Gnostic Dualism

[Randy Kluth]

In early Gnostic heresies and throughout the Church Age there has been a regular insertion of Dualism, viewing "spirituality" as immaterial reality, separate from human works. It is thought that the human mind and physical human works are carnal and unworthy of true Christian spirituality. And so, it is asserted the true spirituality is the absence of human involvement--basically, a negation of human works to allow God to do His work, as though distinct from us. We are essentially robotic vessels, with God channeling His Spirit through us.

Though that may sound good, it in effect leaves man out of the equation when the very purpose of redemption was to restore humanity to obedience to God. We are to exercise our will to conform to God's word, so that we are participants together with God in the production of true spiritual works. What do you think?

It is often said, by Predestinarians and others, that we cannot be saved by our own Works, and therefore our own human works must be negated so that God can work through us, apart from our volition, mind, and behavior. It is God doing the work--not us. This seems like yet another kind of Dualism. Do you agree? (For what it's worth, I myself am a Predestinarian. Yet I'm not a Dualist.)

 

[Prayer Warrior]

In early Gnostic heresies and throughout the Church Age there has been a regular insertion of Dualism, viewing "spirituality" as immaterial reality, separate from human works. It is thought that the human mind and physical human works are carnal and unworthy of true Christian spirituality. And so, it is asserted the true spirituality is the absence of human involvement--basically, a negation of human works to allow God to do His work, as though distinct from us. We are essentially robotic vessels, with God channeling His Spirit through us.

Though that may sound good, it in effect leaves man out of the equation when the very purpose of redemption was to restore humanity to obedience to God. We are to exercise our will to conform to God's word, so that we are participants together with God in the production of true spiritual works. What do you think?

It is often said, by Predestinarians and others, that we cannot be saved by our own Works, and therefore our own human works must be negated so that God can work through us, apart from our volition, mind, and behavior. It is God doing the work--not us. This seems like yet another kind of Dualism. Do you agree? (For what it's worth, I myself am a Predestinarian. Yet I'm not a Dualist.)

I think it's more complex than what you're saying. These things usually are.

I'm not a Presbyterian or a Calvinist, but a Presbyterian pastor explained to me that Calvin taught that man's free will was corrupted by the Fall. Therefore, man doesn't have the will to choose God, so the work of salvation is totally that of God. If I'm wrong about this, I invite the Calvinists to correct what I have said.

But I believe that every person chooses whether to believe in/obey God unto salvation (whosoever believes in Him). It doesn't seem like the character of God not to make us able to choose Him. Having said this, I do believe that the works He has for us to do as believers are prepared by Him "ahead of time" so that we cannot take the credit and so that He gets the glory. I base this belief on Ephesians 2:10.

Eph 2:8-10--For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift — not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.
.

 

[Nancy]

I think it's more complex than what you're saying. These things usually are.

I'm not a Presbyterian or a Calvinist, but a Presbyterian pastor explained to me that Calvin taught that man's free will was corrupted by the Fall. Therefore, man doesn't have the will to choose God, so the work of salvation is totally that of God. If I'm wrong about this, I invite the Calvinists to correct what I have said.

But I believe that every person chooses whether to believe in/obey God unto salvation (whosoever believes in Him). It doesn't seem like the character of God not to make us able to choose Him. Having said this, I do believe that the works He has for us to do as believers are prepared by Him "ahead of time" so that we cannot take the credit and so that He gets the glory. I base this belief on Ephesians 2:10.

Eph 2:8-10--For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift — not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.
.

"...so that we should walk in them."

I love this scripture. He literally puts opportunities before us to "walk into". All we need to do is recognize them and obey Him.

As far as Gnosticism, the definition itself is hard to pin down. All I have ever heard of Gnostics is that they claim secret knowledge...

 

[Prayer Warrior]

"...so that we should walk in them."

I love this scripture. He literally puts opportunities before us to "walk into". All we need to do is recognize them and obey Him.

As far as Gnosticism, the definition itself is hard to pin down. All I have ever heard of Gnostics is that they claim secret knowledge...

Yeah, the gnostics believed that all matter is evil, so they believed Jesus could not have had a physical body. Some of the apostles, like John and James, refuted this heresy in their epistles.

 

[Nancy]

Yes, this too

Yeah, the gnostics believed that all matter is evil, so they believed Jesus could not have had a physical body. Some of the apostles, like John and James, refuted this heresy in their epistles.

I have heard. It just seems there is no fast and true, single def. of Gnosticism! Yet, I know it is a bad thing nonetheless... :)

 

[justbyfaith]

When we become born again we do not become robots but we do become sheep.

As a sheep, I despise vomit and mud.

Previously, when I was a dog or swine, it was the course of nature for me to return to my vomit and my wallowing in the mire.

Now, I have new desires and new loves.

It is not that I am automaton, but that my very nature has changed so that I love what I used to hate and hate what I used to love.

Hope this helps.

 

[Hidden In Him]

In early Gnostic heresies and throughout the Church Age there has been a regular insertion of Dualism, viewing "spirituality" as immaterial reality, separate from human works. It is thought that the human mind and physical human works are carnal and unworthy of true Christian spirituality. And so, it is asserted the true spirituality is the absence of human involvement--basically, a negation of human works to allow God to do His work, as though distinct from us. We are essentially robotic vessels, with God channeling His Spirit through us.

Though that may sound good, it in effect leaves man out of the equation when the very purpose of redemption was to restore humanity to obedience to God. We are to exercise our will to conform to God's word, so that we are participants together with God in the production of true spiritual works. What do you think?

It is often said, by Predestinarians and others, that we cannot be saved by our own Works, and therefore our own human works must be negated so that God can work through us, apart from our volition, mind, and behavior. It is God doing the work--not us. This seems like yet another kind of Dualism. Do you agree? (For what it's worth, I myself am a Predestinarian. Yet I'm not a Dualist.)

Hey, Randy.

I think in the case of the early Gnostics, they at least backed up the claim of being "spiritual ones" by moving in supernatural gifts, albeit demonic ones that included exorcism and prophesying, through the use of demonic spirits. Predestinarians don't really back up the claim by much of anything supernatural. They are usually Cessationists who excuse such things away. As a result, I think the New Testament saints would have regarded them as not really being spiritual on any level frankly, whether demonic or holy. It's all based on theory.

God bless, and interesting comparison.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Hey, Randy.

I think in the case of the early Gnostics, they at least backed up the claim of being "spiritual ones" by moving in supernatural gifts, albeit demonic ones that included exorcism and prophesying, through the use of demonic spirits. Predestinarians don't really back up the claim by much of anything supernatural. They are usually Cessationists who excuse such things away. As a result, I think the New Testament saints would have regarded them as not really being spiritual on any level frankly, whether demonic or holy. It's all based on theory.

God bless, and interesting comparison.

I posted this on another forum, and one of the moderators completely misunderstood. It's easy to do. I don't think Gnosticism was very well preserved, and much of our knowledge came from Christians who exposed them for what they were. I may not even generalize about them properly, because I believe there were numerous kinds. But in my study of Greek philosophy, and in many of the cults hiding within Christianity down through the ages, I've found this one thing in common: they don't believe the divine really connects with the human. Even though Jesus was God become man in the flesh, they didn't really think the divine nature can be infused within our nature. If anything, God is channeled through us, but we cannot imitate God except through ascetism or by poor imitation of what we believe is his works. If power is worked through us, it is more magic than miracle.

True Christianity makes contact with God, and participates in His divine nature. We don't abdicate our will, but use our free human will to avail ourselves of His free gift, which is the righteousness of Christ, freely given by his blood. We can use our own volition to choose to operate by the power of God's word, and so exercise true virtue, displaying in ourselves the character of God Himself.

Those who try to display the imitation of God by "works," or who by ascetism try to make way for God's works, are unable to express what God "within us" really means. We don't just temporally partake of Him--He resides within us so that we are His people, freely giving Him our love. I hope this makes sense.

I'm a predestinarian, but I also believe in free will--obviously. We freely choose to partake of what He has put within us, and we can freely interact with Him in a spiritual way. We can make Him Lord and consult with Him every day, as to what the wise path is, as to what is right and wrong. It's a true relationship, and we truly are changed by His power into His character, and on a regular basis, not just intermittently or as passing by in the night.

I'm Predestinarian, but there have been a massive number of predestinarians in history who have believed in God's supernatural power. Today, those representing that belief may have gotten old and died, spiritually. So I don't think you'll find predestinarians in the older churches truly representative of what that position originally meant. It's an issue that perhaps can never be fully resolved, regardless. I can assure you I believe in the power of God, in the supernatural, in signs and wonders, in miracles, in dreams and visions. I'm with you on those things! :)

 

[Randy Kluth]

I think it's more complex than what you're saying. These things usually are.

I'm not a Presbyterian or a Calvinist, but a Presbyterian pastor explained to me that Calvin taught that man's free will was corrupted by the Fall. Therefore, man doesn't have the will to choose God, so the work of salvation is totally that of God. If I'm wrong about this, I invite the Calvinists to correct what I have said.

But I believe that every person chooses whether to believe in/obey God unto salvation (whosoever believes in Him). It doesn't seem like the character of God not to make us able to choose Him. Having said this, I do believe that the works He has for us to do as believers are prepared by Him "ahead of time" so that we cannot take the credit and so that He gets the glory. I base this belief on Ephesians 2:10.

Eph 2:8-10--For you are saved by grace through faith, and this is not from yourselves; it is God’s gift — not from works, so that no one can boast. For we are His creation, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared ahead of time so that we should walk in them.
.

That's exactly right. Thanks.

Luther believed in the "bondage of the will," because it's true that by choosing a path independent of God's word Adam produced in his descendants a Sin Nature, in bondage to spiritual corruption, aka sin. Even Christians redeemed by Christ are unable to break the bondage of the sin nature in the flesh of man. We will always have a corrupt spiritual nature in our flesh man, until we are finally freed by the resurrection from the dead.

But I don't think Luther put it right that we abdicate our free will in order for Christ to produce righteousness in us, as if independent of our will. It is obviously independent of our carnal will, but not independent of our renewed human will. You're right--it's not easy to say.

Our job, today, is to choose to live by the spiritual man, and to purposely avoid the carnal man, who is still in bondage to the sin nature. We do not give up our free will, but rather, use our renewed human will to choose to live in Christ, thus producing works that have his virtues.

 

[Randy Kluth]

When we become born again we do not become robots but we do become sheep.

As a sheep, I despise vomit and mud.

Previously, when I was a dog or swine, it was the course of nature for me to return to my vomit and my wallowing in the mire.

Now, I have new desires and a new loves.

It is not that I am automaton, but that my very nature has changed so that I love what I used to hate and hate what I used to love.

Hope this helps.

Excellent! You got it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Here's what I said about it elsewhere, to hopefully be more clear...
The Gnostics virtually divorce human will from anything related to deity, and as such, deny any true change in character is possible. We abdicate our humanity, and only conform our behavior to what we think of as "God." God can only be God, and we may never contact Him directly.

That's why there was so much asceticism coming out of Greek philosophy, because it was thought that there was an impassible divide between Deity, the infinite, and Man, who is only finite. But in Christ, the infinite God, has lowered Himself down into our realm, so that we connect and thus are able to be transformed by His power. Not only does He infuse us with His character, but even our free will can choose and act out a behavior that conforms with what He is like.

 

[Enoch111]

In early Gnostic heresies and throughout the Church Age there has been a regular insertion of Dualism, viewing "spirituality" as immaterial reality, separate from human works.

The issue was not so much "human works" as esoteric knowledge. Yes the Gnostics regarding the physical and material as evil, and the immaterial as good. But they went way beyond that into speculative nonsense while claiming to have a very special knowledge (gnosis) given only to the so-called *enlightened ones*.

But the real harm of the Gnostics was (a) attacking the doctrine of Christ and (2) perverting and corrupting the Scriptures. All the Gnostic writings are a perversion of Bible truth, with a great deal of fantasy and nonsense.

The so-called Gospel of Thomas begins with this nonsensical statement: And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

That automatically contradicts what Christ said, but makes the *discovery* of knowledge the basis of eternal life.

Now here's a doozy from the Gospel of Thomas: Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

 

[Randy Kluth]

The issue was not so much "human works" as esoteric knowledge. Yes the Gnostics regarding the physical and material as evil, and the immaterial as good. But they went way beyond that into speculative nonsense while claiming to have a very special knowledge (gnosis) given only to the so-called *enlightened ones*.

But the real harm of the Gnostics was (a) attacking the doctrine of Christ and (2) perverting and corrupting the Scriptures. All the Gnostic writings are a perversion of Bible truth, with a great deal of fantasy and nonsense.

The so-called Gospel of Thomas begins with this nonsensical statement: And he said, "Whoever discovers the interpretation of these sayings will not taste death."

That automatically contradicts what Christ said, but makes the *discovery* of knowledge the basis of eternal life.

Now here's a doozy from the Gospel of Thomas: Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."

Thanks, this is an important part of it--the esoteric knowledge, or salvation by knowledge. We are saved by the Spirit of Christ, and even more than that, by the change in us that that Spirit brings. And we participate in it, 1st by choosing to have it, and 2nd, by choosing to make it resident in our life, sort of part of our DNA.

And here's the thing. Since Gnostics have this big divide between the infinite God and finite Man, their knowledge is disconnected from the word of God, and they make up whatever they concoct as the "good." They can make up all kinds of fairty tales to explain how "good" arrives and works.

And their "good character" is purely an imitation of the good--not the good itself. Instead of being saved by the character change that Christ brings, they find that "knowledge" is the closest they can get to the Divine. And knowledge alone isn't the "good."

Even their miracles are more like magic than the supernatural, because there is no real connection between Divine and Human. A magician does a "trick." But a God performs "miracles." In a relationship with God the man of God may produce miracles by the guidance of God. But without a relationship with God, a man may only perform tricks. Any miracles done by the Gnostic is likely inspired by Satan.

Gnostics would not therefore give up the control over their own lives, since God isn't really connected to them. They order their own lives, not believing that God really even communicates with them. They simply give up parts of their life as ascetics, thinking that a sacrifice thus makes them appealing to the Divine. But all it really accomplishes is that they give up a little of their lives so that during that time they can neither sin nor do good. It is meaningless and worthless.

Thanks for adding that bit--it's an important part to both Gnosticism and the philosophy and practice of false Christianity.

 

[Hidden In Him]

I posted this on another forum, and one of the moderators completely misunderstood. It's easy to do. I don't think Gnosticism was very well preserved, and much of our knowledge came from Christians who exposed them for what they were. I may not even generalize about them properly, because I believe there were numerous kinds. But in my study of Greek philosophy, and in many of the cults hiding within Christianity down through the ages, I've found this one thing in common: they don't believe the divine really connects with the human. Even though Jesus was God become man in the flesh, they didn't really think the divine nature can be infused within our nature. If anything, God is channeled through us, but we cannot imitate God except through ascetism or by poor imitation of what we believe is his works. If power is worked through us, it is more magic than miracle.

There were some modifications made to the earliest forms of Gnosticism, yes, because each leader sort of invented his own version.

But about asceticism paving the way to be a greater, more trustworthy vessel of God, that might be an interesting subject to discuss someday, as I subscribe to it personally. But now would not be the time as I am too busy. But "channeling" God would most certainly be the wrong term. As you put it, the Biblical term was to abide in Him and He in us.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There were some modifications made to the earliest forms of Gnosticism, yes, because each leader sort of invented his own version.

But about asceticism paving the way to be a greater, more trustworthy vessel of God, that might be an interesting subject to discuss someday, as I subscribe to it personally. But now would not be the time as I am too busy. But "channeling" God would most certainly be the wrong term. As you put it, the Biblical term was to abide in Him and He in us.

Asceticism became extreme in the Early Church, with "God's Athletes" competing to see who could be the most rigorous on their bodies "for God." They would sit up on pillars, or go out into the wilderness or desert, removing themselves from ungodly society to contemplate on God's word and to enjoy God's presence. It was thought "the less of us, the more of Him."

There is some truth in this, as you say. For example, Paul gave up marriage to have more time to devote to ministry. But I don't believe he meant to establish monasticism as the ideal, though it may sound like that. Much of our Christian life is a matter of giving up what we want to do or shouldn't do to serve the Lord better. So I wouldn't completely disagree with you, depending on what you meant.