Introduction

Sometimes I take for granted the 66 books of Canon. I often forget that at various points in history, faithful men have contended both to include the books which meet the criteria for canonicity and exclude those texts that do not. For example, some New Testament books that we presently hear preached in public worship and study in private worship were once hotly contested as lacking inspiration (e.g., James, 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation). Also, among the historical debate between Protestants and Roman Catholics exists the topic of the Apocrypha (the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, [1] which were ultimately deemed uninspired and not included in Protestant Canon). Thankfully, the historic confessions synthesize the efforts of the aforementioned “faithful men”[2] to provide us with the 66 books of Canon, “All of which are given by the inspiration of God” (WCF 1.2; 2LBC 1.2). The blessing of possessing the completed Canon is near immeasurable; however, our familiarity with this blessing may deter us from considering the consequences of neglecting any of the 66 books. One historical example that displays how the exclusion of scripture leads to the degradation of doctrine comes from an eleventh-century dualist sect in the Balkan Peninsula: the Bogomils.

 

The Beliefs of the Bogomils

 

Dualism is “the idea that both God and the material universe have eternally existed side by side. Thus, there are two ultimate forces in the universe, God and matter.”[3] This teaching does not harmonize with Reformed Theology because scripture does not teach that Satan is “ultimate or original.”[4] Despite this fact, the Bogomils' steadfast devotion to dualism led them astray in many areas. A particular sermon from Medieval Europe describes the Bogomils’ teaching that the devil is the creator of earthly things and “has ordered the people to marry, to eat meat, and to drink wine.”[5] This belief led to their abstinence from eating meat and marriage. Their disdain for the material world led to the Bogomils' denial of the Virgin Mary, claiming that Mary was not a physical woman but simply a “Heavenly Jerusalem.” [6] Additionally, “since they had such contempt for the human body, the Bogomils denied that Christ had performed miracles of physical healing.”[7] Instead, the Bogomils attributed the healing of lame legs and leprosy as "spiritual healings of wounds caused by sin."[8] Perhaps just as surprising as these claims are, is the Bogomils' view on baptism.

 

Dr. L.P. Brockett believed that history ought to remember the Bogomils as Baptists, in part because of their opposition to paedobaptism.[9]  The late James McGoldrick, once a Baptist but died a converted Presbyterian, responds to such an erroneous claim that the Bogomils were Baptists, saying,

 

Their reason for rejecting [paedobaptism], however, in no way resembles the Baptist position on the subject. Bogomils denied water baptism because it involved the application of a material element, and in their understanding, all things material are evil. In fact, the Bogomils disapproved of water baptism so strongly that one who left the Orthodox Church to join their sect was required to undergo a ceremony of purification to reverse the evil effects of baptism in water.[10]

 

Indeed, the adherence to dualism was deeply formative to the Bogomils and led them astray on many doctrines. Wayne Grudem synthesizes the harmful effects of dualism well, stating,

 

The philosophy [of dualism] would deny both God’s ultimate lordship over creation and also that creation came about because of God’s will, that it is to be used solely for his purposes, and that it is to glorify him. This viewpoint would also deny that all of the universe was created inherently good (Gen. 1:31).

 

Thinking back to the topic of the 66 books of Canon, I wonder what could have guarded the Bogomils against the belief and fallout of dualism? What could have kept them from such pitfalls as denying the humanity of Jesus? What could have provided direction and clarity for marriage, procreation, and dietary matters? What could have helped them form a proper view of Satan and evil? The answer? Canon. 

 

(It is fair to mention that the Bogomils are sometimes called forerunners of the Reformation because of their staunch opposition to “the worship of the Virgin Mary and the saints.”[11] The present author cannot in good conscience lump them in as Reformers in the historical sense of the term because their stance on scripture, the formal issue of the Reformation, was anything but Sola Scriptura).

 

Defining and Applying Canon

 

The term canon means something like a reed or measuring stick. “Just as a reed could serve as a measuring standard, so the biblical canon was a measuring standard for faith and practice.”[12] The movement of the Reformation restored the faithful practice of deriving doctrine from the Bible alone. Sadly, the Bogomils seem to display a situation where they derived their Bible from their doctrine; for the Bogomils, their “canon” was dualism. The Bogomils' commitment to dualism led to their rejection of the Old Testament because, from their perspective, “it was given by Sataneal,” a fallen angel who created the body of the first man, Adam.[13] Dualism even led to the necessity of forging a new, unbiblical account of the Creation story because they could not be consistent in their belief and affirm Genesis 1-3. They not only rejected the Old Testament scriptures but gave preference to the Gospels and Acts over the Epistles. Tragically, this self-defeating mistake of identifying their sacred texts to align with their pre-existing view of dualism removed their only hope and standard of reproof and correction: the Inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

 

Conclusion

 

It may be easy for one to read about the Bogomils as merely a group of religious folks from over a millennium ago who struggled in their doctrine, but such impersonal academia misses a reality check for the present-day believer. Each person who identified as a Bogomil was made in the image of God. They were given a body and a soul by a singular Creator. These were real people, in real places, some of whom died for believing the doctrines we discussed in this article. The root of their error? In my opinion, it was their rejection of the whole counsel of God. I am persuaded that most Christians would fundamentally—what we say we believe—state they affirm the entire 66 books of Canon as inspired scripture. However, we all probably deal with the same root of error the Bogomils did to some degree in our daily living. For, when we fail to read, meditate on, and live by the whole counsel of God, we are susceptible to falling for faulty doctrines like the dualistic sect from the Balkan Peninsula. Let us then renew our commitment to read, learn, and live out the 66 books of completed Canon.

Notes:

[1] Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: DOUBLEDAY, 1995), 40.

 

[2] For a brief historical discussion on “Development of the Canon,” see R.C. Sproul, 1-2 Peter: An Expositional Commentary (Sanford, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019), 171-175.

 

[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 269.

 

[4] H.B. Kuhn, “Dualism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group, 2001), 357.

 

[5] Cosmas’ Sermon Against Heretics.

 

[6] Victor Nicholov Sharenkoff, “The Bogomils,” Anglican Theological Review, 7 no. 3 (Dec 1924): 313, Alta Religion Database.

 

[7] James McGoldrick, Heirs of the Reformation: A Study in Baptist Origins (Cape Canaveral, FL: Founders Press, 2019), 43.

[8] James McGoldrick, Heirs of the Reformation, 43.

 

[9] John. T. Christian, “The Paulician and Bogomil Churches,” in A History of the Baptists Volumes I and II (Nashville, Broadman, 1922), 58.

 

[10] James McGoldrick, Heirs of the Reformation, 43-44.

 

[11] John. T. Christian, “The Paulician and Bogomil Churches,” in A History of the Baptists Volumes I and II (Nashville, Broadman, 1922), n.p.

 

[12] Bill T. Arnold and Bryan E. Beyer, Encountering the Old Testament: A Christian Survey (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 22.

 

[13] Victor Nicholov Sharenkoff, “The Bogomils,” Anglican Theological Review, 7 no. 3 (Dec 1924): 311, Alta Religion Database.