I quoted a verse in the OP. I'll add.
2Co 1:20 For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
The verse does not conflate promises with covenants. The op does.
Everything is the total of it's parts. He is our peace. Christ is our covenant.
Not always. On many occasions the whole is much greater than the sum of its part. That comment is incorrect, and it is being asserted as a red herring in a question-begging manner. Prove covenants are the total of their parts and not something more.
Also, covenants are established upon promises.
Which is what I said. Covenants contain promises. Promises are not identical to or synonymous with covenants. Promises are a constituent component of covenants, not its whole. A common exegetical error is the
construction fallacy in which what is true of the parts is thought to be true of the whole, or disparate terms are conflated. It's bad exegsis.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
The very concept of "covenant" theology is horribly flawed.
Irrelevant. No one here is saying anything about Covenant Theology. That protest is an attempt at onus-shifting red herring when what should be happening is you proving "
Covenants are 'the promises' of God." when an accurate understanding is that covenants include promises as a constituent element.
Try reading exactly what is posted and not imposing irrelevant prejudices and imagination on my posts.
Covenants contain promises. Covenants are not identical to or synonymous with promises. What is true of the parts is not necessarily true of the whole, or the other parts. This has absolutely nothing to do with Covenant Theology, and the verses employed so far do not actually teach covenants and promises are identical, synonymous, or two things that can be conflated. If that were the case, then verses like Hebrews 8:6 would be unnecessarily redundant (and nonsensical).
Hebrews 8:6
But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.
If that were read through the opening assertion of this op, then the better covenant is enacted on better covenants, the better promises are enacted on better promises, the better promises are enacted on better covenants.
None of that is what whole scripture teaches, and the onus is not on me to prove that fact. The onus is on you to prove this op's asserting in light of these facts and to do so in a manner that avoids inconsistency and contradiction.
Galatians 3:17
What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
An invalidated covenant nullifies the promises made therein. That does not mean a nullified promise would invalidate an entire covenant. It could, but that is not necessarily the case. Either way, to conflate covenant and promise would make that verse unnecessarily circular and redundant, and nonsensical.
...
does not invalidate a covenant so as to nullify the covenant.
...does not invalidate the promise so as to nullify the promise.
...does not invalidate the promise so as to nullify the covenant.
Yet that is exactly what the words of this op argue. You have either misspoken or your theology is wrong. Attacking me will not change that fact, and neither will attempts to shift the onus onto me. Just prove covenants are promises of God or re-word the opening assertion so that it accurately reflects God's word.
The Bible's covenants contain promises made by God.
Or...
The soteriological covenants initiated by God that occur throughout the Bible contain promises made by God.
Solving the problem is that easy and you're wasting both our time arguing with me over your mistake and refusal to correct it.
Hebrews 9:15
For this reason, he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
And yet we know that everyone who was included in some of the covenants did not receive the promise of eternal inheritance. Millions of Hebrews were treated as participants in the Abrahamic covenant, but they were purged from inheriting its promises because of unfaithfulness and disobedience. One reason for that is the covenants often come with promises of life and promises of death. Sometime life and death are two completely different and irreconcilable conditions so the covenant cannot be thought to be synonymous with promises. The promises do not define the whole of the covenant, nor does their constituency equate the whole.
...
that were committed under the first promise, that they may receive the promise...
...that were committed under the first covenant, that they may receive the covenant...
...that were committed under the first promise, that they may receive the covenant...
That is not what scripture teaches so either the opening statement of this op was mistakenly worded unintentionally contrary to the facts of scripture, or the underlying perspective is wrong.
Covenants contain promises, but that is not all they contain, nor is it all they do, nor are covenants synonymous with or identical to promises. It's up to you to prove otherwise (or acknowledge the above is correct and the op should be amended accordingly).
.
