gnostics and lutherans

[phygelus]

Quite often latter-day gnostics will choose to emphasize, first and foremost and sometimes to the exclusion of any other teaching, that gnosticism does not require an intermediary between the individual and God.  This is just a warming-over of the Protestant doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers", which the Catholic Encycopedia charmingly

Comments

[en_no_gyoja]

Actually-and this boils, from a standard theological point of view, down to an issue of soteriology-your aside is kinda key to this discussion. Other broadly-speaking-"Christian" traditions incorporate gnostic experience, but (at least in Catholicism, where it's probably more "mainstream", relatively speaking) it's called things like "mysticism" and "contemplation".

The obvious problem with making a personal gnosis the necessary and sufficient condition for salvation is that having a hierarchical church seems rather like painting legs on a snake...

"Salvation", as generally discussed in Christian theology, may indeed be a strange idea. You need to figure out what salvation means, and your attempted distinction will (I betcha) wind up being basically about that. "The Kingdom of Heaven is within you."

[xephyr]

My take on the long-running feud between the Catholics and the Gnostics was that it was part of a larger, global complex of inter-related political gambits designed to secure control between all the various churches and congregations. From the time of Constantine, the Church hasn't cared about the gnosis of its individual members, it cared about who was able to dictate what the faith was and was not

[salimondo]

It's a funny question. I often find myself having to distinguish between "gnosticism" as a technology (the definition you follow here) and "gnosticism" as the specific vehicle that emerged out of the Judeo-Pagan mystery soup with a specific vocabulary of words like "hyle."

To the extent that we are talking about the historical phenomenon, I don't think it's "protestant" at all, but just another co-conspirator in time and creation. I suspect that this is why so much of latter-day "gnosticism" is so concerned with lines of apostolic succession that really just replicates the Catholic hierarchy only with all-new level titles and some nods to inversion.

In so far as that current transmits "gnostic" information -- that is, a conversation that transcends time and creation -- then I usually consider it radically "protestant" in the same way that the Hussites, Adamites and Brethren of the Free Spirit were protestant: the kingdom of god is within you and it is here, rise up!Self-professed Lutherans and what follows are equally bound to a

[salimondo]

+ William Blake

Special knowlege

[sophia_sadek]

It has been said that knowledge is power. This is an oversimplification. In order to do something, one must know how to do it. In order to achieve an end, a goal, an objective, one must know how to follow the path.

Knowledge confers capacity. Exercise of capacity confers authority. Without that exercise, the capacity is unfulfilled. It is vain knowledge.

General tasks demand general knowledge. Special tasks demand special knowledge. If someone is chained in ignorance, loosening their bonds is not a general task. It requires something special. Not everyone can have and use such knowledge. Not everyone needs to have such knowledge.

The point of gnosticism is not simply to have knowledge. The point is to actually use it for positive ends.

Also, not all gnostic groups use knowledge that is limited to that group. Some use publicly available knowledge that lies dormant in the hands of those who don't know what to do with it.

[baal_kriah]

"a fond fancy which goes well with the other fundamental tenets of Protestantism."

How perverse! The "fond fancy" is actually that any church could interpose itself between any individual and God.

I offer the following definition: a religious movement is gnostic if it claims a gnosis, that is, special knowledge that is not obtainable outside the group, and a means of transmitting that knowledge. Discuss!

I don't see that the "not obtainable outside the group" is necessary to the definition. Advaita Vedanta is often considered a "gnostic" (jnanic?) tradition, but I've yet to encounter an Advaitic group that considers its gnosis specific to a particular group.