The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Unfortunately my presentational skills aren't up to the job, but I wanted to put out an idea: Look at the Psalms as a kind of spiritualization of the historical narrative, which spiritualization was picked up and amplified by the NT writers. A classic example is of Melchizedek. A historical character, briefly inserted into the narrative of events. Then the psalmist gives it a kind of mystical spin: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The NT writer says, "Hey! This is Christ!" and then amplifies it.

We don't know how much of David's original work remains, and how much of it was redacted by later generations. But the psalms as spiritual commentaries were clearly accepted and used by the NT writers, and by Jesus Himself. For example, "You are gods" from Psalm 82, quoted by Jesus to the Jewish antagonists. They were gods, to whom the word of God came (John 10:35), but they died like men, because they disobeyed and corrupted the commands (82:7). They fell like every other corrupt ruler. Jesus' use of scripture turned the charge back against the Jews: they'd claimed Jesus blasphemed, but He said that His works showed that He was one with the Father (John 10:25,37,38). So who were they? Corrupt, and due to fall. "You are gods" was merely a prelude to "you will die like men".

Another example that comes to mind is "Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me." from Psalm 42:7. Compare this to Jonah 2:3 "You hurled me into the depths, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me." Somebody appears to be copying, here. How could David the landlubber psalmist seize upon a sea-faring narrative? Because the enemy coming against him like a "flood", like "waters", is a common poetic metaphor. And this is picked up on in the NT: "Just like Jonah was in the heart of the sea, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth". To go down into the depths of the sea is a metaphor, a spiritual picture, of the descent into Hades.

Or the commonly cited "rock of my salvation" in the Psalms, "which rock was Christ" according to Paul. One could pick out many examples; I know Augustine of Hippo did in his commentaries. Let's leave it at this: there's nothing in the NT reception of the Psalms that indicates that some of them were "fallen", or "natural", or "concepts". No, rather the NT usage indicates that they were perceived as revelatory. There was an invitation here, to be filled in Spirit with the words of Christ. And needless to say, WL spurned this invitation.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Unfortunately my presentational skills aren't up to the job, . . .

Maybe for this task. But in general you do a right spiffy job of it.

Originally Posted by aron

. . . but I wanted to put out an idea: Look at the Psalms as a kind of spiritualization of the historical narrative, ...

Well that makes sense. Then it makes sense that the Psalms can at one moment be soaring within those realms of spiritualization, and then be crying to God to slay my enemies, and being happy bashing babies against the rocks.

I understand why Lee couldn't accept all of the Psalms. You point out NT support of the Psalms, which is clearly true. But much of it, okay some of it -- too much of it -- in the Psalms, strikes as being anti-Christ; in that it's not like Christ found in the NT.

The way I see OT support in the NT is: what else did they have to go on? They were far worse off than we are today, with our limited materials and documentation, to go on. And we're bad off.

Originally Posted by aron

which spiritualization was picked up and amplified by the NT writers. A classic example is of Melchizedek. A historical character, briefly inserted into the narrative of events. Then the psalmist gives it a kind of mystical spin: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The NT writer says, "Hey! This is Christ!" and then amplifies it.

Interesting that Melchizedek was the Pagan King Priest of Salem -- "He was priest of God Most High." But he didn't know the right name for God. Did Abram set him straight, chide him, and condemn him to hell so to speak, for calling God El Elyon, and not Yahweh? No! "Abram gave him a tenth of everything."

We should learn by this, to be careful how we judge and treat others, even those that don't believe like us, or at all ... even pagans, or worse, Unitarian Universalists ... Abram, the father of faith, wasn't dogmatic, so maybe we shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by aron

We don't know how much of David's original work remains . . .

As I was saying. We have only what we have. So we're left guessing. And we, and Lee, do and did plenty of that. A'guessing here, a'guessing there, everywhere a'guessing. Even about the Psalms.

Can we really blame Lee for his approach to the Psalms? He was guessing just like the rest of us. The most we can say about Lee, or the worst, is that he was nothing special. In the end he was just like the rest of us ... but with an extraordinary sense of grandiose about himself.

And if we wouldn't have fallen for it Lee would have been just another China man come to America -- which oddly enough he was -- running away from messing in his nest in Taiwan, leaving carnage, if not crimes, in his wake.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

... it makes sense that the Psalms can at one moment be soaring within those realms of spiritualization, and then be crying to God to slay my enemies, and being happy bashing babies against the rocks.

I understand why Lee couldn't accept all of the Psalms. You point out NT support of the Psalms, which is clearly true. But much of it, okay some of it -- too much of it -- in the Psalms, strikes as being anti-Christ; in that it's not like Christ found in the NT.

As far as I know, the only religious group still bashing babies against the rocks is the ISIL, or ISIS, or IS, or whatever they're known as. Most other religions have moved away from that kind of behavior. And yes, arguably a lot of OT stuff is not like the Christ found in the NT. David shouldn't have thrown that rock at Goliath, right? I mean, he should have turned the other cheek. And when the lion and the bear came to take his sheep, he should have offered them two! That was Jesus' teaching, clearly: "When they take you a mile, go with them two, when a man takes your cloak, offer him your shirt." So David could have been more generous in offering up the fruits of his flock.

But wait a minute - Jesus said that the shepherd lays down his life for the sheep, while the hireling runs away. So maybe David should have lain down in front of the bear or the lion and offered himself as a tasty snack, instead of fighting with them. That would have been the Christian thing to do, clearly.

Of course, the above is humor, or my version of it. In reality, there's this word called "discernment"... we're supposed to have some when we read the Bible. Otherwise we invent funny religions, or join people who have. And spiritualizing, or allegorizing, the OT text certainly takes discernment. If you lack a necessary measure, I suggest two options: first is to find someone who has it, and second is to read the ancients. Probably your first option, the person with discernment, is reading the ancients anyway.

Lee never bothered to read the ancients because he felt that Nee had read everything there was to read, so why bother? But if he'd read the ancients, he would have found that they followed the NT lead by using Psalms as a source of inspiration into divine and mystical realms. Instead, Lee created his "God's NT economy" template, a bowdlerized monstrosity that when superimposed upon the scriptures allowed him to determine which were "natural" and which were "revelatory". And the vast majority of the Psalms were dismissed as the former. Usually it was only where NT usage forced him that Lee admitted some revelation of Jesus Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

... the Psalms as spiritual commentaries were clearly accepted and used by the NT writers, and by Jesus Himself. For example, "You are gods" from Psalm 82, quoted by Jesus to the Jewish antagonists. They were gods, to whom the word of God came (John 10:35), but they died like men, because they disobeyed and corrupted the commands (Psa 82:7). They fell like every other corrupt ruler. Jesus' use of scripture turned the charge back against the Jews: they'd claimed Jesus blasphemed, but He said that His works showed that He was one with the Father (John 10:25,37,38)... "You are gods" was merely a prelude to "you will die like men".

This scene in John chapter 10 is a good example: the writer of the fourth gospel was intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures, as were Jesus and His opposers. So when Jesus quoted Psalm 82, "I said, 'You are gods'", everyone was probably expected to remember the rest of the sentence, which hadn't been quoted: "...but you will die like men." But what happened over millennia, and which amplified with the Great Schism and then the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent Protestant splinterings like British Brethren and Watchman Nee's Little Flock and Witness Lee's Lord's Recovery, is a tendency for the present Christian apologist to fixate upon the so-called New Testament revelation and dismiss, downplay, or ignore the extant scriptures of Jesus' time. The unbalanced RecV Bible, for instance, will have a page of footnotes devoted to a verse in Ephesians or Colossians, and almost nothing, maybe a cross-reference or two, in a page of Psalms.

And when we read a NT passage like the one in John 10 where Jesus was confronted by the religionists, we'll then gloss over His reply because it was from a psalm, which according to today's Paul (WL) was full of fallen men's concepts, and therefore we miss the whole point of the conversation! Why did Jesus' quoted reply point to multiple gods - "I said, 'You are gods'"? Well, it didn't at all: both He and His antagonists knew that there was only one God of Israel. In fact, Jesus taught that it was central to the "greatest commandment" (Matt. 22:36-40). So, then why the quote of "gods"? Perhaps because those "gods (who died like men)" were not "gods", or "God" at all, but had been servants who were disobedient to God's commandments to which they'd been entrusted, as were the Jewish judges facing Him at that very moment. And Jesus furthermore said in the same section that His works clearly showed His obedience to His Father in heaven, just as their refusal of Him showed their disobedience.

But we often missed all this because we were unfamiliar with source text, i.e. the OT. We were Christians, or in Lee's parlance, "New Testament believers", so we focused on the NT, the Christian commentary of the apostle Paul, or today's Paul (WL), the so-called minister of the age, and supposedly God's present oracle. Witness Lee effectively told us not to waste our time with the Psalms; stick with the "high peak truths", he said, and with the "heart of the divine revelation": Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians. The result is that we became shallow, ignorant, vain, and puffed up; empty sounding brass, full of teachings but with no love or good works. Just like those who were arguing with Jesus in John chapter 10. They knew neither God nor scripture.

(the above, especially the last paragraph, only pertains to my growing up Protestant and being in the LC for 6 years, and doesn't apply to many balanced and careful Christian teachers out there, and those who follow them. And Lee may have covered "...you will die like men" in his expositions of John 10 and Psalm 82. But my point still remains.)

[aron]

"We know that God doesn't hear the prayers of a sinner". This comment was presented uncritically by the gospel narrator in John 9:31. So, how then does the sinner get saved? I say, because of the High Priest, who is sinless, and whose righteousness intervenes by God's mercy. Jesus is of course the true and great High Priest who's entered into heaven and who there intercedes for us. Hebrews goes into this in some detail, and even says that "He always lives to intercede for us." (7:25)

All the prayers and declarations of the pious sinners in the Psalms, which RecV footnotes typically dismiss as "natural" and "fallen", are actually opportunities for Jesus to intercede. He didn't sin, but when we the sinners confess and repent, Jesus Himself brings these declarations, prayers and words on our behalf before the Father's throne, and because of His purity, the Father hears and responds. Thus the Father can save us, even to the uttermost. And it was in this vein, I believe, that Paul repeatedly encouraged the NT saints to exercise themselves in the Psalms, even calling them "the word of Christ" (Col 3:16). Of themselves the words of the psalmist, who was admittedly a sinner, are indeed low, and natural, and vain. But because of God's mercy in Christ Jesus they become the vehicles whereby we sinners may come to God through faith and receive mercy and timely help. I therefore strongly disagree with WL's pejorative characterization of the book's contents. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds out of the mouth of God." Amen.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

This scene in John chapter 10 is a good example: the writer of the fourth gospel was intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures, as were Jesus and His opposers.

Well the writer for sure ... Jesus and the opposers aren't as certain. As I've stated: Of course the writers of the NT knew the OT. It's all they had. They couldn't be literate without it ... and therefore wouldn't know how to write, or read, for that matter -- like 90% back then -- like what is said of John & Peter, in Acts 4:13 (see Strong's).

Originally Posted by aron

So when Jesus quoted Psalm 82, "I said, 'You are gods'", everyone was probably expected to remember the rest of the sentence, which hadn't been quoted: "...but you will die like men."

Good point. And isn't "I have said" a throw back to: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us..." in our Gen. 3:22? And speaking to the Pharisees maybe that's what Jesus meant. We don't know do we, why Jesus quoted Psalms, or if he really did? The author of John may have been quoting it ... maybe even from Isaiah 41:23. And is the Psalms even considered in the Hebrew Bible The Law? Wouldn't that be the Torah? Aren't we just surmising? For fun perhaps? Or for digging at the truth? If we're still doing that.

The real question is: Are we really "gods?" Is that what Jesus meant? Considering the subjective awareness reading (and writing) these words is, the center of our universe, we can certainly see ourselves as a god. Jesus, or the author of John, and Psalms, and Genesis, could have been unto something. Maybe. That even they didn't realize; with their limited view of the universe back then, in the iron age.

Originally Posted by aron

But what happened over millennia, and which amplified with the Great Schism and then the Protestant Reformation and the subsequent Protestant splinterings like British Brethren and Watchman Nee's Little Flock and Witness Lee's Lord's Recovery, is a tendency for the present Christian apologist to fixate upon the so-called New Testament revelation and dismiss, downplay, or ignore the extant scriptures of Jesus' time.

Well it is the OLD Testament. I mean it's old, old, old. And given God's disposition in the OLD Testament the NEW Testament, except for Revelations, is so much better.

Originally Posted by aron

The unbalanced RecV Bible, for instance, will have a page of footnotes devoted to a verse in Ephesians or Colossians, and almost nothing, maybe a cross-reference or two, in a page of Psalms.

Lee took "Ye are gods" very seriously ... like he could write scripture in his footnotes. But if it's true, that, we are gods, any of us could write footnotes as scripture ... even, maybe, UntoHim ... who is little 'g' god out here.

Originally Posted by aron

And when we read a NT passage like the one in John 10 where Jesus was confronted by the religionists, we'll then gloss over His reply because it was from a psalm, which according to today's Paul (WL) was full of fallen men's concepts,

All of the Bible, old and new, are written by fallen men. And Lee too was a fallen man. We've more than learned that on these local church forums.

Originally Posted by aron

and therefore we miss the whole point of the conversation! Why did Jesus' quoted reply point to multiple gods - "I said, 'You are gods'"? Well, it didn't at all: both He and His antagonists knew that there was only one God of Israel. In fact, Jesus taught that it was central to the "greatest commandment" (Matt. 22:36-40). So, then why the quote of "gods"? Perhaps because those "gods (who died like men)" were not "gods", or "God" at all, but had been servants who were disobedient to God's commandments to which they'd been entrusted, as were the Jewish judges facing Him at that very moment. And Jesus furthermore said in the same section that His works clearly showed His obedience to His Father in heaven, just as their refusal of Him showed their disobedience.

So "gods" in the Genesis since?

Originally Posted by aron

But we often missed all this because we were unfamiliar with source text, i.e. the OT. We were Christians, or in Lee's parlance, "New Testament believers", so we focused on the NT, the Christian commentary of the apostle Paul, or today's Paul (WL), the so-called minister of the age, and supposedly God's present oracle. Witness Lee effectively told us not to waste our time with the Psalms; stick with the "high peak truths", he said, and with the "heart of the divine revelation": Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians. The result is that we became shallow, ignorant, vain, and puffed up; empty sounding brass, full of teachings but with no love or good works. Just like those who were arguing with Jesus in John chapter 10. They knew neither God nor scripture.

You're not suggesting that the OT can keep us from becoming "shallow, ignorant, vain, and puffed up; empty sounding brass, full of teachings but with no love or good works" are you?

Originally Posted by aron

(the above, especially the last paragraph, only pertains to my growing up Protestant and being in the LC for 6 years, and doesn't apply to many balanced and careful Christian teachers out there, and those who follow them. And Lee may have covered "...you will die like men" in his expositions of John 10 and Psalm 82. But my point still remains.)

Yeah your point is for us to go back to The Law, and a grumpy old God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

You're not suggesting that the OT can keep us from becoming "shallow, ignorant, vain, and puffed up; empty sounding brass, full of teachings but with no love or good works" are you?

Not at all. I'm suggesting that without understanding the source (OT) of the conversation we're reading (NT), we don't understand it. If we ignorantly presume understanding, then we become shallow and puffed up.

Originally Posted by awareness

Yeah your point is for us to go back to The Law, and a grumpy old God.

Negative. The grumpy people in John 10 were those who opposed Jesus. They thought they knew the answers. As do we, far too often. My point is that the God Jesus presented wasn't a different God, a "new and improved" God of grace. Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, and opened the way for the rest of us by believing into Him. Unlike Jesus, WL held the Psalms texts to be vain, natural concepts of fallen men, which can be profitably ignored.

But if we ignore it, we don't even understand what Jesus was talking about, do we? His quotes don't make any sense to us. And how can we then follow? Even, I would ask, how can we imitate Paul, who imitated Jesus? I repeat what was written initially on this thread: the concepts I see here aren't in scripture; rather they're those of the Bible expositor. Natural and fallen.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

This scene in John chapter 10 is a good example: the writer of the fourth gospel was intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures, as were Jesus and His opposers.

Originally Posted by awareness

Well the writer for sure ... Jesus and the opposers aren't as certain. As I've stated: Of course the writers of the NT knew the OT. It's all they had. They couldn't be literate without it ... and therefore wouldn't know how to write, or read, for that matter -- like 90% back then -- like what is said of John & Peter, in Acts 4:13 (see Strong's).

Actually Jesus and the opposers were more intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures than even the gospel writers. Jesus was...well for reasons even too obvious for even Harold to deny. And let's not forget the “opposers” were the Pharisees and scribes...these were people who were the most intimately acquainted with the OT scriptures....it was practically their full-time job to memorize “the Law and the Prophets” (along with the rest of the OT of course) Just because they did a pretty lousy job of living those scriptures out does not negate the fact that they were the most intimately acquainted with said OT scriptures.

Originally Posted by aron

The unbalanced RecV Bible, for instance, will have a page of footnotes devoted to a verse in Ephesians or Colossians, and almost nothing, maybe a cross-reference or two, in a page of Psalms.

Originally Posted by awareness

Lee took "Ye are gods" very seriously ... like he could write scripture in his footnotes. But if it's true, that, we are gods, any of us could write footnotes as scripture ... even, maybe, UntoHim ... who is little 'g' god out here.

Ah, Harold, you flatter me again my man! Look, if I was any kind of a god, even “a little g god”, I would have vaporized you by now, or at least shut you up like Gabriel did to Zechariah.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

Not at all. I'm suggesting that without understanding the source (OT) of the conversation we're reading (NT), we don't understand it. If we ignorantly presume understanding, then we become shallow and puffed up.

Negative. The grumpy people in John 10 were those who opposed Jesus. They thought they knew the answers. As do we, far too often. My point is that the God Jesus presented wasn't a different God, a "new and improved" God of grace. Jesus fulfilled the law and the prophets, and opened the way for the rest of us by believing into Him. Unlike Jesus, WL held the Psalms texts to be vain, natural concepts of fallen men, which can be profitably ignored.

But if we ignore it, we don't even understand what Jesus was talking about, do we? His quotes don't make any sense to us. And how can we then follow? Even, I would ask, how can we imitate Paul, who imitated Jesus? I repeat what was written initially on this thread: the concepts I see here aren't in scripture; rather they're those of the Bible expositor. Natural and fallen.

Good response. Thanks ...

It is sad that we're natural and fallen ... including Nee and Lee.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

It is sad that we're natural and fallen ... including Nee and Lee.

The gospel arguably has two parts. First is that we're fallen and mortal. And yes it is sad. Death impinges upon our every turn. The second part is the good part - God loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son, in whom we might be restored to life and our Father's presence.

So the first part, while unpleasant, is merely prelude to the second. But we must be clear about the second part. God loved us so much that He sent His Son, and this is not "the normal church" or "the proper ground" or "the ministry of the age". The Son is Jesus Christ, and no other.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

The gospel arguably has two parts. First is that we're fallen and mortal. And yes it is sad. Death impinges upon our every turn. The second part is the good part - God loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son, in whom we might be restored to life and our Father's presence.

So the first part, while unpleasant, is merely prelude to the second. But we must be clear about the second part. God loved us so much that He sent His Son, and this is not "the normal church" or "the proper ground" or "the ministry of the age". The Son is Jesus Christ, and no other.

It still sad that we're stuck with the first part even tho we have the second part.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

It still sad that we're stuck with the first part even tho we have the second part.

I remember reading Matthew 20, when the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, worshipping Him and asking for a favor; WL said that "she was worshipping with a motive". Uh, ok... and he wasn't "ministering with a motive"? We all function at least somewhat impinged by motives; we're all at least partly in impurity. Even the apostle Paul, even the apostle Peter, even dear Miss Sainted Margaret Barber and Seer of the Age Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, God's Humble Bondslave. We're all impure. Only Jesus is pure. I believe that's intrinsic to the gospel message itself. "Forgive and you'll be forgiven..." if you were already perfected, being forgiven wouldn't be necessary, now would it? "Show mercy and you'll receive mercy..." if you were fully apart from the touch of fallen humanity you wouldn't need mercy, would you?

When they came to Him, saying, "Good Master..." Jesus refused the title. Only God is good. While we're here in the flesh of sin we should never presume pride of place. Only after the Bema do we find hope of reward, or glory; not here on earth. I think WL got lured by the scent of earthly glory, which happily tied in with a monopolistic merchandizing of his ministry to the Local Churches of the Lord's Recovery. So he could diss the writers of scripture as being "low" and "fallen", point out the foibles of every character in the Bible, yet anyone somehow exposing his own failures (or his family's) was in rebellion against God.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I remember reading Matthew 20, when the mother of the sons of Zebedee came to Jesus with her sons, worshipping Him and asking for a favor; WL said that "she was worshipping with a motive". Uh, ok... and he wasn't "ministering with a motive"? We all function at least somewhat impinged by motives; we're all at least partly in impurity. Even the apostle Paul, even the apostle Peter, even dear Miss Sainted Margaret Barber and Seer of the Age Watchman Nee and Witness Lee, God's Humble Bondslave. We're all impure. Only Jesus is pure. I believe that's intrinsic to the gospel message itself. "Forgive and you'll be forgiven..." if you were already perfected, being forgiven wouldn't be necessary, now would it? "Show mercy and you'll receive mercy..." if you were fully apart from the touch of fallen humanity you wouldn't need mercy, would you?

When they came to Him, saying, "Good Master..." Jesus refused the title. Only God is good. While we're here in the flesh of sin we should never presume pride of place. Only after the Bema do we find hope of reward, or glory; not here on earth. I think WL got lured by the scent of earthly glory, which happily tied in with a monopolistic merchandizing of his ministry to the Local Churches of the Lord's Recovery. So he could diss the writers of scripture as being "low" and "fallen", point out the foibles of every character in the Bible, yet anyone somehow exposing his own failures (or his family's) was in rebellion against God.

Obviously Lee was projecting, on others and scripture. I forgive the old coot. Just as I forgive my unapologetic racist father. Both were foolish old coots. I forgive but don't follow either of them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

It still sad that we're stuck with the first part even tho we have the second part.

One reason I find much of CCM to be essentially maudlin treacle is that it's stuck in the first part. According to the CCM songwriter, Jesus is high up in heaven, and we're down here on earth, either waving our arms ecstatically in "worship" music, or we're confessing how poor and miserable and needy we are. The recent song posted on this site, with lyrics by Jeremy Camp, was exemplary of the genre.

Looks like a boy's in trouble again
Living much too close to the edge of sin
Now he finds himself where he should not have been
Oh God why is Your peace so hard to find
And the answer to the questions that haunt my mind

Oh Lord, Your ways are not like mine

Chorus:
And it pounds like thunder within in my breast
All the anger of my humanness
And though I call You "Lord" I must confess
I'm a stranger to Your holiness, a stranger to Your holiness

Can we really be what we were meant to be
Jesus' people, living by the Spirit and living free
My heart longs to serve, but wanders so aimlessly
Oh Lord You deserve every part of me

CHORUS

Hear my cry of desperation as I see the wickedness of my ways
You alone are my salvation, and Lord I've learned this one thing to be true
Is that the closer I get to You, I see I'm a stranger (to Your holiness)
Don't wanna be no stranger, and it burns like a fire.

The whole point of the gospel is not to fixate upon "the wickedness of our ways", but to see Jesus. Let me go back to the text of the Psalms: "in the midst of the 'ekklesia' (church, assembly, meeting) I will sing hymns of praise to You." This quote from Psalm 22 was shown in the epistle to the Hebrews as: "In the midst of the assembly, I Jesus will sing hymns of praise to You, Father." It is not "In the midst of the assembly I Jeremy Camp will sing hymns of praise to You Jesus".

Or course we do praise and bless the Lord Jesus. But we do so because the Lord Jesus leads us back to the Father. The focus of the church meeting is Jesus Christ, in our midst, leading us home to the Father. The focus is not we the miserable sinners (Jeremy Camp) or we the spotless Bride (Witness Lee). The focus of the meeting is on Jesus Christ bringing us home to our Father. It seems to me that Witness Lee typically ignored the first part, of our sinfulness, and is therefore stuck there. It was if, for him, the idea of sin to the "NT believer" was passe, or irrelevant. Jeremy Camp's song seems to be just stuck there. "Miserable me!!" But I believe that the focus should be that Jesus Christ came to the first part (sinful humanity) to bring them to the second part (the Father's house).

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

One reason I find much of CCM to be essentially maudlin treacle is that it's stuck in the first part. According to the CCM songwriter, Jesus is high up in heaven, and we're down here on earth, either waving our arms ecstatically in "worship" music, or we're confessing how poor and miserable and needy we are. The recent song posted on this site, with lyrics by Jeremy Camp, was exemplary of the genre.

While I generally agree with this statement, I would say CCM has made some very positive strides over the past 10-15 years. I was at the original Calvary Chapel in Orange County CA back in the early-mid 70s and witnessed the very beginnings of contemporary Christian music. Some of it was among the most shallow stuff I've ever heard. Of course today's CCM includes everything from remakes of the old hymns all the way to Christian Hip-Hop! There are quite a number of younger song writers/singers/musicians who are writing some very "theologically profound" lyrics. I happen to fellowship a church with the average age of early 30s, and the worship music could be considered as "contemporary". They sing a wide variety, with a pretty healthy mix of the older hymns (mostly remade with more of a contemporary melody/sound) and a lot of the newer things written by some of the newer artists. Sometimes the band gets a little loud for this old dude, but I have discovered quite a number of newer Christian artists through our worship service. I have posted a number of them on the "Listen Up" module on the home page.

As for this particular song, "Stranger to your holiness", by STEVE Camp (**Correction from JEREMY Camp, who is also a CCM artist, who coincidentally was born in 1978, the very year of STEVE Camp's first release of a CCM song. Steve and Jeremy are not related)...as for this particular song, Stranger to your holiness, Steve Camp wrote this song very early on in his career, over 30 years ago when he was only still in his 20s, so I think we can give him a pass for this one not being very theologically sound or complete.

Actually I posted this particular song in reaction to hearing the news about Tullian Tchividjian - yet another South Florida megachurch pastor to be caught in adultery and lose his church and substantial national ministry. Tchividjian is a grandson of Billy Graham, and is a self-confessed, highly tattooed former bad boy. His parents actually kicked him out of the house when he was only 16. Anyway, this was part of his testimony over the years. I forgot how I ran into Steve Camp's "Stranger to your holiness", but the opening line of "Look's like the boy's in trouble again" just struck me as incredibly relevant and timely to the situation with Tchividjian.

By the way, the teaching pastors/elders of my church just started a series on the Psalms. I think it's going to last at least 6 months. I try to keep you appraised on this tread.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

While I generally agree with this statement, I would say CCM has made some very positive strides over the past 10-15 years. I was at the original Calvary Chapel in Orange County CA back in the early-mid 70s and witnessed the very beginnings of contemporary Christian music. Some of it was among the most shallow stuff I've ever heard. Of course today's CCM includes everything from remakes of the old hymns all the way to Christian Hip-Hop! There are quite a number of younger song writers/singers/musicians who are writing some very "theologically profound" lyrics.

For every person that dislikes a song, there may be someone who says, "I was in despair, and I heard this song and gave my life to Christ" or some such. Therefore one has to be careful not to be a despiser. And there is a lot of GREAT music out there. But still, the point was that a song, a testimony, a teaching, or a meeting should direct the focus towards Jesus Christ and not away from Him. When the focus of the song is on the song-writer (or his/her hypothetical protagonist) instead of Jesus Christ, then I'm not interested. Been there, done that. That was what was meant by "maudlin treacle" - we'll wallow in the fall of humanity, instead of putting it behind us and focusing, unyielding, on our Lord, Guiding Shepherd and High Priest.

Likewise, the focus of WL was too often on "the rich ministry" or "God's economy" or "The Glorious Church" (Question: if the Glorious Church was so glorious, why did Luther leave the RCC, or WN leave the Protestants?) or some other vision of his. In the LC the focus was always on so many things, added on to the gospel, which supposedly uplifted it but just ultimately distracted the hearer. For example, "Eating Jesus is the way!!" -- see how easily, yet another activity crowds in to our attention? Various flows, moves, and ways, and the storms that follow. All of them took our focus and attention away from our Savior.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

As for this particular song, "Stranger to your holiness", by STEVE Camp (**Correction from JEREMY Camp, who is also a CCM artist, who coincidentally was born in 1978, the very year of STEVE Camp's first release of a CCM song. Steve and Jeremy are not related)...as for this particular song, Stranger to your holiness, Steve Camp wrote this song very early on in his career, over 30 years ago when he was only still in his 20s, so I think we can give him a pass for this one not being very theologically sound or complete.

Whatever things I've been called over the years, a meticulous scholar wasn't one of them. I apologize for mixing them up. And as noted, perhaps many have been helped by their music. But I offered a subjective assessment of what a particular song was doing for me, which was nothing. And I tried to make it into a larger point, but probably painted too broadly.

Back to an earlier statement:

Originally Posted by aron

The gospel arguably has two parts. First is that we're fallen and mortal. And yes it is sad. Death impinges upon our every turn. The second part is the good part - God loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son, in whom we might be restored to life and our Father's presence.

Remember where the Samaritan woman went around and declared to all that Jesus was the Christ? It was based on His accurate assessment of her true condition ("He told me everything that I have done") and His offer of an alternative. The people came to Jesus based on her testimony, but after, they believed because of the experience of meeting Jesus Himself. Her testimony was only valid to draw others to Jesus, not to distract them. Suppose after 3 days they had said, to paraphrase John 4:42, "We no longer believe because what you have said, but now we have seen and believe that Jesus is Lord and you're the seer of the age" (or, "we now have seen the ground of the church", or "we have seen God's economy", etc). Our testimony should ultimately cause people to forget us and our testimony, and turn completely and unequivocally to Jesus.

So I'd modify the statement: The gospel consists of two parts. First included our failure, and how Jesus came to meet us where we were. Second, that our testimony opens the door to the voice of the Shepherd Himself that ultimately meets the hearer, and our testimony then becomes superfluous. We're here to introduce people to Jesus Christ, and then we should be wise, like John the Baptist, and recede.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Actually I posted this particular song in reaction to hearing the news about Tullian Tchividjian - yet another South Florida megachurch pastor to be caught in adultery and lose his church and substantial national ministry. Tchividjian is a grandson of Billy Graham, and is a self-confessed, highly tattooed former bad boy....I forgot how I ran into Steve Camp's "Stranger to your holiness", but the opening line of "Look's like the boy's in trouble again" just struck me as incredibly relevant and timely to the situation with Tchividjian.

I'm vaguely aware of the name. I'm sad that calamity has come, to him or to anyone. All of us are children of calamity, pelted by the failures of the world. In Jesus Christ alone there is hope. I do desire that our testimonies, our meetings, and our ministries, would all fade away at the brightness of His appearing.

And He is there in the word. The word testifies concerning Him; even He Himself is called "the Word of God." And His testimony is true: He is quite capable of leading us home. Everything He said to us came from the Father of lights.

[HERn]

"All of them took our focus and attention away from our Savior."

That dear bro Aron is the chief sin of the current blindeds running the LSM-LC franchise movement.

He is after all Jesus our Savior or Jesus our Lord. He's not Jesus the creator of gods economy, or Jesus the coordinator of the one new man, or Jesus of the lords recovery, or Jesus of the local churches.

[OBW]

Over many years, there has been some look-back to my upbringing in the Assemblies of God (Pentecostal and Arminian), noting what seemed to be an unusually large number of preachers who had to step down over moral issues. I know there have been a number of large non-AOG situations in recent years. But the AOG is a fairly small denomination, so not many mega-churches to look at. And the number still is somewhat large proportionately.

We always blamed it on a combination of the erroneous thought that having been “filled with the Holy Ghost” with all the typical Pentecostal baggage that entailed made you somehow immune to temptation, coupled with the idea that since you can lose your salvation anyway and just get it back, might as well “go with the sin” for a bit then repent.

Now other evangelical groups seem to be having the same problems. And it is more noticeable to the outside world because of the size of some of the particular churches involved, and the public profiles of the particular persons. And while the analysis is somewhat different, to me it is still almost the same. Just different in terminology.

Since we as evangelicals claim (rightly) that we are under grace, I believe that our tendency is to rely on that grace to cover our sins (which it does) rather than practice (exercise) ourselves to godliness (righteousness) and other steps which actually engage in the life that Jesus taught rather than just preach about the loving grace of God (which is true) that saves you even though you remain fallen and broken (which you do). So at some level, we come to believe that trying to do the “works” of being righteous, and of other kinds of works, like caring for the widow and orphan, to name a couple, we just assume that we will somehow become better because we read a lot of scripture and pray a lot, but don’t take any action to live like we do either of those things.

I know. Someone is going to say “There goes OBW again talking about obedience.” And they are right. If you can’t obey, why do we think that anyone should listen to our words that claim a Christ that changes lives. He is not changing ours. Well, may be our attitude toward spiritual things. But not our living. Maybe we don’t rob convenience stores. But are we noteworthy in our lives? Or are we still “just as I am” (or rather were since that was supposed to be at our salvation)?

Yes. David was a failure. But he also repented and took the consequences and at least mostly kept pursuing God. And if you think this is just about reading more scrolls and praying a lot, then I don’t think you understand David very well. He took action. And he actually repented for his failures. He didn’t just say that God would forgive him because of his lovingkindness. He asked for that lovingkindness to forgive him. He repented in sackcloth and ashes. And he wrote a couple of Psalms about it. Made an example of himself.

This is off-topic — at least sort of. But it is so prominent in the various public failings of the past few years. Yes, they step down from their ministries (well most of them do). But when I look at the people I know, both inside the LCM and outside in other parts of Christianity, the tendency of the “it’s just grace” crowd to take few steps to actually live righteously — at least in the areas they don’t consider imperatives. There is something seriously wrong with that theology. And a theology that assumes that once you pray some particular prayer you are simply saved forever seems to give us all a lot of opportunity to indulge the flesh because, as Paul admitted, where there is sin, grace abounds. But he noted that they should not sin just so that grace would abound. Why do we have to still be in that same place? Maybe we aren’t having inappropriate relationships. But what acts of unrighteousness do we allow ourselves? Disdain for others rather than loving them as ourselves? Driving like a bat out of hell and thinking that it is everyone else that are the jerks? (guilty at times)

Yes. The Samaritan woman could tell what she heard and get people to move. But if she is still living with the man who is not her husband in a few months, who is going to listen? How often do we presume that what we say is more important that what we do?

I continue to think there are good reasons for this forum to be here standing up to the nonsense that is the LCM. But I don’t think that my task is to continue that fight here. Might still do it elsewhere, especially if the opportunity for real, meaningful, live interaction with certain persons comes up. But my main concerns are moving elsewhere. I will probably peek in on occasion. And even post when it seems appropriate or worthwhile. No one has caused or asked me to “move on.” Just getting to a different place. After about 10 years on these forums, I think my lines have been read. My character is moving off the island. It might resurface on occasion. But it has moved away.

Enjoy.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

But my main concerns are moving elsewhere. I will probably peek in on occasion. And even post when it seems appropriate or worthwhile. No one has caused or asked me to “move on.” Just getting to a different place. After about 10 years on these forums, I think my lines have been read. My character is moving off the island. It might resurface on occasion. But it has moved away.

Enjoy.

You will be missed bro Mike.

And as I see it the Christian life isn't suppose to be going to Bible study after Bible study. Where's the Bible living studies?

[HERn]

Hi OBW, I don't really know you much, but I wish you all the best and thanks for your comments and prayers.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Over many years, there has been some look-back to my upbringing in the Assemblies of God (Pentecostal and Arminian), noting what seemed to be an unusually large number of preachers who had to step down over moral issues... We always blamed it on a combination of the erroneous thought that having been “filled with the Holy Ghost” with all the typical Pentecostal baggage that entailed made you somehow immune to temptation, coupled with the idea that since you can lose your salvation anyway and just get it back, might as well “go with the sin” for a bit then repent.

Now other evangelical groups seem to be having the same problems. And it is more noticeable to the outside world because of the size of some of the particular churches involved, and the public profiles of the particular persons. And while the analysis is somewhat different, to me it is still almost the same. Just different in terminology.

Since we as evangelicals claim (rightly) that we are under grace, I believe that our tendency is to rely on that grace to cover our sins (which it does) rather than practice (exercise) ourselves to godliness (righteousness) and other steps which actually engage in the life that Jesus taught rather than just preach about the loving grace of God (which is true) that saves you even though you remain fallen and broken (which you do). So at some level, we come to believe that trying to do the “works” of being righteous, and of other kinds of works, like caring for the widow and orphan, to name a couple, we just assume that we will somehow become better because we read a lot of scripture and pray a lot, but don’t take any action to live like we do either of those things.

A challenge for the new Christian believer is that things are not always what they seem to be, even in church. We hear of a God who hides Himself (Isa 45:15), and may come dressed in rags, to see how we'll behave; like the tv show "Undercover Bosses". "When I was sick you visited Me..." On the other hand, the enemy of God, Satan, will occasionally disguise himself as an angel of light (2 Cor 11:14), and insinuate into the fellowship. Thus, the new believer may reject the world, confess the Lord Jesus, come into the church, and be met with liars & thieves disguised as leaders, while God is sitting very quietly over in the corner. Not easy to navigate, but there it is. And here the Charismatic experience, while not invalid, contains danger, with its stress on sensory experience over hard truth. Just shout and yell and wave your arms and righteousness, among other problems, has been magically solved. Wrong - sorry Charlie. For one example, look at the Corinthians, whose "church life" full of charismatic experiences but also full of sin.

And some of that I see in the LC experience, looking back. Consider the scenario that WL found: after a half-century of war (WWI and WWII), people were exhausted with "progress". We had televisions but also nuclear war, and with the Korean conflict barely fading and the Vietnamese conflict emerging, with civil rights and women's rights and the environmental issues swirling, it was so easy to reject "old religion" and just "exercise your spirit on the local ground". So easy and simple. Just be one. Yell Bible verses and spiritual phrases at each other. Righteousness was either irrelevant, or solved by overwhelming grace, we thought; the newbie was vulnerable to this, being trusting that whatever "leaders" do in church is of God.

Lee could create his shibboleth "religion" and pretend that he was offering a new and shiny alternative. But the fact that he kept adding things to his "Jesus", and kept trying to fleece the parishioners with money-making schemes, and that as regards to righteousness he wasn't even qualified to be a church elder, gives flight to the myth that we were all "feasting on such a rich store".

Originally Posted by OBW

David was a failure. But he also repented and took the consequences and at least mostly kept pursuing God. And if you think this is just about reading more scrolls and praying a lot, then I don’t think you understand David very well. He took action. And he actually repented for his failures. He didn’t just say that God would forgive him because of his lovingkindness. He asked for that lovingkindness to forgive him. He repented in sackcloth and ashes. And he wrote a couple of Psalms about it. Made an example of himself.

The Psalms of repentance have a Great High Priest standing by to intervene. So they are not vain. Christ is here, waiting for our confession and acknowledgment. He is always living to intercede for us. So we don't have to pretend to be something we're not.

Originally Posted by OBW

After about 10 years on these forums, I think my lines have been read.

One of the worst internet forum sins, after being impolite, and thinking everyone else to be hopelessly wrong, is the habit of repeating oneself over and over. When the writer finally gets tired of writing the same things repeatedly, perhaps the reader is getting tired, too, or has been for a while. So I understand, and typically hide my repetitions in new phraseology, but the repetition is unfortunately still there.

So for the sake of a recently arrived reader, assuming there are any, my point in starting this thread was that the psalmist speaking of righteousness probably wasn't vain, natural, or fallen. Rather the psalmist was speaking of the irrevocable demands of the holy God, whose demands of righteousness were met for us by Jesus Christ. This is our faith, our hope, and our life; and yes this is our righteousness. Any minister who tries to dismiss the word of God as "low" or "fallen" and therefore irrelevant, probably went astray somewhere.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Ah, Harold, you flatter me again my man! Look, if I was any kind of a god, even “a little g god”, I would have vaporized you by now, or at least shut you up like Gabriel did to Zechariah.

I'm maybe late on the uptake here.

Dismissing the part of vaporizing me and at the risk of, perchance, undo flattery again, I'd like to make a contrast. I'd like to point out an admirable attitude of a 'normal Christian,' in UntoHim's rejection of even that he's a little g god, with Lee's shameful attitude of an 'abnormal Christian' of being the oracle of God.

Which brings me to:

Really, I have to ask, I mean really, just how could Lee think that he could speak for God in proclaiming what is, and what is not, Gods' speaking in the Bible.

How could he ever have any credibility after doing and claiming that, as any kind of a man of the Bible? Who did he think he was? How could we buy it at all? How could any one in their right mind follow him after claiming and doing that?

[HERn]

Originally Posted by awareness

Really, I have to ask, I mean really, just how could Lee think that he could speak for God in proclaiming what is, and what is not, Gods' speaking in the Bible.

How could he ever have any credibility after doing and claiming that, as any kind of a man of the Bible? Who did he think he was? How could we buy it at all? How could any one in their right mind follow him after claiming and doing that?

Just wondering who out there really believed that WL was the minister of the age, or the oracle of God? While I was in the LC I don't think I ever believed that WL was the MOTA, but I did view him as being someone special whose reputation God would protect from slander.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by HERn

Just wondering who out there really believed that WL was the minister of the age, or the oracle of God? While I was in the LC I don't think I ever believed that WL was the MOTA, but I did view him as being someone special whose reputation God would protect from slander.

I never bought into all the talk about Lee being the MOTA. I attended the trainings in the mid-2000's when the blinded brothers started talking about Lee being the MOTA. Little did I realize then, it was mostly talk directed at those in the GLA who weren't using Lee's ministry.

I will say that I felt that Lee had a special reputation before God. I think it was something along the lines of him having more importance than other Christian teachers. That is probably how most LC saints viewed him up to a certain point in time. Probably once Lee started claiming to be God's oracle in the 80's, people started to feel that he was something more than just a Christian teacher that they greatly appreciated.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

Just wondering who out there really believed that WL was the minister of the age, or the oracle of God? While I was in the LC I don't think I ever believed that WL was the MOTA, but I did view him as being someone special whose reputation God would protect from slander.

I thought he was something like an apostle back in the late 70's. By the time I learned he was a MOTA and the acting God, there were too many in the GLA starting to back away from such claims.

[HERn]

I'm thinking that it is easier to leave the LC and ignore the blindeds if you're a Lee MOTA agnostic. When you realize that Lee was just a natural mortal man who discovered a successful business model, then you can dump the MOTA legend and move on to a more normal Christian life in a healthier group.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

... concerning the fall in Genesis.. the real issue ... was that it was not that man got something added to him, or that he gained knowledge. Instead, it is more meaningful to state that we changed our allegiance from God to self. We changed our source of right and wrong from what God said to what we reasoned was right or wrong.

The fall was the result of disobedience, not fruit or snakes.

Knowledge is not the problem. Knowledge from our own counsel is.

Right and wrong is not a problem. In fact, right and wrong remain an important thing from the very beginning to the very end. But right and wrong decided by our flawed minds without the counsel of God is very much a problem.

The above quote is from the thread, "Good vs. Lee's Trees", because it touches on what I've been looking at in the text of the Psalms. The declarations of fealty and obedience aren't vain in the Psalms; rather they presage the restorative activities of the coming Christ. "I delight to do Your will", e.g. Psa 40:8, is truly a picture of the Obedient Lamb of God. Jesus said that David was in spirit and writing about Him, and Peter said that David was a prophet who looked to the promised Seed. But WL was blinkered by the "economy of God" as he presented it.

The obedience of Christ directly addresses the issue of the fall, or properly the falls. In the text we see three separate falls: Satan in Isaiah 14, humans in Genesis 3, and angels in Genesis 6. Note that each fall depended on the preceding. Satan tempted the human with fruit that was pleasing to the eye (3:6), and the daughters of Adam also were pleasing to the eyes of the angels (6:2). In both cases the trespass was made not on the act but on the turn from God's command, to begin to consider the alternative to God's will. The "seed" was already in the eyes, and the considerations of the heart, before the "fruit" was in the hand and then the stomach.

The fall of the angels is especially instructive, as the NT commentary doesn't say anything about them getting injected with sinful nature. No, the commentary (see e.g. Jude 1:6, also 2 Peter) says that the angels disobeyed, and left their divinely allotted places, just as Adam and Eve before them, and Lucifer, and as can any servant of God, who receives the commands and instructions of the Divine will.

It's not about being injected with the satanic nature. It's about obedience. The aspiration of the psalmist is good, as are the expressions, which give framework for the coming Messiah, who is Jesus the Christ, God blessed forever.

If it were about the satanic nature, then how is the Christ obedient? He was also born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4). If satanic nature was the bugaboo here, Christ would be stumbled like the rest. But He believed, and obeyed, and through His obedience He was perfected (Heb 5:8,9). And now, just as He obeyed, we are to obey His commands, and be perfected as well - see the extended discourse in John 15. I wouldn't be so quick to wave off the claims of obedience in the Psalms. "I will not delay to obey Your commands." (Psa 119:60) Let's not look away so quickly from the word of God. It's there to instruct us, and guide us to the Christ, who fulfilled the law to the proverbial jot and tittle. Paul called these writings "the word of Christ", and it might behoove us to pause for a moment and consider why.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

If it were about the satanic nature, then how is the Christ obedient? He was also born of a woman, born under the law (Gal 4:4). If satanic nature was the bugaboo here, Christ would be stumbled like the rest. But He believed, and obeyed, and through His obedience He was perfected (Heb 5:8,9)...

The other interesting thing about Christ's obedience, as contrasted to the disobedient angels in what I call "the third fall" (Genesis 6:1-6; for NT ref. see also Jude 1:6, Rev. 12:4) is that this act of continual and steadfast obedience caused Him to be the vector of God's rule on earth, and this could be seen in apposition, and opposition, to the disobedient "unclean spirits" that He met again and again in the gospel records. Christ had pure dominion, because He was a "man under authority" (Matt 8:9) and as such all the forces of darkness had to fall back before Him.

For those who may be puzzled by the link between the fall of the angels in Genesis 6, and the unclean spirits which Jesus continually rebuked and cast out, there was a sizable "intertestamental" literature, exemplified but not limited to the Enochic corpus. For example, jesus probably referenced this in saying, "When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it flies through waterless places seeking rest...etc". This kind of speaking would not be uncommon to the Second Temple or Intertestamental period, most of the literature of which didn't make it into the canonical status but nonetheless informed the understanding of the day. Jude and 2 Peter probably also reference this intertestamental body of work.

In the NT gospel record you see someone who has faith, who lives by faith, who obeys the commands of God without hesitation, and whose obedience makes Him a beacon to those seeking light, as well as a terror to the forces of darkness who continually press in from all sides.

"May those who fear You rejoice when they see Me". - Psa 119:74

"Ah! What have we to do with You, Jesus, Nazarene? Have You come to destroy us before our time?" - Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34

And in the Psalms you also continually see the forces of light in opposition to the forces of darkness. WL mistakenly believed that the author(s) of the Palms were natural, and fallen, unable to extricate themselves from the effect of the fall. However, I believe that they genuinely aspired to the light, and those aspirations set the stage for the One who followed - He that followed was the True Light who came into the world, and who came after them because He was before them. They rejoiced to see Him. "Truly I say to you, your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day". As did David, Lemuel, and Asaph. And many, many more.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Romans 1:17

For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed--a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

I believe that Paul was quoting Habakkuk 2:14 "See, the enemy is puffed up; his desires are not upright-- but the righteous person will live by his faithfulness --"

The faith that Habakkuk was writing about was a continual action. Being faithful. This is Jesus Christ. We Christians, we disciples of this Jesus, believe, and attempt to follow. We hold that the faithful actions of Jesus were not vain (God furnished proof of this by raising Him from the dead), nor were the declarations of faithful action by the psalmist. The power in those declarations is that they pointed to the coming Messiah. Today through those words we can see the Faithful One, re-orient ourselves to the Father's House via Him, and begin our journey home. The Word of God in this process is key: it reveals Christ to us who becomes our Way home. To disparage the word of scripture as darkened, low, or merely of fallen men's concepts is to miss the point, and fall into grave error.

[aron]

I wanted to copy a quote from another thread, and respond here, because it matches a theme I've been exploring on this thread: obedience.

Originally Posted by awareness

Terry was speaking of individualism and anti-individual ... and communism and democracy are examples of the two extremes. A Theocracy on the other hand is even more anti-individual ... .

(The following isn't presented as 'truth' per se, but some current thoughts).

The paradox of "He who loses his soul-life will gain it" is relevant in the discussion of individualism, and I'd use a quote from the Psalms to shed light. The psalmist wrote, "I run in the pathways of Your command/For You have set my heart free." There's a juxtaposition here, of complete obedience and complete freedom. The writer is a slave to God's every command, but in being obedient has found his true "self", his real being.

We once were slaves to sin, now we present ourselves as slaves to righteousness. The paragon of this latter aspect is of course Jesus Christ Himself, who was completely subsumed by the Father's will, and in so doing became the complete and real human being, i.e. the only true Individual. Hebrews 5:8,9 says that Jesus alone was "made perfect in obedience"; the rest of us, tainted by the fall, became automatons, driven by the flesh and the fallen soul. Jesus alone was completely dependent upon God's command, and thus completely independent of the fallen human sphere.

WL completely misunderstood obedience in the context of the psalmists' writings. He passed it off with, "Nobody is obedient. All are sinners", and held up David's many sins as an example. But he ignored the coming Messiah. Again and again the NT writings point to this, that the OT declarations of piety, obedience, and salvific rescue were fulfilled in Jesus Christ. WL said, "No; David rescued himself", and unwittingly repeated the same charge the scoffers made at the cross: "He trusted in God, let Him save Him (Jesus) now". Hey Jesus, You did so many miracles - Let's see You climb down from that cross! Nyah-nyah-nyah!

No, we know this isn't the case. Jesus obeyed the Father, and the Father delighted in His Son, rescued Him from the grips of death, and gave Him glory.

True individualism is thus to find the Christ who's there before us in the Word. Not the Christ that Lee's theology presents, one shorn of historical context, but the real and true Man who walked in the reality that was set before Him by God's commands. That those commands were previously written in scripture, by fallen men like Moses and David, is not irrelevant, not at all.

In one sense I'm like WL, captured by an idea. But in another sense my idea is different, in that it requires nobody to line up behind me or anyone else. True freedom is to obey God. Only Jesus found this freedom, and only through faith in Jesus Christ will I find it, as well. Only in Jesus can I run in the pathways of His commands; only in Jesus is my heart set free.

"If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed." For me, this is the only true individualism. All other attempts are crushed by hard reality.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

True individualism is thus to find the Christ who's there before us in the Word. Not the Christ that Lee's theology presents, one shorn of historical context, but the real and true Man who by faith walked in what was set before Him by God's commands. That those commands were previously written in scripture, by fallen men like Moses and David, is not irrelevant, not at all.

"He trusted in God; let him deliver him now; if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God." Matthew 27:43

"All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." Psalm 22:7,8

WL had something that he called the "heart of the divine revelation", contained in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, and Philippians. I think of, for instance, the phrase, "until Christ is formed in you" in Galatians 4:19. Now, I'm no scholar and surely some could argue differently (or present the same argument differently), but I'd like to show how the conceptual Christ formed by WL deviated from that which was being presented in Paul's epistles.

Remember that at the time Paul was writing, they didn't have a New Testament (NT) corpus. The written gospels probably weren't in wide circulation either, at least in present form. What the Christian assemblies had was the extant scripture, which today we call the Old Testament (OT). So when Paul said for the word of Christ to dwell in you richly, was he talking about his epistles? Were the saints really supposed to pray-read his letters?

No, he was talking about the OT. And while the Psalms weren't exclusively Paul's 'word of Christ', they were heavily cited in the NT and clearly had prominence: Paul specifically mentioned them as revelatory sources twice, in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. Along with singing psalms, were various songs which the believers used, parts of which are probably quoted in the text of NT epistles. But I'll make my case with the Psalms, though by no means were they alone understood as being the 'word of Christ'. But they're convenient for us to access today because they have widespread NT precedence (i.e. usage) and line up well with Jesus the Nazarene (probably why NT authors cited them so frequently).

What kind of Christ did Paul's epistles envision being formed in the Christian believer? First, he said that the word of Christ would dwell in them richly, meaning it's living and operative (cf Heb. 4:12). The living oracles (the OT prophetic words of Christ) function within the fallen but redeemed and regenerated human being to turn their thoughts (focus, attention, volition) back to the Father. Originally the prophetic word provided a framework, then Christ came and inhabited this word to the letter (see e.g. the quotes above: Psa. 22 transposed to Matt. 27). Next, the textual equivalent, or parallel, of the word of Christ indwelling us richly is the idea of being filled with the Spirit. So the Spirit that comes when we declare, "Lord Jesus!!" fills us when we access the word of Christ by singing. This is the Spirit that gives life, the same life-giving Spirit that raised Jesus from on the third day. It is indeed a word of Spirit and life.

With me so far? Okay, I hold that this is nothing less than "Christ making His home in our hearts", which gradually leads to "not I but Christ in me", and to "Christ being formed in us". Similar to WL's scheme, except in this case, Christ isn't shorn of historical context. This Christ is the one who lived and walked and breathed in Galilee and Judea, who died and went into the earth, only to rise to glory on the third day. But the Christ formed within their oeuvre is a Christ from WL's hymns, footnotes, teachings and outlines, a Christ controlling access to the word and even excluding the word, if necessary. A generic Christ who can be anything that they need him to be for the LC church life, a Christ removed from the word of scriptures, which scriptures WL called "low", "natural", and "fallen men's concepts" and the like. The choice is clear: I think WL and crew made it easy for us.

I'll repeat what was written at the start: that one could use the same verses and phrases above and argue differently, or could argue similarly using different verses or phrases. I'm not a systematic scholar, and randomly picked a few verses that seemed useful to my case. And I go by memory, so one could also claim, and maybe even show, that WL spoke or wrote differently.

But for me, the Christ that WL's adherents claim is indwelling them richly, and organically and metabolically assimilating into their beings to make them the same as God in life and nature, is a Christ removed from the word of God. It's a Christ of convenience, and of show, a Christ of a Bible expositor's imagination, and that being a Bible expositor who prized his own imagination more than the biblical text. So when they wave their phrases and platitudes it can be hard to say, "amen". I'd love to, but it's hard. Because frankly I don't know what Christ they're talking about.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

"He trusted in God; let him deliver him now; if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God." Matthew 27:43

"All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." Psalm 22:7,8

WL had something that he called the "heart of the divine revelation", contained in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, and Philippians. I think of, for instance, the phrase, "until Christ is formed in you" in Galatians 4:19. Now, I'm no scholar and surely some could argue differently (or present the same argument differently), but I'd like to show how the conceptual Christ formed by WL deviated from that which was being presented in Paul's epistles.

Remember that at the time Paul was writing, they didn't have a New Testament (NT) corpus. The written gospels probably weren't in wide circulation either, at least in present form. What the Christian assemblies had was the extant scripture, which today we call the Old Testament (OT). So when Paul said for the word of Christ to dwell in you richly, was he talking about his epistles? Were the saints really supposed to pray-read his letters?

No, he was talking about the OT. And while the Psalms weren't exclusively Paul's 'word of Christ', they were heavily cited in the NT and clearly had prominence: Paul specifically mentioned them as revelatory sources twice, in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. Along with singing psalms, were various songs which the believers used, parts of which are probably quoted in the text of NT epistles. But I'll make my case with the Psalms, though by no means were they alone understood as being the 'word of Christ'. But they're convenient for us to access today because they have widespread NT precedence (i.e. usage) and line up well with Jesus the Nazarene (probably why NT authors cited them so frequently).

What kind of Christ did Paul's epistles envision being formed in the Christian believer? First, he said that the word of Christ would dwell in them richly, meaning it's living and operative (cf Heb. 4:12). The living oracles (the OT prophetic words of Christ) function within the fallen but redeemed and regenerated human being to turn their thoughts (focus, attention, volition) back to the Father. Originally the prophetic word provided a framework, then Christ came and inhabited this word to the letter (see e.g. the quotes above: Psa. 22 transposed to Matt. 27). Next, the textual equivalent, or parallel, of the word of Christ indwelling us richly is the idea of being filled with the Spirit. So the Spirit that comes when we declare, "Lord Jesus!!" fills us when we access the word of Christ by singing. This is the Spirit that gives life, the same life-giving Spirit that raised Jesus from on the third day. It is indeed a word of Spirit and life.

With me so far? Okay, I hold that this is nothing less than "Christ making His home in our hearts", which gradually leads to "not I but Christ in me", and to "Christ being formed in us". Similar to WL's scheme, except in this case, Christ isn't shorn of historical context. This Christ is the one who lived and walked and breathed in Galilee and Judea, who died and went into the earth, only to rise to glory on the third day. But the Christ formed within their oeuvre is a Christ from WL's hymns, footnotes, teachings and outlines, a Christ controlling access to the word and even excluding the word, if necessary. A generic Christ who can be anything that they need him to be for the LC church life, a Christ removed from the word of scriptures, which scriptures WL called "low", "natural", and "fallen men's concepts" and the like. The choice is clear: I think WL and crew made it easy for us.

I'll repeat what was written at the start: that one could use the same verses and phrases above and argue differently, or could argue similarly using different verses or phrases. I'm not a systematic scholar, and randomly picked a few verses that seemed useful to my case. And I go by memory, so one could also claim, and maybe even show, that WL spoke or wrote differently.

But for me, the Christ that WL's adherents claim is indwelling them richly, and organically and metabolically assimilating into their beings to make them the same as God in life and nature, is a Christ removed from the word of God. It's a Christ of convenience, and of show, a Christ of a Bible expositor's imagination, and that being a Bible expositor who prized his own imagination more than the biblical text. So when they wave their phrases and platitudes it can be hard to say, "amen". I'd love to, but it's hard. Because frankly I don't know what Christ they're talking about.

Thanks much Aron. This goes to the heart of something that has been of concern to me for some time. Is the WL-LSM-LC "Christ" really the resurrected and glorified God-man Jesus of Nazareth or perhaps a cleverly disguised demon? If this is too much I apologize, but I have thought at times that the "Christ" some of the brothers proclaim is not the same Christ I claim to know. Maybe I'm the one deceived.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Is the WL-LSM-LC "Christ" really the resurrected and glorified God-man Jesus of Nazareth or perhaps a cleverly disguised demon?

I'd reply that we're all purveyors of mixture. So strictly speaking that could apply to us all, and at least partly to the Christ which we preach. Christ is of course pure, but the Christ I present to the world isn't always perfect. The safety valve here is in the flock - where one goes astray someone else can speak a restraining or adjusting or cautionary word and vice versa. In the WL-LC-LSM variant, no restraining word is possible, so it can get pretty convoluted, and pretty contaminated.

At first the hermeneutic package seemed well-constructed: some verses from Paul's epistles, combined with the gospel message, seeming to form a coherent message; then that message, whether "God's economy" or whatever label, was overlaid upon scripture. But look critically and we see that verses taken out of context, shoehorned into saying things the NT author never intended; many, many verses are ignored, and even dismissed as "fallen" and "natural", and if you bring it up any of this you're rejected outright. Because, they say, "the oracle has spoken". So the LSM oeuvre is pretty thoroughly contaminated at this point, all the references to Christ this and Christ that notwithstanding.

In the NT, like the OT, the characters were held to be imperfect. Yet for all of that, God was pleased to reveal himself to us. Peter made many mistakes. John and James also. The disciples were often confused, ignorant, frightened, and consistently misinterpreted what was happening. Somehow we got duped by WL & Co into thinking that Paul avoided any error, and then church leadership from thenceforth was, what's the word .. ex cathedra? Unable to err. WL certainly fell into this mold. So he could dismiss the scriptures as unprofitable, and create a Christ which substantially moved away from the traditional understanding, and we had to say, "hurrah". The creation of a novel Christ, formed without any feedback from the ekklesia, should make us all wary. It is hard to imagine WL giving some of those messages in front of thousands of otherwise intelligent people, and none of them could point out the glaring errors of thought parading in front of them. In that sense, yes indeed there is a deceiving spirit at work. No doubt in my mind.

But again, we're all at best only partly sighted here on this earthly coil. So if I tried to keep away from those in deception and error I'd be locked in a box, with my own errors, and none to correct me.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

I'd reply that we're all purveyors of mixture. So strictly speaking that could apply to us all, and at least partly to the Christ which we preach. Christ is of course pure, but the Christ I present to the world isn't always perfect. The safety valve here is in the flock - where one goes astray someone else can speak a restraining or adjusting or cautionary word and vice versa. In the WL-LC-LSM variant, no restraining word is possible, so it can get pretty convoluted, and pretty contaminated.

At first the hermeneutic package seemed well-constructed: some verses from Paul's epistles, combined with the gospel message, seeming to form a coherent message; then that message, whether "God's economy" or whatever label, was overlaid upon scripture. But look critically and we see that verses taken out of context, shoehorned into saying things the NT author never intended; many, many verses are ignored, and even dismissed as "fallen" and "natural", and if you bring it up any of this you're rejected outright. Because, they say, "the oracle has spoken". So the LSM oeuvre is pretty thoroughly contaminated at this point, all the references to Christ this and Christ that notwithstanding.

In the NT, like the OT, the characters were held to be imperfect. Yet for all of that, God was pleased to reveal himself to us. Peter made many mistakes. John and James also. The disciples were often confused, ignorant, frightened, and consistently misinterpreted what was happening. Somehow we got duped by WL & Co into thinking that Paul avoided any error, and then church leadership from thenceforth was, what's the word .. ex cathedra? Unable to err. WL certainly fell into this mold. So he could dismiss the scriptures as unprofitable, and create a Christ which substantially moved away from the traditional understanding, and we had to say, "hurrah". The creation of a novel Christ, formed without any feedback from the ekklesia, should make us all wary. It is hard to imagine WL giving some of those messages in front of thousands of otherwise intelligent people, and none of them could point out the glaring errors of thought parading in front of them. In that sense, yes indeed there is a deceiving spirit at work. No doubt in my mind.

But again, we're all at best only partly sighted here on this earthly coil. So if I tried to keep away from those in deception and error I'd be locked in a box, with my own errors, and none to correct me.

Aron, I think your response was cogent, healthy and fair. Thanks.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

It is hard to imagine WL giving some of those messages in front of thousands of otherwise intelligent people, and none of them could point out the glaring errors of thought parading in front of them. In that sense, yes indeed there is a deceiving spirit at work. No doubt in my mind.

Hell, I'm a HERn and I listened to it all and chose to ignore the red flags because I thought the way they conducted the meetings where all could prophesy proved they were the legitimate heirs of new testament Christianity. It turns out it's a Chinese-flavored sect of Christianity where controlling and WL-adoring-brothers rule the roost and where exclusivity is considered a virtue. I'm glad to be done with them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

I ...chose to ignore the red flags because I thought the way they conducted the meetings where all could prophesy proved they were the legitimate heirs of new testament Christianity.

Ditto. It seemed legitimate. It seemed that we'd found a place where the oneness of the Christian faith was already accomplished and all we had to do was receive one another in the name of Jesus Christ. Simple.

But it turned out that maintaining said "oneness" was predicated upon closely following the ministry of the age, which had a definite earthly component, with real estate, bank accounts, CEO, etc. The old bait-and-switch tactic, favored by used car dealers and grocery stores. It's effective: get their attention, let them think you have what they want, then give them what you want to give them.

Back to "the heart of the divine revelation": just for fun I googled "Christ centrality Witness Lee" and found a long excerpt from his ministry, telling how Christianity had erred, by placing forms, traditions, teachings and so forth in the place of Christ. No, said WL, Christ should be the center and the focus, the all in all. A few Bible verses were sprinkled in for good measure.

But what Christ, I ask? This same message could have been given by the Mormon church: they'd love that the Christ who appeared to the South American natives in 656 AD (or whatever) and told them that they were the 12 lost tribes of Israel, whose Angel Moroni spoke to Prophet Joseph Smith in Elmira NY in 1832 (or whatever) became the centrality and prime focus of the church. In the essay WL went on about Christ, Christ, Christ; but what Christ? The Christ revealed in the Bible or in his imagination? Just like the "Jesus Christ" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: a fake one. No discernible basis in reality.

I don't like repeating stories but it reminds me of my friend at work, who was always going on about how Jesus watched over him, and his house, and family, and took care of their every need. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus... Hey that's great, I thought. Then one day he invited me to come over and see his Jesus - it was a crushed velvet, black light poster like the ones you can get for $40 rural gas stations. Turns out he wasn't very interested in the Bible. He already had his Jesus, and that was enough... well okay, I guess. Fine. But forgive me if I continue my search elsewhere. And if you persist in your own journey of willful ignorance, and especially if you start a religion based on it, don't be shocked if your untethered imagination eventually takes you and your followers to weird places. That's just how it works.

[aron]

Here's an example of how the Christ presented in the LC differs from the Christ of the NT: in the NT you have repeated admonitions to "remember the poor", and to take care of those who lack. But the Christ in the LC ignores all that, constantly imploring them for more of the good building material for the building of the body to consummate the New Jerusalem and end the age.

Scripture reveals that God's love for us was personified in the person of His Son, who loved us and died for us. The LC acknowledges that, sometimes even prominently, like on Sunday morning at the Lord's Table meeting. But practically speaking, they pooh-pooh love for one another, likening it to "honey" that rots the pure unleavened bread. So the love which Paul wrote about in some detail 1 Corinthians 13, which was personified in Jesus Christ, isn't pursued; rather the building of the body which supports the ministry. That's the LC love: if you support the ministry you'll get love (usually - even then I've seen it occasionally withdrawn); but if you can't "line up" with the ministry you get no love at all. Jesus taught to show love toward those who can't repay you but the LC Christ seems completely disinterested.

Lastly, where did Jesus ever tell his followers to ignore the scripture, that it was fallen, and vain? Where did Paul write to sing a few of the psalms, those that were received by the NT, but ignore the rest, as mere mis-aimings of natural men? Even in the NT, Peter's quotation of the psalms got panned by WL as "low" and "natural" - where's the precedent for receiving and treating NT and OT writings thus? But in the LC, Christ was like this: only interested in "high peak" theology, showing the processed and consummated Triune God, making us God in life and nature but not in the Godhead, and looking for more converts to sign on and consecrate themselves to the rich ministry of his humble bondslave WL.

This Christ is the obsessive and unyielding centralilty and focus in and of the LC. But to me it doesn't look like the Christ revealed in scripture, so I'm wary of it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

WL had something that he called the "heart of the divine revelation", contained in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, and Philippians. I think of, for instance, the phrase, "until Christ is formed in you" in Galatians 4:19. Now, I'm no scholar and surely some could argue differently (or present the same argument differently), but I'd like to show how the conceptual Christ formed by WL deviated from that which was being presented in Paul's epistles.

Remember that at the time Paul was writing, they didn't have a New Testament (NT) corpus. The written gospels probably weren't in wide circulation either, at least in present form. What the Christian assemblies had was the extant scripture, which today we call the Old Testament (OT). So when Paul said for the word of Christ to dwell in you richly, was he talking about his epistles? Were the saints really supposed to pray-read his letters?

WL presented his idea of the economy of God, which was (as I remember) God creating man in His image and likeness, then dispensing Himself into Jesus, then as the Life-Giving Spirit dispensing this Jesus into us to transform us fully back into His intended image. The "economy" part was based on Paul telling Timothy to "pay heed to God's economy, which is in faith" (I Tim 1:4) and the Ephesians "You have heard of the stewardship (oikonomia) of God's grace given to me for you" (3:2). But where did Paul suggest that this was to be carried out by praying over his (Paul's) writings?

We might respond that Peter told us that Paul's writings were equivalent to "other scripture" (2 Peter 3:16) and Paul said to "unceasingly pray" (1 Thess 5:17), so we should pray over Paul's writings, as with other scripture. And since Paul's writings are the heart of the divine revelation of God's plan for humanity in Christ Jesus, we should pay special attention to them. This can be seen in the RecV Bible, where you can get a page of small-print footnotes from a verse in Ephesians.

They're effectively held to be magical words, which can be incanted (chanted, declared, shouted, prayed over, recited) into existence. So we're counseled to bypass our mind, don't think, just shout repeatedly the magical words that Paul wrote and the LSM translated. Get that word into you and it will metabolically assimilate into your being and transform you.

But where did Paul suggest this methodology? I don't see it. It seems as if Paul didn't even know what he was writing, or at least withheld the critical details, and only WL saw it. WL's economy of God is for us to incant, imbibe, masticate, shout, the NT and especially Paul's writings to make us the total reproduction of Jesus the God-man. Again, where does Paul actual writing suggest this activity leading to this result? I don't see it.

What I do see is Paul repeatedly telling the saints, among other things, to sing the Psalms, that this will bring the infilling of the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and cause Christ to dwell in them richly (Col 3:16). But WL ignored this recommendation because... why? Because Paul didn't know any better? Was Paul being too modest, recommending the Psalms as a source of spiritual nourishment and transformation, rather than his own writings? The Psalms prominently contained the idea of obedience to the law, and recompense therefrom, which Paul had clearly shown in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians that it couldn' save anybody... so if the law profited nothing, then why did Paul encourage singing psalms, which stress obedience, righteousness, and reward? Perhaps, in the LC, Paul's teachings had now been superseded by those of WL? Was Paul that confused, awkwardly contradicting himself, that WL needed to rescue us from Paul's advice, and turn us fully back to the NT revelation - a revelation not based on the OT scriptures prophetically showing us God's Christ, but rather on dismissing those OT writings and understandings because they were now passe, irrelevant in the newly found grace of God's New Testament economy?

"Just masticate Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and you'll become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead." Um, sorry but I don't see Ephesians, Colossians, or Philippians saying that. I only see WL saying that.

What I see instead is essentially a confidence trick. We're confronted with circular reasoning, but naively ignore it as we're smitten by the assurance and enthusiasm of its presenter, and we don't notice that we're going round and round the mulberry bush. WL could effectively by-pass Paul, and shunt Paul's writings somewhere they weren't intended, because WL had the revelation of the age. Only WL really knew what Paul meant with his 'oikonomia', it seems; perhaps even better than Paul himself? WL was God's oracle, after all, so if he "extracted revelation" that Paul didn't present us with, it might be a continuation of Paul (and others) extracting revelation from the OT. And how do we know WL had these special extractive giftss? Because he said so - and he has the body of work as God's oracle after all. So if God's oracle tells you that his output is God's oracle you'd better believe him, because... well, because he's got God's oracle, God's present speaking! So he can lead you by the nose wherever he wants - he can take you far away from scripture but you're still in the heart of the divine revelation. And all this is for sale, for just a few dollars. What a blessing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

They're effectively held to be magical words, which can be incanted (chanted, declared, shouted, prayed over, recited) into existence. So we're counseled to bypass our mind, don't think, just shout repeatedly the magical words that Paul wrote and the LSM translated. Get that word into you and it will metabolically assimilate into your being and transform you.

Actually Paul's writings are special words, just as special as the gospel of John, or Revelations, or Leviticus. God spoke to us through Paul. They're good words to consider, to read often and listen to on tape or CD, to pray over and pray with, and to speak to one another. Yes we should get constituted with them. I think the book of Romans is probably about as good a piece of writing as I've read, anywhere. Brilliant stuff. White hot fire.

But so is Psalm 34. And an unbalanced obsession with one aspect of scripture (Ephesians only, Ephesians ever) leads to an unbalanced truth and an unbalanced life. And secondly, Paul wrote in Ephesians for us to pay attention to Psalm 34, among others. So if you obsess over Ephesians as the heart of the divine revelation, why don't you pay attention to what it's actually saying, instead of what your hermeneutic wants it to say? Go where it is pointing you - go.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

Hell, I'm a HERn and I listened to it all and chose to ignore the red flags because I thought the way they conducted the meetings where all could prophesy proved they were the legitimate heirs of new testament Christianity. It turns out it's a Chinese-flavored sect of Christianity where controlling and WL-adoring-brothers rule the roost and where exclusivity is considered a virtue. I'm glad to be done with them.

I want to say that I'm not done with the dear individual saints, just with the religious system known as the Lords recovery. I had to break off all contact in order to not poison them and to get my being free from the strongholds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm a HERn and I listened to it all and chose to ignore the red flags because I thought the way they conducted the meetings where all could prophesy proved they were the legitimate heirs of new testament Christianity. It turns out it's a Chinese-flavored sect of Christianity where controlling and WL-adoring-brothers rule the roost and where exclusivity is considered a virtue. I'm glad to be done with them.

Well said HERn.

A frameable quote.

Let's make this a banner for this year's forum "training."

The older I get, the more Red Neck I become. Except for that country music and NASCAR.

[aron]

I'll continue my previous thoughts here, because this thread pertains to the Word of God, and how it is received, and handled. My question has been: can our cultural concepts determine our handling Scripture, and if so, what's the effect on our spiritual walk? Here was my quote, recently posted on another thread:

Now, however, mother Nee was saved.... she was deeply convicted by the Spirit of God that she must make an open confession to her son before she could worship publicly. To the utter surprise of the entire family she suddenly stood up, walked over to her son, wrapped her arms around Watchman, and cried out, “For the sake of the Lord Jesus, please forgive me for beating you unjustly and in anger.” This touched Watchman deeply. Never had he heard of a Chinese parent accepting such loss of face. (The Finest of the Wheat, CFP, p. 15).

The teenaged Nee had never heard of a Chinese parent accepting public loss of face like this. I want to stress how strongly ingrained such societal mores (shared values, expectations, behaviors) were. Now, fast-forward 50 years: Nee's replacement, Lee, was also unable to publicly lose face, due to similar cultural imperatives. And the viability of the whole church structure rested upon this unaccountability of its leader. Lee was the "father" figure in the LC movement, and thus was untouchable.

Now let's go back to the treatment of the Word of God. We know that "all Scripture is God-breathed"; we know that the Word of God is living and operative (Heb 4:12), and able to give life and to function within the human vessel. In Matthew 13, Jesus said that the seed sown was the Word of God, the ground was the human heart, etc. This living seed clearly gives eternal life. See also Psa 119:25 - "Give me life according to Your word". I could list another half-dozen verses: "The word that I have spoken to you is spirit and life", etc etc.

But what happens if the "father" figure in the LC movement tells us that the Word is merely the vain, fallen thinking of natural men? My question here becomes: does this Word still give life? Do only some Scriptures live and operate within, separating spirit from soul, or do they all thus give life? And if the Word does in fact live and operate "richly" (Col 3:16) within the human vessel, in separating soul from spirit, then what difference does it make if the psalmist was being natural, or operating prophetically in Spirit? The Divine Word gives divine life, yes or no? Can any present exegetical stance change this simple fact?

So I see three problems, here. First, that Lee forsook the NT pattern of receiving the Psalms. I've gone over this in detail already. There are literally dozens of NT examples holding forth the psalmic Word as a prophetic utterance pertaining to the present reality in Christ Jesus, with no commensurate warning to avoid any "natural" parts. So this dismissal, or minimizing, appears to be a Lee-manufactured addition, to square his "God's economy" notion with the text in front of him. And guess what lost: the text, not his hermeneutic. The text was rejected as "natural".

Second, does then this "natural" word lose its life-giving power? If it doesn't give life, but rather leads us astray, to vain law-keeping, this is a serious issue. I mean, either all scripture is God-breathed, or is not. But if it still gives life, and quickens people from the realm of the dead, then what difference does it make if it expressed David's concepts, as Lee said, or if rather David was in Spirit, as Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus all said, and speaking of the promises to come? It's still the Word of God; it's still clearly a word of Spirit and life.

Third, we have a culture in which "Lee is always right", and this may create cognitive dissonance when LC teachings are contrary to the plain words of Scripture in front of us, and the clear pattern of NT reception thereof.

We now have no way to redress this situation. We tacitly admit that the Word gives life, but have no chance to apply it, because it's been waved away by "God's present oracle"; large sections, he said, are actually vain, fallen, natural, and the concepts of men, not the dispensing of God. We now have no chance to explore this Word, and to find life. If we were to do this, it would challenge the Oracle. And our culture forbids that.

So we're stuck; we've painted ourselves into a corner. We can't access the lively oracles of God per the teachings of His present Deputy, and we can't admit that this Oracle of God is or was wrong, because that would cause an irredeemable social/cultural breach of face. The whole structure rests upon "Lee is always right", and if we challenge that, it might collapse. In order for our social edifice (i.e. "the church life") to remain, we must reject the Word. If Lee deemed the Word to be natural and vain, then we must also, because Lee is always right. Friends, this is human culture at work, pure and simple.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The whole structure rests upon "Lee is always right", and if we challenge that, it might collapse... Friends, this is human culture at work, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Lisbon

How things changed. One of my first trainings in the Anaheim convention center WL thought he had trouble making his point and very spontaneously called at least half dozen people whom he knew could possibly contribute come forward and speak to the subject for a few minutes. Averil Hendrickson was one of them and the only sister. She did very well. To my observation she did as well as any but such an observation is not worth much from 40 years ago. You can be sure something like that would not take place today.

One could make the argument that WL was only about one thing: the acquisition, consolidation, and maintenance of human power. This, he firmly believed, was necessary for the "building of the Body" or the "Consummation of the New Jerusalem" or whatever, but nonetheless it neatly coincided with him neatly atop the social heap.

WL initially would allow himself to be displaced at the dias; he would even initially invite people up, as Lisbon relates. But eventually the "storms" convinced him that pliable and silent sheep were best for the Church. That included women along with everyone else. It's like the guy who says, "I'm not prejudiced: I hate everybody." WL repressed everyone, women included.

As I said before, if you publicly criticize Mao in China today, 40 years after his death, you will be fired from your job. I am sure the Chinese were mystified at the virtual blood-bath the Americans went into when the Executive (B. Clinton) was found in dalliance with a young female aide. So human culture in the USA isn't inherently superior to the PRC. But my point here is that if we arrange our spiritual assembly according to our human culture, it will be flawed. And if we interpret the Bible according to the desire to maintain the spiritual assembly in a state beneficial to our personal interests, that will be a flawed interpretation.

In the Psalms, WL would pan David's expressions of fealty to God, as the vain imaginations of a sinner. WL couldn't see the coming Son of David, Jesus the Christ, in spite of the NT's repeated invitations to do so. Or, WL would present the "seeking one" of the NT as typified by the psalmist. Again, wrong. The only "seeking one" who ever existed is Jesus Christ. We find our seeking in His. Any seeking of God, apart from Jesus Christ, for the Christian disciple, is vain. WL pointed either to the "fallen psalmist" under the law, or the "seeking Christian" under grace, but in either case he misaimed by turning our attention away from God's Christ. The Bible is not about David, or about us; it is about Jesus Christ. Reality is found nowhere else.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

In the Psalms, WL would pan David's expressions of fealty to God, as the vain imaginations of a sinner. WL couldn't see the coming Son of David, Jesus the Christ, in spite of the NT's repeated invitations to do so. ... WL pointed either to the "fallen psalmist" under the law, or the "seeking Christian" under grace, but in either case he misaimed ... The Bible is not about David, or even about us; it is about Jesus Christ...

Jesus said, "These things were written of Me" (e.g. Luk 24:44,27; Heb 10:7 &c), and WL replied, "No, they're not; they either represent the concepts of the fallen, law-keeping psalmist, or the grace given to the New Testament (NT) believer." Unless NT usage forced him, WL typically was unwilling to see Christ Himself unveiled in psalm.

Originally Posted by Freedom

I became disillusioned with the LC, all the ranting and raving about the "richness" of WL's ministry really started to get to me... LCers talk this way because they need the constant reinforcement that these "high peak" teachings actually mean something...

The excitement of that should have died off along time ago, but it hasn't. I see all the posts on Facebook. After each of these trainings, there's talk about how the Lord has been moving and the "last revival" has been initiated to "end the age". It's actually kind of funny how this same supposed "revival" keeps happening over and over again...

I sarcastically included the idea of revival in a recent post, while paraphrasing LSM's verbiage. I suppose this makes me a scoffer; in fact I don't oppose or dismiss the idea of revival, even a 'great' and 'final' one. I'd surely love to see the knowledge of God cover the face of the earth, as waters cover the sea, per Isa 11:9 (also Hab 2:14; cf Num 14:21).

But the question here is, how to base a revival on a ministry which advances itself at the expense of the word of God? Here's a comment on the psalms of David, found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is therefore dated at approximately the time of Jesus Christ:

Originally Posted by DSS 11QPs Psa 151 prose interlude

And he [David] wrote psalms: three thousand six hundred; and the songs to be sung before the altar over the perpetual offering of every day, for all the days of the year; three hundred sixty four; and for the Sabbath offerings; fifty-two songs; and for the offering for the beginning of the month, and for all the days of the festivals, and for the day of atonement: thirty songs. And all the songs which he composed were four hundred and forty-six. He composed them all through the spirit of prophecy which had been given to him from before the Most High....

It says, "He composed them all through the spirit of prophecy which had been given to him from before the Most High"; all NT reception of the psalms essentially agrees with this. And, equally important for evaluating WL's psalms treatment, there's no contemporary work (i.e. Second Temple Judaism, NT, or shortly after) which regards David's lyrical oeuvre as the equivalent of "fallen human concepts".

If the NT scripture doesn't treat OT source texts that way - in fact, the opposite - how then to give ourselves such license? I scoff not at great revival, but rather at the hubris of treating the word of God so cavalierly. And I summarily dismiss the idea of building any work, great or otherwise, upon such foundations.

No; there's a spirit of prophecy at work in the words before us, including Psalms, and if we do diligence to extract the life, as WL once urged us, long ago, we'll indeed be equipped to revive this land. May God have mercy on us all, and forgive me for my often adversarial tone while writing here. I simply must categorically disagree with the treatment of the word of God. Period. And I'd be willing to let go of pretty much everything "negative" written on this site, that I was simply being crabby, contentious, etc; you know, the "bitter ex-member." Perhaps that's true. But even as a bitter ex-member, I ask, How can we treat the word of God, thus? And, how can we base any work upon such treatment?

I think the Word is bigger than any of us, as is both the life and the works (power, or Gk 'dunamis') it contains. It will take all of us, LC included, to usher its fullness in. So I do apologize to them for my attitude, and for my crabby comments - most have been poorly presented. But I still ask, how can we pass by the word of God in such manner? And how can we expect anything good to follow, if we do so?

Sorry for carrying on, thus... as you see I'm rather passionate about the subject. Thanks for giving me a forum.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Did Paul ever indicate that his vision was high, while Peter's or James' was low?

Not exactly, but Paul did demean James and Peter and John in Galations 2.

[aron]

Wanted to expand on some thoughts posted elsewhere:

Originally Posted by aron

... if you look at theocracy as presented in the Bible, the promoted human King, heir of Davidic line*, is fully obedient to God the Father in heaven, and as such becomes peace and salvation to all who obey Him. Please note well that Psalm 2 follows hard upon Psalm 1, and fulfills it. Jesus fulfilled all righteousness. Jesus kept the law, utterly. So He's the True King, the Anointed (Gk:Christ) Son of God, glorified forever.

Now the enemy comes in and usurps this: see Psalm 3. Absalom rebels. Someone else, a sinner, disobedient, and not anointed, comes in and proclaims that he's the new King, the new Deputy God. A sinner, unauthorized, promotes himself into the position of kingship, which should be held by Jesus alone. Chaos ensues; look at all the vain efforts to maintain the so-called Authority of this usurping one, in the context of Little Flock/Local Church history. Storm after storm. Turmoil after turmoil.

*Matthew 21:9 "The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!" "Hosanna in the highest heaven!"

Witness Lee said that the pious declarations of the psalmist in Psalm 1 were vain. "Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked..." WL said nobody can do this. All have failed. The law can only expose - it cannot save. In Psalm 1, he ignored the obvious parallels to the "NT reality", in the tree planted by rivers, which never withers (cf Rev 22:2; Ezek 47:12) and the congregation of the righteous (cf Psa 22:22; Heb 2:12). WL said that Psalm 1 wasn't according to God's economy, but consisted of natural, fallen human concepts.

Okay, let's go to Psalm 2. Suddenly we see the installation of the king, who's designated as God's Son. I contend that this King is none other than the person who fulfills Psalm 1. The King must be obedient to God, to love God's law, to meditate on it day and night. See Deuteronomy 17.

The King

14 When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you and have taken possession of it and settled in it, and you say, “Let us set a king over us like all the nations around us,” 15 be sure to appoint over you a king the Lord your God chooses. He must be from among your fellow Israelites. Do not place a foreigner over you, one who is not an Israelite. 16 The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the Lord has told you, “You are not to go back that way again.” 17 He must not take many wives, or his heart will be led astray. He must not accumulate large amounts of silver and gold.

18 When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the Levitical priests. 19 It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the Lord his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees 20 and not consider himself better than his fellow Israelites and turn from the law to the right or to the left. Then he and his descendants will reign a long time over his kingdom in Israel.

David, of course, was the exemplar, the man who God chose, in whom God delighted (Psa 18:19; cf Matt 3:17, 17:5), and who exulted in God as his exceeding joy (Psa 43:4).

Okay, but where's the obedience, in Psalm 2, linking it to Psalm 1? Actually this is fleshed out (pun intended) in the gospels. An excellent passage is in John 10.

Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

Jesus' works proved that He carried out God's will, and in so doing that He was God's Son, and the coming King, blessed forever. The works unequivocally showed this; however they felt about His teachings, and His claims was irrelevant. That He did the Father's works proved that He was the Obedient Son.

And of course there is Psalm 40, quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews:

7 Then I said, "Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me. 8 I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart." 9 I have proclaimed glad tidings of righteousness in the great congregation; Behold, I will not restrain my lips, O LORD, You know.…

The law-keeping King becomes the focal point and blessing of the whole land. If you serve this Son with trembling and fear, you will be blessed. (Psa 2).

Now, it's interesting that Psalm 3 comes next. Rebellion. Absalom and some nobles usurp the throne, and the True King is in a cave, writing a poem (see the superscription). In this poem he says, "I lay me down and slept/I waked, for the LORD was with me" (KJV). This parallels the NT, where Jesus said, "I have the power to lay My life down, and to raise it up again." Obedience to God gave the Anointed One a clean conscience, wherein He could lay His life down as of no regard, trusting that God, whom He unhesitatingly obeyed, would save Him.

It's interesting, also, that the structure of Psalms 1,2, and 3 also somewhat follows that of Genesis 1,2, and 3. God establishes, Man becomes the apotheosis and crowning achievement of creation (Let Him have dominion), and suddenly there's a usurpation. In neither Genesis nor the Psalms do we have a peaceful interlude following creation and establishment, but in both cases the narrative slides instantly into rebellion and war.

Amen, Lord. So be it. Come Lord Jesus.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

let's go to Psalm 2. Suddenly we see the installation of the king, who's designated as God's Son. I contend that this King is none other than the person who fulfills Psalm 1. The King must be obedient to God, to love God's law, to meditate on it day and night. See Deuteronomy 17..

This idea of the "Deuteronomist" arrangement of the Psalms to show the obedient King as exemplar of divine law-keeper is worked out in

http://www.amazon.com/King-As-Exempl...ng+as+exemplar

by one of those dreaded seminary scholars.

Connecting this to rebellion in Psalm 3 to further a narrative structure is my idea, as I remember; not sure anyone else has noted it. Again, this is not theology, here, folks; I'm just thinking aloud. I enjoy writing, and it may possibly be of profit and interest to others, and when I go off the rails usually someone is willing to pipe up, and wave me back toward the flock.

[aron]

Wanted to try and recap, or sum up, the argument thus far. On another thread a poster was ruing their situation, and my counsel was to look away from the situation and at God's Christ. I wrote, "Let your consciousness meld with His". In retrospect that's pretty weak advice, even if we point to scripture verses - you know, "Look away unto Jesus" and "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus" etc.

So I'll try and make it a little more practical, and will do so by telling two stories. First is from when I was reorienting myself toward God, and happened into a Roman Catholic building. There were stained glass windows: translucent colored panels filled with what I assumed were apostles and holy men looking down. Some of the pictures seemed to reference familiar stories; I think of Elijah getting fed by a crow, for example. In the marble-tiled foyer, there was a prominent statue of whatever patron saint was presiding over this congregation (St Whoever's Church). And in the back, against the wall, was an image of a man looking sorrowfully, wistfully, up into the sky. I assumed it was supposed to be Jesus looking up to His Father in heaven.

By analogy, I realized that there was a lot of extraneous stuff that kind of pushed Jesus into the corner, in this case literally. WL said that he rescued us from this by making Jesus Christ the "centrality and universality" of the LC experience, but ultimately I realized that his "God's economy" interpretive metric was similar to the RCC iconography in that scene in my memory: a distraction and a stumbling. Jesus Christ is still there, but His presence has diminished, and even dangerously receded.

Second story: in the gospels they were in a boat. The wind blew and the boat was tipping. These were fishermen, but were struggling to control the situation, and were fearful. Suddenly they saw Jesus. Walking toward them, across the water. I love this story because it's so stark. You know the rest: Peter calls out, Jesus replies, Peter gets out, then looks away and begins to sink. This clearly indicated to me the utter necessity of looking in a resolute and fixed way upon the Person of Jesus Christ. Don't look away from Him, for anything. Don't look at your situation: look at Him.

Now, here's how I think we can look at Jesus, and how WL's "economy" metric placed the equivalent of RCC statuary in our path. And I want to use the first few chapters of Psalms.

Psalm 1: blessed is the man who keeps the law, who obeys, who walks rightly. This is Jesus Himself.

Psalm 2: the inauguration of the King, the Son of God. This also is Jesus, the Obedient Son, who is now King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Hear Him, and live ("Kiss the Son lest you perish in the way" [2:12, etc]).

Psalm 3: Rebellion. "I lay Me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained Me." The cave, the pit, the snare, the deep water enclose Him but can't contain Him; this narrative continues unabated throughout the psalms. Again, in John's gospel: "I have the power to lay My life down, and to take it up again."

Psalm 6: Judgment. "Get away from Me, you evildoers!" (v.8). See also Psa 119:115, 139:15. For fulfillment see e.g. Matt 7:23, 25:41; also Jesus' rebuke to Peter in Matt 16:23, and rejection of Satan in the wilderness temptation.

Psalm 18: Salvation. "He rescued Me because He delighted in Me" (v.19). See continual referents in NT to God's delight of Jesus (Matt 3:17, &c).

Now, WL approached the text with "God's economy" interpretive metric in hand, and rejected the "natural boasting" of the psalmist, who said God approved of him, and who claimed obedience to the law, and who said God would save him from evil and harm, even from death. WL compared this, unfavorably, to the NT "grace enjoyer" who didn't have to do anything but receive Christ. So we got two images, one of David or Asaph or some other OT (sinful) person, and one of the prototypical Christian believer. But I argue there's a hole in the middle, here: where's Jesus? WL typically only acknowledged Him where NT usage and/or strong Christian convention forced him. (With Peter's epistle, he even rejected NT citation!) Otherwise we got LSM statuary and iconography, courtesy of "God's economy".

So my advice was, and is, let your mind become saturated with the mind of Christ. Not the Christ in Lee's folk theology but the one in text of scripture.

Lastly I recommend also the initial stages of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The author cites something like 8 psalm passages, then says, "we see Jesus". The author didn't know Jesus in person, having heard about Him from others (2:3). But now in 2:9, "we see Jesus". Where? In the text of scripture, obviously. The writer of this epistle looks into scripture, some which is cited, and sees Jesus portrayed, and uses the pronoun "we"; expecting the readers of the Epistle to do likewise.

I say, accept the invitation. Look at Jesus. Never look away. Go deeper into the divine revelation, before us in scripture. Let your mind and consciousness become infused with His. Let the Word of Christ dwell in you richly, yes even by singing psalms. Let Christ make His home in your heart. Then the love welling up within you for the Father will not be yours, but the Spirit of Christ within you, yearning to return home.

The psalmist said, "Oh how I love your law/I meditate on it all day long." (119:97). And of course the psalmist failed. As Peter said, "His grave is with us to this day." (Acts 2:29) Death claimed another pious sinner. But the love of Jesus toward His Father made Him love every single word that proceeded out of the mouth of God (cf Matt 4:4). Jesus lived in sinless perfection, and God furnished proof to all by raising Him from the dead (see e.g. Acts 17:30,31). This love, which was in Jesus' heart toward His Father, now invades our consciousness, and all our earthly loves and fears and cares vanish in the brightness of His presence (Gk: parousia).

Anyway, I'm rambling here, even dangerously so. Please forgive me for brazenly displaying my ignorant enthusiasm.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

WL only acknowledge Jesus where NT usage and/or strong Christian convention forced him to... otherwise we got LSM statuary and iconography, courtesy of "God's economy".

To tack on a brief post-script:

LSM's religious iconography and statuary:

1. God's economy
2. The local ground
3. God's deputy, the minister of the age
4. God's present move on the earth

etc
etc
etc.

All of this stuff invaded our consciousness, interrupted our dialog with our Father and each other in scripture, and became a snare, a trap, and stumbling. Salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I think there is some Christ to be found in more than 3 of the first 21 Psalms.

According to Lee, Psalm 2, Psalm 8, and Psalm 16 had revelation of Jesus Christ. They were words in, of, for, and to the "gospel of God... concerning His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" which Paul referred to in his letter to the Romans. (1:1 & 1:3). This gospel was promised beforehand through the prophets in the Holy Sciptures (v2), and these promises are seen in Psalms 2, 8, and 16. The New Testament usage of these texts makes this clear.

But if the NT didn't make such use of the Psalms, Lee wasn't interested, and this constituted the bulk of the material in question. Today, if you walk up to a LSM'er and quote Psalm 14 or 114, they will stare at you blankly. It has no meaning.

My argument here, has been that this corpus had meaning, as evidenced by its widespread citation in the NT. There was a narrative unfolding on the ground, which narrative was widely if not universally recognized and understood, and thus the frequent citation by NT speakers and writers. They used shared meaning to construct new meaning: "Jesus is both Lord and Christ".

But today the narrative is gone. Awareness is minimal, at best. In extremist groups like the LC, scripture's even dismissed as passe. The "NT revelation" has supposedly superseded the Old. Yet this supposed new revelation is based on teachings like those put forth by Lee, who had little respect for the body of text, and minimal knowledge, and with no external restraint his imagination was free to fabricate interpretive matrices that could even be used to dismiss the text itself.

And if you refer people back to the actual text, and to supporting documents, they stare at you as if you suddenly spoke Martian. The supporting commentary by the Fathers is gone, the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha are gone, cultural awareness is gone, and the actual text is even dismissed by and large. In their minds it truly doesn't exist.

You've moved from an unfolding revelation to sola scriptora to sola theologica. And if this theology is the homespun creation of an accountant from Yantai, Shandong, China, how far have you traveled away from the "gospel of God... concerning His Son, Jesus Christ who is our Lord"? If that which was written by the prophets is dismissed as "fallen concepts of men", what's your theology based on? What kind of gospel have you constructed with it? One that's qualitatively different from the one presented in the New Testament.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Today, if you walk up to a LSM'er and quote Psalm 14 or 114, they'll stare at you blankly. It has no meaning... if you refer people back to the actual text, and to supporting documents, they stare at you as if you suddenly spoke Martian..

If you share from the "fallen texts" this puts LSM'ers in a dilemma. Lee had panned these writings, so if you dredge out life and light and hold it forth, then this threatens the validity of Lee's dismissal. You're forcing them to choose between the ministry of the age, and the Word of God, and this choice makes them uncomfortable.

Originally Posted by aron

But today the narrative is gone. Awareness is minimal, at best...

Instead of supporting a narrative, the text becomes a set of disjointed aphorisms, to be mined for today's theology. Otherwise it has no value and can be profitably ignored; it's not the 'up-to-date speaking for today'.

My counter-argument is that nowhere was this attitude displayed in the New Testament. Paul never treated the source texts thus, nor did Jesus. Quite the contrary. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that is breathed out of the mouth of God." What ministry can obviate that?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Instead of supporting a narrative, the text becomes a set of disjointed aphorisms, to be mined for today's theology.

What are today's texts were once oral narratives(1). They were stories, songs, poems. So each narrative had a theme. It wasn't a set of disjointed aphorisms. (Perhaps Proverbs or Ecclesiasticus were, but typically texts were initially narratives.) "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water": it's how we remember things. The characters, the going, the landscape (a hill), the fetching, the pail and the water are all remembered for their place in the narrative.

So I suggest that "not one of His bones were broken" and "Zeal of Thy house has eaten Me up" were originally formed as part of a narrative; actually a set of narratives which made up a larger narrative (Psalms), a meta-narrative if you will. And this was set with and looked to "the Law" and "the Prophets" as a still larger story - that of, "the scripture says".

"His disciples remembered that it was written...", and "These things were written concerning Me..." in the NT narratives were in a context which (I suspect) gradually lost meaning, and narrative thrust. A new context arose, meet for today's need of Reformation or Recovery or True Remnant Church or whatever, and a new meta-narrative came forth, and then the text was only useful to support "God's New Testament Economy" or whatever they're pitching today.

So if you review their product, and the salesman (sorry, Bible expositor) says, "natural, natural, natural - eureka! A revelation of Christ! - natural, natural, natural", as they cover the text, and you wonder how far we've gone off-course, perhaps this is an initial clue, or signpost.

But the good news is that the text is still there, preserved largely in toto, waiting to speak. The story is still there. But ignoring the text as "natural" won't bring you the story.

1. Remember that Peter and the rest were called "unlettered" in Acts 4:13. Even then, the texts were known primarily orally, by the uneducated masses. Thus the narrative structure was crucial.

I propose that the Psalms are given less attention because there are powerful chapters in that book that can be used against demons and witchcraft.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Unregistered

I propose that the Psalms are given less attention because there are powerful chapters in that book that can be used against demons and witchcraft.

Which ones are those and how does one use them. The reason I ask is that I might have a relative who is believing demonic lies.

[aron]

Originally Posted by unreg

I propose that the Psalms are given less attention because there are powerful chapters in that book that can be used against demons and witchcraft.

Originally Posted by HERn

Which ones are those and how does one use them. The reason I ask is that I might have a relative who is believing demonic lies.

The Jews long believed that David was communing intimately with God, and the words of Psalmic poetry allowed them special access. So they use David's words to pray to God. And certain specific Psalms, over time, became known as poems for, say, protection, or healing, or freedom from demonic oppression

The Lubavicher Jews seem to display this tendency most prominently. Just google "psalms protection prayer" and you'll pull up a host of websites giving particulars.

The Psalms were oral texts, recited, sung and prayed, often in communal setting. As such they became the basis of social understanding of who God was, what His will was, and what were relations between Godly persons. These inspired poems were also a window into the "mystical" unseen world. The psalmist was inspired, in oracular spirit, and by this same spirit the initiate could also enter the experience. (Not too different from Lee's ideas, except Lee panned these texts as "low", "fallen" and "natural".)

What follows an idea of why the Psalms were "given less attention" under Lee, as the unregistered poster above has noted.

Originally Posted by aron

Witness Lee clearly had control issues. When the saints actually began to take the apostle Paul at his word and sing the Psalms, "As the hart panteth after the water brooks/so panteth my soul after Thee, O God", then Lee got worried because they were enjoying the Word outside his ministry and this to him was most dangerous. Lee wanted to be the sole mediator of man's revelatory experience in the Word of God. So Lee told the fellowships in the Lord's Recovery to stop singing the Psalms, because they were too low. I have heard this verbally from several people who were there.

He didn't, of course, say "Stop singing the Psalms"; he said, "It would be better if you sang verses from Ephesians than from Psalms". Then he imitated in a mocking way the saints as they praised God using the words of the psalmist. His "shaming" actions were enough to discourage the saints.

I respect the Lubavitcher, and others, and hope to learn from them, as they've had great familiarity with these words and how they've been received over millennia. (The Lubavitcher are a prominent sect in Judaism today, similar to our Baptist or Anglican). But for we the Christians, these mystical texts allow us access to the heart of Christ. The reciprocal delight between Christ and His Father becomes our new reality. When Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me" this was his explicit assent, even encouragement, to this notion. And the epistles' repeated psalmic usage confirms the gospel record.

"Mysticism is a technical term for a cluster of religious phenomena that relates to religious practice within a specific religious system (Judaism, Christianity), that takes as its goal the experience of union or communion with a transcendent reality that is ultimately beyond intellectual comprehension and that has concrete social function within the life of a particular community"

So these often vague pronouncements - "Behold He comes, with ten thousands of saints" - aren't merely to be analyzed objectively (Coming where? From behind Mount Seir? (Deut 33). Why did Jude cite Enoch and not Moses? And before or after the secret rapture; and with 'holy ones' or 'holy angels' [MT v. LXX] or both?) but are to be entered as experiential doors. At some point our mind also finds meaning, but primarily we "enjoy" it as the LC folk say. And we enjoy because Christ enjoyed.

"He rescued Me because He delighted in Me" (cf Psa 18); God doesn't delight in me the sinner. He delights in His Beloved Son. But by faith I see the His Beloved Son, the Christ who is our Lord, and by faith and confession am transferred "into Christ", and by faith I pursue Christ in the sacred texts. This is my salvation.

And the LC saints were entering into this: for example, a Jewish believer from dreaded "Christianity" had put Psalm 51 to music, and the saints were entering into mystical union - "take not Thy Holy Spirit from me" - and this bothered Lee. Control was slipping away, and forbidden doors were being opened. Songs were spontaneously pouring forth. Salvation was not a dry term but a deepening stream of experience, an emergent, communal performance - so he shut it down.

(Please note that I don't consider Psalms as superior writings to those of, say, Isaiah or Moses; rather I'm protesting the outright rejection of inspired scripture, both explicitly in footnote, and implicitly by non-coverage [the RecV psalms have page after blank page without footnote, and few cross-references].)

The LC have what, a dozen or fifteen psalms among their 1100 hymns, often merely a line or two? What about the other hundred and thirty five? Too low to bother with? What kind of gospel are we preaching, here? And why is our hermeneutic, our "enjoyment", taking us away from the text?

[aron]

Rom 3:22 (KJV) Even the righteousness of God with is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Gal 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hat concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Notice that it doesn't say faith 'in' Christ but faith 'of' Christ. "He trusts in God; let Him (the Father) save Him (the Son) now" (Matt 27:43; Psa 22:8) -- Jesus Christ believed and trusted in the Father. So when He came to the scripture, "I'll obey Your word" (Psalm 119) wasn't the vain imaginations of the sinner but rather the framework and vehicle for His faith, the faith of Jesus Christ, to come and redeem sinful humanity. This is explicitly confirmed by the Hebrews 10:9 citation of Psalm 40 - "I come to do Your will, Oh God" etc. The faithful obedience of the Son becomes the gateway to salvation to all who would believe.

And it is the faithful Spirit of this Son who comes into our hearts, crying "Abba, Father!" It is the faith of Christ that inflames our hearts, not our own. Remember that it's no longer we who live but the Spirit of the Son who lives in us, who's guiding us home through repentance and obedience.

Safe to say that Witness Lee looked at the Psalms and missed all this, even though NT usage gave a clear invitation to do so. He had his "God's economy" metric to protect. I argue that by distracting people from God's Christ, and discouraging them from finding the faith of Christ in its pages, Witness Lee's RecV Bible isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

Of course that's merely my view at present, and it may change over time, as my views often do. And the real truth here may be that I'm a vain, quarrelsome person, looking to pick a fight somewhere. If so, and to what extent this is true, I apologize for a wrong spirit.

You know, if Moses was a true and faithful peacemaker, when he saw the Egyptian beating the Hebrew slave, he'd have run up and embraced them both, and healed them, and they'd all sing "Kumbaya" together. Unfortunately it wasn't to be so, at that time. But the faith of Christ is coming, folks. Be embraced and love your neighbor as yourself, even the one who's currently suffering under bad ideas, and causing others to suffer. Because we all fail. "Who has sinned, and I don't burn?"

It seems fitting to leave you with a song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvhWTWpNWL0

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi aron, The massive quantity of messages given by Brother Lee showing Christ as the fulfillment and reality of all the types, shadows, prophecies, etc. in the Old Testament speak to his great love, honor, labor, and devotion to the Old Testament. Your accusations to the contrary have no merit. If you didn't toss those Life Studies, which Stuttgart considered good inspired stuff up until a certain date, then dust them off, read them for yourself, and refresh your understanding about what he taught.
Then, I will be happy to discuss, engage, or debate any topic concerning what Witness Lee actually taught. It is pointless to discuss teachings he never taught! No one benefits from that no matter what side they are on.
Gott gebe euch Verständnis,
Drake

Christ was the fulfillment of the types of the OT. Witness Lee taught this, true. This was in accord with the NT reception of the Psalms.

My question is, where in the NT reception of the Psalms do we see them say, "Christ is the fulfillment of Psalm 2, 8, 16, and 22, but not Psalm 1,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14 etc etc?"

Did Paul give some private fellowship to the saints that only some texts were indicative of the coming Messiah, who was now revealed to the world as Jesus the Nazarene? And this private fellowship was lost for 1,900 years until Lee by his God's Economy metric was alble to pry the truth from the text?

How do we know that the Blessed Man who meditated on the word day and night, whose leaf never withered, wasn't also the enthroned King of Psalm 2? Jesus was the Obedient Lamb of God in Psalm 1 who was thus uniquely qualified to be our Good Shepherd in Psalm 2. Then in Psalm 3 you have rebellion: "I lay me down and slept/I awaked for the LORD sustained me" is akin to "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to take it up again", etc etc. There is possibly indication of the experience of Christ in the text.

And so forth. "The unfolding of Your Word brings life/It brings understanding to the simple."

But to my recollection Lee never considered Christ. He gave two options: either the psalmist spoke truly and was the blessed man, or the "NT believers" somehow fulfilled this. He could see neither, and dismissed the text as low, fallen, natural concepts of sinful man. Why was this not considered as a revelation of Christ, as was Psalm 8 or Psalm 22 or Psalm 110 or Psalm 69?

When in Acts 2 Peter considered the failure of the psalmist to fulfill his declarations in Psalm 16 "You will not let my flesh see corruption" he didn't say it was merely vain, fallen natural concepts of a sinner, but rather the revelatory indication of the coming Christ. Why then did Lee instead take the former tack in handling the OT text? What NT precedent did he have for this kind of reception of the psalmic text?

When one looks, one can see NT echoes in the OT text, even in the most unlikely places. The psalm of David's confession, Psalm 51, would seem unrelated to Christ. Yet in the restoration line, "Then I will teach transgressors Your ways/And sinners will turn back to You" I can hear faint echoes of Jesus saying to Peter, "I have prayed for you, and when you turn, you will strengthen the brothers."

There is life in the text. Its unfolding brings life. I don't claim revelation, but rather object strenuously to Lee dismissing the text so cavalierly, and creating a system in which if he dismissed it, nobody could find life either. "You neither enter into life, nor allow your disciples to do so."

[Evangelical]

We do not find life in the Bible. Life is only to be found in Christ. The moment we seek life in the Bible we do as the pharisees did:
John 5:39 You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me.

The Bible gives us the knowledge of life. Some Bible verses give us knowledge of life, but others give us knowledge of death.

[aron]

Peter was told by a heavenly messenger to continue speaking "all the words of this life" to the people. What words were they? Paul's epistles did not yet exist. The prophetic word, now made clear, was of Jesus the Nazarene. The prophesied Messiah was "this Jesus".

By contrast, where was the prophetic word called low, fallen, and vain? Nowhere is where. By its own testimony Witness Lee’s ministry was judged as fallen man's natural concepts.

Suppose you quoted Peter out of context, saying Paul's words were difficult to understand, and recommended reading only Ephesians 1 and 2, because the rest of the epistle would only bring confusion and death? What kind of a gospel are you then preaching? What kind of a Bible do you then hold?

The Bible continually stresses "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Not just those words which are suitable for your hermeneutic. If you read the RecV Ephesians, you'll get a verse and a page of WL footnotes. Read a page of RecV Psalms, which Paul in his letter to the Ephesians recommended to the saints - "be filled in Spirit" - and you'll get nothing. Maybe a cross-reference. Maybe a footnote panning it as natural. Page after page of emptiness.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We do not find life in the Bible. Life is only to be found in Christ. The moment we seek life in the Bible we do as the pharisees did:
John 5:39 You pore over the Scriptures because you think you have eternal life in them, yet they testify about Me.

The Bible gives us the knowledge of life. Some Bible verses give us knowledge of life, but others give us knowledge of death.

I'll protest this until my last dying breath.

You take a part of one verse aimed at the unbelieving, Jesus hating, hypocritical Pharisees and construct doctrines around it. It is the Lee way.

I told you before that I was given a Paraphrased Bible by a coworker who showed me friendship in my time of need, and just by opening that Bible in bed before I passed out from working my 14 hour days, I was dramatically and gloriously saved. My life, and even my own personality, was forever changed in those few minutes.

And you are telling me that we can't find life in the Bible?!?

I am thankful that the total number of Christians like you is extremely limited.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll protest this until my last dying breath.

You take a part of one verse aimed at the unbelieving, Jesus hating, hypocritical Pharisees and construct doctrines around it. It is the Lee way.

And following Evangelical's lead, how do we know that the Living Stream Ministry wasn't peddling us "Death Studies" and not "Life Studies" of the Bible? We really had Lee's word for it, and little else. What assurance do we have that it wasn't an exercise in vanity, poring over selected scriptures while ignoring or dismissing the 'unhelpful' ones, thinking that it was the process of advancing eternal life? Is the God's Economy metric really able to supersede scripture?

For good or ill, the canon of scripture was established. Where does Christian doctrine, history, or tradition permit us centuries later to relegate supposedly low and natural sections to the dustbin, or to a second-tier, "fallen human concept" status? Where's the apostolic precedent for such a move?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'll protest this until my last dying breath.

You take a part of one verse aimed at the unbelieving, Jesus hating, hypocritical Pharisees and construct doctrines around it. It is the Lee way.

I told you before that I was given a Paraphrased Bible by a coworker who showed me friendship in my time of need, and just by opening that Bible in bed before I passed out from working my 14 hour days, I was dramatically and gloriously saved. My life, and even my own personality, was forever changed in those few minutes.

And you are telling me that we can't find life in the Bible?!?

I am thankful that the total number of Christians like you is extremely limited.

Are you saying you were saved just by opening your Bible and the Spirit jumped into you at that moment. Or are you saying you got saved because you opened the Bible, read it, your eyes were opened, and you prayed to God for salvation?

Because I don't think many Christians would believe or agree that one can be saved just by opening their Bible, just as one cannot be saved just by touching the statue of the Virgin Mary for example.

It just contradicts so many things taught and believed in Christianity about how a person is saved (hearing the gospel, believing, repenting , confessing etc).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Peter was told by a heavenly messenger to continue speaking "all the words of this life" to the people. What words were they? Paul's epistles did not yet exist. The prophetic word, now made clear, was of Jesus the Nazarene. The prophesied Messiah was "this Jesus".

By contrast, where was the prophetic word called low, fallen, and vain? Nowhere is where. By its own testimony Witness Lee’s ministry was judged as fallen man's natural concepts.

Suppose you quoted Peter out of context, saying Paul's words were difficult to understand, and recommended reading only Ephesians 1 and 2, because the rest of the epistle would only bring confusion and death? What kind of a gospel are you then preaching? What kind of a Bible do you then hold?

The Bible continually stresses "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." Not just those words which are suitable for your hermeneutic. If you read the RecV Ephesians, you'll get a verse and a page of WL footnotes. Read a page of RecV Psalms, which Paul in his letter to the Ephesians recommended to the saints - "be filled in Spirit" - and you'll get nothing. Maybe a cross-reference. Maybe a footnote panning it as natural. Page after page of emptiness.

Answer me this. Is this verse a "word from the mouth of God"?:

Matthew 4:9 ""All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me.""

No. It is from the mouth of Satan.


Is this a word of life or a word of death?:

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'

Even though it is a word from God's mouth, it is clearly not a word of life. Suppose you read and pray read 1 Samuel 15:3, what sort of person would it make you? It would not do your spirit much good.

From these simple examples I have proved that
1. Not every word in the Bible is from "God's mouth", however, every word in the Bible is inspired (is there for a purpose, according to God's will).
2. Not every word in the Bible is a matter of life or can give life. Only the Spirit gives life.

Jesus said "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.". There is actually no verse in the Bible that says all and every verse in Scripture gives life. I have given two such examples which do not give life - one the voice of Satan, the other God's judgement which brought death.

The Bible is a book of life but that does not me an we do not need to extract the words of life from the Bible, as Lee tried to do with the life studies.

We cannot extract much life from the words of Satan or the words of man, which are recorded in the Bible but are not from the "mouth of God".

I could go on with bible verses that are not from the mouth of God but from fallen man- the false prophets for example,or Job's friends, etc etc.

The bible has God's words recorded in it for sure, but it also has the words of Satan and the words of (uninspired, natural or fallen) man.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you saying you were saved just by opening your Bible and the Spirit jumped into you at that moment. Or are you saying you got saved because you opened the Bible, read it, your eyes were opened, and you prayed to God for salvation?

I opened the Bible and started reading in bed, after working overtime and then traveling to night school, where God arranged for us both to take a Circuits I class in Engineering. I crashed in bed, and literally was reading only minutes. I don't even remember where or what I was reading. I was not repenting. I was not praying. I was not confessing my many sins. I was laying down, not kneeling.

I will admit that my new friend from work also was recently saved. His Catholic wife rejected the gospel, and wanted out, thus creating a fiery trial in his heart. He also went 30 miles out of his way to give me a ride home because my car had died. He was excited about Jesus, and "faith comes by hearing." His gospel did not give me any "how to" instructions about salvation, rather it was a combination of Gospel stories about Jesus that he was reading, and end times events from Hal Lindsay's book that was popular at the time.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Answer me this. Is this verse a "word from the mouth of God"?:

Matthew 4:9 ""All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me.""

No. It is from the mouth of Satan. .

Correct. From Satan. I apologize for overgeneralizing. I like generalities because it makes good copy, but "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" needs qualifier, pertaining to scripture.

But let's go deeper, shall we? Suppose Satan quotes God. Does that then make the word null? No, of course not.

Suppose a sinner utters a prophetic word, "He rescued me because He delighted in me". Lee said, "No, Jehovah didn't delight in the sinner". But my question all along has been, why didn't Lee consider Christ? Lee says, "David considered God's approval, and this is a wrong concept" (Psa 18:20 footnote), because salvation is of God's mercy and grace etc.

But Lee apparently never considered the Obedient Lamb of God. Yet the NT reception of the psalms repeatedly invited this. The psalmist declares, yet the declaration falls not to him, a sinner but on the Chosen Seed of the prophet (David, Acts 2:30), per God's promise. Why is this concept so fantastic, so amazing as to be beyond any consideration? Why do you think the crowds kept singing hosanna to the Son of David as Jesus entered Jerusalem (Matt 21:9; cf 9:27)? They knew Who was coming.

The Obedient Lamb of God is our Good Shepherd. When we see a prophetic picture of the law-keeping One it is not us the redeemed sinners, nor David (also a sinner), but God's Christ, who as a perfect Man lives by His every word (Matt 4:4). Why is this so seeming strange? Even Satan could see Christ in the psalms: "He (the Father) will set His angels around You (the Messiah, the Son) lest You (the Son) should strike Your foot against a stone". So, why couldn't Lee see Christ?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Is this a word of life or a word of death?:

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'

Even though it is a word from God's mouth, it is clearly not a word of life. Suppose you read and pray read 1 Samuel 15:3, what sort of person would it make you? It would not do your spirit much good. .

Not so fast. Christ tasted death for us. Death could not contain Him. So we are not afraid of death; it is death outside of Christ that is profitless.

So I ask, is this death in, or out of Christ? Why simply assume it is fallen, natural, fleshly? Paul wrote of putting to death (Rom 8:13, Col 3:5), but it was spiritual warfare, not flesh and blood (Eph 6:12). Why not accept Paul's invitation? Why is scripture read figuratively (when convenient), but then literally (when not convenient)?

Tell me this: was David a bad boy when he threw the stone against Goliath, or a type of the coming Christ? I say the latter. There's opportunity to see spiritual types here. Why categorically dismiss it?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From these simple examples I have proved that
1. Not every word in the Bible is from "God's mouth", however, every word in the Bible is inspired (is there for a purpose, according to God's will).
2. Not every word in the Bible is a matter of life or can give life. Only the Spirit gives life.

Jesus said "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you--they are full of the Spirit and life.". There is actually no verse in the Bible that says all and every verse in Scripture gives life. I have given two such examples which do not give life - one the voice of Satan, the other God's judgement which brought death.

The Bible is a book of life but that does not me an we do not need to extract the words of life from the Bible, as Lee tried to do with the life studies.

We cannot extract much life from the words of Satan or the words of man, which are recorded in the Bible but are not from the "mouth of God".

I could go on with bible verses that are not from the mouth of God but from fallen man- the false prophets for example,or Job's friends, etc etc.

The bible has God's words recorded in it for sure, but it also has the words of Satan and the words of (uninspired, natural or fallen) man.

Lee with his post-protestant hermeneutic said he extracted life from the Bible, but I've shown that he never considered Christ. So he failed. There is no life without Christ. And there's no life in his footnote in Psalm 18:20. Just fallen men's concepts.

The NT clearly showed the Father's deep delight in the Son. But the psalmist spoke of God's delight (Psa 18:19) and Lee simply said, "Nope." What kind of exposition is this? "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me". Didn't Peter use this kind of word in Acts 2, to show the relationship of the Father to the Son, and to declare that our faith in this Approved, Resurrected and Glorified Son now opened the door to salvation for all? Why close the door so quickly, so summarily?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I opened the Bible and started reading in bed,

Jesus said, "The Spirit will reveal Me (Jesus) to you (the disciple)." (John 16:13). At that moment the Spirit came and breathed life into you. By faith you saw Jesus, and you lived.

All this is basic Christian understanding. The Spirit conveys a revelation of Christ as life to us from the word of scripture. No one in the LC would protest this, either. What I do protest, however, is a self-styled apostle like Lee coming along, and saying which scripture you can get "life" from, and which is "vain". When you deconstruct his teaching, it all seems arbitrary, like on that particular day he was in an uncharitable mood and tough for you.

Suppose today we're going over Psalm 34, and Lee's not in the mood to see Christ, apart from what's required by NT reception ("not one of His bones is broken"), so too bad; it's all vanity, he says. Just David running around making noise, full of himself.

What nonsense.

Please understand I'm not saying that we HAVE to see Christ in Psalm 34, or elsewhere, outside explicit NT citation. I protest Lee saying we CANNOT see Christ. No. I protest. He has no right to do this. He's refusing to enter, and refusing to let anyone else enter in.

The NT invites us: "We see Jesus", says the writer (Heb 2:9), after profusely quoting the psalms. I find nothing other than perversity in Lee's categorical denial. (Obviously we're not limited to psalms; Isaiah's quite extensive, etc. But this thread was on the psalms).

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Correct. From Satan. I apologize for overgeneralizing. I like generalities because it makes good copy, but "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" needs qualifier, pertaining to scripture.

But let's go deeper, shall we? Suppose Satan quotes God. Does that then make the word null? No, of course not.

It's still God's word, but its' not from God's mouth, so we cannot live by it.

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose a sinner utters a prophetic word, "He rescued me because He delighted in me". Lee said, "No, Jehovah didn't delight in the sinner". But my question all along has been, why didn't Lee consider Christ? Lee says, "David considered God's approval, and this is a wrong concept" (Psa 18:20 footnote), because salvation is of God's mercy and grace etc.

Only the 2nd and 49th verses of Psalm 18 are quoted in the New Testament. Maybe that is why he does not consider Christ. But I can see it could refer to Christ.

Originally Posted by aron

But Lee apparently never considered the Obedient Lamb of God. Yet the NT reception of the psalms repeatedly invited this. The psalmist declares, yet the declaration falls not to him, a sinner but on the Chosen Seed of the prophet (David, Acts 2:30), per God's promise. Why is this concept so fantastic, so amazing as to be beyond any consideration? Why do you think the crowds kept singing hosanna to the Son of David as Jesus entered Jerusalem (Matt 21:9; cf 9:27)? They knew Who was coming.

The Obedient Lamb of God is our Good Shepherd. When we see a prophetic picture of the law-keeping One it is not us the redeemed sinners, nor David (also a sinner), but God's Christ, who as a perfect Man lives by His every word (Matt 4:4). Why is this so seeming strange? Even Satan could see Christ in the psalms: "He (the Father) will set His angels around You (the Messiah, the Son) lest You (the Son) should strike Your foot against a stone". So, why couldn't Lee see Christ?

Perhaps Lee was making a point in case people mistakenly thought that God rewarded them according to their own righteousness. But he could have said this refers to Christ and not us.

Originally Posted by aron

Not so fast. Christ tasted death for us. Death could not contain Him. So we are not afraid of death; it is death outside of Christ that is profitless.

So I ask, is this death in, or out of Christ? Why simply assume it is fallen, natural, fleshly? Paul wrote of putting to death (Rom 8:13, Col 3:5), but it was spiritual warfare, not flesh and blood (Eph 6:12). Why not accept Paul's invitation? Why is scripture read figuratively (when convenient), but then literally (when not convenient)?

Tell me this: was David a bad boy when he threw the stone against Goliath, or a type of the coming Christ? I say the latter. There's opportunity to see spiritual types here. Why categorically dismiss it?

Lee with his post-protestant hermeneutic said he extracted life from the Bible, but I've shown that he never considered Christ. So he failed. There is no life without Christ. And there's no life in his footnote in Psalm 18:20. Just fallen men's concepts.

The NT clearly showed the Father's deep delight in the Son. But the psalmist spoke of God's delight (Psa 18:19) and Lee simply said, "Nope." What kind of exposition is this? "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me". Didn't Peter use this kind of word in Acts 2, to show the relationship of the Father to the Son, and to declare that our faith in this Approved, Resurrected and Glorified Son now opened the door to salvation for all? Why close the door so quickly, so summarily?

I would say the old testament footnotes are incomplete, many verses have no commentary for them or the commentary is very bland. It would be interesting to investigate why Lee did not think these verses could be attributed to Christ. I don't know if that is possible by reading his books, without asking him himself.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I opened the Bible and started reading in bed, after working overtime and then traveling to night school, where God arranged for us both to take a Circuits I class in Engineering. I crashed in bed, and literally was reading only minutes. I don't even remember where or what I was reading. I was not repenting. I was not praying. I was not confessing my many sins. I was laying down, not kneeling.

I will admit that my new friend from work also was recently saved. His Catholic wife rejected the gospel, and wanted out, thus creating a fiery trial in his heart. He also went 30 miles out of his way to give me a ride home because my car had died. He was excited about Jesus, and "faith comes by hearing." His gospel did not give me any "how to" instructions about salvation, rather it was a combination of Gospel stories about Jesus that he was reading, and end times events from Hal Lindsay's book that was popular at the time.

I will believe your story and think you were saved in this way because that is how the sovereign God chose to save you. People have been saved by various unique and sometimes even strange ways, seemingly outside the "pattern" of scripture that so many Christians demand (not referring to you, God saving through reading the Bible is fairly orthodox). Many Christians might say that the simple calling on the Lord 3 times as done in the Recovery is "too easy" and not the "right way" to be saved.

Yet in this case I do not think it was the object that God used to save you that gave you life but was the instrument through which you received
life.

I think doctrinally the statement that we can find life only in Christ remains true. All other means must be ways through which we receive the life, and not the source of the life itself.

No doubt if I go to a Catholic forum and say the Virgin Mary statues cannot save anyone, I will get countless examples of how the Virgin Mary has somehow saved or healed them. I know of Christians who treat the Bible in the same way, in a superstitious way and attribute life to something which God never said or meant to contain life (not talking about yourself at all here, just making the statement).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can see it could refer to Christ.
But he could have said this refers to Christ and not us.

Thanks you for the charity of your reply. It's possible that I have been too strong in my condemnation (I get like that often). Anyway I found Lee's treatment to be perfunctory and unsatisfactory.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Thanks you for the charity of your reply. It's possible that I have been too strong in my condemnation (I get like that often). Anyway I found Lee's treatment to be perfunctory and unsatisfactory.

I have found that at times Lee's footnotes claim things which are not written there (hard to justify from the text), and other times denies things which clearly are.

Before joining "the Recovery" my understanding of Psalm 18 was that it did refer to Christ. That has not changed actually. The footnote by Lee did not raise alarm bells with me because I thought the statement is true - if the verse was speaking about David, or me or you, then it is correct to say we cannot appeal to our own righteousness. I never saw his footnote to be contradictory to the idea that we could "find Christ" in any Bible verse. The bible portrays Christ but the bible can also portray ourselves. Sometimes we see Christ in the Bible and other times we see ourselves.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Correct. From Satan. I apologize for overgeneralizing. I like generalities because it makes good copy, but "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" needs qualifier, pertaining to scripture.

But let's go deeper, shall we? Suppose Satan quotes God. Does that then make the word null? No, of course not.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It's still God's word, but its' not from God's mouth, so we cannot live by it.

Evangelical, methinks you needa get outa your mind, and turn to your spirit!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, methinks you needa get outa your mind, and turn to your spirit!

Do you mean you can live by Satan's words?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Do you mean you can live by Satan's words?

I think a better question on this forum would be, did Witness Lee mean that 90% of the Psalms were Satan's words? Look at how he categorizes them: natural, fallen, well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts.

When Peter told Jesus "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You!!" he was speaking in his natural, ignorant human concept. This ignominy would never happen to Jesus! Right? Simon, aka "The Rock" Peter, would never allow it! "Not so, Lord!"

Peter's speaking was, correctly we believe, characterized by Jesus as "Satan's speaking". So my question becomes, are there degrees of well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts on display in the Bible, some of which are Satan insinuating himself into the conversation, and some not? If Psalms are merely ignorant good intentions but not "revelatory of Christ", then what are they?

When Job's wife advised him to "curse God and die" (2:9) after he was brutally afflicted, this was arguably a natural concept, via God's enemy Satan. Satan advises, at some point in the process you can give up with the praise and worship thingy, and get down to brass tacks, and tell God off. But no, "I will praise God with my dying breath" (Psa 146:2 NLT). And also like Peter: "Lord, I forgave my brother six times. Now can I bash him on the noggin as he so rightly deserves?" Again, lack of awareness of God's mercy leads to behaviors controlled by the fallen flesh. Satan has now usurped. Again and again in the NT the well-intentioned disciples crowded round, and displayed God's enemy.

But if Paul called Psalms the Words of Christ, where's the corollary calling them Words of Satan (Col 3:16)? How can Lee define scriptural text thus and say that he's closely following the apostles? Where's the precedent for this?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Perhaps Lee was making a point in case people mistakenly thought that God rewarded them according to their own righteousness. But he could have said this refers to Christ and not us.

But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?

Paul made the point that the law of itself gave nobody righteousness (Rom 3:20). But why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One? How many times in the gospel text does Jesus reference obedience to the Father's will? No, says Lee, that psalm is just Satan distracting and deceiving the fallen mankind. At best, at very best, I think that's a shallow and perfunctory reading of the text; to me, Lee evinced no interest whatever in finding nor unpacking "life". Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find"; I see no evidence of seeking with Lee. How did he then claim to be a teacher, much less holding God's supposedly singular oracle?

[Drake]

Aron) "... why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One?"

"But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?"



aron,

You agree with Brother Lee but you are apparently unaware of what he actually taught. Case in point:

"Psalm 119 is a Psalm of 176 verses describing Christ, who is the reality of the law, the commandments, the ordinances, the statutes, the precepts, and the judgments. "

RCV Psalm 119 footnote 1 (1).

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron,

You agree with Brother Lee but you are apparently unaware of what he actually taught. Case in point:

"Psalm 119 is a Psalm of 176 verses describing Christ, who is the reality of the law, the commandments, the ordinances, the statutes, the precepts, and the judgments. "

RCV Psalm 119 footnote 1 (1).

Drake

Don't have a RecV in front of me but I'd say that Brother Lee gave us his generic "Christ is everything" answer. What does it say about obedience in verse 17; and if it actually does affirm Christs' earthly obedience to the heavenly Father's will, then why did Lee also pan obedience and righteousness elsewhere in the Psalms?

Lee: "Psalm 119 is a psalm of one hundred seventy-six verses describing Christ, who is the reality of the law, the commandments, the ordinances, the statutes, the precepts, and the judgments. In total, He is the Word of God. The words of Psalm 119 are the written words of God, but Christ is the living Word of God. The written words are the letters, but the living Word is the Spirit, who is the reality of the letters.

Now we can see not only what the law is but also who the law is. Who is the law? The law is the person of Christ, and the person of Christ is the Spirit. The Spirit is the reality of whatever God is. Hence, as the Spirit Christ is the reality of the law. Eventually, this law, this person, consummates in the way (John 14:6). When we have Him, we have not only love and light but also the way. This is Christ being the reality of the law as the testimony and the word of God."

So then why is Psalm 1 held to be vain, if there the psalmist delights in the law of the LORD? I mean, please be consistent if you are going to interpret the word like this. Lee is nearly schizophrenic. Some places is "NT enjoyment", some places "Christ", some places "vanity".

If in Psalm 119 the law is "Christ", why isn't Psalm 1 the NT believer "enjoying Christ" or some such? Why is Psalm 1 vain and natural? If Christ is the law, and Christ the law's embodiment is now the Spirit/reality, then why isn't Psalm 1, and others like it, an analog to the NT "keep the One Spirit" or something along those lines?

How about a couple of rules, here:

1. When we interpret scripture, let's do it consistently with NT reception patterns, and not go free-lancing, hm?

2. Once you pick a method of understanding scripture, keep it. Not either seeing "Christ" or "vanity" according to today's whims?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

How about a couple of rules, here:

1. When we interpret scripture, let's do it consistently with NT reception patterns, and not go free-lancing, hm?

2. Once you pick a method of understanding scripture, keep it. Not either seeing "Christ" or "vanity" according to today's whims?

Witness Lee: Psalm 119, Verses 17 and 18 say, "Deal bountifully with Your servant that I may live/And keep Your word./Open my eyes that I may behold/Wondrous things out of Your law." This indicates that the psalmist considered God's law to be His word. This is indicated also by what the psalmist says in verses 28 and 29: "My soul melts because of grief;/Strengthen me according to Your word./Remove from me the way of falsehood,/And graciously grant me Your law." These verses prove that the psalmist thought of God's law as His living and loving word breathed out of God's mouth.

I guess this is good, right? The psalmist has a good relationship, not vain, with the law? Now look at the discussion of Psalm 1.

Witness Lee: The first psalm is concerning the law. David did not know the real function of the law. He likened himself, as one who delighted in the law, to a tree growing beside streams of water and flourishing all the time (v. 3). But after Psalm 1, there is Psalm 2 concerning Christ. Then there is Psalm 3. The heading of Psalm 3 says, "A Psalm of David, when he fled from Absalom his son." The one who enjoyed the law as the streams of water by which he grew became a kind of exile due to the rebellion of his son. This happened to David because of his murder of Uriah and his taking of Uriah's wife (2 Sam. 12:10-12). The one who enjoyed the law so much in Psalm 1 became an intentional murderer. Does this show that the law works? The law does work, but not in David's way. The law works to expose us. The law exposed David to the uttermost as one who conspired to kill Uriah and rob Uriah of his wife. Does the law work or not? We have to say that the law works, not according to David's concept in Psalm 1, but according to the apostle Paul's teaching in the New Testament. Paul pointed out that the law was something added to the central line of the divine revelation to expose man's sinful nature and wicked deeds (Rom. 3:20b; 5:20a). We need this view of the law in order to understand the Psalms according to the divine concept in the New Testament. We are not in the Old Testament as David was, but we are in the New Testament.

So Psalm 119 delights in God's law because it is God's out-breathed word, but Psalm 1 delights in the law as vanity? How about a simple and consistent method, given clearly in the NT? How about, David declared reality per God's word (in the Psalms), which reality was not actualized fully in experience by David himself (a sinner) but by David's promised seed? You know, the guy named Jesus, "whom God has now made Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36) How is that so hard?

"But what does it say? 'The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart'-- that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation." (Romans 10:8-10).

We believe into and confess Jesus as both Lord and Christ. This is our righteousness, our faith, our confession. When we consider Psalm 1's righteous man, whose leaf never withers, I can see Jesus. Why was this an unthinkable concept for Lee? Psalm 1, Psalm 19, Psalm 119, all point to Jesus Christ as the One on earth who knew God the Father in heaven fully by embracing God's word(or, law/testimony/statutes). John even calls Jesus the incarnate Word. Jesus' delight in the law of the LORD in Psalm 1 is therefore not vain. So why are Psalm 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc etc "vain concepts"? I mean, if the psalmist had said, "I delight in evil", okay. But where's the opening for Lee's gambit, here?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

So Psalm 119 delights in God's law because it is God's out-breathed word, but Psalm 1 delights in the law as vanity? How about a simple and consistent method, given clearly in the NT?

Aron,

You are perplexed because you have some elevated or misplaced regard for the law as compared to God's plan as revealed in the New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament reveals how others also were perplexed by the same and it's tragic consequences.

The New Testament clarifies the purpose of the law was to come in along side fallen man to cause sin to abound (Romans 5:20). It also served as a child conductor to lead Israel to Christ. Once Christ came there is no need for a child conductor for believers now possess the way, truth, and the life with His actual presence.

Therefore, the law alongside Christ leads the children of Israel to Christ. The law in a standalone position causes sin to abound. The Old Testament writers did not have the benefit of looking back as we do so they, according to their limited view, sometimes spoke highly of the merits of the law on its own and in so doing did not realize that it condemed them. When a psalmist had God's view in mind, that is Christ, then the law functions in its right position.

When the Lord Jesus began His earthly ministry a conflict began with those who had a misplaced appreciation of the law. Ultimately those who appreciated the law broke the law when they murdered Him and His followers.

Therefore what you view as inconsistencies are merely Brother Lee drawing contrasts between those verses that misapply the law that leads to sin and death and those verses that bring the law alongside to lead people to Christ and to life.

Drake

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Drake

You are perplexed because you have some elevated or misplaced regard for the law as compared to God's plan as revealed in the New Testament. Furthermore, the New Testament reveals how others also were perplexed by the same and it's tragic consequences.

I don’t speak for aron, but as far as I’m concerned, he is spot on:

Matt 5:17-20
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.

Matthew Henry commentary:
5:17-20 Let none suppose that Christ allows his people to trifle with any commands of God's holy law. No sinner partakes of Christ's justifying righteousness, till he repents of his evil deeds. The mercy revealed in the gospel leads the believer to still deeper self-abhorrence. The law is the Christian's rule of duty, and he delights therein. If a man, pretending to be Christ's disciple, encourages himself in any allowed disobedience to the holy law of God, or teaches others to do the same, whatever his station or reputation among men may be, he can be no true disciple. Christ's righteousness, imputed to us by faith alone, is needed by every one that enters the kingdom of grace or of glory; but the new creation of the heart to holiness, produces a thorough change in a man's temper and conduct.

WL’s basis for criticizing Psalm 1 seems to be based upon the fact that David failed. Yet Jesus taught that taught us that downplaying the law is reason to be called least in the kingdom of the heavens, so WL’s logic doesn’t check out as far as I'm concerned.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

I think a better question on this forum would be, did Witness Lee mean that 90% of the Psalms were Satan's words? Look at how he categorizes them: natural, fallen, well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts.

When Peter told Jesus "Not so, Lord; this will never happen to You!!" he was speaking in his natural, ignorant human concept. This ignominy would never happen to Jesus! Right? Simon, aka "The Rock" Peter, would never allow it! "Not so, Lord!"

Peter's speaking was, correctly we believe, characterized by Jesus as "Satan's speaking". So my question becomes, are there degrees of well-intentioned but ignorant human concepts on display in the Bible, some of which are Satan insinuating himself into the conversation, and some not? If Psalms are merely ignorant good intentions but not "revelatory of Christ", then what are they?

When Job's wife advised him to "curse God and die" (2:9) after he was brutally afflicted, this was arguably a natural concept, via God's enemy Satan. Satan advises, at some point in the process you can give up with the praise and worship thingy, and get down to brass tacks, and tell God off. But no, "I will praise God with my dying breath" (Psa 146:2 NLT). And also like Peter: "Lord, I forgave my brother six times. Now can I bash him on the noggin as he so rightly deserves?" Again, lack of awareness of God's mercy leads to behaviors controlled by the fallen flesh. Satan has now usurped. Again and again in the NT the well-intentioned disciples crowded round, and displayed God's enemy.

But if Paul called Psalms the Words of Christ, where's the corollary calling them Words of Satan (Col 3:16)? How can Lee define scriptural text thus and say that he's closely following the apostles? Where's the precedent for this?

There is a saying that says God goes to church and so does Satan, or wherever God is Satan is there too watching. The Bible says tares and wheat live and grow together. Finding the words of God and the words of Satan in the same Psalm should not surprise us. In fact when Jesus was tempted Satan was quoting the words of God to Christ. I think fallen man, or natural man, can be considered Satan in a certain sense, but not in the same sense as Satan's literal speaking as with Christ's temptation. But actually it doesn't really matter if it is Satan speaking through natural man or Satan speaking directly, it is still Satan. We have this idea that Satan is about child sacrifice and witchcraft and all these things but actually Satan is the temptation of the natural man - just as Satan used Eve's natural desires to cause her to disobey.

Originally Posted by aron

But he didn't refer to Christ at all. How can we say this RecV translation with footnotes is in any way definitive if it's so glaringly deficient?

Paul made the point that the law of itself gave nobody righteousness (Rom 3:20). But why not consider whether "I will obey Your word" in the Psalm (e.g. 119:17) might possibly reference the coming Righteous One? How many times in the gospel text does Jesus reference obedience to the Father's will? No, says Lee, that psalm is just Satan distracting and deceiving the fallen mankind. At best, at very best, I think that's a shallow and perfunctory reading of the text; to me, Lee evinced no interest whatever in finding nor unpacking "life". Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find"; I see no evidence of seeking with Lee. How did he then claim to be a teacher, much less holding God's supposedly singular oracle?

There are possibly many verses Lee did not address in his footnotes where life can be unpacked. Are you aware of any of Lee's writings or teachings that might explain why he ignored Christ in this Psalm?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Freedom

WL’s basis for criticizing Psalm 1 seems to be based upon the fact that David failed. Yet Jesus taught that taught us that downplaying the law is reason to be called least in the kingdom of the heavens, so WL’s logic doesn’t check out as far as I'm concerned.

Psalm 119 shows us grace, as the NT believer enjoys Christ as God's law. Yet Psalm 1 shows us vanity as the psalmist tries vainly to keep God's law. But why isn't it Psalm 1 showing grace, and Psalm 119 showing vanity? Because Witness Lee said so.

What an arbitrary and disconnected mess. Tripe and rubbish.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 119 shows us grace, as the NT believer enjoys Christ as God's law. Yet Psalm 1 shows us vanity as the psalmist tries vainly to keep God's law. But why isn't it Psalm 1 showing grace, and Psalm 119 showing vanity? Because Witness Lee says so.

What tripe. What rubbish.

Please quote which verses in Psalm 1 shows us grace, then.

And which verses in Psalm 119 shows us vanity.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Please quote which verses in Psalm 1 shows us grace, then.

And which verses in Psalm 119 shows us vanity.

No, you mis-read me. What I meant was, Psalm 1 shows us Jesus. The tree planted by the water, whose leaf never withers, that is Jesus. See Revelation 22:2 for confirmation: the tree by the river, whose fruit bears in season ("whatever he does will prosper", Psa 1:3), whose leaves heal the nation. This Blessed Man in Psalm 1 becomes the Enthroned King in Psalm 2. For confirmation see Deuteronomy 17:14-20.

This theme continues strongly through the whole 150 chapters of Psalms. Of course we could nit-pick; Psalm 51 comes to mind, but even Psalm 51 at the end, echoes Jesus to Peter, "You will turn, and strengthen the brothers".

The "I will obey your word" of Psalm 119:17 is Jesus to the Father. "He was obedient to the death, even the death of the slave". And so on. It's not that complicated. Brother Lee made it complicated.

Brother Lee's euphemism for the Psalms was "complex". It's not complex; it's Jesus. At His core, He was the Simple, or Pure Man. Never deviated. Always obeyed. Grace is we the disobedient goats, seeing the Obedient Lamb, and by this faith we're saved. The righteousness of Jesus is imputed to us. "By grace you have been saved, and that through faith" That's why the writer of Hebrews profusely quoted the psalms, I think 8 citations to start off, then said, "We see Jesus" in 2:9. By faith, we see Jesus, and by faith we're saved. Not complicated.

My objection was that brother Lee didn't want to see Jesus. He either saw the OT psalmist vainly trying to please God, or the NT believer enjoying grace. But there's a gaping hole in the middle of his sermon. Brother Lee going through Psalms was like a bull-dozer going through a flower garden: the goal was achieved, and he got to the other side, but it didn't look good when he was done.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

the writer of Hebrews profusely quoted the psalms, then said, "We see Jesus" in 2:9. By faith, we see Jesus. Not complicated..

This probably deserves an addendum. Hebrews 2:9 says, We see Jesus made a little inferior to the angels, through the suffering and death. This Suffering and Obedient Man on Earth, fully in accord with the Will of the Father in Heaven, is played out in the Psalms.

And, We see Jesus crowned with glory and honor. This also is seen, notably in Psalm 2 but referenced often in poetic text. In fact, the Obedient Son on Earth, suffering righteously on behalf of the unrighteous, is merely the earthly representation of the Eternal King. Psalm 1 and Psalm 2 show two different views, or modes. But the Person was the same. The people who said, "Isn't this Jesus?? Don't we know His mother, sisters and brothers??" didn't realize Who this was. But the demons did, and trembled. As did, notably, the angels in heaven. The Roman centurion realized this in detail, and after explaining his understanding, told Jesus, "Just speak a word and my servant will be healed." Jesus marveled at not only his faith but his understanding.

And Jesus, to validate Himself while yet on earth, said, "If you don't believe in Me, believe in the works which I do." That He was the proto-typical, prophesied Righteous Man was proved unequivocally by actions: the blind who saw, the deaf who heard, the dead who were raised. This Man was none other than the long-sought-for Messiah. His resurrection, ascension and enthronement in eternal glory merely continued the process which began with His impeccably pure behavior on earth, and the healing power which flowed therefrom. (Thus, death wasn't failure and shame, but liberation for all from the pangs of death.) When Jesus referenced "the works" that He did, it echoed Psalm 1's "Whatever He does will prosper". . . Jesus' word had power on earth because it was fully in accord with the Father's speaking in Heaven. Jesus was the (singular) man with a pure heart, who was not just a hearer but a doer of the word (i.e. He was the Incarnate Word).

"He (the Son, on earth) trusted Him (the Father, in Heaven); let Him save Him now." (Matt 27:42,43; cf Psa 22:8) The whole of the Psalms plays out this simple narrative. When you see this, "He rescued Me because He delighted in Me" of Psalm 18:9 becomes clear: we see Jesus, a little inferior temporarily to the angels, then raised (rescued) by the Father and given glory. "God has now made Him both Lord and Christ". It's thematically consistent with the repeated NT narrative, and is applicable through the OT source scriptural text (inc Psalms) without too much trouble at all.

Witness Lee noted the earthly suffering and eternal glory of Jesus in his footnote to Hebrews 2:9, but failed to connect it to the Psalms. Yet that epistle's copious citation of psalms previous to the verse could have clued him.

[Drake]

NOTE FROM MODERATOR:

The quote attributed to aron was actually from Evangelical:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I would say the old testament footnotes are incomplete, many verses have no commentary for them or the commentary is very bland. It would be interesting to investigate why Lee did not think these verses could be attributed to Christ. I don't know if that is possible by reading his books, without asking him himself.

No shame to our fine feathered friend Drake - when so many posts are made over such a short period of time it can be easy to attribute a post to the wrong person.
***However, this is one good reason to use the "Quote" feature provided by the forum system. ***

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aron) "I would say the old testament footnotes are incomplete, many verses have no commentary for them or the commentary is very bland. It would be interesting to investigate why Lee did not think these verses could be attributed to Christ. I don't know if that is possible by reading his books, without asking him himself."

Aron,

I think it is great that you see Christ in all the Psalms. I mean it. I personally do not believe every verse of every Psalm, prophecy, or detail of the law refer to Christ specifically. Luke 24:44 indicates that the Old Testament was about Christ and some verses specifically referred to Him and He told His disciples which ones those were. Nevertheless, I am delighted when someone sees Christ where I never would have. Happens all the time.

I have a personal interest in prophecy, specifically end time. Brother Lee did not cover the books of the Prophets to the extent I would have preferred. I really value his perspective so I wanted more from him on that. Yet, it was not his main burden so I dived into them myself and over the last 10 years researched them extensively reading from many sources. What I now understand is not in the footnotes or the Life-studies though much of it is. Do I now find fault with the minister because he did not include everything I now understand about the prophecies in the RcV footnotes in the books of the Prophets?

That would be a ridiculous expectation.

If I feel strongly about it I could create and publish my own footnotes or write a book. So could you.

Brother Lee spoke thousands of messages on nearly every biblical topic and on some he went deep because it was according to his leading and burden before the Lord. He spoke hundreds about the Psalms alone. Other topics he only scratched the surface and so he asked the saints to research them (such as the significance of the minerals in the New Jerusalem).

The principle here is that every revelation given, all knowledge imparted, each experience we go through is for the building of the Body of Christ. So treat it as such and the Lord will multiply it as grace upon grace and there will we find our reward. If we do not invest wisely what He has imparted to us He may take it away when He returns and we would lose our reward.

May the Lord show you more and more and reward you at His coming.

Drake

[Drake]

Thanks untohim.

Sorry for my error.

Note to aron still applicable based on his entries.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are possibly many verses Lee did not address in his footnotes where life can be unpacked. Are you aware of any of Lee's writings or teachings that might explain why he ignored Christ in this Psalm?

There's a reason why Lee didn't address Christ in the vast majority of the psalms.

Originally Posted by aron

Today there is widespread agreement that the Psalms prefigured the coming Christ. Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Psalm 16, Psalm 22, Psalm 91, Psalm 110 are heavily quoted in the New Testament, for example.

But when Paul twice (Col 3:16, Eph 5:19) urged the saints to let the word of Christ dwell in them richly as they sang psalms, singing praise to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, do you think he was thinking of limiting them to those few? I don't get any indication of that. What about all the other chapters, which Lee passed over without mention, other than that they are "natural"? Do you think Paul had the same judgment, the same caveat? I don't get that impression.

Do you think, when the Psalmist wrote "In the midst of the assembly I will sing hymns of praise to you", that this applies only when we sing Lee's "revelation of Christ" psalms? That Christ will not/cannot join us if we sing the "natural concept" psalms? Child, please.

I personally think the psalms are much deeper and more revelatory of Christ than Lee realized. It is not that the Psalms are lacking the revelation of Christ, but that Lee was lacking the revelation of Christ. Which brings the next question: why? How could a man who teased images of Christ from the badger skins and silver sockets on the ark of the covenant, and from the windows on Noah's ark, not see Christ there in so many of the Psalms?

I think it is two-fold. First, he had a bias against the "law" by Paul's expositions (see Galatians 2, Romans 7, etc). So when the psalmist expressed a love for the law, Lee recoiled instinctively. The voices of Paul the apostle and Martin Luther the expositor shouted "No!!!" within him. This prevented him from seeking, or seeing, any Christ there.

Secondly, the man clearly had control issues. When the saints actually began to take the apostle Paul at his word and sing the Psalms, "As the hart panteth after the water brooks/so panteth my soul after Thee, O God", then Lee got worried because they were enjoying the Word outside his ministry and this to him was most dangerous. Lee wanted to be the sole mediator of man's revelatory experience in the Word of God. So Lee told the fellowships in the Lord's Recovery to stop singing the Psalms, because they were too low. I have heard this verbally from several people who were there.

He didn't, of course, say "Stop singing the Psalms"; he said, "It would be better if you sang verses from Ephesians than from Psalms". Then he imitated in a mocking way the saints as they praised God using the words of the psalmist. His "shaming" actions were enough to discourage the saints.

So Witness Lee was willing to directly contravene Paul's encouragement, if Paul's encouragement led to a loss of his (Lee's) control. The Spirit was starting to move among the assemblies, and it was moving away from Lee's dominion, and this probably threatened him. Loss of control could not be tolerated. So he stopped it.

And the "spirit of wisdom and revelation" which Paul asked for in Ephesians 1:17 got frustrated. The psalms then were declared to be the "natural concepts of men", versus revelatory pictures of the persecuted, praying, believing, hoping, trusting, declaring, thirsty, hungry, stricken, suffering, fighting, struggling Jesus the Nazarene. "Oh, that's just David (or Asaph, or Lemuel, etc) trying to be good." No, that is Jesus fulfilling the destiny of humankind. That is none other than the "Savior of the world" (1 John 4:14) revealed in detail far beyond Lee's capacity to see.

Lee didn't want to lose control. So he panned the scripture, stridently and with alacrity.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

I have a personal interest in prophecy, specifically end time. Brother Lee did not cover the books of the Prophets to the extent I would have preferred. I really value his perspective so I wanted more from him on that. Yet, it was not his main burden so I dived into them myself and over the last 10 years researched them extensively reading from many sources. What I now understand is not in the footnotes or the Life-studies though much of it is. Do I now find fault with the minister because he did not include everything I now understand about the prophecies in the RcV footnotes in the books of the Prophets?

That would be a ridiculous expectation.

If I feel strongly about it I could create and publish my own footnotes or write a book. So could you.

Brother Lee spoke thousands of messages on nearly every biblical topic and on some he went deep because it was according to his leading and burden before the Lord. He spoke hundreds about the Psalms alone. Other topics he only scratched the surface and so he asked the saints to research them (such as the significance of the minerals in the New Jerusalem).

The principle here is that every revelation given, all knowledge imparted, each experience we go through is for the building of the Body of Christ. So treat it as such and the Lord will multiply it as grace upon grace and there will we find our reward. If we do not invest wisely what He has imparted to us He may take it away when He returns and we would lose our reward.

May the Lord show you more and more and reward you at His coming.

Drake

Drake,

I addressed this issue in a previous post.

Originally Posted by aron

Unfortunately my presentational skills aren't up to the job, but I wanted to put out an idea: Look at the Psalms as a kind of spiritualization of the historical narrative, which spiritualization was picked up and amplified by the NT writers. A classic example is of Melchizedek. A historical character, briefly inserted into the narrative of events. Then the psalmist gives it a kind of mystical spin: "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek." The NT writer says, "Hey! This is Christ!" and then amplifies it.

We don't know how much of David's original work remains, and how much of it was redacted by later generations. But the psalms as spiritual commentaries were clearly accepted and used by the NT writers, and by Jesus Himself. For example, "You are gods" from Psalm 82, quoted by Jesus to the Jewish antagonists. They were gods, to whom the word of God came (John 10:35), but they died like men, because they disobeyed and corrupted the commands (82:7). They fell like every other corrupt ruler. Jesus' use of scripture turned the charge back against the Jews: they'd claimed Jesus blasphemed, but He said that His works showed that He was one with the Father (John 10:25,37,38). So who were they? Corrupt, and due to fall. "You are gods" was merely a prelude to "you will die like men".

Another example that comes to mind is "Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me." from Psalm 42:7. Compare this to Jonah 2:3 "You hurled me into the depths, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me." Somebody appears to be copying, here. How could David the landlubber psalmist seize upon a sea-faring narrative? Because the enemy coming against him like a "flood", like "waters", is a common poetic metaphor. And this is picked up on in the NT: "Just like Jonah was in the heart of the sea, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth". To go down into the depths of the sea is a metaphor, a spiritual picture, of the descent into Hades.

Or the commonly cited "rock of my salvation" in the Psalms, "which rock was Christ" according to Paul. One could pick out many examples; I know Augustine of Hippo did in his commentaries. Let's leave it at this: there's nothing in the NT reception of the Psalms that indicates that some of them were "fallen", or "natural", or "concepts". No, rather the NT usage indicates that they were perceived as revelatory. There was an invitation here, to be filled in Spirit with the words of Christ. And needless to say, WL spurned this invitation.

I've written several hundred posts on this thread and have only touched maybe 40 of the 150 psalms. And of many other books in the Bible I'm ignorant & thus don't presume to have the complete or last word, and don't expect Lee to have it either. What I do protest, here, is seen in the bolded part at bottom: that Lee's saying the scriptural word is "low, fallen, natural" and thus not revelatory of God's Christ. There's no NT precedent for this reception of scripture. We're not talking about one or two verses here; we're talking about the majority of 150 chapters. Yet these chapters are the most quoted section in the NT. But Lee wasn't interested. He had his "God's economy" and "processed God" to attend.

[Drake]

Aron) "let's leave it at this: there's nothing in the NT reception of the Psalms that indicates that some of them were "fallen", or "natural", or "concepts". No, rather the NT usage indicates that they were perceived as revelatory. There was an invitation here, to be filled in Spirit with the words of Christ. And needless to say, WL spurned this invitation."

On what scriptural basis do you assert that there is nothing natural in any Psalm? You would need to include, at minimum, the same for the books of the law and the prophets. And we know that there is much low natural fallen concepts expressed there.

Low, natural, and fallen, concepts are revealed too, not just Christ. Revelation is not just about Christ.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron) "let's leave it at this: there's nothing in the NT reception of the Psalms that indicates that some of them were "fallen", or "natural", or "concepts". No, rather the NT usage indicates that they were perceived as revelatory. There was an invitation here, to be filled in Spirit with the words of Christ. And needless to say, WL spurned this invitation."

On what scriptural basis do you assert that there is nothing natural in any Psalm? You would need to include, at minimum, the same for the books of the law and the prophets. And we know that there is much low natural fallen concepts expressed there.

Low, natural, and fallen, concepts are revealed too, not just Christ. Revelation is not just about Christ.

Does that just apply to the psalms or does this apply to every book in the Bible?

If every single book of the Bible reveals low, natural, fallen concepts then why does WL emphasize this with Psalms?

We need to see that, on the one hand, the book of Psalms was written according to the human concept, and on the other hand, it was written according to the divine concept. If we do not see this, our understanding will be natural, and the Psalms will be understood by us according to the human concept. (Witness Lee, Life Study of Psalms)

The issue is not that fallen natural concepts are revealed in the Psalms, but that according to Witness Lee some of the Psalms are about this.

Psalm 1, however, is according to the natural, human concept. David thought that the one who meditated in the law day and night would prosper in everything. (Witness Lee, Life Study of Psalms)

According to Witness Lee the writer of the Psalm (David) was natural and mistaken.

David's logic in Psalm 37 is very natural. (Witness Lee, Life Study of Psalms)

According to Witness Lee the writer of many of the Psalms (King David) was writing based on natural concepts and using natural logic.

[Drake]

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.

Happens all the time even here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.
Happens all the time even here.

I often overgeneralize but that's how I make sense of things. Cautious readers may prune my enthusiasms.

Here's what I see:

1. When the NT apostle held forth on the word, and had an opportunity to pan the psalmist for being low and natural, he didn't. Instead he said that the psalmist was not speaking for himself, but was speaking for the Christ.

Thus, "You will not let my flesh see corruption" was not a human concept of a sinner but was instead an indication of Jesus Christ's glories to come. I take this as the default interpretive pattern, until the NT scripture or Christian tradition (i.e. the Fathers) offers me a compelling reason to look differently.

2. I don't see the NT apostle saying, "Only these specified portions which we quote here are revelatory. Avoid other sections, which are not." Instead, the brief, scattered, but frequent (40+, I believe) references perhaps suggest that they haven't exhausted the Christ to be seen in God's word, and invite the readers or hearers to "examine the scriptures daily and see if these things are so". Cf Acts 17:11.

3. So if the psalmist says something like, "You rescued me because you delighted in me", that may perhaps speak to the Son being rescued by the Father, i.e. "He (the Son) trusted in Him (the Father); let Him save Him now."

OR, it may in fact be vain concepts of the sinner. But why did Lee pick option #2? Why didn't Lee say, "This could be speaking of the coming Messiah, but I don't think so because of reasons A), B), and C)."?

No, he just dismissed scripture with a wave of the hand: "Natural". So my response was, Who's being natural here, and burdened with fallen human concepts - the Bible expositor, or the Bible writer? Until I see compelling reasons to pick the expositor, I'm pre-disposed with the word of God, as presenting me with something potentially indicative of Christ. But Lee essentially dismissed the word of God, out of hand.

I keep coming back to NT precedent because I'm not aware of the NT apostles holding forth on the word this way: "Vain, fallen, natural". So what gave Witness Lee such license?

And I also showed why I suspect that this took place: others were getting there, before him, and "enjoying Christ" and threatening his position as sole mediator of God's revelation. So he shut it down.

Originally Posted by Drake

On what scriptural basis do you assert that there is nothing natural in any Psalm?

I never said there's nothing natural. I said, Let's not assume it's natural without consideration. I don't see Lee considering. He just cast a hasty judgment: "David was a sinner, so it was natural concepts expressed." That's about the extent of his analytical depth. Rubbish.

Peter never said anything like that. Paul never said anything like that. Nor John, nor Peter nor Hebrews that I remember. So where did Lee get his license? How does he treat the scriptural text thusly, en masse, and claim to be closely following the apostles?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said there's nothing natural. I said, Let's not assume it's natural without consideration. I don't see Lee considering. He just cast a hasty judgment: "David was a sinner, so it was natural concepts expressed." That's about the extent of his analytical depth. Rubbish.

How would you know what consideration Brother Lee had before he spoke those messages on Psalms? He had a very long ministry and would have had decades of oonsideration by the time he spoke the messages on Psalms. You are basing your objection on something you have no way of knowing.

So you agree, like Brother Lee, that the book of Psalms contains both natural and divine concepts. His considerations are not apparent to you so you assume it's hasty judgment on his part. Your argument is flawed because you cannot possibly how much consideration went into his teaching on this. For all you know he thought about this since 1925 until 1993 when he spoke these messages. That would be 60+ years... well just to be safe let's assume a half century of opportunity to consider and develop his point of view.

By that measure, who is being hasty?

[aron]

I'll try to recap my argument first, then address Drake.

Jesus said, "David was speaking by the Spirit" (Matt 22:43). Where does Jesus indicate the opposite, that David was not speaking by the Spirit? Just speaking according to his concepts?

Peter said, "David was a prophet and knew of the promise of God, and predicted the coming Seed who'd fulfill the word" (Acts 2:30,31). Where does Peter indicate David was merely speaking vain human considerations?

I believe our default interpretive mode should follow the pattern set by the NT. Of course this doesn't mean that every word of Psalms, (or Isaiah, or Job) indicates some detail of Jesus Christ, but we should be attuned for the Holy Spirit to reveal Him to us.

"The Holy Spirit will glorify Me by disclosing Me to you" (John 16:13,14)

"I pray that the Lord would give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation". (Eph 1:17).

When we study the word and the Holy Spirit reveals "this Jesus" (Acts 2:32); we "see Jesus" (Heb 2:12), then we can go deeper into the Father's will. The Son goes before, and beckons to follow. These poetic texts reveal Jesus. The Spirit reveals Jesus, and Jesus reveals the Father.

Now, the problem with poetic texts is that one person may see one thing and another sees another. So when the psalm says three times, "Get behind me, you workers of evil" (Psa 6:8; 119:115; 139:19), and we remember that Jesus said the same thing three times in the gospel (Matt 4:10; 7:23; 16:23), are we seeing Jesus? Yes and no. Yes if the psalm helps us see Jesus the gospel portrays; but no in that we can't prove that this verse in Matthew fulfils the prophetic utterance of the psalmist.

Or, reading in Psalm 3: "I laid me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained me"; is that presaging "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to take it up again"? Perhaps. It certainly can cause us to see in greater depth the power that raised Jesus from the grave. In Psalm 3 David was on the run, hiding in a cave - his son Absalom had rebelled, and violent men, under Absalom's captains' orders, were seeking his life. Men who had once been David's own guards. But David trusted, and slept, willing to face death, knowing that God could bring him back out of darkness. Is this not indicative of the Son of David? Is this not a faith that inspires, empowers?

Perhaps; that's of course something of a subjective, personal, 'spiritual' encounter with the text. But did Lee ever consider this? Or was David in Psalm 3 summarily dismissed as a vain sinner? A man of "complex sentiments", occasionally having a "squirrel!" moment but usually only capable of looking at himself. Where was Jesus' man who was in spirit, Peter's future-seeing prophet? Nowhere to be found. Not even considered, from what I could see.

So we're given a crazy, disjointed text. . . look at Psalm 34:20 - "Not one of His bones will be broken", quoted by John 19:36. The rest of the psalm, according to Lee, is just fallen human concepts. Sin has thoroughly addled David from seeing or recognizing God's Christ, yet in the middle of his selfish rant David has a "eureka" vison of a detail of the coming Messiah, then promptly goes back to his vain musings.

What kind of interpretation is that? It's like spiritual whiplash: vain, revelatory, vain. I think a third-grader might be impressed by such scattershot characterizations. I'm not.

Originally Posted by Drake

How would you know what consideration Brother Lee had before he spoke those messages on Psalms? He had a very long ministry and would have had decades of consideration by the time he spoke the messages on Psalms. You are basing your objection on something you have no way of knowing.

Lee had decades of considerations, but all he told us was that David was a sinner and therefore was disqualified in pleasing God or fulfilling His will. No mention of the possibility if David was speaking prophetically, or was in spirit. Just, He was a sinner. Not qualified.

But Peter had already addressed that issue, in Acts 2, and gone deeper, into the spirit. Lee wouldn't. Why? He wouldn't say. "David was a sinner". So what are we to assume? That Lee had years of consideration, somehow got something deep and insightful, causing him to reject this word, and moved on to revelatory texts? He didn't want to waste our time by giving us the benefit of his considerations? What are we to think?

So I tell you what I think: he had meetings to give, books to publish, and a church empire to build and run. Move along folks, move along; nothing to see here. No consideration, no musing upon the word both day and night, no insight, no life. No revelation of Jesus Christ.

Maybe Lee had too many years of consideration. His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.
Happens all the time even here.

My question is does this happen in every book of the Bible? Are you saying that every writer of every book of the Bible is expressing human concepts sometimes and sometimes divine concepts?

If your answer is yes then how can you claim that the Bible is the word of God?

If your answer is no, then it goes back to your original response concerning David, WL's teaching is not typical of all writers but was specific to Psalms.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe Lee had too many years of consideration. His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

aron, that is what meant before when I said that you do not address what Brother Lee actually taught. You are making stuff up and you do everyone a disservice no matter which side you are on. Learn the facts then have at it.

Here is one example from one book alone that refutes your assertions that he did not see Jesus in the Psalms. The reader can decide for themselves from this concluding summary from the book Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms.

CONCERNING CHRIST

Let us consider now all the main aspects of Christ in the Psalms:

1. His divinity—Psa. 45:6; Heb. 1:8
2. His incarnation—Psa. 8:4; Heb. 2:6
3. His humanity—Psa. 8:4; Heb. 2:6
4. His human living—Psa. 16:1-8
5. His death—Psa. 22:1-21
6. His resurrection—Psa. 2:7; 16:10; 22:22; Heb. 2:12; Acts 2:25-32; 13:35-37
7. His ascension—Psa. 68:18; Eph. 4:8
8. His exaltation—Psa. 80:17; 110:1
9. His crowning—Psa. 8:5; Heb. 2:9
10. His enthronement—Psa. 2:6
11. His dominion, kingship, and authority—Psa. 2:8; 8:6; 47; 72; 89; 110
12. His priesthood—Psa. 110:4
13. His fighting—Psa. 110:5-6; 45:3-5
14. His victory—Psa. 110:5-6
15. His indwelling—Psa. 22:22
16. His shepherding—Psa. 23
17. The stone for the building—Psa. 118:22
18. His coming—Psa. 72; 96; 110
19. His reigning—Psa. 93—101

The main psalms concerning Christ: Psa. 2, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 45, 68, 80, 91, 110, 118
These are just the main aspects; there are many details which could be filled in. It is clear that through the Psalms we can know Christ much better than through the New Testament."


Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My question is does this happen in every book of the Bible? Are you saying that every writer of every book of the Bible is expressing human concepts sometimes and sometimes divine concepts?
If your answer is yes then how can you claim that the Bible is the word of God?
If your answer is no, then it goes back to your original response concerning David, WL's teaching is not typical of all writers but was specific to Psalms.

ZNP,

The Bible is the Word of God and the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and all that is documented is for our benefit.

The Bible imparts insight to many things: God and all things related to Him including the church, then the law, many characteristics of man, culture, Satan, religions, politics, prophecy, the beginning and end of the earth and the universe, etc. In most of the books of the Bible some combination of these are revealed.

For instance, what is the significance of the Lord rebuking Peter calling him Satan? Peter loved the Lord and wanted to protect Him. He sliced off a servants ear. He said he would follow the Lord all the way and yet he denied him three times before the sun rose. Isn't that instructive to us? Isn't the Bible exposing something about our human nature, even our good human nature, even our natural love for God, matters that are contrary to God's will? Why are those things recorded in the Bible if not to edify, instruct us, and alert us what to avoid. The Bible is inspired even if what is revealed is natural or about human nature, good and bad.

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

It is very different to say that the Bible reveals, exposes or shines a light on the natural concept. That is not what Witness Lee taught. Witness Lee taught that the writer of the Bible (in this case David) wrote according to the natural concept, the natural logic, human concept and was "very natural" (in contrast with God's holy nature, i.e. Holy Bible).

Yes, I agree with pretty much everything you say here, except when applied to Witness Lee's teachings on Psalms, which of course is the context of our discussion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron, that is what meant before when I said that you do not address what Brother Lee actually taught. You are making stuff up and you do everyone a disservice no matter which side you are on. Learn the facts then have at it.
Here is one example from one book alone that refutes your assertions that he did not see Jesus in the Psalms. The reader can decide for themselves from this concluding summary from the book

Drake, I have been reading aron's post for years, including the ones on this thread, and he has NEVER said that Witness Lee "did not see Jesus in the Psalms." You have misread his posts completely. Also, numerous authors and commentaries can provide the same list which you posted above. Lee often used others' works and did not properly reference them in his books, giving you the i pression that his writing was original.

What aron has said, and has said it repeatedly, was that Lee dismissed many Psalms as "natural or fallen concepts." I too heard this many times from Lee. He also similarly dismissed the book of James.

Perhaps this forum can help you learn "the facts."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, I have been reading aron's post for years, including the ones on this thread, and he has NEVER said that Witness Lee "did not see Jesus in the Psalms." You have misread his posts completely.

Originally Posted by aron

His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

- - - - - - - -

[Ohio]

You took his words out of context.

Read the whole post. Read his other posts.

I'll let him respond further.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

(in contrast with God's holy nature, i.e. Holy Bible).

I don't understand why you added "i.e. Holy Bible"

Please clarify.

[ZNPaaneah]

Your post comes across as a way to equate believing that the Bible is the word of God being equal to anything.

My understanding when you say that the Bible is the word of God, is that the Bible is Holy, it expresses God's holy nature.

A writer of the Bible is not expressing his natural fallen mind. The words are the expression of the revelation of God to man.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Your post comes across as a way to equate believing that the Bible is the word of God being equal to anything.

My understanding when you say that the Bible is the word of God, is that the Bible is Holy, it expresses God's holy nature.

A writer of the Bible is not expressing his natural fallen mind. The words are the expression of the revelation of God to man.

Okay, I think I get what you are saying. However, in the Bible we see God's nature revealed and yet many other things are revealed also.

The natural concepts may be expressed by persons written about or by the writers themselves. In any scenario, the Bible is God's speaking to man, men writing under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, proitable for instruction, teaching, and edification.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

I think it's reasonable to wonder when David asked God to crush his (David's) enemies whether David was expressing God's nature at that time and whether we should imitate David's vindictiveness. My own conclusion is to take David's requests as calls for justice and defense, rather than as expectations of payback for his sake.

But Lee took this kind of questioning beyond just whether we should indulge in David-like vindictiveness. Lee ran with this idea of "natural concepts" to the point where a natural concept was anything but his proprietary "God's economy" theology.

Like Lee, you easily throw out this term "natural concept" as if you know exactly what is and is not one. But that's the essence of the whole error that aron is trying to refute in this thread. What Lee and you think are "natural concepts" may or may not be. Further, there is no indication from the Bible that a natural concept, whatever may be one, is always a bad or even inferior one.

Lee was very self-serving in that he would smoothly use terms like "natural concept" to essentially say "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" or, worse, "Stop thinking and just agree with me."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You took his words out of context.

Read the whole post. Read his other posts.

I'll let him respond further.

If you look at Lee's list of revelatory psalms, provided by Drake in post #595, they're all the ones cited in the NT, except for item 16 (Psalm 23, commonly held), and item 19. So of course he'll see Jesus there: he's required to by NT reception.

When I said that Lee wouldn't "see Jesus" in the text, this referenced psalms having similar and even identical principles; let's say, the righteous man suffering unjustly, and hoping for deliverance, or the man who obeys God's will, and hopes for reward, and so forth. Lee would usually say, "No, no one's righteous; or, No, nobody is obedient to God; or, No, salvation is not a reward but is by grace. . .we all know that David was a sinner", etc. So e.g. "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me" in Psalm 18 was held by Lee as natural, even though the Father's delight has clear NT parallel and reinforcement. So I wrote that he wouldn't see Jesus if He waved His hand in his face.

I believe that Lee only saw Jesus in Psalm 16 because Acts 2 and 13 said it was Jesus. Then, Lee rejected Jesus in Psalm 18 because David was a sinner. Huh? Is that a satisfactory answer? Does that sound like the fruit of 50 years of consideration? No, it sounds like rejection out of hand, to me. No careful consideration, no prayerful musings. Just rejection. Lee saw the word "law" in Psalm 1, and said, "Aha - natural! Nobody's saved by keeping the law!" Then he had carte blanche to reject the Psalms as vain words coming from fallen men's human concepts.

But I say, "Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4) wasn't a contravention of law but its fulfillment - the law was not annulled but kept, and thus completed - I say, Psalm 1 was not vain, because arguably Christ fulfilled it. Yet to Lee it was vanity, merely because the psalmist was a sinner! I find this line of thinking to be completely unsatisfactory because: A) it's illogical, and it produces a strange, dichotomous "natural" versus "revelatory" Bible, and B) it apparently never considers Christ at all, but dismisses the possibility out of hand.

Notice that Lee never said Psalm 1, 3, 18, 34, 35 etc etc couldn't be prophetic utterance of Jesus Christ because of something intrinsic to the text itself; no, he says it isn't revelatory of Christ because the psalmist was a sinner! Well if that was our evaluatory criterion, then Psalm 16, "You will not let my flesh see corruption" would be disqualified also, but look how Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13 dealt with that! But I never saw Lee try to deal with it, to puzzle it through, to think, to pray, to muse, to wrestle. All I see is cavalier dismissal. Thus my rather harsh statement that he wouldn't see Jesus if He waved His hand in his face.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

The main psalms concerning Christ: Psa. 2, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 45, 68, 80, 91, 110, 118

These are just the main aspects; there are many details which could be filled in. It is clear that through the Psalms we can know Christ much better than through the New Testament."


Drake

You've got to be kidding me. "There are many details which could be filled in..." by whom? If Lee didn't fill them in, who gets permission, under "One Trumpet" and "One Publication"? You? Me? I doubt it. This type of word was merely a sop for the conscience's of the faithful, or a fig leaf to cover for the newbies. Lee was a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, and we learned to ignore one and pay attention to the other.

Suppose Ed Marks or Kerry Robichaux, two of the current leaders, suddenly get a revelation from heaven: the Blessed Man of Psalm 1 is none other than the Man Jesus Christ! They're sitting in the study room one day, reading Deuteronomy 17:14-20 together, which talks about the king whom Jehovah chooses, who shall read and keep the law all the days of his life, and whom (btw) Lee said doesn't exist, because the king was desired by the people and was thus offensive to God, and suddenly the room is filled with great light and an angel of God is standing there and says, "Oh ye of little faith! Can't you see the Messiah, plainly depicted here!? This King is none other than the King of Israel, who is the Son of God!"

And then the light fades and they're alone again, and they look at each other in astonishment. What can they do? They can't go against Lee! So they have a dilemma; they either go with God's word and the revelation of the Holy Spirit showing them the person and righteous human living (i.e. 'works') of the Lord Jesus Christ, or they go with the teachings and doctrines of LSM and RecV footnotes. What to do?

How come the Blessed Man from Psalm 1 isn't the Enthroned King from Psalm 2? If you or I, or anyone, tries to "fill in this detail", or any other that goes against Lee's "natural concept" teaching, what would happen? You and I both know what would happen.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee ran with this idea of "natural concepts" to the point where a natural concept was anything but his proprietary "God's economy" theology.

Everyone here agrees that not every word of the Psalms has to be a "word of Christ" per Col 3:16 or a word of "spirit and life" per John 6:63. Many psalms are shown to be revelatory of Christ by NT reception, some seem iffy at best. But given clear and repeated NT citation we'd do well to at least consider Christ, and not reject out of hand simply because the author of the psalm was a sinner. If that were our metric what would happen to the Bible!

Or that the psalm's author expresses "fighting words" or "judging words" - what of the sobering scenes in the NT of the Judgment Seat of Christ, or the clear spiritual struggles portrayed? "Then there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels struggled against...." . . should we think that here the NT author was expressing vain, pre-NT concepts, or that the angel Michael in heaven should 'turn the other cheek' and love his foe? Hardly. So, why a knee-jerk dismissal of such spiritual principles when we see physical struggle or judgment referenced in OT psalms? Why not take a moment or two and consider the unseen, eternal spiritual world(s) beyond the temporal physical one (2 Cor 4:18; cf 1 John 2:16,17)?

On a related note, coming to Igzy's quote above, it's long seemed to me that there were two "untouchables" in the Bible for Lee: one was Jesus Himself, and the second was Paul. Jesus is obviously the sinless Lamb of God, but Paul has a special place because of Lee's cultural and social yardsticks: Paul was the untouchable one, the apostle of the age, so-called, and everyone else had to "get in line" behind Paul. Paul was positionally untouchable, per Lee's oriental cultural/societal understanding. Social cohesion, shared meaning, values, and purpose - here, the church as Lee imagined it - needed a center. Thus, to Lee, Paul couldn't be seen making doctrinal error. Peter could err, and did, as James could, and as John could, but not Paul. Nor by extension could Nee (except for the early book "Spiritual Man", largely plagiarized from the unbalanced Penn-Lewis). Lee was consistent from Day One: proper church order meant one person had to step up and be Deputy God and everyone else had to arrange their spiritual, social, mental and behavioral worlds around that fixed point. I heard that concept reinforced a million times while in the LC. Everyone got it. Nobody forgot it. It was ingrained, unquestioned local church culture.

Now, how does that play out when we come to Psalms? Lee with his "Economy of God" metric could weigh psalms in the balance and find them wanting. But nobody could ever weigh or critically evaluate Lee; none put him in the same scale he put everything else in, including the Bible. Lee was positionally untouchable: he'd cavalierly dismiss the "vain concepts" and "natural thinking" of the writers of scripture, but nobody could ask if he ever suffered from the same malady.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I believe that Lee only saw Jesus in Psalm 16 because Acts 2 and 13 said it was Jesus. Then, Lee rejected Jesus in Psalm 18 because David was a sinner. Huh? Is that a satisfactory answer? Does that sound like the fruit of 50 years of consideration? No, it sounds like rejection out of hand, to me. No careful consideration, no prayerful musings. Just rejection. Lee saw the word "law" in Psalm 1, and said, "Aha - natural! Nobody's saved by keeping the law!" Then he had carte blanche to reject the Psalms as vain words coming from fallen men's human concepts.

I would like to know, verse by verse, how much Lee received as revelation based on his own labor in the word, and how much he merely stole from others, primarily Nee and the Exclusive Brethren, you know, "standing on their shoulders."

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose Ed Marks or Kerry Robichaux, two of the current leaders, suddenly get a revelation from heaven: the Blessed Man of Psalm 1 is none other than the Man Jesus Christ!

And then the light fades and they're alone again, and they look at each other in astonishment. What can they do? They can't go against Lee!

Here it is Nee's infamous saying which must guide them, "Whenever we have two interpretations of the scripture, someone is not holding the Head."

[aron]

I was reading Romans 10 the other day. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (v. 17). The reference in the RecV says Colossians 3:16. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly". Then the next verse quotes Psalm 19. "Their voice has gone out into all of the earth/their testimony to all of the world". But Witness Lee in his footnote in Psalm 19 panned the text. God doesn't care about this, said Lee, but about His eternal economy.

But again I return to the idea of the word of Christ, as presented by Paul. How many of what we call the NT texts did the Romans or Colossians have at that point? They may have had some gospel texts, sayings of Jesus. Doubtful they had an extant copy of what we'd call the Gospel of Mark, or Luke. Certainly John's gospel, no. Maybe an epistle of Paul (see e.g., Col 4:16 "read the letter to the Laodiceans").

No, the word of Christ to which Paul referred was undoubtedly the OT. The very texts cited by Paul, which Witness Lee so quickly dismissed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I was reading Romans 10 the other day. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (v. 17). The reference in the RecV says Colossians 3:16. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly". Then the next verse quotes Psalm 19. "Their voice has gone out into all of the earth/their testimony to all of the world". But Witness Lee in his footnote in Psalm 19 panned the text. God doesn't care about this, said Lee, but about His eternal economy.

But again I return to the idea of the word of Christ, as presented by Paul. How many of what we call the NT texts did the Romans or Colossians have at that point? They may have had some gospel texts, sayings of Jesus. Doubtful they had an extant copy of what we'd call the Gospel of Mark, or Luke. Certainly John's gospel, no. Maybe an epistle of Paul (see e.g., Col 4:16 "read the letter to the Laodiceans").

No, the word of Christ to which Paul referred was undoubtedly the OT. The very texts cited by Paul, which Witness Lee so quickly dismissed.

When Paul traveled to the Gentile lands bring the gospel, he always went to synagogues first. I wonder if perhaps that was partly done because the OT scriptures were there, and Paul could begin to "connect" these new believers with the prophecies of the Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

When Paul traveled to the Gentile lands bring the gospel, he always went to synagogues first. . . perhaps that was partly done because the OT scriptures were there, and Paul could begin to "connect" these new believers with the prophecies of the Christ.

Yes I think so. And look how they used it. "The heavens declare the glory of God. The skies proclaim His handiwork. Day after day, they testify. Night after night they tell of Him. There is no speech, nor even words; nothing our ears can ever discern. But their voice goes out through all of the world. Their testimony to all of the earth." Now, how would I connect that passage of the heavens, with "the word of Christ"? Do you see that as an invitation, or a connection, to preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ as Lord? Paul did. He used it in Romans 10 in his discussion of faith coming by hearing.

The NT writers took great imaginative liberties (or 'revelatory' if you prefer) with the text. They "saw Jesus", as the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews put it, temporarily made lower than angels, then crowned with glory and honor. Again and again the human Christ was seen in the experiences of the godly poet.

But when Psalm 19, used by Paul, talks of the law, Lee balked; he said it wasn't God's economy. Yet arguably, "Christ is the end of the law" in NT epistle, not because He ignored it, but because He fulfilled it. Now we Christians see, by faith, and we thus actively "hear the word of Christ" per Romans 10. And thus, and only thus, are we saved.

Today of course we do have the NT books, epistles of Paul, written gospels, and so forth. But if we ignore that which they constantly referenced, in appeals to their hearers and readers then we risk a shallow reading. Which is what I think Lee gave us.

Now LC followers might say that in certain parts he did extract revelations from the OT text. But I say that his repeated dismissal of the Psalms as natural, as in his extensive footnote in Psalm 19, not only kept people out, but discouraged them from even trying. In LC-speak, God's present oracle has spoken; therefore the scripture is natural, fallen concepts, and not looking away to Jesus but looking away from Jesus. But I say that repeated NT citation shows that those writers and speakers thought the opposite of the Bible expositor.

So Psalm 19's "Do not let sin rule over me" is not fulfilled by our keeping the law, but by our seeing Jesus. Yet who will pray, if Lee has already waved them off? "How then, can they call, without having heard?" (Rom 10:14).

Paul said salvation is by faith, and faith by hearing. Lee crippled "the word of Christ" by his characterization.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

The Bible is the Word of God and the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and all that is documented is for our benefit.

The Bible imparts insight to many things: God and all things related to Him including the church, then the law, many characteristics of man, culture, Satan, religions, politics, prophecy, the beginning and end of the earth and the universe, etc. In most of the books of the Bible some combination of these are revealed.

For instance, what is the significance of the Lord rebuking Peter calling him Satan? Peter loved the Lord and wanted to protect Him. He sliced off a servants ear. He said he would follow the Lord all the way and yet he denied him three times before the sun rose. Isn't that instructive to us? Isn't the Bible exposing something about our human nature, even our good human nature, even our natural love for God, matters that are contrary to God's will? Why are those things recorded in the Bible if not to edify, instruct us, and alert us what to avoid. The Bible is inspired even if what is revealed is natural or about human nature, good and bad.

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

ZNP,

My view is still the same as it was when I posted this note.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

My view is still the same as it was when I posted this note.

Drake

"We see instances of natural concepts" - and yet you see no natural concepts in the ministry of Lee? I see loads. And yes in yours and mine as well. Why is it that Witness Lee got to decide which of the scriptures were revelatory and which were not, and yet we're precluded from making the same assessments of his output? What force is at work, here?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

My view is still the same as it was when I posted this note.

Drake

My view is that the writers of the Bible were not "Satan". Even Peter, though his speaking was "one with Satan" had repented and been transformed.

So the quotes of Satan speaking are similar to a Prosecuting attorney quoting a suspect. Yes it is a direct quote from Satan, but in context it is full of revelation, light and instruction.

However, the quotes I gave from Witness Lee are quite different. He says that the writers of the Psalms wrote based on their natural concept and he says that several of the Minor prophets wrote entire chapters based on their natural human concept.

When the Bible tells us that "this is a quote from Satan" then I am not being arrogant to say "this is a quote from Satan". But when I set myself up as a judge to decide which Bible verses are beneficial (the kernel) and which are the husk. Which ones are good for food and which ones aren't. That is arrogance. I think it is crucial that anyone associated or considering becoming associated with the Local Churches be aware of these quotes from Witness Lee.

When I first began to meet I asked about the Bible and I was told repeatedly with full assurance that "the Bible is the word of God", and "every single verse is the word of God" and the "Bible is the highest authority and our only authority". That is not true. Witness Lee's conclusions that certain books, chapters, and authors are writing according to their natural concept, human concept, or are not clear on the NT vision indicates that Witness Lee has set himself up as a higher authority to judge the Bible.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP, all scripture is God breathed and profitable. Satan's thoughts and deeds are recorded there, man's words are recorded there, man's concepts about God and the things of God are recorded there. ... Satan's infiltrating man thoughts are recorded there, and God's words are there, God's speaking through psalmists, prophets, and servants is recorded there even when they sometimes do not get it right.

Consider it this way. Today men have something they did not have in the Old Testament. ., we have the Spirit Himself within to guide, inspire, and speak according to the Spirit's leading in every situation. And yet, everything a man of God says may or may not be the Lord's speaking. Even Paul said things he did know if it was Lord speaking or himself. Still, whatever he said was recorded in scripture and profitable for us. Similar with Peters words which were a personification of Satan's thought.... still recorded and still profitable... even as a warning to us. So, we have the Spirit to divide soul from spirit and it is a life long process. The OT prophets and psalmists did not. Not everything they said was spirit and not soul.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, we have the Spirit to divide soul from spirit and it is a life long process. The OT prophets and psalmists did not. Not everything they said was spirit and not soul.

How do we assume that Witness Lee was so transformed by this "life long process" that all his judgments were true? He arbitrarily picked out "revelations" from the rest which was "natural". Probably 70% of the Psalms, for example, were deemed "natural". But there was no consistency to his work.

If you look at Psalm 45, for example, one verse has "His arrows are sharp, in the heart of his enemy". This of course is violent! Not the NT grace at all! But Lee ignored it, with no comment (footnote) because he was busy showing "Christ" in Psalm 45. Yet elsewhere imprecations are held out as "natural" and "fallen".

Or, when Samuel slew Agag, or David slew Goliath. No panning of the protagonist as lacking grace. No lectures about turning the other cheek. Yet in the Psalms footnotes you can repeatedly see this kind of commentary.

So Drake et al will say, "some is natural, some is spiritual" but not mention that Lee violated NT reception precedent (the OT author was indeed fallen, but still pointed to Christ, not self [e.g., Peter in Acts 2 referencing Psalms 16]), or that Lee was inconsistent and arbitrary in application. The bottom line is, Lee said it, therefore it must be so.

This makes it, not "the" Bible, but the "Lee Bible". Not the same thing. The difference is too great, as Lee himself would say. Crucial!

[Drake]

-1

aron>"How do we assume that Witness Lee was so transformed by this "life long process" that all his judgments were true"

That is true for all of us. Includes mine and your posts.

So now what?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP, all scripture is God breathed and profitable. Satan's thoughts and deeds are recorded there, man's words are recorded there, man's concepts about God and the things of God are recorded there. ... Satan's infiltrating man thoughts are recorded there, and God's words are there, God's speaking through psalmists, prophets, and servants is recorded there even when they sometimes do not get it right.

We know Satan's thoughts infiltrated Peter's because Jesus told us and it as recorded in the Bible. We know what the serpent said because it was recored in the Bible. But who decides when the Psalmists and Prophets didn't get it right? You have put that person above the Bible. No longer is the Bible the sole arbiter (something I was told), no longer is all scripture God breathed and our highest authority. Now, when WL says they got it wrong WL becomes a higher authority than the word of God. Anyone who has anything to do with the LRC needs to be aware of this. If they still want to remain then that decision will be on them.

Originally Posted by Drake

Consider it this way. Today men have something they did not have in the Old Testament. ., we have the Spirit Himself within to guide, inspire, and speak according to the Spirit's leading in every situation. And yet, everything a man of God says may or may not be the Lord's speaking. Even Paul said things he did know if it was Lord speaking or himself. Still, whatever he said was recorded in scripture and profitable for us. Similar with Peters words which were a personification of Satan's thought.... still recorded and still profitable... even as a warning to us. So, we have the Spirit to divide soul from spirit and it is a life long process. The OT prophets and psalmists did not. Not everything they said was spirit and not soul.

Drake

According to who? Who decides what is of Spirit and what is not? This is a very different explanation of how it is usually spun. The NT says "Judas hanged himself" doesn't mean we should do likewise. Satan asked a question, not the quote of God, but it is God who is quoting Satan to reveal something to us so we are not ignorant of Satan and his devices.

But you have taken this to a very different place. Now WL can proclaim that this prophet was not speaking in the Spirit but according to his natural concept. God didn't say this. Jesus didn't say this. Nowhere in the Bible is it recorded that this is the case. Instead Witness Lee said this. Once you accept this you have "the Bible according to Witness Lee". Proverbs lacks the "vision", minor prophets speak according to the natural concept, the Psalmists speak according to natural concept, James didn't have a clear vision, etc.

Again, I point out, if you are in the LRC you must be aware of this and then you will be held accountable for how you respond to this fact.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP,

It seems to me that if one believes that everything in the Bible is God's divine concept and thought except what is specifically called out as not then there are many things that we will never learn from in the Scriptures... it is as important to see the error of others and learn from them. In my view it is all divinely inspired to be in the Scriptures but it does all represent God's concept and thought even when it is not called out specifically.

Brother Lee was a gifted teacher. I agree with his viewpoint on this and his examples in psalms. That is not elevating him above the scriptures anymore than any bible teacher that uses the scriptures to comment on and apply the scriptures to any situation. His point is to look for the divine concept and thought when you read the psalms or the prophets and not lose sight that Christ is the centrality and sum of all spiritual matters. For me, I believe that is right and my sense before the Lord is that it is right and that it is alright. No one is usurping His headship. He gave some apostles, prophets, and teachers. If Witness Lee is not a gift in your christian walk then find those that are. He does the giving and we do the receiving. Just follow the Lord and consider the gifts He gave to the Body.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

aron>"How do we assume that Witness Lee was so transformed by this "life long process" that all his judgments were true"

That is true for all of us. Includes mine and your posts.

So now what?

Drake

So now, when Ed Marks is giving a conference message, he can say, "I see something Witness Lee didn't see.", or "Here, Witness Lee was entertaining natural concepts", or "Here we can see Witness Lee being inconsistent in his interpretations", or "Here we can see Witness Lee violating the NT principle of scriptural reception", etc.

How come we can say this with Martin Luther, but not with Witness Lee? How come Witness Lee can pan Peter or James or Malachi or David, but nobody in the conference can stand up and say, "Wait a minute here - not so fast"?

So now what? If that's true with Witness Lee why don't we see any evidence of that? All I see is evidence of him dismissing scripture as natural concepts, but nobody being able to do the same with him.

None of us presume to be so "transformed by the life process" that we are beyond further correction. Why can nobody correct Lee?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

No one is usurping His headship.

If Peter stood with the eleven, and said, "David was a sinner. His word was just fallen natural concept", and dismissed the assembly, what kind of a gospel would that be? (Acts 2:14-36). Yet this is what Lee did. He said, "Nobody can keep the law" and dismissed the scripture as fallen and natural.

In this way Witness Lee usurped the headship, by deviating from the clear pattern of scriptural reception in the NT. He deviated from the headship because nobody in the crowd could say, "Wait a minute". In other words, Witness Lee wasn't just another bozo with an opinion, possibly right and possibly wrong. Witness Lee was defining doctrine for the church, and defining which scriptures were "revelatory of Christ" and which were "natural".

So if Ed Marks gives a message on the Father's delight in the Son, and shows NT verses, he can't get light and show, say, Psalm 18's "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me". No, Lee shut the door on the light. We can't see Christ there because Lee said it's just a fallen sinner presuming falsely before God. So Ed Marks' mouth is shut, as is everyone in the LSM church. Because Lee has spoken.

If Lee was just another bozo with an opinion, occasionally right and occasionally wrong, we could profit somewhat, and make the necessary corrections, and go on. But in the LSM church we can't make any corrections. So we're stuck.

So now what? You say, "Go somewhere else where you get light"? Is that the new ground? "The local church of Lee isn't for everyone"? How do we all arrive at the one new man?

[Drake]

aron>"o now, when Ed Marks is giving a conference message, he can say, "I see something Witness Lee didn't see.", or "Here, Witness Lee was entertaining natural concepts", or "Here we can see Witness Lee being inconsistent in his interpretations", or "Here we can see Witness Lee violating the NT principle of scriptural reception", etc."

Yet, what if Ed doesn't see that way at all?

I think you are doing it here... is your question why shouldn't any member be able to just stand up in the meeting and say those things?

Drake

[aron]

Suppose we were in a meeting and the presence of the Spirit of Christ put us into fits of ecstasy, and thousands pressed around us, wondering what was going on: what would we tell them? That we were going to talk of the vanity of the law-keepers, and that we were going to exclude Christ?

Because, you see, "No one can please God." What kind of a gospel message is that?

Or would we tell them that the frail, feeble and failing sinners who wrote scripture were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and were anticipating the promised Coming One?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron>"o now, when Ed Marks is giving a conference message, he can say, "I see something Witness Lee didn't see.", or "Here, Witness Lee was entertaining natural concepts", or "Here we can see Witness Lee being inconsistent in his interpretations", or "Here we can see Witness Lee violating the NT principle of scriptural reception", etc."

Yet, what if Ed doesn't see that way at all?

I think you are doing it here... is your question why shouldn't any member be able to just stand up in the meeting and say those things?

Drake

Not strictly Ed Marks and what he sees, but rather why can't the Holy Spirit enlighten anyone, including the current Blendeds? Suppose someone sees Christ. Ed says the Father delights in the Son. Someone, anyone, sees Christ. Yet Witness Lee taught us to exclude Christ, that he isn't there, that the scripture, say Psalm 18, is vain concepts. What to do? How to function in this environment? What if you see Christ? You have to pretend to be blind.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Not strictly Ed Marks and what he sees, but rather why can't the Holy Spirit enlighten anyone, including the current Blendeds? Suppose someone sees Christ. Ed says the Father delights in the Son. Someone, anyone, sees Christ. Yet Witness Lee taught us to exclude Christ, that he isn't there, that the scripture, say Psalm 18, is vain concepts. What to do? How to function in this environment? What if you see Christ? You have to pretend to be blind.

Why yes,aron. Thst should be what happens. That doesn't mean He will and it doesn't mean you throw everything else out if and when He does.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Why yes,aron. Thst should be what happens. That doesn't mean He will and it doesn't mean you throw everything else out if and when He does.

Drake

But if you try to function, you are accused of being independent, rebellious, or ambitious. you have to be a tape recorder. And if the tape excludes Christ, and denigrates the scripture as fallen human concepts, you have to still record the tape, and play back.

This is the essence of the "oneness" church. If the leader goes into the ditch, you have to follow.

[aron]

The following was on another thread but I hear the theme often, and I think it can wrongly color understanding and interpretation of OT scripture. And Lee abused it, whether deliberately or unconsciously, and led us astray.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we say "no one can obey the Father" this is normally understood to exclude Christ.

Suppose you're reading the OT text in Psalm 40 and you come to the part where the writer says, "I come to do your will O God - behold, in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me". And you go, "Hey, this looks like Christ". The Spirit reveals the Son and you hear the voice of the Shepherd and get life.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--he will testify about me.

1 Cor 2:10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

John 5:25 Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Etc.

But then someone from the LSM-affiliated 'local church' (LC) comes by and says, "No, sorry; that's just the vain and natural concepts of the psalm writer. You see, the psalmist was a sinner and couldn't please God, or do His will."

And you go, "But what of Christ?"

And the LC person says, "It's naturally understood that we're excluding Christ, here."

My refrain from the first post of this thread has been, why do we so assiduously exclude Christ from our reading of OT scripture? Witness Lee, more often than not, called the Psalms "natural concepts" and "fallen" and "mixed sentiments", not considering if the writer, admittedly a sinner, looked ahead to the promised Messiah, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Yet the reception of the above OT text by Hebrews 10:7-9, strongly indicates an example of this trend. Yet Witness Lee went against the clear and repeated pattern of NT reception and panned the majority of the psalms. He excluded Christ from consideration, either deliberately or unconsciously, and nobody could say anything.

So my question has been, How could several thousand people sit in a conference hall, and listen to message after message in this vein, and not one of them could be bothered, and stir, and raise a question? This is the dark side of the "oneness" movement - when the leader errs, the whole thing goes into the ditch.

Originally Posted by 2 Peter 1

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter said that David was a prophet and looked ahead to the God-promised holy seed (Acts 2:30). The clear pattern of NT reception of OT scripture follows this. Yet Lee ignored it. And the whole LC assembly sat there, passively absorbing it all without one peep of protest. What kind of gospel has been preached, here? And what kind of ministry is this? I say that it's full of human error.

We all err. But if we build a man-honoring system that denies any correction, eventually the error will grow and grow and consume everything.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The following was on another thread but I hear the theme often, and I think it can wrongly color understanding and interpretation of OT scripture. And Lee abused it, whether deliberately or unconsciously, and led us astray.


Suppose you're reading the OT text in Psalm 40 and you come to the part where the writer says, "I come to do your will O God - behold, in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me". And you go, "Hey, this looks like Christ". The Spirit reveals the Son and you hear the voice of the Shepherd and get life.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--he will testify about me.

1 Cor 2:10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

John 5:25 Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Etc.

But then someone from the LSM-affiliated 'local church' (LC) comes by and says, "No, sorry; that's just the vain and natural concepts of the psalm writer. You see, the psalmist was a sinner and couldn't please God, or do His will."

And you go, "But what of Christ?"

And the LC person says, "It's naturally understood that we're excluding Christ, here."

My refrain from the first post of this thread has been, why do we so assiduously exclude Christ from our reading of OT scripture? Witness Lee, more often than not, called the Psalms "natural concepts" and "fallen" and "mixed sentiments", not considering if the writer, admittedly a sinner, looked ahead to the promised Messiah, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Yet the reception of the above OT text by Hebrews 10:7-9, strongly indicates an example of this trend. Yet Witness Lee went against the clear and repeated pattern of NT reception and panned the majority of the psalms. He excluded Christ from consideration, either deliberately or unconsciously, and nobody could say anything.

So my question has been, How could several thousand people sit in a conference hall, and listen to message after message in this vein, and not one of them could be bothered, and stir, and raise a question? This is the dark side of the "oneness" movement - when the leader errs, the whole thing goes into the ditch.



On the day of Pentecost, Peter said that David was a prophet and looked ahead to the God-promised holy seed (Acts 2:30). The clear pattern of NT reception of OT scripture follows this. Yet Lee ignored it. And the whole LC assembly sat there, passively absorbing it all without one peep of protest. What kind of gospel has been preached, here? And what kind of ministry is this? I say that it's full of human error.

We all err. But if we build a man-honoring system that denies any correction, eventually the error will grow and grow and consume everything.

Lee says Psalm 40 speaks about Christ so I'm not sure what your problem is:


The first book of the Psalms comprises Psalms 1—41. We should not forget that in this first book there are seven psalms which speak concerning Christ: Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Psalm 16, Psalms 22—24, and Psalm 40. ~Life study of Psalms.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Why yes,aron. Thst should be what happens. That doesn't mean He will and it doesn't mean you throw everything else out if and when He does.

Drake

Hence this forum.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee says Psalm 40 speaks about Christ so I'm not sure what your problem is:


The first book of the Psalms comprises Psalms 1—41. We should not forget that in this first book there are seven psalms which speak concerning Christ: Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Psalm 16, Psalms 22—24, and Psalm 40. ~Life study of Psalms.

Sorry if my presentation skills don't match the subject. My question has been, Why use one metric, that of the sinful psalmist pointing to Christ, in those few psalms, and in the rest disqualify them because the psalmist is a sinner and can't fulfill his statement?

I tried to show out the absurdity of using the "sinful psalmist" metric to disqualify the text, when the NT writer had explicitly used it to mine revelation. I know Lee didn't reject Psalm 40 as natural; NT usage wouldn't let him. But elsewhere he did just that, and not occasionally.

Why is Psalm 16 revelatory of Christ and Psalm 18 - " He rescued me because He delighted in me"- not? The same frail, sinful man wrote them both.

And you're telling me that several thousand people sat in front of this guy and not even one of them had this question? It's not that Lee's logic was unassailable but
that his person was. He'd departed from the clear pattern of NT reception of OT scripture, yet none could say a word.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And you're telling me that several thousand people sat in front of this guy and not even one of them had this question? It's not that Lee's logic was unassailable but that his person was. He'd departed from the clear pattern of NT reception of OT scripture, yet none could say a word.

Many DID speak up, and were silenced. Made an example of! So that subsequent "questioners" preferred to leave quietly rather than endure the shame of public humiliations.

I wonder what would have happened at the Whistler Quarantine Kangaroo Court if Titus Chu and a few of his outspoken supporters would have been there.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many DID speak up, and were silenced. Made an example of! So that subsequent "questioners" preferred to leave quietly rather than endure the shame of public humiliations. .

And yet Drake tells us that questioning the status quo is the norm in the LC, or should be, if error emerges.

Originally Posted by Drake

Why yes, aron. That should be what happens.

But it doesn't happen, because Witness Lee's logic was so impeccable? Please. I've seen posts on this thread from people who were at the Psalms training, who lowered their heads and made faces at each other while Lee delivered his clunkers. But they said nothing, because nobody questions the Guru.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And yet Drake tells us that questioning the status quo is the norm in the LC, or should be, if error emerges.

But it doesn't happen, because Witness Lee's logic was so impeccable? Please. I've seen posts on this thread from people who were at the Psalms training, who lowered their heads and made faces at each other while Lee delivered his clunkers. But they said nothing, because nobody questions the Guru.

Drake gets upset when I challenge his accounts, but many have questioned Lee's and LSM's leadership in the past. How could Lee direct the actions of LC's, when supposedly they are "local?" How can he exercise apostolic authority over LC's which he had never even visited? How can he demand that all the LC's teach only from his trainings?

Many, many mature men of God were convinced that LSM was taking over all the LC's and completely changing the nature of the Recovery. Receiving from LSM was no more optional. Receiving from other ministries was forbidden. Then the "straw that broke the camel's back" was the many reports of abuse and the molesting of sisters by Philip Lee.

Drake knows that he could never call out his leadership to be accountable. If Lee and LSM operate above the law, and can create new laws, then how would he ever know if "error emerges."

[Drake]

Aron>“And yet Drake tells us that questioning the status quo is the norm in the LC, or should be, if error emerges.”

Aron,

It’s only the way you state it that makes it an odd thing. I mean, we are not a debate club in the meetings.

Consider this: Over four decades statements have made, practices were advanced and recommendations to service were suggested that I did not always agree with. I may have missed the excitement, or I may have not understood, or I just might disagree with something. In one situation the local church I was in had two different practices..., that went on for about a month and then we all realized it wasn’t working so we did something different. We fellowshipped about it, openly, and what we decided what we would do was different than what was being suggested.

No one got called on the carpet, no one made demands, no one got fired. What was being advanced just did not work for us. In my view, this is the corporate experience of the four living creatures in Ezekiel. Here, then there, backwards, then forwards, then sideways..... just hang on, Gods move is His.

Now I suppose, had we wrote letters, phoned people up, called conferences to discuss, campaigned against it and tried to overturn it, then we might have been creating an incident and then there would something to discuss.

At the individual level, people tend to think whatever they want. In my locality a brother used to stand and read aloud poetry. It was not particularly good poetry because it was his own and he was not that good at it. Nevertheless, no one told him to stop and read instead the HWMR or get out. Today, I love to hear this brother speak. He is so clear cutting straight the word of God. In the case of a psalms I happen to agree with Brother Lee’s teaching there. It’s chicken to me. If I thought they were bones I’d spit them out.

That is why, I don’t really know the church experience you describe.

Drake

[Drake]

Ohio>”Drake gets upset when I challenge his accounts,....”

Ohio, I thought we worked through this.

No, Drake does not get upset when you challenge his accounts. Drake objects when you resort to personal attacks like labeling him a deceiver, a liar, or a dope.

In baseball terms, Drake welcomes your fast ball, your slow ball, your curve ball, or your spit ball. Bring it on. What Drake objects to is when you engage in pitching like this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7zpffBsJ0

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ohio>”Drake gets upset when I challenge his accounts,....”

Ohio, I thought we worked through this.

No, Drake does not get upset when you challenge his accounts. Drake objects when you resort to personal attacks like labeling him a deceiver, a liar, or a dope.

In baseball terms, Drake welcomes your fast ball, your slow ball, your curve ball, or your spit ball. Bring it on. What Drake objects to is when you engage in pitching like this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XH7zpffBsJ0

Drake

Ouch! Some of those pitches are nasty. Baseball and hockey are way to violent for me! I prefer football and basketball. But kidding aside, none of my posts could ever be represented by these pitches.

Dear Drake, you have watched Witness Lee go after "batters" just like in the video. Look at what Benson Philips did to Jane Anderson 40 years ago. Public rebukes, humiliations, slanders, and then books and lawsuits. I could go on and on. Why don't you comment about all the lawsuits against Midwest LC's?

You justify the "bad pitches" when it's your team, but scream bloody murder when you're on the receiving end. That's not right.

[Drake]

-1

Brother Ohio,

Those arent bad pitches in the video... they are mostly intentional pitches directed at the batter to inflict personal injury. That’s what makes them so nasty. If you were frequently referred to as a deceiver, a liar, or a dope you’d understand the batters perspective and might be inclined to head straight for the mound too.

But look, it takes a lot of effort to make ones thoughts and attitudes clear in a post in a public forum like this one. Face to face there are many more signals available for effective communication.

Drake

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Drake

In baseball terms, Drake welcomes your fast ball, your slow ball, your curve ball, or your spit ball. Bring it on. What Drake objects to is when you engage in pitching like this.

"Slow ball"?

You must be one of the 2,000 Canadians.

Sorry I couldn't help myself. Love you Drake!

[aron]

"Our soul is escaped as a bird from the snare of the fowlers; the snare is broken, and we are escaped" ~Psalm 124:7.

The fowler tricks the bird - he puts corn or some other grain on the ground. Perhaps a bread crumb. The bird sees it and flies down, and lands. But the bird doesn't see the noose. There's a bit of string and an entangling web of threads hidden there. The fowler pulls the string and the bird is caught.

When one footnote in the RecV says that the psalmist crushing his enemy's skull and bathing his feet in their blood is a type of Christ v/v the accuser Satan, while elsewhere in the same text (psalms) such sentiments are rejected as not "Christian" (i.e., love your enemies and forgive them, turn the other cheek), then a red light should go off for the reader, or hearer.

My question has been (and I apologise if I posed it too starkly & was disrespectful), what does this show about the system where these kinds of teachings were/are put forth? A training or seminar is held somewhere, and thousands of people fly in from around the country. At some point in the lecture series the speaker suddenly reverses field and what was once declared "Christ" now is "fallen", or vice versa, and among the many personal testimonies afterward, none step up to the microphone and make note of the glaring discrepancy. What's one to think, here?

It seems that the entire audience has suspended their critical thinking faculties via repetitive shouting, and/or those few who notice the problem are intimidated into silence. The birds all flew in for "food", but suddenly the string is pulled and the net falls.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Why was David wrong to wish his enemies harm in Psalm 3, and yet in Psalm 68 wishing enemies harm was a type of Christ's victory over his enemies? The RecV footnotes are not consistent.

Evangelical says he covered this issue at length on this thread. I'd appreciate someone pointing it out for us.

Originally Posted by Drake

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.

Happens all the time even here.

This is the kind of answer that Steel and Drake came up with. I'm not sure Evangelical even replied to the question.

How do we know if some of the RecV footnotes in the Psalms aren't merely expressing fallen human concepts? It sure looks plausible from here. Otherwise we'll have to assume that David often expressed such natural concepts in his writings, while Lee did not.

What kind of a Bible is that, based on such unchallenged assumptions? An idiosyncratic, personalised Bible. The ultimate vanity project.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

Evangelical says he covered this issue at length on this thread. I'd appreciate someone pointing it out for us.



This is the kind of answer that Steel and Drake came up with. I'm not sure Evangelical even replied to the question.

How do we know if some of the RecV footnotes in the Psalms aren't merely expressing fallen human concepts? It sure looks plausible from here. Otherwise we'll have to assume that David often expressed such natural concepts in his writings, while Lee did not.

What kind of a Bible is that, based on such unchallenged assumptions? An idiosyncratic, personalised Bible. The ultimate vanity project.

We discussed Psalm 16 and others in "Repetition, Ritual, Religion".

I explained that not everything Lee wrote is found in the bible footnotes. Some of what you are looking for is found in his books.

This response might answer any and all questions you have on perceived inconsistencies or omissions in the Psalm footnotes.

[Evangelical]

Aron asked:

Originally Posted by aron

Why was David wrong to wish his enemies harm in Psalm 3, and yet in Psalm 68 wishing enemies harm was a type of Christ's victory over his enemies? The RecV footnotes are not consistent.

I have already explained to Aron that not all the answers to his questions are in the footnotes, but in the ministry books.

The short answer is that Psalm 3 is about David, his enemies and his life, and Psalm 68 is about God's enemies. Obviously there is a difference between wishing evil on our enemies, and asking God to deal with His enemies.

I will now give a more detailed answer to show how Aron's question about perceived inconsistency between Psalm 3 and 68 may be addressed.

LIFE-STUDY OF THE PSALMS MESSAGE FOUR explains that the Psalms were arranged in a certain way to show us that David needed correction. This is the book that Aron could have consulted to find a plausible reason for a perceived inconsistency in the footnotes.

Psalm 3 (Psalms 1 to 7) were about David's need for correction and discipline following his adultery. So these Psalms do not portray the sinless Christ but the human life of David and his reaction to God's correction.

In Psalm 1 David appreciates the law, but he was a law-breaker himself.
David committed adultery/murder with Bathsheba, repented, but is now suffering consequences for his sins at the hands of his rebellious son Absalom. In Psalm 3 he is calling for God to judge the wicked. Had he forgotten that he himself was a law-breaker and needed God's forgiveness?

Psalm 68 on the other hand is quite different. Psalm 68 starts with "May God arise, may his enemies be scattered". Psalm 68:18 and Ephesians 4:8 also shows us that this Psalm is about Christ's ascension. It follows logically that Psalm 68 would be about victory over Christ's enemies in His ascension.

In summary, there could be very good reasons why two apparently similar concepts may mean completely different things. Psalm 3 is about David, and Psalm 68 is about Christ.

To apply Psalm 3 to Christ would be as if to say that Christ needed correction or suffered because of his sins, when Christ was in fact sinless. To apply Psalm 68 to David would not make sense because it is clearly about God's enemies, not David's.

As a general comment about the Psalms - some Psalms are attributed to David and his life and do not prophesy about the Messiah. They show the human condition, the need to obey the law, the inability to keep it. They are part of the Old Testament which shows us our need for a Savior. On the other hand some Psalms or even just some verses in a particular Psalm are prophetic in that they foreshadow the Messiah or some New Testament truth. They foretell and affirm God's plan in giving us a Savior in Christ.

The Old Testament in general, does two things - 1) shows us our human condition and need for Christ. 2) Points us to Christ as the solution to our human condition. I think most wrong doctrines such as keeping the law for salvation or wishing evil on enemies are as a result of confusing the two purposes.

We must read the Old Testament from the New Testament perspective looking backwards and consider how it is related. Rather than doing what Aron is doing in comparing both Old Testament verses against each other - "these two verses in the Psalms say similar things but the footnote says different things, it's an inconsistency!".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

How do we know if some of the RecV footnotes in the Psalms aren't merely expressing fallen human concepts? It sure looks plausible from here.

I find it the height of hypocrisy, deception, and arrogance that Witness Lee could challenge Scripture to be expressing "fallen human concepts," yet his own footnotes and messages could not likewise be challenged.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I find it the height of hypocrisy, deception, and arrogance that Witness Lee could challenge Scripture to be expressing "fallen human concepts," yet his own footnotes and messages could not likewise be challenged.

Let's test them then.

Is it Lee's fallen human concept to think that David's desire for God to slay his enemies was wrong? I would say no considering that David's rebellious son was God's correction for David's own adulterous behavior. And the New Testaments says to pray for and bless enemies, not curse. If David lived in the NT time and experienced God's grace and forgiveness, then perhaps David would have prayed for his sons salvation rather than defeat.

Is it Lee's fallen human concept to apply Psalm 68 to Christ? I would say no, considering that Psalm 68 is well recognized in Christianity to apply to Christ - verse 18 in particular.

If you disagree, how exactly are these footnotes "Lee's fallen human concept"? Let's keep it on topic - applied to Psalm 3 and Psalm 68.

What is fallen or human about Lee saying that David wishing evil on his enemies is wrong and Christ's victory of his enemies is right?

[aron]

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.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

As far as "using this as an excuse to attack the recovery", there's this thing called the Bible. . .to dismiss it wholesale as mere human contrivance is serious, and should have basis.

Back to the title. Paul called the Psalms "the word of Christ", and nowhere do I see him (or others) indicating that this pertains only to 25% of the text.

What is astonishing is that thousands would fly in from around the world, and not one single question or objection like the ones I've raised here came forth in the training. This suggests that there's some powerful mind control going on, under the rubric of "oneness".

And the fact that my concerns are so breezily dismissed as, "Perhaps this is so", confirms my suspicions. We do not take the Bible seriously; rather we take "oneness" seriously.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What is fallen or human about Lee saying that David wishing evil on his enemies is wrong and Christ's victory of his enemies is right?

I've addressed this repeatedly - Paul said, "We fight not against flesh and blood but against spiritual forces".

If you disqualify David on such grounds then you must also disqualify Samuel for striking Agag and David for causing physical harm to Goliath.

We are 600+ posts into this thread. Nowhere have I seen you, or Lee, grappling seriously with the implications if these issues. Instead we merely see arbitrary and conflicting dismissals of scripture as being of none effect.

Maybe you need to carefully pray-read those two NT words -"we fight". Or, "there was war in heaven". . .

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

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)...

Why should David the sinner have disqualified Psalm 16? Psalm 16 is about Christ because of Acts 2. Psalm 2 is also about Christ because of New Testament quotations.

A good test of whether a Psalm is about Christ or not is whether or not it is quoted in the New Testament. Here is a list of the Psalms which are quoted in the New Testament:

http://www.biblestudyguide.org/comme.../htm/xxxvi.htm

Notice that Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Psalm 16, Psalms 22 and 24, and Psalm 40 and Psalm 68 are in that list. These are the same Psalms that Lee said were about Christ.

Notice that Psalms 1, 3,4,6,7, 9,15, 17,21 are not in that list - those Psalms that Lee said contained human concepts.

I think this is strong proof that "human concept" Psalms are typically those which are not cited much (if at all) in the New Testament. Whereas the divine concept Psalms are those which are often cited in the New Testament.

[ZNPaaneah]

Wow! I mean Wow! Using this same logic most of the OT chapters are human concepts! No wonder he is called the "MOTA" because he alone is able to tell us which parts of God's word are the God's word that he agrees with.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Wow! I mean Wow! Using this same logic most of the OT chapters are human concepts! No wonder he is called the "MOTA" because he alone is able to tell us which parts of God's word are the God's word that he agrees with.

Lee with the secret MOTA decoder ring could see "Christ" in the windows of Noah's ark. In the badger skins of the tabernacle. But not in the tree growing by the streams of water, whose leaf never withers, in Psalm 1:3. No, that was just a natural concept. You see, it wasn't cited in the NT. Sorry, Charlie.

And the presentation was apparently so impeccable, so faultless, so convincing, that not one of the audience stirred uneasily, suspecting something amiss. No, they all lined up afterward to praise the 'oracle'.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let's test them then.

Is it Lee's fallen human concept to think that David's desire for God to slay his enemies was wrong? I would say no considering that David's rebellious son was God's correction for David's own adulterous behavior. And the New Testaments says to pray for and bless enemies, not curse. If David lived in the NT time and experienced God's grace and forgiveness, then perhaps David would have prayed for his sons salvation rather than defeat.

Is it Lee's fallen human concept to apply Psalm 68 to Christ? I would say no, considering that Psalm 68 is well recognized in Christianity to apply to Christ - verse 18 in particular.

If you disagree, how exactly are these footnotes "Lee's fallen human concept"? Let's keep it on topic - applied to Psalm 3 and Psalm 68.

What is fallen or human about Lee saying that David wishing evil on his enemies is wrong and Christ's victory of his enemies is right?

It is "Lee's fallen human concept," a prideful arrogance, that challenges the authority of Scripture by exalting his own "Minister of the Age," acting God, Deputy Authority. Apparently you can't make this distinction. Lee applied this same dynamic to the book of James, demeaning the truths in his epistle also.

But where does Lee's authority come from to challenge the scripture? It is a self-assumed authority much the same as that conferred to the Pope. Lee's authority basically only lines the walls of the LSM campus in Anaheim. The Blendeds claim that his authority has passed on to them much the same as the Papal Conclave convenes to select the apostolic successor to Saint Peter.

The Christian evangelical church, however, rejects these false "authorities." The Church only recognizes the authority established in scripture, and maintained according to the principles laid out in the New Testament. The true church recognizes no Pope nor MOTA, neither the false distorted oneness they employ in order to condemn other churches.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But where does Lee's authority come from to challenge the scripture? It is a self-assumed authority much the same as that conferred to the Pope. Lee's authority basically only lines the walls of the LSM campus in Anaheim.

Nowhere in NT reception of OT scripture to we see an invitation to the wholesale dismissal that it received at Lee's hands. Rather we consistently see the opposite.

Apparently he had a special dispensation as 'today's Paul', that allowed him to carve scripture into 'divine' and 'human' sections; the same 'apostolic privilege' that allowed him to place the selfish and carnal interests of his unspiritual sons above those of the flock. And this special dispensation allowed him to 'sail on' once the unpleasant truths came out. All these points are related, as poor theology allows bad behaviours.

Scripture is a mine to find the riches of Christ. Here's something from reading Psalm 9 several years ago, while we were discussing the "Outer darkness" thread. Scripture is higher, deeper, broader than the MOTA decoder ring can ever search out.

There was a man, and there were the jaws of death, the gates of Hades. The man won. Every one of us faces these jaws, and every one of us, while facing these jaws, gets to see (by faith) the man who won (by faith and obedience), the man who overcame. The Son of Man. The gates of Hades are now riven apart. Revelation 1:18

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 9:13 "LORD, have mercy on me. See how I suffer at the hands of those who hate me. Snatch me back from the jaws of death." (NIV)

When God snatched Jesus back from the jaws of death, it was validation of the life that Jesus had lived. Jesus' moment-by-moment living in the Father's presence was validated by the Father in saving Jesus from the power of the grave.

Acts 17:31 "For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead."

Romans 1:1-4 "Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord."

I believe that the release of the man Jesus from the power of the grave was a divine appointment; it was irrefutable proof to all that this is God's Son, the Lord and Christ. His living was entirely according to the will of God the Father. If you didn't realize this, and like Peter you set your mind on the things of the flesh, you got a quick and unequivocal, "Get behind Me, Satan!" To Jesus, the struggle to abide in the Father's kingdom was not the great bye-and-bye, but it was real, and immediate.

The 1,000 year 'interregnum' of John's Apocalypse is real; it is there in the holy revelation. But its exclusion isn't some crude Hollywood B-movie prison. The darkness of disobedience presses upon us continually. Jesus made it through alive and well, and His example is a clear invitation for us to follow. It is real, it is now, it is immediate, the power that raised our Saviour from the dead. Theology won't save us, no matter how many verses we've carefully arranged to "prove" our position. Salvation is now.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Back to the title. Paul called the Psalms "the word of Christ", and nowhere do I see him (or others) indicating that this pertains only to 25% of the text.

What is astonishing is that thousands would fly in from around the world, and not one single question or objection like the ones I've raised here came forth in the training. This suggests that there's some powerful mind control going on, under the rubric of "oneness".

And the fact that my concerns are so breezily dismissed as, "Perhaps this is so", confirms my suspicions. We do not take the Bible seriously; rather we take "oneness" seriously.

Aron,

Other plausible explanations is that you are wrong or that you take yourself too seriously. What I mean is that often I don’t accept your stated beliefs, I think they are off a little, or they are overstated in that you are dismissive of any other viewpoints... But I don’t think all of them are worthy of addressing. You might interpret silence as confirming one thing, but it might very well mean something entirely different.

For instance, there are human concepts expressed in the NT. Of course, there will be some in the OT. Why not? You appear to have a view of scripture not supported by scripture.

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible? Humans were involved in writing it... and copying it... and interpreting it.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Other plausible explanations is that you are wrong or that you take yourself too seriously. What I mean is that often I don’t accept your stated beliefs, I think they are off a little, or they are overstated in that you are dismissive of any other viewpoints... But I don’t think all of them are worthy of addressing. You might interpret silence as confirming one thing, but it might very well mean something entirely different.

For instance, there are human concepts expressed in the NT. Of course, there will be some in the OT. Why not? You appear to have a view of scripture not supported by scripture.

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible?

Drake

Fair enough, lets accept your suggestion that there are human concepts expressed in God's word and let's also accept that there are human concepts expressed in God's word in the OT.

But how are you to know which is which? Evangelical's test is that if it is quoted in the NT that proves it is of God and worse yet, if it isn't that is conclusive proof that it was natural. This is a test that takes it out of the hands of a "MOTA" and can be determined with a concordance. The problem is that this makes the majority of the OT natural concepts.

Or you could take the WL approach which is that he has determined which is natural and which is "the high peak revelation". He has targeted, a couple of books in the OT he doesn't like and a couple of verses in the NT he doesn't like. But the only rhyme or reason is that these verses and books don't fit his overall thesis that well. Unless WL is God this suggests to me that the issue is with his thesis and not the Bible.

But perhaps you could enlighten us on how we distinguish which parts of God's word are truly inspired by God and which are simply the musings of the natural man.

[aron]

On Pentecost, Peter told the story of a man who broke the power of death. This was exemplified in Psalm 16, but nowhere do I see Peter (or others) suggesting that this also doesn't apply to Psalm 3, or 9, or 18. Yet Lee with his hermeneutical program said this was so. Why? Because David was a sinner, whose grave is with us today? Peter already answered that. Because the man expressed vituperation towards his foes? Paul spoke to that.

And what "high peak narrative" causes you to look beyond the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? The whole NT obsesses over this theme (pun intended).

Hebrews 1 and 2 quotes the Psalms extensively (without implying "use these and no more") and then says, "we see Jesus made a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honour"; you instead imply there's some exegetical construct superior to this, one whose prosperity demands that we reject 2/3 of the Psalms, or more, as "natural".

[Evangelical]

I don't know why some people react in horror when it is mentioned that the Bible contains human concepts.

The Bible is including humanity, God and also Satan - the three main parties that were introduced in Genesis.

Not only are human concepts found in the Scripture, but Satan's concepts are found in the Scripture as well. The Bible tells us what we need to know about God, about Satan, and about ourselves and humanity.

If human concepts were not found in Scripture, we would not have to "rightly divide it" (2 Tim 2:15).

2 Tim 2:15 means to rightly divide or cut the text into its proper parts.

One way to rightly divide the Word is to distinguish between words of man, words of Satan, and words of God.

My fear is that if Christians were handed a bible that was 100% the words of Satan they would follow it unquestionably under the belief that it is "God's Word". That is why we need to rightly divide it.

One way to divide the Old Testament is to consider which passages are referenced by the New Testament that concern Christ.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is "Lee's fallen human concept," a prideful arrogance, that challenges the authority of Scripture by exalting his own "Minister of the Age," acting God, Deputy Authority. Apparently you can't make this distinction. Lee applied this same dynamic to the book of James, demeaning the truths in his epistle also.

But where does Lee's authority come from to challenge the scripture? It is a self-assumed authority much the same as that conferred to the Pope. Lee's authority basically only lines the walls of the LSM campus in Anaheim. The Blendeds claim that his authority has passed on to them much the same as the Papal Conclave convenes to select the apostolic successor to Saint Peter.

The Christian evangelical church, however, rejects these false "authorities." The Church only recognizes the authority established in scripture, and maintained according to the principles laid out in the New Testament. The true church recognizes no Pope nor MOTA, neither the false distorted oneness they employ in order to condemn other churches.

What about the particular Psalms in question. Do you think that David was justified in desiring death upon His enemies when those enemies were sent as a punishment from God (i.e as a consequence of David's sin)?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible? Humans were involved in writing it... and copying it... and interpreting it.

You mis-read me terribly. My point was, on what basis did Witness Lee say that 34 of the first 41 psalms were human concepts? Because the writer was a sinner? Because he struggled against his foes? Because the chapter wasn't quoted in the NT?

I don't care if you aren't interested in these questions; rather I find it quite telling that thousands of otherwise intelligent and thoughtful Christians gathered to hear these messages without any of them apparently doing so.

"Well it's only natural" -yes, quite.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know why some people react in horror when it is mentioned that the Bible contains human concepts.

The Bible is including humanity, God and also Satan - the three main parties that were introduced in Genesis.

Not only are human concepts found in the Scripture, but Satan's concepts are found in the Scripture as well. The Bible tells us what we need to know about God, about Satan, and about ourselves and humanity.

If human concepts were not found in Scripture, we would not have to "rightly divide it" (2 Tim 2:15).

2 Tim 2:15 means to rightly divide or cut the text into its proper parts.

One way to rightly divide the Word is to distinguish between words of man, words of Satan, and words of God.

My fear is that if Christians were handed a bible that was 100% the words of Satan they would follow it unquestionably under the belief that it is "God's Word". That is why we need to rightly divide it.

One way to divide the Old Testament is to consider which passages are referenced by the New Testament that concern Christ.

What if a Bible expositor told you that 80% of the Bible was fallen human concepts and only 20% revelatory? Would you react in horror? How about 60% and 40%?

Would you perhaps respond that no, that expositors work was natural? I probably would be so inclined.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about the particular Psalms in question. Do you think that David was justified in desiring death upon His enemies when those enemies were sent as a punishment from God (i.e as a consequence of David's sin)?

What makes David's failures remove the picture of Christ? Does the king marrying the Tyrean princess in Psalm 45 make it no longer a picture of Christ? Suppose that wedding was Ahab and Jezebel (a Tyrean)? What then?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

On Pentecost, Peter told the story of a man who broke the power of death. This was exemplified in Psalm 16, but nowhere do I see Peter (or others) suggesting that this also doesn't apply to Psalm 3, or 9, or 18. Yet Lee with his hermeneutical program said this was so. Why? Because David was a sinner, whose grave is with us today? Peter already answered that. Because the man expressed vituperation towards his foes? Paul spoke to that.

And what "high peak narrative" causes you to look beyond the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? The whole NT obsesses over this theme (pun intended).

Hebrews 1 and 2 quotes the Psalms extensively (without implying "use these and no more") and then says, "we see Jesus made a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honour"; you instead imply there's some exegetical construct superior to this, one whose prosperity demands that we reject 2/3 of the Psalms, or more, as "natural".

Human concepts are those which contradict the New Testament plan, which seem good to us (and the world at large) but which contradict God's plan in Christ. They include law-keeping for righteousness, seeking revenge on and hating enemies etc.

Still I'm thinking, if human concepts, so what? Just because a Psalm has human concepts does not mean it is not of value. We need the verses that show human concepts to reveal the truth about ourselves and our human nature. David's struggles in the Psalms are something we can all identify with.

By rightly dividing the word we can distinguish between the human concepts and the divine concepts, because if we don't, then we might start praying for God to destroy our enemies rather than for God to bless them. We will ask God to bless us because of our righteousness rather than the righteousness in Christ. This can be a consequence of not seeing the human concepts.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

What makes David's failures remove the picture of Christ? Does the king marrying the Tyrean princess in Psalm 45 make it no longer a picture of Christ? Suppose that wedding was Ahab and Jezebel (a Tyrean)? What then?

David's failures reflect our fallen human condition and inability to keep the law. They do not reflect Christ because Christ did not fail in anything.

Solomon is still a picture of Christ, as is David and there are good reasons for that in typology.

Ahab and Jezebel cannot be pictures of Christ because of what they typify.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

What if a Bible expositor told you that 80% of the Bible was fallen human concepts and only 20% revelatory? Would you react in horror? How about 60% and 40%?

Would you perhaps respond that no, that expositors work was natural? I probably would be so inclined.

I would hold onto the 20% and the 80% would still be valuable.

All Christians who read their bible do this sort of dividing anyway, because of human bias, preference, background etc. Every person who reads their bible will be undertaking in their minds, a process of dividing and sorting between verses which "applies to them" and verses which seem irrelevant. This is a sort of biblical valuation on the basis of their human preference. Many Christians have never read through the entire bible from start to finish, many Christians don't even read their bibles every day, and if they do, it is their favorite parts.

How the bible is divided also depends on the theology of the people doing the dividing. For example, prosperity teachers divide the Word in such a way that shows that God wants us to be rich, healthy and happy. This is done in a planned way by the teachers, but also by the readers as they do this implicitly as they read it because of a prosperity belief.

Lee's approach to dividing the Word seems to be on the basis of human versus divine concepts and revelation. I think this is a good approach as it differentiates between human things and God things. Another way to think about this is to think about what man needs and needs to do, and what has God done for us?

This is related to the belief that the Bible is "about God and man". There seems to be some logic behind it as the Psalms that Lee says are divine revelation are those referenced by the New Testament. If we use Calvin's commentary for example to source the Psalms referred to by Christ, we are implicitly doing what Lee has already done for us in the footnotes.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Other plausible explanations is that you are wrong or that you take yourself too seriously. What I mean is that often I don’t accept your stated beliefs, I think they are off a little, or they are overstated in that you are dismissive of any other viewpoints... But I don’t think all of them are worthy of addressing. You might interpret silence as confirming one thing, but it might very well mean something entirely different.

For instance, there are human concepts expressed in the NT. Of course, there will be some in the OT. Why not? You appear to have a view of scripture not supported by scripture.

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible? Humans were involved in writing it... and copying it... and interpreting it.

Drake

Human concepts in the writing, copying and interpretation is also a good point. The recovery version footnotes addresses some of these as well by pointing out different meanings of certain words. Most Bibles put words inserted by the translators in italics. These italicized words are certainty the human translator's concepts.

[Evangelical]

There are many parallels between Lee and Luther. Like Lee, Luther also distinguished between scripture which shows us Christ and Scripture which doesn't. Luther wrote:


Let us banish this Epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except at the beginning. - on the book of James.

"What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul taught it"

"St. John's Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians and St. Peter's first epistle [which] are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is good and necessary for you to know."

Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely . . .

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books...and-canon.html

Using Luther's approach, we may say that Lee distinguished between Psalms which "teach Christ" and Psalms which don't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about the particular Psalms in question. Do you think that David was justified in desiring death upon His enemies when those enemies were sent as a punishment from God (i.e as a consequence of David's sin)?

What if these enemies are not blood and flesh, but the principalities, the authorities, the world-rulers of darkness, spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Human concepts are those which contradict the New Testament plan, which seem good to us (and the world at large) but which contradict God's plan in Christ. They include law-keeping for righteousness, seeking revenge on and hating enemies etc.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Don't you think the "MOTA," acting God, deputy authority paradigm in the LCM contradicts God's New Testament plan to have all things headed up in Christ?

What about LSM's spurious lawsuits and quarantines, don't they contradict the love and heart of our eternal Father, who enjoys diversities of operations?

What about the endless railing on all of Christianity, does that not violate Christ's love and grace as the Good Shepherd, loving every single child of God unreservedly?

What about LSM's endless demands, traditions, and ordinances; don't you think these law-keeping legalities contradict God's Spirit of freedom?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just because a Psalm has human concepts does not mean it is not of value. We need the verses that show human concepts to reveal the truth about ourselves and our human nature. David's struggles in the Psalms are something we can all identify with.

Peter answered this definitively in Acts 2. David's failure (his grave is with us today) does not obviate Christ's victory (he rose from the dead). Yet Lee ignores this and places restrictions on the word, making Christ's righteousness depend on that of the speaker. Nonsense.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By rightly dividing the word we can distinguish between the human concepts and the divine concepts, because if we don't, then we might start praying for God to destroy our enemies rather than for God to bless them. We will ask God to bless us because of our righteousness rather than the righteousness in Christ. This can be a consequence of not seeing the human concepts.

"We" can distinguish? The subject of scripture is not us but Christ. "These things (inc Psalms) were written concerning me", not concerning the "NT believer enjoying grace" or some such. Luke 24:44. Where in the NT does it restrict this principle to explicit citations? Where does Lee get off placing burdens on scripture, that the writer must be righteous for it to apply to the righteous Christ, otherwise it is vain human musings?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't you think the "MOTA," acting God, deputy authority paradigm in the LCM contradicts God's New Testament plan to have all things headed up in Christ?

If we judged Lee by the bases he judged others, including writers of scripture, he'd be rejected. But he asked us to forgive his "messy kitchen". cf Luke 7:36-50

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But perhaps you could enlighten us on how we distinguish which parts of God's word are truly inspired by God and which are simply the musings of the natural man.

ZNP,

I suppose we might agree on 3 categories.

Those references in the NT of the OT verses that refer to Christ. We have no disagreement here, you and I.

Those incidences in the OT that are blatantly not referring to Christ in anyway including typology. For instance, Solomon is clearly a type of Christ in building the temple but not in having many wives that lead into idolatry.

Those two categories above we agree., I’m sure.

Third category is probably the area that lends to disagreement. You might think a certain verse refers to Christ... or can be be applied to Christ in hindsight. That is, when the OT verse was written no one considered it to refer to the Messiah but once fulfilled in hindsight it is now more apparent. I take that to be the meaning of the part after Jesus’ resurrection where He opened all the verses in the Law of Moses, Psalms and Prophets that referred to Him. (Luke24:44). These verses were not obvious to anybody at the time as referring to Him. There are some things that referred to Him and others that did not.... and yet, do we have a complete record in the NT stated outright of all those items He said referred to Him in the Law, Psalms, Prophets.... ? He was declared the Sin offering by John the Baptist, but where was it stated plainly that He is each offering? It is not stated there outright but it is fair to apply Christ as all the offerings where we see Him as the fulfillment in the NT. Perhaps we agree in principle here but maybe not specifics.

I’ll pause here for your point of view.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

do we have a complete record in the NT stated outright of all those items He said referred to Him in the Law, Psalms, Prophets.... ?

But where in the NT does it say that only those explicit citations apply, and the rest are vain? Here is my first post on this thread (see esp bolded):

Originally Posted by aron

]I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest....and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. ... I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.

In chapter 1, verse 1 footnote, LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.

So Psalm 1 is a "natural concept of David" Psalm.

Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.

Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept".

Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.

Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms (9 through 15)pass without mention (i.e. footnotes).

Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm. Footnotes ensue.

Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1.

Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.

So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while WL entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that..

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

You mis-read me terribly. My point was, on what basis did Witness Lee say that 34 of the first 41 psalms were human concepts? Because the writer was a sinner? Because he struggled against his foes? Because the chapter wasn't quoted in the NT?

I don't care if you aren't interested in these questions; rather I find it quite telling that thousands of otherwise intelligent and thoughtful Christians gathered to hear these messages without any of them apparently doing so.

"Well it's only natural" -yes, quite.

Ok.... in your opinion you know what’s going on and he didn’t.

So, educate us. If you agree that there are human concepts in the Bible how does Aron identify them?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

But where in the NT does it say that only those explicit citations apply, and the rest are vain? Here is my first post on this thread (see esp bolded):

Where does it say every Psalm applies?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are many parallels between Lee and Luther. Like Lee, Luther also distinguished between scripture which shows us Christ and Scripture which doesn't. Luther wrote:

Let us banish this Epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except at the beginning. - on the book of James.

"What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul taught it"

"St. John's Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians and St. Peter's first epistle [which] are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is good and necessary for you to know."

Using Luther's approach, we may say that Lee distinguished between Psalms which "teach Christ" and Psalms which don't.

Evangelical, since none of us here but you and Drake consider Martin Luther to be the First MOTA of the Reformation, we are willing to thank God for all the work he did, knowing that he was far from perfect. Since W. Lee was willing to espouse Luther's pitiful views of the book of James, shouldn't Lee also cling to Luther's anti-Semitism? You did mention the parallels between the two, didn't you?

According to Luther's "no syllable about Christ" standard, must we also expunge the book of Esther, which has "no syllable about God?" Such a marvelous story of God's sovereign care tossed on Persian garbage dumps to appease one of Luther's impulses.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Where does it say every Psalm applies?

Drake

I never said it did. I said to perfunctorily cut off 70% of scripture with no NT precedent was wrong. I didn't say, "Every Psalm applies". You're changing the subject. Paul didn't write, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; those Psalms explicitly cited by the apostles; the rest freely dismiss". No, he just said "Psalms". So why did Lee give himself such discretion, on so little basis? That David was a sinner, and Christ righteous, therefore David's word didn't apply?

Jesus said, "David was in spirit, writing about the Messiah". . .Matt 22:44. . where do you get the impression that Jesus meant only the specific verse cited in that passage? I don't. Where does Jesus say, "David was in his vain human concepts while he wrote"? So what gives you such latitude? Don't you think a little more discretion is in order, here?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok.... in your opinion you know what’s going on and he didn’t.

So, educate us. If you agree that there are human concepts in the Bible how does Aron identify them?

Drake

If the NT reception indicates thus. Otherwise tread with care. "All scripture is God-breathed", not 35% of it. "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", not 25% of it.

Lop off God's word with extreme caution. Lee lopped it off with extreme recklessness.

Conversely, how do you know if your 'oracle' was entertaining human concepts . . . how about if he cavalierly departed from apostolic precedent? In Acts 2, Peter noted David's sin and failure, but said that his word was prophetic. Paul repeated this in Acts 13. I say we have precedent. Lee noted David's sin and failure, and said therefore his word was vain and fallen, and inapplicable.

I suppose I'll stick with apostolic precedent. Of course I'll apply it judiciously. But I won't abandon it like Witness Lee did.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said it did. I said to perfunctorily cut off 70% of scripture with no NT precedent was wrong. I didn't say, "Every Psalm applies". You're changing the subject.

Not a bit. This is very applicable.

You want to take the position that Witness Lee had no right to characterize dozens (70%) of Psalms as human concepts..., WITHOUT telling us which ones (?%) you characterize as human concepts and why.

This is simple Aron, you just agreed that some % of the Psalms are human concepts and you haven’t told us how you derive that. So, you kinda want it both ways.... you want to find fault with Witness Lee’s selection and explanations but not give us the benefit of understanding (and critiquing) your selections and explanations.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

If the NT reception indicates thus. Otherwise tread with care. "All scripture is God-breathed", not 35% of it. "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", not 25% of it.

Conversely, how do you know if your 'oracle' was entertaining human concepts . . ..

See Aron, you keep denying this but both can be and are true.... “All Scripture is God breathed” AND there are human concepts included in it. I’m also convinced that you are “entertaining human concepts” in your posts in this forum.

That inclusion of human concepts in the Scripture is another benefit in the profitability of Scripture to us.... they are instructive in guiding us. Nothing is getting “lopped off”::: unless you lop off Psalms and other verses you think are human concepts. You might engage in the practice of lopping off scripture but Witness Lee certainly did not. He treasured the Bible more than any minister I ever knew and he left quite a volume that proves just how much he did.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said it did. I said to perfunctorily cut off 70% of scripture with no NT precedent was wrong. I didn't say, "Every Psalm applies". You're changing the subject. Paul didn't say, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; those Psalms explicitly cited by the apostles; the rest freely dismiss". So why did Lee give himself such discretion, on so little basis? That David was a sinner?

Isn't it also amazing that Paul said, "Be filled in spirit speaking to one another in Psalms, singing and psalming with your heart to the Lord." (Eph 5.18-19)

Why did Paul not warn them about these human sentiments in Psalms? Was Paul not being faithful to the saints in Ephesus? Why did Paul wholly endorse the Psalms if some were so suspect? Listen to what Paul told the elders from Ephesus the last time he ever saw them, "You know how I was with you all the time, serving the Lord as a slave with all humility. How I did not shrink from declaring you anything profitable, teaching you publicly and house to house." (Acts 20.17-28)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

I suppose we might agree on 3 categories.

Those references in the NT of the OT verses that refer to Christ. We have no disagreement here, you and I.

Those incidences in the OT that are blatantly not referring to Christ in anyway including typology. For instance, Solomon is clearly a type of Christ in building the temple but not in having many wives that lead into idolatry.

Those two categories above we agree., I’m sure.

Third category is probably the area that lends to disagreement. You might think a certain verse refers to Christ... or can be be applied to Christ in hindsight. That is, when the OT verse was written no one considered it to refer to the Messiah but once fulfilled in hindsight it is now more apparent. I take that to be the meaning of the part after Jesus’ resurrection where He opened all the verses in the Law of Moses, Psalms and Prophets that referred to Him. (Luke24:44). These verses were not obvious to anybody at the time as referring to Him. There are some things that referred to Him and others that did not.... and yet, do we have a complete record in the NT stated outright of all those items He said referred to Him in the Law, Psalms, Prophets.... ? He was declared the Sin offering by John the Baptist, but where was it stated plainly that He is each offering? It is not stated there outright but it is fair to apply Christ as all the offerings where we see Him as the fulfillment in the NT. Perhaps we agree in principle here but maybe not specifics.

I’ll pause here for your point of view.

Drake

I view this differently. I have repeatedly been shown in my experience to be foolish and that my thoughts are not God's. As a result I have found the most success in beginning with the assumption that "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in this word". Then when I see something in the word that does not seem to agree with that my go to response is that I am missing something and there is a hidden treasure here for me to see.

So yes, Solomon's many wives and his failures were not an expression of Christ, but they were an expression of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in the word that commanded the king not to go to Egypt for horses, not to go to lebanon for cedars, and not to sail over the ocean. We can see the wisdom in the warning not to take these foreign wives because they would distract you. Rather Deuteronomy charged "this is a rich land". Superficially it appeared that Egypt was rich in horses, much richer than Israel, and Lebanon was rich in timber, much richer that Israel. But the boundaries of Israel given by Moses included the entire Arabian peninsula. Had King Solomon, the wisest man on Earth, humbled himself and said "OK, I'll receive that word by faith" then he would have discovered the industrial revolution 2,000 years earlier than we did. The oil, concrete and steel would have been far superior to the timber and horses. This isn't some "fantasy". Archaeological evidence of Solomon's mines have discovered a mining operation on an industrial scale. It was the need for water pumps in mines that led to the first steam engine. There were other mining operations in the Mediterranean area that had "rails" making it easier for carts drawn by animals to pull the ore. We also have found toy steam engines from ancient Greece. The problem wasn't the concept, it was "precision". If you are not precise in making a steam engine all the energy is wasted from steam escaping the tiny gaps. This problem was only solved when we organized many people into the solution. That is something that Solomon was skilled at doing. But his wives distracted him, and his wisdom was turned to foolishness, and as a result we are now facing catastrophic climate change because of it.

Solomon's wisdom was our downfall and a curse to mankind. I would compare what WL does in saying "this word is good" and "that word is less good" and "that word over there is natural" to what Solomon did, picking and choosing which words He would receive.

[byHismercy]

Spirit—nevertheless it does not undermine the unity or identity of the Three-in-One.

6. Bibliology
The authoritative basis for all theological discussion is Scripture. Therefore, to believe something about the Bible that undermines its authority in any sense is to surrender a truly Christian epistemology and worldview, and exalt one’s own reasoning above God’s revelation. That means we have to ask: Does this teaching so distort the doctrine of Scripture that it undermines biblical authority? Does this teaching deny that authority in such a way as to invest that authority in oneself, another man, or a tribunal of men?

A denial of the inspiration of Scripture would clearly place one outside the bounds of orthodoxy. “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). To claim that any portion of Scripture is not the Word of God, or to treat it such a way as to impugn the character of the God whose Word it is, is to exalt one’s own reasoning above God’s revelation. It is to extricate oneself from the authority of God and make one’s own understanding the measuring line of truth. This is no longer truly Christian, but humanistic, and as such it crosses the line into heretical doctrine

I found this portion on master seminary. I see this is exactly what Lee was guilty of doing. He most certainly thought himself the final, infallible, authoritative word on Gods' word! What a trap to fall into.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

This is simple Aron, you just agreed that some % of the Psalms are human concepts and you haven’t told us how you derive that. So, you kinda want it both ways.... you want to find fault with Witness Lee’s selection and explanations but not give us the benefit of understanding (and critiquing) your selections and explanations.

The DSS say that David wrote the Psalms in the spirit. Jesus and Peter agreed with that in the NT. Paul told us to be "filled in spirit" singing them.

Don't you think we should be a little less cavalier in our dismissals?

I never said, or intimated, that ALL of the words of the Psalms are exact, one-for-one images of Jesus in his human living, suffering, rejection, death, and glories that followed. Psalm 51 comes immediately to mind as a problematic text should one try that route.

What I've said repeatedly, and you've ignored repeatedly, is that there's a clear pattern of reception in the NT, and WL went out of his way to not respect that pattern but to forge his own path with his own logic. And he did great disservice to the scripture. That's what I find "fallen" and "natural".

Psalm 1 speaks of the man who does not take the path of wickedness, but chooses the good. WL said, "nobody is good". Well, there's this guy named Jesus. . .

Psalm 2 has this very man enthroned as Son of God. Coincidence?

Psalm 3 has this man in a cave. The man says, "I will lay me down, and rise again, for the LORD gives me such power". Now, I see perhaps an intimation of the coming Messiah, but Lee said, no, that man in Psalm 3 is merely a suffering sinner, whose hope is vain.

But that logic should also disqualify Psalm 16 and 22, no? I mean, if there are none righteous, no not even one, then how does the spotty-at-best "rightness of David" then somehow allow Christ to emerge?

Again I say, Peter addressed this neatly in Acts 2. David was a sinner like us but was speaking prophetically of the coming promised seed. It is not David's fitness that paves the way for Christ to emerge from the textual shadows, nor his failures that disqualify the text from consideration. Rather, he believed Gods promise, and God's command, and by faith he declared it to be so.

The NT gives a clear apostolic pattern of reception and WL went off the rails. And in WL's "oneness church" none could restrain him.

Three times in the Psalms the declaration is, "Get behind me, you workers of evil", and three times in the NT Jesus is shown using that same formula. But there's no connection, because the psalmist himself was unrighteous- right? I mean, it's perfectly logical. Right? It couldn't possibly apply, could it? I mean, nobody is right. Right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Three times in the Psalms the declaration is, "Get behind me, you workers of evil", and three times in the NT Jesus is shown using that same formula. But there's no connection, because the psalmist himself was unrighteous- right?

Psalm 6:8 Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity, for the LORD has heard my weeping.

Psalm 119:115 Depart from me, you evildoers, that I may obey the commandments of my God.

Psalm 139:19 If only you, God, would slay the wicked! Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty!

You may disregard these psalms since they were written by sinners. And you may disregard my pointing them out. But the important question is, did Jesus also disregard them?

Luke 13:27 NIV "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'”

Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nothing is getting “lopped off” unless you lop off Psalms and other verses you think are human concepts. You might engage in the practice of lopping off scripture but Witness Lee certainly did not. He treasured the Bible . . .

Sorry I occasionally lapse into colorful expressions which don't match the facts on the ground. No, WL didn't "lop off" scriptures. But he disregarded them as vain, fallen human concepts. Read my first post again. Or, read the first 21 chapters of the RecV and see the footnotes. Most of the text passes without comment. Only a few passing remarks on how it is "fallen" and "mixed sentiments" and the like.

Peter could have said that about Psalm 16. I mean, David the sinner never rose from the dead! Just vain talk, right? Empty words from a fallen human's concept! But no, Peter didn't take that route. But WL did.

But "lopped off" was probably a mischaracterization. "Disregarded" would be better put.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What if these enemies are not blood and flesh, but the principalities, the authorities, the world-rulers of darkness, spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies?

That would change things I suppose.

But we know the enemies David was speaking of was Absalom and those with him in the rebellion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, since none of us here but you and Drake consider Martin Luther to be the First MOTA of the Reformation, we are willing to thank God for all the work he did, knowing that he was far from perfect. Since W. Lee was willing to espouse Luther's pitiful views of the book of James, shouldn't Lee also cling to Luther's anti-Semitism? You did mention the parallels between the two, didn't you?

According to Luther's "no syllable about Christ" standard, must we also expunge the book of Esther, which has "no syllable about God?" Such a marvelous story of God's sovereign care tossed on Persian garbage dumps to appease one of Luther's impulses.

I think that if Luther were here on this forum today he would be praising Lee for "sticking to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely". If that is what Lee was doing then if we condemn him then we condemn Luther and even the whole Reformation.

Most Christians don't understand what it means to be a "Protestant". Luther started to question the Canon of scripture (Luther's Canon) and long-held Catholic beliefs, but also to re-evaluate and even re-interpret (from a non-Catholic point of view) the scriptures in terms of how they relate to the gospel i.e. justification by faith in Christ alone.

Evangelicals today carry on this tradition of interpreting Scripture through the lens of Reformed theology - salvation by faith alone. To maintain this approach it is almost necessary to down-play or explain away the verses in James about justification by works. Or we could just say that the whole book of James is worthless, as Luther did. It is also necessary to focus on the books of John, Romans, Ephesians and others which affirm the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. This is why it is almost unheard of to see a verse from James in an evangelical gospel tract, but there will surely be some verses from John, Romans or Ephesians.

It is amazing how people can condemn Lee for a few footnotes but are ignorant about the history of the Reformation and what Luther said and did in over-turning the Canon and re-interpreting the Bible and even influencing the translations to better represent his theology.

When a person calls themself "Protestant" this is basically what it means to be a Protestant - to question the Catholic canon, their interpretation of scripture, particularly the book of James, and evaluate Scripture in light of the Protestant gospel. We could say that Luther even gave Reformers a license and freedom to do that. To do otherwise is essentially to be a Catholic - we might as well go back to the Latin Vulgate, and not question anything.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That would change things I suppose.

But we know the enemies David was speaking of was Absalom and those with him in the rebellion.

But David's own words became the words of the Savior on the cross (e.g. "My God, My God, why ... "

Why is this not possible with other Spirit-inspired lyrics he puts to Psalm? Unless, of course, it is W. Lee who alone gets to decide which is which.

Don't you find it a little ironic that, like Absalom with David, it was Lee's sons who helped undo him. If we see God's hand with Absalom in judging David, should we not also see God's hand with Philip Lee in regard to WL?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But David's own words became the words of the Savior on the cross (e.g. "My God, My God, why ... "

Why is this not possible with other Spirit-inspired lyrics he puts to Psalm? Unless, of course, it is W. Lee who alone gets to decide which is which.

Don't you find it a little ironic that, like Absalom with David, it was Lee's sons who helped undo him. If we see God's hand with Absalom in judging David, should we not also see God's hand with Philip Lee in regard to WL?

Yes Psalm 22 which is about Christ.

But every Psalm? It's possible but the New Testament record does not show that Jesus quoted all of the Psalms, unless he did in fact but it was not recorded. If we read a Psalm and assume it speaks of Christ when in fact it doesn't, are we not "adding to scripture"?

The parallel between Lee and David is interesting.

I might have to re-think whether it was David who was the first MOTA and not Luther.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think that if Luther were here on this forum today he would be praising Lee for "sticking to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely".

If you know anything about Luther, you would know that he would not "praise" anyone, especially not some Asian. Luther was never known for "working well with others." He was constantly at odds with the Swiss, for example.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Most Christians don't understand what it means to be a "Protestant". Luther started to question the Canon of scripture (Luther's Canon) and long-held Catholic beliefs, but also to re-evaluate and even re-interpret (from a non-Catholic point of view) the scriptures in terms of how they relate to the gospel i.e. justification by faith in Christ alone.

Luther was not the only "Protestant." Many came before him, and many came later. There were German, Swiss, French, English, Moravian, and many other Reformers. I place a huge question mark on all church history taught by WL, especially this nonsense that Luther was the First MOTA, the one who recovered Justification by faith.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Evangelicals today carry on this tradition of interpreting Scripture through the lens of Reformed theology - salvation by faith alone. To maintain this approach it is almost necessary to down-play or explain away the verses in James about justification by works. Or we could just say that the whole book of James is worthless, as Luther did. It is also necessary to focus on the books of John, Romans, Ephesians and others which affirm the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. This is why it is almost unheard of to see a verse from James in an evangelical gospel tract, but there will surely be some verses from John, Romans or Ephesians.

I don't see too many gospel tracts from Jude either. I don't fault Luther for disparaging James, but neither would I tell anybody that. It happened, it was recorded, and it helps us know history, but I take little else from comments like this from Luther.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is amazing how people can condemn Lee for a few footnotes but are ignorant about the history of the Reformation and what Luther said and did in over-turning the Canon and re-interpreting the Bible and even influencing the translations to better represent his theology.

Lee brings judgment upon himself for the way he condemned others. Lee had the advantage of time and decades of scholarship. Comparing Lee with Luther is just stupid. Luther should be compared to Calvin and Zwingli, his contemporaries. That's why it's foolish to teach what Athanasius taught, but Lee did it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When a person calls themself "Protestant" this is basically what it means to be a Protestant - to question the Catholic canon, their interpretation of scripture, particularly the book of James, and evaluate Scripture in light of the Protestant gospel. We could say that Luther even gave Reformers a license and freedom to do that. To do otherwise is essentially to be a Catholic - we might as well go back to the Latin Vulgate, and not question anything.

Most Christians today do not call themselves "Protestant." Catholics may, and Lee did, but others don't. They have changed with the times, they have returned to the scriptures. They call themselves "Christians" or believers.

[Evangelical]

Luther recovered justification by faith that's a historical fact.

There is a research article The Recovery of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith F. W. Dillistone, First Published July 1, 1954.

"Protestantism was born out of the struggle for the doctrine of justification by faith".

This struggle is still ongoing.

[Ohio]

Luther did not recover justification by faith.

Luther claimed he was a "Hussite," since he realized that John Huss had pioneered all these same truths 100 years earlier. The only difference between Luther and Huss, besides being from different centuries and different countries, was that the German nobility protected Luther, and not necessarily for reasons of the faith. They just hated Rome. Huss, however, was betrayed and martyred.

Read the stories of church history bro! WL was the worst historian of church history in the history of the church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Luther did not recover justification by faith.

Luther claimed he was a "Hussite," since he realized that John Huss had pioneered all these same truths 100 years earlier. The only difference between Luther and Huss, besides being from different centuries and different countries, was that the German nobility protected Luther, and not necessarily for reasons of the faith. They just hated Rome. Huss, however, was betrayed and martyred.

Read the stories of church history bro! WL was the worst historian of church history in the history of the church.

What are your sources to say that Hus taught justification by faith alone? This article by ChristianityToday says otherwise:

unlike many other reformers, Hus retained much of Catholic theology. He did not teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone, a fact Luther noted when he observed that, unlike himself, Hus had attacked only the life, not the doctrine, of late medieval Catholicism.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...onnection.html

A book Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia
By Thomas A. Fudge

also says:

"While Hus did speak much of grace, faith and the authority of Scripture.. he knew nothing of sola fide or sola scriptura".

"Throughout the works and sermons of Jan Hus we can locate emphases upon the theological principle fides caritate formata that salvation is apprehended when faith is formed or completed in love or good works."

My point that "Luther recovered justification by faith (alone)" remains a true statement.

Timothy George and Thomas A. Fudge are real scholars by the way. Fudge in particular is an expert on Jan Hus:

Thomas A. Fudgé is Professor of Medieval History at the University of New England, Australia. Author of thirteen books, he is recognized as an international authority on Jan Hus and Hussite history

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But we know the enemies David was speaking of was Absalom and those with him in the rebellion.

In the Psalms, WL went from being an allegorist of the first rank to being a strict constructionist. And none in his assembly noticed, because to note such things might threaten the harmony - oneness uber alles. Gods oracle can contradict himself, but we cannot contradict Gods oracle. Thus, social harmony is maintained.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we read a Psalm and assume it speaks of Christ when in fact it doesn't, are we not "adding to scripture"?

WL could see Christ in the silver sockets of the ark. "Christ is everything" was the mantra. Yet no one apparently noted when he did an exegetical about-face in the Psalms. Or they noted, but kept their mouths shut. That's how you survive in the LC. Big brother talks, you say amen hallelujah.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't you find it a little ironic that, like Absalom with David, it was Lee's sons who helped undo him. If we see God's hand with Absalom in judging David, should we not also see God's hand with Philip Lee in regard to WL?

This is where "different weights and measures" comes into play. We can point out that David occasionally entertained fallen human concepts, but to suggest that WL could also be thus compromised was unthinkable. Social harmony is maintained at the expense of such willful delusion. Now our faith is not in the resurrection of Jesus but in "Brother Lee is always right". New gods have entered the scene.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you know anything about Luther, you would know that he would not "praise" anyone, especially not some Asian.

It's probably not coincidental that German Lutherans carried out the most violent and thorough anti-Jewish pogrom of modern times. One might want to keep that in mind when using Luther's anti-James bias to support one's own.

"What?! Are you trying to return us to the law?!" - this is the kind of knee-jerk reaction we can now expect. No, but the man of Israel who loved the law and tried to follow it does give a pretty good picture of Christ. "I come to do your will oh God" - just because David failed doesn't mean Christ did. (Heb 10:9; cf Psa 40:8)

I mean, we might want to stop for a minute and ask ourselves why the Psalms are the most-cited book in the NT. Probably not just that it's the biggest book in the OT! There are probably other reasons, as well. Just think about it for a minute. . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

It's probably not coincidental that German Lutherans carried out the most violent and thorough anti-Jewish pogrom of modern times. One might want to keep that in mind before trying to use Luther's anti-James bias to support their own.

I guess they also considered Martin Luther to be the first MOTA, and used his teachings to authenticate the Holocaust. Another reason to get an accurate view of history.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by aron

In the Psalms, WL went from being an allegorist of the first rank to being a strict constructionist.

Could you elaborate on this Aaron. The footnotes at the beginning of Psalms are one of the things that really got me started looking into what exactly I was being told.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Could you elaborate on this Aaron. The footnotes at the beginning of Psalms are one of the things that really got me started looking into what exactly I was being told.

My point was this: when I came into the recovery church, the allegories would make your head swim. Christ was "the reality of all positive things" in the text. Christ wasn't just "the good land; no, Christ was the "iron stones" in the good land. We would make up songs about all the detailed points. Christ was the badger skins covering the ark of the testimony: furry on the outside & soft on the inside.

Okay, fair enough. Why not? Then all of a sudden, we come to the Psalms, and there is the tree, growing by the river, bearing its fruit in season, whose leaf never withers (1:3), and I think, Hey - positive imagery! Looks like the tree at the end of the bible in the NJ (Rev 22:2).

But WL is like, Nah- that's vanity. His mouthpiece here, Mr E, says that is "adding to the word of God".

So I'm asking, Why the exegetical about-face? Why have all the visions of Christ suddenly dried up?

I see Psalm 40:8, and it says "I [Christ] come to do thy [God's] will", per the interpretation of the NT (Heb 10:9). Yet other, similar expressions in the Psalms are panned by WL because they were written by sinners who disobeyed God. Yet that same sinner wrote Psalm 40! If you look at Psalm 18, for example, it has similar language; see vv 16 - 24 for example. "He [God] delighted in me [Christ" (19) and "He rewarded me because of my righteousness" (20). WL says, God didn't delight in David. But what about Jesus? "This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight. Hear him."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Luther did not recover justification by faith.

WL was the worst historian of church history in the history of the church.

Further to the scholarly sources which I presented that shows that Huss did not recover justification by faith alone, here is a ChristianityToday article which supports the idea that Luther recovered justification by faith:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...-by-faith.html

Luther’s emphasis on justification by faith was not a discovery, but a recovery.


It is good to see that scholars and a top historian can support Lee's belief that Luther recovered justification by faith.

Ohio is spreading lies twice - that Luther did not recovery justification by faith, and that Lee was a bad historian.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

It's probably not coincidental that German Lutherans carried out the most violent and thorough anti-Jewish pogrom of modern times. One might want to keep that in mind when using Luther's anti-James bias to support one's own.

"What?! Are you trying to return us to the law?!" - this is the kind of knee-jerk reaction we can now expect. No, but the man of Israel who loved the law and tried to follow it does give a pretty good picture of Christ. "I come to do your will oh God" - just because David failed doesn't mean Christ did. (Heb 10:9; cf Psa 40:8)

I mean, we might want to stop for a minute and ask ourselves why the Psalms are the most-cited book in the NT. Probably not just that it's the biggest book in the OT! There are probably other reasons, as well. Just think about it for a minute. . .

FYI Psalms is actually a collection of 5 books and not all the Psalms are cited. If Christ did not cite a certain Psalm we should ask ourselves why.

Where it concerns the Law, most Christians accept that the parts of the law cited by Christ become the most relevant and important (the two love commandments for example) and the parts that Christ broke (the Sabbath, etc) became less important, such that most Christians do not keep the Sabbath today as per the old testament law.

If this is how most Christians treat the law, I cannot see why we cannot also divide the Psalms according to what the New Testament cites and what it doesn't.

This is called dividing scripture rightly (2 Tim 2:15).

To be consistent, if Aron does not like us dividing the Psalms, then he should not divide the law either according to the parts referenced by the New Testament - I hope he keeps the whole law, including circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and avoiding unclean animals.

Just as the whole law is about Christ (it shows his perfect righteousness) , we don't follow the whole law but divide between laws we should pay attention to and ones we don't (circumcision etc).
Similarly, the whole Psalms is about Christ, but we must divide between the ones we follow and the ones we don't.

[Evangelical]

Let us not forget that in "Life-study of the Psalms" Lee says that every Psalm is a spiritual supply to us and we love all the Psalms and that the Psalms are fully Christ-centred. This somewhat destroys the argument that Lee "denigrated the Psalms".

But unlike Aron we know how to distinguish between human things and divine things. We do not let our love for Christ blind us to the reality that the Old Testament is, well.. Old!

That is, the law is about Christ but we know not to circumcise ourselves or keep the Sabbath like a Jew.

Similarly, the Psalms are Christ-centred but we know that we should not take revenge on enemies or take some of these things literally.

It seems that Aron has completely misunderstood the footnotes, or their purpose. Picking apart a single footnote or two is one thing, but understanding the context and justification for them is another which brings a completely benign perspective on the matter.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Let us not forget that in "Life-study of the Psalms" Lee says that every Psalm is a spiritual supply to us and we love all the Psalms and that the Psalms are fully Christ-centred. This somewhat destroys the argument that Lee "denigrated the Psalms".

Nice try, but that's a lie Mr. Evan.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Nice try, but that's a lie Mr. Evan.

Why is it a lie?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why is it a lie?

Saints here don't appreciate the book of Psalms because it's loaded with human opinions according to them. No wonder I don't often hear they quote from Psalms.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Further to the scholarly sources which I presented that shows that Huss did not recover justification by faith alone, here is a ChristianityToday article which supports the idea that Luther recovered justification by faith:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...-by-faith.html

Luther’s emphasis on justification by faith was not a discovery, but a recovery.


It is good to see that scholars and a top historian can support Lee's belief that Luther recovered justification by faith.

Ohio is spreading lies twice - that Luther did not recovery justification by faith, and that Lee was a bad historian.

For 1500 years God's chosen people were justified by faith in His Son's death on the cross. Read Miller's Church History or Broadbent or Schaaf. God has always had a people who were His own. I already told you that Luther said he was a Hussite -- he began to know these same truths one hundred years earlier -- and Huss learned from others.

There is no "recovery." It was called the "reformation." Go read the history books. Huss, Luther, Calvin, Farel, Tyndale, Zwingli, and thousands more tried to "reform" the Catholic Church. They couldn't do it.

They all got QUARANTINED by the pope, just like so many "reformers" like John Ingalls or Titus Chu in the LC's got quarantined by Lee and the Blindeds.

You and Lee act like there never was a genuine Christian, or a real church, or anyone saved by faith until Luther was born. Absurd. Read church history.

And, like I said, I would not believe a single thing Lee taught about church history unless I have second source corroborating evidence. Luther was not the first MOTA.

And I could care less if you call me a liar. Bible says all men are liars, only God is true!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Saints here don't appreciate the book of Psalms because it's loaded with human opinions according to them. No wonder I don't often hear they quote from Psalms.

Especially this one:

Psalm 137:9 May the Lord bless everyone who beats your children against the rocks!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Especially this one:

Psalm 137:9 May the Lord bless everyone who beats your children against the rocks!

That verse was written for WL and his boys!

Too bad WL didn't read that verse, then the Lord could have blessed everyone.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

For 1500 years God's chosen people were justified by faith in His Son's death on the cross. Read Miller's Church History or Broadbent or Schaaf. God has always had a people who were His own. I already told you that Luther said he was a Hussite -- he began to know these same truths one hundred years earlier -- and Huss learned from others.

There is no "recovery." It was called the "reformation." Go read the history books. Huss, Luther, Calvin, Farel, Tyndale, Zwingli, and thousands more tried to "reform" the Catholic Church. They couldn't do it.

They all got QUARANTINED by the pope, just like so many "reformers" like John Ingalls or Titus Chu in the LC's got quarantined by Lee and the Blindeds.

You and Lee act like there never was a genuine Christian, or a real church, or anyone saved by faith until Luther was born. Absurd. Read church history.

And, like I said, I would not believe a single thing Lee taught about church history unless I have second source corroborating evidence. Luther was not the first MOTA.

And I could care less if you call me a liar. Bible says all men are liars, only God is true!

Then there were plenty of heretical groups trying to Reform the Catholics as well, the Cathars for example.

I don't know what history books you are reading.

The history books I read, by real experts, say that Huss did not recover justification by faith.

Experts also do not see Huss, Wycliffe etc as being part of the Reformation. That is why they are called proto-Protestants, in a sort of proto-Reformation. But really they are distinct events at distinct times, each with a slightly different reason for reforming the Church.

The history books I read tell me that the Lutheran and Reformed theology was not a continuation of the groups that went before.

Even if it was, no one advanced it as much as Luther and other Reformers - the actual Reformation.

When presented with the facts, you can't argue ignorance, so if continuing to spread non-facts, these would be considered lies.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If this is how most Christians treat the law, I cannot see why we cannot also divide the Psalms according to what the New Testament cites and what it doesn't.

This is called dividing scripture rightly (2 Tim 2:15)

I don't recall the NT citing the badger skins or silver sockets of the ark. Yet WL made his living at going beyond what was written. But you & his captive audience don't seem to notice the glaring disconnect.

WL was, like WN before him, a self-professed "seer of the divine revelation" who could see "Christ" in the lemma of OT text. But suddenly in the Psalms, the revelations dried up. Why?

Originally Posted by aron

WL got bothered by the ministries in God's word which sprang up in the "local churches" by singing the Psalms. Several gifted musicians started doing things in the Word which the saints loved, and picked up on. This was a movement "in the churches" which hadn't been sanctioned and directed the Oracle and Apostle of the age, so it was squelched. People were passing around music cassettes which didn't have "Living Stream Ministry" on them.

It was about money and power. This drove WL's revelations, same as WN before him. Nee's theme had changed from autonomous local assemblies to the centralized "Jerusalem Principle" when events on the ground warranted it. . .in short, it was a ministry tainted by self interest and convenience. So we continually saw these stark reversals, both in exegesis and in practice. Pecuniary interests drove both the "Christ is everything" approach to interpreting OT scripture, and its polar opposite, the strict "NT citation only".

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Especially this one:

Psalm 137:9 May the Lord bless everyone who beats your children against the rocks!

Ohio and I both noted Paul's spiritually- oriented warfare motif in Ephesians -"not flesh and blood" - but you let it pass. I noted the many martial aspects of Jesus' gospel activities against the forces of darkness. Not applicable, you say - these OT verses were from those speaking and doing horrific, unchristian things. Not divine revelation! Not Christ!

Yet when David and Goliath stood there spitting curses at one another, then ran together with knives and stones, wishing each other real, physical harm, what then are we to think? Should the Isaelites have submitted to the Philistines as the 'Christian' thing to do? Or Samuel with Agag? Or Deborah and Sisera? Or Abraham and the kings?

The argument leads to absurdity, so one must change it as the text moves along. With God there's no shadow cast by turnings but with WL and LSM we see exegetical turnings aplenty, and few more prominent than the treatment of the Psalms.

"He who eats bread with me, lifts his heel against me"; this was David dealing with palace intrigue. And yes they were all fallen human sinners, not one of them pure in themselves. Yet because of God's promise it is cited by Christ. "It is written" - that was good enough for Jesus but suddenly your argument is grasping for qualifiers, even if unevenly applied. John 13:18; Psa 41:9

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Then there were plenty of heretical groups trying to Reform the Catholics as well, the Cathars for example.

I don't know what history books you are reading.

The history books I read, by real experts, say that Huss did not recover justification by faith.

Experts also do not see Huss, Wycliffe etc as being part of the Reformation. That is why they are called proto-Protestants, in a sort of proto-Reformation. But really they are distinct events at distinct times, each with a slightly different reason for reforming the Church.

The history books I read tell me that the Lutheran and Reformed theology was not a continuation of the groups that went before.

Even if it was, no one advanced it as much as Luther and other Reformers - the actual Reformation.

When presented with the facts, you can't argue ignorance, so if continuing to spread non-facts, these would be considered lies.

I'm still missing where all of these scholars say that Martin Luther started "The Recovery" and that Luther was the first Minister of the Age "MOTA," because this is the foundation of LC history as I was taught by W. Lee.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I'm still missing where all of these scholars say that Martin Luther started "The Recovery" and that Luther was the first Minister of the Age "MOTA," because this is the foundation of LC history as I was taught by W. Lee.

I quoted a scholar before here, who says that Luther recovered justification by faith:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...-by-faith.html

Both traditions can appreciate Luther’s famous dictum as a recovery, not a discovery.

I think they are saying that both Catholic and Protestant can appreciate that Luther recovered justification by faith.

Luther started the recovery of justification by faith (alone) and I think the scholars support that. While Wycliffe, Hus, and others, even Catholics, talk about faith, and being justified by faith, but they don't teach the same things that Luther did or the faith implies faith+works.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems that Aron has completely misunderstood the footnotes, or their purpose. Picking apart a single footnote or two is one thing, but understanding the context and justification for them is another which brings a completely benign perspective on the matter.

Aron has not misunderstood the footnotes. Rather, he gets them quite well. His selectively picking apart a few of them and ignoring the whole, his dismissing of Brother Lee’s declared deep appreciation for the Psalms, his refusal to disclose the Psalms he characterizes as human concept or explaining why he chooses them as such while attacking Brother Lee for holding similar beliefs ... well, all that is the pattern of an antagonist not someone who misunderstands or seeks to present an alternative.

Aron’s approach is not unlike what we see today in American politics where one party on a mission to take down a president will inflate every innuendo into an impeachable offense, turn tweets into a constitutional crisis, ignore the whole and refuse to give credit for the things that are good, right, and edifying. If Aron sought to be undersood he would offer a scholarly rebuttal on the Psalms contrasting his view with Brother Lees so we could compare and determine which are words of life and which are indeed human concepts and he would acknowledge the beliefs of the other side as his starting point, not dismiss them. Making a compelling case should not be a difficult undertaking for Aron given his scholarly pursuits. Yet, his posts have not offered anything close to a scholars presentation and appear rather as a play to the party faithful designed at taking someone down.... politics as usual.

But who knows, he might yet roll out the big scholarly guns....

Aron, list the Psalms you characterize as human concept and why. Brother Lee spoke volumes on the Psalms, life studies and books we can examine, and yet we have still to get one cohesive post from you on the subject laying it all out for us. Alternatively, if you don’t know anything about the topic you could quote one of your Second Temple scholars. Maybe they have something substantive to offer on this topic.

Thanks
Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

while attacking Brother Lee for holding similar beliefs ...

I could just as easily say Brother Lee attacks David, or even attacks Christ. Your subjectively freighted terminology will only mollify the true believers, who aren't going to be on this site anyway, having been warned away. (But you got a special dispensation from LSM to write here?)

Brother Lee does have similar beliefs. Here is a quote:

Originally Posted by Witness Lee

“We should always be ready in our spirit to receive the instant inspiration of the Spirit. If we are living a revived and overcoming life and are one with the Lord, we will always be ready to receive instant inspiration. . . we also need to have the spiritual insight into all matters through the enlightening of the divine light, that is, through the enjoyment of the Lord in the Word. If we have the Word, and in our spirit, we are ready to receive inspiration, then we will also have the insight over all things, even in all matters, trough the enlightening of the divine light. Prophecy is always composed of the Word, inspiration, and the divine light. We need to put all the foregoing principles concerning prophesying into practice for the organic building up of the church. (The Practical and Organic Building Up of the Church p.88)

So if I read, or sing, or pray-read Psalm 1:3 and get an "instant inspiration" that the tree growing by the river, bearing fruit in season, whose leaf doesn't wither, seems a lot like the Christ portrayed in Revelation 22, that makes me a lot like Brother Lee, doesn't it? But for some reason Brother Lee in the Psalms didn't seem a lot like Brother Lee. Why is that? Because David was a sinner? Where is the "insight" and the "divine light"? I don't see any.

I mentioned that David and Goliath cursed each other and did greivous physical harm. David killed a few (or more) of the Philistines. Yet he still seems to be one according to God's heart.

Actually, I haven't found any Psalms that don't portray Christ. Even Psalm 51, at the end, David says, "Then I will teach transgressors your ways/and sinners will turn back to you". Jesus told Peter, "When you turn, you will strengthen the brothers" (Luke 22:32). The repentant transgressor (David/Peter) then becomes a beacon to the other wayward sheep! Marvelous. . . "God's mercy saved David/Peter - He will save me, too!" All of us can follow Psalm 51's hope.

Elsewhere, the violent imagery portrays the conquering King. "Your arrows are sharp/in the heart of your enemy" (Psalm 45) Why does Lee's footnote say that such sentiment is "Christ" in one place and yet it is "natural" or "fallen" in another? And you say I'm being selective in my readings?

But perhaps there is a spot that is truly "fallen" and "natural". . . but I have not seen Brother Lee make a compelling case. He says Psalm 1 is "according to the tree of knowledge of good and evil". I disagree. The psalm shows the Righteous Man who does God's will. David was a man after God's heart, and that is a picture of Christ. That man is enthroned in Psalm 2 as Son of God. Or did you miss that part? I didn't see any comments. Or are you deliberately mis-reading my writings? Or reading them selectively - I went over all this already. And I already wrote how this King who loves God's law is the same King in Deuteronomy 17:18. I've covered all this already. Remember? No?

Then Psalm 3: "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to pick it up again" Did you miss that one also? I don't remember your comments.

So far Witness Lee is 1 for 3; I am 3 for 3.

Psalm 4:8 "I will both lay me down in peace, and sleep: for thou, Lord, only makest me dwell in safety." Echoes Psalm 3, above; see also Psalm 17:15 "As for me, I will be vindicated and will see your face; when I awake, I will be satisfied with seeing your likeness."

What do you think "sleep" and "wake" signify here?

Psalm 5:11 "But let all those that put their trust in thee rejoice: let them ever shout for joy, because thou defendest them: let them also that love thy name be joyful in thee. 12 For thou, Lord, wilt bless the righteous; with favour wilt thou compass him as with a shield."

The Lord Jesus loved the Name of the Father and was joyful in Him; likewise, the Father blessed the Lord Jesus (the Righteous One), protected him (see e.g., Psalm 91 for explicit citations/confirmation)

Psalm 6:8 "Depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity; for the Lord hath heard the voice of my weeping." See Matthew 7:23"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (In the Psalms RecV there isn't even a cross-reference, much less a footnote - please tell us how much Lee "loved" the Psalms!)

Psalm 7:14 "Behold, he travaileth with iniquity, and hath conceived mischief, and brought forth falsehood. 15 He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 16 His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his own pate."

Jesus taught, "What you do to others will be done to you." Bless and you'll be blessed, forgive and you'll be forgiven; on the contrary if you scheme and plot to harm, and curse others, it will return on you. Where do you think Jesus got these teachings? From the OT! He was a Rabbi! ~Mark 14:45; John 1:38; Mark 9:5; John 20:16; John 3:2. Both the Psalms and Jesus taught, if you dig a ditch for someone else, you'll fall into it yourself. Pretty simple.

Of course all these comments above are my personal "readings". No more valid (or less) than Lee looking at Leviticus or Numbers and saying "this means that". I'm also a "seer of the divine revelation" like Nee and Lee were; all of us are (or can be). But my main point on this thread has not been to promote my readings but to ask: why did Lee's reading (reception) of the Psalms depart so drastically from the precedent set by NT reception of the Psalms?Peter also had a reading; Paul had a reading; Hebrews had a reading; John's gospel had a reading; why did Brother Lee ignore this clear pattern and forge his own, in the opposite direction?

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, list the Psalms you characterize as human concept and why.

Drake, please list Jesus, Peter, Paul, John and the Epistle to the Hebrews in the NT showing us the Psalms being of human concept. I can show you quite a few where they list them as of divine inspiration - where are the opposite cases? What basis in the NT reception did Brother Lee use for his own? If you can show us the NT doing it, then I'll consider following.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron, list the Psalms you characterize as human concept and why. Brother Lee spoke volumes on the Psalms, life studies and books we can examine,

None of the Psalms are human concept without God. All are God-breathed God's concept inspired into men.

Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly.

Peter quotes Psalm 34 extensively. When WL gave the training on Peter, WL gave a very good message on Peter's quotes of Ps 34. You can read it in the life studies.

Later, when WL gave his messages on Psalms, he trashed Ps 34 and even said that Peter was not spiritual because Peter should not have quoted that psalm. The Life Study is really ugly.

I think WL had lost a lot of his mind by the time he gave the Psalms messages, but we in the LC were still following him blindly.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

None of the Psalms are human concept without God. All are God-breathed God's concept inspired into men.

Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly.

If the NT reception of the Psalms had given some precedent, or basis to Brother Lee's approach, we'd have to take it seriously. The NT did not, and neither should we.

Originally Posted by Acts 13:32-41

“We tell you the good news: What God promised our ancestors he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:

“‘You are my son;
today I have become your father.’
God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said,
“‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’
So it is also stated elsewhere:

“‘You will not let your holy one see decay.’
“Now when David had served God’s purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his ancestors and his body decayed. But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay.

“Therefore, my friends, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. Through him everyone who believes is set free from every sin, a justification you were not able to obtain under the law of Moses. Take care that what the prophets have said does not happen to you:

“‘Look, you scoffers,
wonder and perish,
for I am going to do something in your days
that you would never believe,
even if someone told you.’”

Interesting that the Gamaliel-trained Pharisee Paul uses the same approach that the illiterate Galilean fisherman Peter does: David's pious declarations of fealty and reward present us with a picture of the coming Christ. In Acts 13, Paul quotes the Psalms and also Isaiah 55:3 affirming God's promise to David:

Isaiah 55:1 “Come, all you who are thirsty,
come to the waters;
and you who have no money,
come, buy and eat!
Come, buy wine and milk
without money and without cost.
2 Why spend money on what is not bread,
and your labor on what does not satisfy?
Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good,
and you will delight in the richest of fare.
3 Give ear and come to me;
listen, that you may live.
I will make an everlasting covenant with you,
my faithful love promised to David.
4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples,
a ruler and commander of the peoples.
5 Surely you will summon nations you know not,
and nations you do not know will come running to you,
because of the LORD your God,
the Holy One of Israel,
for he has endowed you with splendor.”

From Paul's usage of Psalms and Isaiah in Acts 13, the basis for Psalm citation isn't the rightness of the psalmist, but the promise made to him (v4). For corroboration, see Peter in Acts 2:30,31

"But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was to come, he spoke . . ."

And according to Paul's use of Isaiah, in Christ God has "summoned the nations whom you [David] knew not". (v5) Marvelous! Even if David didn't know the nations, God used his writings (of Christ) to summon them! Amazing!

And here we are. . .

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Actually, I haven't found any Psalms that don't portray Christ.......

Ok Aron. So you’ve changed your mind since a few posts back when I posed this question to you.

Nevertheless, now that we know where you are coming from with the above statement then your reasons for objecting to anyone characterizing any Psalm as a human concept and not a portrayal of Christ is consistent. You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

None of the Psalms are human concept without God. All are God-breathed God's concept inspired into men.

Of course all Scripture is God breathed. On what basis do you teach that every word of every verse of every chapter of every book does not display or contain human concepts?

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Aron. So you’ve changed your mind since a few posts back when I posed this question to you.

Nevertheless, now that we know where you are coming from with the above statement then your reasons for objecting to anyone characterizing any Psalm as a human concept and not a portrayal of Christ is consistent. You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course all Scripture is God breathed. On what basis do you teach that every word of every verse of every chapter of every book does not display or contain human concepts?

It's truly amazing watching LSMers like Drake, forced to constantly defend their infallible MOTA Witness Lee, twist and contort their understanding of the interpretation of the scriptures. Unfortunately these same ones never gave any of the rest of the ministers in the body of Christ one iota of accommodation or tolerance for their teachings and practices.

The rest of us accept the Psalms as the word of God. Every one of them were sung by Israel in the worship of God. Some praise, some worship, some exhort, some educate, some expose, some uplift us, some humble us, etc. The early church continued this practice, as the Apostles took the Psalms with them as they evangelized the nations. Never did they give us warning concerning "human sentiments" or the exceedingly dangerous "human concepts" which today spook the LC's. Thank you Witness Lee.

I did a search "seeing Christ in the Psalms." Endless websites popped up. Christians around the globe are constantly looking to find more of Christ in His word. The New Covenant promises, "all will know Him," and there is so much to know, by all of God's children, here a little there a little. Yet only W. Lee demeans certain Psalms and books like James as "natural concepts, human sentiments." Lee digs up the worst of Martin Luther in order to justify his bad and arrogant behavior, because there's nothing in the scripture to justify this.

VoiceinWilderness succinctly exposes this arrogant attitude of W. Lee and his supporters -- "Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly. Peter quotes Psalm 34 extensively. When WL gave the training on Peter, WL gave a very good message on Peter's quotes of Ps 34. You can read it in the life studies. Later, when WL gave his messages on Psalms, he trashed Ps 34 and even said that Peter was not spiritual because Peter should not have quoted that psalm. The Life Study is really ugly."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made. And I've repeated this several times. I never said I was going to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm. I doubt you think that way, either - rather you're trying to divert attention from Brother Lee's deficient Bible study.

Here was my quote:

Originally Posted by aron

I think there is some Christ to be found in more than 3 of the first 21 Psalms. I am not a scholar like Nigel Tomes, so please bear with my abbreviated account.

If you want to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm, perhaps you should start your own study. I never aimed for that. I merely said there was more than what Brother Lee said.

1. Witness Lee deviated from his pattern of "seeing Christ" in the text when he came to the Psalms.
2. The NT reception of the Psalms by Jesus, the gospel writers, Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, doesn't suggest that only the Psalms cited in the NT were to be viewed as pertaining to Christ. Yet current LSM mouthpiece Evangelical says that if we see Christ where it isn't explicitly cited, then perhaps we're "adding to God's word". Really? Can someone affiliated with LSM say this with a straight face? Amazing.
3. The reasons given to disqualify Psalms from consideration in the RecV footnotes were typically: A) the psalm-writer was a sinner and not qualified to represent Christ in his statements of divine fealty and reward; and B) the psalm-writer was breathing "unchristian" imprecations toward his enemies, rather than loving and forgiving. I dealt with this already in detail. Neither Drake nor Evangelical has answered. Instead we get the diversions like quoted above.
4. Brother Lee was inconsistent, saying a phrase was "divine" and another was "natural" with no discernible difference between the two. Both would be imperfect sinners writing, both were fighting with others, etc. My comment was, Did nobody notice this inconsistency? Were we all so mesmerised? Or were we cowed into silence?

I was addressing the first 21 Psalms as a representative sample of the book, knowing the trend continued beyond. I felt that my point was made. Recently, in Post #714, I gave some more examples from the first dozen Psalms. No answer from Drake. Instead, diversions.

Here is an answer: Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." I personally don't think the 'I' and 'me' here is of Christ. Okay? Good? We found a "human sentiment" in the Psalms! But we already know all this. Satan has a speaking role from Genesis 3 onwards. I give Manoah as a good example of "fallen human concept". (there are others as well)

Originally Posted by Judges 13:21-23

When the angel of the Lord did not show himself again to Manoah and his wife, Manoah realized that it was the angel of the Lord. “We are doomed to die!” he said to his wife. “We have seen God!”
But his wife answered, “If the Lord had meant to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering and grain offering from our hands, nor shown us all these things or now told us this.”

Typically, when someone speaks "natural concept", the Bible clearly tells us this is happening. When it's instead up to the interpreter with his hermeneutic (viz,"God's New Testament Economy") we should be more circumspect. Especially when it makes us discard 18 of the first 21 Psalms as of human and not divine origin, a trend which continues for the rest of the book.

So no, I don't think that every word of every Psalms

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

My first couple of points made clear that I wasn't going for the second option. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made..

If your only point is that you see Christ in Psalms where Brother Lee doesn't but you also recognize that there are psalms with human concepts then to that I say...

So what?

The only point you have made then is that you have a different interpretation of some of the Psalms. You see Christ in every Psalm or you refuse to identify those with human concepts and how you decided which ones have human concepts (you keep oscillating back and forth between those two positions but it matters not which you actually believe)... Brother Lee doesn't see Christ in every Psalm.... Therefore, you want the reader to accept your interpretation.

Again, so what?

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It's truly amazing watching LSMers like Drake, forced to constantly defend their infallible MOTA Witness Lee, twist and contort their understanding of the interpretation of the scriptures. Unfortunately these same ones never gave any of the rest of the ministers in the body of Christ one iota of accommodation or tolerance for their teachings and practices.

The rest of us accept the Psalms as the word of God. Every one of them were sung by Israel in the worship of God. Some praise, some worship, some exhort, some educate, some expose, some uplift us, some humble us, etc. The early church continued this practice, as the Apostles took the Psalms with them as they evangelized the nations. Never did they give us warning concerning "human sentiments" or the exceedingly dangerous "human concepts" which today spook the LC's. Thank you Witness Lee.

I did a search "seeing Christ in the Psalms." Endless websites popped up. Christians around the globe are constantly looking to find more of Christ in His word. The New Covenant promises, "all will know Him," and there is so much to know, by all of God's children, here a little there a little. Yet only W. Lee demeans certain Psalms and books like James as "natural concepts, human sentiments." Lee digs up the worst of Martin Luther in order to justify his bad and arrogant behavior, because there's nothing in the scripture to justify this.

VoiceinWilderness succinctly exposes this arrogant attitude of W. Lee and his supporters -- "Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly. Peter quotes Psalm 34 extensively. When WL gave the training on Peter, WL gave a very good message on Peter's quotes of Ps 34. You can read it in the life studies. Later, when WL gave his messages on Psalms, he trashed Ps 34 and even said that Peter was not spiritual because Peter should not have quoted that psalm. The Life Study is really ugly."

Don't worry about Drake, worry about yourself - it's amazing how you put forward nonfactual statements, that could be refuted by the quoting of expert scholars, while claiming Lee was the worst historian ever. If you can't even get little facts straight...

We can thank the "worst in Martin Luther" for the Reformation, otherwise we'd all still be reading from the Latin Vulgate. He did not merely just copy the Catholic Bible and make it available for all..

As much as you and others criticize Lee and Luther for their views of James, you sound like closet Catholics to be honest - I could find similar statements on a Catholic forum. I don't know what non-Catholic people see in the book of James about Christ that Luther and many others could not see. You must really be better than great men like Martin Luther and others who could not find much Christ in it. There must be even a hint of faith+works in your justification doctrine - I don't think Luther would have accepted you as a Reformer tbh.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Aron. So you’ve changed your mind since a few posts back when I posed this question to you.

Nevertheless, now that we know where you are coming from with the above statement then your reasons for objecting to anyone characterizing any Psalm as a human concept and not a portrayal of Christ is consistent. You accept every Psalm as a portrayal of Christ without exception.

Drake

If that is the case then smashing babies into rocks portrays Christ to Aron. He must divide the Psalms somehow, and if he doesn't do that then he is comparing Christ to all the negative things in the Psalms.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

2. The NT reception of the Psalms by Jesus, the gospel writers, Paul, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, doesn't suggest that only the Psalms cited in the NT were to be viewed as pertaining to Christ. Yet current LSM mouthpiece Evangelical says that if we see Christ where it isn't explicitly cited, then perhaps we're "adding to God's word". Really? Can someone affiliated with LSM say this with a straight face? Amazing.

If you see Christ in a verse in which Christ is not to be found, then have you not in effect "added" your human concepts to God's Word?

I would like to hear the logical and rational reasoning why it is not the case.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it. I made my case with a few of the first Psalms. Point made. And I've repeated this several times. I never said I was going to do a systematic review of every word of every Psalm. I doubt you think that way, either - rather you're trying to divert attention from Brother Lee's deficient Bible study.

aron, when dealing with folks who only know extremes, you must learn to repetitively repeat yourself redundantly again and again.

Just trying to help you out.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Don't worry about Drake, worry about yourself - it's amazing how you put forward nonfactual statements, that could be refuted by the quoting of expert scholars, while claiming Lee was the worst historian ever. If you can't even get little facts straight...

We can thank the "worst in Martin Luther" for the Reformation, otherwise we'd all still be reading from the Latin Vulgate. He did not merely just copy the Catholic Bible and make it available for all..

As much as you and others criticize Lee and Luther for their views of James, you sound like closet Catholics to be honest - I could find similar statements on a Catholic forum. I don't know what non-Catholic people see in the book of James about Christ that Luther and many others could not see. You must really be better than great men like Martin Luther and others who could not find much Christ in it. There must be even a hint of faith+works in your justification doctrine - I don't think Luther would have accepted you as a Reformer tbh.

And where are your scholars who also have sanctioned Martin Luther the first Minister of the Age? Try to get your facts straight matey!

Taking my words out of context? I expect more from the current LSM mouthpiece. The "worst in Martin Luther" comment referred specifically to his dismissal of the book of James ("straw epistle fit for burning") and his anti-Semitic rants. But you knew that. And you call me a liar?

Your other deceptive technique is to present a false choice set, like Drake does. Since I don't accept that Luther is the first MOTA of the Recovery, then I must be some contemptuous "closet Catholic" like you find on other forums.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If you see Christ in a verse in which Christ is not to be found, then have you not in effect "added" your human concepts to God's Word?

I would like to hear the logical and rational reasoning why it is not the case.

No, you are right. Except, then Peter and Paul violate this in the book of Acts, seeing Christ in Psalm 16. Because David was a sinner, see? He didn't rise from the dead, & thus could not typify Christ. So they are improperly adding to scripture.

Of course I'm being facetious. The OT is a book of types and figures. If WL's many liberal interpretations don't "add to God's Word", then how do mine? In fact, I think my logic is better than his. But then I'm probably biased.

But seriously, I'm following the path of WL: looking at NT authors seeing Christ in the OT, and following suit. If you reject my interpretation as adding to God's Word, and as going beyond what is written, you must likewise reject the bulk of WL's ministry, along with Darby et al.

Or are you going to pull out the old, "Its okay when we do it but not when you do it" argument? That's the LSM fallback position - the MOTA can do it, but you can't.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If that is the case then smashing babies into rocks portrays Christ to Aron. He must divide the Psalms somehow, and if he doesn't do that then he is comparing Christ to all the negative things in the Psalms.

Yep. That too.

I'm addressing the duplicitous nature of his argument.

As examples, aron recognizes human concepts in the Psalms but won't name the verses or how he derives that they are human concepts. Then his feathers get all ruffled when you quote him directly stating he sees Christ in every Psalm but then he responds suggesting he never meant that. In another place he refers to James as an ignorant leader but then rents his clothes and throws dust in the air at a reasonable explanation that James' epistle is influenced by the law. He demands precision from others but then asks the reader to forgive his frequent exaggerations. He criticizes others for holding an opinion but prizes his own very highly.

I still don't really know what he thinks about the Psalms because of that..... but it seems his purpose is not to generate light but rather heat. That is, just to find fault with Brother Lee's explanation without offering a cohesive one of his own.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

As examples, aron recognizes human concepts in the Psalms but won't name the verses or how he derives that they are human concepts. Then his feathers get all ruffled when you quote him directly stating he sees Christ in every Psalm but then he responds suggesting he never meant that. In another place he refers to James as an ignorant leader but then rents his clothes and throws dust in the air at a reasonable explanation that James' epistle is influenced by the law. He demands precision from others but then asks the reader to forgive his frequent exaggerations. He criticizes others for holding an opinion but prizes his own very highly.

I still don't really know what he thinks about the Psalms because of that..... but it seems his purpose is not to generate light but rather heat. That is, just to find fault with Brother Lee's explanation without offering a cohesive one of his own.

Drake

I'll patiently restate my case for what seems like the 35th time. How is it that David hitting Goliath in the face with a rock is "Christ" but smashing infants on the rocks is not? Do you retrospectively impose the Geneva convention?

Paul already answered this: we struggle against spiritual forces. The OT allegories still hold.

And yes, James was influenced by the law. He was a Jew. As was David. How is it that you require the Jews to live like the gentiles? (But I don't think you'll get that one).

p.s. I did name the verse: Psalm 51:5.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And where are your scholars who also have sanctioned Martin Luther the first Minister of the Age? Try to get your facts straight matey!

They state that Luther recovered salvation by faith. That is the topic we were discussing, not "Minister of the Age". Let's address the facts one at a time.

Knowing this fact, it is easy to see how Luther is qualified to be a Minister of the Age. I don't expect any scholar to use this language, but they do appreciate that Luther had a bigger role in the Reformation than you seem to admit.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Taking my words out of context? I expect more from the current LSM mouthpiece. The "worst in Martin Luther" comment referred specifically to his dismissal of the book of James ("straw epistle fit for burning") and his anti-Semitic rants. But you knew that. And you call me a liar?

Your other deceptive technique is to present a false choice set, like Drake does. Since I don't accept that Luther is the first MOTA of the Recovery, then I must be some contemptuous "closet Catholic" like you find on other forums.

Yes I know what it referred to and I remarked that if Luther did not dismiss the book of James, then we would still be reading the Latin Vulgate with the Apocrypha as well.

The reason is, that it would very hard to convince Catholic people of justification by faith alone and convert them to the Reformation as long as the book of James about faith+works was staring them in the face.

The Reformation was mainly built upon a doctrine of justification by faith (alone) of which it seemed necessary for Luther to dismiss the book of James. The Catholic doctrine very much depended upon and still depends today on a literal interpretation of James - "your (saving) faith is dead unless you have works".

My "closet Catholic" remark stems from understanding that Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone does not blend well with the book of James. Defending James, to a degree, is almost to defend Catholicism.

It is popular today for evangelicals to explain away what the book of James says, but this is only reminiscent of closer ties between Catholicism and Evangelicism in my view. It is interesting that Luther did not merely try to "explain away" the book of James as evangelicals do today, but dismissed it outright, at least initially.

The goal of any good Catholic who wants to convert an Evangelical is firstly to get them to see how Luther's justification by faith alone was wrong - to do that they will use the book of James. The goal of any good Protestant, or Reformer, is to turn our attention away from James's saving works, and focus ourselves on the Scriptures regarding salvation by faith alone. At least, a real Reformer would do that in my view.

The book of James was such a problem for the Reformers that Calvin went to the lengths of adding the word "alone" to James 2:24.

I would just like to bring your attention to a Catholic blog which supports everything I have been saying:

But there's good news about this, because once we see why Protestants have continued to follow Calvin by adding the word "alone" to James 2:24, we will be able to refute Luther's heresy all the more easily.

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/201...-to-james.html

In this blog we can see the Catholic's aim to convert Protestants, and secondly their aim to use James to refute the Reformation.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I'll patiently restate my case for what seems like the 35th time. How is it that David hitting Goliath in the face with a rock is "Christ" but smashing infants on the rocks is not? Do you retrospectively impose the Geneva convention?.

That is your argument? You see in the Psalms Christ in the smashing of infants on rocks....?

Well, alrighty.... I see what Evangelical meant....

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

That is your argument? You see in the Psalms Christ in the smashing of infants on rocks....?

Well, alrighty.... I see what Evangelical meant....

Drake

And likewise, you see Christ in David smashing Goliath in the head with a stone? And Agag getting stabbed by Samuel? And Deborah driving a nail into the skull of Sisera?

Well, alrighty then. We all can see where you stand on violence in the OT.

Shouldn't David submit to Goliath? That would have been the NT thing to do in those circumstances. Show love. Turn the other cheek, go the second mile.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Both traditions can appreciate Luther’s famous dictum as a recovery, they are saying that both Catholic and Protestant can appreciate that Luther recovered justification by faith..

And the EOC? Your view is more defensible in Western Europe struggling to emerge from centuries of medeivalism, than 21st century global Christianity.

Also note all the spin-offs, each claiming further restoration or recovery. Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. Then the spin-offs get spin-offs. With the LC, now they wonder "who has the mantle"? The splinter groups all claim the true line from Martin Luther.

For that matter, perhaps the Eastern Lightning carefully traces their Mota lineage back through WL and Luther. It helps getting converts, you know. The patina of credibility.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

If your only point is that you see Christ in Psalms where Brother Lee doesn't but you also recognize that there are psalms with human concepts then to that I say...

So what?

The only point you have made then is that you have a different interpretation of some of the Psalms. You see Christ in every Psalm or you refuse to identify those with human concepts and how you decided which ones have human concepts (you keep oscillating back and forth between those two positions but it matters not which you actually believe)... Brother Lee doesn't see Christ in every Psalm.... Therefore, you want the reader to accept your interpretation.

Again, so what?

Drake

Thanks for your summary of your defense of Witness Lee's treatment of the Psalms. I pointed out that he went from "Christ is everything"- the reality of all positive OT types - to a nearly wholesale dismissal of the "natural concepts" of the OT writer trying to please God, and obey. I pointed out the contradictory treatments of different psalms, arbitrarily labeling them as "fallen human sentiments" or "revelatory", apparently at whim. I noted how this treatment of the OT text was at stark variance with the NT reception.

So your reply is, So what? Similar to your perfunctory dismissals after we pointed out the Timothy Lee Daystar money fiasco and the Philip Lee Affairs.

Perhaps we should have a similar reaction to all the conferences, trainings, self-published book titles. All the thousands of footnotes and cross-references in the RecV. All the outlines and HWMR "we should" and "we need to" exortations.

Just look at the source of it all. Enough said.

[awareness]

Again, so what?

Drake

Thanks for that bro Drake ; finally the sound of reason. This whole thing is absurd. Psalms are not the word of Christ. Psalms is a composition of over 5 centuries, all of it written by fallen men. Still, it is great literature ... except 137:9, and all the other verses about destroying enemies ... that Jesus countered with "love your enemy."

Meanwhile, let's continue -- in the spirit of Psalms -- to pile on bro Drake. It's fun. After all, he's in that awful local church. Where's David's slingshot when we need it. We needed it for that giant Witness Lee.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Then the spin-offs get spin-offs. With the LC, now they wonder "who has the mantle"? The splinter groups all claim the true line from Martin Luther.

Originally Posted by aron

So your reply is, So what? Similar to your perfunctory dismissals after we pointed out the Timothy Lee Daystar money fiasco and the Philip Lee Affairs.

Careful there aron. If you keep mentioning the Midwest "spin-off" or Lee's profligate boys, Drake will put you on his "ignore list" like he did to me, pick up all his marbles, and won't talk to you anymore.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

And likewise, you see Christ in David smashing Goliath in the head with a stone? And Agag getting stabbed by Samuel? And Deborah driving a nail into the skull of Sisera?
Well, alrighty then. We all can see where you stand on violence in the OT.
Shouldn't David submit to Goliath? That would have been the NT thing to do in those circumstances. Show love. Turn the other cheek, go the second mile.

Hmmm.. ok, so now you don’t see Christ in the story of Goliath having previously argued in its favor. Instead, you think David should have submitted to Goliath in the name of love... and you see Christ in the smashing of infants against rocks.

Nutty.

Here is the problem with your human concepts Aron (your cohort Miller holds the same erroneous core belief) ....at the source it starts by a misunderstanding on your part, a misunderstanding that seems right but actually is very misguided ..... it is the erroneous belief that because all Scripture is God breathed that every word in it depicts or portrays Christ. The scripture is God breathed but not every word or verse or Psalm or expression of an idea represents Christ, or Gods economy, or the revelation of Gods purpose and things related. Rather, the God breathed word shows us those things, sometimes and often hidden in a mosaic, but it also shows us contrasting human concepts, man’s expression of his ideas about God or God’s care for His people, etc. Those human ideas are there in the God breathed word for our understanding and are profitable for correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. The error that you and Mr. Miller are deeply stuck in is in equating the definition of “God breathed” with a portrayal of Christ. The Bible never makes a claim to your method of interpretation and by embracing it so adamantly you have fallen into the error described above.. you then end up teaching nutty interpretations such as depicting Christ in the smashing of infants against rocks.

When applying OT to the NT it is important to keep in mind what the NT conveys about the Lord and how He is depicted as the tabernacle, the offerings, the Noahic flood, the rock that followed the Israelites, the Red Sea, etc. and is compared or contracted in some aspect to various personalities like Moses, David, Solomon, or Enoch.... but not in every way is the Lord like the types that typify Him. Therefore, some discernment must be made about which OT items represent Him in allegory, figures, and types and how they do not. A wholesale read back of the NT into the Psalms is not supported by the scripture itself. This is where your logic and understanding have failed you and where I hoped to open a window that you may see the fallacy of your argument in your blind spot. You rejected that in favor of digging into some rather bizarre and contradictory statements and teachings. Yet, I think yours is the quintessential example of how a misunderstanding of a core belief as described above can vector off into a series of odd, nutty, or bizarre beliefs down the line. Off a quarter inch today and you are then off by a quarter mile tomorrow.

Hope that helps.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Hmmm.. ok, so now you don’t see Christ in the story of Goliath having previously argued in its favor. Instead, you think David should have submitted to Goliath in the name of love... and you see Christ in the smashing of infants against rocks.

Nutty.

Talk about being disingenuous and deceptive.

Nobody in their right mind would have concluded that. But you did.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks for that bro Drake ; finally the sound of reason. This whole thing is absurd. Psalms are not the word of Christ. Psalms is a composition of over 5 centuries, all of it written by fallen men. Still, it is great literature ...

Awareness,

You are going too far in the other direction. All Scripture is God breathed including the Psalms and profitable for correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. Every Psalm is there in the Holy Writ by design and for our benefit.

No one will correct you but I will ... because I care about you.

Drake

[awareness]

Thanks. You're a peach.
-

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Of course all Scripture is God breathed. On what basis do you teach that every word of every verse of every chapter of every book does not display or contain human concepts?

Drake

Because every word of Scripture is God-breathed and we are to live by it.
On what basis do you say that parts of the Bible are erroneous human concepts?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

You present a false choice set: either 18 of the first 21 Psalms are natural, per Witness Lee, or "every word of every Psalm" must unequivocally show Christ. You say, it's either Lee's 15% or it must be 100%. My first posts made clear that I wasn't going for the second option of 100%. I just said, There is more Christ in the Psalms than Brother Lee let on. That's it.

The problem with WL's treatment of Psalms (and Proverbs, Job, James and Peter) is not that he missed places that were about Christ.

The problem is that WL taught, especially later in his life, that if the Bible does not emphasize what WL emphasizes, then that part of the Bible is erroneous human concept.

There are many parts of the Bible, including Psalms that are not about Christ or the church. Most of Psalms show by experience how to live a godly, humble, down-to-earth, honest life. This is part of a balanced diet of the truth. WL said that such verses or whole Psalms or whole books were not the word of God, but are human concepts contrary to God's truth. I think this was WL's greatest error.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Because every word of Scripture is God-breathed and we are to live by it.
On what basis do you say that parts of the Bible are erroneous human concepts?

After you catch up we’ll talk.... pick it up from what has already been said.

Thanks
Drake

[Evangelical]

There's a fairly comprehensive article on CARM that refutes the idea that "The Bible isn't the Word of God. It contains the Word of God."

https://carm.org/bible-isnt-word-god...tains-word-god

It explains how the bible inerrantly records lies.

So if this is the understanding of evangelical Christianity , how exactly is Lee wrong to differentiate between lies/humanity and truth/divinity in the Bible?

[Drake]

-1

“Likewise, when it records historical events, genealogies, etc., it does so using the idioms and cultural norms of the time--yet it is without error.”

Neither does the Bible express our physical world in accurate scientific terms ... and it quotes philosophers and non inspired writings. Yet, it is without error.

The error in Aron’s understanding can be traced back to his definition of the Scriptural term “God breathed” ... he and Miller offer explanations of “God breathed” as if the Bible emerged out of thin air or as if the human instruments who actually penned its pages went into a trance of some sort and started scribbling. . Perhaps they never understood that we have no original letters and the closest copies to the original are at least a hundred years and most are closer to 700 to 800 years removed. Maybe they don’t understand that the copies from which current versions are derived come from different schools with scribes that may have omitted or added a word here or there in an MSS to fit their concepts.... yet even that is instructive where it appears.

Nevertheless, the Bible we possess is without error but not in the way they describe that every word in it is a portrayal of Christ or God or an accurate understanding of the things of God. The human concepts are there, the lies are there, the workings of evil minds are recorded there.... and still it is without error....it is accurate in what it records.

There is a possibility they are really smart and know all this and more....but merely engaging in sophistry.... to attack the object of their discontent... Brother Lee.

Drake

[Evangelical]

It was not until about 100 years after Luther and Calvin that other Reformers introduced the idea of biblical inerrancy in the text itself rather than Luther and Calvin's view that inerrancy came about because of the inspiration of the Spirit, and they allowed for the possibility of human errors. That is, even if there is an error in the bible the Holy Spirit will provide the correct inspiration and we do not need to pretend that the bible is perfect. Luther even believed that an apostle's words may be uninspired and non-apostolic and an unbelievers words may be inspired and apostolic - it was evaluated against whether or not it made Christ known or not, based upon the words of Paul (1 Cor 2:2).

Lee's approach is very similar to Luther's - using the Scripture to interpret Scripture, but also using Scripture to critique Scripture. Lee also emphasized the inspiration of the Spirit for the proper meaning of Scripture through "pray -reading" - the spirit over the letter.

So, what these people are reacting against, I believe, is a type of hermeneutics they will not find in modern evangelicalism, which assumes that the text itself is inerrant.

[Drake]

-1

This is an excellent accurate summary of the subject.

Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee's approach is very similar to Luther's - using the Scripture to interpret Scripture, but also using Scripture to critique Scripture. Lee also emphasized the inspiration of the Spirit for the proper meaning of Scripture through "pray -reading" - the spirit over the letter.

Good point ... if pray-reading triggers inspiration of the Spirit. Or if the Spirit is always available if we have the right key (let's call it the Lee key) to open it up.

But prolly, pray-reading anything my lead to deeper insights into any text ; a cookbook say, or mechanic's manual. But it can also make us see things that aren't there.

So Lee's Cargo Cult method of "inspiration of the Spirit" does not necessarily fill the gaps in the human aspects of scripture, if it causes our imagination to run wild of the Spirit. Just sayin'.

And bro E, if Lee's approach is very similar to Luther's wouldn't that mean that Lee's Recovery was stuck back there with Luther? Just askin'.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

And bro E, if Lee's approach is very similar to Luther's wouldn't that mean that Lee's Recovery was stuck back there with Luther? Just askin'.

We could say that Lee "Recovered the Reformation" from the point where it started to go astray - when the later Reformers fell into the error of literal inerrancy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We could say that Lee "Recovered the Reformation" from the point where it started to go astray - when the later Reformers fell into the error of literal inerrancy.

Titus Chu and numerous men of God tried to reform and recover the Recovery.

The Blendeds then issued a papal bull against them and lynched them at the Whistler ITERO kangaroo court.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We could say that Lee "Recovered the Reformation" from the point where it started to go astray - when the later Reformers fell into the error of literal inerrancy.

Yes, we could say....

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

Awareness,

You are going too far in the other direction. All Scripture is God breathed including the Psalms and profitable for correction, reproof, and instruction in righteousness. Every Psalm is there in the Holy Writ by design and for our benefit.

No one will correct you but I will ... because I care about you.

Drake

Awareness,

Elaboration on this might be instructive.

I do not believe a wholesale read back of the NT into the OT, such as the Psalms, is supported by the Bible itself for the reasons already stated. It is evident that human concepts, flawed human ideas, cultural influence, lies and deceptions and influences of spiritual forces , quotes of philosophers and works not accepted as part of the canon of Holy Writ, ideas derived from the period between the testaments, expressions of our physical world based on scientific knowledge of the time and not as we understand science today ....all are in the Bible. Yet, it is there without error. Can we now with the benefit of hindsight see in the OT Christ in places the Jews with the OT in their hands could not? Certainly. Is Christ portrayed in every verse of the OT or specially the Psalms as some have argued in this thread? Certainly not. Christ and Gods plan was hidden in the OT for a reason, so that the evil spiritual forces would not understand that crucifixion was the path of God’s plan for had they known they would not have participated in crucifying Him. In the OT Christ is revealed in a mosaic and that is one reason He was not recognized though they had the OT in their very hands. Even the disciples who were with Him, even those closest to Him, could not understand what He was about to accomplish even though they too were familiar with the OT. It was not until after His resurrection that He opened their eyes to what the OT said about Him ( Luke 24).

Nevertheless, the Bible inspires with the Spirit’s striking our spirit and a Christian may thereby see something of Christ in a verse from an instant speaking from the Lord. For example, if you go to Brother Steve’s (Miller) site you will see many such examples of this from the Psalms. Are these Hermeneutically correct read backs from the NT into the Psalms? Mostly not. Are they beneficial or edifying? I think so in this sense.... as you were strolling this morning enjoying the Lord, having a conversation with Him you may have seen a worm crawling across the path, and it may have struck you that Christ left His glorious estate to become a worm among men. The verse “I am a worm and no man” may come to mind and you might appreciate Him all the more because in so doing He saved you. Technically, Christ was not a worm and He was a man but nevertheless the inspiration leads you to some genuine spiritual experience and appreciation of Christ.

So when I say you go to far in one direction in rejecting the Psalms wholesale because they were penned by fallen men or over hundreds of years I mean you miss that all Scripture is profitable including the Psalms. So then, for you I would encourage you to go the Brother Millers site and read his explanations on the Psalms to appreciate them the way he does. Although to Brother Miller I would say that reading the NT back into the Psalms is not good hermeneutics, nevertheless, reading and listening to his enjoyment of Christ is enjoyable... like someone who saw Christ in the worm.

In my view Brother Lee struck, or attempted to, the right balance with the OT and the Psalms as Evangelical summarized a few posts back. Brother Lee didn’t do a wholesale read back of the NT into the OT and yet he and Brother Nee before him offered many spiritual insights about Christ, God’s plan and Gods purpose in the OT that were not obvious. Some may consider those insights as analogous to seeing Christ in worms, and some of it might be, but I personally have benefitted through them with what I believe to be the best balance between good solid interpretation of using the Bible to explain and interpret the Bible and becoming sensitive to the Spirit’s leading and instant speaking in the Word.

Thanks
Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

None of the Psalms are human concept without God. All are God-breathed God's concept inspired into men.

Brother Lee trashed the Psalms terribly.

Peter quotes Psalm 34 extensively. When WL gave the training on Peter, WL gave a very good message on Peter's quotes of Ps 34. You can read it in the life studies.

Later, when WL gave his messages on Psalms, he trashed Ps 34 and even said that Peter was not spiritual because Peter should not have quoted that psalm. The Life Study is really ugly.

I think WL had lost a lot of his mind by the time he gave the Psalms messages, but we in the LC were still following him blindly.

Quite an ironic observation here by VoiceInWilderness. Here's a section from Lee's Life Study (Mesage 16) on Psalms 34:

The title of Psalm 34 says that this was a psalm of David "when he disguised his sanity before Abimelech, who drove him out, and he departed." We can see from this that the situation in which Psalm 34 was written was not an honorable one. David was not normal; he disguised himself as being insane because he was before a king who had the power to kill him. As a result of disguising himself, David was delivered from Abimelech (1 Sam. 21:10—22:1a). Afterward, he wrote Psalm 34. In this psalm he gave all the credit to God, but actually he delivered himself by disguising himself. To disguise oneself is a kind of falsehood.

Here W. Lee criticized David saying he was "not normal, not honorable, in a kind of falsehood." But who was the one who was really losing his mind???

Reading David's story here I was reminded of the Lord Jesus, the King of Kings, standing in "disguise" before Pontius Pilate. The Lord Jesus could have rightly dressed Himself in glory, surrounded by the heavenly host, with the Father's glory, yet instead He appeared as a beggarly preacher, all alone abandoned by all, to Pilate a "fool's fool." Name me one person at that scene who thought Jesus was "normal, and in an honorable situation?"

W. Lee totally missed Christ here. Once again he exhibits his life-long practice of creating standards by which he can condemn others, and uplift his own ministry. In the previous paragraph he wrote:

In this message we want to continue our fellowship on the mixed expressions of the psalmist's sentiment in his enjoyment of God in God's house. If we do not have a deep hunger to seek after the Lord with His Word, these messages may disappoint us. This is because what we may like according to our natural concept is exposed. What we see in the Bible and what the Bible is to us depend upon what kind of person we are. Our understanding of the Bible is always according to what we are. This is why we need to be adjusted and brought into the divine concept.

Here Lee, while denigrating David in Psalm 34, says "What we see in the Bible and what the Bible is to us depend upon what kind of person we are." He is right about that. But oh so wrong about David and the Psalms.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Elaboration on this might be instructive. I do not believe a wholesale read back of the NT into the OT, such as the Psalms, is supported by the Bible itself for the reasons already stated. It is evident that human concepts, flawed human ideas, cultural influence, lies and deceptions and influences of spiritual forces , quotes of philosophers and works not accepted as part of the canon of Holy Writ, ideas derived from the period between the testaments, expressions of our physical world based on scientific knowledge of the time and not as we understand science today ....all are in the Bible.

Thanks for that.

The title of this thread is The Psalms are the word of Christ. I disagree. But I understand that at least some Christians have romantic notions of Psalms, and the OT, even The Song of Songs, while discounting or ignoring the brutality in the OT, and the facts of how it was written, and selected as canon.

And you've done a suburb job of expressing it. Thanks.

I've always heard, 'The Bible is the word of "God,'" not "Christ" ... which means it's all Christ. That's a very high -- and I suspect fringe -- Christology.

Plus, I respect that Lee looked at Psalms realistically. Except I think he didn't go far enough. And I'm concerned that you haven't gone far enough. I care about you too bro Drake. Your salvation isn't threatened by realizing that the books of the Bible were written over centuries, and by fallen men. It's not a salvation matter.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It was not until about 100 years after Luther and Calvin that other Reformers introduced the idea of biblical inerrancy in the text itself rather than Luther and Calvin's view that inerrancy came about because of the inspiration of the Spirit, and they allowed for the possibility of human errors. That is, even if there is an error in the bible the Holy Spirit will provide the correct inspiration and we do not need to pretend that the bible is perfect. Luther even believed that an apostle's words may be uninspired and non-apostolic and an unbelievers words may be inspired and apostolic - it was evaluated against whether or not it made Christ known or not, based upon the words of Paul (1 Cor 2:2).

That is very surprising to me that Calvin believed as you say.
Do you have supporting evidence?

I believe in Biblical inerrancy. The Orthodox Jews do also and always have, and so did Jesus as proved by the below among others:
John 10:34 ... and the Scripture cannot be broken.

When Luther got old he was mentally ill due to ear infections.
That is when he made his horrible anti-Semitic rants.
I don't know when in his life he made the terrible mistake of saying that the book of James was uninspired. He said the same about Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, because these books contradict his overemphasized teaching on salvation by faith alone without works.
He also did not believe Esther, Jeremiah, Jonah and Song of Songs.
Luther had been a great man of God.
This shows me that no minister of the age is inerrant and needs the checks and balances of others.
But the Bible is inerrant.


When you say the Bible is not inerrant, I understand you to mean that there are mistakes in the Bible as originally written. Is that what you mean?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

“Likewise, when it records historical events, genealogies, etc., it does so using the idioms and cultural norms of the time--yet it is without error.”

Neither does the Bible express our physical world in accurate scientific terms ... and it quotes philosophers and non inspired writings. Yet, it is without error.

These are self-contradicting statements. If the Bible is inaccurate, then it has errors. But then you say the Bible is without error, which is true, and means it is inerrant, right? Maybe you meant to say "precise" instead of "accurate".

Do you believe in the theory of evolution? It contradicts the Bible. If the theory of evolution is right, then the Bible is wrong and vice-versa.

Originally Posted by Drake

The error in Aron’s understanding can be traced back to his definition of the Scriptural term “God breathed” ... he and Miller offer explanations of “God breathed” as if the Bible emerged out of thin air or as if the human instruments who actually penned its pages went into a trance of some sort and started scribbling. .

I don't believe most of the Bible was dictated by God. God used the writer's humanity to write it. I said the Bible does not contain any erroneous human concepts. I understand "God breathed" to mean similar to what Peter said:
2Pet 1: 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by Drake

Perhaps they never understood that we have no original letters and the closest copies to the original are at least a hundred years and most are closer to 700 to 800 years removed. Maybe they don’t understand that the copies from which current versions are derived come from different schools with scribes that may have omitted or added a word here or there in an MSS to fit their concepts.... yet even that is instructive where it appears.

This is a different matter. The Bible is inerrant in its original manuscripts.
The Masoretic Text of the OT matches the Dead Sea Scrolls almost word for word throughout, even though the manuscripts are about 1,000 years apart. There are some significant 1-letter differences which affect the interpretation of prophecy, but none that affects how we should live our life and faith.
There are 1000's of NT manuscripts. They all agree similarly to how the NT and DSS agree. God has preserved His Word, as He promised.
Also the earliest complete NT manuscripts are not 700-800 years older than the originals. More like 300 years.

Originally Posted by Drake

Nevertheless, the Bible we possess is without error but not in the way they describe that every word in it is a portrayal of Christ or God or an accurate understanding of the things of God. The human concepts are there, the lies are there, the workings of evil minds are recorded there.... and still it is without error....it is accurate in what it records.

The workings of evil minds are recorded there as what accurately happened. We can understand from the context that these are examples of what not to do. What WL said is much different. For example WL said that when God Himself speaks at the end of Job, that God's speaking there is not wise.
Or when Peter quotes Psalm 34 saying to keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile, WL says that Peter was wrong to quote that verse. So WL is disagreeing with the divinely inspired Biblical authors.

Originally Posted by Drake

There is a possibility they are really smart and know all this and more....but merely engaging in sophistry.... to attack the object of their discontent... Brother Lee.

I do not know what sophistry is. I don't use sarcasm. I think Bro Lee was a great man of God. I learned how to understand the Bible from him. Bro Lee also had some serious mistakes, and as I said, I think his worst one was to say that parts of the Bible are unprofitable. When he excommunicated most of the former pastors and missionaries in 1988, he lost his checks and balances, as well as the Lord's blessing.
I was saved in the LC 1975, and remained there until the church in Detroit was excommunicated by the blendeds for not agreeing to the 1-Publication doctrine in around 2007.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

WL said that when God Himself speaks at the end of Job, that God's speaking there is not wise.
Or when Peter quotes Psalm 34 saying to keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile, WL says that Peter was wrong to quote that verse. So WL is disagreeing with the divinely inspired Biblical authors..

Please provide the two quotes mentioned above. Let’s have a closer look.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

That is very surprising to me that Calvin believed as you say.
Do you have supporting evidence?

I believe in Biblical inerrancy. The Orthodox Jews do also and always have, and so did Jesus as proved by the below among others:
John 10:34 ... and the Scripture cannot be broken.

When Luther got old he was mentally ill due to ear infections.
That is when he made his horrible anti-Semitic rants.
I don't know when in his life he made the terrible mistake of saying that the book of James was uninspired. He said the same about Hebrews, Jude and Revelation, because these books contradict his overemphasized teaching on salvation by faith alone without works.
He also did not believe Esther, Jeremiah, Jonah and Song of Songs.
Luther had been a great man of God.
This shows me that no minister of the age is inerrant and needs the checks and balances of others.
But the Bible is inerrant.


When you say the Bible is not inerrant, I understand you to mean that there are mistakes in the Bible as originally written. Is that what you mean?

With Calvin, it's a matter of debate.

These two articles present it from both sides.

https://postbarthian.com/2014/05/26/...-bible-errors/

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...5-442_JETS.pdf

I believe the original manuscripts are inerrant. I cannot say the same of the multitude of versions and translations, or our modern day understanding of the original manuscripts.

What was more interesting to me was how their view, especially Luther's, seemed to differ from modern Reformers. Tracing the origins and history of biblical inerrancy doctrine seems to lead me closer to American fundamentalism than the actual teachings of early Reformers.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I don't believe most of the Bible was dictated by God. God used the writer's humanity to write it. I said the Bible does not contain any erroneous human concepts. I understand "God breathed" to mean similar to what Peter said:
2Pet 1: 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

I don't think human concepts are necessarily erroneous...just human. I see David's human concepts as God accurately and without error, communicating the truth to us about human nature. David's human concepts show us the law and our inability to keep it. It points us to divine concepts found in Christ in the New Testament. Seeing David's human concepts is more practical to me than pretending everything he wrote is divine.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Please provide the two quotes mentioned above. Let’s have a closer look.

Drake

Here is the quote about God's speaking in Job:
Much of the speaking in this book is ambiguous. This is
the case not only of the speaking of Job, of his friends, and
of Elihu, but to some extent it seems to be the case even of
the speaking of Jehovah in 40:10-14. (Msg 29, p 155).
I had remembered it as something worse. As it is in the Life Study, it is not heretical.

Here is the extended context of where WL said that Peter was wrong to quote Ps 34. It is Life-Study of the Psalms, msg 16, p. 203-4. I've highlighted the parts I think are beyond the realm of what a Christian should believe:
2. The Way to Fear God
In Psalm 34 David spoke of the way to fear God (vv. 11-16;
1 Pet. 3:10-12). Verses 12-16 say, ‘‘Who is the man who desires
life, / Who loves having days in order to see good? / Guard
your tongue from evil, / And your lips from speaking deceit. /
Turn away from evil and do good; / Seek peace and pursue
it. / The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the righteous, / And
His ears, toward their cry. / The face of Jehovah is against
those who do evil, / To cut off the memory of them from the
earth.’’ These verses were quoted by Peter in 1 Peter 3:10-12,
but Paul did not quote such a word. Paul’s vision of the New
Testament economy was clearer than that of all the other
apostles.
When David asked, ‘‘Who is the man who desires life, /
Who loves having days in order to see good?’’ he was not
talking about the eternal life but about the physical life.
David was a great saint in the Old Testament, and Peter was
one of the great apostles in the New Testament, but I do not
believe that what David said here is spiritual. Even among
us, who dares ask the Lord to give him long days that he
may enjoy many good things?
MESSAGE SIXTEEN 203
David said that if we love having days in order to see
good, we should guard our tongue from evil and our lips from
speaking deceit. But who has ever succeeded in guarding his
tongue from evil? What David spoke here was according to
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Verse 15 says, ‘‘The eyes of Jehovah are set toward the
righteous, / And His ears, toward their cry.’’ But who is
righteous on this earth? Paul said that not one is righteous
(Rom. 3:10), and Isaiah said that our righteousnesses are like
filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). If we depend upon our righteousness
to enjoy God’s eyes and ears being set toward us, we will
enjoy nothing, because we have no righteousness of our own.
Concerning the righteous man, David said, ‘‘He keeps all
his bones; / Not one of them is broken’’ (v. 20). This is a verse
concerning Christ because David was a type of the suffering
Christ. When Christ was on the cross, the soldiers did not
break His legs when they saw that He had already died (John
19:33). John said, ‘‘These things happened that the Scripture
might be fulfilled: ‘No bone of His shall be broken’’’ (v. 36).
There were times in describing his sufferings that David
typified Christ.
When we look at Psalm 34, we can see the mixed
expressions of David’s sentiment. Verse 20 refers to Christ,
but most of this psalm is not according to the tree of life.
Our concept needs to be changed to the divine concept
according to the tree of life. As we grow in Christ, our concept
will be changed.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't think human concepts are necessarily erroneous...just human. I see David's human concepts as God accurately and without error, communicating the truth to us about human nature. David's human concepts show us the law and our inability to keep it. It points us to divine concepts found in Christ in the New Testament. Seeing David's human concepts is more practical to me than pretending everything he wrote is divine.

Something can be a human concept and also be truth and profitable. Like math or verifiable science. Some concepts can be both human and divine, such as things that are witnessed to by our conscience.

Here is an example of what I mean by a statement that is both human and divinely inspired:
I posted the life study of WL on Ps 34. He said that David and Peter were not spiritual to say "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile". WL wrote that this divinely inspired human utterance in both Testaments is not spiritual. If it is not spiritual, how was it that David and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it? WL says that Paul would never say such a thing, but Paul did many times. i.e. Eph 5:29.
Memorizing and singing this psalm helps me to keep my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking guile. It is not an unprofitable human concept as WL said. Neither is it a word about Christ. It is part of God's truth, and we need to live by every word of it. There is no such thing in the Bible as high truth and low truth. There is just "truth" and "the truth". It is a package deal. We need it all.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by something in the Psalms that helped you in the way you describe?

[Drake]

VoiceInWilderness> “Here is the quote about God's speaking in Job:
Much of the speaking in this book is ambiguous. This is the case not only of the speaking of Job, of his friends, and of Elihu, but to some extent it seems to be the case even of the speaking of Jehovah in 40:10-14. (Msg 29, p 155). I had remembered it as something worse. As it is in the Life Study, it is not heretical. “


Let’s deal with Job first.

Those verses are ambiguous.

So what?

Drake

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

VoiceInWilderness> “Here is the quote about God's speaking in Job:
Much of the speaking in this book is ambiguous. This is the case not only of the speaking of Job, of his friends, and of Elihu, but to some extent it seems to be the case even of the speaking of Jehovah in 40:10-14. (Msg 29, p 155). I had remembered it as something worse. As it is in the Life Study, it is not heretical. “


Let’s deal with Job first.

Those verses are ambiguous.

So what?

Drake

So nothing. It's not a problem. I had remembered it as something worse from the live training.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Something can be a human concept and also be truth and profitable. Like math or verifiable science. Some concepts can be both human and divine, such as things that are witnessed to by our conscience.

Here is an example of what I mean by a statement that is both human and divinely inspired:
I posted the life study of WL on Ps 34. He said that David and Peter were not spiritual to say "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile". WL wrote that this divinely inspired human utterance in both Testaments is not spiritual. If it is not spiritual, how was it that David and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it? WL says that Paul would never say such a thing, but Paul did many times. i.e. Eph 5:29.
Memorizing and singing this psalm helps me to keep my tongue from evil and my lips from speaking guile. It is not an unprofitable human concept as WL said. Neither is it a word about Christ. It is part of God's truth, and we need to live by every word of it. There is no such thing in the Bible as high truth and low truth. There is just "truth" and "the truth". It is a package deal. We need it all.

Can you give me an example of what you mean by something in the Psalms that helped you in the way you describe?

1 Peter 3:10 does not match God's economy I think that's why.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

So nothing. It's not a problem. I had remembered it as something worse from the live training.

Lee's more objectionable comments are continually edited out by his editorial staff.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I posted the life study of WL on Ps 34. He said that David and Peter were not spiritual to say "Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking guile". WL wrote that this divinely inspired human utterance in both Testaments is not spiritual. If it is not spiritual, how was it that David and Peter were inspired by the Holy Spirit to write it?

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Peter 3:10 does not match God's economy I think that's why.

God's real economy is what is defined in the whole NT, not parts that a man picks.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

There is no such thing in the Bible as spiritual truth or non-spiritual truth.
If you can find that in the Bible, then I'll stand corrected.
There is just truth. One package deal.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee's more objectionable comments are continually edited out by his editorial staff.

Yes, it was cleaned up. I remember that the elders in Detroit strongly disagreed with the Job training because WL said that God's speaking there was not the word of God.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

With Calvin, it's a matter of debate.

These two articles present it from both sides.

https://postbarthian.com/2014/05/26/...-bible-errors/

https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-P...5-442_JETS.pdf

I believe the original manuscripts are inerrant. I cannot say the same of the multitude of versions and translations, or our modern day understanding of the original manuscripts.

What was more interesting to me was how their view, especially Luther's, seemed to differ from modern Reformers. Tracing the origins and history of biblical inerrancy doctrine seems to lead me closer to American fundamentalism than the actual teachings of early Reformers.

Thanks for those links for both views. Both were spot on for what I had asked.
Based on both articles, Calvin believed strongly in the inerrancy of God's word. The article that argues against that is defining inerrancy in an extremely narrow way, and also plays a little semantics.
I don't think Calvin is very skilled with the OT.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok Steve,

Here is where I think the disconnect lies. Someone being inspired by the Spirit to write something (now in the Bible) does not automatically make the thing written spiritual nor does it make it a spiritual truth.

Drake

But there are other verses which say "thy word is truth" and that Jesus is the "incarnated word". Timothy says "the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword dividing soul from spirit", so rather than a "spiritual truth" I'd say it is a truth that is a two edged sword which divides soul from spirit.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I believe the original manuscripts are inerrant. I cannot say the same of the multitude of versions and translations, or our modern day understanding of the original manuscripts.

Unfortunately we don't have any autograph copies of any of the NT books. So we can't correct the more variants in the over 5500 pieces of NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

Don't trust any scholar(s) that claim they know something about the NT autographs.

To believe they are inerrant is a matter of faith.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Yes, it was cleaned up. I remember that the elders in Detroit strongly disagreed with the Job training because WL said that God's speaking there was not the word of God.

I am now studying the book of Job, and I am finding the hidden things of God everywhere. Just the other day I realized that Job was a righteous man who could not understand why God had forsaken him. The Father allowed him to taste this bitter agony in type -- the exact heart feeling of His Son when He cried out on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" The word of God does not just speak to us in the obvious. Just as David tasted the agonizing pain of the crucified Christ, so did Job.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

There is no such thing in the Bible as spiritual truth or non-spiritual truth.
If you can find that in the Bible, then I'll stand corrected.
There is just truth. One package deal.

Steve,

Let’s start this part of the conversation with Peter since you used him in your second example and his use of Psalm 34.

Peter was a divinely inspired author.

Did Peter express any erroneous human concepts?

Thanks
Drake

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I am now studying the book of Job, and I am finding the hidden things of God everywhere. Just the other day I realized that Job was a righteous man who could not understand why God had forsaken him. The Father allowed him to taste this bitter agony in type -- the exact heart feeling of His Son when He cried out on the cross, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" The word of God does not just speak to us in the obvious. Just as David tasted the agonizing pain of the crucified Christ, so did Job.

Maybe the Jesus story is everybody's story ....

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Steve,

Let’s start this part of the conversation with Peter since you used him in your second example and his use of Psalm 34.

Peter was a divinely inspired author.

Did Peter express any erroneous human concepts?

Thanks
Drake

Does expressing supposed "erroneous human concepts" undermine the truth? And how do we define "erroneous human concepts?"

Does the expression of "erroneous human concepts" disqualify an author or his writings in scripture?

I think this takes us down a very slippery slope indeed. The Apostle Paul apparently expressed a few "erroneous human concepts" himself both before and after his salvation. He was complicit to the stoning of Stephen. A little erroneous? He later celebrated the Passover and then took a vow in Jerusalem, which the Lord did not approve of.

It is WL once again sowing seeds of doubt concerning the word of God. If I remember correctly, it was the serpent in the garden who first started this trend. Once we open up this Pandora's Box of doubt, we will now have inbred suspicions cast on every verse. Does this then reduce us to the safety of "red letter" verses?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But there are other verses which say "thy word is truth" and that Jesus is the "incarnated word". Timothy says "the word of God is sharper than any two edged sword dividing soul from spirit", so rather than a "spiritual truth" I'd say it is a truth that is a two edged sword which divides soul from spirit.

I agree ZNP that one of the primary functions of Gods speaking is to operate within us. All Scripture is profitable in that way also.

Jesus in His divine eternal status as coequal in the Godhead is with and was God as the Word and this Word was incarnated, became flesh, and tabernacled among us. Some who beheld His glory, the glory of an Only Begotten Son, wrote down what they saw and that is included in the record in the Bible, Gods written and documented word to us. When we read the Bible or hear a message from the Bible with the Spirit then the written word becomes the instant word, a sword in function, the rhema, to operate in us, to divide the soul from the spirit.

Christ is the eternal Word, the Bible is the written word, and the Spiriit operates in us as the instant speaking word. These three uses of the “the word” are not interchangeable but all are Gods speaking to us in different formats, means, and ways.

That how i see the broader definition of the word.

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

Sorry zeek. I missed your entry until now.

Rather than have me review and critique what Evangelical said, do you disagree with what I said?

Drake

[Drake]

Originally Posted by awareness

Unfortunately we don't have any autograph copies of any of the NT books. So we can't correct the more variants in the over 5500 pieces of NT manuscripts than there are words in the NT.

Don't trust any scholar(s) that claim they know something about the NT autographs.

To believe they are inerrant is a matter of faith.

Nevertheless awareness, we can trust that God delivers to us His speaking in the canon of Holy Writ we call the Bible. Out of the thousands of MSS’s there is no substantive difference between them.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

I agree ZNP that one of the primary functions of Gods speaking is to operate within us. All Scripture is profitable in that way also.

Jesus in His divine eternal status as coequal in the Godhead is with and was God as the Word and this Word was incarnated, became flesh, and tabernacled among us. Some who beheld His glory, the glory of an Only Begotten Son, wrote down what they saw and that is included in the record in the Bible, Gods written and documented word to us. When we read the Bible or hear a message from the Bible with the Spirit then the written word becomes the instant word, a sword in function, the rhema, to operate in us, to divide the soul from the spirit.

Christ is the eternal Word, the Bible is the written word, and the Spiriit operates in us as the instant speaking word. These three uses of the “the word” are not interchangeable but all are Gods speaking to us in different formats, means, and ways.

That how i see the broader definition of the word.

Drake

Well then I feel this is true of Psalms, Job, Proverbs, and James.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Thanks for those links for both views. Both were spot on for what I had asked.
Based on both articles, Calvin believed strongly in the inerrancy of God's word. The article that argues against that is defining inerrancy in an extremely narrow way, and also plays a little semantics.
I don't think Calvin is very skilled with the OT.

Yes, I know Calvin is not a strong example, but Luther is. I still referred to Calvin because it is a matter of debate.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry zeek. I missed your entry until now.

Rather than have me review and critique what Evangelical said, do you disagree with what I said?

Drake

I'll be happy to answer your question once you have answered mine. I didn't ask you to critique what Evangelical said. I just asked if you agreed with him. You freely express agreement and disagreement on this forum. Here are the questions again:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

I think Witness Lee would have disagreed with Evangelical's statement on questions 1 and 2. I'm less certain what he would have thought about 3. I think he may have recognized that Christians outside the Recovery could be one with the Lord in some matters. Number 4 is a troubling theological paradox that may be inescapable for the believer. So, I ask you again: what do you think?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I'll be happy to answer your question once you have answered mine. I didn't ask you to critique what Evangelical said. I just asked if you agreed with him. You freely express agreement and disagreement on this forum. Here are the questions again:

1) any believer could write a book of the Bible if they wanted to and that many do and that they call them books and sell them in bookstores?

2) the Bible alone is insufficient?

3) only the Recovery knows about being one spirit with the Lord and what that means?

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

I think Witness Lee would have disagreed with Evangelical's statement on questions 1 and 2. I'm less certain what he would have thought about 3. I think he may have recognized that Christians outside the Recovery could be one with the Lord in some matters. Number 4 is a troubling theological paradox that may be inescapable for the believer. So, I ask you again: what do you think?

Zeek,

this was for discussion in Alternative Views, not on the Open Forum. If this can be further discussed there, would be better. You have the wrong context about number 3)

The first and second point was also taken out of context. You are missing the "Perhaps because.. " on point 2, which is offered as an open possibility for discussion and not an absolute statement of belief.

Points 1 and 2 are based on the following observations:

No one writes books about other books or topics which are finalized and completed. It implies that the Bible alone is insufficient.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by zeek

Okay Drake, do you agree with Evangelical that:

4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?

This throws me off because I would not call Judas's betrayal of Christ an "error in the Bible". I would call it an "error recorded and portrayed in the Bible". These are two vastly different things. There are records and stories in the Bible of the errors people have made, but that isn't what most would describe as "an error in the Bible".

Unless you mean it is an error that it is recorded in the Bible at all.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This throws me off because I would not call Judas's betrayal of Christ an "error in the Bible". I would call it an "error recorded and portrayed in the Bible". These are two vastly different things. There are records and stories in the Bible of the errors people have made, but that isn't what most would describe as "an error in the Bible".

Unless you mean it is an error that it is recorded in the Bible at all.

Zeek misquoted me. That is not what I wrote at all.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Zeek,

this was for discussion in Alternative Views, not on the Open Forum. If this can be further discussed there, would be better. You have the wrong context about number 3)

The first and second point was also taken out of context. You are missing the "Perhaps because.. " on point 2, which is offered as an open possibility for discussion and not an absolute statement of belief.

Points 1 and 2 are based on the following observations:

No one writes books about other books or topics which are finalized and completed. It implies that the Bible alone is insufficient.

Okay thank you for the clarification. You weren't stating that the Bible is insufficient. My mistake. But your statement is still untrue. People write books about completed books all the time.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Zeek misquoted me. That is not what I wrote at all.

Here's an exact quote of what you stated cut and pasted:

"Even the errors are divinely inspired. Just like Judas's betrayal of Christ. God can inspire human mistakes for His purpose."

Here's my paraphrase of what you said in the form of a question:

"4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?"

I added "in the Bible" to supply context without quoting your entire post and "because" to make a causal connection that think you were implying. You do admit you were talking about the Bible, don't you?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The problem with WL's treatment of Psalms (and Proverbs, Job, James and Peter) is not that he missed places that were about Christ.

The problem is that WL taught, especially later in his life, that if the Bible does not emphasize what WL emphasizes, then that part of the Bible is erroneous human concept.

There are many parts of the Bible, including Psalms that are not about Christ or the church. Most of Psalms show by experience how to live a godly, humble, down-to-earth, honest life. This is part of a balanced diet of the truth. WL said that such verses or whole Psalms or whole books were not the word of God, but are human concepts contrary to God's truth. I think this was WL's greatest error.

This whole thread took an interesting tangent with a great discussion about the inerrancy of scripture. But, I was struck and helped by the above post because when I reread some of “the go to verses” in the New Testament (including those cited in this thread) they support this thought. First here are links to the verses I checked:

https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/24.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-11.htm

I was struck with this. In Luke 24 Jesus was able to point out during part of a 7 mile walk (say 6 hours?) the parts of scripture (Old Testament of course) that were about himself. Then what exactly do the other verses say scripture is for?
“profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness” and “these things happened to them as types and were written for our admonition..”, they don’t say “are all about Christ” nor “are all about Christ and the church”, nor “are all about God’s economy”.

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating. Thanks VoiceInWilderness!
No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating.

No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

I never said "every scripture is about Christ", or if I did I mis-spoke. What I said in the first couple of posts on this thread was that there is probably "more Christ" in the first 21 Psalms than merely Psalm 2,8, and 16.

I pointed out Psalm 3 and Psalm 6 and Psalm 18 as examples.

Drake and Evangelical will point out Job's companions speaking "naturally" &c; I likewise pointed out Manoah and his wife. But that was never the issue of this thread: it was rather, are 18 of the first 21 Psalms likewise "natural human concept"? That was my inquiry.

The NT reception gives us ample latitude to "see Jesus" a la Hebrews 2:9, in the types and figures of the OT. The pious Jew who loves God's word, who obeys, and is rewarded - "He rescued me (Christ) because He delighted in me" is an obvious example (from Psalm 18).

But I never insinuated that every word of Psalms, or Scripture, must be "Christ". The Psalmist writing in Psalm 51, "In sin I was conceived" doesn't sound like Christ to me.

To re-iterated my theme, WL departed from the apostolic precedent set in Acts 2 by Peter and Acts 13 by Paul in finding "Christ" in the Psalms. This pattern of reception and usage was similarly followed in Hebrews, Peter's epistle, and the four Gospels. The sinner David, in his struggle to find God, was a picture of the coming "Seed of David". And Asaph, Lemuel, etc. These "godly sentiments" were fulfilled by Jesus the Nazarene.

But no, not every single word has to be "Christ". I don't think that I ever suggested that. What I am saying is that there is a pattern of reception and usage in the NT, and we shouldn't be so quick, as WL was, to dismiss the pattern given us by the apostles and writers of the NT.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This throws me off because I would not call Judas's betrayal of Christ an "error in the Bible". I would call it an "error recorded and portrayed in the Bible". These are two vastly different things. There are records and stories in the Bible of the errors people have made, but that isn't what most would describe as "an error in the Bible".

Unless you mean it is an error that it is recorded in the Bible at all.

Great points, Trapped.

Failures, even by great men of God, are recorded in the Bible for our admonition and encouragement, and that's why Paul tells us that "all scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (II Tim 3.16)

Even the betrayal by Judas, formerly Jesus' "familiar friend," (Psalm 41.9; 55.12-14) a trusted companion, warns us that it is never wise while following the Lord to compromise the truth, accept short term gains, condemn an innocent man, bear false witness, succumbing to filthy lucre, saving one's own skin -- all of which I saw when LSM's Blendeds held their Kangaroo Court at Whistler Resort to condemn and quarantine Titus Chu of Cleveland.

The Blendeds would be wise to learn all the lessons of Judas.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said "every scripture is about Christ", or if I did I mis-spoke. What I said in the first couple of posts on this thread was that there is probably "more Christ" in the first 21 Psalms than merely Psalm 2,8, and 16.

Actually, what you said is that all a Psalms portray Christ. I responded to this in post #717.

Aron, you reserve the right to change your mind or admit you misspoke but it’s not accurate to say you never said it. Why is that important? Well, you staked out a position and we all met you there to discuss it. Thinking you had mistakenly and inadvertently driven a peg in the wrong place, I asked you at one point if your disagreement with Brother Lee was that you saw Christ in the Psalms in more places than he did because I intimated that if that was the case then, “so what?”. That was your out..... I was facilitating a path for you to a more reasonable and moderate position. I’m glad you have reconsidered and backed off that ardent and unreasonable stake in the ground.

So then, if your objection is that you see Christ in more Psalms than Brother Lee did then I ask again......so what?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Well, you staked out a position and we all met you there to discuss it.

The position I staked out was that the ministry of Witness Lee deviated strongly from apostolic precedents in its reception of the Psalms, calling 18 of the first 21 psalms "natural human concepts"; I asked where was the NT precedent for this kind of wholesale dismissal of scripture? No answer. Instead I get a "Who cares".

Every fall, the LSM-captive assemblies send out tens of thousands of flyers to college freshmen, hoping to lure them into the thrall of WL's ministry. Perhaps some of these students will find the non-answer from the LSM apologist on this site as telling as I do.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

I asked where was the NT precedent for this kind of wholesale dismissal of scripture? No answer. Instead I get a "Who cares".

Yeah, he's willing to dismiss Lee's attack on the authenticity of Scripture, but when I mention the differences in the manuscripts, he accuses me of attacking the authenticity of scripture. And mine don't even question the authenticity of scripture, just the manuscripts.

And then Untohim deletes my posts, or moves them to Tartarus.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Here's an exact quote of what you stated cut and pasted:

"Even the errors are divinely inspired. Just like Judas's betrayal of Christ. God can inspire human mistakes for His purpose."

Here's my paraphrase of what you said in the form of a question:

"4) even the errors in the Bible are divinely inspired just like Judas's betrayal of Christ because God can inspire human mistakes for his purpose?"

I added "in the Bible" to supply context without quoting your entire post and "because" to make a causal connection that think you were implying. You do admit you were talking about the Bible, don't you?

Yes it is about the Bible but you joined the sentences together and it sounds as if Judas's betrayal of Christ is a biblical error. I used two sentences to try and avoid that confusion.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes it is about the Bible but you joined the sentences together and it sounds as if Judas's betrayal of Christ is a biblical error. I used two sentences to try and avoid that confusion.

Did God inspire the devil during the 40 day trial in the wilderness, when speaking to Jesus?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did God inspire the devil during the 40 day trial in the wilderness, when speaking to Jesus?

That's the kind of question I was hoping to avoid and sounds like a great topic on degenerate views.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That's the kind of question I was hoping to avoid and sounds like a great topic on degenerate views.

lol ... Now, now. Be good.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

The position I staked out was that the ministry of Witness Lee deviated strongly from apostolic precedents in its reception of the Psalms, calling 18 of the first 21 psalms "natural human concepts"; I asked where was the NT precedent for this kind of wholesale dismissal of scripture? No answer. Instead I get a "Who cares".

“dismissal”? That is a synonym for your accusation that Brother Lee “lopped off” Scripture which you already recanted.

“...the human concept of the holy writers was produced out of their good nature created by God, formed with the traditions of their holy race, constituted with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, promoted by their practice of a holy life, and uttered out of their holy sentiments and impressions.”

You may disagree with Brother Lee’s POV but he never wholesale dismissed scripture. The explanation he provides above (Psalm 1: Footnote 1) attests to his careful consideration of cutting straight the word of God, the book of Psalms, not dismissing it.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

“dismissal”? That is a synonym for your accusation that Brother Lee “lopped off” Scripture which you already recanted.

“...the human concept of the holy writers was produced out of their good nature created by God, formed with the traditions of their holy race, constituted with the teachings of the Holy Scriptures, promoted by their practice of a holy life, and uttered out of their holy sentiments and impressions.”

You may disagree with Brother Lee’s POV but he never wholesale dismissed scripture. The explanation he provides above (Psalm 1: Footnote 1) attests to his careful consideration of cutting straight the word of God, the book of Psalms, not dismissing it.

Drake

You must be the only LC member who actually reads all the fine print.

Most LC members only remember not to read the book of James, and numerous Psalms, Proverbs, etc.

Why even read the Bible when those HWfMR's occupy all their time? And all those "glorious green books" on their shelves collecting dust

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Yes it is about the Bible but you joined the sentences together and it sounds as if Judas's betrayal of Christ is a biblical error. I used two sentences to try and avoid that confusion.

I see. Well once again, here's your statement verbatim:

"Even the errors are divinely inspired. Just like Judas's betrayal of Christ. God can inspire human mistakes for His purpose."

So, to try to paraphrase, once again, first you're saying that mistakes in the Biblical text were God-breathed. Is that right? Second, you're saying that Judas's betrayal of Christ, not merely the account of it in the Bible, was God-breathed. Correct? Third, you're saying that the God-breathed errors in the Bible are the same as the God-breathed crime of Judas. Do I have that right?

[awareness]

Lopped off just hit my funny bone. Thomas Jefferson lopped off scripture, by literally cutting and pasting.

Did Lee do that? Did he cut the human verses out of the RcV?

I remember the first time Lee shocked me. At a conference he got so worked up about it "not being about the Bible" that, he tore one up on stage and stopped on it.

Now that's some pretty serious lopping off of scripture.

And a good point ... even if Bibliolatrist's don't like it.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

I see. Well once again, here's your statement verbatim:

"Even the errors are divinely inspired. Just like Judas's betrayal of Christ. God can inspire human mistakes for His purpose."

So, to try to paraphrase, once again, first you're saying that mistakes in the Biblical text were God-breathed. Is that right? Second, you're saying that Judas's betrayal of Christ, not merely the account of it in the Bible, was God-breathed. Correct? Third, you're saying that the God-breathed errors in the Bible are the same as the God-breathed crime of Judas. Do I have that right?

I'm confused by your analysis. I will write again what I meant:

We can trust the original text is without error because...

If there are any errors in the original text, they were there by God's sovereign will.

Just because a human makes a mistake (like Judas), does not mean that mistake is outside of God's will. Mistakes do not mean we cannot trust the original manuscripts.

Now at this point someone might wonder - did God cause Judas to betray Christ and Judas was "doing God's will". Well no, I don't subscribe to that gnostic idea.

What I believe is that Judas made a mistake (and God knew he would make a mistake) and God used that mistake for His purpose. Similarly, God knew if the apostle Paul would make a mistake in the original text, and God would use that for His purpose, somehow.

So any mistakes by the apostle Paul or Moses, God will use for His purpose.

An example of mistakes I can give is about science. It has mistakes about science, for example, such as the Egyptian cosmology, but that's okay because God used Moses's Egyptian view of science for His purpose - to explain to Job how He created the Earth, for example. For us today, it makes nice poetry, God hammering out the bronze dome of the Earth and putting pillars underneath it so it cannot be moved. The reality is the Earth moves and wobbles all over the place. Moses would fail a science test at school today.

Egyptian cosmology in the bible is an example of an "inspired error" but because of confusion around that terminology ("does God inspire errors?"), I prefer to say - "errors by a fallible human who was inspired".

Moses was inspired, He communicated the truths that God wanted Him to communicate accurately and without error, but he also communicated errors about science, to him they were not mistakes but the best of his knowledge at the time, to us they are errors.

[zeek]

Now you've changed your position. God using a mistake as you are claiming now is different from God inspiring a mistake as you were claiming before. You went from radical to conservative in one post. I don't think the moderately conservatives here are going to have a problem with your position on this issue now. Those that maintain that the Bible is scientifically accurate will take issue with your statement about Moses and the Egyptian cosmology though.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

Now you've changed your position. God using a mistake as you are claiming now is different from God inspiring a mistake as you were claiming before. You went from radical to conservative in one post. I don't think the moderately conservatives here are going to have a problem with your position on this issue now. Those that maintain that the Bible is scientifically accurate will take issue with your statement about Moses and the Egyptian cosmology though.

Not quite "changed" - I said one thing from two different perspectives. But I was only saying one thing - mistakes in the Bible (radically inspired or moderately conservatively used by God) are there because they are supposed to be (or allowed to be). It's another topic about God's sovereignty.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not quite "changed" - I said one thing from two different perspectives. But I was only saying one thing - mistakes in the Bible (radically inspired or moderately conservatively used by God) are there because they are supposed to be (or allowed to be). It's another topic about God's sovereignty.

To say that God inspired a mistake as opposed to that He used a mistake that was inspired by Satan or sin or human fallibility is not to say one thing from two different perspectives. A child could see the difference.I'm surprised you can't. In one case it's being asserted that God is the source of the error. In the other, God is using evil as an occasion for good as Jesus instructed us all to do following God's example.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by zeek

To say that God inspired a mistake as opposed to that He used a mistake that was inspired by Satan or sin or human fallibility is not to say one thing from two different perspectives. A child could see the difference.I'm surprised you can't. In one case it's being asserted that God is the source of the error. In the other, God is using evil as an occasion for good as Jesus instructed us all to do following God's example.

Allow me to explain:

God caused/inspired a mistake - this is the Calvinist perspective
God used a mistake or "allowed it to happen" - this is the Arminian perspective

These are two different perspectives about God's sovereignty. How do you see it? You might not see the two different perspectives if you are already decided on a position.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Allow me to explain:

God caused/inspired a mistake - this is the Calvinist perspective
God used a mistake or "allowed it to happen" - this is the Arminian perspective

These are two different perspectives about God's sovereignty. How do you see it? You might not see the two different perspectives if you are already decided on a position.

How did they know?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Allow me to explain:

God caused/inspired a mistake - this is the Calvinist perspective
God used a mistake or "allowed it to happen" - this is the Arminian perspective

These are two different perspectives about God's sovereignty. How do you see it? You might not see the two different perspectives if you are already decided on a position.

Wwutt? You got it wrong there pal.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Wwutt? You got it wrong there pal.

Constructive criticism would be helpful. You're the Reformed expert here Your chance to shine bro.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I remember the first time Lee shocked me. At a conference he got so worked up about it "not being about the Bible" that, he tore one up on stage and stopped on it.

Now that's some pretty serious lopping off of scripture.

When was that?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Steve,

Let’s start this part of the conversation with Peter since you used him in your second example and his use of Psalm 34.

Peter was a divinely inspired author.

Did Peter express any erroneous human concepts?

Thanks
Drake

Peter did not write any erroneous human concepts into his epistles which are part of the Bible, nor in his messages in Acts.

Of course Peter as a Christian human being said things that were wrong, but not as a writer of the Bible.

Did Bro Lee say any erroneous human concepts?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by JJ

This whole thread took an interesting tangent with a great discussion about the inerrancy of scripture. But, I was struck and helped by the above post because when I reread some of “the go to verses” in the New Testament (including those cited in this thread) they support this thought. First here are links to the verses I checked:

https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/24.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/3-16.htm

https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-11.htm

I was struck with this. In Luke 24 Jesus was able to point out during part of a 7 mile walk (say 6 hours?) the parts of scripture (Old Testament of course) that were about himself. Then what exactly do the other verses say scripture is for?
“profitable for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness” and “these things happened to them as types and were written for our admonition..”, they don’t say “are all about Christ” nor “are all about Christ and the church”, nor “are all about God’s economy”.

I don’t know about you, but I find that liberating. Thanks VoiceInWilderness!
No more hunting every scripture to see how it is about Christ (what I’ve been burdened with).

You're very welcome bro. Thank you for you comments.
I actually found that truth liberating also.
You might like the song I made out of Psalm 26 about the working together of faith and works.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_26.htm

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

When was that?

1970-1971 ... some where then. It was a big conference. Maybe The Kingdom Conference. It's been a long time. I remember it because it blew my mind. I loved it.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

You're very welcome bro. Thank you for you comments.
I actually found that truth liberating also.
You might like the song I made out of Psalm 26 about the working together of faith and works.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_26.htm

Wow! Thanks for sending the link to your web site. I’m blown away. Looks like an amazing resource.

Peace and grace to you in Christ.

JJ

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I remember the first time Lee shocked me. At a conference he got so worked up about it "not being about the Bible" that, he tore one up on stage and stopped on it.

Now that's some pretty serious lopping off of scripture.

I saw, and heard of, similar expressions by WL, even if not so blatant and shocking as what you saw. How to characterize this? Perhaps "dismissed" would be better. Or "disregarded", or "minimized". How about "rendered to no effect"? Or Lee's favorite word, "nullified"? How about, "Lee's teachings nullified, on a wholesale basis, the divine basis of OT scripture in his exposition of the Psalms?

One word often used is "reception", as in "the reception of Psalms in the Book of Hebrews". There's a pretty good book on that, by Gert Steyn.

https://www.amazon.com/Psalms-Hebrew.../dp/0567198847

My point has been this: When you look at the pattern of reception of the Psalms in the NT, where's a precedent to call 18 of the first 21 Psalms "natural human concepts", "mixed sentiments", "fallen" and so forth? Where's the invitation to do this based on the pattern of NT reception of these texts?

Apparently, WL took it upon himself; the chief basis seems to be Luther having called James "an epistle of straw", a point that Luther later reversed. Other than that, it was his own (fallen human) logic that led him there. We've shown numerous examples where this is self-contradictory. Talk about natural concepts!

Where's the NT basis to reject 18 of the first 21 Psalms as "natural", i.e. not divinely inspired revelation, a trend that WL kept up through the whole 150 chapters? And don't use Luther as your source - use some apostolic basis for your interpretation. Paul wrote that the Psalms were "words of Christ" and said you'd be "filled in Spirit" singing them - where does he or any other NT writer or speaker say that they are "natural" and "fallen"? We see plenty of examples in the NT of using Psalms for inspiration; where does the NT writer or speaker tell us to avoid it for its natural concepts?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

1970-1971 ... some where then. It was a big conference. Maybe The Kingdom Conference. It's been a long time. I remember it because it blew my mind. I loved it.

Awareness, From what I know of WL this could not have happened.

I think what maybe happened to Christine Ford's memory has happened to your memory of this incident. Maybe someone else did this. Or maybe WL tore up something else.

I was not saved until 1975, in the church in Cleveland, so that was before my time.

There are a couple bros here in Detroit who were in the LC before 1971. I will ask them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Awareness, From what I know of WL this could not have happened.

Well if you've ever tried to tear a Whitepages up, you'll know that you just can't tear books up willy-nilly (unless you're superman). And Lee may have been many things, but he wasn't that.

Did he tear some pages out of what everyone saw to be a Bible, and throw it on the floor, and jump on it? Yes he did. And there's no way to confuse bro Lee with any others. It happened. I saw it.

I was impressed. I grew up Bible! Bible! Bible! and more Bible! I knew there was more. And Lee was pointing to that. My being was filled with AMENS!

I remember it well. It was exciting.

Originally Posted by ViW

I think what maybe happened to Christine Ford's memory has happened to your memory of this incident.

Haha ... good one brother.

Originally Posted by ViW

Maybe someone else did this. Or maybe WL tore up something else.

And ... no insult meant ... but maybe what you think you know about Lee is wrong.

Originally Posted by ViW

I was not saved until 1975, in the church in Cleveland, so that was before my time.

And I didn't know Lee before he came to America. Face it, we don't know, and can't know, the entire Lee. We only know what little we saw of him ... at most the last two decades of his life. I would have never thought Lee would compromise his own ministry, to cover for his bad boys, but he did. And I could go on.

Originally Posted by ViW

There are a couple bros here in Detroit who were in the LC before 1971. I will ask them.

Check with Aron. I think he mentioned seeing something like it.

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well if you've ever tried to tear a Whitepages up, you'll know that you just can't tear books up willy-nilly (unless you're superman). And Lee may have been many things, but he wasn't that.

Did he tear some pages out of what everyone saw to be a Bible, and throw it on the floor, and jump on it? Yes he did. And there's no way to confuse bro Lee with any others. It happened. I saw it..

While learning CPR Witness Lee actually brought the practice dummy to life.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well if you've ever tried to tear a Whitepages up, you'll know that you just can't tear books up willy-nilly (unless you're superman). And Lee may have been many things, but he wasn't that.

Did he tear some pages out of what everyone saw to be a Bible, and throw it on the floor, and jump on it? Yes he did. And there's no way to confuse bro Lee with any others. It happened. I saw it.

I was impressed. I grew up Bible! Bible! Bible! and more Bible! I knew there was more. And Lee was pointing to that. My being was filled with AMENS!

I remember it well. It was exciting.

If Lee did do that, there's nothing wrong with it - Moses smashed clay tablets chiseled by God Himself.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Lee did do that, there's nothing wrong with it - Moses smashed clay tablets chiseled by God Himself.

Whatever Evangelical this is I love your honesty. "If Lee did it there is nothing wrong with it". Does your opinion extend to everything Lee has done?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

Whatever Evangelical this is I love your honesty. "If Lee did it there is nothing wrong with it". Does your opinion extend to everything Lee has done?

I evaluate everything on its merits. If Lee did that and if it was wrong, He more than made up for it by writing a new bible version and hundreds of books.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I evaluate everything on its merits. If Lee did that and if it was wrong, He more than made up for it by writing a new bible version and hundreds of books.

Keep it coming brother! So Lee paid for his sins by writing a new version of the Bible? Actually it was Kerry and associates who wrote your Recovery version. Actually God wrote the Bible.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by HERn

Keep it coming brother! So Lee paid for his sins by writing a new version of the Bible? Actually it was Kerry and associates who wrote your Recovery version. Actually God wrote the Bible.

Just like Moses receiving a new set of stone tablets to replace the ones he broke.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just like Moses receiving a new set of stone tablets to replace the ones he broke.

Yeah, just like it. Tomorrow you're going to get schooled by the smarter Evangelical.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I evaluate everything on its merits. If Lee did that and if it was wrong,

I didn't think there was anything wrong with it. I thought his point was valid and right on.

Now, those that have idolized the Bible won't agree.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well if you've ever tried to tear a Whitepages up, you'll know that you just can't tear books up willy-nilly (unless you're superman). And Lee may have been many things, but he wasn't that.

Did he tear some pages out of what everyone saw to be a Bible, and throw it on the floor, and jump on it? Yes he did. And there's no way to confuse bro Lee with any others. It happened. I saw it.

I was impressed. I grew up Bible! Bible! Bible! and more Bible! I knew there was more. And Lee was pointing to that. My being was filled with AMENS!

I remember it well. It was exciting.


Haha ... good one brother.


And ... no insult meant ... but maybe what you think you know about Lee is wrong.


And I didn't know Lee before he came to America. Face it, we don't know, and can't know, the entire Lee. We only know what little we saw of him ... at most the last two decades of his life. I would have never thought Lee would compromise his own ministry, to cover for his bad boys, but he did. And I could go on.


Check with Aron. I think he mentioned seeing something like it.

I checked with a brother that was at the Kingdom Training. He said that did not happen. He also said WL would never have done that.

Your testimony is completely uncorroborated.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I checked with a brother that was at the Kingdom Training. He said that did not happen. He also said WL would never have done that.

Your testimony is completely uncorroborated.

Did I mention that some wouldn't like it?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did I mention that some wouldn't like it?

Like Christine Ford's testimony, that doesn't make it true or false.
It needs some corroboration.
Who was in the meeting with you? How did you get there? How did you get home? What city was it in?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Like Christine Ford's testimony, that doesn't make it true or false.
It needs some corroboration.
Who was in the meeting with you? How did you get there? How did you get home? What city was it in?

Goodness brother. There is no YouTube of it. Why is this troubling you so?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Goodness brother. There is no YouTube of it. Why is this troubling you so?

Because it appears to me that you have lost your faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Because it appears to me that you have lost your faith.

I don't follow brother. How does that have anything to do with my faith?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't follow brother. How does that have anything to do with my faith?

To be saved we need to be assured of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. If you don't know that the Bible is true, how can you keep that assurance?

When the Bible warns us not to commit certain sins, how can you stand firm, when you may think, those warnings were just Peter's wrong human concepts?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

To be saved we need to be assured of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. If you don't know that the Bible is true, how can you keep that assurance?

When the Bible warns us not to commit certain sins, how can you stand firm, when you may think, those warnings were just Peter's wrong human concepts?

I don't think I have a dog in the fight concerning the wrong human concepts claim. You must be confusing me with some other Lee supporter out here.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't think I have a dog in the fight concerning the wrong human concepts claim. You must be confusing me with some other Lee supporter out here.

What I understood is that you went way beyond those guys in saying that the Bible has errors.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Like Christine Ford's testimony, that doesn't make it true or false.
It needs some corroboration.
Who was in the meeting with you? How did you get there? How did you get home? What city was it in?

But he doesn't fly in airplanes any more and can't figure out which front door to use.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

What I understood is that you went way beyond those guys in saying that the Bible has errors.

I think it's possible that you are confusing the Bible with the manuscripts. And you are right. I have lost my faith ... in man ... cuz he tampered with the manuscripts of the NT, or was a clumsy scribe with the Word of God.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I think it's possible that you are confusing the Bible with the manuscripts. And you are right. I have lost my faith ... in man ... cuz he tampered with the manuscripts of the NT, or was a clumsy scribe with the Word of God.

It sounds like you are saying that God was unable to preserve His own word, which He promised to preserve.
Ps 12:6 Pure words are the words of the LORD,
tried as silver is tried,
tested in a furnace of earth,
seven times purified.
7 Thou shalt keep them and preserve them,
from this generation forever.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

It sounds like you are saying that God was unable to preserve His own word, which He promised to preserve.
Ps 12:6 Pure words are the words of the LORD,
tried as silver is tried,
tested in a furnace of earth,
seven times purified.
7 Thou shalt keep them and preserve them,
from this generation forever.

Right on topic. Interesting verses. Aron started this thread concerning Lee's claim that, some of the Psalms aren't the word of the Lord.

And that's possible because, according to the Christian view of the Bible, God gave man a free will. That means scribes have free will and can, if so inclined, change what's being copied, or transcribed. The overwhelming evidence is, over the years, after copies after copies, we find, that has happened. And we don't have any original - autograph - copies of the books of the Bible, to be able to get at the pure - untampered with - word of God.

The Bible tells us to put our faith in God, and to not put our trust in man. And, sorry, but the Bible has been man-handled, by men of free will.

Thanks for the great verses brother. Does Lee consider them of the Lord, or of man?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

It sounds like you are saying that God was unable to preserve His own word, which He promised to preserve.
Ps 12:6 Pure words are the words of the LORD,
tried as silver is tried,
tested in a furnace of earth,
seven times purified.
7 Thou shalt keep them and preserve them,
from this generation forever.

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has forever proven God's promise to preserve His word as an indelible witness to all mankind.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has forever proven God's promise to preserve His word as an indelible witness to all mankind.

Well He didn't preserve that much in the Dead Sea Scrolls ; 25% of the OT, and none of the New Testament was preserved. And if we're talking God preserving "His Word," then we have to honor His preservation of the Nag Hammadi finds ; the so called Gnostic writings. God preserved them.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well He didn't preserve that much in the Dead Sea Scrolls ; 25% of the OT, and none of the New Testament was preserved. And if we're talking God preserving "His Word," then we have to honor His preservation of the Nag Hammadi finds ; the so called Gnostic writings. God preserved them.

The 25% of OT preserved in the DSS, 1,000 years older than the oldest Masoretic text, agrees basically word for word with the Masoretic text. It is proof how God has preserved His word.

Awareness, you say you have faith in God, not man, but the God we have faith in is defined by the Bible.

Do you know for sure that the Son of God became a man, died for our sins, and rose bodily from the dead? If you know that for sure, then how do you know it for sure? If you don't know that, then you have lost your faith.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The 25% of OT preserved in the DSS, 1,000 years older than the oldest Masoretic text, agrees basically word for word with the Masoretic text. It is proof how God has preserved His word.

Awareness, you say you have faith in God, not man, but the God we have faith in is defined by the Bible.

Do you know for sure that the Son of God became a man, died for our sins, and rose bodily from the dead? If you know that for sure, then how do you know it for sure? If you don't know that, then you have lost your faith.

You are right. We wouldn't know about Jesus without the Bible. There's no other outside evidence of him ... except a few references like in Josephus, and even that has been meddled with ... and man-handled.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I checked with a brother that was at the Kingdom Training. He said that did not happen. He also said WL would never have done that. Your testimony is completely uncorroborated.

Yep. I never saw Brother Lee do that or anything like it. That would be way out of character.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yep. I never saw Brother Lee do that or anything like it. That would be way out of character.

Except for those who attended the Rosemead Conference referenced in John Ingalls' book Speaking The Truth in Love.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 42:7 Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me.

Jonah 2:3 You hurled me into the depths, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me.

It seems either Jonah saw himself living out the psalmist's vision, or vice versa. And the image of being buried in deep waters appears fairly often in the Psalms for some reason.

Thus we can see two textual witnesses of Jesus' experience within the earth. "Just as Jonah was 3 days and nights in the belly of the whale, so shall be the Son of Man three days and nights in the heart of the earth."

Arguably those are the three most important days in history. So to have a kind of corroborated record, even if it's in impressionistic poetry, should be of some interest.

Now, should we reject the poetic "water burial" images in Psalm 42 (and Psalm 18) as "natural" because the psalmist was a sinner, or because he expressed contempt for his enemies instead of blessing them? Because the NT receives similar verses as indicative of Christ. See e.g. Psalm 45 "your arrows are sharp in the heart of your enemies". And David's failure (to resurrect in Psalm 16) being explained by Peter in Acts 2 as overcome by his vision of the promised Seed. David's failure does not preclude Christ's victory.

So if we insist on rejection, does our rejection follow the pattern of reception in the NT, both in gospel, even at Jesus' mouth, and later in Acts and epistles? If we are "adding to God's word" as Evangelical says, then isn't calling the two living birds of Leviticus 14 "Christ" because they are clean and fly above the earth also "adding to God's word"?

WL did stuff selectively.. when he did it, it was okay, but when someone else did it they were "departing from the pattern of the NT" or some such.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

Yep. I never saw Brother Lee do that or anything like it. That would be way out of character.

That settles it. His not seeing trumps my seeing. And Drake must be Ron Kangas, or someone that's spent more time with Lee than Kangas, to really know what's out of character for Lee --- which means we're in the presence of a blended brother.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

The Life Study is really ugly. I think WL had lost a lot of his mind by the time he gave the Psalms messages, but we in the LC were still following him blindly.

I would be far more lenient on W. Lee (and all elderly in general) if the decline we witnessed were simply mental in nature.

Lee protected his profligate son Philip, who regularly molested the LSM staff, by libelously attacking the credibility of life-long colleagues and co-workers. Then he claimed his ministry reached the "high peak" by purporting that his loyal followers were "becoming God."

I would suggest that this was not a failure of the mind, but of the conscience. Paul warned us to "hold faith and a good conscience" lest we become "shipwrecked." (I Tim 1.19)

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

That settles it. His not seeing trumps my seeing. ...

I saw WL mock singing the psalms, "His mercy endureth forever" from the podium. He said it was "low". Then he said, "why not sing something from Ephesians?" (No, I don't remember what year. But I saw it and it's been corroborated on this forum).

News flash, the so - called "high peak epistles" of Ephesians and Corinthians advise the saints to sing the Psalms. So why sing Ephesians if you don't follow it?

And didn't someone see WL spit on Lang's book on the podium? Remember that the man was a 'charismatic' - a showman - who loved tossing red meat to his audience, which would then be toned down, sorry 'polished', by his editors before being printed, making him seem the picture of rectitude and decorum. Nigel Tomes had a thread on this.

So I wouldn't put it past him.

And yes, he mocked the psalm-singers. He didn't just say, "Don't sing the Psalms", he imitated them in a shaming way. Then he said, "Better to sing from Ephesians".

I know Drake may say, "So what" to my points. But maybe God will say "so what" to WL's points - he'll say, "Didn't I give 2,486 messages? Didn't I set up 425 churches, (only 85 of which 'rebelled')? Didn't my completed works fill 130 volumes and 3,296 pages?"

God will say, "so what"

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I saw WL mock singing the psalms, "His mercy endureth forever" from the podium. He said it was "low". Then he said, "why not sing something from Ephesians?" (No, I don't remember what year. But I saw it and it's been corroborated on this forum).

I remember hearing that too. Lee used that to mock all Christianity for supposedly only knowing God's O.T. "mercy."

Originally Posted by aron

News flash, the so - called "high peak epistles" of Ephesians and Corinthians advise the saints to sing the Psalms. So why sing Ephesians if you don't follow it? And yes, he mocked the psalm-singers. He didn't just say, "Don't sing the Psalms", he imitated them in a shaming way. Then he said, "Better to sing from Ephesians".

Lee called Gal-Eph-Phil-Col the "Heart of the divine revelation," and even put these four books together in a pamphlet. I am perfectly fine with that, but for him to constantly promote "being filled in spirit," and dodge this serious N.T. exhortation about the Psalms (Eph 5.18-19) was a little crazy.

In 1978 Lee taught, "Whatever is in the Bible ... is the Word of God."

In 1995 Lee taught, "Not every word in the Bible is the word of God."

Originally Posted by aron

And didn't someone see WL spit on Lang's book on the podium? Remember that the man was a 'charismatic' - a showman - who loved tossing red meat to his audience, which would then be toned down, sorry 'polished', by his editors before being printed, making him seem the picture of rectitude and decorum. Nigel Tomes had a thread on this.

Hundreds saw Lee spit at that Rosemead Conference. It was a defining moment for many, as noted in Ingalls' account. Prior to that Lee was a vocal supporter of G.H. Lang as Tomes wrote. This becomes strong evidence to refute LSM's contention that the "New Way" was only Lee's burden to evangelize the whole earth. Actually, no, his goal was the takeover of every LC. Lang's book The Churches of God exposes those intentions, based on Exclusive Brethren actions of the 19th Century.

[JJ]

Thanks guys for your good counsel to awareness. A hearty amen to it!

Also, I was at the “training” that Witness Lee mocked some of the saints for singing “His mercy endures forever” from the Psalms. So I am a witness of that. He wanted them to sing from Ephesians and other epistles of Paul and his footnotes on them instead. So, the next training (on Corinthians) saints had prepared some songs that used verses from Corinthians and others from his footnotes. I never heard “His mercy endures forever” sung again.

JJ

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

Thanks guys for your good counsel to awareness. A hearty amen to it!

Also, I was at the “training” that Witness Lee mocked some of the saints for singing “His mercy endures forever” from the Psalms. So I am a witness of that. He wanted them to sing from Ephesians and other epistles of Paul and his footnotes on them instead. So, the next training (on Corinthians) saints had prepared some songs that used verses from Corinthians and others from his footnotes. I never heard “His mercy endures forever” sung again.

JJ

JJ thanks for speaking up. The more the LSM apologists try to assert something never happened, the more people need to say, "No, something did happen here".

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee called Gal-Eph-Phil-Col the "Heart of the divine revelation," and even put these four books together in a pamphlet. I am perfectly fine with that, but for him to constantly promote "being filled in spirit," and dodge this serious N.T. exhortation about the Psalms (Eph 5.18-19) was a little crazy.

Not only that but the exhortation was repeated with slightly different language in Colossians 3:16. So Ephesians 5 wasn't a slip of the pen. Paul repeated the exhortation to another congregation. In one of WL's "high peak" epistles, no less.

Originally Posted by Ohio

In 1978 Lee taught, "Whatever is in the Bible ... is the Word of God."

In 1995 Lee taught, "Not every word in the Bible is the word of God."

Even if you take his second statement as provable, in that Manoah said something dumb to his wife, and Job and his friends argued over arcane theology, and Peter said, "Not so Lord! This will never happen to you!", and Satan speaks in Genesis 3 (etc), notice that my first point in this thread was not "every word in Psalm 1,3,4,5,6,7,9,11,12,13,14,15,17,18,19,20,21 is a word of God or a word of Christ."

No, my point was, "Perhaps there's more Christ in the first 21 Psalms than just Psalms 2,8, and 16". That was all I was trying to say.

And Drake tried to change it, to saying that I was implying that "every word of the Psalms must reveal Christ". No, that's a false choice set. I was just saying perhaps there's more. That's all I was saying, by starting this thread.

Originally Posted by aron

I think there is some Christ to be found in more than 3 of the first 21 Psalms. .

Originally Posted by aron

I will mention why I think Christ possibly found in Psalms 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 in the next post. Maybe, just maybe, Lee fit the Palms into a "Procrustean bed" and cut off some of the Christ waiting to be seen there.

Those are quotes from my first 2 posts on this thread. I didn't say that every word in those 18 Psalms had to be "Christ" or "of Christ" or "a word of God" (the last one meaning revelation of God v/v WL's 'man's fallen concept').

What WL seems to be saying, by contrast, is that every word of 18 of the first 21 Psalms is "of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" and not "of the tree of life". Because that's how he framed his introductory commentary in Psalm 1, a "natural" psalm (so-called), and this dismissive tone is continued in the ensuing footnotes. Again I covered this in detail the first 20 or so posts I submitted. In the RecV, a number of psalms get no comment, and those that do, the brief comment is not favorable, but is dismissive: "natural", "mixed sentiment" etc.

I merely said that perhaps there is "more Christ" in the Psalms than WL would let on. I didn't say every word had to be demonstrably "Christ".

You might wonder, well, why is my opinion superior to that of WL? He says "no Christ" and I say "perhaps more Christ". I prefer my option because 1) it's more in line with the NT pattern of reception of the Psalms, and 2) because Jesus said, "Seek and ye shall find". In the first 21 Psalms WL said, "No, don't seek. Nothing there." (Unless he was forced to by NT usage [i.e. Psalm 2,8,16]). No, I'd rather seek. I gave examples in Psalm 3, 6, and 18 where I found some profit. So I continue to dig.

"Oh the riches/Oh the riches/Christ my Saviour has for me" Again, from Post #2:

Originally Posted by aron

I have not covered Psalms 2 through 150 ... But I hope my point from Psalm 1 is made adequately, none the less, and is suggestive of further riches thus far ignored.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

You are right. We wouldn't know about Jesus without the Bible. There's no other outside evidence of him ... except a few references like in Josephus, and even that has been meddled with ... and man-handled.

Harold, you understand then, that you have lost your salvation.

Hebrews 3: 12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
15 As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."

We prayed for you in the prayer meeting tonight to hear His voice and not harden your heart, and for the Lord to grant you repentance.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Harold, you understand then, that you have lost your salvation.

Hebrews 3: 12 Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.
13 But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
14 For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end.
15 As it is said, "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion."

We prayed for you in the prayer meeting tonight to hear His voice and not harden your heart, and for the Lord to grant you repentance.

Oh my goodness, I'm gobsmacked. It's come full circle. My early days in the church was in the church in Detroit. And now the church in Detroit is praying for me.

Thank you, thank you, brother, for your prayers, and for the burden for me in your heart.

But I don't feel I have anything to repent for. I feel that I'm okay with God, and God is okay with me ... tho I don't deserve it.

Thanks again brother.

But back to brother Lee. Did Witness Lee ever do anything we would consider "out of character?" What about, saying that the saints that lost their money on Daystar "lost their virginity?" Was that in character?

I could list more. But just one is enough to prove that Lee did things that we would consider out of character. To be honest, Witness Lee's character was full of unpredictable cognitive dissonance producing contradictions and surprises.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Oh my goodness, I'm gobsmacked. It's come full circle. My early days in the church was in the church in Detroit. And now the church in Detroit is praying for me.

Thank you, thank you, brother, for your prayers, and for the burden for me in your heart.

But I don't feel I have anything to repent for. I feel that I'm okay with God, and God is okay with me ... tho I don't deserve it.

Thanks again brother.

You are very welcome, bro.
One of the bros here, Rick Coleman, knows you.

I am thinking about the sad end of W. Nee's coworkers, Ruth Lee and Peace Wang. They were great servants of the Lord. They were not W. Nee rubber stamps. When it was found out that W. Nee had taken advantage of a sister coworker, both of them were righteously indignant and supported excommunicating WN.
When WL brought WN back, without any apology on WN's part, those 2 sisters went against what they knew was right, and from then on followed WN blindly.
When the communists exposed WN's sin above + against a 2nd sister coworker that no one had known about, the faith of Ruth Lee and Peace Wang was shattered. Apparently their faith was not in Christ or the Bible but in WN.
As you know, the 2 sisters were imprisoned by the communists and recanted their faith. Ruth Lee was taken to prison camps where she preached that Christianity was a lie. Peace Wang reported other Christians for praying, causing them to be beaten. It didn't help either one of them to get out of prison.
I wonder if your faith was in WL rather than in Christ and the Bible?
We also prayed for you at our Bible Study yesterday.

Originally Posted by awareness

But back to brother Lee. Did Witness Lee ever do anything we would consider "out of character?" What about, saying that the saints that lost their money on Daystar "lost their virginity?" Was that in character?

I could list more. But just one is enough to prove that Lee did things that we would consider out of character. To be honest, Witness Lee's character was full of unpredictable cognitive dissonance producing contradictions and surprises.

I'll address this subject later. I want to give the Holy Spirit a little time to speak to you without me drowning it out.

[awareness]

Hey Steve, thanks for your reply.

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

You are very welcome, bro.
One of the bros here, Rick Coleman, knows you.

How, when, where?

Originally Posted by ViW

I am thinking about the sad end of W. Nee's coworkers, Ruth Lee and Peace Wang. They were great servants of the Lord. They were not W. Nee rubber stamps. When it was found out that W. Nee had taken advantage of a sister coworker, both of them were righteously indignant and supported excommunicating WN.
When WL brought WN back, without any apology on WN's part, those 2 sisters went against what they knew was right, and from then on followed WN blindly.
When the communists exposed WN's sin above + against a 2nd sister coworker that no one had known about, the faith of Ruth Lee and Peace Wang was shattered. Apparently their faith was not in Christ or the Bible but in WN.
As you know, the 2 sisters were imprisoned by the communists and recanted their faith. Ruth Lee was taken to prison camps where she preached that Christianity was a lie. Peace Wang reported other Christians for praying, causing them to be beaten. It didn't help either one of them to get out of prison.
I wonder if your faith was in WL rather than in Christ and the Bible?

It was lack of faith in Witness Lee that got me the boot. It was lack of faith in myself for joining Lee that put me on a track to learn about everything I took for granted, including Christ and the Bible.

Originally Posted by ViW

We also prayed for you at our Bible Study yesterday.

Thanks so much. I can use 'em. Reminds me of Wednesday night Bible study.

Originally Posted by ViW

I'll address this subject later. I want to give the Holy Spirit a little time to speak to you without me drowning it out.

The Spirit doesn't need time. There's plenty in this modern life that drowns it out. But the Spirit can speak in uploads at the speed of light ... or faster ... at the speed of thought.

Thanks brother. I'll let that happen.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

As you know, the 2 sisters were imprisoned by the communists and recanted their faith. Ruth Lee was taken to prison camps where she preached that Christianity was a lie. Peace Wang reported other Christians for praying, causing them to be beaten. It didn't help either one of them to get out of prison.

I didn't know this. How much of this history has been covered over! Amazing. I think the adage is appropriate, that if you don't learn the lessons of the past, you tend to relive them.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

As you know, the 2 sisters were imprisoned by the communists and recanted their faith. Ruth Lee was taken to prison camps where she preached that Christianity was a lie. Peace Wang reported other Christians for praying, causing them to be beaten. It didn't help either one of them to get out of prison.

While the Spirit is still speaking, I too would like to know the source(s) of these details. Ruth Lee & Peace Wang were early founding sisters in the Nee movement. I might be wrong, but I don't remember these details in Lily Hsu's book, nor in Kinnear's Against the Tide.

Brother Voice must have different sources, or I missed it in my readings. Maybe he'll share them, or school me.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

While the Spirit is still speaking, I too would like to know the source(s) of these details. Ruth Lee & Peace Wang were early founding sisters in the Nee movement. I might be wrong, but I don't remember these details in Lily Hsu's book, nor in Kinnear's Against the Tide.

Brother Voice must have different sources, or I missed it in my readings. Maybe he'll share them, or school me.

It is in Lily Hsu's book, My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church
which Awareness told me about.
https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgetta...table+memories

The book is detailed and well corroborated.

At the end of the pdf version, there are links to appendices. Near the end of the list is "Li Yuanru and Wang Peizhen" (who are Ruth Lee and Peace Wang). That was the saddest part of the whole book.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

At the end of the pdf version [of Lily Hsu's book] there are links to appendices. Near the end of the list is "Li Yuanru and Wang Peizhen" (who are Ruth Lee and Peace Wang). That was the saddest part of the whole book.

I remember reading about Ruth Lee from several sources, including a prominent spot in WL's "The Seer of the Divine Revelation". Don't remember that part. Thanks for bringing it up.

Originally Posted by Wright Doyle

For a variety of reasons, including the anti-Western movement of the 1920s, many Chinese Christian leaders were seeking ways to form indigenous churches that would be free from Western missionary control. Having moved to the International Settlement in Shanghai in 1926, Ni constituted in 1932 a group of “apostolic” co-workers that would lead what became the Little Flock Movement: Wang Peizhen (Peace Wang) and Li Yuanru (Ruth Lee), with Ni himself as supreme. They soon grew from a small household gathering to a network of local churches.

Amazing, to consider the toll of human lives that followed in the wake of WN & WL. From those who lost faith when Nee was exposed, to the "storms" of WL in Taiwan & U.S.A, the Krazy Kults that sprung up in the PRC, the "Great Rebellion" of TC & DYL, Daystar, Philip Lee, Max Rappoport, John Ingalls. . . add it up. It's a lot.

Then contrast to, say, Leland Wang, another Margaret Barber disciple, who co-founded the Church in Shanghai in his living room and was later called the "Chinese Billy Graham". How big was the human toll after him?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

It is in Lily Hsu's book, My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church
which Awareness told me about.
https://www.amazon.com/My-Unforgetta...table+memories

The book is detailed and well corroborated.

At the end of the pdf version, there are links to appendices. Near the end of the list is "Li Yuanru and Wang Peizhen" (who are Ruth Lee and Peace Wang). That was the saddest part of the whole book.

Thanks Steve. Truth be told, if I hadn't already lost faith in Nee, Lily Hsu's book would have turned me into an atheist.

I'm still dumbfounded that, a man on the one side can be a powerful spiritual minister and leader, and then on the other side be, a man of the flesh. David does come to mind. Still, both had to pay for it.

I remember some time ago coming across Lee admitting that he did much of his ministry with the natural life. So if we follow them, just remember that : the system you are giving all your life to is very much of the natural man. We, and they today, made/make more of Nee and Lee than they deserve/deserved, or could live up to ... except as personality cult leaders ... that had to come from their natural man.

Maybe the reason Lee saw the natural man in scripture is cuz he was looking thru his own natural man glasses.

I don't know. But I agree. When I look at scripture thru my natural man, I see lots of natural man stuff in it.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks Steve. Truth be told, if I hadn't already lost faith in Nee, Lily Hsu's book would have turned me into an atheist.

Thank you for your honesty. That is apparently what happened to Ruth Lee, and she influenced Peace Wang.

WL said that there were only 3 people who were absolutely one with WN: himself, Ruth Lee and Peace Wang. Lily Hsu's book bears that out.
This shows how destructive it is to follow a man absolutely like that.

What would have been a healthy reaction on their part to the exposing of WN would have been to realize that they were wrong to follow a man to that extent. They could have recalled the past when they started the local church with WN and were able to fellowship honestly and to disagree with him.

WN could have escaped to Taiwan, but chose to stay and suffer immensely.

Originally Posted by awareness

I'm still dumbfounded that, a man on the one side can be a powerful spiritual minister and leader, and then on the other side be, a man of the flesh. David does come to mind. Still, both had to pay for it.

I don't understand that either. I can only process what I saw with WL.
There was great blessing on the local church in the beginning, at least up to 1977, and I think up to 1988. Don Rutledge records it well. WL was not the center of the church before 1977, at least to us in Cleveland, and we felt we were one with all Christians, including those with different views than us.
When WL excommunicated all the ex-pastors and missionaries in the churches in 1988, the blessing had ended. We could not get any non-Chinese to join the church and stay. WL could still sometimes give a good message based on what the Lord had already given him, but the Lord didn't give him anything more. The new revelations WL saw after that were all destructive, as far as I know.

Originally Posted by awareness

I remember some time ago coming across Lee admitting that he did much of his ministry with the natural life.

I don't remember that, but I commend him for that because it is honest.
That statement was probably pre 1977, or at least pre 1984.

Originally Posted by awareness

So if we follow them, just remember that : the system you are giving all your life to is very much of the natural man.

Giving your life to a system is wrong, whether it is of the natural man or spiritual man.
I had done that until we had a church split in 2007 over the "one publication" edict. I had thought we were better than other Christians because I thought we were more dedicated to oneness, (at the expense of truth and honesty) and then we had a church spilt over something that other Christians would have fellowshipped about and handled maturely and been reconciled. We had an ex-pastor meeting with us then, and he said that he had seen many church splits, but never one that was so avoidable as this. And we had prided ourselves on Oneness. That told me that we were on the wrong road. The right road was what we had been on before WL became the center of the church - following Christ, the Spirit, the Bible and our spirit.

Originally Posted by awareness

We, and they today, made/make more of Nee and Lee than they deserve/deserved, or could live up to ... except as personality cult leaders ... that had to come from their natural man.

That is a terrible place to be in.
KJV 1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe the reason Lee saw the natural man in scripture is cuz he was looking thru his own natural man glasses.

I don't know. But I agree. When I look at scripture thru my natural man, I see lots of natural man stuff in it.

We do project our faults onto others and also onto the Bible.
I think the "natural man" teaching by WL was off and even more off how it was distorted in testimonies.
"natural" is "soulish". Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils. So he had a soulish or "natural" body before the fall. That is Adam had a body, soul and spirit, but he was dominated by the soul.
We human beings need to live by both our soul and our spirit, and we are going to be dominated by our soul. If we reject our spirit and live only by the soul, we cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. But until we receive spiritual bodies, we are still living souls in this age, and our dominant part is our soul. That is what it means that Adam became a living soul. To reject our soul as "natural" is to reject what it means to be a human being.

[Weighingin]

It took me over 30 years to realize fully that following the ministry of LSM/Lee was not the same as following God. I thought my experiences of Christ, etc had to come from that ministry. The Lord is merciful and enlightening, but it seems He leaves it to us to seek how to be with Him.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

It took me over 30 years to realize fully that following the ministry of LSM/Lee was not the same as following God. I thought my experiences of Christ, etc had to come from that ministry. The Lord is merciful and enlightening, but it seems He leaves it to us to seek how to be with Him.

MeToo, not to be trite.

After 30 years, I also was confronted with 2 choices, to be of Lee, or to be of Chu. Thus, something so idiotic and Romish as the One Publication Bull was used by the Lord to expose where we really were. We had become completely leavened, and needed a good purging.

[Weighingin]

The turmoil that resulted from who followed Lee more faithfully, BL Bros or Titus, with the "quarantine", just hurt and divided the saints. The history of the dreaded "Christianity" repeats itself. I only saw this recently. It actually has been over 40 years.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Thank you for your honesty. That is apparently what happened to Ruth Lee, and she influenced Peace Wang.

I've seen it happen for others too brother. One that comes immediately to mind is a sister I've known since before the LC. I brought her and her then boyfriend in. They stayed in 5 years after I left. The same thing happened to them that happened to me : over loyalty to Christ over Lee.

After they left, she dropped it all ; everything religious ; the Bible ; Jesus : God ; the whole shebang, if you will. Her husband became an alcoholic. My dearest friend today, going back to Kangas and Detroit, is now a Hindu. And a friend going back to 2nd grade, who once was an elder, is now a Native American Shaman. All of these are still fine people. They are caring, loving, giving, and honest, human beings. I love them. Not only am I not able to turn my love for them off, I don't want to.

Originally Posted by Voice

WL said that there were only 3 people who were absolutely one with WN: himself, Ruth Lee and Peace Wang. Lily Hsu's book bears that out.
This shows how destructive it is to follow a man absolutely like that.

The need to follow a man is a need of the flesh.

Originally Posted by Voice

What would have been a healthy reaction on their part to the exposing of WN would have been to realize that they were wrong to follow a man to that extent. They could have recalled the past when they started the local church with WN and were able to fellowship honestly and to disagree with him.

I never knew Lee to have a Q & A after his speakings.

Originally Posted by Voice

WN could have escaped to Taiwan, but chose to stay and suffer immensely.

He probably felt he deserved it.

Originally Posted by Voice

I don't understand that either. I can only process what I saw with WL.

Yet we didn't know Nee or Lee

Originally Posted by Voice

I don't remember that, but I commend him for that because it is honest. That statement was probably pre 1977, or at least pre 1984.

1994

Originally Posted by Voice

Giving your life to a system is wrong, whether it is of the natural man or spiritual man.

Up until around 1977 I didn't feel I was giving myself to a system, or to following a man. I had "The Vision." The vision was that the local church was the spearhead of God's present move on the earth. I was in God's eternal purpose ... not a system.

Originally Posted by Voice

I had done that until we had a church split in 2007 over the "one publication" edict. I had thought we were better than other Christians because I thought we were more dedicated to oneness, (at the expense of truth and honesty) and then we had a church spilt over something that other Christians would have fellowshipped about and handled maturely and been reconciled. We had an ex-pastor meeting with us then, and he said that he had seen many church splits,

I grew up in the Southern Baptist church, and we moved a lot ; Detroit, Miami, Kentucky, and back to Detroit. With each move my mother carefully found just the right conservative Southern Baptist church. And in every case things were fine for awhile, and then some minor disagreement would crop up, then the love they shared turned to harsh disagreement, that led to a split with much animosity. I heard it told that that was why the Southern Baptist churches grew. It looked like a cancer to me.

Originally Posted by Voice

but never one that was so avoidable as this. And we had prided ourselves on Oneness. That told me that we were on the wrong road. The right road was what we had been on before WL became the center of the church - following Christ, the Spirit, the Bible and our spirit.

I got pushed out for saying that.

Originally Posted by Voice

That is a terrible place to be in.
KJV 1 Corinthians 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

So 20 years after Pentecost Paul was already encountering division by following men. Now look at Christianity. I don't know, I don't have the stats, but it sure looks to me that Christianity is the most divided religion on the earth.

But Lee's solution was to become the center of oneness.

Originally Posted by Voice

We do project our faults onto others and also onto the Bible.
I think the "natural man" teaching by WL was off and even more off how it was distorted in testimonies.
"natural" is "soulish". Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils. So he had a soulish or "natural" body before the fall. That is Adam had a body, soul and spirit, but he was dominated by the soul.
We human beings need to live by both our soul and our spirit, and we are going to be dominated by our soul. If we reject our spirit and live only by the soul, we cannot receive the things of the Spirit of God. But until we receive spiritual bodies, we are still living souls in this age, and our dominant part is our soul. That is what it means that Adam became a living soul. To reject our soul as "natural" is to reject what it means to be a human being.

At first I was mesmerized by the three circles. It told me in three's how I was made up ; a trinity.

But it's not true. We are not three separate compartments. The body is not separate from the soul and the spirit. The soul is not separate from the body and the spirit, and the spirit is not separate from the body and the soul. Why?

Because just like the trinity, the three are one. Our entire being is all body, soul (mind), and spirit ; one hundred percent each all in one. And they all inform my decision making (done in my soul methinks). The body is the clear winner. We tend to that the most every day. It speaks the loudest. In fact, we desperately need the soul and the spirit to pull back hard on its reins. Still, when ya gotta go ya gotta go ; no need for three confirmations from the spirit. When we're hungry we eat. When we need sleep we sleep. The needs of the body rule.

But I ramble. Thanks Steve for your great response.

I wasn't there for Ruth Lee and Peace Wang. I don't know what they went thru. I don't know why they became atheists. Maybe just to fit in with the atheist authorities ... I don't know. China is still 90% atheist. Many of them are so atheist that they don't even know that they are atheist's. They know nothing of religion of any sort ... even the atheist religion.

I don't know brother Voice. This hits close to home for me. You recently told me that I've lost my salvation. You don't know the half of it brother. Many years ago I once went around for a year or so saying that, God is deaf, dumb, and mute. Why? Because my conversations with Him were a monologue, as in, I did all the talking. If I had a life long friend, and I did all the talking, I would eventually conclude that he, or she, was deaf dumb and mute.

So I kind of understand Ruth Lee and Peace Wang.

I guess I've said enough for now.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Weighingin

The turmoil that resulted from who followed Lee more faithfully, BL Bros or Titus, with the "quarantine", just hurt and divided the saints. The history of the dreaded "Christianity" repeats itself. I only saw this recently. It actually has been over 40 years.

Weighingin, we probably should restrict our comments here to the thread topic about Psalms.

Would you consider opening your own thread on the Introductions sub-forum? You could introduce certain LC issues most disturbing to you.

[Weighingin]

Sure, thanks for the direction on presentation.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I don't know brother Voice. This hits close to home for me. You recently told me that I've lost my salvation. You don't know the half of it brother. Many years ago I once went around for a year or so saying that, God is deaf, dumb, and mute. Why? Because my conversations with Him were a monologue, as in, I did all the talking. If I had a life long friend, and I did all the talking, I would eventually conclude that he, or she, was deaf dumb and mute.

So I kind of understand Ruth Lee and Peace Wang.

I guess I've said enough for now.

Thanks Awareness, that was a good and thoughtful answer.

(My uncle just passed away peacefully yesterday, at 100 years old, so I'm in Baltimore for the funeral today.)

God's speaking to us is not like I am speaking to you and you to me.

When the Lord resurrected, He appeared to the disciples and told them that He was going before them to a certain mountain in Galilee.
Peter and the disciples go to that mountain, and guess what? - No Jesus. They waited probably for days, and no Jesus. So Peter, offended that Jesus did not keep His word, says, I'm going fishing. And you know the story of the Lord's appearing to them after they spent all night fishing and caught nothing.
The Lord had kept His word: He was there before them on the mountain in Galilee, but He was invisible, and seemingly not speaking. In this way, after His resurrection, the Lord spent 40 days with them, appearing and disappearing, training them to live by His invisible presence and still small voice. (This was one of the many great teachings of WL. I don't know if he got it from someone else, but that doesn't matter to me.)

Call to mind in your past when you had the Lord's speaking. Here are some examples that come to my mind of how the Lord spoke to me in various ways.

1. I could not tell if Jesus was God or not. I had just come to the church in Cleveland, and bros showed me verses showing that Jesus was God, esp. Isa 9:6, but I didn't feel they could explain other verses that implied that Jesus was not God. A bro invited me over for dinner, and after dinner we pray-read John 14. 2 bros were reading and shouting and rejoicing, and I felt, "This is not for me". Then a bro said to me, "Steve, your spirit's connected to your mouth." He was pointing for me to read v8 where Philip tells the Lord to show us the Father. For some reason I said, "Oh, since my spirit's connected to my mouth, I'll start with v1", not knowing what I was saying. When I spoke v1 "Let not your heart be troubled", I felt that the Lord was speaking the verse to me in my heart. My heart was very troubled because I felt that I could not be saved because I could not know if Jesus was God. Instantly my heart was not troubled, but a joy that I had never felt before rose up in my heart instead. Then I continued and the Lord kept speaking in my heart, "You believe in God, believe also in Me." I started laughing. It was so simple. I believe in God, believe also in Jesus. I understood, How could I believe in Him if He were not God. Then I continued, "In My Father's house are many abodes. If it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you." I jumped up and we all started dancing around the house. On my way driving home, I was rubbing my heart, it felt so good. I told one of my frat bros, "What I experienced today was worth a whole lifetime of suffering."

2. I had just been saved and baptized for about 1 month. 4 of us had a daily evening prayer meeting at the fraternity house that I lived at. One of the bros started to become worldly, I thought. I was in a quandary how to help him. While walking quickly between classes, I thought, Eureka! I'll pray about it! When I got home to my frat room, I shut the door and prayed how to help this bro. Nothing from the Lord. So I said, Lord, here are 3 ways: I could rebuke him, or I could not say anything but be an example to him, or I could rebuke him in love. No answer. So I said, Lord, I feel the best about rebuking him in love, so that's what I'll do. And I heard a sound like a lion's roar. I jumped off my bed, and got down on my knees, and said, "What did you say, Lord?" I heard, "You change My words." And then, "Trust in Me, I will give you life." That was the only time I heard the Lord's voice externally.

3. I was typing my computer program on a keypunch. The computer room proctor was a little Jewish boy like me. I was praying for him to be saved, while I was keypunching. A big unkempt motorcycle gangster walked into the computer room smoking a cigarette. As the motorcycle guy was organizing his punch cards, the little proctor walked over, grabbed his arm and crushed out the cigarette, saying, No smoking allowed!, and then sat back down at his desk.
The motorcycle guy was enraged. He turned red and started charging at the proctor yelling, I'll teach you! I said, "Lord! What should I do?" No answer. So I just jumped up and got in the motorcycle guy's face, having no idea what to say. Then when I looked at the guy's face I knew exactly what to say. I recognized that I had preached the gospel to this guy before and he had told me he was a Christian. I yelled, "You're a Christian! What are you doing!?" He was dumbfounded and didn't know what to say. We became good friends, and he became a solid Christian.

4. I was reviewing a pile of about 30 resumes to narrow down to 5 people to interview. I saw one was an Arab name, and tossed it to the reject pile. Then the verse came to me, "You shall not despise an Egyptian because you sojourned in his land." I said, Wow, and I picked up the resume, and looked, and the guy was an Egyptian. I read over the resume again, and it was as good as the others on the "keep" pile. We hired him. He saved one of my projects that was failing which became a very successful project. He was one of the first immigrants that my company sponsored for a green card.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

(My uncle just passed away peacefully yesterday, at 100 years old, so I'm in Baltimore for the funeral today.)

Sorry to hear that. Hope he lived a full life.

Originally Posted by Voice

God's speaking to us is not like I am speaking to you and you to me.

I eventually learned that. But still. The Bible depicts God as audibly speaking ; like at Jesus' baptism. He's certainly couldn't be considered deaf, dumb, and mute, back then. He even spoke thru a burning bush ... and ... let's not forget, an ass. Don't I rate at least that? I feel like one at times.

Bro Voice, I really enjoyed your examples of the Lord speaking to you. And I noticed that God once spoke to you "externally." You obviously rate better than I. But didn't God have to speak audibly thru the ass because Balaam was so stubborn?

Maybe like Balaam, I'd hear God's voice if like Balaam I gave God push back. But I have. I've shaken my fist at God plenty of times. In fact, when my young son died I shook my fist and challenged Him to hurt me as much as he wanted, that I wasn't running from the devastating grief and pain of that loss, into some easy escape. It got me thru. There's way more story to it ... that's on going.

Thanks brother. It's always great to hear from you.

[JJ]

I wouldn’t worry about not hearing the Lord speak to me personally because he already has through His Son, apostles, and Spirit. It is more a matter of how I respond to the words he has already spoken to all of us.

God spoke that He is well pleased in His Son, that we should hear Him, and that He spoke to us in His Son. His Son is the radiance of His glory and the express image of His substance.
Luke 3:22 https://biblehub.com/blb/luke/3.htm
Matthew 17:5 https://biblehub.com/blb/matthew/17.htm
Hebrews 1 https://biblehub.com/blb/hebrews/1.htm

God sent His Son as the Word - we just need to behold His glory and believe in Him to have eternal life
John 1:1-14 https://biblehub.com/blb/john/1.htm

When we turn our heart to the Lord, behold and reflect Him, He transforms us into the same image as He.
2 Cor 3:16-18 https://biblehub.com/blb/2_corinthians/3.htm

God also sent apostles to speak God’s word to us. Hearing, believing, and being obedient to their word is the same as God’s word and causes us to enter into God’s rest. Such a word is living and active, divides soul from spirit and joints from marrow, and lays everything bare to the eyes of God the judge. Therefore, since we have such a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet was without sin. Let us then approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

God wants us to be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and without blemish; and esteem the patience of our of our Lord as salvation, grow in grace and in knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
https://biblehub.com/blb/1_thessalonians/2.htm
Hebrews 4:2:7-16 https://biblehub.com/bsb/hebrews/4.htm
2 Peter 3:15-18
https://biblehub.com/blb/2_peter/3.htm

Keep away from any brother who leads an undisciplined life, not in keeping with the word heard from the apostles.
2 Thess. 3:14 https://biblehub.com/bsb/2_thessalonians/3.htm

God wants us to receive in meekness the implanted word (spoken to us by the apostles) and be doers of the word and not hearers only.
James 1:25 https://biblehub.com/blb/james/1.htm

John exhorted us to hear what the Spirit has spoken to the churches in
Revelation 2 and 3 http://biblehub.net/search.php?q=Let...he+Spirit+says

So, what me worry about God not speaking to me? No way. He has indeed.

I hope this is an encouragement when it seems that God is silent.

[JJ]

And, God has spoken to me many times and still does through the foolishness of men preaching concerning Christ and His Cross. However it is done I will respond by calling on His name and rejoicing

1 Cor 1:23 https://biblehub.com/blb/1_corinthians/1.htm
Romans 10:1-15 https://biblehub.com/blb/romans/10.htm
Philippians 1:15-18 https://biblehub.com/blb/philippians/1.htm

Even before and after that God spoke ands speaks night and day through His creation (even though I was initially ignorant to it for years!).
Romans 1:20 https://biblehub.com/blb/romans/1.htm

So, “God doesn’t speak to me” or “God sent me a text”. Lies from the enemy!

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

I eventually learned that. But still. The Bible depicts God as audibly speaking ; like at Jesus' baptism. He's certainly couldn't be considered deaf, dumb, and mute, back then. He even spoke thru a burning bush ... and ... let's not forget, an ass. Don't I rate at least that? I feel like one at times.

We rate higher than Balaam. We don't want the Lord speaking to us through an ass. That would mean that we are lower than an ass. Balaam's end is not good.

Originally Posted by awareness

Bro Voice, I really enjoyed your examples of the Lord speaking to you. And I noticed that God once spoke to you "externally." You obviously rate better than I. But didn't God have to speak audibly thru the ass because Balaam was so stubborn?

I think God spoke to Balaam through the ass for our benefit.
Balaam, though he was a famous servant of God, was beyond correction.
I think the reason God spoke to me that one time in an external voice was because I was a new believer and did not have a Christian background. I have heard testimonies from Muslims who got saved that are similar.

Originally Posted by awareness

Maybe like Balaam, I'd hear God's voice if like Balaam I gave God push back. But I have. I've shaken my fist at God plenty of times. In fact, when my young son died I shook my fist and challenged Him to hurt me as much as he wanted, that I wasn't running from the devastating grief and pain of that loss, into some easy escape. It got me thru. There's way more story to it ... that's on going.

owee, ow, ow. I actually know how you feel. My beautiful son, Isaac, went to be with the Lord in Feb, 2016. It was a 7 year harrowing process. My wife would cry all night long. But the Lord was there. He was near me, and speaking through the word. What kept me going those 7 years was the Psalms. Down-to-earth, honest and holy templates for prayer.

Originally Posted by awareness

Thanks brother. It's always great to hear from you.

thanks bro

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

How did Brother Lee treat the OT? He opened it up thoroughly. As ZNP observed verse by verse. But you mean Psalms... well, I took your advice and thumbed through the RcV and on almost every page in the book of Psalms there are footnotes.

Now, granted these footnotes in Psalms are not extensive as you would find Brother Lee wrote in Ephesians, Hebrews, Matthew, Revelation, Romans, because frankly, there is much more concerning the dispensation we now live in those NT books than in the Psalms.

The gospels presented Jesus as the Messiah foretold by the ancient inspired writers. The Acts and epistles further this: Jesus is the promised Seed of David, who brought in a new age of human living under God’s care and providence. Now, “we do not yet see all things subject to him” (Heb 2:8; cf Psa 8 & 1 Cor 15), but nonetheless all attention focused on Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promise to man.

So footnotes and/or teachings on the Christian Bible should focus first of all on the person of Jesus in the gospels as the fulfillment of God's expressed will; second on scriptures which the gospels cite (Psalms/Isaiah etc); third on the epistles as they're showing how the gospels and the prophetic word were harmonized in one person. Everything else in the Bible makes sense only as it points to and is derived from the great fact of "Jesus as Lord": the obedient Son of Man, crucified, resurrected and glorified. Our vision, our consciousness and living should be consumed by this. ~Luke 24:44 "He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms." We never graduate from this: we only go deeper and deeper. He went through it- we go through it.

But in the RecV gospel of Matthew it's half footnotes and half text; Mark/Luke/John are less - 1/3 to 1/4 footnotes. The book of Isaiah is maybe 1/4 footnotes and the Psalms are maybe 1/8 footnotes; the rest text. Then if you look at the epistles, such as 2 Corinthians or Ephesians, you have anywhere from 2/3 to 3/4 of the page as footnotes. So clearly the focus is there.

In these lengthy epistolary footnotes there's a focus on abstract, impersonal concepts, such as "the dispensation we now live in" alluded to in the quote above; or the "NT believer enjoying grace"; or "mingled"; or "service" . . the actual person of Jesus is less important; who he was and what he did. And it’s even worse with the prophetic word: there, abstract concepts are levers used to denigrate swaths of scripture as “fallen human concepts”. Certainly not the verse-by-verse unveiling claimed by Drake. And, it cannot be over-emphasized, this is NOT what the NT writers and speakers did in regard to scripture. They never suggested this kind of treatment!

Now, the LSM apologist has a weak dodge here – “OK, smarty – why don’t you write some footnotes? Let’s see you do better” But we're not purporting to be God’s present oracle here; rather, showing why this particular claimant seems faulty. To whom much is given – ahem, ‘ministry of the age’ - much is required.

Then go from teaching to practice, to what's actually done in the LC, and there's even less connection with the Jesus of the gospels. For example, instead of a ministry of reconciliation, per 2 Corinthians, there are strong signs of a guanxi network. Run afoul of network hierarchy and there's no going back – no reconciliation. That's what we can see in the history of the LC. John Ingalls, John So, Bill Mallon, Max Rappaport, Titus Chu, Dong Yu Lan. . . a string of breaks and no mending. All were top lieutenants who ran afoul of the network culture. None came back. The culture won't allow it.

Or, where are the "good works" that Jesus did (Matt 4:23; 9:35; cf Acts 10:38)? "Oh, we're not a social service agency", says the LSM. What about Paul's focus on helping the poor (Gal 2:20)? "Well, we have a different emphasis". Indeed; and this different emphasis is also seen in the footnotes, or lack thereof.

I don't see the Bible being "opened up thoroughly" as Drake said; rather, a fallen human mind, building abstract sand-castles, and when the wind blows, any proverbial "rebellion" or "storm" or "turmoil", the edifice collapses: no reconciliation, tolerance, or forbearance. Just a holding onto abstractions - "God's economy" - but no love. How to be reconciled in such an environment? Only through abject servility; only by being subsumed to ministry ideals can one be reconciled with it. Even the Bible text itself is secondary to these ideals, not vice versa.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

Another example that comes to mind is "Deep calls to deep in the roar of your waterfalls; all your waves and breakers have swept over me." from Psalm 42:7. Compare this to Jonah 2:3 "You hurled me into the depths, into the very heart of the seas, and the currents swirled about me; all your waves and breakers swept over me." Somebody appears to be copying, here. How could David the landlubber psalmist seize upon a sea-faring narrative? Because the enemy coming against him like a "flood", like "waters", is a common poetic metaphor. And this is picked up on in the NT: "Just like Jonah was in the heart of the sea, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth". To go down into the depths of the sea is a metaphor, a spiritual picture, of the descent into Hades.

Thanks Aron! You gave me a new way to look at Ps 42. This psalm could be the Lord's experience praying under extreme pressure in Gethsemane. It could be the psalm that Jesus sang together with His disciples that night. I had never taken it like that before. I updated my comments on this psalm to include the link to the Lord.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_42.htm

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Thanks Aron! You gave me a new way to look at Ps 42. This psalm could be the Lord's experience praying under extreme pressure in Gethsemane. It could be the psalm that Jesus sang together with His disciples that night. I had never taken it like that before. I updated my comments on this psalm to include the link to the Lord.
http://www.voiceinwilderness.info/psalm_42.htm

An interesting explanation of the meaning of Psalm 42 that grabbed my attention is that when a hart, deer is being chased by it's predator, it looks for water, be it a stream, river, lake. Because once it is in the water, the predator loses it's scent for the animal.

When we are being chased by the enemy, we pant for that Living Water so the enemy will lose us. When we hide in the Presence of the LORD, covered in the Blood of Jesus, covered under the shadow of God's wings, we are protected and no weapon formed against us will succeed in bringing us down.


As the deer pants for the water brooks,
So my soul pants for You, O God.
My soul thirsts for God, for the living God;

[aron]

"I need nothing"

Psalm 23:1 says "The LORD is my Shepherd; I need nothing". Revelation 3:17 says, "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

The difference between the two verses is that the first statement is a Word of Christ: the "I" of Psalm 23 is Christ. But the "I" of Revelation 3:17 is a "NT believer enjoying grace" per WL's verbiage.

WL made 2 exegetical errors in the Psalms: usually he said it was a NT believer enjoying grace in "God's NT economy", or it was David expressing his natural concepts. No; the NT reception of Psalms shows rather that it was Jesus Christ. Lee's chief error was to cause us to look a away from Christ and at our "experience" and "enjoyment".

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by aron

"I need nothing"

Psalm 23:1 says "The LORD is my Shepherd; I need nothing". Revelation 3:17 says, "You say, 'I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked."

The difference between the two verses is that the first statement is a Word of Christ: the "I" of Psalm 23 is Christ. But the "I" of Revelation 3:17 is a "NT believer enjoying grace" per WL's verbiage.

WL made 2 exegetical errors in the Psalms: usually he said it was a NT believer enjoying grace in "God's NT economy", or it was David expressing his natural concepts. No; the NT reception of Psalms shows rather that it was Jesus Christ. Lee's chief error was to cause us to look a away from Christ and at our "experience" and "enjoyment".

Aron,
"I shall not lack" in Ps 23:1 is a statement that all believers should be able to make.
It is trusting the Lord for our material and psychological needs as in 2Cor 8:15.
Laodicea is saying I don't need anything from anyone outside my denomination.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Aron,
"I shall not lack" in Ps 23:1 is a statement that all believers should be able to make.
It is trusting the Lord for our material and psychological needs as in 2Cor 8:15.
Laodicea is saying I don't need anything from anyone outside my denomination.

The rest of the psalm describes how God comes through in every aspect of our lives.
Psalm 23 is a reality in my life and never ceases to be. I have experienced every verse come true at different times in my life. Surely God's Goodness and Mercy continuously follows me and hopefully all of you every day of my/your lives.

The more I learn about Witness Lee, the more I am appalled by him and his self righteous false teachings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

"I shall not lack" in Ps 23:1 is a statement that all believers should be able to make..

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

The rest of the psalm describes how God comes through in every aspect of our lives.

Psalm 23 is a reality in my life and never ceases to be. I have experienced every verse come true at different times in my life. Surely God's Goodness and Mercy continuously follows me and hopefully all of you every day of my/your lives.

Hi cmw & VIW,

Your posts probably reflect popular Christian reading of the Psalm, the "standard model" as it were. And in matters of interpretation there's not necessarily a wrong or a right. God is true and every man (and woman) a liar - and that includes me, foremost among them. So I'm not contending here, or I'm trying not to

But let's look for a minute at the idea of the "I" in Psalm 23 being the believer, not Jesus Christ. At first it seems obvious - Jesus is the LORD made flesh, per John 1. Jesus is the Good Shepherd, per John 10. Okay, then - Psalm 23:1 shows the Christian believer declaring by faith that Jesus is their Shepherd, and they (the believer) shall not lack anything. Pretty straight-forward.

But if one tries to carry this interpretive grid further, it falls apart, as Witness Lee showed in his Life-Study of Psalms. What happens when the "I" in the Psalms text declares unwavering obedience to God's law? The NT epistles tell us that we sinners can't do it. So WL taught that this word was therefore "fallen humanity, mistakenly trying to be good." Yet the NT citation instead refers to Jesus Christ: "I come to do Thy will, O God; behold in the scroll of the book is written concerning me" (Heb 10, cf Psa 40). Likewise, in Psalm 18, and Psalm 119, &c, when the text promises compliance to God's expressed will (the law), there's apparently a problem, which WL "solved" by saying the scripture is mistaken, and vain. He repeatedly used words like "mixed sentiments" and "human concepts". I don't want to go down that route. Jesus never intimated this - rather he repeatedly declared his fulfillment of scripture, and divine mandate.

Second, what of the Psalmist declaring "surely I was sinful at birth" (Psa 51) and "my iniquities have overwhelmed me; they are a burden too heavy to bear" (Psa 38) and "evils without number surround me; my sins have overtaken me, so that I cannot see. They are more than the hairs of my head, and my heart has failed within me" (Psa 40)? And there's more - the Psalmist repeatedly confesses his standing before God. How can this possibly be Christ? And how can this be the Christian believer, who "lacks nothing" per Psalm 23:1?

I believe that Christ became sin on our behalf, and could be touched with our weakness, so that he can intercede for us. He was without sin, but on the Cross he bore our sins. So when Jesus prayed, "Forgive us our sins" in Matt 6, the Father was able to take them away - Christ could speak such words on our behalf, even though he didn't have to. Yet because of his great love for us, he spoke them, as one of us! He walked through the valley of the shadow of death for us, so that we, today, might follow, with his Holy Spirit's leading. It's only his pioneering journey through Psalm 23 that makes ours possible. The "I" of Psalm 23 remains Christ. Any reality we find is solely in our identification with him. It's "imputed as our righteousness", as it were. Jesus as High Priest can speak these words to the Father, and the Father hears, and forgives. Only Jesus can speak these words. There's only One Mediator between humanity and God, the [sinless and perfected forever] man Christ Jesus.

Lastly, what of the so-called Psalms of imprecation? Here the Psalmist doesn't bless but curses, and rails against the foes. Again, Witness Lee said this didn't track well within NT context, and was also "fallen human concepts". Yet Christ is the Warrior, the Victorious King. Demons cried out with fear, when he walked in the room: "Oh! What do we have to do with you, Jesus, Nazarene! We know you - the Holy One of God! Have you come to destroy us before our time?!" Paul likewise said, "We don't fight against flesh and blood but against powerful, antagonistic spiritual forces". So the battle rages with light against darkness, and darkness can't withstand the light. Jesus is the Anointed King, the forever-enthroned Son of David per Psalm 18:50. We don't yet see everything under his feet, but the time is coming.

I've said this before: several times in the Psalms, the writer expresses hatred for the sinful ones, and contemptuously dismisses them. ~Psalm 6:8; 119:115; and 139:19. And at least four times Jesus uses nearly identical terminology of dismissal. ~Matt 7:23/Lu 13:27; Matt 25:41; Matt 16:22/Mark 8:33; and Matt 4:10. So one shouldn't say that some OT expression of antagonism, condemnation and rejection, doesn't match Jesus' command to bless in the NT, and to love those who hate us, and to turn the other cheek. Did David turn the other cheek to Goliath? Let's not create a make-believe Bible.

The "I" of scripture is Christ. Paul said, "No longer 'i' but 'Christ'" - he alone is the Self, or Person, of humanity in scripture. Because of sin, all others simply don't pass muster. And then we sinners see the King, and we live. He becomes our life, our living, our person. And then, we lack nothing. But only then. To insinuate our own persons into scripture is to commit grave error.

Here, I'm perhaps challenging a familiar Christian textual reading of Psalm 23, but at one point Luther took issue with the Standard Model, as later did Wesley (and others). So, occasionally it must be done. Look at the LC issue of reading "self" into the text. WL's followers said he had a "rich ministry", and he told us that he'd reached the "high peaks" of 2,000 years of Christian interpretation, that he'd learned nothing from anyone for 40+ years. Now, does that sound right-sized? Or does it rather look like the perilous position of Revelation 3:17, eventually reaching full flower or "consummation" in Rev 18:7?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by JJ

Psalm 3
Follower Rock Band
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C279gOt6tHs

Thou O Lord are a shield for me. You’re the glory and the lifter of my head.

https://biblehub.com/bsb/psalms/3.htm

The intro says David wrote this when he was being pursued by Absalom his son. When he wrote of being surrounded by 10,000 men who hated him and by 10,000 demons it was no joke. He had to rely on the Lord to be his shield. The Lord was the glory and the lifter of his head. This same Lord is ours too and offers the same powerful protection, glory, and lifting of our heads today. Praise Him.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

The intro says David wrote this when he was being pursued by Absalom his son. When he wrote of being surrounded by 10,000 men who hated him and by 10,000 demons it was no joke. He had to rely on the Lord to be his shield. The Lord was the glory and the lifter of his head...

Psalm 3 is a favourite, and this is why: Psalm 1 shows the way of the righteous man, Psalm 2 shows that righteous man enthroned as King of the nations (for confirmation, see Deuteronomy 17:18-20), and Psalm 3 shows the King now facing rebellion. Just like with Genesis 1 through 3, God doesn't waste time but gets right to the point: the fall of humanity, their inability to obey God's commands (both directly and through a King) and its consequences.

But look what the deposed and exiled King does in Psalm 3, surrounded by thousands who seek his life, betrayed by his former kinsmen and associates (Absalom et al) - the King lies down and goes to sleep, confident that God can raise him again (v5). Jesus said, "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to raise it up again." It tracks Psalm 3:5 almost perfectly.

Do you see the faithful King? "He trusted in God, let Him save him now"

In this case, the consequences of rebellion are much different than in Genesis 3. In this case, not only the Faithful King willingly lays down, and is raised, but in his rising he redeems the land and the people. "Just as by one man death appeared, so by one man's death, salvation appeared to all." (cf Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-22)

See also John 4:42 They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Saviour of the world." And 1 John 4:14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Saviour of the world.

[aron]

In the NT, one of the major arguments among the Hebrews is on the idea of resurrection: the Sadducees don't believe in a physical resurrection, and challenge Jesus (Matt 22:23), whilst the Pharisees believe (Acts 23:8). I wrote this earlier:

Originally Posted by aron

Psalm 3 is a favourite, and this is why: Psalm 1 shows the way of the righteous man, Psalm 2 shows that righteous man enthroned as King of the nations (cf Deut 17:18-20), and Psalm 3 shows this King now facing rebellion. Just like with Genesis 1 through 3, God doesn't waste time but gets right to the point: the fall of humanity, their inability to obey God's commands (both directly and through a King) and its consequences.

But look what the deposed and exiled King does in Psalm 3, sequestered in a cave, surrounded by thousands who seek his life, betrayed by kinsmen and former aides (Absalom et al) - now, the King lies down and goes to sleep, confident that God can raise him again (v5). Jesus said, "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to raise it up again." It tracks Psalm 3:5 almost perfectly.

In this case, the consequences of rebellion are much different than in Genesis 3. In this case, not only the Faithful King willingly lays down, and is raised, but in his rising he redeems the land and the people. "Just as by one man death appeared, so by one man's death, salvation appeared to all." (cf Rom 5:12-17; 1 Cor 15:20-22).

Psalm 3:5 "I lay down and slept; I woke again, for the LORD sustained me." (ESV) is a prelude to Jesus' "I have the power to lay my life down and the power to take it back up again."

Often in the Psalms, the declaration of faith is in God's saving power towards the righteous servant, or the servant's power to obey God and be rewarded. The most relevant example for the NT is Psalm 16, given by Peter on Pentecost (and by Paul in Acts 13). But Psalm 18 has very similar intimations - "He rescued me because He delighted in me", which along with Psalm 42 quote Jonah's prayer in the whale's belly. "All your waves and your billows were over me/I was in the heart of the sea". Jesus of course references Jonah's experience, possibly through Psalms as well. "All the things written concerning me must come to pass."

Psalm 18
3 I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies.
4 The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid.
5 The sorrows of hell compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me.
6 In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears.

15 Then the channels of waters were seen, and the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of the breath of thy nostrils.
16 He sent from above, he took me, he drew me out of many waters.
17 He delivered me from my strong enemy, and from them which hated me: for they were too strong for me.
18 They prevented me in the day of my calamity: but the Lord was my stay.
19 He brought me forth also into a large place; he delivered me, because he delighted in me.

Psalm 42
5 Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him for the help of his countenance.
6 O my God, my soul is cast down within me: therefore will I remember thee from the land of Jordan, and of the Hermonites, from the hill Mizar.
7 Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts: all thy waves and thy billows are gone over me.
8 Yet the Lord will command his lovingkindness in the day time, and in the night his song shall be with me, and my prayer unto the God of my life.

Jonah 2
1 Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly,
2 And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.
3 For thou hadst cast me into the deep, in the midst of the seas; and the floods compassed me about: all thy billows and thy waves passed over me.
4 Then I said, I am cast out of thy sight; yet I will look again toward thy holy temple.
5 The waters compassed me about, even to the soul: the depth closed me round about, the weeds were wrapped about my head.
6 I went down to the bottoms of the mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever: yet hast thou brought up my life from corruption, O Lord my God.
7 When my soul fainted within me I remembered the Lord: and my prayer came in unto thee, into thine holy temple.
8 They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.
9 But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the Lord.

Psalm 69
2 I have sunk into the miry depths, where there is no footing; I have drifted into deep waters, where the flood engulfs me.

14 Rescue me from the mire and do not let me sink; deliver me from my foes and out of the deep waters.
15 Do not let the floodwaters engulf me or the depths swallow me up or the pit close its mouth over me.

Psalm 40:2
He lifted me up from the pit of destruction, out of the miry clay; He set my feet upon a rock, and made my footsteps firm.

__________________________________________________ _____________________

It's a bit 'esoteric', as I'm deriving a theme from observed textual patterns in poetic imagery and its use in the NT, but the NT keeps referring to the OT prophecy as pertaining to Jesus' experiences, so I am as well. Obedience + Suffering + Death = Resurrection. Jonah shows a glimpse, and Jesus quotes that, but the Psalms provide the details.

The arranged structure of the 150 Psalms may point to resurrection. If so, Psalm 3 isn't randomly placed, but keys to the Righteous King's death and resurrection, after 3 days. It's not too hard to connect the dots once you see them. The 150 Psalms were structured by a Pharisee, or Pharisee-agreeing person. It's about resurrection from the dead, and the Psalms are the proof-text of the redactor.

Of course, this resurrection-believing (and promoting) arranger of the Psalms is just a hypothesis. But my question is whether the placement of Psalm 3, right after Psalms 1 and 2 (which scholars see as deliberately forming an opening pair for the collection) a random thing, or is it also deliberate? And if it's placed there deliberately, then why? I see verse 5 as the key to my hypothesis.

And behind it all lies another question: David supposedly penned several thousand Psalms, which along with the Sons of Korah, Moses, Solomon, etc, would have constituted a very large body of work. Obviously many were lost. Why was this collection of 150 put together thus? Is it random, or arranged with a larger narrative (resurrection [??]) in mind?

And did Jesus see that narrative and walk into it? When you read his plain and deliberate statements in the gospels it seems entirely possible.

[JJ]

Thanks for sharing with us aron. These Psalms have some things worthy of discussion in light of the New Testament. The works of law can’t make anyone righteous, but the faith of Christ can, then righteous works naturally come out of the man who lives by faith. Witness Lee had trouble differentiating that and proposed to skip over Psalms or portions of them that spoke of righteousness, robbing others of the chance to learn from profitable teaching in inspired Psalms.

David’s angry approach of wishing harm on his enemies is what we all think when attacked by others but need not emulate. Jesus and Paul taught a different approach “Love your enemies” and so heaping coals of destruction on them in the day of judgement. Often those enemies were won over for God’s kingdom (think Saul of Tarsus). David’s bloodthirsty ways cost him the right to build the temple, in favor of Solomon his more peaceful son. Wielding the sword and wishing evil on others is contrary to the heart of the a Father who desires that all men be saved and come to the full knowledge of the truth. Judgement will come, but we need not take the opportunity to show mercy away in this age.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

It's a bit 'esoteric', as I'm deriving a theme from observed textual patterns in poetic imagery and its use in the NT, but the NT keeps referring to the OT prophecy as pertaining to Jesus' experiences, so I am as well. Obedience + Suffering + Death = Resurrection. Jonah shows a glimpse, and Jesus quotes that, but the Psalms provide the details.

Just read through this and something is bugging me. I agree that Jesus made reference to Jonah concerning being in the belly of the whale for 3 days. But for Jonah, the suffering/death metaphor is hardly useful as part of some formula because he did not obey, then suffer, then die (literally or figuratively) then resurrect. Instead, he disobeyed and suffered for it. That the worst part of that suffering was 3 days in the belly of a great fish, followed by preaching to Nineveh, does provide something to refer back to as foreshadow or prophecy concerning Christ does not make Jonah's experience completely like that of Christ.

If we are to use Jonah as the example, then it would be something like Disobedience (leads to) Suffering and Death (leads to) Resurrection (leads to) Obedience. If we insert "Repentance" between Death and Resurrection, it might look more like our history.

I have always liked the approach of preaching Christ from all of the Bible. But that does not mean that everything is directly linkable to Christ. Christ referred to Jonah in the fish for 3 days as a sign relating to him. But the rest of the account says more about us and how God will get what he desires despite us and our desires. Still good stuff, and also says something about Christ. But I surely cannot get Obedience + . . . = Resurrection from this account. Maybe that is not what you were suggesting and I just mixed two different things together that you did not intend.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Christ referred to Jonah in the fish for 3 days as a sign relating to him. But the rest of the account says more about us and how God will get what he desires despite us and our desires. Still good stuff, and also says something about Christ. But I surely cannot get Obedience + . . . = Resurrection from this account. Maybe that is not what you were suggesting and I just mixed two different things together that you did not intend.

Jonah prayed in the belly of the whale, that God could save him. That was obedience. God saved him. Jesus referred to Jonah's experience as what he would pass through.

In Psalm 16, David said God would keep him from the flesh-eating corruption of death. Peter quoted this on Pentecost as portraying Christ.

My contribution was to note the "nautical theme" of many Psalms passages, which otherwise were very similar to the one quoted by Peter in Acts 2, and repeated by Paul in Acts 13. Even one of them used the same phraseology. "All your waves and billows have gone over me". Someone is copying, here. And they have the consistent theme of Righteous Obedience + Suffering + Death = Resurrection.

So I'm saying that the theme of "resurrection" looms larger in the Psalms than Psalm 16. And the 'formula' I gave is from the Psalms, not from Jonah. But otherwise, they have striking parallels. And Jesus referenced Jonah, and Peter referenced Psalms. Pretty interesting, to me.

[Boxjobox]

I'll write this, and really do not want to get into a big theological debate, but only offer my view: WL's thing was the processed triune god. Reading and singing the psalms does not bring one into a thought that God is a processed trinity- in fact, quite the opposite. It brings one more into " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". WL had to belittle the psalms and twist them and explain them in his own mixed up theology because they contradicted his money making product which he sold under the LSM brand.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

I'll write this, and really do not want to get into a big theological debate, but only offer my view: WL's thing was the processed triune god. Reading and singing the psalms does not bring one into a thought that God is a processed trinity- in fact, quite the opposite. It brings one more into " Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ". WL had to belittle the psalms and twist them and explain them in his own mixed up theology because they contradicted his money making product which he sold under the LSM brand.

Yes, indeed Boxjobox

I wanted to correct a post I had somewhere on these boards (forgot). The One Body Life event "What Does Ekklesia Look Like" is January 25th in Loomis near Sacramento, not this Saturday.

[Boxjobox]

Aron, sorry to disrupt your excellent post with my comment about WL. I have been enjoying your writings.
And thanks JJ for your note.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Aron, sorry to disrupt your excellent post with my comment about WL. I have been enjoying your writings.

I agree with your point. WL couldn't get the Psalms to deliver value to his "Processed God" metric so he essentially dismissed them. He's not the first Protestant or post-Protestant to do so, but the grounds are weak.

~David was a sinner. Why then did Peter cite David's declaration in Psalm 16 in speaking on Christ's resurrection? Or why cite, "I come to do Your will, Oh God" etc? ~Heb 10:7; cf Psa 40:8. If all are sinners, and nobody can do God's will, why does the NT cite the verse? Answer: it was about Jesus. Duh.

~Violence and antagonism. In Ephesians Paul said, "We fight, just not against flesh and blood." Jesus conquered sin and death and Hades, and we celebrate his victory. David had nothing on Jesus. Demons cried out in fear when he walked in. "Oh! Jesus! Nazarene! What do we have to do with you! Have you come to destroy us?!"

Of course a new era came with Jesus. He was indeed the new Moses, the new Law-giver. But the pictures and types that support this Jesus are there, including his suffering the indignity of death on our behalf, and his being raised to glory. His obedience led directly to the Father's intervention and rescue - the pangs of death could not hold him. To me this is the central narrative in the Psalms. Everything else hinges on this one thing.

But WL had his "we're being processed to be baby gods" thing. And by being so self-focused, he missed a lot of Christ that is portrayed there.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

I agree with your point. WL couldn't get the Psalms to deliver value to his "Processed God" metric so he essentially dismissed them. He's not the first Protestant or post-Protestant to do so, but the grounds are weak.

~David was a sinner. Why then did Peter cite David's declaration in Psalm 16 in speaking on Christ's resurrection? Or why cite, "I come to do Your will, Oh God" etc? ~Heb 10:7; cf Psa 40:8. If all are sinners, and nobody can do God's will, why does the NT cite the verse? Answer: it was about Jesus. Duh.

~Violence and antagonism. In Ephesians Paul said, "We fight, just not against flesh and blood." Jesus conquered sin and death and Hades, and we celebrate his victory. David had nothing on Jesus. Demons cried out in fear when he walked in. "Oh! Jesus! Nazarene! What do we have to do with you! Have you come to destroy us?!"

Of course a new era came with Jesus. He was indeed the new Moses, the new Law-giver. But the pictures and types that support this Jesus are there, including his suffering the indignity of death on our behalf, and his being raised to glory. His obedience led directly to the Father's intervention and rescue - the pangs of death could not hold him. To me this is the central narrative in the Psalms. Everything else hinges on this one thing.

But WL had his "we're being processed to be baby gods" thing. And by being so self-focused, he missed a lot of Christ that is portrayed there.

While reading 2 Timothy I came cross two verses that corroborate what you have been saying about The Psalms being about Jesus Christ our Lord, the son of David, raised from among the dead and that we should be holding to this teaching with the faith and love which are in Him.

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/2-8.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/1-13.htm

It really is that simple.

[aron]

Originally Posted by JJ

While reading 2 Timothy I came cross two verses that corroborate what you have been saying about The Psalms being about Jesus Christ our Lord, the son of David, raised from among the dead and that we should be holding to this teaching with the faith and love which are in Him.

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/2-8.htm

https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/1-13.htm

It really is that simple.

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel

Pretty simple.

Also I like,

Romans 1:1-4
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

There's nothing wrong from teasing esotericism from abstruse readings of Greek and Hebrew clauses, or from comments made by some inter-testamental "Second Temple" source like the Qumran caves, or from early non-canonical Christian writings like the Shepherd of Hermas. But everything - everything - points to this gospel, this event. When we see the earthly, suffering Christ, descended from David, now raised to glory, we lose sight of everything else. Everything else is subsumed by this singular experiential reality. An informative phrase is used by John, who saw this One and simply dissolved his consciousness onto the floor (Rev 1:17). And remember, this was a close disciple who'd hung out with him for 3+ years!

Some may say the words "Processed Triune God" speak to this very thing, but my experience is, look at how quickly that encapsulating label became the vehicle for focusing on self, on applying this "Processed God" to our subjective and fickle sensory life, this abstract "Christ is everything" and "all-inclusive Christ" becoming a cipher manipulated by charlatans for personal gain.

And I got onto this riff on Psalm 3, on post #882, because I was trying to make the case that the Psalms are a proverbial mother-lode of imagery of the "buried" Christ. Abandoned, betrayed, shamed, persecuted, and given up for dead. David in a cave, with Absalom and the nobles on a warpath, wondering if he'd ever make it out. Or, Saul and others hunting him. Or the Philistines eyeing him with muttering distrust. Then deciding, "Well, God has all power. If he put me here, He can take me out again." The link with Jonah is there. I showed the verses that overlap.

I just feel like, if "this gospel" referenced in the cited NT verses above is interesting, then this poetic imagery might be as well. Again, it's somewhat of a subjective response and isn't truth per se, but much of our sharing in the 'ekklesia' is in this vein: as long as we don't force the issue we shouldn't be afraid to present such ruminations. And I do thank all our readers for the grace afforded me here.

[JJ]

Originally Posted by aron

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel

Pretty simple.

Also I like,

Romans 1:1-4
Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

There's nothing wrong from teasing esotericism from abstruse readings of Greek and Hebrew clauses, or from comments made by some inter-testamental "Second Temple" source like the Qumran caves, or from early non-canonical Christian writings like the Shepherd of Hermas. But everything - everything - points to this gospel, this event. When we see the earthly, suffering Christ, descended from David, now raised to glory, we lose sight of everything else. Everything else is subsumed by this singular experiential reality. An informative phrase is used by John, who saw this One and simply dissolved his consciousness onto the floor (Rev 1:17). And remember, this was a close disciple who'd hung out with him for 3+ years!

Some may say the words "Processed Triune God" speak to this very thing, but my experience is, look at how quickly that encapsulating label became the vehicle for focusing on self, on applying this "Processed God" to our subjective and fickle sensory life, this abstract "Christ is everything" and "all-inclusive Christ" becoming a cipher manipulated by charlatans for personal gain.

And I got onto this riff on Psalm 3, on post #882, because I was trying to make the case that the Psalms are a proverbial mother-lode of imagery of the "buried" Christ. Abandoned, betrayed, shamed, persecuted, and given up for dead. David in a cave, with Absalom and the nobles on a warpath, wondering if he'd ever make it out. Or, Saul and others hunting him. Or the Philistines eyeing him with muttering distrust. Then deciding, "Well, God has all power. If he put me here, He can take me out again." The link with Jonah is there. I showed the verses that overlap.

I just feel like, if "this gospel" referenced in the cited NT verses above is interesting, then this poetic imagery might be as well. Again, it's somewhat of a subjective response and isn't truth per se, but much of our sharing in the 'ekklesia' is in this vein: as long as we don't force the issue we shouldn't be afraid to present such ruminations. And I do thank all our readers for the grace afforded me here.

Indeed, great quote. If we get bored by this gospel it really has connected with us in a personal manner yet. When it does we really can’t stop speaking of this resurrected Jesus and his power to save, transform, and build up sinners in His love into a glorious assembly of Jews and gentiles that glorifies God, and Him alone. Praise Him.

Why not delve into 150 of the greatest poetic works designed for singing and pointing forth the coming son of David, son of God, the rightful king of Jews and gentiles knowing that Jesus fulfilled and fulfills them all to the glory of the Father forever and ever.

[Boxjobox]

Psalm 110:1-2

1The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
2The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!

The phrase "till I make your enemies your footstool" I think would be what is really "God's Economy". God raised up His anointed one, our Lord Jesus, and set him as head over all. Our Christian faith is that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, that he died for our sins, that God raised him from the dead, and gave his this highest honor of sitting at God's right hand, and that one day the Christ, Jesus will return. Of course, there is a lot more to the Christian faith, but I think this is the foundation- Its the foundation, the ground of the church from which all else is built up.

So what is this "till"? Paul addresses this in 1 Cor 15: 25-28

25For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

This does not bode well with a processed triune god phony concept of God's Economy. The theology WL sold had to discount the Psalms, and the saints singing and considering the Psalms because his LSM products did not align with the scripture.

[aron]

While talking someone frightened by the Coronavirus Pandemic, I told them, Watch Jesus... watch him, with fixation and utter intent. Don't look at anything else.

They replied, "I can't see him."

The issue is serious, pervasive, with real consequences. People are scared and alone, and they don't see Jesus. Their fear keeps them from seeing Jesus, and not seeing Jesus keeps them cut off from others, trapped in fear.

One passage of rescue is found in Hebrews 2. The author of Hebrews was likely not an original disciple, and had never met Jesus. “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.” ~Heb 2:3 (This suggests that the writer was not Paul, who strongly asserted that his revelation wasn’t second-hand, but direct [Gal 1:12].)

Now to the passage: “But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honour because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” ~Heb 2:9

Notice that the author says “we see Jesus”. “We” means all of us, writer and readers, and "see" is in the present tense. How? How do we see Jesus? The answer is in found in the surrounding text, which copiously quotes Psalms and Prophets. We see Jesus in Psalms, temporarily lower than the angels, suffering. We see Jesus in Psalms, persecuted, we see him dying in agony for our sins. We see him resurrected. We see him crowned with glory and honour, at the Father's right hand. We see Jesus.

There are a number of books on this kind of seeing, both on Psalms' reception in the NT in general and in individual NT books. One of my favourites has been by Gert Steyn, a professor of NT studies in the University of Pretoria. “Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in Reception” T&T Clark, 2012.

When you see Jesus, everything changes. Everything.

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” Zech 12:10, cf John 19:37

“No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven—the Son of Man. Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life.” John 3:13,14, cf Num 21:8 “Then the LORD said to Moses, "Make a snake and mount it on a pole. When anyone who is bitten looks at it, he will live."

You have to see Jesus, to make it out of your current predicament Covid 19 or otherwise. That’s the way home to the Father in heaven. And it’s a way of peace. Once you see him, you have a peace that nothing can shake. Once you see (believe in), obey, and trust Jesus, no storm of life can shake you, no uncertainty or perilous circumstance can make your emotions jump. It’s the path of peace.

I’d like to conclude with two passages. Psalm 3 has David hiding in a cave, pursued by Saul and abandoned by his former associates. Verse 5 says, “I lie down and sleep; I wake again, because the LORD sustains me.” On this same regard, Jesus said, “I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to take it back up again. I have this authority because the Father gives it to me.” ~John 10:17,18

And Psalm 18:19 says, “He brought me out into the open; He rescued me because He delighted in me.” Like with companion piece, and neighbor Psalm 16, the text of Psalm 18 shows us the resurrection of Jesus because of the Father’s approval. And we know that the NT repeatedly emphasizes the Father’s delight in the Son. “This is My Beloved, in whom I delight. Hear him”. The Father's delight, approval, and rescue (resurrection) are strongly pervasive themes in the NT, and are foreshadowed repeatedly in David's rescue, from Saul, from the Philistines, from Absalom's rebellion etc etc.

Many on this forum are former prisoners from the Witness Lee Mind Control Programme and Guanxi Network, aka the Lord’s Recovery, aka the Local Church, aka Living Stream Ministry and aka Bibles for America. While under its strong thought control, we were kept from seeing Jesus. No, we were told, that’s not Jesus, just David the sinner presenting his "fallen human concepts" in the Psalms. One regularly sees these phrases in the footnotes, along with "mixed sentiments" and such.

Instead of seeing Jesus we saw money going into the Daystar Motorhome Company, aka Phosphorous and Overseas Christian Stewards, which funneled wealth to the Lee family network and those of his immediate peers. Nobody knows exactly how much went to whom because those who know don’t talk. But we know where the money went – into the Lee Network. Instead of Jesus, we got “the Office”, a euphemism for another of Lee’s sons, who repeatedly abused people. We got terms like “God’s humble bondslave” as a term for someone who never took direction from anyone, did whatever he wanted, and whose inspirations were supposedly tantamount to “God’s move”. And we got phrases like “a martyr who was poured out as a fragrant sacrificial offering” for someone who was repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct, not only by the government but by his own home church (!) and who when confronted didn’t deny (!), even knowing that many would be stumbled in their Christian walk. See Lily Hsu’s published account as an example of what his confession did to the church. It seems people who knew of Watchman Nee first-hand and second-hand didn’t hold him in such high regard, as those more distantly removed in time and space.

Now, to me those are our two choices: see the world, or see Jesus. The two options are mutually exclusive. You can’t have the one and the other. It’s an either/or predicament: there’s only one Way home to the Father, and it’s Jesus.

And we see Jesus. See the below quote, for example, from Psalm 110. Please note that the "Jesus quotes" are not merely limited to Psalm 2, 8, 110, and a few others. One merely has to seek, as I tried to present in the quotes from Psalm 3 and 18 above.

Originally Posted by Boxjobox

Psalm 110:1-2

1The Lord said to my Lord,
“Sit at My right hand,
Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”
2The Lord shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!

The phrase "till I make your enemies your footstool" I think would be what is really "God's Economy". God raised up His anointed one, our Lord Jesus, and set him as head over all. Our Christian faith is that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the Living God, that he died for our sins, that God raised him from the dead, and gave his this highest honor of sitting at God's right hand, and that one day the Christ, Jesus will return. Of course, there is a lot more to the Christian faith, but I think this is the foundation- Its the foundation, the ground of the church from which all else is built up.

So what is this "till"? Paul addresses this in 1 Cor 15: 25-28

25For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. 28Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

This does not bode well with a processed triune god phony concept of God's Economy. The theology WL sold had to discount the Psalms, and the saints singing and considering the Psalms because his LSM products did not align with the scripture.

[Ohio]

Reading thru Psalms 88, it almost reads as the voice of the Messiah in Sheol 3 days and 3 nights.

• 3. My life is nigh unto Sheol
• 4. I am reckoned with those in the pit
• 5. Cast off among the dead, like the slain who lie in the grave
• 6. You laid me in the lowest pit, in dark places, in the deeps
• 7. Your wrath lies hard upon me ......

I looked at a bunch of commentaries, but none seemed to take this view, including the Life Studies.

Read it again with the thought that we are hearing the voice of Jesus from the grave. Pretty fascinating.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

One passage of rescue is found in Hebrews 2. The author of Hebrews was likely not an original disciple, and had never met Jesus. “This salvation, which was first announced by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him.” ~Heb 2:3 (This suggests that the writer was not Paul, who strongly asserted that his revelation wasn’t second-hand, but direct [Gal 1:12].)

I agree this passage is a great rescue in order to see Jesus.

Concerning the authorship of Hebrews, a couple comments here. I don't see how v.2.3 and the authorship by Paul are mutually exclusive. Paul could have direct revelation of Jesus Christ, and yet still have confirmation from those who "heard Him," i.e. the disciples who were with Jesus in the flesh. Gal 2.2 verifies this. Even after 14 years of salvation, Paul went to Jerusalem "privately to them of reputation laying before them the gospel he proclaimed" just to confirm that he was not "running in vain." Some of the details here are recorded in Acts 15.

Furthermore, the scholars' contentions against the authorship of Paul have to do with the actual Greek text of the book of Hebrews. Scholars also say the Greek text matches the writings of Luke but dismiss him readily as unqualified. (Philip Schaff said, "Hebrews is written in purer Greek than any book of the NT, except those portions of Luke where he is independent of prior documents.")

This apparently insurmountable quandary of authorship is easily explained by asserting that Paul wrote the rough draft outline, and Luke the polished text. Were not Paul and Luke constant companions? After Paul was sent to Felix in Caesarea under house arrest, he and Luke had much time and burden to corroborate on this book. Perhaps it was finished in Rome.

[aron]

I was reviewing, and came across this:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

1 Peter 3:10 does not match God's economy I think that's why.

WL had panned 1 Peter's quote of Psalm 34 and the question was, Why? This was the answer.

I used to say this, too. "Not God's economy". I'd left the LC physically, and was in another Christian meeting, and even if the speaking was 'inspired' and left the audience moved, not me. I'd seen "God's economy" and nothing else matched, even Peter quoting Psalm 34. But eventually I realized that WL's definition of "God's economy" had little scriptural basis, and other readings better aligned with "the whole Bible", or the whole textual corpus, as WL used to claim for support.

For example, what if Paul hadn't written, "To Timothy, my true child in the faith: Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. As I urged you on my departure to Macedonia, you should stay on at Ephesus to instruct certain men not to teach false doctrines or devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculation rather than the stewardship of God’s work [oikonomian Theou], which is by faith."

Imagine if Paul had instead written, "...rather than the stewardship of God's work [or, God's economy], which is God dispensing Himself into His chosen people". In that case, there'd be some basis, no? But Paul didn't write that.

Or if the Blended Pillars in Jerusalem had given Paul the right hand of fellowship, and said "Only, remember the poor" and Paul had exclaimed, "No! I'm not here for that! I'm here for God's economy!" Then we'd have some basis, no? But instead, he said that he was eager to do that very thing (Gal 2:10). Then in Acts 24:17, Paul said, "After many years, I returned to Jerusalem, bringing alms for my people". Paul didn't just say it, and teach it, he did it. He carried it out. And this activity matches Paul's repeated comments in I and II Corinthians and Romans, to set aside funds for the poor of Jerusalem.

In the gospels, Jesus taught, "Give to those who can't repay you in this age, and your reward will be great in heaven" (Luke 14:13-21). It seems then that there's more basis to say that this is God's economy, because Jesus repeatedly stressed this, it's what the Jerusalem leaders stressed to Paul, it's what Paul eagerly assented to, and it's what Paul both taught others and did himself.

And Paul enjoined the Gentile churches to participate. Romans 15:26 says, "For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord's people in Jerusalem." Do you suppose that the Apostle Paul taught the ones in Macedonia and Achaia and Rome and Corinth one thing, and then charged Timothy to teach something different to those in Ephesus? If God's economy is instead what Witness Lee said, then why isn't there NT textual support? No, it was an interpretive overlay produced by the 'revelation' of the 'seer'. It wasn't actually written down, defined, or presented, as such. Instead, you needed a revelation to see it. (You know, a hand is shaped like a glove, right?) And then, what actually was written down (both NT and OT) got panned, because, like 1 Peter quoting Psalm 34, that supposedly didn't "match God's economy", i.e. it didn't jibe with the home-brewed interpretive matrix.

When your interpretation causes you to dismiss the actual words of the Bible as the basis of your faith, preaching and practice, then perhaps you should instead drop the interpretation.

[aron]

Originally Posted by alwayscurious

How can we find what God has called us to do on this Earth? What is God's plan for us on an individual level? Is it just to be part of his eternal plan? What about the goals I have in my life, whether professional or personal? Is it not good to fulfill them to the best of my abilities? To strive for the peak? What am I not seeing? Should I not strive to be the best human I can possibly be? At the same time, expressing the virtues of Christ and loving God more and more? does anyone else share my frustration??

Reading this question on another thread, and get the frustration - it is the quintessential post-LC angst - but wanted to answer here, in a particular context. We do not know God, truly, or ourselves, but God know us, and this knowledge is complete. And in His knowledge, not ours, we find peace.

Psalm 139 O LORD, you have searched me and known me!
2 You know when I sit down and when I rise up;
you discern my thoughts from afar.
3 You search out my path and my lying down
and are acquainted with all my ways.
4 Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.
5 You hem me in, behind and before,
and lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me;
it is high; I cannot attain it.

This shows an appreciation and awareness of God’s knowledge. The writer can't encompass God’s knowledge in full (v6) but is aware that God's knowledge encompasses the writer in full (vv 1-4). We don't know God, but we know that God knows us. ~Gal 4:9; cf 1 Cor 8:3

7 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
9 If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,”
12 even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.

God controls all matter and space. There is nothing beyond God. No footstep of ours is beyond God’s grasp. No move escapes His will.

13 For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.
Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed substance;
in your book were written, every one of them,
the days that were formed for me,
when as yet there was none of them.

Time is in God’s hand. It is all in the ledger. “It is written”, said Jesus – it is definitively settled, even before we see it appear. We have free will – we can fight the ledger, ignore it. But it still exists. Everything in the ledger is true.

7 How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
How vast is the sum of them!
18 If I would count them, they are more than the sand.
I awake, and I am still with you.

Again, the scope of God’s thought is beyond our power to grasp. “Not a sparrow fall from the sky, but the Father knows it” said Jesus. “Every hair on your head is numbered.” Our job is not to know, as much as to appreciate that God knows. God knows all. Psalm 147:4 says, "He determines the number of the stars and calls them each by name", and Isaiah 40:26 says "Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one and calls forth each of them by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing."

19 Oh that you would slay the wicked, O God!
O men of blood, depart from me!
20 They speak against you with malicious intent;
your enemies take your name in vain.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD?
And do I not loathe those who rise up against you?
22 I hate them with complete hatred;
I count them my enemies.

Three times the Psalms speak this phrase – “away from me!” (Psa 6, 119, 139) – and three times Jesus spoke it. One with the tempter, one with Peter, one with the sheep and the goats. Coincidence? People say, “In the NT we love, not hate” but Jesus brooked no compromise. He was obedient without fail.

23 Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
24 And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!

Again the writer/speaker is open to the God who knows all. Jesus fulfilled the first three lines of this section, and thus becomes our Way everlasting. The rest of us are “in the grievous way” of v 24, but Jesus was the Obedient Lamb who redeems humanity. Because Jesus was not "in the grievous way" he becomes our Way. Both the Gospel of John and the Epistle to the Hebrews make this utterly plain to the attentive reader.

[OBW]

Psalm 139: 7-12
Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.
If I say, “Surely the darkness shall cover me,
and the light about me be night,”
even the darkness is not dark to you;
the night is bright as the day,
for darkness is as light with you.

God controls all matter and space. There is nothing beyond God. No footstep of ours is beyond God’s grasp. No move escapes His will.

aron,

Not sure I see your comments about control and will as flowing from these verses. I see that no matter whether we are trying to avoid God or are in desperate situations, God is always there. But nothing (truly) about his control or his will. Whether we realize it or not, as those who believe and follow God, we are never separated from him even when we think we may be. And in our darkest moments — even if we try to hide from him — he IS still there and light is still available to us.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I see that no matter whether we are trying to avoid God or are in desperate situations, God is always there. But nothing (truly) about his control or his will.

Yes, perhaps it was an overstretch. The question that I was trying to address was, apart from the constant mental massaging of the LC, how to comprehend God's will for us, personally? My point was that our knowledge is bounded, God's is not, at least operationally. And our comings and goings, risings and fallings, even our uncertainties and discord, all fit within his order. He may not order our failures but his order is not threatened by them.

In my case, one day I got a simple message: "serve others". That was the way home. And from that day I haven't been blindly beating the air, but have had a message and a mission. It has sustained me and conveyed me from one day to the next. And almost daily, if not daily, do I see 5 loaves feed 2,000 hungry mouths. God does it. I am dull in perception but not so dull that I can't perceive the utter improbability of it all. Yet it consistently occurs.

As a bit of an aside, I note that James doesn't call himself an apostle, but rather the introduction says, "James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ..." James' service to God and to the Lord Jesus Christ was to serve others. In this he fulfills the Great Commandment in its two parts, what he calls the "royal law" and "the perfect law of freedom" (1:25; 2:8; 2:12). It is just to love, and to love is to serve. When you see this, you understand, and are set free. When James speaks of 'works' this is the only particular work that is noted. To visit widows and orphans in their afflictions. Other than that, stay humble, stay on the bottom, keep your mouth from prattling on. (of course I'm guilty of failure at the last point and apologize to our tired and afflicted readers. Please forgive me, for taking so much effort to make so little sense)

[OBW]

And you know my constant drumbeat. Let each passage say what it says, and let others say what they say. Both can be correct, but not necessarily as the result of the passage in front of us at the moment.

And that is why I generally dismiss what Lee taught. He sometimes pointed to what was there, but also to what was not there. And the only way to make that point true is to find other verses. Since he did not, I can only question the validity of what he said. And it was usually the part that was missing the evidence that he was trying to get across.

I realize that was not your intent. What you said was true, just because we have seen it stated elsewhere. Lee, not so much.

[JJ]

I was at a “Training” on Colossians, I think, when Witness Lee belittled some sisters for singing a song that included “His loving kindness endures forever”. He told them they should be singing a song that used New Testament words and was about Gods Economy (His favorite topic).

At the time, being a babe in the Lord, I didn’t have the discernment to question what he said.

Now, many years later, and hopefully more mature in Christ, I’ve come to really appreciate “His loving kindness endures forever” and of course we should sing that.

Here is a link to Psalm 118 that starts with those words https://biblehub.com/nas/psalms/118.htm

I think this is a great Psalm, fulfilled in Jesus Christ, the Lord, who I call on when in distress, and He delivers me. He has become my salvation. Better to trust the Lord than to trust in man. The stone the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone, this is marvelous in our eyes. Hosanna, do save, Oh Lord. Blessed is He who comes in the name of YVWH, Jesus, YVWH savior!

Matthew 1 tells the origin of Jesus and ends with why Joseph gave him that name. Relevant reading during this season. Jesus, the king, of kings.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

My point is simple - there's a pattern of reception in the NT, and WL breaks that pattern.

Over on the “God’s economy” thread, I’d been discussing my issues with Witness Lee misusing the NT text, and misreading the OT whilst fabricating and supporting his interpretations of Paul. But I felt to bring my further remarks here, as it’s more specific to this topic. I wanted to expand how I came to this view.

I was at home, singing Psalm 3 from the KJV. It had a nice melody that forced me to stretch my voice, and I used to rehearse the tune. I got to, “I laid me down and slept; I awaked; for the LORD sustained me” and I fell to the floor as if struck by a solid blow. I couldn’t sing. I couldn't see. I slowly raised up, began again, and again I was put down. The third time I tried, and the same thing happened again. I lay there for some time after the third try, slowly got up, and stopped singing. I later considered the text and was thunderstruck: I could actually seem to hear Jesus' voice in my consciousness: “I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to take it up again.” It was the Lord!

When I shared the verse in a meeting, as an example of a revelation of a type or figure of Christ, the LC Elder wouldn’t hear it. He just clammed up, stared straight ahead, rigid. I slowly began to sense what I was up against here. He couldn’t deny the close textual parallel, but since WL hadn’t expounded it, he couldn’t affirm it either. So he froze, and the meeting with him. Silent, still, quite awkward. Very uncomfortable.

Later, the same thing happened when singing Psalm 18 in the NIV text. “He rescued me because He delighted in me” – I could hear the voice from heaven, saying to Peter and James and John, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight, hear him.” I never sensed the import of the Father’s delight in His Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, until Psalm 18, then I couldn’t deny that it was an absolute show-stopper. Then it said, “The LORD has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me” and I knew it was the clean hands of the Lord. There are none other.

(On a related topic, as an example of scholarship with a careful and thorough examination of the NT reception of Psalm, see the book edited by Human, D. J., & Steyn, G. J. Psalms and Hebrews: Studies in reception. 2010, Bloomsbury Publishing. The Epistle to the Hebrews cited Psalms 19 times without implying it was fallen concepts or vain striving by a failed law-keeper.)

[aron]

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?