LSM’s Ignorance of the Synoptic Problem - Tomes

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

1st a big thank you to Nigel for a thorough report on the subject. This gives a basis to fellowship about these things on an intelligent basis....

Well thought out considerations bro VIW. Thanks.

But seems to me there's lots of conjecturing going on; by Nigel, the scholars, Nee & Lee, and even yourself bro VIW. There's never going to be certitude or consensus concerning the gospels, of content or publication. Only faith reconciles it.

The certitude Nigel seems to bring to the table, that should be important to us, is: Neither Nee nor Lee were Bible scholars ... they were over inflated puffballs ... over sold on themselves. And they sold us, at least me, a false bill of goods.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well thought out considerations bro VIW. Thanks.

But seems to me there's lots of conjecturing going on; by Nigel, the scholars, Nee & Lee, and even yourself bro VIW. There's never going to be certitude or consensus concerning the gospels, of content or publication. Only faith reconciles it.

The certitude Nigel seems to bring to the table, that should be important to us, is: Neither Nee nor Lee were Bible scholars ... they were over inflated puffballs ... over sold on themselves. And they sold us, at least me, a false bill of goods.

Bro Awareness,
I think WN was a scholar of the 1st class. He was extremely well read, an original thinker, and respected the world over and a martyr. I would not say that WL was a scholar in general because it seems he only read Nee and what Nee recommended, but I would say he was a Bible scholar.

I think both were great men of God. WL did get considerably over sold on himself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Bro Awareness,

I think WN was a scholar of the 1st class. He was extremely well read, an original thinker, and respected the world over and a martyr. I would not say that WL was a scholar in general because it seems he only read Nee and what Nee recommended, but I would say he was a Bible scholar.

I think both were great men of God. WL did get considerably over sold on himself.

Stick around brother Steve. The forum can use a great voice such as yours.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Bro Awareness,
I think WN was a scholar of the 1st class. He was extremely well read, an original thinker, and respected the world over and a martyr. I would not say that WL was a scholar in general because it seems he only read Nee and what Nee recommended, but I would say he was a Bible scholar.

I think both were great men of God. WL did get considerably over sold on himself.

Assuming that Nee read through and utilized that collection of books he supposedly had, there is no reason why he shouldn't be given the same level of respect as someone with a degree. I think Nee ministry has it's benefits if taken with a grain of salt. I have found parts of his ministry (especially his earlier ministry) that indicate he should not be blindly followed as do those in the LC.

As for Lee, I'm sure he loved the Bible and loved studying it. I have become increasingly cautious, however, about what might be "helpful" from his ministry. Why? It's not to say that the was completely wrong, all the time, but he was so quick to dismiss everything that he didn't deem to be useful for his purposes. The quote that Nigel included at the beginning of his writing says a lot about Lee:

“Since World War II...,” he observed,1 “there has not been one publication that is weighty concerning Bible exposition, the divine life, or the truth.” Neither did seminaries and theological education escape his ire; “Christianity...has been...opening seminaries and educating students of theology. However, these theological graduates have not gotten into the depths of the Bible...” he asserted, adding,2 “Christianity has not published a single book of great spiritual value.”

I grew up hearing people always talk about how "rich" Lee's ministry was or how much help that they had received from it. As a result, over the years I developed this view that whatever outside sources that Lee referenced were the only "weighty" publications out there besides the ministry. Lee himself said that Nee had done all the work in going through so many publication, so it was unnecessary for him to do so. I think this resulted in Lee only using a small set of reference materials, probably the ones that Nee recommended. So Lee's "rich" ministry was developed in this state of isolation from many of the more contemporary works, and even from a broader selection of traditional reference materials that could have been available to him.

When I look at things more objectively, I see those in the LC people claiming that the ministry of Lee is the "ministry of the age". Looking beyond the LC, where is there any significant appreciation of Lee's ministry among the general Christian public? This is in contrast to Nee's ministry, where you might at least expect some here and there to have heard about and possibly have read Nee. Nee's legacy is that he left something which may be of value to Christians outside the LC. Lee's legacy is overshadowed by his exclusivism, and his know-it-all attitude. I'm not here to say that Lee didn't offer anything of value, however, I think that he destroyed any respect that he could of gotten outside of the LC.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Freedom

Assuming that Nee read through and utilized that collection of books he supposedly had, there is no reason why he shouldn't be given the same level of respect as someone with a degree. I think Nee ministry has it's benefits if taken with a grain of salt. I have found parts of his ministry (especially his earlier ministry) that indicate he should not be blindly followed as do those in the LC.

As for Lee, I'm sure he loved the Bible and loved studying it. I have become increasingly cautious, however, about what might be "helpful" from his ministry. Why? It's not to say that the was completely wrong, all the time, but he was so quick to dismiss everything that he didn't deem to be useful for his purposes. The quote that Nigel included at the beginning of his writing says a lot about Lee:
I grew up hearing people always talk about how "rich" Lee's ministry was or how much help that they had received from it. As a result, over the years I developed this view that whatever outside sources that Lee referenced were the only "weighty" publications out there besides the ministry. Lee himself said that Nee had done all the work in going through so many publication, so it was unnecessary for him to do so. I think this resulted in Lee only using a small set of reference materials, probably the ones that Nee recommended. So Lee's "rich" ministry was developed in this state of isolation from many of the more contemporary works, and even from a broader selection of traditional reference materials that could have been available to him.

When I look at things more objectively, I see those in the LC people claiming that the ministry of Lee is the "ministry of the age". Looking beyond the LC, where is there any significant appreciation of Lee's ministry among the general Christian public? This is in contrast to Nee's ministry, where you might at least expect some here and there to have heard about and possibly have read Nee. Nee's legacy is that he left something which may be of value to Christians outside the LC. Lee's legacy is overshadowed by his exclusivism, and his know-it-all attitude. I'm not here to say that Lee didn't offer anything of value, however, I think that he destroyed any respect that he could of gotten outside of the LC.

Freedom,
I think I agree with everything you said, except for taking WN "with a grain of salt." What he said deserves serious consideration. No one should be followed blindly. I don't buy a lot of what he said.

WL had some serious problems. Pride and exclusivity were among the top ones - which WN did not share. His other big problems were to throw out parts of the word that didn't agree with him, too much emphasis on submission to human authority in the church, and more. He repented for his exclusivity on his death bed. It's too bad he didn't say more about it.

WL led people to enjoy the Lord and to really love the Lord with all their heart. Also to love and reverence and trust the Word. It would have been great if he could have been balanced by other brothers.

His ministry went on a path of self-destruction in 1988 after he kicked out all other voices that could have corrected him. At that time I thought the quarantined brothers were rebellious and finished as far as the Lord was concerned. Then we were quarantined in 2007.

John Ingalls, Christian Chen and Bill Mallon published a hymnal. John wanted to include some hymns by WL, but Christian Chen said that WL's name was too soiled. Christian Chen said that it would take 40 years before Christians could receive something by WL. I don't think it would take that long.

Christianity Today in Jan, 2015 listed the 10 most influential churches of the last century. #2 was the underground church movement in communist China. Also, in April 2014 both WN and WL, with emphasis on WL, were honored in the U.S. Congress as being instrumental in bringing the gospel to communist China.

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Christianity Today in Jan, 2015 listed the 10 most influential churches of the last century. #2 was the underground church movement in communist China. Also, in April 2014 both WN and WL, with emphasis on WL, were honored in the U.S. Congress as being instrumental in bringing the gospel to communist China.

You infer causality with WN and WL to the underground church movement. That may be so, but how to tell, really? And if so, should we also infer causality to some of the wilder sects that have sprung up, like the Eastern Lightning? There is a point where "influential" may be accurate but in a negative way. Like Herod and Pilate were also influential in shaping the early Christian movement. (Not trying to argue here, just trying to provide food for thought).

Regarding being honored by the U.S. Congress, I assume you know that for 50,000 bucks you can get May designated as National Tulip Month? You can get them to read anything into the Congressional Register if you grease their palms. The Congress doesn't work without a quid pro quo, and that almost invariably involves money. How do you think they run those multi-million dollar election campaigns?

To me, public acclaim by the U.S. Congress is indication that someone, unnamed, put pressure on someone else, probably through monetary means, but also possibly through coercion, and voila! You have a public document. That's how the system works. Someone got paid off.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

John Ingalls, Christian Chen and Bill Mallon published a hymnal. John wanted to include some hymns by WL, but Christian Chen said that WL's name was too soiled. Christian Chen said that it would take 40 years before Christians could receive something by WL. I don't think it would take that long.

I think they also got rejected by LSM's legal copyright department.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I think they also got rejected by LSM's legal copyright department.

Several years ago I asked LSM for permission to use some of their songs in our church services. They granted it. But it turned out our worship leader was not interested. I was pretty naive to think he would be because the songs were so out-of-date.

Think of Issac Asimov. Thirty-five years ago he was the most prolific writer of science books for the layman in the world. He wrote about everything. Now, if you are now interested in learning about Physics or Biology, would you buy a book by Asimov, or someone more contemporary? Same with Lee, and he because of his reputation has an even harder hill to climb. Ain't gonna happen. Not without some serious re-writing and repackaging by someone not in the LCM movement, and even then highly unlikely. Bits and pieces will get out, but that's it.

People want new things, not necessarily new content, but they want to know someone contemporary is recommending it. Used bookstores are full of books by forgotten writers, some of whom were even once famous. Sad but that's the reality.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

John Ingalls, Christian Chen and Bill Mallon published a hymnal. John wanted to include some hymns by WL, but Christian Chen said that WL's name was too soiled. Christian Chen said that it would take 40 years before Christians could receive something by WL. I don't think it would take that long.

You didn't think it would take that long, or you don't think it will take that long? The way you wrote it mixes time references.

Anyway, Christians will never take anything directly from Lee in any significant numbers. They might take it from someone who passes it along second hand. (As Joyce Meyer already passes along some things from Nee.)

But Lee's time came and went. He traded influence for power. Said another way, instead of making friends he chose to be a big shot. He said many times that if you are going to be famous it's better to have a bad name than a good one. Well, he got the bad name he wanted. So why be surprised no one wants his ministry?

The only eligible group to take Lee's stuff might be evangelicals. And their values are in conflict with Lee's focus on "building the church." No evangelical is going to take that word because they see it as telling the church to neglect the world. And from what we know of LCM history, they are right.

I'm not saying no one should take Lee's ministry. That's a subject for another discussion. I'm just saying people who think they will are dreaming.

Teachers have a limited time window to reach people. Who reads Murray or Tozer anymore? And they are loved, considered orthodox and much more famous. Why should someone read Lee, especially as antagonistic, unorthodox and obscure as he is? Like I said, dreaming.

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by Igzy

You didn't think it would take that long, or you don't think it will take that long? The way you wrote it mixes time references.

I don't think it will take 40 years for some of WL's ministry to be appreciated by Christianity. Just looking at the U.S. & Canada, I would say, Never, like you, but it could happen through China.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Teachers have a limited time window to reach people. Who reads Murray or Tozer anymore? And they are loved, considered orthodox and much more famous.

Tozer is very popular at ChristianAudio.com. Both books by him and biographies of him. I judge this by the ads put out by Christian audio, and the comments on the site about the books. Lyle Dorsett's popular bio of Tozer is < 10 years old. You don't make a book into an audio book unless it will have sales.
They also have a few Andrew Murray audio books. Not much activity on those.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

Bro Awareness,
I think WN was a scholar of the 1st class. He was extremely well read, an original thinker, and respected the world over and a martyr..

Did you know Nee? Or do you draw your picture of Nee from Lee?

[VoiceInWilderness]

Originally Posted by awareness

Did you know Nee? Or do you draw your picture of Nee from Lee?

From Nee's writings, biographies of him and what WL said about him.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

From Nee's writings, biographies of him and what WL said about him.

That's where I came by Nee. You should add to your list of reading about him Lily Hsu's book "My Unforgettable Memories:Watchman Nee and Shanghai Local Church."

Hit me in PM for more info ...

[aron]

Originally Posted by VoiceInWilderness

I think WN was a scholar of the 1st class. He was extremely well read, an original thinker, and respected the world over and a martyr. I would not say that WL was a scholar in general because it seems he only read Nee and what Nee recommended, but I would say he was a Bible scholar.

I think both were great men of God. WL did get considerably over sold on himself.

VIW,

Your voice of moderation is welcome here. Please don't take the deafening silence as hostility. I find that the more I argue here, the more extreme I get, which is why it is crucial for me to consider other, less entrenched points of view.

Even though you're probably in the minority in ascribing positive values to the ministry of WL, this view is still necessary for a conversation to take place. Please don't think we are out to either pound you into submission or drive you away. Conversations need differing perspectives: then they become mutual learning opportunities.

Regarding the so-called synoptic problem, for example, I felt that your original readings were valuable. I consider myself well-versed in the gospels but you helped me consider them anew. Which is what conversations are all about.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I find that the more I argue here, the more extreme I get, which is why it is crucial for me to consider other, less entrenched points of view.

Even though you're probably in the minority in ascribing positive values to the ministry of WL, this view is still necessary for a conversation to take place.

We can all become hardened in our views the longer we spend here. But then my heart convicts me for not being fair ... Or honest.

These recent articles by Tomes have addressed Lee's adherence to older Christian scholarship, with the complete rejection of the modern. I have seen little to persuade me that, in this regard, Lee displayed serious shotcomings. Christians for centuries have dissed the new in favor of the old, prefering the test of time to vett out the good from the worthless. Music is just another example of this.

It seems to me that the contempory solution to the so-called synoptic problem is to apply later and later dates to the writing of the gospels. Eventually even these "scholars" have realized that probably the authors could not have lived a hundred years or more. Since many, if not most, of the apostles were martyred during Nero's reign of terror, its hard to believe all the Gospels were written post-temple destruction.

Then the "scholars" conclude that perhaps the Gospels are forgeries, and their brand of scholarship creates new side effects to their prescribed medicines.

At one time bother Tomes addressed pertinent issues in LC-world, but now Im not so sure.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

We can all become hardened in our views the longer we spend here.

Not me. I become softened. When I encounter other views it makes me realize that my views are just one among many.

Originally Posted by Ohio

These recent articles by Tomes have addressed Lee's adherence to older Christian scholarship, with the complete rejection of the modern. I have seen little to persuade me that, in this regard, Lee displayed serious shotcomings.

I can't trust Lee concerning anything. If Lee set early dates for the gospels, I'm inclined to later dates, just because it's Lee.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Christians for centuries have dissed the new in favor of the old, prefering the test of time to vett out the good from the worthless.

Yes, and has done their best, with burning at the stake, to hold back science, like with Giordano Bruno & Galileo.

Originally Posted by Ohio

It seems to me that the contempory solution to the so-called synoptic problem is to apply later and later dates to the writing of the gospels. Eventually even these "scholars" have realized that probably the authors could not have lived a hundred years or more. Since many, if not most, of the apostles were martyred during Nero's reign of terror, its hard to believe all the Gospels were written post-temple destruction.

Let's do a little mind & math game. We're not sure who wrote the gospels but let's say the disciple did. I understand the disciples were young when Jesus recruited them. Let's say they were 20 yrs old when Jesus departed into the clouds. That would mean they were in their early 60s after Jerusalem was sacked. So later dates for the gospels, even if written by disciples, would be possible.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Then the "scholars" conclude that perhaps the Gospels are forgeries, ...

Well there were forgeries in the primitive Christian days, ascribed to apostles. Like Nee discovered, Christians lie (he should know, he was one). And I'm not completely informed but I haven't run across any Bible scholars that claim the gospels were forgeries. Why? because there's no claims by the gospel writers that they were written by apostles. There's no claim in the gospels of who wrote them. No one signed them. So scholars admit the truth: that the gospels were anonymously written.

But most scholars believe the gospel we call John was written at the end of the 1st c. And I've read some scholars who believe -- based upon Acts 4:13, that John was illiterate -- that John was actually written by the Johannine school in Ephesus, from what they got from John, or maybe dictated by John. It's no coincident, I suppose, that it was in Ephesus that 500 yrs prior Heraclitus coined the word Logos, and the gospel of John opens with the word Logos. I think we owe a debt of gratitude, to that pagan.

God works in mysterious ways. Even today.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by awareness

I can't trust Lee concerning anything. If Lee set early dates for the gospels, I'm inclined to later dates, just because it's Lee.

I've become the same way. If Lee completely skirted an issue, and then I'm presented with a writing on that issue with a myriad of references, it's not too hard to take a non-Lee position on that issue.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Let's do a little mind & math game. We're not sure who wrote the gospels but let's say the disciple did. I understand the disciples were young when Jesus recruited them. Let's say they were 20 yrs old when Jesus departed into the clouds. That would mean they were in their early 60s after Jerusalem was sacked. So later dates for the gospels, even if written by disciples, would be possible.

James amd John were the younger cousins of Jesus, so i would agree that they might be 20 years old, or less for John. Matthew, however, was apparently a wealthy and successful tax collector, so it is not reasonable that he was merely 20 years old.

And then the whole discussion begs the questions -- why would Matthew and Mark wait until their death beds to write their stories? Also, how do we know that their gospels were not written over a ten year period? It is very reasonable that fragments were written in rough draft form as the Spirit of God gave them time and remembrance.

[Friedel]

Originally Posted by Ohio

James amd John were the younger cousins of Jesus, so i would agree that they might be 20 years old, or less for John. Matthew, however, was apparently a wealthy and successful tax collector, so it is not reasonable that he was merely 20 years old.

And then the whole discussion begs the questions -- why would Matthew and Mark wait until their death beds to write their stories? Also, how do we know that their gospels were not written over a ten year period? It is very reasonable that fragments were written in rough draft form as the Spirit of God gave them time and remembrance.

If anyone is really interested in reading more about the time of writing of the whole New Testament canon, I suggest you download John A. T. Robinson's excellent authoritative and scholarly work, Redating the New Testament, written in 1976. It is free. Just Google it and you will find it on the net.

Robinson was Dean of Trinity College and a prominent liberal theologian. However, this work is not clouded by his theology.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

James amd John were the younger cousins of Jesus, so i would agree that they might be 20 years old, or less for John. Matthew, however, was apparently a wealthy and successful tax collector, so it is not reasonable that he was merely 20 years old.

The problem is that we're given so little information from the gospels. So we fill in the gaps with guesses; like James and John were cousins of Jesus. Where's that in the gospels?

And like, "Matthew was a wealthy tax collector." We get this from Matthew 9:9, but no mention of wealthy:

Mat 9:9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.

The problem with this verse is if Matthew wrote it why did he write it in the third person? Why didn't he write something like this:

And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw [me], Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto [me], Follow me. And [I] arose, and followed him.

Originally Posted by Ohio

And then the whole discussion begs the questions -- why would Matthew and Mark wait until their death beds to write their stories?

Maybe they didn't. Maybe Matthew and Mark are compilations, like Luke admits his is, in his opening verses.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Also, how do we know that their gospels were not written over a ten year period? It is very reasonable that fragments were written in rough draft form as the Spirit of God gave them time and remembrance.

Truth is we can't know that may facts from back then. No one signed the gospels so we don't know who wrote them. And we just have to guess at the dates they we written.

But Witness Lee's claim to an early date for the gospels wasn't sold as a guess. The MOTA said it so it had to be true.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by awareness

Not me. I become softened. When I encounter other views it makes me realize that my views are just one among many.

And when have we heard you speak kindly or favorably of Lee or your LC experiences?

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

And when have we heard you speak kindly or favorably of Lee or your LC experiences?

Good question.

One, I didn't know I needed to, or that it was expected of me.

Two, I'd have to work at it, to come up with kindly or favorably of Lee or my LC experiences.

Three, I sure wouldn't wish to appear to promote Lee and the LC. Cuz I'm convinced I'd be doing others a complete disservice that might buy into my promotion.

But thanks for askin.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

When I encounter other views it makes me realize that my views are just one among many.

But when I argue my ideas, it seems like I become increasingly shrill. Like, "For the umpteenth time, here's my point! Why don't you all just get it??" (And the audience groans, "Oh no, not the Psalms again!)

When we hear others speak their minds, we have an opportunity to incorporate their points of view into our own. Sometimes that incorporation includes a fundamental re-assessment. But usually, I think, we accept what lines up with our pre-dispositions, and ignore (or downplay) the rest.

As I've written before (audience groans again) the ekklesia is a great place to get right-sized. When we realize that everybody isn't going to stampede after our every utterance, then we have to consider that, as awareness said, there are other views out there besides our own.

So the best thing that's happened to me is that I've posted here repeatedly on this forum, and still haven't convinced everyone that I am God's chosen oracle on the earth today. Were that so, what would have happened to my poor ego? I'm already an insufferable know-it-all!

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Well thought out considerations bro VIW. Thanks.

But seems to me there's lots of conjecturing going on; by Nigel, the scholars, Nee & Lee, and even yourself bro VIW. There's never going to be certitude or consensus concerning the gospels, of content or publication. Only faith reconciles it.

Actually, what VIW helped me with was a question that is worth asking: how did the gospels come to be written? Obviously we're not going to come up with certitude, but still it is profitable to make conjecture. The order of composition, and whom is dependent upon whom, is pointing to that, I believe.

How did the testimony of Jesus' life, work, and person transit from oral to written tradition? Nigel's study, the Synoptic Problem, VIW's comments, all could be helpful. They don't have to solve a problem, but rather shed some light on it. Good enough.

Possibly there were 4 critical factors in the evolution of the written gospel tradition. (1) First of all, they already had "scriptures", what we call the OT. (2) The oral tradition was aimed at showing that Jesus the Nazarene was the sought-after and hoped-for Messiah predicted in the OT. All the speeches in Acts point to this kind of "referential" view. Also see Acts 17:11 "The noble Berean Jews eagerly searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true". (3) You had letters (epistles) being composed. Church tradition, and logic, say that this would be fairly early in the process. So there were already written NT documents existent. (4) Out of this, the gospels began to formulate themselves (I am supposing here).

For (4) see e.g.

Luke 1:1-3 "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;…"

So we are not nit-picking here. And definitive answers don't need to tumble out of the closet. More light is good enough. I was really helped by VIW's thinking.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Possibly there were 4 critical factors in the evolution of the written gospel tradition. (1) First of all, they already had "scriptures", what we call the OT. (2) The oral tradition was aimed at showing that Jesus the Nazarene was the sought-after and hoped-for Messiah predicted in the OT. All the speeches in Acts point to this kind of "referential" view. Also see Acts 17:11 "The noble Berean Jews eagerly searched the scriptures daily to see if what Paul said was true". (3) You had letters (epistles) being composed...

Where the "LSM's Ignorance" of the thread's title bothers me is this: WL trafficked in our ignorance. He didn't resolve it. He used it against us, to put boulders in our path.

Look at point (2) above. The NT was referential, in that it constantly sought to legitimize its gospel argument by showing that the OT "scriptures" were fulfilled by Jesus. Then (3) the epistles continued this. The Epistle to the Hebrews is a classic case. The first 2 chapters (remember that they probably weren't divided into chapters for centuries) had 11 explicit references. The Epistle to the Hebrews was a "Meditation on the (OT) scriptures" using Jesus as the point of focus.

But what did WL do? In the Galatians LS (Message 4) I recently read, WL told them twice to pray-read verses from Paul's epistles; he ignored the OT unless absolutely required. And even then, he superimposed upon it a completely fabricated "economy" template which Paul didn't delineate. Then, using this "economy" metric WL could say which OT scriptures were profitable, and how, and which could be disregarded as "natural" and "fallen". So if Paul repeatedly in his epistles (Colossians and Ephesians) wrote to the saints to sing the Psalms, WL could disregard this. It wasn't part of "God's NT economy"; it was too low.

Yes, LSM was ignorant of the Synoptic Problem. All of us are ignorant to some degree. James 3:1 says, "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation." WL used our ignorance to become our "master", and for this he'll have to answer.