----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: April 09, 2004 03:52 Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Gnosticism
> 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. ---------- "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.
