[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Just because gnostics take a mystical approach does not mean mysticism in Christianity is gnosticism.

It's the same as mystics using a gnostic approach in discerning their mystical experiences. So does that then make them a gnostic? The two cannot be seperated.

If I were to use the fruit analogy, what you are doing in your argument is skinning and pitting the apple and still calling it an apple. While technically true, you're not presenting the apple in it's entirety. Gnosticism and mysticism are parts of the same apple or, at most, different apples from the same tree.

These two terms are somewhat ambiguous to start off with so if you get too stuck on symantics, points are hard to get across.

Here is a statement from an article titled "Gnosticism and The Gnostic Jesus";

"Gnosticism is a philosophy that refers to a body of teachings that stress the acquisition of “gnosis,” or inner knowledge. This knowledge is not mere intellectual, but mystical knowledge; not merely knowing about something or someone, but a mystical knowledge that comes from within each of us. This special mystical knowledge allows us to discover an esoteric divine nature within each of us that is obscured by ignorance and false teaching about God and Jesus.""Furthermore, the Gnostics believe this knowledge is not in the possession of the masses, but only to the Gnostics (the Knowers) who truly understand its benefits and how to attain it. To the Gnostic, the masses are trapped in the ignorance of religious teaching and doctrine that serves to control and regulate the conduct of believers. The Gnostic, on the other hand, believes he has pierced through the ignorance and trappings of organized religion and has reached the core of special spiritual knowledge about God and the God-nature in each of us. The only problem is that this “core of special spiritual knowledge” of God and the God-nature is a “core of special spiritual knowledge” of their own creation."

Alot of what this article states about the characteristics of gnosticism sound eerily similar to the sentiments held within the LC.

You already openly acknowledge that mysticism is practiced within the LC. This above statement then highlights the LC's gnostic influences as well as showing mysticism and gnosticism go together hand in hand.

In order to discern the difference you should take note of the whole Gotquestions article:

First, it espouses a dualism regarding spirit and matter. Gnostics assert that matter is inherently evil and spirit is good.

You can make the argument that the LC's belief on Satan literally dwelling in our flesh lines up with this gnostic teaching very well.

"If we did not have such an evil thing as the flesh with us, we might not pray so desperately." -Witness Lee

Reading the above statement by Lee, my question would be; who is 'us' if not our body of flesh? Here, Lee is merely viewing flesh as an accessory that is "with us". What then makes up "us". Is it our Spirit?

Lee's teachings do emphasize getting into your spirit. He suggests that our minds and flesh are not good, only the spirit is good.

In Christianity, it's sin that dwells in our flesh and it's sin that is evil. Our literal flesh is just a vehicle. When God first created man, he was created "good" and that included his body. For a new creation in Christ or a born again Christian, our body is now a temple for the Holy Spirit. How then can something holy dwell in something that is evil?

In scripture the term "flesh" is used to point back to sin nature where as the gnostic understanding objectifies "flesh" and points it to matter. This lines up with the above gnostic teaching. Taken to an extreme, this is where the religious practices of asceticism and flagellation or penance comes from.

Again, if human flesh was objectively evil, how is it possible that the Holy Spirit operates through God's people? Did Jesus Christ and the apostles lay evil flesh on those that they healed?

The Person of Jesus Christ is another area where Christianity and Gnosticism drastically differ. The Gnostics believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed” to be physical

The Gnostics believe that Jesus’ physical body was not real, but only “seemed” to be physical, and that His spirit descended upon Him at His baptism, but left Him just before His crucifixion.

You can liken this belief to the LC's teaching that; First, Jesus before incarnation was spirit. He then was temporarily incarnated as a human being. And then after resurrection, Jesus returned to being a life giving spirit.

Scripture doesn't teach that humans were spirit before birth and neither teaches that any of us will ever be just spirit. So one can conclude that this teaching does not teach a fully human Jesus, only a Jesus that temporarily "seemed" human because no human operates or has ever operated in such modalities.

Furthermore, if it's stated that the only good part of us is our spirit (because our flesh is evil) then it's easy to conclude in error that Jesus shed his human flesh and ascended into heaven as a "life giving spirit" and that we to will one day be just as him, spirits. This belief would be considered gnosticism.

The Gnostics, on the other hand, use a variety of early heretical writings known as the Gnostic gospels, a collection of forgeries claiming to be “lost books of the Bible.”

There were many gnostic communities in ancient times, not all of them shared the same beliefs and teachings. They did not have an exclusive set of scriptures that they all adhered to. The writtings discover at Nag Hammadi were only labeled "gnostic gospels" by they are not the official scriptures for all gnostics.

Only if Lee taught these things could it be considered gnosticism, which he didn't.

I'll let others judge that for themselves.