[aron]

Romans 15:3 For even Christ did not please himself but, as it is written: “The insults of those who insult you have fallen on me.” 4 For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

Paul quotes Psalm 69, then uses that to make a general point about scripture. "Everything written in the past was to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in Scriptures and the encouragement they give us, we would have hope". According to Paul, we see in OT scripture the endurance of Christ, who bore insults on behalf of God, and this vision teaches us, encourages us, and give us hope.

But where does Paul write something like, "The promises of faithfulness, endurance, and obedience in Scriptures were vain, because all men are sinners"? I don't see this kind of reception by Paul, or anywhere in the NT. So what gave WL the temerity to put forth such a platform? And please note that this was not a small side issue. In Psalm 1 WL demarcates the existence of "natural" OT scripture, and proceeds to gut the Psalms. The large majority of them are either called "natural" or are ignored.

The only thing that I can think of is that WL's status as "today's oracle" gave him the boldness to depart from the NT's use of Psalms so radically. He could go where none had gone, because he was a receptacle of the revelation of God. Even when this so-called revelation was to tell us that Scripture itself lacked revelation. Perhaps I am just talking myself into a corner here, but the more I look at what WL did, the less I like it. First, there is nothing to support it but his own suppositions, and second he's saying that some Scriptures, rather than teaching us and encouraging us, are rather showing us the vanity of the human endeavour? In other words, "My teachings are not vain, but revelatory; however the teachings in the Bible are often vain human concepts."