Re: [TruthTalk] Gnosticism

[Wm. Taylor]

Much to respond to, David; perhaps more than will even be necessary. You write  >   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 1John 2:27? Is it truly "a magnification of education" to pass on information which is well established and as old as the Canon itself? It's only when we hoard our knowledge and insist upon a prior commitment from others that we have magnified education; it's only then that we become elitists. The truth is that gnosticism and the knowledge of such is not new news, nor is it obscure. You have obviously run across it before. I am sure Judy has as well. Is there anyone at TT who is unaware of the Gnostics? The problem is not a question of their existence, or even their existence at the end of the first century, it is one of discerning what to do with what we know about them. Do we say, yes, I John was probably written to combat proto-gnostic if not full-blown gnostic tendencies and teachings, and then use what we know about this cult as an interpretive grid through which to read I John? or do we suppress what we know and read I John as if the false prophets he mentions are either unidentifiable or even hypothetical? I am committed to the former. You are committed to the later.   Allow me to set the gnostic problem aside for a moment and look at John's epistles themselves. Although John does intend to edify his readers, surely you will agree with me that his letters were called forth by a particular and urgent situation in the church. This situation concerns false teachings from certain false teachers. “I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray” (2.26). And again, “Dear children, do not let any one lead you astray” (3.7). I said earlier and I stand by it: John's language is as strong as it is because he is warning against heresies from evil men, who denied Christ and were attempting to add to the Gospel of Christ. I John is not about lining out a few wayward brothers. John describes these false teachers in three ways, each of which draws attention to their diabolical origin and evil influence. First, they are “false prophets” (4.1). Throughout Scripture a prophet is someone who speaks under the inspiration of a spiritual power. The true prophet is a mouthpiece for the Spirit of truth; the false prophet a minister of a spirit of error, i.e., an evil spirit/s. For this reason John admonishes his readers to “test the spirits,” when examining the teachings of these prophets (4.1-6). Secondly, they are “deceivers” (II Joh 7), because they are leading people astray with their lies. Thirdly, they are “anti-christs” (2.18, cf. v. 22; 4.3; II Joh 7), because the substance of their teaching is to deny the Incarnation, i.e., the divine-human person of  Jesus Christ. Neither are these but a few rebel-rousers; in each case they are “many” – “many false prophets,” “many deceivers,” “many anti-christs.” John also identifies them as "liars" (2.22).   Yes, some of the false prophets had left the communities to which John was writing. Possibly their secession owed much to a failure to convert congregations of which they were formerly a part (I Joh 2.18-19). We do know that many Christians by their adherence to the Gospel once presented had "overcome them" (I Joh 4.4). Still, John felt he must reassure the faithful and explain in straightforward terms the differences between the two groups, thereby giving his readers grounds for assurance and confidence in fellowship with God (I Joh 5.13) at a time when they were being made to feel inferior and spiritually threatened. Throughout his letters John’s great emphasis is on the differences between the genuine Christian and the spurious, and how to discern between the two.  The internal evidence furnished by the letters discloses not only the diabolical origin and damaging activity of the false teachers, but to some extent the nature of their perverted system as well. We can learn it both from John’s direct references to their teaching which he contradicts and from the positive emphasis he feels it necessary to make in order to counteract it. Moreover, the context of his double mention of deceivers shows that their error was both theological (2.26; cf. II Joh 7) and ethical (3.7). Their theological error concerned the person of Jesus. They denied that Jesus was the Christ (2.2). By inference they denied that Christ had come in the flesh (4.1-6).   From this internal evidence it emerges that, if we are to identify the heresy against which John writes, we must find a system which denied that Jesus was the Son or the Christ come in the flesh and which also viewed righteousness and love as indifferent. Many have argued that this system is the doctrine known as “docetism.”  Derived from the Greek work dokein, “to seem,” it describes the view that Jesus was not a man in reality but only in appearance. This teaching was condemned by Ignatius, and this perhaps only ten years and not more than twenty years after John’s address. Ignatius has lead a great many commentators to place the heretics in the ranks of proto-Gnostics.   Moreover it is quite discernable that the controversy which John’s letters reflect concerns the doctrine of the Incarnation. These proto-Gnostics believed that matter was evil and were obsessed with the problems raised not just by the physical world in general but by the human body in particular. They were not just Platonists; they were pagans through and through. Hence they were immediately in difficulties with the Christian worldview because it is such an essentially material and relational religion. It asserts that the Son of God clothed himself with a body, and that the Christians body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. What could they make of the body of Christ and the body of Christians? We have already seen that they denied the former. They could not conceive how the Christ could become Incarnate, still less have assumed a physical body subject to the limitations of the fall. As for the Christian’s body, it was fundamental to their thought that the body was a base prison in which the rational or spiritual part of human beings was incarcerated, and from which it needed to be released by gnosis. They believed in salvation by enlightenment, the imparting of an esoteric knowledge in some secret initiation ceremony. The initiated were the truly spiritual people; hence they despised the uninitiated as doomed to an animal life on earth. There was thus no love lost between these two groups.  You asked if there was any evidence of gnosticism in the first-century New Testament period. One resident in first century Ephesus, who could rightfully be described as Gnostic, was a man named Cerinthus. True, none of his writings have survived. But he is known to have been both a contemporary and an opponent of John. We learn about him chiefly from Irenaeus and Eusebius. Irenaeus records in “Against Heresies” an anecdote from Polycarp that “John, the disciple of the lord, going to bathe in Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming ‘Let us fly, let even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth is within.’” Irenaeus had already given the Gnostic views of Cerinthus in Book 1 of that same work. I would be glad to share those views if you like. Perhaps more appropriately you should obtain a copy of this book and read them for yourself. The essence of Cerinthus’ error seems to have been a severance of the man Jesus from the divine Christ or Spirit. Irenaeus refers to this error later when accusing Cerinthus as one “who separates Jesus from the Christ, alleging that Christ remained impassible but the man Jesus suffered, thereby denying Jesus as the Christ.” David, it seems to me that John’s arguments sound plausible if they are understood as against Cerinthus and his Gnostic disciples. John's opponents denied that Jesus was the Christ (I Joh 2.22) -- they disbelieved that the man Jesus really was Christ Incarnate (1.1-5) and really was the Son (2.23; 4.25; II Joh 7). They also denied that they were in any sense dominated by or even subject to sin (the body problem mentioned above): it did not inhere in their nature, display itself in their behavior, or hinder their fellowship with God (I Joh 1.6-10). Meanwhile their own conduct was so haughty, arrogant, unloving and schismatic that they were actually denying the very Gospel they claimed only they understood, prompting some of the true believers to question whether they had the Spirit at all (see I Joh 2.26-27 in particular). This takes us to the passage from which you quoted -- I Joh 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." What exactly is John attempting to communicate here, David? Is he saying that Christians do not need teachers at all? Is there no place in Christianity for educated, Godly teachers? Are you suggesting that? Are you comfortable with that conclusion? I'm not }:>)   Let's back up from your point of reference and take a little fuller context. I Joh 2.18-27 "Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth. I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and that no lie is of the truth. Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that He has promised us -- eternal life. These things I have written to you concerning those who try to deceive you. But the anointing which you have received from Him abides in you, and you do not need that anyone teach you; but as the same anointing teaches you concerning all things, and is true, and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you will abide in Him." This is John telling confused Christians that they have eternal life and they have fellowship with the Father and the Son, and they have it apart from special knowledge. They do not need to be taught an esoteric form of gnosis to receive and participate in these things. The anointing they had received through Paul and Timothy and likely others including John remains. It is from the Holy One; it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It does not take secret knowledge to know this truth. They do not need "teachers" in this regard. Their anointing was trustworthy and true; they should stick with it and not be deceived by false teachers spouting special privileges.  David, if you are interested in continuing this dialogue, I will reciprocate -- for awhile. But I do not get the impression you are looking to change. I like you very much and I am deeply grieved by our impasse. And I really do not want to get into a tit for tat with you. Perhaps charity on both of our parts is a better way to go. Your mind seems to be made up. Mine is likewise. I do not agree with you and you do not agree with me. Is that arrogance from me? Perhaps. Is that sin? Am I postulating a pass go for readers of I John? Should I be more willing to consider the evidence and a possibility that I am in error? Perhaps. Perhaps on all accounts.    Bill