Valentinians and Gnostic Heresy
Early Christians rejected the Valentinians as heretics and not part of the true faith. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Clement of Alexandria all speak against their teaching, often linking it to false knowledge, hidden doctrine, or borrowed philosophy. Bible passages such as 1 Timothy 6:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:19 are the main scriptural frames for this kind of warning. The page focuses on direct early Christian words about why the Valentinians were condemned.
100 early-church witnesses · 209 source quotations · compared with Scripture
What did early Christians believe about the Valentinians and Gnostic Heresy?
Early Christian writers strongly rejected the Valentinians and treated their teaching as heresy, not Christianity. Irenaeus named Valentinus and said his school was false and baseless, while Tertullian called the Valentinians a large body of heretics; Hippolytus likewise said Valentinus drew from Greek philosophy, not the Gospels.
Clement of Alexandria also spoke against those “falsely called Gnostics,” and several writers tied this false teaching to pride, hidden doctrine, and a distorted use of knowledge. The evidence is broad and consistent on condemnation, but weaker on one single shared description of every Valentinian belief, since the details vary by author and some passages focus more on philosophy, baptism, or Christology than on the full system.
Many more early Christian quotations, Bible passages, and source links are gathered below so you can study the evidence for yourself.
Key Takeaways
- Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Clement all reject Valentinian and false Gnostic teaching.
- Early Christian writers often connect this error to false knowledge, secrecy, and pride.
- 1 Timothy 6:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:19 are the clearest Bible passages often linked to this topic.
Questions Answered by the Sources
Who were the Valentinians, and why did early Christians reject them?
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and Tertullian present the Valentinians as a heretical school that departed from the truth, used obscure systems, and should not be treated as Christian teaching.
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book IV Direct teaching
...ir doctrine is a recapitulation of all the heretics. For this reason, in the second book, we have clearly witnessed their complete defeat. For those who oppose these men (the Valentinians) by the right method also oppose all who are of a wicked mind, and those who overthrow them, in fact, overthrow every kind of heresy.
-
Tertullian, Against the Valentinians Supporting witness
The Valentinians, who are no doubt a very large body of heretics— comprising as they do so many apostates from the truth, who have a propensity for fables, and no discipline to deter them (therefrom) care for nothing so much as to obscure what they preach, if indeed they (can be said to) preach who obscure their doctrine.
-
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness
And from this (system), not from the Gospels, Valentinus, as we have proved, has collected the (materials of) heresy— I mean his own (heresy)— and may (therefore) justly be reckoned a Pythagorean and Platonist, not a Christian.
-
Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies) Supporting witness
Of the heresies, some receive their appellation from a [person's] name, as that which is called after Valentinus, and that after Marcion, and that after Basilides, although they boast of adducing the opinion of Matthew [without truth];
More related quotations from this section 1 shown
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book IV Supporting witness
and not he, the false father, who has been invented by Marcion, or by Valentinus, or by Basilides, or by Carpocrates, or by Simon, or by the rest of the “Gnostics,” falsely so called.
What did early Christians say about “gnosis” or secret knowledge?
Clement, Irenaeus, Origen, and other early writers reject false or “unholy” gnosis and describe some claims to knowledge as prideful, deceptive, or contrary to true faith.
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book I Direct teaching
The first of them, Valentinus, who adapted the principles of the heresy called “Gnostic” to the peculiar character of his own school, taught as follows: He maintained that there is a certain Dyad (twofold being), who is inexpressible by any name, of whom one part should be called Arrhetus (unspeakable), and the other Sige (silence).
-
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Direct teaching
...the Word and Zoe, Anthropos and Ecclesia. They say that this makes up the begetting Ogdoad. And the Valentinians say that the first projections are those that took place within the Limit, and these have also been called those within the Pleroma. The second are those outside the Pleroma, and the third are those outside the Limit. Now the coming forth of these makes up the Hysterema Acamoth. And Valentinus says that what has been generated from an Aeon, and exists in the Hysterema and has been projected beyond the Limit, is the Creator. But Valentinus is not willing to say that what has been generated in this way is the primal Deity. Instead, he speaks in diminishing terms both of Him and of the things made by Him. And he says that Christ came down from within the Pleroma for the salvation of the spirit that had gone astray. This spirit, according to the Valentinians, lives in our inner man. And they say that this inner man receives salvation because of this indwelling spirit. Valentinus, however, to support this teaching, decides that the flesh is not saved, and calls it a leathern tunic and the perishable part of man. I have already stated these teachings in summary form, since
-
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness
The heresy of Valentinus is certainly, then, connected with the Pythagorean and Platonic theory.
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book II Supporting witness
Those who follow the teachings of Valentinus have been overruled, and in turn, the entire group of heretics has also been undermined. All the arguments I have presented against their concept of Pleroma, regarding the things beyond it—showing how the Father of all is enclosed and limited by what is beyond Him (if there is indeed anything beyond Him)—and how their theory requires the necessity of imagining many Fathers, many Pleromas, and many creations of worlds, each beginning and ending, existing everywhere; and how all these beings remain within their own realms and do not interfere with others since no shared interest or fellowship exists between them; and that there is no other God of all, but that name belongs only to the Almighty;—these arguments apply equally to those who follow Marcion, Simon, Meander, or others like them who disconnect the creation we are part of from the Father. The arguments I have also used against those who claim that the Father of all contains everything, but that the creation we belong to was not formed by Him, but by another power or by angels unaware of the Propator, who is surrounded at the center by the vastness of the universe, like a stain by a
-
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness
But (Valentinus took his opinions) from these, because, although he has suppressed the truth regarding his obligations to (the Greek philosophers), and in this way has endeavoured to construct a doctrine, (as it were,) peculiarly his own, yet, in point of fact, he has altered the doctrines of those (thinkers) in names only, and numbers, and has adopted a peculiar terminology (of his own).
-
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness
Now these, falsifying the name of truth, proclaim as a doctrine of Christ an insurrection of Aeons and revolts of good into (the ranks of) evil powers;
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book II Supporting witness
2. Moreover, if they define being inside and outside the Pleroma as meaning knowledge and ignorance, as some of them do (since someone with knowledge is within that which knows), then they must necessarily admit that the Saviour Himself (whom they call All Things) was in a state of ignorance. For they claim that when He came forth outside of the Pleroma, He gave form to their Mother [Achamoth]. If, then, they assert that whatever is outside the Pleroma is ignorant of all things, and if the Saviour went forth to give form to their Mother, then He was beyond the reach of all knowledge; that is, He was in ignorance. How then could He give knowledge to her when He Himself was beyond the reach of knowledge? For they declare we, too, are outside the Pleroma because we are outside the knowledge they have. And furthermore: If the Saviour actually went beyond the Pleroma to seek the sheep which was lost, but the Pleroma equals knowledge, then He placed Himself beyond the reach of knowledge, that is, in ignorance. For they must either agree that what is outside the Pleroma is so in a physical sense, in which case all the previous points will challenge them; or if they talk about what is insi
Did early Christians say the Valentinians borrowed from philosophy and invented myths?
Hippolytus and Irenaeus say Valentinian teaching drew on philosophical systems and built elaborate mythic structures such as the Pleroma, Aeons, and other speculative schemes.
-
Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies) Direct teaching
...ngs introduced by some of the heterodox, that there is no need to pray. I mean the followers of the heresy of Prodicus. So that they may not be puffed up with pride over this godless wisdom of theirs, as if it were something new, let them learn that it had already been accepted earlier by the philosophers called Cyrenaics. Nevertheless, the unholy knowledge, or gnosis, of those falsely called Gnostics will be refuted at the proper time. I do not want to bring that attack into this commentary, since it would not be brief, and if I inserted it here, it would interrupt the present discussion. In this discussion, we are showing that the only truly holy and pious person is the one who is truly a Gnostic according to the rule of the Church. To that person alone, the request made in agreement with the will of God is granted, both when he asks and when he thinks. For just as God can do all that He wishes, so the Gnostic receives all that he asks. For in general, God knows who is worthy of good things and who is not. From this, He gives to each person what is fitting. Therefore, to those who are unworthy, even if they ask often, He will not give. But He will give to those who are worthy.
-
Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies) Supporting witness
Nevertheless, the unholy knowledge (gnosis) of those falsely called [Gnostics] shall meet with confutation at a fitting time;
-
Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata (Miscellanies) Supporting witness
We, then, are people who believe what others do not believe. We are also Gnostics regarding what is unknown. That is, we know what is unknown and disbelieved by everyone, but believed and known by a few. And we are Gnostics not by describing actions with words, but by practicing contemplation. Happy is the one who speaks into the ears of those who hear. Now faith is the ear of the soul. And the Lord shows that this is what faith is when He says, "He that has ears to hear, let him hear," Matthew 11:15, so that by believing, a person may understand what He says as He says it. Homer also, the oldest of the poets, uses the word "hear" instead of "perceive"—the specific term for the general one—and writes:
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book II Supporting witness
...mous against their own God by creating another God as the Father. For this reason, Paul exclaimed, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” He did not mean to criticize a true knowledge of God, for then he would be accusing himself; rather, he knew that some, inflated by the pretense of knowledge, fall away from the love of God and mistakenly see themselves as perfect, claiming an imperfect Creator. To put an end to the pride that results from this kind of knowledge, Paul says, “Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.” There can be no greater pride than thinking that someone is better and more perfect than the One who made and shaped him, gave him the breath of life, and brought him into existence. Therefore, it is better, as I said, for someone to have no knowledge at all about why any single thing in creation was made, but to believe in God and remain in His love. It's preferable to avoid being puffed up by such knowledge and losing that love, which is the life of man, and to seek no other knowledge except that of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for us, rather than by engaging in subtle questions and hair-splitting expressions fall into impiety.
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book II Supporting witness
Thus, then, by a complete perversion of language, they style ignorance of the truth knowledge: and Paul well says [of them,] that [they make use of] “novelties of words of false knowledge.” For that knowledge of theirs is truly found to be false.
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book I Supporting witness
and from them “knowledge, falsely so called,” received its beginning, as one may learn even from their own assertions.
How did early Christians say the Valentinians handled Scripture?
Irenaeus says the Valentinians distorted Scripture to fit their own fictions, while other writers warn against teachings that go beyond the apostolic message or twist the truth.
-
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Direct teaching
...the materials of his heresy. Therefore he may rightly be counted a Pythagorean and Platonist, not a Christian. So Valentinus, Heracleon, Ptolemaeus, and that whole school of heretics, as disciples of Pythagoras and Plato and as followers of those guides, made the arithmetical system the basic principle of their doctrine. For according to these Valentinians, the first cause of the universe is a Monad: unbegotten, imperishable, incomprehensible, inconceivable, productive, and the cause of the generation of all existing things. And this Monad, mentioned above, is called by them Father. There is, however, a considerable difference of opinion among them. Some of them, so that the Pythagorean teaching of Valentinus may be completely free from mixture with other doctrines, suppose that the Father is without female counterpart, unwedded, and solitary. But others, thinking it impossible that from a male alone there could come any generation at all of the things that have been brought into existence, necessarily include with the Father of the universe Sige as a spouse, so that he may be a father. But whether Sige is ever joined in marriage to the Father or not, we leave that for them to a
-
Irenaeus, Against Heresies: Book II Supporting witness
...ou, my very dear friend, that the entire system created, in many and opposite ways, by those of the Valentinian school, was false and baseless. I also presented the beliefs of their predecessors, proving that they not only disagreed among themselves but had long previously strayed from the truth itself. I further explained, with great care, the doctrine and practice of Marcus the magician, since he also belongs to these people; and I carefully noted the passages they distort from the Scriptures to fit their own fictions. Moreover, I described in detail how, using numbers and the twenty-four letters of the alphabet, they boldly attempt to establish what they consider truth. I also explained how they think and teach that creation as a whole was formed after the image of their invisible Pleroma, and what they believe regarding the Demiurge, sharing at the same time the doctrine of Simon Magus of Samaria, their progenitor, and all those who followed him. I mentioned, too, the multitude of those Gnostics who have sprung from him, and noted the differences between them, their various doctrines, and the order of their succession, while I set forth all the heresies they started. I showe
-
Origen, Against Celsus Supporting witness
...illed. But when Celsus speaks of circles upon circles, he perhaps borrowed that expression from the heresy mentioned above. In one circle, which they call the soul of all things and Leviathan, that heresy includes the seven circles of archontic demons. Or perhaps the phrase comes from misunderstanding the preacher when he says, "The wind goes in a circle of circles, and returns again upon its circles." The expression, too, "effluents of an earthly church and of circumcision," was probably taken from the fact that some called the church on earth an effluent from a heavenly church and a better world. And the circumcision described in the law was a symbol of the circumcision performed there, in a certain place set apart for purification. The followers of Valentinus also, in agreement with their system of error, give the name Prunicos to a certain kind of wisdom. They would have the woman afflicted with the issue of blood for twelve years be its symbol. So Celsus, mixing together all kinds of opinions, Greek, Barbarian, and heretical, heard of her and claimed that she was a power flowing out from one Prunicos, a virgin. The living soul, again, is perhaps understood in a hidden way b
-
Origen, Against Celsus Supporting witness
And let it be admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who are the disciples of Jesus.
More related quotations from this section 2 shown
-
Tertullian, Against the Valentinians Supporting witness
In like manner, the heretics who are now the object of our remarks, the Valentinians, have formed Eleusinian dissipations of their own, consecrated by a profound silence, having nothing of the heavenly in them but their mystery.
-
Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies Supporting witness
But Theodotus of Byzantium introduced a heresy like this. He claimed that all things were created by the true God, but that Christ appeared in a way similar to what the Gnostics already mentioned had taught. Theodotus says that Christ is a man with a nature like that of all other men. But He is greater than they are in this respect: according to the counsel of God, He was born of a virgin, and the Holy Spirit overshadowed His mother. However, this heretic maintained that Jesus had not assumed flesh in the womb of the Virgin. Instead, afterward Christ descended upon Jesus at His baptism in the form of a dove. Because of this, the followers of Theodotus say that, at first, miraculous powers did not begin to work in the Savior Himself. Theodotus, however, decided to deny the divinity of Christ. These, then, were the opinions put forward by Theodotus.
Common Questions
Who were the Valentinians in early Christianity?
They were a heretical group tied to Valentinus, and early Christian writers treated their teaching as false and outside the faith.
Did early Christians think Gnostic teaching was true?
No. Writers like Clement, Irenaeus, and Hippolytus spoke against false Gnosis and rejected it as error.
What Bible verses are most often linked to heresy and false knowledge?
1 Timothy 6:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:19 are the clearest passages in this set, along with warnings like 2 Peter 2:1 and Titus 3:10.
Source Index for the Valentinians and Gnostic Heresy
The guided sections above show the strongest quotations. This compact index highlights 160 ranked source links from 209 compiled sources for deeper study.
Source index 160 ranked links shown
Early Christian Writings 80 shown of 100
Primary-source quotations from early Christian writers and church documents.
-
Clement of Rome, Connection to Isaiah 1:16
Bible Passages 80 shown of 109
Related Bible passages saved for comparison with the early Christian quotations.
-
Book 79 1:43
Related Resources
Site Page
Carpocrates and Gnostic Heresy
Compare another early Christian topic page with related source quotations.
Site Page
The Ophites and Gnostic Heresy
Compare another early Christian topic page with related source quotations.