Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

My observation from reading the bible is that there is a whole other world going on in the spiritual realm that we as humans are not privy to in it's entirety but can catch glimpses of it here and there. Within this realm are a hierarchy of good and bad angels and within this system are certain protocols and procedures in how they relate one to another and to God. Job, Eph, 2 Peter and Jude give us some insights into this matter. To directly handle a human being it appears Satan has to ask for God's permission e.g. Job and Peter. It appears God may grant permission but gives limitations. It seems to me that if Satan actually lived in human beings these other items would be moot.

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

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by djohnson

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

I also find it hard to reconcile "In Him is no sin" (1 John 3:5) with the idea that the Father of Liars dwelt in His flesh.

P.S. Igzy, you said "You said before that knowing that sin dwells in you was terrifying enough. So if it's enough, why add the aspect that a fallen spook lives in you, too? The Bible supports the idea of sin being in you, so if it's enough, why go further? " That's why I italicized the word "personally..." But then I went on to say that such a belief could have value to others who view things differently from me. While I don't buy the teaching myself, I am taking a position of liberality toward others on an issue on which I might disagree with them.

Seems to me, with teachings like this - where the evidence isn't clear cut in either direction and the consequence of an errant view isn't obvious and universal - its a good and pretty easy occasion to practice Romans 14, no?

In short, I don't believe or need the teaching, but others might and, so long as it ain't obviously harming them or others, let it be.

That said, I'm all for a rigorous discussion on the truth of it provided the dicussion doesn't include sneering...

[Cal]

Oh, what's a good sneer between friends. Anyway, I agree. It's not the faith. I just question whether it's a healthy, expedient teaching.

And, as you alluded, this subject is at least as interesting as an example of a fallible teaching by Lee, which his ever-intrepid followers insist is not fallible, even while standing in the bright headlights of the oncoming truck labeled "Little or No Scriptural Support.