The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.