[thoughtomator]

I guess I had the term wrong. The replacement of the new covenant for the old seemed naturally describable as "replacement theology", but I guess that term has a different meaning.

[rdb3]

I guess I had the term wrong. The replacement of the new covenant for the old seemed naturally describable as "replacement theology", but I guess that term has a different meaning.

That's okay because it seems entirely logical. But once you turn to the texts of the Torah and the New Testament, you'd quickly find that no such replacement occurs. Christian texts don't "replace" anything. But they do fulfill them. In fact, you can't even have a New Testament without the Old, for you would have nothing to compare and/or validate the New.

God's promises to Abraham, thus Israel, are valid today as they were when they were written. Replacement Theology teaches that God is completely finished with Israel and the Jews. This, then, would make God out to be a liar.

Check here for more info: Replacement Theology

[Fiat volvntas tva]

The replacement of the new covenant for the old seemed naturally describable as "replacement theology", but I guess that term has a different meaning.

Actually, your use of the term is accurate whereas the Dispensationalist use isn't.

"Replacement Theology" is a pejorative term created by Dispensationalists for Covenant Theology which is the expansion of Israel to include Gentiles into the Church.

[Fiat volvntas tva]

Here is Replacement Theology as defined by Jesus Himself:

Matthew 26:27-29

27Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you. 28For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. 29But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom."