It should if one wants to hold it up as being biblical doctrine. Otherwise, if it's not stated it should not be put forth as though it is.
Abraham was its foundation and he already had faith.
Yes, I understand that. God told him to leave for a land God would show him not knowing what that land is....he was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac....but I'm not talking about Abraham.
The children of Israel had faith to be delivered out of Egypt and faith (
and obedience) in God is required under the Mosaic Law and it says so, but there is no requirement for faith in the Abrahamic Covenant. If it's not stated in Scripture and someone wants to add faith where faith is mentioned then that would be called among other things as 'extra-biblical or adding to the bible. Why stop there. Let me add what I think should be written in Scripture if what I think should be included is not stated. Where and when does it stop? Cults have been formed by this methodology. You know that.
The Abrahamic Covenant is a biblical covenant between God and Abraham, which is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The covenant contains several aspects. God promised:
To give Abraham and his descendants land
To make him into a great nation with numerous descendants
To bless him
To make his name great
To bless those who bless Abraham and his people
To curse those who curse Abraham and his people
The covenant also includes seven provisions:
- The promise of a great nation through Abraham
- Personal blessing on Abraham
- The name of Abraham shall be great
- Abraham is to be a blessing to others
- Blessing will rest on those blessing Abraham
- A curse will rest on those who curse Abraham
- All nations of the earth will be blessed through Abraham
BUT there is no mention of God requiring faith from Abraham or his descendants under this covenant.
If it was required God would have mentioned it as He mentioned it in the Mosaic Covenant. It's not an omission. God didn't forget to mention it. The bottom line is faith in God is not a part of this covenant.
Now,
WHAT did God require from Abraham and his descendants?
Circumcise himself and his descendants: God commanded Abraham to circumcise every male among his household, whether born or bought, as a sign of the covenant. This was to be done on the eighth day after birth. Anyone who was not circumcised would be cut off from the covenant people. (Genesis 17:9-14)
Are "we" going to take Scripture as written or are we going to add to the bible things not there but we think
should be there?
I find also the practice of adding to the bible things that are not there is found here, too:
28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. Gal. 3:28–29.
Gentile Christians add to the bible by inserting themselves into the text in this passage. Clearly Saul is writing to JEWISH Christians in the Galatian region. And by Gentile Christians identifying themselves into the text where clearly Saul is writing to JEWISH Christians, Gentile Christians usurp the text and in doing so include themselves into the Abraham covenant when in the original text of the covenant in Genesis 17 there is no mention of circumcised Gentiles. If God wanted a covenant with Gentiles, He would have made it and included it in the Law, Psalms, and Prophets but there is none.
Personally, when the two Jewish witnesses arrive and prophesy against Israel (Rev. 11), I believe they are going to clear up a great deal of erroneous doctrine the Gentile Church currently possess and when they do Gentile Christians will be angry and jealous against Israel and be among those God will gather against Israel. Maybe when they are finally killed the day falls on December 25, the western observance of CHRIST-mas and the giving of gifts will find new meaning. I don't know. But one thing I do know with this Israeli-Hamas war taking place and that is prophesy is being fulfilled and nations are lining up against Israel as found in Ezekiel and other places in the bible. There are things that God sealed up until the times of the end (Daniel), well guess what? We ARE at the times of the end of the times of the end. Why wouldn't prophesy and doctrine begin to become clearer?
Concerning Abraham it was based upon his life.
The covenant was based upon God, not Abraham. God was the one that walked between the halved animal pieces while Abraham slept. All God required of Abraham was circumcision, the rest would be fulfilled by God.
Not those who followed...
Those who followed carried the seed of Abraham, and it was from his seed the Messiah would come.
Those who carried the seed were not required faith to carry the seed of Abraham. It was biological.
I agree. But now we have Saul saying there is neither Jew or Gentile and Gentiles take that and use it to say the Hebrew Covenant with Abraham is no longer biological, but in my interaction when I say God still has a covenant to fulfill with biological Israel as the Abrahamic Covenant was based on (Isaac, Jacob, children of Jacob, etc.), there's a lot of fudging and hee-haws on their part and the biological covenant we both agree was made with Abraham is rejected for a more convenient doctrine/teaching - their own. They lean upon their own understanding in the vanity of their minds.
What is your argument's point being made for?
Taking Scripture as written
without adding to the bible.
