PaulThomson said:
Bilateral. The text does not say whether they are conditional or not.
Rufus said:
Which logically means unilateral/unconditional. God is sovereignly decreeing what he will do under the terms of the covenant. There are no conditions nor any record of Israel or anyone else agreeing to obey the terms of NC, which differs greatly from the OC since there are plenty of "IF"'s stipulated throughout the covenant plus Israel agreed multiple time to abide by its terms.
PT reply:
No that is not the logical meaning. If the text does not indicate whether a covenant is conditional or not, it is not logical to infer it must be unconditional.
You might want to acquaint yourself with the logical fallacy known as an Argument From Silence. So, yes, to assume that silence means bilateral/conditional would be quite illogical. There's no sound reason to not take the passages I referred to earlier at face value. As stated earlier, if you want to see a conditional covenant, look no further than to the Old. There's an abundance of evidience.
You might want to acquaint yourself with the logical fallacy known as an Argument from Silence. I'm not the one assuming the texts you cited prove a unilateral unconditional covenant because it doesn't overtly mention conditions. Nor am I assuming those same texts prove a conditional covenant because they don't mention the word unconditional. I'm saying the texts are ambivalent on the question. You are the one arguing from silence here.
There is however a principle of prophecy IN THE BIBLE that God reserves the right to rescind prophesied blessing and prophesied judgment on the basis of human behaviour after the prophecy (Jer. 18:6-11), even when His prophesy does not specifically mention that it is conditional. For instance, Nineveh was told God would destroy them in forty days (Jonah 3:4), no conditions mentioned, but God relented of the judgment He had prophesied, because they repented at Jonah's prophecy (Jonah 3:10).
I'll get back to the rest of your tangled argument later or tomorrow.
Are you referring to my rebuttal of your second point. Is it the case that according to your imposition of
calvinist election onto the OT biblical text, no one before the New Covenant was delivered from torment in hades except for faithful circumcised descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Was everyone else irreconcilably condemned?
If anyone other than descendant's of Abraham was delivered from the fire, on what basis were they delivered in the OT, in your opinion? If any circumcised descendant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was damned, on what basis were they damned but others saved?