The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

True individualism is thus to find the Christ who's there before us in the Word. Not the Christ that Lee's theology presents, one shorn of historical context, but the real and true Man who by faith walked in what was set before Him by God's commands. That those commands were previously written in scripture, by fallen men like Moses and David, is not irrelevant, not at all.

"He trusted in God; let him deliver him now; if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God." Matthew 27:43

"All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." Psalm 22:7,8

WL had something that he called the "heart of the divine revelation", contained in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, and Philippians. I think of, for instance, the phrase, "until Christ is formed in you" in Galatians 4:19. Now, I'm no scholar and surely some could argue differently (or present the same argument differently), but I'd like to show how the conceptual Christ formed by WL deviated from that which was being presented in Paul's epistles.

Remember that at the time Paul was writing, they didn't have a New Testament (NT) corpus. The written gospels probably weren't in wide circulation either, at least in present form. What the Christian assemblies had was the extant scripture, which today we call the Old Testament (OT). So when Paul said for the word of Christ to dwell in you richly, was he talking about his epistles? Were the saints really supposed to pray-read his letters?

No, he was talking about the OT. And while the Psalms weren't exclusively Paul's 'word of Christ', they were heavily cited in the NT and clearly had prominence: Paul specifically mentioned them as revelatory sources twice, in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. Along with singing psalms, were various songs which the believers used, parts of which are probably quoted in the text of NT epistles. But I'll make my case with the Psalms, though by no means were they alone understood as being the 'word of Christ'. But they're convenient for us to access today because they have widespread NT precedence (i.e. usage) and line up well with Jesus the Nazarene (probably why NT authors cited them so frequently).

What kind of Christ did Paul's epistles envision being formed in the Christian believer? First, he said that the word of Christ would dwell in them richly, meaning it's living and operative (cf Heb. 4:12). The living oracles (the OT prophetic words of Christ) function within the fallen but redeemed and regenerated human being to turn their thoughts (focus, attention, volition) back to the Father. Originally the prophetic word provided a framework, then Christ came and inhabited this word to the letter (see e.g. the quotes above: Psa. 22 transposed to Matt. 27). Next, the textual equivalent, or parallel, of the word of Christ indwelling us richly is the idea of being filled with the Spirit. So the Spirit that comes when we declare, "Lord Jesus!!" fills us when we access the word of Christ by singing. This is the Spirit that gives life, the same life-giving Spirit that raised Jesus from on the third day. It is indeed a word of Spirit and life.

With me so far? Okay, I hold that this is nothing less than "Christ making His home in our hearts", which gradually leads to "not I but Christ in me", and to "Christ being formed in us". Similar to WL's scheme, except in this case, Christ isn't shorn of historical context. This Christ is the one who lived and walked and breathed in Galilee and Judea, who died and went into the earth, only to rise to glory on the third day. But the Christ formed within their oeuvre is a Christ from WL's hymns, footnotes, teachings and outlines, a Christ controlling access to the word and even excluding the word, if necessary. A generic Christ who can be anything that they need him to be for the LC church life, a Christ removed from the word of scriptures, which scriptures WL called "low", "natural", and "fallen men's concepts" and the like. The choice is clear: I think WL and crew made it easy for us.

I'll repeat what was written at the start: that one could use the same verses and phrases above and argue differently, or could argue similarly using different verses or phrases. I'm not a systematic scholar, and randomly picked a few verses that seemed useful to my case. And I go by memory, so one could also claim, and maybe even show, that WL spoke or wrote differently.

But for me, the Christ that WL's adherents claim is indwelling them richly, and organically and metabolically assimilating into their beings to make them the same as God in life and nature, is a Christ removed from the word of God. It's a Christ of convenience, and of show, a Christ of a Bible expositor's imagination, and that being a Bible expositor who prized his own imagination more than the biblical text. So when they wave their phrases and platitudes it can be hard to say, "amen". I'd love to, but it's hard. Because frankly I don't know what Christ they're talking about.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

"He trusted in God; let him deliver him now; if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God." Matthew 27:43

"All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him." Psalm 22:7,8

WL had something that he called the "heart of the divine revelation", contained in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, and Philippians. I think of, for instance, the phrase, "until Christ is formed in you" in Galatians 4:19. Now, I'm no scholar and surely some could argue differently (or present the same argument differently), but I'd like to show how the conceptual Christ formed by WL deviated from that which was being presented in Paul's epistles.

Remember that at the time Paul was writing, they didn't have a New Testament (NT) corpus. The written gospels probably weren't in wide circulation either, at least in present form. What the Christian assemblies had was the extant scripture, which today we call the Old Testament (OT). So when Paul said for the word of Christ to dwell in you richly, was he talking about his epistles? Were the saints really supposed to pray-read his letters?

No, he was talking about the OT. And while the Psalms weren't exclusively Paul's 'word of Christ', they were heavily cited in the NT and clearly had prominence: Paul specifically mentioned them as revelatory sources twice, in Colossians 3 and Ephesians 5. Along with singing psalms, were various songs which the believers used, parts of which are probably quoted in the text of NT epistles. But I'll make my case with the Psalms, though by no means were they alone understood as being the 'word of Christ'. But they're convenient for us to access today because they have widespread NT precedence (i.e. usage) and line up well with Jesus the Nazarene (probably why NT authors cited them so frequently).

What kind of Christ did Paul's epistles envision being formed in the Christian believer? First, he said that the word of Christ would dwell in them richly, meaning it's living and operative (cf Heb. 4:12). The living oracles (the OT prophetic words of Christ) function within the fallen but redeemed and regenerated human being to turn their thoughts (focus, attention, volition) back to the Father. Originally the prophetic word provided a framework, then Christ came and inhabited this word to the letter (see e.g. the quotes above: Psa. 22 transposed to Matt. 27). Next, the textual equivalent, or parallel, of the word of Christ indwelling us richly is the idea of being filled with the Spirit. So the Spirit that comes when we declare, "Lord Jesus!!" fills us when we access the word of Christ by singing. This is the Spirit that gives life, the same life-giving Spirit that raised Jesus from on the third day. It is indeed a word of Spirit and life.

With me so far? Okay, I hold that this is nothing less than "Christ making His home in our hearts", which gradually leads to "not I but Christ in me", and to "Christ being formed in us". Similar to WL's scheme, except in this case, Christ isn't shorn of historical context. This Christ is the one who lived and walked and breathed in Galilee and Judea, who died and went into the earth, only to rise to glory on the third day. But the Christ formed within their oeuvre is a Christ from WL's hymns, footnotes, teachings and outlines, a Christ controlling access to the word and even excluding the word, if necessary. A generic Christ who can be anything that they need him to be for the LC church life, a Christ removed from the word of scriptures, which scriptures WL called "low", "natural", and "fallen men's concepts" and the like. The choice is clear: I think WL and crew made it easy for us.

I'll repeat what was written at the start: that one could use the same verses and phrases above and argue differently, or could argue similarly using different verses or phrases. I'm not a systematic scholar, and randomly picked a few verses that seemed useful to my case. And I go by memory, so one could also claim, and maybe even show, that WL spoke or wrote differently.

But for me, the Christ that WL's adherents claim is indwelling them richly, and organically and metabolically assimilating into their beings to make them the same as God in life and nature, is a Christ removed from the word of God. It's a Christ of convenience, and of show, a Christ of a Bible expositor's imagination, and that being a Bible expositor who prized his own imagination more than the biblical text. So when they wave their phrases and platitudes it can be hard to say, "amen". I'd love to, but it's hard. Because frankly I don't know what Christ they're talking about.

Thanks much Aron. This goes to the heart of something that has been of concern to me for some time. Is the WL-LSM-LC "Christ" really the resurrected and glorified God-man Jesus of Nazareth or perhaps a cleverly disguised demon? If this is too much I apologize, but I have thought at times that the "Christ" some of the brothers proclaim is not the same Christ I claim to know. Maybe I'm the one deceived.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

Is the WL-LSM-LC "Christ" really the resurrected and glorified God-man Jesus of Nazareth or perhaps a cleverly disguised demon?

I'd reply that we're all purveyors of mixture. So strictly speaking that could apply to us all, and at least partly to the Christ which we preach. Christ is of course pure, but the Christ I present to the world isn't always perfect. The safety valve here is in the flock - where one goes astray someone else can speak a restraining or adjusting or cautionary word and vice versa. In the WL-LC-LSM variant, no restraining word is possible, so it can get pretty convoluted, and pretty contaminated.

At first the hermeneutic package seemed well-constructed: some verses from Paul's epistles, combined with the gospel message, seeming to form a coherent message; then that message, whether "God's economy" or whatever label, was overlaid upon scripture. But look critically and we see that verses taken out of context, shoehorned into saying things the NT author never intended; many, many verses are ignored, and even dismissed as "fallen" and "natural", and if you bring it up any of this you're rejected outright. Because, they say, "the oracle has spoken". So the LSM oeuvre is pretty thoroughly contaminated at this point, all the references to Christ this and Christ that notwithstanding.

In the NT, like the OT, the characters were held to be imperfect. Yet for all of that, God was pleased to reveal himself to us. Peter made many mistakes. John and James also. The disciples were often confused, ignorant, frightened, and consistently misinterpreted what was happening. Somehow we got duped by WL & Co into thinking that Paul avoided any error, and then church leadership from thenceforth was, what's the word .. ex cathedra? Unable to err. WL certainly fell into this mold. So he could dismiss the scriptures as unprofitable, and create a Christ which substantially moved away from the traditional understanding, and we had to say, "hurrah". The creation of a novel Christ, formed without any feedback from the ekklesia, should make us all wary. It is hard to imagine WL giving some of those messages in front of thousands of otherwise intelligent people, and none of them could point out the glaring errors of thought parading in front of them. In that sense, yes indeed there is a deceiving spirit at work. No doubt in my mind.

But again, we're all at best only partly sighted here on this earthly coil. So if I tried to keep away from those in deception and error I'd be locked in a box, with my own errors, and none to correct me.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

I'd reply that we're all purveyors of mixture. So strictly speaking that could apply to us all, and at least partly to the Christ which we preach. Christ is of course pure, but the Christ I present to the world isn't always perfect. The safety valve here is in the flock - where one goes astray someone else can speak a restraining or adjusting or cautionary word and vice versa. In the WL-LC-LSM variant, no restraining word is possible, so it can get pretty convoluted, and pretty contaminated.

At first the hermeneutic package seemed well-constructed: some verses from Paul's epistles, combined with the gospel message, seeming to form a coherent message; then that message, whether "God's economy" or whatever label, was overlaid upon scripture. But look critically and we see that verses taken out of context, shoehorned into saying things the NT author never intended; many, many verses are ignored, and even dismissed as "fallen" and "natural", and if you bring it up any of this you're rejected outright. Because, they say, "the oracle has spoken". So the LSM oeuvre is pretty thoroughly contaminated at this point, all the references to Christ this and Christ that notwithstanding.

In the NT, like the OT, the characters were held to be imperfect. Yet for all of that, God was pleased to reveal himself to us. Peter made many mistakes. John and James also. The disciples were often confused, ignorant, frightened, and consistently misinterpreted what was happening. Somehow we got duped by WL & Co into thinking that Paul avoided any error, and then church leadership from thenceforth was, what's the word .. ex cathedra? Unable to err. WL certainly fell into this mold. So he could dismiss the scriptures as unprofitable, and create a Christ which substantially moved away from the traditional understanding, and we had to say, "hurrah". The creation of a novel Christ, formed without any feedback from the ekklesia, should make us all wary. It is hard to imagine WL giving some of those messages in front of thousands of otherwise intelligent people, and none of them could point out the glaring errors of thought parading in front of them. In that sense, yes indeed there is a deceiving spirit at work. No doubt in my mind.

But again, we're all at best only partly sighted here on this earthly coil. So if I tried to keep away from those in deception and error I'd be locked in a box, with my own errors, and none to correct me.

Aron, I think your response was cogent, healthy and fair. Thanks.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by aron

It is hard to imagine WL giving some of those messages in front of thousands of otherwise intelligent people, and none of them could point out the glaring errors of thought parading in front of them. In that sense, yes indeed there is a deceiving spirit at work. No doubt in my mind.

Hell, I'm a HERn and I listened to it all and chose to ignore the red flags because I thought the way they conducted the meetings where all could prophesy proved they were the legitimate heirs of new testament Christianity. It turns out it's a Chinese-flavored sect of Christianity where controlling and WL-adoring-brothers rule the roost and where exclusivity is considered a virtue. I'm glad to be done with them.

[aron]

Originally Posted by HERn

I ...chose to ignore the red flags because I thought the way they conducted the meetings where all could prophesy proved they were the legitimate heirs of new testament Christianity.

Ditto. It seemed legitimate. It seemed that we'd found a place where the oneness of the Christian faith was already accomplished and all we had to do was receive one another in the name of Jesus Christ. Simple.

But it turned out that maintaining said "oneness" was predicated upon closely following the ministry of the age, which had a definite earthly component, with real estate, bank accounts, CEO, etc. The old bait-and-switch tactic, favored by used car dealers and grocery stores. It's effective: get their attention, let them think you have what they want, then give them what you want to give them.

Back to "the heart of the divine revelation": just for fun I googled "Christ centrality Witness Lee" and found a long excerpt from his ministry, telling how Christianity had erred, by placing forms, traditions, teachings and so forth in the place of Christ. No, said WL, Christ should be the center and the focus, the all in all. A few Bible verses were sprinkled in for good measure.

But what Christ, I ask? This same message could have been given by the Mormon church: they'd love that the Christ who appeared to the South American natives in 656 AD (or whatever) and told them that they were the 12 lost tribes of Israel, whose Angel Moroni spoke to Prophet Joseph Smith in Elmira NY in 1832 (or whatever) became the centrality and prime focus of the church. In the essay WL went on about Christ, Christ, Christ; but what Christ? The Christ revealed in the Bible or in his imagination? Just like the "Jesus Christ" in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: a fake one. No discernible basis in reality.

I don't like repeating stories but it reminds me of my friend at work, who was always going on about how Jesus watched over him, and his house, and family, and took care of their every need. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus... Hey that's great, I thought. Then one day he invited me to come over and see his Jesus - it was a crushed velvet, black light poster like the ones you can get for $40 rural gas stations. Turns out he wasn't very interested in the Bible. He already had his Jesus, and that was enough... well okay, I guess. Fine. But forgive me if I continue my search elsewhere. And if you persist in your own journey of willful ignorance, and especially if you start a religion based on it, don't be shocked if your untethered imagination eventually takes you and your followers to weird places. That's just how it works.

[aron]

Here's an example of how the Christ presented in the LC differs from the Christ of the NT: in the NT you have repeated admonitions to "remember the poor", and to take care of those who lack. But the Christ in the LC ignores all that, constantly imploring them for more of the good building material for the building of the body to consummate the New Jerusalem and end the age.

Scripture reveals that God's love for us was personified in the person of His Son, who loved us and died for us. The LC acknowledges that, sometimes even prominently, like on Sunday morning at the Lord's Table meeting. But practically speaking, they pooh-pooh love for one another, likening it to "honey" that rots the pure unleavened bread. So the love which Paul wrote about in some detail 1 Corinthians 13, which was personified in Jesus Christ, isn't pursued; rather the building of the body which supports the ministry. That's the LC love: if you support the ministry you'll get love (usually - even then I've seen it occasionally withdrawn); but if you can't "line up" with the ministry you get no love at all. Jesus taught to show love toward those who can't repay you but the LC Christ seems completely disinterested.

Lastly, where did Jesus ever tell his followers to ignore the scripture, that it was fallen, and vain? Where did Paul write to sing a few of the psalms, those that were received by the NT, but ignore the rest, as mere mis-aimings of natural men? Even in the NT, Peter's quotation of the psalms got panned by WL as "low" and "natural" - where's the precedent for receiving and treating NT and OT writings thus? But in the LC, Christ was like this: only interested in "high peak" theology, showing the processed and consummated Triune God, making us God in life and nature but not in the Godhead, and looking for more converts to sign on and consecrate themselves to the rich ministry of his humble bondslave WL.

This Christ is the obsessive and unyielding centralilty and focus in and of the LC. But to me it doesn't look like the Christ revealed in scripture, so I'm wary of it.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by HERn

Hell, I'm a HERn and I listened to it all and chose to ignore the red flags because I thought the way they conducted the meetings where all could prophesy proved they were the legitimate heirs of new testament Christianity. It turns out it's a Chinese-flavored sect of Christianity where controlling and WL-adoring-brothers rule the roost and where exclusivity is considered a virtue. I'm glad to be done with them.

I want to say that I'm not done with the dear individual saints, just with the religious system known as the Lords recovery. I had to break off all contact in order to not poison them and to get my being free from the strongholds.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by HERn

I'm a HERn and I listened to it all and chose to ignore the red flags because I thought the way they conducted the meetings where all could prophesy proved they were the legitimate heirs of new testament Christianity. It turns out it's a Chinese-flavored sect of Christianity where controlling and WL-adoring-brothers rule the roost and where exclusivity is considered a virtue. I'm glad to be done with them.

Well said HERn.

A frameable quote.

Let's make this a banner for this year's forum "training."

The older I get, the more Red Neck I become. Except for that country music and NASCAR.

[aron]

I'll continue my previous thoughts here, because this thread pertains to the Word of God, and how it is received, and handled. My question has been: can our cultural concepts determine our handling Scripture, and if so, what's the effect on our spiritual walk? Here was my quote, recently posted on another thread:

Now, however, mother Nee was saved.... she was deeply convicted by the Spirit of God that she must make an open confession to her son before she could worship publicly. To the utter surprise of the entire family she suddenly stood up, walked over to her son, wrapped her arms around Watchman, and cried out, “For the sake of the Lord Jesus, please forgive me for beating you unjustly and in anger.” This touched Watchman deeply. Never had he heard of a Chinese parent accepting such loss of face. (The Finest of the Wheat, CFP, p. 15).

The teenaged Nee had never heard of a Chinese parent accepting public loss of face like this. I want to stress how strongly ingrained such societal mores (shared values, expectations, behaviors) were. Now, fast-forward 50 years: Nee's replacement, Lee, was also unable to publicly lose face, due to similar cultural imperatives. And the viability of the whole church structure rested upon this unaccountability of its leader. Lee was the "father" figure in the LC movement, and thus was untouchable.

Now let's go back to the treatment of the Word of God. We know that "all Scripture is God-breathed"; we know that the Word of God is living and operative (Heb 4:12), and able to give life and to function within the human vessel. In Matthew 13, Jesus said that the seed sown was the Word of God, the ground was the human heart, etc. This living seed clearly gives eternal life. See also Psa 119:25 - "Give me life according to Your word". I could list another half-dozen verses: "The word that I have spoken to you is spirit and life", etc etc.

But what happens if the "father" figure in the LC movement tells us that the Word is merely the vain, fallen thinking of natural men? My question here becomes: does this Word still give life? Do only some Scriptures live and operate within, separating spirit from soul, or do they all thus give life? And if the Word does in fact live and operate "richly" (Col 3:16) within the human vessel, in separating soul from spirit, then what difference does it make if the psalmist was being natural, or operating prophetically in Spirit? The Divine Word gives divine life, yes or no? Can any present exegetical stance change this simple fact?

So I see three problems, here. First, that Lee forsook the NT pattern of receiving the Psalms. I've gone over this in detail already. There are literally dozens of NT examples holding forth the psalmic Word as a prophetic utterance pertaining to the present reality in Christ Jesus, with no commensurate warning to avoid any "natural" parts. So this dismissal, or minimizing, appears to be a Lee-manufactured addition, to square his "God's economy" notion with the text in front of him. And guess what lost: the text, not his hermeneutic. The text was rejected as "natural".

Second, does then this "natural" word lose its life-giving power? If it doesn't give life, but rather leads us astray, to vain law-keeping, this is a serious issue. I mean, either all scripture is God-breathed, or is not. But if it still gives life, and quickens people from the realm of the dead, then what difference does it make if it expressed David's concepts, as Lee said, or if rather David was in Spirit, as Peter, Paul, John, and Jesus all said, and speaking of the promises to come? It's still the Word of God; it's still clearly a word of Spirit and life.

Third, we have a culture in which "Lee is always right", and this may create cognitive dissonance when LC teachings are contrary to the plain words of Scripture in front of us, and the clear pattern of NT reception thereof.

We now have no way to redress this situation. We tacitly admit that the Word gives life, but have no chance to apply it, because it's been waved away by "God's present oracle"; large sections, he said, are actually vain, fallen, natural, and the concepts of men, not the dispensing of God. We now have no chance to explore this Word, and to find life. If we were to do this, it would challenge the Oracle. And our culture forbids that.

So we're stuck; we've painted ourselves into a corner. We can't access the lively oracles of God per the teachings of His present Deputy, and we can't admit that this Oracle of God is or was wrong, because that would cause an irredeemable social/cultural breach of face. The whole structure rests upon "Lee is always right", and if we challenge that, it might collapse. In order for our social edifice (i.e. "the church life") to remain, we must reject the Word. If Lee deemed the Word to be natural and vain, then we must also, because Lee is always right. Friends, this is human culture at work, pure and simple.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

The whole structure rests upon "Lee is always right", and if we challenge that, it might collapse... Friends, this is human culture at work, pure and simple.

Originally Posted by Lisbon

How things changed. One of my first trainings in the Anaheim convention center WL thought he had trouble making his point and very spontaneously called at least half dozen people whom he knew could possibly contribute come forward and speak to the subject for a few minutes. Averil Hendrickson was one of them and the only sister. She did very well. To my observation she did as well as any but such an observation is not worth much from 40 years ago. You can be sure something like that would not take place today.

One could make the argument that WL was only about one thing: the acquisition, consolidation, and maintenance of human power. This, he firmly believed, was necessary for the "building of the Body" or the "Consummation of the New Jerusalem" or whatever, but nonetheless it neatly coincided with him neatly atop the social heap.

WL initially would allow himself to be displaced at the dias; he would even initially invite people up, as Lisbon relates. But eventually the "storms" convinced him that pliable and silent sheep were best for the Church. That included women along with everyone else. It's like the guy who says, "I'm not prejudiced: I hate everybody." WL repressed everyone, women included.

As I said before, if you publicly criticize Mao in China today, 40 years after his death, you will be fired from your job. I am sure the Chinese were mystified at the virtual blood-bath the Americans went into when the Executive (B. Clinton) was found in dalliance with a young female aide. So human culture in the USA isn't inherently superior to the PRC. But my point here is that if we arrange our spiritual assembly according to our human culture, it will be flawed. And if we interpret the Bible according to the desire to maintain the spiritual assembly in a state beneficial to our personal interests, that will be a flawed interpretation.

In the Psalms, WL would pan David's expressions of fealty to God, as the vain imaginations of a sinner. WL couldn't see the coming Son of David, Jesus the Christ, in spite of the NT's repeated invitations to do so. Or, WL would present the "seeking one" of the NT as typified by the psalmist. Again, wrong. The only "seeking one" who ever existed is Jesus Christ. We find our seeking in His. Any seeking of God, apart from Jesus Christ, for the Christian disciple, is vain. WL pointed either to the "fallen psalmist" under the law, or the "seeking Christian" under grace, but in either case he misaimed by turning our attention away from God's Christ. The Bible is not about David, or about us; it is about Jesus Christ. Reality is found nowhere else.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

WL had something that he called the "heart of the divine revelation", contained in Paul's epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Galatians, and Philippians. I think of, for instance, the phrase, "until Christ is formed in you" in Galatians 4:19. Now, I'm no scholar and surely some could argue differently (or present the same argument differently), but I'd like to show how the conceptual Christ formed by WL deviated from that which was being presented in Paul's epistles.

Remember that at the time Paul was writing, they didn't have a New Testament (NT) corpus. The written gospels probably weren't in wide circulation either, at least in present form. What the Christian assemblies had was the extant scripture, which today we call the Old Testament (OT). So when Paul said for the word of Christ to dwell in you richly, was he talking about his epistles? Were the saints really supposed to pray-read his letters?

WL presented his idea of the economy of God, which was (as I remember) God creating man in His image and likeness, then dispensing Himself into Jesus, then as the Life-Giving Spirit dispensing this Jesus into us to transform us fully back into His intended image. The "economy" part was based on Paul telling Timothy to "pay heed to God's economy, which is in faith" (I Tim 1:4) and the Ephesians "You have heard of the stewardship (oikonomia) of God's grace given to me for you" (3:2). But where did Paul suggest that this was to be carried out by praying over his (Paul's) writings?

We might respond that Peter told us that Paul's writings were equivalent to "other scripture" (2 Peter 3:16) and Paul said to "unceasingly pray" (1 Thess 5:17), so we should pray over Paul's writings, as with other scripture. And since Paul's writings are the heart of the divine revelation of God's plan for humanity in Christ Jesus, we should pay special attention to them. This can be seen in the RecV Bible, where you can get a page of small-print footnotes from a verse in Ephesians.

They're effectively held to be magical words, which can be incanted (chanted, declared, shouted, prayed over, recited) into existence. So we're counseled to bypass our mind, don't think, just shout repeatedly the magical words that Paul wrote and the LSM translated. Get that word into you and it will metabolically assimilate into your being and transform you.

But where did Paul suggest this methodology? I don't see it. It seems as if Paul didn't even know what he was writing, or at least withheld the critical details, and only WL saw it. WL's economy of God is for us to incant, imbibe, masticate, shout, the NT and especially Paul's writings to make us the total reproduction of Jesus the God-man. Again, where does Paul actual writing suggest this activity leading to this result? I don't see it.

What I do see is Paul repeatedly telling the saints, among other things, to sing the Psalms, that this will bring the infilling of the Spirit (Eph 5:18) and cause Christ to dwell in them richly (Col 3:16). But WL ignored this recommendation because... why? Because Paul didn't know any better? Was Paul being too modest, recommending the Psalms as a source of spiritual nourishment and transformation, rather than his own writings? The Psalms prominently contained the idea of obedience to the law, and recompense therefrom, which Paul had clearly shown in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians that it couldn' save anybody... so if the law profited nothing, then why did Paul encourage singing psalms, which stress obedience, righteousness, and reward? Perhaps, in the LC, Paul's teachings had now been superseded by those of WL? Was Paul that confused, awkwardly contradicting himself, that WL needed to rescue us from Paul's advice, and turn us fully back to the NT revelation - a revelation not based on the OT scriptures prophetically showing us God's Christ, but rather on dismissing those OT writings and understandings because they were now passe, irrelevant in the newly found grace of God's New Testament economy?

"Just masticate Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians and you'll become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead." Um, sorry but I don't see Ephesians, Colossians, or Philippians saying that. I only see WL saying that.

What I see instead is essentially a confidence trick. We're confronted with circular reasoning, but naively ignore it as we're smitten by the assurance and enthusiasm of its presenter, and we don't notice that we're going round and round the mulberry bush. WL could effectively by-pass Paul, and shunt Paul's writings somewhere they weren't intended, because WL had the revelation of the age. Only WL really knew what Paul meant with his 'oikonomia', it seems; perhaps even better than Paul himself? WL was God's oracle, after all, so if he "extracted revelation" that Paul didn't present us with, it might be a continuation of Paul (and others) extracting revelation from the OT. And how do we know WL had these special extractive giftss? Because he said so - and he has the body of work as God's oracle after all. So if God's oracle tells you that his output is God's oracle you'd better believe him, because... well, because he's got God's oracle, God's present speaking! So he can lead you by the nose wherever he wants - he can take you far away from scripture but you're still in the heart of the divine revelation. And all this is for sale, for just a few dollars. What a blessing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

They're effectively held to be magical words, which can be incanted (chanted, declared, shouted, prayed over, recited) into existence. So we're counseled to bypass our mind, don't think, just shout repeatedly the magical words that Paul wrote and the LSM translated. Get that word into you and it will metabolically assimilate into your being and transform you.

Actually Paul's writings are special words, just as special as the gospel of John, or Revelations, or Leviticus. God spoke to us through Paul. They're good words to consider, to read often and listen to on tape or CD, to pray over and pray with, and to speak to one another. Yes we should get constituted with them. I think the book of Romans is probably about as good a piece of writing as I've read, anywhere. Brilliant stuff. White hot fire.

But so is Psalm 34. And an unbalanced obsession with one aspect of scripture (Ephesians only, Ephesians ever) leads to an unbalanced truth and an unbalanced life. And secondly, Paul wrote in Ephesians for us to pay attention to Psalm 34, among others. So if you obsess over Ephesians as the heart of the divine revelation, why don't you pay attention to what it's actually saying, instead of what your hermeneutic wants it to say? Go where it is pointing you - go.