THE circumcision thread

[JohnT]

Mrs. White wrote

At this time the rite of circumcision was given to Abraham as "a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised." Romans 4:11. It was to be observed by the patriarch and his descendants as a token that they were devoted to the service of God and thus separated from idolaters, and that God accepted them as His peculiar treasure. By this rite they were pledged to fulfill, on their part, the conditions of the covenant made with Abraham. {PP 138.1}

I could NOT disagree any more than I do
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28

ISBE also disagrees

In the account of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham, circumcision is looked upon as the ratification of the agreement. Yahweh undertook to be the God of Abraham and his descendants. Abraham was the father of a multitude of nations and the founder of a line of kings. He and his descendants were to inherit Canaan.

The agreement thus formed was permanent;….
A series of key divine promises or covenants forms the backbone of God’s dealings with human beings. Because of our inability to secure our own prosperity—spiritual and physical—on the earth, a gracious God has committed Himself to providing what we cannot.

The main biblical covenants are a unifying factor for all events described in the Bible involving God and human beings... For example, the Abrahamic covenant is the basis for all of God’s subsequent dealings with Israel, and is expanded in the Palestinian, Davidic, and New covenants...
Karleen, P. S. (1987). The handbook to Bible study : With a guide to the Scofield study system
​

There are three main features to the Abrahamic Covenant
.
The promise of land (Gen. 12:1 ). God called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to a land that He would give him. This promise in Genesis 13:14–18 where it is confirmed by a shoe covenant; its dimensions are given in Genesis 15:18–21 . The land aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant is also expanded in Deuteronomy 30:1–10, which is the Palestinian Covenant
.
The promise of descendants God promised Abraham that He would make a great nation out of him. Abraham, who was 75 years old was promised many descendants. This promise is amplified in Genesis 17:6 where God promised that nations and kings would descend from the aged patriarch. This promise would eventuate in the Davidic throne with Messiah’s kingdom rule over the Hebrew people.

The promise of blessing and redemption . God promised to bless Abraham and the families of the earth through him. This promise is amplified in the New Covenant and has to do with “Israel’s spiritual blessing and redemption.” Jeremiah 31:34 anticipates the forgiveness of sin.

The unconditional and eternal nature of the covenant is seen in that the covenant is reaffirmed to Isaac . The “I will” promises suggest the unconditional aspect of the covenant. The covenant is further confirmed to Jacob. It is noteworthy that God reaffirmed these promises amid the sins of the patriarchs, which fact further emphasizes the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Pentecost,& The Moody handbook of theology
​

In ZERO of these well-respected authorities is there a hint of works or obligation on the part of humanity. The “I will” demonstrates the unconditional element of the Covenant; ALL of God, to keep, but none of man’s to obey because of his imputed, sinful Adamic nature.

Paul tells us that the promises aren't part of the law because if they were they would cease to be promises.

Here is what you said in post 27: “The "condition" that God had for Abraham and his descendants was that actual "circumcision" itself. .” WHERE in Genesis 12 does God impose a “condition”? Again you are confusing unconditional covenant with the sign of this covenant. As a hypothetical, suppose the token was not given to Abraham’s offspring. Can you give us a Scriptural example where God said, “I gave you this promise unilaterally, but now I am going to permanently rescind it?

For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect,

For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified;

The promise to Abraham and his descendants, that they should inherit the world, did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.

For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect:

Good quotes, RND! Unfortunately, they seem to contradict your quote I posted from post 27. None of the above, except your post mentions any sort of condition.

Here is another mix up, RND.

1.God made the promise
2.God ALONE can keep the promise; Abram can not make a mighty nation himself, especially being childless through his wife
3.How can any of us obey what God promised that he would do?

No mix up on my part. A promise by God indicates an offering to do something without strings attached. A covenant indicates to me that there is a work to do in order for the covenant to be binding.

No doubt that is what it may mean TO YOU, but the important thing is “What does a covenant mean to God?” God’s covenants are unconditional; they are not like contracts between equal humans.

Another contradiction here! You make an analogy about me having to "sign a contract" then you state Abraham's righteousness did not come by way of contract or covenant which Paul refers to as "law" it came by faith

Which is it? Is it obedience, meaning works and that Abraham EARNED his covenant?

Yes.

Or is it by unmerited grace, determined in eternity by the foreknowledge of God? They are mutually exclusive, and can not be half and half proposition.

Yes and right.

Here, you seem to be all over the place, and I want to make sure that I understand you.

As it pertains to God you seem to believe that a promise from God is different than a covenant with God. If that is a true representation of your belief, please provide Scriptural references for that.

The second paragraph says you agree with the statement that Abraham EARNED his covenant. If that is a true representation of your belief, please provide Scriptural references for that.

It seems to be contrary to this:
Romans 4:9 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness.

10 How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision:

Abraham received "unmerited grace" as you put it because of his faith which he exhibited to God before the covenant.

But RND can you not see the contradiction in your words, and what Scripture says?

1.ANYONE can do good works, even Satan, if it suits his purpose.
2.Bringing in the atheist argument is bogus, for by definition, the atheist is NOT a believer
3.The conclusion of the argument is that good works can get you into heaven; I am CERTAIN this was not your purpose.

Satan doesn't do good works, if he does you'd have to show me some scriptures that prove that point.

Just because an atheist isn't a believer doesn't preclude them from doing good works. Do you deny that an atheist's good works glorify our Father in Heaven?

REGARDING 1
Mark 13:22 False Christs (Messiahs) and false prophets will arise and show signs and [work] miracles to deceive and lead astray, if possible, even the elect (those God has chosen out for Himself). Amplified Bible

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was seized and overpowered, and with him the false prophet who in his presence had worked wonders and performed miracles by which he led astray those who had accepted or permitted to be placed upon them the stamp (mark) of the beast and those who paid homage and gave divine honors to his statue. Both of them were hurled alive into the fiery lake that burns and blazes with brimstone. Amplified

REGARDING 2
John 3:3 Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again (anew, from above), he cannot ever see (know, be acquainted with, and experience) the kingdom of God.
5 Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, unless a man is born of water and [even] the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. [Ezek. 36:25–27].
6 What is born of [from] the flesh is flesh [of the physical is physical]; and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not [do not be surprised, astonished] at My telling you, You must all be born anew (from above). Amplified

REGARDING 3
Titus 3: 5 He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 Which He poured out [so] richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.
7 [And He did it in order] that we might be justified by His grace (by His favor, wholly undeserved), [that we might be acknowledged and counted as conformed to the divine will in purpose, thought, and action], and that we might become heirs of eternal life according to [our] hope. Amplified

Again you make the argument that good works, in this case peaceful Indians can get into heaven, That runs counter to what Jesus said. "I am the way the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father EXCEPT BY ME"

How do you know that Jesus, through nature, didn't call the Anazasi Indians to be righteous in His name?
Answer: You don't.

Romans 2 says that no one is without excuse of any sort. However, if they were saved, they would seek Jesus apart from "living in harmony with nature, and being spiritual".

How do you know they didn't? Were you there? Before they cross they looked "forward" to Christ. We look backwards. What happens to those that were living in a parallel time dimension (ARGUING FROM SCIENCE FICTION???)? Did God just created them to be lost anyway?

Romans 1:[FONT=&quot] 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [FONT=&quot]19[/FONT] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [FONT=&quot]20[/FONT] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [FONT=&quot]21[/FONT] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. English standard version.[/FONT] 2001


Romans 2:14-15 When Gentiles [ this includes your Anazasi Indians] who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

That is why your examples fail: They contradict Scripture.

But that is an interesting paradox you bring up. Did God make the Anasazi Indians and place them in the same time domain as Jesus, deny them the truth of Jesus just so he could burn them in hell forever because they didn't know Jesus?

Wow, I'm not too sure I want to know that god. Makes people and purposely hides Jesus from them just so He can burn them? Ouch.

Seems as if you believe that a just, righteous and holy God can make a mistake, or at least this is the conclusion that this argument leads towards

I think that you need to deal with the issues I bring up. I gave you the courtesy of answering yours.

 

[JohnT]

.

 

[RND]

I

could NOT disagree any more than I do
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:20
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Romans 3:28

ISBE also disagrees

In the account of the covenant between Yahweh and Abraham, circumcision is looked upon as the ratification of the agreement. Yahweh undertook to be the God of Abraham and his descendants. Abraham was the father of a multitude of nations and the founder of a line of kings. He and his descendants were to inherit Canaan.

The agreement thus formed was permanent;….
A series of key divine promises or covenants forms the backbone of God’s dealings with human beings. Because of our inability to secure our own prosperity—spiritual and physical—on the earth, a gracious God has committed Himself to providing what we cannot.

The main biblical covenants are a unifying factor for all events described in the Bible involving God and human beings... For example, the Abrahamic covenant is the basis for all of God’s subsequent dealings with Israel, and is expanded in the Palestinian, Davidic, and New covenants...
Karleen, P. S. (1987). The handbook to Bible study : With a guide to the Scofield study system
​

There are three main features to the Abrahamic Covenant
.
The promise of land (Gen. 12:1 ). God called Abraham from Ur of the Chaldees to a land that He would give him. This promise in Genesis 13:14–18 where it is confirmed by a shoe covenant; its dimensions are given in Genesis 15:18–21 . The land aspect of the Abrahamic Covenant is also expanded in Deuteronomy 30:1–10, which is the Palestinian Covenant
.
The promise of descendants God promised Abraham that He would make a great nation out of him. Abraham, who was 75 years old was promised many descendants. This promise is amplified in Genesis 17:6 where God promised that nations and kings would descend from the aged patriarch. This promise would eventuate in the Davidic throne with Messiah’s kingdom rule over the Hebrew people.

The promise of blessing and redemption . God promised to bless Abraham and the families of the earth through him. This promise is amplified in the New Covenant and has to do with “Israel’s spiritual blessing and redemption.” Jeremiah 31:34 anticipates the forgiveness of sin.

The unconditional and eternal nature of the covenant is seen in that the covenant is reaffirmed to Isaac . The “I will” promises suggest the unconditional aspect of the covenant. The covenant is further confirmed to Jacob. It is noteworthy that God reaffirmed these promises amid the sins of the patriarchs, which fact further emphasizes the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic Covenant.
Pentecost,& The Moody handbook of theology
​

In ZERO of these well-respected authorities is there a hint of works or obligation on the part of humanity. The “I will” demonstrates the unconditional element of the Covenant; ALL of God, to keep, but none of man’s to obey because of his imputed, sinful Adamic nature.

So?

Here is what you said in post 27: “The "condition" that God had for Abraham and his descendants was that actual "circumcision" itself. .” WHERE in Genesis 12 does God impose a “condition”?

God doesn't impose any conditions in Gen 12 and Gen 13. That's why they are called promises. If they were covenants then the would be law.

Again you are confusing unconditional covenant with the sign of this covenant. As a hypothetical, suppose the token was not given to Abraham’s offspring. Can you give us a Scriptural example where God said, “I gave you this promise unilaterally, but now I am going to permanently rescind it?

No I'm not confusing anything. The promises are clearly laid out in Gen. 12 and Gen. 13. There are no conditions laid out here, that's why they are promises John.

How can you so obviously miss what I'm saying?

Let's try it as simple as I can make it. Gen 12 and 13 are promises, not covenants, because there are "NO CONDITIONS REQUIRED." If there were conditions required then they would not be promises.

Good quotes, RND! Unfortunately, they seem to contradict your quote I posted from post 27. None of the above, except your post mentions any sort of condition.

Hey thanks! And no John, they affirm what I have been saying.

No doubt that is what it may mean TO YOU, but the important thing is “What does a covenant mean to God?” God’s covenants are unconditional; they are not like contracts between equal humans.

The big mistake of Christian belief today. "God's covenants are "unconditional." No, they contain a number of conditions that must be met. If I enter into a contract with God but don't live up to my end of the bargan that's not God fault or the fault of the covenant, it would be mine.

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

If the covenant was unconditional why is Jesus specifically mentioning here that the COI were about to have the kingdom of God taken from them and given to another?

Here, you seem to be all over the place, and I want to make sure that I understand you.

As it pertains to God you seem to believe that a promise from God is different than a covenant with God. If that is a true representation of your belief, please provide Scriptural references for that.

I've made that statement quite clear many times and have provided a plethora of scriptural references for you.

The second paragraph says you agree with the statement that Abraham EARNED his covenant. If that is a true representation of your belief, please provide Scriptural references for that.

It seems to be contrary to this:
Romans 4:9 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness.

10 How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision:

John, how much clearer can Paul be? Abraham received the "promises (Gen 12/Gen13) BEFORE He was circumcised, not before. That means Abraham was considered FAITHFUL before he was circumcised. I have been more than consistent in all my posts regarding this point.

The fact that you are asking for clarification means to me that you haven't been paying attention to the conversation.

But RND can you not see the contradiction in your words, and what Scripture says?

REGARDING 1
Mark 13:22 False Christs (Messiahs) and false prophets will arise and show signs and [work] miracles to deceive and lead astray, if possible, even the elect (those God has chosen out for Himself). Amplified Bible

Revelation 19:20 And the beast was seized and overpowered, and with him the false prophet who in his presence had worked wonders and performed miracles by which he led astray those who had accepted or permitted to be placed upon them the stamp (mark) of the beast and those who paid homage and gave divine honors to his statue. Both of them were hurled alive into the fiery lake that burns and blazes with brimstone. Amplified

REGARDING 2
John 3:3 Jesus answered him, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, that unless a person is born again (anew, from above), he cannot ever see (know, be acquainted with, and experience) the kingdom of God.
5 Jesus answered, I assure you, most solemnly I tell you, unless a man is born of water and [even] the Spirit, he cannot [ever] enter the kingdom of God. [Ezek. 36:25–27].
6 What is born of [from] the flesh is flesh [of the physical is physical]; and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not [do not be surprised, astonished] at My telling you, You must all be born anew (from above). Amplified

REGARDING 3
Titus 3: 5 He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but because of His own pity and mercy, by [the] cleansing [bath] of the new birth (regeneration) and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 Which He poured out [so] richly upon us through Jesus Christ our Savior.
7 [And He did it in order] that we might be justified by His grace (by His favor, wholly undeserved), [that we might be acknowledged and counted as conformed to the divine will in purpose, thought, and action], and that we might become heirs of eternal life according to [our] hope. Amplified

Again you make the argument that good works, in this case peaceful Indians can get into heaven, That runs counter to what Jesus said. "I am the way the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father EXCEPT BY ME"

The "BY" is translated in the Greek as "THROUGH." It is "through" Jesus and the Holy Spirit that anyone is brought to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Father.

I'm quite content to believe that certain "light" isn't shared with everyone but that doesn't mean to say that they can't be or aren't saved.

Romans 2 says that no one is without excuse of any sort. However, if they were saved, they would seek Jesus apart from "living in harmony with nature, and being spiritual".

Romans 1:[FONT=&quot] 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. [FONT=&quot]19[/FONT] For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. [FONT=&quot]20[/FONT] For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. [FONT=&quot]21[/FONT] For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. English standard version.[/FONT] 2001


Romans 2:14-15 When Gentiles [ this includes your Anazasi Indians] who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

That is why your examples fail: They contradict Scripture.

Not at all. One can have a knowledge of God and the Holy Spirit apart from a specific knowledge of Jesus Christ because it is through Jesus and the Holy Spirit that anyone is called in the first place.

Seems as if you believe that a just, righteous and holy God can make a mistake, or at least this is the conclusion that this argument leads towards

No, not at all. I believe HUMANS can make mistakes about God because they have a false revelation and knowledge of the character of God.

I think that you need to deal with the issues I bring up. I gave you the courtesy of answering yours.

John, you can ask anything you'd like. I have absolutely no problem answering your questions.

If we look at the opposite of my position and thus equalizing your assertion then God made the native American Indians that lived on this continent at the time of Jesus with absolutely no hope of redemption and salvation. How can a loving and caring God full of grace and mercy make something, plant something and allow something to live with absolutely no hope of redemption? The fact is that both Romans 1 and Romans 2 give us the answer.

 

[JohnT]

John wrote:
In ZERO of these well-respected authorities is there a hint of works or obligation on the part of humanity. The “I will” demonstrates the unconditional element of the Covenant; ALL of God, to keep, but none of man’s to obey because of his imputed, sinful Adamic nature.

RND replied"

So?

You are trying to create a distinction where NONE exists. A PROMISE OF GOD IS A COVENANT OF GOD. Whenever He promises something, He will do it. His word is his bond

Here is what you [RND] said in post 27: “The "condition" that God had for Abraham and his descendants was that actual "circumcision" itself. .” WHERE in Genesis 12 does God impose a “condition”?

God doesn't impose any conditions in Gen 12 and Gen 13. That's why they are called promises. If they were covenants then the would be law.

Where do you get THAT distinction? It is unsupportable. I gave you several authoritative sources backing up what I wrote. Please supply any well-recognized source other than EGW making the distinction that you do. So far, you have merely supplied your opinion as evidence.

Again you are confusing unconditional covenant with the sign of this covenant. As a hypothetical, suppose the token was not given to Abraham’s offspring. Can you give us a Scriptural example where God said, “I gave you this promise unilaterally, but now I am going to permanently rescind it?

No I'm not confusing anything. The promises are clearly laid out in Gen. 12 and Gen. 13. There are no conditions laid out here, that's why they are promises John.

How can you so obviously miss what I'm saying?

More of the same distinction being made without any Scriptural reason.

Let's try it as simple as I can make it. Gen 12 and 13 are promises, not covenants, because there are "NO CONDITIONS REQUIRED." If there were conditions required then they would not be promises.

See above, RND. You make an assertion for which there is no theological basis

Good quotes, RND! Unfortunately, they seem to contradict your quote I posted from post 27. None of the above, except your post mentions any sort of condition

.
​

Hey thanks! And no John, they affirm what I have been saying.

More of the same, baseless distinction.

No doubt that is what it may mean TO YOU, but the important thing is “What does a covenant mean to God?” God’s covenants are unconditional; they are not like contracts between equal humans.

The big mistake of Christian belief today. "God's covenants are "unconditional." No, they contain a number of conditions that must be met. If I enter into a contract with God but don't live up to my end of the bargan (sic) that's not God fault or the fault of the covenant, it would be mine.

You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God; you are not his equal. Therefore the rest of the paragraph is a bogus analogy.

That is why God deals with humans in covenants; they are one sided, and unconditional. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" Do you remember when I posted those verses?

Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

If the covenant was unconditional why is Jesus specifically mentioning here that the COI were about to have the kingdom of God taken from them and given to another?

CONTEXT makes the difference, RND. any verse ripped from its context makes for a pretext, as does yours.

Matthew 21:
39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
40When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
42 Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.
​

Please note that this example of Jesus has to do with people REJECTING (free will) the covenant, not law keeping. Therefore the example fails to prove your contention

But RND can you not see the contradiction in your words, and what Scripture says?

Again you make the argument that good works, in this case peaceful Indians can get into heaven, That runs counter to what Jesus said. "I am the way the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father EXCEPT BY ME"
​

The "BY" is translated in the Greek as "THROUGH." It is "through" Jesus and the Holy Spirit that anyone is brought to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and the Father.

I'm quite content to believe that certain "light" isn't shared with everyone but that doesn't mean to say that they can't be or aren't saved.

Agreed, that preposition may be translated differently, according to its context, but IT STILL DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT A COVENANT AND PROMISE ARE DIFFERENT.

That is why your examples fail: They contradict Scripture.

Not at all. One can have a knowledge of God and the Holy Spirit apart from a specific knowledge of Jesus Christ because it is through Jesus and the Holy Spirit that anyone is called in the first place.

You are changing the terms of your own argument, and you are providing no proof FROM SCRIPTURE of your original argument about those Indians.

Seems as if you believe that a just, righteous and holy God can make a mistake, or at least this is the conclusion that this argument leads towards

No, not at all. I believe HUMANS can make mistakes about God because they have a false revelation and knowledge of the character of God.

Again, you are changing the terms of your argument. We sin because we are sinners, not because we lack sufficient knowledge. You need to provide FROM SCRIPTURE things that support your position, or else they fail flat because there is no basis of authority for them.

If we look at the opposite of my position and thus equalizing your assertion then God made the native American Indians that lived on this continent at the time of Jesus with absolutely no hope of redemption and salvation. How can a loving and caring God full of grace and mercy make something, plant something and allow something to live with absolutely no hope of redemption? The fact is that both Romans 1 and Romans 2 give us the answer.

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

CHAPTER 2.
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.


Romans 2:14-15 When Gentiles [ this includes your Anazasi Indians] who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?

BTW whatever God does is correct, even if we in our limited minds are unable to fully understand whatever He does.

 

[RND]

John, if you fell out of a boat you'd miss the water!

You are trying to create a distinction where NONE exists. A PROMISE OF GOD IS A COVENANT OF GOD. Whenever He promises something, He will do it. His word is his bond

Nope.

Rom 4:14 For if they which are of the law (covenant) [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:

The word law in this instance is nomos #3551 - anything established, anything received by usage, a custom, a law, a command.

The "promise" didn't come by covenant, i.e. requiring Abraham to do something, it came by God swearing by Himself to do something apart of Abraham needing to do something.

Where do you get THAT distinction? It is unsupportable. I gave you several authoritative sources backing up what I wrote. Please supply any well-recognized source other than EGW making the distinction that you do. So far, you have merely supplied your opinion as evidence.

Um, I get that distinction from the Bible. In Gen 12 and 13 the word "covenant" is not used which clearly indicates that God has promised something to Abraham without requiring Abraham to fulfill something to receive the promise.

Of course, we've been over this many times before John but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

More of the same distinction being made without any Scriptural reason.

See above, RND. You make an assertion for which there is no theological basis

More of the same, baseless distinction.

No conditions were required of Abraham in Gen 12 or 13 John. None. John, I think we simply have a major disconnect in the understanding of what a promise is versus what a covenant is.

Covenant - A contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means "to cut," and hence a covenant is a "cutting," with reference to the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, in making a covenant (Genesis 15; Jeremiah 34:18, 19).

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This prom·ise

Audio Help /ˈprɒm

ɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prom-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -ised, -is·ing. –noun 1.a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This cov·e·nant

Audio Help /ˈkʌv

ə

nənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhv-uh-nuh

nt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.
John, can you fully, completely and honestly understand that a covenant and a promise are not the same thing?

You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God; you are not his equal. Therefore the rest of the paragraph is a bogus analogy.

That is why God deals with humans in covenants; they are one sided, and unconditional. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" Do you remember when I posted those verses?

John, here's a classic example of the disconnect you have. On one hand you say, "You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God" and yet you say, "That is why God deals with humans in covenants."

John, they are the same thing. Do you understand that?

Please note that this example of Jesus has to do with people REJECTING (free will) the covenant, not law keeping. Therefore the example fails to prove your contention

Again John, more disconnect. Rejecting the covenant is rejecting the 'law' (contract) on which it was based.

Agreed, that preposition may be translated differently, according to its context, but IT STILL DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTION THAT A COVENANT AND PROMISE ARE DIFFERENT.

John, I never offered this description to support the fact that a contract and covenant are the same thing. I offered this in answer to a completely different point you had asked about.

You are changing the terms of your own argument, and you are providing no proof FROM SCRIPTURE of your original argument about those Indians.

Not at all John. And I used scripture (Romans 1) to show that a knowledge of God and a revelation of God can come through nature by the calling of the Holy Spirit.

Again, you are changing the terms of your argument. We sin because we are sinners, not because we lack sufficient knowledge. You need to provide FROM SCRIPTURE things that support your position, or else they fail flat because there is no basis of authority for them.

Not at all John. I merely expressed by beliefs (opinion) about something.

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention.

Really? How? What covenant did God enter into with the native Americans? How were they without understanding of God? How do you know that they didn't have 'natural affection' for either one another or nature? How did they know the 'judgment of God'?

CHAPTER 2.
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention.

John, how do you know the type of judgment meted out by the native Americans?

Romans 2:14-15 When Gentiles [ this includes your Anazasi Indians] who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them

Yep, this verse confirms the point I was making with respect to the Anazasi Indians. If they did by nature what the law required then that is proof that the law (contract/covenant) was written on their hearts. Who or what could have possibly caused this to happen?

The Holy Spirit perhaps?

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?

John, you are in the midst of a major disconnect.

BTW whatever God does is correct, even if we in our limited minds are unable to fully understand whatever He does.

Sure. But I'm of a mind to believe that God reveals Himself and His ways to us so we can understand God and what He does and why.

Gal. 1:15-16 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

 

[JohnT]

From RND:

No conditions were required of Abraham in Gen 12 or 13 John. None. John, I think we simply have a major disconnect in the understanding of what a promise is versus what a covenant is.

AGREED

Covenant - A contract or agreement between two parties. In the Old Testament the Hebrew word berith is always thus translated. Berith is derived from a root which means "to cut," and hence a covenant is a "cutting," with reference to the cutting or dividing of animals into two parts, and the contracting parties passing between them, in making a covenant (Genesis 15; Jeremiah 34:18, 19).

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This prom·ise

Audio Help /ˈprɒm

ɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prom-is] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -ised, -is·ing. –noun 1.a declaration that something will or will not be done, given, etc., by one: unkept political promises.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This cov·e·nant

Audio Help /ˈkʌv

ə

nənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuhv-uh-nuh

nt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.an agreement, usually formal, between two or more persons to do or not do something specified.
John, can you fully, completely and honestly understand that a covenant and a promise are not the same thing?

Why do you use a SECULAR SOURCE to define a THEOLOGICAL ISSUE???

from ISBE for the third time (at least!)

The etymological force of the Hebrew berith is not entirely certain...
In the Old Testament the word has an ordinary use, when both parties are men, and a distinctly religious use, between God and men...

As already noted, the idea of covenants between God and men doubtless arose from the idea of covenants between men. Hence, the general thought is similar. It cannot in this case, however, be an agreement between contracting parties who stand on an equality, but God, the superior, always takes the initiative. To some extent, however, varying in different cases, is regarded as a mutual agreement; God with His commands makes certain promises, and men agree to keep the commands, or, at any rate, the promises are conditioned on human obedience.

In general, the covenant of God with men is a Divine ordinance, with signs and pledges on God's part, and with promises for human obedience and penalties for disobedience, which ordinance is accepted by men. In one passage (Ps 25:14), it is used in a more general way of an alliance of friendship between God and man.
​

===================================

You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God; you are not his equal. Therefore the rest of the paragraph is a bogus analogy.

That is why God deals with humans in covenants; they are one sided, and unconditional. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" Do you remember when I posted those verses?
​

John, here's a classic example of the disconnect you have. On one hand you say, "You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God" and yet you say, "That is why God deals with humans in covenants."

John, they are the same thing. Do you understand that?

READ the above, once again, please.
OR ELSE FIND A SCRIPTURAL SOURCE PROVING YOUR CONTENTION.

Please note that this example of Jesus has to do with people REJECTING (free will) the covenant, not law keeping. Therefore the example fails to prove your contention

Again John, more disconnect. Rejecting the covenant is rejecting the 'law' (contract) on which it was based.

Please supply THE EXACT WORDS IN THAT SCRIPTURE that support this idea, or else it is nonsense.

You are changing the terms of your own argument, and you are providing no proof FROM SCRIPTURE of your original argument about those Indians.

Not at all John. And I used scripture (Romans 1) to show that a knowledge of God and a revelation of God can come through nature by the calling of the Holy Spirit

.

There are 32 verses in Romans 1. Which verse (s) can you cite that support you? ZERO.

Again, you are changing the terms of your argument. We sin because we are sinners, not because we lack sufficient knowledge. You need to provide FROM SCRIPTURE things that support your position, or else they fail flat because there is no basis of authority for them.

Not at all John. I merely expressed by beliefs (opinion) about something.

By definition then, your BELIEFS are not Scripturally supportable.

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
​

(This is a complete thought; you need not break this up.)

CHAPTER 2.
1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things...
​

Romans 2:14-15 When Gentiles [ this includes your Anazasi Indians] who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them​

John, how do you know the type of judgment meted out by the native Americans?

Please do not put words into my post that are not there

Yep, this verse confirms the point I was making with respect to the Anazasi Indians. If they did by nature what the law required then that is proof that the law (contract/covenant) was written on their hearts. Who or what could have possibly caused this to happen?

The Holy Spirit perhaps?

NOPE! It is the very CREATION of God doing that:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
​

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?

John, you are in the midst of a major disconnect.

Nice ad hominem there! Wonder if the mods will catch it.

BTW whatever God does is correct, even if we in our limited minds are unable to fully understand whatever He does.

Sure. But I'm of a mind to believe that God reveals Himself and His ways to us so we can understand God and what He does and why.

Gal. 1:15-16 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Phil 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: OUT OF CONTEXT!!!

Here is the entire verse IN CONTEXT:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...

It is about Jesus Christ. Thanks for demonstrating the fact that any verse taken out of its context is a pretext, saying things not intended in the original thought.

 

[RND]

From RND:Why do you use a SECULAR SOURCE to define a THEOLOGICAL ISSUE???

from ISBE for the third time (at least!)

The etymological force of the Hebrew berith is not entirely certain...
In the Old Testament the word has an ordinary use, when both parties are men, and a distinctly religious use, between God and men...

As already noted, the idea of covenants between God and men doubtless arose from the idea of covenants between men. Hence, the general thought is similar. It cannot in this case, however, be an agreement between contracting parties who stand on an equality, but God, the superior, always takes the initiative. To some extent, however, varying in different cases, is regarded as a mutual agreement; God with His commands makes certain promises, and men agree to keep the commands, or, at any rate, the promises are conditioned on human obedience.

In general, the covenant of God with men is a Divine ordinance, with signs and pledges on God's part, and with promises for human obedience and penalties for disobedience, which ordinance is accepted by men. In one passage (Ps 25:14), it is used in a more general way of an alliance of friendship between God and man.
​

===================================

Nothing secular here. I quoted both a Bible dictionary and a regular dictionary regarding the meaning between covenant and promise. Obviously the words mean different things and even the quote above from ISBE agrees.

You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God; you are not his equal. Therefore the rest of the paragraph is a bogus analogy.

That is why God deals with humans in covenants; they are one sided, and unconditional. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" Do you remember when I posted those verses?
​

READ the above, once again, please.
OR ELSE FIND A SCRIPTURAL SOURCE PROVING YOUR CONTENTION.

Sorry Charlie. When God enters into a covenant with someone or something He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Also, in Gen 12 and Gen 13 the seed that was promised blessing that came through Abraham's loins was not and entire nation but one man, the Lord Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Please supply THE EXACT WORDS IN THAT SCRIPTURE that support this idea, or else it is nonsense.

Sure, no problem.

Exd 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Exd 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

Deu 29:9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.

Isa 59:21 As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Jer 11:8 Yet they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart: therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded [them] to do; but they did [them] not.

.

There are 32 verses in Romans 1. Which verse (s) can you cite that support you? ZERO.By definition then, your BELIEFS are not Scripturally supportable.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Native Americans were made!

And if they accepted God by the nature that He showed them the verses 21-32 don't apply to them.

Please do not put words into my post that are not there

I just axed a question John. How do you know the type of judgment meted out by the native Americans?

NOPE! It is the very CREATION of God doing that:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
​

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?

John, wouldn't native Americans be considered part of God's creation?

Nice ad hominem there! Wonder if the mods will catch it.

It seems that you aren't paying attention.

Here is the entire verse IN CONTEXT:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...

It is about Jesus Christ. Thanks for demonstrating the fact that any verse taken out of its context is a pretext, saying things not intended in the original thought.

How do you figure that? "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" The same mind that Jesus had is the same mind we can have. Nothing out of context there.

Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. NLT
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, NASB
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, RSV
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: ASV
Have this in your mind, which was also in Messiah Yeshua, HNV

Thinking like Christ does.

 

[JohnT]

From RND:Why do you use a SECULAR SOURCE to define a THEOLOGICAL ISSUE???

from ISBE for the third time (at least!)

The etymological force of the Hebrew berith is not entirely certain...
In the Old Testament the word has an ordinary use, when both parties are men, and a distinctly religious use, between God and men...

As already noted, the idea of covenants between God and men doubtless arose from the idea of covenants between men. Hence, the general thought is similar. It cannot in this case, however, be an agreement between contracting parties who stand on an equality, but God, the superior, always takes the initiative. To some extent, however, varying in different cases, is regarded as a mutual agreement; God with His commands makes certain promises, and men agree to keep the commands, or, at any rate, the promises are conditioned on human obedience.

In general, the covenant of God with men is a Divine ordinance, with signs and pledges on God's part, and with promises for human obedience and penalties for disobedience, which ordinance is accepted by men. In one passage (Ps 25:14), it is used in a more general way of an alliance of friendship between God and man.
​

===================================
​

Nothing secular here. I quoted both a Bible dictionary and a regular dictionary regarding the meaning between covenant and promise. Obviously the words mean different things and even the quote above from ISBE agrees.

PLEASE CITE THE WORDS FROM ISBE THAT GIVE YOU THIS ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION

You can not enter into a CONTRACT with God; you are not his equal. Therefore the rest of the paragraph is a bogus analogy.

That is why God deals with humans in covenants; they are one sided, and unconditional. "I will be their God, and they shall be my people" Do you remember when I posted those verses?
​

READ the above, once again, please.
OR ELSE FIND A SCRIPTURAL SOURCE PROVING YOUR CONTENTION.

Sorry Charlie. When God enters into a covenant with someone or something He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

Deu 4:13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, [even] ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.

Also, in Gen 12 and Gen 13 the seed that was promised blessing that came through Abraham's loins was not and entire nation but one man, the Lord Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

You are making things up here, for NONE of the verses you cite above prove anything close to what you state that I bolded: He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

Please supply THE EXACT WORDS IN THAT SCRIPTURE that support this idea, or else it is nonsense.

Sure, no problem.

Exd 24:8 And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled [it] on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the LORD hath made with you concerning all these words.

Exd 34:27 And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel.

Deu 29:9 Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do.

Isa 59:21 As for me, this [is] my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that [is] upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.

Jer 11:8 Yet they obeyed not, nor inclined their ear, but walked every one in the imagination of their evil heart: therefore I will bring upon them all the words of this covenant, which I commanded [them] to do; but they did [them] not.

Nice collection of verses, but NONE provide proof of your contention He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

There are 32 verses in Romans 1. Which verse (s) can you cite that support you? ZERO.By definition then, your BELIEFS are not Scripturally supportable.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Native Americans were made!

And if they accepted God by the nature that He showed them the verses 21-32 don't apply to them.

Big, hypothetical IF there! There is no record of that hypothetical being remotely probable

I just axed (sic) a question John. How do you know the type of judgment meted out by the native Americans?

You assume something for which there is no evidence, or assume that I know what the heck you ask.

NOPE! It is the very CREATION of God doing that:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
​

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?
​

John, wouldn't native Americans be considered part of God's creation?

And your point here is???

Here is the entire verse IN CONTEXT:
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name...

It is about Jesus Christ. Thanks for demonstrating the fact that any verse taken out of its context is a pretext, saying things not intended in the original thought.​

How do you figure that? "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus" The same mind that Jesus had is the same mind we can have. Nothing out of context there.

Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. NLT
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, NASB
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, RSV
Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: ASV
Have this in your mind, which was also in Messiah Yeshua, HNV

Repeating the same verse five times does not alter the FACT that the verse is OUT OF CONTEXT

Here is the chase:

Repeatedly I asked you to show via Scripture the basis for your beliefs. You have not been able to do that; instead, you went of tangentially on many thoughts trying to prove something not stated in Scripture explicitly or implicitly

Thus I conclude that rather than having concrete, Bible-based beliefs, you seem to make it up as you go along. That is OK to do it, for your beliefs are not my business, and you are entitled to them, no matter what.

What I am concerned about is the fact that you are unable to state "The Bible says... ergo I believe thus and such". Do you get it?

That is why I found your stance on circumcision so well, unusual and pressed you to get to the basis of your beliefs.

Enjoy your Sabbath.

 

[RND]

PLEASE CITE THE WORDS FROM ISBE THAT GIVE YOU THIS ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION

John, did you miss this from ISBE?

There are also two shades of meaning, somewhat distinct, of the Hebrew word:

one in which it is properly a covenant, i.e. a solemn mutual agreement, the other in which it is more a command, i.e. instead of an obligation voluntarily assumed, it is an obligation imposed by a superior upon an inferior. This latter meaning, however, has clearly been derived from the other. It is easy to see that an agreement, including as the contracting parties those of unequal position, might readily include those agreements which tended to partake of the nature of a command; but the process could not readily be reversed.

There is 1 (one) covenant, i.e. a solemn mutual agreement and there isthe other "it" is more a command, i.e. instead of an obligation voluntarily assumed.

You are making things up here, for NONE of the verses you cite above prove anything close to what you state that I bolded: He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

John, it is more than obvious that God requires a sign of some sort to confirm a covenant he makes. According to Paul it would not have been a promise had law (a covenant) been involved.

Circumcision was one type of sign, accepting the 10 Commandments was another.

Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

The words of the Ten Commandments were the covenant that were areed to be performed by the COI.

Exd 19:8 And all the people answered together, and said, All that the LORD hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words of the people unto the LORD.

Sorry John, I didn't make better cites for you on this point. I just figured that this is such basic, 101 type understanding that I didn't need to.

Nice collection of verses, but NONE provide proof of your contention He requires a sign for the acceptance of that covenant and he expects performance regarding that covenant.

See above.

Big, hypothetical IF there! There is no record of that hypothetical being remotely probable

Not really. Do you know who God has set aside for himself? Will you be surprised when you get to Heaven one day, walk-up to a man and his family and find out they were Anasazi Indians!?

I won't be.

You assume something for which there is no evidence, or assume that I know what the heck you ask.

NOPE! It is the very CREATION of God doing that:

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse
​

Sorry, but the above Scriptures disagree with your contention. If you are unable to find Scriptures supporting your beliefs, will then will you admit that they are bogus, and Scripturally unsupportable?​

But John, I just showed you from scripture that Gos speaks to people in different ways through the Holy Spirit.

Why are you so bothered by the fact that God can adequately perform His duties as God?

And your point here is???

That Native Americans were part of God's creation and only God knows if they are good candidates for an eternity in Heaven, not you and certainly not I.

Repeating the same verse five times does not alter the FACT that the verse is OUT OF CONTEXT

That's true. But not in this case. We can have the same mind and the same thoughts as Jesus Christ. This too is basic theology 101.

Jhn 15:7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

1Jo 2:24 Let that (the Gospel) therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.

Here is the chase:

Repeatedly I asked you to show via Scripture the basis for your beliefs. You have not been able to do that; instead, you went of tangentially on many thoughts trying to prove something not stated in Scripture explicitly or implicitly

Actually I did, you just missed them.

Thus I conclude that rather than having concrete, Bible-based beliefs, you seem to make it up as you go along. That is OK to do it, for your beliefs are not my business, and you are entitled to them, no matter what.

Hey thanks!

What I am concerned about is the fact that you are unable to state "The Bible says... ergo I believe thus and such". Do you get it?

John, I've actually used quite a bit of scripture to get my point across to you. Unfortunately, you just missed them.

That is why I found your stance on circumcision so well, unusual and pressed you to get to the basis of your beliefs.

Well, how many times do I need to post Romans 4 for you.

Romans 4:9-13 Is this blessing then pronounced upon the circumcision, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say, To Abraham his faith was reckoned for righteousness. How then was it reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision: and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be in uncircumcision, that righteousness might be reckoned unto them; and the father of circumcision to them who not only are of the circumcision, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had in uncircumcision. For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed that he should be heir of the world, but through the righteousness of faith. For if they that are of the law are heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect:

Enjoy your Sabbath.

Hey thanks! You do the same. BTW, when is yours?