Local Church Discussions - View Single Post - Nigel Tomes

Trapped · 07-05-2019, 06:32 PM

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

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

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

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

=====

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

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

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

This is literally even grammatically backwards.

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

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

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

07-05-2019, 06:32 PM	#273
Trapped Member Join Date: Mar 2018 Posts: 1,523	Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology I wanted to add one extra layer to this thread, which mostly deals with Lee's assertion that Satan was "injected" into our flesh. Lee also said Satan was in our soul (underlining mine): "... Through his fall, man received Satan’s evil thought, feeling, and will into the inward parts of his soul. For this point we need to read Genesis 3:1, 4, and 5 to show that Satan’s thought was injected into man’s mind, his feeling was injected into man’s emotion, and his will was injected into man’s will. This means that man’s soul was stolen by his fall; it was taken over by Satan." (Basic Lessons on Life) That takes it to a whole 'nother level......which I also don't agree with. ===== Back to Satan being in our flesh, from the same book: "Through man’s eating the tree of knowledge, Satan entered into man and became the very sin within man. To see this point we need to read Romans 7:14b, 17, and 20. In verse 20 Paul says, “If what I do not will, this I do, it is no longer I that work it out but sin that dwells in me.” Romans 7, especially in verses 8, 11, 17, and 20, indicates that sin is a person, the embodiment of Satan, and is living and acting within us. Sin is a personification of Satan. Actually speaking, the sin within us is Satan. At least we can say that the sinful nature within man is the nature of Satan. The sin within man refers to his inward sinful nature. This inward sin is just Satan himself indwelling our corrupted body, that is, our flesh." Lee says "sin is a person, the embodiment of Satan" and "sin is a personification of Satan". This is literally even grammatically backwards. You cannot say "sin is the embodiment or personification of Satan" because Satan is already a "person" (a "being" is more accurate) and a person cannot be further personified. Only an abstract thing can be personified; a person cannot. You cannot have an abstract thing (sin) be the personification of a being. You can only have, by definition, a being be the personification of a thing. This means grammatically (although maybe not necessarily doctrinally) you CAN say "Satan is the embodiment or personification of sin" because that's the correct usage of the word. You CANNOT say that sin (an abstract) is the "personification" of an already living being. It just doesn't work that way. In other words, you don't say "Jocularity is the personification/embodiment of Mary." You say "Mary is the personification/embodiment of jocularity." The person has to be the personification!! Lee says "sin" (a non-person) is the personification!!! Long story short: it's nonsense no matter how you cut it.