Posted on 07/03/2025 5:38:42 PM PDT by Angelino97
I have just finished reading “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?” by Dr. Robert Sungenis. It is a study debunking the notion, now regnant in liberal theological circles, that the Old Covenant still stands side-by-side with the New Covenant.
According to this novelty, in essence, God’s “A Plan” and God’s “B Plan” are both currently pleasing to Him and both fully in effect.
Opposed to this, the Catholic Faith teaches that the Old Law — itself good, holy, and of divine origin — was a preparation for the New, and that the New Law superceded and fulfilled the Old.
Indeed, as Dr. Sungenis shows, Pope John Paul II affirmed the traditional teaching in a not-much-quoted passage of Redemptoris Mater: “Christ fulfills the divine promise and supersedes the old law.”
Years ago, I made an effort at debunking this vogue theology in an article on the Epistle to the Hebrews: A Better Testament. Dr. Sungenis quotes from Hebrews, but he does not limit himself to this, as the pilfered quotations below adequately show.
The following is a series of scriptural, patristic, and magisterial citations from “The Old Covenant: Revoked or Not Revoked?“:
Hebrews 7:18: “On the one hand, a former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness…”;
Hebrews 10:9: “Then he says, ‘Behold, I come to do your will.’ He takes away the first [covenant] to establish the second [covenant]…”;
2 Corinthians 3:14: “For to this day when they [the Jews] read the Old Covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away”;
Hebrews 8:7: “For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another”;
Colossians 2:14: “Having canceled the written code, with its decrees, that was against us and stood opposed to us; He took it away nailing it to the cross”;
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, para. 29: “…the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished…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”;
The Catechism of the Council of Trent: “…the people, aware of the abrogation of the Mosaic Law…”;
Council of Florence: “that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law…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”;
Council of Trent: “but not even the Jews by the very letter of the law of Moses were able to be liberated or to rise therefrom”;
Cardinal Ratzinger: “Thus the Sinai [Mosaic] Covenant is indeed superseded” (Many Religions – One Covenant, p. 70).
St. John Chrysostom: “Yet surely Paul’s object everywhere is to annul this Law….And with much reason; for it was through a fear and a horror of this that the Jews obstinately opposed grace” (Homily on Romans, 6:12); “And so while no one annuls a man’s covenant, the covenant of God after four hundred and thirty years is annulled; for if not that covenant but another instead of it bestows what is promised, then is it set aside, which is most unreasonable” (Homily on Galatians, Ch 3);
St. Augustine: “Instead of the grace of the law which has passed away, we have received the grace of the gospel which is abiding; and instead of the shadows and types of the old dispensation, the truth has come by Jesus Christ. Jeremiah also prophesied thus in God’s name: ‘Behold, the days come, says the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah…’ Observe what the prophet says, not to Gentiles, who had not been partakers in any former covenant, but to the Jewish nation. He who has given them the law by Moses, promises in place of it the New Covenant of the gospel, that they might no longer live in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the spirit” (Letters, 74, 4);
Justin Martyr: Now, law placed against law has abrogated that which is before it, and a covenant which comes after in like manner has put an end to the previous one; and an eternal and final law – namely, Christ – has been given to us, and the covenant is trustworthy…Have you not read…by Jeremiah, concerning this same new covenant, He thus speaks: ‘Behold, the days come,’ says the Lord, ‘that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah…’” (Dialogue with Trypho, Ch 11).
Galatians 3:29
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs by promise.” - GNT
——>A remnant of CURRENT Israel will be saved in the end.
Not exactly what the bible teaches.
Revelation 12:17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the REMNANT of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Also note:
Revelation 14:12Here is the patience of the SAINTS: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1321&context=jats
The End Time Remnant in Revelation
Ekkehardt Mueller
Biblical Research Institute
In Rev 12:14 three texts are interwoven that describe the main characteristics of the remnant. The references are Rev 12:17, Rev 13:10, and Rev 14:12.
The last two belong to the “Here is” statements.
Rev 12:17 Keep the commandments; Testimony of Jesus
Rev 13:10 Patience; Faith
Rev 14:12 Keep the commandments; Patience; Faith of Jesus
——>That boldface line indicates there is no special dispensation for Jews who reject Christ. No special salvation by virtue of their DNA.
You are absolutely correct.
——>The Covenant of Circumcision for Jews is also everlasting:
Nope. Circumcision is “nothing”, as is the most favored status of the Jewish nation in God’s eyes.
1 Cor 7: 19 Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God’s commandments is what counts.
Can you show me this?
Christians eat bacon; observant Jews don't. Christians point to the NT for the permission we have been given to do this. Jews, who reject the NT, don't recognize the permission and continue to avoid it.
Any Jew who keeps kosher is not a Christian, even as he may tell me he recognizes Christ as the Messiah.
The burden of proof is on you. God has been explicit on the subject. Our bodies are not our own, they are His vessels not to be profaned with unclean foods. You have the ball. Run with it.
The Old Covenant explains why God gave us His New Covenant - and included every soul ever born and that will be born.
I consider myself a Christian, but I can’t help but note that some of our most intelligent Founders were Deists vs, Christians - belief in a Higher Power was more important to them than the semantics of of the Bible’s rewritten/edited/reinterpreted, oft misquoted and misunderstood status.
“One person believes that one may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.” - Romans 14:2
Paul made it clear that it was the weak who couldn't eat "anything". (IOW, "anything" was fit to eat.)
You made this claim: You'll quote some cryptic verse about meat sacrificed to idols or something about "all meats" while the audience at that time knew very well about clean and unclean and knew it did not include unclean.
You can't support this statement.
To be clear, if it's your own conscience that prevents you from eating bacon, then there's nothing to argue; I'm certainly not going to tell you to act against your conscience. But you can't present a scriptural reference to support your point that certain meats were still considered "unclean" (even as I demonstrate to you that Paul himself considered them all to be "clean").
Yes, and expounded upon here, by the grace of God. Law and Grace
However, related to the heresy of dual covenant theology is the error Catholicism holds to, that of supersessionism/replacement theology, at least one version of it, and thus she rejects the literal 1,000 reign of the Lord Jesus, (Revelation 20:4; Dan. 7:9, 18, 22, 27; Mt. 19:28; Luke 22:30; 1 Co. 6:2, 3) which influenced its aversion to affirming the modern state of Israel, even though Roman Catholicism affirms a future conversion of all Jews.
Religion aside, any connection between the secular construct that was erected in 1948 and the land given to biblical Jews could never be described as anything more than a tenuous one.
(One doesn't have to be Catholic to balk at the belief that the two places are one and the same.)
——>But You are a cult member.
Here’s the cult I belong to. You ought to try it someday, before it’s too late.
Revelation 14:12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
——>Why do you accept that from him and not his teaching about Shabbat ?
Teaching?
——>You follow the teachings of a female cultist.
Such as what?
I think this is a misrepresentation of Paul says. I refer you to Romans 12:1 where your body is not your own but a holy sacrifice to God. But you should note there will be NO bacon in Heaven. No meat in any form of course. The original (Edenic) diet was fruits and herbs and the same will be in Heaven. There will no more death or sadness in Heaven which eliminates kids playing with Bambi in the morning and watch her slaughtered to be eaten for dinner. But go and do as the Lord directs you.
There is absolutely no mention of meat here, clean or unclean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.