[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Jo I'm taking an intellectual approach to this topic. I am not good for discussing thoughts and opinions over a cup of tea, maybe others are. I don't post links or appeal to authorities to argue. To argue, in my view, would be to do the opposite (ignore credible evidence, argue ill-formed opinions only). I do that because I don't think we can arrive at the truth of the matter by being ignorant (of CARM, Gill, Ellicott etc). At least, I can show that my opinion is informed by others who have some credibility.

This is exactly what appealing to authority is. My point is I'd rather hear your own thoughts, the thoughts that stay with you according to your own study of scripture rather than someone else's views. Otherwise it all seems a bit too impersonal if you know what I mean. As a Christian, scholars aren't an authority for me. If you claim to be a Christian, Christ should be your only teacher. You should not look to any man to dictate truth for you.

So far I believe we cannot reach an agreement on this topic if we have fundamentally different views about God and Satan. Your statement "Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. " reminds me of the view that Satan is God's servant rather than his enemy. Am I correct that you approach these topics as a Jew or a Messianic Christian/Jew or perhaps 7th Day Adventist? Are you willing to share your denominational background so I know where you are coming from?

I can't recall anywhere in scripture stating Satan can steal anything from God. It does however say that God's word will not return to him void.

I also don't know how you came to the conclusion that Satan = servant of God through that statement but no I do not think that. Slave would perhaps be more accurate, not servant.

I'm not a Jew nor involved in a particular denomination.

However the question of this thread I believe is "did part of Lee's theology come from Kingdom/Latter Rain theology?". Comparing theology won't answer that question. I would say no unless there is some credible link between the two groups, historically speaking. There are similarities but also clear differences.

The question wasn't whether the LC's teaching came from any other theology. I was noting the similarities between them and potential influence. The question was whether LC is dominionist or not and judging by your comments you freely admit to it then, correct?.