Loading summary
Transcript7 lines
- [00:00]
R.C. Sproul
When the Bible speaks of the flesh in the negative sense, it's speaking of a sinful disposition that includes not just the body, but also the mind. But the idea of trying to make Christianity a life that is lived by pure rejection and denial of the physical, that kind of thinking has its roots not in Biblical thought, but in Gnosticism.
- [00:31]
Program Host
There is error all around us. But this isn't new to the 21st century. The early church had to deal with it, too. Hello, and welcome to Renewing your Mind. And this week, we are considering the science of apologetics so that you and I are better equipped to defend the faith. Yesterday, RC Sproul introduced us to an ancient heresy called Gnosticism. And today he tells us why we need to be on the lookout for it. Today,
- [01:00]
R.C. Sproul
as we've been examining the rise of the science of apologetics in early Church history, we saw that one of the strongest opponents of Christianity in the early centuries was the movement known as Gnosticism. And in our last session, we looked at some of the distinctive characteristics of Gnosticism, particularly with respect to their epistemology. Now, you recall that that term, epistemology, refers to one's theory of knowledge. And the Gnostics were very much concerned about knowledge because they get their name from the Greek word for knowledge, which is the word gnosis. And they eschewed the normal methods of learning truth by rational deduction or by empirical observation and experiment, and developed this theory of the immediate intuitive, mystical apprehension of truths from those who were the initiates in the Gnostic movement. Now, apart from the crisis of epistemology that was provoked by Gnosticism, because of their challenge of apostolic revelation, they also constructed a cosmology that was very important to their movement. Now, when we're talking about cosmology, let me write that word on the board for all of those of you who are listening on the radio to look at. I was recently in Washington, D.C. and some folks were there who listened regularly to Renewing youg Mind. And they said one of the things that they get a kick out is listening to the chalk screeching on the blackboard when I'm trying to explain things to the radio audience that they can't possibly see. I said, well, we all have our quirks. I said, if Rush Limbaugh can wrestle his papers on the radio, I can do my chicken scratch on the blackboard and ask you to imagine in your mind's eye what it is I'm writing. Well, the word I'm writing here is the word cosmology. C O, S, M, O, L, O, G, Y. It has that common suffix that we find in school. We tack on the end of words like biology, zoology, theology, psychology. Well, cosmology is one's view of the cosmos, and it has to do not only with questions of origins, but also the nature and structure of reality. Now, the Gnostics had a cosmology that was very similar to the more sophisticated version of it that was later introduced by the philosophical school of Neoplatonism. But their cosmology involved a kind of pantheism. And before I carry that through, I want to take a moment to explain that word, and I'll write that one on our board as well. Pantheism. It's just the word theism with the prefix pan, which is a form of the Greek word for all. And in its most rudimentary, crude form, pantheism teaches that everything is God, and God is not an individual particular being, but he is the sum and substance of all reality, so that all is God. Now, there have been many, again, variations of this theme proffered in the history of theoretical thought, and some quite sophisticated in philosophical categories, but in usual forms of pantheism. The irony of pantheism is that it almost always breeds a religion of polytheism, because on the one hand, if the all or the sum total of everything is God, then pantheism suffers from this problem. If everything is God, then really nothing is God, because the word God doesn't have any distinctive characteristics to it that would individuate it from everything else. And on the other hand, if everything is God, then every particular can be isolated from everything else and regarded as being divine. And so the practical outworkings of ancient pantheism tended to be various types of religions that had all sorts of gods and goddesses. But again, perhaps the most important idea found in Gnostic cosmology is found in its modalistic view of reality. Now, when I say modalistic, I mean a certain level or sequence or order or tier of being. There is a sense in which God is in his purest spiritual form, his pure spirit. And from the core of spiritual being emanations proceed. Then these emanations sort of pulsate from the core of the divine spirit in a way that resembles the rays that emanate from the sun. And if we can use that analogy or metaphor of the sun, we would get this idea. The further that sunbeam glows or emanates from the core of that fiercely hot sun itself, the cooler it gets and the further removed it is, the less like it is to the original source. And so what you have in Gnosticism is a view of various levels or tiers or gradations of being, where God, as it were, is at the top. And from God and from his being emanates like ripples from a pond. And we'll draw a circle here to represent God at the center. And then these ripples emanate in every direction like concentric circles that would follow the pattern of ripples on a pond if you drop a stone in the midst of a quiet, placid body of water. And each one of these tiers or levels or steps of being is less pure spiritually. And at the furthest element from the core of being would be matter, the material world, which is far removed from the pure spiritual substance of God. Now we're concerned both for this furthest, most remote point of emanation, the material world, but we're also concerned for some of the intermediate levels or stages. For example, the God of Gnosticism is not the author of the world. In fact, this God doesn't create at all in the sense of which we tend to think of creation. In Judeo Christian categories we think of creation ex nihilo, where from all eternity God existed in and of Himself. There was no pre existent stuff or matter that he would then come and shape and reform into a world, but rather there was no matter until God called it into existence through his creative power, through the divine imperative. He says, let there be light and there is light, where before that there was no light. Now also we understand creation to be a voluntary act of the supreme intelligent God, who for his purposes decides to bring something into existence that previously did not exist. And he doesn't do it because he has to, or it's his nature to create, because if it were his essential nature to create, he would have had to have been creating eternally. And we can conceive of God in and of Himself without having any necessity of being engaged in creation. But in this schema of the Gnostics, what we would call creation is something that happens necessarily by the nature of being, which has as its nature this tendency to emanate so that the so called God of Gnosticism cannot not emanate by his very being. Just as the sun cannot be the sun without shining, so the Gnostic God cannot be the God without emanating from his own core of being into these different modes or levels of being. Now, I know this gets very abstract and we're not accustomed to thinking in these terms, but Bear with me if you will, because this all has great relevance to ancient Church history and to developments that have affected the Church of all ages. Now, one of the most significant points here is that in the Gnostic framework of things, this High God or this ultimate source of Being is not the one who brings forth matter, but rather matter is a result of the intermediate creator in quotes, who is called a demiurge, sort of a type of angelic being who is not altogether pure, either in his essence or in his character, because he appears in the literature of the Old Testament Jews. And this demiurge who appears in the literature of the Old Testament is the one who is identified in Old Testament literature by the covenant name Yahweh. He is the one who is wrathful and vengeful and who punishes people and in many cases manifests quite a disagreeable personality. Now, the Creator and ruler over the physical world is not the ultimate God who is good, but rather this intermediate sub deity who is the demiurge. And this inferior demiurge, as I indicated, is linked to the God of the Old Testament, who sometimes governs without love and in a malicious, nasty, mean spirit. Now again, part and parcel of this cosmology is the necessity in Gnostic thinking to keep the High God apart from any immediate and direct connection with the material world, because they have incorporated into their mix of philosophy and religion the dualistic idea that matter and spirit are essentially incompatible realities and that anything that is physical is by necessity evil. That's in stark contrast to the Old Testament teaching of creation, where after God creates a physical world, he steps back, as an artist might step back to view his work, and he pronounces a benediction. He says it's good. Now, indeed, it falls in the corruption. But that corruption is not something inherent or intrinsic in the handiwork of God. And so for the Christian and for the Jew, that which is physical is not regarded as inherently evil. Now again, we see this frequently in the points of conflict that the early Church had with all forms of Gnosticism, and in fact, before the second century that we are talking about. Now, I've mentioned in passing that this problem emerged as early as the Apostolic age, when a subgroup of Gnostics questioned the reality of the central teaching of the apostles of the Incarnation. Again, let me remind you, I've said this before, that the biggest issue with the intellectuals of the first couple of centuries was not the resurrection of Christ. The big issue was the Incarnation, because those steeped in Oriental philosophy or in Platonic philosophy, it was unthinkable that the pure, spiritually good God could ever contaminate himself by being united with anything physical. And a human physical body is by nature corrupt. And for God to unite with it would be for him to become corrupted. So they had great objections to the incarnation. But remember also that Gnosticism was trying to incorporate their version of Christian religion into their system, along with the amalgamation of the other contributing strands. And so they wanted to have a place where Jesus could be honored and revered to a certain degree. And they did see Jesus as representing the spiritual realm and representing the spiritual God. In fact, his primary function was to be the appearance of a higher demiurge than the demiurge of the Old Testament. Who is the one who is so nasty? Jesus is not God. And he's kind of an angelic figure who is at a higher level than the Old Testament demiurge, but still lower than the source of all being. And his purpose is to come to redeem mankind. But of course, the way that he redeems us is not by dying on the cross for our sins or giving some kind of an atonement to satisfy the justice of God, but rather he comes as the supreme teacher, secret esoteric knowledge. That is, Jesus becomes the supreme Gnostic in this view, who comes to reveal the secret knowledge of this higher demiurge. Now, obviously, when he comes, he does not come to be incarnate. Well, what do you do with the testimony that this Christ appeared to be born of a woman and people saw him and talked to him and felt his hands and ate lunch with him, and they seemed, for all intents and purposes, be dealing with a physical person. How did they account for that? Well, again, they looked at Jesus as sort of an angelic being who took upon Himself the appearance of a human being, but that that appearance was kind of a phantom manifestation that wasn't real. And as I've mentioned before, the subdivision of the Gnostics that held this view was called the group of the Docetists. Maybe you've heard that term before. Docetists were D O C E T I S T S, those who embraced Docetism. D O C E T I S M. They were called Docetists because of the Greek word dokeo, which means to seem, to think, or to appear. In fact, we even have a word that comes from that in the English language, the word paradox. A paradox is something that at first glance seems or appears to be a contradiction, but under closer scrutiny reveals its resolution. Well, the verb docain means the seem to appear or to think. And they were called Docetists because they said that Jesus didn't really have a body, he simply seemed to have one. It appeared like he had one, looked like he had one, but he didn't really have one. The early church took a very dim view of this denial of the Incarnation. We see it, for example, in the Epistles of St. John, where when he's talking about the spirit of the Antichrist that is in the world and warns the Church against the work of Antichrist, makes this observation that he who denies that Jesus has come in the flesh, he is the Antichrist. So they saw Docetism not simply as an error or a minor distortion, but as being fundamentally anti Christian. Now, perhaps the worst dimension of this was the development of a view of teaching that tried to take all references in the Bible to the Old Testament God that would be positive and expunge them from the Scriptures and to replace that with. With the teaching of the Gnostic thinkers. And that's what we'll take up in our next lesson. The impact of Gnosticism in its crass and crude form still is felt in the Christian world because we still struggle with the apparent conflict between spirit and flesh, between the physical and the mental. And we have a tendency to think that if something is of physical matter, then there's something basically imperfect or wrong with it. Whereas when the Bible speaks of the flesh in the negative sense, it's speaking of a sinful disposition that includes not just the body but also the mind. We can have a mind of flesh. It involves the soul, it involves the spirit. We're fallen in our whole humanity. But the idea of trying to make Christianity a life that is lived by pure rejection and denial of the physical, where we embrace rigorous forms of asceticism, we deny ourselves food, we deny ourselves water, we deny ourselves this. And we develop the theology of taste, not touch, not handle, where we think that anything physical, even the sexual relationship within the context of marriage, can be viewed as a kind of necessary evil, tolerable only for the purposes of procreation. That kind of thinking that sees an intrinsic evil of anything physical has its roots not in Biblical thought, but in Gnosticism.
- [23:13]
Program Host
We can be guilty of making this unbiblical distinction too, can't we? That's why learning about faulty worldviews can help us avoid those errors and not read those into the pages of Scripture. Thanks for being with us, for renewing your mind today. This classic series by R.C. sproul is apologetics of the Early Church. And it can be added to your collection when you give a donation in support of renewing your mind at renewingyourmind.org or when you call us at 800-435-4343. In addition to this series, we'll also send you another series titled Defending youg 32 Messages. And we'll send it to you on a special edition dvd. So that's two teaching series on apologetics. When you give a donation to help fuel the reach of this daily program@renewingyourmind.org and in advance, let me thank you for your generous donation. Well, tomorrow RC will assess the influence of Emmanuel Kant's philosophy of our Relativistic Age. Here's a preview.
- [24:16]
R.C. Sproul
Many philosophers and theologians capitulated to Kant at this point. Others, however, refused to play dead at the feet of Immanuel Kant and have sought ever since the 18th century to reconstruct natural theology in such a way as to answer the objections that Kant leveled against traditional theism. And I've been very much concerned about this undertaking in my own teaching career. For this simple reason, I want to be faithful to Scripture, and I find a simple conflict between what Kant taught and what is taught in the New Testament. We've already looked at the first chapter of Romans wherein the Apostle Paul declares that the invisible things of God, even his eternal power and deity, are known through the things that are made. And so what Paul is saying is, you can get here from here. He says that there is a general revelation by which God not only can be known, but is known in and through the created order and that that knowledge is so manifest and so clear as to leave the world without an excuse.
- [25:51]
Program Host
Be sure to join us Wednesday here on Renewing youg Mind.
- [26:13]
R.C. Sproul
Sam.