06-11-2008, 07:21 PM
|
 | Moderator | | Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 5,287
Thanks: 646
Thanked 2,526 Times in 1,021 Posts
| |
I don't subscribe to the grant and treaty ideas imported into the biblical account with no exegetical basis for doing so. I think John Murray's Covenant of Grace explains the conditions well: Quote: |
Significantly enough, the commandments which are appended, compliance with which on the part of Noah is indispensable to the blessing of preservation, do not in the least suggest mutuality of agreement or compact. The commandments are added in such a way that they are just as sovereign and unilateral in prescription or dispensation as is the annunciation of the covenant itself. The appended requirements are simply extensions, applications, expressions of the grace intimated in the covenant. The directions are as sovereign as the annunciation of the covenant and they flow naturally from it so that there is no deflection from the idea of sovereign dispensation. We may think of Noah as cooperating with God in carrying out the provisions of the covenant but the co-operation is quite foreign to that of pact or convention. It is the co-operation of response which the grace of the covenant constrains and demands.
|
__________________
Yours sincerely, 
"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."
|