I guess because the Abrahamic covenant is instituted by God without much reference to Abraham: he's just basically told this is how it's going to be. And the initial impression that the covenant is not exactly an equal arrangement is confirmed by the comparison, first made by Meredith Kline, between the OT covenants and other Ancient Near Eastern 'suzerainty-vassal' treaties, where one side was a conquering nation, and the other side had been brought into submission by conquest.
Answers & Comments
Verified answer
I guess because the Abrahamic covenant is instituted by God without much reference to Abraham: he's just basically told this is how it's going to be. And the initial impression that the covenant is not exactly an equal arrangement is confirmed by the comparison, first made by Meredith Kline, between the OT covenants and other Ancient Near Eastern 'suzerainty-vassal' treaties, where one side was a conquering nation, and the other side had been brought into submission by conquest.
Nothing I would suppose? Since there is no such word as monergistic?
God Bless Ya,
Chicago Bob
imasinner
There is more joy in Jesus in one day.
Than there is in the World 365/24/7
I know, I tried them both.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
--Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"