What is the difference between covenant and the Law of Moses?

[onemangang]

In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it. Jose

 

[fisherman_carl]

I just wanted to add that in the kind of covenants parties made with each other in the OT if one failed to keep the covenant, which was a solemn oath to obey God’s laws, they would be under a curse and their life forfeit. It is like a solemn pact or an oath that instead of putting collateral like your house or your car, it is your own life that is collateral. When God made a covenant he put his own life on the line by passing between the animals in a sacred ceremony which was a custom that indicated you were saying ’ may my life be like this dead animal if i fail to keep the covenant’. When Israel broke God’s laws and did not keep the covenant instead of destroying his people who were under the curse of breaking the law he died in their place. The covenant God made was with his people. Thus, failure to keep the covenant meant death for his people. God, being the other person in the covenant who promised to bless them if they obeyed the covenant but curse them if they did not, out of mercy for his people went under the curse himself to die in their place. Scripture says cursed is anyone who is hung on a tree. Jesus took our curse on himself on the cross so that we could be freed from the curse of breaking the law and made like freed men who are no longer under law but now under grace.

 

[onemangang]

In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it.
Joseph Ratzinger

As far as I see it all grace comes to us Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that also includes the Jews!

I do not believe Following the Moral Law written in your heart will save you apart from grace. I believe that saving grace comes through Christ Jesus. Granted I do believe that one does not have to hold a perfect knowledge of Christ, and there certainly is invincible ignorance, but no amount of Jewish religiosity will save the Jews apart from Jesus Christ!

 

[jcrichton]

In this Torah, which is Jesus himself, the abiding essence of what was inscribed on the stone tablets at Sinai is now written in living flesh, namely, the twofold commandment of love. . . . To imitate him, to follow him in discipleship, is therefore to keep Torah, which has been fulfilled in him once and for all. Thus the Sinai covenant is indeed superseded. But once what was provisional in it has been swept away, we see what is truly definitive in it.
Joseph Ratzinger

As far as I see it all grace comes to us Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that also includes the Jews!

I do not believe Following the Moral Law written in your heart will save you apart from grace. I believe that saving grace comes through Christ Jesus. Granted I do believe that one does not have to hold a perfect knowledge of Christ, and there certainly is invincible ignorance, but no amount of Jewish religiosity will save the Jews apart from Jesus Christ!

…actually, as St. Paul puts it, there will be a moment when the Jewish people will be granted full knowledge of God’s Salvific Plan… since none can be Saved but through Christ it could very well be that they will know Christ as the True Messiah and they will relinquish the knowledge of the Old Covenant to enjoin in the Knowledge of the New Covenant: Jesus is Lord!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[onemangang]

…actually, as St. Paul puts it, there will be a moment when the Jewish people will be granted full knowledge of God’s Salvific Plan… since none can be Saved but through Christ it could very well be that they will know Christ as the True Messiah and they will relinquish the knowledge of the Old Covenant to enjoin in the Knowledge of the New Covenant: Jesus is Lord!

Maran atha!

Angel

Indeed, but does that mean ALL when Christ returns, or a Mass Conversion of many, or those that have entered, are entering, and will enter the Church, more in terms of a remnant, ongoing and unfolding?

 

[bogeydogg]

Indeed, but does that mean ALL when Christ returns, or a Mass Conversion of many, or those that have entered, are entering, and will enter the Church, more in terms of a remnant, ongoing and unfolding?

I think it means ALL who will be converted (that is those who receive the new life in Christ by grace, Word, and Sacrament) will be saved. If that is the whole nation of Israel then praise be to God. If it means an elect from Israel, well we see those conversion happening now and praise be to God.

God Bless

 

[onemangang]

I think it means ALL who will be converted (that is those who receive the new life in Christ by grace, Word, and Sacrament) will be saved. If that is the whole nation of Israel then praise be to God. If it means an elect from Israel, well we see those conversion happening now and praise be to God.

God Bless

Exactly! The point I was trying to make is that there is not a dogma to believe, and has been been hotly debated for years!

 

[cap76]

…which seems to imply the ole once saved fallacy!
If you say you are not a sinner (free of sin) because Christ died on the Cross for your ‘past, present, and future’ sin, you are making God a liar:

Protestants are divided on this issue. On the one hand you have the conservative Protestants which maintain that Christians are sinful, yet do not live in sin. And the term sinner applies to only unbelievers.
Then, there are liberal Protestants that are fundamentally antinomian in their views of the law. They are the ones that argue for the gross idea of the ‘carnal christian’. They say there is such a thing as a Christian in name only. They have a weak understanding of the New Covenant and its application to believers.

Regarding the issue of sins paid for; conservative Protestants maintain that forgiveness of sin is part of the New Covenant (“I will remember their sins no more”). Every covenant has a condition to be met in order to receive the promise of the covenant. Protestants maintain that the hope of the New Covenant (“I will be their God and they shall be My people”) rests in Christ having met the condition of the New Covenant by His blood.
Hebrews 10.19-23, “since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”

Therefore, conservative Protestants do not agree with your assessment.

…not a single Believer can enjoy sin on the premise that Jesus already died for all of his/her sin once and for all…

Correct. And this is precisely where the New Covenant’s relationship to the law is relevant to believers:
“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” (Ezekiel 36.26-27) By the New Covenant, God has covered all the bases: He provides His Spirit to cause His people to live holy lives, and He provides His Son as a sacrifice to atone for their failures.

that’s just taking Scripture at the creature’s counsel (‘you would surely not die!’)–or do you believe Christ was simply making small talk when He Delegated His Authority to the Church:

That’s for a different thread.

 

[cap76]

**121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been revoked

1963 According to Christian tradition, the Law is holy, spiritual, and good,14 yet still imperfect. Like a tutor15 it shows what must be done, but does not of itself give the strength, the grace of the Spirit, to fulfill it. Because of sin, which it cannot remove, it remains a law of bondage. According to St. Paul, its special function is to denounce and disclose sin, which constitutes a “law of concupiscence” in the human heart.16 However, the Law remains the first stage on the way to the kingdom. It prepares and disposes the chosen people and each Christian for conversion and faith in the Savior God. It provides a teaching which endures for ever, like the Word of God.

1965 The New Law or the Law of the Gospel is the perfection here on earth of the divine law, natural and revealed. It is the work of Christ and is expressed particularly in the Sermon on the Mount. It is also the work of the Holy Spirit and through him it becomes the interior law of charity: "I will establish a New Covenant with the house of Israel. . . . I will put my laws into their hands, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people."19**

The key to the difference between the old and new covenants is that, while the law is incapable of justifying man, it nonetheless must be fulfilled- and we’ll be judged by it (Rom 2), because it’s holy, spiritual, and good. The problem is that man is not spiritual, having divorced himself from God. The purpose of the Atonement is reconciliation of God and man, so that God can truly become the God of man again, the two communing, His Spirit dwelling within so that man can fulfill the law, but the right way. This is the essence of the New Covenant: "Apart from Me you can do nothing."

So the difference is not between whether or not the law must be fulfilled; the difference is in how it’s to be fulfilled: by the OC way: via man’s own efforts, still apart from God, or by the NC way: via the power of God (grace) as we turn back to Him in authentic faith, moving on to hope and ultimately love, the fulfillment of the law. This is how God puts His laws into our hands and writes them on our hearts.

I appreciate your explanation. This is very good.
Especially,
*“its not whether or not the law must be fulfilled, but how…” *

 

[Cyberseeker]

jcrichton:

…which seems to imply the ole once saved fallacy!

If you say you are not a sinner (free of sin) because Christ died on the Cross for your ‘past, present, and future’ sin, you are making God a liar:

Im neither “Once saved always saved” or “Saved now out tomorrow.” Both are extreme views imho.

cap76:

Regarding the issue of sins paid for; conservative Protestants maintain that forgiveness of sin is part of the New Covenant (“I will remember their sins no more”). Every covenant has a condition to be met in order to receive the promise of the covenant. Protestants maintain that the hope of the New Covenant (“I will be their God and they shall be My people”) rests in Christ having met the condition of the New Covenant by His blood.

Does that make me a conservative prod? OK, Ill wear that.

 

[fhansen]

Here’s from the council of Trent also, session 6, chap 11. Note that these precepts are coming from a New Covenant mindset:

But no one, how much soever justified, ought to think himself exempt from the observance of the commandments; no one ought to make use of that rash saying, one prohibited by the Fathers under an anathema,-that the observance of the commandments of God is impossible for one that is justified. For God commands not impossibilities, but, by commanding, both admonishes thee to do what thou are able, and to pray for what thou art not able (to do), and aids thee that thou mayest be able; whose commandments are not heavy; whose yoke is sweet and whose burthen light

 

[jcrichton]

Protestants are divided on this issue. On the one hand you have the conservative Protestants which maintain that Christians are sinful, yet do not live in sin. And the term sinner applies to only unbelievers.
Then, there are liberal Protestants that are fundamentally antinomian in their views of the law. They are the ones that argue for the gross idea of the ‘carnal christian’. They say there is such a thing as a Christian in name only. They have a weak understanding of the New Covenant and its application to believers.

Regarding the issue of sins paid for; conservative Protestants maintain that forgiveness of sin is part of the New Covenant (“I will remember their sins no more”). Every covenant has a condition to be met in order to receive the promise of the covenant. Protestants maintain that the hope of the New Covenant (“I will be their God and they shall be My people”) rests in Christ having met the condition of the New Covenant by His blood.
Hebrews 10.19-23, “since we have confidence to enter the holy places by the blood of Jesus, by the new and living way that he opened for us through the curtain, that is, through his flesh, and since we have a great priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful.”

Therefore, conservative Protestants do not agree with your assessment.
Correct. And this is precisely where the New Covenant’s relationship to the law is relevant to believers:
“And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.” (Ezekiel 36.26-27) By the New Covenant, God has covered all the bases: He provides His Spirit to cause His people to live holy lives, and He provides His Son as a sacrifice to atone for their failures.
That’s for a different thread.

…again, the problem with those who deny sin (which count only against the nonBelievers, of course) make Christ a charlatan who likes to hear Himself speak (Peter/Simon: Keys: tie/untie; guys, let Me Breath on you the Holy Spirit whose sin you forgive or not ditto in Heaven); then there’s St. John’s claim that we all sin and must ask forgiveness ditto St. James… so Christ and the Apostles had it wrong?

Maran atha!

Angel