As an aside, but applicable to this (and every) argument:
The rise of Pharisee-ism was predicated by one single flaw: The Pharisees came to believe there were TWO Torahs delivered to Moses on the mount...
One, the written Torah, with the "Big 10" written in stone - directly by the finger of God Himself - and the rest brought forth through Moses as the whole of the Torah.
The second, the belief that there was more that was delivered to Moses than what he actually wrote down.
This they called the "Oral Law," passed "mouth to ear," according to authority... and it is the very foundation of the Pharisaical tradition. Upon this foundation, the "wisdom" of famed Rabbis were laid, according to the majority opinion among the authorized, and within a few hundred years, a religious system was built which was so burdensome and against salvation, that the Christ called it a "pit of vipers."
I would submit that it is in this light that one must apply the words:
Hear and Obey - Trust in the LORD with all your heart and LEAN NOT on your OWN UNDERSTANDING;
What God intended in that case (the Old Covenant), He most certainly committed to the pen of His agent, that His words would be clearly preserved. God does not change. Why would He treat the New Covenant any differently?
OK this is fantastic to know roamer_1! Thank you for this! This SHOULD finally lay the argument to rest. But...
Interesting. Is there a website you could point to for a more extensive presentation of this? From a couple of exchanges we have had and some other posts I have read, you seem to have an affinity for the Jewish tradition? Are you a Christian?
Calling all dispensationalists.
Jesus also said of the Pharisees that one should do as they say but not as they do. I don't think it follows from what H said of them that he was against all of their "traditions of men." He was very much against the traditions that worked against piety and justice, like "Corban."
But We would say that in the promise of the Holy Spirit Jesus CAN be understood to say that the "all truth" into which the Church would be led might be more than the canonical scriptures.
Sorry. speedy glib answer. Dinner awaits and stomach growls.
The second, the belief that there was more that was delivered to Moses than what he actually wrote down.
This they called the “Oral Law,” passed “mouth to ear,” according to authority... and it is the very foundation of the Pharisaical tradition. Upon this foundation, the “wisdom” of famed Rabbis were laid, according to the majority opinion among the authorized, and within a few hundred years, a religious system was built which was so burdensome and against salvation, that the Christ called it a “pit of vipers.”
I would submit that it is in this light that one must apply the words:
Hear and Obey - Trust in the LORD with all your heart and LEAN NOT on your OWN UNDERSTANDING;
What God intended in that case (the Old Covenant), He most certainly committed to the pen of His agent, that His words would be clearly preserved. God does not change. Why would He treat the New Covenant any differently?
==
INDEED! WELL PUT.
THX.