Is Satan Lawless or a Legalist?

[GenemZ]

Well if I need any more answers I will come direct to you...

Thank you. Same here.

 

[lazyservantofYahweh]

This is an excellent question. Indeed, satan as a legalist had tried to condemn Yahuwshua (our Deliverer) by accusing Him of committing error, which He did not do (else He would not have resurrected). Lawlessness can also be translated as "wicked trouble". It is interesting to note that when someone is separated off from Yahuwshua the Anointed One, that person would be a worker of the wicked trouble. But what if such a one would still follow after laws of the Torah, but yet would not fulfill them by professing that Yahuwshua is Yahweh, and living through Him? Such a one would still be a worker of the wicked trouble (lawlessness), even though they "follow the law" (of sin and death). This is why we can only have the CORRECT Testimony to be delivered, there is no other one neither is there another name that would work for deliverance (Acts 4:12); because if we misidentify our Sovereign, and continue to serve idols or satan's names after we are informed of the Truth (see Psalms 44:20-21), it would prove that we had preferred to be justified by works, not by fidelity to Yahweh Yahuwshua, in which He gives us His spirit if we call on His name (Yahuwchanan ("john") 14:26).

 

[Carl Emerson]

Thank you. Same here.

Appreciate the sentiment...

It always puzzled me when studying theology that we were informed in no uncertain terms not to expect any fresh revelation on any topic. The assumption was that all to be known was revealed to those who had gone before. This never sat well with me given that it was recorded that He said and did much more than what was recorded. For this reason fresh insight is stifled. Now how would we weigh such inspiration if it came? That is the rub... Our churches have largely departed from the quality on unity in Him in which the gifts of discernment are reliable and knowledge of the scripture is often thin. So we are left with a legacy of thought - fresh inspiration is taboo - not because our father is silent but because of the fear of deception and pride in traditional thought.

Way off topic but Hey...

Appreciate your input.

 

[timothyu]

It always puzzled me when studying theology that we were informed in no uncertain terms not to expect any fresh revelation on any topic.

Free thinking is the enemy of any institution of man. Jesus introduced a radical concept and the institution lashed out for having their authourity questioned. Such is the way of man. 'Self' fear anything that may promote 'others'. As a result those brethren institutions covered up what Jesus taught to the point of blindsiding the Kingdom and returning religion to partner with the empires of man, all to retain their grasp over the masses rather than set them free.

If anyone was to study Jesus alone before having their minds groomed by the world of man (or the religion) they would see a different path. For the rest of us we must brush away the cobwebs of the blind who have been teaching the blind to follow in their footsteps alone. It's funny how the oppressed went from seeing the Kingdom of God as their saviour to the church being their gallant knight in shining armour, their hope.

 

[Pádraigín Ní Saorlaith]

And how are we not responsible for our actions?

Begging your pardon, but I legitimately don't understand why you're asking me this.

The question wasn't about responsibility, it was "Is Satan Lawless or a Legalist?" so I did my best to answer that question by saying, as clearly as I could, "Satan will tempt us using whatever method he thinks we will succumb to". No one was asked if we were responsible for our sins (which, for the record, we are responsible for our sins), so I didn't answer that question.

 

[timothyu]

No one was asked if we were responsible for our sins (which, for the record, we are responsible for our sins), so I didn't answer that question.

Just sayin' why label satan alone in the OP when we are similar in nature.

 

[GenemZ]

Free thinking is the enemy of any institution of man. Jesus introduced a radical concept and the institution lashed out for having their authourity questioned.

Jesus was not free to make stuff up. Jesus was shocking the religious leaders much how Luther shocked the religious institution in his day. Both shocked by the same means. Having an understanding of Scripture. Jesus had absolute understanding, where as Luther... had enough understanding to set the rigid religionists on their ears.

Yet, "free thinking" does not mean Scripture is to be turned into a creative writing class, as seen with many cults and maverick sects. Its not poetry open for subjective interpretation. Though a good number take poetic license when their emotions move them when reading a passage.

When one knows Scripture accurately it becomes.. "Freedom Thinking." Not free thinking. Scripture is not to be speculative. Those never shown sound exegesis tend to think its a subjective free for all. Its not. Jesus warned not to change one jot or tittle, or there would be a curse on them. A jot or tittle is our equivalent of a period or a comma.

 

[timothyu]

When one knows Scripture accurately it becomes.. "Freedom Thinking." Not free thinking.

True enough. Perhaps i should have said thinking outside of the set theological box.

 

[timothyu]

Jesus warned not to change one jot or tittle, or there would be a curse on them. A jot or tittle is our equivalent of a period or a comma.

Well to take Jesus from talking about a reunion in oneness with God to what we have taught today is quite a change. And a coma added to scripture where there was no punctuation originally completely changed what Jesus said to the thief about being in paradise.

 

[GenemZ]

True enough. Perhaps i should have said thinking outside of the set theological box.

If you really desire to keep others from putting you in a box... Pray and find a teacher who is capable to teach with accuracy from the original languages.

I will cite one example (of many) that set me free.

Matthew 4:3

The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God,
tell these stones to become bread.”​

Many a preacher has read that passage and assumed along with their congregations that Satan was attempting to get Jesus to prove who he was.

Is that what you read it to mean, too?

 

[timothyu]

Is that what you read it to mean, too?

My focus has always been on the Tempter which we hear so little of as satan became a substitute in Christianity, but the Tempter was the main player in Hebrew lore.

As for what I see, not who he was but the Tempter was trying to get Him to not follow the will of the Father. That is after all what mankind has done from the beginning, reject the will of the Father for our own. And that has always been the purpose of the Tempter.

 

[GenemZ]

My focus has always been on the Tempter which we hear so little of as satan became a substitute in Christianity, but the Tempter was the main player in Hebrew lore.

Hebew śāṭān,word meaning “accuser” or “adversary...”

Lore? Satan is no more myth than Jesus is myth.

His original name was Lucifer. (light bearer) When he fell he became an accusing attorney.. hence, the meaning of "satan."

 

[timothyu]

Substitute? You do not see him as real, and only a myth?

I see satan as a face for us. We are just as adversarial to the will of God..

 

[GenemZ]

I see satan as a face for us. We are just as adversarial to the will of God..

Ok... You just answered the million dollar question.

When Adam fell... and as a result? All men fell... Men born of Adam took on the image of Satan. Men by nature are the "seed of Satan."

Its only through grace and God's sanctification do we become more and more transformed into the image of God, by means of the Spirit.

 

[timothyu]

We turned away. We had become mini gods and lived accordingly following our own will.. Jesus taught us to return to being one with the Father as Jesus was, living as an extension of Him rather than thinking we were independent.

 

[Carl Emerson]

There is no scriptural support to suggest mankind took on the image of Satan.

Satan is a created being unlike God.

Man was made in the image of God and nothing can reverse that.

However Satan wants to convince God that man is not specially made in His image and is nothing more than an animal.

This is why when folks pander to the flesh their behaviour becomes more animal like.

 

[timothyu]

'Satan' means 'adversary'. Adversarial to the will of God. Peter was called a satan for being adversarial to the will of the Father for Jesus. Mankind has been adversarial to the will of God since the Garden. Adversary is adversary regardless in what form.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Satan is a created spiritual entity that can influence thought and feelings, Peter was not called 'a Satan'. Jesus was speaking directly to Satan himself as he tried, through Peter, to persuade Christ away from the will of God.

 

[timothyu]

Peter was not called 'a Satan'. Jesus was speaking directly to Satan himself as he tried, through Peter, to persuade Christ away from the will of God.

That's a reach IMO but if it coincides with your beliefs, I'm ok with that. But again the Hebrew word for satan means adversary. Adversary describes us also.

 

[CaspianSails]

Satan is the father of lies. His first recorded interaction with mankind was to misrepresent (lie) Gods command to Adam. He can lie as a legalist and bring Christians back into bondage after being made free my Christ, or He can lie being lawless and without any foundation. In the end he is a liar and can distort the truth in many ways to deceive many. It takes many forms and over the period of a lifetime many different temptations are set before us. It is my view that satan himself need not be the tempter as we are born totally deprived by sin and much of lifes temptation comes from our own flesh. Yet the temptations are all born of the sin brought into the world through satan's temptation of man and man's subsequent downfall. So my answer to your specific question is a definitive yes to both. One can be bound by legalism or one can be free in Christ. Galations speaks to being free yet brought back into the bondage of mans legalism in his attempt to define religion.