"Using" scripture/pretext for promoting non-orthodox views i.e. perfectionist understanding of regenerate HK.About a 1,000 yrs ago I met a man who, while pressing his nose up to something in order to read it told me that God had "healed" his eyes...(Say n'more, Say n'more..Know what I mean? A nod's as good as a wink) I consider these two on a par with one another. Lance . ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: April 06, 2004 10:08 Subject: [TruthTalk] Gnosticism
> 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. ---------- "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.
