That’s still not very specific. Perhaps I’m missing the significance in the context of Ryrie’s statement and the analysis. Why is "something contained" more appropriate than "substance" and what difference does it make?
OK. So, does Covenant doctrine teach that God's covenant with Abraham and his seed is still in effect with his seed?
Absolutely. Just read Galatians 3 for the proper understanding of "Seed" being Jesus Christ and the fact that all those found to be in Christ are the true sons of Abraham and, therefore, heirs of the promises.
Christians are the Spiritual heirs of the Spiritual promises...
The Jews are (still) the physical heirs of the physical promises...
Absolutely. Just read Galatians 3 for the proper understanding of "Seed" being Jesus Christ and the fact that all those found to be in Christ are the true sons of Abraham and, therefore, heirs of the promises.
Well, now, see, I have to take this as an obtuse "no". Christ did indeed fulfill one promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, but there was more to the Covenant. The New Covenant did not cancel the Old Covenant, and a Gentile Church did not replace a Jewish Nation. Supersessionism is completely without Biblical basis. Replacement theology, not eschatology, is the real disagreement between Dispensationalism and Covenant Doctrine. And "Covenant" doctrine does, indeed, teach that God has broken His covenants.
If the Church is heir to the promises of the Old Covenant, then why is the Church not heir to the obligations of the Old Covenant?