Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
The Psalm topic is something Aron and I have gone back and forth on for a while.
|
Well I for one am happy to get closure. So let's see, 34 of the first 41 Psalms are disqualified as divine revelation because: A) the psalmist is a sinner and could not fulfill his declaration of fealty and reward (which would also disqualify Psalm 16); or B) because the psalmist expressed sentiments lacking the charity of the NT life (which would also disqualify Psalm 68).
Okay, got it. Sorry if I think that is arbitrary, disjointed, and contradictory but I do.
As far as "using this as an excuse to attack the recovery", there's this thing called the Bible, see? Aka "the word of God" and "scripture". To dismiss it wholesale as mere human concept is serious, and should have basis. Jesus said, "man . . . shall live by every word", not by a select few. There's no indication that Jesus dismissed scripture thus. Nor Paul or John. Lacking clear NT precedent, one should have some strong basis. I don't see it.
"David the sinner" should have disqualified Psalm 16. If you read Acts 2 and 13, it did not. What basis then did Lee have?
I do apologize if my own writings have lacked charity and grace.