@Eleanor concerning Fullfilment Theology

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I've been doing some light reading on your professed theology. Is this article a fair representation? I'd rather hear it from a proponent than assume.

https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/38_3_4_PDFs/IJFM_38_3_4-Muck_Fulfillment_Theology.pdf

 

[Eleanor]

I've been doing some light reading on your professed theology. Is this article a fair representation? I'd rather hear it from a proponent than assume.

https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/38_3_4_PDFs/IJFM_38_3_4-Muck_Fulfillment_Theology.pdf

Thanks!

I know of no "Fulfillment" Theology. It is simply my own word for the content of what you call "Replacement" Theology, by which I am indicating that the church does not "replace" true Israel, the church is the true Israel.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Thanks!

I know of no "Fulfillment" Theology. It is simply my own word for the content of what you call "Replacement" Theology, by which I am indicating that the church does not "replace" true Israel, the church is the true Israel.

That is one of the tenants of Fulfillment theology. Could you give the article a read and let me know if this is where you are coming from so that we have a better understanding please?

 

[Eleanor]

That is one of the tenants of Fulfillment theology. Could you give the article a read and let me know if this is where you are coming from so that we have a better understanding please?

I have no worked out "Fulfillment" Theology, nor am I looking for one.

It's simply a term I came up with for myself about 25 years ago.
It seems the theology on the scene now was developed after that, and I have no knowledge of nor relation to it.

For me, I simply meant Ro 11; i.e., God's people are the one olive tree going all the way back to Abraham, the church, of both OT and NT saints, into which Israel will be grafted back if (not "when") they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).

I don't take my understanding of Scripture from prophetic riddles spoken not clearly (Nu 12:8), I take it from authoritative NT apostolic teaching. Any private interpretation of unfulfilled prophetic riddles must necessarily not be in disagreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I have no worked out "Fulfillment" Theology, nor am I looking for one.

It's simply a term I came up with for myself about 25 years ago.
It seems the theology on the scene now was developed after that, and I have no knowledge of nor relation to it.

Sure...I get that. That's why I asked you to read the article.

For me, I simply meant Ro 11; i.e., God's people are the one olive tree going all the way back to Abraham, the church, of both OT and NT saints, into which Israel will be grafted back if (not "when") they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).

Here's the trouble with that...your interpretation is one of many. Of the *many* streams you have the olive tree being Israel, the olive tree being Christ, and the olive tree being the Patriarchs. This in turn violates your own precept in..

I don't take my understanding of Scripture from prophetic riddles spoken not clearly (Nu 12:8)

Now you base your assertion on...

I take it from authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

But, as even a brief internet search will show, this is not entirely the case. Therefore you break your second precept...

Any private interpretation of unfulfilled prophetic riddles must necessarily not be in disagreement with authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

...as your interpretation is "private" like pretty much everyone else. Your authoritative claim is only as authoritative as your individual interpretation ( since you don't claim authority by clear Scripture ). You reject the "fulfillment" movement as your own so no help there. Not that it would have been a help to you considering some of their beliefs.

This is rather off putting as it smells of "I am the authority".

Anywho...I think I understand you better now. We don't agree and are, pretty much, at polar opposites when it comes to Israel.

 

[makesends]

Sure...I get that. That's why I asked you to read the article.



Here's the trouble with that...your interpretation is one of many. Of the *many* streams you have the olive tree being Israel, the olive tree being Christ, and the olive tree being the Patriarchs. This in turn violates your own precept in..



Now you base your assertion on...


But, as even a brief internet search will show, this is not entirely the case. Therefore you break your second precept...



...as your interpretation is "private" like pretty much everyone else. Your authoritative claim is only as authoritative as your individual interpretation ( since you don't claim authority by clear Scripture ). You reject the "fulfillment" movement as your own so no help there. Not that it would have been a help to you considering some of their beliefs.

This is rather off putting as it smells of "I am the authority".

Anywho...I think I understand you better now. We don't agree and are, pretty much, at polar opposites when it comes to Israel.

I hadn't taken you for a dispensationalist. @Eleanor as far as I understand her is giving pretty much the standard Reformed (and Biblical) answer I saw as my first objection to the dispensationalism I was taught as a child —the Bible teaches that true Israel and the Church are one and the same thing: the Body of Christ. Not all who are of Israel are Israel. There has only ever been one Gospel.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

I hadn't taken you for a dispensationalist. @Eleanor as far as I understand her is giving pretty much the standard Reformed (and Biblical) answer I saw as my first objection to the dispensationalism I was taught as a child —the Bible teaches that true Israel and the Church are one and the same thing: the Body of Christ. Not all who are of Israel are Israel. There has only ever been one Gospel.

The trouble is that the "Bible teaches" assumption isn't as cut and dried as the Covenantalist would like ( pg 57-63 ). And, for the record, I didn't really take myself as a dispensationalist either. Little did I know that taking God at His word and promises would lead me in this direction. But here we are.

 

[makesends]

The trouble is that the "Bible teaches" assumption isn't as cut and dried as the Covenantalist would like ( pg 57-63 ). And, for the record, I didn't really take myself as a dispensationalist either. Little did I know that taking God at His word and promises would lead me in this direction. But here we are.

But then, so say we all, concerning our little hitch in our git-up.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

But then, so say we all, concerning our little hitch in our git-up.

Yep...the challenge is to look at and actually consider why we believe what we believe. And then we get along. Heeyaa... /snap

 

[Eleanor]

Sure...I get that. That's why I asked you to read the article.

Here's the trouble with that...your interpretation is one of many. Of the *many* streams you have the olive tree being Israel, the olive tree being Christ, and the olive tree being the Patriarchs. This in turn violates your own precept in..

Well, yes, straight out of Ro 11.
In Ro 11, the olive tree is the church, of which the patriarchs are the roots, Christ is the trunk/vine coming from the roots, and God's people are the branches.

Now you base your assertion on...

But, as even a brief internet search will show, this is not entirely the case. Therefore you break your second precept...
...as your interpretation is "private" like pretty much everyone else.

No more "private" than Christ is the vine and the people of God are the branches.

Your authoritative claim is only as authoritative as your individual interpretation ( since you don't claim authority by clear Scripture ). You reject the "fulfillment" movement as your own so no help there. Not that it would have been a help to you considering some of their beliefs.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
You think the olive tree and the vine are "private" interpretations and not presented in the NT?
This seems disingenuous.

Not to mention that my comment regarding "personal interpretation" is in regard to prophecy, not NT teaching (didactics).
Ro 11, where I take the understanding presented to you of the one olive tree/vine, is not prophecy, it is authoritative teaching regarding the one people of God, and I likewise presented other NT testimony to that fact.

This is rather off putting as it smells of "I am the authority".

As in smells of disingenuous?
Sounds like you don't want any Biblical authority by which to measure your personal prophetic notions.

Scripture is the authority, I demonstrate my assertions from Scripture, you have yet to demonstrate any error therein from Scripture.
Until you do, yours are simply opinion, and we all know about opinions, they're like noses, everybody has one.

Anywho...I think I understand you better now. We don't agree and are, pretty much, at polar opposites when it comes to Israel.

I note that you do not address Ro 11, which is a polar opposite of your notion of Israel.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Well, yes, straight out of Ro 11.
In Ro 11, the olive tree is the church, of which the patriarchs are the roots, Christ is the trunk/vine coming from the roots, and God's people are the branches.

Well no...this is straight out of your interpretation of Romans 11. Which I've addressed. You assert it's the church. Others assert other possibilities based on the same Scripture. By what authority do you maintain that the "church" is the correct interpretation? The church is made up of people of both the cultivated and the wild. So that rules out the church. Messiah was still being awaited on so that rules out Christ. That leaves us with Israel ( the Patriarchs ). Cultivated by God.

No more "private" than Christ is the vine and the people of God are the branches.

That is straight from Jesus but it is not referencing the "olive tree". And you know that. They are similar but not synonymous.

I have no idea what you are talking about.
You think the olive tree and the vine are "private" interpretations and not presented in the NT?
This seems disingenuous.

What is disingenuous is your acting like you don't know what I'm talking about.

Not to mention that my comment regarding "personal interpretation" is in regard to prophecy, not NT teaching (didactics).

Paul is talking about a future Israel. That is prophecy. But by all means back away from your own metric when it's convenient.

Ro 11, where I take the understanding presented to you of the one olive tree/vine, is not prophecy, it is authoritative teaching regarding the one people of God, and I likewise presented other NT testimony to that fact.

it's two substantively different teachings. One about partially hardened Israel and the church's purpose ( to make Israel jealous ), and Jesus speaking too his disciples which can be extended to all disciples but not partially hardened Israel by application.

As in smells of disingenuous?
Sounds like you don't want any Biblical authority by which to measure your personal prophetic notions.

You've yet to provide an authority other than yourself and the tradition you have disavowed ( Replacement theology, Fulfillment theology ) for your personal theology.

Scripture is the authority, I demonstrate my assertions from Scripture, you have yet to demonstrate any error therein from Scripture.
Until you do, yours are simply opinion, and we all know about opinions, they're like noses, everybody has one.

Scripture is the authority. On that we agree.

I note that you do not address Ro 11, which is a polar opposite of your notion of Israel.

Oh...but I have. But to be fair:

Romans 11:25-32

For I do not want you, brothers, to be uninformed of this mystery⁠—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation⁠—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
“And this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

 

[Eleanor]

Well no...this is straight out of your interpretation of Romans 11. Which I've addressed. You assert it's the church. Others assert other possibilities based on the same Scripture. By what authority do you maintain that the "church" is the correct interpretation?

By the authority of the text, where Ro 11:23 is unassailable: "if (not "when") they (Jews) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted back in again."

Grafted back into what? The one olive tree.

What is the one olive tree?
The dough made from the firstfruits of the harvest, wherein part of the dough was offered to the Lord, consecrating the whole batch of dough and making it holy (Ro 11:16).

What is the batch of dough?
The one olive tree--the people of God (branches) who, like the whole batch of dough from the firstfruits is made holy by the consecration of part of it--is likewise holy because its roots (the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) are holy (Ro 11:16), and from which its trunk, Christ, proceeds.

So what has been broken off the one olive tree and what has been grafted in to the one olive tree, which is the people of God whose roots are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Unbelieving Jews have been cut off from the people of God, and believing Gentiles (church) have been grafted in to the people of God.
So now, since the death of Christ, the one olive tree of God's people is all who believe in Christ; i.e., the church.

So the shemata of the holy one olive tree of Ro 11 is the
holy root = patriarchs,
[holy trunk = Christ, which proceeds from the root] and
holy branches = people of God in the trunk, Christ, as they are in the vine, Christ.

Therefore, God's people of the NT are the one olive tree going all the way back to Abraham, the church, of both OT and NT saints (Heb 11:40, 2:2-23), into which Israel will be grafted back if (not "when") they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).

Feel free to present another meaning of Ro 11, being true to its words, context and in agreement with all NT teaching (as distinct from prophetic riddles).
Spending more time in NT teaching than in OT prophetic riddles might be beneficial.

The church is made up of people of both the cultivated and the wild. So that rules out the church. Messiah was still being awaited on so that rules out Christ. That leaves us with Israel ( the Patriarchs ). Cultivated by God.

Both the wild and the few remaining cultivated branches who believe in Christ are in the one olive tree, the people of God, the church, and draw their nourishment from the same root, the holy patriarchs.

Paul is talking about a future Israel.
That is prophecy. But by all means back away from your own metric when it's convenient.

It is prophecy only by your altering the text.

The text states a conditional promise; i.e., "IF they," not "when they." (Ro 11:23)

it's two substantively different teachings. One about partially hardened Israel and the church's purpose ( to make Israel jealous ), and Jesus speaking too his disciples which can be extended to all disciples but not partially hardened Israel by application.
You've yet to provide an authority other than yourself and the tradition you have disavowed ( Replacement theology, Fulfillment theology ) for your personal theology.
Scripture is the authority. On that we agree.
Oh...but I have. But to be fair:
Romans 11:25-32
For I do not want you, brothers, to be uninformed of this mystery⁠—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation⁠—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

So you're saying all Israel since the death of Christ are being saved for 2,000 years now.
Then you don't understand the text, nor NT teaching.

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
“And this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

Precisely, and the irrevocable gifts and calling are being fulfilled in a remnant (Ro 11:1-5) and, thus (in the same say, in a remnant) all true Israel will be saved (Ro 11:25), just as a remnant of the Gentiles will be saved.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

By the authority of the text, where Ro 11:23 is unassailable: "if (not "when") they (Jews) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted back in again."

Romans 11:
25 For I do not want you, brothers, to be uninformed of this mystery⁠—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation⁠—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “And this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so these also have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may be shown mercy.
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

Assailed.

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

And as much as I enjoy going through huge blocks of text and parsing them out I think I've done enough.

Be blessed, Eleanor.

 

[Eleanor]

Romans 11:
25 For I do not want you, brothers, to be uninformed of this mystery⁠—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation⁠—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in;
26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
27 “And this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers;
29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.
30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but have been shown mercy because of their disobedience,
31 so these also have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may be shown mercy.
32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

Assailed.

None of which impacts Ro 11:1-23, which you do not address.

Lotta' heat, no light.

The shemata of the holy one olive tree of Ro 11 is the
holy root = patriarchs,
[holy trunk = Christ, which proceeds from the root] and
holy branches = people of God in the trunk, Christ, as they are in the vine, Christ.

 

[brightfame52]

Well no...this is straight out of your interpretation of Romans 11. Which I've addressed. You assert it's the church. Others assert other possibilities based on the same Scripture. By what authority do you maintain that the "church" is the correct interpretation? The church is made up of people of both the cultivated and the wild. So that rules out the church. Messiah was still being awaited on so that rules out Christ. That leaves us with Israel ( the Patriarchs ). Cultivated by God.



That is straight from Jesus but it is not referencing the "olive tree". And you know that. They are similar but not synonymous.



What is disingenuous is your acting like you don't know what I'm talking about.



Paul is talking about a future Israel. That is prophecy. But by all means back away from your own metric when it's convenient.


it's two substantively different teachings. One about partially hardened Israel and the church's purpose ( to make Israel jealous ), and Jesus speaking too his disciples which can be extended to all disciples but not partially hardened Israel by application.



You've yet to provide an authority other than yourself and the tradition you have disavowed ( Replacement theology, Fulfillment theology ) for your personal theology.



Scripture is the authority. On that we agree.



Oh...but I have. But to be fair:

Romans 11:25-32

For I do not want you, brothers, to be uninformed of this mystery⁠—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation⁠—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
“And this is My covenant with them,
When I take away their sins.”
From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, so these also have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may be shown mercy. For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

Rom 11:26

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 adverb so here is important. Paul is Illustrating not when but how all Israel shall be saved. The word means:

in that or this manner or fashion; thus:

The all Israel that shall be saved is not a ethnic national people as in Abrahams natural seed Israel according to the flesh, but its a Spiritual Seed given to Abraham by the redemptive work of Christ that includes both jews and gentiles, and so in that manner, by the calling of both a remnant out of the jews and a remnant out of the gentiles, in that fashion shall all Israel be saved.

 

[Eleanor]

Rom 11:26

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 adverb so here is important. Paul is Illustrating not when but how all Israel shall be saved. The word means:

in that or this manner or fashion; thus:

The all Israel that shall be saved is not a ethnic national people as in Abrahams natural seed Israel according to the flesh, but its a Spiritual Seed given to Abraham by the redemptive work of Christ that includes both jews and gentiles, and so in that manner, by the calling of both a remnant out of the jews and a remnant out of the gentiles, in that fashion shall all Israel be saved.

Good for you!

 

[CrazyCalvinistUncle]

Rom 11:26

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 adverb so here is important. Paul is Illustrating not when but how all Israel shall be saved. The word means:

in that or this manner or fashion; thus:

The all Israel that shall be saved is not a ethnic national people as in Abrahams natural seed Israel according to the flesh, but its a Spiritual Seed given to Abraham by the redemptive work of Christ that includes both jews and gentiles, and so in that manner, by the calling of both a remnant out of the jews and a remnant out of the gentiles, in that fashion shall all Israel be saved.

Horsefeathers...Do you forget that Paul was far more well versed in the OT than either you or I? You might miss this due to your tradition but Paul did not:

Ezekiel 37:
The hand of the Lord was on me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord and set me in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. 2 He led me back and forth among them, and I saw a great many bones on the floor of the valley, bones that were very dry. 3 He asked me, “Son of man, can these bones live?”

I said, “Sovereign Lord, you alone know.”

4 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to these bones and say to them, ‘Dry bones, hear the word of the Lord! 5 This is what the Sovereign Lord says to these bones: I will make breath[a] enter you, and you will come to life. 6 I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the Lord.’”

7 So I prophesied as I was commanded. And as I was prophesying, there was a noise, a rattling sound, and the bones came together, bone to bone. 8 I looked, and tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.

9 Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Come, breath, from the four winds and breathe into these slain, that they may live.’” 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and breath entered them; they came to life and stood up on their feet—a vast army.

11 Then he said to me: “Son of man, these bones are the people of Israel. They say, ‘Our bones are dried up and our hope is gone; we are cut off.’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: My people, I am going to open your graves and bring you up from them; I will bring you back to the land of Israel. 13 Then you, my people, will know that I am the Lord, when I open your graves and bring you up from them. 14 I will put my Spirit in you and you will live, and I will settle you in your own land. Then you will know that I the Lord have spoken, and I have done it, declares the Lord.’”

Do note, sister, that the church did not exist at this point and Israel means Israel...There is no "Oh...and remember, Ezekiel, this is the church."

God only has to say something once for it to be true. The above has not happened yet but, says the Lord, it shall.

 

[Eleanor]

Horsefeathers...Do you forget that Paul was far more well versed in the OT than either you or I? You might miss this due to your tradition but Paul did not:



Do note, sister, that the church did not exist at this point and Israel means Israel...There is no "Oh...and remember, Ezekiel, this is the church."

God only has to say something once for it to be true. The above has not happened yet but, says the Lord, it shall.

Contraire.

Church (ek-klesia) means "called-out assembly, it is all the people of God and it is used of Israel in Ac 7:38.

This being a good example of dispensational inadequate understanding of ecclesiology.

 

[makesends]

By the authority of the text, where Ro 11:23 is unassailable: "if (not "when") they (Jews) do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted back in again."

Grafted back into what? The one olive tree.

What is the one olive tree?
The dough made from the firstfruits of the harvest, wherein part of the dough was offered to the Lord, consecrating the whole batch of dough and making it holy (Ro 11:16).

What is the batch of dough?
The one olive tree--the people of God (branches) who, like the whole batch of dough from the firstfruits is made holy by the consecration of part of it--is likewise holy because its roots (the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) are holy (Ro 11:16), and from which its trunk, Christ, proceeds.

So what has been broken off the one olive tree and what has been grafted in to the one olive tree, which is the people of God whose roots are Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?
Unbelieving Jews have been cut off from the people of God, and believing Gentiles (church) have been grafted in to the people of God.
So now, since the death of Christ, the one olive tree of God's people is all who believe in Christ; i.e., the church.

So the shemata of the holy one olive tree of Ro 11 is the
holy root = patriarchs,
[holy trunk = Christ, which proceeds from the root] and
holy branches = people of God in the trunk, Christ, as they are in the vine, Christ.

Therefore, God's people of the NT are the one olive tree going all the way back to Abraham, the church, of both OT and NT saints (Heb 11:40, 2:2-23), into which Israel will be grafted back if (not "when") they do not persist in unbelief (Ro 11:23).

Feel free to present another meaning of Ro 11, being true to its words, context and in agreement with all NT teaching (as distinct from prophetic riddles).

Both the wild and the few remaining cultivated branches who believe in Christ are in the one olive tree, the people of God, the church, and draw their nourishment from the same root.

It is prophecy only by your altering the text.

The text states a conditional promise; i.e., "IF they," not "when they." (Ro 11:23)

So you're saying all Israel since the death of Christ are being saved for 2,000 years now.
Then you don't understand the text, nor NT teaching.

Precisely, and the irrevocable gifts and calling are being fulfilled in a remnant (Ro 11:1-5) and, thus (in the same say, in a remnant) all true Israel will be saved, just as a remnant of the Gentiles will be saved.

Agreed. An aside: As I see it, "True Israel" includes not just the remnant, but all redeemed Gentiles also.