L
Ladodgers6
Guest
He's not well-versed in these topics, your gonna pull your hair out with this person. He not going to take the time of trying to understand what your position is. He's a Calvinist basher, no matter what you say, he will disagree with it, because it's coming from those ugly Calvinist, Just a heads up.No, that is NOT what I said. You've quote mined what I said, separating one part of it from the whole of it. What I said was nothing was asked of Abrahm prior to the covenant being established and only after the covenant was established was anything asked of him AND I said that specifically and explicitly in response to the claim "a covenant is a two way obligation." There is no "two way obligation" between Abram and God in Genesis 15.
NONE
Get out your Bible, read the text, and see for yourself.
THEN amend you thinking on this matter, your doctrine on this matter, AND your practice on this matter to accord with scripture and not some extra-biblical second-hand theological commentary on the nature of a covenant. And please do not quote mine me again.
I did do that because the example you posted is not an example in any way remotely consistent with what I posted. You moved the goal posts. The episode with Isaac happened about a decade after the Genesis 17 requirement and three decades after the covenant was first established thereby proving what I said correct: any two-way obligation came only after the covenant was established and it was not a matter of negotiation.
Your selection of the Isaac episode was in fact non sequitur. It has absolutely nothing to do with any two-way obligation by which a covenant is established and because it occurred a decade after Gensis 17 and three decades after Genesis 15 and even more decades after Abram was first chosen, called and commanded to leave Ur, it has absolutely nothing to do with the establishment of the covenant. The covenant had all already been established by the time the Isaac episode occurred.
Furthermore, the Isaac episode is Christological AND monergistically so. God provided the sacrifice, not Abraham. It goes back to the vision God showed Abram wherein God Himself walked between the sundered carcasses to pledge fealty to Himself as Sovereign.
Are you familiar with the suzerain covenant ritual?
Yes, that is the report of scripture BUT it occurs decades after the covenant is reported to have first been established. It demonstrates exactly what I said: nothing was asked of Abraham until after the covenant was already established. Your example, the example you chose, proves what I posted correct.
The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. Yes? The account opens with the statement, "It came to pass after these things..." Yes? What "things"? Many things, one of which is the promise of a son and the failed and disobedient attempt by Abraham do fulfill God's promises through his own fleshly means. Yes?
The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. This is five chapters after the covenant requirement of circumcision. Yes?
The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. This is seven chapters, at least three decades after the covenant was established in Genesis 15. Yes?
The call to sacrifice Isaac occurs in Genesis 22. That is seven chapters and three decades after the covenant was established in Genesis 15 and there are NO two-way covenant obligations in that chapter. Yes?
You had to search scripture seven chapters and three decades later to come up with Isaac and doing so proved what I posted correct.
The effort also showed the dangers of accepting the extra-biblical definition of a covenant. It is ironic because that definition is very much like what Abram did in Genesis 15. He thought the animals were for the suzerain ritual covenant. Maybe they were and God would have asked for the suzerain ritual but that is NOT what the text reports. As far as the scripture stipulates, Abram did it on his own, going a step further than God asked, and resorting to a pagan ritual, the suzerain covenant ritual.
If you do not know about the ancient suzerain ritual then I will describe it and explain it, and link you to sources for a better understanding and to show the veracity of my posts. If you already know about the suzerain ritual and the fealty oath then you already know what I've posted is correct.
AND..... if you're familiar with the offerings and sacrifices to God that preceded Genesis 15 (there aren't many of them recorded) then you also know they looked much different than the suzerain covenant.
All of that is digressive. The op-relevant point is this: the Christological covenant with God is NOT a two-way obligation until after the covenant is monergistically established. That is the precedent established in scripture time and time again and again. Understanding any existing "two-way obligation" correctly is paramount, especially if we want our thinking, our doctrine, and our practice to be consistent with the whole of God's word.
- The covenant is first established.
- It is established by God's initiation.
- It is established by God's initiation and God's alone.
- God chooses a person, and He chooses that person without asking them if they want to be chosen.
- God calls that person, and He calls that person without ever asking that person if they want to be called.
- It is only after the covenant is established that anything is asked of the creature.
- He commands that person and never gives them the option of not obeying.
- He starts the covenant with an individual, and wherever that covenant later applies to a group it is God alone who decides the members of that group.
- He starts the covenant with an individual, and wherever that covenant later applies to a group it is only after the covenant is established with that group that any of them are asked anything about their participation.
ALL of that is monergistic. Any and all synergism comes only after the establishment of the covenant. That applies to Genesis 22.
I'm a slow, but persistent, learner.
