At the Root of Gnosticism is the Denial of the Incarnation
Vladimir Soloviev, in The Russian Church and the Papacy explains why it was so important for the Church to condemn Iconoclasm in the 8th Century:
"The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in the flesh has proved that bodily
existence is not excluded from the union of the human and the divine, and
that external and sensible objectivity can and must become the real
instrument and visible image of the divine power. Hence the cult of holy
images and relics, hence the legitimate belief in material miracles wrought
by these sacred objects. [cf. Acts 19:12] Thus in declaring war on these
images, the Byzantine emperors were not attacking a religious custom or a
mere detail of worship so much as a necessary and infinitely important
application of Christian truth itself. To claim that divinity cannot be
sensibly expressed or externally manifested, or that the divine power
cannot employ visible and symbolic means of action, is to rob the divine
Incarnation of all its reality. It was more than a compromise; it was the
suppression of Christianity."
H/t to Principium Unitatis
posted by Russ Rentler, M.D. | 4:10 PM
2 Comments:
It strikes me as bizarre that you would state such an obvious straw man: Gnosticism does not deny the Incarnation, as practically every surviving Gnostic text demonstrates with inarguable clarity.
It is equally bizarre that you've chosen Soloviev, a self-proclaimed Sophianic Gnostic, to make your point about the evils of Gnosticism.
No but what it does is sets up the table for things as "the manger story is a myth." or "Jesus never claimed to be the Messiah." If you deny the representation of the even, how long before you deny the event it self?
Post a Comment
Home