The Psalms are the word of 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!

[Drake]

-1

aron>"How do we assume that Witness Lee was so transformed by this "life long process" that all his judgments were true"

That is true for all of us. Includes mine and your posts.

So now what?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

-1

aron>"How do we assume that Witness Lee was so transformed by this "life long process" that all his judgments were true"

That is true for all of us. Includes mine and your posts.

So now what?

Drake

So now, when Ed Marks is giving a conference message, he can say, "I see something Witness Lee didn't see.", or "Here, Witness Lee was entertaining natural concepts", or "Here we can see Witness Lee being inconsistent in his interpretations", or "Here we can see Witness Lee violating the NT principle of scriptural reception", etc.

How come we can say this with Martin Luther, but not with Witness Lee? How come Witness Lee can pan Peter or James or Malachi or David, but nobody in the conference can stand up and say, "Wait a minute here - not so fast"?

So now what? If that's true with Witness Lee why don't we see any evidence of that? All I see is evidence of him dismissing scripture as natural concepts, but nobody being able to do the same with him.

None of us presume to be so "transformed by the life process" that we are beyond further correction. Why can nobody correct Lee?

[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.

[Drake]

-1

ZNP,

It seems to me that if one believes that everything in the Bible is God's divine concept and thought except what is specifically called out as not then there are many things that we will never learn from in the Scriptures... it is as important to see the error of others and learn from them. In my view it is all divinely inspired to be in the Scriptures but it does all represent God's concept and thought even when it is not called out specifically.

Brother Lee was a gifted teacher. I agree with his viewpoint on this and his examples in psalms. That is not elevating him above the scriptures anymore than any bible teacher that uses the scriptures to comment on and apply the scriptures to any situation. His point is to look for the divine concept and thought when you read the psalms or the prophets and not lose sight that Christ is the centrality and sum of all spiritual matters. For me, I believe that is right and my sense before the Lord is that it is right and that it is alright. No one is usurping His headship. He gave some apostles, prophets, and teachers. If Witness Lee is not a gift in your christian walk then find those that are. He does the giving and we do the receiving. Just follow the Lord and consider the gifts He gave to the Body.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

No one is usurping His headship.

If Peter stood with the eleven, and said, "David was a sinner. His word was just fallen natural concept", and dismissed the assembly, what kind of a gospel would that be? (Acts 2:14-36). Yet this is what Lee did. He said, "Nobody can keep the law" and dismissed the scripture as fallen and natural.

In this way Witness Lee usurped the headship, by deviating from the clear pattern of scriptural reception in the NT. He deviated from the headship because nobody in the crowd could say, "Wait a minute". In other words, Witness Lee wasn't just another bozo with an opinion, possibly right and possibly wrong. Witness Lee was defining doctrine for the church, and defining which scriptures were "revelatory of Christ" and which were "natural".

So if Ed Marks gives a message on the Father's delight in the Son, and shows NT verses, he can't get light and show, say, Psalm 18's "He (the Father) rescued Me (the Son) because He delighted in Me". No, Lee shut the door on the light. We can't see Christ there because Lee said it's just a fallen sinner presuming falsely before God. So Ed Marks' mouth is shut, as is everyone in the LSM church. Because Lee has spoken.

If Lee was just another bozo with an opinion, occasionally right and occasionally wrong, we could profit somewhat, and make the necessary corrections, and go on. But in the LSM church we can't make any corrections. So we're stuck.

So now what? You say, "Go somewhere else where you get light"? Is that the new ground? "The local church of Lee isn't for everyone"? How do we all arrive at the one new man?