Murdered Coptics, Catholics and Orthodox not Christians, says protestant author

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lenten_ashes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The article seems to attack the Coptics as if they Roman Catholics without a Pope, making reference to the Coptic denial of Sola Fide the author says this:

“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.”

I am not an expert on Oriental Theology but this sort of talk of merit, which is a hallmark of Roman Catholic theology, I doubt would have a place within the Coptic tradition which developed in a direction different (much like the Eastern Orthodox did) than Medieval Catholicism. It’s often a charge by those who insist on Sola Fide in the extreme, that those who deny it think of themselves as having to earn salvation in order to enter heaven. The good we do in Eastern Orthodox theology is not separate from our salvation but forms a core part of it, this does not mean that it our working in order to achieve something the sacrifice of Christ could not. This should be evident from the celebration of the Pascha service, in which we rejoice in our salvation.

Saint Athanasius a saint respected in all traditions lays down the universal Christian idea concerning what Christ accomplished.

“For the Word, being conscious that no otherwise could the corruption of man be abolished save through death at any rate, while yet it was impossible for the Word to die, being immortal and Son of the Father, for this reason takes to Himself a body capable of death, in order that it, by being made a partaker of the Word who is above all, might be a sufficient representative of all in the (discharge of the penalty of) death, and, through the indwelling Word, might remain incorruptible, and that for the future corruption should cease from all by the grace of the resurrection. Whence, by offering to death the body He Himself took as an offering and sacrifice free from every stain, He forthwith obliterated death from all His peers by the offering of the equivalent.”

Athanasius of Alexandria, Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word of God, trans. T. Herbert Bindley, Second Edition Revised. (London: The Religious Tract Society, 1903), 57.

I also want to quote some relevent sections from the Coptic liturgy of Saint Basil which demonstrate the Coptic’s commitment to Christ’s salvation.

"Even so, O our Lord, be with us, take part with
us in this; bless us. For You are the forgiveness
of our sins, the light of our souls, our life, and
our strength and our confidence. "

"God, Who gives grace, Who sends forth
salvation, Who works all in all; 10 Grant, O
Lord, that our sacrifice may be accepted before
You for my sins, and for the ignorance of Your
people; "

“Let us give thanks unto the beneficent
and merciful God, the Father of our
Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ; For
He has covered us, helped us, guarded
us, accepted us to Him, spared us,
supported us, and has brought us to
this hour.
Let us also ask Him, the Lord our God,
Almighty to guard us in all peace this
holy day and all the days of our life.”

And further on

“Dispense unto us Your mercy, and loose every
bond of our sins, and, if we have committed
any sin against You, knowingly or
unknowingly, or through anguish of heart, or in
deed, or in word, or from faint-heartedness;
Do, O Master, Who knows the weakness of
men, as a good and Lover of mankind One,
God, grant us the forgiveness of our sins; bless
us, purify us; make us absolved, and all Your
people absolved. Fill us with Your fear, and
straighten us unto Your holy, good will;
For You are our God, and the glory, honor, the
dominion, and the adoration are due to You,
together with Your good Father and the Holy
Spirit, the Life-Giver, Who is of one essence
with You; Now, and at all times, and unto the
age of all ages. Amen.”

I am amazed at the characterisation of some reformed/Protestants (not all) who think that anyone who doesn’t uphold a strict sola Fide will attribute salvation to what good works they themselves do.
 
Dorothy said:
I don’t have the Catholic Catechism statement at my fingertips right now but I am aware that “outside the Church there is no salvation” needs clarification.

God knows what is in the heart. He knows who is sincerely seeking, and who is stubborn. lf those who seek the truth are sincerely following what they believe, they can be saved…and it is through the Church that they are saved.

I hope someone who knows how to articulate this can explain better than me. Meanwhile I will look this up in the Catechism.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but not to me. There are now and have been over the years Catholics who articulate it in the way I described.

At the very least, I’ve always had the sense that most of these Catholics recognize that members of western non-Catholic Christian communions are in fact Christian, something the writer in the article fails to realize.
 
heidi_storage said:
I’m in a Reformed denomination. We don’t have a pope, and this random dude doesn’t speak for us.
Click to expand...
Fair point. I mentioned earlier that it is awful that the author “connected his comments about the Coptic Orthodox with the victims of the recent church bombings” in order to get more attention and thereby to help him to get his message out. But conversely, I don’t wish to use this as a cheap opportunity to attack Protestants.
 
Coptic Christianity was the first major schism in Christian history. During the 5th century. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox were far from being separate entities at that point. They were known as the Great Church. Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria as it is officially called is part of a broader form of Christianity called Oriental Christianity.
The schism between Oriental Orthodoxy and the Great Church was based on differences in Christology. The First Council of Nicaea, in 325, declared that Jesus Christ is God, that is to say, “consubstantial” with the Father. Later, the third ecumenical council, the Council of Ephesus, declared that Jesus Christ, though divine as well as human, is only one being, or person (hypostasis). Thus, the Council of Ephesus explicitly rejected Nestorianism, the Christological doctrine that Christ was two distinct beings, one divine (the Logos) and one human (Jesus), who happened to inhabit the same body. The Churches that later became Oriental Orthodoxy were firmly anti-Nestorian, and therefore strongly supported the decisions made at Ephesus.
Twenty years after Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the view that Jesus Christ was a single person, but at the same time declared that this one person existed “in two complete natures”, one human and one divine. Those who opposed Chalcedon saw this as a concession to Nestorianism, or even as a conspiracy to convert the Church to Nestorianism by stealth. As a result, over the following decades, they gradually separated from communion with the Great Church, and formed the body that is today called Oriental Orthodoxy.
 
heidi_storage said:
I’m in a Reformed denomination. We don’t have a pope, and this random dude doesn’t speak for us.

I would say many Catholics, Orthodox, Copts, etc aren’t Christian. I would say the same is true of many Protestants, including in my own denomination. Only God knows the heart. I disagree profoundly with many principles of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc, which is why I do not belong to those denominations, but I am quite certain that some of my own beliefs are wrong. May those who truly confess the risen Jesus as Lord and accept His sacrifice as expiation for sin be shown mercy, however wonky their theology otherwise.
Click to expand...
Sounds fair.

The author of this article reminds me of Westboro Baptist Church hate group. It’s one thing to disagree on soteirology, quite another to trample on people’s graves.
 
Tomyris said:
J.D.Hall says it all.
Click to expand...
I had to get off line and do something and that statement seems a little enigmatic.I did some digging, and there is dirt.

J.D.Hall is referenced on the website, which is strangely difficult to determine things like who is running it. J.D.Hall’s works are referenced, however. He is a Baptist preacher in Montana. A small group of his fellow ‘polemicists’ (their word) run this site and a closed Facebook page. Probably the author’s name is a pseudonym and he is in their ‘bunker’ (their word).

I am really reluctant to say more, because there is a lot of really ugly stuff on the internet and of course not all of it is true, and I don’t want to slime people here with it.

This article is not mainstream anything and should not be considered so.
 
jas84173 said:
Coptic Christianity was the first major schism in Christian history. During the 5th century. Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox were far from being separate entities at that point. They were known as the Great Church. Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria as it is officially called is part of a broader form of Christianity called Oriental Christianity.
The schism between Oriental Orthodoxy and the Great Church was based on differences in Christology. The First Council of Nicaea, in 325, declared that Jesus Christ is God, that is to say, “consubstantial” with the Father. Later, the third ecumenical council, the Council of Ephesus, declared that Jesus Christ, though divine as well as human, is only one being, or person (hypostasis). Thus, the Council of Ephesus explicitly rejected Nestorianism, the Christological doctrine that Christ was two distinct beings, one divine (the Logos) and one human (Jesus), who happened to inhabit the same body. The Churches that later became Oriental Orthodoxy were firmly anti-Nestorian, and therefore strongly supported the decisions made at Ephesus.
Twenty years after Ephesus, the Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed the view that Jesus Christ was a single person, but at the same time declared that this one person existed “in two complete natures”, one human and one divine. Those who opposed Chalcedon saw this as a concession to Nestorianism, or even as a conspiracy to convert the Church to Nestorianism by stealth. As a result, over the following decades, they gradually separated from communion with the Great Church, and formed the body that is today called Oriental Orthodoxy.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that was more a misunderstanding, most likely due to linguistically differences.
Today, the Catholics and Coptic Orthodox have agreed that they believe the same thing, in this regard but this have a long way to reunification
 
I have to admit I used to be like the writer of the article when I was a Reformed Protestant. I considered Catholics and Orthodox to be non-Christians and felt sad that those who suffered martyrdom would be condemned by Christ for not believing in salvation by faith alone.

Fortunately, I did some research and realised that the Catholic faith was the original faith of the early church and that it was the Protestants who had invented doctrine.

I think the whole thing hinges on sola fide (and sola scriptura). These groups make sola fide part of the gospel, and therefore anyone who does not believe it is not Christian. Matt Slick has come up with his own list of essential Christian teachings, one of which is sola fide, and judges Catholics to be non-Christians because they don’t hold to faith alone.
 
Michael85 said:
I have to admit I used to be like the writer of the article when I was a Reformed Protestant. I considered Catholics and Orthodox to be non-Christians and felt sad that those who suffered martyrdom would be condemned by Christ for not believing in salvation by faith alone.

Fortunately, I did some research and realised that the Catholic faith was the original faith of the early church and that it was the Protestants who had invented doctrine.

I think the whole thing hinges on sola fide (and sola scriptura). These groups make sola fide part of the gospel, and therefore anyone who does not believe it is not Christian. Matt Slick has come up with his own list of essential Christian teachings, one of which is sola fide, and judges Catholics to be non-Christians because they don’t hold to faith alone.
Click to expand...
Whenever I debate sola fide, I often say that the devil knows Christ is the Son of God. So right their, it’s obvious that faith alone isn’t enough. Nevermind the fact that St James says in his Epistle.

Furthermore, what does the “Faith in Christ” alone that Sola Fide believers subscribe to mean? What about God the Father and God the Holy Spirit? We should have faith in the entire Trinity.

Finally, these Sola Fide fundamentalists misunderstand what Catholics & Orthodox mean. We agree that we are saved by Grace and that Grace comes via Faith. And we agree that you cannot earn your salvation via works. But we also believe that faith alone is not enough. Faith without works is dead. You can be a devout Christian, reading the Bible every day. But if you do no good works then that means you are selfish and you are not treating other like they are Christ.
 
Michael85 said:
I have to admit I used to be like the writer of the article when I was a Reformed Protestant. I considered Catholics and Orthodox to be non-Christians and felt sad that those who suffered martyrdom would be condemned by Christ for not believing in salvation by faith alone.

Fortunately, I did some research and realised that the Catholic faith was the original faith of the early church and that it was the Protestants who had invented doctrine.

I think the whole thing hinges on sola fide (and sola scriptura). These groups make sola fide part of the gospel, and therefore anyone who does not believe it is not Christian. Matt Slick has come up with his own list of essential Christian teachings, one of which is sola fide, and judges Catholics to be non-Christians because they don’t hold to faith alone.
Click to expand...
Slick may not realize this, but he does great work…for the Catholic church :rotfl:

Seriously, hearing him get beaten badly in debates, then subsequently losing his cool and snapping on his opponenet is enough to make any reasonable person investigate his claims and compare them to historical Christianity.

Im sure he’s a sincere Christian though.
 
Tomyris said:
I had to get off line and do something and that statement seems a little enigmatic.I did some digging, and there is dirt.

J.D.Hall is referenced on the website, which is strangely difficult to determine things like who is running it. J.D.Hall’s works are referenced, however. He is a Baptist preacher in Montana. A small group of his fellow ‘polemicists’ (their word) run this site and a closed Facebook page. Probably the author’s name is a pseudonym and he is in their ‘bunker’ (their word).

I am really reluctant to say more, because there is a lot of really ugly stuff on the internet and of course not all of it is true, and I don’t want to slime people here with it.

This article is not mainstream anything and should not be considered so.
Click to expand...
I wonder if he has any actual credentials. Im gonna have to look into it.

Never heard of him or this site prior to today.
 
That site seems to have a problem with everyone including Russell Moore and Billy Graham just to name a few.
 
IgnatianPhilo said:
I saw that last night and my first thought was, wow, they’re doing it again.

Striking the Coptic wound while the theological iron is hot. I think it says something about the spirit of ultra reformed folks that they wouldn’t even wait, let the dead bury their dead and all that before saying they were never Christian and are subsequently doomed to hell. This sort of appearance can only make pulpit and pen look bad, since they did before when the 21 Coptic Christians were murdered by ISIS (they proclaimed Jesus’ name upon their deaths).

I notice that in order for them to hold their beliefs regarding the non Christianity of Coptics, they must insist that Sola Fide is a necessary doctrine. It is however a doctrine formed specifically out of the reflection and crystallisation of one man, Martin Luther, even if aspects can be found before him in other writers. Do Pulpit and Pen believe they are the only Christians to walk to the earth these last 2000 years? I wouldn’t be surprised.

Also, as Ryan pointed out, the author doesn’t understand the difference between the Greek Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions, that we are not one Church. I will give the author at least some credit for quoting Pope Shenouda but why should we trust Pen and Pulpit to expound a theology which they clearly have little knowledge of?
Click to expand...
Is the author a member of the Reformed church? I didn’t see that at first glance. Regardless, he’d hardly speak for all Protestants, all Reformed, all anything. He only speaks for himself. And his blog on this subject is indeed extremely insensitive and uncharitable.
That said, I’m not sure what " ultra reformed" means…Unless you’re talking Puritans…🤷
 
Faithdancer said:
Is the author a member of the Reformed church? I didn’t see that at first glance. Regardless, he’d hardly speak for all Protestants, all Reformed, all anything. He only speaks for himself. And his blog on this subject is indeed extremely insensitive and uncharitable.
That said, I’m not sure what " ultra reformed" means…Unless you’re talking Puritans…🤷
Click to expand...
He’s not “Reformed” in the classical sense–judging by the website’s statement of faith. It seems to be premillennial dispensationalist with a Once Saved Always Saved soteriology. Baptism is by immersion and for believers.

Maybe he’s a Fundamentalist Baptist?
 
Faithdancer said:
Is the author a member of the Reformed church? I didn’t see that at first glance. Regardless, he’d hardly speak for all Protestants, all Reformed, all anything. He only speaks for himself. And his blog on this subject is indeed extremely insensitive and uncharitable.
That said, I’m not sure what " ultra reformed" means…Unless you’re talking Puritans…🤷
Click to expand...
Ultra reformed - more on the fundamentalist side.

Those who are irrational - if the text were to say it was raining cats and dogs outside, well then, there must be cats and dogs falling from the sky

From my dealings here at CAF- nobody here falls into that category, thankfully.
 
If you corrected him, I think he would reply that there is only one salient characteristic of all other churches that disagree with his blinkered vision: they disagree with his blinkered vision. All other points are nugatory, including factual accuracy in his assertions.It’s the big picture, not the details: we are right, all others are wrong and non-Christian.
 
I don’t know him, and now do I wish to, and would probably be considered among the apostates according to him, but I believe from what I have read that he would likely be a Reformed Baptist. Having said that, the Reformed Baptists of my acquaintance repudiate him as being far too extreme and confrontational. Which is saying something.
 
Lenten_ashes said:
Ultra reformed - more on the fundamentalist side.

Those who are irrational - if the text were to say it was raining cats and dogs outside, well then, there must be cats and dogs falling from the sky

From my dealings here at CAF- nobody here falls into that category, thankfully.
Click to expand...
That was my take, that he’s a fundamentalist Baptist. Those folks would take a dim view of Reformed believers. On account of infant baptism and confessionalism, among other things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top