The Psalms are the word of Christ

[aron]

The following was on another thread but I hear the theme often, and I think it can wrongly color understanding and interpretation of OT scripture. And Lee abused it, whether deliberately or unconsciously, and led us astray.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we say "no one can obey the Father" this is normally understood to exclude Christ.

Suppose you're reading the OT text in Psalm 40 and you come to the part where the writer says, "I come to do your will O God - behold, in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me". And you go, "Hey, this looks like Christ". The Spirit reveals the Son and you hear the voice of the Shepherd and get life.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--he will testify about me.

1 Cor 2:10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

John 5:25 Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Etc.

But then someone from the LSM-affiliated 'local church' (LC) comes by and says, "No, sorry; that's just the vain and natural concepts of the psalm writer. You see, the psalmist was a sinner and couldn't please God, or do His will."

And you go, "But what of Christ?"

And the LC person says, "It's naturally understood that we're excluding Christ, here."

My refrain from the first post of this thread has been, why do we so assiduously exclude Christ from our reading of OT scripture? Witness Lee, more often than not, called the Psalms "natural concepts" and "fallen" and "mixed sentiments", not considering if the writer, admittedly a sinner, looked ahead to the promised Messiah, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Yet the reception of the above OT text by Hebrews 10:7-9, strongly indicates an example of this trend. Yet Witness Lee went against the clear and repeated pattern of NT reception and panned the majority of the psalms. He excluded Christ from consideration, either deliberately or unconsciously, and nobody could say anything.

So my question has been, How could several thousand people sit in a conference hall, and listen to message after message in this vein, and not one of them could be bothered, and stir, and raise a question? This is the dark side of the "oneness" movement - when the leader errs, the whole thing goes into the ditch.

Originally Posted by 2 Peter 1

19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

On the day of Pentecost, Peter said that David was a prophet and looked ahead to the God-promised holy seed (Acts 2:30). The clear pattern of NT reception of OT scripture follows this. Yet Lee ignored it. And the whole LC assembly sat there, passively absorbing it all without one peep of protest. What kind of gospel has been preached, here? And what kind of ministry is this? I say that it's full of human error.

We all err. But if we build a man-honoring system that denies any correction, eventually the error will grow and grow and consume everything.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

The following was on another thread but I hear the theme often, and I think it can wrongly color understanding and interpretation of OT scripture. And Lee abused it, whether deliberately or unconsciously, and led us astray.


Suppose you're reading the OT text in Psalm 40 and you come to the part where the writer says, "I come to do your will O God - behold, in the scroll of the book it is written concerning me". And you go, "Hey, this looks like Christ". The Spirit reveals the Son and you hear the voice of the Shepherd and get life.

John 14:26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

John 15:26 "When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father--the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father--he will testify about me.

1 Cor 2:10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.

John 5:25 Truly, truly, I tell you, the hour is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Etc.

But then someone from the LSM-affiliated 'local church' (LC) comes by and says, "No, sorry; that's just the vain and natural concepts of the psalm writer. You see, the psalmist was a sinner and couldn't please God, or do His will."

And you go, "But what of Christ?"

And the LC person says, "It's naturally understood that we're excluding Christ, here."

My refrain from the first post of this thread has been, why do we so assiduously exclude Christ from our reading of OT scripture? Witness Lee, more often than not, called the Psalms "natural concepts" and "fallen" and "mixed sentiments", not considering if the writer, admittedly a sinner, looked ahead to the promised Messiah, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.

Yet the reception of the above OT text by Hebrews 10:7-9, strongly indicates an example of this trend. Yet Witness Lee went against the clear and repeated pattern of NT reception and panned the majority of the psalms. He excluded Christ from consideration, either deliberately or unconsciously, and nobody could say anything.

So my question has been, How could several thousand people sit in a conference hall, and listen to message after message in this vein, and not one of them could be bothered, and stir, and raise a question? This is the dark side of the "oneness" movement - when the leader errs, the whole thing goes into the ditch.



On the day of Pentecost, Peter said that David was a prophet and looked ahead to the God-promised holy seed (Acts 2:30). The clear pattern of NT reception of OT scripture follows this. Yet Lee ignored it. And the whole LC assembly sat there, passively absorbing it all without one peep of protest. What kind of gospel has been preached, here? And what kind of ministry is this? I say that it's full of human error.

We all err. But if we build a man-honoring system that denies any correction, eventually the error will grow and grow and consume everything.

Lee says Psalm 40 speaks about Christ so I'm not sure what your problem is:


The first book of the Psalms comprises Psalms 1—41. We should not forget that in this first book there are seven psalms which speak concerning Christ: Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Psalm 16, Psalms 22—24, and Psalm 40. ~Life study of Psalms.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee says Psalm 40 speaks about Christ so I'm not sure what your problem is:


The first book of the Psalms comprises Psalms 1—41. We should not forget that in this first book there are seven psalms which speak concerning Christ: Psalm 2, Psalm 8, Psalm 16, Psalms 22—24, and Psalm 40. ~Life study of Psalms.

Sorry if my presentation skills don't match the subject. My question has been, Why use one metric, that of the sinful psalmist pointing to Christ, in those few psalms, and in the rest disqualify them because the psalmist is a sinner and can't fulfill his statement?

I tried to show out the absurdity of using the "sinful psalmist" metric to disqualify the text, when the NT writer had explicitly used it to mine revelation. I know Lee didn't reject Psalm 40 as natural; NT usage wouldn't let him. But elsewhere he did just that, and not occasionally.

Why is Psalm 16 revelatory of Christ and Psalm 18 - " He rescued me because He delighted in me"- not? The same frail, sinful man wrote them both.

And you're telling me that several thousand people sat in front of this guy and not even one of them had this question? It's not that Lee's logic was unassailable but
that his person was. He'd departed from the clear pattern of NT reception of OT scripture, yet none could say a word.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

And you're telling me that several thousand people sat in front of this guy and not even one of them had this question? It's not that Lee's logic was unassailable but that his person was. He'd departed from the clear pattern of NT reception of OT scripture, yet none could say a word.

Many DID speak up, and were silenced. Made an example of! So that subsequent "questioners" preferred to leave quietly rather than endure the shame of public humiliations.

I wonder what would have happened at the Whistler Quarantine Kangaroo Court if Titus Chu and a few of his outspoken supporters would have been there.