The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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. . .

[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.

[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 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."

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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)