When it comes to Christianity, there are many identifiable denominations and cults within a single frame. There is significant uniformity between them in terms of moral and ethical teachings, ritual practices, group identity, and, of course, who the religion is centered upon.

With Gnosticism this is all very different. Gnosticism does not have denominations or branches. It isn’t identified by a common set of rituals. Indeed, Gnosticism has been perfectly happy over the centuries adapting to whatever religion it encounters, slowly incorporating and subsuming it rather than outright rejecting it.

So when you do research on Gnosticism, you run into the difficulty that this Wikipedia article has. It’s all rather vague and nebulous. Or, more accurately, you find that it’s not a religion much like most modern religions. So I decided to explore Gnosticism without regard to its specific myths and practices to find what lay underneath all of the various outward expressions.

Gnosticism

There are six main components of Gnosticism that I’d like to focus on.

1. Primacy of Esoteric Knowledge and Mysticism

At the core of all Gnosticism is the mystical, direct experience of esoteric knowledge of the divine. This knowledge is called “gnosis” (the Greek word for “knowledge”). But Gnostic knowledge is not like the conventional knowledge we usually think of in the English language. It’s not something you go to school to learn out of a book. It is a special class of revelatory knowledge pertaining to the divine, the cosmos, or the spiritual self. Such knowledge is derived from mystical (secretive; mysterious), occultic (i.e. hidden), or intuitive methods and is supposed to reflect the true nature of reality.

While the end goals of historical Gnosticism varied—whether salvation, freedom, enlightenment, transformation, etc.—those goals were accomplished through gaining the knowledge (or, often, secrets) that were available to those who had learned to experience the divine in some specific way. This applied even in informal Gnostic “sects” that didn’t have formal initiation processes.

This is how Gnosticism differs from standard religions. While other religions prioritize spiritual knowledge and individual spiritual experiences, Gnosticism places its emphasis on esoteric and (often) secretive knowledge as central to salvation (however varied ‘salvation’ was defined).

The precise means to attaining higher knowledge differed greatly from sect to sect. While each Gnostic framework was important to its respective sect, no single framework was essential when looking at Gnosticism as a whole. The myths and narratives served as symbolic tools, guiding adherents toward their spiritual goals rather than being uniformly foundational.

Fundamentally, Gnosticism looks to subjective, often highly individual, experiential encounters with the divine.

2. On the Material World

The Gnostics viewed the material world as lesser or inferior in some way. Ultimately, the material world could be treated as a prison, illusion, imperfect, or evil (though, perhaps, necessary for spiritual development). This was contrasted against the true divine essence of some higher spiritual realm. The whole point of Gnostic esoteric mysticism was to focus on attaining true knowledge of that higher spiritual realm. Whether this meant rejecting the material world as evil, being merely ambivalent about it, or even complete material hedonism…

…rooted in the view that the material world was amoral or irrelevant, a binary contrast remained. The existence of Gnostic ascetics and Gnostic hedonists is not an inherent contradiction, as both share a general disregard or dismissal of the material world in their own way. Both prioritized the spiritual as the source of true gnosis.

3. Dualism

Given the focus on esoteric, (often) secret divine knowledge, combined with the rejection or separation of the material world, this naturally led the Gnostics invariably to binary distinctions. Gnostic dualism is the sharp distinction between the material world and the transcendent spiritual realm.

This usually involved myths of a cosmic struggle between the forces of light and darkness, or between spirit and matter, though the specifics do not concern us at present.

4. Authorities

The Gnostics rejected mainstream religious authorities and doctrines, often critiquing them as promoting false or incomplete teachings tied to the material world. This helps explain why Gnosticism lacked the uniformity of belief and practice that defines most conventional religions.

While Gnostic groups often diverged significantly from mainstream traditions, they sometimes adopted and reinterpreted elements from religions like Christianity or Judaism, offering alternative spiritual perspectives rather than entirely severing ties.

Gnostic Christianity was a one such example. It was a threat to orthodox Christianity up until Christianity’s 4th century adoption into the Roman Empire. Many scholars and theologians believe that writers of the New Testament (e.g. Colossians 2:8, 1 Timothy 6:20, 1 John 4:1-3) were writing against early Proto-Gnostic form.

5. Salvation through Inner Transformation

To the Gnostic, salvation was understood as self-discovery and inner transformation. This was achieved by mystical means to awaken oneself to the true spiritual nature and to connect with the divine source.

Salvation was not, precisely, defined the way that a Christian would understand it, with its primary focus on sin or the afterlife. To the Gnostic, the connection with the divine—and liberation from the shackles of the material world—was the end in-and-of-itself. Eternal life was not the reward, rather, it was direct knowledge of—and connection with—the divine.

6. Myths as Metaphors

Many Gnostic sects had elaborate myths, particularly Creation myths, that often involved a dualistic struggle between higher spiritual beings and lower, possibly malevolent, deities. Typically, this involved a material world created by the lower god, such as the Demiurge, in contrast to a higher, transcendent divine realm.

These myths are generally seen as symbolic narratives rather than literal truths. These myths serve to illustrate the spiritual realities, the spiritual journey, and the true nature of existence.

Neo-Gnosticism

The reason I wanted to focus less on the specific myths and practices of the ancient Gnostics and more on their philosophy is because the modern Neo-Gnostic movements retain most of the essence of ancient Gnosticism without necessarily retaining all of the ancient pagan practices and rituals.

While Neo-Gnosticism shares many of the philosophical underpinnings of its ancient counterpart, it is focused more on personal experience and transformation, spiritual self-discovery and enlightenment, and exploration of the unconscious. It is related to the work of Carl Jung, the New Age movement, and the Contemplative Prayer movement within Christianity. All of these emphasize inner mystical experiences and self-realization.

Like Gnosticism, Neo-Gnosticism embraces Dualism. In particular, it differentiates between a material “lower self” and a spiritual “higher self.” It tends to view the body and its capabilities—including the senses—as obstacles or limitations that must be overcome in the pursuit of spiritual awakening and self-realization.

Radix Fidem

Radix Fidem is a (Neo-)Gnostic cult. Though its leaders vehemently deny this, it remains the case.

Radix Fidem writers have written extensively on the duality of the lesser material (body, mind, senses, intellect) and the greater spiritual (heart). They strongly emphasize the acquisition of esoteric divine knowledge (‘knowledge’ in the non-Western, Gnostic sense) through direct mystical experiences that explicitly avoids material concerns. It even shares a dualistic cosmology that emphasizes the conflict between the greater gods (Jesus, Yahweh) and the lesser gods (on the Divine Council) with a battle ground spanning the spiritual and material realms.

Like ancient Gnosticism, Radix Fidem incorporates much of the language and practice of Christianity (e.g. the doctrine of election), wearing it like a skin-suit rather than rejecting it and coming up with its own terminology.

Don’t get bogged down on the fact that Radix Fidem doesn’t look like a picture of an ancient Gnostic sect. In Neo-Gnosticism, the ancient myths, which were originally metaphors for spiritual realities, are not essential. Modern Neo-Gnostic groups, like Radix Fidem, typically do not rely on traditional Gnostic terminology such as demiurge, monad, pleroma, emanation, or aeon. Instead, they focus on the underlying principles of personal transformation, self-discovery, and spiritual awakening. The emphasis is on the experiential pursuit of higher knowledge and inner enlightenment, rather than adherence to specific mythological frameworks.

The difference between Radix Fidem and most New Age groups is that Radix Fidem has incorporated ancient, Christian-sounding language. Instead of modern terms like “the pursuit of higher knowledge” and “inner enlightenment” Radix Fidem would simply describe it as the understanding the fundamental spiritual reality of the Unseen Realm outside our own Fallen Realm (see that duality again?)

Note that like many ancient Gnostic sects, Radix Fidem does not outright reject the material world. It merely views it as lesser, incomplete, even irrelevant.

Now, let’s consider this recent post:

Recall what I wrote above:

Radix Fidem operates with the framework of authority of an “Ancient Near East Fuedal System.” This system is directly contrasted with the “Western” system of authority, both in terms of Christian denominations and in terms of the governments. Radix Fidem rejects the legitimacy of both. Indeed, the supposed “Hellenistic” Western approach is considered a false teaching of the material world.

Radix Fidem alleges that its Feudal System is based on standard Ancient Near East practices. But, as I’ve discovered, what it views as ancient is really the more modern adoption and reinterpretation of elements of ancient Christianity and Judaism combined with pagan Greek—Western—concepts. Radix Fidem’s “Feudal Christianity” has never previously existed. It is a unique hybrid construction.

This was a shock to me, because one of my focuses for decades was on the Old Testament and the way that the Hebrews would have originally understood things. When I first encountered Radix Fidem, I saw a lot in common, but I also saw some significant divergences. Both of us claimed to see the “original” understanding, but those views were mutually exclusive. Upon examination, I found the false assumptions inherent to Radix Fidem.

Radix Fidem appeals to people who are dissatisfied with modern Christianity and want to get back to the original faith. But most proponents are largely ignorant of the early church, and so believe anything that Radix Fidem teaches is original (i.e. the ANE fuedal framework whose authority opposes modern authority).

Thus we can see how Radix Fidem embraces the Gnostic notion that external authorities are illegitimate and that individual experience of the divine reality rules in its place.

Notice how Catacomb Resident is twisting words into something that they do not mean (you’ll see more of it below!). A cult is not defined by being merely counter-culture or bucking the trend. Plenty of people do that and are not part of a cult. What makes something a cult is that it is a religious system that focuses on a specific person or persons.

…or more informally…

Mormonism is a cult because it is focused on one the acts of one man (its founder). Even the leaders of the Mormons are called Apostles and President, indicating their extremely elevated status.

Why would CR want to redefine what a cult is?

As noted in “On Prophets and Prophecy,” John Providence stated implicitly that Ed Hurst—a prophet and leader of Radix Fidem—had no one in authority over him. A leader under no—or insufficient—authority is precisely what characterizes most cults:

What makes something a cult is how much it is focused on—and relies on—specific individuals. I don’t have enough information to tell you if Radix Fidem is a cult, but it certainly feels like one. One person has pedestalized one of its leaders, while another one of its leaders is trying hard to redefine “cult” to mean something else. These are big red flags, in my opinion. Radix Fidem is certainly a small group of people with religious beliefs and practices that are strange (pagan-inspired ANE fuedalism) and sinister (anti-biblical mysticism and esoterism).

But let’s move on.

This doesn’t really make sense, which is why I object to CR redefining words.

I’m no fan of the modern church, but the modern church cannot properly be said to focus on religious veneration and devotion of the congregants. Their beliefs may involve idolatry in actual reality, but the religion is still nominally focused on Christ.

Hypocrisy is not the same thing as being a cult.

When Jesus was resurrected, the New Testament writers described him as having flesh of spirit: a simultaneous material and spiritual reality, both of divine origin. There was no inherent dualism in this actual Ancient Near East Hebrew mode of thinking. By contrast, Radix Fidem’s supposed ANE division between the material and the spiritual is a distinctly Greek—or Western—concept, mirroring the pagan mystery religions.

We can see indications of the Gnostic influence in the way that CR divides the world from the spirit, and the mind (“cerebral”) from the divine (“moral”). Is this Gnosticism or just the standard “good vs evil” treatment of God’s truth against Satan’s lies?

This is the problem with the Gnostic habit of adopting the language of Christianity. The same words are used, but they are often not used in the same way. CR’s terminology is esoteric.

Let’s keep reading.

Hold up here. Catacomb Resident is redefining words again. The Greek word for faith is pistis. It means trust, not commitment. It carries the sense of persuasion (from the root word peithō, a verb meaning “to persuade”). The word can be translated as follows:

faith
belief
trust
confidence
fidelity
faithfulness

All of these carry the sense of being persuaded and so necessarily imply an intellectual aspect.

By contrast, it is never translated as commitment. It can, however, carry the limited sense of commitment. Strong’s Lexicon describes it this way:

Strongs specifically treats faith as including a combination of intellectual assent and “trustful commitment.” Rational justification is precisely what leads one to trusting and being committed to that trust. In light of Catacomb Resident’s previous statement…

…this is especially ironic. Catacomb Resident rejects the very thing (“cerebral teaching”) that is implied by the word faith.

This is why it is important to examine not just the language Radix Fidem uses, but how it uses it. Inherent in this use is Gnostic dualism. It sounds just like Christianity right up until you explore it more closely.

Something else happens when we explore it more closely. We find that it is a commitment based on trust, not a commitment based on authority. It’s about a commitment based on confidence and assurance of what one knows to be true, rather than on one’s “fuedal relationship” with another. The two senses are completely different, just as blind faith is completely unrelated to pistis.

You know what’s really funny? It’s not a lie! The idea that the heart is the center of emotions is rooted in the Bible. It’s found not only in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament as well. But, and this is key, the ‘heart’ also includes reason. In scripture, there is no Gnostic (or Greek) notion of a duality of being.

In short:

There is also an inherent contradiction in CR’s claim. Radix Fidem often refers to the heart as not involving the intellect or the mind, but if you remove “emotion” from the Biblical definition of the heart, all you are left with is the ancient Hebrew notion of the heart as the center of the mind and intellect, with no room left for other modes of thought. It’s a self-refuting position.

You can read more in:

“Heart and Mind”
“Heart and Mind, Redux”
“Emotion and Intellect“

This is simply false. To the Ancient Hebrews, there was no abstract distinction between the living flesh and the living spirit. They were one in the same.

The Hebrew words for “spirit” include ruach…

…and the closely related word nephesh…

Spirit refers to life and breath. It has a distinctly material sense (as in the breath contained in the lungs of one’s flesh). But it also encompasses concepts of the ‘heart’ and ‘mind’.

When the Ancient Hebrews spoke of the ‘heart’, it referred to the whole of one’s being. The heart was not a mediator or interface between the separate dual natures of man. The view that there is a strict distinction between the material and the spiritual, whether mediated by “the heart” or not, is a Gnostic concept. It is dualism.

In ancient Hebrew terms, this is a meaningless tautology (and an anachronistic Greek or Western abstraction). To the Hebrew, a dead spirit is a person who is not living. A dead person’s heart is “blind” by definition, on account of them being asleep in the grave where none see or perceive anything. For a dead spirit, there is nothing for the heart to do…

…so this claim is simply nonsensical from the perspective of ancient Hebrew thought. But it is not nonsensical from the Gnostic perspective.

For a cult that claims to know and restore the original Hebrew worldview (as esoteric divine revelation), it does a poor job. “Spiritual death”—a term of art common among modern Christians—is not found in scripture. Scripture speaks of “dead faith” or “being dead in sin,” but the term for “spirit” is never described as being dead in a living being, not even here:

Of course, the “Spirit” mentioned here is the Spirit of Jesus (per the rest of Romans 8), so not even that works.

Spiritual death is an oxymoron.

Additionally, Catacomb Resident’s term “seat of commitments” is a completely invented term. It is exactly the kind of esoteric term one would expect to come out of a Gnostic cult. To the outsider who doesn’t possess the specialized knowledge of the so-called “Ancient Near East Fuedal System,” the term is ungrounded. It can only make sense to Radix Fidem initiates.

Again we see Gnostic dualism at work. Notice the emphasis on the spiritual “resurrection” without noting the corresponding fleshly “resurrection.” Consistently throughout the New Testament, the renewal in Christ applies to the entire being: whether body, soul, spirit, intellect, or emotion.

Oh, look! The ultra-fluffy-sounding “sense of awareness in your heart.” That is the mystical path to divine knowing and awareness through your spiritual ‘heart’. It’s not particularly well hidden Gnosticism. Such language is very similar to that found by the New Age movement, the Christian Contemplative Prayer movement, or even the religious practices of Eastern mysticism.

Just as the Gnostics in the 2nd and 3rd century tried to dress up their beliefs in the garb of Christianity, so too is Radix Fidem simply importing a pagan Greek-inspired Gnostic philosophy into modern Christianity.

After I wrote the above, another article got posted that said this:

Sound familiar? Here is what I wrote above:

But at least CR admits what is known:

Indeed, it does not. Here is what Paul taught about asceticism:

Paul explicitly taught that neither self-denial (of perishable, material things) nor the physically grueling tests were of any value in stopping the indulgences of the fleshly nature. Even the passages that supposedly “hint” at ascetic practices are taken out-of-context (see here). We can see Paul’s opposition to the “knowledge” of self-discovery of Proto-Gnostic paganism in his conclusion to Timothy:

Paul had just finished exhorting Timothy to stick to the teaching and doctrine. The deceivers called their contrary ideas “knowledge” (Greek: gnosis, from which comes the word Gnosticism). This is hard for the modern Christian who has been raised in error, but self-denial and self-discovery are pagan practices from the ancient mystery religions and Gnosticism, not Christian. Whether asceticism is for spiritual merit (per Roman Catholicism) or for self-discovery (per the Orthodox) matters little. Both are false humility and bring no value.