The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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 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.

[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.