So here is an example of how easily Christians are fooled by false teachers such as Ellis. I was hoping to avoid having to address his false teachings in detail, but since this was the response from stones, I believe it is necessary to deal with this properly and biblically (although it will get lengthy).
FALSE TEACHING #1
Ellis rejects this truth: “Satan needs God’s permission to attack us”
Satan didn’t ask for permission to go after Job because he didn’t need permission.
Nehemiah
Let’s examine the first dialogue between Satan and God, and see that Satan INDIRECTLY sought God’s permission to attack Job.
Stones:
From The Complete Jewish Bible
ADONAI asked the Adversary, “Did you notice my servant Iyov, that there’s no one like him on earth, a blameless and upright man who fears God and shuns evil?”
Father calls attention to the adversary about Job.
9 The Adversary answered ADONAI, “Is it for nothing that Iyov fears God?
10 You’ve put a protective hedge around him, his house and everything he has. You’ve prospered his work, and his livestock are spread out all over the land. 11 But if you reach out your hand and touch whatever he has, without doubt he’ll curse you to your face!”
This is not asking anything here by Satan. God is calling attention to Jobs walk of righteous loving. Satan is accusing Job of serving God because he's prospered.
12 ADONAI said to the Adversary, “Here! Everything he has is in your hands, except that you are not to lay a finger on his person.”
This could be read two ways. So when in doubt, I go to concordance. Not that I'm a scholar.
Job 1:12 And the LORD H3068 said H559 unto H413 Satan, H7854 Behold, H2009 all H3605 that H834 he hath is in thy power; H3027 only H7535 upon H413 himself put not forth H408 H7971 thine hand. H3027 So Satan H7854 went forth H3318 from H4480H5973 the presence H6440 of the LORD. H3068
Does the word behold answer this question? I think it might.
H2009
הִנֵּה
hinnêh
hin-nay'
Prolonged for H2005; lo!: - behold, lo, see.
Total KJV occurrences: 1060
lo with an exclamation point. Why?
H2005
הֵן
hên
hane
A primitive particle; lo! also (as expressing surprise) if: - behold, if, lo, though.
Total KJV occurrences: 99
Looks to me like God is surprised at something Satan is saying.. like don't you know all is in your power? But, God limits it to destroying Job.
But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.
Nehemiah:
Satan was asking God to destroy Job, but INDIRECTLY he was asking permission to attack Job. That God actually gave him permission is clearly expressed in these words :
Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand.
stones:
and I've addressed this.
Nehemiah:
The larger question, and the overarching doctrine which has not been addressed by Ellis, is whether Satan is under God’s control or not. And the fact that he is indeed under God’s control is expressed thus:
only upon himself put not forth thine hand. Did Satan obey this directive? Absolutely. He did not touch Job personally at this point. And he could not do that because he did not have God’s permission to do so.
stones:
Job sacrificed. He was under blood. But, his children did not. Now Job did for his sons, but I would think that accountability would be in play here.
Nehemiah
Now we come to the second dialogue between Satan and God.
And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life. But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face. And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.
ADONAI said to the Adversary, “Here! He is in your hands, except that you are to spare his life.”
stones:
again, could be either way.
Job 2:6 And the LORD H3068 said H559 unto H413 Satan, H7854 Behold, H2009 he is in thine hand; H3027 but H389 save H8104 ( H853 ) his life. H5315
Except for the word behold.
Nehemiah:
Here we find once again that Satan is under the absolute authority and control of God, and he is forbidden from killing Job. Therefore he afflicts him with “sore boils” only. So, if we stay solely in the book of Job, we see that Satan does need God’s permission to attack us. God set’s the boundaries and Satan must obey. This is not in the Bible only for the sake of Job, but for the sake of all God’s people.
stones:
I want you to know Nehemiah, that I'm not preferring Ellis or Joanie. Am saying what I see.
Nehemiah:
What Ellis failed to tell his readers is that if God had chosen to do so He could have either (a) bound Satan in the bottomless pit right then and there, but did not do so, or (b) God could have cast Satan and all his evil spirits into the Lake of Fire right there, but again chose not to do so. The point is that the Holy Spirit is called “the Restrainer” of Satan, and it is only because God Himself is restraining Satan that there is not as much sin and evil as could be possible
. But Satan cannot do as he pleases, which is what Ellis is telling his readers.
No, no God would not nor could not bind the devil at any other time than the appointed time. This thing has to play out till the end. I could give many reasons why I say this, but just one for now. Those that are foreknown by Him that are His must be born. We are close to this ending and we know this because of events in Israel. But is not the topic.
Nehemiah:
FALSE TEACHING #2
Ellis rejects this truth: “
God uses Satan...”
Woof! What nonsense. What fellowship does light have with darkness (2 Cor 6:14)?
Firstly, we should note that Ellis has quoted an inappropriate Scripture to support his idea, and his wording is indeed “nonsense”. Even if Satan was used as a “sheepdog” it has absolutely nothing to do with “fellowship” with God. So he just pulled a Scripture out of thin air to support his teaching. But no one has ever made such a preposterous statement as Satan being a “sheepdog”.
The issue is this: Does God uses Satan to bring chastisement upon sinning Christians? And that is the truth which Ellis is denying here. In other words, he is contradicting Scripture.
stones:
I didn't address this since I never heard this before. I did look at the scripture and agree there is a divide between light and darkness spiritually and physically.
Nehemiah:
Please note what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:1-5:
It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
Please note what is stated in verse 5 --
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh – to see
that Ellis is deliberately misleading his audience by making fun about a “sheepdog”, when he should be soberly reminding them of this passage and what it means. “The destruction of the flesh” could mean anything which would destroy or debilitate the human body. And God allowed this to happen to Job as well as to Paul, and it applies to any of God’s people.
stones:
Good point. Personally, I believe the Word is chastisement as in correction. I believe this is the purpose of instruction.
Ellis must have a reason for saying what he says, so I want to look.
I think I found it.
With such a person you shouldn’t even eat!
12 For what business is it of mine to judge outsiders? Isn’t it those who are part of the community that you should be judging?
13 God will judge those who are outside. Just expel the evildoer from among yourselves.
Being outside the protection of the fellowship, would make one open to the enemy. But, the shame of being expelled should be enough I would think.
Nehemiah: