical consequences—does not authorize me to judge their hearts. So I reject the idea that someone’s refusal to accept a theological argument, even one with serious historical implications, automatically reveals a corrupt heart; Scripture teaches that only Christ judges the heart, and Romans 11 specifically forbids me from drawing the very conclusion you’re suggesting.

The Bible tells us that we know a person is saved by their fruits. The Bible also tells us not to believe any other Gospel. All that being said, I wouldn't necessarily believe that someone who believes RT is hell bound or not saved. But if they are shown the dangers and refuse to change their POV then we have racism in the heart. And that is sin. Besides that, you are coming against God's (still) chosen people, which the Bible warns not to do.

 

[OMC]

The Bible tells us that we know a person is saved by their fruits. The Bible also tells us not to believe any other Gospel. All that being said, I wouldn't necessarily believe that someone who believes RT is hell bound or not saved. But if they are shown the dangers and refuse to change their POV then we have racism in the heart. And that is sin. Besides that, you are coming against God's (still) chosen people, which the Bible warns not to do.

Paul says that anyone who boasts over Israel’s stumbling is acting in unbelief, and Jesus says that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” But I confess that Scripture never authorizes me to declare that such a person is unsaved or spiritually corrupt simply because they cling to Replacement Theology or refuse correction; instead, Romans 11 commands me to confront the sin, expose the arrogance, and warn them that despising Israel is despising the people God still calls beloved for the fathers’ sake, and that racism—whether subtle or overt—is itself a violation of the gospel. So I reject the idea that I can judge their salvation, but I stand firmly on this: their speech reveals a sinful posture Scripture condemns, and anyone who attacks Israel’s blindness instead of trembling before God’s mercy is violating Romans 11 and bearing fruit that exposes a heart in need of repentance.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Paul says that anyone who boasts over Israel’s stumbling is acting in unbelief, and Jesus says that “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” But I confess that Scripture never authorizes me to declare that such a person is unsaved or spiritually corrupt simply because they cling to Replacement Theology or refuse correction; instead, Romans 11 commands me to confront the sin, expose the arrogance, and warn them that despising Israel is despising the people God still calls beloved for the fathers’ sake, and that racism—whether subtle or overt—is itself a violation of the gospel. So I reject the idea that I can judge their salvation, but I stand firmly on this: their speech reveals a sinful posture Scripture condemns, and anyone who attacks Israel’s blindness instead of trembling before God’s mercy is violating Romans 11 and bearing fruit that exposes a heart in need of repentance.

So just a quick question, do you believe you can consider a person unsaved? Not talking about this particular subject. Just wondering, do you believe in OSAS? Just trying to understand where you stand.

 

[OMC]

So just a quick question, do you believe you can consider a person unsaved? Not talking about this particular subject. Just wondering, do you believe in OSAS? Just trying to understand where you stand.

Scripture gives me the ability to evaluate fruit, to test professions, and to discern false gospels, but Scripture never gives me the authority to declare any specific person “unsaved,” because Jesus says the final verdict belongs to Him alone—“The Lord knows those who are His.” I do not hold OSAS in the simplistic sense that a one‑time profession guarantees salvation, but I do hold the biblical truth that those truly born of God are kept by God, and those who fall away reveal they were never His. So I reject the idea that I can look at someone’s doctrine—RT or anything else—and pronounce their eternal fate; I can only say whether their fruit, gospel, and posture align with Scripture. Christ alone judges salvation, but He commands me to judge doctrine and behavior.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

Scripture gives me the ability to evaluate fruit, to test professions, and to discern false gospels, but Scripture never gives me the authority to declare any specific person “unsaved,” because Jesus says the final verdict belongs to Him alone—“The Lord knows those who are His.” I do not hold OSAS in the simplistic sense that a one‑time profession guarantees salvation, but I do hold the biblical truth that those truly born of God are kept by God, and those who fall away reveal they were never His. So I reject the idea that I can look at someone’s doctrine—RT or anything else—and pronounce their eternal fate; I can only say whether their fruit, gospel, and posture align with Scripture. Christ alone judges salvation, but He commands me to judge doctrine and behavior.

Ok, if I can put a finer point on it. You're an evangelist and you are preaching to people you know are lost except for them hearing the Word and coming to Christ. Do you believe you can tell a person they are lost in their current condition? Then I will try to leave the subject because I don't wish to derail the thread into another subject.

 

[CS1]

Hell no. Israel as God's chosen people is irreplaceable. The Gentile church as we know it is grafted into the commonwealth of Israel, access to God is extended to us Gentiles through Jesus, by no means is that a replacement of the original Israel. Gentiles are specifically warned in Rom. 11:19-21 on this.

For I speak to you Gentiles; inasmuch as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit is holy, the lump is also holy; and if the root is holy, so are the branches. And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree, do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.

You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.” Well said. Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either. (Rom. 11:13-21)

little emotional you think?

 

[OMC]

Ok, if I can put a finer point on it. You're an evangelist and you are preaching to people you know are lost except for them hearing the Word and coming to Christ. Do you believe you can tell a person they are lost in their current condition? Then I will try to leave the subject because I don't wish to derail the thread into another subject.

I preach the gospel, I am preaching to people who are lost in their current condition, and Scripture commands me to say so. Jesus Himself tells me to declare, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish,” and Paul says that those outside Christ are “dead in trespasses and sins.” So yes—I can tell a person they are lost in their present state, because the gospel itself requires that clarity. But I confess that even when I say, “You are lost,” I am not pronouncing their eternal fate; I am describing their current spiritual condition according to Scripture. I reject the idea that I can declare someone finally unsaved, because only Christ judges the heart, yet I stand firmly on this: evangelism requires telling people the truth about their condition now—lost, condemned, without hope apart from Christ, so that they may flee to Him for mercy.

 

[CS1]

there are three basic theological positions on Israel and the church. To ask the question

"Replacement theology? Yes or No"​

One must know what the position and terms

• Classical Supersessionism(CS): This view asserts that the church has completely replaced Israel in God's plan, rendering the Jewish covenant obsolete.
• Reformed Covenant Theology(RC) : This perspective maintains that God's covenant with Israel continues, but the church is now included in the promises made to Israel.
• and New Covenant Fulfillment Theology(NCF):
• This position emphasizes that the church fulfills the promises to Israel while still recognizing a future role for Israel in God's plan.
  

Each offers a distinct perspective on the relationship between the church and Israel, particularly concerning the fulfillment of biblical promises
CS: is held mainly by those who are reformers such as Luther and Calvin. Yet some church fathers held to this also I believe Augustine did. They understood Israel's rejection of Christ as part of God's sovereign plan, not as an unforeseen obstacle. However, some later developments of supersessionist theology did treat the transition as reactive rather than planned.
The church fulfilled the role Israel was to play.

Problems with (CS)This View:

• Treats the change as replacement rather than fulfillment of original typological design
• Doesn't adequately account for the temporary and typological nature of Israel's role as originally intended
• Often lacks clear explanation for why God would design a system requiring such fundamental transition
• Can lead to diminished appreciation for the Old Testament's ongoing relevance
• Historically contributed to anti-Semitic attitudes and interpretations

RC: The church has always been the Israel of God throughout redemptive history, administered through different covenantal arrangements but maintaining essential continuity.

• The church and "the Israel of God" are the same spiritual entity

• Old Testament believers and New Testament believers constitute one people of God
• National Israel was a temporary administrative arrangement for the church
• Gentiles are "grafted in" to the existing people of God, not replacing anyone
• The object of faith has always been Christ throughout all administrations
• This represents administrative progression with replacement of temporary forms rather than replacement of peoples

NC: God always intended Old Testament Israel to be a shadow and type pointing to the spiritual reality found in Christ and the New Covenant church. The church is the substance that fulfills and replaces the shadow according to God's original design.

• Old Testament Israel was designed as a shadow/type pointing to spiritual realities

• Israel's role was typological: an unregenerate nation pointing forward to the regenerate people of God
• The church is the substance that the shadow always pointed toward
• This is about typological fulfillment according to God's predetermined plan
• God's promises were always through Israel to Christ and His people
• The transition is qualitative transformation from shadow to substance according to original design

Key Differences in Framework

Classical Supersessionism sees the change as God's response to Israel's covenant failure, requiring divine intervention to establish the church as His people (whether this failure was foreseen in God's plan or not).

Reformed Covenant Theology views the change as administrative progression within God's unchanging plan, the same spiritual entity under different historical arrangements.

New Covenant Fulfillment Theology understands the change as typological completion according to God's original design, the shadow giving way to substance exactly as intended from the beginning.

 

[ThereRoseaLamb]

I preach the gospel, I am preaching to people who are lost in their current condition, and Scripture commands me to say so. Jesus Himself tells me to declare, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish,” and Paul says that those outside Christ are “dead in trespasses and sins.” So yes—I can tell a person they are lost in their present state, because the gospel itself requires that clarity. But I confess that even when I say, “You are lost,” I am not pronouncing their eternal fate; I am describing their current spiritual condition according to Scripture. I reject the idea that I can declare someone finally unsaved, because only Christ judges the heart, yet I stand firmly on this: evangelism requires telling people the truth about their condition now—lost, condemned, without hope apart from Christ, so that they may flee to Him for mercy.

Right, ok so we agree with what Scriptures says. I have had family led to the Lord on their death beds, so I believe until one has stepped into eternity they can possibly be saved. Some will disagree with me on death bed confessions, but I believe God strives with us till our last second of breath.

 

[OMC]

Right, ok so we agree with what Scriptures says. I have had family led to the Lord on their death beds, so I believe until one has stepped into eternity they can possibly be saved. Some will disagree with me on death bed confessions, but I believe God strives with us till our last second of breath

what you’re saying is exactly right, that a person can be lost in their present condition and yet still be saved in their final breath, because Scripture shows God striving, calling, convicting, and drawing right up to the edge of death; the thief on the cross is the clearest example—condemned, dying, moments from eternity, and yet Christ says, “Today you will be with Me in paradise.” Unfortunately some believers reject death‑bed conversions, but I cannot, because Jesus Himself says, “Whoever comes to Me I will never cast out,” and He never limits that invitation to youth, health, or long life. So I reject the idea that salvation is impossible in the final seconds, and I stand firmly on this: as long as breath remains, repentance is possible, faith is possible, and God’s mercy is available—because He strives with a man until the very moment that man steps into eternity.

 

[cv5]

there are three basic theological positions on Israel and the church. To ask the question

"Replacement theology? Yes or No"​

One must know what the position and terms

• Classical Supersessionism(CS): This view asserts that the church has completely replaced Israel in God's plan, rendering the Jewish covenant obsolete.
• Reformed Covenant Theology(RC) : This perspective maintains that God's covenant with Israel continues, but the church is now included in the promises made to Israel.
• and New Covenant Fulfillment Theology(NCF):
• This position emphasizes that the church fulfills the promises to Israel while still recognizing a future role for Israel in God's plan.

Each offers a distinct perspective on the relationship between the church and Israel, particularly concerning the fulfillment of biblical promises
CS: is held mainly by those who are reformers such as Luther and Calvin. Yet some church fathers held to this also I believe Augustine did. They understood Israel's rejection of Christ as part of God's sovereign plan, not as an unforeseen obstacle. However, some later developments of supersessionist theology did treat the transition as reactive rather than planned.
The church fulfilled the role Israel was to play.

Problems with (CS)This View:

• Treats the change as replacement rather than fulfillment of original typological design
• Doesn't adequately account for the temporary and typological nature of Israel's role as originally intended
• Often lacks clear explanation for why God would design a system requiring such fundamental transition
• Can lead to diminished appreciation for the Old Testament's ongoing relevance
• Historically contributed to anti-Semitic attitudes and interpretations

RC: The church has always been the Israel of God throughout redemptive history, administered through different covenantal arrangements but maintaining essential continuity.

• The church and "the Israel of God" are the same spiritual entity
• Old Testament believers and New Testament believers constitute one people of God
• National Israel was a temporary administrative arrangement for the church
• Gentiles are "grafted in" to the existing people of God, not replacing anyone
• The object of faith has always been Christ throughout all administrations
• This represents administrative progression with replacement of temporary forms rather than replacement of peoples

NC: God always intended Old Testament Israel to be a shadow and type pointing to the spiritual reality found in Christ and the New Covenant church. The church is the substance that fulfills and replaces the shadow according to God's original design.

• Old Testament Israel was designed as a shadow/type pointing to spiritual realities
• Israel's role was typological: an unregenerate nation pointing forward to the regenerate people of God
• The church is the substance that the shadow always pointed toward
• This is about typological fulfillment according to God's predetermined plan
• God's promises were always through Israel to Christ and His people
• The transition is qualitative transformation from shadow to substance according to original design

Key Differences in Framework

Classical Supersessionism sees the change as God's response to Israel's covenant failure, requiring divine intervention to establish the church as His people (whether this failure was foreseen in God's plan or not).

Reformed Covenant Theology views the change as administrative progression within God's unchanging plan, the same spiritual entity under different historical arrangements.

New Covenant Fulfillment Theology understands the change as typological completion according to God's original design, the shadow giving way to substance exactly as intended from the beginning.

Could you please inquire of @ChristRoseFromTheDead and @HeIsHere as to which of these "dogmatic formulas" are adequate to "trigger" the Second Coming?

Here let's back up. Could you please inquire of @ChristRoseFromTheDead and @HeIsHere as to whether they believe in the Second Coming at all?

I ask because in order for the Second Coming to occur, the following must be in place beforehand:

1) the Jewish people must endure throughout history all the way to the "end-times"

2) the Jewish nation must be reconstituted before the "end-times"

3) the Nation Israel MUST repent and ASK their Messiah to intervene and save them from total annihilation at the hands of the beast and his armies

Surely they do understand that the Second Coming will NEVER happen unless the stage is set accordingly.

 

[Beekeeper]

Your claim requires Paul to redefine “Israel” mid‑argument.
To accept your view, I would have to believe Paul does this:
Romans 11:1–27“Israel = ethnic Israel.”
Romans 11:28–29“Israel = ethnic Israel.”
Romans 11:30–31“Israel = ethnic Israel.”
Romans 11:26“Israel = the church.”
That is hermeneutically impossible.

But in the verses preceding 11:26 Paul speaks of a remnant of his kinsmen, and your interpretation would have him switch to the entire earthly nation, predicting a rosy future to that establishment just a few short years before it was brutally destroyed.
Paul's argument would not be logical if that meaning was taken of v.26, because a remnant is a small group of people.

V.26 is introduced by the word "houtows", meaning "in this way" (see ESV), but it has a genitive plural ending, referring us to the events described in the olive tree model.
For that reason it makes absolute sense that "all Israel" refers to the Israel God, including all that are grafted into the olive tree,

 

[OMC]

But in the verses preceding 11:26 Paul speaks of a remnant of his kinsmen, and your interpretation would have him switch to the entire earthly nation, predicting a rosy future to that establishment just a few short years before it was brutally destroyed.
Paul's argument would not be logical if that meaning was taken of v.26, because a remnant is a small group of people.

V.26 is introduced by the word "houtows", meaning "in this way" (see ESV), but it has a genitive plural ending, referring us to the events described in the olive tree model.
For that reason it makes absolute sense that "all Israel" refers to the Israel God, including all that are grafted into the olive tree,

you’ve raised the strongest possible objection to my reading of Romans 11:26.
You’re arguing that my view requires Paul to switch from “remnant” to “nation,” while your view keeps the flow consistent by reading “all Israel” as “the Israel of God,” meaning all who are grafted into the olive tree.
I acknowledge the coherence of your argument, but I confess that the Greek text and Paul’s own structure do not allow “all Israel” to mean “the church,” nor “the Israel of God,” nor “all grafted branches.”
And I reject the idea that the remnant in vv. 1–7 controls the meaning of “Israel” in v. 26, because Paul explicitly distinguishes the remnant from the hardened nation throughout the chapter.
I stand firmly on this: Paul never redefines Israel mid‑argument; he keeps two Israels in view—remnant now, nation later—and “houtōs” (“in this way”) refers to the process by which the hardened nation will be shown mercy, not to the identity of Israel itself.

 

[cv5]

But in the verses preceding 11:26 Paul speaks of a remnant of his kinsmen, and your interpretation would have him switch to the entire earthly nation, predicting a rosy future to that establishment just a few short years before it was brutally destroyed.
Paul's argument would not be logical if that meaning was taken of v.26, because a remnant is a small group of people.

V.26 is introduced by the word "houtows", meaning "in this way" (see ESV), but it has a genitive plural ending, referring us to the events described in the olive tree model.
For that reason it makes absolute sense that "all Israel" refers to the Israel God, including all that are grafted into the olive tree,

[Rom 11:25 KJV] 25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

[Rom 11:26 KJV] 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:

In verse 26, Paul anchors his declaration—"And so all Israel shall be saved"—by quoting a composite Old Testament text primarily drawn from Isaiah 59:20–21 and Isaiah 27:9: "There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob."

The Scope of the Prophecy: In Isaiah 59, the Redeemer comes specifically "to Zion, and to those that turn from transgression in Jacob." Throughout biblical prophecy, the name "Jacob" consistently designates the physical, ethnic descendants of the patriarch Jacob, rather than a spiritualized allegory for the global Church.

A Covenantal Guarantee: Paul ties this text directly to God’s unyielding covenant ("For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins"). Just as God promised a future national and spiritual restoration for the literal nation of Israel in Old Testament passages like Jeremiah 31 and Ezekiel 37, Paul argues that this corporate turning is a fixed certainty.

The Irrevocable Call: This is reinforced immediately afterward in Romans 11:28–29, where Paul declares that regarding the gospel they are treated as enemies for the sake of the Gentiles, but regarding election they are beloved for the sake of the patriarchs, because "the gifts and calling of God are without repentance." The Old Testament citation thus functions as legal and prophetic proof that God's covenant loyalty to the historic nation will culminate in a future national-scale spiritual deliverance.