The Psalms are the word of Christ

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems that Aron has completely misunderstood the footnotes, or their purpose. Picking apart a single footnote or two is one thing, but understanding the context and justification for them is another which brings a completely benign perspective on the matter.

Aron has not misunderstood the footnotes. Rather, he gets them quite well. His selectively picking apart a few of them and ignoring the whole, his dismissing of Brother Lee’s declared deep appreciation for the Psalms, his refusal to disclose the Psalms he characterizes as human concept or explaining why he chooses them as such while attacking Brother Lee for holding similar beliefs ... well, all that is the pattern of an antagonist not someone who misunderstands or seeks to present an alternative.

Aron’s approach is not unlike what we see today in American politics where one party on a mission to take down a president will inflate every innuendo into an impeachable offense, turn tweets into a constitutional crisis, ignore the whole and refuse to give credit for the things that are good, right, and edifying. If Aron sought to be undersood he would offer a scholarly rebuttal on the Psalms contrasting his view with Brother Lees so we could compare and determine which are words of life and which are indeed human concepts and he would acknowledge the beliefs of the other side as his starting point, not dismiss them. Making a compelling case should not be a difficult undertaking for Aron given his scholarly pursuits. Yet, his posts have not offered anything close to a scholars presentation and appear rather as a play to the party faithful designed at taking someone down.... politics as usual.

But who knows, he might yet roll out the big scholarly guns....

Aron, list the Psalms you characterize as human concept and why. Brother Lee spoke volumes on the Psalms, life studies and books we can examine, and yet we have still to get one cohesive post from you on the subject laying it all out for us. Alternatively, if you don’t know anything about the topic you could quote one of your Second Temple scholars. Maybe they have something substantive to offer on this topic.

Thanks
Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

while attacking Brother Lee for holding similar beliefs ...

I could just as easily say Brother Lee attacks David, or even attacks Christ. Your subjectively freighted terminology will only mollify the true believers, who aren't going to be on this site anyway, having been warned away. (But you got a special dispensation from LSM to write here?)

Brother Lee does have similar beliefs. Here is a quote:

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

“We should always be ready in our spirit to receive the instant inspiration of the Spirit. If we are living a revived and overcoming life and are one with the Lord, we will always be ready to receive instant inspiration. . . we also need to have the spiritual insight into all matters through the enlightening of the divine light, that is, through the enjoyment of the Lord in the Word. If we have the Word, and in our spirit, we are ready to receive inspiration, then we will also have the insight over all things, even in all matters, trough the enlightening of the divine light. Prophecy is always composed of the Word, inspiration, and the divine light. We need to put all the foregoing principles concerning prophesying into practice for the organic building up of the church. (The Practical and Organic Building Up of the Church p.88)

So if I read, or sing, or pray-read Psalm 1:3 and get an "instant inspiration" that the tree growing by the river, bearing fruit in season, whose leaf doesn't wither, seems a lot like the Christ portrayed in Revelation 22, that makes me a lot like Brother Lee, doesn't it? But for some reason Brother Lee in the Psalms didn't seem a lot like Brother Lee. Why is that? Because David was a sinner? Where is the "insight" and the "divine light"? I don't see any.

I mentioned that David and Goliath cursed each other and did greivous physical harm. David killed a few (or more) of the Philistines. Yet he still seems to be one according to God's heart.

Actually, I haven't found any Psalms that don't portray Christ. Even Psalm 51, at the end, David says, "Then I will teach transgressors your ways/and sinners will turn back to you". Jesus told Peter, "When you turn, you will strengthen the brothers" (Luke 22:32). The repentant transgressor (David/Peter) then becomes a beacon to the other wayward sheep! Marvelous. . . "God's mercy saved David/Peter - He will save me, too!" All of us can follow Psalm 51's hope.

Elsewhere, the violent imagery portrays the conquering King. "Your arrows are sharp/in the heart of your enemy" (Psalm 45) Why does Lee's footnote say that such sentiment is "Christ" in one place and yet it is "natural" or "fallen" in another? And you say I'm being selective in my readings?

But perhaps there is a spot that is truly "fallen" and "natural". . . but I have not seen Brother Lee make a compelling case. He says Psalm 1 is "according to the tree of knowledge of good and evil". I disagree. The psalm shows the Righteous Man who does God's will. David was a man after God's heart, and that is a picture of Christ. That man is enthroned in Psalm 2 as Son of God. Or did you miss that part? I didn't see any comments. Or are you deliberately mis-reading my writings? Or reading them selectively - I went over all this already. And I already wrote how this King who loves God's law is the same King in Deuteronomy 17:18. I've covered all this already. Remember? No?

Then Psalm 3: "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to pick it up again" Did you miss that one also? I don't remember your comments.

So far Witness Lee is 1 for 3; I am 3 for 3.

Psalm 4:8 "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety." Echoes Psalm 3, above; see also Psalm 17:15 "As for me, I will be vindicated and will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness."

What do you think "sleep" and "wake" signify here?

Psalm 5:11 "But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. 12 For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield."

The Lord Jesus loved the Name of the Father and was joyful in Him; likewise, the Father blessed the Lord Jesus (the Righteous One), protected him (see e.g., Psalm 91 for explicit citations/confirmation)

Psalm 6:8 "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping." See Matthew 7:23"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (In the Psalms RecV there isn't even a cross-reference, much less a footnote - please tell us how much Lee "loved" the Psalms!)

Psalm 7:14 "Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate."

Jesus taught, "What you do to others will be done to you." Bless and you'll be blessed, forgive and you'll be forgiven; on the contrary if you scheme and plot to harm, and curse others, it will return on you. Where do you think Jesus got these teachings? From the OT! He was a Rabbi! ~Mark 14:45; John 1:38; Mark 9:5; John 20:16; John 3:2. Both the Psalms and Jesus taught, if you dig a ditch for someone else, you'll fall into it yourself. Pretty simple.

Of course all these comments above are my personal "readings". No more valid (or less) than Lee looking at Leviticus or Numbers and saying "this means that". I'm also a "seer of the divine revelation" like Nee and Lee were; all of us are (or can be). But my main point on this thread has not been to promote my readings but to ask: why did Lee's reading (reception) of the Psalms depart so drastically from the precedent set by NT reception of the Psalms?Peter also had a reading; Paul had a reading; Hebrews had a reading; John's gospel had a reading; why did Brother Lee ignore this clear pattern and forge his own, in the opposite direction?

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, list the Psalms you characterize as human concept and why.

Drake, please list Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the Epistle to the Hebrews in the NT showing us the Psalms being of human concept. I can show you quite a few where they list them as of divine inspiration - where are the opposite cases? What basis in the NT reception did Brother Lee use for his own? If you can show us the NT doing it, then I'll consider following.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually, I haven't found any Psalms that don't portray Christ.......

Ok Aron. So you’ve changed your mind since a few posts back when I posed this question to you.

Nevertheless, now that we know where you are coming from with the above statement then your reasons for objecting to anyone characterizing any Psalm as a human concept and not a portrayal of Christ is consistent. You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made. And I've repeated this several times. I never said I was going to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm. I doubt you think that way, either - rather you're trying to divert attention from Brother Lee's deficient Bible study.

Here was my quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I think there is some Christ to be found in more than 3 of the first 21 Psalms. I am not a scholar like Nigel Tomes, so please bear with my abbreviated account.

If you want to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm, perhaps you should start your own study. I never aimed for that. I merely said there was more than what Brother Lee said.

1. Witness Lee deviated from his pattern of "seeing Christ" in the text when he came to the Psalms.
2. The NT reception of the Psalms by Jesus, the gospel writers, Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, doesn't suggest that only the Psalms cited in the NT were to be viewed as pertaining to Christ. Yet current LSM mouthpiece Evangelical says that if we see Christ where it isn't explicitly cited, then perhaps we're "adding to God's word". Really? Can someone affiliated with LSM say this with a straight face? Amazing.
3. The reasons given to disqualify Psalms from consideration in the RecV footnotes were typically: A) the psalm-writer was a sinner and not qualified to represent Christ in his statements of divine fealty and reward; and B) the psalm-writer was breathing "unchristian" imprecations toward his enemies, rather than loving and forgiving. I dealt with this already in detail. Neither Drake nor Evangelical has answered. Instead we get the diversions like quoted above.
4. Brother Lee was inconsistent, saying a phrase was "divine" and another was "natural" with no discernible difference between the two. Both would be imperfect sinners writing, both were fighting with others, etc. My comment was, Did nobody notice this inconsistency? Were we all so mesmerised? Or were we cowed into silence?

I was addressing the first 21 Psalms as a representative sample of the book, knowing the trend continued beyond. I felt that my point was made. Recently, in Post #714, I gave some more examples from the first dozen Psalms. No answer from Drake. Instead, diversions.

Here is an answer: Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." I personally don't think the 'I' and 'me' here is of Christ. Okay? Good? We found a "human sentiment" in the Psalms! But we already know all this. Satan has a speaking role from Genesis 3 onwards. I give Manoah as a good example of "fallen human concept". (there are others as well)

Originally Posted by Judges 13:21-23

When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord. “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”
But his wife answered, “If the Lord had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this.”

Typically, when someone speaks "natural concept", the Bible clearly tells us this is happening. When it's instead up to the interpreter with his hermeneutic (viz,"God's New Testament Economy") we should be more circumspect. Especially when it makes us discard 18 of the first 21 Psalms as of human and not divine origin, a trend which continues for the rest of the book.

So no, I don't think that every word of every Psalms

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

My first couple of points made clear that I wasn't going for the second option. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made..

If your only point is that you see Christ in Psalms where Brother Lee doesn't but you also recognize that there are psalms with human concepts then to that I say...

So what?

The only point you have made then is that you have a different interpretation of some of the Psalms. You see Christ in every Psalm or you refuse to identify those with human concepts and how you decided which ones have human concepts (you keep oscillating back and forth between those two positions but it matters not which you actually believe)... Brother Lee doesn't see Christ in every Psalm.... Therefore, you want the reader to accept your interpretation.

Again, so what?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

If your only point is that you see Christ in Psalms where Brother Lee doesn't but you also recognize that there are psalms with human concepts then to that I say...

So what?

The only point you have made then is that you have a different interpretation of some of the Psalms. You see Christ in every Psalm or you refuse to identify those with human concepts and how you decided which ones have human concepts (you keep oscillating back and forth between those two positions but it matters not which you actually believe)... Brother Lee doesn't see Christ in every Psalm.... Therefore, you want the reader to accept your interpretation.

Again, so what?

Drake

Thanks for your summary of your defense of Witness Lee's treatment of the Psalms. I pointed out that he went from "Christ is everything"- the reality of all positive OT types - to a nearly wholesale dismissal of the "natural concepts" of the OT writer trying to please God, and obey. I pointed out the contradictory treatments of different psalms, arbitrarily labeling them as "fallen human sentiments" or "revelatory", apparently at whim. I noted how this treatment of the OT text was at stark variance with the NT reception.

So your reply is, So what? Similar to your perfunctory dismissals after we pointed out the Timothy Lee Daystar money fiasco and the Philip Lee Affairs.

Perhaps we should have a similar reaction to all the conferences, trainings, self-published book titles. All the thousands of footnotes and cross-references in the RecV. All the outlines and HWMR "we should" and "we need to" exortations.

Just look at the source of it all. Enough said.

[awareness]

Again, so what?

Drake

Thanks for that bro Drake ; finally the sound of reason. This whole thing is absurd. Psalms are not the word of Christ. Psalms is a composition of over 5 centuries, all of it written by fallen men. Still, it is great literature ... except 137:9, and all the other verses about destroying enemies ... that Jesus countered with "love your enemy."

Meanwhile, let's continue -- in the spirit of Psalms -- to pile on bro Drake. It's fun. After all, he's in that awful local church. Where's David's slingshot when we need it. We needed it for that giant Witness Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Then the spin-offs get spin-offs. With the LC, now they wonder "who has the mantle"? The splinter groups all claim the true line from Martin Luther.

Originally Posted by aron

So your reply is, So what? Similar to your perfunctory dismissals after we pointed out the Timothy Lee Daystar money fiasco and the Philip Lee Affairs.

Careful there aron. If you keep mentioning the Midwest "spin-off" or Lee's profligate boys, Drake will put you on his "ignore list" like he did to me, pick up all his marbles, and won't talk to you anymore.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made. And I've repeated this several times. I never said I was going to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm. I doubt you think that way, either - rather you're trying to divert attention from Brother Lee's deficient Bible study.

aron, when dealing with folks who only know extremes, you must learn to repetitively repeat yourself redundantly again and again.

Just trying to help you out.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it.

The problem with WL's treatment of Psalms (and Proverbs, Job, James and Peter) is not that he missed places that were about Christ.

The problem is that WL taught, especially later in his life, that if the Bible does not emphasize what WL emphasizes, then that part of the Bible is erroneous human concept.

There are many parts of the Bible, including Psalms that are not about Christ or the church. Most of Psalms show by experience how to live a godly, humble, down-to-earth, honest life. This is part of a balanced diet of the truth. WL said that such verses or whole Psalms or whole books were not the word of God, but are human concepts contrary to God's truth. I think this was WL's greatest error.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The problem with WL's treatment of Psalms (and Proverbs, Job, James and Peter) is not that he missed places that were about Christ.

The problem is that WL taught, especially later in his life, that if the Bible does not emphasize what WL emphasizes, then that part of the Bible is erroneous human concept.

There are many parts of the Bible, including Psalms that are not about Christ or the church. Most of Psalms show by experience how to live a godly, humble, down-to-earth, honest life. This is part of a balanced diet of the truth. WL said that such verses or whole Psalms or whole books were not the word of God, but are human concepts contrary to God's truth. I think this was WL's greatest error.

This whole thread took an interesting tangent with a great discussion about the inerrancy of scripture. But, I was struck and helped by the above post because when I reread some of “the go to verses” in the New Testament (including those cited in this thread) they support this thought. First here are links to the verses I checked:

https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/24.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-11.htm

I was struck with this. In Luke 24 Jesus was able to point out during part of a 7 mile walk (say 6 hours?) the parts of scripture (Old Testament of course) that were about himself. Then what exactly do the other verses say scripture is for?
“profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness” and “these things happened to them as types and were written for our admonition..”, they don’t say “are all about Christ” nor “are all about Christ and the church”, nor “are all about God’s economy”.

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating. Thanks VoiceInWilderness!
No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating.

No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

I never said "every scripture is about Christ", or if I did I mis-spoke. What I said in the first couple of posts on this thread was that there is probably "more Christ" in the first 21 Psalms than merely Psalm 2,8, and 16.

I pointed out Psalm 3 and Psalm 6 and Psalm 18 as examples.

Drake and Evangelical will point out Job's companions speaking "naturally" &c; I likewise pointed out Manoah and his wife. But that was never the issue of this thread: it was rather, are 18 of the first 21 Psalms likewise "natural human concept"? That was my inquiry.

The NT reception gives us ample latitude to "see Jesus" a la Hebrews 2:9, in the types and figures of the OT. The pious Jew who loves God's word, who obeys, and is rewarded - "He rescued me (Christ) because He delighted in me" is an obvious example (from Psalm 18).

But I never insinuated that every word of Psalms, or Scripture, must be "Christ". The Psalmist writing in Psalm 51, "In sin I was conceived" doesn't sound like Christ to me.

To re-iterated my theme, WL departed from the apostolic precedent set in Acts 2 by Peter and Acts 13 by Paul in finding "Christ" in the Psalms. This pattern of reception and usage was similarly followed in Hebrews, Peter's epistle, and the four Gospels. The sinner David, in his struggle to find God, was a picture of the coming "Seed of David". And Asaph, Lemuel, etc. These "godly sentiments" were fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene.

But no, not every single word has to be "Christ". I don't think that I ever suggested that. What I am saying is that there is a pattern of reception and usage in the NT, and we shouldn't be so quick, as WL was, to dismiss the pattern given us by the apostles and writers of the NT.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by JJ

This whole thread took an interesting tangent with a great discussion about the inerrancy of scripture. But, I was struck and helped by the above post because when I reread some of “the go to verses” in the New Testament (including those cited in this thread) they support this thought. First here are links to the verses I checked:

https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/24.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-11.htm

I was struck with this. In Luke 24 Jesus was able to point out during part of a 7 mile walk (say 6 hours?) the parts of scripture (Old Testament of course) that were about himself. Then what exactly do the other verses say scripture is for?
“profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness” and “these things happened to them as types and were written for our admonition..”, they don’t say “are all about Christ” nor “are all about Christ and the church”, nor “are all about God’s economy”.

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating. Thanks VoiceInWilderness!
No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

You're very welcome bro. Thank you for you comments.
I actually found that truth liberating also.
You might like the song I made out of Psalm 26 about the working together of faith and works.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_26.htm

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Aron. So you’ve changed your mind since a few posts back when I posed this question to you.

Nevertheless, now that we know where you are coming from with the above statement then your reasons for objecting to anyone characterizing any Psalm as a human concept and not a portrayal of Christ is consistent. You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

Drake

If that is the case then smashing babies into rocks portrays Christ to Aron. He must divide the Psalms somehow, and if he doesn't do that then he is comparing Christ to all the negative things in the Psalms.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If that is the case then smashing babies into rocks portrays Christ to Aron. He must divide the Psalms somehow, and if he doesn't do that then he is comparing Christ to all the negative things in the Psalms.

Yep. That too.

I'm addressing the duplicitous nature of his argument.

As examples, aron recognizes human concepts in the Psalms but won't name the verses or how he derives that they are human concepts. Then his feathers get all ruffled when you quote him directly stating he sees Christ in every Psalm but then he responds suggesting he never meant that. In another place he refers to James as an ignorant leader but then rents his clothes and throws dust in the air at a reasonable explanation that James' epistle is influenced by the law. He demands precision from others but then asks the reader to forgive his frequent exaggerations. He criticizes others for holding an opinion but prizes his own very highly.

I still don't really know what he thinks about the Psalms because of that..... but it seems his purpose is not to generate light but rather heat. That is, just to find fault with Brother Lee's explanation without offering a cohesive one of his own.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

As examples, aron recognizes human concepts in the Psalms but won't name the verses or how he derives that they are human concepts. Then his feathers get all ruffled when you quote him directly stating he sees Christ in every Psalm but then he responds suggesting he never meant that. In another place he refers to James as an ignorant leader but then rents his clothes and throws dust in the air at a reasonable explanation that James' epistle is influenced by the law. He demands precision from others but then asks the reader to forgive his frequent exaggerations. He criticizes others for holding an opinion but prizes his own very highly.

I still don't really know what he thinks about the Psalms because of that..... but it seems his purpose is not to generate light but rather heat. That is, just to find fault with Brother Lee's explanation without offering a cohesive one of his own.

Drake

I'll patiently restate my case for what seems like the 35th time. How is it that David hitting Goliath in the face with a rock is "Christ" but smashing infants on the rocks is not? Do you retrospectively impose the Geneva convention?

Paul already answered this: we struggle against spiritual forces. The OT allegories still hold.

And yes, James was influenced by the law. He was a Jew. As was David. How is it that you require the Jews to live like the gentiles? (But I don't think you'll get that one).

p.s. I did name the verse: Psalm 51:5.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I'll patiently restate my case for what seems like the 35th time. How is it that David hitting Goliath in the face with a rock is "Christ" but smashing infants on the rocks is not? Do you retrospectively impose the Geneva convention?.

That is your argument? You see in the Psalms Christ in the smashing of infants on rocks....?

Well, alrighty.... I see what Evangelical meant....

Drake

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, list the Psalms you characterize as human concept and why. Brother Lee spoke volumes on the Psalms, life studies and books we can examine,

None of the Psalms are human concept without God. All are God-breathed God's concept inspired into men.

Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly.

Peter quotes Psalm 34 extensively. When WL gave the training on Peter, WL gave a very good message on Peter's quotes of Ps 34. You can read it in the life studies.

Later, when WL gave his messages on Psalms, he trashed Ps 34 and even said that Peter was not spiritual because Peter should not have quoted that psalm. The Life Study is really ugly.

I think WL had lost a lot of his mind by the time he gave the Psalms messages, but we in the LC were still following him blindly.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

None of the Psalms are human concept without God. All are God-breathed God's concept inspired into men.

Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly.

If the NT reception of the Psalms had given some precedent, or basis to Brother Lee's approach, we'd have to take it seriously. The NT did not, and neither should we.

Originally Posted by Acts 13:32-41

“We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:

“‘You are my son;
today I have become your father.’
God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said,
“‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’
So it is also stated elsewhere:

“‘You will not let your holy one see decay.’
“Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:

“‘Look, you scoffers,
wonder and perish,
for I am going to do something in your days
that you would never believe,
even if someone told you.’”

Interesting that the Gamaliel-trained Pharisee Paul uses the same approach that the illiterate Galilean fisherman Peter does: David's pious declarations of fealty and reward present us with a picture of the coming Christ. In Acts 13, Paul quotes the Psalms and also Isaiah 55:3 affirming God's promise to David:

Isaiah 55:1 “Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.
2 Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and you will delight in the richest of fare.
3 Give ear and come to me;
listen, that you may live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.
4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a ruler and commander of the peoples.
5 Surely you will summon nations you know not,
and nations you do not know will come running to you,
because of the LORD your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he has endowed you with splendor.”

From Paul's usage of Psalms and Isaiah in Acts 13, the basis for Psalm citation isn't the rightness of the psalmist, but the promise made to him (v4). For corroboration, see Peter in Acts 2:30,31

"But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke . . ."

And according to Paul's use of Isaiah, in Christ God has "summoned the nations whom you [David] knew not". (v5) Marvelous! Even if David didn't know the nations, God used his writings (of Christ) to summon them! Amazing!

And here we are. . .

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

2. The NT reception of the Psalms by Jesus, the gospel writers, Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, doesn't suggest that only the Psalms cited in the NT were to be viewed as pertaining to Christ. Yet current LSM mouthpiece Evangelical says that if we see Christ where it isn't explicitly cited, then perhaps we're "adding to God's word". Really? Can someone affiliated with LSM say this with a straight face? Amazing.

If you see Christ in a verse in which Christ is not to be found, then have you not in effect "added" your human concepts to God's Word?

I would like to hear the logical and rational reasoning why it is not the case.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you see Christ in a verse in which Christ is not to be found, then have you not in effect "added" your human concepts to God's Word?

I would like to hear the logical and rational reasoning why it is not the case.

No, you are right. Except, then Peter and Paul violate this in the book of Acts, seeing Christ in Psalm 16. Because David was a sinner, see? He didn't rise from the dead, & thus could not typify Christ. So they are improperly adding to scripture.

Of course I'm being facetious. The OT is a book of types and figures. If WL's many liberal interpretations don't "add to God's Word", then how do mine? In fact, I think my logic is better than his. But then I'm probably biased.

But seriously, I'm following the path of WL: looking at NT authors seeing Christ in the OT, and following suit. If you reject my interpretation as adding to God's Word, and as going beyond what is written, you must likewise reject the bulk of WL's ministry, along with Darby et al.

Or are you going to pull out the old, "Its okay when we do it but not when you do it" argument? That's the LSM fallback position - the MOTA can do it, but you can't.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

None of the Psalms are human concept without God. All are God-breathed God's concept inspired into men.

Of course all Scripture is God breathed. On what basis do you teach that every word of every verse of every chapter of every book does not display or contain human concepts?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Aron. So you’ve changed your mind since a few posts back when I posed this question to you.

Nevertheless, now that we know where you are coming from with the above statement then your reasons for objecting to anyone characterizing any Psalm as a human concept and not a portrayal of Christ is consistent. You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course all Scripture is God breathed. On what basis do you teach that every word of every verse of every chapter of every book does not display or contain human concepts?

It's truly amazing watching LSMers like Drake, forced to constantly defend their infallible MOTA Witness Lee, twist and contort their understanding of the interpretation of the scriptures. Unfortunately these same ones never gave any of the rest of the ministers in the body of Christ one iota of accommodation or tolerance for their teachings and practices.

The rest of us accept the Psalms as the word of God. Every one of them were sung by Israel in the worship of God. Some praise, some worship, some exhort, some educate, some expose, some uplift us, some humble us, etc. The early church continued this practice, as the Apostles took the Psalms with them as they evangelized the nations. Never did they give us warning concerning "human sentiments" or the exceedingly dangerous "human concepts" which today spook the LC's. Thank you Witness Lee.

I did a search "seeing Christ in the Psalms." Endless websites popped up. Christians around the globe are constantly looking to find more of Christ in His word. The New Covenant promises, "all will know Him," and there is so much to know, by all of God's children, here a little there a little. Yet only W. Lee demeans certain Psalms and books like James as "natural concepts, human sentiments." Lee digs up the worst of Martin Luther in order to justify his bad and arrogant behavior, because there's nothing in the scripture to justify this.

VoiceinWilderness succinctly exposes this arrogant attitude of W. Lee and his supporters -- "Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly. Peter quotes Psalm 34 extensively. When WL gave the training on Peter, WL gave a very good message on Peter's quotes of Ps 34. You can read it in the life studies. Later, when WL gave his messages on Psalms, he trashed Ps 34 and even said that Peter was not spiritual because Peter should not have quoted that psalm. The Life Study is really ugly."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's truly amazing watching LSMers like Drake, forced to constantly defend their infallible MOTA Witness Lee, twist and contort their understanding of the interpretation of the scriptures. Unfortunately these same ones never gave any of the rest of the ministers in the body of Christ one iota of accommodation or tolerance for their teachings and practices.

The rest of us accept the Psalms as the word of God. Every one of them were sung by Israel in the worship of God. Some praise, some worship, some exhort, some educate, some expose, some uplift us, some humble us, etc. The early church continued this practice, as the Apostles took the Psalms with them as they evangelized the nations. Never did they give us warning concerning "human sentiments" or the exceedingly dangerous "human concepts" which today spook the LC's. Thank you Witness Lee.

I did a search "seeing Christ in the Psalms." Endless websites popped up. Christians around the globe are constantly looking to find more of Christ in His word. The New Covenant promises, "all will know Him," and there is so much to know, by all of God's children, here a little there a little. Yet only W. Lee demeans certain Psalms and books like James as "natural concepts, human sentiments." Lee digs up the worst of Martin Luther in order to justify his bad and arrogant behavior, because there's nothing in the scripture to justify this.

VoiceinWilderness succinctly exposes this arrogant attitude of W. Lee and his supporters -- "Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly. Peter quotes Psalm 34 extensively. When WL gave the training on Peter, WL gave a very good message on Peter's quotes of Ps 34. You can read it in the life studies. Later, when WL gave his messages on Psalms, he trashed Ps 34 and even said that Peter was not spiritual because Peter should not have quoted that psalm. The Life Study is really ugly."

Don't worry about Drake, worry about yourself - it's amazing how you put forward nonfactual statements, that could be refuted by the quoting of expert scholars, while claiming Lee was the worst historian ever. If you can't even get little facts straight...

We can thank the "worst in Martin Luther" for the Reformation, otherwise we'd all still be reading from the Latin Vulgate. He did not merely just copy the Catholic Bible and make it available for all..

As much as you and others criticize Lee and Luther for their views of James, you sound like closet Catholics to be honest - I could find similar statements on a Catholic forum. I don't know what non-Catholic people see in the book of James about Christ that Luther and many others could not see. You must really be better than great men like Martin Luther and others who could not find much Christ in it. There must be even a hint of faith+works in your justification doctrine - I don't think Luther would have accepted you as a Reformer tbh.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't worry about Drake, worry about yourself - it's amazing how you put forward nonfactual statements, that could be refuted by the quoting of expert scholars, while claiming Lee was the worst historian ever. If you can't even get little facts straight...

We can thank the "worst in Martin Luther" for the Reformation, otherwise we'd all still be reading from the Latin Vulgate. He did not merely just copy the Catholic Bible and make it available for all..

As much as you and others criticize Lee and Luther for their views of James, you sound like closet Catholics to be honest - I could find similar statements on a Catholic forum. I don't know what non-Catholic people see in the book of James about Christ that Luther and many others could not see. You must really be better than great men like Martin Luther and others who could not find much Christ in it. There must be even a hint of faith+works in your justification doctrine - I don't think Luther would have accepted you as a Reformer tbh.

And where are your scholars who also have sanctioned Martin Luther the first Minister of the Age? Try to get your facts straight matey!

Taking my words out of context? I expect more from the current LSM mouthpiece. The "worst in Martin Luther" comment referred specifically to his dismissal of the book of James ("straw epistle fit for burning") and his anti-Semitic rants. But you knew that. And you call me a liar?

Your other deceptive technique is to present a false choice set, like Drake does. Since I don't accept that Luther is the first MOTA of the Recovery, then I must be some contemptuous "closet Catholic" like you find on other forums.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And where are your scholars who also have sanctioned Martin Luther the first Minister of the Age? Try to get your facts straight matey!

They state that Luther recovered salvation by faith. That is the topic we were discussing, not "Minister of the Age". Let's address the facts one at a time.

Knowing this fact, it is easy to see how Luther is qualified to be a Minister of the Age. I don't expect any scholar to use this language, but they do appreciate that Luther had a bigger role in the Reformation than you seem to admit.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Taking my words out of context? I expect more from the current LSM mouthpiece. The "worst in Martin Luther" comment referred specifically to his dismissal of the book of James ("straw epistle fit for burning") and his anti-Semitic rants. But you knew that. And you call me a liar?

Your other deceptive technique is to present a false choice set, like Drake does. Since I don't accept that Luther is the first MOTA of the Recovery, then I must be some contemptuous "closet Catholic" like you find on other forums.

Yes I know what it referred to and I remarked that if Luther did not dismiss the book of James, then we would still be reading the Latin Vulgate with the Apocrypha as well.

The reason is, that it would very hard to convince Catholic people of justification by faith alone and convert them to the Reformation as long as the book of James about faith+works was staring them in the face.

The Reformation was mainly built upon a doctrine of justification by faith (alone) of which it seemed necessary for Luther to dismiss the book of James. The Catholic doctrine very much depended upon and still depends today on a literal interpretation of James - "your (saving) faith is dead unless you have works".

My "closet Catholic" remark stems from understanding that Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone does not blend well with the book of James. Defending James, to a degree, is almost to defend Catholicism.

It is popular today for evangelicals to explain away what the book of James says, but this is only reminiscent of closer ties between Catholicism and Evangelicism in my view. It is interesting that Luther did not merely try to "explain away" the book of James as evangelicals do today, but dismissed it outright, at least initially.

The goal of any good Catholic who wants to convert an Evangelical is firstly to get them to see how Luther's justification by faith alone was wrong - to do that they will use the book of James. The goal of any good Protestant, or Reformer, is to turn our attention away from James's saving works, and focus ourselves on the Scriptures regarding salvation by faith alone. At least, a real Reformer would do that in my view.

The book of James was such a problem for the Reformers that Calvin went to the lengths of adding the word "alone" to James 2:24.

I would just like to bring your attention to a Catholic blog which supports everything I have been saying:

But there's good news about this, because once we see why Protestants have continued to follow Calvin by adding the word "alone" to James 2:24, we will be able to refute Luther's heresy all the more easily.

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/201...-to-james.html

In this blog we can see the Catholic's aim to convert Protestants, and secondly their aim to use James to refute the Reformation.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course all Scripture is God breathed. On what basis do you teach that every word of every verse of every chapter of every book does not display or contain human concepts?

Drake

Because every word of Scripture is God-breathed and we are to live by it.
On what basis do you say that parts of the Bible are erroneous human concepts?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Because every word of Scripture is God-breathed and we are to live by it.
On what basis do you say that parts of the Bible are erroneous human concepts?

After you catch up we’ll talk.... pick it up from what has already been said.

Thanks
Drake

[Evangelical]

There's a fairly comprehensive article on CARM that refutes the idea that "The Bible isn't the Word of God. It contains the Word of God."

https://carm.org/bible-isnt-word-god...tains-word-god

It explains how the bible inerrantly records lies.

So if this is the understanding of evangelical Christianity , how exactly is Lee wrong to differentiate between lies/humanity and truth/divinity in the Bible?

[Drake]

-1

“Likewise, when it records historical events, genealogies, etc., it does so using the idioms and cultural norms of the time--yet it is without error.”

Neither does the Bible express our physical world in accurate scientific terms ... and it quotes philosophers and non inspired writings. Yet, it is without error.

The error in Aron’s understanding can be traced back to his definition of the Scriptural term “God breathed” ... he and Miller offer explanations of “God breathed” as if the Bible emerged out of thin air or as if the human instruments who actually penned its pages went into a trance of some sort and started scribbling. . Perhaps they never understood that we have no original letters and the closest copies to the original are at least a hundred years and most are closer to 700 to 800 years removed. Maybe they don’t understand that the copies from which current versions are derived come from different schools with scribes that may have omitted or added a word here or there in an MSS to fit their concepts.... yet even that is instructive where it appears.

Nevertheless, the Bible we possess is without error but not in the way they describe that every word in it is a portrayal of Christ or God or an accurate understanding of the things of God. The human concepts are there, the lies are there, the workings of evil minds are recorded there.... and still it is without error....it is accurate in what it records.

There is a possibility they are really smart and know all this and more....but merely engaging in sophistry.... to attack the object of their discontent... Brother Lee.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

None of the Psalms are human concept without God. All are God-breathed God's concept inspired into men.

Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly.

Peter quotes Psalm 34 extensively. When WL gave the training on Peter, WL gave a very good message on Peter's quotes of Ps 34. You can read it in the life studies.

Later, when WL gave his messages on Psalms, he trashed Ps 34 and even said that Peter was not spiritual because Peter should not have quoted that psalm. The Life Study is really ugly.

I think WL had lost a lot of his mind by the time he gave the Psalms messages, but we in the LC were still following him blindly.

Quite an ironic observation here by VoiceInWilderness. Here's a section from Lee's Life Study (Mesage 16) on Psalms 34:

The title of Psalm 34 says that this was a psalm of David "when he disguised his sanity before Abimelech, who drove him out, and he departed." We can see from this that the situation in which Psalm 34 was written was not an honorable one. David was not normal; he disguised himself as being insane because he was before a king who had the power to kill him. As a result of disguising himself, David was delivered from Abimelech (1 Sam. 21:10—22:1a). Afterward, he wrote Psalm 34. In this psalm he gave all the credit to God, but actually he delivered himself by disguising himself. To disguise oneself is a kind of falsehood.

Here W. Lee criticized David saying he was "not normal, not honorable, in a kind of falsehood." But who was the one who was really losing his mind???

Reading David's story here I was reminded of the Lord Jesus, the King of Kings, standing in "disguise" before Pontius Pilate. The Lord Jesus could have rightly dressed Himself in glory, surrounded by the heavenly host, with the Father's glory, yet instead He appeared as a beggarly preacher, all alone abandoned by all, to Pilate a "fool's fool." Name me one person at that scene who thought Jesus was "normal, and in an honorable situation?"

W. Lee totally missed Christ here. Once again he exhibits his life-long practice of creating standards by which he can condemn others, and uplift his own ministry. In the previous paragraph he wrote:

In this message we want to continue our fellowship on the mixed expressions of the psalmist's sentiment in his enjoyment of God in God's house. If we do not have a deep hunger to seek after the Lord with His Word, these messages may disappoint us. This is because what we may like according to our natural concept is exposed. What we see in the Bible and what the Bible is to us depend upon what kind of person we are. Our understanding of the Bible is always according to what we are. This is why we need to be adjusted and brought into the divine concept.

Here Lee, while denigrating David in Psalm 34, says "What we see in the Bible and what the Bible is to us depend upon what kind of person we are." He is right about that. But oh so wrong about David and the Psalms.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The Life Study is really ugly. I think WL had lost a lot of his mind by the time he gave the Psalms messages, but we in the LC were still following him blindly.

I would be far more lenient on W. Lee (and all elderly in general) if the decline we witnessed were simply mental in nature.

Lee protected his profligate son Philip, who regularly molested the LSM staff, by libelously attacking the credibility of life-long colleagues and co-workers. Then he claimed his ministry reached the "high peak" by purporting that his loyal followers were "becoming God."

I would suggest that this was not a failure of the mind, but of the conscience. Paul warned us to "hold faith and a good conscience" lest we become "shipwrecked." (I Tim 1.19)