Christian Gnosticism - Hidden Treasures?

[Yeshua1]

Yes, they would. That is probably why I held them. That was the tradition I was raised in.

Could it be as simple as they were right to hold to those views?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, this iui s not true at all. There are some who believe it was always God's plan to redeem mankind (they call Jesus the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world"). These people believe Adam's transgression demonstrated what Adam would do when faced with the choice.

Adam was under the Covenant of Works before the fall, and under that of Grace after His fall, so something really did change in regards to Him and His relationship to God!

 

[JonC]

Could it be as simple as they were right to hold to those views?

No. Because those views were not actually in scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. Because those views were not actually in scripture.

They are, its just that you really fail to understand what happened in the fall and how it affected us!

 

[JonC]

They are, its just that you really fail to understand what happened in the fall and how it affected us!

The problem is not one of understanding but one of interpretation. I understand how both views exist. I made a conscious decision to restrict my interpretation.

As you know, I'm sure, systematic theology uses biblical theology as one source and develops larger doctrines incorporating scripture, reason, natural evidences, etc. Your position is a product of systematic theology (as is mine). But I believe the more we can restrict man and the more we allow what is actually stated in the biblical text dictate the end doctrine, the better we will be.

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem is not one of understanding but one of interpretation. I understand how both views exist. I made a conscious decision to restrict my interpretation.

As you know, I'm sure, systematic theology uses biblical theology as one source and develops larger doctrines incorporating scripture, reason, natural evidences, etc. Your position is a product of systematic theology (as is mine). But I believe the more we can restrict man and the more we allow what is actually stated in the biblical text dictate the end doctrine, the better we will be.

Yes, but both historical and biblical theology would have us driven back that there was a real change to Adam when he fell, and that we also are now in His image!

 

[JonC]

Yes, but both historical and biblical theology would have us driven back that there was a real change to Adam when he fell, and that we also are now in His image!

No. That is not correct.

The nature of Adam's fall is a product of Systematic Theology. We can look to Historic Theology and explore views on both sides. But it is not Biblical Theology. For it to be so you would have to find it specifically stated in one passage. That does not exist. It is systematically derived.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. That is not correct.

The nature of Adam's fall is a product of Systematic Theology. We can look to Historic Theology and explore views on both sides. But it is not Biblical Theology. For it to be so you would have to find it specifically stated in one passage. That does not exist. It is systematically derived.

The concept of Adam being the head representative before God of all those who are fallen and still in their sins is explained and outlined by Paul! Especially in his contrasting the first and the second Adam...

 

[JonC]

The concept of Adam being the head representative before God of all those who are fallen and still in their sins is explained and outlined by Paul! Especially in his contrasting the first and the second Adam...

That is exactly the point of this thread. Thank you.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is exactly the point of this thread. Thank you.

Yes, as all spiritually died in Adam, and now those saved have been made spiritually alive again in Christ!

 

[Brooksntea]

I’m new to this thread, I didn’t go through it all, but I have to ask this. When you say “Christian Gnosticism” you don’t mean of course “the Spiritual side of the scripture” do you? In my thinking you can take the Song of Songs. On one level you can say it’s a love poem between a man and a wife. If you dig into older Puritan writers they wouldn’t take it that way but it’s about Christ and the Church. So I believe there are scriptures where you can read it face value but then there are scriptures that seem when preached have a spiritual side. In the Westminster Confession, chapter VIII (Of Christ the Mediator), paragraph 4 it says:

“IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil it; endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.”

For the first line ending with “undertake” it has this for the scripture:

Psa 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Psa 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

So we see that it wasn’t David’s voice saying that but it was Jesus’ voice. There are other verses the Puritans brought up with their “spiritual” meaning. Do you agree on that?

I certainly don’t agree on Gnosticism where a few people have a higher knowledge and you have to join their club to find out but I do believe the scriptures have a spiritual side. If it didn’t why are we reading the Bible at all?

 

[JonC]

I’m new to this thread, I didn’t go through it all, but I have to ask this. When you say “Christian Gnosticism” you don’t mean of course “the Spiritual side of the scripture” do you? In my thinking you can take the Song of Songs. On one level you can say it’s a love poem between a man and a wife. If you dig into older Puritan writers they wouldn’t take it that way but it’s about Christ and the Church. So I believe there are scriptures where you can read it face value but then there are scriptures that seem when preached have a spiritual side. In the Westminster Confession, chapter VIII (Of Christ the Mediator), paragraph 4 it says:

“IV. This office the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that He might discharge, He was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfil it; endured most grievous torments immediately in His soul, and most painful sufferings in His body; was crucified, and died, was buried, and remained under the power of death, yet saw no corruption. On the third day He arose from the dead, with the same body in which He suffered, with which also he ascended into heaven, and there sits at the right hand of His Father, making intercession, and shall return, to judge men and angels, at the end of the world.”

For the first line ending with “undertake” it has this for the scripture:

Psa 40:7 Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,

Psa 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

So we see that it wasn’t David’s voice saying that but it was Jesus’ voice. There are other verses the Puritans brought up with their “spiritual” meaning. Do you agree on that?

I certainly don’t agree on Gnosticism where a few people have a higher knowledge and you have to join their club to find out but I do believe the scriptures have a spiritual side. If it didn’t why are we reading the Bible at all?

No. I don't mean the spiritual side of scripture (we need more of that).

What I mean are those who believe the truth of Scripture is what they see implied rather than writen. These "truths" are sometimes presented as the more "mature" understanding.

 

[Ran the Man]

The Problem (cue melodramatic music)

In another thread this comment was made to justify a system of belief not specifically stated I Scripture. This reflects a concerning aspect of contemporary “scholarship”. At one time “when properly interpreted” meant taking the time to study Scripture, develop an interpretation, and recognize/own what is one’s own understanding. I can’t remember how many preachers I’ve heard insist they may be wrong and the congregation needed to search Scripture. In one sermon Spurgeon even confessed he suspected human leanings in his belief and instructed his congregation to test his words. But now we get the phrase “when properly understood” to be a type of gnostic understanding not actually present in the Biblical text but woven beneath the words, slightly out of view. The idea is that a “proper understanding” or correct theology brings what Scripture really means to say out of the dark and to the eye of the reader. Doctrine becomes an issue not of “it is written”, but “it is implied”. This is dangerous ground.

My Solution (cue happy music)

I took about a year to do this and it had a profound impact on my view of tradition and Scripture. Ultimately the exercise moved me from a more contemporary tradition to what some hold as a “classic” view. Some would say this was a good thing, others would insist I should have remained tucked in a more modern tradition as modern scholars have the benefit of and ability to refine the theories of those who have gone before.

Get a whiteboard (I got two and put them behind a door). Systematically write down your theology. Line by line list the verses that correspond to what you believe. Write your theology in a notebook or use Word as well). On the whiteboard erase each belief that is not exactly in the text of Scripture (even if you know the belief correct).

Now look at the verses. In a notebook (or in Word) record the entire passage (what is applicable to the topic). Read the book of the Bible that contains the passage. Read the chapter before, containing, and after the passage.

Write down what the biblical text states. Read it aloud as if it were someone else’s view (perhaps it is). Even if you disagree with what specifically stated without adding clarification or expounding on the text, ask yourself if it makes sense (not whether it agrees with your theory, but is it coherent). You will find it is.

Put your theology on one side and the passages on another. Choose one and study it for what it says and be honest about the one you have chosen.

I find it helpful to do this on a regular basis. We, being human, tend to lean on our understanding and need to make a conscious decision to submit to God’s word. If we are not careful we will move away from Scripture inch by inch and never realize how many miles we have traveled.

there are already many Manichean Gnostics on this site. They're called Calvinists.