Some people have said Abraham was declared righteous when he left Ur (Genesis 12), citing that the Lord wouldn’t use and bless an unregenerate man. Would you agree?

This text is from a transcript of a talk by David Gooding, entitled ‘God’s Power for Salvation’ (2005).

Well, that's a nice deduction to make from Genesis 12; that God made a covenant with Abraham and wouldn't have blessed him if Abraham had still been an unregenerate man. It says in chapter 12 that he made him a promise, but I don't see that he made a covenant with him at that point. And when it comes to chapter 15 and God repeats the promise: 'I shall give you this land to inherit it', and Abraham says, 'Oh Lord God, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?' (see Genesis 15:7–8), God doesn't say, 'But I told you before, Abraham.' The way he will know it now is because God at this stage makes a covenant with him and with his seed.

Now, I'm not commenting and saying that Abraham wasn't a regenerate man. For Acts tells me that 'the God of glory' appeared to Abraham and said, 'Abraham, get out from this land and go into the land that I will show you' (Genesis 7:2–3). The 'God of glory' appeared to him. Abraham was converted from living amongst old idolaters and being one himself. The God of glory appeared to him and brought him out. I'm not disputing that he was a believer, but I am pointing out the actual story of when he was justified. If you want to have it tied down legally, then you'll have to come to Genesis 15 when God made him the promise and he believed, and it was 'counted to him for righteousness'.

Secondly, then God says, 'I'm going to give you this inheritance.' He says, 'And how shall I know that?' And God made a covenant with him. That is the first time I read of God making a covenant with him.

Some people say that the covenant of chapter 17 is the same covenant, but that won't do. For Paul argues in Galatians 3 that once a covenant has been made it cannot subsequently be altered or added to. The law, therefore, that came four hundred years later cannot be added to that covenant as an extra condition (Galatians 3:17). Well then, circumcision wasn't given until about thirteen or fourteen years later after that first covenant. Circumcision cannot be read legally as a condition laid down as an extra condition. If it wasn't in the covenant terms then nothing can be added later to those covenant terms as an extra condition.

That is my argument, but you won't take my word for it of course. You will go out and think about these things for yourselves.