Ang dating daan fundamental beliefs
Third, we must not miss the reference to the giving of the Ten Commandments at Sinai: “And he [God] wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments” (Ex. 9:9, 15), that is to say the covenant law, and were placed inside the “ark of the covenant” (Deut. And in this case, we wholeheartedly agree to the argument of our critic, but in the new covenant, the Lord will inscribe this same covenant law on the human heart. Since these laws were “set aside” through the sacrifice and the priestly work of Jesus, they cannot be part of the laws inscribed in the heart of those who accept the new covenant. First, after the preaching of Acts ; the immediate context informs us that “the people invited them to speak further about these things on the next Sabbath” (v. 44) including the Gentiles, a suitable text for Sabbath keeping.
Second, what is new is that under the new covenant the law will be placed in the human mind/heart. These tablets are called “the tablets of the covenant” (Deut. On this text our critic argues that “no man will be justified through the law of Moses,” which we joyfully agree, but I found it difficult to understand exegetically when our critic connects this verse in Hebrews 7:5, 12 and jumps in 2 Cor. What is only evident here in his argument is our critic lacks exegetical grounds. Unsurprisingly, “almost the whole city gathered to hear the word of the Lord”, (v.
20-23) These verses certainly does not put the dietary law in danger. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs.” (Gen. To conclude that “all” refers to literally “all” belittles the linguistic context, as well as contextual context.
First, the word “all” and “everything” is a very relative word and only context decides what is meant by it – whether all comprehensively, or a majority, or a certain group, etc.
Fourth, there is a law the apostle believes has been “set aside” (Heb. That law is not abolished, rather it is internalized, written on the heart, the Decalogue where distinguished from the so-called ordinances (Exo. Thus, we certainly agree to Paul when he said: “For you are clearly a letter of Christ, the fruit of our work, recorded not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in stone, but the Ten Commandments in hearts of flesh.” (2 Cor. Second, turning our minds in Hebrews 7:5, 12 leads us to different conclusion regarding to the “change of law.” Unfortunately, our critic does not pay attention to it.
It will be internalized, becoming part of the life of the believer. But, another particular law that was part of the old covenant, namely the Ten Commandments, remains a part of the new covenant. This biblical account clearly contradicts the unbiblical claim of our critic.
Here are the following texts that he used to support such claim: Heb. Because in Mark he mentions porneia as something that comes out of humans and defiles them.Lastly, if our critic were correct, the strictness of the Pharisees into the Old Testament would at least cause them to stone Jesus.But the silence of the Pharisees indicates that the issue of unclean food is quite unfamiliar here.Since Lev 18 is still valid in the New Testament, as Paul shows (1Cor 5), the law of clean and unclean meat as found in Lev 11 is also not abolished by Jesus.Fourth, the text does not talk about meat, but about food (bromata).