Bill wrote: > The problem being address in both I John and the > Gospel of John, I believe, was gnosticism.
This is an old argument, and often it seems to be used to say, "Hey, don't worry about 1 John, it was written to a weird group of people who are not alive anymore." If you truly hold to this viewpoint, can you help me understand how you are not being anachronistic to make this claim? Gnosticism isn't really identified prior to the second century and 1 John was written at the end of the second century. Some might argue that Simon Magus was a Gnostic, but even if we accept that, his Gnosticism was primarily Jewish in nature and he continued to be monotheistic. This leads to yet another problem with the claim that 1 John was hitting Gnosticism between the eyes, and that is that Gnosticism is a very broad term that encompassed many sects who believed a wide variety of things. While there is no doubt that 1 John does address indirectly some of these errors, I'm not sure what good it does to claim that we cannot understand 1 John unless we understand Gnosticism. Bill wrote: > The entire letter of I John is a warning to false > prophets and a rebuttal of their claims. These > false prophets were Gnostics. So, did John want these false prophets of Gnosticism to have their joy full? Was he really writing to tell them that they have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous? Was he really writing to tell them how great the love of the Father was to call us sons of God? Was he really writing to the false prophets to tell them how to try the spirits, to determine whether they are of God? I think we have to agree that while there are elements of erroneous teachings being countered in the epistle of 1 John, the letter is addressed primarily to believers, to help them see who they are in Christ Jesus, and not as a warning to false prophets. Writings of that nature began late in the second century. Bill wrote: > When we interpret I John we must always ask first > what did this passage say to or about this group > and the ones whom they had hurt. Understanding > and application comes after cultural/historic context > is established. To know what it means to us, we > have to first ask what it meant in and to those > little churches of 1st c. Ephesus. I know this is a seminary teaching, but think about the elitism this produces. Maybe I am understanding Judy's comments better right about now. I have to confess that I first read 1 John as a teenager, before I had ever heard the word "Gnostic." I knew nothing about Gnosticism or the culture, but I did not seem to have any trouble understanding the epistle of 1 John. I think culture can enhance our understanding, and I think knowing about Gnostics is helpful, but to enunciate that without this knowledge we cannot understand 1 John is to say that the uneducated cannot understand God's Word. If you really are going to go that far in your magnification of education, then I will have to step away and stand with Judy and her comments about how the Holy Spirit is sufficient to reveal the Word of God which he inspired and wrote. Didn't John actually say this himself in 1 John 2:27? But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (1 John 2:27 KJV) Bill wrote: > Their Greek mindset forbade them to think > that flesh could be saved. I think that is a stretch. Surely you are aware that some historians would argue that without the Greek mindset, Christianity never would have flourished as it did. The Greeks understood a dualism, created by Plato's philosophy, and this dualism was reiterated by Paul in the famous verse John S. keeps sharing with us, Rom. 7:25. Gnostics in the second century began emphasizing this dualism to a point of error, but it might also be argued that the Greek mindset made accepting the gospel easy. The idea of death and resurrection was already entrenched in their mythology of God, and the dualism of spirit and flesh made it easy for them to understand the resurrection and also the importance of receiving the Holy Spirit. Gnosticism carried it to an extreme in that they magnified revelation and received all manner of doctrines of demons through revelation, but called it doctrines of God. Nevertheless, this was an extreme manifestation of the Greek mindset and not really typical of that mindset which came from Platonic philosophy. It was a syncretism that emerged from Christianity being combined with other religious viewpoints and not something that directly challenged Christianity in the beginning. Gnosticism arose BECAUSE of Christianity and as a result of the spread of Christianity, not as a reaction to Christianity or as a force that was trying to keep Christianity from succeeding. Do you agree with me on these last two sentences? Bill wrote: > Flesh by nature of being flesh was evil. Right, and the apostle Paul seems to reiterate and agree with this concept (see Romans 7, esp. 7:18). Bill wrote: > The heavens were the place of the spirit/mind, > of universals, of Forms, of truth and true knowledge. > Flesh was a part of the material/natural realm and > was thus imperfect and unsalvable. Right, and to this agrees all the Scriptures. This is why our body dies. It cannot be saved as it is, but must die and be resurrected with a new nature. Bill wrote: > Jesus therefore could not have had > a real flesh and bone body. > He had to have only appeared to be human. > "When Jesus walked upon the sand he left no footprints." This kind of concept began in the second century and is erroneous. Bill wrote: > Hence both the Gospel and the Epistle begin with a strong > affirmation of Christ's divinity and his humanity. > I John especially dwells upon his true physical presence > (an indication that the problem was worsening, not getting > better): "That which was from the beginning, which we have > heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked > upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life > -- this life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, > and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father > and was manifested to us -- that which we have seen and heard > we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; > and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son > Jesus Christ" (NKJ 1 John 1.1-3). Have you considered that this was written prophetically, the Spirit of God foreseeing that Gnostic error which would be formulated in the years ahead. Do you have any direct evidence that Gnostic teaching was present already in the churches when 1 John was written? Bill wrote: > 1. Gnostics believed that sin took place in the > body first and migrated to the mind. So did Paul. Read Romans 7 and its contrast with flesh and spirit, flesh and mind. Bill wrote: > But the mind of the Gnostic had been redeemed > in Christ and could not sin; it was a new creation. > The body was unredeemable and therefore did not matter. Truly erroneous teaching, perpetuated in Christian Science today. Do you have any reference that shows when this teaching began? What is the oldest recorded reference to this erroneous teaching? Bill wrote: > I think it is an absolutely crucial distinction to realize > that John's language is as strong as it is because he is > warning against false teachings from false prophets, who > denied Christ and were attempting to add to the Gospel of > Christ. Yet I have heard many use this same Gnostic teaching as a proper interpretation of 1 John. They say that in their spirit, they do not sin, but in their flesh, they do. It is interesting how you view 1 John to be combating this error when I have heard so many use this same Gnostic perspective to argue that this is exactly what John was trying to communicate, that in our spirit we do not sin, but that is not to say that we do not sin in our flesh. Obviously, I disagree with that viewpoint, but I find it interesting that you point out that this teaching is exactly what John was combating. In modern times, he seems to have put it in the minds of some, and I cannot help but think that perhaps John's epistle gave rise to Gnosticism, through a misunderstanding of what he wrote, rather than his epistle being something designed to smash out Gnosticism. Bill wrote: > 9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just > to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all > unrighteousness. > This may be the most misunderstood, misapplied, and > therefore most damaging verse in the entire Bible. > First of all, this word homologeo (to confess) means > "to speak the same thing"; in this instance it means > to speak the same thing as God through his messenger > John about the ongoing sin in which the Gnostics were > entangled. In every occurrence of this word in the NT > it is in reference to verbal-vocal communication, > to audibly speak. John is not writing here to Christians > about an ongoing confession of sin in our prayer life, > on our knees before bedtime (although that can be quite > appropriate and good); he is writing directly to those > who had denied the Lord who redeemed them and were in > grave danger of condemning themselves to hell. He was > telling them if they would but confess that sin -- > verbally so as to clear up the confusion they had > stirred up in church -- God would faithfully forgive > them even of this most grievous sin and cleanse and > restore them to righteousness. When we miss this, > we heap loads of sin and guilt upon the backs of > believers. This is Pelagius running amuck. This is > Martin Luther running back and forth to the confessional. > This is me, a little boy too scared to go to sleep > because I may have forgotten to confess all of my sin. > This paints God an ogre. It makes him fickle, placing > conditions upon the forgiveness all ready established > in his Son. John is specific and emphatic! We dare not > make this a general belief/practice, one of sin, > confession, forgiveness > sin, confession, forgiveness > sin, confession, forgiveness, ad infintum; because when > we do this, we distort the entire Gospel. We turn it > on its face. We change the good news of reconciliation > and forgiveness already wrought out in Christ Jesus > into the most psychologically blatant of lies. While I agree that interpreting this verse to say that we must confess each and every sin would be erroneous, I think you have swung the pendulum too far in the other direction. You seem to be saying that this was directly aimed at Gnostics and their particular sin. From my perspective, this verse is a very important part of the gospel. It basically says that our redemption does not lie in penance or works of any kind, but within a simple confession of sins. We confess our sins, and God forgives. Very simple. To make the verse say that we will not be forgiven of sins unknown to us, or of any specific sin that we have failed to enunciate to God specifically would be wrong. In like manner, it would be wrong to argue that this verse doesn't really apply to us today because he was telling the Gnostics to repent of their sins by confessing them. Maybe I have misunderstood you. I hope you will clarify yourself. Bill wrote: > I will be happy to share more from this stream > of thought. Please just ask me. I sure do appreciate your willingness to share. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
