All 'right standing with God' issues from CHRIST'S FAITHFULNESS.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: November 25, 2004 07:49 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Unilateral covenant > Good morning, and happy thanksgiving everyone. I trust we are all thankful > to the great and gracious Lord God of heaven for the life and abundance of > good things that he gives unto the people of his covenant. > > Concerning the Abraham / Abimelech incident of Gen. 20: > > Although virtually every commentary of man condemns Abraham in this > situation, I find it interesting that arguments have been put forth that > tend to villify Abraham and praise Abimelech. For example, Jonathan made > the argument recently that Abimelech was righteous in this situation and > Abraham was not. Such an argument is made based upon the actions of each > men. The reasoning is that Abraham deceived Abimelech and so he was in the > wrong. Abimelech, on the other hand, supposedly acted innocently, and when > the Lord made clear to him that he was sinning against Abraham, he went way > beyond the call of duty in his repentance by giving Abraham many valuable > gifts. Depsite the actions of these men, one thing seems clear in the text. > The anger of the Lord was kindled against Abimelech but not against Abraham. > While human reasoning leads us to look disfavorably upon Abraham in this > situation, we are still left with the fact that the Lord's anger was against > Abimelech but not Abraham. > > I have been waiting for the argument to come forth that the reason the Lord > was not angry with Abraham was because of his covenant with him. The Lord > had a covenant with Abraham but not with Abimelech. Therefore, because of > this covenant, perhaps Abraham was viewed as righteous before God whereas > Abimelech was not, even though Abraham had been deceptive and Abimelech had > acted with integrity and honesty. I don't know why this point has not been > argued, so I will present it myself as a possibility and see what the > response is. It seems to me that such reasoning would go along with what > has been argued in the past, so I find it very interesting that the focus of > the arguments has been upon ascribing evil motives to Abraham rather than > upon the covenant. It seems to me that the more objective argument from > your those who hold to the unilateral thesis would be that it really doesn't > matter if Abraham was right or wrong in this situation, and that is the > point. His right standing with God came from his faith not from his > actions. > > Now if there is silence on this, I guess from past posts I can only assume > that it is because you are afraid of a setup. Although I certainly like to > challenge concepts and expect to continue to do so, I will try to exercise > enormous restraint and allow most of my criticisms to be dealt with > privately. That does not mean that I won't make some effort to challenge > the idea that I just put forth. Even though I consider it a good idea and > one that I might be in a position to argue, I have questions about it and > would love to see objections answered concerning it. > > Concerning this process of attempting to falsify ideas, I hope that many of > you try to understand the difference between challenging an idea through > attempting to falsify it, and the sinful practice of attacking a person with > the purpose of humiliating and condemning that person. Please do not hold > onto your imaginative speculations so tightly that if someone were to > disprove your perception of something, then such would be equivalent in your > mind to ascribing evil motives to you and condemning you. All one needs to > do is lay aside their false perception and agree with the one who has shown > it to be false, then such a person would be in the clear. Another approach > is simply to consider another alternative, maybe one being put forth, raise > objections to it and attempt to falsify it. Only by tenaciously holding > onto our false concepts and false ways would we find ourselves in the > position of being condemned along with the false viewpoint. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
