[aron]

Prophetic words versus natural words.

In Acts chapter 2, Peter in explaining the resurrection of Jesus to the incredulous Jews said that David, being a prophet, foreknew through the Holy Spirit the one who was following him, and who would fulfill his words. WL allowed this, somewhat, and followed suit. However, WL did a curious thing: he said that much of David's writing was "natural", and "fallen". Now, to me, that is a very serious charge, to say that the words of scripture are the concepts of fallen men versus the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What precedent do we have for marking out God's word thus?

Jesus taught, "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." If we determine that some of these words have not, in fact, proceeded out of the mouth of God but rather through the imaginations of sinful and fallen men, that's pretty serious and we should be sure we are on solid ground. Because we are either saying either that man does not live on every word of God, but just on some of them (and which ones, pray tell?), or we are saying that only some of the holy scripture is from God, and that some of the Bible is actually fallen man superimposing his "concepts" into the divine record.

"All scripture is God-breathed", or just some of it?

When Peter said, "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You" and Jesus replied, "Get behind Me, Satan", we can be pretty clear that Peter's "Not so, Lord" didn't come from the Father in heaven. Or when Job's wife told him to "curse God and die" after he'd been repeatedly stricken, that statement also probably wasn't inspired by the Holy Ghost. Probably Job's wife is speaking from her "fallen concepts". The context indicates that she is being "natural" at that point.

What I am saying is that if a section or passage is in fact not from God, either the surrounding text or some trusted commentator should tell us pretty clearly. But if we are taking the word of a self-proclaimed "apostle" (WL), who uses one narrow interpretation of one apostles (Paul) to set up an ideational construct which he then goes back into the OT (and even the NT!) text two thousand years later to declare that some of it is in fact not revelatory of Christ, but rather fallen men's concepts, we should be wary. Especially when you have a text like Psalms, with over 2,400 verses, the vast bulk of whom are consequently either ignored or rejected as non-revelatory by WL.

I think that what WL did is rather serious and it would be interesting to see if someone could dredge up support for his stance other than the fact that he said it's so. In other words, who is being prophetic here, and who is being natural? David, or WL?