RE: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?

[ShieldsFamily]

I have always wondered if the Father would have sent Jesus had not Abraham been willing to sacrifice his own son.  Something tells me that act by Abe was much more important than we realize.  Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 8:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?   Passive was chosen because the covenant promise in Christ was going to happen no matter what (IMO).   John   Yes to the emphasized. Does anyone think otherwise?   Gotta go,   Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 7:16 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral Covenant?   In a message dated 11/22/2004 2:39:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here's an answer. Avoided? Probably, because you pose the question like there's an absolute simple answer. There is not. Avraham was active, in a way. God initiated contact. Avraham responded with obedience: he continued the journey to Canaan began by his father. God made some promises and Avraham believed. God said He is cutting a covenant with Avraham, and Avraham was the one who did the cutting of the animals. God was the One who passed through the parts while Avraham was divinely paralyzed. God said to do some stuff and Avraham obeyed. Isaac is born and God tells His that Isaac is going to enjoy Avraham's covenant because Avraham obeyed Torah (yes, folks, the word is there in the Hebrew unless you truly believe King's English thundered from the Mountain). If that's your definition of active participation, then it is. If that's your definition of passive participation, then it is. -- slade Yes to the above.   My "answer (read "guess") was "passaive.   Could have been "active."   Passive was chosen because the covenant promise in Christ was going to happen no matter what (IMO).   John