eternally-grateful,
You should read your Bible better and without the blinders of Scofield. This has been the fallacy of most of the earthly kingdom theory that Covenants are only one way. By definition it is an agreement between two parties. There is no covenant or promise of God that is unconditional. The only reason that God did what He did regarding walking through the fire, is because Abram was having a tough time with his faith in believing God. It is essentially God reinforcing His promise, but it does not negate the covenent made before that refinement where obedience is required. The whole issue of sacrificing Isacc was to cement Abraham's trust and faith.
The promise begins in Gen 12 and goes through several additions in chapter 3, 7, 13, 14, 17 18, 21, 22 and possibly elsewhere. It is one of promise from God and the only requirement here as in other covenants of scripture, is faithfulness, trust in God. Gen 17:9ff. All through scripture including those with Adam, Noah, Moses, David and finally Christ are all conditional. Hebrews spells out the New Covenant but also shows how the old covenent failed. It uses Jer 31: 31-34 to show the better promises than the Old Covenant. The fact that the new replaces the old, clearly states that the old is no longer in effect.
The only interpreter, guess who, that says it was one way, is Scofield and other premillennialist/dispensationalist and he has an ax to grind to support his errant view.
You fail everytime as man will with personal interpretations. You self convict with your man made theory where scripture needs to be changed to authenticate a premise to supposedly make it scriptural.
You should read your Bible better and without the blinders of Scofield. This has been the fallacy of most of the earthly kingdom theory that Covenants are only one way. By definition it is an agreement between two parties. There is no covenant or promise of God that is unconditional. The only reason that God did what He did regarding walking through the fire, is because Abram was having a tough time with his faith in believing God. It is essentially God reinforcing His promise, but it does not negate the covenent made before that refinement where obedience is required. The whole issue of sacrificing Isacc was to cement Abraham's trust and faith.
The promise begins in Gen 12 and goes through several additions in chapter 3, 7, 13, 14, 17 18, 21, 22 and possibly elsewhere. It is one of promise from God and the only requirement here as in other covenants of scripture, is faithfulness, trust in God. Gen 17:9ff. All through scripture including those with Adam, Noah, Moses, David and finally Christ are all conditional. Hebrews spells out the New Covenant but also shows how the old covenent failed. It uses Jer 31: 31-34 to show the better promises than the Old Covenant. The fact that the new replaces the old, clearly states that the old is no longer in effect.
The only interpreter, guess who, that says it was one way, is Scofield and other premillennialist/dispensationalist and he has an ax to grind to support his errant view.
You fail everytime as man will with personal interpretations. You self convict with your man made theory where scripture needs to be changed to authenticate a premise to supposedly make it scriptural.
