I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation.
On the contrary, your side is the one that abandons solid theological method.
Dispensationalism begins with the development of a Biblical theology of the OT based on the grammatical-historical approach to the OT text. Then a Biblical theology of the NT based on the NT text is constructed; then all results are synthesized into a systematic theology.
Non-dispensationalists start with a Biblical theology of the NT, then construct a Biblical theology of the OT based; not on the OT text, but on the NT understanding of the OT text. Then systematic synthesis.
This gives you the justification you need to trash the OT covenants as fulfilled by the church, or the silly position of "it all happened in AD 70."
Replacement theology it is not! I would dare you to write on any of the topics he has written on with such clarity.
Clarity? That is not the issue, sure he can write with clarity, but the theological method and interpretive conclusions he reaches are aberrant. Who cares if he can communicate false doctrine clearly.
Replacement theology is dispensationalism
lol ... you're the first person to claim that.
On the contrary, your side is the one that abandons solid theological method.
That's the argument that is advanced all the time - By both sides (and various other groups)! The only way for any group is to display and present for study what they see of the future; which is the main part of the arguments.
Dispensationalism begins with the development of a Biblical theology of the OT based on the grammatical-historical approach to the OT text. Then a Biblical theology of the NT based on the NT text is constructed; then all results are synthesized into a systematic theology.
I haven't got all that much against dispesations revealed in the OT; it's just that Dispensationalists make mountains out of mole hills - they start with an ant hill and pile loads of dirt and rock on it. There is so much wrong with the theology of a lot of groups; Dispensationists have carried a lot of false teachings on the destiny of man that it makes one wonder who is actually following a grammatical-historical based approach in their theology.
Non-dispensationalists start with a Biblical theology of the NT, then construct a Biblical theology of the OT based; not on the OT text, but on the NT understanding of the OT text. Then systematic synthesis.
In this I think you are wrong again. Think: what did the writers of the NT understand from what is recorded in the OT? They applied much of the OT to events recorded in the NT. Do you think they then systematically synthesized thier teachings?
Clarity? That is not the issue, sure he can write with clarity, but the theological method and interpretive conclusions he reaches are aberrant. Who cares if he can communicate false doctrine clearly.
Wrong! Clarity, as Curtis uses it, is explaining certain things so that the simplest individual can understand it. I've read some of his in-depth exegesis and it is up-to-par with the most educated theologians and translators of Scriptures that I have read - and I've read works from almost all the groups found in Christianity. As for "Who cares", there are millions who do! If you don't, that's no big loss.
"Replacement theology is dispensationalism"
lol ... you're the first person to claim that.
LOL...nope. I just quoted, in simple words, what thousands have stated in those words and have expounded upon.