The desire for the unity of the Christian church played a significant role in the first four centuries. As a plethora of theological interpretations, rituals and Christology’s flowed from a variety of different influences and cultures that surrounded the Christian world, it was important for the Christian church to respond, through its structures, practices and doctrine. The Christian discourse of defining orthodoxy and heresy produced what is now known as Gnosticism. In this essay I am going to assess the importance of Gnosticism for the development of the Christian church and its doctrine through three different responses to it.1 I will firstly look at the response of affirming apostolic succession, then the canonization of the scriptures where the church deliberated on what was scripture and what was not, and then finally, the adoption of faith and creedal statements that would directly address beliefs such as the divinity and nature of Christ.
The Affirmation of Apostolic Succession
The doctrine of Apostolic succession is a system through which it is believed the teachings of the church derive from the first apostles, on the direct authority of Christ himself. It’s establishment was an important response to Gnosticism at the time, which had begun to threaten the authority of the church’s teaching.2 Whilst Gnosticism itself is difficult to summarize, it is generally accepted that its teachings are divinely inspired knowledge that is passed through the oral tradition and only revealed to some. The belief in salvation through this secret knowledge bothered influential church theologians such as Ireneus. However difficult it is to untangle Ireneus’ teaching on the matter, it is clear that he often grouped the Gnostics within the category of ‘heresy’, and as a result they would find exclusion from the church along with other opposition to orthodoxy. Despite the having no real uniformity, Gnosticisms core teachings on secretive knowledge still presented a substantial threat to the church.3 In his book, Against Heresies, Ireneus reaffirms and promotes the idea of apostolic succession as a God-given heritage, bestowed on a succession of bishops who could trace their history to the original apostles and therefore, could guarantee the authentic teaching of truth in their public ministry. 4 Scholars even suggest that the church would back up their doctrine with succession lists to quell any disunity on the matter.5 The authentic teaching of the orthodox church was further reinforced by other Christian theologians such as Clement of Alexandria who said, ‘Ignorance, conceit and knowledge are different mental conditions. The first applies to the heathen, the second to the heretics and the last to the true church.’6 In adding a further layer, Helen Pagels, argues that Gnosticism had a wider impact on doctrine than just apostolic succession. The doctrine of bodily resurrection, for example, also served to legitimize the authority of certain men in order to claim exclusive leadership over the church which she says can still be seen today in the papal authority.7 It is clear that gnostic teaching was considered a threat to the church’s authority and the validity of its teaching. That threat caused significant change within the church and promoted them to rethink and reassess their own story. Therefore, it can be said that the formation and affirmation of the doctrine of apostolic succession, prompted by Gnosticism, was important to the development of the Christian church itself.
The Canon of Scripture
The orthodox church, by the end of the third century had agreed on the overall outline of the new testament scriptures. Whilst there were some internal disputes around this, the twenty-seven books that make up the new testament were almost entirely acknowledged. Paradoxically, this process of canonization was aided by the presence of alternative beliefs and writings, particularly those of the Gnostics. In this part of the essay, we will look at how the canon of scripture was an important development for the church in response to Gnosticism. As we have already identified, the core beliefs of Gnosticism rested on a secret tradition of knowledge taught by Jesus and the apostles privately. Generally speaking, Gnosticism taught dualism, a subordinate deity called the demiurge, and a radical interpretation of the nature and divinity of Jesus. It has been observed by scholars that, Gnostics [through their teachings] were able to fit Jesus into their own interpretations and sought to offer their adherents an alternative to orthodox Christianity. 8 It was primarily because of this, that the church sought unity in the scriptures. Ireneus, who valiantly defended the orthodox church, accused the gnostic writers of fraud. For him, the teachings such as that of Theodotus who said, ‘each person recognizes the Lord in his own way,’ were utterly wreckless. Ireneus captured the wider orthodox thinking of the time when he suggested that what separated the gnostic writings from the apostolic writings was that they were actually written by Jesus own disciples and followers. Of course, modern scholarship like Pagels have has disputed that and she suggests that despite Ireneus defence of the four gospels, we know nothing about the original writers.9 It is clear that the church had great difficulty accepting the gnostic tradition, and rightly so. The Gnostics believed they had gone beyond the traditions of the church and their teachings coagulated into what Ireneus described as a set of ‘enormous fictions’10 that were generated every other day according to ability, containing no solid foundations unlike the foundation four gospels, which provided certainty and stability in their formation and which would enable the one and only truth from the apostles to be the guideline for all future doctrine and practice.11 Whilst it is absolutely true that with insight, the canon did not endure in its original form throughout church history, most scholars rightly agree that it provided some degree of cohesion and uniformity that Gnosticism could not, by its nature, provide.12 Therefore, the formation of the canon of scripture is an important development within the church and its doctrine in response to Gnosticism.
The formation of the Creeds
The creedal statements of the early church, which have endured until the present day, and which outline the fundamental beliefs of the orthodox Christian faith, rose from a complex debate with Gnosticism. As with all orthodox teaching, these statements statements were directly linked to the teaching of the apostles. Rufinius, quoting a fifth century legend, writes that the first apostles, ‘settled an agreed norm for their future preaching, so that they would not find themselves widely separated in doctrine.’13 It was this flippancy in gnostic teaching around doctrine, that would prompt the church to respond in the way it did. Whilst orthodox Christianity asserted that Christ’s nature and personhood was homoousious to God the father, and that it was because of his divinity that he was able to redeem humanity of its sins, the Gnostics had long rejected that belief. For them, it was preposterous to believe that an eternal God could pollute himself by taking on flesh and dying on the cross. 14 This passionate debate, led by the Bishop of Alexandria, would culminate in the Council of Nicea where the first creedal statements would be introduced. Gnostic teaching, such as Arianism, regarding the nature and divinity of Christ would be the catalyst for the church to assert its position on the trinity and ensure every adherent to orthodox Christianity would subscribe to the Nicean creed at their initiation and baptism. That said, some scholars have questioned the success of the creeds in outlining orthodox beliefs and have made a strong argument for suggesting that they had a lack of scriptural evidence for the trinity which subsequently opened them up to criticism later on.15 It is difficult to assess the impact of gnostic teachings on the creed. For the councils that met to discuss the particular doctrines relating to the nature and divinity of Jesus, it seems that many brought valid and scripturally focused arguments to the debate. The creeds, as Francis Young, demonstrates, where a mechanism by which the church could block out any foreign ideologies that it considered anti-orthodox. They recital of such beliefs would ensure the orthodox position remained superior. What can be seen though, that if it was not for gnostic teachings themselves having challenged the church’s position on such matters, it is unlikely these creeds might ever have existed.16 We can conclude therefore that it was with significant importance that Gnosticism helped (and perhaps forced) the church to develop and formalize its teachings.
Conclusion
The multi-layered teachings of Gnosticism had a substantial impact on the development of the early church and played an important role in the formation of its adherents, its organization and its doctrines. As we have seen, the tradition of apostolic succession, which is still alive today, enabled the church to link its teaching directly to the earthly life of Christ and his disciples. In the construction of the canon, the orthodox church laid the foundations of the new testament and ensured exclusion for all writings that did not agree. Through credal statements, unique as they are to Christianity, the church was able to guarantee the beliefs of each of its adherents, fencing itself against gnostism and heresy. Of course, all of history is written by the victors, and the church is no different. Even though Gnosticism did not gain wide traction, its fragmented and dispersed belief systems were important to the overall development of the early church and its doctrine.
