\n
This was dug deep out of the Armstrong Archives, after someone asked about it today. It was uploaded from a debate on a public discussion list, dominated by evangelical Protestants, on 11 January 1999. I found it on Internet Archive and then after glancing through it decided to restore it to my blog. I\u2019m not sure why this was removed.<\/p>\n
I don\u2019t even bother debating anti-Catholic Protestants (as this person was) anymore. If you read this, you\u2019ll see\u00a0why. I don\u2019t have the patience of Job! I spent several years debating these guys (it\u2019s always \u2014\u00a0always\u00a0\u2014 the same), and then (in 2007) figured that I had more than adequately done my \u201capologetic duty\u201d and decided that sanity<\/em> was also<\/em> an important thing to preserve. :-)<\/p>\nI have expanded some of the original links to other papers of mine (and most of the new links were written since the original dialogue). Matthew Bell\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n* * * * *<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/p>\n
Please tell me what other religious groups you classify as \u201cheresy\u201d or \u201ccultic\u201d which are trinitarian, believe in the Incarnation, bodily Resurrection of Christ, the Atonement, the Second Coming, formally canonized the Holy Scripture, believe in salvation by grace alone (i.e., we are\u00a0
not<\/i>\u00a0Semi-Pelagians), heaven, hell, baptism, the Virgin Birth, the infallibility of Scripture, angels, the devil, creation, etc., etc. And which produced great saints and scholars like Augustine, Jerome, Anselm, Aquinas et al \u2013 many of whom Protestants acknowledge \u2013 somewhat curiously and inconsistently \u2013 as even their own forebears?<\/div>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\nOther groups which would embrace most, if not all of the above would be The Family, The Christians, Word of Lifers, Zerrubabel, The London (Boston) Church of Christ, and possibly more.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Okay, fair enough; please define \u201cChristian,\u201d then, and who fits into that category, according to you.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
A Christian is an individual whose life has been transformed by the Grace of God from a hellbound sinner, to a heavenbound saint, this being made possible and accomplished by and through the Person of Jesus Christ and his efficacious sacrifice.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
How do you know when you have found such an individual?<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The effect of this transformation will lead to that individual\u2019s life being in conformity to the Scriptures in both doctrine and practice as the Holy Spirit leads and enables them.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
What doctrine? Which doctrines? What practices? This gets back to what I was driving at. You make a statement like this, but if there is no specific content to back it up, then it is literally meaningless. New Testament Christianity has\u00a0
content<\/i>.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
You meet an individual, engage them in conversation, the result of which they claim to be a Christian, yet speak of Jesus being a created being, or modern-day prophets giving new Scriptures. Immediately you have ascertained that the individuals doctrine does not conform to the Bible, hence their is a problem with their claim to be a Christian which needs to be further explored. A simple process where the Scriptures are the authority by which a person\u2019s claims are measured by.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Well, I agree with all this, but\u00a0
I<\/i>\u00a0don\u2019t believe these things, so you have to explain why\u00a0I<\/i>\u00a0am out of the circle.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Who fits into that category is judged by the Scriptures and not by men, least of all me.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Good, then you can\u2019t know that I am\u00a0
not<\/i>\u00a0a Christian, and ought to extend to me the right hand of fellowship, no?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Incorrect, you have made the claim to be a Christian, you have demonstrated your beliefs (doctrine) on this list and via your website. Those beliefs are not in accordance with the Bible,<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
But the same thing holds for other Protestants with whom you disagree (as I will demonstrate below), because you are obviously the final arbiter in your mind \u2013 which is why I have referred to you as \u201cyour own pope.\u201d This is what the absurdity of your position comes down to: whoever\u00a0
disagrees with you<\/i>\u00a0is not a Christian. Why? Because they disagree with\u00a0you<\/i>\u00a0(i.e., the one with the\u00a0correct<\/i>\u00a0biblical interpretation). This is both circular and extremely arrogant. You might as well claim to be a prophet, with this tunnel-vision attitude. I don\u2019t even need to explore the historical absurdities which your position entails, because it is already evidently self-refuting.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I don\u2019t need to answer the why, because the statement it is based upon is false. Nothing could be further from the truth. I run CCBE (an email list \u2013 Christians Combatting Biblical Errancy (sorry for the plug :0). On that list there are many Christians with whom I would disagree with some of their positions on some issues and vice versa. Do I say they are not Christians? No, I do not.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Then you have yet to explain why\u00a0
I<\/i>\u00a0am not a Christian, in your eyes. You have to explain why Catholics are out on certain issues, whereas other Protestants who agree with us on\u00a0those<\/i>\u00a0issues are still in.<\/div>\n\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\nI do not consider the consensus minimal enough to include yourself. How many differences on primary doctrinal matters does it take to make the difference between acceptance and rejection of as group as Christian?<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
This is your problem, not mine. I define a Christian (doctrinally) as anyone who subscribes to the Nicene Creed.<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\nI don\u2019t accept you as a brother in Christ because of the doctrine you hold as being Scriptural truth.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Which are those?<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
If it contained nothing but the above creeds then that would be a different matter. It does not, and what you believe as well as those creeds is what makes the difference.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
But the creeds are minimalistic in the first place. All groups presumably add on their own things.\u00a0
Sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0isn\u2019t in the creeds.\u00a0Sola fide<\/i>\u00a0isn\u2019t in there. A host of other Protestant distinctives aren\u2019t there (denominationalism, symbolic baptism and Eucharist, assurance of salvation, TULIP, congregationalism, etc.). I can say the same about you and read\u00a0you\u00a0<\/i>out of the faith on the same basis.<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
How do you interpret \u201cthe communion of saints\u201d from the Apostles\u2019 Creed? Or \u201cthe holy Catholic Church\u201d? Or the \u201cone holy catholic and apostolic Church\u201d of the Nicene Creed? Or \u201cbaptism for the forgiveness of sins\u201d (baptismal regeneration) from same? It seems that you have more difficulty believing these Creeds than I do. Yet you claim you are \u201cin\u201d and I am \u201cout\u201d on this basis. Your criteria for who is a Christian have more holes in \u2019em than a pin cushion.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I do not accept the creeds because of who wrote them, but what is written in them, the which I recognise as being Biblical based truth. One must evaluate a group on the whole package, not just on the common denominators.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Fair enough. Please explain, then, the following clauses, so I can know exactly where you agree and disagree with the Creeds.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
hence judgement needs to be reserved on considering you a brother in Christ until further dialogue has occurred to explore those doctrines which you hold.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I\u2019m happy to both talk about and defend my views from Scripture (as everyone here already knows, I\u2019m sure).<\/div>\n
\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\nAn individual could be saved and be a Christian whilst being a Roman Catholic, a Mormon, a JW etc etc.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
Can a person who denies the Trinity be saved? This is the very doctrine of God . . . The Athanasian Creed would suggest otherwise.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
The result of that salvation would be a departure from those organisations as the error of them became apparent to the same individual through the convicting power of the Holy Spirit and the Providential working of God in their life.<\/span><\/div>\n*\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\nWhich denomination is the true one? If I leave Catholicism, where do I go? And tell me what makes\u00a0
you<\/i>\u00a0the authority on these matters anyway?<\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
I am not the authority, the Scriptures are.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
As authoritatively interpreted by whom? You? What if someone disagrees?<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
As authoritatively interpreted by the consensus of the priesthood of all believers. Any church, whether it be the Roman Catholic, Protestant denomination, Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses exists only because a number of people believe that within such is a right interpretation and application of the Bible.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
What is this right application and interpretation? The only \u201cconsensus\u201d which has been achieved already is minimal enough to include Catholics \u2013 because Protestants disagree amongst themselves on virtually all points other than those which are held in common with\u00a0
us<\/i>.<\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
They judge both you and me, in faith, doctrine and practice.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Agreed. But we have to know what the Bible\u00a0
teaches<\/i>.<\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Every Christian through the priesthood of all believers has the right to apply Scripture and its authority to another individual or organisation.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Okay, so how do we decide who is right when it is applied in contradictory ways? Do you acknowledge any corporate Christian authority higher than yourself? Or is it just you and the Holy Spirit?<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
I acknowledge both the creeds of the one true catholic church.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Which creeds are those?<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
The Apostles, Nicene & Athanasian.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
The latter two creeds were put forth by Catholics (the Nicene, in an Ecumenical Council presided over by a pope), and I as a Catholic accept them. How is it, then, that you don\u2019t accept me as a brother in Christ? And of course the people who wrote these creeds believed in a host of things which you despise: Real Presence, episcopacy, baptismal regeneration, prayers for the dead, Tradition, apostolic succession, infused justification, veneration of Mary and the saints, penance, purgatory, confession, etc., etc. Your position is completely incoherent.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
and the Scriptures on which they are based as higher than any individual or organisation. I am bound by the authority of the Scriptures as you are. The Holy Spirit is the guide of the Christian\u2019s life. That guidance however, will always be in accordance with God\u2019s revealed word.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
I agree with all this, but I still want to know who is the authoritative\u00a0
interpreter<\/i>\u00a0of Scripture.<\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
The Scriptures are the God-given authority by which all men are judged. What will become obvious to all as they follow this dialogue is that your confidence is ultimately in the arm of flesh whereas mine is in God\u2019s revealed word.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Please elaborate. I would say \u2014 if anything \u2014 quite the contrary (though I am very reluctant to make judgments of someone\u2019s heart, as you are). You seem to think you have the proper interpretation of Scripture all locked up, so in the final analysis you are trusting in yourself, and you are flesh.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I, on the other hand, bow to the authority and omniscience and omnipotence of God, whom I believe has guided the Fathers and the universal Church for 2000 years, in order to determine and proclaim and preserve the truths of Christianity. That is anything\u00a0
but<\/i>\u00a0reliance on man. It is having so much faith in God that I believe He can preserve His truths by both written Revelation and in His Church (which, e.g., was necessary to determine the\u00a0Canon<\/i>\u00a0of that same Revelation.<\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Are you suggesting that as long as one embraces all the above it matters not what other doctrines a church espouses?<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
I\u2019m suggesting that one must have a working definition of \u201cChristian\u201d to make any sensible, believable analysis as you attempt to make here, and such a definition, it seems to me, will have to be \u201cminimalistic\u201d to some extent, else many many groups even among Protestants would necessarily be excluded from it. This is your problem.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
You have to somehow come up with a self-generated authority to proclaim who is and isn\u2019t in the fold. That makes you a \u201cSuper-Pope,\u201d as you are exercising far more authority than the pope does \u2013 and arbitrarily and inconsistently at that. Your opinion is hopelessly incoherent, self-defeating and self-refuting.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
That those other doctrines cannot indirectly impact on those which are fundamental?<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Yes (theology being inherently inter-connected), but note that even you freely acknowledge certain doctrines as \u201cfundamental\u201d \u2013 which is my point. But\u00a0
which<\/i>\u00a0are those? And by what authority do you determine that? By what method?<\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
I determine such from the Scriptures.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Great. Now give me a list of them so I will know what I have to believe to rise to the level of \u201cChristian.\u201d That would be the only charitable thing for you to do, right? You claim possession of Christian truth in a way which excludes many others, so it is only fair to let us in on this truth \u2014 in some detail, not cryptic utterances and fashionable evangelical lingo.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Herewith a summary of primary doctrines:<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/span><\/div>\n1. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God and as such are the sole divine authority and rule for Christian faith and practice.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Catholics believe in the\u00a0
material<\/i>, but not\u00a0formal<\/i>\u00a0sufficiency of Scripture. I believe that all theological truths are present in Scripture either explicitly or implicitly, or clearly deduced from other more clearly-presented biblical truths. We believe this because we believe it is what the\u00a0Bible itself<\/i>\u00a0teaches about authority, and what the Christian Church held for 1500 years before Luther came onto the scene and introduced unapostolic novelties.<\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Orthodox, Anglicans, and Methodists and Lutherans (the latter two only to some extent) agree with us on this, and there are many varying interpretations of\u00a0
sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0\u2013 not all of which thumb their nose at 1500 years of Church history as you seem to do.<\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/span><\/div>\n2. That there is but one living and true God, who is infinitely perfect, the Creator, Preserver and Governor of all things and who is the only proper object of religious worship.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
This is Catholic belief.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/span><\/div>\n3. That there are three Persons in the Godhead \u2013 the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, undivided in essence and co-equal in power and glory.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
This is Catholic belief.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
4. That in the person of Jesus Christ the Divine and human natures are united, so that he is truly and properly God and truly and properly man. This same Jesus is the One Mediator between men and God.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
This is Catholic belief.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
I disagree with you, unless you are prepared to state that you do not make any approach to God through Mary, or the saints?<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Sure we do; we ask others to pray for us just as you do. Have you never asked someone to pray for you? They are acting as a mediator. So your position is self-refuting once again.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Read it again. ONE MEDIATOR. Not two, not three, not countless, ONE. I need go through no-one to have access to Jesus. He needs no appeasing.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Agreed, But why, then, do you ask others to pray for you, and pray for them? Why don\u2019t you tell them that they can and should go to Jesus and to leave you alone, so you can have more time to offer adequate and reasonable answers to my posts?<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
5. That our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
We believe in total inability to save oneself, but not total depravity, and are joined in this by Arminian, non-Calvinist Protestants.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
The above point is a doctrinal statement of an Arminian church, of which I was a part of since my childhood until the age of 28 (I am now 31). Total depravity is not particular to Calvinism.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Please define it then in a non-Calvinist manner, if you would. Does it wipe out free will? Does it involve double predestination?<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0*<\/div>\n
6. That Jesus Christ, by his suffering and death has made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0\u00a0*<\/div>\n
This is Catholic belief. But it would seem to be inconsistent with your view unless you believe in Universal Atonement.<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0*<\/div>\n
7. That repentance towards God, faith in Jesus Christ and regeneration by the Holy Spirit are necessary to salvation.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0\u00a0*<\/div>\n
This is Catholic belief.<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0*<\/div>\n
8. That we are justified by grace, through faith in out Lord Jesus Christ and that he that believeth hath the witness in himself.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0\u00a0*<\/div>\n
This is Catholic belief. We would, however, deny \u201cfaith alone\u201d as an unbiblical and novel idea, introduced in the 16th century.<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0*<\/div>\n
One is saved by grace through faith, the which produces works. Works are the product of salvation by grace through faith, not the means to being saved. Such is thoroughly Scriptural, an immediate example being Ephesians 2:8,9.<\/span><\/div>\n*<\/div>\n
No one believed this till the 16th century. Does that mean no one was a Christian till then?<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
9. That it is the privilege of all believers to be wholly sanctified, and that their whole spirit, soul and body may be preserved blameless unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
Interesting. So you are in the Wesleyan strain of thought on this? This is close to our belief, but in conflict with \u201cfaith alone,\u201d strictly applied.<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
There are no doubt many more, but there is sufficient in the above to outline those primary doctrines you requested.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
OK, so anyone who denies any of these is not a Christian?<\/div>\n
\u00a0*<\/div>\n
No, anyone who denies these must demonstrate to me from Scripture why they are erroneous. If such is done, and I am convinced by the Scriptures that they are correct then I will forego that doctrine. If am not convinced then I would seek to convince them from Scripture that their position was the one that required change.<\/span><\/div>\n\u00a0*<\/div>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2019\/07\/Frustration3.jpg\")
<\/div>\n