Replies

The comparison of Fundamentalism to Gnosticism "works" on a number of levels.

1) It establishes that the speaker is an expert on both Fundamentalism and obscure things like Gnosticism

This is a little cynical, bass. Yes it does establish that the speaker has some knowledge of past heresies in church history. Since accurate history is so sorely lacking in most fundmentalists it is a good point.

2) It compares the enemy (Protestantism) to a group all acknowledge as heretics (even Fundamentalists, hmmm)

You haven't met the Fundamentalists I have here then? Most will not acknowledge proven heresies as such, preferring to think of them only as cudgels Catholics use to beat people with. They usually refuse to enter into the theoretical discussion needed to understand such heresies. Some are truly "agnostic" about such issues, others just don't wish to agree with Catholic terminology. Consider how hard it is to get fundamentalists to answer questions like "is Jesus God?"

3) It points out the role of the doctrine of the Catholic church and its infinite superiority as it beat back the gnostics once and will do it again

I think you mean this cynically, but you are correct nonetheless. Do you not agree that many today hold the same position as heretics of old?

Now if we consider the Church to be an organism its collective understanding of Truth has been growing for two millennia. What we all understand now about God is based upon generations before us learning and adding to this store of understanding.

This does not sound good, Dave. Would Jude, verse 3 be appropriate here?

I don't know, let's look it up.

3 Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Hmmm. I see your point. You think that a faith "delivered once" to the saints couldn't possibly develop in undertanding.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Could you take a swipe at the question I tried to get Reggie to answer yesterday? And non-Catholic is welcome to answer this, cause I would really like an asnwer from someone. Is your understanding of God and Christ and the Truth different now than when you first became a Christian?

If you "saved" a new Christian would you teach him what you understand now, or only what you understood when you were first saved?

Since accurate history is so sorely lacking in most fundmentalists it is a good point.

So first I'm cynical, then you give reason for my cynicism.

preferring to think of them [heresies] only as cudgels Catholics use to beat people with

Vendettas are not always based upon their stated purpose. I would imagine that many theological battles were motivated by things other than theology. Surely you could admit that as well. This does not denigrate the usually fine job (with some exceptions, I gotta be a proddie) that the Catholic church did in protecting doctrine, especially in the Early Church.

Do you not agree that many today hold the same position as heretics of old?

Of course, because human nature is still (gasp!) human. So, whether or not Luther would have come along, there would have been many many splits from the Church, always have been, always will be.