Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Evangelical
Aron and others do not like us dividing scripture by human vs divine concepts, because they must believe that all Scripture as in every jot and tittle speaks about Christ regardless of what it actually says. This is more of a mechanical view of divine inspiration because it suggests that the words on the page are the divinely inspired Scripture. This view can sometimes place an emphasis on error-free translations, versions, and using the absolutely best and most correct manuscripts. "KJV-onlyists" and others fall into this category.
Others on the other hand may not see a problem with dividing Scripture if they think that only parts which can inspire them about Christ are divinely inspired. This is an "organic view" of divine inspiration - whatever the Scripture says, regardless of whether it contains translation errors or not, the Spirit will provide the correct understanding.
|
What's interesting about this statement is that it says that I believe that "every jot and tittle speaks about Christ regardless of what it actually says." In fact, on one of the first posts on this thread, I said that Psalm 51's sinful protagonist David bemoaning his transgressions doesn't speak about Christ at all. So, Evangelical's word is painting an overly broad brush.
What I said, rather, was that the NT repeatedly speaks of the Psalms as "the word of Christ", and nowhere does it refer to Psalms as "fallen human concepts", so we should be careful to follow the pattern set by NT reception, within the limits of human reason, of course. I was thinking of this recently, and the attempts to cover up WL like seen by Evangelical above, and others with their make-believe characterizations. I was reading Psalm 5, verses 1-3 (KJV) and this came up:
Give ear to my words, O Lord, consider my meditation.
Hearken unto the voice of my cry, my King, and my God: for unto thee will I pray.
My voice shalt thou hear in the morning, O Lord; in the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee, and will look up.
Following the NT pattern of reception, i. e., Psalm 40:7 & Heb 10:9; Psalm 16 & Acts 2; Psalm 22:25 & Hebrews 2:12, the first person here is Christ, and the second is the Father. By reading the Psalms, you get to see the relation of the Son on earth with the Father in heaven. We know that God doesn't hear sinners, but Jesus wasn't a sinner. So when he prayed, "Hearken unto the voice of my cry", the Father did hearken.
My point is, that as a Christian, I see the Lamb of God, and hear his voice. My consciousness isn't self-aware but Christ aware. Through Christ I can see the Father. Paul said, "It is no longer I but Christ" and the Psalms are a vehicle to experience this. It isn't mere doctrine, "I have been crucified so reckon myself dead" but rather that my consciousness has been displaced by his. In Psalm 5, the "I" isn't Aron the Christian believer but Christ the Son of God. That's what I see Paul saying, which bookends with his idea of the Psalms as the words of Christ: the "I" is not Paul (or David) the fallen sinner trying to please God, rather the "I" is Christ pleasing God. "The Father delights in me, because I always do His will". The words of the Psalms were the framework, and Jesus inhabited them. No one else could. But as we appreciate Jesus, we are vicariously drawn to Jesus' appreciation of the Father.
The error of Lee was that he often created a false dichotomy, giving the choice of either "fallen human concepts" or "NT believers enjoying the Processed Triune God", but he didn't see Jesus the Nazarene praying to the Father in heaven. But look how often the NT showed us this very thing?