Bill wrote: > PS When I use the term proto-Gnostics I mean "first"-- > from Gk. protos--and not to mean before or prior to. > You may have picked up on this,; nevertheless, I'm > telling you so as to not mislead you.
I appreciate you making this comment. The term "proto" in the sciences certainly means this too, but it also has the connotation of having only the first vestiges of what is being talked about. In evolutionary theory, for example, a proto-Aves (proto-bird) might be something like archaeopteryx, a reptile that has feathers like a bird but cannot fly and still retains many characteristics like a reptile, such as scales and teeth. I'm curious. Is the term "proto-Gnostic" original with you or have you read or heard others use it? Do you recognize at all the Judaic nature of guys like Simon Magus and Cerinthus? Do you recognize how different they were from what we call Gnosticism in the second century, which was wreathed in Greek influence? I realize that I might be diverting away from what would really interest you, the Christian Perfection doctrine, but look at it this way. You are helping me make up for my lack of training in seminary. :-) I do find your comments interesting and stimulating to the mind. To get us back toward the Christian Perfection doctrine a little, let me ask you this. How does understanding Gnosticism, and the misperception of a Jew like Cerinthus concerning the Incarnation and who Jesus was, help us understand a verse like 1 John 5:18? 1Jo 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. This is a passage that I have heard many explain in what I would call "Gnostic terms." They feel forced to justify their sin by claiming that they must be without sin in their spirit but not in their flesh. I have trouble with dualism carried this far. I would agree with dualism in the sense that righteousness ultimately comes to us through the spirit rather than the flesh, and that there is no good thing residing in our flesh, but I would disagree with the notion that the normal Christian life is one whereby our flesh continues to sin while our spirit does not. I have a more holistic view of man, and so I read passages like this one as describing a reality that extends to the flesh, if only we would believe it. In my experience, when we believe what John says, we experience it, but when we do not believe him, we are left to our speculations of the mind to try and explain why John did not mean what he said. Lance said something recently along these lines. He said that the passages say what I claim they say, but they really don't mean what I think they mean. This reminds me of a woman a few weekends ago when I was teaching at a conference for home church people in Jacksonville associated with Gene Edwards. As I was explaining holiness, a woman objected by using the story of the woman caught in adultery. The woman caught in adultery was not condemned by Jesus. The idea, of course, was that she was accepted as she was. I pointed out how Jesus told her, "go and sin no more." Her objection was, "yeah, but when Jesus said, 'go and sin no more' he did not mean 'go and sin no more'. LOL. That is exactly what she said! I have problems with that kind of response. This is what I face time and time again with this topic. I can share the Word of God over and over again with people, yet it really always comes back to unbelief and the notion that the Bible does not and cannot mean what it says. So, maybe you can take a stab at this one passage, John 5:18. Explain how understanding Gnosticism would explain that this verse does not really mean that we will not continue to sin. If you are not sure you want to try and do this, I can understand that too. I can certainly proceed without you answering this, but if you do have an answer, it might curtail a lot of useless rhetoric on my part. This subject is a big one and I'm not sure which direction to go with you until I understand better what your objections would be to Christian Perfection. I can see that John Smithson stumbles on Romans 7 and so I would tend to focus on that with him first, showing clearly how it does not describe the normal Christian life, but rather a life in the flesh and under the law. I'm not sure what difficulties you have with my understanding of Christian Perfection. Do you see Romans 7 as descriptive of the normal Christian life, the best we can expect in Christ? If so, then I certainly ought to start there in Romans. 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.
