The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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