According to me there isn't one. But here:
I think I agree with you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism
I do not believe either one.
Fatherhood isn't the issue, birthright is. Just ask Esau.
If that is true then the covenant means nothing to me. I was not born for a covenant but I chose to respect it. I do not respect birth right much.
Abraham was not born to be a father. I think he learned it. I was not born to be anyone's child except my mother and father but I accept adoption.
Esau was not right for righteousness. I think people can become right for righteousness. It isn't easy. And being born into a certain family does not make it a sure thing for anyone imho.
I voted wrong. I voted yes. But according to your definition, I am neither yes nor no.
I believe in God's promise. God has not promised me anything, I am sure.
In fact, I think that "he who has endured to the end will be saved" simply means that he who endures to the end will have endured to the end. Why would he say that? It is because he lets us know that Heaven does not promise anything but to help. I think maybe Abraham was the first person who was helped regarding salvation. Anyone who trusts in the salvation of God comes under the ONE covenant.
To teach that God breaks covenants is a bad lesson. Isn't it? Then someone will say, "God didn't break God's covenant, the Jews broke it". Am I right?
But that is an even worse lesson because it teaches that people have some authority over what God does. They don't.
edit: I tried to take my yes vote away but it won't let me.