Now's good - byHismercy

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

This morning I was reflecting on one persons 'testing' of the teaching we received in the witness lee ministry about Satan himself dwelling in our flesh, I believe it was Nigel Tomes who wrote on this subject and refuted this idea with scripturs? Please correct me if I am wrong. That article was entirely eye opening to me...of course this lee teaaching I received at the time, but now, I see, of course, Satan CANNOT INDWELL ALL BELIEVERS because he is a fallen angel, not having omniscience nor omnipresence as our Lord Savior Christ does....

Realizing this teaching was completely in error made me realize that Lee and co. could be wrong about absolutely anything...

byHismercy, can you explain this a little more? What is the context that witness lee taught Satan himself indwells our flesh? What is the refutation (or where could you point me to it)? Thanks in advance.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

byHismercy, can you explain this a little more? What is the context that witness lee taught Satan himself indwells our flesh? What is the refutation (or where could you point me to it)? Thanks in advance.

It is the two trees in the garden of Eden. The tree of life represented God, and Lee taught that by eating the tree of knowledge, Satan got into our flesh -- like the so-called "original sin."

[Evangelical]

If Satan does not indwell the flesh, how come believers can do evil things?

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Satan does not indwell the flesh, how come believers can do evil things?

Maybe for the same reasons that, though the Holy Spirit indwells us, we don't always do holy things.

Actually, the Bible never tells us that Satan indwells our flesh. Just like the Bible never tells us that the Father died on the cross. Just like the Bible never tells us that God became man so that man can become God. These are all ill-advised theological constructs by a man who had absolutely no business delving into such deep and advanced theological concepts; much, much less claiming that his make-it-up-as-he-went-along theology was "recovered truth".
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Satan does not indwell the flesh, how come believers can do evil things?

Check out this excellent article on the subject by ex-member Professor Nigel Tomes, which debunks Lee's errant theology:

"The Enemy Within - Satan In The Believer's Body - LSM's Unorthodox Satanology"

We also had much excellent discussion on this article a number of years ago.

[Evangelical]

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]

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]

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.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If Satan does not indwell the flesh, how come believers can do evil things?

Romans 7:17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Sin, NOT SATAN, dwells within us.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Romans 7:17 So no it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

Sin, NOT SATAN, dwells within us.

Ephesians 2:2 clearly shows Satan is a spirit who is at work inside people:

in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Romans 6:12 and 6:14 show that sin can reign and sin can be a master:

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

14 For sin shall no longer be your master

A thing, an it, cannot reign and be a master. Only a living entity can reign and be master, i.e. Satan.

[Jo S]

I'm new here. I hope it's ok for me to chime in. It's an interesting question. I guess the first thing that would come to mind is if Satan was omnipresent, why was it that he "entered" Judas at the supper if he had already dwelled in Judas (Luke 22:3)?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'm new here. I hope it's ok for me to chime in. It's an interesting question. I guess the first thing that would come to mind is if Satan was omnipresent, why was it that he "entered" Judas at the supper if he had already dwelled in Judas (Luke 22:3)?

I think Satan is not omnipresent.

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Jo S

I'm new here. I hope it's ok for me to chime in. It's an interesting question. I guess the first thing that would come to mind is if Satan was omnipresent, why was it that he "entered" Judas at the supper if he had already dwelled in Judas (Luke 22:3)?

Yes! Excellent point!

[byHismercy]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Ephesians 2:2 clearly shows Satan is a spirit who is at work inside people:

in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient.

Romans 6:12 and 6:14 show that sin can reign and sin can be a master:

12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires.

14 For sin shall no longer be your master

A thing, an it, cannot reign and be a master. Only a living entity can reign and be master, i.e. Satan.

Evangelical, I completely agree with you, and Gods' word. Satan and his unclean spirits can possess people, I think that our Lord and the apostles cast unclean spirits out of believers and unbelievers alike.

But WL took that and went farther. To teach that Satan, substituting for sin indwells the flesh of every person is to teach that Satan possesses omnipresence....this is not the same as a demon or unclean spirit or Satan himself possessing a person. I don't believe Satan can settle down and live, indwell, possess!! every human being of Gods' creation simultaneously!!

Herein WL ADDED to Gods' word, wrongly so, and deceived myself and others. Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Not a gentle warning. I would watch out not to fall into this error very carefully!

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by byHismercy

Evangelical, I completely agree with you, and Gods' word. Satan and his unclean spirits can possess people, I think that our Lord and the apostles cast unclean spirits out of believers and unbelievers alike.

But WL took that and went farther. To teach that Satan, substituting for sin indwells the flesh of every person is to teach that Satan possesses omnipresence....this is not the same as a demon or unclean spirit or Satan himself possessing a person. I don't believe Satan can settle down and live, indwell, possess!! every human being of Gods' creation simultaneously!!

Herein WL ADDED to Gods' word, wrongly so, and deceived myself and others. Rev. 22:18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book.

Not a gentle warning. I would watch out not to fall into this error very carefully!

I understood Lee to use the term Satan to describe the influence of Satan. Not literally meaning that Satan as the fallen angel indwelt every person.
I agree that Satan himself is not omnipresent. I understood Lee to mean sin/flesh as a personification of Satan. Lee possibly overused the term "is". "is this" and "is that", as a means to emphasize the point, rather than explain a literal fact.

That said, if Satan could travel faster than the speed of light, which I believe angels can, it would be possible for him to visit every person on the planet near instantaneously, giving the appearance of omnipresence.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It is the two trees in the garden of Eden. The tree of life represented God, and Lee taught that by eating the tree of knowledge, Satan got into our flesh -- like the so-called "original sin."

After man ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, "Jehovah God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil".

I never understood how the tree of knowledge could represent Satan (and partaking of it meant partaking of Satan) since God stated that the man became like God once he ate of it.

I asked an elder that question several months back: "was it the tree itself that was the problem and sin entered through taking in of the tree? or was it the act of disobedience that was the problem and there was nothing inherently 'wrong' with the tree but sin entered through the act?" He didn't have an answer but did reference Romans 5:12 about sin entering into the world through one man.

I've always grown up with "life good, knowledge bad" as evidenced by the two trees (and of course there is the verse that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life) but .... is that just an interpretation of Genesis by W.Lee that is not commonly held elsewhere or is that generally accepted, or is this one of those still-debated topics today?