Replies

I know that Gnosticism is wrong because it goes directly against the teachings and writings of the eyewitnesses to Christ. Gnosticism takes a man-centered theology to a new level, and humility appears to play no part of it. Jesus never preached "knowledge is the way to salvation". It is easy for me to dismiss the Gnostics.

I find this answer quite amusing. You know why? You have this paradigm within you and you don't even realize it. You have been TAUGHT a particular way of reading and understanding Scriptures. You have a reference point. Thus, you are able to discern some teachings that don't sound right - such as the docetist idea that Christ "pretended" to be a man and didn't really die on the cross. But reading the Scriptures WITHOUT ANY outside help, you could realistically come to the ANY conclusion. Thus - Protestantism has multiplied into a very large and diverse pattern of beliefs.

There are a number of Scripture references that COULD point to secret knowledge. For example, when Christ interprets His parables ONLY to the disciples, but not the crowds. See, there is really no way to independently KNOW which is correct! Gnostic or Catholic, without the witnesses of the Church who refuted the Gnostics and their concept of secret knowledge. As to "Jesus didn't preach knowledge is the way to salvation", what do you think "He who believes will be saved" mean? Isn't that salvation by knowledge of the Risen Lord?

Christianity is a revealed religion, I just don't believe it is only revealed to a very few of one particular branch of Christianity.

Nor do I. You are misunderstanding the purpose of the hierarchy on such matters. WHEN people come to opposing views (such as man has free will/man has no free will), the Church must make an official statement to protect the true faith. Without this, the Church would break up into many different groups - and NO ONE would know the true faith passed down from Christ. People would claim that their version is true. But no one would REALLY know. Thus, God left an infallible guide - so that during such times that there is such a major disagreement, we of the Church can say -"Oh, man does have free will. We are not puppets and are expected to be responsible for our actions..." The Church established our paradigm, the way we read the Scriptures. During disagreements, we turn to her to tell us what God meant in particular cases. But we certainly are free to read Scriptures and see the many meanings buried with particular verses. Again, the Church is very flexible on such matters. She doesn't lay down a law that says: "Mark 1:1 means ONLY this...". This would be a restriction of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I'm happy and I'll take it. :) Sign me up with the Catholics holding the latter view.

Then you are in good company, as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.

Regards

You have this paradigm within you and you don't even realize it. You have been TAUGHT a particular way of reading and understanding Scriptures. You have a reference point. Thus, you are able to discern some teachings that don't sound right - such as the docetist idea that Christ "pretended" to be a man and didn't really die on the cross. But reading the Scriptures WITHOUT ANY outside help, you could realistically come to the ANY conclusion.

I realize that I read scriptures partly on the way I have been taught. I admit I have a frame of reference. I just believe that frame of reference is faithful to the scriptures, as opposed to also being faithful to other teachings. As little as possible is added or subtracted from the plain meaning. Sometimes, of course, it is necessary to add or subtract in order to avoid internal conflict, but the way I read the scriptures does not have to please anyone else, or any other person's or organization's teachings.

I disagree that without any outside help that any interpretation is possible. I don't know of any Protestants who believe that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. Imagine yourself without any background, reading everything up until these verses:

Mark 15:37 : With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.

Luke 23:46 : Jesus called out with a loud voice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last.

To me, the plain meaning of this, without ANY background, would be clear. It would take a serious twisting of interpretation to change the meaning of these words. I am surprised you tried to make this point. That is, unless you think just reading the words as they are is a paradigm in and of itself. I don't know.

I disagree. The only way to get to secret knowledge or anything else extra-Biblical is to build it in artificially. Once that happens, then yes, anything is possible. But that takes a proactive decision on the part of the reader to get there. It cannot be blamed on the scripture. Yes, some passages are difficult to discern, but that is what the rest of the Bible is for.

As to "Jesus didn't preach knowledge is the way to salvation", what do you think "He who believes will be saved" mean? Isn't that salvation by knowledge of the Risen Lord?

I don't think the Gnostics thought that knowledge and belief were the same thing, at least to how we use the terms. I just implied in a recent post to you that some of the Pygmies will be saved without any formal knowledge. What would the Gnostics say to that? :) Yes, knowledge of the Lord is necessary, but such knowledge is from God to whom He so wills.

[About God choosing the elect without using foreknowledge] Then you are in good company, as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.

I figured I had a shot at a match with Augustine, but I didn't know about Aquinas. Thanks. :)