|
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. |
|
|
|
|
07-10-2008, 10:53 PM
|
#7 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
I think what Tomes is doing is a good development. Apparently Lee and his ministry had become a proverbial untouchable sacred cow and now Nigel is ending this myth. Hopefully a healthy balanced view of Lee and his work will ensure.
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2008, 04:51 AM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Quote:
I am waiting for a scholarly review of the concept of "deputy authority." This bad concept alone, carried out in practice, has done more to destroy the LC's than any other, and create one of the nastiest of denominations.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2008, 05:09 PM
|
#9 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
The Demythologization of Lee
Apparently Tomes years as a university scholar is serving him well now i.e. research, critique, rebuttal, being published, intellectual ferment, etc is OK. The status quo needs to be challenged. He might upset the proverbial apple cart but the very act of him daring to question some of Lee's teaching and practice is healthy for him and others. It is the demythologization of Lee.
|
|
|
|
|
07-11-2008, 07:08 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 28
|
Quote:
The next year or so will be very interesting as far as the Midwest goes. Sooner or later the uneasy truce regarding the shared heritage of Lee and the LCs will be broken, and with it may go the fellowship of churches we refer to as the GLA. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-16-2008, 10:55 AM
|
#11 |
|
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
|
#12 |
|
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
|
#13 |
|
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
|
#14 | ||
|
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. |
||
|
|
|
|
07-22-2008, 09:12 PM
|
#15 | |
|
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
|
#16 |
|
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
|
#17 |
|
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
|
#18 |
|
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, 02:18 AM
|
#19 | |
|
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, 02:40 AM
|
#20 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 03:12 AM
|
#21 | |
|
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, 11:03 PM
|
#22 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 11:23 PM
|
#23 | ||
|
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, 11:42 PM
|
#24 | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-02-2008, 11:44 PM
|
#25 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 12:11 AM
|
#26 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
i was just going to say.. the kjv : 3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. just a few of the examples that were posted by YP0534
__________________
Colossians 1:14 In Whom We have Redemption through His Blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Last edited by Guest1; 08-03-2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason: add |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 12:24 AM
|
#27 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
I do not see "sinful nature" in the verses you quoted.
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 12:30 AM
|
#28 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
This topic was extensively covered at the other forum. My argement there was that sin is not some kind of substance that was added to our nature. There is no "sinful nature" as all nature (substance) was created by God, and God is not a creator if sin. Sin is a perversion of our own nature - deviation from God's intent. When Lucifer fell, he was not spoiled by some other nature injected into him - iniquity was found in him. His fall was the perversion of his own nature. Likewise, our fall was caused by our choice - it was the perversion of our nature, not injection of some other substance.
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 12:43 AM
|
#29 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Only, please, KJV-only is no cure for the ills of NIV!
__________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 12:55 PM
|
#30 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 01:04 PM
|
#31 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 03:13 PM
|
#32 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
Colossians 1:14 In Whom We have Redemption through His Blood, even the forgiveness of sins: |
|
|
|
|
|
08-03-2008, 04:18 PM
|
#33 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Looks like we're just getting to the good part. Quick reference links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_depravity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
__________________
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 Last edited by YP0534; 08-03-2008 at 04:53 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-04-2008, 03:24 AM
|
#34 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-04-2008, 07:07 AM
|
#35 | ||
|
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:
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-05-2008, 12:21 AM
|
#36 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
My apologies...
What you have quoted from KSA was not the one I responded to show the phrase "sinful nature" was all over the New Testament scriptures. In fact, what you have quoted was KSA's response to Speaker's comment. I was responding to KSA's earlier post where he said that the phrase "sinful nature" was not biblical nor can be found in any scriptures. To list the appropriate scriptures are proofs that KSA's denial of the scripturality of the phrase "sinful nature" was highlighted. (I was looking for that post of KSA but it seems it vanished from this thread. Please correct me if I am wrong.) Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
08-06-2008, 01:26 AM
|
#37 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Paul, as I understand, you quoted from NIV, see my earlier comment regarding this translation.
|
|
|
|
|
08-06-2008, 03:02 AM
|
#38 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-06-2008, 06:09 AM
|
#39 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-08-2008, 03:28 PM
|
#40 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 22
|
Is there more?
Quote:
KSA Do you feel inclined to add more to this in answer to Speaker's question re your thought on original sin, total depravity, etc? As YPO stated, I felt like we were just getting to the good part !! I do not disagree with your statement above but I am not sure it is the whole story. It seems to me that mankind is more than merely "broken", and there remains a source to be identified. That source, to me, must indeed be something foreign to that which was created by God, and is labeled "good". Thanx Grace to you. Arizona |
|
|
|
|
|
08-08-2008, 07:03 PM
|
#41 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Your implication is that something negative did get into us at the fall, correct? So if not Satan's nature, what was that? Am I reading you right? This "something" would have to be transmittable via generation, that is, through birth. So it must be something physical. So what was this something? That is a thought worthy of pursuit, I believe. If not Satan's nature, as NT indicates, what is it? Or was Lee right about Satan's injection into the human flesh? SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 12:12 AM
|
#42 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
As for total depravity, in theology it does not mean that man is not capable of doing good. It means that man cannot save himself. In Calvinism it means that man on his own is not able to will to come to God (no free will here). Only when Holy Spirit regenerates person, he/she can will to come to God. Arminius differed from Calvinism here. He taught that man has a free will, and therefore can choose God. Charles Finney held the same teaching - therefore, he thought that people can be persuaded to receive the Lord. He limited the work of the Holy Spirit to keeping our preaching in person's mind. Wesley believed in Calvinistic total depravity, but taught that each person is given a common grace that makes it possible for a person to make a choice whether to receive the Lord or reject Him. My position is somewhere in the middle. I believe that a person cannot come to God without the work of the Holy Spirit who convicts him of sin, righteousness and judgment. But it does not nullify free will. It is one of paradoxes of Christian life. Well, I do not know if I shared what you wanted to hear. But original sin and total depravity do not lead us to believe that sin is a kind of nature that was added to us. In fact, if sin is another nature, you cannot be hold responsible for your sins. Sin is an act of our own nature, therefore we are held accountable.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard Last edited by KSA; 08-09-2008 at 12:17 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 03:58 AM
|
#43 | |
|
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 06:35 AM
|
#44 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Quote:
The "big stretch" comes from the thought that once Eve ate of the fruit of ToKoGaE, then the seducer serpent somehow got into her. But the Bible doesn't say that, exactly. It is the fruit of the ToKoGaE that got into Eve, and then Adam, and reproduces sin in all mankind.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 06:42 AM
|
#45 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
Their disobedience to God was their sin. They did not ingest a banana and that = sin was injected into them because somehow sin lived in the cells of the banana.
__________________
My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ! |
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 07:29 AM
|
#46 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
So if it's just the "inclination" to sin that we inherit, is that a physical inheritance? Is it encoded in my DNA somewhere? If so, are we to understand the Garden tale as pure allegory, that is, as not having literally happened at all? SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 01:02 PM
|
#47 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
I do not understand your question about Garden tale being an allegory, what's the connection? Garden tale was a real thing. My bottom line was that at the fall no foreign nature was added to man. The fall was the corruption of human nature. It affected whole human being - spirit, soul and body. It was spiritual, soulish and physical.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 11:11 PM
|
#48 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Man's whole being (body, soul, and spirit) was corrupted because of their sin of disobedience which was fully illustrated by eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil which signifies death or Satan. Man's act of disobedience manifested upon eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Again, this is fully illustrated in the Epistles of James -- Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-09-2008, 11:42 PM
|
#49 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Quote:
However, it is so striking to note that the writer of 1 Cor 6:19 and 1 Cor 6:15 was the apostle Paul who also wrote "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing" (Romans 7:18a). Again, Nigel Tomes misunderstood the vast difference between the terms "body" and "flesh". In his writing, he is mixing apple with orange; and orange with apple. The apostle Paul was very careful to distinguish the "flesh" where "death" or "sin" dwells which signifies Satan. Also, the apostle Paul openly declared that the "body" of the believer is a temple of the Holy Spirit and member of the Body of Christ knowing exactly that this "body" is a product of the believer's regenerated spirit and transformed soul. Brother Witness Lee teaching is totally in line with what the apostle Paul has seen regarding the vast difference between the "flesh" and the "body". But it seems that Nigel Tomes has neglected this portion of the Word of God. |
||
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 01:08 AM
|
#50 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
PaulM why does the knowledge of good and evil = Satan?
__________________
My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ! |
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 02:24 AM
|
#51 | ||||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Paul Miletus; 08-10-2008 at 03:26 AM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 04:07 AM
|
#52 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 32
|
Quote:
I do not find your quotes and understanding of brother Lee's ministry entirely accurate or complete. Witness Lee did in fact claim "Satan dwells in man's body" For example consider the following quote: Quote:
"Through the fall, the devil, Satan, came into the outward organ, the human body" If you must inject this forum with the incessant quotes of brothers Nee and Lee rather than your considerations based on their ministry (and more importantly the Bible), please try to do so in an accurate and complete way. Thank you. Steve Last edited by AndPeter; 08-10-2008 at 04:21 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 06:14 AM
|
#53 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
AndPeter, you have missed to emphasize the following in your quotation:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Paul Miletus; 08-10-2008 at 06:18 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 09:04 AM
|
#54 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
The same happened to man. God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes (Eccl. 7:29). The verse from James that you cited confirms my point. James 1:13-15: When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death. Satan can entice us. He can tempt us with something that appeals to our desires, but there is not foreign nature that makes us sin. So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable... (Gen. 3:6). What cause the fall of Eve was her own desire! It was stirred up by Satan, but it was her own desire. Another thing: you say that when man ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, satanic nature entered man. But notice: Eve sinned before the fruit actually got into her. She looked at the fruit, desired it and and stretched her hand to get the fruit - it was already an act of sinning - desire was conceived and gave birth to sin - and it was before she actually ate the fruit. Now you have to prove that the tree of knowledge is Satan. I have two reasons to doubt it: 1) If the tree of knowledge was Satan, then there were two Satans in the Garden - serpent and tree; 2) tree of knowledge was planted by God (Gen. 2:9). And, Paul, if you wish to reply to my post, please do it with the Bible and point by point. God bless you!
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 12:31 PM
|
#55 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Well stated, KSA. I agree 100%. The part about Eve sinning before she ate the fruit is a very strong point. And you are right, we can play with metaphors all day long and it means little. Lee's satanology is totally based on a metaphor, on the word "dwell," when Paul said that nothing good dwells in his flesh, implying something personified. That's pretty weak gruel, to use another metaphor.
And again, as Ohio said, Lee is probably, with his accounting mind, trying to "balance" the account. God lives in us, so Satan must also. Pleasingly symmetrical, but the Bible does not tell us to find symmetry wherever we can. |
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 01:37 PM
|
#56 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 22
|
Ultimate Responsibility
KSA -
Thank you for the further discussion. Forgive me if this post seems to take us further afield from the original topic but it is leading me to some deeper, maybe more philosophical, questions that I have been wrestling with because of some things I am hearing in fellowship with other believers. The first is the question of the origination, or originator, of evil itself. Some say that ultimately God Himself must be the creator of evil because Satan is a created being. And, was he created having a free will. If I am understanding you correctly Satan is himself the creator of evil and man followed him after temptation by himself (man) reproducing in himself that which Satan had previously created, and thus producing the sin in human nature, not by taking Satan into his (man) being but by reproduction, which was possible because of man's God-given free will. (sorry for that long sentence). All of this, to me, leads to the question of ultimate responsibility for sin. If man created his own condition then he is obviously responsible for the consequences. If "the devil made me do it!!", then that is something different. And if God did it, then that is really something different. The NT tells us the Lord Jesus saying that Satan "had nothing in me" which seems to say that the temptation from outside, with Satan as the source, had no corresponding sin in Christ that would respond to it. No doubt we can all agree that our own personal experience matches this understanding, with the opposite results. I am tending to agree with your thoughts on this subject but striving for further clarification on my own part. I hope you would continue. Grace. Arizona |
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 02:44 PM
|
#57 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Dear Arizona, thank you so much for your good questions. You asked about the origin of evil. How was it possible for a creature created by God to find sin in itself? I gave a lot of thought to this matter, and I believe that I have some light from the Lord regarding this. I will share it with you, and let's see if it satisfies you.
I have come to conclusion that sin was possible because God's creation was not perfect. Only God is absolutely perfect. Everything that is not God does not have absolute perfectness. There are some verses that show us this: He charges His angels with error (Job 4:18), and the heavens are not pure in His sight (Job. 15:15). God's creation was good, but not perfect, and in this imperfection the possibility of sin was hidden. This is how Satan fell. And this is imperfectness Satan appealed to in man, when tempting him. God is not a creator of evil as His creation is good. But because the creation is not perfect, sin is possible, but this possibility lies in the freedom of will. Therefore, the responsibility is on the moral agent who used his free will to activate this possibility. Why God's new creation is His masterpiece? Because the new creation partakes of God's life and nature - and in this way partakes of His absolute perfectness - be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect! None of the old creation, even faithful angels, is as perfect as God. Only the church, the Body of Christ, has access to God's full perfection. This is why there will be no danger of sin anymore for us in eternity. I hope it helps. God bless you!
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard Last edited by KSA; 08-10-2008 at 02:52 PM. |
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 11:37 PM
|
#58 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Now, please take note that Satan is "spirit" and has no body nor soul. For a clear mind, we would be able to reason out that nothing can be injected to Satan since he did not possess any body in the first place. You said that "Satan fell because iniquity was found in him, it did not come from outside." I can agree with this statement. However, Satan was not privileged by God to choose from any tree, only man was given this high privilege. The Bible is so illustrative that you cannot miss what God is telling us. The tenet of the Bible is for God, as the Triune God, to dispense Himself into man. God cannot dispense Himself to any other creatures because only man is perfectly matched and compatible with God. The Word says, whatever is born of flesh is flesh, whatever is born of Spirit is spirit. Please pray-read Zechariah 12:1 and you will see for yourself how important man is to God. God created the universe for the earth to exist. God created the earth for man to exist. God formed the spirit within the man to make man His habitation. God is Spirit and only the spirit of man can receive and communicate with God alone. Unfortunately, Satan frustrated God's plan for man to take Him as man's life as signified by the Tree of Life by deceiving and persuading man to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, thus death reigned through the first Adam. Death is of the Devil, who is Satan. After the fall, the body was no longer a "body" but transmuted into "flesh". Praise the Lord! The Bible is full of illustrations because the Tree of Life that was missed by the first Adam is now available through the Lord Jesus Christ who Himself declared that He is the True Vine. The Tree of Life is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself! (I hope you will agree with me that the Tree of Life is signfied by the Lord Jesus.) Christ is within you the hope of glory! Does this Word ring a bell? If the first Adam had eaten the fruit of the Tree of Life, I believe you are in agreement within that something was "injected" or received by man, Who is Christ within us. In like manner, why can't we understand that through the mistake of the first Adam by eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil something was "injected" or received by man. After man's fall, the human being was corrupted: the body was transmuted into flesh; the soul into self; and the spirit was deadened. Death reigned in man's body which used to be but now, after man's fall, was corrupted by Satan. Grace be with you. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-10-2008, 11:53 PM
|
#59 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
The "man" being discussed in James 1:13-15 is a corrupted man, the "man" after the fall of the first Adam. This man being discussed by James is a "fallen man" or "soulish man" where "sin" reigns in him, the "body of sin" is totally in connivance with the "old man", and the "old man" which is our "self" is always in agreement with "sin" to make sins. Please pray-read Romans 6:6. Eve's mistake would not result in "death reigning in man" should she had not eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God's command to man was not to eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And we know all, that the consequence of disobeying God's command "you will surely die". The New Testament tells us that the penalty or wages of sin is death. Prior to Eve's eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, death was not yet present in man's body. It was the very act of Eve when she ate the fruit from the Tree of Knoweldge of Good and Evil that death totally manifested in man's being; and thereby, transmuting the body into flesh, the soul into self, and the spirit was deadened. The Bible is so illustrative using the "fruit" and the act of man eating the fruit to show us that something was received by man that caused his fall and corrupted man's body, soul, and spirit. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 12:01 AM
|
#60 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Do you remember what the Word says? Their mind was opened after eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Their mind were not opened before eating the fruit! The effect of "sin" was not yet in them before eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; only after they have eaten the fruit. After the fruit had been received in their body, only then "sin" or "death" manifested in them. The first Adam or Eve experience at the Garden of Eden is totally different with what you were citing in your above statement. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 12:12 AM
|
#61 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
The tree of knowledge firstly signifies everything utilized by Satan, regardless of whether it is good or evil. It does not signify Satan directly, because he likes to hide. When Satan first entered into man, he did not do it in a frank way. He came in the form of a serpent. At the beginning of the Bible, the serpent was very cunning and apparently was quite attractive (Gen. 3:1), unlike the ugly serpents under God's curse. As Eve conversed with the serpent, she did not realize that Satan was in it. Herein lies the principle of Satan's appearing: he never appears frankly, but subtly. The nature and result of the tree of life are both life because it is a tree of life. But the nature and result of the tree of knowledge of good and evil are both death because knowledge, good, and evil are all of death and bring in death. Anything that is not life is of death and results in death. Actually, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the tree of death; yet it is not called the tree of death, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Death is not only behind evil; it is also behind knowledge and good. The title of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is subtle because Satan always likes to conceal himself. Satan has the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Since the tree of knowledge of good and evil is actually the tree of death, it signifies Satan. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 12:35 AM
|
#62 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 12:44 AM
|
#63 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard Last edited by KSA; 08-11-2008 at 12:54 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 12:53 AM
|
#64 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 02:33 AM
|
#65 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
The book of Genesis chapter 3 is so vivid illustrating that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil entered into man after man ate the fruit. Thus, "sin" or "death" reigned in man after the fall of man. The Old Testament are full of illustrations that cannot be found in the New Testament. The New Testament deals mostly with spiritual things which nobody can see them clearly except we go back to the Old Testament for us to see them accurately. The point we are making is that whether Nigel Tomes had made a mistake in assessing the teachings of the local church or Brother Witness Lee. Discussing about Lucifer is a tangent in this subject. You must accept the reality that Lucifer does not have a "body" to be compared with "man". Therefore, you must go back to man's being having body, soul, and spirit to defend the writings of Nigel Tomes. I can see clearly that Nigel Tomes lacks the understanding of the vast difference between "flesh" and "body". I can also perceive that he must have neglected the difference of the status or condition of man between "man's prior fall" and "man's after fall". Sorry to say, but this statement also applies to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 02:43 AM
|
#66 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
If the fall of man has to do with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, then, the rise of man has to do with the Tree of Life. What would you do with the Tree of Life for man to rise? I believe you will agree with me that we must eat the fruit from the Tree of Life because it signifies the very uncreated life of God. If man has not been disobedient and did not eat the fruit from Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, would you consider man as "righteous" at that particular moment while the fruit, either from Tree of Life or Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, are still outside of man or has not been eaten yet? |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 02:44 AM
|
#67 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Well, Paul, I see that you stay convinced in your view which is ok. I have clearly presented my arguments and proofs, so readers of this forum can compare and judge for themselves.
As for flesh, I will leave this topic for a later time. I hope that other participants will join this discussion.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 02:52 AM
|
#68 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
When did Adam die? When he disobeyed! Sin came into his through disobedience, not through the fruit - Rom. 5 is clear about this! Anyway, as I mentioned in my previous post, I stated my position, and it is now up to readers to decide which view is scriptural.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 02:57 AM
|
#69 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
How can you say that "Death cannot be the nature of the tree of knowledge" wherein God Himself was telling Adam and Eve that they will SURELY DIE the moment they eat the fruit thereof? Are we having another Word coming from you now? |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 03:21 AM
|
#70 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Paul, it is you who are confused when you use the word "nature". I do not doubt that eating from tree caused death, but it does not mean that death is the nature of this tree. Please, prove that death was the nature of the tree (when God Himself said that it was good for food). You should very well know that premature knowledge can be dangerous, and even cause death. But it does not mean that death is the nature of this knowledge. The tree of knowledge gave man something that only God had - God said "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22). Don't you think that this verse contradicts Lee's teaching that God is life, but knowledge of good and evil belongs to Satan? God knows good and evil, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil expresses this attribute of God. This tree has nothing to do with Satan. Satan tempted man to get something that belongs to God, just like he himself attempted to get something that belongs to God. Man fell because he craved something that belongs to God, but he wanted it apart from God. He wanted to become like God, just like Satan wanted to become like God. And this caused his death, just like it caused Satan's death.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 05:13 AM
|
#71 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 06:06 AM
|
#72 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Paul,
Two things. 1) Much of your defense of Lee's theology depends on jumping to conclusions. 2) The fact that you do not disagree with Lee or Nee on anything hurts your credibility, if simply based on the fact that Lee and Nee didnt' agree on everything. But the fact that you act as if you don't differ in any way makes you uncredible. This is why I rarely discuss matters with you. You are not interested in discussion nor in admitting to the weak points of what Lee taught. You simply have an agenda to defend him at all cost. In doing so you just look foolish, like a person who can't think for himself but still wants to be seen as wise. |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 06:29 AM
|
#73 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
Biotheology!
Seems to me that Lee's theology and that of his parrot PaulM is: by eating the banana the sinful nature a/k/a Satan got into man and was somehow passed on down to us via the banana cells. Perhaps we should call this biotheology.
In fact, as has been pointed out several times the sin was disobedience.
__________________
My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ! |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 08:36 AM
|
#74 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
KSA is correct. Man died because he chose to disobey not because of some "nature of the tree." God told Adam not to eat of the tree. Maybe as Adam became more mature, God would have said one day that he was mature enough to have the knowledge that tree would give. Just like we do with our children. There is a time and place for learning certain things and it is dependent on their maturity. Children need to trust and obey, just as Adam should have done. (The N.T. speaks of discerning between good and evil as something for mature believers.) Sometimes our children learn the hard way and we have to allow this. This is not the preferable path to maturity, but sometimes it is the path children choose. All of mankind has learned a very hard lesson, the hard way. We all face the results of disobedience to God every day. Like the prodigal son, one day we woke up and realized we were in the pig sty eating pig slop. We came to our senses and start looking for home. I guarantee you that the prodigal son, once restored to his father, did not exercise his freedom to go out again. Why? Was it because the father injected the returning prodigal with some processed father drug that enabled the prodigal to stay home? No, it is because the prodigal having learned the consequences of leaving his father would never choose to do so again. He would stay of his own volition, not because he was drugged with his Dad's nature. Staying with his father meant that every single need would be met. That is what grace is. Grace is not like a bio-drug that changes us biologically, intrinsically, organically, or whatever automatic sounding word you wish to use. Grace is God's full and complete provision for us that is available to us as His children when we ask. Just as our choice to disobey opened the door for the the power of the spirit that works in the children of disobedience to control us, our choice to believe in Christ opened the door to the power of the Holy Spirit to energize us. We ask and He gives. Day by day this is how Christ lives in us. We will remain for eternity beings with freedom to choose to go out on our own, but we will never, never do this because we know what that means and because we have seen and known the love that God has towards us. Thankful Jane Last edited by Thankful Jane; 08-11-2008 at 08:50 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 11:05 AM
|
#75 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North of Mansfield Ohio
Posts: 165
|
Quote:
When we accept Christ and follow Him and are being transformed...we are being...re"gene"rated. (taking the word sperma literally saying we have God's DNA). In order to balance this word, you need the sin injection in the garden. Sue |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 11:19 AM
|
#76 |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
I agree that the sin is/was disobedience. But does this mean that I was not BORN sinful, but rather lost access to God only after my first actual act of disobedience (which, if I remember correctly, was at age 8 months
)?If not - that is, if I WAS born with and in sin, how is that possible? Bio-theology?
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 12:01 PM
|
#77 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
"Through one man's disobedience the many were made sinners." Romans 5:19a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 12:16 PM
|
#78 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
Jesus has now Jesus paid the debt for us and bought our freedom. When we believe this we get transferred to another kingdom where by faith we become sons of God and His willing servants. If you believe that your body acts under the control of Satan because he is in it, then it follows that the only way God can take over is to move out Satan and move Himself into your body. The Bible does not teach either of these things. Our body is not swallowed up by Him until the very last, when God has done his work in our heart. Lee taught us that Christ lived in our spirit and Satan lived in our body and that they both were fighting for possession of our soul. (This is the stuff mental illness is made of.) Yet, the Bible charges us (as believers) to be cleansed from all filthiness of flesh and spirit. This means we can have a filthy spirit. The spirit that works in the sons of disobedience works in us and convinces our mind to sin. When we do, we are supplied by the evil source to carry out the deeds. We are persuaded in our mind by lies and we act. In the same way, when we are cleansed from our sins, we begin a new relationship with the Holy Spirit, who inspires and persuades us by the truth in His Word and transforms us by renewing our mind, changing our way of thinking. As as we choose to obey God, which is our most reasonable service, and present our bodies to him for his use, He supplies us by His Spirit. He doesn't come and inhabit our physical body when we surrender it to Him. Rather he makes his home in our heart and lives there comfortably with us. The Father and Son come and make their abode with us. He doesnt' pack us up and move us out. There is much more scriptural support for what I am presenting than for the automaton idea. Thankful Jane |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 02:23 PM
|
#79 | |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
Quote:
I don't disagree with the master/slave analogy. My response is along the same lines as my last response to you in the "Last Adam" thread (did you get a chance to look at that? I know you've been pretty swamped). I keep coming back to this and related topics because, the way you are articulating the experience is a view that has caused me much mental disorder. Really. Read my description of the "angst" I've wrestled with in the "Last Adam" thread. In specific response to you here, though: What about the law of sin and death? I don't obey that law because I'll get a ticket or get lashes from my master - as if its the external law of a kingdom (which is what a strict and exclusive master/slave analogy would turn it into). I obey that law because it is within me and operates like a law of nature. I do even that which I do not want to do. So did Paul. It compels me. Its not because an external master orders me to. Its because something within me compels me to. I don't care "where" Satan or sin dwells as far as the complete theology goes - and, as such, I don't really care if Lee was right or wrong on Satan dwelling in our flesh. And the fact that the law of sin and death operates within me did make me an automaton - at least until the law of the spirit of life freed me. As one who has been saved, I'm not automaton now either. At any rate, thoughts on "the law of sin and death" as an internal force? In Love, Peter P.S. Have you ever dealt extensively with an alcoholic? I think sin works the same way with all of us, but it is really stark and clear - less subtle - with someone with an outward addiction.
__________________
I Have Finished My Course Last edited by Peter Debelak; 08-11-2008 at 02:29 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 03:39 PM
|
#80 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 04:51 PM
|
#81 |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
Igzy:
In my rambling, I must have not made my point clear. The question is whether sin is in me (wherever or however) or not. If the sinful nature is in me, then I'm not sure it's makes a whole lot of difference where. I am more concerned about the force of the law of sin and death and from where it operates. Is it internal? If so, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference (from a larger perspective), where it specifically dwells unless we have a very compartmentalized view of our parts. From the totality of my post, I am suprised that this is the point with which you have contention or, at least, this is the point you felt to comment on. Is there something huge that I am missing? It wouldn't be the first time. As always, my ears and heart are open to correction. In Love, Peter
__________________
I Have Finished My Course Last edited by Peter Debelak; 08-11-2008 at 05:07 PM. |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 05:04 PM
|
#82 |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
I should also say, so as to keep on topic, I think Nigel's point was not a major one in regards to where Satan dwells. In fact, his article distinguishes between two things that doesn't have a real experiential consequence for me:
1) is a "virtual personification of Satan" indwelling us or 2) are we actually Satan possessed His point, I think, was not specifically about how important the truth of this matter is, but rather to point out that Brother Lee was wrong on this issue. That is, his point was not about the theology on this point, but rather to show that Lee was not infallible. Likewise with his essay on Ham - Nigel isn't burdened about racism in the LC, he is burdened about a view that considers Lee infallible - that's the reason for writing these articles. Which is why my posts aren't geared toward the content of Nigel's argument. I have no problem saying, "fine, Satan doesn't dwell in my body." But, somehow, the very nature of sin operates within me and in my members such that I am compelled (not by an outward master) to do that which I don't even want to do. I think there is a symmetry. The decendant's of Adam are children of the devil - not just slaves to him. Just as we are children of God and slaves of Christ. I don't get all giddy just because there is a symmetry. But if there is one, I'd like not to be condemned as failing from a Lee-disease just because I point it out. That said, I'm also willing to hear a view that explains why I could be misdirected in this area... Peter
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 05:44 PM
|
#83 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
This, I think, is illustrative of one huge problem with this whole Satan-indwells-our-body nonsense. It's become such an abstract concept that people don't even realize what they are saying when they say it. I understand what you meant by the point you made, that you are concerned with the impact of sin and death in your life. I just thought it was funny that to make your point you basically said that you don't care whether a fallen angel makes his home in your body or not. Perhaps your nonchalance about what should upon reflection be terrifying is related to the fact that we still don't know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 06:14 PM
|
#84 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
Setting aside biotheology I'm not convinced Satan is omnipresent in the first place. How could he dwell in so many people at once?
__________________
My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ! |
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 07:52 PM
|
#85 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
I have pondered this point many, many times. I liken Satan's blunder in Eden to the sacrifice a chess player may make of a pawn (or two, in this case). Among true chess masters, no loss of a piece is without a price. Satan must have pondered this fresh young pair, placed in such a vulnerable state. Hence he comes with questions, not sure, I think, of who exactly they were. When they bit, he experienced the momentary rush of joy in capturing two pieces. But the Lord is a master chess player as well. The price was to be paid later and in another grand sacrifice, the queen, as it were. Satan again was puzzled by the appearance of something new -- Jesus Christ -- and again approached him with questions. He examined this one for three years or more. Finally he determined that God had made a mistake, a colossal one this. So he had him crucified. Oh, how the demons and fallen angels must have been high-fiving it as the nails went in. But then, like all chess players who have taken the queen thinking it a brilliancy, only to find ... oops. At what point Satan and his minions realized their horrible mistake, I know not. Surely by the resurrection, they were clear. Well, this meandering exposition is meant to point out that Lee's view that Satan was injected into man's flesh wasn't just for the heck of it. It was ultimately the trapping of Satan so that he could be destroyed on the cross. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 09:51 PM
|
#86 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 11:35 PM
|
#87 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-11-2008, 11:57 PM
|
#88 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
The tree of life typifies Christ who imparts life to man and who pleases and satisfies man (cf. John 15:1; Exo. 15:25). Christ imparts divine life into us, pleases us, and satisfies us. Many of us can testify of this. We can say, "Hallelujah! Jesus has imparted life to me. He satisfies me all the time." This is the tree of life. Last edited by Paul Miletus; 08-12-2008 at 12:03 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 12:20 AM
|
#89 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
The contents of the tree of knowledge are all things apart from God. Even the Bible inspired by God and the law given by God may be utilized in letters by Satan as the tree of knowledge. The nature and result of the tree of life are both life because it is a tree of life. But the nature and result of the tree of knowledge of good and evil are both death because knowledge, good, and evil are all of death and bring in death. Anything that is not life is of death and results in death. Actually, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the tree of death; yet it is not called the tree of death, but the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Death is not only behind evil; it is also behind knowledge and good. The title of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is subtle because Satan always likes to conceal himself. Satan has the power of death (Heb. 2:14). Since the tree of knowledge of good and evil is actually the tree of death, it signifies Satan. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 12:25 AM
|
#90 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Well, Paul, you did not address my points at all, you just repeated the same old stuff that I have already dealt with. Very bad!
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 12:27 AM
|
#91 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 02:06 AM
|
#92 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 02:26 AM
|
#93 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
I read and did not find. I addressed your points, but you did not address mine, you just repeated your old arguments that had been already addressed by me.
PS. I would like to comment this statement of yours as this would serve me as an additional argument: Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard Last edited by KSA; 08-12-2008 at 02:40 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 02:44 AM
|
#94 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Genesis 3:22 says, "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever." Here we see a picture. We all know that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil signifies independence from God. The fruit of the tree of life, on the other hand, signifies life—the life given to us by the Son of God. After Adam sinned, God was afraid that Adam would eat of the fruit of the tree of life and that if he ate of it, he would not die. If Adam could still die after eating the fruit of the tree of life, then why did God have to do so much work? Why did He have to guard the way to the tree of life with the cherubim and the flaming sword? God did this because He was afraid that Adam would live forever if he ate of it. Although Adam and Eve had the anticipated redemption, they did not then have the actual redemption. They were still sinful in nature. If they, being corrupted in nature, had eaten of the tree of life while in that condition, they would have lived forever with their sinful nature. God did not allow that. The tree of life signifying God must not be touched by sinful man. Thus, before the actual redemption was accomplished, God had to close the way to the tree of life. Once the actual redemption had been completed, access to the tree of life would again be possible. Thus, Genesis tells us that after God had prepared the anticipated redemption for man, He closed the way to the tree of life. Now, I believe there is a flaw in your statements:
Do you really mean that one of the attributes of God is the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" which signifies death? Do you really mean that man craved for the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" that belongs to God? I cannot see any logic in your statements. What are the attributes of God? Quote:
You have indicated in your post that man "craved something that belongs to God". Are you not missing the Word when God forbade man (Adam and Eve) to eat the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? I am very positive that the reason God commanded man not to eat the fruit from the tree of knowlege of good and evil because He knows well that this fruit will not do good to them but rather harm, even unto death. God affirmed this thought when He cautioned man that as soon as they ate this fruit they "will surely die!" Sorry KSA, I cannot buy your logic here! 
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 02:53 AM
|
#95 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
You know, Paul, debating with you becomes rather boring.. you cannot see obvious things.. probably because you have an agenda to defend a certain man's ministry, not the truth in the Word. I am really sorry for you.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 03:14 AM
|
#96 | |||||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Below is a very clear explanation regarding the "law" and why it was given to man by God -- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 03:17 AM
|
#97 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
One quick repeat question: Is the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" which signifies "death" one of the attributes of God? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 03:24 AM
|
#98 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
What is a "person?"
As with any other crucial biblical topics, the issue of Satanology seems to be so interlinked with other truths such as the Fall of man, Christology, the original sin etc in the Bible, as seen in the posts here by a lot of loving brothers and sisters. The interpretation of the Bible cannot be done away from reasoning, analogy, deducting, inducting – or collectively "thinking" unless you are claiming a direct revelation from God. In addition, It is needless to say that we have to think "critically (or logically)" to reach sound conclusions. Of course, this does not mean that only those who are able to think critically can be benefitted by reading the Bible. The opposite can be true as it is really the case with many theologians. I have long been wondering why our God didn't give us a volume of well-written systematic theology text book with which a lot of debates among Christian camps can be stopped. But He even didn't grant us the original manuscripts written by the Apostles, and on the contrary we have some different series of manuscripts – which has been causing the other issues, i.e. which manuscripts and which versions of English Bible to take. Was my God not wise to foresee this before?
After having spent so many times finding the right English Bible to anchor my belief on, I concluded that God was really great to the extent that he hided himself in the human errors. No manuscript is perfect and no human translation is perfect. But God is there speaking to those who reads it. My curious mind had wanted to know everything on the crucial themes in the Bible with the pretext that that would be more helpful for my faith and other's. However, the more I delved into the depth of the truth, the more questions popped up in my head, leading to spiritual thirst rather than spiritual quenching. And, humbly speaking, I should confess that I am not able to present the "unquestionable orthodox doctrine" on Christian Satanology. But I believe collaboration with seeking Christians would lead to more "life-supplying" elaboration of Satanology for me and theirs, if not perfect and it would not be so. So my starting point is this. The definition of "person." What is "person?" A person can have free will, disobey/rebel something (i.e. sin if that is against God), be punished. It seems that we human beings are persons. No arguing. Then, how about God? How about Satan? We also call God a or three person(s). And we think Satan is a person (even though he was an archangel.) Are we allowed to use the term "person" when we refer to God or Satan and, if so, by what sense? In other words, what is the dividing moment or watershed which distinguishes what is a person and what is not? (As far as I recall, Bro. Witness Lee or Bro. Nigel Tomes hasn't defined this term. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) My tentative answer is whether an entity has freewill (or independent purpose which pleases the entity itself) or not. What do all of you think? Last edited by Gubei; 08-12-2008 at 03:33 AM. Reason: spelling |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 03:27 AM
|
#99 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
 I would only add that I did not tell that the tree of knowledge is the law (even though it is an idea worth considering). I used an example with the law to show you how Satan uses something good to bring in death. Now your verse: "letter kills, but the Spirit gives". Paul is not saying here that the law is the letter, and not the Spirit. In Rom. 7:14 Paul says that the law is spiritual, i.e. of the Spirit! But if we take the law by letter, not by the Spirit, the letter kills us. To take the law by letter is to come to the law for outward rules and miss Christ. Christ told Pharisees that they search the Scripture to find life, but miss Him of whom the law and the prophets testify.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 04:07 AM
|
#100 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Thank you for calling it back to my attention, though. That little diagram showing the flesh of Christ wasn't reproduced in any other place, that I am aware of, and this "trapping" theory doesn't appear in any other volume I've ever seen. Like you, I'm not sure I buy it at this point (it was always a rather difficult concept for me in some of the particulars) but it does help to explain how all the negative things, including the enemy, were crucified...
__________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 04:53 AM
|
#101 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Not only does the Old Testament contain "letters" (i.e., the law) that kill, the New Testament also has its "letters." The Old Testament emphasizes the law. The Bible tells us that this law is of God; it is holy and spiritual. But the fact that the Holy Spirit is not within it means that it, like all other literature in the world, has become the letter that kills. Although many truths, commands, exhortations, and teachings in the New Testament are of God and are influential to man's conduct and morality, apart from the power of the Holy Spirit, they are just the letter that kills. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 05:07 AM
|
#102 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
If you check Rom. 2:28-29, you will see that letter is outward, but the Spirit is inward. The law in itself is holy, just and good. The nature of the law is spiritual. The only problem with the law was that it was outward and therefore could not give life. The Spirit does not deny or cancel the law. The Spirit takes the law from the outside and brings it inside (Jer. 31:33). Are you trying to prove that the nature of the law is death? How would you comment Rom. 7:12, 14?
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:43 AM
|
#103 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 07:48 AM
|
#104 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Delete. Post below.
Last edited by SpeakersCorner; 08-12-2008 at 07:50 AM. |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 07:49 AM
|
#105 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Well, I don't have scriptural support for it ... yet. Hence my ginger handling of the topic. But that doesn't mean the verses aren't there. Maybe this thread can help find them in their disparate hiding places. Here's a few things we do know:
It is interesting to me also that innoculation of a human body requires a bit of the disease itself to enter. I also like the idea that God and Satan are fighting over the human soul, that is the battleground. With God coming from within (in the spirit), Satan enters the fray from without (in the body) and the lines are drawn in the great plains of the soul. Like I said, I am not sure where I stand on this one. But I am not too quick to toss out Lee's teaching here. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:33 AM
|
#106 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
There is no solid scriptural ground for saying something as stupendous as Satan lives in our body. As SC alluded, it's something people "like" to believe for one reason or another, because it satisfies their desire for drama or irony or symmetry or some other thing. But it's not biblical; it's almost totally speculation.
Why should anyone expect people to base their core beliefs on speculation? Last edited by Cal; 08-12-2008 at 08:37 AM. |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:56 AM
|
#107 |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
What is the practical consequence (or negative fruit) of someone believing Satan dwells in their body, as opposed to just believing that sin dwells in their body and the law of sin and death operates within them?
I agree that there isn't clear Biblical evidence that Satan HIMSELF lives in our body. And those who believe it likely do so because it affords some "symmetry" or something. But if the practical effect of believing this is no different than just believing that sin dwells in our body, then what's the fuss? If it offers people a visual which inspires a desperation for Christ, why not let it be (so long as it doesn't have an unintended consequence - which is why I'm asking the question)? To be sure, in the context of Lee, its important to point out an errant teaching - but not for the purpose of pointing out the teaching itself is wrong - but rather to show that Lee was not infallible. That said, since (I think) we would all agree that sin dwells within us and that we were born children of the devil (John 3:10), I don't know that it makes a huge difference whether its Satan himself or just sin which indwells us - either one is profoundly terrifying. Thoughts? Peter
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 09:18 AM
|
#108 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
To me it's a lot more terrifying, creepy, weird, prone to imagining all kinds of vague "supernatural" sensations (if Satan is in my body, can I ever feel him?), etc. to believe than Satan lives in my body than to just consider that my moral nature has been corrupted by the fall.
The Bible often uses metaphor, but that doesn't mean that the metaphor has an exact parallel in reality. Paul says sin "dwells" in us, but that doesn't necessarily mean that sin is a conscious, breathing entity. It's just metaphor. I've witnessed several mentally unstable Christians, all in the LC. From my observation, such people tend to become very subjective and superstitious about their sensations, and get to the point that they can't sort them out. These people don't need to be thinking that Satan lives in their body. For the sake of the less stable and even immature among us, and there are many, I suggest we hold off on the practically groundless speculation that Satan himself dwells in us. The other side of you question, Peter, then, is if the teaching does no good, why bother with it? |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 09:19 AM
|
#109 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
Quote:
Also, I'm sorry for skipping over so much other discussion here. I just saw your last post when I was ready to post this one. (Things move too fast!!) Maybe what I've written will be of some help, so here goes:I am not saying that you have an external master who "tells" you to do something. The essence of bondage is that you are forced to do what you do not want to do because the one forcing you has more power than you and also has the right to control you. One question I had for years was how some Christians seem just start growing normally after they are born again, while others seem to struggle with bondage issues (alchoholism or other such addictive behaviors, longterm depression, etc.) and not grow much at all after years of being a believer. When I first read Neil Anderson's book The Bondage Breaker, I started to get some understanding of this in a way that made sense to me. I learned that it was possible for believers to be in bondage (meaning you continue to be driven to do things you don't want to do). This could be for a variety of reasons. One reason is the presence of ongoing sin for which there is no repentance which may seem to be unrelated to the problem in question. The person may not even be aware they are sinning. Another reason is deception (believing things that are not true). There are other reasons. I think you might benefit from reading this book if you feel so inclined. I am not trying to objectify the experience we have in our flesh. The overpowering feeling that comes from within ourselves is very real. Anderson explains that any habitual sin in our life is legal ground for the devil to afflict us and cause us to do evil things. He actually overpowers us. In the same way that he injects thoughts in our mind that seem like they are our own, he can empower us to do evil and it seems the source of that power is in us. I do not think this means that Satan himself is indwelling our body from birth. (Why is this thought a problem? Because it can cause us to have unhealthy self loathing. There doesn't seem much way of escape or peace until the rapture. The Bible tells us that we are to take care of our body and appreciate it as God's temple, not look at it as some piece of real estate with a permanent squatter living in it.) Satan is not omnipresent or omniscient or omnipotent. Only God is these things. He doesn't work by indwelling us himself. The Bible makes it plain that Satan has an army of fallen angels and evil spirits under his command through whom he does his evil work. He uses these beings to carry out his plans against us. No doubt sometimes he is directly on the scene, as with Judas, and as we know he will be with the antichrist. I have been personally involved in seeing some people find freedom from years of bondage when they removed the legal ground from their lives that Satan had to afflict them. They did this by specific repentance for habitual sin in their life, after God gave them light on what that sin was. Here is one example: My husband and I were close friends with a couple who were also Christians. They left the LC after being in it for only a few years. The husband had left divinity school to join the LC and after leaving the LC, he struggled for years with bitterness and depression. On a number of occasions we heard him say some pretty shocking things about God. His wife had wept and prayed for him and had confided in me how upsetting it was to see what had happened to him. A number of years passed and we had not seen them. (They lived in another city.) One day, not long after my husband and I had been helped by Neil Anderson's book, the husband of this couple called us and came to spend the night with us. He was on a business trip. That evening he confided in us his desperate need to find God again, and his feeling of complete and utter helplessness and hopelessness. He said no matter what he did, he just couldn't seem to get through or find God. He felt he was in some kind of torment. He said God never answered his prayers and it was like the heavens were closed to him. My husband shared with him a little about what we had learned from Anderson's book and some of the experiences we had had. He was desperate for help. We all sat in our living room and prayed asking God to show him any ongoing sin in his life for which he had not repented. As we prayed, one word came into my mind. The word was "slander." I then told him that I had heard him slander God terribly on numerous occasions over the years. At first he seemed surprised to hear this, but as I gave him an example or two, he hung his head. I suggested that he should repent for doing this. He sat there silently for a few minutes thinking about that and then said he wanted to repent. He was truly penitent and after a few more minutes of silence with his head bowed, he prayed and asked God to forgive him for his slanderous speaking about Him. After this, he looked at us and said, "Nothing has changed. I don't feel any different." We said, "Well, it can't hurt to repent for slandering God." The next morning before he left, he told us again, he was in the same condition as when he came. We felt sad for him, but didn't know what else to tell him except that we would pray for him. Two days later we received a phone call from him and his wife. The wife began with this statement, "I don’t know what you did to my husband, but thank you!" She described how the day before he had been outside working on their car, when all of a sudden he came running into the house. He ran across the living room to the corner and stood on his head, shouting something about being free. (This was something they had done over the years when something exciting or extremely noteworthy happened to them. They had seen Scrooge do this when he got delivered from his selfishness in an old, old movie. J) He proceeded to tell her what had happened to him. He had been working on his car for a period of time and could not figure out why it wouldn’t start. He said he got more and more upset and that he eventually gave up in frustration. Then he decided to pray. He asked God to help him fix the car. He said he immediately knew what to do and did it. He turned the key and the car started. He then proceeded to tell us that from that moment forward he realized that everything had changed. The dark cloud he had been under was gone and since that time he had been full of joy at having the Lord’s presence again. About twelve years passed before I saw him again. When I did, he took me aside and told me that from the time of his repentance for slandering God to the present he had continued to walk with the Lord in freedom. His old anger and bitter expressions and depression were a thing of the past. My point is that the ongoing sin in this brother’s life was legal ground for the devil to oppress him for many years. He was a Christian in bondage. When he repented the devil lost that ground and he found freedom. Neil A. says that one of the most bondage engendering sins is unforgiveness. He encourages people to pray and ask the Lord to bring to their mind the names of any persons they have not forgiven. God is very faithful to answer this kind of prayer!! I am not sure I am answering your question, but I hope this helps some. I have not dealt extensively with alchoholism. Anderson’s book does address this kind of addiction. Things like alcoholism and other addictions are more like fruits in a person’s life which have another underlying cause. As usual, what is high on my list is not doctrinal perfection for the sake of intellectual satisfaction. I am into what helps people. Having a healthy understanding of how the powers of darkness work and the way to find lasting freedom from their attacks is important since we live in a world that is full of evidence of their persistent activity, not only in unbelievers but also in Christians. Nuff said. Thankful Jane |
||
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 09:30 AM
|
#110 | |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
Quote:
But I also know a number of Christians who didn't appreciate that - both inside the LC and outside. These folks had an active church life or ministry, they weren't killing anyone and were helpin' out the poor on Tuesday nights. Living like this and in the insular community (which most groups - particularly Christian groups are), it becomes easy to forget that sin is inwardly operating. I don't know, these folks might benefit from a little scare that comes from the thought that Satan himself dwells within them. It can be an illustration that hits home a point. We can state clearly that there is not solid Biblical support for the ultimate truth of it and still use the illustration. For those who believe it to be truth, well, I guess it would depend on how their errant belief is operating in their life. If they're going nuts (like the folks you mention), perhaps a little tough love and cutting straight is in order. If they hold to the belief because it offers a healthy does of fear which turns them more to Christ, I'm not sure we need to call in the truth police... Peter
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 09:31 AM
|
#111 |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
please delete. duplicate
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 10:14 AM
|
#112 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Thanks for the verse. It certainly fits my little chess analogy. One thing I value in a forum discussion like this is the many heads at work. We all have bits and pieces of the puzzle in our heads. We all have particular verses and interpretations that can contribute to the whole. I for one no longer have much drive to spend my hours studying the Bible in isolation. I'm not necessarily proud of that fact, but it is so. So when a brother or sister brings me a verse that clarifies, supports, illuminates, or even undermines a pet theory -- a verse I may have neglected or forgotten -- I am thrilled. Short posts, lotsa dialogue, verse nuggets ... this is what I enjoy most. SC Last edited by SpeakersCorner; 08-12-2008 at 10:16 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 10:31 AM
|
#113 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 11:13 AM
|
#114 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
SC started one post with the following:
“While I'm not sure if I agree with Lee or Tomes on this issue, I would like to point out that Lee's teaching about this had an important element which I think has been missing from this debate. He felt Satan's injecting of his nature into humanity was ultimately a huge mistake on Satan's part. By placing something of himself into mankind, the Satanic nature, could now be destroyed on the cross. Christ, in putting on the flesh, took on this human nature which, though Satan had no place in him, was in the line of Adam.” I’m not sure what I think about this one either. Maybe it was just in the way he said it, but I suddenly had this interesting thought. Lee kept harping on what God had to do to deal with Satan. Actually, it was not what he had to do, but what he chose to do. He didn’t have to have Satan injected into man so that the cross would destroy him. In fact , if it was a matter of Satan being trapped in man and then dying with him, then why didn’t every other death of a human have the same effect. And if it didn’t, how did dying with Christ on the cross specifically kill Satan in a manner that the other human deaths did not? And since he (Satan) obviously still lives, is there a hole in that theory? We have to wait for the end of Revelation to see the actual execution. Does the scripture actually say that Satan was executed on the cross, or does it say that the hold of sin, Satan, etc., was eliminated without actually saying Satan was executed? (I’m not looking at any particular scripture. While I have some hunch were this may go, I do not pretend to know the answer This is a question for consideration. The answers could be either way and I’m not necessarily partial.) In other words, is there something scriptural that clearly states that there was a little bit of Satan in man and he was executed when Christ died on the cross? Or is the it that through the death of the body (first of Christ) that we are able to identify with Christ and be freed from the sinful nature with which we were born (but was not stated anywhere as being Satan dwelling in us)? Is there a clear scriptural basis for that thought, or does it circle back to the Romans 7 kind of argument about whether Satan is actually in us or simply a sinful nature? Is this teaching that Satan was executed on the cross correct, or was it another leap by Lee? Did it have to be a certain way for Satan’s demise to be carried out? Or was the sacrifice on the cross the fulfillment of the death of man for his own sin? Is the ultimate judgment of Satan in Revelation because of the cross, or is that judgment there, and not at the cross, or sometime millennia before the earth was created simply because that is how God decided to do it? This “had to” talk seems to limit God and make the skirmish between God and Satan seem more like a strategy game between equals than a well-orchestrated plot by an all-powerful God to demonstrate His power and restraint relative to a created being. I would tend believe in the latter, not the former based on my understanding of scripture in general.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 01:08 PM
|
#115 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 318
|
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.
__________________
My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ! |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 01:21 PM
|
#116 | |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
Quote:
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...
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 01:32 PM
|
#117 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 01:39 PM
|
#118 | |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
Quote:
Thanks for the thoughts and the story. I will pick up a copy of Neil A's book. On one hand, I think there is something particular going on with the stereotypical "addict" - on the other hand, I think it can do us a disservice by bracketing the "addict" behavior only to those cases where there is an obvious object of the addiction (like alcohol or whatever). Because, whether it is love for the bottle or love of self, sin operates in all of us the same way. It can be easy to say that since we don't do any of the really ugly outward behavior that we're okay. We're not. Recently I have been fellowshipping with someone going through alcoholics anonymous. Upon reading some of their literature, I had the thought: geez, everyone should go through aa. Because our root problems are the same - even if we don't run to the bottle. We are liars. We want to hide when God calls us. We don't want to face the way we treat others and ourselves. We hide behind the things we're good at or the things we're comfortable in so that we don't have to face our lack. So we dive into the "meeting life" or we avoid certain people, or we stop praying, etc... As I have written before, I see sin as simply being the LIE - which came from the Father of Liars, the one who asserted there was something other than God. And there is nothing WE can do about our condition to "cure" ourselves. We need God - we need Christ, the one who condemned sin on the Cross. All of us and every day. Not just the ones who are caught in certain "classes" of sin. All of us and every day. Whether the master (Satan) is within us or outside of us, the point is that his tool of bondage - Sin, the Lie - operates in our members. Wretched folks that we are, who can deliver us? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! In Love, Peter
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 04:26 PM
|
#119 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 181
|
Speaker,
If Satan was trapped in man so that he could be destroyed in the flesh, then wouldn't he have to have been indwelling the flesh of our Lord Jesus? Perish the thought. Roger |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 04:48 PM
|
#120 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
Twitter allows you to create a sort of micro-blog with posts no longer than 140 characters, which are broadcast to anyone who cares. Verbosity is verbotten; brevity is enforced. From Wikipedia: Westwinds Church in Jackson, Michigan uses Twitter as a part of its weekend worship services and introduced the concept of Twitter Church. Westwinds runs training classes for Twitter and encourages members to bring laptops and mobile devices to church. On occasion, the Twitter feed will be live on the screens in the auditorium and everyone is encouraged to give their input, make observations, and ask questions in an interactive worship format. Join twitter and broadcast your tweets to other twits. Really. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 04:55 PM
|
#121 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Yes, perish that thought. But the situation with the Lord's flesh is not so simple. Consider that-- "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor. 5:21) What's up with that? Would you perish that thought, that He became sin? And of course Isaiah 53:6, "...but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." Then there's the interesting little story about Isaac on the altar. A transfer takes place. Surely this is a picture of deep spiritual stuff that was going on on the cross. Sin is different than Satan, a rejoinder I know you will make which I will agree with. But it's still pretty awesome a thought to think that the Son of God became SIN. So maybe in some very strange way in His becoming sin, he also took on some of Satan's nature at that point. Maybe he was, like Isaac up to the point of the transfer, the pure, innocent son. And then, in the transfer, the pure Son was pulled out leaving the shell of flesh which was full of sin and even the Satanic nature. I don't know. I just know it's pretty interesting stuff to think about. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 06:12 PM
|
#122 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 181
|
Yes, indeed.
In my early Christian life I was led to believe that it was the physical suffering that the Lord dreaded when he was in the Garden of Gethsemane. While his physical suffering was something beyond our imagination, it was his becoming sin in that moment and being totally estranged from the Father, for even a moment in time, that was his greatest dread. We can’t even comprehend what fellowship exists between the Father and Son. We only get a little taste in the Church. But to have that deep, deep, vast immeasurable fellowship to be cracked even for a second of time was too much to consider. But thank God for, “Let your will be done, and not mine.” Roger |
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 07:08 PM
|
#123 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
Yes, the root problems are the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 07:58 PM
|
#124 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 295
|
Quote:
I agree on all points you made. The LIE (made up of many lies) actually works in our minds. You'll find that Anderson shows that the battle with the evil one is fought with truth. Let me know what you think of what Anderson has to say. I don't think I did justice to what his message and insights in my posting. Thankful Jane |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:38 PM
|
#125 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 129
|
Quote:
Hi, aron! Glad you're here! Keep comin' back, it works!! To everyone else --- everyone who wonders what the heck I am talking about, that is real AA/NA talk, and my way of saying me too, aron. I don't go to meetings anymore, but I did for a long time. It's a great program, and the principals work. Like Peter said, a lot of the what the 12 steps deal with is the lies. There is a line that says something like we (alcoholics, addicts) cannot afford to lie. Or maybe that line is about holding resentments and anger. It is all pretty deadly to people who really like to run to their addiction of choice. Gotta deal with those things before (like aron said) it kills us. Another goal of the program is to deal with the wreckage of the past. That's why all the self-examining, sharing with someone you trust and then amends-making. It's all to help you leave the past behind, start new. Not bad, huh? And the real key to whole thing is what they call your Higher Power. AKA, God. They give people a lot of room to define that for themselves, but it really is key to the success of the program. And a great jumping off point for people to discover Jesus. I mean, you start asking God to help you, you end up with Jesus. The program is genius in the way it works and clearly a gift from God, in my very very humble opinion. And, Peter, what you said about we dive into the "meeting life" or find other ways of avoiding the truth, is right on. God is Light, and in Him is no darkness. So when we run from that light of truth, we are trying to run from God. Doesn't work very well, He just stays next to us. Stop running for just a moment, and bamm, there He is. When I was in the LC, I used to think (in moments of honesty) that I really really liked the 'getting out of my mind' because I just really liked being out of my mind. In the drugged, sick sort of way..... I used to think about that. I think chanting accomplishes that, regardless of what you are chanting. And we did chant, didn't we? I hope this isn't too off target, I just wanted to echo what aron and Peter and Jane and everyone  said. (uh oh. Is that just another way to say it is their fault, not mine? Oh man, I gotta work the steps on this )I'm glad to say I am finallyprettyokay
Last edited by finallyprettyokay; 08-12-2008 at 09:22 PM. Reason: typos, adding thought |
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2008, 08:46 PM
|
#126 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
How to interpret the Bible
I looked up two dictionaries for the definition of person. As most of Bible students well aware of, the origin of the English word person is "persona" in Latin and "hypostasis" in the usage of Trinity. However, the one eye-catching explanation is that "A person is a thinking intelligent being." (Webster's 1828) and " a human being as distinguished from an animal or thing" (Merriam-Webster's 2000).
So, a bit more refined definition of person is this. Person – any entity that is able to think (as opposed to animals or plants which usually act according to its instinct) with its own freewill with which it could be judged for reward or punishment (Of course, except God. He doesn't need to be rewarded or punished because He is the final authority in the Universe.) Whether an entity can be called a person or not is regardless of physical existence. If I follow my self-made definition of person, I seem to be able to think of four categories of persons. God, human beings, angels, Satan and its subordinates. Among them, only human beings are wearing physical body. Human beings are so accustomed to themselves in bodily form (or in the limitation of time and space), so they unconsciously assume as if God, angels, and Satan and its subordinates were in the same limitation of time and space because they even cannot imagine what it is like to be totally free from bodily limitation. Now my next question is this. Is my God free of this limitation? Of course, He is because He is omnipresent and omniscient. But some expressions in the Bible depict our God as if He is in the limitation of time and space. Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. (ASV) We know that our God is omnipresent and omniscient so we think this verse is not saying He is confined in heaven but depicting of His Highness. But this kind of depicting can give us human being who is under the limitation of time and space a strong feeling. In short, the reality of the spiritual sphere should be translated into expressions of human words in time and space limitation for the convenience of understanding. If you agree with me, you will soon find how difficult it is to interpret some verses in the Bible. Eph 2:2 wherein ye once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons of disobedience; (ASV) The air in this verse is physical or spiritual? Clark gave us the following explanation; [Satan is termed prince of the power of the air, because the air is supposed to be a region in which malicious spirits dwell, all of whom are under the direction and influence of Satan, their chief.] Do malicious spirits literally dwell in the air? Or Isn't this verse also a kind of paraphrasing with human words for the convenience of understanding? My point is this. We should be on the same page regarding Biblical language before we scrutinize crucial issues in the Bible. I remember that dispensationalist took the extreme position on this matter – 100% literal interpretation and Bro. Witness Lee took a bit mitigated position - as literal as possible. My position? I am going to start in the next post. BTW, what is your position? Webster's 1828 quote PERSON, n. per'sn. [L. persona; said to be compounded of per, through or by, and sonus, sound; a Latin word signifying primarily a mask used by actors on the state.] 1. An individual human being consisting of body and soul. We apply the word to living beings only, possessed of a rational nature; the body when dead is not called a person. It is applied alike to a man, woman or child. A person is a thinking intelligent being. 2. A man, woman or child, considered as opposed to things, or distinct from them. A zeal for persons is far more easy to be perverted, than a zeal for things. Unquote Last edited by UntoHim; 08-13-2008 at 08:52 AM. Reason: TMI! |
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 12:52 AM
|
#127 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
what do you mean?
The reason I started with the definition of person is that Nigel Tomes' original writhing was on the matter of the dwelling of Satan in us as a person, but without defining the word and its variant, personification. And the reason I looked up the definition of the word in Webster's 1828 is that some Christians are saying that the definitions of Webster's 1828 better represent the usage of English words in the Bible. - Gubei
Last edited by Gubei; 08-13-2008 at 01:27 AM. |
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 01:14 AM
|
#128 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
In addition to my posts #43 and #49, I would like to bring your attention on John 3:14. I did not find any reference made by Nigel Tomes on this wonderful verse while contending with Brother Witness Lee's teaching regarding this thread. Perhaps, it was not touched by Nigel Tomes since this particular verse will turn upside-down his thesis on his writing titled "THE ENEMY WITHIN—SATAN IN THE BELIEVER’S BODY— LSM’s UNORTHODOX SATANOLOGY".
John 3:14 was addressed by the Lord Jesus Christ to Nicodemus who was a teacher and zealous Jew in his time. John 3:14 is as much applicable to us as in Nicodemus time. Likewise, John 3:14 was in reference of the Scripture in Numbers 21:9. Here in this discussion we have both the New Testament and the Old Testament interpreting the Word with the Word. I would like to take the liberty in saying that the Lord Jesus was allegorizing in this instance, and perhaps, it is more accurate to say that the Lord Jesus was directly revealing a mystery in typology. I just pray that we may have an open spirit while reading the following teachings of Brother Witness Lee like the true Bereans of the Bible. My spirit rejoices in the Lord for knowing this interpretation by Brother Witness Lee on John 3:14. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Paul Miletus; 08-13-2008 at 01:38 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 01:55 AM
|
#129 | |
|
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
|
#130 | ||
|
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, 09:17 AM
|
#131 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
FPO, yes the AA "recovery" plan is useful. The 12 steps were based on the Oxford Group in England, which was a bunch of sinners trying to figure out how to come back to God according to Biblical principles. The drunkards seized upon the "way" because they were literally perishing. It was not self-improvement, it was survival. If "sinners" realized how grave the situation was they would likewise seize the principles (faith, repentance, honesty, forgiveness, restitution, etc) and allow themselves to be likewise saved from perishing.
Gubei, I like your ideas on a "person" posessing "agency", or will, or the capacity to choose. I have long felt that only God has the capacity to act. Satan merely reacts. When we are in Spirit, we act. When we are being religious, with our scriptural rule books, we merely react. Only God is a "person". All other entities are either agents of God or agents of Satan, who by definition are "not". Question: do we act by "instinct", merely reacting, or by God's grace do we turn and open to the only One who "is"?Paul Miletus, I liked your inclusion of the Brass Serpent story. It certainly is salient to the discussion. The brass serpent has the form, but not the substance. Jesus had human form, but not sinful nature. So, is it possible for us, by God's grace, to choose the divine nature, not the fallen human nature, as the "substance" of our "person"? I think/hope so. Without that hope, what hope do I have? Thanks for the posted material; I liked it. KSA, you are correct. Influence is not a matter. Substance is a matter. Influence is the clue that you are in the presence of substance (gravity = mass, etc). And the sphere, realm, domain of influence is what I like to call a "kingdom". In physics it is called a "field". It is a useful analogy.
|
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 10:38 AM
|
#132 | |
|
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
|
#133 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 12:11 PM
|
#134 | |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
Quote:
There wasn't pre-existant evil nature or substance which motivated Satan. God made everything. There is nothing that exists in reality that is not out from God. As KSA said, there is no "substance" which is not out from God. So, what Satan did was chose "not God." Not inherently "evil" or anything, he simply chose "not God." But, as mentioned, there is nothing which exists which is "not God." Thus, he chose something that didn't exist. He chose a lie. The realm in which he operates is a realm which doesn't exist - it is a lie and he is consequently the father of liars. That said, I still have a hard time with the fact that I was born into sin if something wasn't "injected" into human nature by virtue of the fall. Perhaps it is simply that we are born into a realm that "doesn't exist" and thus, by nature, are born into sin - the lie. Thoughts? Peter
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 12:40 PM
|
#135 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
This is another wriggly can of speculative worms, though, Peter. I'm not sure how you just put "doesn't exist" in quotes like that. I understand what you mean and can go along with you but, playing "devil's advocate" so to speak, what does it mean to put those quotes there?
__________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 01:20 PM
|
#136 |
|
I Have Finished My Course
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Avon, OH
Posts: 303
|
Frankly, its just awkward to say, even if true - from the perspective of one who was born into an existence based on a lie. You live in it, you operate in it, you make plans in it - its awkward to say it doesn't exist - even if true. So the "quotes" are a way of expressing that tension. They're not necessary though.
__________________
I Have Finished My Course |
|
|
|
|
08-13-2008, 02:04 PM
|
#137 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Well, I'm curious to see what might pop out of the can yet...
__________________
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
|
#138 | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 03:33 AM
|
#139 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
Quote:
1. Before I get into answering your question... My 2 cents for ontology most of posters are discussing now. Aristotle is said to have tried to define everything by such a systematic way as apple (lower concept) = red (difference) + fruit (upper concept) And at the zenith of upper concept is "existence." Some posters in this thread seem to be trying to say "at the zenith of upper concept are "existence" and "non-existence". God created only existence, and non-existence (including sin in it) is from nowhere." However, with a second thought, the assumption of non-existence is existence itself. In other words, when we say non-existence, it means non-existence existes, thus non-existence is included in existence. Of course, I'm not a devil's advocate. But the afore-mentioned logic is very troublesome. 2. Now answering your question... Actually you are asking so difficult questions a lot of theologians have debated so long, in vain... I'm no better or smarter than those. Anyway, my humble answer is as follows; a. Man is a person I'd rather say man is a PERSON who has his own freewill and purpose than an agent. God is (a) person(s), having HIS own will. If we are made as per his image and likeness, we should have our own will with which they are for or against God's will. How many wills are there in the universe? If you follow my definition of person, you get at least 1.6 billions (the current population size on the earth). Of course we should add Satan and his subordinates' and angels. b. instinct and will Man has both instinct and will, and in general will is superior to instinct. Let's say I haven't eaten meal for three days. I would feel some basic urge to eat apples displayed when I get by a discount store hall. That is of instinct. I would not be blamed for that urge by God. I, however, may want to steal some to eat. That would be because I am sinful. Most of people just suppress that strong urge by using his will. His moral standard is high. In summary, the urge to eat apples – reacting to my instinct, the urge to steal apples – reacting to my sinful nature, suppress of the urge by using will – acting independently. c. Judgment by God In above-mentioned case, I should be judged by God to be guilty despite actually not stealing apples. That's because God cannot accept even sinful nature, let alone sinful action. d. Salvation Even though I have a freewill, my freewill is so weak (or defected by fall), so I cannot turn to the Lord. Only those who are selected by God can turn to the Lord by HIS grace. In short, we, human beings, can make decision with their own freewills except for one thing – salvation. The universe is "deterministic" in regard to salvation. In regard to other incidents, it seems to depend. - Gubei.
__________________
Less than the least
Last edited by Gubei; 08-14-2008 at 03:47 AM. Reason: adding short sentences |
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 07:26 AM
|
#140 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
KSA,
I get that you think the human being got corrupted in the fall but did not get another nature added to it (Satan's). Where I don't follow you is what exactly you think happened to the human nature at the fall. Did we become evil? Did our physical body change? Can we pass on this evil through childbirth? In other words, I don't understand what you think happened to man at the fall. Maybe I read too fast, maybe you said it already, but I've missed it. SC |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 08:11 AM
|
#141 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
If you want me to tell you what happened on the level of "physics" substantially, like if it affected DNA, how sin is transmitted through birth and stuff like that, then my answer will be "I do not know". We know that as a result of the fall the human spirit was deadened, human soul was corrupted and the human body became subject to sickness and death. But all the metaphisics are not covered in the Word. I would say that the best portion in the Bible about the effects of sin is Rom. 1-3.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 08:49 AM
|
#142 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
I note that virtually everything else in creation changed as a result of the Fall. Thorns; thistles; animal kills and eats animal; man eats by the sweat of his brow. Did Satan do this? Actually, I believe the Word says God did.
How did the change in man occur? Other than the obvious fact of the loss of fellowship with God, KSA is right to say that "I do not know." I don't think that was made known to us. The cause and result are mentioned throughout scripture, but the mechanics/physics/biology of the actual change is not. It is quite possible that the removal of the active presence of and fellowship with God gave license to man's free will to do according to his own considerations. That is not to say that God was restraining man before, but that the every-present experience of Him was a guide of choice for man. (That would even be consistent with the post-regeneration aspect of walking according to the Spirit to fulfill God's righteousness. It might be argued that while still quite choosable, an aspect of the pre-fall condition is restored upon our regeneration.) It would appear from previous threads on this line that it is not even clearly stated all that was before the Fall. We know there was this situation of peace and fellowship with God. There was peace within the setting of the garden whose name, Eden, is now associated with utopia. But there is uncertainty as to exactly what man's position was with respect to God beyond what is written in the short history of creation up to the Fall. That makes the analysis of the change even more speculative. And while having some external thing — a little bit of Satan — injected into man is not clearly in opposition to scriptures, all of the relevant scriptures can be understood without such fact being assumed (in my opinion).
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 08:56 AM
|
#143 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
, I think that "influence" is a better word (biblical word is temptation). If something was "injected" into man, it was a lie and a doubt in God's word. All the rest was man's choice and his own responsibility.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 09:01 AM
|
#144 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 09:01 AM
|
#145 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Another argument against the LSM view of the fall is to ask how exactly Satan is in our flesh and how he is passed from generation to generation. Is he interwoven in our DNA somewhere? Will we ever find the "Satan gene?" Just where is he hiding?
Does he consciously jump into the sperm and the egg of a conceiving couple? And if the sperm is held in a sperm bank and the egg in a laboratory for months and months, does Satan just hang around in those cells until they are brought together in vitro? Or does he jump on board from the host mother when the zygote is implanted in her? And if he is passed that way, why isn't God also passed on to the spirits of the children of two believers? Why is just Satan passed along? Also, if we have Satan's nature, why do we only inherit some of his moral failings. Why don't we also inherit something of his angelic power? When God comes to dwell in us, we do inherit something of his divine power, the power to transcend, certain spiritual discernment, etc., which are more than moral strengths. The more I consider this Satan's nature in man idea the more stupid it seems to me. Last edited by Cal; 08-14-2008 at 09:06 AM. |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 09:10 AM
|
#146 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 09:14 AM
|
#147 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
Does anyone believe we are angel-men with the nature of an angel mingled with our own? Hmmmmm? If you believe in God-men and you believe that Satan's nature is in your nature, then you have to. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 07:31 PM
|
#148 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Then there is the story of Satan entering Judas. Not an angel-man, but a man possessed at least temporarily by an angel. And then there's Peter who Jesus told, "Get the behind me Satan." Here it could have been somewhat figurative, but the fact is Jesus saw Satan's hand at least in Peter's words. And of course who can forget Moses' terrifying experience of throwing down his rod and discovering it was inhabited by a serpent? Who'da thunk it? Not a human-angel mingling, but something quite close. It appears there are levels of angelic-human mingling: body, soul, and maybe even spirit. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 08:34 PM
|
#149 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Did Demons have Sexual Relations with Women in Genesis 6:4?
by Hank Hanegraaff "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." Genesis 6:4 Genesis 6:4 is one of the most controversial passages in the Bible. As with any difficult section of Scripture, it has been open to a wide variety of interpretations. It is my conviction, however, that those who hold consistently to a Biblical worldview must reject the notion that women and demons can engage in sexual relations. I reject this interjection of pagan superstition into the Scriptures for the following reasons. First and foremost, the notion that demons can "produce" real bodies and have real sex with real women would invalidate Jesus' argument for the authenticity of His resurrection. Jesus assured His disciples that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39, NKJV). If indeed a demon could produce flesh and bones, Jesus' argument would not only be flawed, it would be misleading. In fact, it might be logically argued that the disciples did not see the post-resurrection appearances of Christ but rather a demon masquerading as the resurrected Christ. Furthermore, demons are nonsexual, nonphysical beings and, as such, are incapable of having sexual relations and producing physical offspring. To say that demons can create bodies with DNA and fertile sperm is to say that demons have creative power - which is an exclusively divine prerogative. If demons could have sex with women in ancient times, we would have no assurance they could not do so in modern times. Nor would we have any guarantee that the people we encounter every day are fully human. While a Biblical worldview does allow for fallen angels to possess unsaved human beings, it does not support the notion that a demon-possessed person can produce offspring that are part-demon, part-human. Genesis 1 makes it clear that all of God's living creations are designed to reproduce "according to their own kinds." Finally, the mutant theory creates serious questions pertaining to the spiritual accountability of hypothetical demon-humans and their relation to humanity's redemption. Angels rebelled individually, are judged individually, and are offered no plan of redemption in Scripture. On the other hand, humans fell corporately in Adam, are judged corporately in Adam, and are redeemed corporately through Jesus Christ. We have no Biblical way of determining what category the demon-humans would fit into - whether they would be judged as angels or as men, or more significantly, whether they might even be among those for whom Christ died. I believe the better interpretation is that "sons of God" simply refers to the godly descendants of Seth, and "daughters of men" to the ungodly descendants of Cain. Their cohabitation caused humanity to fall into such utter depravity that God said, "'I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth - men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air - for I am grieved that I have made them.' But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord." (Genesis 6:7-8). |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 08:37 PM
|
#150 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Well, I'm not part angel, SC, and neither are you, and as far as I'm concerned neither is anyone else. Except my wife. She's a real angel.
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 09:22 PM
|
#151 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 129
|
Albert Schweitzer: You don't have to be an angel to be a saint.
(Meaning there is hope for all of us, non-angels that we are. Except Igzy's wife  )
Last edited by finallyprettyokay; 08-14-2008 at 09:49 PM. |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 09:41 PM
|
#152 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Another argument against that angels having sex with women interepretation is that if said angels were fallen angels, then why does the Bible call them "sons of God?" Show me one other place where the Bible calls fallen angels or demons "sons of God." So since they weren't fallen angels, they could only be good angels. But what were good angels doing having sex with women? So the only logical conclusion is they weren't angels.
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 09:57 PM
|
#153 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Ig,
Well, for starters it would be nice if Hanegraaff got the specie right. The argument is for fallen angels, not demons. Demons and fallen angels are clearly different beings with numerous scriptural examples showing their distinctions. G. H. Pember inferred that demons were the disembodied spirits of a preadamite race, a controversial assessment to be sure, but one that at least clearly shows that they were not fallen angels. While Hanegraaff made some interesting points (all quite refuteable), the fact that he couldn't even get this basic component right makes it a fairly useless piece of evidence. SC |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 10:00 PM
|
#154 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Ig,
Another point. Why would God and two angels have eaten with Abraham if they aren't capable of corporeal forms? (In response to your quote: First and foremost, the notion that demons can "produce" real bodies ... Jesus assured His disciples that "a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have" (Luke 24:39, NKJV)." SC |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 10:12 PM
|
#155 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
I CORINTHIANS 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
If we accept that the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 were angels, v. 10 and the head covering rationale become much more meaningful. SC |
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 11:16 PM
|
#156 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
Besides, that's a side issue and a red herring to Hanegraaff's actual argument, which is quite strong. Can demons or angels on their own produce DNA and sperm cells capable of producing life in a human female? I have no reason to believe they have that kind of power. Do you? And if Hanegraff's argument is refutable, then do it. Tell me how angels can produce physical bodies capable of duplicating human DNA and sperm. Last edited by Cal; 08-14-2008 at 11:26 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 11:18 PM
|
#157 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 11:26 PM
|
#158 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-14-2008, 11:42 PM
|
#159 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 01:02 AM
|
#160 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Many thanks to you also... Last edited by Paul Miletus; 08-15-2008 at 01:06 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 01:49 AM
|
#161 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
When sons of God had sex with the sons of daughter, they produced giants - mighty men - who were higher and stronger than the rest of people. If Satan's nature entered us in the same way as of those angels, then people would become more powerful than they were. Can it be that those angels in Gen. 6 were more powerful than Satan himself that their offspring exceeded in power the offspring of Satan? As for Satan entering Judas, it just proves that he was not in him before, otherwise no need of entering.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 01:58 AM
|
#162 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 03:00 AM
|
#163 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
a short question
Quote:
Thanks for your logical explanation. My simple question. Gen 3:24 has been a conundrum so long to me. Do you think that The Cherubim in Gen 3:24 has a physical body? And is the flaming sword in that verse physical? If not, how can they keep man from getting access to the garden of Eden? Or even are the garden of Eden and Adam themselves a figurative place and a chracter without physical entity? Gen 3 [24] So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.』 (KJV)
__________________
Less than the least
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 06:47 AM
|
#164 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Well, okay. I don't care how they got their physical bodies, I care only that there is scriptural proof that the lines of demarcation between angelic beings and human beings can at times be blurry. And you have supported that point. Thank you. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 06:58 AM
|
#165 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 07:06 AM
|
#166 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
However, since you think my rejection of Hanegraaff's argument on these grounds was fallacious and lowly, I'll withdraw it. I didn't do a point by point refutation of it because I thought it would be tedious to me and the reader alike and it really isn't my concern in this general debate. I may go ahead now and do so, however, since you have requested it. One last point. You are the one stating absolutes here. You said this whole idea of Satan's nature somehow entering man is "stupid." I merely am raising flags found in the Bible to show that things aren't all that simple. For me, the jury is still out on this issue. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 07:09 AM
|
#167 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Maybe it would be better to discuss Gen. 6 in a separate thread? In the subforum on teachings?
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 07:25 AM
|
#168 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 08:11 AM
|
#169 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
My main problem with your argument was that you said Hanegraaff was not credible because he didn't know the difference between demons and fallen angels, and tried to use that as a means to diss his whole point. That's a red herring and it's a logical fallacy. Besides, most fundamental theologians don't believe demons are essentially different than fallen angels. I have a book of basic theology from Dallas Theological Seminary. And in case it's not known the overall widestanding belief by those in that school and I assume in like schools, is that demons and fallen angels are the same thing, except that demons are unconfined, not held "in chains" and thus are the ones which can influence us. So Hanegraaff really didn't need to define his terms bacause his belief is that demons are "free-roaming" fallen angels, which is the wide-standing belief. As to demons and angels going by different names being evidence they are different, Satan goes by many names in the Bible but we don't consider him different beings. Last edited by Cal; 08-15-2008 at 08:13 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 08:23 AM
|
#170 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
Let me ask you this. If Lee had never taught it would you even consider it? Or if he had said it was false, would you feel the relief to drop it? Hard questions to speculate on, I know, but they are mostly rhetorical. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 08:53 AM
|
#171 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Quote:
What do we know clearly about Satan being or not being in us at birth? I do think that the mention of Satan "entering" Judas says something for the general understanding that Satan is not living in man. And the reference to Peter as Satan ("get thee behind me") only establishes that Peter was speaking what Satan wanted spoken. It does not establish how that occurred, whether via indwelling or through one of his little fiery darts.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 09:49 AM
|
#172 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
But I'll drop the point for now. On to your other points ... SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 09:52 AM
|
#173 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
At any rate, if he wants to be taken seriously by the crowd that believe the "sons of God" in Gen. 6 are fallen angels, not demons, he'd be wise to show that he knows the distinction they at least are making. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 09:54 AM
|
#174 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
The thing is, I did encounter Lee which led me to Pember which caused me to consider it and I consider it a correct argument. (And I said I was done with this tributary. Mea culpa.) SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 10:05 AM
|
#175 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Here's where I think the argument stands at this point.
KSA believes man was corrupted at the fall but nothing got "into" him. He just got corrupted by his choice to disobey God. From that point man's entire being -- body, soul, and spirit -- were deadened. Satan can enter man as he did with Judas, but this very fact proves he is not already in him. SC believes something foreign did get into man in the Garden. That foreign element is related to Satan but certainly not him in the whole. SC is beginning to believe what got in was DOUBT. SC is also beginning to rethink his entire belief that each child is born a sinner. He is starting to think that each child, though conceived by and in sinful parents, gets a fresh shot in his own personal Garden ... which he blows. Always. Why? Because each child has a free will and an open ear and Satan gets busy whispering doubt into the child from day one. (He does this through surrogates including the doubting parents.) Abraham is the hero of the OT because Abraham stopped doubting and returned to a life of belief. Hey, I'm thinking aloud here so back off! I know someone is going to hammer me with verses proving that each child is indeed dripping with as much sin as afterbirth in the delivery room floor. At any rate, the thing that interests me here is that maybe it was DOUBT, the anti-faith, that came in. Maybe this is Satan's "nature." Somebody stop me here before I really get going. SC |
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 12:37 PM
|
#176 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
And I also believe that doubt and lie entered into man. I actually stated it earlier.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 12:57 PM
|
#177 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Yes, you did make that last point earlier. I am agreeing with you now. Progress! As for the two verses, I am familiar with them both. I have always taken them to mean we are born sinners. I never bought the Catholic "age of accountability" teaching. But now I am beginning to believe it is more complicated than I once thought. It does seem to me that newborns, naked as they are and unaware of it, are miniature Adams. The problem is, they are not born into Eden. They are born into a family of sinners with an environment that is tainted by sin. This might be how they are were conceived in sin ... a sinful environment, even a sinful womb. That deals with the Psalms verse. The Job one is tougher to reconcile. There are definite Christ implications here as he was born of woman and was clean. So a conumdrum is there. This doesn't dismiss the rest of us from the issue. However, it doesn't say directly that the newborn is a sinner. It instead says, in its riddling way, that no one is capable of bringing something clean out of the unclean. There's wiggle room for me here. I'd like to hear what others think on this matter. I do think it is very related to this thread. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 01:16 PM
|
#178 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
I would also like to throw here Rom. 5:17-19. And look at the argumentation of Paul in Heb. 7:9-10. So when Adam sinned, we all sinned in him.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 01:25 PM
|
#179 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Quote:
I cannot add true value to the conversation other than to see it from the proverbial 40,000 ft. perspective. Man that fell as the consequence of free will has the option of coming to redemption through similar exercise of free will. (I will not try to reconcile the free will v predestination aspects. I decided that it was not good for my brain some years ago.) That a child who has insufficient awareness to exercise knowledgeable free will might be given a "free pass" is not incompatible. On the other hand, I think that all of us who are parents often wonder how early an age there is a lot of free will to disobey at work in their children. Not saying anything particular — just making an observation.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 01:26 PM
|
#180 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
It has seemed to me in the past that God's justice would mandate this. My appreciation is that the enemy's goal is to declare "NO FAIR!" up to the very edge of the Lake of Fire. We will all stand there along with our dear Savior and against that lie because we have all lived it and, through His grace and mercy, through it, and will therefor cast him into it. Adam ate the apple so every one of his descendants who somehow manages to miss out on being a Jew or a Christian by being on the wrong continent in the wrong century gets a one-way-ticket to eternal hellfire? I can construct an orthodox defense of this myself, but, what if in addition to those reasonings it is also possible to say, as you have speculated, SC, "But YOU also did the SAME yourself when given the chance, amigo?" For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, you know? I've got more speculations along this line but this is probably more than I should have said already....
__________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 01:44 PM
|
#181 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
There. I've said it.
__________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 03:38 PM
|
#182 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Great verse. I hadn't thought about it in this light. Yes, don't blame Adam for you sinned too. As for your next post, I agree the book of works being opened at the last judgment is interesting, but what is your point in stating it here? SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 03:40 PM
|
#183 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
Good verse. It seems this is similar to saying when Christ resurrected, we resurrected with him. I remember the illustration given once that when our ancestors first came to America (or Russia), we came in him ... in his loins. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 04:06 PM
|
#184 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
It's more of the picture of God's justice. One thing I noticed after some time away from the Local Church is that God's justice is neglected in favor of more or less traditional doctrinal arguments about man's history, status and future. This thread is mostly dealing with man's history and status, although it's got some implications for the future, obviously. But some time ago I realized a few things Lee got wrong in this category too, and aron helped me see a little further when I first touched with you guys around here. I don't have time to go into my musings on this topic here and now. Perhaps I'll open up a thread somewhere else about it? My thoughts always ends up in the "misc" category for some reason so maybe I'll visit with you over there? We'll see.
__________________
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 04:14 PM
|
#185 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
I assume you believe angels have the power to produce human DNA and sperm, a power given to them by God (which seems weird because we know God wants creatures to reproduce "after their kind") that God for some reason allowed them to use it for a short time (but not anymore) for what reason? So that we could have those couple of verses in Genesis which tell us the offspring of fallen angels became heros to men. I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense to me, on any level. By the way, I did Google the difference between fallen angels and demons, as you said. I didn't see anything from what seemed a world class theologian pushing the theory. My favorite hit (really) was titled The Difference Between Fallen Angels, Demons, Aliens, Jedi, and the Watchers, in case anyone was wondering about the difference. If I remember correctly, the Jedi were members of a sincere but deeply confused pre-Adamic race of humanoids who followed Yoda, whom, quite interestlingly, they believed to be the minister of the age. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-15-2008, 04:19 PM
|
#186 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 22
|
Quote:
SC, You made me want to rise up in the stands and cheer "Go Speaker Go!!", "Go Speaker Go!!"............ Some thoughts. Dont let me distract if these start a wrong direction. I think there is something to this idea that the sinful nature is in fact that of unbelief, or at least a component. Defining sin as a misaiming, the Good News of God is that "faith" is the one thing we need in order to be redirected. I think maybe we miss sometimes the vital importance of faith as the "central lane of God's economy" .Some teachers, ie Campbell Morgan, have taught that man was created a spiritual being, and that the fall was "spiritually literal" (those are my words). Man therefore "fell" to a lower realm where he lost the former consciousness of God's presence. Faith is called the substantiation of things unseen in the NT, so through faith God's presence is again consciously realized and man is restored to fellowship with the Divine. I suppose we might say that man fell from a spiritual state to a "material" state of existence and was then in a realm of senses (sight, smell, etc) and so lost his ability to "see" the invisible or spiritual. Man was barred not just from the Tree of Life but from the Garden itself, not by a vindictive God but rather due to his own condition which came about through the doubt injected into man through the guile of the serpent. Just my thought. Much grace. Arizona |
|
|
|
|
|
08-16-2008, 07:57 AM
|
#187 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
Your theory thus seems to place Satan as a more fundamental, and thus more important, source than man, making man simply the playground for sorting out the conflict between God and Satan. I don't really believe that. Though I believe God has something to prove regarding Satan, I don't think this is his primary purpose for creating mankind. Since man is really superior to angels in regards to God's purpose, man should be able to morally orginate anything Satan can, including, unfortunately, self-corruption. So it seems your thought includes the point is that man could not have corrupted himself without Satan's help. And I'm not sure why you feel you should believe that. Something did happen to man's nature at the fall. Something that gets passed along to children. But the idea that Satan's nature is somehow in man, as unsupported as it is by Scripture (the Bible says in numerous places that God is in us, why would it be coy about whether Satan is in us?), seems no more than a superstition. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-16-2008, 08:27 AM
|
#188 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 688
|
Quote:
Quote:
I mean, if the ultimate destiny of man is superior, fine, no arguments from me, but we're talking about the beginning, not the end. You speculate about the qualities of the start based upon the eventuality. But the Bible specifically addresses something about the starting point, doesn't it, in words that are the converse of your assertion? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you.
__________________
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 |
||
|
|
|
|
08-16-2008, 09:24 AM
|
#189 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
YP,
I interpret man being a little lower to mean in manifest mental and spiritual prowess, not in potential moral prowess. Why? Because since man is in the image of God and angels are not, then man must be at least potentially morally superior to angels. (When I say morally superior, I don't mean more moral, but rather capable of making more profound moral choices.) The potential for good in a creature is generally equal to its potential for evil. So if Satan can self-corrupt, man must be able to do so also, not needing Satan's help to do so. The "Satan's nature injected" argument is implicitly an argument that man needed, for lack of a better word, something of Satan's nature mingled with his own to become corrupted. My argument is that since man is innately morally superior to angels then that is not the case. |
|
|
|
|
08-16-2008, 10:49 AM
|
#190 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Another way of interpreting the man made "a little lower than the angels" is that it is speaking of his humble and earthly position relative to the angels heavenly position. It need not mean than man is an inferior species to angels, but rather that he has been placed in a more humble standing than angels. At least temporarily, hence the remainder of the passage "You have crowned him (man) with glory and honor."
|
|
|
|
|
08-16-2008, 11:51 PM
|
#191 | ||||
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Just for clarification of your thoughts, Are doubt and lie a kind of substance? I assume that you think they are because you said "dobut and lie entered into man". I think only substance (or something that has its own ontological existence) can enter into something. And if that is the case, why not "influence"? Quote:
Just for putting in my 2 cents, I think that "doubt" could be a very neutral noun in its usage. What if Adam had "doubted" Satan's word, rather than God's word in the Garden? Where could that doubt have been from? My tentative conclustion is this. Adam had his own freewill (including his own, independant ability to believe or doubt other's word) in the Garden to begin with. According to my definition of person in the former post, the prerequisite of being called "person" is whther the entitiy has its own freewill or not, that is exactly what our God is like. However, another difficulty to recocile Adam's fall and it's passing to his decendants is that why just one action of doubt of God's word (or disobedience) of Adam, who is individual or just a person, can be transmitted to the unborn children who are also many persons having their own freewill. This could be more related to "eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil" than disobedience, though. The last ever-lasting difficulty I have is whether the tree of life and the tree of knowlege of good and evil is historical and physical existence or not. Are those just figurative expressions? Anyway, thanks for your postings. Those are very helpful to me these days for clarifying my thoughts. -Gubei
__________________
Less than the least
Last edited by Gubei; 08-16-2008 at 11:54 PM. |
||||
|
|
|
|
08-17-2008, 01:52 AM
|
#192 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
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! Last edited by Paul Miletus; 08-17-2008 at 01:55 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-17-2008, 03:46 AM
|
#193 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
question
Quote:
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
__________________
Less than the least
Last edited by Gubei; 08-17-2008 at 03:59 AM. Reason: a few more sentences |
|
|
|
|
|
08-17-2008, 05:00 AM
|
#194 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-17-2008, 05:08 AM
|
#195 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-17-2008, 07:14 AM
|
#196 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
Quote:
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
__________________
Less than the least
Last edited by Gubei; 08-17-2008 at 07:17 AM. Reason: changing a word |
|
|
|
|
|
08-17-2008, 12:21 PM
|
#197 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
I like this thought, especially that we recover our ability to see spiritual things. I think it was Panton who said Adam and Eve were probably glowing from within (their spirits) and that was the clothing they wore before they fell. When they ate the fruit, the spirit was deadened, the light went out, and they could see their own nakedness. This would match what Campbell says ... a fall from a spiritual plane to a mere physical one. The restoration of the spiritual plane is one of the key motifs of the Bible. In the end, even opague things like gold and jasper become transparent. All is transparent since we can see anew. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-17-2008, 05:51 PM
|
#198 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Quote:
But I guess since Lee said it, it must be true.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
08-18-2008, 12:05 AM
|
#199 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 106
|
Quote:
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 -- Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
08-18-2008, 12:31 AM
|
#200 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-18-2008, 03:39 AM
|
#201 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
One more
Quote:
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
__________________
Less than the least
Last edited by Gubei; 08-18-2008 at 03:47 AM. Reason: inserting |
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2008, 09:29 AM
|
#202 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Last edited by Cal; 08-20-2008 at 09:37 AM. |
||
|
|
|
|
08-20-2008, 01:58 PM
|
#203 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
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.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-20-2008, 02:59 PM
|
#204 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 22
|
Another Question
Quote:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
08-20-2008, 06:36 PM
|
#205 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
on the same page
Quote:
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
__________________
Less than the least
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-21-2008, 03:22 AM
|
#206 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North of Mansfield Ohio
Posts: 165
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-21-2008, 04:01 AM
|
#207 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
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!
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard Last edited by KSA; 08-21-2008 at 04:27 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-21-2008, 04:10 AM
|
#208 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-21-2008, 04:11 AM
|
#209 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
flood
Quote:
Sweeping Flood could be a possibility! I'm sorry there is no explicit verses supporitng that possibility, though... During my over 25 years of Christian life, the interpretation of the Garden of Eden has been a big hurdle. It is very odd that most Bible expositors don't delve into the issue on the head, rather they focus on it's spiritual meaning. Anyway this is very intriguing topic. Were the Garden, the threes, the serpent were physical things? If not, what are Adam and Eve? Today I spent almost 3 hours to think over this issue (inclusing looking up some expositors), in vain. Dear KSA, Thanks for your comments. I'd rather not speculate too much. Once again there is no denying I'm less than the least. - Gubei
__________________
Less than the least
Last edited by Gubei; 08-21-2008 at 04:16 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
08-21-2008, 04:18 AM
|
#210 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Another hint is this: since angel was placed to guard the garden, I assume that man at that time was able to see angels. I think that this ability was somehow lost later, probably with the development of sin. Pember has an interesting thought that Garden was actually a tabernacle, and that Adam, even being cast out of the garden, still worshiped the Lord in front of the gates of the garden for some time.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
08-21-2008, 04:21 AM
|
#211 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia
Posts: 173
|
Quote:
I find it fascinating. I just do not insist that my conclusions are right; they are just opinions.
__________________
Most men pursue pleasure with such breathless haste that they hurry past it. Soren Kierkegaard |
|
|
|
|
|
08-21-2008, 08:01 AM
|
#212 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Quote:
You have good questions. I too have dwelt on the Garden story much. I have been trained by both fundamentalists and modernists on this story. The modernists say it is a myth, a story told by a primitive people to explain natural phenomena. They don't mean that disparagingly. Indeed, they highly esteem myth. Joseph Campbell, a favorite of the modernist crowd, has written extensively on myth and its great underlying truths. But it is still myth to them and only myth. It has no physical, historical veracity. They err on this point and here's the proof: Adam is listed in Jesus' genealogy. By claiming Adam to be a mythical character, they are expecting us to believe that somewhere along the line of Jesus, a literal, physical son was born to a mythical father. This is absurd. For that reason, I reject the bulk of the modernist interpretation. It is too great a problem. The fundamentalist, though, err as well. They treat the Garden as 100% literal/physical/historical and, using that as a starting point, try to force science and human history to fit a timeline they have developed. Hence, the 6,000 old earth, to me the most absurd idea ever promoted by Christians. G. H. Pember provided a way around the 6,000 old earth problem, but he didn't solve other problems related to the six day creation account. So which is it? Was the Garden a physical garden with physical entities, a real Adam who really fell asleep while God "operated" on him or was it just a story told with great allegorical significance? My jury is still out on this one. But here's something quite interesting to note. David, upon hearing Nathan's allegory of the rich man and the poor man mistook it to be a true history. "That man shall repay fourfold!" he cried to which Nathan responded, "You are that man!" David's misunderstanding of the true nature of that story was very useful in getting him to see his sin and eventually repent for it. The garden story, no matter how one takes it, can have that same effect. So in that light, I would rather err with the fundamentalists than the modernists. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
08-21-2008, 08:20 PM
|
#213 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Seoul, South Korea
Posts: 145
|
another 2 cents
Dear SC,
Thanks for your comments. I couldn't agree with you more. As a member in the fundamentalist camp, my faith has grown firmly for last 25 years because I really expreienced the grace of God. And I learned I should not blame other Christians for having different understandings of some issues on Bible. In the long-run, the Bible is not a well-written systematic theology textbook for "clarifying" every debatable point. Of course, our God could have written such a book if HE had wanted. (This does not nullify the fact that the Bible is a canon for crucial truths.) Especially on such topics as the origin of Satan, Sin, etc., I do not want to see my fellow Christains debate sometimes in such a way that "only his interpretation is absoultely right." We should admit that we don't have enough clearly supporting verses in the Bible on those topics and most of our conclusions are much based on speculation beyond acceptable reasonings. Yesterday, when I was waiting for my daughter in a place, an idea occurred to me that I was so adhering to the dichotomy of "physical vs. spiritual". To more specific, I mean that, for example, the trees could have been physical and spiritual things at once (not physical things with spiritual meanings), which state we cannot even imagine. In other words, the ontological existence of the Garden is beyond my intelligence. And Adam and Eve's going out of the Garden means he and she entered into the world in which we are living and experiencing. Yes, this could be another useless or futile speculation, but seems to be worth giving a thought. My jury is still out on this one too, though. - Gubei
__________________
Less than the least
|
|
|
|
|
10-22-2008, 10:34 AM
|
#214 |
|
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
|
#215 |
|
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
|
#216 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
10-13-2016, 10:31 PM
|
#217 |
|
Admin/Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,100
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Exodus16,
I haven't read Nigel Tomes' discourse, but I would like to comment after what you have written. When I stopped meeting with the LC, I basically stopped believing everything I was taught by Witness Lee. I call everything into question. Whatever lines up with the Bible does so, not because Lee or Nee taught it, but because it is in the Bible. This has helped me a great deal. Having said that, I recently took a look at the "two trees" teaching of Lee. One thing I found is that the tree of knowledge appears in Genesis in the garden once, and nowhere else. Of course, eating of the tree of knowledge was "the act" in the fall of man. No question. But, I have come to believe "the act" was due to a previouos conscious decision by Eve, then Adam, to disobey God. They decided to disobey God, then they disobeyed by eating the fruit. Thus, as long as man continues in disobedience to God, the fall will continue. So it seems to me that "disobedience" was the issue moreso than "eating." Does the Bible say that man continues to eat of the wrong tree? Not that I can find. Does the Bible speak throughout of the sin of disobedience and its consequences? Absolutely. The "two trees" teaching is unique to Lee...something in which he took pride. The tree of knowledge is a metaphor which has merit because of the disobedience it respresents but it only appears once in the Bible. Does it matter? Yes. For three reasons: 1) the definition of the word "disobedience" is clear. 2) The expression "you're eating of the wrong tree" is ambiguous. What exactly does that mean? Generally it meant "don't ask questions." 3) We should use the words of the Bible to teach the Bible. Not some ambiguous terminology that could be concocted and interpreted according to "man's wisdom." So, I jettisoned the "two trees" teaching. "Disobedience" is much easier to understand and is clearly scriptural. Another thing I recently read was a hint that Adam "stumbled" before he fell. Hummm. God said that "it's not good for man to be alone." What? Why? Man is in a garden in a state of perfection. How can it be "not good" to be alone? Did something happen? So God then made a helper for Adam. (K. Bushnell) The simple act of eating of the fruit of the wrong tree is preceeded by a possible "stumble", then a decision to disobey, then the actual disobedience. I could be wrong....it's just something to think about... Nell |
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 08:49 AM
|
#218 | |
|
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
|
#219 |
|
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
|
#220 |
|
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
|
#221 | |
|
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
|
#222 |
|
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, 01:09 PM
|
#223 | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
10-14-2016, 01:12 PM
|
#224 | |
|
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, 01:32 PM
|
#225 | |
|
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, 01:35 PM
|
#226 | |
|
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, 01:41 PM
|
#227 | |
|
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, 01:54 PM
|
#228 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 12:30 AM
|
#229 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Witness Lee's Satanology was unorthodox (Satan does not dwell in the flesh, as others have stated), but so is Christianity's in general.
Some wrong things Christians believe is that: Satan is omnipresent Satan is God's equal and opposite The serpent in the Garden of Eden was Satan Satan was an angel of light but became fallen Satan is God's enemy (he is God's angelical messenger or servant, c.f. Job, and Angel of death) |
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 09:11 AM
|
#230 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
The crafty serpent was the embodiment of Satan, the Devil, the enemy and adversary of God ... |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 09:23 AM
|
#231 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
I'm not terribly interested in how WL was wrong or how Christians believe wrong things. I'm wrong all the time, ask my teenage children.
What I am looking for is what do I believe. Starting with WL makes sense bc I grew up on the stuff. Satan as a fallen angel is the one I'm looking at for the moment Satan as omnipresent - I can shrug that off. I don't believe that. Satan as equal and opposite of God - I don't agree. |
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 09:31 AM
|
#232 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 09:41 AM
|
#233 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Satan doesn't live in our flesh.
I agree with that statement. New question: is Satan a fallen angel? and what does fallen mean in this context - is it parallel to fallen man. Or is Satan a vessel of dishonor; a tool used by God to test and perfect His people. Does he (Satan) have free will? I have been told that mankind is more complicated than angels due to our free will. |
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 10:30 AM
|
#234 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Satan also had a free will, as he decided to lift up his heart against God, and a third of the other angels with free-wills followed him. (Isa. 14.13-15, Ezek. 28.12-19) Satan was the chief archangel, who apparently administrated all of God's creation. When he rebelled, all creation suffered. Today, he is indeed a tool used by God to test and perfect His people.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 10:33 AM
|
#235 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Bc talking over these things verbally with a disinterested family member, I found myself agreeing with the opposite as well. Back to the big question: How do these beliefs about satan shape my actions and relationships with others? |
|
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 04:10 PM
|
#236 | |||||||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Fall 1. Satan Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But Fall 3 isn't widely known. I talk to people who go regularly to church and they go, "huh?" Quote:
1. The Book of Enoch goes into this story in some detail. The Epistle to Jude quotes Enoch's epistle, showing that a detailed narrative of the angelic fall was known to the early Christian believers. Additionally, Jesus quotes commonalities to Enoch, such as the "spirit flies out of a man and goes through waterless places, seeking rest", and that Hades is composed of 2 parts, quite distinct, with an impassable gulf in between. 2. Jude v. 6 also talks of "angels who didn't keep their assigned places, but fell" which seems to reference this same story. 3. 2 Peter 2 also references disobedient angels, now chained in gloomy Tartarus. Both Jude and 2 Peter 2 are parallel texts. So there are 2 witnesses in the NT. If they're referencing something other than Genesis 6 it's hard to imagine. 4. Revelation 12:4 speaks of the tail of the great serpent taking 1/3 of the stars from heaven. Again, I strongly suspect this is the Genesis 6 story, re-cast. Or else there are "two falls" (or more) of angels, with the subsequent narratives now lost, which I don't see suggested anywhere. Given that the Genesis 6 story looms so large in the NT imagination, I suspect the Revelation 12 and Genesis 6 are two views of the same fall. Now to your question: All of this operationally shapes our views and actions towards others, how? Answer: Jesus dealt with all 3 falls. He destroyed him who had the power of sin and death. Hebrews 2:14 He set the prisoners free. Humanity. See Isaiah 61:1, quoted in the gospels. See also Psalm 68:18, quoted by Paul in Ephesians 4. But aftermath of the third fall is not often dealt with by the church, to its detriment. But look how often Jesus dealt with the third fall, operationally! Quote:
Notice that the third fall depended on the second, just as the second fall depended upon the first. The daughters of (fallen) men were attractive to the angels, and lured them just as satan used the tree of knowledge to attract and lure Adam and Eve. So the way back, as I see it, is to deal comprehensively with the narrative in scriptural text, not truncate it to our simplistic liking. If this informs your relations with your neighbors that probably would be a good thing. It certainly seems to be quite relevant to the gospel narrative. Acts 10. The gospel (good news) to the gentiles: Quote:
The main problem with the Protestant reformation is we think we know so much. We really don't know much at all. And this really impinges upon our ability to affect the world: to smash the evil forces, to set the prisoners free, proclaim the light, wreck the gates of Hades, obviate sin and death, and ruin the prince of this age. It isn't our ignorance so much that's the problem, as it is our ignorance of our ignorance. If you know what I mean. Lee's "high peak" theology is Exhibit A. It was high only in his presumptive, fallen imagination. It needs a small Bible to survive. If you quote the "wrong" texts in the Lc, they get nervous. Their kingdom begins to totter in front of them. What kind of gospel is that?
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 05:40 PM
|
#237 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Notice that the third fall depended on the second, just as the second fall depended upon the first. The daughters of (fallen) men were attractive to the angels, and lured them just as satan used the tree of knowledge to attract and lure Adam and Eve.
Wait who's luring whom? This just got all "Leda and the Swan" To clarify you are saying: 1. Satan fell 2. Humanity 3. 1/3 of the Angels fell In an earlier comment. I spoke about a progressive fall of humanity. As I remember the steps to this were: 1. Mankind was ejected from Eden with a curse and a promise 2. Noah's ark after which lifespans were shortened, animals were given to man as food and the rainbow and its promise 3. Tower of Babel after which the languages of the earth were confused |
|
|
|
|
10-15-2016, 06:54 PM
|
#238 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Leda and the Swan I don't know about - Greek myth? Not really interested, as my curiosity does have its limits. Most Protestant Christians aren't interested in such subjects as the fall of the angels, either. And those that are, if Google is any indicator, often link them to Nephilim, Area 51, and whether Condoleezza Rice is an alien reptile. Again, my curiosity has limits. But I'll say this: if you begin to consider it, it does help explain things like Paul writing to sisters to cover their heads "for the sake of the angels", and so forth. And to me, to gloss over such matters is like saying that you're going after Hitler, and when someone points out the location of a Panzer division you say, "I don't care about them." Well, okay then.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
10-16-2016, 07:12 AM
|
#239 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
I referred to W.B Yeates poem Leda and the Swan bc from your comment it was unclear did the women seduce the angels or did the angels initiate the pairings.
It matters, due to the implications of how women are viewed and treated. Based on Eve being deceived in the garden, there are already consequences for the function and position of women in the church. If women are such a seductive force that they can sexually corrupt angels from the distance of earth to heaven, then covering shoulders in meetings or a doily on the head are really rather feeble containment attempts - probably safest to go with a full body Burka. I was taught that head covering wasn't about sex but authority. Soldiers cover their heads in recognition of the chain of command. Satan rebelled against God, he stepped out from under His authority. Women covering their heads indicates they come under their husbands' authority. This is a powerful sign to angels, bc submitting in the fallen condition of humanity is much harder than submitting to God's righteous authority. |
|
|
|
|
10-17-2016, 03:00 PM
|
#240 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Thanks for coming onboard. Your views are valuable. Here it's okay to have an opinion or point of view.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2016, 01:52 AM
|
#241 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2016, 06:38 AM
|
#242 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
You disagree with all I post, and now you are telling me that all the Jews will too?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-19-2016, 06:56 AM
|
#243 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 34
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Ok, who then is Daystar?
The repeated use of "I will" does seem to indicate some will power. Are there verses that would show a lack of free will? |
|
|
|
|
10-23-2016, 05:11 AM
|
#244 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
For example, Ezekiel 28:12 “Son of man, take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre I have highlighted in bold exactly who this verse is addressing. It is not Satan. All the verses refer to the kings. The start of Isaiah chapter 13 says "A Prophecy Against Babylon" in a number of bible versions. Many Christians believe those verses refer to Satan because that is what they have been taught to believe. But the verses don't actually mention Lucifer or Satan. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2016, 05:42 AM
|
#245 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Ezekiel 28 describes Satan's position in the universe before his rebellion and corruption. This whole chapter seems to speak about the king of Tyre. But verse 13 says, "Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God." If we read the context, we can see that this was not the Eden in which Adam was put. This Eden was not on the earth, but in the heavens, on the holy mountain of God. (Witness Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 2, Section 2) Are you saying that the King of Tyre was in the Eden of God? Ezekiel 28:12-14 says, “Thus saith the Lord God; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.” (Witness Lee, Truth Lessons, Level 1, Vol. 1, Chapter 4, Section 2) Are you saying the King of Tyre is the anointed cherub that covers and that God set him upon the holy mountain of God? |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2016, 06:41 AM
|
#246 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
The average Christian (whose extent of biblical and spiritual understanding only has 5 main elements - God, Jesus, heaven, hell, Satan, angels and demons) thinks, "it's addressed to the King of Tyre, I'll ignore that obvious fact, but it mentions Eden and cherubs, so it must be referring to Satan". And I would ask you and them.. where does it say that the serpent in Genesis was covered in all of these precious stones? If anything it could be describing one of the angels guarding the tree of life!
It's a conflation and not the meaning of the text. Ask any Jew, it's their Scripture isn't it? It is clearly addressed to the King of Tyre. There is a perfectly rational explanation for the meaning of "Eden" and "cherubs", as explained below: 175The term Eden may be used metaphorically to describe the splendor of the temple complex of Tyre’s main god Melqart, with whom the king was seeking identity.555 This garden dweller was not naked, as was Adam in the biblical Garden of Eden. He walks in his garden wearing a luxurious robe or breastplate on which were nine556 precious stones displayed in the most exquisite settings of gold.557 It seemed that his magnificent garb had been prepared especially for the garden dweller from the day of his creation, i.e., his enthronement (v 13). 3. His occupation (28:14): You were an anointed guardian cherub. I placed you on the holy mountain of God. You walked about in the midst of the stones of fire. The figure changes a bit in v 14. The king of Tyre is now likened to a cherub.558 In the ancient Near East, a cherub was depicted as a sphinxlike creature with an animal body, wings, and a human head. These statutory creatures normally guarded the entrances to pagan temples. Cherubim in the Old Testament are always depicted as guarding something. Cherubim guarded the entrance to the original garden (Gen 3:24). For this reason the king of Tyre is depicted guarding his paradise, the garden of his god Melqart.559 He spread his wings over Tyre like the cherubim who guarded the ark of God in the tabernacle and temple. The king is said to have been on the holy mountain of God560 (v 14). The phrase is probably synonymous with the garden of God. This will be a further description of Tyre situated on its rocky isle. http://noahide-ancient-path.co.uk/in.../2012/02/3711/ |
|
|
|
|
10-23-2016, 01:33 PM
|
#247 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
So then it is referring directly to the King of Tyre, who is being used figuratively to depict a false God, who is the head of a false religion, in a counterfeit Eden, a fallen cherub, who dresses ostentatiously in precious stones.
This king and this God can be seen as an "opposer" of Israel and the God of Israel, but being "a opposer" doesn't make him "the Satan". If I understand your position correctly the average Christian lumps all false Gods who oppose God's kingdom under the heading of "Satan" but you have categorized them into a bunch of different groups. |
|
|
|
|
10-23-2016, 03:12 PM
|
#248 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Better tell the writer of Hebrews 2 that.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2016, 08:02 PM
|
#249 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
If we cannot find such a reference in the New Testament, we should conclude that they only refer to the kings and not to Satan. For Isaiah 14:12 there is Luke 10:18. But the only connection is "falling from heaven", and the connection that it must refer to Satan is not so clear. I can easily prove that Isaiah 14:12 is not talking about Satan or any angel, because verse 16 says this: Isaiah 14:16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; Because verse 16 says it is talking about a man, and Satan has never been a man, we can conclude that Isaiah 14:12 is not about Satan and there is no explicit link to Luke 10:18 which is referring to Satan's (not a man's) fall from heaven. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-23-2016, 08:14 PM
|
#250 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Christianity, has personified Satan, by ascribing to him all of the figures ascribed to the kings of Tyre and Babylon, and concocting a story about Satan's kicking out. Christianity in general believes that Satan was kicked out to Earth prior to Genesis. This is based upon misinterpretation of these passages in the old testament. There are three reasons supporting this idea: 1. Satan could not have been kicked out before Genesis because God said that everything in the Garden of Eden was good, (the serpent in the Garden included). 2. In the book of Job - Satan came before God in heaven to talk with God 3. Revelation 12:9 proves that Satan is yet to be kicked out from heaven (in future). Points 1,2,3 are consistent with the idea that the kings of tyre and babylon are not referring to Satan (or his fall). Christians who undoubtedly believe the King of Tyre, Babylon = Satan idea are forced to explain away these three points. For example they may say that Revelation 12:9 is describing an event that occurred in history, or that Satan was, is or will be kicked out from heaven multiple times. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2016, 06:33 AM
|
#251 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
And the whole world will look at this insignificant king of Tyre and wonder, "is this the man who made the earth tremble and shake kingdoms?" It's amazing to me that you would cling so tenaciously to Nee's and Lee's teachings about the church with no name, and yet reject their views from Pember et. al. on "earth's earliest ages."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-24-2016, 08:26 AM
|
#252 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2016, 07:19 AM
|
#253 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2016, 08:40 AM
|
#254 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
You feel that in addition to this Christianity's teaching is also not Biblical because they group everything under Satan even if the evidence to do so is sketchy. Is that your point? |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2016, 03:29 PM
|
#255 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Witness Lee's teaching is unorthodox because it is already an extension of an unorthodox Christian teaching. That is, the idea that Satan is an evil being trying to get inside your body and possess you, who has free reign and God cannot prevent or stop him. From these wrong teachings the movie business has made millions.
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2016, 03:32 PM
|
#256 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Well in my view, Nee and Lee are right about some things and wrong about other things. I haven't met a person yet who is right about everything. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2016, 03:49 PM
|
#257 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
The Bible often does not give names of angels, except for Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
10-25-2016, 06:02 PM
|
#258 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,384
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2016, 05:12 AM
|
#259 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
"One God", "One Lord", "One Spirit" -- these are the things that "all Christians" believe and hence none of them would believe that God cannot prevent or stop Satan from possessing a person. |
|
|
|
|
|
10-26-2016, 08:49 PM
|
#260 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
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. But does that mean Christianity is orthodox? Well no. How do I define orthodoxy? The time when the New Testament was written, not 100 years later. The unorthodox Christian teaching I was referring to is the belief that the serpent in the garden of Eden was Satan. This view came into Christianity after the New Testament was written. So if you believe that, your view is almost as unorthodox as Lee. And Lee could not have made those unorthodox statements unless Christianity's unorthodox view of the serpent and Eve existed first. For an interesting read on how the serpent became Satan in Christianity, see here: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/d...-became-satan/ So what is the orthodox understanding of the serpent and Eve? The serpent deceived Eve, nothing to do with Satan. Also Satan, and even evil, did not jump into man's flesh and suddenly appear after Eve disobeyed. Adam and Eve suffered the curses that God said they would, but they were not then injected with evil. God no where says that Satan jumping into their flesh is their curse. Their curse was death. In other words, after the fall, Adam and Eve were not overcome with an insatiable lust for evil, as "Satan entering the flesh" implies. If this was true, then Adam, Eve and Abel with Cain, would have gone on a murderous rampage. On a related note, the view that Satan entered Adam and Eve's flesh when they fell, is related to the idea that man cannot choose between good and evil. God's discourse with Cain proves that man can choose between good and evil, life and death, obedience and disobedience. In other words, man has free will, and is not helpless to avoid evil and do good. The Bible clearly says that death, not evil, spread to the whole human race through Adam and Eve's fall (Romans 5:12). Adam and Eve were created with an ability to choose between good and evil from the start. This ability to choose evil did not suddenly appear after they fell nor can it be attributed to Satan. It was what they were capable of when they were created, and it is for this reason that Eve was able to be deceived and choose to sin in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
10-27-2016, 06:13 AM
|
#261 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
I think it is acceptable to be general on this matter of the serpent in the garden. If someone wants to interpret the serpent allegorically, and equate it to the dragon, etc. I don't have an issue with that. Satan can simply mean God's enemy, and it is reasonable to say that the serpent was God's enemy.
On the other hand to say that "Satan entered into man's flesh", I think that is something that you can not base on a solely allegorical teaching but you need a black and white teaching, particularly in the NT before you say this. Even Romans 7 is a little too iffy for me to go this far. |
|
|
|
|
10-29-2016, 06:12 PM
|
#262 |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Christians believe that Satan entered the serpent to deceive Eve, a kind of demonic possession. But why couldn't Satan simply enter Eve directly and cause her to eat the fruit?
God said: Genesis 3:14 "So the LORD God said to the snake, "Because you have done this, You are cursed more than all the wild or domestic animals. You will crawl on your belly.". So before the serpent deceived Eve, it was not cursed, it was part of God's good creation. The serpent fell by deceiving Eve, and God cursed it. We could say that mankind's fall and the snake's fall occurred at the same time. Logically then, if the snake was Satan, then Satan's fall occurred when he deceived Eve, not before that. So the idea of Satan falling from heaven prior to the fall of man in Genesis is questionable, as is the idea of Satan entering the snake. Actually, the idea of talking animals is nonsense, because animals don't talk, and the snake has no intelligence of the sort displayed in Eden. The discourse between Eve and the snake in Eden I believe is Eve's conscience. She engaged in self-deception by imagining a discourse with one of the animals in the garden, the snake, by which she justified herself to eat of the tree of knowledge. I can imagine all of this taking place in her mind as she walked through the garden. The snake has rich symbolism in the Bible but to take it too literally leads to all sorts of impossible scenarios. A snake physically cannot utter the sorts of intelligible sounds and words required to have dialogue with a human, unless Eve figured out a "morse code" language between the animals, but still doesn't explain how the snake had enough intelligence to deceive Eve. The only animals God created with sufficient intelligence are the humans. |
|
|
|
|
11-01-2016, 09:09 PM
|
#263 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
This wasn’t the case with animals, as the herd of swine could become possessed by Jesus’ permission alone. The swine had no choice that could have determined the outcome. So for this reason I would disagree that Satan could have possessed Eve as his choosing. He had enough power to possess a serpent at his choosing. At any rate, the serpent was somehow enticing enough to prompt Eve to question and disobey God. All this was done indirectly, and it seems that the goal was for this to be done indirectly. Satan basically gave Eve the “nuclear codes” and then waited for her to press the button, which she did. Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. |
|||
|
|
|
|
11-02-2016, 12:38 AM
|
#264 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Is there any example in the Bible of an angel (Satan) causing an animal to speak? |
|
|
|
|
|
11-02-2016, 07:36 AM
|
#265 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-02-2016, 10:11 AM
|
#266 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
The Bible makes it clear that Satan does have real power, and the ability to do things that would normally only be within God's power to do. Consider the story of Job. Job was an upstanding man. God allowed Satan to test him. Satan administered the test through external things, including the loss of his property and family and health. It demonstrates that what Satan can do is allow more serious than just instigating some kind of "self-deception." So I'm not saying that Satan doesn't also do that as well, but I think to be dismissive of what he is capable of is to not understand the enemy that we are up against.
__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-02-2016, 04:04 PM
|
#267 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 3,965
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
There is a lack of one occurrence of Satan causing an animal to speak. In Job, Satan did not have the power himself, as evidenced by Satan asking God to strike Job (not saying he would do it himself): Job 1:11 "But now stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face."" The power was given to him by God: Job 1:12 "The LORD said to Satan, "Very well, then, everything he has is in your power, but on the man himself do not lay a finger." Then Satan went out from the presence of the LORD." In the case of Balaam's donkey, it says that God caused the donkey to speak. Numbers 22:28 "Then the LORD made the donkey speak" In Genesis it does not say anyone (God or Satan) made the serpent speak. If anyone made the serpent speak, it is more likely to be God considering that God made the donkey speak, and there is no record of satan making anything speak. If Genesis played out as it did in Job, then it was God who gave the serpent power to speak to Eve to deceive her, or gave that power to Satan to do it. In my mind, the idea of Satan using his own power to deceive Eve, outside of God's plan and will, is not supported by the Bible. |
|
|
|
|
|
11-02-2016, 09:56 PM
|
#268 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,636
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
The question that comes to my mind relating to Job is why Satan needed God’s permission to ‘test’ Job. I think the answer is in verse 10: Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. This verse indicates Job was under God’s protection and blessing. That, of course, was superior to any power Satan did have, whatever power that may be. To me, this suggests that the permission needed was specific to the situation. In other words, I don’t see evidence that would suggest that Satan always needs permission to do evil things. I think of it this way – in all the cases of those who had demons cast out by Jesus, would it be safe to say that God had previously ‘authorized’ the people to become possessed? I don’t think so. If that were the case, Jesus would have been wasting his time undoing what had been previously approved. Getting back to the serpent, I don’t see any evidence that necessitates God’s explicit approval for Satan to have possess the serpent. I also don’t see any evidence that would have disallowed the serpent from speaking. So I don’t shy away from a literal reading of Gen 3. At the same time, I not necessarily dismissive of other views, I just don’t think there is good reason in this case to deviate from what the text says. The thing about Gen 3 is that it is sparse on details, enough so that omission could be suggestive of metaphor. But if we go that route, other questions arise. What is the intended metaphor/allegory? How do we know to interpret it that way? Unless we can answer those questions confidently, I do not find it advisable to take certain allegories to heart.
__________________
Isaiah 43:10 “You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me. |
|
|
|
|
|
03-15-2019, 12:39 AM
|
#269 | ||||
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 203
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
  Quote:
__________________
If there is anything that the people of our day need to realize, it is these very words of Jonah, simple yet neglected: “Salvation is of the LORD.” 
|
||||
|
|
|
|
03-15-2019, 03:04 AM
|
#270 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 203
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
__________________
If there is anything that the people of our day need to realize, it is these very words of Jonah, simple yet neglected: “Salvation is of the LORD.”
|
|
|
|
|
03-16-2019, 06:34 AM
|
#271 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 203
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Looks like, I'm having out of words to get along with the discussion on evil.
__________________
If there is anything that the people of our day need to realize, it is these very words of Jonah, simple yet neglected: “Salvation is of the LORD.”
|
|
|
|
|
03-16-2019, 04:50 PM
|
#272 | |
|
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
|
#273 |
|
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
|
#274 | |
|
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
|
#275 |
|
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
|
#276 | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
07-24-2019, 07:19 PM
|
#277 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 488
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
You begin by saying that all things are from God. You then go on to say that man has free will. You then conclude in saying that the things which are a result of man's free will are from God and that this is a mystery. How do you make such a huge leap in logic? Can a loving God be responsible for creating a Hitler or Stalin? Are you saying these individuals were a direct result of God's spoken word? That verse you're referring to (all things are from God) allude to Genesis and applies only to the original creation. The apple computer wasn't created by God, it's an invention of man. I don't think it was God's idea to put a partly eaten apple, which symbolizes and glorifies sin, on the front of a laptop. This belief that everything in existence is somehow from God sounds very impersonal and pantheistic... |
|
|
|
|
|
07-24-2019, 07:38 PM
|
#278 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
No, The Bible begins by saying God is the creator, all things came into being through Him.
16 for in him were all things created, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things have been created through him, and unto him; Now it is generally recognized by Bible expositors that the "thrones or dominions or principalities or powers" includes Satan, Hitler, Nero, and Stalin. Likewise, I am not the one that says man has a free will, this is Bible 101. I am not aware of any fundamental teacher of the Bible that does not teach that God gave man a free will. Since God, by definition is omnipotent and omniscient, that means everything that has happened has occurred under His authority and He was able to foresee it. Just read the book of Job if you have trouble with that. But since everyone has trouble with this I call it a mystery. You can google "the problem of evil" which is another name for this mystery. Or as you so eloquently encapsulate the mystery "Can a loving God create Hitler?" If not are you saying there are two creators? Now that is idolatry and a heresy. If it sounds impersonal and pantheistic you obviously are not hearing me clearly. I am simply embracing the word in John "In the beginning was the word..."
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God |
|
|
|
|
07-24-2019, 09:31 PM
|
#279 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 488
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Satan, Hitler, and Stalin are not good therefore are not of God. It's not a mystery at all. "thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers" (Col. 1:16 KJV) is an over generalization and not specific to persons which leads me to conclude that God created the offices of lordship. It doesn't mean He created all those in past and future that will fill every role of lordship. Speaking of omniscience and omnipotence, if God is all powerful doesn't that also imply He has the power to restrict Himself if he chooses? Isn't that what allows free-will to exist in the first place?... so God doesn't control every aspect of our lives and simply have us exist as automatons? In Job, if God was all knowing all the time why does He appoint Satan as the accuser? Is it for God's entertainment that Satan runs back and forth between earth and God's throne? Or does God choose to restrict Himself for the sake of our free-will? Isn't that part of the reason why people love the college experience? Because of the sense of freedom? Yet even though our parents are no longer looking over our shoulder in everything that we do, they first prepared us by instilling us with good values and then after we were on our own offered us a way to reach them even over long distances (phone, mail, internet, ect). God is the same way, out of love and trust He allows that space so we don't feel smothered and controlled all the time. If we willingly allow Him in, He will always be there. if we don't, He will restrict Himself yet He left us with a conscience and a way to always reach Him if we choose. That of course being His son Jesus. On the matter of two creators saying that humans can create a laptop, for instance, out of free-will isn't saying we are equal to God in that we can create life and matter from nothingness. It just means we can manipulate what's already available to us. But because we invent something out of raw materials originally created by God, doesn't mean God was responsible for the end result. By saying God created all that is Hitler is saying that God created darkness. Darkness isn't something that was intentionally created by God, it's merely the absence of light. God created only the light (which was good) and then separated the light (which resulted in darkness). He did not create the darkness. Darkness is an absence and void. Satan, Hitler, and Stalin partook of that darkness out of free-will. But because they did so, did not mean God was responsible for the result of their choices. Saying God created all things past and future is saying that He created cancer, death, rape, and all other vile things. God has knowledge of the results of darkness and sin but those things were never a part of His heart, His mind, and His Word. Finally to sum up the matter of free will, I see it as a marathon race. God has a birds-eye view of the entire race beginning to end. He can see the starting point and the finish line. He also established ahead of time 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place finishes. Yet whatever happens in the middle and whomever eventually fills those positions is up to the individual and the free-will He grants them. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 08:23 AM
|
#280 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 2,617
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
My responses/questions in blue
Quote:
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 08:26 AM
|
#281 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 2,617
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 09:28 AM
|
#282 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 09:38 AM
|
#283 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 2,617
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 10:43 AM
|
#284 | ||||||||||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 11:04 AM
|
#285 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Ellicott Benson — Because, in after times, false teachers would arise and affirm, some, that the world was made by angels; others, that it was made by an evil principle; the apostle may have been directed by the Spirit to declare, in the most express manner, that all things were created by God’s beloved Son, that the sincere might be preserved from these pernicious errors. Barnes — There could not possibly be a more explicit declaration that the universe was created by Christ, than this. As if the simple declaration in the most comprehensive terms were not enough, the apostle goes into a specification of things existing in heaven and earth, and so varies the statement as if to prevent the possibility of mistake. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Matthew Poole — 2. In parallel places, the making and founding of the old creation is ascribed to Christ, both negatively and positively, John 1:3 Hebrews 1:3,10; not one thing is excepted, and therefore should not be restrained to men. 4. The apostle’s significant enumeration and distinction of things created, doth evidence that he understood the subject, the creation, in the most extensive and unlimited consideration of it. He reckons up material as well as immaterial things, and those in heaven, which needed no restoration, as well as those on earth, which did, being polluted with sin. Those angels who had not put off the honour of the first, did not belong to the new creation; having not divested themselves of their original integrity, they needed not to be reinvested with that they never lost: and devils cannot be ranked among new creatures, neither can wicked souls, Matthew 25:41 Revelation 22:15; neither are there new and old orders of angels; so that the dominion Christ is here (as elsewhere) asserted as founder of, is the whole, not only the new creation, Revelation 5:13.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 12:06 PM
|
#286 | |
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 01:01 PM
|
#287 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 2,617
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Do only living things "dwell"? (this Greek word is also sometimes translated "living")
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 01:04 PM
|
#288 | ||||||
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 488
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
The mistake in thought you're making is that you're making sin a created thing. Cold isn't a property, it's the absence of a property. Heat however is a tangible thing. The same is with light. Light is created, darkness (sin) is not. You ask "where does darkness come form?". "Come from" implies a created property confined to time, space, and matter. Darkness is a void or vacuum and isn't a measurable tangible thing that requires "creating" therefore sin did not "come from" anywhere. It's just the absence of light or God's presence. You're making an assumption and concluding darkness and sin are from the same substance as God's Word (light and good). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ZNP, I'm familiar with these beliefs because I had a friend that was raised in a Christian household but became a eastern mystic later on. He had the same pantheistic views concerning God as you do. It makes sense because the LC's are a blend of eastern mysticism and biblical doctrine. But ultimately the belief that God "created" sin and evil men is a subtle and crafty attack on His character. The further you take this belief, the further you get away from a loving Father into a god that's universal indifferent "force". God is love and there is no darkness in Him. Therefore because darkness is not in Him, it could not have come from Him. |
||||||
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 02:10 PM
|
#289 | |||||||
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
So if darkness is nothingness, and Lucifer "became" evil from this nothingness does that mean that evil was created from nothing? Sounds like some kind of alternate God you have going on there, like the alternate superman. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God |
|||||||
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 05:15 PM
|
#290 |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
This whole "darkness is the absence of light" argument contradicts the fact that God is omnipresent.
The Bible says "where shall I go and God is not there? If I make my bed in Sheol behold, God is there". What they are saying is that because God is absent, not there, then evil some how spontaneously generates. For this argument to be true several things have to be true: 1. Some other entity is responsible for evil. Therefore you have more than one creator, whoever it is that created whatever it is that "tainted" man and made him evil. 2. Deny the Lordship of God. Jesus is Lord. That is today. I can pray to Him and I have an advocate. The buck stops with Him. He is above all. But according to this doctrine Jesus is not responsible, not in this age. That is to deny the Lordship of Jesus. 3. Deny that God is omnipresent. 4. Fudge that God is omniscient. He doesn't actually foresee all things, He simply knows that some things are possible and "could happen". But there is another problem as well. Take Oskar Schindler. This is the adulterous man who took all of his money and exchanged it for Jews who were destined for the gas chamber. The Jews honor him greatly as a righteous man, a man of faith. But none of the glory of that faith would have been revealed had it not been for Hitler and the gas chambers.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God |
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 06:26 PM
|
#291 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Darkness is the absence of light. Everyone knows that. Because God is omnipresent doesn't mean darkness is of him. That's an invalid argument. It's mixing apples and oranges. God didn't create evil, he defined it. It's anything contrary to him. This subject is fodder for "Alternative Views," not the main board. And we've already discussed it anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 06:41 PM
|
#292 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
My argument is not that Darkness is of God. Jo S is saying Evil is a result of people like Hitler "partaking of darkness". I am simply trying to get clarification on how anyone could partake of the "absence" of something, and how that "absence" could create evil?
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 07:42 PM
|
#293 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 07:50 PM
|
#294 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,523
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-25-2019, 08:24 PM
|
#295 | |
|
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
ZNP, Jo S and others,
Lots and lots of "TMI" on this thread lately. Most of the postings are taking us far afield of Nigel Tomes' original paper. I would suggest everyone go back to the opening post (Nigel's paper) and work everything from there. If all else fails you guys can just Pray-Read this last post by Trapped: Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
07-26-2019, 07:18 AM
|
#296 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Sometimes you miss the obvious Z, by getting caught up in the semantics. |
|
|
|
|
|
07-26-2019, 09:13 AM
|
#297 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,105
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Well that is a good explanation. The creation is designed so that we need God, without Him you will veer off. What is rebellion but choosing to go your own way apart from God. That is what the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represents. They chose to disobey God's direct command and go their own way. Instead of learning at the feet of God they then embark on a path of trial and error with a lot of error. Because God created man with a free will He made us so that we could choose to be like Mary sitting at His feet, listening and learning, but also like Peter spouting our own opinions, or Thomas, or even Judas. But Jo S will not like your explanation because it means there is no evil creator, no "taint". God created a universe that includes man's free will and within that is the option for people to be Judas, Nero, Hitler, etc. But it is Biblical, fully aligned with Colossians chapter 1:16, and John 1:1-3 But Romans 7 is still problematic. What is dwelling in our flesh according to this interpretation is the predilection to walk according to sight and not by faith. Consider this analogy -- God is like the gyroscope within the airplane that allows you to fly on course. Once we sinned our body became the flesh, and became disconnected from that gyroscope. Since we still have to plot a course the ego took over (with the super ego giving a running critique). So "sin dwells in me" is like saying "error, rebellion and every shameful thing dwells in me". He is referring to the id.
__________________
They shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God |
|
|
|
|
|
07-26-2019, 10:06 AM
|
#298 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,333
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
Of course, he's the MOTA, so we all should just shut up and believe whatever he tells us to believe.  Then we will be happy. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-26-2019, 10:53 AM
|
#299 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 2,617
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
__________________
LC Berkeley 70s; LC Columbus OH 80s; An Ekklesia in Scottsdale 98-now Praise the Lord - HE'S GOT THIS! |
|
|
|
|
|
11-16-2022, 06:30 AM
|
#300 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
I came to read this because of a YouTube video from The Lord's Recovery Unchained. My family has some kind dysfunctional issues because of this teaching. They used to call me "Get behind me, Satan" whenever we got into a fight.*
|
|
|
|
11-16-2022, 09:18 AM
|
#301 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
“Please don’t dare to question me, my actions or what I’m saying. Don’t ever think you have a right to say anything when it comes to what and who I follow or ask me to provide some backing for what I believe! You just don’t get it! You are not in this vision! Also, don’t beat me with your Bible over my head, or what it’s says! I’m not interested! As a matter of fact, everything you just said is coming from down under, careful who you speaking for, I’m done with you, so get behind me satan!” (Conversation ended) Sounds familiar? When you touch the hidden, the real raw issues of the heart, you are the number one enemy, and will be condemned to be a subject of satan. Oh what depth and lengths people will go to hide their true objects of worship, even at the expense of their own family, loved ones, even their children! |
|
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 03:28 AM
|
#302 | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
11-18-2022, 09:41 AM
|
#303 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,693
|
Re: Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology
Quote:
If a LC brother faces some trial, then it’s Satan attacking him for standing up for His testimony.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
