Defining Gnosticism

Before we talk about Gnosticism, we must define it. But defining Gnosticism has become one of the leading problems in the field. Whole books have been dedicated to the subject (See books by Karen L. King and Michael Allen Williams).

The problem is that Western scholars see religion as something dealing with beliefs. So, naturally, they think that Gnosticism should have something to do with doctrines and beliefs. I think this is a mistake. In fact, I think it is the mistake.

Gnosticism, in my opinion, should refer to the orientation by which groups deal with their religion. Not the content of what they believe, but how they believe. Not concepts in the mind, but practices and actions in dealing with living their religion.

In a recent book of mine, I gave the following definition:

Gnosticism is an orientation towards religion that approaches Scripture as myths, interprets Scripture allegorically, has mysteries (musterion) reserved for the initiated, aims for salvation through mystical insight (gnosis), is open to new revelations from God, and follows a Messiah Savior-God.1

Notice that it is an approach, a method of interpretation, an initiation practice, an aim, an openness, and a following. These are all verbs and deal with actions.

This means that Gnosticism says nothing about beliefs. So Gnosticism, as orientation, must be added to the belief system of the group. Gnostic Christianity, for example, fills in their Gnosticism with the Lord Jesus Christ as their Messiah Savior-God. This is their central guiding myth.

Therefore, there is no such thing as classical Gnosticism. A group is Gnostic or it is not. Gnostic Sethians fill in their Gnosticism with Seth being the Messiah Savior-God. This is their central guiding myth.

Whenever you make beliefs the defining characteristic of Gnosticism, you immediately have to have a hundred qualifications for why this group or that person didn't believe it. You have to explain how Clement of Alexardria is a Gnostic, as he calls himself, and how the Sethians, Valentinians, Cathars, Manichaens, and Madeans are also Gnostic.

My solution is the only real solution. Otherwise, the category must be dumped. Study each one of these and you will see that all of them share an orientation towards religion, but that they differ widely on what they believe, what Scriptures they hold sacred, and who their Messiah Savior-God is.

What is ironic, is that Ireanius's intuition that they were all related somehow, was right. But as a Fundamentalist, he couldn't quite understand how. For him, they were just all heresy. That is because he was living in his own orientation, Fundamentalism. 

Reference

1. Jay N. Forrest, The Five Gnostic Sacraments, Albuquerque: Tserrof Books, 2024, 11-12. Note: changed the original transformation to salvation.

Get the Book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DGL6W8DM/