Is elitism a form of gnosticism?

If a person (doesn't matter which denomination they belong to) goes around saying that their denomination is the only right one and they belong to the "one true faith" while saying that other Christians are "wrong", is that a form of gnosticism? If this person says that the only true pastors are ones who are proficient in Greek and Hebrew and if they are not proficient in those dead languages, they are fake pastors and should not be pa storing promoting a form of gnosticism? I know it is elitism but is elitism a form of gnosticism?

Actually, yes it is.

There can be a form of gnostic elitism going on there, but not always. To say that other Christians are "wrong", yet still agreeing that they are Christians despite that, is okay, if it's said in love and efforts are made to show them where their error lies. If fellowship remains despite this area of disagreement (as long as it isn't a heretical error) then that's the Christian way. The Church, this side of glory, is never going to be perfect. Some of us are in error, and even if we correct one error, we still have other errors. It is actually a sign of love for one of the brethren to point our error out.

However, there are groups that insist you must belong to their denomination in order to be saved. That is clearly gnostic elitism, and it stinks. They claim to have special revelation from God that other groups have been denied. That rarely has anything to do with arguments about pastors being proficient in Greek/Hebrew, however. Only if those pastors are using their claimed knowledge as a cudgel to beat others into submission is that totally UN-Christian. The clergymen who earn the greatest respect and who are the most knowledgeable about Bible languages and those who never boast about that. But there are plenty of them in all the various denominations of Christianity, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

Gnosticism had a very specific doctrine, and that was that God could not exist in flesh. That God and flesh could not co-exist, and it created two divergent pathways. One was total asceticism, in which all fleshly urges and needs were considered evil

Colossians 2:20-22 dealt with this form:

" 20(A)If you have died with Christ to the (B)elementary principles of the world, (C)why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to (D)decrees, such as,

21"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"

22(which all refer (E)to things destined to perish with use)--in accordance with the (F)commandments and teachings of men?


The second option was to be totally sinful, indulging every fleshly whim, because it didn't matter. It had nothing to do with the God inside of you.

They also denied that it was really Jesus on the cross, and depending on the source, they offered variant alternatives, such as "it was really Judas."

To accuse a religion of Gnosticism, based on their affirmation of being the true religion, is displaying a historically inaccurate concept of Gnosticism.