Well I didn't come up with these terms to describe your beliefs. Modern man did. As I recall you also jumped ship on being called a partial preterist as well. You chose the word Finalist (if I remember correctly) because one other person came up with that term, and you liked it. So be it. I'm not trying to label your belief wrong...
In light of your 'ah ha' moment above, that doesn't quite ring true. Obviously you did not invent these terms, and I never suggested that you did. But you seem more than ready to pin them on me regardless of how accurately they portray my views on any doctrine. I have no objection to labels per se. They have their uses, providing they accurately reflect the views of the person we are labelling. Otherwise, as I said, it quickly degenerates into a game of seeing how much mud sticks on the opposition.
In the case of 'Replacement Theology', it contains just enough hint of truth to make it sound plausible, but it still represents a gross distortion of what the Bible teaches about the relationship between Israel and the Church. Christianity did not start with a clean slate, did not spring into existence inside a vacuum. Neither was it a Plan B that was instituted because Plan A was thwarted or temporarily suspended. That may sound absurd, but it is the basic premise of virtually all forms of chiliasm. No, Christianity is either rooted in the promises of the OT, or else it is a complete fraud. For me, the fulfilment of those promises is one of the best proofs of its truth.
The first martyr of the faith spent the best part of the last few moments of his earthly existence testifying to this sublime truth (See Acts 7). His long peroration that recounts the highlights of Israel's history either makes him guilty of an incomprehensible digression from the central message of the gospel in the face of imminent death, or else it is integral to it. So the relationship is not one of 'replacement', but fulfilment. By insisting on a yet future fulfilment in some earthly millennial kingdom, you are simply devaluing the achievements of the cross, resurrection, ascension, glorification and coronation of the Messiah.
As for 'partial preterist', there is nothing 'partial' about believing that the great prophecies, promises, types, etc. of the OT find their fulfilment in Jesus' first advent rather than His second. He reigns now at God's right hand, and we share in that reign now. All authority is His now, and His name is already above all names. That's not to deny that there will be a second appearing of the Messiah, but you are gravely mistaken if you think it will be for the purpose of ruling over a kingdom that is qualitatively inferior to the present age of grace.
So yes, I find the term Finalist/Finalism infinitely preferable to the above 'choices'. It is positive in its tenor and outlook, and at least implies content that is entirely consistent with Holy Writ. I have recently found the article in which I first came across it some 40+ years ago, and I will reproduce its salient points in a separate post for your perusal. And if not for yours, then perhaps for others.