Whoa little buddy. Take a breath. Correcting the record is not badgering.
You asked in post 45: 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" and then you added when in the other article that he mentioned that I provided link for, it was more specifically "do not assume they are" Christian,
I just was showing that the second part of your statement is not entirely true and that Ransomed was correct, by my posting of what Gideon Knox actually wrote: "Coptic believers are not Christians for the exact same reason Protestants don’t believe Catholics are Christians."
Ransomed was right. Not only that, they also said Catholics aren't Christian. At least the Southern Baptists had the sense to back off, even if it was only because their statement would have looked bad after the Coptic beheadings.
That's'all. Apologies if the correction is badgering you.
There was no apology in what you just wrote. There was nothing that you attributed to me (that actually mattered) that was correct.
I did not say nor agree with what you attempted to portray that I did.
Speaking of correction -- when (if ever) will you allow that much to be corrected?
I'm waiting.
I'm not your "little" buddy.
Instead, you had attempted to broadcast positions others had stated as their own ---as being my own. You still owe me some kind of apology, for that.
While you're at it, you should tell us just how far you personally either reject, or else accept Protestants (at least some of them) to be Christians. If not, if all are rejected -- then upon what grounds could there be complaint made by others doing something which you do yourself? If it be only reliance upon "this is the Way -- not some other", then that is much what the writer who seems to have gotten under your skin is saying about how he himself explains the Gospel.
Scripture, powerfully, and earliest centuries Christian traditions somewhat less so (there is a mixed record among the earliest traditions) both lend support for the man's positions. Yet like I plainly said from the very first -- Not that I necessarily entirely agree with what the writer Gideon Knox said. I don't have to entirely agree with each point the man discussed just as he wrote of those, to "see" the point(s).
The headline of that other article reads "do not assume". The reasons given in that other article, quoted a bit more in more in full than what you cited, read;
Whether or not you believe the Coptic believers are Christians depends on what you believe the true Gospel is and how you believe one is justified before God. If you believe that being a Christian is not a matter of ethnic or cultural affiliation and hold that one isn’t a Christian unless they’re justified, then in the most simple of terms, Coptic believers are not Christians for the exact same reason Protestants don’t believe Catholics are Christians. Coptic believers do not hold to the authentic Sola Fide Gospel of Jesus, and if they die while still holding to a salvation of merit, they will die in their trespasses and sins, and receive the due penalty thereof.This may sound harsh, but this position is the position of historic Protestantism (and we believe, orthodox Christianity).
How much room is there to consider the above be imperfect towards what Coptics and Catholics actually do personally abide by, regarding how they may consider their own justification in the eyes of the Holy One?
Is it salvation of merit -- yes, or no? An answer here is required (unless this all be some form of mere game-playing on your own part -- and anything further from yourself should be fully ignored).
If the answer would be "yes", then I see the man's point (that such ideas are not truly Christian) although not entirely agree that those who do include considerations towards greater sanctification are "not Christian" )for all true Christians do, though have varying ways of approaching and describing the subject matter). It can depend upon how one orders such doings, it seems to me. Some appear to put the cart before the horse, so to speak.
Another point the man was reaching to make was that the Orthodox can come across as there being absolute necessity for greater sanctification coming about only(?) through religious 'works' which they prescribe ----or else salvation not possible, at all?
If that be the case, and at the same time is was being stipulated that one must "do the work" of greater sanctification which involved, and was intrinsically dependent upon partaking of sacraments administered by a so-called priest, then yes again -- the man has a point.
That is not the Gospel as preached within the NT texts, nor is exactly like the primitive Church viewed such. Greater sanctification is rather more; submitting to the leading of the Lord as led by the Holy Spirit within a person. If that occur in conjunction with partaking of the Lord's Supper, and as it is written -- acknowledging Him in all your ways -- then so be it, all can be well.
If on the other hand it be the outwards process itself that is being stipulated must be religiously observed (or salvation be complete and entire impossibility) here again --- that is not the Gospel of Christ, but is something else that has been added to it.
As far as I can tell, and would guess could apply to more than just a few Coptics also, not all Roman Catholics I have encountered put stock foremost in what the writer termed salvation of merit.
Those who love the Lord will keep the commandments -- and those who do love Him, He will possibly love more greatly than those who know not of Him, and those who refuse to allow Himself to guide them. Yet while we were yet sinners, still He loved [us].