Historically, Gnostics Do Not Believe in the Trinity

 **Historically, Gnostics Do Not Believe in the Trinity**  

The doctrine of the Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as coequal, coeternal, and consubstantial persons within one Godhead—is not only absent from the Bible but also took centuries of theological debate to develop. Early church councils and creeds, such as the Nicene Creed (325 CE) and the Athanasian Creed (5th century CE), shaped the Trinitarian concept. The word "Trinity" itself is never mentioned in the Bible, and scripture consistently emphasizes God's indivisible oneness. The Hebrew Shema declares: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4). This foundational statement aligns with Jesus’ affirmation of God’s oneness when he describes the greatest commandment: "The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (Mark 12:29). Similarly, Jesus states, "I and my Father are one" (John 10:30), but this oneness does not imply a Trinitarian unity. The number one is indivisible, and any attempt to divide it into persons or hypostases introduces an artificial framework foreign to biblical thought. God’s oneness is emphasized in passages like Isaiah 45:5, "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me," and in the New Testament where Paul declares, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5).  

Historically, Gnosticism diverged sharply from normative Christian theology, particularly on the nature of Jesus and the Godhead. Gnostic traditions, such as the Valentinian school, rejected the idea of a Triune God. Instead, they viewed the Godhead as a complex Pleroma, a fullness of divine emanations. In this context, God was not a single being manifesting in three persons but a transcendent androgynous source from which spiritual realities emerged.  

### The Valentinian View: A Distinction Between the Human and Divine Jesus  

Valentinian Gnosticism presents a sharp distinction between the human Jesus and the divine Savior. According to Valentinian tradition, the human Jesus was the biological son of Mary and Joseph, born into the material world. However, this physical Jesus became consubstantial with the spiritual Sophia and her seed by divine dispensation. When he reached the age of thirty, he sought baptism from John the Baptist. At that moment, the divine Savior, referred to as the "Spirit of the Thought of the Father," descended upon him in the form of a dove. This event marked the true "virgin birth" and resurrection, as Jesus was reborn spiritually through the virgin Spirit.  

For Valentinians, the divine aspect of Jesus was not inherent in his physical body from birth but was a spiritual addition that occurred at his baptism. This dual perspective sharply contrasts with Trinitarian theology, which views Jesus as both fully God and fully man from the moment of conception. In contrast, Gnostics like the Valentinians would say that "the Word became flesh" (John 1:14) did not imply that Jesus' physical body was eternal or preexistent in the same way as the divine Word. The Valentinian approach emphasizes the distinction between the man Jesus and the Christ who descended upon him.  

### The Cathars: Dualism and Rejection of the Trinity  

In medieval Europe, the Cathars also rejected the Trinity, embracing a dualistic cosmology. They believed in two opposing gods: a benevolent god who created the spiritual realm and an evil god responsible for the material world. This dualism led the Cathars to reject the idea that Jesus was fully human, as they viewed material existence as inherently corrupt. Instead, they saw Jesus as a purely spiritual being, an emanation of the good god sent to guide humanity toward salvation.  

Cathars adhered to the New Testament but interpreted it through their dualistic framework, which placed them in conflict with Catholic orthodoxy. They denied the humanity of Jesus and rejected the Eucharist, which they saw as an affirmation of the material body. This Christology also distanced them from the normative Trinitarian understanding of Jesus as both fully human and fully divine. The Bible explicitly affirms that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), but for the Cathars, this was not a literal incarnation. Their focus was on the spiritual nature of Christ's mission.  

### Non-Trinitarian Roots: Modalism, Adoptionism, and Arianism  

Some Cathar beliefs about Jesus resembled earlier non-Trinitarian views such as modalistic Monarchianism (Sabellianism) and adoptionism. Sabellianism maintained that God existed as one person who manifested in different modes or roles (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) rather than as distinct persons, similar to modern-day Oneness Pentecostalism. This view mirrors Jesus’ own declarations of unity with the Father, as seen in John 14:9-11, where he says, "He who has seen me has seen the Father," though the Sabellian interpretation would go further in denying any eternal distinction between Father and Son.  

Similarly, adoptionism viewed Jesus as a human being adopted by God at his baptism or resurrection, rather than being inherently divine from conception. In this view, Jesus became the Son of God in a unique way at his baptism, consistent with the passage where the voice from heaven says, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matthew 3:17).  

Further accusations of Arianism among the Cathars suggest another link to non-Trinitarian theology. Arianism, which flourished in the early centuries of Christianity, taught that Jesus was a created being, subordinate to God the Father, and distinct in essence. Traces of Arian influence in Cathar Christology indicate a broader resistance to the Trinitarian framework imposed by the Catholic Church. Paul’s letter to the Colossians says, "For by him all things were created... and in him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:16-17), but Arianism would interpret this differently, seeing Jesus as a created being, a divine agent rather than eternal God himself.  

Other Gnostics denied the deity of Christ since, as they believed, deity cannot unite itself with anything material such as a body. They believed that he was a type of super-angel, greater than man but inferior to the Father in nature. Some Gnostics believed that there is one God who dwells alone, and a number of lesser beings who do His work.  

### Conclusion  

The historical rejection of the Trinity by Gnostic traditions underscores its artificiality and late development. Valentinian Gnostics, Cathars, and other non-Trinitarian groups illustrate the diversity of early Christian thought and challenge the claim that Trinitarianism represents the original apostolic faith. These groups emphasize the oneness of God or reinterpret the Godhead in ways that preserve a clear distinction between the human and divine, rejecting the notion of three coequal persons within a single essence. The Bible emphasizes God's oneness in numerous passages (Isaiah 45:5, 1 Timothy 2:5), which stands in contrast to later Trinitarian developments.