Three Questions Relative to the 4th Commandment

[bbbbbbb]

Dispensationalism is a theological error because it contradicts the Catholic understanding of salvation history, the unity of God’s plan, the fulfilment of the Old Testament in Christ, and the continuity of Israel and the Church. Here are some reasons why:

• Dispensationalism divides history into different dispensations or periods in which God interacts with mankind in different ways. This implies that God changes his mind or his methods over time, which is incompatible with the Catholic belief that God is immutable and eternal. The Catholic Church teaches that God has one eternal plan of salvation that is gradually revealed and accomplished throughout history 1,2
• Dispensationalism interprets the Bible literally, especially the prophecies concerning Israel and the end times. This ignores the spiritual and allegorical sense of Scripture, which the Catholic Church affirms as a valid and necessary way of understanding God’s word. The Catholic Church teaches that the Old Testament should be read in the light of Christ, who is the fulfilment of the law and the prophets 3,4
• Dispensationalism makes a sharp distinction between Israel and the Church, and claims that God has different plans and promises for each of them. This denies the Catholic doctrine that the Church is the new Israel, the people of God, who inherit the blessings and covenants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob through faith in Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that there is only one people of God, composed of Jews and Gentiles, who are united in Christ by baptism.
• Dispensationalism holds that the Church age is a parenthesis or interruption in God’s plan for Israel, and that God will resume his dealings with Israel after the rapture of the Church. This contradicts the Catholic view that the Church age is the last stage of salvation history, and that Christ will come again at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. The Catholic Church teaches that there is no secret rapture or tribulation before Christ’s second coming, but rather a final persecution and apostasy, followed by a universal conversion of Israel and all nations.

These are some of the main reasons why dispensationalism is a theological error from a Catholic perspective. I hope this helps you understand why Catholics reject this system of interpretation.

Curiously, I have discovered that all Christian denominations do, indeed, view various times in the Bible as having differences from others. One might refer to them as being differing dispensations of God's grace, but I know of only a tiny fringe who blithely attempt to blend them into a single amorphous mass.

There is a uniform recognition of the distinct period between creation and the Fall, from the Fall to the Flood, from the Flood to Abraham, from Abraham to Sinai, and from Sinai to Calvary. Then things become contentious with various views of not only the Revelation, but also of the status of the current state of affairs commonly known as the Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Curiously, I have discovered that all Christian denominations do, indeed, view various times in the Bible as having differences from others. One might refer to them as being differing dispensations of God's grace, but I know of only a tiny fringe who blithely attempt to blend them into a single amorphous mass.

There is a uniform recognition of the distinct period between creation and the Fall, from the Fall to the Flood, from the Flood to Abraham, from Abraham to Sinai, and from Sinai to Calvary. Then things become contentious with various views of not only the Revelation, but also of the status of the current state of affairs commonly known as the Church.

You write from a dispensationalist perspective with dispensational lenses firmly affixed to your eyes. What you write above is not the truth.

 

[Doran]

Yep, fair enough, I'll accept that. I was thinking more along the lines of the dispensation of grace to the gentiles rather then the new covenant with Israel

One and the same. In this New Covenant era it was Christ's Jewish disciples who brought the Gentiles into the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

 

[Doran]

Meaning? Proverbs 22:6

Meaning that the Mosaic Law was a Covenant of Works (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11, 13; Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12.) Do this and you will live! I'm thinking this is why Paul wrote of Moses' ministry as a "ministry of death" (2Cor 3:7).

 

[Canuckster]

So, I was in context, fully aware of your replies, and fully cognisant of the error present in your thesis.

I think you code promoters are all on the brink of insanity trying to cover up each other's nonsense. You're dishonestly twisting what I said, which was in the context of the past, to the present, in order to cover up your absurdities clearly on display. No need for me to continue wasting my time corresponding with, what I consider to be, evil if it's already been exposed.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No need for me to continue wasting my time corresponding with, what I consider to be, evil if it's already been exposed.

I look forward to your future silence.

 

[Canuckster]

I look forward to your future silence.

in correspondence with you, yes.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

in correspondence with you, yes.

I suspected the silence would not last.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Meaning that the Mosaic Law was a Covenant of Works (Lev. 18:5; Ezek. 20:11, 13; Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12.) Do this and you will live! I'm thinking this is why Paul wrote of Moses' ministry as a "ministry of death" (2Cor 3:7).

OK...again, what is your point?

 

[Sorn]

One and the same. In this New Covenant era it was Christ's Jewish disciples who brought the Gentiles into the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

I guess this is where we disagree. The new covenant is for Israel & Judah, we are not part of that. WE are a separate creation, a new man entirely.
Also, it wasn't the Jewish disciples the brought the Gentiles into the New Covenant, it was Jesus revealing Himself to Saul that began that church age or the dispensation of grace.
So at that time, AFTER Israel had rejected Jesus for the last time at the stoning of Stephen, who had been telling the Council about Jesus & who He was, God put Israel, Judah & the new covenant aside for a time and turned to saving Gentiles via the revelation to Saul.

So under this program we are equal, no distinction etc. However this only applies until the rapture after which God will again turn His attention to Israel / Judah as distinct entities, ie they are in focus again, and there will be once again a distinction between Jew and non Jew.

Before the conversion of Saul Jesus was there for the Jews ONLY, Mat 15:22 - 24. See video from timestamp.

 

[GDL]

therefore no single commandment or category of commandments were permitted to be subtracted from or added to the Torah (Deut 4:12; 12:32).

Thanks. Important point. Gal3:15 backs this up from the viewpoint of a Covenant.

 

[BobRyan]

To any and all sabbath day-keepers out there, I have three questions to which I would like to have answers:

1. Do I have to keep the 4th commandment faithfully in order to be saved? (Yes or No, please.)

Do you have to "not take God's name in vain" faithfully to be saved? If you ever break that rule of not taking God's name in vain is that what determines if you are saved or lost?

I think we all know that no lost person can earn their way to heaven by "not taking God's name in vain -- enough".

But this is not "the sign" that the command to not take God's name in vain has been deleted or that it is ok to commit that sin.

Rather - even in the NT "Sin IS transgression of the LAW" 1 John 3:4

2. Heb 7:12 speaks to a "change of law" that is necessary. Do any of you know what the new law is that replaced the old?

Heb 7 is specifically talking about the Law that regulates who can be a priest "Where there is a change of priesthood there is a change of Law" since Christ was not a Levitical priest and Heb 7 and Heb 8 point to Him as our High Priest in heaven - then a change in the law regarding the priesthood is necessary.

but that does NOT mean that it is ok for Christians to take God's name in vain. Obviously.

3. Can medical professionals who must work on the sabbath perform that good work for pay? (Yes or No, please.)

Christ healed on the Sabbath and no OT or NT text says it is wrong to heal someone on the Sabbath -- as we all know.
I think this point has been repeated a few dozen times in recent threads.

 

[BobRyan]

One and the same. In this New Covenant era it was Christ's Jewish disciples who brought the Gentiles into the New Covenant.

Start by reading the actual New Covenant --

You can find it in Jer 31:31-34 and it is quoted verbatim again -- in Heb 8:6-12

 

[BobRyan]

the NT writers are in in total agreement with what Moses wrote in the two above mentioned passages. They, too, saw the Law as one, indivisible unit. See Jas 2:10; Gal 3:10; 5:3.

Nope --

read 1 Cor 7:19
19 Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God

The Commandments of God are contrasted to circumcision - making it very clear that they are not "one and the same" as some suppose.

so then in the commandments of God
"Honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise - Eph 6:2

In the Commandments of God - the Law of Moses listed in James 2, in Rom 13, in Rom 7, in Matt 19, in Mark 7 etc is most certainly included

Even Deut 4:12; 12:32 very clearly implies this.

Deut 5:22 says "God spoke these TEN words from the cloud... and added NO more" - showing that the TEN are always included in what is termed "The Commandents of God" no matter what else from scripture is also included.

Same regurgitated nonsense. Re 1Cor 7:19: How can the "commandments of God" (the Torah) be contrasted to circumcision

hint: Start by reading the actual text of 1 Cor 7:19 where the contrast is stated explicitly.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Thanks. Important point. Gal3:15 backs this up from the viewpoint of a Covenant.

It is speaking of a "last will and testament"

 

[GDL]

It is speaking of a "last will and testament"

It's speaking of a man-made covenant and drawing an analogy (Paul speaking according to man) to the Abrahamic Covenant. Once a covenant is ratified/validated/made legally binding it is not ignored/nullified or modified. So, the Abrahamic promise was not changed by the Mosaic Law.

 

[BobRyan]

GDL said:
Thanks. Important point. Gal3:15 backs this up from the viewpoint of a Covenant.

It is speaking of a "last will and testament"

A lot of GDL's confusion would be cleared up by actually reading the New Covenant as it is stated in scripture in Jer 31:31-34 and then quoted again verbatim in Heb 8:6-12.

Paying attention to the actual details in the New Covenant clears up - a lot of differences and confusion

 

[BobRyan]

It's speaking of a man-made covenant and drawing an analogy (Paul speaking according to man) to the Abrahamic Covenant. Once a covenant is ratified/validated/made legally binding it is not ignored/nullified or modified. So, the Abrahamic promise was not changed by the Mosaic Law.

True - but that is because neither Moses nor Abraham were supposed to be doing things like "taking God's name in vain".

 

[GDL]

True - but that is because neither Moses nor Abraham were supposed to be doing things like "taking God's name in vain".

The context is very simply about justification by law or by faith. It's by faith as it was with Abraham and the Mosaic Covenant/Law did not modify the Abrahamic Covenant.

This is not a good place to bring in much positive about the Law since it speaks mainly about the Law's curse, its inability to perfect people, no justification by Law, the Law's inability to annul a covenant or make God's promise of no effect, no inheritance through Law, the Law's inability to give life, etc..

What the Law did do in context is put the Israelites under a child guardianship until Christ and the Faith came. Then the Law guardianship ended which tells us something about the continuing applicability of Law with its curse for not continually doing all of the Law in an era spoken of as for children. But now through faith in Christ this new era is for sons, Abrahams's seed, and heirs according to the promise God made to Abraham & His Seed - Jesus Christ.

 

[pasifika]

The context is very simply about justification by law or by faith. It's by faith as it was with Abraham and the Mosaic Covenant/Law did not modify the Abrahamic Covenant.

This is not a good place to bring in much positive about the Law since it speaks mainly about the Law's curse, its inability to perfect people, no justification by Law, the Law's inability to annul a covenant or make God's promise of no effect, no inheritance through Law, the Law's inability to give life, etc..

What the Law did do in context is put the Israelites under a child guardianship until Christ and the Faith came. Then the Law guardianship ended which tells us something about the continuing applicability of Law with its curse for not continually doing all of the Law in an era spoken of as for children. But now through faith in Christ this new era is for sons, Abrahams's seed, and heirs according to the promise God made to Abraham & His Seed - Jesus Christ.

The law was given "only" to show Israel their sins. Those who persist in following the Law Today, they should come to their senses of their sins, and turn to the Law of Christ to be saved.