Is there Scriptural Basis for Dual-Covenant Theology?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

meltzerboy

New member
I believe current Church teaching opposes dual-covenant theology; but, according to what I’ve read, that was not always the case. Was past thinking in support of it by some Catholics based on New Testament scripture, Church tradition, or both? Does so-called liberal Christian theology still support it? Parenthetically, what is the current Protestant view of this doctrine? And, finally, are there opinions about the controversy within modern Judaism regarding dual-covenant theology?
 
meltzerboy said:
I believe current Church teaching opposes dual-covenant theology; but, according to what I’ve read, that was not always the case. Was past thinking in support of it by some Catholics based on New Testament scripture, Church tradition, or both? Does so-called liberal Christian theology still support it? Parenthetically, what is the current Protestant view of this doctrine? And, finally, are there opinions about the controversy within modern Judaism regarding dual-covenant theology?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has never accepted dual-covenant theology (the idea that Jews’ covenant with God means they have no need to convert to Christianity). The Church believes that the covenant with the Jews remains eternally valid, but that Jesus is the fulfillment of that covenant (and its broadening to include all of humanity) and Christianity is the fulfillment of Jewish belief. The Church edited a section of its catechism recently to make this point clearer, as many people just remembered the first part of the previous sentence and not the second. Many liberal Protestants (and many liberal Catholics) do accept dual-covenant theology, although the official doctrine or orthodox opinion of their church as a whole likely doesn’t.

Jewish theology really couldn’t care less about Christianity, so most Jews have no interest in this matter. They believe Christianity is fine for the Christians, but of course they think that they should remain Jews rather than accept Christ.
 
meltzerboy said:
I believe current Church teaching opposes dual-covenant theology; but, according to what I’ve read, that was not always the case. Was past thinking in support of it by some Catholics based on New Testament scripture, Church tradition, or both? Does so-called liberal Christian theology still support it? Parenthetically, what is the current Protestant view of this doctrine? And, finally, are there opinions about the controversy within modern Judaism regarding dual-covenant theology?
Click to expand...
I agree with the prior response - dual covenant theology has not been a teaching of the Church, but many Christians (Catholic and Protestant) have (I would say and the Church would say, errantly) held this view.

The scriptural verse most often cited is Romans 11 -"after the full alotment of Gentiles comes in, “all Israel will be saved”. The Church teaches (and frankly, exegesis of NT scriptures in their entirely clearly support) that this means that there will come a time (in the end times) when the veil will be lifted from Israel and they will come to “saving faith through Yeshua”.

As to Protestant thinking - there are 40,000 plus denominations - almost certainly some of them support this doctrine (I am not personally aware of those which do).

As to Judaism - inherently it supports the doctrine as rabbinic judaism teaches that Jews (Israelites) are saved through the mosaic law (a covenant with Israel) but that Gentiles (everyone else) may be saved through the Nohide laws - thus, “two separate covenants” (from a Jewish perspective).

I would say, there is “one covenant” - that the mosaic covenant, as foretold in Jer 31:31 was replaced by a “new covenant” expressly to be different than the mosaic covenant - it is this “new covenant” given first to “Israel” (the faithful remnant) into which the Gentiles were grafted - so the Church was grafted into the promises made to Israel (that is also in Romans 11). If you haven’t read it - Romans is an important epistle in terms of the relationship between the Church (believers in Yeshua) and non-believing Israel.

Blessings - Shalom

Brian
 
PUP said:
There have been several media outlets professing the dual covenant theology like the History Channel and PBS as well as a few in the Catholic Hierarchy and Jewish Hierarchy distorting or making it ambiguous ever since Vatican II and the Nostra Aetate. The Church Fathers,Councils and Magisterium have never supported the Dual Covenant Theology. Here is a good article on this.
catholicintl.com/articles/The%20Old%20Covenant%20Revoked%20or%20Not%20Revoked%20for%20Culture%20Wars.pdf
Click to expand...
This is a faux war promulgated by right wing profiteering from strife.

Reminder… Wars declared by Jesus= ZERO.
 
OFFICIAL CATHOLIC TEACHING
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, 1441, ex cathedra:
“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and teaches that the
matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, the Mosaic law, which are
divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they
were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to
the divine worship at that time, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by
them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that
whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and
submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could
not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the
passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been
observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but
after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed
without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time [the
promulgation of the Gospel] observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the
other requirements of the law, the holy Roman Church declares alien to the
Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top