|
|
|
07-09-2008, 04:37 PM
|
#1 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,824
|
Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
THE ENEMY WITHIN—SATAN IN THE BELIEVER’S BODY— LSM’s UNORTHODOX SATANOLOGY 1 The author has many fond memories of Bro. Witness Lee’s messages. Initially comprehension was difficult. As a foreign student in the US Midwest, American accents posed a problem for me. Bro. Lee’s accent was no exception. Nevertheless I had to admire the tenacity of a Chinese gentleman in his 70s determined to minister to Americans in their own language. At my first conference (1972 in Akron, OH) the phrase “God’s economy” was about the only term I could discern. A few years later the situation was markedly improved. Having become acclimatized to various accents, I began to enjoy the “bird’s eye view” of God’s purpose unfolded from the whole Bible. The church-life in the Midwest was vibrant and growing; Bro. Lee’s conferences in major cities were highlights. In 1975 Bro. Lee visited Chicago where I was a graduate student. That conference 2 on The Flesh & the Spirit was remarkable. Despite his age, Bro. Lee was energetic and animated. His ministry was striking. It was also controversial, dealing with Satan’s relationship with mankind generally and believers in particular. The assertion that Satan personally indwelt believers set off alarm bells within me. Nevertheless older, more-experienced brothers didn’t seem to be fazed by such striking claims. Perhaps they attributed it to Bro. Lee’s penchant for hyperbole. Maybe they were overawed, hearing a co-worker of Watchman Nee, the well-known symbol of Christian resilience who was faithful unto death in a communist prison camp. Whatever the reasons, it didn’t seem to register on other people’s radar. Anyway, objections to Bro. Lee’s teachings were met by slogans 3 like, “We don’t care for doctrines!” Other conferences and Life-study trainings followed. A steady stream of LSM books accumulated, burying that controversial topic among 400+ Witness Lee books. A reconsideration of the Recovery’s core teachings brought this topic back to the forefront. Here we re-examine the question—does Satan indwell the believer’s body? We ask--Did Bro. Witness Lee merely teach that Sin as the “virtual personification of Satan,” indwells mankind? Or did he allege (in addition) that the person, Satan himself, inhabits man’s fallen flesh? Are people (including believers) Satan-possessed? Before proceeding, we offer some preliminary points. 4 Bro. Lee’s Messages—Preacher’s Hyperbole OR the “Interpreted Word”? Among the thousands of believers who benefited from Bro. Witness Lee’s ministry there are diverse reactions to any reevaluation of his teachings. A number question the value of this whole exercise; some consider it redundant from the start. A few of these views which I’ve encountered may be summarized. Some gloss over Bro. Lee’s extreme statements as simply a typical preacher’s hyperbole. J. Gordon Melton expressed this attitude, saying,5 “Lee is prone to use hyperbole, over-statements to emphasize a specific point upon which he is preaching.” “He didn’t really mean that,” they seem to say, “Bro. Lee was merely trying to swing the pendulum to the other side; he was turning the cake” (Hos. 7:8). This attitude produces a double-standard. Essentially we are exhorted not to judge Bro. Lee based on his published writings. Rather we are counseled to “discern what he really meant.” Of course this becomes a highly subjective exercise—who can say what he really meant? Yet Bro. Lee critically evaluated other Christian’s views based upon what they wrote. A related view implicitly regards Bro. Lee’s orthodoxy as axiomatic. Apparent divergences of Bro. Lee’s teaching from the faith’s orthodox tenets are minimized and eliminated. To achieve this accommodation, more conventional statements by Witness Lee are offered to counter-balance his extreme statements as if they somehow “trump” more problematic quotes. If necessary Bro. Lee’s published writings are “shoe-horned” into the mold of orthodoxy via semantic and linguistic gymnastics of Olympic proportions. However, placing Bro. Lee’s teachings in a safety zone where they cannot be challenged also produces a double standard—other Christian’s teachings are critiqued, but not Bro. Lee’s own writings. Lastly today in LSM’s federation of churches Bro. Lee’s writings are treated as virtually infallible and inerrant, to be accepted and affirmed without question. This attitude, promoted by LSM’s “blended brothers,” is the antithesis of that emphasizing preacher’s hyperbole. According to the latter, Bro. Lee occasionally overstated his case, therefore more “radical elements” of his teaching should be discounted to arrive at the “balanced position” he really meant to achieve. In contrast, according to LSM’s “blended brothers,” Bro. Lee’s every word was the up-to-date speaking of God’s unique oracle. Nothing was an over-statement; there is no hyperbole. Hence his writings constitute the “Interpreted Word.” In LSM circles Bro. Lee’s “Interpreted Word” is venerated 6 above the Bible itself. Consequently his writings become the canon, immune from evaluation against Scripture. Is the Canon of Scripture the Recovery’s Normative Standard? Since Watchman Nee’s era, the Lord’s recovery has proclaimed that “the Bible is our unique standard.” This means we ascribe canonical and authoritative status to the written Word of God in Scripture, which we confess to be the norm for Christian life and teaching. If we take this stand seriously we cannot award Bro. Lee (or anyone else) a “free pass” based on either their “preacher’s license for hyperbole,” their axiomatic orthodoxy or the elevation of their “interpreted word” above Scripture. Bro. Lee’s published writings must be evaluated against the canon of Scripture. A precedent for reevaluating Bro. Lee’s teaching exists in LSM’s own publications. LSM’s journal Affirmation & Critique (A&C) was established by Bro. Lee to expose the deficiencies of Christianity. He talked about “dropping bombs on Christianity” via this publication. LSM’s A&C routinely critiques and denounces 7 the theologies of other Christians. For example an entire issue 8—over 120 pages— condemns “the leaven of heaven.” Yet, in A&C’s pages, Witness Lee is given carte blanche, his teachings are only affirmed, never critiqued.9 This practice leaves LSM vulnerable to the charge of operating a double standard. While critiquing others, LSM and its federated churches should accept a similar evaluation of their own teachings. Here we seek to evaluate Bro. Lee’s published teachings about Satan’s indwelling against the standard of God’s Word. Sin, the “Virtual Personification of Satan,” dwells in Man's Flesh In 1978 the “co-workers in the Lord’s Recovery” set forth the 10 Beliefs and Practices of the local churches. This landmark document addresses the question: “Do you teach that Satan dwells in man’s body?” The co-workers’ answer, in its entirety, reads:11 “When man fell by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin, the nature of Satan, was injected into man's body and transmuted it into the flesh. The fall was not simply an outward transgression; it was also an inward poisoning and contamination of our very being. According to Romans 5 through 7, sin functions in our members as the virtual personification of Satan. Therefore, we may say that Satan as sin dwells in man's flesh. This does not mean, however, that Satan has no objective existence apart from man, for the Bible clearly refers to him as the spirit of the power of the air. Furthermore, the Bible reveals that fallen men are children of the Devil and that the Devil is their father (1 John 3:10; John 8:44). To be children of the Devil is to have the life and nature of Satan. In the sense of having within our flesh the life and nature of Satan we say, according to God's Word, that Satan in the form of sin dwells in man's flesh.” This reply needs unpacking. The co-workers did not explicitly state that the person, Satan, dwells in man’s body. In fact, their reply seems to deny the assertion that Satan (the person,) inhabits people’s flesh. The term, “person” does not appear in their answer. The postulated relationship is indirect. It is “sin, the nature of Satan” which “was injected into man’s body” at the fall (Gen 3). Romans 5-7 ascribes actions to “sin,” like a person, hence sin is personified. 12 The co-workers describe “sin” 13 as the “virtual personification of Satan.” Their use of the ambiguous adjective, “virtual” gives them plenty of “wiggle room.” It could be understood as suggesting that sin in man’s flesh is not actually Satan; rather (in terms of effect) it only acts as such; it is “virtual,” not actual. 14 They affirm fallen people are “children of the devil” (their father) in that they possess “the life and nature of Satan.” Hence, the co-workers conclude that “In the sense of having…the life and nature of Satan we say…that Satan in the form of sin dwells in man's flesh.” Notice it is not Satan, the person who allegedly inhabits people. Rather, Satan’s “virtual presence” in mankind is by means of his “life and nature.” The co-workers say their assertion “Satan as sin dwells in man's flesh…does not mean…that Satan has no objective existence apart from man.” They affirm that Satan exists as a person, an existential reality in the universe. All Bible-believing Christians subscribe to this view. However, that is not the central issue. The crucial question is—does LSM teach that the person, Satan exists within mankind in general and within the believers in particular? “The Sin that dwells in our Flesh…is Satan Incarnated”—W. Lee Most Christian scholars and Bible-readers would probably accept the co-workers’ explanation of sin as the “virtual personification of Satan” in man's flesh. They might quibble with this description, but still consider it as orthodox. At times Bro. Lee’s own exposition approximates this position. 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 “Sin itself, according to the Bible's revelation, is Satan himself. When sin came into the created man, Satan came into him...One day, Satan got into man. Sin is Satan getting into you…Sin is a living person. This living person is Satan. Satan outside of you is not sin. When Satan gets into you, that is sin. Satan in you is sin. We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh…because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.” Bro. Lee has ventured beyond the co-workers’ statement. It is no longer merely something of Satan, his “life and nature” within mankind; rather it is Satan himself who (allegedly) “gets into you.” Moreover, sin is described not as the “virtual personification of Satan;” instead, Bro. Lee declares that Satan as a “living person” is “in our being.” As a result (Bro. Lee says) we are Satan-possessed, in that “the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.” Along the same lines, he declares 18 “the sin that dwells in our flesh…is Satan incarnated.” Moreover, Satan’s personality has impacted man’s soul. The “real significance of man’s fall” (Bro. Lee says) is that 19 “through man’s fall Satan’s personality became one with man’s soul, and he [Satan] has taken into man’s body…” Hence, allegedly, man’s flesh is “fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin,” this sin is “Satan incarnated,” and “Satan’s personality became one with man’s soul.” Moreover, 20 “Man has been inwardly constituted with Satan and has become a satanic thing. Man has been mixed with Satan.” “There is such a Person as Satan in this Universe…This Person…is in their Flesh”—W. Lee Bro. Lee declares that Satan, as a person, inhabits people’s flesh. He states, unequivocally, 21 “Some people do not believe that there is such a person as Satan in this universe. They do not know that this person, whom they do not believe exists, is in their flesh…Satan is in man's flesh.” Clearly, in context, “this person” refers to Satan, whom (Bro. Lee alleges) “is in their [the unbelievers’] flesh.” The statement, “Satan is in man's flesh,” is certainly striking; it has shock value. Bro. Lee appears to assert that God’s enemy, Satan, is personally present in mankind’s flesh. Yet apologists for Bro. Lee attribute these statements to the preacher’s hyperbole. They point out that “sin” in Romans is indeed personified. Moreover, the role Bro. Lee attributes to Satan is indirect; it is “Satan as sin” who has “fully possessed” man’s flesh. Such defenders might argue that Bro. Lee’s teaching (as presented above) does not differ significantly from the characterization of sin as the “virtual personification of Satan” in man's flesh. However, Bro. Lee’s other teachings are not so easily dismissed as oratorical over-statement. “Three things: Sin, Death and Satan…are all Together in the Flesh”—W. Lee The co-workers carefully nuanced statement says, “Satan in the form of sin dwells in man's flesh.” Strictly speaking, this implies that Satan’s indwelling is indirect, via sin; Satan dwells in us to the extent that sin inhabits us. According to the co-workers, Satan does not indwell us independently of sin. However, Bro. Lee goes beyond this, “pushing the envelope.” Although he talks about “Satan as sin,” he also refers to Satan, sin and death as three distinct (though related) entities inhabiting man. Bro. Lee concludes, 22 “Now we can see these three things: sin, death, and Satan. They are all together in the flesh. The flesh is the ‘meeting hall’ of sin, death, and Satan. They always meet here, and their meeting lasts so long that they would never have a dismissal. Many of us spend our time attending the meetings of the church in the church meeting hall. Satan also has a meeting hall. The meeting hall of Satan is our flesh. Do you like to see Satan? Just come to your flesh. Satan is here. Satan is always in the flesh with sin and death.” Here Bro. Lee talks of three distinct entities—Satan, sin and death—all co-existing in man’s flesh. According to this statement, it is not merely Satan in the form of sin (or as death) indwelling human flesh; rather it is Satan and sin and death—all three entities—who inhabit man’s flesh. Satan’s indwelling is direct and distinct from that of sin. Based on the above exposition, what is the direct answer to the question--“Do you teach that Satan dwells in man’s body?” To me the implied answer (an honest response) is a simple affirmative—“YES!” Dual Indwelling—“No Longer I, but Christ” & “No Longer I, but Satan” The Bible explicitly tells us that Christ lives in us (2 Cor. 13:5). Not only do we have His life (1 John 5:12) and nature (2 Pet. 1:4), but we also have the Person of Christ indwelling us (Gal. 2:20; Col. 1:27). Scripture states that believers have the Person of Christ, not merely His personification, indwelling them. Based on his teaching of Satan in the flesh, Bro. Lee declares that the person of Satan also indwells believers. Moreover, he draws a parallel between the indwelling of Satan and that of Christ, saying 23 “We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh…Paul used the phrase no longer I twice. In Galatians 2:20 he said, ‘It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me.’ In Romans 7 he said, ‘It is no longer I…but sin that dwells in me.’ Sin is another person within us…This person is in my flesh. Paul said, ‘I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, nothing good dwells’ (v. 18)…because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.” Along the same lines he says, 24 “In Galatians 2:20 Paul said, ‘It is no longer I...but...Christ who lives in me.’ Within me, the person, there is another Person—Christ. Also within me, that is, in my flesh, there is another person. This person is sin, and sin is Satan. Sin is Satan dwelling in us…” Bro. Lee draws a parallel between Christ and Satan; both, are “persons” living within us. Admittedly here it is “Satan as sin” who is said to indwell us. Nevertheless, the emphasis is on two “persons” indwelling us. Bro. Lee says “within me, the person, there is another Person—Christ;” he continues saying, “within me, that is, in my flesh, there is another person…Satan.” Certainly these two “other persons” are ascribed different locations, nonetheless, two persons—Satan and Christ—live in us. Believers have a dual indwelling—of Christ and of Satan! Almost a decade later, in 1984, Bro. Lee reiterated this doctrine, saying,25 “Sin who is Satan still remains in our flesh where he lives, works, and moves, even after we have been saved. The sin in our flesh is a person, just as the divine life in our spirit is a Person. This Person who is our life is Christ (Col. 3:4)…and Satan as sin is in our flesh.” Again a parallel is drawn—Sin and God’s life in the Christian are not merely forces, nor just personifications; each is a definite “person.” The Person of Christ is life in the believer’s spirit; the person of Satan is Sin in his/her flesh. Christ, the Person in the believer’s spirit is no problem, but what about Satan (the person) in his/her flesh? Bro. Lee asserts that the person, “Satan still remains in our flesh…even after we have been saved.” The obvious question arises—is this doctrine of Satan’s personal indwelling consistent with Scripture? Moreover, is this a “healthy teaching”? It is not merely an abstract doctrine. How will this teaching influence believers who embrace it and seek to apply it? What is its potential impact on believers who lack self-esteem, have a poor self-image and who are inclined towards asceticism? What drastic measures might they contemplate to “deal with Satan in their flesh”? Isn’t this a dangerous doctrine? Three Persons—Satan, Self & the Savior—and Man’s Three Parts The tripartite man has been a basic tenet of the Recovery since Watchman Nee’s era. This framework is also applied to other theological issues. Bro. Lee relates the three persons—our own person (our self,) Christ and Satan—to the three parts of mankind (body, soul and spirit). He says,26 “Man has two organs: the body as an outward organ and the spirit as an inward organ. In between these two organs is our being, that is, the human soul (1 Thes. 5:23)…The body is the outward organ for us to contact the material things. Our spirit is the inward organ for us to contact God. Through the fall, the devil, Satan, came into the outward organ, the human body. But in our regeneration, the Lord Jesus came into our inward organ, our human spirit. We also need to realize that 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. This kind of truth has been fully missed today.” Notice that Satan is described as a “second person” inhabiting the believer. His role is parallel to that of Christ, the “third person.” Once again Satan is not merely described as “personified;” it is not “Sin, the virtual personification of Satan.” Bro Lee talks explicitly about Satan as a person, on par with Christ, the Person. Both “persons”—Christ and Satan—allegedly indwell the Christian. Satan inhabits his/her flesh and Christ his/her spirit. But is this symmetry Scriptural? Again, applying the question—“Do you teach that Satan dwells in man’s body?”—to Bro. Lee’s writings—the implied answer (an honest response) is a simple affirmative—“YES!” The Believer’s Being—the Battleground between God and Satan? Bro. Lee was a skilled Bible expositor, adept at integrating different aspects of Scripture. The exposition above integrates mankind’s choice between Christ and Satan with the doctrine of the three-part man. Bro. Lee also draws a parallel between this internal struggle and Adam’s choice in the Garden of Eden. He says,27 “The Bible is thoroughly consistent. It starts with a man in front of two trees, the tree of knowledge and the tree of life (Gen. 2:9). Eventually, in Romans we see that the tree of knowledge got into man's flesh, and the tree of life got into man's spirit. The two trees are within us Christians….We need to see that these two trees are within us. We are not in front of the two trees but in between them. Outwardly, we have the tree of knowledge in our flesh. Inwardly, we have the tree of life in our spirit. Now the whole situation depends upon whether we would go to the tree of knowledge or turn to the tree of life…My burden is that we would see that Satan is in our flesh and Christ is in our spirit. We have an enemy in our flesh and a dear Savior in our spirit. What shall we do? Would we turn to our enemy and go along with him? Would we coordinate with him or come to Christ and be one with Him?” According to Bro. Lee, Adam’s dilemma in Eden is reproduced within every believer. Adam’s choice between the Tree of life and the Tree of Knowledge is depicted as selecting either God or Satan. Bro. Lee says Adam 28 “forsook the tree of life that denoted God as life and turned to the tree of knowledge that signified Satan as the source of death.” Due to Adam’s selecting the Tree of knowledge, 29 “he received Satan into himself.” Adam’s options are now replicated in the believer’s choice between two persons—“Christ in our spirit” and “Satan in our flesh.” According to this view, each Christian is (internally) a miniature “Garden of Eden.” This presentation successfully amalgamates elements of LSM’s theology. However, in the process were extra-biblical elements introduced? In particular it assumes Satan himself entered Adam’s race through the fall and now personally indwells the believer’s body. But, does the Bible teach this? Is Satan himself located in the flesh of mankind, including believers? Is the cosmic struggle between God and Satan now being played out internally within the believer? Put differently, is every believer’s inner being the battleground for personal conflict between Christ and Satan? Are both these antagonists personally present within believers? Is this what the Bible teaches? Or does this “go beyond what is written” in Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6)? From Personification to Person—An Unwarranted Step in LSM’s Satanology We have presented the more radical aspects of LSM’s Satanology. Are they are consistent with Scripture? First consider mankind in general. Does the Bible support the notion that all mankind is subject to satanic possession? Does Satan himself indwell mankind’s fallen flesh? Bro. Lee’s main line of reasoning is that Sin is personified (in Romans) and therefore the person implied is Satan himself. For example he says,30 “Romans 7 tells us that sin is in our flesh, and in Romans 7 sin is personified. This chapter shows us that sin can deceive and kill people (v. 11), and that it can dwell in people and do things against their will (vv. 17, 20). It is quite alive (v. 9) and exceedingly active; so it must be the evil nature of Satan, the evil one, dwelling, acting, and working in fallen mankind. Sin in Romans 7 is a person. This person is the source of sin, the origin of sin. This Sin who is Satan still remains in our flesh where he lives, works, and moves, even after we have been saved. The sin in our flesh is a person…Satan as sin is in our flesh.” Bible expositors agree that Sin is personified in Romans. 31 Few deduce that Sin equals the person of Satan. Bro. Nee expounded Romans several times. Yet I have not found any place where he equates “Sin” with Satan. Bro. Nee tells us ‘Sin’ 32 “refers to the sinful nature within man. The sin within man is a kind of power, a law, an inclination that continually…compels man to go down the path of sin.” Most Bible scholars understand Scripture’s personification of ‘sin’ as a literary device; they do not deduce that it implies a specific, identifiable person. The Bible personifies wisdom (e.g. Prov. 1:20; 2:2; 7:4; 8:1). Yet Scripture does not identify wisdom with a definite person. Death and Hades are also personified (1 Cor. 15:26; Rev. 6:8; 20: 13-14). The four horsemen in Revelation 6 are identified as the gospel, war, famine and death. Personification does not necessarily imply a definite person whom we can identify. Bro Lee confirms this saying, concerning the four horsemen (Rev. 6,) 33 “The four riders are not persons but personified things.” In 1 Cor. 13 love is personified (vv. 4-7); in this case, Scripture says “God is love” (αγάπη agape, 1 John 4:8). There is a biblical basis for equating agape-love with God. Yet, even here, Bro. Lee defines agape-love as “the nature of God’s essence,” not His Person. 34 Moreover, we ought to distinguish the latter case from the present one. The fact is Scripture does not specifically identify Sin as Satan. It is an unwarranted extrapolation to transition from personified “Sin” to the person of Satan. The leap from sin personified to Satan (the person) is without scriptural justification; it goes “beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). The Bible affirms that sin dwells within fallen mankind; but it never says that Satan himself indwells all members of the human race. Scripture tells us that Satan is a created being; he is a fallen angel. As a created being he is not omnipresent like God. To teach that Satan personally indwells the whole human race—all 6 billion people—amounts to making Satan omnipresent over the whole inhabited earth! It gives Satan more credit than is his due! The four gospels show us people can be demon-possessed; they are possessed by Satan, not directly, but through his myriad of surrogates. The Lord cast out such demons by the Spirit (finger) of God, bringing God’s kingdom (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20). However satanic possession via demons does not describe all humanity; it applies to a minority. The Lord condemned the Jewish religious leaders, saying, “you are of your father the devil” (John 8:44) Is this a basis for Satan’s indwelling the human race? Notice that Jesus spoke to the Jews seeking to kill Him (8:40). He was not speaking to the whole Jewish race or to mankind in general. It was those Jews contemplating His murder who Jesus called “sons of the devil,” because Satan was a murderer from the beginning (8:44). Elsewhere the “tares” are described as “sons of the evil one” (Matt. 13:38). But Scripture tells us “tares” signify false believers, not the whole human race. A minority of unbelievers feign genuine belief; only they qualify as “tares”—“sons of the evil one.” Closer to the mark is 1 John 3:10, which says “In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest.” Here those who are not “children of God” are called “children of the devil.” This provides a basis to say all unbelievers are “children of the devil.” As such they have the devil’s life and nature. However, does this mean that the devil, Satan himself, personally inhabits them? I think not! There is a clear distinction between the two. Humanly we have our parents’ “life and nature,” yet we don’t have their “person” within us; our parents exist as persons separate and distinct from us, their children. The fact that unbelievers are called “children of the devil” means they have the devil’s life and nature (i.e. the sin nature). It does not necessarily imply that the Devil personally inhabits them. “Satan is only once said to have entered into a person—Judas” Where does Scripture locate Satan? A few verses are particularly relevant. First, the Apostle John’s epistle tells the “little children, “greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). The One “who is in you [the believers] is the Triune God. “He who is in the world” is Satan. Here, Satan (the person) is specifically located in the world (cosmos) in contrast to God, who indwells the believers. According to this verse, 1 John 4:4, Satan is not located in the believers or in their flesh; Satan dwells in the world (cosmos). The Apostle John did not say—“Greater is He who is in your spirit than he [Satan] who is in your flesh.” That statement of LSM’s theology is significantly different from Scripture. Second, the Lord told the Church in Pergamos, “I know where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is.” He also used the phrase, “among you where Satan dwells.” (Rev. 2:13). Notice that Satan dwelt among the believers in Pergamos; he was not described as dwelling within them. Satan’s close proximity is ascribed by Bro. Lee to this church’s union with the world. He says, 35 “Satan’s throne is in the world, the place where he dwells and the sphere of his reign. Since the worldly church entered into union with the world, she dwells where Satan dwells.” According to Bro. Lee, the place “where Satan dwells” and the sphere of Satan’s reign is the world (cosmos, 1 John 5:19). Bible scholars agree with this. This is not a basis for Satan’s indwelling. Third Scripture only identifies one person as indwelt by Satan; that is Judas, the betrayer. During the last supper, we are told that “Satan entered into Judas” (Luke 22:3; John 13:27). J. Stafford Wright notes 36 “Satan is only once said to have entered into a person, i.e. Judas.” This is a counter-example to LSM’s teaching about Satan’s indwelling. Stated rhetorically--If Satan (the person) indwells everyone’s flesh, Satan would not have needed to enter Judas; he would already be there! Fourth the Lord referred to casting out Satan in the context of demon exorcism (Matt. 12:22-28). When Jesus cast out demons by the Spirit, the Pharisees attributed his exorcism to “Beelzebul, the ruler of demons” (i.e. Satan, v. 24). Jesus responded, “if Satan casts out Satan…how will his kingdom stand?” Here casting out demons equals casting out Satan. Watchman Nee comments on this passage,37 “wherever the Lord went, Satan was cast out…Satan could not remain where the Lord was.” Based on this case we can say that demon-possessed people are Satan-possessed. However, strictly speaking, it is not Satan himself, but his surrogates, the demons who occupy people. Moreover, the Bible records specific cases of demon possession; not everyone was demon-possessed. The whole human race does not need Satan cast out of them through demon-exorcism. Satanic possession of people through demons is exceptional; it is not the rule. Scripture does not say that Satan (the person) indwells all mankind by this means. LSM’s expositors also appeal to Matthew 16 where Jesus addressed Peter as Satan. Jesus rebuked Peter, saying “Get behind me Satan…” (Matt. 16:23). Does this mean that Satan (the person) was incarnated within Peter? Or does it imply that Peter’s good-hearted suggestion, that Jesus avoid the cross, matched Satan’s purposes? Most Bible-expositors conclude the latter; W. Foerster says, 38 “The point is that Peter is playing the same role as that played by Satan at the temptation.” Even if we accept the notion that Satan was “incarnated” within Peter at that moment, it is a quantum leap to extrapolate from this to say that Satan personally indwells all mankind! Again, Satan, as a created angelic being, is limited; he is not omnipresent. Orthodox Satanology 39 What do Christian Bible teachers say about Satan? Briefly they teach that Satan is a fallen archangel, the “god of this world (age)” (2 Cor. 4:4). Though extremely powerful, Satan (like other angels) is not omnipotent, omniscient, nor omnipresent. He cannot be everywhere at once (omnipresent). However, Satan is the “prince of the power of the air, the ruler of the spirit working in the unbelievers” (Eph. 2:2). This aggregate, impersonal spirit (the totality of evil angelic forces) operates in the “sons of disobedience.” Hence unbelievers are in Satan’s kingdom. However, God in His salvation transferred the believers out of Satan’s kingdom of darkness into God’s kingdom (Col. 1:13). Hence saved believers are no longer “sons of the devil;” they have become “children of God” (1 John 3:10). Orthodox Bible expositors do not teach that Satan (the person) indwells believers. Scripture declares explicitly that Christ dwells in the believers (Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27); however, the Bible never says that Satan personally inhabits the believer’s body. Rather the person of Satan exists outside of us and distinct from us (believers). He is not in us (1 John 4:4,) but in the world (the cosmos) which is his sphere of influence (1 John 5:19). Also Satan (the person) does not directly tempt each of us simultaneously. He is chief of a host of demons who make Satan’s kingdom seem ubiquitous. Satan works indirectly through his demon hosts and the world system to exploit the sinful nature within us (Rom. 7:18; Gal. 5:19-21). We are tempted when fleshly lusts (from our sinful nature within us) respond to the Satanic forces and the world system outside us (James 1:14-15). The inward sin nature is dealt with by Christ’s cross and the crucifixion of the “old man” (Gal. 2:20; 6:14; Rom. 6:6). By the Lord’s empowering and God’s armour believers can withstand Satan in spiritual warfare (Eph. 6:10-18); they overcome the evil one (1 John 2:13). Does Satan Personally Indwell Believers? “Satan still remains in our flesh…even after we have been saved”--W. Lee The most contentious point of LSM’s Satanology is the claim that Satan (the person) indwells the believer’s body. Bro. Lee asserts that 40 “the sin that dwells in our flesh…is Satan incarnated.” He alleges that 41 “Satan is in our flesh and Christ is in our spirit. We have an enemy in our flesh and a dear Savior in our spirit.” Moreover, he specificallyrelates this to the person of Satan, not merely to the sin nature. It is not merely “Sin as the virtual personification of Satan;” rather it is Satan, the person. Hence, Bro. Lee declares that 42 “as Christians, we have three persons.Thefirst 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. This kind of truth has been fully missed today.” In saying, “This kind of truth has been fully missed today,” Bro. Lee implies that Christianity is deficient in neglecting this “truth” of Satan’s personal indwelling the believer’s body. Yet this doctrine was developed by extrapolating from Scripture’s personification of “sin” to the person of Satan. But the Bible’s personification does not necessarily imply that a definite person is indicated. Wisdom, the gospel, war, famine, death and Hades are all personified in the Bible, without being linked to a definite person. This unwarranted step is “going beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6). Scripture says “greater is He [the Triune God] who is in you than he [Satan] who is in the world” (1 John 4:4). The Bible testifies that believers possess God’s life (1 John 5:11-12) and divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4); they also have Person of Christ indwelling them (2 Cor. 13:5; Rom. 8:10; Gal. 2:20; Col 1:27). It does not say that the person, Satan himself personally indwells them. LSM’s Speculative Theology about the Sexual Transmission of Sin In this context, Bro. Lee develops a speculative theory of the sexual transmission of sin. He grapples with the problem of how Jesus Christ could take on human flesh when Satan as sin indwells humanity. His solution asserts that the sinful nature is transmitted via the male line. Bro. Lee says, 43 “One day the Word became flesh. Remember that Jesus was not born of a human father, but of a human mother (Matt. 1:18). His humanity is flesh; however, His humanity is not of the male, but of the female. Our flesh is a sinful flesh because it is of the male with the female. But the flesh of Jesus is only of the female, not of the male; therefore, His flesh is not sinful. Our flesh is not only flesh but sinful flesh, but the flesh of Christ, having nothing to do with the male, is not sinful flesh.” Genetically, females possess two X-chromosomes, males both X & Y. Essentially this theory assumes “sin” is linked to the male Y-chromosome; sin is virtually a sex-linked gene. Yet the Bible never says this. Scripture says that “through one man [Adam] sin entered the world” and all people were “constituted sinners” (Rom. 5:12, 19). It doesn’t say how the sinful nature is transmitted. LSM’s Negative View of the Believer’s Body versus the Bible Bro. Lee’s teaching about Satan’s indwelling conveys an overwhelmingly negative view of the believer’s body. He asks, “Do you like to see Satan? Just come to your flesh. Satan is here. Satan is always in the flesh with sin and death.” He also says, “We have to realize where Satan is in our being. He is in our flesh…because the flesh is fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.” According to this doctrine, the believer’s body is Satan-possessed, “fully possessed, taken over, by Satan as sin.” It would not be surprising if embracing this doctrine led some believers to despise and denigrate their bodies. Yet, the Bible presents another, positive attitude towards our physical bodies. Scripture describes the believer’s body as a “temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 6:19) and as “members of Christ” (1 Cor. 6:15). The Apostle Paul told the Corinthians your “body is a temple of the Holy Spirit withinyou, whom you have from God” (1 Cor. 6:19). In terms of LSM’s Satanology, this raises the question—would God allow Satan to personally inhabit His temple--the believer’s body? Wouldn’t God first cast Satan out before taking up residence there Himself? Watchman Nee says, 44 “Wherever the Lord went, Satan was cast out…Satan could not remain where the Lord was.” Moreover, if the believers’ physical bodies are “members of Christ,” (1 Cor. 6:15) how could they be “fully possessed, taken over, by Satan”? Wouldn’t that make them “members of Satan,” rather than of Christ? Yet the Bible never says this! In fact Romans 8:11 speaks of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us, giving life to our mortal bodies. Hence, Bro. Nee says, 45 “even though the body is not yet redeemed, it no longer has to be a frustration to God’s will.” The Bible indicates that the Lord values our physical bodies; He will resurrect and transfigure them, conforming them to His glorious body (1 Cor. 15: 51-54; Phil. 3:21). 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 NOTES: 1.We use “LSM” as a short form to describe the writings of Brother Witness Lee and the “blended brothers” who presume to be his successors. Hence LSM’s Satanology refers to the published teachings of Bro. Witness Lee and the “blended brothers” related to Satan, his person & work etc, contained in the publications of Living Stream Ministry (LSM). Living Stream Ministry (LSM) is the publication work (originally called The Stream publishers) established by W. Lee to publish his writings and which publishes related materials, for example, The Ministry magazine and Affirmation & Critique. As is customary, the opinions expressed in this article are those of the author alone. They are not necessarily the views of any other elders, workers, brothers, sisters, church or churches with which he is associated. 2.Bro. Witness Lee’s conference in Chicago, IL took place from May 30 through June 1, 1975. The edited messages were published under the title, The Flesh and the Spirit, by Living Stream Ministry (LSM) in February, 1994. Page references are to this edition. There is no statement to the effect that, “These messages have not been reviewed by the speaker.” Hence, we presume that the published messages have been reviewed and approved for publication by the speaker, Bro. Witness Lee. Quotations used in this article fall within the “fair use provisions” of copyright legislation. 3.Slogans like “We don’t care for doctrines” appear frequently in songs written during the late 1960s and 1970s. For example, “We don’t care for the doctrines, we don’t care for the forms; we don’t care for opinions, regulations or norms. We don’t care for the doctrines which will kill us dead, Hallelujah we are free in our spirit instead!” Another example is--“No doctrines or forms that you have to learn to come and meet with us, just enjoy the Lord Jesus” Lyrics like these were published in various Song supplements. They are frequent enough not to require other documentary verification. “Get out of your mind, get your spirit in gear” (also lyrics from a song) expresses another popular concept in the 1970s church-life. 4.Readers who wish to go directly to the main topic of this piece can skip the next two sections and go directly to the section entitled: Sin, the “Virtual Personification of Satan,” dwells in Man's Flesh 5.J. Gordon Melton, An Open Letter Concerning the Local Church, Witness Lee…, (1985) p. 10 The Institute for the Study of American Religion, Santa Barbara, CA. 1985 6.An example of equating Witness Lee’s teaching to the Bible is provided by one “blended brother” who proclaims, “Many times [Brother Lee] would remind us to say, ‘The Bible says,’ not ‘Brother Lee says,’ even though what he spoke was simply what the Bible speaks.” [EM, The Ministry, Vol. 9, No. 6, (June 2005) p. 179, emphasis added] The statement—“what he [Witness Lee] spoke was simply what the Bible speaks”—makes Bro. W. Lee’s teaching equivalent to the Bible. This concept is being conveyed from LSM’s podium. However, no Bible expositor “simply speaks what the Bible speaks.” It is the expositor’s understanding & interpretation. One example of the “blended brothers” use of the phrase “the interpreted word” is: “we must recommend the use of the Life-studies and the Recovery version. We need to spend time to dig into the interpreted word of God…” [Minoru Chen, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3, (March 2005) p. 55 emphasis added] In this context the role of the Life-studies and footnotes is emphasized; “We all need to be helped through the Life-studies and Recovery version with the footnotes to see the intrinsic significance of the word of the Bible. The collection of footnotes in the Recovery version is a precious gem. The practical way to be educated and thus to be reconstituted with the truth is with the tools of the Life-studies and Recovery version with the footnotes.” [Minoru Chen, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3, (March 2005) p. 53] Consider also the following statements by LSM-President, Benson Phillips: “Today we have the Bible in our hands, but not many believers understand the Bible. It is closed to them. However, in the Lord’s recovery, we have the Bible that has been properly translated. The recovery version is probably the best translation available. We also have the ministry of the age. Through the ministry of the age, the Lord has continued to further unveil His word. The ministers of the age have interpreted and given the sense that is in the Word. Today we not only have the Bible; we also have the ministry that interprets the Word of God and gives the sense of the Word.” [Benson Phillips, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3 (March 2005) p. 117] Benson Phillips continues by making some striking exclusive claims: “In Nehemiah’s time they had the Word, and they had the interpretation. They were given the sense of the Word, entering into its intrinsic significance. Today we have the same. This takes place only in the Lord’s recovery. Everything in the publications circulated among Christians today is old. However, in our publications everything is new. The Word is opened; every page opens up the Word along with its intrinsic significance. Only here can it be said that there is such a deep and real opening of the Word.” [Benson Phillips, The Ministry, vol. 9, No. 3 (March 2005) pp. 117-8, emphasis added] We note also the exclusive claims, “only in the Lord’s recovery”, “only here” etc. 7.The list of Christian authors, scholars and Church-leaders whose works have been reviewed and denounced in LSM’s Affirmation & Critique includes: Warren Wiersbe, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, Bill Hybels, Philip Yancey, Charles Swindoll, Charles Colson, Bruce Wilkinson, Rick Warren & Gordon Fee. The antagonistic attitude of LSM’s “blended brothers” towards the writings of Christians “outside the Recovery” is exemplified by the following quotes: “The books in Christianity are full of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology, not to mention error in many cases. We are not part of organized Christianity.” [MC, The Ministry, Vol. 9 No. 3, March 2005, p. 36] “Everything in the publications circulated among Christians today is old. However, in our publications everything is new.” [BP, The Ministry, Vol. 9 No. 3, March 2005, p. 118] As a specific example, consider the following denunciation of Rick Warren’s book, The Purpose-driven Life: “…The Purpose-driven Life was written by an ingenious church-growth pastor. …according to what the Lord has shown us, what these books present is merely methodology and philosophy. This is not what we need.” [MC., The Ministry, vol. 8, no. 7, (July/Aug. 2004,) p. 92, emphasis added] 8.“The Ultimate Consummation of God's Economy: Heaven or the New Jerusalem?” Affirmation & Critique, Vol. V, No. 2, April, 2000 (entire issue) 9.The asymmetry between the standards applied to other Christian authors by LSM’s Affirmation & Critique and their “kid-glove” handling of the teachings expounded in Bro. W. Lee’s book, Incarnation, Inclusion & Intensification exemplifies this statement. If LSM’s Affirmation & Critique subjected the writings of Bro. W. Lee to the same standards of evaluation which they apply to other Christian authors wouldn’t they critically examine the Scriptural basis for the “three stages” and “three becomings” in Incarnation, Inclusion & Intensification? Wouldn’t they address the speculative nature of the chronology it proposes? Instead they adroitly avoid these issues, giving W. Lee “a free pass,” a carte blanche affirmation. 10.Beliefs and Practices of the local churches, by “the Co-workers in the Lord's Recovery” © 1978 Living Stream Ministry 11.Question 10, “Do you teach that Satan dwells in man’s body?” in The Beliefs and Practices of the local churches, Living Stream Ministry, Anaheim, CA, 1978, p. 18 12.Bro. W. Lee is not alone in asserting that that “Sin” in Romans is personified. For example, W. Gunter says, “Sin is almost a personal power which acts in and through man (refs.)” [W. Gunter in Colin Brown (ed.), Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, p. 581]. James D. G. Dunn points out “the striking personification of ‘sin’ in Romans.” [James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 111]. Dunn also says, “In Rom. 5:12-8:3…’sin’ appears repeatedly as a personified power.” [James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pp. 111-2]. 13.The distinction between “sins” (plural, i.e. trespasses, mistakes, wrong-doing) and “sin” (the fallen nature, power etc) (e.g. in Romans) has been clear since Watchman Nee’s time. See for example, Chapter 1, “Sin, Sins and the Sinner” in The Gospel of God (1) Watchman Nee, Collected Works, vol. 28. We take this distinction as clearly understood. 14.The American heritage Dictionary offers three definitions of “virtual” (adj.): “[1] Existing or resulting in essence or effect though not in actual fact, form, or name: the virtual extinction of the buffalo. [2] Existing in the mind, especially as a product of the imagination. Used in literary criticism of a text. [3] Computer Science Created, simulated, or carried on by means of a computer or computer network: virtual conversations in a chatroom.” Dictionary.com offers the following note on the latter use: “When virtual was first introduced in the computational sense, it applied to things simulated by the computer, like virtual memory—that is, memory that is not actually built into the processor. Over time, though, the adjective has been applied to things that really exist and are created or carried on by means of computers. Virtual conversations are conversations that take place over computer networks, and virtual communities are genuine social groups that assemble around the use of e-mail, web-pages, and other networked resources.” According to Dictionary.com possible meanings of “virtual” (adjective) include “being such in power, force, or effect, though not actually or expressly such.” Today the adjective “virtual” is employed in contexts like virtual reality (a computer-generated simulation; it is not the reality) or a “virtual pet” (a digital gadget which needs to be “fed” vs. an actual pet, a dog, cat etc.) Yet, as pointed out above “the adjective has been applied to things that really exist and are created or carried on by means of computers. Virtual conversations are conversations that take place over computer networks…” Hence, whether the adjective “virtual” implies that the reality exists and is involved is ambiguous. 15.Witness Lee, Life-study of Romans, Message #39, p. 455 16.W. Lee, Life-study of Romans, Message #39, p. 455 17.Witness Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.1, p. 10, emphasis added 18.W. Lee, Life-study of Romans, Message #39, p. 455 19.W. Lee, Basic Lessons on Life, Lesson Five, p. 39. The title of Lesson Five is “The Real Significance of Man’s Fall.” The “focus” of the lesson is described (immediately after the Outline) for the benefit of leaders-teachers, as “Focus: Through man’s fall Satan’s personality became one with man’s soul, and he was taken into man’s body to be sin working as evil in man’s fleshly members.” (emphasis added) 20.W. Lee, The Kingdom, pp. 65-6 21.Witness Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.1, pp. 10-11, emphasis added 22.Witness Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, p. 12, emphasis added 23.Witness Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.1, p. 10, emphasis added 24.W. Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.2, p. 18 emphasis added 25.Witness Lee, God’s New Testament Economy, p. 43 26.W. Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.2, p. 24 emphasis added 27.W. Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.2, pp. 24-25, emphasis added. Other Bible-expositors recognize the allusion to Genesis 3 in Paul’s discussion of sin in Romans; yet they don’t draw the conclusion that ‘sin’ is Satan himself. James D. Dunn points out that, “In [Romans] 7:8-11 sin is likened to a living being (the serpent of Genesis 3) or a cunning enemy which seizes the opportunity…” [James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 112]. 28.W. Lee, Life-study of Romans, Message #10, p. 115 29.W. Lee, Economy of God, p. 107 30.W. Lee, God’s New Testament Economy, p. 43, emphasis added 31.For example, W. Gunter says, “Sin is almost a personal power which acts in and through man (refs.)” [W. Gunter in Colin Brown (ed.), Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 3, p. 581]. James D. G. Dunn points out “the striking personification of ‘sin’ in Romans.” [James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 111]. Dunn also says, “In Rom. 5:12-8:3…’sin’ appears repeatedly as a personified power.” [James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, pp. 111-2]. Other Bible-expositors recognize the allusion to Genesis 3 in Paul’s discussion of sin in Romans; yet they don’t draw the conclusion that ‘sin’ is Satan himself. James D. Dunn points out that, “In [Romans] 7:8-11 sin is likened to a living being (the serpent of Genesis 3) or a cunning enemy which seizes the opportunity…” [James D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, p. 112]. 32.Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 43, p. 551 33.W. Lee, Revelation 6:2 note 2, RcV. emphasis added 34.In his Conclusion of the New Testament (vol. 1) Bro. Lee presents 29 points “in plain words” related to “God—His Person,” and 10 points “in parables & signs.” [W. Lee, Conclusion of the New Testament (vol. 1) messages 1 – 6] None of these include God is Love. That point (along with God is Life and God is Spirit) is included under “the nature of God.” [e.g. see Conclusion of the New Testament (vol. 1) p. 67]Hence “God is Love” is classified by W. Lee as an attribute of God’s nature, not an aspect of His Person. 35.W. Lee, Revelation 2:13 RcV. note 1. 36.Colin Brown (ed.), Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3, p. 473 The relevant Scripture references are John 13:27 “And at that moment, after the morsel, Satan entered into him [Judas]. Jesus therefore said to him, ‘What you do, do quickly’.” John 6:70-71 “…Was it not I who chose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil. Now he spoke of Judas…” Luke 22:3 “And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot and was of the number of the twelve” 37.Watchman Nee, Collected Works, vol. 50, p. 736 38.Geoffrey Bromiley (ed), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 1008 39.This section is based (in part) on Xenos Christian Fellowship, Christian Ministry Unit 1, Week 5: Satanology pt.2 http://www.xenos.org/classes/christi...entoutline.pdf Christian Principles Unit 4, Satanology: Origin and Covert Tactics http://www.xenos.org/classes/princip...u4_satan_1.htm 40.W. Lee, Life-study of Romans, Message #39, p. 455 41.W. Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.2, pp. 24-25 42.W. Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.2, p. 24 emphasis added 43.W. Lee, God’s New Testament Economy, pp. 44-5. In this age where human cloning is feasible, LSM’s speculative theology implies that daughters cloned directly from their mothers would be sinless (having no sin nature) since, like Jesus, their flesh would be “only of the female, not of the male; therefore, [their flesh would be] not sinful.” 44.Watchman Nee, Collected Works, vol. 50, p. 736 45.Watchman Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 542 46.W. Lee, Life-study of Romans, Message #39, p. 455 47.Witness Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.1, p. 10, emphasis added 48.Witness Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, p. 12, emphasis added 49.Witness Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, p. 12, emphasis added 50.W. Lee, The Flesh & the Spirit, Chp.2, p. 24 emphasis added 51.Question 10, “Do you teach that Satan dwells in man’s body?” in The Beliefs and Practices of the local churches, Living Stream Ministry, Anaheim, CA, 1978, p. 18 |
|
|
|
07-10-2008, 03:47 AM
|
#2 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
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. 
|
|
|
|
|
07-10-2008, 05:57 AM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Is this article available as a pdf for download?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
07-10-2008, 09:30 AM
|
#4 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Hi guys!
Witness Lee loved symmetry. He couldn't resist it, and so manufactured it even when it wasn't there. God became man so..... man must be becoming God! Yes! Yes! It must be so! The symmetry of God's nature is in us so Satan's nature must be in us too is the same kind of error. Man's own nature became corrupted when he disobeyed (as KSA said, made an act of sinful volition.) Who needs Satan's nature? Our own is corrupted enough! If our fall caused Satan's nature to get "injected," then whose nature was injected into Satan when he fell? This whole doctrine is one of Lee's most flagrant blunders and to me suggests a need on his part to impose his particular mindset--the love of symmetry--onto the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
07-10-2008, 02:43 PM
|
#5 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
What do the rest of the GLA leaders think of Tomes publicly taking on Lee in doctrinal matters? A while back my impression was that in general the GLA still embraced Lee doctrinally but questioned some of his practices. Now it appears that at least Tomes and I assume others are challenging some of Lee's teachings as while.
|
|
|
|
|
07-10-2008, 10:47 PM
|
#6 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28
|
djohnson: Good question. From my perspective as a member, in the Great Lakes Local Churches the legacy of Witness Lee's teachings is still a very sensitive issue. However, there has been movement away from treating Lee as an infallible interpreter of the Bible. It says a lot that a brother seen as leader amongst these churches, like Nigel, would go public with direct criticisms of Lee's teachings. On a more local level, many churches and leaders seem to be unsure of any radical departure from Lee's ministry, and a sort of uneasy truce prevails.
It's also interesting that Nigel's writings have become more a sparring match with the teachings of Lee than the policies of the Blending Brothers. He's done with the BB's; the split has happened. His aim now seems to be to go back to the source of the problems and try to deal with the roots of the exclusiveness and doctrinal extremism that has afflicted our group. |
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 02:18 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
You must have forgotten when God created man, man has the life of man, a sinless man at that time. Only after man disobeyed God by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thereby man received the consequence of his disobedience which is death, deadened in the spirit. You cannot compare "man" with a "piano". Before man's fall there was no hint of any element of Satan in him. Man's eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is receiving "something" outside of man as represented by the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. What man partook at that time was the death of Satan, and we can venture in saying death (signifies Satan) was injected in man. Upon the disobedience of man, the life of man was transmuted into the life of Satan. Instead of the life of God as illustrated by the Tree of Life that man must have possessed, in this man's fall the life of Satan was manifested. Praise the Lord! Because God loves us, He gave His Son Jesus to us and with our faith in Him we have received the life of God into our spirit, born of God, born of the Spirit. The life of God as represented by the Tree of Life ("I am the true vine!") is no other than the "life-giving Spirit" who is the LAST ADAM, the Lord Jesus Christ, which is working in us daily to saturate and transform our soul-life in His likeness. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 11:03 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 11:23 PM
|
#9 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17 |
||
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 11:44 PM
|
#10 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
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".
Last edited by KSA; 08-02-2008 at 11:46 PM. |
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 03:58 AM
|
#11 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Nigel Tomes: “Do you teach that Satan dwells in man’s body?” To me the implied answer (an honest response) is a simple affirmative—“YES!”
local church: “When man fell by eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, sin, the nature of Satan, was injected into man's body and transmuted it into the flesh. The fall was not simply an outward transgression; it was also an inward poisoning and contamination of our very being. Brother Witness Lee: My burden is that we would see that Satan is in our flesh and Christ is in our spirit. We have an enemy in our flesh and a dear Savior in our spirit. 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: Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-04-2008, 03:24 AM
|
#12 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-04-2008, 07:07 AM
|
#13 | ||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,824
|
Quote:
Here are a couple of the dozen or so verses you cut-n-pasted: Rom 7:5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,* the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. Rom 7:18 I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.* For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. KSA posted this reasonable response/contention Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 02:40 AM
|
#14 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 01:55 AM
|
#15 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
Quote:
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? 2. To go further, even if Satan did not enter into man, if he influenced him enough to defect man's will, can we not say that man was added with the influence? Can influence not be a kind of substance? - Gubei Last edited by Gubei; 08-13-2008 at 02:04 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 05:14 AM
|
#16 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
||
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 10:38 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
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). Flannery O'Connor, southern American Catholic writer, wrote a short story entitled, "A Good Man Is Hard to Find" which promotes this view: that everything is out of balance. (The story, by the way, is a fascinating theological treatise hidden in the strangest of plots, a worthwhile read for sure). Well, are things simply, like the true definition of a weed, simply out of place? Is that what Jesus's coming and second coming will restore: balance? Or is there actual evil out there which has no cure? I have read quite a bit in recent years on new views on Hell. Tim Keller's view, in "The Reason For God" (a rebuttal of all the atheist treatises out ther) has an interesting take. He believes Hell is simply complete and total narcissism (John Edwards might agree with that these days). The annihilationists believe there is no eternal torment, just a "blip!" and disappearance of the unregenerated soul. No matter what view you take, there's still that little fact that Satan gets tossed in to endure eternal torment. So maybe he is in fact more than just something out of balance. He was a substance made by God, but it seems he actually became evil. To conclude, I'm with you to a point, KSA. But I still hold out some place for the idea that some things are just plain evil right to the core, no redemption is capable. What say you? SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 11:57 AM
|
#18 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Yet More Unorthodoxy
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....
__________________
Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17 |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 03:13 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
The fall is not just about chemical imbalance. As I mentioned earlier, the fall effected the whole human being: spirit, soul and body. The fall effected our whole nature. Our nature is corrupt to the uttermost. What I object to is that at the fall satanic nature was added to us. Our nature is evil enough even without some additional nature of the fallen angel. I believe Eph. 2:1-3 will shed additional light. Here we see that sinners are called the sons of disobedience. It shows that the root issue of sin is disobedience. Men fell because he disobeyed. This disobedience opened the way for Satan to work in man - "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience". Now verse 3: "...we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath...". Look, the key word here is desires (including lusts). That is how sin operates. It is not Satan who wills in our stead and makes us sin against our will. It is our own desires that entice us and draw us away. "Each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin... (James 1:14-15). Satan tempts us by presenting something desirable to us. There should be something in us that responds to Satan's temptation. That is why Satan could not succeed with Jesus, because there was nothing in Jesus that would respond to Satan's temptation - "for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me" (John. 14:30). Why I so much object to Witness Lee's hamartiology. Not just for the sake of theology, but for practical reasons. When sin is just a foreign nature in you, all you need is to get rig of this nature - here comes the theory of dispensing, of gradual liberation from this sinful nature. It is considered as a kind of panacea in our spiritual life. But things are not that easy. We are all tempted differently. We all have different desires. We all have different weak spots. Therefore, we need to deal with our particular problems, not with some kind of abstract "nature". For example, someone suffers from fear. You cannot just make him pray-read 2 Tim. 1:7 and trust that the dispensing will do it. You have to work with this person to find out the reason of his fears. And it is not psychology - because you have to find out spiritual roots. Well, just read Neil Anderson to get a glimpse of it. I began to doubt Witness Lee's teaching in this area, because his teachings did not work when I tried to help the saints with big problems. Pray-reading, calling on the Lord, reading the ministry, attending the conferences did not work, no matter how "constituted" they were with "the ministry". Let me give you one example. We had a brother who turned out to be a drug addict. I tried to help him, but to no effect. I pleaded with brothers, asking them to help this brother. All these brothers could do is invite him to the conferences. I had a morning watch with this brother by phone every morning. It did not help. The situation grew worse and worse. Everybody in the church gave up on him. (This is when I began to seriously doubt that the recovery is "the way"). Eventually I advised this brother's wife to send her husband to a rehabilitation center of another assembly in our city. When he was sent there 1st time, he came back after a month. When I asked him why he had left the center, the reason was that he felt that his knowledge of the Word was superior to theirs (you know, being constituted with the ministry). Very soon he resumed taking drugs. I really felt helpless. I was really struggling with the Lord at that time - it was a very painful process for me - I, being so constituted with the ministry, not only reading it, but translating it, being a leading brother, could not help this brother. I was absolutely helpless. Eventually this brother was on the verge of death, it really humbled him and he went to the rehabilitation center 2nd time. This time he had a powerful encounter with the Lord, got fully free, his family was recovered, he found a good job and fully involved with the ministry in that church.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 10:55 AM
|
#20 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Lee equals Satan
Nigel Tomes:
>> Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology << That's quite an exegesis of Lee's Satanology. I'm proud to be in brother Nigel's company (he is out here? Right?). It’s such an impressive piece, in fact, I think I'll designate Nigel as one of the few scholars of Nee and Lee -- maybe the only one -- on the earth. Don't know how much it pays. I wouldn't quit my day job. But it's certainly a labor of love, and much appreciated. I don’t think all you guys get it yet. Ya certainly got me wondering. [How much of the Lee sheep pen is still within you?] Lee was just a flesh and blood man. Sure he knew his Bible, but he was a man nonetheless. Lee was made more than that by his followers. WE did it. Then Lee fell for it too, because he saw all of us lifting him up. So Lee places Satan in our flesh – a human error. So what! Who gives a damn what Lee says? If Satan is in human flesh then Jesus also had Satan in his human flesh. Lee was pushing up against Gnosticism here. What’s new? Docetism is nothing new. If Satan is in human flesh then Jesus had to be only divine ; not with a physical body, but a spiritual body only, that could shape-shift into human form. That’s docetism – a very early Christian belief. Also, let’s pretend for a moment that the Docetists had it right, that Jesus wasn’t human flesh, but was all divine. That would mean that Lee could have it right. But then, why didn’t Jesus cast Satan out of everyone he met, even his parents and disciples? If not, and Satan dwells in human flesh, then Jesus let him be a tag-along everywhere he went, and in whoever he related with. And if Jesus was human flesh, then he couldn’t ever get away from Satan, or worse, Jesus was possessed of Satan. How many out here bought into Lee’s Satan doctrine? How many still buy into Lee? If you buy into Lee are you not buying into the flesh, and therefore, according to Lee, buying into Satan. Lee said it. I believe it. That does it. All that follow Lee are following the flesh, and according to Lee the flesh is Satan’s dwelling place, so all followers of Lee are following Satan. Stop it! Harold |
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 08:14 AM
|
#21 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 54
|
Hi Harold,
Just a suggestion, if your going to help us "get it," please slow down the spin you are putting on Lee's flawed teaching. The teaching may be flawed, but the conclusions you are coming to are so far off in left field that your point has lost its relevance; take a breath, slow down and redefine your point! Thanks, Shawn |
|
|
|
|
07-19-2008, 10:53 AM
|
#22 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Satan-flesh-Lee
Just a suggestion, if your going to help us "get it," please slow down the spin you are putting on Lee's flawed teaching.
The teaching may be flawed, but the conclusions you are coming to are so far off in left field that your point has lost its relevance; take a breath, slow down and redefine your point! Thanks, Shawn 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. Paul said that saying, "I'm of Paul, I'm of Apollos," is carnal. Are we not then, by following Nee and Lee, being carnal? If Paul is right, and we add Lee's teaching on Satan -- that Satan dwells in the flesh -- are we not following the flesh -- as Paul states, "being carnal" -- and therefore, according to Lee's teaching, are we not following Satan when we follow Lee. I'm just taking Lee's teaching to it's logical conclusion, to reveal how completely ridiculous Lee's teaching is. But I like Lee's teaching on Satan. Not because it's right, but because it undoes Lee...and because Lee, thru his teaching on Satan, tells us not to follow him. To be blunt, the BB's are flesh followers ; they are being carnal. That's no surprise. What's surprising is that people are still following Lee. When Lee failed to deal with his sons carnal ways, Lee revealed that his fruits were actually carnal fruits. So what could he possibly produce but the BB's, that have carried on the carnal tradition established by Lee. The local church has become no different than all the other sects that were wrong, yet continued on. Take the Millerites as an example. Back in the early 1800's, William Miller predicted the exact date that Jesus would return. He was wrong, made an adjustment, and predicted an exact date again. He was wrong again. By Old Testament standards he should have been stoned to death, as a false prophet. But that didn't happen. Also, anyone with any sense should have stopped following Miller. But they didn't. We still have the Seventh-day Adventist Church with us today. Those still following Lee are no different than the Seventh-day Adventists. It's the same thing. But then, when did following someone depend upon them being right? With the public revelation of all the pedophile priests in the RCC church, you'd think that people would be leaving the RCC in droves. But they didn't and don't leave. Religion, it seems more often than not, produces a kind of "Stockholm syndrome" in followers, and followers come to love their leader whether he's right or wrong, and continue to follow long after it's been revealed that their leader is totally wrong (like Miller). Like it or not, that is what we have with Lee followers today. They may as well be Millerites. But we have the Seventh-day Adventists with us, so I guess we'll have the Leeites too. What's new? Most Christians are so hung up on the flesh, and following flesh, we may as well call them what they are : fle****es. Did I slow down enough fer ya, Shawn? And where did you get that I'm trying to be relevant? Do you think I'm trying to develop followers of me, or something? Follow Christ, and only Christ, and stop following flesh, including mine and Lee's. In fact, don't listen to a word I have to say. Have ears to hear, but not my voice...nor Lee's. The shepherd's voice is calling. Can't you hear it? If not, then follow a man, as that's as far as you are going to get without ears to hear. Harold |
|
|
|
|
07-22-2008, 03:15 PM
|
#23 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28
|
Quote:
Still, Paul certainly thought we should imitate him and other worthy Christian leaders. It is good to follow others in our pursuit of Christ. Quote:
Second, do you think Lee was correct and that Satan dwells in the flesh? I couldn't tell whether you were employing sarcasm here or not, but Lee didn't seem to apply the teaching of Satan in the flesh in the way you did. |
||
|
|
|
|
10-22-2008, 10:34 AM
|
#24 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Shawn states: "Finally, you seem to lump all of the local church as blind, flesh loving followers of brother Lee, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Some of us "Leeites," are learning to receive all ministries and in doing so, are learning of the faults of Lee's teachings so that we may have a more accurate understanding of the word of God."
First, sorry for being away for so long. But to reply: Yes I do lump. Because there is a lump. And yes, as you point out, there are Leeites that are learning to receive all ministries. These are on their way out of the lump. They will eventually leave the lump of their own accord, or the lump will push them out. Someone following Christ will not stay in the lump. The lump is cancerous (if you don't know this now, you will) ; not Life. Harold |
|
|
|
|
10-13-2016, 08:46 PM
|
#25 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
These are some disjointed thoughts I'm struggling with after reading this piece on Satanology.
I have bought into the belief that sin entered through eating the tree of knowledge of good and evi, but I thought it was the nature of Satan just as the Tree of Life was the nature of Christ In my concept the vignette in front of the trees was a trap for Satan. Once his essence was ensnared in our flesh his defeat was guaranteed at the cross. When Christ came and died for us having never sinned, the sin dorment within his flesh could not escape death. But to say that the sin in my flesh IS Satan, just as the life that regenerates my spirit is Christ jars loose another concept; I've always been encouraged that only Christ knows my heart and mind. Satan cannot see my thoughts or intentions. Not sure where this connects but I've also held the idea that the fall of mankind began in the garden but continued to degrade through consequtive falls. Which brings new question; if the problem with sin is sinful nature within our flesh would it progress like a disease? After a certain point the fall of mankind seemed to be completed through stages - what stopped it from continual degradation? and does the overall picture of the sinful condition of mankind reflect sin/ flesh on an individual basis? |
|
|
|
|
10-13-2016, 08:56 PM
|
#26 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Part of the thought that is knocked loose and thus not expressed well
The tree of life is ... Christ's nature or Christ himself or His Spirit I like the idea that the sinful nature cannot survive death but Christ's life is untouched by it. This God is not vindictive nor punitive but it just a fact of the universe that sin cannot escape death like a strong magnetic pull nor can it survive the shining of His glory. |
|
|
|
|
07-22-2008, 09:12 PM
|
#27 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 54
|
Quote:
No doubt that some of his teachings are just wrong, but when you draw conclusions that his teachings lead to worship of Satan, you quickly lose credibility. Finally, you seem to lump all of the local church as blind, flesh loving followers of brother Lee, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Some of us "Leeites," are learning to receive all ministries and in doing so, are learning of the faults of Lee's teachings so that we may have a more accurate understanding of the word of God. I do not receive your anger and can write to you in the love God has given us for all our brothers and sisters; I only bring this up to help you to admonish in truth and love; in so doing you will gain those whom you are trying to reach in the truth and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 12:53 PM
|
#28 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Subliminal convicted conscience
Shawn says:
Thank you brother for humoring me,.. And thank you for humoring me as well. It's the Christian thing to do. Shawn continues: in doing so you redefined your thoughts that its not Lee's teachings so much... No, I was speaking of Lee's teaching. The one Nigel exegeted concerning Lee's claim that Satan dwells in the flesh. Shawn continues: (most of his teaching is Christ centered; the majority of problems come with how he arrives at these conclusions) Brother Shawn, this is where you perchance go astray. Or perhaps you are of the Lee "old school," or maybe you've been listening to past Lee conferences from the 1970s. Lee use to be Christ centered, or at least taught it. I attended conferences where he stated "It's not me, it's Christ I'm speaking about." "Not I, but Christ," he would quote Paul. Yep, Lee gave lip service to "Christ centered." I heard it. Then, eventually Lee went south, so to speak. He grabbed onto God's identity, and began to say "I am." Remember, God told Moses to tell the people that "I am that I am has sent you." Lee said: "I'm am the oracle of God." Lee said: "I'm am the authority of God on earth." Lee said: "I'm am the apostle on the earth today." I submit that Lee knew full that he was wrong whenever he said "I'm am." It went directly opposed to his former "Christ centered" teachings, and so Lee had a convicted conscience when saying "I am." So when he taught that Satan dwelt within human flesh it was his guilty conscience that guided his teaching. By so teaching Lee was sending a subliminal message to his followers. In summary, when Lee taught that Satan dwelt in the flesh, what he was really saying was, a subliminal message that: Satan dwells in the flesh ; I'm flesh ; don't follow the flesh, don't follow Satan, and don't follow me. This was his guilty conscience speaking from his subconscious. He knew well that when he made "I am" statements he was going wrong. It was against his own "Christ centered" teachings. So God became a "lying spirit in Lee's mouth" (I Kings 22:22). God's smart, to say the least, he put those crazy words of Lee that, "Satan dwelt in human flesh," into his mouth for a reason. God spoke thru Lee's subconscious, and was sending a message. He was speaking to all the saints, to all the followers of Lee, and was saying, "He that hath ears let him hear. Satan dwells in human flesh, Lee is human flesh, so don't follow Satan in Lee." God was bringing Lee down. Lee stepped beyond being just a human saved by grace, and sought to be God, by taking God's label, "I am that I am." Lee stated not, "Not I but Christ," but, "I am." It's obvious in scripture that Satan doesn't well in the flesh. Just read the book of Job to learn that. But if I was going to try and locate Satan within humans, I'd say that location would more likely be the human ego. Ego is necessary, but unbridled ego is a demon so obvious that anyone can see it. Ego is shaped by how others see us. And that is what happen to Lee. We all lifted him up on a pedestal, and it shaped his ego. Our belief in him gave him an unusual sense of power ; more power that humans should have -- Nicolaitan power, the kind of power that Jesus says in Revelation He hates. So God was speaking out thru Lee as a lying Spirit to all of us. And Lee's teaching that Satan dwelt in the flesh was a message to all that "had ears to hear." God wanted everyone to stop lifting Lee up, and to stop following Lee. So God used an erroeous doctrine, that Satan dwelt in the Flesh, to send that message to all of us. Brother Shawn do you have "ears to hear." Harold |
|
|
|
|
07-27-2008, 02:56 PM
|
#29 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North of Mansfield Ohio
Posts: 165
|
Hi Shawn,
Did you visit Mansfield a few times? Sue |
|
|
|
|
07-28-2008, 05:33 PM
|
#30 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
|
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..
__________________
Colossians 1:14 In Whom We have Redemption through His Blood, even the forgiveness of sins: |
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 03:12 AM
|
#31 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 11:42 PM
|
#32 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
yes brother that is the whole point .. the Lord Jesus became flesh.. he is a human being.. John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. God's Word first .. i dont think i will be referring ever again to nee or lee's writings or teachings..
__________________
Colossians 1:14 In Whom We have Redemption through His Blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Last edited by Guest1; 08-02-2008 at 11:56 PM. Reason: to add |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 08:49 AM
|
#33 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
The fellowship of the apostles is that sin entered into man, not Satan. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 10:56 AM
|
#34 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
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. That's why I did a quick inventory of my own thoughts about sin & Satan; so I could figure out where I stand. I have never been told nor treated as though I were posessed by Satan - Even as a teenager and I was a surpassingly combative and rebellious specimen. I have never accused anyone or thought of anyone as posessed by Satan. (Full disclosure I have called one person an evil Succubus full of demons.) So yeah, this teaching isn't really hitting home with me. That being said, What do I believe? My general questions when examining a concept or teaching are: How does my concept shape my experience? Does my understanding in this idea limit who God is too me and His functioning in my life? Which leads me to this question: Did Satan need to be trapped within the flesh as sin for Christ to be the Victor over death? (As I typed these thoughts/questions I was reminded of Jadis from CS Lewis' book The Magician's Nephew.) Last edited by Exodus16; 10-14-2016 at 10:59 AM. Reason: Proofreading |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 11:04 AM
|
#35 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
I agree that I never had the concept that everyone was possessed.
My point and I think Nigel's as well, is that Witness Lee chooses the most provocative statements possible, statements that can be misinterpreted. The potential for misinterpretation is the reason that the apostles and others do not use this language, and it is also the reason that some take issue with Witness Lee's use. But there is no thought that "hey, let's change this lest it cause someone to stumble". Rather there is a two faced denial. This proves that those in the lead in the LRC understand how this language is dangerous, prone for misinterpretation, and borderline heresy. Yet they don't come out and change it, or apologize for it. His teaching is not clearly heretical, rather it is clearly unconcerned for the damage that it could do. |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 12:24 PM
|
#36 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
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.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 12:45 PM
|
#37 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
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 |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 01:12 PM
|
#38 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Conversely, while the Bereans were eager to hear and even receive, but "they went to the Scripture to see if these things were true." I have discussed in some depth how oriental culture steeped through the local church of Witness Lee. It went unexamined. It was so ingrained in Lee that he couldn't see it. Once you are blind to something you can read the Bible 50 times and be blind to the words right in front of you. Because they couldn't possibly mean what they appear to be saying. It's really pretty phenomenal, how we can be so blind. We may read the Scripture daily, but we don't "see if these things are true", because according to our cultural preconceptions, they couldn't possibly be true. See the thread "The Asian Mind and the Western Mind".
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 01:35 PM
|
#39 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
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  )
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 01:32 PM
|
#40 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
So let me share an experience I had teaching a Chemistry lab. I had one student that I felt was not emotionally stable enough to be in a Chemistry lab, I documented my concerns, I talked to the Principal and they agreed to pull the student from the class. The first day that he was pulled I realized there could be an incident. So instead of having each lab station use bunsen burners to boil their mixture I decided to set it up as a demo and do it from the front desk. Sure enough, ten minutes into the lab this student is banging on the door. I go to the door, the top half is glass. All I can see is him naked. For some reason he took off his shirt and I can't see his pants. So he looks like someone who has gone completely biserk. I go back to my desk and call security but before I can hang up he has broken down the door and come storming into the room, half naked, with a big pot of water boiling on the front desk between me and him. Within a minute two cops come running in and escort him out, but not before he smashes some test tubes that a girl was working with. If she had had a bunsen burner with her own liquid boiling someone would have been burned. When I was in the LRC I was in many home meetings, small group meetings, young people meetings, and there were many who had a very iffy grasp of the one faith. Witness Lee has to have these ones in mind when he puts out his doctrines. I feel that this attitude exists with many preachers and teachers (taking forethought for what is honorable), but is sorely lacking in Witness Lee's ministry. He has a very cavalier attitude towards the apostle's fellowship. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 01:41 PM
|
#41 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Lee's cavalier attitude is on full display with his flip-flop over deification, i.e. "God became man to make man God."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 01:09 PM
|
#42 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,545
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
The Church in Los Angeles 1971-1972 Phoenix 1972-1973 Albuquerque 1973-1975 Anaheim 1976-1979 San Bernardino 1979-1986 Bellevue 1993-2000 Renton 2009-2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
03-16-2019, 04:50 PM
|
#43 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,824
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Brothers;
I have reposted the Conclusion of Nigel Tomes important work here. Let's not get lost in the minutia of the life and times of Job. Very interesting but not necessarily germane to Nigel's polemic. If anyone wants to address Tome's conclusion here I think that might get the thread back on track. Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2019, 07:32 PM
|
#44 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
07-05-2019, 08:23 PM
|
#45 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 488
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
By equating Satan to sin to flesh and soul you effectively make everything about man evil absolutely, including thought. So all you're left in doing is disassociating yourself from all of the above and just embracing "spirit" (which really is code for ambiguity). That way a leader can get you in a suggestible state and define things subjectively as they go. *It should be noted that the leaders themselves are spiritually deceived and controlled. Satan's the real enemy. Gnosticism is one of the two false gospels that caused problems for the early church in scripture. The other being legalism or imposing the Law onto Christians. Legalism is salvation through works. Gnosticism is salvation through special knowledge, or high-peak truths. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-24-2019, 05:33 PM
|
#46 |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 2,617
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
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?
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! |
|
|
|
|
07-24-2019, 06:41 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
2. There is only one source in the Universe -- the word of God. All things came into being through Him and apart from Him there is nothing that exists. 3. Eating from the tree was forbidden, hence it was sin to eat it. However, that does not make the tree evil. God created it, He placed it in the garden, and it was a good tree, one to make you wise, like God. Instead of two sources, lets say there are two paths to this wisdom. One path is to trust and obey. The other path is trial and error. One path we abide with the most High, the other path we are on our own. The tree of Knowledge was a requirement for a universe that includes man's free will. If God creates man with free will then the option to disobey God must be included. Taken to its logical conclusion creating the universe with free will includes creating Hitler, Stalin, and Nero. So then, how does a God in whom there is no darkness create evil men? The answer is beyond our thoughts or reasoning. He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Once you take that path your body becomes mortal flesh and there is a time limit on your life. This vastly reduces the amount of damage you can do as your lifetime is simply a vapor or like the flower of the field withering. Still you do have a life and so even though it is an infinitesimal amount of time relative to eternity it is still greater than 0. However, all the evil men can do is kill the body (the mortal flesh which is vanity) they cannot harm the soul or spirit which are eternal. So then the tree of Knowledge is like a laboratory which is set up with all kinds of precautions and controls where we can learn through experimentation (trial and error). It is a very hard road to take filled with pain and suffering, it is a lonely road to take including excommunication, and it is a shameful road to take. Ultimately the lesson learned is that all glory and honor belong to God the Father and our Lord Jesus. If you like analogies to help understand complex issues I would liken the Tree of knowledge to a computer simulation. If you spend 2 hours playing a video game in which people are killed is that evil? The game may reveal evil intents of your heart, but did you do any real, lasting damage to anything? Otherwise, how could God wipe away every tear? We use computer simulations to train pilots, we don't want them to crash on the simulation, but we would much rather that happen than they crash in a real plane. Likewise we are being trained in this life to rule and reign with Christ.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 12:06 PM
|
#48 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,523
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
