Gnosticism

Gnosticism

Blending views of a religious nature is a tenuous endeavor at best. The risk of being ostracized and alienated from the primary corpus is the danger of deviation in thought, practice and belief as presented by those of the minority persuasion. Gnostic thought and tendencies fall into this nebulous trap of separation from the norm and provide the astute observer with observable information relevant to the inherent difficulties and dilemmas when attempts to ascertain value within the movement or body of literature produced therein is reasonably judged.

Further complexities are created as histories shroud makes proper analysis problematic. This is exacerbated when documents and historical allusions have been purged following the attachment of the label “heresy” or lost in the annals of obscurity. Gnostic analysis fits into this far-reaching expanse of complex difficulties that threaten to omit proper understanding in the modern setting from an academic standpoint. 

This dual edged Damocles sword becomes more convoluted when the added problems of prejudicial issues are brought into the historic equation. When examining the Gnostic movement and belief system prior to the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in 1945, the primary source for Gnostic documentation and existence in the early church came exclusively from the secondary voice of the Apostolic Fathers.[1] The Apostolic Father’s bore witness to the existence of the Gnostics, however, at times these voices of the Churches past would use hyperbole and exaggeration as a practice in the vitriolic attacks leveled against those perceived as being found in the heretic’s encampment.

In modern scholastic considerations, these prejudicial statements of a personal nature would be considered suspect and dubious. Utilizing such methodologies in the current school of thought would allow another charge to be leveled against the Apostolic Father’s: the charge of illegitimate practices and methodologies outside of the acceptable boundaries of proper citation, research and objective statements. These deficiencies are not being pointed out to defend the Gnostic school of thought. They are simply being highlighted to exemplify the complex issues surrounding the study of ancient thought patterns and practice in current timelines. This exegetical dilemma is seen in Eusebius’ poignant attack of Simon Magnus in The History of the Church where Eusebius states:

“Simon, we are given to understand, was the primary author of every heresy. From his time to our very own… of such was Simon the father and contriver, raised up at that time by the evil power which hates all that is good and plots against the salvation of mankind…”[2]

 

This all-inclusive charge of heresy attributed to Simon Magnus and Eusebius assertion as to Simon’s being the focal point of all heresies existence aptly illustrates the proclivity and bent toward bias exhibited by the early churchmen. Eusebius is a perfect example of the overwhelming difficulties that are presented in any analysis of ancient history. The discipline of the historian creates within itself a presentation of problems to the modern practitioner. Eusebius’ contributions to the field of history create what appear to be as many problems as they seem to resolve.

One such question that arises is confined to the realm of acceptable interpretational methods. Are the practices used by Eusebius valid? Is it appropriate to interject personal experiences and theological biases into the account, or is objective analysis the only valid methodology to be employed by the historian? Is it defensible to allow extra-Biblical practices to exist within the church, or should the churches practices and structure be confined solely to the content of the Biblical Canon? Such is the predicament presented to the student of ancient history and those who wrote it. Does the student accept the questionable formats considered as appropriate to the historian of the past, even though a modern analysis may deem them unacceptable or problematic at best?

When these practices are examined, a conflict arises as to the validity of certain aspects of the early churches perception as to its place in society and how it was to formally interact within the confines of the pagan system of Roman governmental structure. Its usage of pagan philosophical systems and thought processes are also brought into question as they appear to be at the center of most of the points of conflict in the early churches difficulties in practical matters and incorporation of doctrinal challenges.

This conflict can readily be seen in Eusebius’ first Book in his account of the early churches history, as Eusebius seems to grant credence to the fabled correspondence between Jesus and King Agbar of Persia[3]. As has been previously noted in this paper, another peculiarity is found in Eusebius’ insistence in labeling Simon the Sorcerer, of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, as the fountainhead of all heresy. There seems to be an insistence or need to create a fallen antitype in order to offer an adequate contrast to Jesus as the supreme manifestation of Logos truth incarnate, and the Biblical doctrines that were being formulated at the time through the Church Councils. Eusebius’ recording of the early Churches sense of sacrifice and the embracing of martyrdom as a desirable sacrament or grace seems odd and out of place to the modern observer, casting primitive Christianity in the light of a radicalism more akin to Islamic expressions and out of place to the current state of affairs in the church.

The strangest and more bizarre expressions pertaining to the early church seem to be found in its more ascetic practices however. The churches adherence to the code of conduct associated with the monastic lifestyle and its severe rules of life, that gave rise to the ascetic way of existence and monasticism, were unusually harsh and cruel, even becoming somewhat sadistic at times. Within these rules of order came a treasure trove of legalisms and a rigid form of reality that forced the neophyte or acolyte into a life of submission and wanton depravation and denial. These rules were designed to exemplify and exalt the life of simplicity, glorifying ideals that emphasized the renunciation of property, repudiation of all worldly interests and directing the initiate into the philosophic ways of life that were patterned after the stoic expression and perspective of discipline[4].

Additionally, there is an allusion to the practice of separation in the confines of the personal dwelling places, or abodes. This private space was exclusively devoted to the creation of a personal sanctuary or monastery with the express intent of being utilized as a place of solitude and quiet contemplation as Scripture or other Holy Writings were examined in seclusion. Those who withdrew into the sanctuary space apparently did without food or drink, during the time of celebration, instead using it to solely focus on the subject matter at hand[5].

Eusebius also calls attention to the early churches practice of incorporating the Greek method of interpreting religious life and writings: the Allegorical method of understanding. Following Philo and other Greek historians and commentator’s practice of interpreting their heroes and gods of mythology allegorically, Eusebius, along with the bulk of the early Church Fathers committed the egregious mistake of employing the Allegorical method, applying it to the field of Biblical interpretation[6]. As this practice and method was utilized, the historical, cultural, grammatical method of literalism was discarded, causing centuries of almost irreparable damage[7].

This incorporation of philosophical methodologies led these practitioners of the contemplative life into areas of excess and acceptance of stylistic practices that were previously confined to the pagan expressions of faith and religion, such as celibacy as a normative practice for the priesthood and nunneries. This was done in defiance of the Scriptural revelation pertaining to the priesthood and marriage as it related to those who led the church. Allegorical exegesis was used to justify this practice. Other areas of deprivation included whole nights of prayer on a regular basis, sleeping on the ground and utilizing straw as the only means of protection in order to subject the body to extreme discomfort with the express intent of suppression, and the practice of eating a diet that consisted only of bread and water seasoned with salt and hyssop. In all these areas of excess and forced mandatory deprivation, the church seemed determined to outdo the Romans at their own game of philosophical conditioning.

Eusebius draws the student of history into the daunting task posed by those who attempted to synthesize Greek cultural practices into the church. Regardless of the supposed good intent and the desire to make Christianity culturally compliant and acceptable, the inculcated practices denigrate the expression of faith as presented in Scripture. Analyzing Eusebius’ observations forces the question to be raised and applied to the modern church: is harm done to the Church when cultural relevance takes the place of precedence and becomes the greater concern over the mandates contained in Scripture? Answering this issue should be the focus of the modern expression of the church, least it make the same mistake of the past and erroneously alter the configuration of the Body of Christ, thus necessitating yet another reformation.

When Gnostic thought is seen through the arbitrary prejudices expressed by the detractors of Gnosticism, the conclusions and application are deemed dubious by the modern searchers for truth.  The acceptance of fabrications and fictitious charges has allowed some to loosen the restrictive constraints of Gnostic application in the later half of the 20^th century[8]. Some scholars have identified any and all belief systems with dualistic tendencies to be dubbed Gnostic. This view has included a broad and eclectic compendium of assorted schools of thought including Zoroastrianism, the early hermetic literary writings of the ascetic separatists as well as the Jewish Quomram Community and its vast body of writings. It has even seen the New Testament included into the Gnostic designation![9] 

Modern theological debate centering on Gnostic thought has seen the emergence of two varied schools of thought. In one camp, liberal theologians associate Gnosticism in the broader and wide sense, lending Gnostic thought a sense of legitimacy.[10] The ancillary camp allows Gnostic thought to be viewed through the prism of conservative deliberation which has primarily seen Gnosticism as a 2^nd century heresy that was liquidated for the most part by the persistent attacks of the early heresiologists[11]. 

The overwhelming problem of the liberal camps attachments to the Gnostic dilemma is its simplistic approach to a complex situation. The liberal school’s broad and inclusive association of Gnostic teaching and the Christian framework tends to allow the loss of any viable distinction between the two camps. This reduction of consequence has allowed an association to develop between a liberal hermeneutic and Gnostic thought and practice based on the lowest common denominators, as opposed to erecting walls of protection established through eternal truth revealed in Holy Writ.

The legacy of this liberal inclusion can be witnessed in the loss of Biblical authority, the non-acceptance of Biblical inspiration and the erosion of Biblical areas of morality and practice. As a consequence of these tendencies, the Gnostic under-girdings of a supposed greater knowledge that transcends Scripture is embraced as viable and validation of Scriptural authority is ignored. The inevitable loss of Christian value systems becomes the logical outcome. Homosexuality becomes acceptable, a fetus’ viability is dubious and morality is defined through the lens of personal pleasure in an existential format of lifestyle philosophy, not Biblical norms.

If a 21^st century challenge exists for the church, its strongest protagonist possibly exists in the guise of the re-emergence of the 2^nd centuries’ dabbling in Gnostic thought. How does the modern church address an ancient heresy recoated in new drapery? Is it possible to once again counter the Gnostic influx, expelling it from the church’s boundaries, or will the church be forced into a quiet acquiescence of heretical thought and deviant practices as being normative? The answer must be a clear and decisive stance against Gnostic influence within the church.

From a purely problematic standpoint, the greatest difficulty may not exist in the churches ability to define Gnostic heresy. Its challenge may be weighted more heavily in the arena of defining what is orthodox and acceptable. As such, the difficulty of Montanism’s struggle may re-emerge in a significant format again. Will the churchmen once more allow prejudice to dominate argumentative thought, excluding members who may be feasible, while conversely bedding with denominational deviants and the re-emerging Gnostic practices?

Travers and Jewels van der Merwe pose a challenging view of Gnosticism and Pentecostalism at their website:  Strange Fire: The Rise of Gnosticism in the Church, state: “Having defined and illustrated the doctrinal care of Gnosticism, we can now effectively identify Gnostic thought as it emerges in the church today. There is a growing network comprised of loosely linked groups with a common Gnostic theme[12].” Merwe continues by identifying the Pentecostal Latter Rain Movement and the modern Prophetic Movement as embracers of Gnostic thought and New Age philosophy.  According to Merwe, Gnostic thought is identified as six primary components consisting of common characteristics. These are: man is co-substantial with God, elitism, intuitiveness, self-Knowledge, redefinition of the New Birth, and participation in divinity.[13]” These indeed, are common attributes of Gnosticism, as far as the historical records indicate. But do they apply to modern Pentecostalism, or is this historical attack on a Christian sub-culture that is orthodox in theology, and possibly esoteric in practice?  To answer this question, it would be appropriate to examine what is know about Gnosticism in the 2^nd century from a doctrinal, linguistic, historical and practical vantage point in order to best understand what may be possible modern associations with the ancient heretical sects.

According to Kittle’s Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Gnosticism as a conceptual entity owes its origin to a Greek attachment of world valuations relating to knowledge (gnosis). In its strictest and most narrow usage, gnosis refers to the act of knowing or intelligent “comprehension.”  As such, perception of an understanding nature, i.e. logical association, as opposed to simple sensate data, prevails in the idea of knowledge. It is the stringing together of common thought that prevails over simple input. Understood in this light or knowledge according to Kittle, carries within its confines a “perception of things as they are: not opinions about them”[14].

Knowledge (gnosis) from the Greek view, embraces sensate information as the beginning point of understanding and discovery. Thus, the Greek perception of reality consists of the free association of forms, figures and elemental entities by those who exist in the material form of reality.  In early Greek Philosophy, Plato equated knowledge as consisting of the indispensable necessity that allows mankind access to the right implementation of political action. Augustine would echo these understandings in The City of God,[15] highlighting the churches need to incorporate it into the existing Roman secular governmental structures. Augustine perceived these structures to be reflective of God’s perfect world of truth. Observe Augustine’s statements:

“Things temporal then has a reference to this result of earthly peace in the earthly community, while in the City of God it is connected with eternal peace… even those who rule serve those whom they seem to command; for they rule not from a love of power, but from a sense of duty they owe other’s… The earthly city, which does not live by faith, seeks an earthly peace, The heavenly city, or rather the part of it which sojourns on earth, and lives by faith, makes use of this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates it shall pass away. Consequently, so long as it lives like a captive and a stranger in the earthly city… there is a harmony between them…”[16]

 

Aristotle also utilized the epistemological function of gnosis in his understanding of the complexities of “distinguished scientific contemplation… of the two forms of dialectical reasoning, syllogistic and deductive.”[17] Aristotle saw knowledge as the revealer of truth in both secular and spiritual applications, as deemed appropriate. The churchman, and scholastic scholar Thomas Aquinas, would incorporate Aristotle’s scientific method of reasoning into the churches theological and philosophical grid as well. This laid the groundwork for Aquinas’ theories of knowing God from a rationalistic mental acquiescence alone, as revealed through natural theology (see previous unpublished paper in this series: Thomas Aquinas: Metaphysical and Epistemological Considerations).

The Gnostic use of knowledge in a theological and philosophical understanding closely parallels the classical development of perception in knowledge as opposed to the input of simple data. In this association, there appears to be an acceptance of Platonic thought as related to the World of ideas as a place of superior revelation that supercedes the confinement of the natural surroundings of man. Observe Plato as he comments:

 

“But if that which knows and that which is known exist forever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist… there is no light of justice or temperance or any of the higher ideas which are precious to the earthly souls in the earthly copies of them… they are seen through a glass dimly; and there are few who, going to the images, behold in them the realities…”[18]

 

In the revelation of Gnosticism throughout its various manifestations, Zoroastrianism, the Valentinian variation, Manicheanism, Catharianism and the modern espousal of Gnosticism resurging, man is apparently capable of ascertaining secret knowledge that allows the mediation of the liberation of the soul from the crude confinement of special existence (salvation). Elaine Pagels in The Gnostic Gospels comments on the Gnostic lack of concern for the earthly existence and its acceptance of a transcendent mode of subsistence by quoting the Apocryphal Gospel of Thomas which states: “There is a light within a man of light, and it lights up the whole world. If he does not shine he is darkness”[19][20][21].

Gnostic thought and religion focused on God as the self-sufficient revelation of gnosis. This special knowledge had an incendiary aspect to its quality. Salvation was only obtainable through the act of turning away from the shadow realm of special reality and embracing the truer concept of pure thought. This philosophy led to two distinct applications in the appropriation of knowledge and the necessary carnal existence in life. One school of thought, the Stoic variation, distanced himself or herself from as much carnal pleasure as possible: of an earthly nature. Stoic expressions view the substance of the world as being composed of substandard deviations that must by necessity be extricated through the procedure of denial[22].

The other approach was that of the Epicurean philosophy. This thought pattern held a similar hypothesis of disassociation with carnal substance. Epicurean understanding was the diametric opposite in its deployment of practice, however. Epicurean’s held the carnal world to be corrupt and irredeemable, in need of destruction. Within this framework, Epicureanism deduces that carnal flesh is useless and could be committed to the full pursuit of any carnal pleasure, as it would ultimately be destroyed and the Gnostic substance, or essence, would then be liberated as the soul achieved salvation[23]. Epicureanism is vaguely similar to the anything goes standards of conduct of an existential philosophy that has resurfaced in the modern worldview.

Gnosis as a religious paradigm perceived knowledge “not as nous, but as a charisma: illumination by ecstatic or mystical vision”[24]. This gnosis was to be acquired through the artificial association of initiation and compulsory training, albeit the acquiring of faith over sensory input and data. Knowledge, or gnosis, stands in the line of tradition and training. When properly embraced, a supposed liberation of the inner light of the soul occurs, thus assuring the soul’s transcendent ability to ascend into its original place of origin. This acceptance of the soul’s intrinsic superiority over material substance contained a cosmological and anthropological dualism that led the initiate or enlightened into the means of salvation[25].

From this perspective, Gnosticism was a crude assimilation of Eastern (Zoroastrianism) religious peculiarities and Greek philosophic and religious thought, melding into a synthesized new expression. With the advent of Christianity, some, such as Valentinius, sought to merge the Gnostic thought with Christianity, creating a peculiar neo-Gnostic/Christian amalgamation. Although it is impossible to truly ascertain Gnostic influence in the early Church, history identifies Valentinius as an almost Bishop. This should give some indication as to Gnosticisms influence[26][27].

Mani, a religious teacher of the third Century A.D., whose religious ideas and teachings became known as Manicheanism, sought to synthesize Christianity, Gnosticism and Buddhism. Augustine of Hippo was one of Mani’s early and most colorful converts. Augustine’s subsequent conversion to Christianity and his renunciation of Manichean heresy led the way for Augustine’s eventual Bishopric. Catholic Faith’s website identifies; “Manicheanism as a part of the Gnostic current of the time, yet unlike some esoteric Gnostic sect’s, it also was a universal religion spread by proselytizing”[28].

The beauty of historical studies is found in its propensity to illustrate for the historian that no matter how much things change, they really stay the same. Manicheanism is an example of this profound lesson derived from the past. As such, its teachings and impact on the historical considerations should serve as a reminder for diligence and caution in the present, if the astute will listen to the lessons of the past.

Manichean philosophy is shrouded in the ancient times, finding its origins in the third century following the advent of Jesus Christ.  Founded by a teacher of Persian extraction named Mani, this blend of philosophies and religion found ready adherents in the Roman Empire wherever they could be found.  Some, such as Augustine of Hippo prior to his conversion to Christianity, have made significant historical contributions in theology and practice, thus ensuring the survival of Manicheanism as an acknowledged philosophy down through the ages. This notoriety of personality has allowed a continuous discussion to exist as to the nature and format of Manicheanism, even though most of the original thoughts and documents were destroyed through relentless persecution upon the summation of the group being identified as a heresy, and Mani acknowledged as a heresiarch.

From its inception, Manicheanism has been, and continues to be, a religion or philosophy of dualism. It also is an attempt to blend or amalglomate multiple religious thought or expressions into a cohesive whole.  Mani sought to synthesize Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Christianity with a sampling of Astrological and Mystic elements included as well.  From the dualistic perspective, Mani taught there were two emanations or pulses from which all things found their subsistence through the created universe.  In his convoluted fashion, Mani taught that the good of the Bible was the good god of impulse. However, because he was responsible for creation, he was also responsible for evil’s existence, by failing to keep creation free of its influence.

Modern Neo-Manicheanism (www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/3991/Neo) now claims it addresses accurately the “greatest weakness of the world’s largest religions: the origin of evil and suffering.” It is their assertion that the creator-god is ultimately responsible for the suffering and evil because the creator’s god is evil. This is a twist on Mani’s original teaching that the human body has inherent evil in it due to matter’s corruption. According to Mani, only the human soul is pure and its job is to extricate or liberate itself from matter through strict religious practices of deprivation and discipline.

In both its manifestations, past and present, Manicheanism is a heretical movement that subverts the truth of Christianity through dilution. Mani’s claims to enlightenment and prophetic insight must be rejected.  However, the dangers of this cult must not be dismissed. In its origins, an ancient lie lay below the surface that has existed in many fashions and formats. Its teachings are similar to the modern mysticism of the New Age, where once again people have attempted to forge a new religious expression through the weaving together of ancient thoughts and religions.

Manicheanism resurgence in modern times raises a historical conundrum for the church in Manicheanism classification. It is legitimate to identify this philosophy/religion as a cult, or is the church better served by placing it in a category of its own?  Are there enough similarities to categorize it as being an errant branch or should it be identified with other esoteric New Age/Old Lie religious expressions? These are thought for additional consideration.

Augustine’s conversion to Manicheanism exemplifies the inherent danger of Gnosticism. As a philosophy and religious blend, it attempts to resolve intellectually all questions posited through metaphysical deliberations. The epistemological considerations led the initiate into ‘fuller knowledge’ thus elevating the learned into a higher dimension or plane of existence. This gnosis was appealing to those who valued knowledge and sought to live by the discipline of the Greek forms of philosophic meanderings.

Tertullian poignantly states the belief that Gnosticism was a blending of Greek philosophy and Christianity[29]. Hans Jonas, in an article on Gnosticism for the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, sees Gnosticism as transcending religious constraints. Jonas asserts that the blend was a cultural adaptation between Greeks and Oriental culture’s and belief systems[30].

Modern thought views this assorted and variant belief system as capitalizing on Greek perceptions of Jewish monotheism, Babylonian mystery religions and astrology coupled with Iranian dualism. Gnosticism in modern times has been perceived as carrying within its parameters an extension of apocalyptic theories and traditions into the arena of philosophical existence. Current traditional and conservative thought appear to hold to the basic assumption that in ancient Gnostic deliberation, there were two dominant formats that achieved prominence. Both strains are viewed as mythological frameworks that seek to explain the problem of evil in reference to creation. The prevailing question appears to be: how could God, as good, allow evil to exist, if indeed God is omnipotent?

The first school of Gnostic thought has been identified as Iranian in configuration. It is the Mesopotamian variation with a marked connection to Zoroastrianism and extended into Manicheanism in the 3^rd and 4^th Centuries A.D. Manichean Gnostic thought held that there were:

 

· Two powers, light and darkness, which exist in conflict

· These opposing powers are locked in a cosmic dual

· Particles of light (soul) have been captured by jealous particles of darkness (flesh)

· Light and darkness have both created beings with light particles within

· Both light and darkness seek to access the hidden light within[31]

 

As a side note, there appear to be an eerie analogy that exists between Manichean heresy and modern Mormonism’s hierarchical system of salvation and winning the latent ‘god’ within.

            The second form of Gnosticism that existed in ancient times was the Syrian variation, which appears to have originated somewhere between Syria, Palestine and Egypt. This was a complex system of thought that espoused a type of vertical dualism that accepted ‘Good” as the ultimate or primary principle behind all creation[32]. As with each variant form of Gnosticism, the primary goal of the sect was to explain evil’s purpose. The dominant theme of Gnostic thought appears to revolve around the necessitation of justifying evil’s existence. Gnostic’s were assumed to be those souls who exist within the world that contain the light particles: thus existing in need of liberation and the awakening of their divine selves. This applies to both classifications of created beings: those who owe their origin to light or darkness.

            A third form of humanity needs to be addressed at this point. This classification of persons would constitute the personalities who were perceived to exist as material substance alone. These people were not believed to own any particles of light within. As such, these deviant entities were not perceived as possessing any intrinsic ability to attain salvation and liberation, for there was nothing to liberate. This hypothesis clearly stipulates determinism in creation and awareness. This Manichean belief of awakened destiny for the pre-determined elected Gnostic and the exclusion of the baser non-light participants may explain Augustinian theories in theology of selective or pre-determined salvation. If so, Mandian influence may well survive within the Calvinist framework of predestination and pre-determinism: particularly in reference to salvific grace.

The dilemma of Gnosticism in both ancient and modern variations is found in its separation of tangible substance and the act of knowing. This reductionism lends itself to the distinction of belief and practice, relegating conviction to the position of superiority over practice. Universal salvation speculators postulate this view as a tenable position. The Gnostic influence in modern theology can be witnessed in the denunciation of Scriptural authority and an existential plethora of lifestyle acceptance in Churches that denigrate the value of principles and the truths presented in Holy Writ.

 As such, the danger exists in the subordination of faith’s necessary experience for a modular belief system that offers purportedly relevant answers to the problematic questions of life. The Faith is made inferior to the philosophical answers provided on an intellectual platform erected through the process of integrating various religious perspectives and cultural assumptions. The new grid supposedly provides a satiated mental state to faith’s quandaries. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, aptly assesses the dilemma as he views the Gnostic synthesis as a type of a reassembled picture or painting: a created distortion that only vaguely resembles the original[33].

This over valuation of intellectual properties, creating a sense of superiority for philosophy over theology, particularly in practice, appears to be the historical struggle of the Church. Both Augustine and Aquinas became the forerunners of schools of thought that attempted to integrate Platonic philosophical ideas or Aristotelian philosophical ideas into the Church as relevant and proper grids, whereby God could be understood in a superior way, as opposed to that which was presented by the primitive Hebrews. Philo’s dilemma of incorporating the Allegorical method of religious interpretation into Judaic thought, and the early Church Father’s almost universal acceptance of the Allegorical method as a valid hermeneutic, lends itself to the Gnostic assertions that devalue the practical implementation of faith’s prerogatives and conditions that necessarily follow obedience.

It would seem that there appears to exist an appropriate area for future and additional research in the consideration of the historical milieu of practice and belief in the early centuries of the Church and the similar conditions that may or may not exist in the modern Church. How relevant is the Gnostic modes of thinking in deference to the Church? Is the reemergence of Gnostic thought a challenge to the faith of Christianity, or is it an irrelevant and obscure nuisance? There appears to be a disturbing trend developing in the field of occult and esoteric literature that is once again espousing Gnosticism as a viable belief system. What are the implications for the current Church?

Further pursuit of the re-emerging difficulties of freely associating groups with Gnosticism should be examined as well. Is the ancient practice of hyperbole, exaggeration and specious charges an acceptable methodology when discussing variant theological standpoints today, or are they to be rejected as inappropriate hermeneutical practices? The problem presented is one of circular reasoning, whereby any theological vantage point can find commonalities with the opposition and various heretical schools of the past. An example of this would be the Augustinian/Calvinism theories of predestination and determinism coupled with Mandian thought. The problem is: is this an appropriate line of questioning?

These syllogistic arguments are inevitable and invaluable for the defencing of doctrinal stances within Systematic or Philosophic Theology.[34] Care must be made in these considerations however. The danger can be found in excluding Biblically normative practices over philosophic comfort if caution is not exercised.

The charge of Gnosticism or Gnostic tendencies may possibly need to be confined to the realm of philosophy and theology when dealing with orthodox groups, as this appears to be the primary concern of the early Church. Gnosticism took root in the era that witnessed the expansion of Greek influence and thought into the arena of the Churches structure. Consequently, philosophical considerations overtook supernatural expressions. The challenge of Tertullian and the Montanist movement’s reaction against the secularization of the Church exists in perpetuity as a statement to this reality (see previous unpublished paper on Montanism in this series). Gnosticism, philosophic inclusions, even Thomism, appear to be attempting to allow religious thought to exist apart from the genuine supernatural encounters as defined by Scripture.

The danger of labeling Pentecostal practices as being inherently Gnostic extensions becomes relevant in the light of the attempts to secularize The Faith. If Pentecostal action coincides with Biblically revealed practice and the label of Gnosticism is attached, what does this do to the other germane expressions of The Faith, such as teaching, proselytizing and sharing among others? Does the designation of Gnostic fit in these areas as well, or is it simply a subjective association brought on by personal bias and prejudice? Liberal theology would agree with the universal designations, but is that a fair appraisal?

The antilogism used against modern Pentecostal practices of tongues, laying on of hands, faith healing prayer, prophecy, words of knowledge, words of wisdom, etc. can equally be leveled against the schools of Calvinism, Cessationism, philosophic inclusion, Church Growth thought, etc. The customary inclusion of new approaches to Biblically relevant cultural practices is a slippery slope to be found upon, particularly when examining clearly defined New Testament practices that the Cessationist school discards, using questionable methodologies and dangerous hermeneutics in interpreting 1 Corinthians 13: 8-10, which states:

 “Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues they will cease; whether there is knowledge it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away”[35].

 

Simply discarding practices due to the lack of a particular level of ease or familiarity on a personal basis appears to be a condition of bias. This practice of theological prejudicial behavior allows the modern believer the luxury of entering into the trap of Greek demythologizing of Scripture.

            This is a great and grave danger, the practice of labeling clearly defined normative Biblical procedures as being inherently heretical, while leaving non-Biblical practices as being innately acceptable, yet leaving non-Biblical practices and structures (philosophic incorporation, applied business practices, democratic political frames, etc.) intact. Hobbes stated it well when he pointed out the human proclivity to accept revelation and practice based upon a personal comfort level. Hobbes states:

 

 “It is true that the civil magistrates, intending to employ a minister in the charge of teaching, may enquire of him if he be content to preach such and such doctrines; and, in the case of refusal, may deny the employment: but to force him to accuse himself of opinions, when his actions are not by law forbidden, is against the law of nature; and especially in them that teach that a man shall be damned to eternal and extreme torments, if he die in a false opinion concerning an article of faith”[36].

 

The danger of freely associating Gnosticism with those practices clearly identified as Christian through the relevant acceptance of doctrinal statements of an orthodox nature appears to be the same in principle as the illegitimate transference of identity in word value from a hermeneutical perspective. In this instance, it is the illegitimate transfer of identity in theology. In both applications the practice stands as untenable.

            Hesselgrave and Rommen, in Contextualization, point out the error of a secular approach to The Faith in commenting on Aquinas proofs for God’s existence. They balance Aquinas proofs with Occam’s razor. Observe:

 

“Soon after Thomas Aquinas developed his theory for the existence of God in the mid-thirteenth century, William of Occam insisted that the existence of God could not be proved and that all universals and absolutes are no more than mental convinces. Aquinas distinguished between supernature and nature and recognized that we do not name things as they are in themselves but as they are in our minds. He also recognized that the meaning of words such as ‘God’ may not be easily arrived at. But with help from Aristotle he concluded that meanings in such cases are arrived at analogically, that is, by reference to meaning in another sense. William of Occam discounted all of this. His basic principle (praeter necessitatem non sunt multiplicanda- entities should not be multiplied more than necessary) was aimed at dispensing with terms having to do with the nonsensory world and intangible universals. It became known as Occam’s Razor”[37].

           

According to this sense, Aquinas belief that the existence of God, as a logically provable hypothesis, is rendered invalid.  The problem with philosophy as a basis of belief when applied to The Faith is it misses the essential component of a personal faith in practice and morality.  May new generations of heresiologists rise in the shadow of the early voices of Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epipphanius, and others, to face the resurgent challenge of Gnostic belief and practice in modern expression, mitigating the subtle but dangerous influence of philosophy over faith.