The Psalms are the word of Christ

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What about the particular Psalms in question. Do you think that David was justified in desiring death upon His enemies when those enemies were sent as a punishment from God (i.e as a consequence of David's sin)?

What if these enemies are not blood and flesh, but the principalities, the authorities, the world-rulers of darkness, spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What if these enemies are not blood and flesh, but the principalities, the authorities, the world-rulers of darkness, spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies?

That would change things I suppose.

But we know the enemies David was speaking of was Absalom and those with him in the rebellion.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

That would change things I suppose.

But we know the enemies David was speaking of was Absalom and those with him in the rebellion.

But David's own words became the words of the Savior on the cross (e.g. "My God, My God, why ... "

Why is this not possible with other Spirit-inspired lyrics he puts to Psalm? Unless, of course, it is W. Lee who alone gets to decide which is which.

Don't you find it a little ironic that, like Absalom with David, it was Lee's sons who helped undo him. If we see God's hand with Absalom in judging David, should we not also see God's hand with Philip Lee in regard to WL?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But David's own words became the words of the Savior on the cross (e.g. "My God, My God, why ... "

Why is this not possible with other Spirit-inspired lyrics he puts to Psalm? Unless, of course, it is W. Lee who alone gets to decide which is which.

Don't you find it a little ironic that, like Absalom with David, it was Lee's sons who helped undo him. If we see God's hand with Absalom in judging David, should we not also see God's hand with Philip Lee in regard to WL?

Yes Psalm 22 which is about Christ.

But every Psalm? It's possible but the New Testament record does not show that Jesus quoted all of the Psalms, unless he did in fact but it was not recorded. If we read a Psalm and assume it speaks of Christ when in fact it doesn't, are we not "adding to scripture"?

The parallel between Lee and David is interesting.

I might have to re-think whether it was David who was the first MOTA and not Luther.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If we read a Psalm and assume it speaks of Christ when in fact it doesn't, are we not "adding to scripture"?

WL could see Christ in the silver sockets of the ark. "Christ is everything" was the mantra. Yet no one apparently noted when he did an exegetical about-face in the Psalms. Or they noted, but kept their mouths shut. That's how you survive in the LC. Big brother talks, you say amen hallelujah.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Don't you find it a little ironic that, like Absalom with David, it was Lee's sons who helped undo him. If we see God's hand with Absalom in judging David, should we not also see God's hand with Philip Lee in regard to WL?

This is where "different weights and measures" comes into play. We can point out that David occasionally entertained fallen human concepts, but to suggest that WL could also be thus compromised was unthinkable. Social harmony is maintained at the expense of such willful delusion. Now our faith is not in the resurrection of Jesus but in "Brother Lee is always right". New gods have entered the scene.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But we know the enemies David was speaking of was Absalom and those with him in the rebellion.

In the Psalms, WL went from being an allegorist of the first rank to being a strict constructionist. And none in his assembly noticed, because to note such things might threaten the harmony - oneness uber alles. Gods oracle can contradict himself, but we cannot contradict Gods oracle. Thus, social harmony is maintained.

[ABrotherinFaith]

Originally Posted by aron

In the Psalms, WL went from being an allegorist of the first rank to being a strict constructionist.

Could you elaborate on this Aaron. The footnotes at the beginning of Psalms are one of the things that really got me started looking into what exactly I was being told.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ABrotherinFaith

Could you elaborate on this Aaron. The footnotes at the beginning of Psalms are one of the things that really got me started looking into what exactly I was being told.

My point was this: when I came into the recovery church, the allegories would make your head swim. Christ was "the reality of all positive things" in the text. Christ wasn't just "the good land; no, Christ was the "iron stones" in the good land. We would make up songs about all the detailed points. Christ was the badger skins covering the ark of the testimony: furry on the outside & soft on the inside.

Okay, fair enough. Why not? Then all of a sudden, we come to the Psalms, and there is the tree, growing by the river, bearing its fruit in season, whose leaf never withers (1:3), and I think, Hey - positive imagery! Looks like the tree at the end of the bible in the NJ (Rev 22:2).

But WL is like, Nah- that's vanity. His mouthpiece here, Mr E, says that is "adding to the word of God".

So I'm asking, Why the exegetical about-face? Why have all the visions of Christ suddenly dried up?

I see Psalm 40:8, and it says "I [Christ] come to do thy [God's] will", per the interpretation of the NT (Heb 10:9). Yet other, similar expressions in the Psalms are panned by WL because they were written by sinners who disobeyed God. Yet that same sinner wrote Psalm 40! If you look at Psalm 18, for example, it has similar language; see vv 16 - 24 for example. "He [God] delighted in me [Christ" (19) and "He rewarded me because of my righteousness" (20). WL says, God didn't delight in David. But what about Jesus? "This is my beloved Son, in whom I delight. Hear him."