Covenants in the Bible

[Sereni-tea]

My underrstanding is that covenant theology is weaved throughout the entire Bible, beginning in Genesis, right through to Revelation.

A covenant in the Bible is a God-initiated relationship where he promises to bless his people and they in response have an obligation or role to fulfill. The covenant can be simply stated as God's people, in God's place, under God's rule and blessing.

In Gen 1-2 this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden where God blesses them and tells them to "be fruitful and multiple, fill the earth and subdue it". They were instructed to work and keep the Garden and not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They broke this covenant and sent into exile - out of Eden.

The covenant God makes with Noah is similar to that with Adam - "And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." Gen 9:1

God then calls Abram and promises to make him into a great nation (God's people), in a land that God will show him (God's place) and will live under God's rule and blessing (Gen 12 and again in Gen 15). To cut a long story short, Abraham's family grows into the people of Israel, which God leads out of Egypt into the promised land. This is the Sinai covenant and includes everything including the law and the priesthood.

Later God makes a covenant with David saying that one of his descendants with reign on his throne forever and through him all nations will be blessed. This of course reaches fulfilment in Jesus - the new covenant. In the new covenant, God's people are no longer limited to one geographical area but are now found all over the world, living under Jesus as King.

Finally, in Revelation 21 we have the glorious view of the new heavens and new earth, where God will dwell with his people forever - not just a return to Eden (where only 2 people dwelt with God in a Garden) but a greatly exanded (better) Eden - where a great multitude from every nation will dwell with God in the new Garden city - the new Jerusalem.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Revelation 21:1-4

This is a very brief summary (obviously), but I am interested in other's thoughts.

 

[ReverendRV]

My underrstanding is that covenant theology is weaved throughout the entire Bible, beginning in Genesis, right through to Revelation.

A covenant in the Bible is a God-initiated relationship where he promises to bless his people and they in response have an obligation or role to fulfill. The covenant can be simply stated as God's people, in God's place, under God's rule and blessing.

In Gen 1-2 this was Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden where God blesses them and tells them to "be fruitful and multiple, fill the earth and subdue it". They were instructed to work and keep the Garden and not to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. They broke this covenant and sent into exile - out of Eden.

The covenant God makes with Noah is similar to that with Adam - "And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." Gen 9:1

God then calls Abram and promises to make him into a great nation (God's people), in a land that God will show him (God's place) and will live under God's rule and blessing (Gen 12 and again in Gen 15). To cut a long story short, Abraham's family grows into the people of Israel, which God leads out of Egypt into the promised land. This is the Sinai covenant and includes everything including the law and the priesthood.

Later God makes a covenant with David saying that one of his descendants with reign on his throne forever and through him all nations will be blessed. This of course reaches fulfilment in Jesus - the new covenant. In the new covenant, God's people are no longer limited to one geographical area but are now found all over the world, living under Jesus as King.

Finally, in Revelation 21 we have the glorious view of the new heavens and new earth, where God will dwell with his people forever - not just a return to Eden (where only 2 people dwelt with God in a Garden) but a greatly exanded (better) Eden - where a great multitude from every nation will dwell with God in the new Garden city - the new Jerusalem.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Revelation 21:1-4

This is a very brief summary (obviously), but I am interested in other's thoughts.

If a Dispensationalist perhaps believed that the Covenant of Redemption is truly a Covenant; they would be forced to accept Monergism as a Biblical Tenet; since that Covenant was between God; IE HE, HIMSELF and I AM...

 

[Sereni-tea]

If a Dispensationalist perhaps believed that the Covenant of Redemption is truly a Covenant; they would be forced to accept Monergism as a Biblical Tenet; since that Covenant was between God; IE HE, HIMSELF and I AM...

The covenant faithfulness of God is the beautiful message that permeates all of Scripture. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (Jer 31:33). No matter how much His people messed up, God was committed to rescuing and redeeming His people so that He could be with them. Immanuel, God with us. He remained faithful to His promises. This is the message that brings me so much hope, such assurance and comfort. It is what makes my heart sing.

 

[Leonard03782]

God then calls Abram and promises to make him into a great nation (God's people), in a land that God will show him (God's place) and will live under God's rule and blessing (Gen 12 and again in Gen 15). To cut a long story short, Abraham's family grows into the people of Israel, which God leads out of Egypt into the promised land. This is the Sinai covenant and includes everything including the law and the priesthood.

In order for this to be correct, this line only includes the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Remember that Ishmael is also in the "family" of Abraham. The rcc has not made this distinction. Hence, they include Muslims in the salvation plan of GOD.

ccc841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

HEBREWS 11:16 But the truth is that they were longing for a better country, that is, a heavenly one. For that reason God is not ashamed [of them or] to be called their God [even to be surnamed their God—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob]; for He has prepared a city for them.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/search?q=Abraham,+Isaac,+and+Jacob&translation=all

 

[Sereni-tea]

In order for this to be correct, this line only includes the lineage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Remember that Ishmael is also in the "family" of Abraham. The rcc has not made this distinction. Hence, they include Muslims in the salvation plan of GOD.

ccc841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."

HEBREWS 11:16 But the truth is that they were longing for a better country, that is, a heavenly one. For that reason God is not ashamed [of them or] to be called their God [even to be surnamed their God—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob]; for He has prepared a city for them.

Source: https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/search?q=Abraham,+Isaac,+and+Jacob&translation=all

Yes, of course, the line through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the line that becomes the people of Israel. I was not referring to the line of Ishmael, or even Esau. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

[Arial]

Yes, of course, the line through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the line that becomes the people of Israel. I was not referring to the line of Ishmael, or even Esau. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It is of the line through which the bearer of the Seed of the woman who will crush the serpent's head. Abraham father of Isaac (the son of the promise) Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah etc. etc.

 

[Eleanor]

My underrstanding is that covenant theology is weaved throughout the entire Bible, beginning in Genesis, right through to Revelation.

A covenant in the Bible is a God-initiated relationship where he promises to bless his people and they in response have an obligation or role to fulfill. The covenant can be simply stated as God's people, in God's place, under God's rule and blessing.

Covenants were also made with individuals, as in Phinehas (Nu 25:10-31) and David (2 Sa 7:5-16).

Scripture presents seven covenants:

1) to Noah and mankind, specifically stated to be a covenant (Ge 9:9).
2) with Abraham, cut in blood (Ge 15:8-21) as well as stated to be a covenant (Ge 15:18). with Abraham, the covenant of circumcision (Ge 17:1-27),
3) with Abraham, cut in the blood of Abraham (Ge 17:23).
4) with Israel at Mt Sinai, cut in blood and stated to be a covenant (Ge 24:3-11).
5) with Phinehas, specifically stated to be a covenant (Nu 25:12).
6) with David (2 Sa 7:8-16), specifically stated to be a covenant (Ps 89:3, 34).
7) the New Covenant (Lk 22:20) of peace (Heb 7:8-10) and grace, stated to be a covenant (1 Co 11:25) and cut in the blood of Christ.

Covenants are either unilateral and unconditional, as in to Noah (Ge 9:8-17), land grant to Abraham (Ge 15:9-21) and the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34, as well as to Phinehas (Nu 25:12) and David (2 Sa 7:18-16), or they are bilateral and conditional, as in the covenants
with Abraham and his descendants (Ge 17), conditioned on their total consecration to the Lord as symbolized by circumcision, and
with Israel at Sinai (Ex 19-24), conditioned on total consecration to the Lord in obedience to the Law.

The two covenants with Abraham (Ge 15, 17), the Mosaic covenant (Ex) and the New Covenant (Heb 8:8-12) were cut in blood, symbolizing a self-maledictory oath: "May it be so done to me if I do not keep my oath and pledge."

Covenant theology proposes additional covenants in their organization of God's administration of salvation.
Biblically, however, they are not covenants, they are God's different administrations of salvation.
I find its use of the Biblical word "covenant" for "administration" to be confusing in the light of the Biblical record and the Biblical usage of "covenant."

 

[Sereni-tea]

Covenants were also made with individuals, as in Phinehas (Nu 25:10-31) and David (2 Sa 7:5-16).

Scripture presents seven covenants:

1) to Noah and mankind, specifically stated to be a covenant (Ge 9:9).
2) with Abraham, cut in blood (Ge 15:8-21) as well as stated to be a covenant (Ge 15:18). with Abraham, the covenant of circumcision (Ge 17:1-27),
3) with Abraham, cut in the blood of Abraham (Ge 17:23).
4) with Israel at Mt Sinai, cut in blood and stated to be a covenant (Ge 24:3-11).
5) with Phinehas, specifically stated to be a covenant (Nu 25:12).
6) with David (2 Sa 7:8-16), specifically stated to be a covenant (Ps 89:3, 34).
7) the New Covenant (Lk 22:20) of peace (Heb 7:8-10) and grace, stated to be a covenant (1 Co 11:25) and cut in the blood of Christ.

Covenants are either unilateral and unconditional, as in to Noah (Ge 9:8-17), land grant to Abraham (Ge 15:9-21) and the New Covenant (Jer 31:31-34, as well as to Phinehas (Nu 25:12) and David (2 Sa 7:18-16), or they are bilateral and conditional, as in the covenants
with Abraham and his descendants (Ge 17), conditioned on their total consecration to the Lord as symbolized by circumcision, and
with Israel at Sinai (Ex 19-24), conditioned on total consecration to the Lord in obedience to the Law.

The two covenants with Abraham (Ge 15, 17), the Mosaic covenant (Ex) and the New Covenant (Heb 8:8-12) were cut in blood, symbolizing a self-maledictory oath: "May it be so done to me if I do not keep my oath and pledge."

Covenant theology proposes additional covenants in their organization of God's administration of salvation.
Biblically, however, they are not covenants, they are God's different administrations of salvation.
I find its use of the Biblical word "covenant" for "administration" to be confusing in the light of the Biblical record and the Biblical usage of "covenant."

You are right that the word covenant is not stated in Genesis 1 or 2. Even so, what we see there is a divinely initiated relationship with blessings and obligations, just like in the other covenants. I think it is wrong to refer to it as "administration" as this to me is lacking the relationship element that is so important in each of the covenants. After all God's committment to His people is the reason that He doesn't leave them in their fallen state, but sets out to rescue and redeem them. All the covenants are tied together and all made around this same promise demonstrating God's loving kindness and faithfulness. The details of each covenant may change, but it is still all about God bringing His people together under His rule and blessing.

 

[Arial]

You are right that the word covenant is not stated in Genesis 1 or 2. Even so, what we see there is a divinely initiated relationship with blessings and obligations, just like in the other covenants. I think it is wrong to refer to it as "administration" as this to me is lacking the relationship element that is so important in each of the covenants. After all God's committment to His people is the reason that He doesn't leave them in their fallen state, but sets out to rescue and redeem them. All the covenants are tied together and all made around this same promise demonstrating God's loving kindness and faithfulness. The details of each covenant may change, but it is still all about God bringing His people together under His rule and blessing.

Very well said.

 

[Eleanor]

You are right that the word covenant is not stated in Genesis 1 or 2. Even so, what we see there is a divinely initiated relationship with blessings and obligations, just like in the other covenants. I think it is wrong to refer to it as "administration" as this to me is lacking the relationship element that is so important in each of the covenants. After all God's committment to His people is the reason that He doesn't leave them in their fallen state, but sets out to rescue and redeem them. All the covenants are tied together and all made around this same promise demonstrating God's loving kindness and faithfulness. The details of each covenant may change, but it is still all about God bringing His people together under His rule and blessing.

"Administration" is not a proposal from me, but simply an example for differentiating between actual Biblical covenants and the alleged covenants of their theology.

Covenants have one or both of two characteristics:
1) stated to be covenant,
2) cut in blood.

The Edenic "covenant" of Covenant theology has neither.

 

[donadams]

Major covenants!

God initiated each covenant and the mediator always remains on earth mediating the covenant except for Christ who made Peter His personal representative and vicar! (Matt 16:18-19) with the keys of jurisdictional authority over the kingdom or new covenant church!

Adam
(Marriage covenant)

Noah
(Family covenant)

Abraham
(Tribal covenant)

Moses:
(National covenant)

Jesus Christ:
(Universal covenant)

New and eternal covenant founded by Jesus Christ! Matt 16:18

Universal (Catholic)
World, universal, all men

 

[Sereni-tea]

"Administration" is not a proposal from me, but simply an example for differentiating between actual Biblical covenants and the alleged covenants of their theology.

Covenants have one or both of two characteristics:
1) stated to be covenant,
2) cut in blood.

The Edenic "covenant" of Covenant theology has neither.

The covenant in Eden does not have either those characteristics, but it does have a literary pattern that follows other ancient near eastern treaties. In this case we see God calling Adam and Eve to obedience, with blessing if they obey and curses if they disobey.

I am not a Hebrew scholar but from what I have read, I understand that the Hebrew word "berit" is of uncertain etymology. It has been suggested that while the general opinion is that it comes from the Hebrew word "barah" which means "to cut", others have suggested that it comes from the Assyrian "beritu" which means "to bind". In either case, it is clear that the covenant is talking about the relationship between God and His people.

It is true that the word "berit" is first seen in Genesis 6:18. This verse is literally translated as "And I confirmed my covenant with you" and the Hebrew indicates that the covenant was not something that was being establish or initiated but was something that was already in place before Noah, i.e. Eden. I believe that other Hebrew words such as "chesed" (kindness/loving-kindness) used throughout the Bible also express the idea of covenant relationship.

 

[Eleanor]

The covenant in Eden does not have either those characteristics, but it does have a literary pattern that follows other ancient near eastern treaties. In this case we see God calling Adam and Eve to obedience, with blessing if they obey and curses if they disobey.

It is God requiring man to come under law, not a covenant.

I am not a Hebrew scholar but from what I have read, I understand that the Hebrew word "berit" is of uncertain etymology. It has been suggested that while the general opinion is that it comes from the Hebrew word "barah" which means "to cut", others have suggested that it comes from the Assyrian "beritu" which means "to bind". In either case, it is clear that the covenant is talking about the relationship between God and His people.

Covenants are promises of benefits, some unconditional, some conditional.
Law is command, with penalties attached for disobedience, as in the Garden.

It is true that the word "berit" is first seen in Genesis 6:18. This verse is literally translated as "And I confirmed my covenant with you" and the Hebrew indicates that the covenant was not something that was being establish or initiated

The text reads, "I will establish my covenant with you."
The only covenant to confirm would be the Noahic covenant.

but was something that was already in place before Noah, i.e. Eden. I believe that other Hebrew words such as "chesed" (kindness/loving-kindness) used throughout the Bible also express the idea of covenant relationship.

All promises are not covenants.

 

[Arial]

It is God requiring man to come under law, not a covenant.

And what is that but a covenant? Law giver, law recipient and obligation to the Law giver. Promises for keeping, curses for breaking. It is a relation and relationship instigated by the greater with the lesser.Covenants are promises of benefits, some unconditional, some conditional.Law is command, with penalties attached for disobedience, as in the Garden.

Covenants are promises of benefits, some unconditional, some conditional.
Law is command, with penalties attached for disobedience, as in the Garden.

All works covenants contain laws---of necessity---and all of God's law is a command; all commands are law.

All promises are not covenants.

All the promises God makes to mankind are covenant promises. He has a covenantal relationship with mankind in redemption in all its stages from beginning through consummation and with the redeemed. If it is a unilateral covenant there are no conditions.

Administration is what we see taking place by the historical evidence we are given. How God is bringing about redemption, teaching us about Himself and our condition of helplessness and need for Christ, all along the way. Covenant is the personal relationship that holds it all together. The framework, and our security that the building will stand.

It is the interpretive tool that keeps redemption of all creation through man moving in a straight line, rather than coming to a stop and dividing it at one point, completing one portion for the Gentiles, putting them on hold in heaven, then backtracking to finish the redemption of ethnic Israel.

 

[Eleanor]

And what is that but a covenant? Law giver, law recipient and obligation to the Law giver. Promises for keeping, curses for breaking. It is a relation and relationship instigated by the greater with the lesser.Covenants are promises of benefits, some unconditional, some conditional.Law is command, with penalties attached for disobedience, as in the Garden.

All works covenants contain laws---of necessity---and all of God's law is a command; all commands are law.

What do you mean here?
I'm not seeing the law in the Noahic covenant, the covenant of the land grant, with Phinehas, or with David.

All the promises God makes to mankind are covenant promises.
He has a covenantal relationship with mankind in redemption in all its stages from beginning through consummation and with the redeemed. If it is a unilateral covenant there are no conditions.

Where do we see that stated in Scripture?
On what basis do we assign "covenant" to all promises?

Administration is what we see taking place by the historical evidence we are given. How God is bringing about redemption, teaching us about Himself and our condition of helplessness and need for Christ, all along the way. Covenant is the personal relationship that holds it all together. The framework, and our security that the building will stand.

It is the interpretive tool that keeps redemption of all creation through man moving in a straight line, rather than coming to a stop and dividing it at one point, completing one portion for the Gentiles, putting them on hold in heaven, then backtracking to finish the redemption of ethnic Israel.

We don't need covenant theology to keep redemption moving in a straight line.
It does that of itself in Scripture.

The remedy for dispensational error is not to make an opposite error.
The only remedy for all error is faithfulness to what Scripture actually presents.

 

[Arial]

What do you mean here?
I'm not seeing the law in the Noahic covenant, the covenant of the land grant, with Phinehas, or with David.

I said all works covenants have laws, not all covenants.

Where do we see that stated in Scripture?
On what basis do we assign "covenant" to all promises?

Starting with Adam and Eve, we see it all the way through. Something doesn't have to be called a covenant in order to be a covenant. You idea of covenant is too narrow. If God promises something He is obligating HImself to fulfill the promise. "I will do it." He has bound Himself to do as He says to the ones to whom He says it. Covenants are promises made between/with parties. If God is not a covenant God---a binding agreement---then how could we possibly trust Him or even believe Him.

I know that completely upsets the apple cart of dispensational administrations as being the framework of interpretation, and therefore their eschatological views, but nevertheless God shows Himself to be a covenant God and asks us to trust Him and believe Him on that basis.

We don't need covenant theology to keep redemption moving in a straight line.
It does that of itself in Scripture.

The remedy for dispensational error is not to make an opposite error.
The only remedy for all error is faithfulness to what Scripture actually presents.

Scripture does not present two redemptive periods. At least some dispensational views present a thousand year period where God deals with Israel's redemption (I think all views see it that way) going so far as to have the animal sacrifices reinstated., after God has taken the church off the earth to wait in heaven, having finished redeeming them. I know MacArthur believes that. That is not a straight line.They also have two second comings, the first secret in that the world doesn't see Him come, but only millions of people removed in the blink of an eye. And the second second coming when everyone sees Him.

 

[Eleanor]

I said all works covenants have laws, not all covenants.

Starting with Adam and Eve, we see it all the way through. Something doesn't have to be called a covenant in order to be a covenant.

Where do we find that in Scripture?
I'm thinking the word of God knows the difference, or all would be called covenants.

You idea of covenant is too narrow. If God promises something He is obligating HImself to fulfill the promise. "I will do it." He has bound Himself to do as He says to the ones to whom He says it. Covenants are promises made between/with parties.

So that's where the problem is.

Covenants were not made between two parties in the Noahic, land grant, Phinehas or David covenants.
Noah, Abraham, Phinehas and David did nothing in those covenants.

If God is not a covenant God---a binding agreement---then how could we possibly trust Him or even believe Him.

You're kidding right?
I don't need a covenant to take God at his word.
His word is sufficient.

I know that completely upsets the apple cart of dispensational administrations as being the framework of interpretation, and therefore their eschatological views, but nevertheless God shows Himself to be a covenant God and asks us to trust Him and believe Him on that basis.

I am not a dispensationalist, and dispensationalism is not my reference in theology, as it likewise is not God's reference point.

Scripture does not present two redemptive periods. At least some dispensational views present a thousand year period where God deals with Israel's redemption (I think all views see it that way) going so far as to have the animal sacrifices reinstated., after God has taken the church off the earth to wait in heaven, having finished redeeming them. I know MacArthur believes that. That is not a straight line.They also have two second comings, the first secret in that the world doesn't see Him come, but only millions of people removed in the blink of an eye. And the second second coming when everyone sees Him.

Don't know how dispensationalism, barely 200 years old as we know it, got to be the reference point in Scripture

 

[Arial]

Where do we find that in Scripture?
I'm thinking the word of God knows the difference, or all would be called covenants.

Why do you keep asking me to explain to you or show you things that I have already explained and showed? My answer isn't going to change and you repeating your view won't change.

Covenants were not made between two parties in the Noahic, land grant, Phinehas or David covenants.
Noah, Abraham, Phinehas and David did nothing in those covenants.

They did have something to do with it. God made it with them. Two parties. God/mankind. The covenant with Noah was God promising something to all mankind and the creation itself. Mankind is a party to the covenant, the recipient of it. There were no conditons upon mankind in them because they were unilateral. Same with Phinehas and David, and neither one of those covenants applied only to them but was an element of the covenant of redemption and all mankind.

I don't know how you can say the land grant covenant was not between parties. It was between God and all Israel. A party does not mean only God and one person. A covenant is a binding oath of promise. It does not have to be formal or formalized to be a covenant. And that is all I shall say on the matter.

You're kidding right?
I don't need a covenant to take God at his word.
His word is sufficient.

It isn't about you. It is about God. And whether you recognize it or not, whether you will ever acknowledge it or not, the reason you trust God is because He is a covenant God. He never breaks His covenants, so when He says He is something or will do something, He won't break His word. He is covenantle just as surely as He is triune. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, are in a covenant relationship. In agreement of purpose and action, the covenant of redemption and all its parts and times established before the foundation of the world. Father sends, Son comes and does the work of redemption, Holy Spirit applies this work and seals and sanctifies. Why is that so hard to acknowledge and why all this resistance to it. If you can't see it in scripture I don't know what to tell you. But it is in scripture.

I am not a dispensationalist, and dispensationalism is not my reference in theology, as it likewise is not God's reference point.

And yet you follow their view of the covenants and their view of dispensations as administrations. Where did you get it from. You practically quote them when you put forth your views.

 

[Eleanor]

Why do you keep asking me to explain to you or show you things that I have already explained and showed? My answer isn't going to change and you repeating your view won't change.

Because your presentation of covenant is not Biblical.

They did have something to do with it. God made it with them.

No, God made it to them, he made a covenant with Abraham and with Israel, between him and Araham, between him and Israel.

Two parties. God/mankind. The covenant with Noah was God promising something to all mankind and the creation itself. Mankind is a party to the covenant, the recipient of it. There were no conditons upon mankind in them because they were unilateral. Same with Phinehas and David, and neither one of those covenants applied only to them but was an element of the covenant of redemption and all mankind.

I don't know how you can say the land grant covenant was not between parties. It was between God and all Israel.

The land grant was to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants.
They did nothing. There was no with nor between, as there are none in a promise. A promise is to, not with nor between.

A party does not mean only God and one person. A covenant is a binding oath of promise. It does not have to be formal or formalized to be a covenant. And that is all I shall say on the matter

Not all promises are given with binding oaths.

It isn't about you. It is about God. And whether you recognize it or not, whether you will ever acknowledge it or not, the reason you trust God is because He is a covenant God.

Actually, the reason I trust God is because of the my new birth and the indwelling Holy Spirit who gives me to trust and obey God.

He never breaks His covenants, so when He says He is something or will do something, He won't break His word. He is covenantle just as surely as He is triune. Father, Son, Holy Spirit, are in a covenant relationship. In agreement of purpose and action, the covenant of redemption and all its parts and times established before the foundation of the world. Father sends, Son comes and does the work of redemption, Holy Spirit applies this work and seals and sanctifies. Why is that so hard to acknowledge and why all this resistance to it. If you can't see it in scripture I don't know what to tell you. But it is in scripture.

And yet you follow their view of the covenants and their view of dispensations as administrations. Where did you get it from. You practically quote them when you put forth your views.

Then you are saying they follow Scripture's view, because that is where I take my views from.

I do not propose administrations. Dispensationalism does such.
I simply presented an example, in compliance with your request, of how my suggestions of "administrations" would solve your misuse of covenants.
It is you and dispensationalists that see Scripture in overarching segments, not me.
I'm pretty much happy with pre-covenant, old covenant and new covenant.

 

[Arial]

Because your presentation of covenant is not Biblical.

That is your opinion. You can hang onto it and keep the one you have that I think is unbiblical.

No, God made it to them, he made a covenant with Abraham and with Israel, between him and Araham, between him and Israel.

Oh my gosh. While we are at it why don't we have an argument about what the meaning of the word is is.

The land grant was to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants.
They did nothing

They received the land through promise (covenant). Keeping it was a whole different deal when it came to the Sinai covenant which is the land grant covenant.

Not all promises are given with binding oaths.

Do you think God does not bind Himself to keep His own promises? His very promise is an oath. It does not have to be formal.

Then you are saying they follow Scripture's view, because that is where I take my views from.

Pretty sure you did not arrive there all on your own. No one does and those who say they do deceive themselves and/or others.

I simply presented an example, in compliance with your request, of how my suggestions of "administrations" would solve your misuse of covenants.
It is you and dispensationalists that see Scripture in overarching segments, not me.
I'm pretty much happy with pre-covenant, old covenant and new covenant.

And now you back away from what you said by saying it was an example, not your view. Just like you did in another thread by saying what you were saying was speculating.

The only "problem"administrations solves is to not acknowledge all the covenants.

Does a building require a frame work? The framework is not the building, but it is what the building is built around and what holds it together, and supports it, gives it its design. Covenant theology is not a series of overarching segments (as dispensationalism is) but the framework that upon which all of scripture is built, supports it. gives it its design.