Quote:
Originally Posted by Zezima
The last two posts have mentioned “departure from NT record” can you list what you mean here?
|
A number of cases could be given, but I’ll list three that seem obvious. The first is the clear pattern of NT reception of the Psalms. They're the most heavily cited book of the OT. In Acts 2, Peter sets the interpretive pattern that David wasn't merely speaking of himself but of the Anointed One to come. (vv. 30,31,34) Yes, David was a sinner, died and his body remained on earth, deceased. But being a prophet he foreknew of the one promised of his lineage, and spoke, in type, of that one's resurrection. Yet WL repeatedly said that David, being a sinner, was instead speaking vainly of himself! Fully 2/3 of the content of Psalms gets this treatment, which is clearly a departure from the NT pattern. And yet nobody called this out – why? Why was this never questioned in any of the conferences?
Paul twice recommended singing Psalms, calling them the Word of Christ, and saying that the singer would be filled in spirit, but WL actively discouraged this, again citing the Psalms' lack of “NT revelation”…? If Colossians and Ephesians encourage us to sing Psalms, how is this not approaching the heart of the NT revelation? I literally heard this statement right from WL. Yet nobody questioned this incongruity.
Lastly, Jesus said that David was in spirit, writing of the Christ (Mark 12:36; Matt 22:43). Where does Jesus, or any NT writer, say that David was instead in his fallen human mind, or in his natural man, or putting forth mixed sentiments? Yet one sees this characterization repeatedly in
RecV footnotes. (Acts 1:16 and 4:25 also have David expressly listed as a vehicle of the HS revelation.) Nowhere in the NT usage do we see David as being called speaking from himself.
Yet WL consistently took this approach.
Another example of violating clear NT pattern is how disciples are to treat one another. James warned about being respecters of persons. Yet the WL programme produced nothing but respecters of persons. For instance, Paul wrote to Titus, If a man is an elder of the church his children must be well-behaved, obedient and in good order. WL’s children violated this, clearly and repeatedly, and WL even publicly admitted to their condition, yet somehow because he was MOTA this NT pattern was overturned. Jesus taught, that on the word of multiple witnesses, something was established as valid before God, yet in the Local Church if those witnesses saw the mis-behaving family of the MOTA they were told to “cover drunken Noah”. Again, this is a clear departure from the NT record. Multiple witnesses were silenced.
Suppose Paul had heard of fornication in Corinth, and drunken-ness, and replied, "I don't care about right and wrong, only life"? Is that consistent with the NT pattern?
Last, consider the treatment of the poor. If you have eyes to see, this is a central facet of the NT, from the gospels, through Acts, into the epistles. The citations are too many to bother. Yet at the FTTA we heard, “Don’t waste your time. Go for the good building materials”, and that was made explicit – Caucasian college students.
Did nobody stir, uneasily? I protested once, in an FTTA meeting, and got silence in return. The speaker just went on to the next point. And nobody ever bothered to raise it, again.