What about the part where Ransomed had initially misrepresented these authors we are discussing? He had said they said "do not consider Coptics to be Christian", when in the other article that he mentioned that I provided link for, it was more specifically "do not assume they are" Christian. Isn't that just about how far Roman Catholics will "go" with whatever measure of charity they someof them may hold towards so-called Protestants (while other Romanists often condemn all Protestants to hell at the same time)?
Personally, I thought even the 'do not assume they are Christians' thing was a bit too uncharitable, although when applied down to individual levels, it can apply most anywhere -- including among Southern Baptists. The wheat and the tares, you know? They'd be among the first to agree with that assessment, I do believe...
I'm willing to be a bit freer with benefit of the doubt, even at harshest comparison of doctrines, when the comparisons are aimed towards large groups in general.
But now
we're going to get bogged down in extraneous details? At first I was going to say something about the author's words, then I switched to focusing upon the IMB quote.
How clumsy and imprecise of me. But so what? How much does that matter?
Did I say any of those things? -- you know, the stuff you tried to put into my mouth, as if that's where I stood? Not exactly. What I did say provided rooms for acceptance of Coptics, and others too, as being "Christian", which led me to resent being misrepresented - while you pinged a small group to you're comment.
You still don't understand myself in this. I doubt you ever will.
Your defense of the author, Gideon Knox, is noted.
The author says "Coptic believers are not Christians for the exact same reason Protestants don’t believe Catholics are Christians."