Latter Rain, Kingdom Now, & the Lord's Recovery

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Dominion is the relationship between man and the earth. Marriage is the relationship between man and women. Scripture says that Satan is the "god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) and not the god of man so you're argument fails by equating these two types of relationships. Marriage is further taught in scripture, dominion is not. Dominion implies mastery over creation. Genesis states that after the fall, man will "eat bread by the sweat of your brow". Does this sound like mastery or slavery?

Either way the type of dominion I'm talking about is religious/political dominion.

Dominion is also here in Genesis 9:1

9 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

This is after the fall, so obviously dominion was not forfeited by sin.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Dominion is also here in Genesis 9:1

9 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered. 3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. And as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.

This is after the fall, so obviously dominion was not forfeited by sin.

This verse does not teach dominion. Dominion means to govern and rule which would require willful cooperation between ruler and subject.

God is stating here in Genesis 9:1 that from now on we aren't going to rule over creation as per God's original will before the fall. But because of the fall, now creation is subject to fear and terror introduced through sin.

Genesis 9:1 is declaring subjugation rather than declaring a right to dominion.

The difference between subjugate and dominate is that subjugate is to forcibly impose obedience or servitude while dominate is to govern, rule or control by superior authority or power.

Terror and fear are Satan's dominion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

This verse does not teach dominion. Dominion means to govern and rule which would require willful cooperation between ruler and subject.

God is stating here in Genesis 9:1 that from now on we aren't going to rule over creation as per God's original will before the fall. But because of the fall, now creation is subject to fear and terror introduced through sin.

Genesis 9:1 is declaring subjugation rather than declaring a right to dominion. Big difference.

Are you just making this up as you go? Your meaning of dominion is plain wrong according to any English dictionary. And, Genesis 1:28 uses the word subdue, so subjugation is implied pre-fall.

Dominion means to govern and rule.

It does not require willful cooperation between ruler and subject. That's why we have the police and military. You seem to have just added that meaning so you could form your argument.

I would say that dominion before the fall was to be accomplished through fruitful multiplying (in marriage). Man was to lovingly care for all the animals and no one ate each other.

Dominion after the fall requires means other than just multiplying, because now there is fighting and death, and the ground is no longer easy to work with, so we need technology and invention. So, dominion through subjugation.

But the command to have dominion persists before and after the fall. It was first given to Adam and Eve, then after "resetting" the Earth by the flood, God gave the command again to Noah.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Are you just making this up as you go? Your meaning of dominion is plain wrong according to any English dictionary.

Dominion means to govern and rule.

It does not require willful cooperation between ruler and subject. You seem to have just added that meaning so you could form your argument.

Biblical dominion was a command according to God's will. Before the fall, humans and creation were both still under his will. That's why I say dominion is cooperation between ruler (being God through man) and subject (being the land and animals).

After the fall, Genesis 9 states that creation is now subject to terror and fear which confirms the transfer of dominion from man over to Satan. Dominion is taught after the fall, but it is no longer ours in accordance with God's original intent.

Paul teaches in Romans 13 that all powers on earth are established by God. So yes in order for someone to have dominion over people, those people will have to be in willful cooperation to the established power, in the case of Satan it is a cooperation through sin. This is scripture.

Scripture does not teach that man will establish Christ's kingdom on earth and only then Christ will come, it says that Satan will be in dominion of the earth until Christ comes to destroy Satan's kingdom and then establish his rule on earth.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Biblical dominion was a command according to God's will. Before the fall, humans and creation were both still under his will. That's why I say dominion is cooperation between ruler (being God through man) and subject (being the land and animals).

After the fall, Genesis 9 states that creation is now subject to terror and fear which confirms the transfer of dominion from man over to Satan. Dominion is taught after the fall, but it is no longer ours in accordance with God's original intent.

Scripture teaches that all powers on earth are established by God. So yes in order for someone to have dominion over people, those people will have to be in willful cooperation to the established power, in the case of Satan it is a cooperation through sin. This is scripture.

The transfer of dominion from man to Satan is not really taught in Scripture.

This CARM article explains why and includes scripture that teaches that dominion has always belonged to God:

https://carm.org/adam-fall-dominion

Adam's, Noahs and the Christian's dominion is not their own but through God or Christ.

If Satan is said to have any sort of dominion, it would be perceived dominion that he has acquired illegally or attributed to himself but not real dominion.

Scripture does not teach "Adam forfeited his right to have dominion and so God gave that dominion to Satan". Dominion always belonged to God and in some sense Adam as God's agent on Earth, forfeited his ability (not right) to exercise God's dominion.

The concept of Satan having legal rights over anything is not scriptural as Satan is said to be a thief, deceiver, liar, so anything he has or claims to have is illegally obtained.

I like how discussions diverge to more fundamental topics. In this case, the identity of Satan Himself i.e. Satan - illegal usurper?, or legitimate God-granted ruler of the world? The second identity I cannot see fitting within Old Testament (Jewish) or Christian theology.

But you can prove it with this verse:

Luke 4:6 And the devil said to him, All this power will I give you, and the glory of them: for that is delivered to me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

How do we interpret Luke 4:6? Did God truly deliver everything to Satan?

Ellicotts commentary says this:

(6) For that is delivered unto me.—Better, hath been delivered unto me. The specific assertion of the usurped dominion, though implied in St. Matthew, is in its form peculiar to St. Luke. (See Note on Matthew 4:9.) The notion that any such delegated sovereignty had been assigned to the Tempter, either before or after his fall from his first estate, has, it need hardly be said, no foundation in Scripture. It asserts that “the earth is the Lord’s, and the fulness thereof” (Psalm 24:1); and the claim of the Tempter was a lying boast, resting only on the permitted activity and temporary predominance of evil in the actual course of the world’s history.

Gill's commentary says this:

for that is delivered unto me: so far he spoke modestly, in that he owned an original, superior governor of them, by whom he pretended they were transferred to him; but lied, in that he suggested they were put into his hands by him, who had the supreme power over them; and that he acted by his constitution and appointment, as a deputy under him; when what power he had, as the God of the world, was by usurpation, and not by designation of God; and at most only by permission: and least of all was it true what follows;

So if anyone believes that Satan has any sort of legality over the world, they have believed Satan's lie, for any power he had was by usurpation not designation.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The transfer of dominion from man to Satan is not really taught in Scripture.

This CARM article explains why and includes scripture that teaches the dominion has always belonged to God:

https://carm.org/adam-fall-dominion

Evangelical, in the future if you decide to commit yourself to a certain position then please finish in your own words rather than always deferring to links or appealing to authorities. It shows you really just look to out argue an opponent rather than having a genuine concern for the truth of scripture. It's easy to copy and paste, anyone can do that. Pigeon chess comes to mind.

The simple fact that at Christ's tempting Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time and said to him, 'All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou wilt worship me all shalt be thine.' (Luke 4:5-7), shows that Satan couldn't have offered Christ what wasn't his to begin with otherwise there wouldn't have been no bases for Christ to potentially sin in the first place.

And then there is 2 Corinthians 4:4;

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not........."

Again, God establishes ALL powers on earth (Romans 13:1). If Satan is "ruler of this world", it implies God allowed him to establish it. Nothing was taken from God that wasn't allowed by him in the first place.

Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. Satan did not "usurp" as Lee or the commentators put it or take anything by force. Instead by sin, he subjected man to himself and with that, man's dominion. Force was not involved in any way, man sinned willfully.

As long as man is subject to sin, he is subject to Satan. Therefore, if fear and terror come through sin and creation is subject to it, it follows that creation is subject to Satan. This is the conclusion the apostles reached otherwise they wouldn't have called Satan "god of this world".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Evangelical, in the future if you decide to commit yourself to a certain position then finish in your own words rather than always deferring to links or appealing to authorities. It just shows you really just look to out argue an opponent rather than getting to the truth of the matter. Pigeon chess comes to mind.

Jo I'm taking an intellectual approach to this topic. I am not good for discussing thoughts and opinions over a cup of tea, maybe others are. I don't post links or appeal to authorities to argue. To argue, in my view, would be to do the opposite (ignore credible evidence, argue ill-formed opinions only). I do that because I don't think we can arrive at the truth of the matter by being ignorant (of CARM, Gill, Ellicott etc). At least, I can show that my opinion is informed by others who have some credibility. So far I believe we cannot reach an agreement on this topic if we have fundamentally different views about God and Satan. Your statement "Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. " reminds me of the view that Satan is God's servant rather than his enemy. Am I correct that you approach these topics as a Jew or a Messianic Christian/Jew or perhaps 7th Day Adventist? Are you willing to share your denominational background so I know where you are coming from?

However the question of this thread I believe is "did part of Lee's theology come from Kingdom/Latter Rain theology?". Comparing theology won't answer that question. I would say no unless there is some credible link between the two groups, historically speaking. There are similarities but also clear differences.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Jo S

The simple fact that at Christ's tempting Satan showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time and said to him, 'All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou wilt worship me all shalt be thine.' (Luke 4:5-7), shows that Satan couldn't have offered Christ what wasn't his to begin with otherwise there wouldn't have been no bases for Christ to potentially sin in the first place.

And then there is 2 Corinthians 4:4;

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not........."

Again, God establishes ALL powers on earth (Romans 13:1). If Satan is "ruler of this world", it implies God allowed him to establish it. Nothing was taken from God that wasn't allowed by him in the first place.

Satan is a thief relative to man but not God. Satan did not "usurp" as Lee or the commentators put it or take anything by force. Instead by sin, he subjected man to himself and with that, man's dominion. Force was not involved in any way, man sinned willfully.

As long as man is subject to sin, he is subject to Satan. Therefore, if fear and terror come through sin and creation is subject to it, it follows that creation is subject to Satan. This is the conclusion the apostles reached otherwise they wouldn't have called Satan "god of this world".

In John 14 Jesus said, "The ruler of this world is coming, and in me he has nothing." If Jesus calls Satan the ruler of this world, who are we to argue?

I was considering the prayer where Jesus says, "Thy will be done on earth as in heaven". In such there are indeed "rulers over five cities" and "rulers over ten cities" (Luke 19:17,19) - the idea being that in heaven, God's will is done through deputies, in hierarchy... but on earth, God's will is done by our taking the least place. On earth, Jesus took the least place, because of sin. Paul made this very clear.

Then the self-anointed Super Apostle interposed his own fallen human will whilst calling it God's will, and the dupes were happy for a time, with new-found purpose and meaning. "Go out and take the cities of the earth" they were told. "Preach the high peak, recovered truth". Then at some point the Super Apostle imposed his admittedly unspiritual son as Office Manager, who then ran roughshod over local church elders and thus "the cities of the earth". What a scam.

I don't know much about the NAR but I see similarly in that a fallen sinner convinces other sinners to come under him, that this will incur God's blessing. Because of sin, we should not presume pride of place. Dominion, in Christan terms, is self-control, and the ability to resist evil and do good (help others, show love). Those who lack self-control will then try to control others. See, e.g., Witness Lee, and sons Timothy and Philip.

We called it "the flow" from the throne of God, through Witness Lee, but it was the God of this age tricking man into taking a position that was not his to claim. Remember that Jude 1 has a warning, repeated in 2 Peter, about the angels who did not keep their place? In the church there is the temptation to leave our place, and to begin to lord over others. This is exactly what is seen with Nee, Lee and the "recovery".