How do we rule out the possibility of Gnosticism being true?

[Kameaux]

Mainstream (Catholic and Orthodox) theology is defended with arguments that, essentially, tend to boil down to appealing to the writings of the Apostolic fathers. According to many Christians, these writings in combination with the gospels give the most comprehensive view of the original teachings of Jesus. For this reason, Irenaeus (one of the harshest critics of Gnosticism), ordained by Polycarp (an Apostolic father), is generally considered reliable.

However, when Irenaeus is attributed authority because he received his teaching from Polycarp, and when Polycarp is attributed authority because he is believed to have received his teaching from st. John, than why can't Valentinius be attributed authority, having received his teaching from Theudas, who is believed to have gotten his teaching from st. Paul? The easy road would be an appeal to specific verses of the Bible, but this will end up a circular argument; ''this verse means such and so, because the church has confirmed. The church has authority on the matter because this verse has confirmed.''

When a contemporary theological expert like Clement of Alexandria seemed to be quite sympathetic (or at the very least open) to teachings that related to the possibility of transmigration, Christian panentheism, universal salvation and the pre-existence of the soul, why should the average Christian be so adamant in their opposition to these theories?

 

[HTacianas]

Mainstream (Catholic and Orthodox) theology is defended with arguments that, essentially, tend to boil down to appealing to the writings of the Apostolic fathers. According to many Christians, these writings in combination with the gospels give the most comprehensive view of the original teachings of Jesus. For this reason, Irenaeus (one of the harshest critics of Gnosticism), ordained by Polycarp (an Apostolic father), is generally considered reliable.

However, when Irenaeus is attributed authority because he received his teaching from Polycarp, and when Polycarp is attributed authority because he is believed to have received his teaching from st. John, than why can't Valentinius be attributed authority, having received his teaching from Theudas, who is believed to have gotten his teaching from st. Paul? The easy road would be an appeal to specific verses of the Bible, but this will end up a circular argument; ''this verse means such and so, because the church has confirmed. The church has authority on the matter because this verse has confirmed.''

When a contemporary theological expert like Clement of Alexandria seemed to be quite sympathetic (or at the very least open) to teachings that related to the possibility of transmigration, Christian panentheism, universal salvation and the pre-existence of the soul, why should the average Christian be so adamant in their opposition to these theories?

We can successfully rule out the possibility of gnosticism being true by looking at the fact that it died out long ago. Then we ask, "would God allow the truth to die out long ago"?

 

[Clare73]

Mainstream (Catholic and Orthodox) theology is defended with arguments that, essentially, tend to boil down to appealing to the writings of the Apostolic fathers. According to many Christians, these writings in combination with the gospels give the most comprehensive view of the original teachings of Jesus. For this reason, Irenaeus (one of the harshest critics of Gnosticism), ordained by Polycarp (an Apostolic father), is generally considered reliable.

However, when Irenaeus is attributed authority because he received his teaching from Polycarp, and when Polycarp is attributed authority because he is believed to have received his teaching from st. John, than why can't Valentinius be attributed authority, having received his teaching from Theudas, who is believed to have gotten his teaching from st. Paul? The easy road would be an appeal to specific verses of the Bible, but this will end up a circular argument; ''this verse means such and so, because the church has confirmed. The church has authority on the matter because this verse has confirmed.''

When a contemporary theological expert like Clement of Alexandria seemed to be quite sympathetic (or at the very least open) to teachings that related to the possibility of transmigration, Christian panentheism, universal salvation and the pre-existence of the soul, why should the average Christian be so adamant in their opposition to these theories?

Heresies were not uncommon in the early church, some being held by eminent
"theologians."

Just because they enjoyed a following does not alter the fact that according to authoritative NT teaching, those teachings are heresies.

To this day, we have "expert theologians" maintaning heresies.

So what's new?

 

[timothyu]

it is simply a matter of who rose to power enough to eventually control the narrative. (the same as you would find in any worldly institution seeking dominance in worldly fashion)

 

[Leaf473]

Mainstream (Catholic and Orthodox) theology is defended with arguments that, essentially, tend to boil down to appealing to the writings of the Apostolic fathers. According to many Christians, these writings in combination with the gospels give the most comprehensive view of the original teachings of Jesus. For this reason, Irenaeus (one of the harshest critics of Gnosticism), ordained by Polycarp (an Apostolic father), is generally considered reliable.

However, when Irenaeus is attributed authority because he received his teaching from Polycarp, and when Polycarp is attributed authority because he is believed to have received his teaching from st. John, than why can't Valentinius be attributed authority, having received his teaching from Theudas, who is believed to have gotten his teaching from st. Paul? The easy road would be an appeal to specific verses of the Bible, but this will end up a circular argument; ''this verse means such and so, because the church has confirmed. The church has authority on the matter because this verse has confirmed.''

When a contemporary theological expert like Clement of Alexandria seemed to be quite sympathetic (or at the very least open) to teachings that related to the possibility of transmigration, Christian panentheism, universal salvation and the pre-existence of the soul, why should the average Christian be so adamant in their opposition to these theories?

Great question!

I think it comes down to authority, how does God's revelation come to us.

If a person says the scriptures, they have to say how they decided which writings are scriptures.

If the apostolic fathers, who decides who is an apostolic father and who is a heretic.

Also an observation: I don't think we know very much about gnosticism. What we do know is usually from sources writing against it.

 

[timothyu]

how does God's revelation come to us.

God's authourity cannot be defined by worldly character but only by the earthly weary who have no use for the institutions built upon the will of man.

 

[Phronema]

The word "gnosis" means knowledge in Greek. No where are we told that our salvation is based on knowledge alone, and certainly not the esoteric knowledge that all gnostics espouse at the core of their heresy.

Christ is the "way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). Why would God want His truth to be hidden knowledge? We're told that salvation is for all who come to Him so famously in (John 3:16).

In short esotericism isn't conducive to the core of Christianity, or its beliefs.

 

[timothyu]

Why would God want His truth to be hidden knowledge?

He doesn't but the institution needs to sidestep it in order to justify it's existence.

 

[obscura]

We can successfully rule out the possibility of gnosticism being true by looking at the fact that it died out long ago. Then we ask, "would God allow the truth to die out long ago"?

It's definitely made a bit of a comeback within the past decade or so, with New Age.

 

[hedrick]

There’s a difference between Gnosticism and things like universalism.
I’m not so keen on the Catholic theory of passing down authority. But I think the Gospels are moderately accurate, though of course they each have their own vision of what Jesus was doing. The Gnostic gospels are later, and their picture of Jesus is implausible for a first century Jew.

 

[timothyu]

Those of worldly character cannot define that which is of a counter-culture alien to their thinking. This is why Jesus spoke of the blind leading the blind. Those who built religious institutions modelled on the previous institutions of Rome and others including governments of mankind, were already off on the wrong track.

 

[obscura]

As someone who used to research the esoteric/occult, based off of the information that I have analyzed, I have come to the conclusion that Gnosticism is nothing more than a Luciferian doctrine.

That's just my personal revelation.

The clinging to the idea that "true Christianity" was wiped out by Nicene Christianity usually seems to stem from not being able to reconcile feelings about God in the context of the Old Testament.

It's "I don't like this angry God and the idea of hell, so instead I'm going to believe in the transmigration of the soul, demiurges, and escaping the matrix".

 

[ewq1938]

Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums

Unorthodox Christian theology may only be discussed in the Controversial Christian Theology forum. These unorthodox topics do not directly oppose the Nicene Creed, but are not considered to be orthodox on CF. These unorthodox topics may not contradict the Nicene Creed. Non-Trinitarianism may only be discussed in the Outreach category forums. Gnosticism may not be discussed in any CF forums. The Controversial Christian Theology forum is open to Christian members only (faith groups list). Unorthodox Christian theological topics include (but are not limited to):

• Annihilationism
• Full Preterism
• Open Theism
• Universalism