The Psalms are the word of Christ

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

Back to the title. Paul called the Psalms "the word of Christ", and nowhere do I see him (or others) indicating that this pertains only to 25% of the text.

What is astonishing is that thousands would fly in from around the world, and not one single question or objection like the ones I've raised here came forth in the training. This suggests that there's some powerful mind control going on, under the rubric of "oneness".

And the fact that my concerns are so breezily dismissed as, "Perhaps this is so", confirms my suspicions. We do not take the Bible seriously; rather we take "oneness" seriously.

Aron,

Other plausible explanations is that you are wrong or that you take yourself too seriously. What I mean is that often I don’t accept your stated beliefs, I think they are off a little, or they are overstated in that you are dismissive of any other viewpoints... But I don’t think all of them are worthy of addressing. You might interpret silence as confirming one thing, but it might very well mean something entirely different.

For instance, there are human concepts expressed in the NT. Of course, there will be some in the OT. Why not? You appear to have a view of scripture not supported by scripture.

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible? Humans were involved in writing it... and copying it... and interpreting it.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Other plausible explanations is that you are wrong or that you take yourself too seriously. What I mean is that often I don’t accept your stated beliefs, I think they are off a little, or they are overstated in that you are dismissive of any other viewpoints... But I don’t think all of them are worthy of addressing. You might interpret silence as confirming one thing, but it might very well mean something entirely different.

For instance, there are human concepts expressed in the NT. Of course, there will be some in the OT. Why not? You appear to have a view of scripture not supported by scripture.

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible?

Drake

Fair enough, lets accept your suggestion that there are human concepts expressed in God's word and let's also accept that there are human concepts expressed in God's word in the OT.

But how are you to know which is which? Evangelical's test is that if it is quoted in the NT that proves it is of God and worse yet, if it isn't that is conclusive proof that it was natural. This is a test that takes it out of the hands of a "MOTA" and can be determined with a concordance. The problem is that this makes the majority of the OT natural concepts.

Or you could take the WL approach which is that he has determined which is natural and which is "the high peak revelation". He has targeted, a couple of books in the OT he doesn't like and a couple of verses in the NT he doesn't like. But the only rhyme or reason is that these verses and books don't fit his overall thesis that well. Unless WL is God this suggests to me that the issue is with his thesis and not the Bible.

But perhaps you could enlighten us on how we distinguish which parts of God's word are truly inspired by God and which are simply the musings of the natural man.

[aron]

On Pentecost, Peter told the story of a man who broke the power of death. This was exemplified in Psalm 16, but nowhere do I see Peter (or others) suggesting that this also doesn't apply to Psalm 3, or 9, or 18. Yet Lee with his hermeneutical program said this was so. Why? Because David was a sinner, whose grave is with us today? Peter already answered that. Because the man expressed vituperation towards his foes? Paul spoke to that.

And what "high peak narrative" causes you to look beyond the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? The whole NT obsesses over this theme (pun intended).

Hebrews 1 and 2 quotes the Psalms extensively (without implying "use these and no more") and then says, "we see Jesus made a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honour"; you instead imply there's some exegetical construct superior to this, one whose prosperity demands that we reject 2/3 of the Psalms, or more, as "natural".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

On Pentecost, Peter told the story of a man who broke the power of death. This was exemplified in Psalm 16, but nowhere do I see Peter (or others) suggesting that this also doesn't apply to Psalm 3, or 9, or 18. Yet Lee with his hermeneutical program said this was so. Why? Because David was a sinner, whose grave is with us today? Peter already answered that. Because the man expressed vituperation towards his foes? Paul spoke to that.

And what "high peak narrative" causes you to look beyond the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? The whole NT obsesses over this theme (pun intended).

Hebrews 1 and 2 quotes the Psalms extensively (without implying "use these and no more") and then says, "we see Jesus made a little lower than the angels, and crowned with glory and honour"; you instead imply there's some exegetical construct superior to this, one whose prosperity demands that we reject 2/3 of the Psalms, or more, as "natural".

Human concepts are those which contradict the New Testament plan, which seem good to us (and the world at large) but which contradict God's plan in Christ. They include law-keeping for righteousness, seeking revenge on and hating enemies etc.

Still I'm thinking, if human concepts, so what? Just because a Psalm has human concepts does not mean it is not of value. We need the verses that show human concepts to reveal the truth about ourselves and our human nature. David's struggles in the Psalms are something we can all identify with.

By rightly dividing the word we can distinguish between the human concepts and the divine concepts, because if we don't, then we might start praying for God to destroy our enemies rather than for God to bless them. We will ask God to bless us because of our righteousness rather than the righteousness in Christ. This can be a consequence of not seeing the human concepts.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Human concepts are those which contradict the New Testament plan, which seem good to us (and the world at large) but which contradict God's plan in Christ. They include law-keeping for righteousness, seeking revenge on and hating enemies etc.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Don't you think the "MOTA," acting God, deputy authority paradigm in the LCM contradicts God's New Testament plan to have all things headed up in Christ?

What about LSM's spurious lawsuits and quarantines, don't they contradict the love and heart of our eternal Father, who enjoys diversities of operations?

What about the endless railing on all of Christianity, does that not violate Christ's love and grace as the Good Shepherd, loving every single child of God unreservedly?

What about LSM's endless demands, traditions, and ordinances; don't you think these law-keeping legalities contradict God's Spirit of freedom?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just because a Psalm has human concepts does not mean it is not of value. We need the verses that show human concepts to reveal the truth about ourselves and our human nature. David's struggles in the Psalms are something we can all identify with.

Peter answered this definitively in Acts 2. David's failure (his grave is with us today) does not obviate Christ's victory (he rose from the dead). Yet Lee ignores this and places restrictions on the word, making Christ's righteousness depend on that of the speaker. Nonsense.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

By rightly dividing the word we can distinguish between the human concepts and the divine concepts, because if we don't, then we might start praying for God to destroy our enemies rather than for God to bless them. We will ask God to bless us because of our righteousness rather than the righteousness in Christ. This can be a consequence of not seeing the human concepts.

"We" can distinguish? The subject of scripture is not us but Christ. "These things (inc Psalms) were written concerning me", not concerning the "NT believer enjoying grace" or some such. Luke 24:44. Where in the NT does it restrict this principle to explicit citations? Where does Lee get off placing burdens on scripture, that the writer must be righteous for it to apply to the righteous Christ, otherwise it is vain human musings?

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't you think the "MOTA," acting God, deputy authority paradigm in the LCM contradicts God's New Testament plan to have all things headed up in Christ?

If we judged Lee by the bases he judged others, including writers of scripture, he'd be rejected. But he asked us to forgive his "messy kitchen". cf Luke 7:36-50

[Evangelical]

I don't know why some people react in horror when it is mentioned that the Bible contains human concepts.

The Bible is including humanity, God and also Satan - the three main parties that were introduced in Genesis.

Not only are human concepts found in the Scripture, but Satan's concepts are found in the Scripture as well. The Bible tells us what we need to know about God, about Satan, and about ourselves and humanity.

If human concepts were not found in Scripture, we would not have to "rightly divide it" (2 Tim 2:15).

2 Tim 2:15 means to rightly divide or cut the text into its proper parts.

One way to rightly divide the Word is to distinguish between words of man, words of Satan, and words of God.

My fear is that if Christians were handed a bible that was 100% the words of Satan they would follow it unquestionably under the belief that it is "God's Word". That is why we need to rightly divide it.

One way to divide the Old Testament is to consider which passages are referenced by the New Testament that concern Christ.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I don't know why some people react in horror when it is mentioned that the Bible contains human concepts.

The Bible is including humanity, God and also Satan - the three main parties that were introduced in Genesis.

Not only are human concepts found in the Scripture, but Satan's concepts are found in the Scripture as well. The Bible tells us what we need to know about God, about Satan, and about ourselves and humanity.

If human concepts were not found in Scripture, we would not have to "rightly divide it" (2 Tim 2:15).

2 Tim 2:15 means to rightly divide or cut the text into its proper parts.

One way to rightly divide the Word is to distinguish between words of man, words of Satan, and words of God.

My fear is that if Christians were handed a bible that was 100% the words of Satan they would follow it unquestionably under the belief that it is "God's Word". That is why we need to rightly divide it.

One way to divide the Old Testament is to consider which passages are referenced by the New Testament that concern Christ.

What if a Bible expositor told you that 80% of the Bible was fallen human concepts and only 20% revelatory? Would you react in horror? How about 60% and 40%?

Would you perhaps respond that no, that expositors work was natural? I probably would be so inclined.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

What if a Bible expositor told you that 80% of the Bible was fallen human concepts and only 20% revelatory? Would you react in horror? How about 60% and 40%?

Would you perhaps respond that no, that expositors work was natural? I probably would be so inclined.

I would hold onto the 20% and the 80% would still be valuable.

All Christians who read their bible do this sort of dividing anyway, because of human bias, preference, background etc. Every person who reads their bible will be undertaking in their minds, a process of dividing and sorting between verses which "applies to them" and verses which seem irrelevant. This is a sort of biblical valuation on the basis of their human preference. Many Christians have never read through the entire bible from start to finish, many Christians don't even read their bibles every day, and if they do, it is their favorite parts.

How the bible is divided also depends on the theology of the people doing the dividing. For example, prosperity teachers divide the Word in such a way that shows that God wants us to be rich, healthy and happy. This is done in a planned way by the teachers, but also by the readers as they do this implicitly as they read it because of a prosperity belief.

Lee's approach to dividing the Word seems to be on the basis of human versus divine concepts and revelation. I think this is a good approach as it differentiates between human things and God things. Another way to think about this is to think about what man needs and needs to do, and what has God done for us?

This is related to the belief that the Bible is "about God and man". There seems to be some logic behind it as the Psalms that Lee says are divine revelation are those referenced by the New Testament. If we use Calvin's commentary for example to source the Psalms referred to by Christ, we are implicitly doing what Lee has already done for us in the footnotes.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

But perhaps you could enlighten us on how we distinguish which parts of God's word are truly inspired by God and which are simply the musings of the natural man.

ZNP,

I suppose we might agree on 3 categories.

Those references in the NT of the OT verses that refer to Christ. We have no disagreement here, you and I.

Those incidences in the OT that are blatantly not referring to Christ in anyway including typology. For instance, Solomon is clearly a type of Christ in building the temple but not in having many wives that lead into idolatry.

Those two categories above we agree., I’m sure.

Third category is probably the area that lends to disagreement. You might think a certain verse refers to Christ... or can be be applied to Christ in hindsight. That is, when the OT verse was written no one considered it to refer to the Messiah but once fulfilled in hindsight it is now more apparent. I take that to be the meaning of the part after Jesus’ resurrection where He opened all the verses in the Law of Moses, Psalms and Prophets that referred to Him. (Luke24:44). These verses were not obvious to anybody at the time as referring to Him. There are some things that referred to Him and others that did not.... and yet, do we have a complete record in the NT stated outright of all those items He said referred to Him in the Law, Psalms, Prophets.... ? He was declared the Sin offering by John the Baptist, but where was it stated plainly that He is each offering? It is not stated there outright but it is fair to apply Christ as all the offerings where we see Him as the fulfillment in the NT. Perhaps we agree in principle here but maybe not specifics.

I’ll pause here for your point of view.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

do we have a complete record in the NT stated outright of all those items He said referred to Him in the Law, Psalms, Prophets.... ?

But where in the NT does it say that only those explicit citations apply, and the rest are vain? Here is my first post on this thread (see esp bolded):

Originally Posted by aron

]I tried to read the Psalms in detail in the Recovery Version, which I still own, and gave up in the 34th chapter and skimmed the rest....and my sense was that the trend continued through the whole book of Psalms. ... I estimated that they actually addressed 1/4 to 1/3 of the Psalms.

In chapter 1, verse 1 footnote, LSM introduces the Psalms as either written by "fallen man's concept", i.e. the tree of knowledge of good and evil, or by a "revelation of Christ". LSM with the "God's economy" template, naturally gets to decide which are which.

So Psalm 1 is a "natural concept of David" Psalm.

Then Psalm 2 is a revelation of Christ.

Then Psalms 3 through 7 were written according to "David's concept".

Then Psalm 8 is a "revelation of Christ" psalm.

Then Psalms 9-15 are full of the concepts of good and evil, and void of Christ. See footnotes in 9:3 and 15:1. The intervening psalms (9 through 15)pass without mention (i.e. footnotes).

Then psalm 16 is a "revelation" psalm. Footnotes ensue.

Then psalms 17-21 are "David's concept" psalms. See footnote 17:1.

Out of the first 21 chapters of the Psalms, only 3 have any value according to the 'God's economy' metric. The rest are seen merely as placeholders, or worse.

So we are supposed to believe that David was limited by his "concepts" while WL entertained no concepts? All I see in the Psalms footnotes are concepts, and rather shallow and rudimentary ones at that..

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

But where in the NT does it say that only those explicit citations apply, and the rest are vain? Here is my first post on this thread (see esp bolded):

Where does it say every Psalm applies?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Where does it say every Psalm applies?

Drake

I never said it did. I said to perfunctorily cut off 70% of scripture with no NT precedent was wrong. I didn't say, "Every Psalm applies". You're changing the subject. Paul didn't write, "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; those Psalms explicitly cited by the apostles; the rest freely dismiss". No, he just said "Psalms". So why did Lee give himself such discretion, on so little basis? That David was a sinner, and Christ righteous, therefore David's word didn't apply?

Jesus said, "David was in spirit, writing about the Messiah". . .Matt 22:44. . where do you get the impression that Jesus meant only the specific verse cited in that passage? I don't. Where does Jesus say, "David was in his vain human concepts while he wrote"? So what gives you such latitude? Don't you think a little more discretion is in order, here?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said it did. I said to perfunctorily cut off 70% of scripture with no NT precedent was wrong. I didn't say, "Every Psalm applies". You're changing the subject.

Not a bit. This is very applicable.

You want to take the position that Witness Lee had no right to characterize dozens (70%) of Psalms as human concepts..., WITHOUT telling us which ones (?%) you characterize as human concepts and why.

This is simple Aron, you just agreed that some % of the Psalms are human concepts and you haven’t told us how you derive that. So, you kinda want it both ways.... you want to find fault with Witness Lee’s selection and explanations but not give us the benefit of understanding (and critiquing) your selections and explanations.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I never said it did. I said to perfunctorily cut off 70% of scripture with no NT precedent was wrong. I didn't say, "Every Psalm applies". You're changing the subject. Paul didn't say, Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly; those Psalms explicitly cited by the apostles; the rest freely dismiss". So why did Lee give himself such discretion, on so little basis? That David was a sinner?

Isn't it also amazing that Paul said, "Be filled in spirit speaking to one another in Psalms, singing and psalming with your heart to the Lord." (Eph 5.18-19)

Why did Paul not warn them about these human sentiments in Psalms? Was Paul not being faithful to the saints in Ephesus? Why did Paul wholly endorse the Psalms if some were so suspect? Listen to what Paul told the elders from Ephesus the last time he ever saw them, "You know how I was with you all the time, serving the Lord as a slave with all humility. How I did not shrink from declaring you anything profitable, teaching you publicly and house to house." (Acts 20.17-28)

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP,

I suppose we might agree on 3 categories.

Those references in the NT of the OT verses that refer to Christ. We have no disagreement here, you and I.

Those incidences in the OT that are blatantly not referring to Christ in anyway including typology. For instance, Solomon is clearly a type of Christ in building the temple but not in having many wives that lead into idolatry.

Those two categories above we agree., I’m sure.

Third category is probably the area that lends to disagreement. You might think a certain verse refers to Christ... or can be be applied to Christ in hindsight. That is, when the OT verse was written no one considered it to refer to the Messiah but once fulfilled in hindsight it is now more apparent. I take that to be the meaning of the part after Jesus’ resurrection where He opened all the verses in the Law of Moses, Psalms and Prophets that referred to Him. (Luke24:44). These verses were not obvious to anybody at the time as referring to Him. There are some things that referred to Him and others that did not.... and yet, do we have a complete record in the NT stated outright of all those items He said referred to Him in the Law, Psalms, Prophets.... ? He was declared the Sin offering by John the Baptist, but where was it stated plainly that He is each offering? It is not stated there outright but it is fair to apply Christ as all the offerings where we see Him as the fulfillment in the NT. Perhaps we agree in principle here but maybe not specifics.

I’ll pause here for your point of view.

Drake

I view this differently. I have repeatedly been shown in my experience to be foolish and that my thoughts are not God's. As a result I have found the most success in beginning with the assumption that "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in this word". Then when I see something in the word that does not seem to agree with that my go to response is that I am missing something and there is a hidden treasure here for me to see.

So yes, Solomon's many wives and his failures were not an expression of Christ, but they were an expression of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in the word that commanded the king not to go to Egypt for horses, not to go to lebanon for cedars, and not to sail over the ocean. We can see the wisdom in the warning not to take these foreign wives because they would distract you. Rather Deuteronomy charged "this is a rich land". Superficially it appeared that Egypt was rich in horses, much richer than Israel, and Lebanon was rich in timber, much richer that Israel. But the boundaries of Israel given by Moses included the entire Arabian peninsula. Had King Solomon, the wisest man on Earth, humbled himself and said "OK, I'll receive that word by faith" then he would have discovered the industrial revolution 2,000 years earlier than we did. The oil, concrete and steel would have been far superior to the timber and horses. This isn't some "fantasy". Archaeological evidence of Solomon's mines have discovered a mining operation on an industrial scale. It was the need for water pumps in mines that led to the first steam engine. There were other mining operations in the Mediterranean area that had "rails" making it easier for carts drawn by animals to pull the ore. We also have found toy steam engines from ancient Greece. The problem wasn't the concept, it was "precision". If you are not precise in making a steam engine all the energy is wasted from steam escaping the tiny gaps. This problem was only solved when we organized many people into the solution. That is something that Solomon was skilled at doing. But his wives distracted him, and his wisdom was turned to foolishness, and as a result we are now facing catastrophic climate change because of it.

Solomon's wisdom was our downfall and a curse to mankind. I would compare what WL does in saying "this word is good" and "that word is less good" and "that word over there is natural" to what Solomon did, picking and choosing which words He would receive.

[byHismercy]

Spirit—nevertheless it does not undermine the unity or identity of the Three-in-One.

6. Bibliology
The authoritative basis for all theological discussion is Scripture. Therefore, to believe something about the Bible that undermines its authority in any sense is to surrender a truly Christian epistemology and worldview, and exalt one’s own reasoning above God’s revelation. That means we have to ask: Does this teaching so distort the doctrine of Scripture that it undermines biblical authority? Does this teaching deny that authority in such a way as to invest that authority in oneself, another man, or a tribunal of men?

A denial of the inspiration of Scripture would clearly place one outside the bounds of orthodoxy. “All Scripture is God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16). To claim that any portion of Scripture is not the Word of God, or to treat it such a way as to impugn the character of the God whose Word it is, is to exalt one’s own reasoning above God’s revelation. It is to extricate oneself from the authority of God and make one’s own understanding the measuring line of truth. This is no longer truly Christian, but humanistic, and as such it crosses the line into heretical doctrine

I found this portion on master seminary. I see this is exactly what Lee was guilty of doing. He most certainly thought himself the final, infallible, authoritative word on Gods' word! What a trap to fall into.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible? Humans were involved in writing it... and copying it... and interpreting it.

You mis-read me terribly. My point was, on what basis did Witness Lee say that 34 of the first 41 psalms were human concepts? Because the writer was a sinner? Because he struggled against his foes? Because the chapter wasn't quoted in the NT?

I don't care if you aren't interested in these questions; rather I find it quite telling that thousands of otherwise intelligent and thoughtful Christians gathered to hear these messages without any of them apparently doing so.

"Well it's only natural" -yes, quite.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

You mis-read me terribly. My point was, on what basis did Witness Lee say that 34 of the first 41 psalms were human concepts? Because the writer was a sinner? Because he struggled against his foes? Because the chapter wasn't quoted in the NT?

I don't care if you aren't interested in these questions; rather I find it quite telling that thousands of otherwise intelligent and thoughtful Christians gathered to hear these messages without any of them apparently doing so.

"Well it's only natural" -yes, quite.

Ok.... in your opinion you know what’s going on and he didn’t.

So, educate us. If you agree that there are human concepts in the Bible how does Aron identify them?

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Ok.... in your opinion you know what’s going on and he didn’t.

So, educate us. If you agree that there are human concepts in the Bible how does Aron identify them?

Drake

If the NT reception indicates thus. Otherwise tread with care. "All scripture is God-breathed", not 35% of it. "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", not 25% of it.

Lop off God's word with extreme caution. Lee lopped it off with extreme recklessness.

Conversely, how do you know if your 'oracle' was entertaining human concepts . . . how about if he cavalierly departed from apostolic precedent? In Acts 2, Peter noted David's sin and failure, but said that his word was prophetic. Paul repeated this in Acts 13. I say we have precedent. Lee noted David's sin and failure, and said therefore his word was vain and fallen, and inapplicable.

I suppose I'll stick with apostolic precedent. Of course I'll apply it judiciously. But I won't abandon it like Witness Lee did.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

If the NT reception indicates thus. Otherwise tread with care. "All scripture is God-breathed", not 35% of it. "Man shall live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God", not 25% of it.

Conversely, how do you know if your 'oracle' was entertaining human concepts . . ..

See Aron, you keep denying this but both can be and are true.... “All Scripture is God breathed” AND there are human concepts included in it. I’m also convinced that you are “entertaining human concepts” in your posts in this forum.

That inclusion of human concepts in the Scripture is another benefit in the profitability of Scripture to us.... they are instructive in guiding us. Nothing is getting “lopped off”::: unless you lop off Psalms and other verses you think are human concepts. You might engage in the practice of lopping off scripture but Witness Lee certainly did not. He treasured the Bible more than any minister I ever knew and he left quite a volume that proves just how much he did.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

Nothing is getting “lopped off” unless you lop off Psalms and other verses you think are human concepts. You might engage in the practice of lopping off scripture but Witness Lee certainly did not. He treasured the Bible . . .

Sorry I occasionally lapse into colorful expressions which don't match the facts on the ground. No, WL didn't "lop off" scriptures. But he disregarded them as vain, fallen human concepts. Read my first post again. Or, read the first 21 chapters of the RecV and see the footnotes. Most of the text passes without comment. Only a few passing remarks on how it is "fallen" and "mixed sentiments" and the like.

Peter could have said that about Psalm 16. I mean, David the sinner never rose from the dead! Just vain talk, right? Empty words from a fallen human's concept! But no, Peter didn't take that route. But WL did.

But "lopped off" was probably a mischaracterization. "Disregarded" would be better put.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

Aron,

Other plausible explanations is that you are wrong or that you take yourself too seriously. What I mean is that often I don’t accept your stated beliefs, I think they are off a little, or they are overstated in that you are dismissive of any other viewpoints... But I don’t think all of them are worthy of addressing. You might interpret silence as confirming one thing, but it might very well mean something entirely different.

For instance, there are human concepts expressed in the NT. Of course, there will be some in the OT. Why not? You appear to have a view of scripture not supported by scripture.

On what basis do you believe there are no human concepts in the Bible? Humans were involved in writing it... and copying it... and interpreting it.

Drake

Human concepts in the writing, copying and interpretation is also a good point. The recovery version footnotes addresses some of these as well by pointing out different meanings of certain words. Most Bibles put words inserted by the translators in italics. These italicized words are certainty the human translator's concepts.

[Evangelical]

There are many parallels between Lee and Luther. Like Lee, Luther also distinguished between scripture which shows us Christ and Scripture which doesn't. Luther wrote:


Let us banish this Epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except at the beginning. - on the book of James.

"What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul taught it"

"St. John's Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians and St. Peter's first epistle [which] are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is good and necessary for you to know."

Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely . . .

https://www.jesuswordsonly.com/books...and-canon.html

Using Luther's approach, we may say that Lee distinguished between Psalms which "teach Christ" and Psalms which don't.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are many parallels between Lee and Luther. Like Lee, Luther also distinguished between scripture which shows us Christ and Scripture which doesn't. Luther wrote:

Let us banish this Epistle from the university, for it is worthless. It has no syllable about Christ, not even naming him except at the beginning. - on the book of James.

"What does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul taught it"

"St. John's Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul's epistles, especially Romans, Galatians and Ephesians and St. Peter's first epistle [which] are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is good and necessary for you to know."

Using Luther's approach, we may say that Lee distinguished between Psalms which "teach Christ" and Psalms which don't.

Evangelical, since none of us here but you and Drake consider Martin Luther to be the First MOTA of the Reformation, we are willing to thank God for all the work he did, knowing that he was far from perfect. Since W. Lee was willing to espouse Luther's pitiful views of the book of James, shouldn't Lee also cling to Luther's anti-Semitism? You did mention the parallels between the two, didn't you?

According to Luther's "no syllable about Christ" standard, must we also expunge the book of Esther, which has "no syllable about God?" Such a marvelous story of God's sovereign care tossed on Persian garbage dumps to appease one of Luther's impulses.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, since none of us here but you and Drake consider Martin Luther to be the First MOTA of the Reformation, we are willing to thank God for all the work he did, knowing that he was far from perfect. Since W. Lee was willing to espouse Luther's pitiful views of the book of James, shouldn't Lee also cling to Luther's anti-Semitism? You did mention the parallels between the two, didn't you?

According to Luther's "no syllable about Christ" standard, must we also expunge the book of Esther, which has "no syllable about God?" Such a marvelous story of God's sovereign care tossed on Persian garbage dumps to appease one of Luther's impulses.

I think that if Luther were here on this forum today he would be praising Lee for "sticking to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely". If that is what Lee was doing then if we condemn him then we condemn Luther and even the whole Reformation.

Most Christians don't understand what it means to be a "Protestant". Luther started to question the Canon of scripture (Luther's Canon) and long-held Catholic beliefs, but also to re-evaluate and even re-interpret (from a non-Catholic point of view) the scriptures in terms of how they relate to the gospel i.e. justification by faith in Christ alone.

Evangelicals today carry on this tradition of interpreting Scripture through the lens of Reformed theology - salvation by faith alone. To maintain this approach it is almost necessary to down-play or explain away the verses in James about justification by works. Or we could just say that the whole book of James is worthless, as Luther did. It is also necessary to focus on the books of John, Romans, Ephesians and others which affirm the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. This is why it is almost unheard of to see a verse from James in an evangelical gospel tract, but there will surely be some verses from John, Romans or Ephesians.

It is amazing how people can condemn Lee for a few footnotes but are ignorant about the history of the Reformation and what Luther said and did in over-turning the Canon and re-interpreting the Bible and even influencing the translations to better represent his theology.

When a person calls themself "Protestant" this is basically what it means to be a Protestant - to question the Catholic canon, their interpretation of scripture, particularly the book of James, and evaluate Scripture in light of the Protestant gospel. We could say that Luther even gave Reformers a license and freedom to do that. To do otherwise is essentially to be a Catholic - we might as well go back to the Latin Vulgate, and not question anything.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think that if Luther were here on this forum today he would be praising Lee for "sticking to the books which present Christ to me, clearly and purely".

If you know anything about Luther, you would know that he would not "praise" anyone, especially not some Asian. Luther was never known for "working well with others." He was constantly at odds with the Swiss, for example.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Most Christians don't understand what it means to be a "Protestant". Luther started to question the Canon of scripture (Luther's Canon) and long-held Catholic beliefs, but also to re-evaluate and even re-interpret (from a non-Catholic point of view) the scriptures in terms of how they relate to the gospel i.e. justification by faith in Christ alone.

Luther was not the only "Protestant." Many came before him, and many came later. There were German, Swiss, French, English, Moravian, and many other Reformers. I place a huge question mark on all church history taught by WL, especially this nonsense that Luther was the First MOTA, the one who recovered Justification by faith.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Evangelicals today carry on this tradition of interpreting Scripture through the lens of Reformed theology - salvation by faith alone. To maintain this approach it is almost necessary to down-play or explain away the verses in James about justification by works. Or we could just say that the whole book of James is worthless, as Luther did. It is also necessary to focus on the books of John, Romans, Ephesians and others which affirm the doctrine of salvation by faith alone. This is why it is almost unheard of to see a verse from James in an evangelical gospel tract, but there will surely be some verses from John, Romans or Ephesians.

I don't see too many gospel tracts from Jude either. I don't fault Luther for disparaging James, but neither would I tell anybody that. It happened, it was recorded, and it helps us know history, but I take little else from comments like this from Luther.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is amazing how people can condemn Lee for a few footnotes but are ignorant about the history of the Reformation and what Luther said and did in over-turning the Canon and re-interpreting the Bible and even influencing the translations to better represent his theology.

Lee brings judgment upon himself for the way he condemned others. Lee had the advantage of time and decades of scholarship. Comparing Lee with Luther is just stupid. Luther should be compared to Calvin and Zwingli, his contemporaries. That's why it's foolish to teach what Athanasius taught, but Lee did it.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When a person calls themself "Protestant" this is basically what it means to be a Protestant - to question the Catholic canon, their interpretation of scripture, particularly the book of James, and evaluate Scripture in light of the Protestant gospel. We could say that Luther even gave Reformers a license and freedom to do that. To do otherwise is essentially to be a Catholic - we might as well go back to the Latin Vulgate, and not question anything.

Most Christians today do not call themselves "Protestant." Catholics may, and Lee did, but others don't. They have changed with the times, they have returned to the scriptures. They call themselves "Christians" or believers.

[Evangelical]

Luther recovered justification by faith that's a historical fact.

There is a research article The Recovery of the Doctrine of Justification by Faith F. W. Dillistone, First Published July 1, 1954.

"Protestantism was born out of the struggle for the doctrine of justification by faith".

This struggle is still ongoing.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

If you know anything about Luther, you would know that he would not "praise" anyone, especially not some Asian.

It's probably not coincidental that German Lutherans carried out the most violent and thorough anti-Jewish pogrom of modern times. One might want to keep that in mind when using Luther's anti-James bias to support one's own.

"What?! Are you trying to return us to the law?!" - this is the kind of knee-jerk reaction we can now expect. No, but the man of Israel who loved the law and tried to follow it does give a pretty good picture of Christ. "I come to do your will oh God" - just because David failed doesn't mean Christ did. (Heb 10:9; cf Psa 40:8)

I mean, we might want to stop for a minute and ask ourselves why the Psalms are the most-cited book in the NT. Probably not just that it's the biggest book in the OT! There are probably other reasons, as well. Just think about it for a minute. . .