RSS
Home
Gnostics and Neoplatonists: the 'other gospel'
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
.jpg)
Paul told the Galatians of a false gospel among them
Do Mormons preach "another gospel?" As a latter-day saint shares the gospel with others, he will find that some people are interested to know more, others who are moderately disinterested or indifferent, and some who are prepared to go off like "cocked pistols" at the the mere mention of the word "Mormon."
Typically, the latter individuals have been coached and trained by sectarian pastors who have purposely disseminated anti-Mormon teachings or distributed anti-Mormon videos and literature to their flocks. The Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism monitors and tracks the springing up of several new anti-Mormon web sites every week.
Most of the people who receive this anti-Mormon propaganda are not Bible scholars. Most of them have never even read their own Bible in its entirety. Many of them have no idea what ancient Christians believed. They simply have a narrow set of scriptures interpreted for them by their clergy. In a local call-in show that discussed an article about the upcoming revision of the New International Version of the Bible, one woman's comment was representative of the opinion of the majority of callers. She said emphatically, "God dictated the Bible to the apostles and we are not permitted to change one word of it. We can't add to it or take away from it!"
It's hard to argue with that kind of ignorance. Sectarian clergymen are to blame because they have done little to dispel that kind of Bible-blindness, because it serves their ends. From their point of view, it doesn't matter what their flocks believe about the Bible, so long as they accept Jesus as their Savior and keep the collection box full. That all changes when Mormon missionaries appear on the scene.
It becomes imperative to "inoculate" the flock against this dreaded contagion. The simple teachings of the gospel are full of light and truth. They dispel the darkness of "Bible-blindness" by showing people they can understand the Bible themselves. All it takes is to just read the words and take them for what they say, without trying to twist them to match some man-made creed. To prevent this from occurring, it becomes imperative to give the flock a few choice scripture passages to keep them from accepting the most basic premises of Mormonism.
The number one scripture of choice is Galatians 1:8, which says:
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."
Armed with this scripture, the armies of those who believe the Bible, but do so in ignorance of its contents think, "Case closed!" As soon as they learn of Joseph Smith's encounter with an angel, who brings to light an ancient book of scripture, their minds snap firmly shut. For someone who is looking for an excuse not to believe, this one verse may be sufficient. Yet if they would simply open the Bible to the actual passage their pastor or priest has told them to quote to the Mormon missionaries, they would learn something amazing about that passage of scripture about "another gospel" by just reading the two verses that preceded it.
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." (Galatians 1:6-7)
Paul spoke these words to the Galatians to warn them about a present threat to them. The preaching of "another gospel" was already among them and was leading some of them away.
Mormons know the Bible teaches that an apostasy (a falling away) of the Christian faith began while the apostles yet lived. I have given a very detailed exposition of the history of the Great Apostasy in a previous article. Paul's words here confirm that this influence was active among the ancient Christians in Galatia.
Similarly, Paul warned the ancient Church members in Corinth:
"For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him." (2 Corinthians 11:4)
The word "antichrist" has been used in sensationalistic movies and books to portray a single earthly being who will oppose God in the last days. The use of the term in the Bible, however, mentions antichrist several times explaining that it was already manifest in the primitive Church.
"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist." (2 John 1:7)
John also warned:
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby aknow ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world." (1 John 4:1-3)
John's warning gives us a clue about what the "other gospel" that was being preached in the Church was and what it taught. It professed that Jesus Christ had not yet come in the flesh. This points to Gnostic teachings and to Neoplatonism. Let's look at the teachings of the Gnostics, a religious sect that separated itself from Judaism in the century and a half before the coming of Christ. Lest I be accused of spreading Mormon "propaganda," I'll use the Catholic Encyclopedia as a reference to start with:
From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"When Gnosticism came in touch with Christianity, which must have happened almost immediately on its appearance, Gnosticism threw herself with strange rapidity into Christian forms of thought, borrowed its nomenclature, acknowledged Jesus as Saviour of the world, simulated its sacraments, pretended to be an esoteric revelation of Christ and His Apostles, flooded the world with apocryphal Gospels, and Acts, and Apocalypses, to substantiate its claim. As Christianity grew within and without the Roman Empire, Gnosticism spread as a fungus at its root, and claimed to be the only true form of Christianity..."
Gnosticism became a parasitic movement, a false gospel that siphoned the life out of the true one and replaced it with a slow acting, poisonous venom. Again, from the Catholic Encyclopedia
"So rank was its poisonous growth that there seemed danger of its stifling Christianity altogether, and the earliest Fathers devoted their energies to uprooting it. Though in reality the spirit of Gnosticism is utterly alien to that of Christianity, it then seemed to the unwary merely a modification or refinement thereof."
In particular, the Gnostics believed in a total separation between the physical world and the spiritual world. To them, the physical world was completely corrupt. Thus the teaching that Jehovah himself became flesh was unthinkable. Furthermore, to consider that this being they regarded as an "aeon" or a being of spiritual light, would die so horribly and then take up the physical body in the resurrection, was unthinkable. The Catholic Encyclopedia continues:
"The Gnostic Saviour, therefore, is entirely different from the Christian one. For the Gnostic Saviour does not save. Gnosticism lacks the idea of atonement. There is no sin to be atoned for, except ignorance be that sin. Nor does the Saviour in any sense benefit the human race by vicarious sufferings. Nor, finally, does he immediately and actively affect any individual human soul by the power of grace or draw it to God. He was a teacher, he once brought into the world the truth, which alone can save. As a flame sets naphtha on fire, so the Saviour's light ignites predisposed souls moving down the stream of time. Of a real Saviour who with love human and Divine seeks out sinners to save them, Gnosticism knows nothing." "The Gnostic Saviour has no human nature, he is an æon, not a man; he only seemed a man, as the three Angels who visited Abraham seemed to be men."
The Gnostics began to poison the doctrine that Jesus Christ took upon him flesh, lived, was crucified, died, and was resurrected. He only appeared to be a mortal. He had no human nature. The Savior, as viewed by the Gnostics, could not have atoned for sins, because he was not mortal and could not have died. Indeed they didn't believe he had even come in the flesh. This is what John and Paul were referring to.
The entire 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians was written to combat this doctrine. Paul testified powerfully, not only of the resurrection, but the death of Christ as was witnessed by many. The "different Jesus" was the one taught by the Gnostics who, by their belief, could not die because he was never born in the flesh!
"Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he arose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time."
Paul lists Peter, James, the other apostles, a group of five hundred brethren, and himself as current living witnesses to his readers. These men testified that Jesus was alive as a man, that he died, and that he rose from the dead. Their experience is in direct opposition to Gnostic teachings. The rest of 1Corinthians 15 is devoted to testimony of the resurrection, which brings to pass the resurrection of us all.
Another "other gospel" to which the Bible refers is Neoplatonism. Plato's teachings date from four centuries before the advent of Christ. His teachings were influential in Jewish intellectual circles. When Christianity began to spread throughout the Roman world, many Christians found themselves debating with those who had been schooled in Plato's philosophies. Converts who came into the Church brought with them their tendency to view the gospel through this Platonic set of lenses. From the Catholic Encyclopedia we read:
"All the early refutations of psychological materialism are Platonic. So, too, when the ideas of Plotinus began to prevail, the Christian writers took advantage of the support thus lent to the doctrine that there is a spiritual world more real than the world of matter. Later, there were Christian philosophers, like Nemesius (flourished c. 450), who took over the entire system of neo-Platonism so far as it was considered consonant with Christian dogma. The same may be said of Synesius (Bishop of Ptolemais, c. 41), except that he, having been a pagan, did not, even after his conversion, give up the notion that Neoplatonism had value as a force which unified the various factors in pagan culture. At the same time there were elements in Neoplatonism which appealed very strongly to the heretics, especially to the Gnostics, and these elements were more and more strongly accentuated in heretical systems: so that St. Augustine, who knew the writings of Plotinus in a Latin translation, was obliged to exclude from his interpretation of Platonism many of the tenets which characterized the neo-Platonic school."
The consonant feature of Gnosticism and Neoplatonism, which seemed to gain strength in the various controversies from the second to the fourth centuries, was the concept that matter and flesh are inherently wicked and spirit is holy. Gnosticism brought in doubts about the mortality of Christ and a physical resurrection. Neoplatonism envisioned that God the Father could not have a physical form. The controversies raised by Arius raged. Was Christ truly man? If so, how was he then God? Was he created? Was he of the same substance of God, but somehow different? Was he the Father become flesh? Was he a separate being, subordinate to God the Father? If so, how could one defend against the Jewish and Neoplatonic concept of there being only one true God, when in reality, ancient Christians believed in three separate, distinct beings: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
By the fourth century, Neoplatonism became the dominant heresy that had infiltrated the Church. Plato's philosophies were merged with the gospel, particularly the merging of the concept of "logos" with the personage of Christ. Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine:
"Among the pagan philosophies extant in the early days of the Christian Era was one called the New Platonic, a philosophy based primarily on the views of Plato. Everything which exists in heaven or in earth, except Deity and unorganized matter, according to Plato's philosophy, had a beginning -- there was a time when it did not exist; but there never was a time when the idea, that is, the form or plan of the thing, did not exist in the mind of Deity. This idea or intelligence existing with God from all eternity, is what Plato called the Logos -- the word or intelligence of Deity." (Outlines of Ecclesiastical History, pp. 186-193.)
"In that early period of the Christian Era when pagan philosophies were being mingled with the doctrines of the gospel to form the apostate Christianity, attempts were made to harmonize these theories of men with the gospel concept of Christ being the Word of God. It was out of these attempts, and the consequent squabbling over the rank of the so-called Logos in the Trinity, that the early councils drafted the creeds which have since been the basis for the false sectarian notions about Deity. " (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p.449 LOGOS)
In "Ex Nihilo: the Development of the Doctrines of God and Creation in Early Christianity," Keith Norman wrote:
"According to Platonism in this period, the order of reality emanates from "the One" (God) in hierarchy, the second level being Mind or Logos, the agent of creation, and the World-Soul Third. Origen found this system this system very convenient in explaining the order of the Godhead, since the functions of the Platonic Mind seemed analogous to that of the Son of God in Christianity, as did the World-Soul Holy Spirit, Origen's teaching that the Son was "eternally generated" from the Father is also strikingly similar to the emanation of the Divine Mind in Neoplatonism. However, such a system of emanations, having no definite differentiation between creator and creation, could not be reconciled with the increasingly accepted Christian doctrine of creation ex nihil, and was rejected by both sides in the Arian controversy. Arius was the monotheist par excellence, believing in "One God, alone unbegotten, alone everlasting, . . . alone sovereign," and thus could not accept the full divinity of Christ. Although the greatest and most perfect of all "creatures," Christ was nonetheless "alien from and utterly dissimilar to the Father's essence and being." (Keith Norman, BYU Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3, p.312)
In a previous article on the Great Apostasy, I summarized the end of the Arian Controversy.
"The Arian Controversy led to such contention the Emperor Constantine called the Nicene Council to resolve the matter: Was Christ man or God? Was he created or eternal? Are God the Father and God the Son separate or simply manifestations of the same being. The Nicene Creed, intended to unite the Church, fractured it. Arius was banished and his writings burned. When readmitted to fellowship, he was murdered in Constantinople, with disciples of Athanasius being the chief suspects."
It is clear to see that by the fourth century, Christians no longer agreed on the nature of God the Father and Jesus Christ, his son. The Presbyterian Church USA web site says:
"Misrepresentations by outsiders of the Christian doctrine of God may have arisen from the bewilderment of many church members from the first century onward. This is seen in the confusion that the Nicene formulation attempted to eliminate. Early Christians found some of their oral and written traditions puzzling. Was the God of the Old Testament a different God from the God of the New Testament? Did one God have no beginning and another one have his beginning at Bethlehem? Was the God of law separate from the God of grace? Were Divine beings sent from heaven to earth like relay runners, one carrying on after another one finished?
"And if Christ is God and if God is non-physical Spirit, does that mean that Christ never really had flesh and blood? Since there is no full discussion of these questions in the Bible, the source of Christian doctrine, varying--indeed, clashing--answers were given to these theological questions. Christians were in a dilemma as to what to believe. " (http://www.pcusa.org/today/archive/believe/wpb9405.htm)
At this point, it is clear that "another gospel" was actively being preached by antichrists--predominantly Gnostics--while the apostles yet lived. That other gospel, from the end of the first century into the fourth century, overtook and corrupted the simple gospel taught by Jesus and the apostles. That "other gospel" is what is taught by sectarian Christian churches today. Those who accuse Latter-day Saints of teaching "another gospel" are actually the historical heirs of the other gospel of which Paul and John warned their contemporaries. Mormonism is the restoration of the teachings of the primitive Church in its infancy, before this apostasy occurred.
Latter-day saints teach the gospel as it exists in the Bible, before the time of these controversies and the corruptions of men. The Bible itself tells us that the preachers of the "other gospel" would teach that Jesus had not come in the flesh and thus could not have died as a ransom for sin and be resurrected from the grave. Here is what the Book of Mormon teaches us about Christ's literal death and resurrection:
"...[B]elieve in the Son of God, that he will come to redeem his people, and that he shall suffer and die to atone for their sins; and that he shall rise again from the dead, which shall bring to pass the resurrection, that all men shall stand before him, to be judged at the last and judgment day, according to their works." (Alma 33:22)
"Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise." (2 Nephi 2:8)
The Book of Mormon teaches exactly the same gospel contained in the New Testament. We do not preach "another gospel" from the one Christ taught. Any perceived differences emerge from the doctrinal "innovations" that were introduced after the time of the apostles, which became the foundation of sectarian creeds.
In 3 John 1:9-10, we read of the defiance and rebellion among the flock, who began to reject the apostles and excommunicated those who contined to sustain them. In the letters to the seven churches in Asia Minor, John repeatedly tells them to hold out not only against temptation and persecution, but also apostasy. He tells them things like, "But that which ye have already hold fast till I come" and "Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain." He was striving to save individual souls in a church that had rejected the servants of Christ and their authority.
Rejection of the apostles, who held the keys of the kingdom, led the way for the Church to fall away and be led into gross error. It is because of the apostasy of the ancient Christian Church that it was necessary that an angel from God be sent to restore it, which the apostle John saw in his vision on Patmos.
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people..." (Revelation 14:6)
Why would God send an angel with the everlasting gospel in the last days if the gospel was already here? What would be the use in sending an angel to restore something that already existed?
If the Book of Mormon is not the fulfillment of this prophecy, it remains for sectarians to explain (since their creeds prohibit modern revelation, angels, visions, etc.) how an angel could bring this to the earth without a revelation, vision, or restoration occurring.
In conclusion, when someone seeks to quote Galatians 1:8 to you as proof that Mormons preach another gospel, take that as a sign that they are ignorant of the Bible's contents, the history of how the Bible came into our hands today, and the events that transformed the simple teachings of Christ to the man-made creeds of modern Christendom. In most cases, the individual is simply parroting something he was told by his pastor or priest. He may mistakenly believe the falsehoods promoted by anti-Mormon books, videos, and web sites. It is also possible that those who repeat this falsehood do so from hostile intent. In that case, the truth is not in them and, unless they repent, they walk in darkness rather than light.
Related Articles:
Comments
.jpg)
