The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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.

[Ohio]

Luther did not recover justification by faith.

Luther claimed he was a "Hussite," since he realized that John Huss had pioneered all these same truths 100 years earlier. The only difference between Luther and Huss, besides being from different centuries and different countries, was that the German nobility protected Luther, and not necessarily for reasons of the faith. They just hated Rome. Huss, however, was betrayed and martyred.

Read the stories of church history bro! WL was the worst historian of church history in the history of the church.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Luther did not recover justification by faith.

Luther claimed he was a "Hussite," since he realized that John Huss had pioneered all these same truths 100 years earlier. The only difference between Luther and Huss, besides being from different centuries and different countries, was that the German nobility protected Luther, and not necessarily for reasons of the faith. They just hated Rome. Huss, however, was betrayed and martyred.

Read the stories of church history bro! WL was the worst historian of church history in the history of the church.

What are your sources to say that Hus taught justification by faith alone? This article by ChristianityToday says otherwise:

unlike many other reformers, Hus retained much of Catholic theology. He did not teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone, a fact Luther noted when he observed that, unlike himself, Hus had attacked only the life, not the doctrine, of late medieval Catholicism.

https://www.christianitytoday.com/hi...onnection.html

A book Jan Hus: Religious Reform and Social Revolution in Bohemia
By Thomas A. Fudge

also says:

"While Hus did speak much of grace, faith and the authority of Scripture.. he knew nothing of sola fide or sola scriptura".

"Throughout the works and sermons of Jan Hus we can locate emphases upon the theological principle fides caritate formata that salvation is apprehended when faith is formed or completed in love or good works."

My point that "Luther recovered justification by faith (alone)" remains a true statement.

Timothy George and Thomas A. Fudge are real scholars by the way. Fudge in particular is an expert on Jan Hus:

Thomas A. Fudgé is Professor of Medieval History at the University of New England, Australia. Author of thirteen books, he is recognized as an international authority on Jan Hus and Hussite history

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Luther did not recover justification by faith.

WL was the worst historian of church history in the history of the church.

Further to the scholarly sources which I presented that shows that Huss did not recover justification by faith alone, here is a ChristianityToday article which supports the idea that Luther recovered justification by faith:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct...-by-faith.html

Luther’s emphasis on justification by faith was not a discovery, but a recovery.


It is good to see that scholars and a top historian can support Lee's belief that Luther recovered justification by faith.

Ohio is spreading lies twice - that Luther did not recovery justification by faith, and that Lee was a bad historian.

[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. . .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

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 before trying to use Luther's anti-James bias to support their own.

I guess they also considered Martin Luther to be the first MOTA, and used his teachings to authenticate the Holocaust. Another reason to get an accurate view of history.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by aron

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. . .

FYI Psalms is actually a collection of 5 books and not all the Psalms are cited. If Christ did not cite a certain Psalm we should ask ourselves why.

Where it concerns the Law, most Christians accept that the parts of the law cited by Christ become the most relevant and important (the two love commandments for example) and the parts that Christ broke (the Sabbath, etc) became less important, such that most Christians do not keep the Sabbath today as per the old testament law.

If this is how most Christians treat the law, I cannot see why we cannot also divide the Psalms according to what the New Testament cites and what it doesn't.

This is called dividing scripture rightly (2 Tim 2:15).

To be consistent, if Aron does not like us dividing the Psalms, then he should not divide the law either according to the parts referenced by the New Testament - I hope he keeps the whole law, including circumcision, Sabbath keeping, and avoiding unclean animals.

Just as the whole law is about Christ (it shows his perfect righteousness) , we don't follow the whole law but divide between laws we should pay attention to and ones we don't (circumcision etc).
Similarly, the whole Psalms is about Christ, but we must divide between the ones we follow and the ones we don't.

[Evangelical]

Let us not forget that in "Life-study of the Psalms" Lee says that every Psalm is a spiritual supply to us and we love all the Psalms and that the Psalms are fully Christ-centred. This somewhat destroys the argument that Lee "denigrated the Psalms".

But unlike Aron we know how to distinguish between human things and divine things. We do not let our love for Christ blind us to the reality that the Old Testament is, well.. Old!

That is, the law is about Christ but we know not to circumcise ourselves or keep the Sabbath like a Jew.

Similarly, the Psalms are Christ-centred but we know that we should not take revenge on enemies or take some of these things literally.

It seems that Aron has completely misunderstood the footnotes, or their purpose. Picking apart a single footnote or two is one thing, but understanding the context and justification for them is another which brings a completely benign perspective on the matter.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If this is how most Christians treat the law, I cannot see why we cannot also divide the Psalms according to what the New Testament cites and what it doesn't.

This is called dividing scripture rightly (2 Tim 2:15)

I don't recall the NT citing the badger skins or silver sockets of the ark. Yet WL made his living at going beyond what was written. But you & his captive audience don't seem to notice the glaring disconnect.

WL was, like WN before him, a self-professed "seer of the divine revelation" who could see "Christ" in the lemma of OT text. But suddenly in the Psalms, the revelations dried up. Why?

Originally Posted by aron

WL got bothered by the ministries in God's word which sprang up in the "local churches" by singing the Psalms. Several gifted musicians started doing things in the Word which the saints loved, and picked up on. This was a movement "in the churches" which hadn't been sanctioned and directed the Oracle and Apostle of the age, so it was squelched. People were passing around music cassettes which didn't have "Living Stream Ministry" on them.

It was about money and power. This drove WL's revelations, same as WN before him. Nee's theme had changed from autonomous local assemblies to the centralized "Jerusalem Principle" when events on the ground warranted it. . .in short, it was a ministry tainted by self interest and convenience. So we continually saw these stark reversals, both in exegesis and in practice. Pecuniary interests drove both the "Christ is everything" approach to interpreting OT scripture, and its polar opposite, the strict "NT citation only".