Catholic Covenant Theology

[Truthstalker]

Whatcha think of this? I stole this off another forum.

1. Jesus Christ is the final covenant God made with man.
2. When God makes a covenant, He makes it with Himself, and He promises to fulfill it. He is the author and the finisher of the covenant. The covenant consists of the promises made as part of that covenant.
3. Every promise Jesus made when He was here on earth was part of that covenant. He is the Word. Everything He said is part of that covenant.
4. Jesus promised to Peter that He would build His church on that rock in Matthew 16.
5. In Matthew 16:13-20, the Greek distinguishes between when Jesus is speaking to all the disciples and to Peter alone.
6. Therefore certain promises were made to Peter apart from the rest of the disciples.
7. Jesus referred to giving Peter the keys, a reference to Isaiah 22-22, where there is the promise of the office of steward.
8. Jesus therefore gave Peter primacy over the other disciples.
9. This can be observed in the Gospels and the book of Acts, where Peter is generally mentioned first. He also speaks more than the other disciples.
10. Peter directed church activity in Acts 1:15 following. Peter gave the first Christian sermon in Acts 2:14. This primacy was clearly recognized by the other disciples. There are numerous examples of this in the book of Acts.
11. Paul recognized the primacy. In Galatians 1:18 he went to Jerusalem and visited Cephas (=Peter) only.
12. Jesus made an everlasting covenant, meaning that although Peter died, the office would continue. We see succession of apostles started in Acts 1 by Peter.
13. The covenant being everlasting, its promises are also everlasting. Therefore the office continues today.
14. There are repeated warnings in Scripture against schismatics and heretics. We see this in the early church fathers as well. Paul warns against those bringing a different Gospel in Galatians 1:6-9, for example.
15. There is therefore a divinely authorized bishopric which developed into the Papacy.
16. Neither Luther nor Calvin nor any other reformer was authorized to bring reform to the Catholic church.
17. Jesus said, “he who receives you, receives me, and he who receives me, receives him who sent me.” This was spoken to the apostles, the forebears of the bishops of the Church.
18. Jesus promised to be with us always. He does not abandon us, but He sent His Holy Spirit to guide and direct us and the Church.
19. This is all part of the Covenant Jesus made at the cross.
20. Jesus made a number of parables in which a man goes away and leaves a steward in charge. This is no coincidence. Jesus went away and left a steward in charge.
21. To reject the Church is to reject Jesus. To reject the Pope then is to reject the one He put in charge.

 

[Stephen_C]

WOW! Well put…(even if you stole it) So where are you at in your Journey? If I may ask.

 

[Stephen_C]

Oh, one other thing. I did not check your scripture quotes. (I am at work) I am sure you checked them though. And double sure others will as well.

 

[franksv]

Whatcha think of this? I stole this off another forum.

1. Jesus Christ is the final covenant God made with man.
2. When God makes a covenant, He makes it with Himself, and He promises to fulfill it. He is the author and the finisher of the covenant. The covenant consists of the promises made as part of that covenant.
3. Every promise Jesus made when He was here on earth was part of that covenant. He is the Word. Everything He said is part of that covenant.
4. Jesus promised to Peter that He would build His church on that rock in Matthew 16.
5. In Matthew 16:13-20, the Greek distinguishes between when Jesus is speaking to all the disciples and to Peter alone.
6. Therefore certain promises were made to Peter apart from the rest of the disciples.
7. Jesus referred to giving Peter the keys, a reference to Isaiah 22-22, where there is the promise of the office of steward.
8. Jesus therefore gave Peter primacy over the other disciples.
9. This can be observed in the Gospels and the book of Acts, where Peter is generally mentioned first. He also speaks more than the other disciples.
10. Peter directed church activity in Acts 1:15 following. Peter gave the first Christian sermon in Acts 2:14. This primacy was clearly recognized by the other disciples. There are numerous examples of this in the book of Acts.
11. Paul recognized the primacy. In Galatians 1:18 he went to Jerusalem and visited Cephas (=Peter) only.
12. Jesus made an everlasting covenant, meaning that although Peter died, the office would continue. We see succession of apostles started in Acts 1 by Peter.
13. The covenant being everlasting, its promises are also everlasting. Therefore the office continues today.
14. There are repeated warnings in Scripture against schismatics and heretics. We see this in the early church fathers as well. Paul warns against those bringing a different Gospel in Galatians 1:6-9, for example.
15. There is therefore a divinely authorized bishopric which developed into the Papacy.
16. Neither Luther nor Calvin nor any other reformer was authorized to bring reform to the Catholic church.
17. Jesus said, “he who receives you, receives me, and he who receives me, receives him who sent me.” This was spoken to the apostles, the forebears of the bishops of the Church.
18. Jesus promised to be with us always. He does not abandon us, but He sent His Holy Spirit to guide and direct us and the Church.
19. This is all part of the Covenant Jesus made at the cross.
20. Jesus made a number of parables in which a man goes away and leaves a steward in charge. This is no coincidence. Jesus went away and left a steward in charge.
21. To reject the Church is to reject Jesus. To reject the Pope then is to reject the one He put in charge.

If you like this list,check this one out.

catholic.com/library/Pillar.asp

 

[txangel]

Pretty impressive…who did you “steal” it from? Think I might just print this off and keep it with me as a reference when needing quick but substantial answers.

God Bless Texas !!!

 

[Truthstalker]

WOW! Well put…(even if you stole it) So where are you at in your Journey? If I may ask.

I stole this from that irresponsible fool FenceSitter. He posted it on an antiCatholic forum and, after being subjected to everything they could throw at it, seemes to have successfully defended it.
Not that it changed anyone’s mind over there, but it should have.

Looking for loopholes. Those I’m finding I’m closing.

COME ON! SOMEBODY BLOW A HOLE IN THIS! ANYBODY!

 

[Donna_P]

I stole this from that irresponsible fool FenceSitter. He posted it on an antiCatholic forum and, after being subjected to everything they could throw at it, seemes to have successfully defended it.
Not that it changed anyone’s mind over there, but it should have.

Looking for loopholes. Those I’m finding I’m closing.

COME ON! SOMEBODY BLOW A HOLE IN THIS! ANYBODY!

Dear Truthstalker,

May God be with you!

You must be talking about CARM. I’m CatholicWifeandMom over there.

By the way - Thank you for posting this! Well done and I can’t think of any holes except…

“Well I just don’t believe in that. You’re reading scripture wrong”

God bless you!

 

[bibleapologist]

COME ON! SOMEBODY BLOW A HOLE IN THIS! ANYBODY!

I can’t think of any holes except…

“Well I just don’t believe in that. You’re reading scripture wrong”

If one was reading scripture wrong… that would be a pretty substantial hole wouldn’t it?

The points on the previously posted list are nothing but a reiteration of arguments and proof texts that Catholics have been using on these forums, (and everywhere else)… which I have been systematically repudiating through my articles at Gideon’s Sword.net, and debates on these forums.

To help you find my arguments against these false teachings, I have listed the articles that contain my arguments on those subjects.

The two coventants - “A repudiation of Infant Baptism” , “Dispensationism - Israel and the Church contrasted”

Succession of Apostles - “The Twelfth Apostle” , “The Universal Church Theory Examined”

Feel free also to search my posts which pertain to these issues, I am happy to answer any questions you may have regarding my arguments.

Thanks,
John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Dear Truthstalker,

May God be with you!

You must be talking about CARM. I’m CatholicWifeandMom over there.

By the way - Thank you for posting this! Well done and I can’t think of any holes except…

“Well I just don’t believe in that. You’re reading scripture wrong”

God bless you!

I am Godisawake over there. Feel free to visit…

 

[Truthstalker]

If one was reading scripture wrong… that would be a pretty substantial hole wouldn’t it?

The points on the previously posted list are nothing but a reiteration of arguments and proof texts that Catholics have been using on these forums, (and everywhere else)… which I have been systematically repudiating through my articles at Gideon’s Sword.net, and debates on these forums.

To help you find my arguments against these false teachings, I have listed the articles that contain my arguments on those subjects.

The two coventants - “A repudiation of Infant Baptism” , “Dispensationism - Israel and the Church contrasted”

Succession of Apostles - “The Twelfth Apostle” , “The Universal Church Theory Examined”

Feel free also to search my posts which pertain to these issues, I am happy to answer any questions you may have regarding my arguments.

Thanks,
John
www.gideonsword.net

Thanks, This will take some time.

On the other hand, besides simply dismissing this as “nothing but a reiteration of arguments and proof texts that Catholics have been using on these forums”, what problems do you see specifically with the chain of reasoning? If Catholics have been using them, there is a reason they have been using them, perhaps because they are correct. What specifically in the articles you mention applies? Or is it too much for one thread?

 

[bibleapologist]

Thanks for asking, and being willing to look at my arguments in the articles.

I know it’s a lot to read, but to answer your question… yes, it is too much for one thread. Especially because it covers more than one topic.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[SemperJase]

bibleapologist;1504021 which I have been systematically repudiating through my articles at [URL="http://www.gideonsword.net":

Gideon’s Sword.net

, and debates on these forums.

Gotta disagree with you on that one. You have tried to repudiate 2000 years of catholic teaching but have yet to make a convincing argument.

By the way, I’m always skeptical of self-proclaimed victory.
I’ve taken a look at your site and all I see is misrepresentation and out-of-context quotes.

My suggestion is that you present some arguments rather than merely post links and claim victory in the debate.

 

[Contarini]

Whatcha think of this? I stole this off another forum.

1. Jesus Christ is the final covenant God made with man.
2. When God makes a covenant, He makes it with Himself, and He promises to fulfill it. He is the author and the finisher of the covenant. The covenant consists of the promises made as part of that covenant.
3. Every promise Jesus made when He was here on earth was part of that covenant. He is the Word. Everything He said is part of that covenant.
4. Jesus promised to Peter that He would build His church on that rock in Matthew 16.
5. In Matthew 16:13-20, the Greek distinguishes between when Jesus is speaking to all the disciples and to Peter alone.
6. Therefore certain promises were made to Peter apart from the rest of the disciples.

But this might simply be because Peter was the one to confess that Jesus was the Son of God.

1. Jesus referred to giving Peter the keys, a reference to Isaiah 22-22, where there is the promise of the office of steward.
2. Jesus therefore gave Peter primacy over the other disciples.
3. This can be observed in the Gospels and the book of Acts, where Peter is generally mentioned first. He also speaks more than the other disciples.
4. Peter directed church activity in Acts 1:15 following. Peter gave the first Christian sermon in Acts 2:14. This primacy was clearly recognized by the other disciples. There are numerous examples of this in the book of Acts.
5. Paul recognized the primacy. In Galatians 1:18 he went to Jerusalem and visited Cephas (=Peter) only.
6. Jesus made an everlasting covenant, meaning that although Peter died, the office would continue. We see succession of apostles started in Acts 1 by Peter.
7. The covenant being everlasting, its promises are also everlasting. Therefore the office continues today.

I for one don’t dispute that.

1. There are repeated warnings in Scripture against schismatics and heretics. We see this in the early church fathers as well. Paul warns against those bringing a different Gospel in Galatians 1:6-9, for example.

It is not, however, clear that challenging the leaders of the Church amounts to “bringing a different Gospel.”

1. There is therefore a divinely authorized bishopric which developed into the Papacy.

You haven’t shown any link between this and no. 14. That the Papacy is a valid office within the Church, an expression of the Petrine ministry, I do not deny.

 

[Contarini]

1. Neither Luther nor Calvin nor any other reformer was authorized to bring reform to the Catholic church.

This does not follow logically from anything else you have said. If you look at the OT parallels, there were instutional centers of authority (priesthood and kingship), and then there were charismatic figures (judges, prophets), who had no “authorization” except the fact that they were sent by God. If anything, these latter seem more often to be the true mouthpieces of God than the institutional leaders. And if the NT is different from the OT in this regard, it would appear to be different in having less stress on institutional authority. Certainly this is true of priestly authority–Catholics claim that there must be a ministerial priesthood in the NT, but the NT never says this. Hebrews seems to be saying that Christ is the High Priest and all believers are priests. If there is a ministerial priesthood, it is an expression of the universal priesthood. The NT frequently compares itself to the OT as being characterized by greater liberty–sons vs. servants, etc. I don’t take Jesus’ remarks about not calling anyone father, master, etc., literally–but clearly these remarks must mean something. And they seem to be saying that the relationship among Jesus’ disciples is characterized by greater equality and freedom than that among the people of the Old Covenant.

If you want to make an analogy with the Davidic kingship, there are questions there as well. The kingship as an institution is treated with great suspicion in the OT. Yes, God used human error as He always does and established His covenant with David, but this doesn’t appear to have been the ideal situation. Institutional authority generally is not emphasized in Scripture the way it’s emphasized in Catholicism. That’s not to say it can be despised or rejected altogether–but I don’t see how it can be as crucial as your argument is claiming.

1. Jesus said, “he who receives you, receives me, and he who receives me, receives him who sent me.” This was spoken to the apostles, the forebears of the bishops of the Church.

But you are assuming without evidence that it was spoken to them as the forebears of the bishops rather than as representatives of all believers.

1. Jesus promised to be with us always. He does not abandon us, but He sent His Holy Spirit to guide and direct us and the Church.

Exactly. Us, not just some of us.

1. This is all part of the Covenant Jesus made at the cross.
2. Jesus made a number of parables in which a man goes away and leaves a steward in charge. This is no coincidence. Jesus went away and left a steward in charge.

Jesus also told a parable in which the steward is crooked and gets fired. . . . This is a very weak line of argument.

1. To reject the Church is to reject Jesus. To reject the Pope then is to reject the one He put in charge.

Of course to reject the Church is to reject Jesus. But it does not follow that to reject the Pope (in the sense of disobeying his commands and incurring his displeasure) is to reject the one Jesus put in charge. After all, the people of God in the OT frequently disobeyed kings and priests and had God’s blessing for doing so. (Amos, Elijah, etc.)

I can’t see that this chain of argument has much logic at all, frankly. It seems to be driven more by your sense of what *must *be true than by the actual Biblical evidence.

Edwin

 

[bibleapologist]

Gotta disagree with you on that one. You have tried to repudiate 2000 years of catholic teaching but have yet to make a convincing argument.

By the way, I’m always skeptical of self-proclaimed victory.
I’ve taken a look at your site and all I see is misrepresentation and out-of-context quotes.

My suggestion is that you present some arguments rather than merely post links and claim victory in the debate.

I have given an apology for the Bible, I will not engage in a debate over the philosophical ideas that Catholic Teaching is based upon. The only arguments that I can debate are whether or not the Catholic teaching is biblically based, as for philosophy… we are exhorted to abstain from vain deceit.

I’ll see you here tomorrow with my lengthy arguments, as opposed to referencing my arguments with my articles. But, if you’re not willing to click on a link to read an article… why would you read a post here?

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[SemperJase]

The only arguments that I can debate are whether or not the Catholic teaching is biblically based,

And that is the rub. Catholic teaching is biblically based. However it does not claim that all Christian teaching must be explicitly stated in scripture. Then again, neither does the bible.

But, if you’re not willing to click on a link to read an article… why would you read a post here

If you post a “lengthy” article, I probably won’t read it. The purpose of this board is for discussion. If I wanted to read a lengthy article I would go to your board. So instead of “lengthy” arguments, keep it to a length were we can discuss an issue.

Remember, posting a lengthy article that no one responds to does not mean you have made a convincing argument. Don’t filibuster, let’s discuss.

 

[bibleapologist]

However it does not claim that all Christian teaching must be explicitly stated in scripture. Then again, neither does the bible.

Encapsulated in the scripture is all the doctrine we need.

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Are you claiming that there is other teaching that can be considered “equal” to God inspired scripture?

Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

I appreciate your honesty regarding reading long posts… I find them burdensome also. I will post tomorrow with arguments to the issue listed above I believe to be most important.

John
www.gideonsword.net

 

[Doxiemom]

The shed blood of Jesus Christ which began in the Garden and during all the brutality and on the Cross was a Blood Covenant between the Father and us-the christian church. We were grafted into the Old Covenant established by God with His Chosen People. And God says that He will not break Covenant EVER, even if we break that Covenant.

With all the ups and downs and with all of the rights and wrongs and truth understood and errors of the last 2006 years, this Blood Covenant stands.

It is by it’s power that Chrsitianity has withstood man’s worse behavior. And by the Grace of our Lord, Jesus Christ, given us mankind’s best.

Christ died as Jew on that Cross who understood the absolutness of the Judiac Bood Covenant. He did not die as a Catholic. We must re-capture our Judiac roots to understand the minutia of His Jewishness. It will only serve to enrich catholic life.

Doxiemom
God giggled when He made dachshunds especially the little bitty long hair ones who trip on their hair when they do the high jumps

 

[JaneFrances]

It is not my intention to hijack the OP. . .but the questions burn!

Encapsulated in the scripture is all the doctrine we need.

How do you know this, beyond your own extra-scriptural doctrinal sensibilities?

Are you claiming that there is other teaching that can be considered “equal” to God inspired scripture?

Yes, this is exactly what the Church claims. We accept God’s whole Word. We accept the written Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as God’s Word.

And on a very practical level, you too consider a teaching other than inspired Scripture as equally authoritative–your interpretation!

(okay. . .that last one wasn’t a question. . .but it still did burn)

 

[Truthstalker]

But this might simply be because Peter was the one to confess that Jesus was the Son of God.

Contarini,

Good to hear from you again. I feared we lost you in the meltdown. If anyone can poke holes in this, you can, and I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut. Was this the sum of the holes you noted, or are there others yet to be declared? I note that some of the chain you did not comment on: is that assent or dismissal?

I’ll answer these one by one.

Flattering done, I’ll argue.

Simply? As you saw later in the sequence, Peter is contrasted with the other disciples. He alone gets the keys (note the singular in Greek). There is no indication that the promise is ever extended to the others in this passage or in other places.

Peter said it because the Father revealed it to him. It wasn’t he was the quickest at figuring it out, it was a matter of revelation.
The promises were made to Peter as part of a chain reaction: Jesus asked them who He was, the Father told Peter, and Jesus responded to Peter. Peter is singled out not as a result of human action but divine action: both the Father and the Son. Peter here is not simply one among twelve. Something extraordinary is happening.

I willl respond to your other comments after we finish this one.