Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here.
I recently wrote about “Gnosticism” and its relationship to esoteric, mystical Christianity. Now we are going to explore it’s relationship to the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the doctrine of the Trinity to mysticism.
Gnosticism
The first significant heresy that the early Christian church faced was Gnosticism.
Central to Gnosticism is the concept of “gnosis” (the Greek word for “knowledge”). But this knowledge is not like the conventional knowledge we usually think of in the English language. It is a special class of revelatory knowledge pertaining to the divine, the cosmos, or the spiritual self. It views knowledge derived from mystical (secretive; mysterious), occultic (i.e. hidden), or intuitive methods to reflect the true nature of reality. Everything else is lesser or false.
This naturally leads to binary distinctions, which is why most Gnostic systems exhibit pronounced Dualism. In Gnostic Dualism, the material world is lesser, false, or evil, while the spiritual world is seen as greater, true, and pure. With respect to Christianity, you see Gnostic influences in denominations, churches, and cults that emphasize mystical spiritual practices through the emphasis on the heart (i.e. esoteric knowledge) and deemphasis (or outright condemnation) of the mind and intellect (i.e. conventional knowledge).
Gnostics, on the whole, believed that personal transformation (or enlightenment; or salvation) was attained through the revelatory knowledge. Thus:
The Gnostics believed that mysticism—direct revelation—was the sole legitimate path to knowing the divine. We see the essence of Gnosticism in Radix Fidem’s belief system:
While there are a lot of specific beliefs that historical gnostics tended to believe (e.g. good and evil gods; a special creation cosmology), there was a wide diversity in their expressions, especially with regards to actual religious practices. Frankly, their actual practices and specific mythologies hardly matter.
The Gnostics were not organized into specific denominations or even associated with any particular religion. What they all shared was, more-or-less, these philosophical foundations.
The Trinity
In my last post, I made the observation that proving the Trinity is a logical impossibility. Attempting to do so will, invariably, lead to a logical contradiction. In fact, properly speaking, because the doctrine of the Trinity is a logical contradiction, it must be false if logical contradictions are false.
To believe in the Trinity one must assert that contradictions can be true.
This is a mystical statement. It is a Gnostic statement. Indeed, nearly every major Christian denomination asserts that the doctrine of the Trinity is a “mystery” that has been revealed outside the domain of reason.
Keep this in mind.
Dialectical Method
The dialectical method is a philosophical framework for understanding the development of ideas and reality. It is a process of so-called logical progression—through contradictions and their resolutions—often summarized as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. The method is associated with G.W.F. Hegel (although Hegel never used these terms).
The whole point of the method is to take what is known or logically derived and to pit it against its contradiction in order to find a sort of compromise that leads to a higher truth.
The dialectical method does not merely acknowledges contradiction, but embraces it as a central and fundamentally necessary element of the development of truth and reality. This is markedly distinct from “traditional” logic in which contradiction is avoided or eliminated from arguments.
For example, consider sola scriptura. Given some claim that contradicts with scripture, the dialectical approach would be to try to find a way to synthesize a solution that eased the tension between Jesus’ teachings in scripture and some common practice, such as divorce. To the proponent of sola scripture there could be no synthesis between what is absolutely true (in scripture) and what goes against it. But the proponent of the dialectical method is trying to find the greater truth, and so might conclude various reasons why divorce is actually good.
Mysticism
All three of these—Gnosticism, belief in the Trinity, and the Dialectical Method—are closely related.
The Dialectical Method is ultimately the philosophy behind Marxism, (forgive me, I’m sorry) Hitler’s Nazism, and the mystical New Age movement in Christianity (including all the stuff we’ve talked about over the last few months). Others have written about and documented this connection, so we’ll just take it as a given at this point (for sake of argument).
The Dialectical Method itself is based on Gnostic gnosis and dualism. It all—from the modern church’s embrace of emotion and mystical experience to the traditional belief in the Trinity—goes back to Gnosticism. In particular, the belief in the Trinity works to subtly undermine the use of the rational mind by Christians, in favor of esoteric, mystical experience.
So ingrained is belief in the Trinity, that even if the most hardcore Bible-thumping fundamentalist Christian rejects all manner of mysticism, secret knowledge, and subjective personal experience, he still mystically believes in the Trinity. No matter how much he objects, he’s still got that one spark of mysticism—esoteric revelation. (In practice, however, he’s got a bonfire of unquestionable axiomatic beliefs that he holds “on faith.”)
I believe that the reason men like James White and James Attebury spend their time trying to rationally justify the Trinity is because, deep down, they reject mysticism. Scripture soundly rejects it[1] and they know it. Yet, if they admitted that they hold an irrational belief (in the Trinity), they’d be forced to admit that they were mystics. Once that door to subjectivity is open, there is no closing it. Nor is there is no higher intellectual ground. There isn’t even right or wrong, just some higher truth to be attained through special esoteric knowledge and personal experiences (subject to whatever sect you’re a part of, be it Roman Catholicism, Reformed, Mormon, Radix Fidem, or any other).
You might have wondered why I cited non-Christians and heretics in this series in order to show that the Trinity is irrational and mystical. Normally, I wouldn’t have to do this. But because Christians as a whole have largely deluded themselves in this seemingly small, insignificant way, only those on the outside are able to describe the situation for what it is. It’s an odd situation.
Thus does Bart Erhman—whose personal theology is garbage—look at the historical record and fails to find modern Trinitarianism there. Thus do Bruce Charlton (a mystic) and John C. Wright (a Roman Catholic) and countless others note that there is no rational basis for the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. Indeed, it is rather plainly a logical contradiction.
This is so obvious it really shouldn’t even be in question! And yet question it we do. Aggressively at times.
When I was younger, I kept expecting to understand the doctrine of the Trinity. I thought, surely, I would one day find the explanation. But I never did. No one ever provided it. It wasn’t until I broadened my exposure that I realized that the church at large has never offered an explanation. Without any shame or hesitation, it is often quite explicit about this!
What was (eventually) obvious to me was that I had to either reject the Trinity or else accept that logical contradictions not only exist, but are fundamental to reality. You have to make that choice as well.
Footnotes
[1] The Bible does contain a concept of mysticism in the form of divine revelation by the Holy Spirit, but it is notably quite different from what is commonly referred to as mysticism and mystical practices, so I’ve recently begun to avoid using the term mysticism (or even “Christian Mysticism”) to describe the biblical concept.
Interesting and important topic!
It seems that a person’s understanding of Gnosticism is very much dictated by the sources consulted. My own understanding comes from Rudolf Steiner and his followers (who are often very sympathetic to Gnosticism) and from Philip K Dick who was often explicitly a Gnostic (and knew of it from is friend Bishop James Pike, who was heavily involved in translating/ interpreting the Nag Hammadi texts.)
At any rate, I find that your description here does not chime with my understanding.
To understand Gnosticism, I think we need to focus on what we infer to be the basic metaphysical assumptions.
My best guess is that these assumptions were current in the Roman and Greek philosophy before, during and after the time of Christ – and Jesus and Christianity was transformed to be compatible, and embedded into these assumptions.
These assumptions include that this-world and our mortal lives are the product of an evil creator – consequently that this world is basically evil. And this is because “the material” is evil.
This is not so much dualism, as the belief that this mortal life and world are evil; and God and “Heaven” are relatively weak in this world, because we are dominated by matter, not spirit. God (and Jesus, conceptualized as a messenger, educator, therapist, healer) intervene mainly to detach people from this world; and get them to aspire to the spirit world. (This is why the most devout Gnostics were often extreme ascetics.)
Put otherwise; goodness is immaterial spirit, and goodness is located somewhere else than this world.
Consequently, our mortal lives are essentially some mixture of illusion/ delusion, and have no positive value – at best they are a trail, at worse we are experimental subjects of a sadistic deity.
Gnosticism was other worldly and purely spiritual. Gnostics have no desire for resurrection, because the body, and matter, is intrinsically evil. Consequently, Jesus and Christians are interpreted in this light – in so far as he was Good, Jesus was something like the projection of a spirit, an avatar, or temporary incarnation of a spirit being – and Jesus returned to the spirit after he left this world.
By this understanding, Gnosticism (or Gnostic assumptions) permeate mainstream Christianity – in various ways. Negative Theology (the theology of Dionysius the Aeropogite) and neo-platonism, and St Augustine all have such elements. So does Calvinism that sees Man as essentially evil, and salvation as external.
Indeed, double-negative theology in its many mainstream manifestations (eg the idea that Jesus’s primary act was to atone for Man’s sins, that Jesus suffered and died to compensate for Man’s original sin etc) is (I would say) Gnostic in its root inspiration.
Indeed, mainstream Christianity has very seldom been able to articulate a positive reason and purpose for this mortal life. It usually seems that the main purpose of being a Christian is to avoid-damnation. I mean, the mainstream cannot explain why we are created in these very sinful bodies and conditions, and why compelled to live long mortal lives, rather than going direct to Heaven the moment that we achieve “a state of grace”.
(Also, there are no really good explanations *why* suicide is a sin. The usual explanations are just on the lines of God knows best when we ought to die, and it is evil to disobey Him. But then, why is it OK to resist death, or fight disease, or alleviate pain, or avoid any other of the miseries of life?)
Theosis has seldom been taken seriously – and even when it is (eg Eastern Orthodoxy) this is usually seen in terms of Man becoming less material, and more a spirit – beginning to live in Heaven while still on earth. Earth is just a barrier to theosis.
Mormon theology is probably the first (and only?) truly non-Gnostic Christian theology. However, in practice, Mormons are about as Gnostic as mainstream Christians. For instance, by their doctrine (not metaphysics) they believe that (in the Garden of Gethsemane) Jesus experienced all of the sins of Man – past, present and future) and suffered for them all, and thereby atoned for them all – which made salvation possible. Very Gnostic in flavour IMO.
In sum; I feel that Gnosticism is on a spectrum with orthodox Christianity – and Gnosticism can be grasped in its essence (rather than its contingencies) only when we have found somewhere outside of the assumptions of mainstream + from which to make our evaluation.
“It seems that a person’s understanding of Gnosticism is very much dictated by the sources consulted.”
Agreed. When I wrote “Gnosticism” I was faced with this very problem. The various “sects” of gnosticism are somewhat disparate over time, especially if you include Neo-Gnosticism which dispenses with a lot of the individual expressions of the ancient forms.
So I’m not looking at primary sources like the Nag Hammadi texts, I prefer secondary or tertiary sources which attempt to condense the material into its philosophical or metaphysical essence (assuming, of course, that this is even possible).
I find that your description here does not chime with my understanding. To understand Gnosticism, I think we need to focus on what we infer to be the basic metaphysical assumptions.
You are not the first to say this, even though much of what I say is a direct paraphrase of descriptions that I find online or in books. I can’t explain why this is the case. But I agree with your approach. I was attempting to do this—I suppose unsuccessfully—in my first article on the subject.
These assumptions include that this-world and our mortal lives are the product of an evil creator – consequently that this world is basically evil. And this is because “the material” is evil.
This is why the most devout Gnostics were often extreme ascetics.
I’ve found that some Gnostic sects were like this, but not all. Not all thought the material world was expressly evil. At the very least, there were nuanced (or detached) understandings. Consider the Carpocratians, Cainites, Borborians, Nicolaitans, Valentinians, Mandaeans, and the Basilideans.
From my perspective, the important feature was the dualism between the material and the spiritual, rather than the nature of the material world itself.
Anyway, I’m no true scholar on this subject, so whatever I say is tentative at best.
This is not so much dualism, as the belief that this mortal life and world are evil; and God and “Heaven” are relatively weak in this world, because we are dominated by matter, not spirit. God (and Jesus, conceptualized as a messenger, educator, therapist, healer) intervene mainly to detach people from this world; and get them to aspire to the spirit world.
This is how I understand Gnosticism, although I don’t apprehend why you don’t call this dualism when (it appears) everyone else does.
Gnosticism was other worldly and purely spiritual.
Agreed. This seems, to me, to be the essence of Gnosticism.
Gnostics have no desire for resurrection, because the body, and matter, is intrinsically evil. … By this understanding, Gnosticism (or Gnostic assumptions) permeate mainstream Christianity
I can hardly disagree. There are Christian groups that don’t consider the resurrection to be of much import. Whether it be Roman Catholics who argue that Jesus actually sacrificed himself at the Last Supper in a spiritual act or men like MLK who denied that the resurrection happened as a literal (non-spiritual) event, there are many such examples. More locally to my interests here, the Christian Manosphere (and adjacent blogs) cares very little about what comes after. Resurrection is just not important or even desirable.
Indeed, mainstream Christianity has very seldom been able to articulate a positive reason and purpose for this mortal life. It usually seems that the main purpose of being a Christian is to avoid-damnation.
This has always bothered me, since I was young.
While the concept of hell is well-defined, the concept of heaven is nebulous and ill-defined. It’s not clear why anyone would want to go to heaven and live forever, other than to avoid hell.
Theosis has seldom been taken seriously
I consider theosis to be a very difficult concept to integrate with the standard doctrine of the Trinity. By contrast, it is integral to Adoptionism. I think that people who believe in theosis are generally willing to reject (or effectively ignore) the doctrine of the Trinity.
All that said, I don’t find much in the Old or New Testament that is compatible with Gnosticism. The theosis of the New Testament appears to resemble Gnostic theosis, but I believe this is only superficial, not least of which because Gnosticism is dualist and the Bible is not.