Originally Posted by Unregistered

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

Originally Posted by The Opposer

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!

Originally Posted by 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.*

Originally Posted by 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:

-

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

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")

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

Originally Posted by Jo S

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).

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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".

Originally Posted by Jo S

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

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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?

Originally Posted by Trapped

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

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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

Originally Posted by Jo S

"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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Jo S is becoming a Forum Iconoclast of sorts.

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

I see no conflict between what you and ZNP are saying.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. 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!?"

Originally Posted by 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..."

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Trapped

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

Originally Posted by NigelTomes

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

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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?

Originally Posted by Freedom

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by Ohio

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."

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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..

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then it is referring directly to the King of Tyre, who is being used figuratively to depict a false God, who is the head of a false religion, in a counterfeit Eden, a fallen cherub, who dresses ostentatiously in precious stones.

This king and this God can be seen as an "opposer" of Israel and the God of Israel, but being "a opposer" doesn't make him "the Satan".

If I understand your position correctly the average Christian lumps all false Gods who oppose God's kingdom under the heading of "Satan" but you have categorized them into a bunch of different groups.

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's like saying that Psalm 8.2-8 do not refer to Jesus Christ.

Better tell the writer of Hebrews 2 that.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have read the verses and this is why I disagree with you.

For example,

Ezekiel 28:12
“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre

I have highlighted in bold exactly who this verse is addressing. It is not Satan.

All the verses refer to the kings. The start of Isaiah chapter 13 says "A Prophecy Against Babylon" in a number of bible versions.

Many Christians believe those verses refer to Satan because that is what they have been taught to believe. But the verses don't actually mention Lucifer or Satan.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I have read the verses and this is why I disagree with you.

For example,

Ezekiel 28:12
“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre

I have highlighted in bold exactly who this verse is addressing. It is not Satan.

All the verses refer to the kings.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read the verses.

You disagree with all I post, and now you are telling me that all the Jews will too?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

A Jew (that is, someone who actually understands the Old Testament) would disagree with you, it doesn't say Satan in those verses.

Originally Posted by Ohio

Satan is indeed "fallen" as Isaiah 14.12 states, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Daystar, son of the morning."

Satan also had a free will, as he decided to lift up his heart against God, and a third of the other angels with free-wills followed him. (Isa. 14.13-15, Ezek. 28.12-19)

Satan was the chief archangel, who apparently administrated all of God's creation. When he rebelled, all creation suffered.

Today, he is indeed a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.

Originally Posted by Exodus16

I referred to W.B Yeates poem Leda and the Swan bc from your comment it was unclear did the women seduce the angels or did the angels initiate the pairings.

It matters, due to the implications of how women are viewed and treated.
Based on Eve being deceived in the garden, there are already consequences for the function and position of women in the church. If women are such a seductive force that they can sexually corrupt angels from the distance of earth to heaven, then covering shoulders in meetings or a doily on the head are really rather feeble containment attempts - probably safest to go with a full body burka

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Wait who's luring whom?
This just got all "Leda and the Swan"

To clarify you are saying:
1. Satan fell
2. Humanity
3. 1/3 of the Angels fell

Originally Posted by Exodus16

How do these beliefs about satan shape my actions and relationships with others?

Originally Posted by Isaiah 14:12

How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!

13 You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.

14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”

15 But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.

Originally Posted by Ezekiel 28:12

“Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says:

“‘You were the seal of perfection,
full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.

13 You were in Eden, the garden of God;
every precious stone adorned you:
carnelian, chrysolite and emerald,
topaz, onyx and jasper,
lapis lazuli, turquoise and beryl.
Your settings and mountings were made of gold;
on the day you were created they were prepared.

14 You were anointed as a guardian cherub,
for so I ordained you.
You were on the holy mount of God;
you walked among the fiery stones.

15 You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.

16 Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.

17 Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

Originally Posted by Genesis 3:1

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

Originally Posted by Genesis 6

When human beings began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of humans were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit will not contend with humans forever, for they are mortal; their days will be a hundred and twenty years.”

Originally Posted by Mark 1

23 Suddenly a man with an unclean spirit cried out in the synagogue: 24 “What do You want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are — the Holy One of God!” 25 But Jesus rebuked the spirit and said, “Be silent! Come out of him!”…

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Satan doesn't live in our flesh.
I agree with that statement.
New question: is Satan a fallen angel?
and what does fallen mean in this context - is it parallel to fallen man.
Or is Satan a vessel of dishonor; a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.
Does he (Satan) have free will? I have been told that mankind is more complicated than angels due to our free will.

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Satan doesn't live in our flesh.
I agree with that statement.
New question: is Satan a fallen angel?
and what does fallen mean in this context - is it parallel to fallen man.
Or is Satan a vessel of dishonor; a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.
Does he (Satan) have free will? I have been told that mankind is more complicated than angels due to our free will.

Originally Posted by Exodus16

I'm not terribly interested in how WL was wrong or how Christians believe wrong things. I'm wrong all the time, ask my teenage children.
What I am looking for is what do I believe. Starting with WL makes sense bc I grew up on the stuff.
Satan as a fallen angel is the one I'm looking at for the moment
Satan as omnipresent - I can shrug that off. I don't believe that.
Satan as equal and opposite of God - I don't agree.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Witness Lee's Satanology was unorthodox (Satan does not dwell in the flesh, as others have stated), but so is Christianity's in general.

Some wrong things Christians believe is that:
Satan is omnipresent
Satan is God's equal and opposite
The serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan
Satan was an angel of light but became fallen
Satan is God's enemy (he is God's angelical messenger or servant, c.f. Job, and Angel of death)

Originally Posted by Ohio

1. The Bereans were people in Berea in Acts 17 who heard the gospel, and instead of lynching the Apostles, decided to examine the scriptures.

2. The Bereans are/were also an apologist website which held the first Local church discussion board.

3. The Bereans are also folks like me born in Berea, OH (that is, until they moved the hospital to Middleburg Heights )

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Because I am a science teacher I am tuned in to every lab accident that takes place in a US HS...

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Thanks Ohio,
"The Berean believers were commended for examining the scriptures daily"
I've seen these guys referenced on this forum, but have never heard of them prior to this week - who are they?
Exodus16

Originally Posted by Ohio

Hi Exodus16.

I also have heard some ex-members advising us to "discard everything" from Lee and the LC. I had no idea where to begin. Even though I was saved before entering the LC's (beginning in Cleveland), probably 90% of my Bible knowledge came from Lee, either directly or indirectly via others. Much of what I learned is good solid Bible knowledge, and for me to discard it all, is to over-react as some have done and discard their faith also. Sadly, some members have become atheists, Buddhists, Shaman priests, etc.

The Lord told the disciples to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." He never instructed them to discard the whole of Judaism, even though He went to the cross for publicly exposing their hypocrisy. The Berean believers were commended for examining the scriptures daily, and the Thessalonians were instructed to "test all things, hold on to the good." Paul told the Romans to "prove by testing what the will of God is." John instructs us to "test the spirits." (Acts 17.11; I Thess 5.21; Romans 12.2; I John 4.1)

I have found these to be the more healthy course of action for us ex-members to go forward. Books like John Myer's Future and Hope is also valuable. This forum has also been immensely helpful.

Originally Posted by Exodus16

Thanks Ohio,
"The Berean believers were commended for examining the scriptures daily"
I've seen these guys referenced on this forum, but have never heard of them prior to this week - who are they?
Exodus16

Originally Posted by Exodus16

I grew up in the LCs with the LSM. It is rather difficult for me to just "discard" everything from WL. Many things were taught with the Bible or read into the Bible which I have picked up without realizing.

Originally Posted by Exodus16

I grew up in the LCs with the LSM. It is rather difficult for me to just "discard" everything from WL. Many things were taught with the Bible or read into the Bible which I have picked up without realizing.
I haven't come here to reject necessarily, but to examine.

Originally Posted by Nigel Tomes

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

Originally Posted by Gubei

During my over 25 years of Christian life, the interpretation of the Garden of Eden has been a big hurdle. It is very odd that most Bible expositors don't delve into the issue on the head, rather they focus on it's spiritual meaning.

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear KSA,

Thanks for your comments. I'd rather not speculate too much.
Once again there is no denying I'm less than the least.

- Gubei

Originally Posted by Suannehill

And is the the angel still posted to keep us out, or did this all disappear in the flood?

Originally Posted by Gubei

In addition, I don't see anyone answer my unanswered question - Are the Garden, the trees physical things? If so, why can we not find them in the Middle East now? Or other interpretation?

Originally Posted by Arizona

KSA,

So far I am with you in this discussion as far as it has gone. Man believed the lie and God's word was fulfilled, in that man did indeed die as God had said. This explains man's deadened spiritual condition, but it also makes man his own source of indwelling sin? (that is my question!). How do you explain "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"? It seems to me that although these things may not be a result of an "injected" satanic nature they surely seem to be a replication. Is that what you are saying? (reminds me of Plato's ideal forms). Forgive the mention of Greek philosophy but if you are familiar you may understand my thought more clearly.

Thanks for your comments.

Arizona

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear Arizona,

I'm on the same page with you.

In addition, I don't see anyone answer my unanswered question - Are the Garden, the trees physical things? If so, why can we not find them in the Middle East now? Or other interpretation?

In Christ,

Gubei

Originally Posted by Arizona

KSA,

So far I am with you in this discussion as far as it has gone. Man believed the lie and God's word was fulfilled, in that man did indeed die as God had said. This explains man's deadened spiritual condition, but it also makes man his own source of indwelling sin? (that is my question!). How do you explain "the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life"? It seems to me that although these things may not be a result of an "injected" satanic nature they surely seem to be a replication. Is that what you are saying? (reminds me of Plato's ideal forms). Forgive the mention of Greek philosophy but if you are familiar you may understand my thought more clearly.

Thanks for your comments.

Arizona

Originally Posted by KSA

The fall is very well explained in 2 Cor. 11:2-3. Here we see that 1) Eve was deceived, and 2) as the result her mind was corrupted. I think it is quite clear that Satan lied and man was deceived, and it led to corruption. It does not say here that Satan injected his nature or something.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

This Old Testament picture showed us vividly what happened and pinpoints the cause of the death of the people Israelites. The Israelite nation is a representative nation for all the people at the time this story was being written in the Bible. The Israelites in the Old Testament are actually "us" who have been bitten by snakes and transfused its venom into us which caused our death. Likewise, we all know that "snakes" signify "Satan", and perhaps, "venom" signifies "sin".

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

Man's eating the physical fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was a vivid illustration in the Old Testament how man's disobedience manifested and thereby corrupted him.

Brother Watchman Nee's teaching was very clear regarding this --

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

However, you have missed the essence of this event in the Old Testament which was rightly referred to by the Lord Jesus in His speaking in the New Testament. You have missed the serpent's venom that have been transfused to the Israelites. This venom that had been mingled in man's body caused their death. There was no death with the Israelites prior to venom's infusion to them by serpents. Only after the venom were injected or transfused to them that they started to die one by one.

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear Paul,

Thanks a lot. My next questions are as follows;

1. Was the tree of knowledge of good and evil

a. a physical thing with spiritual meanings
b. a figurative story for spiritual meaning (i.e. not a historical/physical event)

2. If your answer is a, how could a phsyical fruit make man fall? Is is that Satan hided himself or his "nature" into the fruit in order to get into man eventually? And why was the tree called "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" rather thatn "the tree of death", which could have been made more symmetrical with "the tree of life?"

3. If your answer is b, what spiritual entity does the tree of knowledge of good and evil stand for? (i.e. Satan, Satanic nature, death,....)

Judging from your past posts, I guess you would take anwer a

Many thanks once again for your help. - Gubei

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Numbers 21 is another scene which vividly points to what exactly what happened in the first fall of man. The Old Testament is full of repetitive illustrations which have meaningful spiritual truths that cannot be found in the New Testament.

Originally Posted by Arizona

Some teachers, ie Campbell Morgan, have taught that man was created a spiritual being, and that the fall was "spiritually literal" (those are my words). Man therefore "fell" to a lower realm where he lost the former consciousness of God's presence. Faith is called the substantiation of things unseen in the NT, so through faith God's presence is again consciously realized and man is restored to fellowship with the Divine.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Many thanks Gubei, for your post.

1. The scene in the garden of Eden was the first instance when man fell and corrupted by sin and death by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear all,

My another simple question. Why are all human beings sinners?

option 1. That is because per se all human beings have Satanic nature in them regardless their real sinful actions.

option 2. That is because all human beings have defected freewill (even though not sin), in turn leading them to act sinful things eventually.

option 3. That is because all human beings commit sinful actions in their life on this earth according to their freewill (undefected).

option 4. That is because all human beings are regarded as having committed sin of Adam, who is
the representative of human beings.

option 5. all of above statements.

Every option seems to have its own reasonable rationale so far....

- Gubei

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear Paul,

I'd like to ask some questions for clarification.

1. When did Isralites get infused with the venom (i.e. sin) first? When Adam fell in the Garden, or when Isralites were bitten by snakes in the wilderness?

2. If it was when Adam fell, to be more specific, is it when Adam doubted God's word (i.e disobedience) or when Adam ate the tree of knowledge of good and evil (i.e. physical eating of something)?

3 If it was when Isralites were bitten by sankes in the wilderness, how come non-isralites who have no biological connection with Isralites have to be declared as being sinners because of the incident in the OT? Is it because Isralites are the "representative" of all human beings? I'm very doubtful of that... Adam and Christ are two representatives of all human beings, though.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

KSA, I agree when you wrote "They looked at the brass serpent in faith and were saved." which is also much applicable to the present truth "In the same way when we look at Christ crucified in faith, we are saved."

However, you have missed the essence of this event in the Old Testament which was rightly referred to by the Lord Jesus in His speaking in the New Testament. You have missed the serpent's venom that have been transfused to the Israelites. This venom that had been mingled in man's body caused their death. There was no death with the Israelites prior to venom's infusion to them by serpents. Only after the venom were injected or transfused to them that they started to die one by one.

This Old Testament picture showed us vividly what happened and pinpoints the cause of the death of the people Israelites. The Israelite nation is a representative nation for all the people at the time this story was being written in the Bible. The Israelites in the Old Testament are actually "us" who have been bitten by snakes and transfused its venom into us which caused our death. Likewise, we all know that "snakes" signify "Satan", and perhaps, "venom" signifies "sin".

From my readings of this thread I can see that most of the posters are not holding the idea of "something" was transfused or injected into man after his fall, however, in this analogy made by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself displays a crystal clear event what had transpired. As I have mentioned earlier, there are spiritual things in the New Testament that cannot be perceived with our intellect but the Old Testament writing is very helpful for us to understand and realize what the Word of God is actually telling us.

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!

Originally Posted by KSA

I would like to say a few words about the brass serpent. First, we should realize that what actually healed Israelites in the wilderness was faith. They looked at the brass serpent in faith and were saved. In the same way when we look at Christ crucified in faith, we are saved. And now my main argument: if Satan is indeed present in human body, then how can he be destroyed by termination of his likeness? Everybody say that there was no Satan in the body of Jesus - Jesus came only in the likeness of the flesh of sin. Obviously this analogy of Satan being trapped in man and then taken to the cross does not hold water. There was no Satan in Jesus' flesh. Therefore, we are not talking here of some biological termination of Satan in human nature. I will touch upon how Satan was dealt with on the cross a bit later.

Originally Posted by KSA

Well, my objection to the term "sinful nature" is this. Nature is a substance. All substance is created by God. Therefore, substance cannot be sinful. Sin is not a substance, it is a perversion of substance. Sin does not have an ontological existence of its own. It is just the corruption of something created by God.

No, influence is not a substance. Substance is a matter, and influence is not.

Originally Posted by KSA

What would you say of these verses then: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5). "Man who is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble... who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!" (Job. 14:1, 4).

And I also believe that doubt and lie entered into man. I actually stated it earlier.

Originally Posted by KSA

Well, my objection to the term "sinful nature" is this. Nature is a substance. All substance is created by God. Therefore, substance cannot be sinful. Sin is not a substance, it is a perversion of substance. Sin does not have an ontological existence of its own. It is just the corruption of something created by God.



No, influence is not a substance. Substance is a matter, and influence is not.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The problem I have with this is that if DOUBT got into man, what got into Satan and where did it come from? Why could it originate in Satan but not originate in man?

Your theory thus seems to place Satan as a more fundamental, and thus more important, source than man, making man simply the playground for sorting out the conflict between God and Satan.

I don't really believe that. Though I believe God has something to prove regarding Satan, I don't think this is his primary purpose for creating mankind. Since man is really superior to angels in regards to God's purpose, man should be able to morally orginate anything Satan can, including, unfortunately, self-corruption.

So it seems your thought includes the point is that man could not have corrupted himself without Satan's help. And I'm not sure why you feel you should believe that.

Something did happen to man's nature at the fall. Something that gets passed along to children. But the idea that Satan's nature is somehow in man, as unsupported as it is by Scripture (the Bible says in numerous places that God is in us, why would it be coy about whether Satan is in us?), seems no more than a superstition.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Since man is really superior to angels in regards to God's purpose

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

SC believes something foreign did get into man in the Garden. That foreign element is related to Satan but certainly not him in the whole. SC is beginning to believe what got in was DOUBT.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Here's where I think the argument stands at this point.

KSA believes man was corrupted at the fall but nothing got "into" him. He just got corrupted by his choice to disobey God. From that point man's entire being -- body, soul, and spirit -- were deadened. Satan can enter man as he did with Judas, but this very fact proves he is not already in him.

SC believes something foreign did get into man in the Garden. That foreign element is related to Satan but certainly not him in the whole. SC is beginning to believe what got in was DOUBT. SC is also beginning to rethink his entire belief that each child is born a sinner. He is starting to think that each child, though conceived by and in sinful parents, gets a fresh shot in his own personal Garden ... which he blows. Always. Why? Because each child has a free will and an open ear and Satan gets busy whispering doubt into the child from day one. (He does this through surrogates including the doubting parents.)

Abraham is the hero of the OT because Abraham stopped doubting and returned to a life of belief.

Hey, I'm thinking aloud here so back off! I know someone is going to hammer me with verses proving that each child is indeed dripping with as much sin as afterbirth in the delivery room floor.

At any rate, the thing that interests me here is that maybe it was DOUBT, the anti-faith, that came in. Maybe this is Satan's "nature."

Somebody stop me here before I really get going.


SC

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Well, the debate about the beings in Gen. 6 is very much about the difference between all these terms. If he chooses to go with the fundamentalist view, why is he even arguing his point: they all agree with him. Is he prone to preaching to the choir?

At any rate, if he wants to be taken seriously by the crowd that believe the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 are fallen angels, not demons, he'd be wise to show that he knows the distinction they at least are making.

SC

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

YP,

Great verse. I hadn't thought about it in this light. Yes, don't blame Adam for you sinned too.

As for your next post, I agree the book of works being opened at the last judgment is interesting, but what is your point in stating it here?


SC

Originally Posted by KSA

I would also like to throw here Rom. 5:17-19. And look at the argumentation of Paul in Heb. 7:9-10. So when Adam sinned, we all sinned in him.

Originally Posted by YP0534

"But YOU also did the SAME yourself when given the chance, amigo?" For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, you know?

Originally Posted by YP0534

I've got more speculations along this line but this is probably more than I should have said already....

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

But now I am beginning to believe it is more complicated than I once thought. It does seem to me that newborns, naked as they are and unaware of it, are miniature Adams. The problem is, they are not born into Eden. They are born into a family of sinners with an environment that is tainted by sin.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

As for the two verses, I am familiar with them both. I have always taken them to mean we are born sinners. I never bought the Catholic "age of accountability" teaching. But now I am beginning to believe it is more complicated than I once thought. It does seem to me that newborns, naked as they are and unaware of it, are miniature Adams. The problem is, they are not born into Eden. They are born into a family of sinners with an environment that is tainted by sin. This might be how they are were conceived in sin ... a sinful environment, even a sinful womb.

Originally Posted by KSA

What would you say of these verses then: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5). "Man who is born of woman is of few days and full of trouble... who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? No one!" (Job. 14:1, 4).

And I also believe that doubt and lie entered into man. I actually stated it earlier.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

SC is also beginning to rethink his entire belief that each child is born a sinner. He is starting to think that each child, though conceived by and in sinful parents, gets a fresh shot in his own personal Garden ... which he blows. Always. Why? Because each child has a free will and an open ear and Satan gets busy whispering doubt into the child from day one.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me ask you this. If Lee had never taught it would you even consider it? Or if he had said it was false, would you feel the relief to drop it? Hard questions to speculate on, I know, but they are mostly rhetorical.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Besides, most fundamental theologians don't believe demons are essentially different than fallen angels. I have a book of basic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. And in case it's not known the overall widestanding belief by those in that school and I assume in like schools, is that demons and fallen angels are the same thing, except that demons are unconfined, not held "in chains" and thus are the ones which can influence us. So Hanegraaff really didn't need to define his terms bacause his belief is that demons are "free-roaming" fallen angels, which is the wide-standing belief.

Originally Posted by Igzy

As to demons and angels going by different names being evidence they are different, Satan goes by many names in the Bible but we don't consider him different beings.

Originally Posted by Igzy

My main problem with your argument was that you said Hanegraaff was not credible because he didn't know the difference between demons and fallen angels, and tried to use that as a means to diss his whole point.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

One last point. You are the one stating absolutes here. You said this whole idea of Satan's nature somehow entering man is "stupid." I merely am raising flags found in the Bible to show that things aren't all that simple. For me, the jury is still out on this issue.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

You had indicated, via Haanagraff, that angels can't do physical things like have sex. When I pointed out that they do indeed do physical things at times in the Bible (even to the point we're warned to be good in taking in hospitality since, who knows, it could be an angel), you drop your original objection and now say, "Of course."

Well, okay. I don't care how they got their physical bodies, I care only that there is scriptural proof that the lines of demarcation between angelic beings and human beings can at times be blurry.

And you have supported that point. Thank you.

SC

Originally Posted by KSA

Maybe it would be better to discuss Gen. 6 in a separate thread? In the subforum on teachings?

Originally Posted by Igzy

By the way, I have to point out that the above is just plain fallacious and beneath you. Whether angels or demons are different or not in no way weakens Hanegraaff's basic argument. For example, suppose Hanegraaff said "No car can travel over 1000 miles per hour. So a Ford Explorer cannot travel over 1000 miles per hour." You equivalent response to him would be, "Hanegraaff doesn't even know a Ford Explorer is really a truck, so his assertion is useless." That's about the speed of your argument above, no pun intended.

Originally Posted by Igzy

There's no solid scriptural ground for believing there is any difference between demons and fallen angels. That's Pembers teaching which Lee took and fed to us. I just don't see enough ground for believing it.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The answer, of course, is that God gave them those bodies temporarily. They weren't able to produce them on their own.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The answer, of course, is that God gave them those bodies temporarily. They weren't able to produce them on their own.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Amen!

Many thanks to you also...

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

There were true angel-men in the Bible ... Genesis 6. At least that's the interpretation I buy for the "sons of God" who took the "daughters of men" as wives. The result was giants and probably the trigger event for the Flood.

Then there is the story of Satan entering Judas. Not an angel-man, but a man possessed at least temporarily by an angel.

And then there's Peter who Jesus told, "Get the behind me Satan." Here it could have been somewhat figurative, but the fact is Jesus saw Satan's hand at least in Peter's words.

And of course who can forget Moses' terrifying experience of throwing down his rod and discovering it was inhabited by a serpent? Who'da thunk it? Not a human-angel mingling, but something quite close.

It appears there are levels of angelic-human mingling: body, soul, and maybe even spirit.


SC

Originally Posted by aron

Paul Miletus, I liked your inclusion of the Brass Serpent story. It certainly is salient to the discussion. The brass serpent has the form, but not the substance. Jesus had human form, but not sinful nature. So, is it possible for us, by God's grace, to choose the divine nature, not the fallen human nature, as the "substance" of our "person"? I think/hope so. Without that hope, what hope do I have? Thanks for the posted material; I liked it.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Ig,
While Hanegraaff made some interesting points (all quite refuteable), the fact that he couldn't even get this basic component right makes it a fairly useless piece of evidence.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I CORINTHIANS 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

If we accept that the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 were angels, v. 10 and the head covering rationale become much more meaningful.

SC

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Ig,

Another point. Why would God and two angels have eaten with Abraham if they aren't capable of corporeal forms? (In response to your quote: First and foremost, the notion that demons can "produce" real bodies ... Jesus assured His disciples that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39, NKJV)."

SC

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Ig,

Well, for starters it would be nice if Hanegraaff got the specie right. The argument is for fallen angels, not demons. Demons and fallen angels are clearly different beings with numerous scriptural examples showing their distinctions. G. H. Pember inferred that demons were the disembodied spirits of a preadamite race, a controversial assessment to be sure, but one that at least clearly shows that they were not fallen angels.

While Hanegraaff made some interesting points (all quite refuteable), the fact that he couldn't even get this basic component right makes it a fairly useless piece of evidence.

SC

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me emphasize that if being "children of the Devil" i.e. fallen humans, means we have Satan's nature, then by definition that makes us part angel, or angel-men.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Also, if we have Satan's nature, why do we only inherit some of his moral failings. Why don't we also inherit something of his angelic power? When God comes to dwell in us, we do inherit something of his divine power, the power to transcend, certain spiritual discernment, etc., which are more than moral strengths.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another argument against the LSM view of the fall is to ask how exactly Satan is in our flesh and how he is passed from generation to generation. Is he interwoven in our DNA somewhere? Will we ever find the "Satan gene?" Just where is he hiding?

Originally Posted by KSA

I do not like the word injection , I think that "influence" is a better word (biblical word is temptation). If something was "injected" into man, it was a lie and a doubt in God's word. All the rest was man's choice and his own responsibility.

Originally Posted by OBW

And while having some external thing — a little bit of Satan — injected into man is not clearly in opposition to scriptures, all of the relevant scriptures can be understood without such fact being assumed (in my opinion).

Originally Posted by aron

Gubei, I like your ideas on a "person" posessing "agency", or will, or the capacity to choose. I have long felt that only God has the capacity to act. Satan merely reacts. When we are in Spirit, we act. When we are being religious, with our scriptural rule books, we merely react. Only God is a "person". All other entities are either agents of God or agents of Satan, who by definition are "not". Question: do we act by "instinct", merely reacting, or by God's grace do we turn and open to the only One who "is"?

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

KSA,

By extension, your argument would appear to confirm the idea of modern psychology that everything ultimately is just a chemical imbalance. If we could just fix that, then the schizophrenic would become whole (I'll buy that) ... and the demon-possessed would be free (not willing to buy that).

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Perhaps it is simply that we are born into a realm that "doesn't exist" and thus, by nature, are born into sin - the lie.

Originally Posted by YP0534

It's just another small speculative step from here into real problems.

If Satan were created good, he must have gone bad, which means he was created imperfectly, which is obviously God's fault.

If it is the case that Satan's nature is evil, then God must have made him thusly, for he could not overcome his created nature to become what he wasn't, any more than gold could turn itself into clay.

I mean, I'm sure no one intends to be Satan's apologist but these speculations lead to some pretty thorny issues which are probably more than we can handle here during amateur hour.

I think someone has previously contended that Lee's doctrinal problems originated in unfamiliarity with orthodoxy. Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander....

Originally Posted by KSA

Well, my objection to the term "sinful nature" is this. Nature is a substance. All substance is created by God. Therefore, substance cannot be sinful. Sin is not a substance, it is a perversion of substance. Sin does not have an ontological existence of its own. It is just the corruption of something created by God.

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear KSA,

Thanks for your initiation. I'm sorry for not having participated in the past discussion in Bearean Forum. So please forgive me if I'm repeating the same thing.

1. I thought over your illustration of an "untuned piano." I think even though the untuned piano is not added with something, the untuned piano is of sinful nature as long as it gives us untuned sound. In other words, as long as a person has a defection of will, he himself is of sinful nature.

So isn't it better to delete "sinful nature" in your first conclusion?

Originally Posted by KSA

It is a very interesting article. I remember we discussed this matter in detail at the Bereans forum. I would like to mention here some of the conclusions I made when considered this topic.

1. There is no such thing as "sinful nature" or "sinful substance". Sin is not a substance, but a defection of will (according to Augustine). When Lucifer fell, he did not have any sinful nature or substance enter him. Sin is not a matter of substance, but of volition. When Satan seduced man, he did not inject into him substance - he effected his volition. Therefore, the fall did not added some other substance to human nature, but deformed human nature. We can compare the fall with the untuned piano. Piano originally was tuned to produce good music. But then it was untuned. It does not mean that some kind of nature entered it - it was simply disharmonized. Man was created a harmonious being. But fall disharmonized him.

2. The flesh in the Bible is ususally defined as a pattern of living, and not as some kind of substance. This pattern of living is shaped by the desires of our heart and body that are independent of and contrary to God.

3. Charles Fynney said that the fall of man was moral. He said that should it have been physical, man would not be subject to be judged by the law of God. If we sin against our will being compelled by some kind of nature, we are not to be judged. Only voluntary actions are judged.

I think that these points are enough to start good discussion.

Originally Posted by aron

Your observations are correct. As a recovering addict, and "recovery" (aa/na) regular, I see parallels all the time with "normal" people. But the meth addict has to see it because the "side effects" of his personality distortions will kill him. With others, they are overweight, or they shop too much, or they stress out on people at work, and they tell themselves they are okay, mostly, and don't face the thought/behavior patterns that are playing out.

Yes, the root problems are the same.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Jane:

Thanks for the thoughts and the story. I will pick up a copy of Neil A's book. On one hand, I think there is something particular going on with the stereotypical "addict" - on the other hand, I think it can do us a disservice by bracketing the "addict" behavior only to those cases where there is an obvious object of the addiction (like alcohol or whatever). Because, whether it is love for the bottle or love of self, sin operates in all of us the same way. It can be easy to say that since we don't do any of the really ugly outward behavior that we're okay. We're not.

Recently I have been fellowshipping with someone going through alcoholics anonymous. Upon reading some of their literature, I had the thought: geez, everyone should go through aa. Because our root problems are the same - even if we don't run to the bottle. We are liars. We want to hide when God calls us. We don't want to face the way we treat others and ourselves. We hide behind the things we're good at or the things we're comfortable in so that we don't have to face our lack. So we dive into the "meeting life" or we avoid certain people, or we stop praying, etc... As I have written before, I see sin as simply being the LIE - which came from the Father of Liars, the one who asserted there was something other than God. And there is nothing WE can do about our condition to "cure" ourselves. We need God - we need Christ, the one who condemned sin on the Cross. All of us and every day. Not just the ones who are caught in certain "classes" of sin. All of us and every day.

Whether the master (Satan) is within us or outside of us, the point is that his tool of bondage - Sin, the Lie - operates in our members.

Wretched folks that we are, who can deliver us? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

In Love,

Peter

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I think it can do us a disservice by bracketing the "addict" behavior only to those cases where there is an obvious object of the addiction (like alcohol or whatever). Because, whether it is love for the bottle or love of self, sin operates in all of us the same way. It can be easy to say that since we don't do any of the really ugly outward behavior that we're okay. We're not.

Recently I have been fellowshipping with someone going through alcoholics anonymous. Upon reading some of their literature, I had the thought: geez, everyone should go through aa. Because our root problems are the same - even if we don't run to the bottle. We are liars. We want to hide when God calls us. We don't want to face the way we treat others and ourselves. We hide behind the things we're good at or the things we're comfortable in so that we don't have to face our lack.

Originally Posted by Roger

Speaker,
If Satan was trapped in man so that he could be destroyed in the flesh, then wouldn't he have to have been indwelling the flesh of our Lord Jesus? Perish the thought.
Roger

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Short posts, lotsa dialogue, verse nuggets ... this is what I enjoy most.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I am not saying that you have an external master who "tells" you to do something. The essence of bondage is that you are forced to do what you do not want to do because the one forcing you has more power than you and also has the right to control you.

One question I had for years was how some Christians seem just start growing normally after they are born again, while others seem to struggle with bondage issues (alchoholism or other such addictive behaviors, longterm depression, etc.) and not grow much at all after years of being a believer. When I first read Neil Anderson's book The Bondage Breaker, I started to get some understanding of this in a way that made sense to me.

Thankful Jane[/FONT][/COLOR]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Further when I consider the incarnation I find it rather preposterous that the Holy Spirit would join himself with a body in which Satan dwelt to bring forth Jesus Christ.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I'm not sure it does no good. Personally, I find it terrifying enough to know that sin dwells in me and operations with the power of a law of nature.

Originally Posted by Ohio

SC, how interesting for you to use the chess analogy to explain God's wisdom in a mystery, I Cor 2.8, "for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Originally Posted by Igzy

The other side of you question, Peter, then, is if the teaching does no good, why bother with it?

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I don't disagree with the master/slave analogy. My response is along the same lines as my last response to you in the "Last Adam" thread (did you get a chance to look at that? I know you've been pretty swamped). I keep coming back to this and related topics because, the way you are articulating the experience is a view that has caused me much mental disorder. Really. Read my description of the "angst" I've wrestled with in the "Last Adam" thread. In specific response to you here, though:

What about the law of sin and death? I don't obey that law because I'll get a ticket or get lashes from my master - as if its the external law of a kingdom (which is what a strict and exclusive master/slave analogy would turn it into). I obey that law because it is within me and operates like a law of nature. I do even that which I do not want to do. So did Paul. It compels me. Its not because an external master orders me to. Its because something within me compels me to.

I don't care "where" Satan or sin dwells as far as the complete theology goes - and, as such, I don't really care if Lee was right or wrong on Satan dwelling in our flesh. And the fact that the law of sin and death operates within me did make me an automaton - at least until the law of the spirit of life freed me. As one who has been saved, I'm not automaton now either.

At any rate, thoughts on "the law of sin and death" as an internal force?

In Love,

Peter

P.S. Have you ever dealt extensively with an alcoholic? I think sin works the same way with all of us, but it is really stark and clear - less subtle - with someone with an outward addiction.

Originally Posted by KSA

SC, can you explain why for Christ to destroy Satan, it was necessary for Satan to be in man's flesh? This example with a trap is just another metaphor, but I would like to see a clear biblical ground for it.

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I agree that the sin is/was disobedience. But does this mean that I was not BORN sinful, but rather lost access to God only after my first actual act of disobedience (which, if I remember correctly, was at age 8 months )?

If not - that is, if I WAS born with and in sin, how is that possible? Bio-theology?

Originally Posted by KSA

Paul, let the jury judge.

I would only add that I did not tell that the tree of knowledge is the law (even though it is an idea worth considering). I used an example with the law to show you how Satan uses something good to bring in death. Now your verse: "letter kills, but the Spirit gives". Paul is not saying here that the law is the letter, and not the Spirit. In Rom. 7:14 Paul says that the law is spiritual, i.e. of the Spirit! But if we take the law by letter, not by the Spirit, the letter kills us. To take the law by letter is to come to the law for outward rules and miss Christ. Christ told Pharisees that they search the Scripture to find life, but miss Him of whom the law and the prophets testify.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

While I'm not sure if I agree with Lee or Tomes on this issue, I would like to point out that Lee's teaching about this had an important element which I think has been missing from this debate. He felt Satan's injecting of his nature into humanity was ultimately a huge mistake on Satan's part. By placing something of himself into mankind, the Satanic nature, could now be destroyed on the cross. Christ, in putting on the flesh, took on this human nature which, though Satan had no place in him, was in the line of Adam.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Most of my questions to you have not been answered. You just simply ignored them.

Originally Posted by KSA

The flaw in your logic is that you believe that the tree of knowledge of good and evil signifies death. It is a mere assumption without any biblical support. In my previous post I showed you how Satan uses something good to bring death. Yes, the tree of knowledge expresses an attribute of God as the Word says that man became like God, to know good and evil.

You know, Paul, debating with you becomes rather boring.. you cannot see obvious things.. probably because you have an agenda to defend a certain man's ministry, not the truth in the Word. I am really sorry for you.

Originally Posted by KSA

I read and did not find. I addressed your points, but you did not address mine, you just repeated your old arguments that had been already addressed by me.

PS. I would like to comment this statement of yours as this would serve me as an additional argument:



And the commandment... I found to bring death... sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me (Rom. 7:11). Here is says the law of God brings death - sin used it to deceive and kill. But does it mean that the nature of the law is death? Not at all! In verse 12 Paul says: "Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. In verse 13 Paul continues: "Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin... was producing death in me through what is good... Do you see it? In the same way Satan used something good (a tree of knowledge) to cause man fall. But the nature of the tree was good! I rest my case!

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Now, I believe there is a flaw in your statements:

• "God knows good and evil, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil expresses this attribute of God. This tree has nothing to do with Satan."
  
• "Man fell because he craved something that belongs to God, but he wanted it apart from God."

Do you really mean that one of the attributes of God is the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" which signifies death?

Originally Posted by KSA

The tree of knowledge gave man something that only God had - God said "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). Don't you think that this verse contradicts Lee's teaching that God is life, but knowledge of good and evil belongs to Satan? God knows good and evil, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil expresses this attribute of God. This tree has nothing to do with Satan. Satan tempted man to get something that belongs to God, just like he himself attempted to get something that belongs to God. Man fell because he craved something that belongs to God, but he wanted it apart from God. He wanted to become like God, just like Satan wanted to become like God. And this caused his death, just like it caused Satan's death.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Even the Bible inspired by God and the law given by God may be utilized in letters by Satan as the tree of knowledge.

Originally Posted by KSA

Well, Paul, you did not address my points at all, you just repeated the same old stuff that I have already dealt with. Very bad!

Originally Posted by KSA

Paul, it is you who are confused when you use the word "nature". I do not doubt that eating from tree caused death, but it does not mean that death is the nature of this tree. Please, prove that death was the nature of the tree (when God Himself said that it was good for food). You should very well know that premature knowledge can be dangerous, and even cause death. But it does not mean that death is the nature of this knowledge.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

While I'm not sure if I agree with Lee or Tomes on this issue, I would like to point out that Lee's teaching about this had an important element which I think has been missing from this debate. He felt Satan's injecting of his nature into humanity was ultimately a huge mistake on Satan's part. By placing something of himself into mankind, the Satanic nature, could now be destroyed on the cross. Christ, in putting on the flesh, took on this human nature which, though Satan had no place in him, was in the line of Adam.

Originally Posted by KSA

Paul, it is you who are confused when you use the word "nature". I do not doubt that eating from tree caused death, but it does not mean that death is the nature of this tree. Please, prove that death was the nature of the tree (when God Himself said that it was good for food). You should very well know that premature knowledge can be dangerous, and even cause death. But it does not mean that death is the nature of this knowledge. The tree of knowledge gave man something that only God had - God said "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). Don't you think that this verse contradicts Lee's teaching that God is life, but knowledge of good and evil belongs to Satan? God knows good and evil, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil expresses this attribute of God. This tree has nothing to do with Satan. Satan tempted man to get something that belongs to God, just like he himself attempted to get something that belongs to God. Man fell because he craved something that belongs to God, but he wanted it apart from God. He wanted to become like God, just like Satan wanted to become like God. And this caused his death, just like it caused Satan's death.

Originally Posted by OBW

On what do you base this statement? Is this not another of Lee's man-made parallelisms? I have seen no scripture that says this. The only references to the Tree of Life are in Revelation and you kind of need to have been "saved" before this time. Any other reference to the Tree of Life in the NT is a creation of Lee and not of the Word of God.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Well, this meandering exposition is meant to point out that Lee's view that Satan was injected into man's flesh wasn't just for the heck of it. It was ultimately the trapping of Satan so that he could be destroyed on the cross.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

I would like to point out that Lee's teaching about this had an important element which I think has been missing from this debate. He felt Satan's injecting of his nature into humanity was ultimately a huge mistake on Satan's part. By placing something of himself into mankind, the Satanic nature, could now be destroyed on the cross.

I have pondered this point many, many times. I liken Satan's blunder in Eden to the sacrifice a chess player may make of a pawn

Originally Posted by djohnson

Setting aside biotheology I'm not convinced Satan is omnipresent in the first place. How could he dwell in so many people at once?

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Igzy:
In my rambling, I must have not made my point clear. ..

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Dear Jane:

I don't care "where" Satan or sin dwells as far as the complete theology goes - and, as such, I don't really care if Lee was right or wrong on Satan dwelling in our flesh.

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

To understand this, we only need to understand the basic truth of the gospel. We were born in bondage to Satan because of Adam's transgression. We are slaves to sin and under the power of an evil master. Our Daddy was a slave, so we are born into slavery, into Satan's dark kingdom. We work for the evil master and earn the wages of death. The "devil made me do it" is true in the sense of the master/slave relationship, not because Satan inhabits our our body. He is stronger than us and he has the legal papers showing ownership since the day Adam chose to obey him. An evil master has power over a slave's body but does not live in it.

...

There is much more scriptural support for what I am presenting than for the automaton idea.

Thankful Jane

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I agree that the sin is/was disobedience. But does this mean that I was not BORN sinful, but rather lost access to God only after my first actual act of disobedience (which, if I remember correctly, was at age 8 months )?

If not - that is, if I WAS born with and in sin, how is that possible? Bio-theology?

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

I agree that the sin is/was disobedience. But does this mean that I was not BORN sinful, but rather lost access to God only after my first actual act of disobedience (which, if I remember correctly, was at age 8 months )?

If not - that is, if I WAS born with and in sin, how is that possible? Bio-theology?

Originally Posted by djohnson

Seems to me that Lee's theology and that of his parrot PaulM is: by eating the banana the sinful nature a/k/a Satan got into man and was somehow passed on down to us via the banana cells. Perhaps we should call this biotheology.

In fact, as has been pointed out several times the sin was disobedience.

Originally Posted by KSA

The tree of knowledge gave man something that only God had - God said "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). Don't you think that this verse contradicts Lee's teaching that God is life, but knowledge of good and evil belongs to Satan? God knows good and evil, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil expresses this attribute of God. This tree has nothing to do with Satan.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

If the fall of man has to do with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, then, the rise of man has to do with the Tree of Life.

Originally Posted by KSA

Herein lies the problem: death is not the result of the tree - there is nothing that proves it. Death was the result of disobedience, and the Word is clear about this. For as by one's man's disobedience many were made sinners... (Rom. 5:19). Death cannot be the nature of the tree of knowledge, because 1) it was planted by God, and God is not a source of death, 2) the tree was good for food (Gen. 3:6).

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Again, you are discussing a "fallen man" or "soulish man" in this respect. We are talking about the first Adam or Eve who had not been fallen yet at the time when the serpent approached the woman. Just ask yourself, when did the first Adam die? As a hint, he died when "sin" entered into him as "death".

Originally Posted by KSA

Before Eve ate from the fruit, she 1) had doubted God's word, 2) believed Satan, 3) decided to break God's commandment, 4) and acted upon here decision. It was sin! Look how Paul described the fall: as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds be corrupted... (2 Cor. 11:3). So the fall here is described as the corruption of mind through deceit. In her act we see lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life (1 John. 2:16).

Originally Posted by KSA

You have to prove from the Word that this difference - Lucifer being angel and Adam being a man - is significant in our understanding of the fall. The fall is primary a corruption of will - both Lucifer and Adam had a free will, in this way they were no different.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

The nature and result of the tree of life are both life because it is a tree of life. But the nature and result of the tree of knowledge of good and evil are both death because knowledge, good, and evil are all of death and bring in death. Anything that is not life is of death and results in death. Actually, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the tree of death; yet it is not called the tree of death, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Death is not only behind evil; it is also behind knowledge and good. The title of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is subtle because Satan always likes to conceal himself. Satan has the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Since the tree of knowledge of good and evil is actually the tree of death, it signifies Satan.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

I totally disagree with you on this one.

The "man" being discussed in James 1:13-15 is a corrupted man, the "man" after the fall of the first Adam. This man being discussed by James is a "fallen man" or "soulish man" where "sin" reigns in him, the "body of sin" is totally in connivance with the "old man", and the "old man" which is our "self" is always in agreement with "sin" to make sins. Please pray-read Romans 6:6.

Eve's mistake would not result in "death reigning in man" should she had not eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Though man and Lucifer are both creatures of God, however they are totally different.

Originally Posted by KSA

Now you have to prove that the tree of knowledge is Satan. I have two reasons to doubt it: 1) If the tree of knowledge was Satan, then there were two Satans in the Garden - serpent and tree; 2) tree of knowledge was planted by God (Gen. 2:9).

Originally Posted by KSA

Another thing: you say that when man ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, satanic nature entered man. But notice: Eve sinned before the fruit actually got into her. She looked at the fruit, desired it and and stretched her hand to get the fruit - it was already an act of sinning - desire was conceived and gave birth to sin - and it was before she actually ate the fruit.

Originally Posted by KSA

The same happened to man. God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes (Eccl. 7:29). The verse from James that you cited confirms my point. James 1:13-15: When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Satan can entice us. He can tempt us with something that appeals to our desires, but there is not foreign nature that makes us sin. So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable... (Gen. 3:6). What cause the fall of Eve was her own desire! It was stirred up by Satan, but it was her own desire.

Originally Posted by KSA

Dear Paul, we can play with different metaphors, but metaphors are useful only when they are based on the Word. Now let's see at the biblical picture of the fall. You know the law of the first occurrence that establishes a principle. The first one to fall was Lucifer. Now can you tell me what kind of bacteria did he catch? Or who injected sinful nature into him? What does the Word say about his fall? "You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, till iniquity was found in you... you became filled with violence within, and you sinned... Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty... You corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor...(Ez. 28:15-17). Satan fell because iniquity was found in him, it did not come from outside. It was not injected into him. No sinful nature was added to him. He corrupted his own nature.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

The newly cooked food is fresh but when exposed to air for some time the food gets spoiled. If I can remember it correctly there are some germs or bacteria that are added in the food and this is the reason the food is no longer fresh but spoiled.

Man's whole being (body, soul, and spirit) was corrupted because of their sin of disobedience which was fully illustrated by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil which signifies death or Satan.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

It can be noticed that Nigel Tomes stressed in his writings that “Satan dwells in man’s body.” However, if you will consider the local church’s Beliefs and Teachings, it was said that “the nature of Satan was injected into man’s body and transmuted it into the flesh.” Likewise, Brother Witness Lee taught that “Satan is in our flesh.”

Between the statements of the local church Beliefs and Teaching and Brother Witness Lee, both of them had indicated the word “flesh”; whereas, Nigel Tomes had indicated the word “body”.

Is there any difference between the words “flesh” and “body”? I believe there is a vast difference between these two words as Brother Witness Lee used it.

Brother Witness Lee was very careful in distinguishing between the “flesh” and the “body” since he knew exactly the difference between the "body" and the "flesh". God created man from the dust (body) and breathed in his nostril the breath of life (spirit) making man a living soul (soul). However, upon man’s fall the body was transmuted into FLESH; the soul into SELF; and the spirit was deadened. Therefore, according to Brother Witness Lee's teaching, the "body" refers to the body of man before his fall; the "flesh" refers to the "corrupted" body of man after his fall. This concept is very clear in Brother Witness Lee's writings:

Originally Posted by djohnson

PaulM why does the knowledge of good and evil = Satan?

Originally Posted by KSA

My bottom line was that at the fall no foreign nature was added to man. The fall was the corruption of human nature. It affected whole human being - spirit, soul and body. It was spiritual, soulish and physical.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

KSA,

So if it's just the "inclination" to sin that we inherit, is that a physical inheritance? Is it encoded in my DNA somewhere? If so, are we to understand the Garden tale as pure allegory, that is, as not having literally happened at all?


SC

Originally Posted by KSA

This sin distorted human nature, and now by birth we inherit the inclination to sin. However, sin is not some other nature that was added to human nature.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Arizona,

Your implication is that something negative did get into us at the fall, correct? So if not Satan's nature, what was that? Am I reading you right?

This "something" would have to be transmittable via generation, that is, through birth. So it must be something physical. So what was this something? That is a thought worthy of pursuit, I believe. If not Satan's nature, as NT indicates, what is it?

Or was Lee right about Satan's injection into the human flesh?

SC

Originally Posted by Arizona

KSA

Do you feel inclined to add more to this in answer to Speaker's question re your thought on original sin, total depravity, etc?

As YPO stated, I felt like we were just getting to the good part !!

I do not disagree with your statement above but I am not sure it is the whole story. It seems to me that mankind is more than merely "broken", and there remains a source to be identified. That source, to me, must indeed be something foreign to that which was created by God, and is labeled "good".

Thanx
Grace to you.

Arizona

Originally Posted by Arizona

KSA

Do you feel inclined to add more to this in answer to Speaker's question re your thought on original sin, total depravity, etc?

As YPO stated, I felt like we were just getting to the good part !!

I do not disagree with your statement above but I am not sure it is the whole story. It seems to me that mankind is more than merely "broken", and there remains a source to be identified. That source, to me, must indeed be something foreign to that which was created by God, and is labeled "good".

Originally Posted by KSA

No, I am not saying this. Every human is born with inborn perversion of human nature. Sin is a defect in human nature, not some kind of satanic foreign nature.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Thanks KSA. Perhaps, Steward will come now this time...

Originally Posted by KSA

Paul, as I understand, you quoted from NIV, see my earlier comment regarding this translation.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

I have listed a lot that includes the phrase "sinful nature" but was deleted

Originally Posted by KSA

No, I am not saying this. Every human is born with inborn perversion of human nature. Sin is a defect in human nature, not some kind of satanic foreign nature.

Originally Posted by KSA

Give me at least one instance, please.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

So, KSA, are you saying you don't believe every human is born fallen? Explain your stance here on total depravity, original sin, etc.

SC

Originally Posted by KSA

No, I am not saying this. Every human is born with inborn perversion of human nature. Sin is a defect in human nature, not some kind of satanic foreign nature.

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

So, KSA, are you saying you don't believe every human is born fallen? Explain your stance here on total depravity, original sin, etc.


SC

Originally Posted by KSA

This topic was extensively covered at the other forum. My argement there was that sin is not some kind of substance that was added to our nature. There is no "sinful nature" as all nature (substance) was created by God, and God is not a creator if sin. Sin is a perversion of our own nature - deviation from God's intent. When Lucifer fell, he was not spoiled by some other nature injected into him - iniquity was found in him. His fall was the perversion of his own nature. Likewise, our fall was caused by our choice - it was the perversion of our nature, not injection of some other substance.

Originally Posted by KSA

YP0534, herein lies the key: it is NIV. In NIV "sinful nature" is not a literal translation. Behind this "translation" there is a biased theological view. RecV, for example, does not contain this phrase, as well as Darby, NASV, KJV, NKJV and other literal translations. We need Stewart here with her view of "apostate translations".

Originally Posted by KSA

YP0534, herein lies the key: it is NIV. In NIV "sinful nature" is not a literal translation. Behind this "translation" there is a biased theological view. RecV, for example, does not contain this phrase, as well as Darby, NASV, KJV, NKJV and other literal translations. We need Stewart here with her view of "apostate translations".

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Perhaps you would agree with me that in the Bible that angels has manifested as man. Even the Lord Jesus became flesh, a man, a human being. The Holy Trinity is composed of the Person of God the Father, the Person of God the Son, and the Person of God the Holy Spirit.
AMEN..
It seems that "The Spiritual Man" of Brother Watchman Nee had been neglected by a lot of posters in this Forum which gives a very clear and enlightening wisdom about this subject.

Originally Posted by KSA

Give me at least one instance, please.

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Yet the Word of God is replete of the phrase "sinful nature". Why is that?

Originally Posted by Kat

For example he says,15 “If the fact of indwelling sin is unveiled to us, we will see that we have…the very personification of Satan as sin, making its home in our flesh.” At other times, however Bro Lee “pushes the envelope.” He can say,16 “In a sense, the sin that dwells in our flesh…is Satan incarnated. Satan as sin is in our flesh.” The caveat that sin is the “virtual personification of Satan” is absent from Bro. Lee’s writings. Instead, equivalence is asserted. “Sin itself is Satan himself,” who is a “living person,” he declares. His statement, in context, reads:17

can anyone show in the scripture where it says satan is a living person... nooooooooo.. because he is an angel not a human being... this is all a lie..

Originally Posted by KSA

2. The flesh in the Bible is ususally defined as a pattern of living, and not as some kind of substance. This pattern of living is shaped by the desires of our heart and body that are independent of and contrary to God.

Originally Posted by KSA

1. There is no such thing as "sinful nature" or "sinful substance". Sin is not a substance, but a defection of will (according to Augustine). When Lucifer fell, he did not have any sinful nature or substance enter him. Sin is not a matter of substance, but of volition. When Satan seduced man, he did not inject into him substance - he effected his volition. Therefore, the fall did not added some other substance to human nature, but deformed human nature. We can compare the fall with the untuned piano. Piano originally was tuned to produce good music. But then it was untuned. It does not mean that some kind of nature entered it - it was simply disharmonized. Man was created a harmonious being. But fall disharmonized him.

Originally Posted by awareness

Okay Shawn, I'll slow down. We have made more of both Nee and Lee than we ought. Yes, Nee and Lee are/were good brothers in the Lord, but my gosh, should we devote ourselves to them? Why, when devoting to Christ is some much better.....

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin