IN THE GREAT HERESIES, the stalwart Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc defined his subject matter as follows: "Heresy is the dislocation of some complete and self supporting scheme by the introduction of a novel denial of some essential part therein." That is, a heresy is not a complete system in and of itself, but is a subtle distortion of an otherwise intrinsically valid system. Belloc maintained that this subtlety is the very source of a heresy's power and lasting appeal: "The denial of a scheme wholesale is not heresy, and has not the creative power of a heresy. It is of the essence of heresy that it leaves standing a great part of the structure it attacks. On this account it can appeal to believers and continues to affect their lives through deflecting them from their original characters. Wherefore, it is said of heresies that 'they survive by the truths they retain.'"[1] Those of us who identify with the Protestant arm of Christendom would do well to stop and examine Belloc's insight as it applies to our own churches. By focusing on what is perceived to be clearly non-Christian cults and secular philosophical movements, today's leading Christian theologians and apologists attempt to preserve the moral and intellectual integrity of the church from overt attack. Their efforts are commendable and do bear some fruit. However, few of these scholars seem to have considered the possibility of heresies developing from within the established conservative-evangelical tradition - much less within their own churches or denominations.
Jesus and the apostles, on the other hand, emphasized the dangers of doctrinal subversion, of false prophets rising up in our very midst. In Matt. 7:15 Jesus specifically warned the disciples that false prophets would approach them "in sheep's clothing." In other words false prophets would seem like sheep, true and faithful followers of Christ, in most every respect. Paul likewise cautioned that "savage men will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves" (Acts 20:29-30). Peter stated flatly, "There will be false prophets among you" (2 Pet. 2:1). Implicit in NT teaching is the assumption that the deadliest potential enemy of the faith is not the overt falsity of secularists and cultists outside, but the subtle (even if sometimes well-meaning) religious deception of spiritualists within. If we can manage to take care of "internal affairs" as stewards of the truth of God's kingdom, the kingdom of darkness cannot but shrink before it. Perhaps therefore we can benefit from the apostles not only in learning their doctrine, but in learning how they detected and combated false doctrine from within the very confines of the church. We might even find that the old heresies never completely went away - though they now sport a new look.
Of course, the more pronounced and defined of the false teachings encountered by the early church was that of Judaic legalism. Paul addressed it in no uncertain terms in Galatians among other places. Despite Paul's best efforts, however, legalism has always managed to rear its ugly head in the church, and the church has always had to do battle with it. The other main false religious movement - at least in its emergent form - was that of Gnosticism. Like legalism, Gnosticism has also persisted in various forms throughout church history to the present day. But unlike legalism, neo-Gnosticism thrives within the church not only undetected but often eagerly embraced by the flock without the slightest protest. Since Gnosticism is the more subtle heresy - and since it appears to be enjoying an upsurge in popularity - it arguably presents a greater danger to the faith. A bit of history will help us get a handle on what exactly it was the apostles were having to confront; then we will examine the parallels, if any, between Gnostic teachings then and now, in comparing the NT epistles with the writings of a popular twentieth-century "Word-Faith" teacher, E.W. Kenyon. Kenyon's works have inspired such notable church personalities as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland, and many other church leaders, financial gurus and motivational speakers. The founder of a Pentecostal organization to which I belonged years ago even made Kenyon's book, The Bible in Light of Our Redemption, "required reading" for all his disciples and aspiring leaders (which is not to say that any of us actually read it).
Like Kenyon's influence in the church, the roots of Gnosticism run deep - stretching back to various ancient mystery religions which, in their turn, had gradually replaced the timeworn deities and philosophies of the Greeks. If legalism was the doctrinal fallacy of the Jews, Gnosticism was a set of serious errors brought to the table by the Gentiles. Gnosticism was marked by subjective religious experience, a Platonic sort of dualism between matter and spirit, and a hodgepodge of ideas borrowed from various categories of belief systems (philosophy, mythology, astrology, cosmology and mystery) and numerous cultural sources (Egyptian, Indian, Persian, Syrian, Jewish and Christian). It should come as no surprise that in incorporating such a wide assortment of of ideas, Gnosticism's appeal grew rapidly and it eventually came to pose a serious threat to the vitality of orthodoxy in the early church. Indeed, the most definitive and authoritative early church creeds were written at least partly in response to the challenge of Gnostic theosophy. Earliest leaders of the heresy included Simon the Sorceror (Acts 8:9-10), first century Gnostic spokesmen Menandes, Cerinthus, and Valentius, and in the second century, the highly influential Marcion. Curiously, while contemporary church leaders are well aware of the dangers of legalism, they have little to say on the issue of Gnosticism at all. Though this is conjecture, it seems reasonable to surmise that this tendency to overlook a traditionally Gentile-inspired heresy has something to do with the fact that the contemporary church consists primarily of Gentiles. In any case, the apostles vigorously refuted Gnostic assumptions whenever and wherever they surfaced, as did the early church fathers Irenaeus, Clement, Tertullian and Hippolytus.
One of the main features of what may be termed incipient Gnosticism was an elitism based on revelatory knowledge (Greek=gnosis). Because God had presumably spoken higher truths to a particular group of people, they understandably came to consider themselves a special or enlightened class, the illuminati. For the Gnostic "believer," salvation was virtually synonymous with spiritual knowledge or revelation. The Socratic injunction to "know thyself" thus took on a new meaning, as salvation became became the process by which knowledge of one's place on a predetermined hierarchy of spirituality was obtained. The apostles took great exception to such an attitude. Paul for instance fights fire with fire (Gnosticism with Gnosticism) in 1 Corinthians 2, seemingly promoting the concept of superior "hidden wisdom" (v. 7) and revelation of the "deep things of God" (v. 10), beyond that of ordinary men. Yet in his typically subtle manner, Paul is obviously not endorsing Gnosticism but rather exposing it for the proud pseudospirituality it is: "But I could not speak to you as to spiritual people, but as to carnal..." (3:1). Paul makes clear throughout 1 Corinthians that knowledge elevated as an end in itself becomes elitism - a carnal, immature, unchristian mindset that leads to divisions and contempt for the brethren. Without love, it is useless: "Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies" (8:1; cf 13:2). In similar manner, the apostle John addresses the Gnostics by making the issue of knowledge a prominent theme. However, John speaks of the particular knowledge of Christ himself - not only in terms of revelation, but in personal, relational terms: Salvation is knowing, yes: It is knowing Jesus: "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent" (John 17:3; cf 12:35; 13:17). Further, John takes pains to prove that Jesus alone (unlike the professing Gnostic elite) really does know all that can ever be known (John 1:48; 2:24-25; 4:22; 5:32; etc.). So ultimate knowledge consists of knowing Jesus, the ultimate knower or Gnostic. Like Paul, John in his epistles argues that true spirituality is manifested in love for God and men, not in secret wisdom or superiority: "Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments....He who says he is in the light, and hates his brother, is in darkness" (1 John 2:3, 9).
Unfortunately, spiritual elitism still thrives in the church, as a sampling of E.W. Kenyon's writings indicates. Taking Paul's statements in 1 Corinthians and elsewhere wildly out of context, Kenyon uplifts his own personal insight into the "Pauline revelation" as evidence of knowledge superior to that of Wesley, Calvin, and even the twelve disciples. Speaking of John 1:1-3, he comments: "This is sense knowledge. That was all right in the early church....They [the earliest believers] knew nothing of the finished work of Christ. None of them believed or knew about his substitutionary work. That was to come later through the Pauline revelation."[2]. (It bears mentioning in this context that the greatest advocate of the superiority of Paul's writings was Marcion, the second-century Gnostic heretic who rejected all non-Pauline literature from his personal canon.) Again, ironically inverting the evident meaning of Paul's reference to the Corinthians as "babes in Christ," Kenyon promotes the concept of believers as "supermen" in order to encourage his own version of spiritual maturity: "We will be in that prized inner-circle with Him, one of the trusted ones. When He has a difficult mission, He will call on us..."[3] (These words call to mind the self-assessment - at the time, at least - of my own former church group and its leadership as spiritually elite "special forces" - the "Navy SEALs" of Christianity.) While Paul denotes a presumption of higher knowledge and superiority as marks of immaturity and carnality, Kenyon uses those same terms to define maturity and spirituality: "When you know that you are tied up in Him and that He is back of you, it gives you a sense of superiority."[4]
Another distinguishing mark of Gnosticism was the assumption of dualism. Taking the philosophy of the Greeks - especially Plato - a step further, the Gnostics not only recognized a metaphysical dualism of sensory data and ideals, but a moral dichotomy of flesh and spirit, in which the material was deemed evil and the spiritual good. This emphasis in turn affected the Gnostic view of theology, particularly in disparaging God in the OT (the "Demiurge") as a bumbling creator of evil, i.e, the physical universe, and in a denial of NT doctrinal essentials such as the incarnation of Christ. Moreover, dualism almost invariably led to to two practical consequences: denying the body altogether, or asceticism; and freeing the body and its desires to run their course, or what is termed "licentiousness" in the NT. Because the theological ramifications of dualism are as profound as they are deceptive, the apostles countered it forcefully. In the context of correcting the Gnostic tendency toward license, Paul reminded the super-spiritual Corinthians of the reality of the body as inseparable from the spiritual man. The body is not fundamentally aspiritual, but a part of the whole man redeemed by God. Sexual immorality is therefore a sin against the body, against the Holy Spirit who dwells in the body, and against Christ who literally purchased the bodies of redeemed men through the cross (1 Cor. 6:13-20). Gnostic dualism seems to have been endemic in Corinth, as Paul encourages on one hand a disciplined respect for the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit (3:16; 6:16-20), and on the other, an appreciation for the body in the form of enjoying its God-ordained functions, such as sexual intercourse in marriage (7:1-6). To the same audience he addresses the twin dangers of dualism, asceticism and license. In 1 Thess. 5:23 Paul again affirms the essential unity of man: "May God Himself sanctify you through and through. And may your whole spirit, soul and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ."
As against the unity of man implicit in Hebrew thought and revealed in Scripture, E.W. Kenyon's dualism is pronounced. Despite whatever claims he makes upon the "Pauline revelation," Kenyon's own revelation is strikingly Platonic rather than Pauline. Kenyon's is a false dichotomy, in which all of reality is either spiritual or sensory. There is no middle ground. He states this clearly in The Bible in Light of Our Redemption: "There exists, according to the Scriptures, a spiritual realm as well as a physical....Our physical senses do not contact this spiritual realm."[5] Of course, this is dualism in the sense that there are allegedly two fundamental realities; in another the physical is said to be inherently, vastly inferior to ultimately subject to the spiritual: "We know that spiritual things are superior to physical things, for God, a spirit, created physical things." Such a doctrine is undeniably "spiritual" in emphasis, but it's far from accurate. Scripture indicates that good deeds may be accomplished with the body (Heb. 10:10; Rom. 12:1) while sins may be committed in the mind and spirit as well as the body (Eph. 2:3; Rom. 8:5-6). Moreover, Kenyon equivocates by isolating the meanings of biblical words from their various NT contexts to accommodate presupposed ontological categories, as when reducing the definition of "flesh" to nothing more than the material or the sensory. By such methods Kenyon makes Paul out to be a Gnostic when he happens to be one of Gnosticism's greatest critics. The Bible is not an obscure system of metaphysics reserved for an enlightened few, but a clear and practically relevant communication of God to all men. False doctrine is the natural result of blurring this distinction.
Gnostic dualism may seem little more than a broad-ranging philosophical notion, but it involves specific and serious heresies. Foremost among these is Docetism, the belief that Jesus "appeared" in the flesh in a purely idealistic sense, i.e., that he was never actually incarnated or crucified. The incarnation and crucifixion were held to be false because otherwise they implicated God of evil by manifesting in the "flesh." According to Irenaeus, the early Gnostic Cerinthus maintained a theory of temporary union, in drawing a clear demarcation between "Jesus" (a man born of the flesh) and the "Christ" (the spirit who dwelt in Jesus from the time of his baptism to just before his crucifixion). Paul the apostle specifically countered such teaching in 1 Corinthians, again providing evidence that this "first" letter to Corinth contained a deliberate anti-Gnostic theme. In Chapter 15 Paul argues at length that the ultimate proof of unity of Spirit and body is the physical resurrection of Christ, which also constitutes the historical basis for the hope of resurrection for all believers. Paul's letter to the Colossians, a church taken in by deceptive false teaching, likewise conveys a strong apologetic purpose in exalting Christ ("the head of the body") above men, refuting dualism and affirming the incarnation: "Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the traditions of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. For in Him dwells all the fullness of the godhead bodily" (Col. 2:8-9). It should be further noted that in his repudiation of the "basic principles" of the world Paul uses the term stoichea, descriptive of the Gnostic theological-cosmological hierarchy of aeons and emanations of deity. This is a powerful statement. If the fullness of deity dwells in Christ, it follows that all the Gnostic emanations of deity are subsumed in Christ, and thus all of Gnosticism subsumed in Christianity.
Similarly, John's emphasis on the incarnation and crucifixion is unmistakable. John opens his Gospel by declaring not only that "In the beginning the Word was with God" but that "the Word was God," and that "all things were made through Him" (John 1:1-3). Already this constitutes a formidable challenge to Gnostic thinking, but then John says that "the Word became flesh" (1:14). His revelation of Christ in the flesh is a distinct repudiation of Gnostic dualism. So is his litmus test of orthodoxy in 1 John 4:1-3: "...and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of Antichrist..." (v. 3) In direct contradiction to Docetist doctrine, John further discloses the historic fact that Jesus died physically on the cross, then gave up His spirit (John 19:30).
John's test is still relevant today. If E.W. Kenyon, for example, does not explicitly deny the incarnation he certainly undermines it. He states: "Christ's ministry necessitated His becoming man in order to legally take man's place. Therefore he was revealed to the physical senses of man..."[6] It's not entirely clear whether this "revelation" to the senses was an illusory sort of pseudo-incarnation like the Docetists' "appearance in the flesh." But Kenyon adds: "...the body of Christ was not mortal....Therefore as He walked this earth His body was not subject to death....When He was made to be sin...for us, His spirit underwent a change. Spiritual death was laid upon it, and His body became mortal as did Adam's when he died spiritually."[7] This bears a remarkable similarity to the anti-incarnational Gnostic teaching of Cerinthus. Further evidence of Kenyon's link with the Gnostics is evident in his aberrational view of the atonement: "If Jesus paid the penalty of Sin on the cross, then Sin is but a physical act. If His death paid it, then every man could die for himself..." [8]. Since the "physical" act of Christ's crucifixion was insufficient to atone for sin, there must be a deeper, more "spiritual" explanation. Kenyon's belief - apparently a central tenet of Word-Faith theology - is that atonement actually took place in hell, not on the cross. "Hell had been prepared for Satan and his hosts, and in this dread place the Son of God suffered until the claims of justice had been paid. Then he was made alive out of death and we were legally made alive with Him."[9]
As always, there are practical implications to embracing such openly false teachings as these. The neo-Gnostic mindset plays out dramatically in personal actions and ethics. In addition to exhibiting an elitist arrogance, the Gnostic-inclined believer is liable to extremes of behavior due to embracing a worldview that is fundamentally negative. Gnosticism is at its root anti-reality. Associated superspiritual ideas therefore emerge in both ascetic and antinomian tendencies, often in the same person. This observation might explain some of the more bizarre behaviors of believers throughout church history. These would include everything from miserable attempts at mortifying the flesh during the monastery movement of the Middle Ages to the late twentieth-century phenomenon of Pentecostal preachers living in adultery or financial impropriety while exercising spiritual gifts to dazzling excess. The brief history of Pentecostalism itself betrays a certain connection with Gnosticism in advocating to various degrees withdrawal from the "world," rejection of legitimate social concerns as "carnal" distractions from God's spiritual purposes, imposition of "holy" dress codes, and establishment of well-defined hierarchies of "spiritual authority." Pentecostal leaders also demonstrate Gnostic attitudes in promoting the baptism of the Holy Spirit as an experience subsequent to salvation reserved for the spiritually select, and in instructing sick people (as did Kenyon) to "confess their healing," that is, to deny physical reality. Though much good could be said of the Pentecostal movement in general, especially in its emphasis on evangelism and the power of the Holy Spirit, it is probably no coincidence that some of the more divisive cultic movements to come out of the church - the Branhamites, the Way International, the Latter Rain movement and others - have direct connections to Pentecostalism.
All this calls for a response. In my opinion, a Christian response to the rise of heretical teachings within the body should not be so much aggressive as apologetic. Scripture doesn't call the church to actively search out heretics, but to search out the truth in order to recognize error and defend the church from heresy when and where necessary. If it happens that Kenyon, Hagin, Copeland and others openly pass off Word-Faith metaphysical doctrines as biblical revelation, and themselves as elite demigods or supermen - confusing and dividing the people of God in the process - then the responsibility of Christians is to counter these errors with the truth. If allowed to grow unchecked, the seeds of Gnosticism may otherwise come to bear much bad fruit even in our own congregations. Peter reminds us again (very likely in the context of combating Gnosticism) that the most dangerous of false teachers are not those outside the church but those within: "But there were false prophets among the people, even as there will be false prophets among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them, and bring on themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed" (2 Pet. 2:1-2). He then adds in Chapter 2 some wise counsel for the church through the ages: "You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever" (3:17-18). Our best defense against false teaching is a close relationship with Jesus Christ; for to know and confess Jesus is to know and confess the truth.
1. Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies (Manassas, VA: Trinity Communications, 1994. Originally
published 1938).
2. E.W. Kenyon, Advanced Bible Course (1970), p. 62.
3. Advanced Bible Course, p. 38.
4. E.W. Kenyon, The Bible in Light of Our Redemption (1969), p. 18.
5. The Bible in Light of Our Redemption, p. 153.
6. The Bible in Light of Our Redemption, p. 252.
7. The Bible in Light of Our Redemption, p. 159.
8. E.W. Kenyon, What Happened from the Cross to the Throne (1969), p. 47.
9. The Bible in Light of Our Redemption, p. 180-181.