Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology

[Ohio]

Not really. We know that Psalm 8 refers to Christ because of Hebrews 2. There is no New testament verse that I know of that links Satan with Ezekiel 28:12, or Isaiah 14:12.

Have you not read how angels have appeared as men?

And the whole world will look at this insignificant king of Tyre and wonder, "is this the man who made the earth tremble and shake kingdoms?"

It's amazing to me that you would cling so tenaciously to Nee's and Lee's teachings about the church with no name, and yet reject their views from Pember et. al. on "earth's earliest ages."

[ZNPaaneah]

I don't see so much of a problem as lumping the kings under "Satan" or saying that they were under or influenced by a satanic influence..

That's great, but what does it have to do with LSM's unorthodox Satanology?

[Evangelical]

That's great, but what does it have to do with LSM's unorthodox Satanology?

I am saying they and Christianity in general has unorthodox Satanology.

[ZNPaaneah]

I am saying they and Christianity in general has unorthodox Satanology.

OK, so Nigel provides evidence that compared to Christianity LSM's doctrine of Satan is unorthodox because Witness Lee teaches that all people are indwelt by Satan.

You feel that in addition to this Christianity's teaching is also not Biblical because they group everything under Satan even if the evidence to do so is sketchy.

Is that your point?

[Evangelical]

Witness Lee's teaching is unorthodox because it is already an extension of an unorthodox Christian teaching. That is, the idea that Satan is an evil being trying to get inside your body and possess you, who has free reign and God cannot prevent or stop him. From these wrong teachings the movie business has made millions.

[Evangelical]

Have you not read how angels have appeared as men?
And the whole world will look at this insignificant king of Tyre and wonder, "is this the man who made the earth tremble and shake kingdoms?"
It's amazing to me that you would cling so tenaciously to Nee's and Lee's teachings about the church with no name, and yet reject their views from Pember et. al. on "earth's earliest ages."

Sure they could be angels, so which angel?

Well in my view, Nee and Lee are right about some things and wrong about other things. I haven't met a person yet who is right about everything.

[Ohio]

Sure they could be angels, so which angel?

Well in my view, Nee and Lee are right about some things and wrong about other things. I haven't met a person yet who is right about everything.

Which angels visited Abraham, and then went to Sodom?

The Bible often does not give names of angels, except for Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer.

[OBW]

Witness Lee's teaching is unorthodox because it is already an extension of an unorthodox Christian teaching. That is, the idea that Satan is an evil being trying to get inside your body and possess you, who has free reign and God cannot prevent or stop him. From these wrong teachings the movie business has made millions.Are you saying that Christian teaching is consistent with your second sentence? Not anywhere I have been. And I have been in pretty mainstream evangelical groups for over 35 years of my life, 29 of it after the LCM. (I am excluding times in my youth that I had no real understanding of the teachings of my then-current affiliation.)

[ZNPaaneah]

Witness Lee's teaching is unorthodox because it is already an extension of an unorthodox Christian teaching. That is, the idea that Satan is an evil being trying to get inside your body and possess you, who has free reign and God cannot prevent or stop him. From these wrong teachings the movie business has made millions.

How is this a "Christian teaching"? I would think anyone characterized as a Christian would believe that God can prevent and stop demon possession.

"One God", "One Lord", "One Spirit" -- these are the things that "all Christians" believe and hence none of them would believe that God cannot prevent or stop Satan from possessing a person.

[Evangelical]

On the matter of Satan entering man, I was referring to Lee's teaching as unorthodox, not Christianity's, Lee said this:

"Satan entered into the human body to be the evil in man's flesh"

There is nothing in Genesis that says Satan entered the human body. So Lee is unorthodox.

But does that mean Christianity is orthodox? Well no.

How do I define orthodoxy? The time when the New Testament was written, not 100 years later.

The unorthodox Christian teaching I was referring to is the belief that the serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan. This view came into Christianity after the New Testament was written. So if you believe that, your view is almost as unorthodox as Lee. And Lee could not have made those unorthodox statements unless Christianity's unorthodox view of the serpent and Eve existed first.

For an interesting read on how the serpent became Satan in Christianity, see here:

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-interpretation/how-the-serpent-became-satan/

So what is the orthodox understanding of the serpent and Eve? The serpent deceived Eve, nothing to do with Satan. Also Satan, and even evil, did not jump into man's flesh and suddenly appear after Eve disobeyed. Adam and Eve suffered the curses that God said they would, but they were not then injected with evil. God no where says that Satan jumping into their flesh is their curse. Their curse was death. In other words, after the fall, Adam and Eve were not overcome with an insatiable lust for evil, as "Satan entering the flesh" implies. If this was true, then Adam, Eve and Abel with Cain, would have gone on a murderous rampage.

On a related note, the view that Satan entered Adam and Eve's flesh when they fell, is related to the idea that man cannot choose between good and evil. God's discourse with Cain proves that man can choose between good and evil, life and death, obedience and disobedience. In other words, man has free will, and is not helpless to avoid evil and do good.

The Bible clearly says that death, not evil, spread to the whole human race through Adam and Eve's fall (Romans 5:12).

Adam and Eve were created with an ability to choose between good and evil from the start. This ability to choose evil did not suddenly appear after they fell nor can it be attributed to Satan. It was what they were capable of when they were created, and it is for this reason that Eve was able to be deceived and choose to sin in the first place.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think it is acceptable to be general on this matter of the serpent in the garden. If someone wants to interpret the serpent allegorically, and equate it to the dragon, etc. I don't have an issue with that. Satan can simply mean God's enemy, and it is reasonable to say that the serpent was God's enemy.

On the other hand to say that "Satan entered into man's flesh", I think that is something that you can not base on a solely allegorical teaching but you need a black and white teaching, particularly in the NT before you say this. Even Romans 7 is a little too iffy for me to go this far.

[Evangelical]

Christians believe that Satan entered the serpent to deceive Eve, a kind of demonic possession. But why couldn't Satan simply enter Eve directly and cause her to eat the fruit?

God said:
Genesis 3:14 "So the LORD God said to the snake, "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all the wild or domestic animals. You will crawl on your belly.".

So before the serpent deceived Eve, it was not cursed, it was part of God's good creation. The serpent fell by deceiving Eve, and God cursed it.

We could say that mankind's fall and the snake's fall occurred at the same time.

Logically then, if the snake was Satan, then Satan's fall occurred when he deceived Eve, not before that.

So the idea of Satan falling from heaven prior to the fall of man in Genesis is questionable, as is the idea of Satan entering the snake.

Actually, the idea of talking animals is nonsense, because animals don't talk, and the snake has no intelligence of the sort displayed in Eden. The discourse between Eve and the snake in Eden I believe is Eve's conscience. She engaged in self-deception by imagining a discourse with one of the animals in the garden, the snake, by which she justified herself to eat of the tree of knowledge. I can imagine all of this taking place in her mind as she walked through the garden. The snake has rich symbolism in the Bible but to take it too literally leads to all sorts of impossible scenarios. A snake physically cannot utter the sorts of intelligible sounds and words required to have dialogue with a human, unless Eve figured out a "morse code" language between the animals, but still doesn't explain how the snake had enough intelligence to deceive Eve. The only animals God created with sufficient intelligence are the humans.

[Freedom]

Christians believe that Satan entered the serpent to deceive Eve, a kind of demonic possession. But why couldn't Satan simply enter Eve directly and cause her to eat the fruit?

The Bible isn’t entirely clear about demonic possession, or how it happens, but there seems to be indication that when it happens to humans, there is likely something done on the individual part to initiate it. With Judas Iscariot, it was greed, and once Jesus had called him out on his motives, Satan could enter Judas’ heart.

This wasn’t the case with animals, as the herd of swine could become possessed by Jesus’ permission alone. The swine had no choice that could have determined the outcome. So for this reason I would disagree that Satan could have possessed Eve as his choosing. He had enough power to possess a serpent at his choosing. At any rate, the serpent was somehow enticing enough to prompt Eve to question and disobey God. All this was done indirectly, and it seems that the goal was for this to be done indirectly. Satan basically gave Eve the “nuclear codes” and then waited for her to press the button, which she did.


God said:
Genesis 3:14 "So the LORD God said to the snake, "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all the wild or domestic animals. You will crawl on your belly.".

So before the serpent deceived Eve, it was not cursed, it was part of God's good creation. The serpent fell by deceiving Eve, and God cursed it.

We could say that mankind's fall and the snake's fall occurred at the same time.

Logically then, if the snake was Satan, then Satan's fall occurred when he deceived Eve, not before that.

So the idea of Satan falling from heaven prior to the fall of man in Genesis is questionable, as is the idea of Satan entering the snake.

From what I can gather, many Christians would generally understand the curse of the serpent to be a curse on serpents/snakes, not on the devil himself. Satan utilized a serpent in the garden, and for that reason the serpent was cursed was to remind us of what happened. I don’t think the curse of the serpent has anything to do with Satan specifically, not to mention when Satan fell.


Actually, the idea of talking animals is nonsense, because animals don't talk, and the snake has no intelligence of the sort displayed in Eden. The discourse between Eve and the snake in Eden I believe is Eve's conscience. She engaged in self-deception by imagining a discourse with one of the animals in the garden, the snake, by which she justified herself to eat of the tree of knowledge. I can imagine all of this taking place in her mind as she walked through the garden. The snake has rich symbolism in the Bible but to take it too literally leads to all sorts of impossible scenarios. A snake physically cannot utter the sorts of intelligible sounds and words required to have dialogue with a human, unless Eve figured out a "morse code" language between the animals, but still doesn't explain how the snake had enough intelligence to deceive Eve. The only animals God created with sufficient intelligence are the humans.

Lastly, the idea of an animal speaking is not an isolated occurrence in the Bible, so why do you say it’s nonsense? In Num 22, Balaam’s donkey spoke and in Rev 13, there was the blasphemous beast that spoke.

[Evangelical]

Lastly, the idea of an animal speaking is not an isolated occurrence in the Bible, so why do you say it’s nonsense? In Num 22, Balaam’s donkey spoke and in Rev 13, there was the blasphemous beast that spoke.

Who has the power to cause animals to speak? Who caused Balaam's donkey to speak? It was God.
Is there any example in the Bible of an angel (Satan) causing an animal to speak?

[Freedom]

Who has the power to cause animals to speak? Who caused Balaam's donkey to speak? It was God.
Is there any example in the Bible of an angel (Satan) causing an animal to speak?

The lack of multiple occurrences of Satan causing animals to speak does not disprove the possibility of it happening. It just means that there's only one occurrence that is of any importance. In Job, Satan had the power to do various things and all he needed was God's permission. I don't think making an animal speak is out of the question.

[Freedom]

The discourse between Eve and the snake in Eden I believe is Eve's conscience. She engaged in self-deception by imagining a discourse with one of the animals in the garden, the snake, by which she justified herself to eat of the tree of knowledge. I can imagine all of this taking place in her mind as she walked through the garden.

This I also disagree with. I do not believe that God created Eve as a person full of inner turmoil. The story of Adam and Eve is as simple as them being seduced by a serpent. The seduction happened externally through a serpent. I wonder if Eve would have ever thought to disobey God if it had not been for the serpent. Before her interaction with the serpent, there is no indication that neither she nor Adam had any intention to disobey God.

The Bible makes it clear that Satan does have real power, and the ability to do things that would normally only be within God's power to do.

Consider the story of Job. Job was an upstanding man. God allowed Satan to test him. Satan administered the test through external things, including the loss of his property and family and health. It demonstrates that what Satan can do is allow more serious than just instigating some kind of "self-deception." So I'm not saying that Satan doesn't also do that as well, but I think to be dismissive of what he is capable of is to not understand the enemy that we are up against.

[Evangelical]

The lack of multiple occurrences of Satan causing animals to speak does not disprove the possibility of it happening. It just means that there's only one occurrence that is of any importance. In Job, Satan had the power to do various things and all he needed was God's permission. I don't think making an animal speak is out of the question.


There is a lack of one occurrence of Satan causing an animal to speak.

In Job, Satan did not have the power himself, as evidenced by Satan asking God to strike Job (not saying he would do it himself):
Job 1:11 "But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face.""

The power was given to him by God:
Job 1:12 "The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD."

In the case of Balaam's donkey, it says that God caused the donkey to speak.
Numbers 22:28 "Then the LORD made the donkey speak"

In Genesis it does not say anyone (God or Satan) made the serpent speak.

If anyone made the serpent speak, it is more likely to be God considering that God made the donkey speak, and there is no record of satan making anything speak.

If Genesis played out as it did in Job, then it was God who gave the serpent power to speak to Eve to deceive her, or gave that power to Satan to do it.

In my mind, the idea of Satan using his own power to deceive Eve, outside of God's plan and will, is not supported by the Bible.

[Freedom]

If Genesis played out as it did in Job, then it was God who gave the serpent power to speak to Eve to deceive her, or gave that power to Satan to do it.

In my mind, the idea of Satan using his own power to deceive Eve, outside of God's plan and will, is not supported by the Bible.

I don't deny that Gen 3 could have played out the same way as Job, but I find the implications of that view a bit concerning, had God played role in arranging thing. God allowed Job to 'prove' himself with Job eventually confessing God's power. In the Garden of Eden, the outcome was disobedience. Would God have purposely setup Eve to disobey Him?

The question that comes to my mind relating to Job is why Satan needed God’s permission to ‘test’ Job. I think the answer is in verse 10:
Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.

This verse indicates Job was under God’s protection and blessing. That, of course, was superior to any power Satan did have, whatever power that may be. To me, this suggests that the permission needed was specific to the situation. In other words, I don’t see evidence that would suggest that Satan always needs permission to do evil things.

I think of it this way – in all the cases of those who had demons cast out by Jesus, would it be safe to say that God had previously ‘authorized’ the people to become possessed? I don’t think so. If that were the case, Jesus would have been wasting his time undoing what had been previously approved.

Getting back to the serpent, I don’t see any evidence that necessitates God’s explicit approval for Satan to have possess the serpent. I also don’t see any evidence that would have disallowed the serpent from speaking. So I don’t shy away from a literal reading of Gen 3. At the same time, I not necessarily dismissive of other views, I just don’t think there is good reason in this case to deviate from what the text says.

The thing about Gen 3 is that it is sparse on details, enough so that omission could be suggestive of metaphor. But if we go that route, other questions arise. What is the intended metaphor/allegory? How do we know to interpret it that way? Unless we can answer those questions confidently, I do not find it advisable to take certain allegories to heart.

[Kevin]

I believe the tree of knowledge of good and evil is "a physical thing with spiritual meanings".

You are slaughtering the text by allegorizing it. That itself is an insult to the patriarch Hebrew writer, Moses. Allegorical hermeneutics is obsolete; not if taken its proper use in applying to some other passages of Scripture. It might be trending for Witness Lee's time, but not for 21st century Christianity. It was Origen Church father who popularized the allegorical hermeneutics and later on it became so prevalent in church history. Lee was illogical inconsistent of his view on Sin and Satan. But anyway Paul Miletus, many members of the LC unequivocally claim that sin is literally Satan himself indwelt in human flesh from their spoken mouths. I have witnessed it firsthand. Because of Lee's eastern mindset and non-English-native language combine to make different conclusions on how his followers understood it. Maybe because their LC elders who are not biblically trained enough to exegete a particular passage, spoke loosely to the point of mishandling the Scriptures. They only rely the ready-made outlines, RcV Study notes, and Life-Study commentary coming from a publishing house called LSM which is actually for lazy elders who don't diligently study the Scriptures for themselves unlike the noble Bereans in Acts. 17.

Far be enough, Lee is no inerrant teacher. He has caused a lot of damage to the Body of Christ. Why would he be THE ONLY minister (of the Age) whom we should pay attention, to listen to?

Again sorry to say, Nigel Tomes, has also missed this wonderful truth from the Bible, and therefore, Nigel Tomes' writing is DEFECTIVE and LACKED SPIRITUAL REVELATION!
Mere assertions is no argument at all.

Evangelical: On the matter of Satan entering man, I was referring to Lee's teaching as unorthodox, not Christianity's, Lee said this:

"Satan entered into the human body to be the evil in man's flesh"

There is nothing in Genesis that says Satan entered the human body. So Lee is unorthodox.

Right on, Mr. Evangelical. Words from a LC member. It seems Paul Miletus can't run away this admission from another LCer. You admit Lee has erroneously dividing Scripture. I have never heard such a demonic doctrine from any contemporary Christian teachers such as R.C. Sproul, Paul Washer, John Piper, and the others that teach Satan is presently indwelling in our flesh whether be Christians or nonbelievers. It makes Satan sovereign and omnipresent spiritual being. It's just another eisegesis of Lee's making. :lurk5::thumbup:

“We are not the lords over rules of interpretation, but must pursue scripture's interpretation of itself. . . This is everywhere a rule in scripture: when it wants to allegorize, it tells the interpretation of the allegory, so that the passage will not be interpreted superficiality or be met by the undisciplined desire of those who enjoy allegorization to wander about and be carried in every direction.”

—St. John Chrysostom

[Kevin]

What Is Evil & Where Did It Come From? - RC Sproul (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ir6pKEV0RQ&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1nxpjU-IxW9u8Gl_xTa00j8hFJPkJxgaMdX0TXezPhfDJ25NlIm60M3kk )

[Kevin]

Looks like, I'm having out of words to get along with the discussion on evil. :scratchhead:

[UntoHim]

Brothers;

I have reposted the Conclusion of Nigel Tomes important work here. Let's not get lost in the minutia of the life and times of Job. Very interesting but not necessarily germane to Nigel's polemic. If anyone wants to address Tome's conclusion here I think that might get the thread back on track.


Conclusion
Bro. Witness Lee taught that the sin nature which entered humanity due to Adam’s fall is Satan’s own nature and life. He expressed this concept in a striking way, saying 46 “the sin that dwells in our flesh…is Satan incarnated.” “Sin itself…is Satan himself. When sin came into the created man, Satan came into him...Satan is in our being…the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.” 47 These words have shock value. They also raise serious issues. But some view this as preacher’s hyperbole, explaining that Bro. Lee merely expounded upon “sin as the virtual personification of Satan.”

However, Bro. Lee made more radical statements. He declared that the triumvirate of sin, death and Satan exists inside mankind. “These three things: sin, death, and Satan. They are all together in the flesh,” 48 Bro. Lee proclaimed, continuing, 49 “Do you like to see Satan? Just come to your flesh. Satan is here. Satan is always in the flesh with sin and death.”Significantly this alleges that both Satan and sin and death inhabit mankind. It is not merely Satan personified as sin; both Satan and sin inhabit man, according to Bro. Lee.

Moreover, Bro. Lee taught that Satan (the person) indwells the believer’s body. He referred to three “persons” within the believer’s three parts. Bro. Lee claimed that 50 “as Christians, we have three persons. The first person is yourself in your soul, your being. The second person is Satan in your flesh. And the third person is Christ in your spirit.” Here there is a twofold indwelling--the Person of Christ and the person of Satan both inhabit believers. Here is an unequivocal statement by Bro. Lee that Satan (the person) indwells the believer’s body. He claims Paul’s famous declaration—“No longer I but Christ” (Gal. 2:20) is matched by “No longer I but sin” (Rom, 7:17) referring to Satan himself in man’s flesh. Many Bible-scholars and Bible-believing Christians reject Bro. Lee’s doctrine—that the person, Satan himself inhabits the Christian’s physical body! According to my knowledge, Bro. Lee never repudiated these controversial statements. At times he made more conventional, orthodox declarations. But these neither “trump” nor counter-balance his more radical claims. Since they were never repudiated, these extreme statements remain part of LSM’s unorthodox Satanology.

The major elements of Bro. Lee’s Satanology outlined above were presented at his 1975 Chicago conference and subsequently published by LSM as the book, The Flesh & the Spirit. A few years after this conference the “co-workers in the Lord’s Recovery” published The Beliefs and Practices of the local churches.That landmark booklet addressed the question, “Do you teach that Satan dwells in man’s body?” The co-workers answered, 51 “sin functions in our members as the virtual personification of Satan. Therefore, we may say that Satan as sin dwells in man's flesh.” Given the controversial elements of Bro. Lee’s Satanology outlined above, this response was less than forthright. The straight-forward answer is “YES! Bro. Lee taught that Satan himself dwells in the believer’s body.” Here the co-workers are vulnerable to the charge of being two-faced, having one answer for internal consumption within the Recovery and another for external use when answering “outsiders.” The question this issue raises for LSM’s “blended brothers” is--do they agree with the 1978 co-workers’ carefully nuanced statement that sin is the “virtual personification of Satan”? Or do they whole-heartedly endorse Brother Lee’s more radical statements contained in his LSM-published writings?

Nigel Tomes,
Toronto, Canada.
June, 2008
----------------------------------------------

[Trapped]

I wanted to add one extra layer to this thread, which mostly deals with Lee's assertion that Satan was "injected" into our flesh.

Lee also said Satan was in our soul (underlining mine):

"... Through his fall, man received Satan’s evil thought, feeling, and will into the inward parts of his soul. For this point we need to read Genesis 3:1, 4, and 5 to show that Satan’s thought was injected into man’s mind, his feeling was injected into man’s emotion, and his will was injected into man’s will. This means that man’s soul was stolen by his fall; it was taken over by Satan." (Basic Lessons on Life)

That takes it to a whole 'nother level......which I also don't agree with.

=====

Back to Satan being in our flesh, from the same book:

"Through man’s eating the tree of knowledge, Satan entered into man and became the very sin within man. To see this point we need to read Romans 7:14b, 17, and 20. In verse 20 Paul says, “If what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me.” Romans 7, especially in verses 8, 11, 17, and 20, indicates that sin is a person, the embodiment of Satan, and is living and acting within us. Sin is a personification of Satan. Actually speaking, the sin within us is Satan. At least we can say that the sinful nature within man is the nature of Satan. The sin within man refers to his inward sinful nature. This inward sin is just Satan himself indwelling our corrupted body, that is, our flesh."

Lee says "sin is a person, the embodiment of Satan" and "sin is a personification of Satan".

This is literally even grammatically backwards.

You cannot say "sin is the embodiment or personification of Satan" because Satan is already a "person" (a "being" is more accurate) and a person cannot be further personified. Only an abstract thing can be personified; a person cannot. You cannot have an abstract thing (sin) be the personification of a being. You can only have, by definition, a being be the personification of a thing. This means grammatically (although maybe not necessarily doctrinally) you CAN say "Satan is the embodiment or personification of sin" because that's the correct usage of the word. You CANNOT say that sin (an abstract) is the "personification" of an already living being. It just doesn't work that way.

In other words, you don't say "Jocularity is the personification/embodiment of Mary." You say "Mary is the personification/embodiment of jocularity." The person has to be the personification!! Lee says "sin" (a non-person) is the personification!!!

https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/rLWWLlcgti4ofikSt5IX94MXbAuYWjG0xIQsM7BUSbe_gsjAK8 zpY6guZuWT5RD7uS559563CTqUUMZwpVvIg0C_qKzJgWplEip-tjQNnrHAo2BtARkP2YlaV3rb=s0-d-e1-ft#http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/images/smilies/scratchhead.gif

Long story short: it's nonsense no matter how you cut it.

[Jo S]

Long story short: it's nonsense no matter how you cut it.

An even longer story short, it's Gnosticism.

By equating Satan to sin to flesh and soul you effectively make everything about man evil absolutely, including thought. So all you're left in doing is disassociating yourself from all of the above and just embracing "spirit" (which really is code for ambiguity). That way a leader can get you in a suggestible state and define things subjectively as they go. *It should be noted that the leaders themselves are spiritually deceived and controlled. Satan's the real enemy.

Gnosticism is one of the two false gospels that caused problems for the early church in scripture. The other being legalism or imposing the Law onto Christians.

Legalism is salvation through works. Gnosticism is salvation through special knowledge, or high-peak truths.

[Sons to Glory!]

So please forgive me for coming late to the party, but can someone summarize what we've determined in these 275 posts?

To facilitate the answer, I have these three questions:

1. What is sin dwelling in man’s flesh (as per Romans 7) and where did it come from?
2. Are there only two sources in the universe?
3. Adam & Eve ate something forbidden in the garden – what got into man?

[ZNPaaneah]

So please forgive me for coming late to the party, but can someone summarize what we've determined in these 275 posts?

To facilitate the answer, I have these three questions:

1. What is sin dwelling in man’s flesh (as per Romans 7) and where did it come from?
2. Are there only two sources in the universe?
3. Adam & Eve ate something forbidden in the garden – what got into man?

1. Sin is rebellion against God.
2. There is only one source in the Universe -- the word of God. All things came into being through Him and apart from Him there is nothing that exists.
3. Eating from the tree was forbidden, hence it was sin to eat it. However, that does not make the tree evil. God created it, He placed it in the garden, and it was a good tree, one to make you wise, like God. Instead of two sources, lets say there are two paths to this wisdom. One path is to trust and obey. The other path is trial and error. One path we abide with the most High, the other path we are on our own. The tree of Knowledge was a requirement for a universe that includes man's free will. If God creates man with free will then the option to disobey God must be included. Taken to its logical conclusion creating the universe with free will includes creating Hitler, Stalin, and Nero. So then, how does a God in whom there is no darkness create evil men? The answer is beyond our thoughts or reasoning. He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once you take that path your body becomes mortal flesh and there is a time limit on your life. This vastly reduces the amount of damage you can do as your lifetime is simply a vapor or like the flower of the field withering. Still you do have a life and so even though it is an infinitesimal amount of time relative to eternity it is still greater than 0. However, all the evil men can do is kill the body (the mortal flesh which is vanity) they cannot harm the soul or spirit which are eternal. So then the tree of Knowledge is like a laboratory which is set up with all kinds of precautions and controls where we can learn through experimentation (trial and error). It is a very hard road to take filled with pain and suffering, it is a lonely road to take including excommunication, and it is a shameful road to take. Ultimately the lesson learned is that all glory and honor belong to God the Father and our Lord Jesus.

If you like analogies to help understand complex issues I would liken the Tree of knowledge to a computer simulation. If you spend 2 hours playing a video game in which people are killed is that evil? The game may reveal evil intents of your heart, but did you do any real, lasting damage to anything? Otherwise, how could God wipe away every tear? We use computer simulations to train pilots, we don't want them to crash on the simulation, but we would much rather that happen than they crash in a real plane. Likewise we are being trained in this life to rule and reign with Christ.

[Jo S]

2. There is only one source in the Universe -- the word of God. All things came into being through Him and apart from Him there is nothing that exists.............

If God creates man with free will then the option to disobey God must be included. Taken to its logical conclusion creating the universe with free will includes creating Hitler, Stalin, and Nero. So then, how does a God in whom there is no darkness create evil men? The answer is beyond our thoughts or reasoning.

ZNP, help me understand.

You begin by saying that all things are from God.

You then go on to say that man has free will.

You then conclude in saying that the things which are a result of man's free will are from God and that this is a mystery.

How do you make such a huge leap in logic?

Can a loving God be responsible for creating a Hitler or Stalin? Are you saying these individuals were a direct result of God's spoken word?

That verse you're referring to (all things are from God) allude to Genesis and applies only to the original creation. The apple computer wasn't created by God, it's an invention of man. I don't think it was God's idea to put a partly eaten apple, which symbolizes and glorifies sin, on the front of a laptop.

This belief that everything in existence is somehow from God sounds very impersonal and pantheistic...

[ZNPaaneah]

No, The Bible begins by saying God is the creator, all things came into being through Him.

16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Now it is generally recognized by Bible expositors that the "thrones or dominions or principalities or powers" includes Satan, Hitler, Nero, and Stalin.

Likewise, I am not the one that says man has a free will, this is Bible 101. I am not aware of any fundamental teacher of the Bible that does not teach that God gave man a free will.

Since God, by definition is omnipotent and omniscient, that means everything that has happened has occurred under His authority and He was able to foresee it. Just read the book of Job if you have trouble with that. But since everyone has trouble with this I call it a mystery. You can google "the problem of evil" which is another name for this mystery.

Or as you so eloquently encapsulate the mystery "Can a loving God create Hitler?" If not are you saying there are two creators? Now that is idolatry and a heresy.

If it sounds impersonal and pantheistic you obviously are not hearing me clearly. I am simply embracing the word in John "In the beginning was the word..."

[Jo S]

No, The Bible begins by saying God is the creator, all things came into being through Him.

16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him;

Now it is generally recognized by Bible expositors that the "thrones or dominions or principalities or powers" includes Satan, Hitler, Nero, and Stalin.

Likewise, I am not the one that says man has a free will, this is Bible 101. I am not aware of any fundamental teacher of the Bible that does not teach that God gave man a free will.

Since God, by definition is omnipotent and omniscient, that means everything that has happened has occurred under His authority and He was able to foresee it. Just read the book of Job if you have trouble with that. But since everyone has trouble with this I call it a mystery. You can google "the problem of evil" which is another name for this mystery.

Or as you so eloquently encapsulate the mystery "Can a loving God create Hitler?" If not are you saying there are two creators? Now that is idolatry and a heresy.

If it sounds impersonal and pantheistic you obviously are not hearing me clearly. I am simply embracing the word in John "In the beginning was the word..."

I don't know who those expositors you are referring to are but I would have to disagree with them. Scripture says God is good as is everything God created, it was good. That included all the ministering angels in Heaven before Satan sinned.

Satan, Hitler, and Stalin are not good therefore are not of God. It's not a mystery at all.

"thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Col. 1:16 KJV) is an over generalization and not specific to persons which leads me to conclude that God created the offices of lordship. It doesn't mean He created all those in past and future that will fill every role of lordship.

Speaking of omniscience and omnipotence, if God is all powerful doesn't that also imply He has the power to restrict Himself if he chooses? Isn't that what allows free-will to exist in the first place?... so God doesn't control every aspect of our lives and simply have us exist as automatons?

In Job, if God was all knowing all the time why does He appoint Satan as the accuser? Is it for God's entertainment that Satan runs back and forth between earth and God's throne? Or does God choose to restrict Himself for the sake of our free-will?

Isn't that part of the reason why people love the college experience? Because of the sense of freedom? Yet even though our parents are no longer looking over our shoulder in everything that we do, they first prepared us by instilling us with good values and then after we were on our own offered us a way to reach them even over long distances (phone, mail, internet, ect).

God is the same way, out of love and trust He allows that space so we don't feel smothered and controlled all the time. If we willingly allow Him in, He will always be there. if we don't, He will restrict Himself yet He left us with a conscience and a way to always reach Him if we choose. That of course being His son Jesus.

On the matter of two creators saying that humans can create a laptop, for instance, out of free-will isn't saying we are equal to God in that we can create life and matter from nothingness. It just means we can manipulate what's already available to us. But because we invent something out of raw materials originally created by God, doesn't mean God was responsible for the end result.

By saying God created all that is Hitler is saying that God created darkness. Darkness isn't something that was intentionally created by God, it's merely the absence of light. God created only the light (which was good) and then separated the light (which resulted in darkness). He did not create the darkness. Darkness is an absence and void.

Satan, Hitler, and Stalin partook of that darkness out of free-will. But because they did so, did not mean God was responsible for the result of their choices.

Saying God created all things past and future is saying that He created cancer, death, rape, and all other vile things. God has knowledge of the results of darkness and sin but those things were never a part of His heart, His mind, and His Word.

Finally to sum up the matter of free will, I see it as a marathon race. God has a birds-eye view of the entire race beginning to end. He can see the starting point and the finish line. He also established ahead of time 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes. Yet whatever happens in the middle and whomever eventually fills those positions is up to the individual and the free-will He grants them.

[Sons to Glory!]

My responses/questions in blue1. Sin is rebellion against God. The Bible uses eating, as in man ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Something got into man, right?Then Romans 7 says sin is dwelling in the flesh. What dwells in something - usually something living, right?
2. There is only one source in the Universe -- the word of God. All things came into being through Him and apart from Him there is nothing that exists.Good point! So God, in order to have love demonstrated, needed to create something for free will to choose.
3. Eating from the tree was forbidden, hence it was sin to eat it. However, that does not make the tree evil. Yes, He did say after man ate, "He has become as one of Us . . ." God created it, He placed it in the garden, and it was a good tree, one to make you wise, like God. Instead of two sources, lets say there are two paths to this wisdom. One path is to trust and obey. The other path is trial and error. One path we abide with the most High, the other path we are on our own. The tree of Knowledge was a requirement for a universe that includes man's free will. If God creates man with free will then the option to disobey God must be included. Taken to its logical conclusion creating the universe with free will includes creating Hitler, Stalin, and Nero. So then, how does a God in whom there is no darkness create evil men? The answer is beyond our thoughts or reasoning. He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once you take that path your body becomes mortal flesh and there is a time limit on your life. This vastly reduces the amount of damage you can do as your lifetime is simply a vapor or like the flower of the field withering. Still you do have a life and so even though it is an infinitesimal amount of time relative to eternity it is still greater than 0. However, all the evil men can do is kill the body (the mortal flesh which is vanity) they cannot harm the soul or spirit which are eternal. So then the tree of Knowledge is like a laboratory which is set up with all kinds of precautions and controls where we can learn through experimentation (trial and error). It is a very hard road to take filled with pain and suffering, it is a lonely road to take including excommunication, and it is a shameful road to take. Ultimately the lesson learned is that all glory and honor belong to God the Father and our Lord Jesus.

If you like analogies to help understand complex issues I would liken the Tree of knowledge to a computer simulation. If you spend 2 hours playing a video game in which people are killed is that evil? The game may reveal evil intents of your heart, but did you do any real, lasting damage to anything? Otherwise, how could God wipe away every tear? We use computer simulations to train pilots, we don't want them to crash on the simulation, but we would much rather that happen than they crash in a real plane. Likewise we are being trained in this life to rule and reign with Christ.I like it! I have long been impressed that God does things to help us grow and develop in His life. We are in the laboratory of sorts, then, which we are learning to choose Him and discover how applicable His life is in us. There is also the physical picture of building muscle - if we don't have resistance, there is no growth. (this is an answer to the often asked question, "Why did God leave us with the flesh!?"

[Sons to Glory!]

I don't know who those expositors you are referring to are but I would have to disagree with them. Scripture says God is good as is everything God created, it was good. That included all the ministering angels in Heaven before Satan sinned.I see no conflict between what you and ZNP are saying.

[Ohio]

I see no conflict between what you and ZNP are saying.
Jo S is becoming a Forum Iconoclast of sorts.

[Sons to Glory!]

Jo S is becoming a Forum Iconoclast of sorts.We needed a "balancer!" :lol:

[ZNPaaneah]

I don't know who those expositors you are referring to are but I would have to disagree with them. Scripture says God is good as is everything God created, it was good. That included all the ministering angels in Heaven before Satan sinned.

So then you agree that God created Lucifer.

Satan, Hitler, and Stalin are not good therefore are not of God. It's not a mystery at all.

Got it. Not good is not created by God. Where did they come from?

"thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Col. 1:16 KJV) is an over generalization and not specific to persons which leads me to conclude that God created the offices of lordship. It doesn't mean He created all those in past and future that will fill every role of lordship.

Got it, God did not create everyone. Who then is this other creator you are alluding to?

Speaking of omniscience and omnipotence, if God is all powerful doesn't that also imply He has the power to restrict Himself if he chooses? Isn't that what allows free-will to exist in the first place?... so God doesn't control every aspect of our lives and simply have us exist as automatons?

In Job, if God was all knowing all the time why does He appoint Satan as the accuser? Is it for God's entertainment that Satan runs back and forth between earth and God's throne? Or does God choose to restrict Himself for the sake of our free-will?

Isn't that part of the reason why people love the college experience? Because of the sense of freedom? Yet even though our parents are no longer looking over our shoulder in everything that we do, they first prepared us by instilling us with good values and then after we were on our own offered us a way to reach them even over long distances (phone, mail, internet, ect).

God is the same way, out of love and trust He allows that space so we don't feel smothered and controlled all the time. If we willingly allow Him in, He will always be there. if we don't, He will restrict Himself yet He left us with a conscience and a way to always reach Him if we choose. That of course being His son Jesus.

Sorry, I missed what part of the discussion this last bit was referring to.

On the matter of two creators saying that humans can create a laptop, for instance, out of free-will isn't saying we are equal to God in that we can create life and matter from nothingness.

Fair enough, but whoever created Hitler, Stalin, and Nero, that is not a laptop, that is life and matter from nothingness.

It just means we can manipulate what's already available to us. But because we invent something out of raw materials originally created by God, doesn't mean God was responsible for the end result.

Oh, the old guns don't kill people, people kill people defense. I manufactured the gun, lobbied for all kinds of laws which make it very difficult to trace the gun and easy for it to be bought on the street in untraceable bills, and in fingerprint resistant casing so you don't leave fingerprints, but I'm not responsible for it being used to kill people or commit a crime. Got it.

By saying God created all that is Hitler is saying that God created darkness. Darkness isn't something that was intentionally created by God, it's merely the absence of light. God created only the light (which was good) and then separated the light (which resulted in darkness). He did not create the darkness. Darkness is an absence and void.

Nope, you didn't read my post carefully. I point out that by creating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God made it so that the minute we disobey him (and all evil is rebellion against God) at that minute we are unable to destroy anything other than mortal flesh which compared to eternity is like destroying pixels on a video game. You can choose to have an evil heart and that will be revealed, but you cannot harm the soul or the spirit.

Satan, Hitler, and Stalin partook of that darkness out of free-will. But because they did so, did not mean God was responsible for the result of their choices.

They partook of the darkness? Where did it come from? Who created it?

Saying God created all things past and future is saying that He created cancer, death, rape, and all other vile things. God has knowledge of the results of darkness and sin but those things were never a part of His heart, His mind, and His Word.

Fair enough, those things occurred as a result of man choosing to disobey God. But God created a universe where man could make that choice, being omniscient He also foresaw that would happen. Which again, is why the tree of Knowledge is described as a tree created by God, a good tree, and one that was placed in the garden by God. That tree protects the creation from the potential evil in rebelling against God.

Finally to sum up the matter of free will, I see it as a marathon race. God has a birds-eye view of the entire race beginning to end. He can see the starting point and the finish line. He also established ahead of time 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes. Yet whatever happens in the middle and whomever eventually fills those positions is up to the individual and the free-will He grants them.

So then He is not Lord? Hitler can kill millions of people running this marathon and God is like "hands off" I only care about the finish line, not what takes place during the race?

[ZNPaaneah]

I don't know who those expositors you are referring to are but I would have to disagree with them. Scripture says God is good as is everything God created, it was good. That included all the ministering angels in Heaven before Satan sinned.

John Gill
Ellicott
Benson — Because, in after times, false teachers would arise and affirm, some, that the world was made by angels; others, that it was made by an evil principle; the apostle may have been directed by the Spirit to declare, in the most express manner, that all things were created by God’s beloved Son, that the sincere might be preserved from these pernicious errors.

Barnes — There could not possibly be a more explicit declaration that the universe was created by Christ, than this. As if the simple declaration in the most comprehensive terms were not enough, the apostle goes into a specification of things existing in heaven and earth, and so varies the statement as if to prevent the possibility of mistake.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown

Matthew Poole — 2. In parallel places, the making and founding of the old creation is ascribed to Christ, both negatively and positively, John 1:3 Hebrews 1:3,10; not one thing is excepted, and therefore should not be restrained to men.

4. The apostle’s significant enumeration and distinction of things created, doth evidence that he understood the subject, the creation, in the most extensive and unlimited consideration of it. He reckons up material as well as immaterial things, and those in heaven, which needed no restoration, as well as those on earth, which did, being polluted with sin. Those angels who had not put off the honour of the first, did not belong to the new creation; having not divested themselves of their original integrity, they needed not to be reinvested with that they never lost: and devils cannot be ranked among new creatures, neither can wicked souls, Matthew 25:41 Revelation 22:15; neither are there new and old orders of angels; so that the dominion Christ is here (as elsewhere) asserted as founder of, is the whole, not only the new creation, Revelation 5:13.

[Trapped]

So please forgive me for coming late to the party, but can someone summarize what we've determined in these 275 posts?

To facilitate the answer, I have these three questions:

1. What is sin dwelling in man’s flesh (as per Romans 7) and where did it come from?
2. Are there only two sources in the universe?
3. Adam & Eve ate something forbidden in the garden – what got into man?


1. Sin is disobeying God. It came from the disobedient action that God gave Adam & Eve the freedom to do if they chose to do so.
2. One source, as ZNP said.
3. What got into man was the fruit of the tree physically (which was good for food), as well as the knowledge of good and evil, experientially. Sin was a result of "the offense" or "the disobedience" as mentioned in Romans.

Trapped

[Sons to Glory!]

1. Sin is disobeying God. It came from the disobedient action that God gave Adam & Eve the freedom to do if they chose to do so.
2. One source, as ZNP said.
3. What got into man was the fruit of the tree physically (which was good for food), as well as the knowledge of good and evil, experientially. Sin was a result of "the offense" or "the disobedience" as mentioned in Romans.

TrappedInteresting word Paul uses in Romans 7:17 -20 - dwell, as in "no longer I that do it, but sin dwelling in me" and "no good thing dwells in me."

Do only living things "dwell"? (this Greek word is also sometimes translated "living")

[Jo S]

So then you agree that God created Lucifer.

Got it. Not good is not created by God. Where did they come from?

They partook of the darkness? Where did it come from? Who created it?

Yes, and Lucifer was good in the beginning. Then out of his own free will, Lucifer sinned and darkness entered him.

The mistake in thought you're making is that you're making sin a created thing. Cold isn't a property, it's the absence of a property. Heat however is a tangible thing.

The same is with light. Light is created, darkness (sin) is not.

You ask "where does darkness come form?". "Come from" implies a created property confined to time, space, and matter. Darkness is a void or vacuum and isn't a measurable tangible thing that requires "creating" therefore sin did not "come from" anywhere. It's just the absence of light or God's presence. You're making an assumption and concluding darkness and sin are from the same substance as God's Word (light and good).

Got it, God did not create everyone. Who then is this other creator you are alluding to?

Sorry, I missed what part of the discussion this last bit was referring to.

Fair enough, but whoever created Hitler, Stalin, and Nero, that is not a laptop, that is life and matter from nothingness.

God created Adam and Eve, He created them in His image. This image is what we refer to as the soul. God created this image (the raw material in my laptop analogy) but He is not the creator of the end result of a soul that chooses to partake in darkness. Therefore God is not responsible for the end result that is Hitler, Stalin (or the laptop).

Oh, the old guns don't kill people, people kill people defense. I manufactured the gun, lobbied for all kinds of laws which make it very difficult to trace the gun and easy for it to be bought on the street in untraceable bills, and in fingerprint resistant casing so you don't leave fingerprints, but I'm not responsible for it being used to kill people or commit a crime. Got it.

But God didn't manufacture darkness and He doesn't lobby for sin. He's not responsible for our choice to live a life apart from Him. By saying God "created " evil men, is saying that He created evil to be carried out by these men. He did not because this is not who He is.

Nope, you didn't read my post carefully. I point out that by creating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil God made it so that the minute we disobey him (and all evil is rebellion against God) at that minute we are unable to destroy anything other than mortal flesh which compared to eternity is like destroying pixels on a video game. You can choose to have an evil heart and that will be revealed, but you cannot harm the soul or the spirit.

We are all born with an evil heart, it's not a choice we got to make because none of us were born out of God's very substance or Word, only Jesus. We were born our of the will of man in God's image along with the result of fallen men (John 1:13). That doesn't mean our parents "created" us from nothingness but out of our parents we were inherently born into darkness. God did not create any of us with darkness in his mind because what He creates is only good. We were the result of God's created image tainted with the result of humanities sin.

Fair enough, those things occurred as a result of man choosing to disobey God. But God created a universe where man could make that choice, being omniscient He also foresaw that would happen. Which again, is why the tree of Knowledge is described as a tree created by God, a good tree, and one that was placed in the garden by God. That tree protects the creation from the potential evil in rebelling against God.

He didn't foresee that it "would" happen. That's an assumption. We can say that God foresaw it "could" happen. "Would" renders free-will null and void. "Could", however, does not.

So then He is not Lord? Hitler can kill millions of people running this marathon and God is like "hands off" I only care about the finish line, not what takes place during the race?

He cares but that does not mean He will interfere. Omnipotence allows God to take action or restrict His presence and part of that hinges on the free-will He chose to give us.

ZNP, I'm familiar with these beliefs because I had a friend that was raised in a Christian household but became a eastern mystic later on. He had the same pantheistic views concerning God as you do. It makes sense because the LC's are a blend of eastern mysticism and biblical doctrine. But ultimately the belief that God "created" sin and evil men is a subtle and crafty attack on His character. The further you take this belief, the further you get away from a loving Father into a god that's universal indifferent "force".

God is love and there is no darkness in Him. Therefore because darkness is not in Him, it could not have come from Him.

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes, and Lucifer was good in the beginning. Then out of his own free will, Lucifer sinned and darkness entered him.

The mistake in thought you're making is that you're making sin a created thing. Cold isn't a property, it's the absence of a property. Heat however is a tangible thing.

The same is with light. Light is created, darkness (sin) is not.

You ask "where does darkness come form?". "Come from" implies a created property confined to time, space, and matter. Darkness is a void or vacuum and isn't a measurable tangible thing that requires "creating" therefore sin did not "come from" anywhere. It's just the absence of light or God's presence. You're making an assumption and concluding darkness and sin are from the same substance as God's Word (light and good).

Wow, this is some really deep philosophical stuff. So in the previous post you said that Hitler and these others "partook of the darkness", yet like the Phantom Toll Booth, they weren't actually partaking of any thing but the absence of something, they were eating minus signs? Woah??!!

So if darkness is nothingness, and Lucifer "became" evil from this nothingness does that mean that evil was created from nothing? Sounds like some kind of alternate God you have going on there, like the alternate superman.

God created Adam and Eve, He created them in His image. This image is what we refer to as the soul. God created this image (the raw material in my laptop analogy) but He is not the creator of the end result of a soul that chooses to partake in darkness. Therefore God is not responsible for the end result that is Hitler, Stalin (or the laptop).

But God didn't manufacture darkness and He doesn't lobby for sin. He's not responsible for our choice to live a life apart from Him. By saying God "created " evil men, is saying that He created evil to be carried out by these men. He did not because this is not who He is.

We are all born with an evil heart, it's not a choice we got to make because none of us were born out of God's very substance or Word, only Jesus. We were born our of the will of man in God's image along with the result of fallen men (John 1:13). That doesn't mean our parents "created" us from nothingness but out of our parents we were inherently born into darkness. God did not create any of us with darkness in his mind because what He creates is only good. We were the result of God's created image tainted with the result of humanities sin.

OK let me try to summarize. We were all created by God. We were all born with an evil heart. But that evil heart was not created by God. The problem is that Man (created by God) was "tainted" with evil but that evil did not come from God. So where did it come from?

He didn't foresee that it "would" happen. That's an assumption. We can say the God forsaw it "could" happen. "Would" renders free-will null and void. "Could", however, does not.

This also is an assumption. We know that God foresaw that man would be fruitful and multiply. It is not unreasonable to say that God could foresee millions, even billions of men on this earth. Since free will can logically assume millions of choices, a few evil rebellious ones mixed in is certainly a logical assumption. Yes if I flip a coin a million times it is fair to say that I foresaw it "could" have a heads in there. But it is also fair to say that based on the law of averages it would have a heads in there.

He cares but that does not mean He will interfere. Omnipotence allows God to take action or restrict His presence and part of that hinges on the free-will He chose to give us.

Did you just nullify the power of prayer? Why on earth would anyone pray if they thought God would not interfere. What about intervene? What about intercede? I thought the Spirit intercedes for us praying in words we don't understand? None of this is Biblical, simply your poor reach of mind.

ZNP, I'm familiar with these beliefs because I had a friend that was raised in a Christian household but became a eastern mystic later on. He had the same pantheistic views concerning God as you do.

I am not the one who is claiming there are two different creators, that is you. I am proclaiming one God. I am also not the one proclaiming that there are multiple Lords, I am proclaiming there is one Lord, now, yesterday and forever. You are the one that says He is "hands off" until the finish line allowing all kinds of evil to take place that He is not responsible for. I am proclaiming one creation. You are proclaiming that this one creation did not include evil, you have some hokey way of saying that evil came into the creation, tainted the creation, yet don't explain how it was created out of nothing (darkness).

It makes sense because the LC's are a blend of eastern mysticism and biblical doctrine. But ultimately the belief that God "created" sin and evil men is a sly and crafty attack on His character. The further you take this belief, the more you get away from a loving Father into a god that's universal indifferent "force".

To deny the word of God as being the word of God is the true "crafty attack". Saying that I am pantheistic (when I haven't said one word that would support that) and then saying this makes sense because the LC is rooted in China is confirmation bias. You believe what you want to believe and then take bogus evidence to support your bogus assertion. However, ad hominem attacks like this are typical of some within the LC. Perhaps that is where you learned to behave like this.

God is love and there is no darkness in Him. Therefore because darkness is not in Him, it could not have come from Him.

Exactly. So then, where did it come from? Because all things came from the word and apart from the word nothing that has come into being has come into being.

[ZNPaaneah]

This whole "darkness is the absence of light" argument contradicts the fact that God is omnipresent.

The Bible says "where shall I go and God is not there? If I make my bed in Sheol behold, God is there". What they are saying is that because God is absent, not there, then evil some how spontaneously generates.

For this argument to be true several things have to be true:

1. Some other entity is responsible for evil.

Therefore you have more than one creator, whoever it is that created whatever it is that "tainted" man and made him evil.

2. Deny the Lordship of God. Jesus is Lord. That is today. I can pray to Him and I have an advocate. The buck stops with Him. He is above all.

But according to this doctrine Jesus is not responsible, not in this age. That is to deny the Lordship of Jesus.

3. Deny that God is omnipresent.

4. Fudge that God is omniscient. He doesn't actually foresee all things, He simply knows that some things are possible and "could happen".

But there is another problem as well. Take Oskar Schindler. This is the adulterous man who took all of his money and exchanged it for Jews who were destined for the gas chamber. The Jews honor him greatly as a righteous man, a man of faith.

But none of the glory of that faith would have been revealed had it not been for Hitler and the gas chambers.

[Cal]

This whole "darkness is the absence of light" argument contradicts the fact that God is omnipresent.


ZNP,

Darkness is the absence of light. Everyone knows that. Because God is omnipresent doesn't mean darkness is of him. That's an invalid argument. It's mixing apples and oranges.

God didn't create evil, he defined it. It's anything contrary to him.

This subject is fodder for "Alternative Views," not the main board. And we've already discussed it anyway.

[ZNPaaneah]

ZNP,

Darkness is the absence of light. Everyone knows that. Because God is omnipresent doesn't mean darkness is of him. That's an invalid argument. It's mixing apples and oranges.

God didn't create evil, he defined it. It's anything contrary to him.

This subject is fodder for "Alternative Views," not the main board. And we've already discussed it anyway.

This discussion began Post #275 Sons to Glory! asked 3 questions.

My argument is not that Darkness is of God. Jo S is saying Evil is a result of people like Hitler "partaking of darkness". I am simply trying to get clarification on how anyone could partake of the "absence" of something, and how that "absence" could create evil?

[awareness]

This discussion began Post #275 Sons to Glory! asked 3 questions.

My argument is not that Darkness is of God. Jo S is saying Evil is a result of people like Hitler "partaking of darkness". I am simply trying to get clarification on how anyone could partake of the "absence" of something, and how that "absence" could create evil?
The Problem of evil thread on Alternative Views more than covers this. I'm sure more could be said. I'm sure Sons to Glory could add something to it.

[Trapped]

Interesting word Paul uses in Romans 7:17 -20 - dwell, as in "no longer I that do it, but sin dwelling in me" and "no good thing dwells in me."
Do only living things "dwell"? (this Greek word is also sometimes translated "living")
My own take is not to take the word "dwell" too far. If a verse said "hatred dwells in him", we wouldn't think "oh, this means hatred is a living thing" and dissect the nature and essence of hatred. We would just realize it's non-literal language and move on. I see "dwell" and take it to mean that that is where sin always is......it is always present. Like "lives" as opposed to "visits".

[UntoHim]

ZNP, Jo S and others,

Lots and lots of "TMI" on this thread lately. Most of the postings are taking us far afield of Nigel Tomes' original paper. I would suggest everyone go back to the opening post (Nigel's paper) and work everything from there.

If all else fails you guys can just Pray-Read this last post by Trapped:
My own take is not to take the word "dwell" too far. If a verse said "hatred dwells in him", we wouldn't think "oh, this means hatred is a living thing" and dissect the nature and essence of hatred. We would just realize it's non-literal language and move on.
-

[Cal]

This discussion began Post #275 Sons to Glory! asked 3 questions.

My argument is not that Darkness is of God. Jo S is saying Evil is a result of people like Hitler "partaking of darkness". I am simply trying to get clarification on how anyone could partake of the "absence" of something, and how that "absence" could create evil?

I can't believe you are asking that question. Remove God from your life and see what happens. Look at the Soviet Union. They tried their best to remove God and look what they got.

Sometimes you miss the obvious Z, by getting caught up in the semantics.

[ZNPaaneah]

I can't believe you are asking that question. Remove God from your life and see what happens. Look at the Soviet Union. They tried their best to remove God and look what they got.

Sometimes you miss the obvious Z, by getting caught up in the semantics.
Asking questions is the best way for people to learn. You spent too much time with people telling you a question mark looks like a snake.

Well that is a good explanation. The creation is designed so that we need God, without Him you will veer off. What is rebellion but choosing to go your own way apart from God. That is what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents. They chose to disobey God's direct command and go their own way. Instead of learning at the feet of God they then embark on a path of trial and error with a lot of error. Because God created man with a free will He made us so that we could choose to be like Mary sitting at His feet, listening and learning, but also like Peter spouting our own opinions, or Thomas, or even Judas.

But Jo S will not like your explanation because it means there is no evil creator, no "taint". God created a universe that includes man's free will and within that is the option for people to be Judas, Nero, Hitler, etc. But it is Biblical, fully aligned with Colossians chapter 1:16, and John 1:1-3

But Romans 7 is still problematic. What is dwelling in our flesh according to this interpretation is the predilection to walk according to sight and not by faith.

Consider this analogy -- God is like the gyroscope within the airplane that allows you to fly on course. Once we sinned our body became the flesh, and became disconnected from that gyroscope. Since we still have to plot a course the ego took over (with the super ego giving a running critique). So "sin dwells in me" is like saying "error, rebellion and every shameful thing dwells in me". He is referring to the id.

[Cal]

So "sin dwells in me" is like saying "error, rebellion and every shameful thing dwells in me". He is referring to the id.

It means we are broken at a very fundamental level. Lee's speculation that Satan dwells in us is unnecessary, and his "biblical" evidence for it is lame.

Of course, he's the MOTA, so we all should just shut up and believe whatever he tells us to believe. :loopy: Then we will be happy. :sFun_abduct:

[Sons to Glory!]

ZNP, Jo S and others,

Lots and lots of "TMI" on this thread lately. Most of the postings are taking us far afield of Nigel Tomes' original paper. I would suggest everyone go back to the opening post (Nigel's paper) and work everything from there.

If all else fails you guys can just Pray-Read this last post by Trapped:

-Some of this "going far a-field" of the original topic may be due to me, once again, coming late to the party! I can now see that there's already been some good, prior discussion regarding the word "dwell." Sorry.

[Unregistered]

I came to read this because of a YouTube video from The Lord's Recovery Unchained. My family has some kind dysfunctional issues because of this teaching. They used to call me "Get behind me, Satan" whenever we got into a fight.*

[The Opposer]

I came to read this because of a YouTube video from The Lord's Recovery Unchained. My family has some kind dysfunctional issues because of this teaching. They used to call me "Get behind me, Satan" whenever we got into a fight.*

I have heard that said to me about a dozen times over the last year or so. I’m used to it, I know exactly when it’s going to come out, I know exactly what triggers this response. Let me translate that for you, so that you don’t get offended by such statement from the members, or your family:

“Please don’t dare to question me, my actions or what I’m saying. Don’t ever think you have a right to say anything when it comes to what and who I follow or ask me to provide some backing for what I believe! You just don’t get it! You are not in this vision! Also, don’t beat me with your Bible over my head, or what it’s says! I’m not interested! As a matter of fact, everything you just said is coming from down under, careful who you speaking for, I’m done with you, so get behind me satan!” (Conversation ended)

Sounds familiar?

When you touch the hidden, the real raw issues of the heart, you are the number one enemy, and will be condemned to be a subject of satan. Oh what depth and lengths people will go to hide their true objects of worship, even at the expense of their own family, loved ones, even their children!

[Unregistered]

I have heard that said to me about a dozen times over the last year or so. I’m used to it, I know exactly when it’s going to come out, I know exactly what triggers this response. Let me translate that for you, so that you don’t get offended by such statement from the members, or your family:

“Please don’t dare to question me, my actions or what I’m saying. Don’t ever think you have a right to say anything when it comes to what and who I follow or ask me to provide some backing for what I believe! You just don’t get it! You are not in this vision! Also, don’t beat me with your Bible over my head, or what it’s says! I’m not interested! As a matter of fact, everything you just said is coming from down under, careful who you speaking for, I’m done with you, so get behind me satan!” (Conversation ended)

Sounds familiar?

When you touch the hidden, the real raw issues of the heart, you are the number one enemy, and will be condemned to be a subject of satan. Oh what depth and lengths people will go to hide their true objects of worship, even at the expense of their own family, loved ones, even their children!

It is so frustrating that they won't accept their faults but blame Satan since he dwells in their flesh.*

[Ohio]

It is so frustrating that they won't accept their faults but blame Satan since he dwells in their flesh.*
Here’s another LCism that deceived us:
If a LC brother faces some trial, then it’s Satan attacking him for standing up for His testimony.
If a brother leaves the LC and faces some trial, then it’s the Lord judging him for leaving.