Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Amen!

Many thanks to you also...

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

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by KSA

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

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

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

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

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

Again sorry to say, Nigel Tomes, has also missed this wonderful truth from the Bible, and therefore, Nigel Tomes' writing is DEFECTIVE and LACKED SPIRITUAL REVELATION!

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

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

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

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

Again sorry to say, Nigel Tomes, has also missed this wonderful truth from the Bible, and therefore, Nigel Tomes' writing is DEFECTIVE and LACKED SPIRITUAL REVELATION!

Dear Paul,

I'd like to ask some questions for clarification.

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

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

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

Dear all,

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

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

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

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

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

option 5. all of above statements.

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

- Gubei

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear Paul,

I'd like to ask some questions for clarification.

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

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

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

Many thanks Gubei, for your post.

1. The scene in the garden of Eden was the first instance when man fell and corrupted by sin and death by eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Numbers 21 is another scene which vividly points to what exactly what happened in the first fall of man. The Old Testament is full of repetitive illustrations which have meaningful spiritual truths that cannot be found in the New Testament. We need to remember that the Old Testament is a shadow of the New Testament; and the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
   
2. Adam's doubt is part of the overall process of man's fall which ended in eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil which is identified as "man's disobedience".
   
3. God worked with the nation of Israel first on behalf of all man-kind and through God's economy man-kind can become God-kind. I totally agree with you that there is only one "first Adam" (man-kind) and one "last Adam" (God-kind).

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Many thanks Gubei, for your post.

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

Dear Paul,

Thanks a lot. My next questions are as follows;

1. Was the tree of knowledge of good and evil

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

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

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

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

Many thanks once again for your help. - Gubei

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear Paul,

Thanks a lot. My next questions are as follows;

1. Was the tree of knowledge of good and evil

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

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

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

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

Many thanks once again for your help. - Gubei

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

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

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

In Hebrew, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is composed of three words: knowledge, good, and evil. Life is simply life; it is unique. But God cannot say that evil is good, or that good is evil. Other than knowledge, good, and evil, there is still another thing, which is death. Good and evil bring in death. Today, in order to gain God, we have to be pure. The meaning of being pure is to have one thing only. What we take into us is life, and what is lived out of us is the image. If it is life for us all the way from the beginning to the end and we have nothing besides life, we are being pure. When man joins himself to the knowledge of good and evil, he falls into death, and he becomes complicated. The tree of knowledge can be called the tree of good, and it can also be called the tree of evil. Humanly speaking, the tree of good and the tree of knowledge sound very nice, and the tree of evil and the tree of death sound very bad. But in the whole universe, nothing other than life is according to God's will. Everything outside of life is in the realm of knowledge, good, evil, and death. Today, man thinks that good is life, and evil is death. When man touches evil, he touches death. But when he touches good, does he not touch death also? When he touches knowledge, does he not touch death also? I have to shout loudly that the result of good and knowledge is also death.

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

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

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

Thanks Paul,

Your quotation of Watchman Nee is more about the reason why the tree could be called the tree of knowledge of good and evil (instead of the tree of death), rather than how the physical fruit can make man fall.

Bascially, I think the physical fruit itself was not a contaminating source of man at that time because physical fruits are just nuetral thing like apples you and I eat in our daily life.

If, however, the apples on the table are prohibited by a mom from the access by her children in order to give them to the dad who is about to get home soon from work, and the children eat them out.... That could be a problem - disobedience.

So my tentative conclusion is this. Man's fall is more related to disobedience than physical eating the fruit (i.e. injection of something into man by eathing it). So it appears that I'm for KSA's "untuned piano" theory.

However, even though Adam was in a untuned contion (caused by disobedience) in the Garden, why his decendants should be born also "untuned" without regard to their freewill are not so clear to me yet.
Ovious is that "unavoidable being born untuned" and "having perfect freewill" conflicts each other quite a lot to me.

Anyway, judging from some verses in the Bible, I think the untuned condition (or sinful nature, or defected freewill) is sure to be inherited ever - which means every human being is sinner.

1. I welcome your comments on my tentative conclusion.
2. You said that the friut is a physical thing. According to Gen., the Garden and the trees are still there, being protected by angels and a flaming sword. And why can we not find the Garden now? That should be somewhere between the Mid-East countries...

- Gubei

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

You are slaughtering the text by allegorizing it. That itself is an insult to the patriarch Hebrew writer, Moses. Allegorical hermeneutics is obsolete; not if taken its proper use in applying to some other passages of Scripture. It might be trending for Witness Lee's time, but not for 21st century Christianity. It was Origen Church father who popularized the allegorical hermeneutics and later on it became so prevalent in church history. Lee was illogical inconsistent of his view on Sin and Satan. But anyway Paul Miletus, many members of the LC unequivocally claim that sin is literally Satan himself indwelt in human flesh from their spoken mouths. I have witnessed it firsthand. Because of Lee's eastern mindset and non-English-native language combine to make different conclusions on how his followers understood it. Maybe because their LC elders who are not biblically trained enough to exegete a particular passage, spoke loosely to the point of mishandling the Scriptures. They only rely the ready-made outlines, RcV Study notes, and Life-Study commentary coming from a publishing house called LSM which is actually for lazy elders who don't diligently study the Scriptures for themselves unlike the noble Bereans in Acts. 17.

Far be enough, Lee is no inerrant teacher. He has caused a lot of damage to the Body of Christ. Why would he be THE ONLY minister (of the Age) whom we should pay attention, to listen to?

Again sorry to say, Nigel Tomes, has also missed this wonderful truth from the Bible, and therefore, Nigel Tomes' writing is DEFECTIVE and LACKED SPIRITUAL REVELATION!

Mere assertions is no argument at all.

Evangelical: On the matter of Satan entering man, I was referring to Lee's teaching as unorthodox, not Christianity's, Lee said this:

"Satan entered into the human body to be the evil in man's flesh"

There is nothing in Genesis that says Satan entered the human body. So Lee is unorthodox.

Right on, Mr. Evangelical. Words from a LC member. It seems Paul Miletus can't run away this admission from another LCer. You admit Lee has erroneously dividing Scripture. I have never heard such a demonic doctrine from any contemporary Christian teachers such as R.C. Sproul, Paul Washer, John Piper, and the others that teach Satan is presently indwelling in our flesh whether be Christians or nonbelievers. It makes Satan sovereign and omnipresent spiritual being. It's just another eisegesis of Lee's making.

“We are not the lords over rules of interpretation, but must pursue scripture's interpretation of itself. . . This is everywhere a rule in scripture: when it wants to allegorize, it tells the interpretation of the allegory, so that the passage will not be interpreted superficiality or be met by the undisciplined desire of those who enjoy allegorization to wander about and be carried in every direction.”

—St. John Chrysostom

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

And what made this a point-by-point "vivid" indicator of what happened at the Fall? Is it not just a easy (and maybe more so) to explain as a vivid example of God's wrath upon those who reject Him? If it is a matter of wrath, then it is God's and not Satan's.

But I guess since Lee said it, it must be true.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear all,

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

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

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

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

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

option 5. all of above statements.

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

- Gubei

Please allow me to quote Brother Watchman Nee from "The Spiritual Man" which sufficiently address your above questions:

The Lord Jesus said, "That which is born of the flesh is flesh" (John 3:6). From this we can see that the Lord is speaking of three things: (1) What is flesh? (2) How does man become flesh? and (3) What is the nature of flesh?

What is flesh? "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Who then is born of the flesh? Man. So man is flesh. Whatever a man may have inborn in him or may have derived from nature when he was born of his parents is flesh. However good he is, however virtuous he may be, whatever talents he may have, or however kind and intelligent he may be, he is fleshly. Regardless of how bad, how unholy, how foolish, how useless, or how cruel he may be, he is of the flesh. That man is flesh means that all that a man inherits by birth, whatever it may be (whether good or bad) is of the flesh. Whatever is inherited by him at birth, although it is only in its embryonic form and is later developed and becomes fully grown, is of the flesh.

How does man become flesh? "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." Man does not become fleshly by learning or practicing to be bad. Man is fleshly not because he sins gradually and becomes fleshly in due course of time. A fleshly man need not necessarily be one who is given to the indulgences of the flesh or one who does what pleases him and is completely controlled, suppressed, and subjugated by the evil desires of the body. The Lord Jesus said man is flesh the very moment he is born. So, to determine whether a man is fleshly, we need not look at his conduct or disposition. It is sufficient to take only one thing into account, and that is, of whom was he born? All men are begotten of human parents; therefore, they are born of man. Every man on earth is born according to the manner of men; that is, every human being is begotten of man. Thus, in the sight of God, all men, without exception, are flesh (Gen. 6:3), and on this account God on numerous occasions does not refer to men as men in the Bible, but to all men as "all flesh." Since all men are born of the flesh, can there possibly be anyone who is not the flesh? So, in view of the Lord's word, whether man is of the flesh is not dependent on any consideration other than whether he is born of the flesh. Man becomes flesh because he is begotten of blood, of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man. It is not his behavior or his parents' conduct that determines the kind of person he is.

What is the nature of the flesh? "That which is born of the flesh is flesh." In any case, he who is born of the flesh is flesh. Educate him, reform him, cultivate him, regulate him with morality and religion—all these will not make him non-flesh, because that which is born of the flesh is flesh. Since he is born of the flesh, he is flesh and will remain as flesh, regardless of the amount of work or energy spent on him. If he is to be other than flesh, he has to be born otherwise than of the flesh, and since it is through the flesh that he is born, he will always and forever be flesh. Nothing further need be said if man is not born of the flesh. But if he is, then neither by any human means nor by the power of God or miracles can he be changed into something other than flesh. The Lord Jesus said man "IS" flesh, and the matter is settled for all time. The question of whether man is fleshly lies not in the man himself, but as is stated in the foregoing paragraphs, in of whom he is born, of what he is born. If he is born of the flesh, whatever programs may be employed to make him change will be of no avail, for he may change from one condition to another, and for that matter change from day to day, but he is still flesh, no matter how much he has changed outwardly or what condition he has changed into.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

I think you are drawing too much from the OT picture. In the garden we do not see serpent biting Eve. It ain't happened. What I see in the picture with snakes is a very well established biblical principle that sin brings in death. However, I see no basis to conclude that some kind of satanic nature entered man. Even in this picture we do not see it. Let me tell you that venom is not a snake's nature. When a snake bites, it does not inject snake's nature. A bitten person does not become a snake, he/her dies. Well, if you wish to develop this OT picture further, why not think that serpent's question in the Garden implanted a lie in Eve's head that produced doubt. A lie was something from serpent (like venom), but lie is not "nature".

Jesus's death on the cross destroyed the works of the devil, and rendered him powerless, but it did not destroy his nature. Satan's nature will be destroyed in the lake of fire. Right now he is pretty active, and his nature is obviously not destroyed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

Paul,

This is a good picture. However, there is no need to interpret this picture so vividly. It is sufficient to interpret it to mean that Satan "bit" us and we "died," that the poison is his deadly influence, i.e. lies, which when taken in, i.e. believed, cause spiritual death.

Lee takes the interpretation to an extreme, saying the poison is Satan's nature. But that interpretation doesn't even fit the picture. A snake's nature is not in its poison and the poison does not convey a snake's nature to it's victim. It's simply an influence that comes from the snake that kills.

The poison need only be interpreted as the LIE of the enemy. The enemy lies, we believe it and die. There is no need to believe some concrete spiritual "substance" got into us.

The fall was cause by man corrupting himself. Because the fall put man in a state that required redemption to be delivered from, i.e. that he could not get out of on his own, this state was necessarily passed onto his offspring.

Again sorry to say, Nigel Tomes, has also missed this wonderful truth from the Bible, and therefore, Nigel Tomes' writing is DEFECTIVE and LACKED SPIRITUAL REVELATION!

This sweeping dismissal does not follow from the points you made.

[KSA]

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

[Arizona]

Originally Posted by KSA

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

KSA,

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

Thanks for your comments.

Arizona

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Arizona

KSA,

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

Thanks for your comments.

Arizona

Dear Arizona,

I'm on the same page with you.

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

In Christ,

Gubei

[Suannehill]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear Arizona,

I'm on the same page with you.

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

In Christ,

Gubei

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

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Gubei

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

I think they were physical. Man was supposed to eat from the trees in the garden. Therefore, since man's body is physical, the trees must be physical too. As for where is this garden now, the Bible is not too clear about it. The only hint that I can find is that at the end of Revelation we see that the New Jerusalem is coming from heaven to earth. And we see the tree of life in this city (which originally was in the Garden). So we may guess that the garden was eventually taken to heaven, but I would not speculate too much here.

We should also realize that earth's geography very much changed since the fall. Before there was only one continent, now we have several, so I think it is futile to try to figure out where the garden originally was. It will all be just speculation.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Arizona

KSA,

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

Thanks for your comments.

Arizona

Thank you, Arizona, for your very good questions. Here is my intake. The word "lust" means "a very strong desire". Therefore, lust comes our of our will. Pride comes out of our self. Here it says that lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and pride of life are "in the world". To me it means that in the world there are things that appeal to our desires. The world stirs us up. There is something in our flesh that matches things of the world. The world lies in the evil one, that is Satan is the source of the world. So to me the world is a devilish system devised by Satan to seduce us and stir up sinful desires in our flesh. Satan really works from outside, but not from our body. He developed a system that tempts us and stirs up our flesh.

Rom. 12:2 says that we should not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of our mind. It means that conformation to the world happens in our mind. Therefore, to be saved from the world, we should be transformed and renewed in our mind. It is not a matter of satanic nature; it is a matter of our mind. Actually our mind is a battlefield between God and Satan. Satan tries to blind our mind (2 Cor. 4:4) and corrupt it (2 Cor. 11:3). God gives us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6), transforms and renews our mind (Rom. 12:2). Our Christian life depends on where we set our mind on - flesh or the Spirit, things of men or things of God, earth or heaven? Our mind is an eye of our soul, whatever it beholds, we become. If we behold the glory of the Lord, we are transformed in the same image. If we loose the lust of the eye, we are conformed to this world.

You know, the notion of nature is impersonal. When you say that there is some kind of nature in you that makes you sin. It is very impersonal. It is just some kind of natural force that overwhelms. However, Satan is something personal. That is why James says that friendship with the world is enmity against God. And this friendship and flirting James calls adultery. God is a person, and Satan is a person. We either develop personal relationship with the Lord, or we develop intimacy with the spirit of this world. Satan tries to seduce us so that we would fornicate with him. When woman cheats on her husband, she does it because she is seduced by another person. In the same way we cheat on God, when we are seduced by another person. Woman usually cheats when there is a break in relationship with her husband. Whenever our relationship with the Lord is broken, we become susceptible to the seducing voice of the evil one. Well, I am a little cared away from your question, but I hope it helps. God bless you!