Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Not everything the Psalmist wrote is of the New Covenant/New Testament. For example, Psalm 139, which I referred to in my previous post, is a wonderful Psalm, about God's tender loving care, being knitted together in the womb, until it goes into hatred for enemies and his wish for God to kill the wicked.
|
And how does this logic obviate 34 of the first 41 psalms, a pattern that continues in the following 110 chapters of the Psalms in the RecV? We go neatly from "not everything" to "hardly anything", and nobody even notices? How could Witness Lee teach like this in front of thousands and nobody said anything?
And why didn't Lee use this logic when the psalmist wrote of bathing his feet in his enemy's blood, and crushing his skull, in Psalm 64? There, Lee's footnote saw "Christ defeating Satan". . . why not elsewhere? And how come no one pointed out the inconsistency?
And why didn't Lee notice Paul's New Covenant/New Testament word that we fight not against flesh and blood but against evil spiritual powers - not against flesh and blood, but yes, we fight?
This is the peril of subjectivism: ultimately you take someone else's subjectivism as your own. Their fallen human imagination becomes your 'reality'. With Jesus Christ, yes; with a fellow sinner, no.
The question was, "How do you know the Lord's leading?" My answer is, first you have to see the Lord. He's right there, in black and white, in print, waiting for the Spirit's breath. John 14:26; 16:13; 1 Cor 2:10. What happens when the Bible expositor says no, it's merely the word of fallen human beings, mere "natural concepts" and "mixed sentiments"? My reply is, the fallen human concepts are rather those of the expositor.
"I (Christ) come to do God's will". It doesn't get much simpler than that. But first you have to see it.