Gnosticism

[Tina]

.

Definition of Gnosticism --->

The thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis (knowledge of spiritual things, esp. a secret and superior knowledge limited to an elite few, such as the Gnostics claimed to have).


Does Gnosticism still exists today? I do not know of anyone practicising such cult where I live. Do you?

Was 1 John only addressed to Gnostics that existed during John's time? Is it applicable to other cults, non-believers or even common Christian sinners of today?



:help

 

[Drew]

.Does Gnosticism still exists today?

It very much does exist today. I suspect more than a handful of members here implicitly buy into Gnosticism. For example, those who think that Jesus is not Lord of this present world, but is instead really only Lord of a mysterious "spiritual" realm are guilty of a form of Gnosticism. Perhaps this is not the best example.

A better illustration: Often, when one poster's position is demonstrably undermined by Biblical arguments from a second poster, the first poster will write something like "you are using man's reasoning". If I had a nickel for every time I have encountered this strategy.........In any event such a strategy is, of course, an attempt to wriggle out of a corner.

But such a strategy implicitly involves a belief, on the part of the first poster, that he is "above" having to deal with challenges to his position. This is really a way of saying "I have special secret knowledge that you do not have".

And that is Gnosticism.

 

[theLords]

Gnosticism is a way of thinking. Gnosticism is the belief that 'right thinking' can get you into heaven. There are many religions based on intellectualism and 'right ways' of doing things. I'm sure you can think of at least 1 ;)

 

[Nathan]

Yes I think it is alive and present today. It can be seen in those who 'profess' faith.

It is a reasoning of, "I said a prayer, I asked for forgiveness, I 'accepted' Jesus into my heart".

Its like what Drew is saying. It can be known most often by those who profess Jesus as "Lord", but do not realize what the word 'Lord' means.

Jesus made it very clear, "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I tell you?"

It is inward spirituality without any outward sign. I have ran into it multiple times before. One time in particular, which is hard to understand even now, is when I first received faith. I struggled with it for a while. So many varying opinions on who a "Christian" is. Then I listened to this one guy say that he went through the same process, and finally he had to just "decide" that he was no longer going to live in doubt, but "just believe".

It sounds good at face value, but what gnosticism does is convince the person believing according to the values of it, to disregard the manifestation and realities of what is truly inside of them. One can say "I believe in salvation from grace alone", and yet try desperately hard to 'earn' it. And on the flip side, one can say "I believe in salvation from grace alone", and continue in all sorts of evil activities relying on their 'belief' alone.

This has a part of the idea of osas, but it goes much deeper than that. But in its entirety it is simple. It is as Drew said, a belief that the physical has no connection to the spiritual. And it is simply false.

Luk 6:45 The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

The physical is very much related to the spiritual.

 

[Sinthesis]

It seems to me that most modern gnostics are overtly spiritual in appearance. They "know" the truth, the hidden manna not available to the deceived masses of the regular Christian Church.

Wouldn't you like to be elect(vain) like them?
It is seductive to believe you've been chosen to be right while everyone else is wrong.

 

[walter]

Basically, if you "lean on your own understanding" as a christian, meaning you are the final arbiter of truth no matter any evidence to the contrary and you think of God as an abstract concept you are a gnostic.

That's just my own understanding though...

 

[Pard]

I know a few Gnostics, though they probably do not even know they are Gnostic.

Letting your "wisdom" supersede the Word of God...

 

[francisdesales]

It seems to me that most modern gnostics are overtly spiritual in appearance. They "know" the truth, the hidden manna not available to the deceived masses of the regular Christian Church.

Wouldn't you like to be elect(vain) like them?
It is seductive to believe you've been chosen to be right while everyone else is wrong.

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Regards

 

[stovebolts]

.

Definition of Gnosticism --->

The thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis (knowledge of spiritual things, esp. a secret and superior knowledge limited to an elite few, such as the Gnostics claimed to have).


Does Gnosticism still exists today? I do not know of anyone practicising such cult where I live. Do you?

Was 1 John only addressed to Gnostics that existed during John's time? Is it applicable to other cults, non-believers or even common Christian sinners of today?



:help

I liked the definition put forth because it's a combination of beliefs, not simply a singular belief.

I wouldn't call Augustine a gnostic by any stretch of the word. However, by some of the responses I've read, I'm curious if anyone would call him partial to being gnostic according to what he wrote in "On Christian Doctrine".

To reply briefly to all these. To those who do not understand what is here set down, my answer is, that I am not to be blamed for their want of understanding. It is just as if they were anxious to see the new or the old moon, or some very obscure star, and I should point it out with my finger: if they had not sight enough to see even my finger, they would surely have no right to fly into a passion with me on that account. As for those who, even though they know and understand my directions, fail to penetrate the meaning of obscure passages in Scripture, they may stand for those who, in the case I have imagined, are just able to see my finger, but cannot see the stars at which it is pointed. And so both these classes had better give up blaming me, and pray instead that God would grant them the sight of their eyes. For though I can move my finger to point out an object, it is out of my power to open men's eyes that they may see either the fact that I am pointing, or the object at which I point.

Thoughts?

 

[Sinthesis]

I see Augustine as being anti-gnostic. Your quote is about him laying out rules for the interpretation of scripture. These are worldly/fleshy/rules-of-man/logical rules. That not everyone has the faculties to apply these rules is not a case of flesh vs spirit. Augustine admits that it is beyond him to make others see the world as it is, but his example is of an objective provable reality. Take the quote further:

Originally Posted by Augustine

But now as to those who talk vauntingly of Divine Grace, and boast that they understand and can explain Scripture without the aid of such directions as those I now propose to lay down, and who think, therefore, that what I have undertaken to write is entirely superfluous. I would such persons could calm themselves so far as to remember that, however justly they may rejoice in God's great gift, yet it was from human teachers they themselves learnt to read.​

These are whom I would call modern day gnostics. Those who seek to rely on a real or perceived indwelling of the Holy Spirit regarding the interpretation of scripture etc., while denying any contradictory evidence out of hand as deception from men. They fail to realize the very language they use to construct and organize their thoughts is a product of men.

 

[smaller]

.

Definition of Gnosticism --->

The thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis (knowledge of spiritual things, esp. a secret and superior knowledge limited to an elite few, such as the Gnostics claimed to have).


Does Gnosticism still exists today? I do not know of anyone practicising such cult where I live. Do you?

Was 1 John only addressed to Gnostics that existed during John's time? Is it applicable to other cults, non-believers or even common Christian sinners of today?

:help

Gnosticism, like many spiritual errors still creeps in to many believers. On this site yesterday an individual stated that FLESH IS EVIL, which is GNOSTIC HERESY.

My own youngest daughter who is a very strong believer came up with that same statement, and more than likely picked it up from somebody in a bible study or something.

It's surprising where you run into that matter. There are other 'weird' spiritual understandings that I run into with frequency. Believers who believe Jesus sinned or had lustful thoughts. Mariolatry, etc.

weird stuff. But if ya don't know, ya don't know and can become 'prey' for those things. And once submitted to, those things are very hard to shake. It gets into the mind and won't let go. I know one person who I've seen berated at a dozen christian message boards over the Jesus sinned issue, yet he STILL tries to peddle those wares to whomever will listen. And lo and behold I've seen people taken in by it repeatedly. Anti-semitism is a similar working.

There are a huge number of TRAPS within the realm.

enjoy!

smaller

 

[cyberjosh]

Gnosticism, like many spiritual errors still creeps in to many believers. On this site yesterday an individual stated that FLESH IS EVIL, which is GNOSTIC HERESY.

My own youngest daughter who is a very strong believer came up with that same statement, and more than likely picked it up from somebody in a bible study or something.

Of course you were there and I was not, but did you maybe perhaps misunderstand her (or maybe she misunderstood someone else, i.e. relayed it incorrectly)? Because it seems more likely that a believer would believe that the sinful flesh (sarx) is evil, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh" (Romans 7:18). There are different meanings/uses of sarx depending on the context, one of which is the physical body but the other speaks of our inborn sinful nature. I only ask because when I was younger I sometimes was not the best at articulating my theological ideas to others, which resulted in unintentional misunderstandings.

But if it was actually an idea from someone in bible study that sarx (as physical flesh) is evil then that indeed is a strange idea for a typical Christian to have (at least from my Protestant background).

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Of course you were there and I was not, but did you maybe perhaps misunderstand her (or maybe she misunderstood someone else, i.e. relayed it incorrectly)? Because it seems more likely that a believer would believe that the sinful flesh (sarx) is evil, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh" (Romans 7:18). There are different meanings/uses of sarx depending on the context, one of which is the physical body but the other speaks of our inborn sinful nature. I only ask because when I was younger I sometimes was not the best at articulating my theological ideas to others, which resulted in unintentional misunderstandings.

But if it was actually an idea from someone in bible study that sarx (as physical flesh) is evil then that indeed is a strange idea for a typical Christian to have (at least from my Protestant background).

God Bless,

~Josh

Agreed. Our physical flesh is not the issue, but our fleshy desires that contradict the Spirit's desires. Self v God. We must die to self. Thus, Paul says we must crucify THAT flesh (I am thinking he is not refering to the physical flesh!!!). This should put an end to the idea that our PHYSICAL flesh is "evil"...

Regards

 

[smaller]

Of course you were there and I was not, but did you maybe perhaps misunderstand her (or maybe she misunderstood someone else, i.e. relayed it incorrectly)? Because it seems more likely that a believer would believe that the sinful flesh (sarx) is evil, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh" (Romans 7:18). There are different meanings/uses of sarx depending on the context, one of which is the physical body but the other speaks of our inborn sinful nature. I only ask because when I was younger I sometimes was not the best at articulating my theological ideas to others, which resulted in unintentional misunderstandings.

There is the flesh and THEN there is that which is IN the flesh, that being indwelling sin/evil present within flesh. There is a crucial difference in understandings.

There is no statement in the text that flesh is evil.

But if it was actually an idea from someone in bible study that sarx (as physical flesh) is evil then that indeed is a strange idea for a typical Christian to have (at least from my Protestant background).

God Bless,

~Josh

Romans teaches that 'sin entered' Adam, meaning that which entered Adam was NOT the same as Adam's flesh. Pretty simple. Teaching that flesh is evil is somewhat dangerous, as it may put believers into doing bizarre things to their flesh, and perhaps even killing that EVIL flesh.

Some in orthodoxy (Read-Pope John Paul II) actually flagellate(d) their flesh thinking somehow that puts the power of sin down. I don't buy that effort, but whatever.

s

 

[Pard]

Help me to understand this guys -

What exactly do Gnostics believe which are outside of christianity?

When I hear the word "Gnostic" the images that come into my mind are not of the actual Gnostic groups that existed in the past (like the ones who invented Lillith or Metatron) - do these Gnostics still exist - what are these modern gnostics, and from where do they derive their understandings??

What is Christian Gnosticism?

Hope that helps.

Everything a Gnostic believes is outside of Christianity, they are mutually exclusive.

They derive their "knowledge" from their arrogance and from themselves.

 

[Tina]

.

Thanks Pard, thats what I always thought gnosticism was, but I thought they died out long ago - are the current people who follow these teachings actively and knowingly adhearing to gnosticism or are they coming up with their own interpretations that mirror the ancient gnostics?

That is what I'm asking too ... I don't think Gnosticism exists today per se , strictly adhereing to the ancient Gnostic gospels ... but I do believe there are many very similar versions of it that go by different names, or perhaps individuals with pretty similar beliefs like a few I've met in this forum some time ago that had very bizarre views of Jesus.

So back to orginal question ... Was 1 John only addressed and applicable to the Gnostics, or is it still very much relevant to the world today including the church ?


For example, the Apostle John said ...


1 John 1:8-9
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.


Is he referring the above only to the Gnostics ?

 

[cyberjosh]

There is the flesh and THEN there is that which is IN the flesh, that being indwelling sin/evil present within flesh. There is a crucial difference in understandings.

There is no statement in the text that flesh is evil.


Romans teaches that 'sin entered' Adam, meaning that which entered Adam was NOT the same as Adam's flesh. Pretty simple. Teaching that flesh is evil is somewhat dangerous, as it may put believers into doing bizarre things to their flesh, and perhaps even killing that EVIL flesh.

Some in orthodoxy (Read-Pope John Paul II) actually flagellate(d) their flesh thinking somehow that puts the power of sin down. I don't buy that effort, but whatever.

s

Here is one thing further I was going to say in regards to the example of what your daughter said:

Perhaps she did not understand the full ramifications of what she was saying (if she thought the physical flesh was evil) and only had a vague sense of it, based on the present experience (which we all have) that our physical bodies are fallen (plagued by sin) and must be redeemed. Because anyone who TRUELY believed that all physical flesh (and all physical things) are evil would deny themselves any physical pleasure and would neglect even bettering the body. Such ascetecism Paul clearly denounced in Scripture because some gnostics believed that neglecting (and beating) the body brought them closer to the spirit.

For the record I have always throughout my entire Christian life understood the term flesh (when not clearly refering to the physical body) to mean the sinful flesh and I do believe that I can back that up with Scripture. And that "sinful flesh" is evil and must be crucified (see francisdesales' point about our physical flesh not being crucified). And if it is true that the crucifixion of the "flesh" is not of our physical body, then it must mean that the "flesh" to be crucified is the sinful nature, that is evil. If need be I will start another thread on this matter.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[francisdesales]

Some in orthodoxy (Read-Pope John Paul II) actually flagellate(d) their flesh thinking somehow that puts the power of sin down. I don't buy that effort, but whatever.

s

It is not an uncommon idea across religious backgrounds to deprive oneself of what is ordinarily a good object. Whether one fasts, abstains from sex or refrains from watching TV or flagellates (whether John Paul himself did this, I think you'd have to show some evidence...), that is up to them. Whether you "buy it" or not is spurious - it matters to the spiritual walk of the recipient and not for outward show.

When one decides to undertake more drastic means of mortification, one is advised to seek a spiritual guide - this must not lead to pride or abuse. To some, it is given from above - to include becoming a eunich, as Jesus Himself said, for the sake of the Kingdom.

 

[smaller]

It is not an uncommon idea across religious backgrounds to deprive oneself of what is ordinarily a good object. Whether one fasts, abstains from sex or refrains from watching TV or flagellates (whether John Paul himself did this, I think you'd have to show some evidence...), that is up to them. Whether you "buy it" or not is spurious - it matters to the spiritual walk of the recipient and not for outward show.

When one decides to undertake more drastic means of mortification, one is advised to seek a spiritual guide - this must not lead to pride or abuse. To some, it is given from above - to include becoming a eunich, as Jesus Himself said, for the sake of the Kingdom.

To me that action of flesh flagellation only shows that the beater thinks that by punishing the flesh, the presence and actions of indwelling sin depart.

It doesn't.

s

 

[smaller]

Here is one thing further I was going to say in regards to the example of what your daughter said:

Perhaps she did not understand the full ramifications of what she was saying (if she thought the physical flesh was evil) and only had a vague sense of it, based on the present experience (which we all have) that our physical bodies are fallen (plagued by sin) and must be redeemed.

I am exceptionally proud of my youngest daughter. Her entire life is a testimony to Godliness. I have 5 children, all are believers. God surely has His Hands upon her in her striving to 'do good' always. But nevertheless, as I have often pointed out to her and my other children, we must ever be mindful that no matter HOW GOOD we are and do, that the presence of indwelling sin IN our flesh is WITH US and that working is NOT good or legal nor will it EVER be.

We are exercised by that working and we LEARN from it how utterly deceiptful IT IS regardless of ourselves as Gods children. I could account many personal life lessons herein from our family dialogs. My main goal in this was to not raise RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES who beat their chests about 'how good they are' and how 'bad' the other people are who do not believe 'like me.'

The presence of indwelling sin and EVIL PRESENT have been purposefully given to us to KEEP US HUMBLE and WEAK, which is A GODLY trait.

Because anyone who TRUELY believed that all physical flesh (and all physical things) are evil would deny themselves any physical pleasure and would neglect even bettering the body. Such ascetecism Paul clearly denounced in Scripture because some gnostics believed that neglecting (and beating) the body brought them closer to the spirit.

Bingo and very true.

For the record I have always throughout my entire Christian life understood the term flesh (when not clearly refering to the physical body) to mean the sinful flesh and I do believe that I can back that up with Scripture.

IF we are 'in Christ' we understand that the BODY dies or actually IS DEAD already because of the presence of SIN. It is THAT PRESENCE that 'defiles' the flesh INCLUSIVE of the MIND. The flesh itself is only the VICTIM of that presence, and not the presence itself. (Romans 8:10)

Therefore we 'account' our flesh BODY already as DEAD because of this fact, in order that we may LIVE unto HIM in LOVE. At the point of DEATH we are in fact RELEASED from SIN because we already know the END RESULT of that and we find our SPIRITUAL growth in Him through LOVE, primarily of our neighbors, as the workings of FAITH is proven by LOVE. No working LOVE, no FAITH.

Living LIFE in LOVE is not a bad thing. It is Gods Greatest Gift and IS GOD Himself living IN us.

And that "sinful flesh" is evil and must be crucified (see francisdesales' point about our physical flesh not being crucified). And if it is true that the crucifixion of the "flesh" is not of our physical body, then it must mean that the "flesh" to be crucified is the sinful nature, that is evil. If need be I will start another thread on this matter.

God Bless,

~Josh

You have a fairly good head on yer shoulders Josh.

The bottom line? The flesh cannot be EVIL because it is ALREADY dead by the power of indwelling SIN, at least by the account and reckonings of the believers who know the operations of INDWELLING SIN make this so.

enjoy!

smaller