The Psalms are the word of Christ

[Drake]

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.

Happens all the time even here.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.
Happens all the time even here.

I often overgeneralize but that's how I make sense of things. Cautious readers may prune my enthusiasms.

Here's what I see:

1. When the NT apostle held forth on the word, and had an opportunity to pan the psalmist for being low and natural, he didn't. Instead he said that the psalmist was not speaking for himself, but was speaking for the Christ.

Thus, "You will not let my flesh see corruption" was not a human concept of a sinner but was instead an indication of Jesus Christ's glories to come. I take this as the default interpretive pattern, until the NT scripture or Christian tradition (i.e. the Fathers) offers me a compelling reason to look differently.

2. I don't see the NT apostle saying, "Only these specified portions which we quote here are revelatory. Avoid other sections, which are not." Instead, the brief, scattered, but frequent (40+, I believe) references perhaps suggest that they haven't exhausted the Christ to be seen in God's word, and invite the readers or hearers to "examine the scriptures daily and see if these things are so". Cf Acts 17:11.

3. So if the psalmist says something like, "You rescued me because you delighted in me", that may perhaps speak to the Son being rescued by the Father, i.e. "He (the Son) trusted in Him (the Father); let Him save Him now."

OR, it may in fact be vain concepts of the sinner. But why did Lee pick option #2? Why didn't Lee say, "This could be speaking of the coming Messiah, but I don't think so because of reasons A), B), and C)."?

No, he just dismissed scripture with a wave of the hand: "Natural". So my response was, Who's being natural here, and burdened with fallen human concepts - the Bible expositor, or the Bible writer? Until I see compelling reasons to pick the expositor, I'm pre-disposed with the word of God, as presenting me with something potentially indicative of Christ. But Lee essentially dismissed the word of God, out of hand.

I keep coming back to NT precedent because I'm not aware of the NT apostles holding forth on the word this way: "Vain, fallen, natural". So what gave Witness Lee such license?

And I also showed why I suspect that this took place: others were getting there, before him, and "enjoying Christ" and threatening his position as sole mediator of God's revelation. So he shut it down.

Originally Posted by Drake

On what scriptural basis do you assert that there is nothing natural in any Psalm?

I never said there's nothing natural. I said, Let's not assume it's natural without consideration. I don't see Lee considering. He just cast a hasty judgment: "David was a sinner, so it was natural concepts expressed." That's about the extent of his analytical depth. Rubbish.

Peter never said anything like that. Paul never said anything like that. Nor John, nor Peter nor Hebrews that I remember. So where did Lee get his license? How does he treat the scriptural text thusly, en masse, and claim to be closely following the apostles?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said there's nothing natural. I said, Let's not assume it's natural without consideration. I don't see Lee considering. He just cast a hasty judgment: "David was a sinner, so it was natural concepts expressed." That's about the extent of his analytical depth. Rubbish.

How would you know what consideration Brother Lee had before he spoke those messages on Psalms? He had a very long ministry and would have had decades of oonsideration by the time he spoke the messages on Psalms. You are basing your objection on something you have no way of knowing.

So you agree, like Brother Lee, that the book of Psalms contains both natural and divine concepts. His considerations are not apparent to you so you assume it's hasty judgment on his part. Your argument is flawed because you cannot possibly how much consideration went into his teaching on this. For all you know he thought about this since 1925 until 1993 when he spoke these messages. That would be 60+ years... well just to be safe let's assume a half century of opportunity to consider and develop his point of view.

By that measure, who is being hasty?

[aron]

I'll try to recap my argument first, then address Drake.

Jesus said, "David was speaking by the Spirit" (Matt 22:43). Where does Jesus indicate the opposite, that David was not speaking by the Spirit? Just speaking according to his concepts?

Peter said, "David was a prophet and knew of the promise of God, and predicted the coming Seed who'd fulfill the word" (Acts 2:30,31). Where does Peter indicate David was merely speaking vain human considerations?

I believe our default interpretive mode should follow the pattern set by the NT. Of course this doesn't mean that every word of Psalms, (or Isaiah, or Job) indicates some detail of Jesus Christ, but we should be attuned for the Holy Spirit to reveal Him to us.

"The Holy Spirit will glorify Me by disclosing Me to you" (John 16:13,14)

"I pray that the Lord would give to you a spirit of wisdom and revelation". (Eph 1:17).

When we study the word and the Holy Spirit reveals "this Jesus" (Acts 2:32); we "see Jesus" (Heb 2:12), then we can go deeper into the Father's will. The Son goes before, and beckons to follow. These poetic texts reveal Jesus. The Spirit reveals Jesus, and Jesus reveals the Father.

Now, the problem with poetic texts is that one person may see one thing and another sees another. So when the psalm says three times, "Get behind me, you workers of evil" (Psa 6:8; 119:115; 139:19), and we remember that Jesus said the same thing three times in the gospel (Matt 4:10; 7:23; 16:23), are we seeing Jesus? Yes and no. Yes if the psalm helps us see Jesus the gospel portrays; but no in that we can't prove that this verse in Matthew fulfils the prophetic utterance of the psalmist.

Or, reading in Psalm 3: "I laid me down and slept/I awaked, for the LORD sustained me"; is that presaging "I have the power to lay my life down, and the power to take it up again"? Perhaps. It certainly can cause us to see in greater depth the power that raised Jesus from the grave. In Psalm 3 David was on the run, hiding in a cave - his son Absalom had rebelled, and violent men, under Absalom's captains' orders, were seeking his life. Men who had once been David's own guards. But David trusted, and slept, willing to face death, knowing that God could bring him back out of darkness. Is this not indicative of the Son of David? Is this not a faith that inspires, empowers?

Perhaps; that's of course something of a subjective, personal, 'spiritual' encounter with the text. But did Lee ever consider this? Or was David in Psalm 3 summarily dismissed as a vain sinner? A man of "complex sentiments", occasionally having a "squirrel!" moment but usually only capable of looking at himself. Where was Jesus' man who was in spirit, Peter's future-seeing prophet? Nowhere to be found. Not even considered, from what I could see.

So we're given a crazy, disjointed text. . . look at Psalm 34:20 - "Not one of His bones will be broken", quoted by John 19:36. The rest of the psalm, according to Lee, is just fallen human concepts. Sin has thoroughly addled David from seeing or recognizing God's Christ, yet in the middle of his selfish rant David has a "eureka" vison of a detail of the coming Messiah, then promptly goes back to his vain musings.

What kind of interpretation is that? It's like spiritual whiplash: vain, revelatory, vain. I think a third-grader might be impressed by such scattershot characterizations. I'm not.

Originally Posted by Drake

How would you know what consideration Brother Lee had before he spoke those messages on Psalms? He had a very long ministry and would have had decades of consideration by the time he spoke the messages on Psalms. You are basing your objection on something you have no way of knowing.

Lee had decades of considerations, but all he told us was that David was a sinner and therefore was disqualified in pleasing God or fulfilling His will. No mention of the possibility if David was speaking prophetically, or was in spirit. Just, He was a sinner. Not qualified.

But Peter had already addressed that issue, in Acts 2, and gone deeper, into the spirit. Lee wouldn't. Why? He wouldn't say. "David was a sinner". So what are we to assume? That Lee had years of consideration, somehow got something deep and insightful, causing him to reject this word, and moved on to revelatory texts? He didn't want to waste our time by giving us the benefit of his considerations? What are we to think?

So I tell you what I think: he had meetings to give, books to publish, and a church empire to build and run. Move along folks, move along; nothing to see here. No consideration, no musing upon the word both day and night, no insight, no life. No revelation of Jesus Christ.

Maybe Lee had too many years of consideration. His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Znp, sometimes the same writer expressed human concept and sometimes divine.
Happens all the time even here.

My question is does this happen in every book of the Bible? Are you saying that every writer of every book of the Bible is expressing human concepts sometimes and sometimes divine concepts?

If your answer is yes then how can you claim that the Bible is the word of God?

If your answer is no, then it goes back to your original response concerning David, WL's teaching is not typical of all writers but was specific to Psalms.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Maybe Lee had too many years of consideration. His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

aron, that is what meant before when I said that you do not address what Brother Lee actually taught. You are making stuff up and you do everyone a disservice no matter which side you are on. Learn the facts then have at it.

Here is one example from one book alone that refutes your assertions that he did not see Jesus in the Psalms. The reader can decide for themselves from this concluding summary from the book Christ and the Church Revealed and Typified in the Psalms.

CONCERNING CHRIST

Let us consider now all the main aspects of Christ in the Psalms:

1. His divinity—Psa. 45:6; Heb. 1:8
2. His incarnation—Psa. 8:4; Heb. 2:6
3. His humanity—Psa. 8:4; Heb. 2:6
4. His human living—Psa. 16:1-8
5. His death—Psa. 22:1-21
6. His resurrection—Psa. 2:7; 16:10; 22:22; Heb. 2:12; Acts 2:25-32; 13:35-37
7. His ascension—Psa. 68:18; Eph. 4:8
8. His exaltation—Psa. 80:17; 110:1
9. His crowning—Psa. 8:5; Heb. 2:9
10. His enthronement—Psa. 2:6
11. His dominion, kingship, and authority—Psa. 2:8; 8:6; 47; 72; 89; 110
12. His priesthood—Psa. 110:4
13. His fighting—Psa. 110:5-6; 45:3-5
14. His victory—Psa. 110:5-6
15. His indwelling—Psa. 22:22
16. His shepherding—Psa. 23
17. The stone for the building—Psa. 118:22
18. His coming—Psa. 72; 96; 110
19. His reigning—Psa. 93—101

The main psalms concerning Christ: Psa. 2, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 45, 68, 80, 91, 110, 118
These are just the main aspects; there are many details which could be filled in. It is clear that through the Psalms we can know Christ much better than through the New Testament."


Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron, that is what meant before when I said that you do not address what Brother Lee actually taught. You are making stuff up and you do everyone a disservice no matter which side you are on. Learn the facts then have at it.
Here is one example from one book alone that refutes your assertions that he did not see Jesus in the Psalms. The reader can decide for themselves from this concluding summary from the book

Drake, I have been reading aron's post for years, including the ones on this thread, and he has NEVER said that Witness Lee "did not see Jesus in the Psalms." You have misread his posts completely. Also, numerous authors and commentaries can provide the same list which you posted above. Lee often used others' works and did not properly reference them in his books, giving you the i pression that his writing was original.

What aron has said, and has said it repeatedly, was that Lee dismissed many Psalms as "natural or fallen concepts." I too heard this many times from Lee. He also similarly dismissed the book of James.

Perhaps this forum can help you learn "the facts."

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Drake, I have been reading aron's post for years, including the ones on this thread, and he has NEVER said that Witness Lee "did not see Jesus in the Psalms." You have misread his posts completely.

Originally Posted by aron

His mind was made up, and wouldn't see Jesus if He reached up out of the page and waved His hand in his face.

- - - - - - - -

[Ohio]

You took his words out of context.

Read the whole post. Read his other posts.

I'll let him respond further.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

(in contrast with God's holy nature, i.e. Holy Bible).

I don't understand why you added "i.e. Holy Bible"

Please clarify.

[ZNPaaneah]

Your post comes across as a way to equate believing that the Bible is the word of God being equal to anything.

My understanding when you say that the Bible is the word of God, is that the Bible is Holy, it expresses God's holy nature.

A writer of the Bible is not expressing his natural fallen mind. The words are the expression of the revelation of God to man.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You took his words out of context.

Read the whole post. Read his other posts.

I'll let him respond further.

If you look at Lee's list of revelatory psalms, provided by Drake in post #595, they're all the ones cited in the NT, except for item 16 (Psalm 23, commonly held), and item 19. So of course he'll see Jesus there: he's required to by NT reception.

When I said that Lee wouldn't "see Jesus" in the text, this referenced psalms having similar and even identical principles; let's say, the righteous man suffering unjustly, and hoping for deliverance, or the man who obeys God's will, and hopes for reward, and so forth. Lee would usually say, "No, no one's righteous; or, No, nobody is obedient to God; or, No, salvation is not a reward but is by grace. . .we all know that David was a sinner", etc. So e.g. "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me" in Psalm 18 was held by Lee as natural, even though the Father's delight has clear NT parallel and reinforcement. So I wrote that he wouldn't see Jesus if He waved His hand in his face.

I believe that Lee only saw Jesus in Psalm 16 because Acts 2 and 13 said it was Jesus. Then, Lee rejected Jesus in Psalm 18 because David was a sinner. Huh? Is that a satisfactory answer? Does that sound like the fruit of 50 years of consideration? No, it sounds like rejection out of hand, to me. No careful consideration, no prayerful musings. Just rejection. Lee saw the word "law" in Psalm 1, and said, "Aha - natural! Nobody's saved by keeping the law!" Then he had carte blanche to reject the Psalms as vain words coming from fallen men's human concepts.

But I say, "Christ is the end of the law" (Rom 10:4) wasn't a contravention of law but its fulfillment - the law was not annulled but kept, and thus completed - I say, Psalm 1 was not vain, because arguably Christ fulfilled it. Yet to Lee it was vanity, merely because the psalmist was a sinner! I find this line of thinking to be completely unsatisfactory because: A) it's illogical, and it produces a strange, dichotomous "natural" versus "revelatory" Bible, and B) it apparently never considers Christ at all, but dismisses the possibility out of hand.

Notice that Lee never said Psalm 1, 3, 18, 34, 35 etc etc couldn't be prophetic utterance of Jesus Christ because of something intrinsic to the text itself; no, he says it isn't revelatory of Christ because the psalmist was a sinner! Well if that was our evaluatory criterion, then Psalm 16, "You will not let my flesh see corruption" would be disqualified also, but look how Peter in Acts 2 and Paul in Acts 13 dealt with that! But I never saw Lee try to deal with it, to puzzle it through, to think, to pray, to muse, to wrestle. All I see is cavalier dismissal. Thus my rather harsh statement that he wouldn't see Jesus if He waved His hand in his face.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

The main psalms concerning Christ: Psa. 2, 8, 16, 22, 23, 24, 45, 68, 80, 91, 110, 118

These are just the main aspects; there are many details which could be filled in. It is clear that through the Psalms we can know Christ much better than through the New Testament."


Drake

You've got to be kidding me. "There are many details which could be filled in..." by whom? If Lee didn't fill them in, who gets permission, under "One Trumpet" and "One Publication"? You? Me? I doubt it. This type of word was merely a sop for the conscience's of the faithful, or a fig leaf to cover for the newbies. Lee was a master at talking out of both sides of his mouth, and we learned to ignore one and pay attention to the other.

Suppose Ed Marks or Kerry Robichaux, two of the current leaders, suddenly get a revelation from heaven: the Blessed Man of Psalm 1 is none other than the Man Jesus Christ! They're sitting in the study room one day, reading Deuteronomy 17:14-20 together, which talks about the king whom Jehovah chooses, who shall read and keep the law all the days of his life, and whom (btw) Lee said doesn't exist, because the king was desired by the people and was thus offensive to God, and suddenly the room is filled with great light and an angel of God is standing there and says, "Oh ye of little faith! Can't you see the Messiah, plainly depicted here!? This King is none other than the King of Israel, who is the Son of God!"

And then the light fades and they're alone again, and they look at each other in astonishment. What can they do? They can't go against Lee! So they have a dilemma; they either go with God's word and the revelation of the Holy Spirit showing them the person and righteous human living (i.e. 'works') of the Lord Jesus Christ, or they go with the teachings and doctrines of LSM and RecV footnotes. What to do?

How come the Blessed Man from Psalm 1 isn't the Enthroned King from Psalm 2? If you or I, or anyone, tries to "fill in this detail", or any other that goes against Lee's "natural concept" teaching, what would happen? You and I both know what would happen.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I believe that Lee only saw Jesus in Psalm 16 because Acts 2 and 13 said it was Jesus. Then, Lee rejected Jesus in Psalm 18 because David was a sinner. Huh? Is that a satisfactory answer? Does that sound like the fruit of 50 years of consideration? No, it sounds like rejection out of hand, to me. No careful consideration, no prayerful musings. Just rejection. Lee saw the word "law" in Psalm 1, and said, "Aha - natural! Nobody's saved by keeping the law!" Then he had carte blanche to reject the Psalms as vain words coming from fallen men's human concepts.

I would like to know, verse by verse, how much Lee received as revelation based on his own labor in the word, and how much he merely stole from others, primarily Nee and the Exclusive Brethren, you know, "standing on their shoulders."

Originally Posted by aron

Suppose Ed Marks or Kerry Robichaux, two of the current leaders, suddenly get a revelation from heaven: the Blessed Man of Psalm 1 is none other than the Man Jesus Christ!

And then the light fades and they're alone again, and they look at each other in astonishment. What can they do? They can't go against Lee!

Here it is Nee's infamous saying which must guide them, "Whenever we have two interpretations of the scripture, someone is not holding the Head."

[aron]

I was reading Romans 10 the other day. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (v. 17). The reference in the RecV says Colossians 3:16. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly". Then the next verse quotes Psalm 19. "Their voice has gone out into all of the earth/their testimony to all of the world". But Witness Lee in his footnote in Psalm 19 panned the text. God doesn't care about this, said Lee, but about His eternal economy.

But again I return to the idea of the word of Christ, as presented by Paul. How many of what we call the NT texts did the Romans or Colossians have at that point? They may have had some gospel texts, sayings of Jesus. Doubtful they had an extant copy of what we'd call the Gospel of Mark, or Luke. Certainly John's gospel, no. Maybe an epistle of Paul (see e.g., Col 4:16 "read the letter to the Laodiceans").

No, the word of Christ to which Paul referred was undoubtedly the OT. The very texts cited by Paul, which Witness Lee so quickly dismissed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I was reading Romans 10 the other day. "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (v. 17). The reference in the RecV says Colossians 3:16. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly". Then the next verse quotes Psalm 19. "Their voice has gone out into all of the earth/their testimony to all of the world". But Witness Lee in his footnote in Psalm 19 panned the text. God doesn't care about this, said Lee, but about His eternal economy.

But again I return to the idea of the word of Christ, as presented by Paul. How many of what we call the NT texts did the Romans or Colossians have at that point? They may have had some gospel texts, sayings of Jesus. Doubtful they had an extant copy of what we'd call the Gospel of Mark, or Luke. Certainly John's gospel, no. Maybe an epistle of Paul (see e.g., Col 4:16 "read the letter to the Laodiceans").

No, the word of Christ to which Paul referred was undoubtedly the OT. The very texts cited by Paul, which Witness Lee so quickly dismissed.

When Paul traveled to the Gentile lands bring the gospel, he always went to synagogues first. I wonder if perhaps that was partly done because the OT scriptures were there, and Paul could begin to "connect" these new believers with the prophecies of the Christ.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

My question is does this happen in every book of the Bible? Are you saying that every writer of every book of the Bible is expressing human concepts sometimes and sometimes divine concepts?
If your answer is yes then how can you claim that the Bible is the word of God?
If your answer is no, then it goes back to your original response concerning David, WL's teaching is not typical of all writers but was specific to Psalms.

ZNP,

The Bible is the Word of God and the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and all that is documented is for our benefit.

The Bible imparts insight to many things: God and all things related to Him including the church, then the law, many characteristics of man, culture, Satan, religions, politics, prophecy, the beginning and end of the earth and the universe, etc. In most of the books of the Bible some combination of these are revealed.

For instance, what is the significance of the Lord rebuking Peter calling him Satan? Peter loved the Lord and wanted to protect Him. He sliced off a servants ear. He said he would follow the Lord all the way and yet he denied him three times before the sun rose. Isn't that instructive to us? Isn't the Bible exposing something about our human nature, even our good human nature, even our natural love for God, matters that are contrary to God's will? Why are those things recorded in the Bible if not to edify, instruct us, and alert us what to avoid. The Bible is inspired even if what is revealed is natural or about human nature, good and bad.

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

It is very different to say that the Bible reveals, exposes or shines a light on the natural concept. That is not what Witness Lee taught. Witness Lee taught that the writer of the Bible (in this case David) wrote according to the natural concept, the natural logic, human concept and was "very natural" (in contrast with God's holy nature, i.e. Holy Bible).

Yes, I agree with pretty much everything you say here, except when applied to Witness Lee's teachings on Psalms, which of course is the context of our discussion.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

I think it's reasonable to wonder when David asked God to crush his (David's) enemies whether David was expressing God's nature at that time and whether we should imitate David's vindictiveness. My own conclusion is to take David's requests as calls for justice and defense, rather than as expectations of payback for his sake.

But Lee took this kind of questioning beyond just whether we should indulge in David-like vindictiveness. Lee ran with this idea of "natural concepts" to the point where a natural concept was anything but his proprietary "God's economy" theology.

Like Lee, you easily throw out this term "natural concept" as if you know exactly what is and is not one. But that's the essence of the whole error that aron is trying to refute in this thread. What Lee and you think are "natural concepts" may or may not be. Further, there is no indication from the Bible that a natural concept, whatever may be one, is always a bad or even inferior one.

Lee was very self-serving in that he would smoothly use terms like "natural concept" to essentially say "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" or, worse, "Stop thinking and just agree with me."

[aron]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee ran with this idea of "natural concepts" to the point where a natural concept was anything but his proprietary "God's economy" theology.

Everyone here agrees that not every word of the Psalms has to be a "word of Christ" per Col 3:16 or a word of "spirit and life" per John 6:63. Many psalms are shown to be revelatory of Christ by NT reception, some seem iffy at best. But given clear and repeated NT citation we'd do well to at least consider Christ, and not reject out of hand simply because the author of the psalm was a sinner. If that were our metric what would happen to the Bible!

Or that the psalm's author expresses "fighting words" or "judging words" - what of the sobering scenes in the NT of the Judgment Seat of Christ, or the clear spiritual struggles portrayed? "Then there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels struggled against...." . . should we think that here the NT author was expressing vain, pre-NT concepts, or that the angel Michael in heaven should 'turn the other cheek' and love his foe? Hardly. So, why a knee-jerk dismissal of such spiritual principles when we see physical struggle or judgment referenced in OT psalms? Why not take a moment or two and consider the unseen, eternal spiritual world(s) beyond the temporal physical one (2 Cor 4:18; cf 1 John 2:16,17)?

On a related note, coming to Igzy's quote above, it's long seemed to me that there were two "untouchables" in the Bible for Lee: one was Jesus Himself, and the second was Paul. Jesus is obviously the sinless Lamb of God, but Paul has a special place because of Lee's cultural and social yardsticks: Paul was the untouchable one, the apostle of the age, so-called, and everyone else had to "get in line" behind Paul. Paul was positionally untouchable, per Lee's oriental cultural/societal understanding. Social cohesion, shared meaning, values, and purpose - here, the church as Lee imagined it - needed a center. Thus, to Lee, Paul couldn't be seen making doctrinal error. Peter could err, and did, as James could, and as John could, but not Paul. Nor by extension could Nee (except for the early book "Spiritual Man", largely plagiarized from the unbalanced Penn-Lewis). Lee was consistent from Day One: proper church order meant one person had to step up and be Deputy God and everyone else had to arrange their spiritual, social, mental and behavioral worlds around that fixed point. I heard that concept reinforced a million times while in the LC. Everyone got it. Nobody forgot it. It was ingrained, unquestioned local church culture.

Now, how does that play out when we come to Psalms? Lee with his "Economy of God" metric could weigh psalms in the balance and find them wanting. But nobody could ever weigh or critically evaluate Lee; none put him in the same scale he put everything else in, including the Bible. Lee was positionally untouchable: he'd cavalierly dismiss the "vain concepts" and "natural thinking" of the writers of scripture, but nobody could ask if he ever suffered from the same malady.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

The Bible is the Word of God and the writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit and all that is documented is for our benefit.

The Bible imparts insight to many things: God and all things related to Him including the church, then the law, many characteristics of man, culture, Satan, religions, politics, prophecy, the beginning and end of the earth and the universe, etc. In most of the books of the Bible some combination of these are revealed.

For instance, what is the significance of the Lord rebuking Peter calling him Satan? Peter loved the Lord and wanted to protect Him. He sliced off a servants ear. He said he would follow the Lord all the way and yet he denied him three times before the sun rose. Isn't that instructive to us? Isn't the Bible exposing something about our human nature, even our good human nature, even our natural love for God, matters that are contrary to God's will? Why are those things recorded in the Bible if not to edify, instruct us, and alert us what to avoid. The Bible is inspired even if what is revealed is natural or about human nature, good and bad.

So, I believe that you have to weigh what you are reading, understand what the Spirit is speaking, and seek the instruction and guidance into the reality of God. I also believe the Old Testament is more prone to human concepts because the revelation of the New Testament was unclear at the time of writing. It is no less inspired but we see instances of natural concepts and they are recorded there for a reason.

Drake

ZNP,

My view is still the same as it was when I posted this note.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

My view is still the same as it was when I posted this note.

Drake

"We see instances of natural concepts" - and yet you see no natural concepts in the ministry of Lee? I see loads. And yes in yours and mine as well. Why is it that Witness Lee got to decide which of the scriptures were revelatory and which were not, and yet we're precluded from making the same assessments of his output? What force is at work, here?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

My view is still the same as it was when I posted this note.

Drake

My view is that the writers of the Bible were not "Satan". Even Peter, though his speaking was "one with Satan" had repented and been transformed.

So the quotes of Satan speaking are similar to a Prosecuting attorney quoting a suspect. Yes it is a direct quote from Satan, but in context it is full of revelation, light and instruction.

However, the quotes I gave from Witness Lee are quite different. He says that the writers of the Psalms wrote based on their natural concept and he says that several of the Minor prophets wrote entire chapters based on their natural human concept.

When the Bible tells us that "this is a quote from Satan" then I am not being arrogant to say "this is a quote from Satan". But when I set myself up as a judge to decide which Bible verses are beneficial (the kernel) and which are the husk. Which ones are good for food and which ones aren't. That is arrogance. I think it is crucial that anyone associated or considering becoming associated with the Local Churches be aware of these quotes from Witness Lee.

When I first began to meet I asked about the Bible and I was told repeatedly with full assurance that "the Bible is the word of God", and "every single verse is the word of God" and the "Bible is the highest authority and our only authority". That is not true. Witness Lee's conclusions that certain books, chapters, and authors are writing according to their natural concept, human concept, or are not clear on the NT vision indicates that Witness Lee has set himself up as a higher authority to judge the Bible.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP, all scripture is God breathed and profitable. Satan's thoughts and deeds are recorded there, man's words are recorded there, man's concepts about God and the things of God are recorded there. ... Satan's infiltrating man thoughts are recorded there, and God's words are there, God's speaking through psalmists, prophets, and servants is recorded there even when they sometimes do not get it right.

Consider it this way. Today men have something they did not have in the Old Testament. ., we have the Spirit Himself within to guide, inspire, and speak according to the Spirit's leading in every situation. And yet, everything a man of God says may or may not be the Lord's speaking. Even Paul said things he did know if it was Lord speaking or himself. Still, whatever he said was recorded in scripture and profitable for us. Similar with Peters words which were a personification of Satan's thought.... still recorded and still profitable... even as a warning to us. So, we have the Spirit to divide soul from spirit and it is a life long process. The OT prophets and psalmists did not. Not everything they said was spirit and not soul.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

So, we have the Spirit to divide soul from spirit and it is a life long process. The OT prophets and psalmists did not. Not everything they said was spirit and not soul.

How do we assume that Witness Lee was so transformed by this "life long process" that all his judgments were true? He arbitrarily picked out "revelations" from the rest which was "natural". Probably 70% of the Psalms, for example, were deemed "natural". But there was no consistency to his work.

If you look at Psalm 45, for example, one verse has "His arrows are sharp, in the heart of his enemy". This of course is violent! Not the NT grace at all! But Lee ignored it, with no comment (footnote) because he was busy showing "Christ" in Psalm 45. Yet elsewhere imprecations are held out as "natural" and "fallen".

Or, when Samuel slew Agag, or David slew Goliath. No panning of the protagonist as lacking grace. No lectures about turning the other cheek. Yet in the Psalms footnotes you can repeatedly see this kind of commentary.

So Drake et al will say, "some is natural, some is spiritual" but not mention that Lee violated NT reception precedent (the OT author was indeed fallen, but still pointed to Christ, not self [e.g., Peter in Acts 2 referencing Psalms 16]), or that Lee was inconsistent and arbitrary in application. The bottom line is, Lee said it, therefore it must be so.

This makes it, not "the" Bible, but the "Lee Bible". Not the same thing. The difference is too great, as Lee himself would say. Crucial!

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

ZNP, all scripture is God breathed and profitable. Satan's thoughts and deeds are recorded there, man's words are recorded there, man's concepts about God and the things of God are recorded there. ... Satan's infiltrating man thoughts are recorded there, and God's words are there, God's speaking through psalmists, prophets, and servants is recorded there even when they sometimes do not get it right.

We know Satan's thoughts infiltrated Peter's because Jesus told us and it as recorded in the Bible. We know what the serpent said because it was recored in the Bible. But who decides when the Psalmists and Prophets didn't get it right? You have put that person above the Bible. No longer is the Bible the sole arbiter (something I was told), no longer is all scripture God breathed and our highest authority. Now, when WL says they got it wrong WL becomes a higher authority than the word of God. Anyone who has anything to do with the LRC needs to be aware of this. If they still want to remain then that decision will be on them.

Originally Posted by Drake

Consider it this way. Today men have something they did not have in the Old Testament. ., we have the Spirit Himself within to guide, inspire, and speak according to the Spirit's leading in every situation. And yet, everything a man of God says may or may not be the Lord's speaking. Even Paul said things he did know if it was Lord speaking or himself. Still, whatever he said was recorded in scripture and profitable for us. Similar with Peters words which were a personification of Satan's thought.... still recorded and still profitable... even as a warning to us. So, we have the Spirit to divide soul from spirit and it is a life long process. The OT prophets and psalmists did not. Not everything they said was spirit and not soul.

Drake

According to who? Who decides what is of Spirit and what is not? This is a very different explanation of how it is usually spun. The NT says "Judas hanged himself" doesn't mean we should do likewise. Satan asked a question, not the quote of God, but it is God who is quoting Satan to reveal something to us so we are not ignorant of Satan and his devices.

But you have taken this to a very different place. Now WL can proclaim that this prophet was not speaking in the Spirit but according to his natural concept. God didn't say this. Jesus didn't say this. Nowhere in the Bible is it recorded that this is the case. Instead Witness Lee said this. Once you accept this you have "the Bible according to Witness Lee". Proverbs lacks the "vision", minor prophets speak according to the natural concept, the Psalmists speak according to natural concept, James didn't have a clear vision, etc.

Again, I point out, if you are in the LRC you must be aware of this and then you will be held accountable for how you respond to this fact.