Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology

[Peter Debelak]

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

To understand this, we only need to understand the basic truth of the gospel. We were born in bondage to Satan because of Adam's transgression. We are slaves to sin and under the power of an evil master. Our Daddy was a slave, so we are born into slavery, into Satan's dark kingdom. We work for the evil master and earn the wages of death. The "devil made me do it" is true in the sense of the master/slave relationship, not because Satan inhabits our our body. He is stronger than us and he has the legal papers showing ownership since the day Adam chose to obey him. An evil master has power over a slave's body but does not live in it.

...

There is much more scriptural support for what I am presenting than for the automaton idea.

Thankful Jane

Dear Jane:

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.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Dear Jane:

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.

Peter, are you seriously telling us that given the choice of having Satan living in your body or not having Satan living in your body you'd say it makes no difference to you?

[Peter Debelak]

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

[Peter Debelak]

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

[KSA]

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?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Peter Debelak

Igzy:
In my rambling, I must have not made my point clear. ..

My point was that these kinds of discussions can get so theoretical that people can say the most amazing things, like, as you implied but probably didn't mean, "I don't really care if a fallen angel lives in my body or not."

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.

[djohnson(XLCmember)]

Setting aside biotheology I'm not convinced Satan is omnipresent in the first place. How could he dwell in so many people at once?

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by djohnson

Setting aside biotheology I'm not convinced Satan is omnipresent in the first place. How could he dwell in so many people at once?

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 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

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

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.

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

SC, how interesting for you to use the chess analogy to explain God's wisdom in a mystery, I Cor 2.8, "for if they had known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

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.

Amen!

[KSA]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

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.

SC, can you explain why for Christ to destroy Satan, it was necessary for Satan to be in man's flesh? This example with a trap is just another metaphor, but I would like to see a clear biblical ground for it.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

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 haven't thought much about the Big Red Book in quite a long time, SC. It is in the cue of things I need to pick back up. (I'm enjoy a couple of different lines at the moment.)

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...

[Paul Cox]

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

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Roger

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

Roger,

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

[Paul Cox]

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

[KSA]

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.

[OBW]

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).

[KSA]

Originally Posted by OBW

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).

I do not like the word injection , 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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by KSA

I do not like the word injection , 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.

I would tend to agree. Man always had a choice. And he chose poorly.

[Cal]

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.

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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?

Ain't Good Book sayin that a damn thing hides in a heel?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Igzy

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.

Let me emphasize that if being "children of the Devil" i.e. fallen humans, means we have Satan's nature, then by definition that makes us part angel, or angel-men. Especially if you believe having God makes us God-men.

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.

[SpeakersCorner]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me emphasize that if being "children of the Devil" i.e. fallen humans, means we have Satan's nature, then by definition that makes us part angel, or angel-men.

There were true angel-men in the Bible ... Genesis 6. At least that's the interpretation I buy for the "sons of God" who took the "daughters of men" as wives. The result was giants and probably the trigger event for the Flood.

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

[KSA]

Maybe it would be better to discuss Gen. 6 in a separate thread? In the subforum on teachings?