The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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?

[Drake]

aron>"o 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."

Yet, what if Ed doesn't see that way at all?

I think you are doing it here... is your question why shouldn't any member be able to just stand up in the meeting and say those things?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

aron>"o 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."

Yet, what if Ed doesn't see that way at all?

I think you are doing it here... is your question why shouldn't any member be able to just stand up in the meeting and say those things?

Drake

Not strictly Ed Marks and what he sees, but rather why can't the Holy Spirit enlighten anyone, including the current Blendeds? Suppose someone sees Christ. Ed says the Father delights in the Son. Someone, anyone, sees Christ. Yet Witness Lee taught us to exclude Christ, that he isn't there, that the scripture, say Psalm 18, is vain concepts. What to do? How to function in this environment? What if you see Christ? You have to pretend to be blind.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Not strictly Ed Marks and what he sees, but rather why can't the Holy Spirit enlighten anyone, including the current Blendeds? Suppose someone sees Christ. Ed says the Father delights in the Son. Someone, anyone, sees Christ. Yet Witness Lee taught us to exclude Christ, that he isn't there, that the scripture, say Psalm 18, is vain concepts. What to do? How to function in this environment? What if you see Christ? You have to pretend to be blind.

Why yes,aron. Thst should be what happens. That doesn't mean He will and it doesn't mean you throw everything else out if and when He does.

Drake

[aron]

Suppose we were in a meeting and the presence of the Spirit of Christ put us into fits of ecstasy, and thousands pressed around us, wondering what was going on: what would we tell them? That we were going to talk of the vanity of the law-keepers, and that we were going to exclude Christ?

Because, you see, "No one can please God." What kind of a gospel message is that?

Or would we tell them that the frail, feeble and failing sinners who wrote scripture were under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and were anticipating the promised Coming One?