Nigel Tomes - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology

[aron]

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.

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by aron

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"?

Dear Aron,

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.

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Amen!

Many thanks to you also...

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Amen!

Many thanks to you also...

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

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by KSA

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Paul,

I'd like to ask some questions for clarification.

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

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

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

Dear all,

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

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

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

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

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

option 5. all of above statements.

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

- Gubei

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear Paul,

I'd like to ask some questions for clarification.

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

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

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

Many thanks Gubei, for your post.

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

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Many thanks Gubei, for your post.

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

Dear Paul,

Thanks a lot. My next questions are as follows;

1. Was the tree of knowledge of good and evil

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

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

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

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

Many thanks once again for your help. - Gubei

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

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

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

[Paul Miletus]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear all,

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

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

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

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

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

option 5. all of above statements.

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

- Gubei

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

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

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

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

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

[KSA]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

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

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

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

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

Paul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[KSA]

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

[Arizona]

Originally Posted by KSA

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

KSA,

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

Thanks for your comments.

Arizona