Gnosticism

Gnosticism was a strong competitor to orthodox Christianity for a thousand years. However, most Christians today do not know much about the Gnostics. This may be how a Doctrine that resembles Gnostic theology could gradually permeate our churches without raising alarm. A brief survey of Gnosticism will be useful in understanding the similarities between Gnosticism and the Blood Doctrine.

Gnosticism gains its name from its plan of Salvation; man is saved by having special knowledge (gnosis is a Greek word meaning "knowledge") imparted to him. Gnosticism should not be confused with agnosticism (the philosophical position that wonders, without assurance, if there is a God or gods), since the two are completely unrelated. According to Earle Cairns,

Gnosticism sprang from the natural human desire to create a theodicy, an explanation of the origin of evil. It was also a logical or rational system that illustrated the human tendency to seek answers to the great questions of the origin of man. It sought to do this by synthesizing Christianity and Hellenistic philosophy.⁽⁸⁾

According to Professor Groningen, Gnosticism formed from the desire to scientifically explain religious concepts:

The scientific aspect in man's life and world of thought, study and work has been unduly neglected in the study of Gnosticism. Positively, I have posited that the spirit of scientism, native to all men, a strong factor in Hellenism, evident in early pagan religions was the basic motif in the origin of Gnosticism.⁽⁹⁾

Gnosticism dates at least to the First Century ad, and may even predate Christianity by a few decades. It was a general name given to many groups, just as Christianity is a general name given to many groups. Unlike Christianity, Gnosticism was not an independent religion. The Gnostics were syncretists (syncretism is a meshing together of unrelated religious organizations); they adapted their beliefs to fit the local beliefs of the areas they invaded. Instead of competing with other religions by establishing Gnostic churches, Gnosticism gained members by acting inside the churches of other religions, in a manner like that of a virus that has invaded a living cell. Because Gnosticism depended on the members of other churches for the spread of their ideas, syncretism was essential for their survival.

The scene of such an invasion must have been like that found in our Bible colleges, where all types of strange ideas bubble up in a froth of zeal and half-ignorance and are gazed at with wonder for the delightful ways that such ideas weave the known with the unexplained. It is the human spirit to be creative, and to desire to contribute ideas. Gnosticism would have held great appeal for the elegant ways that it explained the how of the Bible. It is widely thought that the Apostle Paul opposed the Gnostics in his books, and Augustine, a "church father" who was converted from Gnosticism, frequently countered the teachings of Gnostic theologians.

Gnosticism may have originated in Babylon (Iran). It eventually imbedded itself in the religions located from England to India, possibly even reaching China. Even today, active groups of Gnostics, called Mandeans, exist in Iran and Iraq. Gnosticism has features seen in Babylonian ism, Judaism and Grecian philosophy. Its core beliefs have remained similar for millennia, although the manner in which it expresses these beliefs had to vary widely to accommodate the religions that it invaded.

The distinctive features of Gnostic groups were a belief in; an evil Creator God, whose Universe (ours) is inherently evil; a good Redeemer God, who is unknown to humans except by special knowledge; and the human's body being the work of the evil Creator, but the human's spirit being the work of the good Redeemer (this is the idea of a "divine spark" in man). Everything associated with the material Universe is evil, because matter, having been created by the evil God, is inherently evil. Not even Jesus Christ could have a material body and remain sinless.

Most Gnostics also believed that procreation was a device of the evil God to increase the slaves that he controlled. The most sacred group of the Twelfth Century Cathars, the parfaits, refused to eat anything associated with procreation, including eggs or cheese. Like other Gnostics, they believed that all matter was evil. To them, even the grass was "only corruption and confusion."⁽¹⁰⁾

The key comparison between Gnostics and Blood Indoctrinators is in the belief that matter is inherently evil. The Gnostics claimed that Christ could not have been perfect if He had a body of matter, for matter is sinful, and Christ was perfect. See, in their own words, what the Blood Indoctrinators claim:

Even though Jesus "received His flesh, His body, from a sinful race, He could still be sinless as long as sinful blood was not in His body"; That was the problem solved by the virgin birth.⁽¹¹⁾

If Christ had not been the virgin-born Son of God, He would have been a sinner^...12)

Why would the Blood Indoctrinators claim that Jesus would have been sinful if He had not been born of a virgin? In order to understand their claim about Christ's sinlessness, something must be understood about their claim for the transmission of sin. That is found in the phrase, "as long as sinful blood was not in His body." The Blood Indoctrinators claim that sin exists only in human blood, and all human blood comes from the male parent. The virgin birth preserved Christ's sinlessness, they say, because it kept Him from gaining human blood.

Is there any verse in the Bible that says such a thing? There is not, and the Blood Indoctrinators have to go through several steps of reasoning and Scripture to justify their claim. Specifically, they begin with Leviticus 17:11, which says that the life of the flesh is in the blood. They reason that if we die, it must be because death has overcome the life that is in blood. For death to overcome the life that is in blood, death must also be in blood. They continue by citing Romans 5:12, which says that death is caused by sin. If life and death are in blood, then sin must also be in blood.

Of the five claims made here, only two could be biblical. The rest are man's invention. Why are they all presented as the plain teaching of the Bible?

The Blood Indoctrinators continue, as they must now deal with the problem of how Christ avoided human blood, and the sin that is supposed to be in it. Since the Bible ceased giving them support long before this, they proceed with only their imagination.

The ancient Blood Indoctrinator may have claimed that a miracle kept Christ from inheriting His mother's blood. Science could not have offered the Blood Indoctrinator any help more than 200 years ago. The problem with claiming that a miracle did this is that Scripture does not support it; it is merely a guess, necessitated by the requirements of the Doctrine. Apparently, the modern Blood Indoctrinator does not feel the need to appeal to this cause, since he believes that he has a natural explanation. The discovery that the mother and unborn child have separate blood supplies seemed to offer the explanation that he needed in order to prove his belief.

The author does not know when the Blood Indoctrinators first found this support from science, but it is obvious that it happened at least a century ago. The Blood Indoctrinators used science as justification for their belief that blood, and the inseparable sin and death in it, only enter the child from the male parent. The mother, they claim, contributes none of these to the next generation. Therefore, Christ could only be sinless by having only a female human parent. The virgin birth is thus explained. If the testable facts are as the Blood Indoctrinators claim, then the Blood Doctrine has a very strong argument in its favor, and opposing views would be at a disadvantage.

This advantage would be necessary to overcome the flaws in their earlier reasoning. The line of thought that concluded that sin is passed through blood is called, in logic, non sequitur ("it doesn't follow"), meaning that the conclusions reached do not follow from the facts given. Almost every step of reasoning that Dr. DeHaan used to determine that blood is sinful is an example of illogic. The Bible mentions that flesh lives because it has blood, but Dr. DeHaan expanded that to mean that flesh lives because blood contains a substance called "life". Furthermore, he invented a substance called "death" to act in the blood with "life". The Bible does not say that the death of the flesh is in the blood, but the Blood Indoctrinators are dogmatically-certain that it is so. Therefore, there is no reason (on the basis of pure logic) to suppose that Christ must not inherit blood from His mother.

Even more serious than the Blood Indoctrinator's illogic is that their belief is as purely Gnostic as we might wish to find in the modern world. Science was only cited because the Blood Indoctrinator needed some way to preserve Christ's sinlessness in the face of the hazardous inheritance of sinful blood. The entire line of thought, from the claim that Life exists in blood to the claim that Christ had to have received His blood from a non-human source, is simply from a form of Gnosticism. If one discounts the idea that one's matter makes one a sinner, then all of this intellectual juggling becomes unnecessary. Perhaps there is some truth to the observation that Gnosticism is "the one heresy that continues to arise at various times in the history of Christianity."⁽¹³⁾

The ancient Christian Gnostics believed in the virgin birth, too. In fact, it was essential to their explanation for Christ's sinlessness. Christ was said by some Gnostics to have passed through the body of Mary as light passes through a window.⁽¹⁴⁾ So far, the Blood Doctrine closely resembles Gnosticism on two important points: matter is sinful, and the virgin birth preserved Christ's sinlessness. Furthermore, Gnosticism spreads by taking legitimate doctrinal interpretations and adding its characteristic meanings, just as the Blood Indoctrinators have done to traditional Christianity.

The Blood Indoctrinators claim that they believe the plain teaching of the Bible. The Baptists, in particular, claim that all else must be rejected when discussing doctrine. The Bible never says that blood is sinful or that the virgin birth preserved Christ's sinlessness. Will the Blood Indoctrinators stand true to their claim of accepting only the plain teachings of the Bible? Will they admit that their Blood Doctrine cannot be more than guess? Or, will they admit that they accept the Bible, plus their own inventions, as doctrine?

The Gnostics had to reconcile their view of the innate sinfulness of matter with the Scriptural claim that Christ took flesh and became a man. How could Jesus be perfect if He had a body like ours? The answer had to be that Christ did not have a material being. Christ could not be a part of the physical realm. The body He used was really of a celestial substance.

The Blood Indoctrinators have to reconcile their view of the innate sinfulness of human blood with the Scriptural claim that Christ partook of the flesh and blood of humans (Hebrews 2:14). The answer has to be that Christ took on human flesh, but He had God's blood. Christ could not be God and sinless if He had human blood. The blood in His veins was really of a celestial substance.

Although the Gnostic cults taught that all matter was sinful and the Blood Doctrine claims this only for blood, both claim that contact with sinful matter makes one a sinner, or lost. Salvation, to a Gnostic, was found by escaping the physical world. Salvation, to a Blood Indoctrinator, is found by removing Adam's blood. Both systems claim that evil matter must be eliminated for Salvation.

Orthodox Christianity, whether Presbyterian, Lutheran or Waldensian, has never claimed that sin is a substance. They have never claimed that it is in blood, in flesh or in any other element. This idea is unique to Gnosticism and the Blood Doctrine. It exists nowhere else.

These similarities in doctrine would be enough for concern, but there is an interesting fact that is worth mentioning here. It is an amazing irony that Fundamental, Independent Baptists claim to have come from groups known to have been Gnostic. According to The Trail of Blood (by Dr. J.M. Carroll) and other Baptist history books and booklets, the Paulicians of Asia Minor and the Albigenses of France (the latter was one of many groups known as Cathari) were both Baptist, and lacking any element of Gnosticism in their doctrines. The Baptist historians claim that these groups were called Gnostic by those who wanted to slander them.

If we assume that Anabaptists existed in those ancient times, it could have happened that some of those called Albigenses or Paulician were actually Anabaptist. A person may be given a derogatory name that has no actual connection to that person. An example is the modern insult of calling a person a "pollock" when we think that he has done something stupid, even though Poles aren't necessarily stupid, and the insulted party may not be Polish. Perhaps a true Baptist would have been mislabelled as a Cathari simply because the Cathari had a bad reputation. However, there is reason to doubt strongly the claims made that Baptists existed before the Sixteenth Century. It is doubtful that Baptist ideals existed a thousand years ago in any way different than Lutheran ideals existed. The author believed otherwise for years, until he began examining the supposed ancestral groups.

There seems to have long existed an acceptance of Gnostic beliefs when attempting to prove an ancient line for the Baptists. For example there is a group mentioned by a Canadian Baptist scholar, Dr. J. M. Cramp, in his 1868 book on Baptist history. Compare the beliefs of the Gnostics and the Blood Indoctrinators to this group from the Sixteenth Century:

 Impartiality requires us to mention one opinion which some of them held. Unable to conceive how the Lord Jesus could be the Child of the Virgin without partaking of human depravity, they imagined that, though born of Mary, He did not "take flesh"  of His mother. Joan Boucher was burned alive [for] this alleged heresy. It is not necessary to trouble the reader with observations on it. It is often better to confess ignorance than to dogmatize. Suffice it to say that among the Baptists of those days the opinion in question was a harmless speculation. They believed that the Lord Jesus Christ was "God manifest in the flesh." That was enough. If they did not choose to adopt the current modes of expression, they were at any rate sound at heart.⁽¹⁵⁾

 It is not a concern that these people did not believe that Jesus took his body from Mary; the Bible does not say where the matter for His body originated, unless it is found in Galatians 4:4. The troubling area is that they could not understand how He could be sinless if His body did come from Mary. That raises the question, "Did these people actually believe that Christ was God manifested in the flesh?" It appears that they felt that even God was subject to the depravity supposedly inherent in human flesh. Incidently, the first person in history to be burned at the stake by the Roman Catholic denomination was an Albigensian Gnostic.

This Sixteenth Century belief was not a "harmless speculation." It has the face of Gnosticism, an impersonation of Christianity. The Apostle John warned us that those who denied that Christ was manifested in the flesh were of the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:1-3). The Blood Indoctrinators should beware. They should not be attacking people who do not accept their Blood Doctrine. At least Dr. Cramp acknowledged that such a belief was odd and needing an apology. The Blood Indoctrinators don't find it odd, and demand conformity.

In the case of the Blood Indoctrinators, there should also be asked the question, "Do these people believe that Jesus was God manifested in the flesh?" They claim to believe this; except for His blood, which was still of a celestial nature. They should acknowledge that Christ's body was either fully human or it was not human. Equating sin with the existence of a material component is a key element of Gnosticism. Only in paganism and Catholicism does a material substance convey properties (i.e., the concept of magic substances). The Blood Doctrine is perilously close to this.

Independent Baptists have the practice of creating their church genealogy from groups of persecuted, anti-Catholic religious troublemakers. In some instances, such as the Henricians or Savonarola, there is no justification for including them in the history of the Baptists other than the trouble they caused the Roman Catholic church in their calls for church reform. Historically, the rebel is first hunted and killed, and then he is heroized and then everyone wants to associate themselves with him. Many Baptist historians since Dr. Cramp's time have imitated him. Some have not been so careful as Dr. Cramp's apologist, Dr. Richard C. Weeks (of Maranatha Baptist Bible College), to declare that they are not saying that Baptists actually always existed. Doctor Cramp was supposedly only pointing out that there "is a descent of New Testament doctrine by Christians and churches that is observable from century to century, if not from generation to generation also."⁽¹⁶⁾ One may wonder why, then, did he title his book Baptist History? He could have called his book Christian History. Why did he also reject some groups for inclusion, saying that such groups weren't Baptistic in principle?

Doctor Cramp's book, like so many of our "Baptist history" books, is really a brief commentary of a small fraction of the many diverse groups that have once called themselves Christians. It is obvious that he, like many Baptist historians, is trying to justify the claim for the purity and superiority of the Baptist faith over all other denominations by claiming that famous groups of religious dissenters were really proto-Baptists. In his attempt to glorify the Baptists, he ignores many idiocies, heresies and even blasphemies that were in the churches the he used in his historical examples, and were found in some churches of later Anabaptists (to be fair, let us add that many denominations had their moments of incredible folly). However, Dr. Cramp was more frank about inglorious "Baptist ancestors" than are many other Baptist historians.

How is it that true Gnostic groups have been integrated into Baptist history and Baptist historians have made defenses of Gnostic beliefs? It may be that some scholar or professor believed that Baptists really came from groups that were strongly Gnostic, and his heirs have been trying to restore Gnosticism on those grounds. After all, the single greatest "Christian" enemy of Roman Catholicism, for the last 1700 years or so, has been Gnosticism. There can be little doubt that someone is resurrecting Gnosticism in the statements of the Blood Indoctrinators. If someone is doing this because of a mis-guided idea about Baptist genealogy, it would be a tragic abuse of the trust placed in our spiritual leaders by our congregations. It is unfortunate that our preachers give so few details about the reasons they teach some things.

___________________________________________________