The Psalms are the word of Christ

[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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Drake

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.

The DSS say that David wrote the Psalms in the spirit. Jesus and Peter agreed with that in the NT. Paul told us to be "filled in spirit" singing them.

Don't you think we should be a little less cavalier in our dismissals?

I never said, or intimated, that ALL of the words of the Psalms are exact, one-for-one images of Jesus in his human living, suffering, rejection, death, and glories that followed. Psalm 51 comes immediately to mind as a problematic text should one try that route.

What I've said repeatedly, and you've ignored repeatedly, is that there's a clear pattern of reception in the NT, and WL went out of his way to not respect that pattern but to forge his own path with his own logic. And he did great disservice to the scripture. That's what I find "fallen" and "natural".

Psalm 1 speaks of the man who does not take the path of wickedness, but chooses the good. WL said, "nobody is good". Well, there's this guy named Jesus. . .

Psalm 2 has this very man enthroned as Son of God. Coincidence?

Psalm 3 has this man in a cave. The man says, "I will lay me down, and rise again, for the LORD gives me such power". Now, I see perhaps an intimation of the coming Messiah, but Lee said, no, that man in Psalm 3 is merely a suffering sinner, whose hope is vain.

But that logic should also disqualify Psalm 16 and 22, no? I mean, if there are none righteous, no not even one, then how does the spotty-at-best "rightness of David" then somehow allow Christ to emerge?

Again I say, Peter addressed this neatly in Acts 2. David was a sinner like us but was speaking prophetically of the coming promised seed. It is not David's fitness that paves the way for Christ to emerge from the textual shadows, nor his failures that disqualify the text from consideration. Rather, he believed Gods promise, and God's command, and by faith he declared it to be so.

The NT gives a clear apostolic pattern of reception and WL went off the rails. And in WL's "oneness church" none could restrain him.

Three times in the Psalms the declaration is, "Get behind me, you workers of evil", and three times in the NT Jesus is shown using that same formula. But there's no connection, because the psalmist himself was unrighteous- right? I mean, it's perfectly logical. Right? It couldn't possibly apply, could it? I mean, nobody is right. Right?

[aron]

Originally Posted by aron

Three times in the Psalms the declaration is, "Get behind me, you workers of evil", and three times in the NT Jesus is shown using that same formula. But there's no connection, because the psalmist himself was unrighteous- right?

Psalm 6:8 Depart from me, all you workers of iniquity, for the LORD has heard my weeping.

Psalm 119:115 Depart from me, you evildoers, that I may obey the commandments of my God.

Psalm 139:19 If only you, God, would slay the wicked! Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty!

You may disregard these psalms since they were written by sinners. And you may disregard my pointing them out. But the important question is, did Jesus also disregard them?

Luke 13:27 NIV "But he will reply, 'I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!'”

Matthew 16:23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."

Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

[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)