Now's good - byHismercy

Evangelical · 04-22-2018, 06:46 PM

There are sources outside of Lee which can corroborate his beliefs. Here is an article by the evangelical bible scholar and theologian Brett Burrowes:

https://zerubbabel.org/intercessor-a...and-the-flesh/

also see https://brettburrowes.wordpress.com/...and-the-flesh/

In fact before St.Augustine’s time, the early church believed that “Sin” in Romans 7 did not refer to some mysterious sin principle or sin nature but to Satan himself. Didymus the Blind, who wrote in Egypt in the fourth century, said: “it is the devil who dwells in sinners and does the evil through them, just as Christworks the good in believers.” Another important theologian, Basil of Caesarea, known for his important work on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, calls the devil “sin itself,” when interpreting Romans.Another church father of the fourth century, Methodius, also interpreting Romans 7, says: “But the devil, whom he calls sin, because he is the author of sin, taking occasion by the commandment to deceive me into disobedience, deceived and slew me. By such a choice I am sold to the devil, fallen under sin, the lawof the devil according to the lust which dwells in the flesh.” Irenaeus, one of the earliest Christian theologians and bishop of Lyon (185 AD),writes that Adam became a vessel in Satan’s possession. I could quote additional early church writers, but I think these suffice to showthat something changed in the way that sin in Romans 7 was understood. In my doctoral dissertation I have traced this change to St. Augustine. In fact, in the eastern part of the church,Augustine had no influence on their understanding of sin and human nature, and so to this day, the understanding of sin as a reference to the spirit of Satan is still an influential and important interpretation in Eastern Orthodox theology.

When Augustine became Christian, he reacted against the Manichean religion he had once followed and rejected the view that Satan continued to be the source of all human sin even after Adam’s sin and reduced him to only beginning the process. In other words, Satan corrupted human nature, which became independently sinful, but Satan did not continue to dwell in humanity, as the other church fathers taught.

Contrary to what Augustine and the entire Catholic and Protestant traditions have taught, sin is not the corruption of an independently operating human nature, but the enslaving spirit of Satan.

So we have good evidence that it was in fact Augustine who had "ill-advised theological constructs by a man who had absolutely no business delving into such deep and advanced theological concepts". Modern day beliefs about Satan do not come from the Bible nor the (earliest) early church, but from Augustine's personal reaction to Manichean religion.

The Nigel Tomes article does not consider the changes brought about by Augustine nor consider the similarity between Lee's beliefs and the early church fathers. It is clear from this article by Burrowes that Augustine swung the pendulum away from commonly held early Christian beliefs and Lee was one of a number to try and swing it back again. When I consider that the Tomes article or the discussion on here does not address or even mention these things, it proves that there is not enough evidence to debunk Lee's teaching entirely.

byHismercy · 04-22-2018, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There are sources outside of Lee which can corroborate his beliefs.

Evangelical, if the source is not Gods' Word, it is not the authority you need....God said, sin dwells in our flesh. God did not say Satan, the fallen servant angel, dwells in our flesh. How can a fallen angel dwell simultaneously in every believer in the world, and of course this would include every unregenerated human being as well....when angels do not possess omniscience, as our Lord is the only one who is omniscient!! Lee gave Satan powers he did not possess, elevating Satan, albeit in a negative way. This is adding to the word of God! A grievous error! A teaching to be rebuked. Corrected. Thank you for finding the article by Tomes, Ohio.

Trapped, this article is a wonderful read, I highly recommend.

Kevin · 04-23-2018, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Augustine had no influence on their understanding of sin and human nature, and so to this day, the understanding of sin as a reference to the spirit of Satan is still an influential and important interpretation in Eastern Orthodox theology.[/I]

It is no doubt the LCM followed the Eastern Orthodox tradition rather than that of Western theology. That's why Hank Hanegraff had recently converted to Eastern Orthodox church through chrismation due to his influence of Lee's idea of theosis. It is interesting that Lee is trying, with some success, developed a synthesis between Protestant and Orthodox traditions.

04-22-2018, 06:46 PM	#1
Evangelical Member Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 3,965	Re: Now's good There are sources outside of Lee which can corroborate his beliefs. Here is an article by the evangelical bible scholar and theologian Brett Burrowes: https://zerubbabel.org/intercessor-a...and-the-flesh/ also see https://brettburrowes.wordpress.com/...and-the-flesh/ In fact before St.Augustine’s time, the early church believed that “Sin” in Romans 7 did not refer to some mysterious sin principle or sin nature but to Satan himself. Didymus the Blind, who wrote in Egypt in the fourth century, said: “it is the devil who dwells in sinners and does the evil through them, just as Christworks the good in believers.” Another important theologian, Basil of Caesarea, known for his important work on the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, calls the devil “sin itself,” when interpreting Romans.Another church father of the fourth century, Methodius, also interpreting Romans 7, says: “But the devil, whom he calls sin, because he is the author of sin, taking occasion by the commandment to deceive me into disobedience, deceived and slew me. By such a choice I am sold to the devil, fallen under sin, the lawof the devil according to the lust which dwells in the flesh.” Irenaeus, one of the earliest Christian theologians and bishop of Lyon (185 AD),writes that Adam became a vessel in Satan’s possession. I could quote additional early church writers, but I think these suffice to showthat something changed in the way that sin in Romans 7 was understood. In my doctoral dissertation I have traced this change to St. Augustine. In fact, in the eastern part of the church,Augustine had no influence on their understanding of sin and human nature, and so to this day, the understanding of sin as a reference to the spirit of Satan is still an influential and important interpretation in Eastern Orthodox theology. When Augustine became Christian, he reacted against the Manichean religion he had once followed and rejected the view that Satan continued to be the source of all human sin even after Adam’s sin and reduced him to only beginning the process. In other words, Satan corrupted human nature, which became independently sinful, but Satan did not continue to dwell in humanity, as the other church fathers taught. Contrary to what Augustine and the entire Catholic and Protestant traditions have taught, sin is not the corruption of an independently operating human nature, but the enslaving spirit of Satan. So we have good evidence that it was in fact Augustine who had "ill-advised theological constructs by a man who had absolutely no business delving into such deep and advanced theological concepts". Modern day beliefs about Satan do not come from the Bible nor the (earliest) early church, but from Augustine's personal reaction to Manichean religion. The Nigel Tomes article does not consider the changes brought about by Augustine nor consider the similarity between Lee's beliefs and the early church fathers. It is clear from this article by Burrowes that Augustine swung the pendulum away from commonly held early Christian beliefs and Lee was one of a number to try and swing it back again. When I consider that the Tomes article or the discussion on here does not address or even mention these things, it proves that there is not enough evidence to debunk Lee's teaching entirely.