The Heresy of Gnosticism

[redleghunter]

Gnosticism traces its roots back just after the beginning of the Christian Church. Some researchers state that evidence of its existence even predates Christianity. Whichever the case, the error of gnosticism had affected the culture and church of the time and possibly even a earned a mention in 1 John 4.

The word "gnosticism" comes from the Greek word "gnosis" which means "knowledge." There were many groups that were Gnostic and it isn't possible to easily describe the nuances of each variant of Gnostic doctrines. However, generally speaking, Gnosticism taught that salvation is achieved through special knowledge (gnosis). This knowledge usually dealt with the individual's relationship to the transcendent Being.

A more detailed Gnostic theology is as follows. The unknowable God was far too pure and perfect to have anything to do with the material universe which was considered evil. Therefore, God generated lesser divinities, or emenations. One of these emanations, Wisdom desired to know the unknowable God. Out of this erring desire the demiurge an evil god was formed and it was this evil god that created the universe. He along witharchons kept the mortals in bondage in material matter and tried to prevent the pure spirit souls from ascending back to god after the death of the physical bodies. Since, according to the Gnostics, matter is evil, deliverance from material form was attainable only through special knowledge revealed by special Gnostic teachers. Christ was the divine redeemer who descended from the spiritual realm to reveal the knowledge necessary for this redemption. In conclusion, Gnosticism is dualistic. That is, it teaches there is a good and evil, spirit and matter, light and dark, etc. dualism in the universe.

What we know about Gnosticism is gained from the writings of Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Origen, and some later manuscripts discovered in the eighteenth century such as the "Codex Askew, Codex Bruce, the Berlin Gnostic Codes and, most recently, the Nag Hammadi collection."1 Nag Hammadi is a town in Upper Egypt near ancient Chenoboskion and 13 codices discovered were discovered about 1945.

The danger of gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind; and we would still be lost in our sins.

There is debate whether or not this is a Christian heresy or simply an independent development. The evidence seems to point to the later. Nevertheless, the Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs and as such requires some attention. It is possible that 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted.

 

[ViaCrucis]

One of the hardest parts about dealing with Gnosticism is that unlike other ancient heresies which can be attributed to a particular sect of heresiarch--such as Arianism or Sabellianism--Gnosticism covers a very wide swath of territory and is more an umbrella term to describe a rather diverse set of sects and figures. But there are a number of characteristics which are considered definitive of Gnosticism. The cosmology mentioned above is a pretty general description, and largely can be identified as Valentinian (Valentinianism was a fairly popular form of Gnosticism in antiquity and was influential on other Gnostics).

Given the broadness of Gnosticism it does get easier to identify certain marks of Gnostic thought rather than try and pinpoint an exact system of theology (as that could depend and change a bit from sect to sect).

- Matter-Spirit Dualism: A significant and underlying element found throughout various Gnostic teachings is that there matter and spirit are completely at odds, the material and physical are at best meaningless and at worst pure evil; thus there is a strong aversion against attributing the material universe to the true God, but instead an attribution of the material universe to an ignorant or evil pseudo-god, the use of the term Demiurge is a borrowing from Platonism; in fact a lot of this is a borrowing and twisting of Platonism.

- Salvation is identified with liberation of the human soul through the acquisition of true knowledge, or gnosis: The chief goal is the liberation of the human soul from the lower world of matter toward the higher world of spirit, and this can only be achieved by having true knowledge of oneself and of the divine world of spirit. Jesus is often identified by the title "the Savior" in Gnostic literature because Jesus is presented as the (explicit or implicit) agency through which the true knowledge comes, and is received by the select few initiates who can then pass it on to the select few (it wasn't for everybody of course, because only some would be able to accept such mysteries and secrets, the masses of this world are entirely too ignorant and foolish to accept, and thus only the initiated could receive them).

- Anti-Judaism: The Old Testament and the religion of the Jews depended upon a very earthy sense of mission, purpose, and devotion to God, likewise God was in Judaism the Creator and Ruler of the universe; therefore the Jewish God is often identified with the pseudo-god or Demiurge, and His angels are regarded as demonic ruling powers or archons who keep men ignorant of their true nature. Especially in Orphite Gnosticism the serpent of the garden was regarded as a hero, revealing true knowledge to the first prisoners of flesh (Adam and Eve) and, likewise, it is often the biblical villain that is praised, such as Cain. It's possible that a lot of this is adopted from the teachings of Marcion of Sinope or the Marcionite church, which may not have originally been Gnostic in character, but its particular teachings played well with the developing Gnosticisms of the middle and late 2nd century.

I would say these would be the chief marks of Gnosticism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Paul Yohannan]

My main gripe with Gnosticism is the growing promotion of Gnostic apocrypha by some academic circles associated with the Chrisfian left. The orthodox are accused of being patriarchal and genuinely nasty, while ignoring the extreme misogynism present in Gnostic texts.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I read a post in the Christianity and world religions forum the other day that seemed straight out of Valentinianism. He even had the Logos paired with Wisdom as a path to God, a auto-soteriological syzygy that seemed oddly archaic, as if reading a gnostic text.

I agree thoroughly with Paul Yohannan that the gnostic gospels are far too readily trumpeted as missing gospels or presented as 'legitimate' but suppressed gospels, lending them the air of secret divine knowledge - which is very ironic.

It is strange and very sad that gnosticism has had such a resurgence in modern times amongst esotericists.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Something in the human psyche (feeding pride?) has a tendency to latch onto such things fiercely.

Ironic that Satan uses our very vices to draw us to lying "truths".

 

[redleghunter]

One of the hardest parts about dealing with Gnosticism is that unlike other ancient heresies which can be attributed to a particular sect of heresiarch--such as Arianism or Sabellianism--Gnosticism covers a very wide swath of territory and is more an umbrella term to describe a rather diverse set of sects and figures. But there are a number of characteristics which are considered definitive of Gnosticism. The cosmology mentioned above is a pretty general description, and largely can be identified as Valentinian (Valentinianism was a fairly popular form of Gnosticism in antiquity and was influential on other Gnostics).

Given the broadness of Gnosticism it does get easier to identify certain marks of Gnostic thought rather than try and pinpoint an exact system of theology (as that could depend and change a bit from sect to sect).

- Matter-Spirit Dualism: A significant and underlying element found throughout various Gnostic teachings is that there matter and spirit are completely at odds, the material and physical are at best meaningless and at worst pure evil; thus there is a strong aversion against attributing the material universe to the true God, but instead an attribution of the material universe to an ignorant or evil pseudo-god, the use of the term Demiurge is a borrowing from Platonism; in fact a lot of this is a borrowing and twisting of Platonism.

- Salvation is identified with liberation of the human soul through the acquisition of true knowledge, or gnosis: The chief goal is the liberation of the human soul from the lower world of matter toward the higher world of spirit, and this can only be achieved by having true knowledge of oneself and of the divine world of spirit. Jesus is often identified by the title "the Savior" in Gnostic literature because Jesus is presented as the (explicit or implicit) agency through which the true knowledge comes, and is received by the select few initiates who can then pass it on to the select few (it wasn't for everybody of course, because only some would be able to accept such mysteries and secrets, the masses of this world are entirely too ignorant and foolish to accept, and thus only the initiated could receive them).

- Anti-Judaism: The Old Testament and the religion of the Jews depended upon a very earthy sense of mission, purpose, and devotion to God, likewise God was in Judaism the Creator and Ruler of the universe; therefore the Jewish God is often identified with the pseudo-god or Demiurge, and His angels are regarded as demonic ruling powers or archons who keep men ignorant of their true nature. Especially in Orphite Gnosticism the serpent of the garden was regarded as a hero, revealing true knowledge to the first prisoners of flesh (Adam and Eve) and, likewise, it is often the biblical villain that is praised, such as Cain. It's possible that a lot of this is adopted from the teachings of Marcion of Sinope or the Marcionite church, which may not have originally been Gnostic in character, but its particular teachings played well with the developing Gnosticisms of the middle and late 2nd century.

I would say these would be the chief marks of Gnosticism.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for the astute elaboration.

 

[Ken Behrens]

From what I have read, I think it started out fine. It was just a different take on how Jesus fit in with the wisdom of the (especially Egyptian) ancients. I think that it developed into a heresy, but a lot of that was in response to attacks from the non-gnostic church. It seems simple enough on the surface: If Christ includes the wisdom of the ages, then gnosticism is the study of Christ. But if knowledge about Christ is enough to get saved, without personal relationship, then it is no longer Christianity. It has been years (decades?) since I read the literature, but I remember thinking at the time, that the changes started happening around 50AD, and were complete by around 200AD. I saw no reason, why if handled differently by the early Christian scholars (were there many in those years?) the idea that Christ fulfills ancient wisdom could not have been grafted into Christianity as we now know it.

 

[Hillsage]

From what I have read, I think it started out fine. It was just a different take on how Jesus fit in with the wisdom of the (especially Egyptian) ancients. I think that it developed into a heresy, but a lot of that was in response to attacks from the non-gnostic church. It seems simple enough on the surface: If Christ includes the wisdom of the ages, then gnosticism is the study of Christ. But if knowledge about Christ is enough to get saved, without personal relationship, then it is no longer Christianity. It has been years (decades?) since I read the literature, but I remember thinking at the time, that the changes started happening around 50AD, and were complete by around 200AD. I saw no reason, why if handled differently by the early Christian scholars (were there many in those years?) the idea that Christ fulfills ancient wisdom could not have been grafted into Christianity as we now know it.

One of the best 'spirited' brothers I'd met since coming here was an elderly pastor of a Gnostic church. His name was Soulgazer and sadly he has gone to be with the LORD, I believe. We had lot of blessed public 'post' and private 'PM' fellowship, even though we too disagreed on some of those; "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

I'm assuming he now knows how 'right' I was. And when my time comes 'to know, as I have been known', I assume I'll be able to then smile at him about how 'wrong' I was too.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

From what I have read, I think it started out fine. It was just a different take on how Jesus fit in with the wisdom of the (especially Egyptian) ancients. I think that it developed into a heresy, but a lot of that was in response to attacks from the non-gnostic church. It seems simple enough on the surface: If Christ includes the wisdom of the ages, then gnosticism is the study of Christ. But if knowledge about Christ is enough to get saved, without personal relationship, then it is no longer Christianity. It has been years (decades?) since I read the literature, but I remember thinking at the time, that the changes started happening around 50AD, and were complete by around 200AD. I saw no reason, why if handled differently by the early Christian scholars (were there many in those years?) the idea that Christ fulfills ancient wisdom could not have been grafted into Christianity as we now know it.

You are aware that the original leader of the Gnostics was Simon Magus?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Gnosticism is clearly partly derived from hellenistic philosophy. We see Platonic uses of ideas like ousia, pleothora, ascending heavenly spheres and hypostasis and we know that later Neoplatonists like Plotinus condemned them as perverting his teachings. Both Sethian and Valentinian Gnosticism was significantly influenced by it.

We also see some Zoroastrian and Buddhist ideas permeating it, to such an extent that many Victorian antiquarians argued Gnosticism to derive ultimately from the latter and not Christianity.

We also see that the Mandaeans, the last surviving true gnostic sect today, reject Christianity while celebrating John the Baptist.

It is true that we have no gnostic texts that predate Christianity and that Gnosticism was very syncretic with Christianity, but they are substantially different in essence. Even though people like Valentinian claimed a succession of 'secret knowledge' from Paul to himself, there is no real reason to derive such bizarre ideas from Christian roots. Based on its metaphysics and structure, it makes more sense to consider Gnosticism as a freewheeling religious tradition of its own, freely taking from all the other religions around it and therefore ultimately absorbing a lot from Christianity. This is largely an artifact of Christianity's stunning growth and the extreme syncretism of people like Valentinian.
Even the earliest Gnostic sects had substantial material that is very foreign to Judaeo-Christian thought, already developed to high levels, so for this reason I find it implausible to consider Gnosticism derived from Christianity or Simon Magus. It makes a lot more sense to consider Gnosticism a pre- or contemporary religion that largely hitched itself to Christianity's success.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Gnosticism seems like the sort of thing one might expect to happen in a highly cosmopolitan world. I think we can see something similar today in the Orientalism, Spiritualism, and Occultism of the 19th century and its more contemporary descendant, the New Age movement. In that there is a very liberal borrowing of everything; blending the "familiar" with the "exotic". New Religious Movements in eastern Asia do similar things, only in reverse to what we see in the West. E.g. Japanese shinshukyo; often taking Shintoism or Buddhism as the "familiar" and blending it with the "exotic" of Western religion and spirituality.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken Behrens]

You are aware that the original leader of the Gnostics was Simon Magus?

I am not certain that is true as it stands. Surely he was at most leader of a branch of gnostics. I am going by what I read, mostly from Egypt, where Simon never went. I also find it fascinating that he would lead such a group after his apparent sincerity described in Acts 8:24.

Having looked it up, he was a leader of the Simonians, in the eastern part of the empire, but the evidence of their leader being Simon Magus of Acts 8, is all from the second century. This makes me wonder about what happened between the "please pray for me" issue and his arrival in Rome and meeting with Helen, if indeed they are the same person. It is possible that as much as 30 years or so lapsed int he meantime, during which he could have been influenced by doctrines out of Egypt, and that assumption would be completely consistent with the time line I believe to be true.

 

[Paul Yohannan]

How is attempting to bribe the Holy Apostles sincere? Do you think St. Peter and his colleagues would have turned away Simon Magus capriciously?

 

[Ken Behrens]

How is attempting to bribe the Holy Apostles sincere? Do you think St. Peter and his colleagues would have turned away Simon Magus capriciously?

Being baptized and following Phillip is at least being a seeker and probably sincere (vs. 13). Asking to be prayed for is sincere (vs. 24). Trying to buy the blessing is a mistake (vs. 18-19) of one not yet fully discipled, and who had a previous life of buying magic tricks, so knew no better. He had faults and needed to pray and repent (vs. 21-23). It sounds like he really wanted to change (vs. 24). It's sad the prayer did not change him; I was thinking how much a model this story is for all of gnosticism, in fact for many heresies. Sincere people start out seeking the Lord, make mistakes, have their faults exposed, ask for prayer, and do not care enough to receive it. If this were happening today in a church I was pastoring, I would try to follow up with the guy on a regular basis, even get him into a proper discipleship program beyond what Phillip had offered (which clearly was elementary, since no one had gotten baptized in the Spirit). The next verse clearly indicates that the apostles made no follow-up attempt, and that is most sad.

 

[Hillsage]

Being baptized and following Phillip is at least being a seeker and probably sincere (vs. 13). Asking to be prayed for is sincere (vs. 24). Trying to buy the blessing is a mistake (vs. 18-19) of one not yet fully discipled, and who had a previous life of buying magic tricks, so knew no better.

The same conclusion I was 'led' to believe years ago. Poor old Simon wasn't the crook I was taught to believe in. He was just a zealous and immature Christian thinking you could buy a ministry degree for money...who'd have ever thought of such a thing...without going to seminary? Reminds me of a beloved pastor we had many years back who's roommate, in Baptist bible seminary,.... got SAVED after being there for a 'long enough time', that the pastor told this story to make a 'point'. BTW our pastor also got the baptism of the Spirit, like Peter/John ministered, before he graduated too. Such was the anointing of the 'Crazimatic' 70's.

He had faults and needed to pray and repent (vs. 21-23). It sounds like he really wanted to change (vs. 24). It's sad the prayer did not change him;

What 'prayer' would you be referring to here?

The next verse clearly indicates that the apostles made no follow-up attempt, and that is most sad.

The next verse really says nothing IMO. Whether they did or didn't seems to be a 'silent' point in scripture IMO. Am I missing something?

 

[Paul Yohannan]

He was just a zealous and immature Christian thinking you could buy a ministry degree for money...who'd have ever thought of such a thing...without going to seminary?

Most churches do not automatically ordain seminary graduates. What is more, usually people who are desired for the clergy have their tuition paid for. This is certainly the case in the Orthodox Church.

 

[Ken Behrens]

The same conclusion I was 'led' to believe years ago. Poor old Simon wasn't the crook I was taught to believe in. He was just a zealous and immature Christian thinking you could buy a ministry degree for money...who'd have ever thought of such a thing...without going to seminary? Reminds me of a beloved pastor we had many years back who's roommate, in Baptist bible seminary,.... got SAVED after being there for a 'long enough time', that the pastor told this story to make a 'point'. BTW our pastor also got the baptism of the Spirit, like Peter/John ministered, before he graduated too. Such was the anointing of the 'Crazimatic' 70's.


What 'prayer' would you be referring to here?


The next verse really says nothing IMO. Whether they did or didn't seems to be a 'silent' point in scripture IMO. Am I missing something?

I cannot believe they did not pray for him, then and there. It is that prayer I believe did not change him.

The next verse says they went testified, preached, and went home. Nothing else is said. Compare how Paul worked, where he established churches everywhere that he could.

If you research his history, you will see that he pursued magic until he found gnosticism in Rome, under a woman named Helen , and then founded the Syrian branch.

It occurred to me that you could be correct, but Luke was pretty thorough in other places, so I can't imagine that he would have left this out. Besides, I've stayed active in the Crazimatic, and this is how things are done. They pray then and there, and usually don't do much followup after.

 

[brinny]

Something in the human psyche (feeding pride?) has a tendency to latch onto such things fiercely.

Ironic that Satan uses our very vices to draw us to lying "truths".

This is what came to mind for me as well, and what else came to mind is, in the very beginning, how Satan tempted Eve with the very same concept, and that is "knowledge", and that she would be "as God".

 

[~Anastasia~]

If that was all it was, I think Simon Magus could be forgiven for his ignorance in hoping to pay for some blessing.

I think there was more going on there. I get the distinct impression the issue is more WHY he wanted the power of the Holy Spirit and his intentions of what he hoped to do with it.

I'm a little surprised at how quickly it seems some are to fault the Apostles? And do I understand that it is being said they were not "baptized in the Spirit"? AFTER Pentecost?

 

[Hillsage]

Most churches do not automatically ordain seminary graduates. What is more, usually people who are desired for the clergy have their tuition paid for. This is certainly the case in the Orthodox Church.

I think that what happened with the huge abuse and cover up of the pedophiles with the 'first orthodox' church's correctly 'ordained' clergy, is more in line with the point I was trying to make. Being 'ordained of men' certainly isn't an assurance of anything. And poor ole Simon has simply gotten a bad rap based upon no more than is said of him in scripture IMO. And I have to agree with a few others here who have stated that the proof of him being the "leader of the Gnostics" (as you believe), just may have come from questionable sources long down the road of time. I'm not saying either of us is right/wrong, but we do have opposing opinions.

That Peter knew Simon wasn't mature enough to be ministering yet, is obvious in the text. But also obvious is the fact that he was Christian based upon his "believed and was baptized" experience IMO. Question Paul, does your church believe that one is saved as an infant by water baptism? If yes, then do you also believe they can't loose that salvation?