Jewish Covenant: Valid?

[Teflon93]

I don’t believe there is “one” NT verse that defines the OC.

Might want to crack the OT then.

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Reference, please.

Gen 9:8-17; God says only that He will never again destroy all flesh by flood waters.

Teflon93:

Christ trumps Paul, doesn’t he?

What?

Teflon93:

Prove it.

LOL.

Teflon93:

Wouldn’t it have to have been if the Old Covenant was over?

Has Israel recognized Christ as her messiah?

 

[sandusky]

Calvinator was pointing out a NT verse that defines “what” the old covenant is for the purposes of this conversation. I took a shot at finding it for him.

How about Rom 3:20: "…for through the law comes the knowledge of sin." ?

That’s a purpose clause.

 

[Teflon93]

Gen 9:8-17; God says only that He will never again destroy all flesh by flood waters.

Ahh, the “God as used car salesman” defense.

Do you think God’s promise meant he would destroy the world for the sins of men in any of the myriad other ways omnipotence allows?

Small consolation to Noah that the next time he would witness everyone burned rather than drowned.

What?

Since Christ spoke regarding his intent not to overturn the Law, I take his word for it… If Paul in his letter to the Hebrews said something different, he’d be wrong.

LOL.

“False assumption” requires proof. Otherwise, it’s simply your kneejerk opinion, to which I respond, “So?”

Has Israel recognized Christ as her messiah?

No, which is precisely my point. Christ is speaking of a time when Jews, the chosen people of God, will all recognize him, when the veils will be torn away.

Since that hasn’t happened yet, are we to presume all Jews are damned in the meantime? In essence, is the Old Covenant in abeyance?

I don’t think Christ’s words can be tortured sufficiently to make that claim.

The alternative is that righteous Jews have a path to salvation, which squares with Christ’s advice to the rich man to keep the Commandments. The argument Protestant fundamentalists raise that Christ only meant that advice to be valid until his Crucifixion within a year or two is another example of “God the used car salesman” type of thinking. Christ didn’t play “Gotcha!”

 

[Calvinator]

Fluff or no, the Catechism is the teaching of the Catholic Church, not your intepretation.

Noah’s covenant is important for a reason Calvinists would do well to heed—God promised not to destroy the world again for our sins.

If that covenant is no longer valid, we’re in big trouble.

The Catholic Church recognizes that when God promises to abide with people, as He promised the Jews, He keeps His word perfectly.

Moreover, Christ himself insisted he wasn’t overturning the Old Covenant, and that keeping the Commandments of it was necessary to salvation.

Quarrel with Christ all you like, but for me, I’ll do as he bid me do.

When I said fluff I meant you brought up the covenant between Noah and God which IS NOT the old covenant. Strictly speaking, the old covenant was given to Moses from God on Mt. Sinai. I didn’t mean any offense when I used the term “fluff”, I was merely trying to point out that your catechism section went on about other covenants and did not deal exclusively with the old covenant.

In one of my earlier posts I defined very clearly what is meant by the term “old covenant”.

This covenant (old covenant) is conditional upon Israel obeying the law. Deut 28 I believe covers this.

Even your Scott Hahn realizes that covenants sometimes have conditions to them.

Now, if you would like to continue this discussion on the old covenant which is strictly speaking of the covenant between Moses and God we can do so, but bringing in other covenants is not pertinent to our discussion.

I am quite certain that your church does not teach that the Mosaic covenant is still valid as that position is truely indefensible.

What would you like to do?

 

[Deconi]

Thanks, Deconi.
I guess I shouldn’t take this to be an official postion then, eh?

No more than you can hold the opinion of a US Govenor as the official position of all Americans.

Problems of course arise about what is the populace of that state to do?

 

[Safe_Eagle]

Our Lord said in the scriptures " I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Me." He also mentioned that those that deny Him deny the One who sent Him.

If a Christian were to convert to the Jewish religion would he/she deny Christ? Yes.

Subject of course to the Magesterial teaching of the church, In light of the new covenant the Jewish religion is not salvific. Save invincible ignorance.

The Gospel was preached to the Jew first then the Gentile. The chosen people are those washed in the blood of Christ in the new covenant.

The church I believe acknowledges a certain significance of the Jewish people with regards to their heritage. Forerunners of Christianity. However, there’s no special backdoor entrance for the Jews into heaven apart from acknowledging Christ and all that that implies.

Our Lord said concerning the Jews …your house will be left to you desolate.

However, like St. Paul, in 1Cor. 11 there’s hope that once the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled they will be grafted back in to the vine. Like all other converts they wont bring their old religious beliefs ie. Mosaic Law with them.

 

[clmowry]

How about Rom 3:20: "…for through the law comes the knowledge of sin." ?

That’s a purpose clause.

Yeah. I think that’s an awfully good summary “one” verse.

I’ll let calvinator speak for himself, but I think he was spicifically talking about a place that says that “The Old Covenant” means specifically and only the “Covenant of Moses”.

In any case I think this verse is a pretty good summary of “why” the entire old testament points to the necessity of the new testament.

Chuck

 

[Teflon93]

When I said fluff I meant you brought up the covenant between Noah and God which IS NOT the old covenant. Strictly speaking, the old covenant was given to Moses from God on Mt. Sinai. I didn’t mean any offense when I used the term “fluff”, I was merely trying to point out that your catechism section went on about other covenants and did not deal exclusively with the old covenant.

Fair enough; but the Catholic Church views the Old Covenant as evolving and includes God’s promise to Noah in the chain of that evolution. If we don’t, we miss a key piece of salvation history. Others say it truly began with Abraham, but the Church thinks that all of the OT matters in salvation history.

In one of my earlier posts I defined very clearly what is meant by the term “old covenant”.

This covenant (old covenant) is conditional upon Israel obeying the law. Deut 28 I believe covers this.

Even your Scott Hahn realizes that covenants sometimes have conditions to them.

Absolutely. Hahn goes further to state that we can hardly understand God without understanding covenants.

He does not go so far as to say that God has ever broken His covenant, even though we have many times.

Now, if you would like to continue this discussion on the old covenant which is strictly speaking of the covenant between Moses and God we can do so, but bringing in other covenants is not pertinent to our discussion.

The Catholic Church teaches that God does not break covenants, period. I mentioned Noah because a) it is part of salvation history and b) there are some who claim that God was essentially double-dealing with Noah because they want to hang onto the Darbyite notion that God will indeed destroy the world in the end (i.e. Ha ha, Noah—I only promised not to destroy the world WITH WATER). So in evaluating how God and Man treat covenants, we really should consider all the evidence at hand.

I am quite certain that your church does not teach that the Mosaic covenant is still valid as that position is truely indefensible.

What would you like to do?

I’ve quoted the Catechism; regardless of what you are certain of, it says what it says.

What is indefensible is the notion that God made promises to the Jewish people which He failed to keep. Scripture must be read as a whole.

The question remains, if the Mosaic covenant is invalid, what happens to the righteous Jews today? Are they damned for keeping the faith of their fathers?

Christ himself noted they have a veil over their eyes which shall one day be removed. Are they damned for eternity because of this veil?

And again, we’re talking righteous Jews here, not Pharisees or Sanhedrin.

Our Church teaches as noted in the CCC.

 

[Deconi]

I am quite certain that your church does not teach that the Mosaic covenant is still valid as that position is truely indefensible.

Not in its entirety. We still have The Ten Commandments which were also part of the Mosaic Law. What needs to be clarified as part of your discussions, Calvinator, is an understanding that the Mosaic Laws were not “erased.” Fulfillment means ‘completion’ or extension into completion. For instance, the law of lusting after another man’s wife is now “extended” to a HIGHER (HARDER) level of just even “looking at a woman with lust in your heart” is now in breach / violation of that “older version.”

You are right that the church does not hold the Mosaic Laws, in their entirety as understood by Israel BC, as valid. Neither the Apostles, Scriptures, Early Fathers teach otherwise. But from these same sources we find that whilst some were “completed” (end with Christ / God) there are others that have been incorporated (for want of a better word) into The New Covenant in their extended form.

One of the things Our Lord said on the cross before His death is **“It is accomplished!” **

There are several views as to what He meant by that or what was He refering to. The Catholic position through Scriptures and Apostolic teaching through Tradition is reflected and ‘confirmed’ in the Catechism / Magisterium of The Church.

Otherwise, I’m enjoying the debate.

 

[Calvinator]

Couple of things

a.) If you want to define the “old covenant” in any other way than I have defined it, which is the correct way, I have no wish to to discuss this any further. Again, strictly speaking the old covenant only applies to the Mosaic Covenant (I think I have said this a dozen times now)…thats it, nothing else. A section in your catechism says that the old covenant has not been revoked and obviously that is either an error or the author has used ambiguous terms.

b.) If a covenant is conditional, which the Mosaic covenant clearly is, God wouldn’t be breaking His promise, He would only be abiding by the conditions of the covenant. I do believe Pope BXVI acknowledges the old covenant as being conditional and believe I can give you references for this if you would like but that fact is pretty basic.

c.) Scripture is quite clear, as is your church’s teaching, that the law only places one under a curse.

d.) If you church has now gone so far off the rails as to encourage Jews to abide by the Mosaic covenant I would be intrested in seeing if any prelate before say 1900 agrees with this outlook or in fact does any father anywhere encourage the Jews to abide by the Mosaic covenant. The idea is so far out there I don’t think you will find anybody pre-20th century at least, that held this view.

If you want to discuss the Mosaic covenant, which is the old covenant, I will be happy to do so as the words of your catechism say that the old covenant hasn’t been revoked.

If you suggest that the ccc defines the old covenant as some other covenant or a mixture of covenants than you agree with my initial premise and there is nothing further to discuss.

No matter how you slice it, there is no way anyone can build a case for the Mosaic covenant being still valid.

Look at the following:
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis:

And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of His death Jesus
made void the Law with its decrees fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent:

But, lest the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, may imagine that the precepts of the Decalogue are no longer obligatory, it should be taught that when God gave the Law to Moses, He did not so much establish a new code, as render more luminous that divine light by which the depraved morals and long-continued perversity of man had at that time almost obscured. It is most certain that we are not bound to
obey the Commandments because they were delivered by Moses, but because they are implanted in the hearts of all, and have been explained and confirmed by Christ our Lord.

I am being charitable and am assuming your church is either using ambiguous terms or uses the phrase “old covenant” incorrectly.

Either your church is completely off the rails or they have used the term “old covenant” incorrectly, it’s really that simple.

As can be shown, teaching that the Mosaic covenant is still valid is a complete novelty.

So, either your church currently teaches a heresy and contradicts itself on this issue or something else is meant by “old covenant” in the new CCC.

If you think the old covenant includes anything other than the Mosaic covenant, than we agree and there isn’t anything else to talk aobut.

However, if you believe that ***Mosaic covenant ***is still valid you do so with no evidence to support your claim and in the face of a mountain of evidence against your position.

 

[Calvinator]

Not in its entirety. We still have The Ten Commandments which were also part of the Mosaic Law. What needs to be clarified as part of your discussions, Calvinator, is an understanding that the Mosaic Laws were not “erased.” Fulfillment means ‘completion’ or extension into completion. For instance, the law of lusting after another man’s wife is now “extended” to a HIGHER (HARDER) level of just even “looking at a woman with lust in your heart” is now in breach / violation of that “older version.”

You are right that the church does not hold the Mosaic Laws, in their entirety as understood by Israel BC, as valid. Neither the Apostles, Scriptures, Early Fathers teach otherwise. But from these same sources we find that whilst some were “completed” (end with Christ / God) there are others that have been incorporated (for want of a better word) into The New Covenant in their extended form.

One of the things Our Lord said on the cross before His death is **“It is accomplished!” **

There are several views as to what He meant by that or what was He refering to. The Catholic position through Scriptures and Apostolic teaching through Tradition is reflected and ‘confirmed’ in the Catechism / Magisterium of The Church.

Otherwise, I’m enjoying the debate.

I’m not a theologian, but I would say that the precepts of the law, at least the decalogue continue, so I think I pretty much agree with what you are saying.

 

[Teflon93]

Couple of things

a.) If you want to define the “old covenant” in any other way than I have defined it, which is the correct way, I have no wish to to discuss this any further. Again, strictly speaking the old covenant only applies to the Mosaic Covenant (I think I have said this a dozen times now)…thats it, nothing else. A section in your catechism says that the old covenant has not been revoked and obviously that is either an error or the author has used ambiguous terms.

Are the Ten Commandments not part of the Mosaic Covenant?

b.) If a covenant is conditional, which the Mosaic covenant clearly is, God wouldn’t be breaking His promise, He would only be abiding by the conditions of the covenant. I do believe Pope BXVI acknowledges the old covenant as being conditional and believe I can give you references for this if you would like but that fact is pretty basic.

God promised to abide with the Jewish people, did He not?

c.) Scripture is quite clear, as is your church’s teaching, that the law only places one under a curse.

So God intended to curse the Jews when He gave them the Law?

d.) If you church has now gone so far off the rails as to encourage Jews to abide by the Mosaic covenant I would be intrested in seeing if any prelate before say 1900 agrees with this outlook or in fact does any father anywhere encourage the Jews to abide by the Mosaic covenant. The idea is so far out there I don’t think you will find anybody pre-20th century at least, that held this view.

***We encourage all, including Jews, including you, to come to the Church for the fullness of truth. That is the surest path to salvation, although simply being in the Church is not itself sufficient. The Catholic Church does not disagree with Christ, who told the rich man to keep the commandments. ***

If you want to discuss the Mosaic covenant, which is the old covenant, I will be happy to do so as the words of your catechism say that the old covenant hasn’t been revoked.

Okay—so when do you start?

If you suggest that the ccc defines the old covenant as some other covenant or a mixture of covenants than you agree with my initial premise and there is nothing further to discuss.

***Well, okay, but the Catholic Church generally views Man’s covenantal relationship with God as more continuum than event. After all, the trouble with the Pharisees wasn’t that they didn’t live up to the letter of the Law, but that they warped its spirit. ***

No matter how you slice it, there is no way anyone can build a case for the Mosaic covenant being still valid.

The Ten Commandments remain valid, don’t they?

I’m being charitable and am assuming your church is either using ambiguous terms or uses the phrase “old covenant” incorrectly.

Actually, you’re being uncharitable toward Jews. I think the Catholic Church has a rather better understanding than the Reformed communities when it comes to such things, having a millennia-and-a-half more experience.

Either your church is completely off the rails or they have used the term “old covenant” incorrectly, it’s really that simple.

***Or you simply don’t understand. ***

As can be shown, teaching that the Mosaic covenant is still valid is a complete novelty.

Show us.

So, either your church currently teaches a heresy and contradicts itself on this issue or something else is meant by “old covenant” in the new CCC.

Round and round. Make your argument.

If you think the old covenant includes anything other than the Mosaic covenant, than we agree and there isn’t anything else to talk aobut.

***As noted, old covenant is used in CCC as a broad indication of the bond between God and the Jews. ***

However, if you believe that ***Mosaic covenant ***is still valid you do so with no evidence to support your claim and in the face of a mountain of evidence against your position.

So where did God repeal the Ten Commandments?

 

[sandusky]

Teflon93:

Ahh, the “God as used car salesman” defense.

Do you think God’s promise meant he would destroy the world for the sins of men in any of the myriad other ways omnipotence allows?

Small consolation to Noah that the next time he would witness everyone burned rather than drowned.

When you’ve been shown to be wrong, it’s better to admit your error, than to offer the kind of emotional non-rebuttal that you’ve offered.

Here’s your statement:

Noah’s covenant is important for a reason Calvinists would do well to heed—God promised not to destroy the world again for our sins.

Tell me, please, where that statement, or anything remotely like that statement, is made in the Noahic covenant.

Teflon93:

Since Christ spoke regarding his intent not to overturn the Law, I take his word for it… If Paul in his letter to the Hebrews said something different, he’d be wrong.

Here again, you’re emotional, and you falsely assume.

Please show me in my posts, where I asserted that Christ’s intent was, to overturn the law.

“False assumption” requires proof. Otherwise, it’s simply your kneejerk opinion, to which I respond, “So?”

LOL.

Teflon93:

No, which is precisely my point. Christ is speaking of a time when Jews, the chosen people of God, will all recognize him, when the veils will be torn away.

Since that hasn’t happened yet, are we to presume all Jews are damned in the meantime? In essence, is the Old Covenant in abeyance?

**John 3:18

“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.**That answers your first question (cf Jn 4:12). And the book of Hebrews specifically chapters 7 and 10, answers the second.

Teflon93:

I don’t think Christ’s words can be tortured sufficiently to make that claim.

What?

Teflon93:

The alternative is that righteous Jews have a path to salvation, which squares with Christ’s advice to the rich man to keep the Commandments.

The only “path to salvation” is through Christ.

The Mosaic covenant, in the form of laws, and sacrifices, cannot save—it never could, and was never intended for that purpose.

Salvation has always been by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.

Teflon93:

The argument Protestant fundamentalists raise that Christ only meant that advice to be valid until his Crucifixion within a year or two is another example of “God the used car salesman” type of thinking. Christ didn’t play “Gotcha!”

What?

 

[Calvinator]

Teflon,

You evidently aren’t reading my posts or don’t have a firm grasp on what the Mosaic covenant is.

a.) The decalogue is a part of the Mosaic covenant but not the entire covenant. Yes the precepts from the decalouge carry over into the new covenant and I said this very same thing a few posts back. I think you don’t have a clear understanding of covenant theology.

b.) The Mosaic covenant is conditional. If the Jews break their end of the bargain, God is not bound to continue the blessings of the Mosaic covenant and is not breaking his word if He abides by the stipulations of the covenant.

c.) You couldn’t have missed the scriptures I presented concerning the curse as well as documents from your own church. Paul was pretty clear that the law brings death and that the old covenant was imperfect.

d.) I have presented scripture and documents from you own church showing how the old covenant is no longer valid. Did you respond to them? If you did I must have missed your reponse, I guess I’ll go back and re-check to see if you have ever acknowledged that various popes and at least one catechism not to mention all of the NT declare the old covenant to have been done away with.

e.) You say "As noted, old covenant is used in CCC as a broad indication of the bond between God and the Jews."

Whoever wrote the ccc certainly worded himself ambiguously.

f.) It’s not being un-charitable to the Jews to acknowledge the truth that the Mosaic covenant is not longer valid. In fact, it would be greatly un-charitable to the Jews or anyone else to steer them down the wrong road by telling them to continue their observance of an obsolete covenant.

If you believe the Mosaic covenant is still valid, can you provide one iota of evidence from a pope, council, or saint prior to the 20the 20th century that supports your view?

I’ve already posted quotes from your church documents (popes, councils, and a catechism) that clearly illustrate the Mosaic covenant is gone.

 

[japhy]

Gen 9:8-17; God says only that He will never again destroy all flesh by flood waters.

Ahh, the “God as used car salesman” defense.

Do you think God’s promise meant he would destroy the world for the sins of men in any of the myriad other ways omnipotence allows?

Small consolation to Noah that the next time he would witness everyone burned rather than drowned.

No “used car salesman” tactics required. Look at Genesis 8:20-22:
Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease."

God did not say “neither will I ever again destroy every living creature in the manner that I have done”, He said “… as I have done”.

 

[Calvinator]

I’ve quoted the Catechism; regardless of what you are certain of, it says what it says.

What is indefensible is the notion that God made promises to the Jewish people which He failed to keep. Scripture must be read as a whole.

The question remains, if the Mosaic covenant is invalid, what happens to the righteous Jews today? Are they damned for keeping the faith of their fathers?

Christ himself noted they have a veil over their eyes which shall one day be removed. Are they damned for eternity because of this veil?

And again, we’re talking righteous Jews here, not Pharisees or Sanhedrin.

Our Church teaches as noted in the CCC.

a.) You say the old covenant is defined by the ccc in broader more general terms than the Mosaic covenant. My point is that the Mosaic covenant is no longer valid.

Does the CCC teach that the Mosaic covenant is still valid? I hope not, because that would mean your church is in error…big time.

b.) I have stated several times that a covenant has or at least can have conditions and that the Mosaic covenant is conditional on the Jews obeying the law. In fact, in Deuteronomy God tells Israel exactly what he will do if they break their part of the agreement so by not punishing Israel God would be breaking His word.

c.) The righteous Jews of today are not going to be saved by obeying the Mosaic covenant. I do believe the forum here has rules against speculating on someones fate and I just know someone will go running to the moderators if I speculate.

The Mosaic covenant is no longer in effect and no longer valid…thank goodness.

 

[japhy]

I’m a Catholic, and my problem with the “Old Covenant”-talk is… the Jews are clearly not upholding their end of the covenant so long as they deny the Messiah God sent them. Why, if they are unfaithful to the covenant, should they be saved under it?

 

[sandusky]

God did not say “neither will I ever again destroy every living creature in the manner that I have done”, He said “… as I have done”.

Keep reading, japhy, the covenant God makes with Noah is stated in chapter 9.

 

[japhy]

Keep reading, japhy, the covenant God makes with Noah is stated in chapter 9.

So God “corrected” Himself later? He said in His heart one thing, but said to Noah another?