How I got here, and what is this place?

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no such thing as "gnosticism within Christianity". It's a different religion, as I explained before. Any gnostics within Christianity are not Christians. Also, gnostics accept the "gnostic gospels". The local churches definitely reject the gnostic gospels. This is further proof that the local churches are not involved with gnosticism.

Gnosticism is a system of thought or philosophy that's exclusive to Christianity and incorporated in existing Christian theology. Similar systems or philosophies exist outside of Christianity but they are called different things. New Ageism, Buddhism, ect...Gnosticism isn't a seperate religion. Religion requires the worship of a specific diety or dieties.

You have a point. Also, isn't His presence already in every person (not just those born of him)? Isn't God omnipresent ?

If God is omnipotent, does he have the ability to restrict himself if he chose to? The things that make you go, Hmmmm...

New age Mysticism is New age thought.
Christian mysticism is Christian thought.
Gnostic mysticism is Gnostic thought.
Islamic mysticism is Islam thought.
etc

This would be more accurate;

New age Mysticism is New age thought.
Christian mysticism is gnosticism.
"Gnostic mysticism" is non-existent. There's no such thing and is a contradiction of terms.
Islamic mysticism is Sufism.

The one thing they all have in common is they're all systems that lead you away from the truth.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Gnosticism is a system of thought or philosophy that's exclusive to Christianity and incorporated in existing Christian theology. Similar systems or philosophies exist outside of Christianity but they are called different things. New Ageism, Buddhism, ect...Gnosticism isn't a seperate religion. Religion requires the worship of a specific diety or dieties.
If God is omnipotent, does he have the ability to restrict himself if he chose to? The things that make you go, Hmmmm...
This would be more accurate;
New age Mysticism is New age thought.
Christian mysticism is gnosticism.
"Gnostic mysticism" is non-existent. There's no such thing and is a contradiction of terms.
Islamic mysticism is Sufism.
The one thing they all have in common is they're all systems that lead you away from the truth.

Gnosticism is essentially incorporation of Greek philosophy (Platoism) into any religious system. Mysticism on the other hand is how one approaches their relationship with God. I think you are using the term gnosticism to refer only to the movement within Christianity (and earlier, in Judaism). Then, you are confusing this unorthodox movement with mysticism which has never been outcast from orthodox Christianity.

When we compare the beliefs and teachings of the Gnostics in Christianity they are miles apart from what Lee/Nee taught. Denial of the incarnation etc. Mysticism on the other hand is orthodox. There is nothing which mysticism teaches that contradicts the Bible. It doesn't challenge the nature of God or the incarnation. Contemplation and self surrender are both biblical concepts. The Bible mentions many types of prayer and mysticism is a different way of praying and approaching God, nothing more.

You can't just compare apples (gnosticism) to oranges (mysticism) and claim that because both are round fruits they are the same thing.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Gnosticism is essentially incorporation of Greek philosophy (Platoism) into any religious system. Mysticism on the other hand is how one approaches their relationship with God. I think you are using the term gnosticism to refer only to the movement within Christianity (and earlier, in Judaism). Then, you are confusing this unorthodox movement with mysticism which has never been outcast from orthodox Christianity.

When we compare the beliefs and teachings of the Gnostics in Christianity they are miles apart from what Lee/Nee taught. Denial of the incarnation etc. Mysticism on the other hand is orthodox. There is nothing which mysticism teaches that contradicts the Bible. It doesn't challenge the nature of God or the incarnation. Contemplation and self surrender are both biblical concepts. The Bible mentions many types of prayer and mysticism is a different way of praying and approaching God, nothing more.

You can't just compare apples (gnosticism) to oranges (mysticism) and claim that because both are round fruits they are the same thing.

Here is an exerpt from gotquestions.org which is a statement that I agree with;

"Second, Gnostics claim to possess an elevated knowledge, a “higher truth” known only to a certain few. Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “to know.” Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plane of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God."

I believe the teaching within the LC is called the "high peak truths".

This isn't about comparing apples to oranges. It's understanding that the apple has multiple parts which make up the whole.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

Here is an exerpt from gotquestions.org which is a statement that I agree with;

"Second, Gnostics claim to possess an elevated knowledge, a “higher truth” known only to a certain few. Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means “to know.” Gnostics claim to possess a higher knowledge, not from the Bible, but acquired on some mystical higher plane of existence. Gnostics see themselves as a privileged class elevated above everybody else by their higher, deeper knowledge of God."

I believe the teaching within the LC is called the "high peak truths".

This isn't about comparing apples to oranges. It's understanding that the apple has multiple parts which make up the whole.

Just because gnostics take a mystical approach does not mean mysticism in Christianity is gnosticism. Note that the mystical approach in gnosticism is different - gnostics use mysticism to replace the literal truth of the Bible and do not take it literally. They deny John who wrote Jesus came in the flesh, directly contradicting the Bible. Christian mystics on the other hand, reinforce and uphold the objective truth of the Bible through subjective experience. In church history, the reason why gnosticism was deemed heretical in the church and mysticism wasn't, is because gnosticism contradicts the literal written Scripture and mysticism doesn't.

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.

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.

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.”

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

[Evangelical]

This old article from 1904 presents a fair and balanced view of Christian mysticism, published in the "BAPTIST REVIEW
AND EXPOSITOR":

IS THERE A TRUE, CHRISTIAN MYSTICISM?
By PROFESSOR HENRY C. VEDDER, D.D.,
Crozer Theological Seminary, Chester, Pa

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/...63730400100201

The author HENRY C. VEDDER was an American Baptist church historian.

A few excerpts:

There is then a solid Scriptural basis for mysticism,
a much stronger basis than could be furnished by any
accumulation of mere proof-texts. Its basis is, in fact,
the same as the basis of the Scriptures themselves, in so
far as these are a revelation from God, unless we are to
exhaust the word "revelation" of all real significance.

To deny the fundamental tenet or thesis of the mystic,
is to take out of the Bible all that is distinctively Christian,
and reduce the Christian religion to a purely naturalistic
basis.


This essential, fundamental doctrine of mysticism may
be put into the form of a simple thesis = it is possible for
man to have direct, immediate, intuitive knowledge of
God


If these criteria are fully recognized and faithfully
applied, there is no danger in mysticism, but great gain.
It founds the Christian life on the solid rock of personal
knowledge, while efficient safeguards are provided against
fanaticism. Such a mysticism is true, because its ultimate
principle is that which validates all truth, namely,
trust in the testimony of consciousness. It is Christian,
because it subordinates the experience of the individual
to the Scriptures and the Christian consciousness of the
ages.


To reframe the good professors conclusions in a simple way:

To deny mysticism is to deny the Bible itself since all authors of the Bible acquired knowledge through the direct revelation of God.
The Christian life should be founded on the rock of personal knowledge of God which in itself is a safeguard, not a danger.

[Jo S]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

To reframe the good professors conclusions in a simple way:

To deny mysticism is to deny the Bible itself since all authors of the Bible acquired knowledge through the direct revelation of God.
The Christian life should be founded on the rock of personal knowledge of God which in itself is a safeguard, not a danger.

A mystical experience is different from true spiritual revelation that comes from God. One is acheived while the other is given through faith.

Mysticism turns spirituality into a work where as Christianity relies on God's judgment and grace in whether he will provide us certain revelation or not.

If you have to work to have a supernatural experience, you're getting into something else altogether. Chasing after or working for spiritual or mystical experiences is not Christianity.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

A mystical experience is different from true spiritual revelation that comes from God. One is acheived while the other is given through faith.

Mysticism turns spirituality into a work where as Christianity relies on God's judgment and grace in whether he will provide us certain revelation or not.

If you have to work to have a supernatural experience, you're getting into something else altogether. Chasing after or working for spiritual or mystical experiences is not Christianity.

I agree if the goal is the spiritual or mystical experiences themselves, that will lead to something else. But the goal is clearly stated as the person of Jesus Christ, and God the Father. For those familiar with his teachings, Witness Lee provides safeguards against mystical experiences by focusing our attention on the spirit and God's Word and not our soul. For example, calling on the name of the Lord is to seek the Lord, not a mystical experience. Many times there is no feeling after calling on the Lord. Sometimes there is. Pray reading the Word is also to seek the Lord, there is often no mystical experience or feeling, though sometimes there is. As we pray read the Word only, our experience comes from the Word and not from our feelings.

Working to contact the Lord, meaning persistent and regular prayer, is simply obeying the scriptural commands to seek God and find Him. The Bible shows that we have responsibility to draw near to God, and seek God and find Him. This is a kind of spiritual work and requires exercise. There is no shortcut to this where we may sit back, relax, and expect God to visit us whenever He feels like it.

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

Similarity does not make it the same. All religions are similar in many ways. When you compare the whole teaching of gnosticism as I have showed before, they are miles apart. For example - Gnostics do not uphold the Lord Jesus and God the Father. Christian mystics do. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

It has never been denied that mysticism is practiced within the LC. But mysticism does not mean contacting an alternate reality or a Jesus who is a spirit only and not flesh and blood (the gnostic Jesus), but the realm of spiritual reality contained in Christ.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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

I have already proven by providing scholarly references from evangelical theology that the LC's belief on Satan aligns with the beliefs of the orthodox (not gnostic) early church and proper interpretation of Romans. Such evidence is hard for you or anyone to refute and so far has not been easily disproven on this forum.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

This means the fallen sinful flesh, not the physical flesh. Again, Lee's interpretation of "the flesh" is correct and matches Paul's usage of the term, as proven by the scholarly work of Dr Burrowes (I showed in the other thread discussing Satan).

Originally Posted by Jo S

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 part highlighted in bold is exactly why Lee's teaching is not Gnostic.
Lee is not talking about our literal physical flesh. The term flesh as used by Lee means the fallen self and the sinful elements of our human nature.
This is documented throughout his books and ministry material.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

The LC does not teach this and these allegations have never stuck, even on this forum because they are so easily disproven. Lee and the LC affirms that Jesus came in the flesh and remained in the flesh after resurrection and ascension, satisfying the test of 1 John 4:2. The LC affirms the eternal incarnation of Christ.

For proof, see first sentence of third paragraph here:

https://www.ministrybooks.org/books....=984TJOTAIU1OS

I can be helpful and tell you where the exact difference lies between the LC and orthodoxy (open for debate). The difference is in the understanding of the relationships between the person of the Trinity, not the fundamental nature of the Son. The Trinity says the Son is not the Father, Lee says the Son is the Father based on a literal interpretation of Isaiah "everlasting Father".

Also, Lee's meaning of "Jesus becoming the Spirit" does not mean what you think. It means that Christ's experiences of the cross were infused into the Holy Spirit. Jesus as a fully incarnated man in a fleshly resurrected physical human body does not change back, to or from flesh and spirit at all. Also, the Spirit does not become human but remains 100% divine nature.

Originally Posted by Jo S

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.

I am happy to say that the LC teaches none of this.