Evangelical Gnosticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eruvande
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Eruvande

Guest
First, a bit of personal background - I’m a reformed baptist who was once quite active in defending my faith - I even wrote blogposts against catholic teachings. But lately I’ve begun to look at Catholicism in a different light.

One of the things that’s really jumping out at me is the way Catholicism sanctifies the whole person. Let me explain - in my protestant faith, all is spiritual, nothing to do with feelings or the body. In fact anything to do with the physical is regarded with suspicion - the Mass springs to mind. Even a really clear passage like John 6 is explained away as ‘spiritual’.

This has begun to strike me as a form of gnosticism, whereas catholicism treats the whole human condition. Am I out of line in thinking this?
 
Eruvande said:
One of the things that’s really jumping out at me is the way Catholicism sanctifies the whole person. Let me explain - in my protestant faith, all is spiritual, nothing to do with feelings or the body. In fact anything to do with the physical is regarded with suspicion - the Mass springs to mind. Even a really clear passage like John 6 is explained away as ‘spiritual’.

This has begun to strike me as a form of gnosticism, whereas catholicism treats the whole human condition. Am I out of line in thinking this?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve noticed the same thing. It is perhaps most pronounced in the rejection of any and all sacramants. You also see it in the sterility of their church architectue. No paintings or icons, no candles or any other accoutrements to enhance the worship experience. There is a definite hesitation to use these things.

This is well portrayed by a discussion in a recent thread on another forum I visit that went like this:
“What is your favorite type of architecture in a sanctuary [protestant term for the interior of a church]?”
Click to expand...
To which an early answer was:
“Chairs/pews. Something to sit on. The church is just a building. The real “church” is the body of Christ and there is nothing more beautiful than the saints worshiping God in accord. I couldn’t care less about the decor of the sanctuary.”
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t exactly call it gnosticism but it does have gnostic qualities in going all out to separate the physical realm from the spiritual.
 
My husband and I are converts to Catholicism after spending the first 47 years of our lives as evangelical Protestants. (I grew up with John Ortberg in my youth group at my church!)

We noticed the same thing about evangelicals and gnosticism. The problem is, evangelicals in the pews really don’t study the early Church heresies, and so I had no idea what gnosticism was until I started attending a Catholic church and reading about Church history.

I would like to suggest the following book for evangelicals who are studying Catholicism (and also for Catholics who are studying Catholicism!) Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=church+history+in+plain+language&cp=18&biw=1193&bih=726&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&bs=1&wrapid=tljp1308395140250014&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13272307195111083379&sa=X&ei=iob8TbPVLYO20AGRksXFAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ8wIwAg#

Dr. Shelley is a Protestant who has truly written the history of the Christian Church in plain language, easy to understand and interesting to read. This book was a major factor in my decision to become Catholic.
 
Cat said:
My husband and I are converts to Catholicism after spending the first 47 years of our lives as evangelical Protestants. (I grew up with John Ortberg in my youth group at my church!)

We noticed the same thing about evangelicals and gnosticism. The problem is, evangelicals in the pews really don’t study the early Church heresies, and so I had no idea what gnosticism was until I started attending a Catholic church and reading about Church history.

I would like to suggest the following book for evangelicals who are studying Catholicism (and also for Catholics who are studying Catholicism!) Church History in Plain Language by Bruce Shelley. google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=church+history+in+plain+language&cp=18&biw=1193&bih=726&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&bs=1&wrapid=tljp1308395140250014&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13272307195111083379&sa=X&ei=iob8TbPVLYO20AGRksXFAg&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ8wIwAg#

Dr. Shelley is a Protestant who has truly written the history of the Christian Church in plain language, easy to understand and interesting to read. This book was a major factor in my decision to become Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure any of you understand what gnosticism is from the above posts. Gnosticism is a sect that had a demiurge creator god with many spiritual eminations. If you want to understand more about it from a Catholic point of view I recommend Irenaeus’ Adversus Herasaeus (Against Heresies) where he attmpts to explain and defend the church against Valentinian gnosticism.
 
Eruvande said:
First, a bit of personal background - I’m a reformed baptist who was once quite active in defending my faith - I even wrote blogposts against catholic teachings. But lately I’ve begun to look at Catholicism in a different light.

One of the things that’s really jumping out at me is the way Catholicism sanctifies the whole person. Let me explain - in my protestant faith, all is spiritual, nothing to do with feelings or the body. In fact anything to do with the physical is regarded with suspicion - the Mass springs to mind. Even a really clear passage like John 6 is explained away as ‘spiritual’.

This has begun to strike me as a form of gnosticism, whereas catholicism treats the whole human condition. Am I out of line in thinking this?
Click to expand...
Dear brother,

As a Pentecostal who was also active in defending the faith - I ended up in the same place that you did.

It’s interesting that you would mention Gnosticism. When I first began to reconsider John 6, I had similar doubts, although I didn’t specifcally think of Gnosticism. I came across some comments written by Justin Martyr:
*
“This food we call the Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake except one who believes that the things we teach are true, and has received the washing for forgiveness of sins and for rebirth, and who lives as Christ handed down to us.** For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink; but as Jesus Christ our Savior being incarnate by God’s Word took flesh and blood for our salvation, so also we have been taught that the food consecrated by the Word of prayer which comes from him, from which our flesh and blood are nourished by transformation, is the flesh and blood of that incarnate Jesus.**” *

It seems as you say.
 
Eruvande said:
First, a bit of personal background - I’m a reformed baptist who was once quite active in defending my faith - I even wrote blogposts against catholic teachings. But lately I’ve begun to look at Catholicism in a different light.

One of the things that’s really jumping out at me is the way Catholicism sanctifies the whole person. Let me explain - in my protestant faith, all is spiritual, nothing to do with feelings or the body. In fact anything to do with the physical is regarded with suspicion - the Mass springs to mind. Even a really clear passage like John 6 is explained away as ‘spiritual’.

This has begun to strike me as a form of gnosticism, whereas catholicism treats the whole human condition. Am I out of line in thinking this?
Click to expand...
This is a common criticism.

Zwingli is the obvious person to blame, though that’s perhaps too simple. He was very Neo-Platonic, and he introduced into Reformed theology a spiritualist bent that has plagued it ever since. Calvin combined elements of Zwingli’s thought with the strong sola fide teaching of Lutheran theology. Zwingli was a wacky, interesting guy and I no longer just use him as the whipping post for everything I don’t like about Reformed theology. But he did have a problem with the idea of grace coming through material means. Of course, this was a broader cultural trend.

Edwin
 
john_aurelius said:
I’m not sure any of you understand what gnosticism is from the above posts. Gnosticism is a sect that had a demiurge creator god with many spiritual eminations. If you want to understand more about it from a Catholic point of view I recommend Irenaeus’ Adversus Herasaeus (Against Heresies) where he attmpts to explain and defend the church against Valentinian gnosticism.
Click to expand...
People often use the term “gnostic” in this broad way. While this is often criticized, I think it’s valid as long as we do it with caution.

Gnosticism can’t simply be identified with the specifics of Valentinian/Basilidean mythology. The reason that many of the “Gnostics” came up with these myths was that they wanted to remove the “true God” from any association with the impure, flawed physical world. That’s the attitude that folks on this thread are talking about.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
People often use the term “gnostic” in this broad way. While this is often criticized, I think it’s valid as long as we do it with caution.

Gnosticism can’t simply be identified with the specifics of Valentinian/Basilidean mythology. The reason that many of the “Gnostics” came up with these myths was that they wanted to remove the “true God” from any association with the impure, flawed physical world. That’s the attitude that folks on this thread are talking about.

Edwin
Click to expand...
It is still a heresy, never mind the details.
 
Why is that, even in the non-Catholic religions section, we can’t have an intelligent conversation without someone shouting “HERESY!”? It does not help the conversation to develop in a rational manner, regardless of whether or not something is true. I happen to agree that Zwingli was not right about… well… most everything. But let’s keep the conversations in the realm of the “adult.”
 
Another reference to gnosticism is people claiming to have secret, exclusive secret knowledge about God…they were present at the beginning of Christianity.

There were a list of books to be considered in assembling the Old and New Testaments. St. John’s gospel took some time to verify him as the author. The Book of Hebrews took 200 years to finally be included in Sacred Scriptures. The Church discerned which books to use that would support and uphold the universal faith in Jesus Christ who lived, died, and resurrected, Who is atonement for our sins. The books of Scripture we use are for public revelation.

On the list were gnostic writings…and these Protestant non-denominational groups or sensationalists on the History Channel are now seeing a conspiracy by the Catholic Church in not using any of them, just like they project some kind of conspiracy now on the Vatican Library, that is managed by several unassuming, sweet and humble clerics.

There is a Gospel of St. Thomas that was deemed to be inspired by God, but it is designated private revelation. You can use it, but for your own private use. It does not have a universal perspective to it that can be used by all believers throughout the world.

Gnosticism can be recognized at work in many New Age philosophies and references, some of the Restorationist movements here in the USA. I would see a preacher inclined to secret knowledge when he would say, ‘God gave me this vision, and so I want every one to trust Him and start working for this new project that costs money…’, but wouldn’t call that gnosticism.
 
I’ve found the same thing. It is really a denial of our human nature. We are not purely spiritual creatures. To not minister to us as we are is to not fully minister to us.
Zenas said:
No paintings or icons, no candles or any other accoutrements to enhance the worship experience. There is a definite hesitation to use these things.
Click to expand...
A glaring contradiction I notice in this, that will be showcased in many a church in three weeks, is that while a church might not have religious images, because they might be idolatrous, they are more than happy to have a giant American flag.
 
Eruvande said:
First, a bit of personal background - I’m a reformed baptist who was once quite active in defending my faith - I even wrote blogposts against catholic teachings. But lately I’ve begun to look at Catholicism in a different light.

One of the things that’s really jumping out at me is the way Catholicism sanctifies the whole person. Let me explain - in my protestant faith, all is spiritual, nothing to do with feelings or the body. In fact anything to do with the physical is regarded with suspicion - the Mass springs to mind. Even a really clear passage like John 6 is explained away as ‘spiritual’.

This has begun to strike me as a form of gnosticism, whereas catholicism treats the whole human condition. Am I out of line in thinking this?
Click to expand...
Not being Protestant myself, I can’t speak from any experience on this matter from a Protestant viewpoint. I am curious though if you have brought these concerns up with your pastor and, if you did, how they were received?

God bless
 
I don’t have a pastor at my church, and no, I haven’t really discussed this with anyone face to face except my husband, who is very scornful.
 
Eruvande said:
I don’t have a pastor at my church, and no, I haven’t really discussed this with anyone face to face except my husband, who is very scornful.
Click to expand...
Your church doesn’t have a pastor? How is that possible?
 
The pastor left some time ago and no new pastor has been appointed. simples 🙂
 
No, we just have visiting speakers.

eta: It’s not ideal, and one of the reasons I’m so dissatisfied with my current position.
 
Back to topic, Catholic Church is based on public revelation, Jesus lived, died and resurrected, and He had 12 witnesses. One left, and was replaced.

We get our teachings from the Oral Tradition of Jesus Christ handed down through the apostles through the Holy Spirit.
 
Eruvande said:
First, a bit of personal background - I’m a reformed baptist who was once quite active in defending my faith - I even wrote blogposts against catholic teachings. But lately I’ve begun to look at Catholicism in a different light.

One of the things that’s really jumping out at me is the way Catholicism sanctifies the whole person. Let me explain - in my protestant faith, all is spiritual, nothing to do with feelings or the body. In fact anything to do with the physical is regarded with suspicion - the Mass springs to mind. Even a really clear passage like John 6 is explained away as ‘spiritual’.

This has begun to strike me as a form of gnosticism, whereas catholicism treats the whole human condition. Am I out of line in thinking this?
Click to expand...
First of all, you have great perception. We are made up of both body and soul and, as humans, need the physical elements in order to worship properly. Jesus took on flesh and so dignified the human person. That is why the Church, in its wisdom, uses the physical elements of water, incense, sacred art, bread and wine, physical gestures, etc. in its worship. While many Protestant churches do not believe in baptism as a sacrament, they still use water in order to baptize. They also “bless” the physical elements of food at their meals. So, without maybe realizing it, there is some recognition of the physical used in worship.

As far as gnosticism, I think of it more in terms of claiming secret knowledge which can neither be proven or disproven. We see this very clearly in the New Age culture; everyone pretending to know something that they, in reality, can never define even for themselves. If you ask them to define “collective consciousness”, for example, it is almost amusing to watch them try to explain it. The charge is, that if you don’t understand, you are simply not as enlightend as they.

I don’t really find this in Protestantism, however, although I find great evidence of it in religions such as Mormonism which claim an affirmation of the their faith through the “burning in the bosom”; in other words, secret knowledge imparted only to them which one can neither prove nor disprove.

But the idea that if we have physical elements around us we might be led to idolatry, as if we would worship plaster or some image, is truly nonsense and may be associated with some aspect of certain gnostic cults that has carried over to some modern day denominations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top