NIGEL TOMES: LSM’s ‘Authority & Submission’ Tampers with the Trinity

[Drake]

Igzy) "Regardless, it establishes nothing about spiritual authority, unless you are someone who wants to abuse spiritual authority or someone who for some reason is willing to be abused by it. "

Igzy, that is just your opinion. You are ignoring the biblically obvious in favor of your private interpretation.

Let's consider this. Here is a man, Noah, who through faith built a big boat that saved the human race. Then he drank too much sangria and his son Ham did something that caused Noah to curse Ham's son but bless Shem and Japheth. A very long while later what Noah spoke in that curse and blessing came to pass. We see in the scriptures and human history the fulfillment of the curse and blessings.

That is authority and it can only come from God. In the New Testament a Roman Centurion asks the Lord Jesus to heal his servant. The Lord starts to go to the soldier's house but the soldier says it is not necessary because he, like the Lord Jesus, is also a man under authority and things can happen just by his word and they do. Therefore the Lord only needed to speak the word to accomplish the healing. What Noah spoke came to pass and therefore with him there also was authority. And since, it was related to the fulfillment of God's purpose in the bringing forth of the Messiah it is spiritual authority. When you pass somebody who has been pulled off to the side of the road by a policeman you know that authority has been exercised. It does not matter how much sangria the cop indulged in the night before or even if he is feeling a little irritable because of it. The Lord commended the faith of the Centurion because he recognized authority. All authority comes from God whether one recognizes it or not.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy) "Regardless, it establishes nothing about spiritual authority, unless you are someone who wants to abuse spiritual authority or someone who for some reason is willing to be abused by it. "

Igzy, that is just your opinion. You are ignoring the biblically obvious in favor of your private interpretation.


Drake

Just my opinion? You are ignoring the Biblically obvious:

The soothing tongue is a tree of life, but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit. Proverbs 15:4

The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the tongue of the wise brings healing. Proverbs 12:18

Gracious words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones. Proverbs 16:23-24

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight, O LORD, my rock and my redeemer. Psalm 19:14

With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. James 3:9-10

Brothers and sisters, if someone is caught in a sin, you who live by the Spirit should restore that person gently. But watch yourselves, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1

So instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 2 Corinthians 2:7

Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but warn him as a brother. 2 Thessalonians 3:15

He must gently reprove those who oppose him, in the hope that God may grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth. 2 Timothy 2:25

But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, 'Raca,' is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell. Matt 5:22

It's clear that Noah's outburst was contrary to the nature God wishes us to express.

Yes, Noah was an authority, so his words had far-reaching impact. That is why those in authority must be extra-careful with their words. But Noah abused his authority and his words brought not life, but destruction. If his cursing brought about the evil, unbelieving Canannites then that is nothing to brag about. That is not the fruit God wishes our words to produce.

Suppose Noah had held his tongue. Suppose he had taken another approach and gathered his family together for a gentle and godly lesson in respecting the privacy of the imperfect, of humbly helping and supporting those who stumble and, yes, even of respecting authority. Imagine if all his sons and grandchildren had been inspired by that and other gentle lessons to be great leaders of faith how different the Canaanites, and history, might have turned out.

No, if God used Noah in that moment, it was no different that how he used other evil acts to eventually show forth his glory. But I do not believe he approved of Noah's words or actions, because they are just against His nature. And the verses above prove that.

[Cal]

Show me someone who says God himself cursed a whole nation because one person told everyone about how his dad got drunk and naked, and I'll show you someone who has an agenda to abuse so-called spiritual authority.

The curse was Noah's, not God's.

Words have impact.

Watch what you say, especially if you are leader of God's people.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Suppose Noah had held his tongue. Suppose he had taken another approach and gathered his family together for a gentle and godly lesson in respecting the privacy of the imperfect, of humbly helping and supporting those who stumble and, yes, even of respecting authority. Imagine if all his sons and grandchildren had been inspired by that and other gentle lessons to be great leaders of faith how different the Canaanites, and history, might have turned out.

Same can be said regarding LC history and it's various turmoils. How different history might have turned out if grace and love had prevailed?
Whether one wants to admit or not, just as Igzy says, words have impact. Whether it's giving grace or giving condemnation, words have impact.

[Evangelical]

For anyone who wants a good overview by Don Stewart see

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_747.cfm

The dominant view historically speaking has been of Noah doing Gods will in cursing a wayward son. Its about respecting authority figures.

Those merely giving their uninformed opinions or saying that Noah sinned by cursing Canaan because its against Gods nature of love are like those who say gay marriage is right because of Gods loving nature.

Noah was the most righteous person and that is still the case when he cursed.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For anyone who wants a good overview by Don Stewart see

https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/...tewart_747.cfm

The dominant view historically speaking has been of Noah doing Gods will in cursing a wayward son. Its about respecting authority figures.

Those merely giving their uninformed opinions or saying that Noah sinned by cursing Canaan because its against Gods nature of love are like those who say gay marriage is right because of Gods loving nature.

Noah was the most righteous person and that is still the case when he cursed.

Evan you just seem addicted to speculations in your defense of Lee and his justification for the errant teaching of Deputy Authority.

Noah and his wife had no more sons after this horrible event. Yep, that proves that Ham must have castrated his father.

Perhaps the fact that Noah and his wife were approaching 700 years old had something to do with it?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evan you just seem addicted to speculations in your defense of Lee and his justification for the errant teaching of Deputy Authority.

Noah and his wife had no more sons after this horrible event. Yep, that proves that Ham must have castrated his father.

Perhaps the fact that Noah and his wife were approaching 700 years old had something to do with it?

Many bible scholars think this story is an euphanism for something deserving of a curse on a whole tribe. I am not going beyond orthodox interpretations.

I think you need to drop your concepts..consider what Jewish and Christian scholars have to say.

For example a Roman Catholic apologist writes


Ham was trying to usurp his father's authority by sleeping with his mother. Perhaps that's why he told his brothers what he'd done, rather than keeping it a secret. This reflects a pattern found elsewhere in the Old Testament, especially where sons resent fathers for showing favor to siblings. For example, Jacob's son Reuben sought to undermine his (Jacob's) favored half-brother Joseph by taking his father's concubine - for which he received a paternal curse (see Gen 29:32; 35:22; 49:3-4). Likewise, Absalom resented the plans of his father, King David, to give the throne to one of his younger half-brothers, Solomon. In response, Absalom drove King David out of Jerusalem and then slept with his father's concubines - right in public - to signify his seizure of royal power...'
(Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises, p 87-88, Charis Servant Publications, Ann Arbor, 1998)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many bible scholars...

You would reject these very same bible scholars if they contradicted Witness Lee.

Face it, guys. You are afraid to contradict Lee. Everything is about Lee.

Okay, chime in now. Deny it. Let's go around and around in the mindless defense of Lee. I'll play along. I'll be the bad guy. The future depends on that. Oh glory.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many bible scholars think this story is an euphanism for something deserving of a curse on a whole tribe. I am not going beyond orthodox interpretations.

I think you need to drop your concepts..consider what Jewish and Christian scholars have to say.

For example a Roman Catholic apologist writes


Ham was trying to usurp his father's authority by sleeping with his mother. Perhaps that's why he told his brothers what he'd done, rather than keeping it a secret. This reflects a pattern found elsewhere in the Old Testament, especially where sons resent fathers for showing favor to siblings. For example, Jacob's son Reuben sought to undermine his (Jacob's) favored half-brother Joseph by taking his father's concubine - for which he received a paternal curse (see Gen 29:32; 35:22; 49:3-4). Likewise, Absalom resented the plans of his father, King David, to give the throne to one of his younger half-brothers, Solomon. In response, Absalom drove King David out of Jerusalem and then slept with his father's concubines - right in public - to signify his seizure of royal power...'
(Scott Hahn, A Father Who Keeps His Promises, p 87-88, Charis Servant Publications, Ann Arbor, 1998)

Sleeping with your father's pretty concubine (like Reuben or that guy in Corinth) is a world of difference from raping your own mother.

But I understand EvenJelly is stuck on this, and wants me to "drop my concepts" like Ham apparently dropped his drawers.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Many bible scholars think this story is an euphanism for something deserving of a curse on a whole tribe. I am not going beyond orthodox interpretations.

The problem is that most of what the commentators refer back to (prior commentators) were mired in finding a support for almost any kind of racism against blacks. Even if only a passive "it's genetics" kind of racism.

Commentators are too often simply supplying opinions. Many of their opinions at least bring some clarity to what is actually said. But mostly there is either clear words upon which to opine, or there are other references to it that provide a basis to go beyond what is written. Many bible scholars thinking anything that is not clearly there is just that — thinking. It is opinion. It needs more than the thought that it could be an euphemism — even by a number of people — for it to be so.

Reading commentators is quite difficult. And in the time in which the older ones were writing, they were a somewhat limited group. Few outside their numbers could hope to understand enough about things to question their conclusions. And then you have something said like "this might be a euphemism for something else" followed by someone reading that, and thinking "yeah, that could be right." Now there are more than one who has this idea. Nothing that makes it so. Just an idea. And so others join in because there have been some that said it. Now, in 2017, we read a group of commentaries and capitulate the words in the actual text to the opinion that there is something else going on.

There is a good chance that if the originators of those comments had been writing in 2017, then would have been more tentative in what they said about it. They would know that there is nothing making their conjecture true. But they would not be incorrect to suggest that it could be true, but without anything to make it so.

And more and more the preachers who refer to various commentators would read that, along with many others and see that there is a variety of opinion. Then in their sermon they might acknowledge that there is such a variety of opinion, even stating some of the notions, then typically move on to stick to the text and avoid the unsupported opinions.

What I'm saying is that when you find commentators — even more than one, or one of some stature — that takes a position that is not clearly there in the text (scripture), it is never obvious that it is the right opinion. Just an opinion.

I note that the reasons for the eventual call for the extermination (if that is rightly understood that way) of the Canaanites was not that the father of their tribe exposed Noah, but that they refused to acknowledge and worship God, and instead fought against God did detestable things in their worship of their false gods. There is no link back to Noah or that curse.