The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

I think that what WL did is rather serious and it would be interesting to [find] support for his stance... who is being prophetic here, and who is being natural: David, or WL?

The Bible reveals Jesus Christ. Peter said in Acts 2 that David's Psalms (16:8-11 and 110:1) were prophetic words echoing God's promise, that David's seed, the coming Messiah, would inherit glory (v.30,31). So when the psalmist, for example, wrote "God will help me", might we not be out of line in seeing reference to God raising Jesus and giving Him glory? Now, if not directly quoted in the NT, we don't want to overstretch, but at least we may still consider "this Jesus" (v. 32).

Instead, WL used another apostle (Paul), writing "Do not teach anything contrary to God's oikonomia, which is in faith" to overturn this Jesus. Now WL says God didn't help David, but David helped himself. And WL says David wasn't qualified to write about the "righteous man" suffering, because David was a sinner. And so forth. The suffering and faithful Jesus, clearly present in the NT account, is simply not considered.

So I would like to know, is WL overturning 2,000 years of Christian teaching to satisfy his "God's economy" metric? Or is there some precedent for his doing this? Because what he is doing to the Bible as God's word is serious.

As I said, the Bible reveals God's plan for us in the person of His Son Jesus Christ. To say that some scripture doesn't reveal this Jesus, but merely the fallen, natural concepts of a writer, should give us pause. Even if David thought that "his promised descendant" on the throne (v.30) was his immediate heir Solomon, that doesn't make the writing less revelatory of Jesus Christ.

So: 1) is WL really "continuing steadfastly in the teaching and fellowship of the apostles" here, and if so, how; and 2) if not, how could he hypnotize and mesmerize so many of us that none questioned such a teaching, which bulldozed God's word in this manner?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

how could WL mesmerize so many of us that none dared question such a teaching, which bulldozed God's word in this manner?

Perhaps many actually did question WL; those questions were variously referred to as "storms", "quarantines", "turmoils", and "rebellions". So people were indeed 'voting with their feet'.

And there may have been a stronger correlation than we realize, between WL treating the Word in such a cavalier manner, and he and his movement treating those saints so roughly, who couldn't fully submit.

Originally Posted by aron

Peter had spent three incredible years with Jesus... then they all tried to make sense of it, and to relay the meaning of their experiences to others who were presently incomprehensible.

Thus, the appeal to scripture... why Peter, attempting to explain the outpoured Spirit to the incredulous throng, referenced Psalms 16 and 110. God had poured out His Holy Spirit, and this Spirit allowed men like Peter to look into scripture and see Jesus. The Spirit allowed men to see Jesus as fulfillment of scriptural type, and the same scripture allowed them to show others “the promised Holy Spirit... which you now see and hear” (Acts 2:33).

When we prayerfully consider God's word, even weeping like Mary at the empty tomb, the promised Paraclete will come alongside and help us see "this Jesus". The Spirit comes through the word of God, and this Spirit in this word reveals this Jesus.

So, conversely, what happens when we dismiss God's word as of none effect, as merely the vain imagination of fallen men, and unequal to our own concepts? We risk the loss of the promised Spirit, and the frantic human organization-building efforts that follow that loss are exposed as such by the bedlam (lack of peace, harmony, and brotherly love) that accompanies the efforts.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

When we prayerfully consider God's word, even weeping like Mary at the empty tomb, the Paraclete comes alongside and helps us see "this Jesus". The Spirit comes through the word of God. And this Spirit reveals to us this Jesus.

Once I was singing Psalm 3, "I lay me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained me", and I began to weep uncontrollably. It just happened; the melody was engaging and I sang the song periodically, and at some point while singing a presence simply caused me to sob as tears streamed down my face.

At that moment, I could hear Jesus saying, "I have the power to lay My life down, and the power to raise it up again." Now, WL may have given messages on John 10:17,18. But at that moment Jesus' words unfolded to me through OT type. Through the oppressed and suffering David I could hear the voice of Jesus. Like Paul described it in Col 3:16 - as 'the word of Christ' - a word now indwelling me more richly, the unfolding of which brings life (Psa 119:130).

Now, my point is, before dismissing the Psalms as irrelevant, did WL sing? Did he pray? Did he weep? If he had, he might not have been so dismissive of the "righteous man" described therein. WL first might have considered that Jesus was not only righteous, but whose "one righteous act" on the cross opened the way; and we Christian are accounted as righteous in our faith in that His work(Gal 3:6, Rom 4:3).

But I doubt WL had time to consider all this. He had a ministry to run. Plus, the saints had already gotten there first, and were singing psalms with relish, and -- gasp -- some of the melodies came from dreaded Christianity! So WL needed to cut that short. He therefore rejected the Word, and consequently also he denied the Spirit that came alongside that Word. And the organizational turmoil that followed his ministry should not surprise; it's probably related.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Once I was singing ... and at some point was singing and was overcome by a presence that caused me to begin to sob as tears poured down my face.

At that moment, I could "hear" Jesus ....

As previously noted, crying in the Bible doesn't guarantee a reward at the finish line. And it doesn't mean one's experience is more valid than someone who isn't crying. But I note that the weeping and lingering Mary saw the angels, and Peter and John merely saw the empty tomb, and then left. WL did us all a disservice by telling us, "move along, move along; nothing to see here." That was not for him to say - did he weep there, lingering, before he told us the tomb(psalm) was empty, and there was nothing to see?

Obviously my posts have not opened up the Psalms, either. I simply related, for example, an impression from Psalm 3. But my experience tells me there may be more, and not only there but also in Psalms 4,5,6,7,9,10,11, etc. And I'm glad to have been extricated from the thinking injected by WL: what I had thought was a "high peak" vision was the equivalent of viewing Peter's empty tomb. It might be factually correct at some level, and may satisfy the 'expert' theologians with its orthodox appearance, but it wasn't going to lead me to experience what God has intended. I guess that's why God gave us the scriptures, anyway; as they say, "Accept no substitute".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And I'm glad to have been extricated from the thinking injected by WL: what I had thought was a "high peak" vision was the equivalent of viewing Peter's empty tomb. It might be factually correct at some level, and may satisfy the 'expert' theologians with its orthodox appearance, but it wasn't going to lead me to experience what God has intended. I guess that's why God gave us the scriptures, anyway; as they say, "Accept no substitute".

Living Stream Ministry has now canonized the words of their founder Watchman Nee on their websites and on the granite boulder in front of their skyscraper in downtown Taipei ...

"The Bible is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the pure Word of the Bible even if men oppose; but if it is not the Word of the Bible, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

Great words which all true believers would espouse. Who would dare to reject it? It may be their slogan etched in granite, or even this year's training banner, but funny thing is, believers are constantly leaving the Recovery in order to keep it. Watchman Nee wrote this in 1925, but today's Recovery has changed "slightly" ...

"The ministry of Witness Lee is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the ministry of Witness Lee even if men oppose; but if it is not the ministry of Witness Lee, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

How else would their members allow Lee to basically trash the book of James and most of the Psalms as being deficient in the divine revelation, while substituting his own high peak theology about man becoming God?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Living Stream Ministry has now canonized the words of their founder Watchman Nee on their websites and on the granite boulder in front of their skyscraper in downtown Taipei ..."The Bible is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the pure Word of the Bible even if men oppose; but if it is not the Word of the Bible, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

Interesting phrase: "the pure Word of the Bible..." If they think it is so pure, why denigrate it so, characterizing it as "fallen", "natural", and merely the "concepts" of unrighteous men? What is even more puzzling is WL's admitting as divinely revelatory those portions quoted in the NT, yet even denuding the surrounding text of Christ! See Psalm 34's "Not one of His bones will be broken", and WL's unpleasant and dismissive commentary on the rest of the psalm, as an example. There are, unfortunately, many examples.

The value of the "pure Word of the Bible" is that it reveals Christ Himself to us; Christ who the Way home to our Father in heaven, who is Truth personified to us, who is the very Life itself. Take Christ out of the Bible and what do we have left? They may indeed keep "...the Word of the Bible" but WL's ministry has rendered it dead letters.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Interesting phrase: "the pure Word of the Bible..." If they think it is so pure, why denigrate it so, characterizing it as "fallen", "natural", and merely the "concepts" of unrighteous men? What is even more puzzling is WL's admitting as divinely revelatory those portions quoted in the NT, yet even denuding the surrounding text of Christ! See Psalm 34's "Not one of His bones will be broken", and WL's unpleasant and dismissive commentary on the rest of the psalm, for one example. There are, unfortunately, many more examples.

The value of the "pure Word of the Bible" is that it reveals Christ Himself to us; Christ who the Way home to the Father, who is Truth personified, who is the very Life to us. Take Christ out of the Bible and what do you have left? They may have retained "...the Word of the Bible" but WL's ministry has rendered it into dead letters.

It is our heavenly Father's God-breathed, wise counsel that surrounds the "pure Word of the Bible," which reveals Christ, His Son, with all the worst of fallen man and even David, a man after God's own heart, with all of his own "human sentiment."

Ironically, one like me is still able, at times, to read the ministry of Witmess Lee, with all of his own fallen natural sentiments, and still find the "pure Word of the Bible," which Christ Himself.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"The ministry of Witness Lee is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the ministry of Witness Lee even if men oppose; but if it is not the ministry of Witness Lee, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

How else would their members allow Lee to basically trash the book of James and most of the Psalms as being deficient in the divine revelation, while substituting his own high peak theology about man becoming God?

I missed your point initially, but then it hit me: what chapter and verse in the "pure Word of God" tells of "man becoming God, in life and nature but not in the Godhead"?

And for that matter, which chapter and verse in "the pure Word of God" tells us that David was being importune when writing that God saved him from death in Psalm 34? I have seen multiple NT accounts saying that he was acting as a prophet and foretelling the resurrection of Christ, his coming heir according to the flesh. But I don't recall which verses in the "pure Word of God" show that David's declarations were "in vain", being "natural", "fallen concepts" and so forth. I would certainly like to see those.

And if you simply want to cover everything with some blanket statement like - "there is none righteous; no, not one [even David]", then we have a little problem. Because, as Jesus said, "These things were written concerning Me". These things were not written concerning David or Abraham or some other flawed character. The reality of the Word is Christ. Your logic in vetting the "pure" OT text in this way leads us to the conclusion that even the Christ is not righteous, or that there simply is no Christ. I don't think we want to go there.

(or, for that matter, why judge yourself by a different standard and tell everyone how "pure" and "faithful" and "high" your own witness is and has been, if everybody is actually so irredeemably flawed as you say?)

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Ohio

"The Bible is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the pure Word of the Bible even if men oppose; but if it is not the Word of the Bible, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

Great words which all true believers would espouse. Who would dare to reject it? It may be their slogan etched in granite, or even this year's training banner, but funny thing is, believers are constantly leaving the Recovery in order to keep it. Watchman Nee wrote this in 1925, but today's Recovery has changed "slightly" ...

"The ministry of Witness Lee is our only standard. We are not afraid to preach the ministry of Witness Lee even if men oppose; but if it is not the ministry of Witness Lee, we could never agree even if anyone approves of it."

Care to differ anyone? Suppose as a locality you want to set aside the ministry publications and set aside the RcV footnotes for the the pure Word of the Bible. What would the reaction be? I for one believes it will define the local church as either a Bible-based church or a ministry church.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

Care to differ anyone? Suppose as a locality you want to set aside the ministry publications and set aside the RcV footnotes for the the pure Word of the Bible. What would the reaction be? I for one believes it will define the local church as either a Bible-based church or a ministry church.

Terry, I have mentioned this before that I have a family member in the South East USA who told me point blank that "coming back to the pure word of God" was a tactic of the enemy used by those who rebelled against Witness Lee. Which just proved to me how they only pay lip-service to Watchman Nee's famous quote, and have indeed replaced the "pure word of God" with the ministry of Witness Lee.

To be honest, after his so-called resumption back into the ministry in 1948, neither did Watchman Nee pay attention to his own saying. Where in the pure word of God are the saints instructed to "hand over all they are and have" to the workers to build their new meeting hall? Otherwise they could have no part of Nee's ministry. Talk about being greedy of filthy lucre!