Hi Bill. I appreciate you making an effort to explain the "unilateral
covenant" idea. You certainly seem to take a more moderate position about
this than some of the others on the list, and I consider that to be very
helpful for the discussion.
There are a few passages of Scripture in regards to the Abrahamic covenant
that I would like to bring up, but it might make my response here kind of
long. Rather than wear us out, I think I would like to break this up into
parts and deal only with your introduction in this part. I might need some
clarification concerning your definitions, and I would like to express some
problems with what how you setup the beginning of your theological
framework.
Bill Taylor wrote:
>... In a unilateral covenant, on the other hand, that which was
>covenanted depended for its fulfillment solely on the one
>making the covenant. That which was promised was given
>to the recipient of the ................................................................
David -- since I have taken several opportunities to confront what I see as rudeness on your part ----- I must give you a compliment in the case of the above post (not reprinted in it's entirity). It is more than obvious that you have given attention to making a presentation in this post that questions and disagrees without being disagreeable, as they say. It is much appreciated.
John
