I was listening to the Narrow Mind today while working out. Jonathan Goundry was doing most of the talking but he and Gene Cook stated that the Abrahamic Covenant was fulfilled in Joshua 23.
The main point they were arguing is that the Abrahamic promise is not a New Covenant promise. The New Covenant is new and better, they argue. It is not merely New with reference to the Mosaic administration but that even the Abrahamic promise was abrogated somehow in favor of the New Covenant.
It is unclear how they distinguish the Covenant from the promise. Do you believe that there is a difference in the promise made to Abraham from the Covenant made with him by God.
If the substance of what was promised to Abraham was Christ then how can the Promise have been fulfilled in Joshua 23?
How is Abraham the father of our faith if he didn't participate in substance of the New Covenant? How is he a present example to believers if the promises made to Him were all fulfilled and his is the nature of things that have completely passed away?
This is going to stay bounded. I don't want debates about those who are the proper subjects of a Covenant marking. I want that discussion to remain separate so as not to cloud the very specific issue of the nature of the Abrahamic Promise and its substance.
What struck me most, however, about the discussion is that the nature of the Abrahamic Promise purposefully stuck to Genesis and Joshua with scant attention to Galatians, Romans, and the Gospels that show Abraham believing in the Gospel.
Discuss...
The main point they were arguing is that the Abrahamic promise is not a New Covenant promise. The New Covenant is new and better, they argue. It is not merely New with reference to the Mosaic administration but that even the Abrahamic promise was abrogated somehow in favor of the New Covenant.
It is unclear how they distinguish the Covenant from the promise. Do you believe that there is a difference in the promise made to Abraham from the Covenant made with him by God.
If the substance of what was promised to Abraham was Christ then how can the Promise have been fulfilled in Joshua 23?
How is Abraham the father of our faith if he didn't participate in substance of the New Covenant? How is he a present example to believers if the promises made to Him were all fulfilled and his is the nature of things that have completely passed away?
This is going to stay bounded. I don't want debates about those who are the proper subjects of a Covenant marking. I want that discussion to remain separate so as not to cloud the very specific issue of the nature of the Abrahamic Promise and its substance.
What struck me most, however, about the discussion is that the nature of the Abrahamic Promise purposefully stuck to Genesis and Joshua with scant attention to Galatians, Romans, and the Gospels that show Abraham believing in the Gospel.
Discuss...