Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Various Protestant Errors (vs. Steve Gregg)

Various Protestant Errors (vs. Steve Gregg)

Last updated on: June 6, 2026 at 12:51 am by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Various Protestant Errors (vs. Steve Gregg) 2026-06-06T00:51:51-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo credit: dnet (1-11-08) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative CommonsAttribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License]

*****

Protestant Steve Gregg’s words will be in blue. See his online biography.

*****

This began with a thread on my Facebook page where I posted a meme. It read as follows (numbers added for the sake of reference):

Protestantism:

[1] Where everyone is a priest except priests,

[2] Where everyone can bind and loose except bishops,

[3] Where you can command angels but not ask their help,

[4] Where you can talk to the devil but not to saints,

[5] Where everyone gets a crown except the Virgin Mary,

[6] Where everyone can interpret Scripture except the Church,

[7] Where every Church is a Church except the Church.

Now, posting a meme doesn’t necessarily mean that one agrees with every particular of it. And this is clearly a proverbial-type of meme, that would allow many exceptions (just as passages in the Book of Proverbs do). Moreover, with Protestantism one has to generalize, since there are so many divisions, but these observations are either broadly true or true of some and sometimes many Protestants, or else I wouldn’t have posted it. There can always be partial exceptions in an individual as well. I will defend this as far as I agree with it and reply to objections that are in the thread. More on this aspect below . . .

All of a sudden this post has received 345 likes or dislikes, 95 comments, and 154 shares in a little less than 24 hours: far more than I usually get on my Facebook page. Readers can see the comments in their original contexts and format by consulting the post (linked at the top). I will be doing my usual back-and-forth (Plato / Socrates / Peter Kreeft) dialogue format. But I have cited all the words of my opponent. No “cynical / hostile” editing here!

I wrote to Steve Gregg on Facebook: “I, too, came out of a Jesus People / Movement background. In the early 80s I wanted to join Keith Green’s ministry, shortly before he was killed. I used to read Cornerstone Magazine, and visited there. I did street witnessing all through the 80s at U of M in Ann Arbor. Etc. I admire all of that. We have much in common because of it.”

I am neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. So I guess I would be called “Protestant”. I prefer the label “believer” or “disciple.” I do not fit your description:

Yes, you are a species of Protestant. But I understand that many Protestants deem themselves beyond any traditional or conventional theological / denominational labels and call themselves — as you did — merely a “believer” or “disciple” [of Jesus]” or just “Christians.” That’s fine on a certain level, with limitations, but in any event, one must be aware of their own theological pedigree and traditions. No one is beyond this, whatever they claim. We’re all products of some sort of tradition or influence.

In your biography you referred to many authors you have read. I am familiar with just about all of them. I know where you are coming from. It’s a form of Protestantism. I used to believe many of these same things as a non-denominational Baptist-type Arminian, with many Christian influences. Someone said that “everyone has a [theological] tradition; even if it is an unacknowledged one.”

You yourself made reference to where your own belief-system came from, historically speaking, in writing in your biography: “I suppose the first new ideas that I developed, from my personal study of the scriptures, were what would best be termed ‘Anabaptist’ convictions.” That’s good. I once angered one of my old evangelical teachers (a converted Jew for whom I had immense respect), by asking him if he were in the Anabaptist tradition. He thought he was above all categories and traditions, which is folly and silliness.
*
You, on the other hand, show that you are aware of at least some pedigree. The Anabaptists, of course, began shortly after Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517 and kicked off the Protestant Revolt. They’re considered to be Protestants who were part of “the radical reformation.” Both Luther and Calvin approved of executing them for heresy and sedition, as you may already know. It’s not just Catholics who killed others for believing what they thought was heresy.

1) No, everyone is a priest whom Jesus and the apostles acknowledged to be priests;

This part of the meme clearly refers to the Protestant emphasis on the universal priesthood of believers. That sense is scriptural, and we also believe it. But we differ in thinking that there is an additional specific class of clergy called priests, who preside over the Mass and watch over their flocks, as Protestant pastors do. In other words, there are two senses of “priest” in the Bible. I addressed this topic in my 2007 book, The One-Minute Apologist: Essential Catholic Replies to Over Sixty Common Protestant Claims (pp. 48-49; I use RSV for biblical citations):

The priesthood as we know it today is not a strong motif in the New Testament. But this can be explained in terms of development of doctrine: in the early days of Christianity some things were understood only in a very basic or skeletal sense. This is true even of certain doctrines accepted by all Christians, such as the Holy Trinity or original sin. The canon of biblical books took four centuries to be fully established. . . .

But one can indeed find evidence in the Bible of a Christian priesthood. Jesus entrusts to His disciples a remembrance of the central aspect of the liturgy or Mass (consecration of the bread and wine) at the Last Supper [(Lk. 22:19: “Do this in remembrance of me”]; Paul may also have presided over a Eucharist in Acts 20:11. These same disciples were models of a priestly life: wholly devoted to God, fulfilling a lifelong calling. Jesus had chosen and “appointed” them, and they had become His “friends” [Jn. 15:15-16]. He was their sole master [Mt. 6:24]. There was no turning back in their ministry [Lk. 9:62], and they were called to a radical commitment involving even leaving possessions and their entire families [Mt. 4:22; 19:27; Lk. 14:26]. The priest-disciple must accept hardships and privations and embrace self-denial [Mt. 8:19-20; 10:38; 16:24, etc.], and (if so called) celibacy, for the sake of undistracted devotion to the Lord [Mt. 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:7-9]. They served the Body of Christ [1 Cor. 3:5; 9:19; 2 Cor. 4:5], and dispensed sacraments [1 Cor. 4:1; Jas. 5:14; Mt. 28:19]. A universal priesthood of “offering” (sacrifice) extending to “every place” in New Testament times is prophesied in Isaiah 66:18, 21 and Malachi 1:11.

Protestants sometimes cite 1 Peter 2:5, 9 (cf. Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6) to the effect that all Christians are priests; therefore there is no set-apart priestly ministry. But Peter was citing Exodus 19:6: “you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” This passage couldn’t possibly have meant that there was no priesthood among the ancient Hebrews, since in Leviticus they clearly had a separate class of priests. In fact, this same chapter twice contrasts the “priests” with the “people” [Ex. 19:21-24; cf. Josh. 3:6; 4:9]. Thus, it makes much more sense to interpret “priests” in 1 Peter 2:5 as meaning a chosen, specially holy people. This is fairly clear in context, in both parallel passages. The notion of “spiritual sacrifices” (faith, praise, giving to others) applies to all Christians [Phil. 2:17; Heb. 13:15-16].

The idea that all Christians are priests to the exclusion of a special class of clergy-priests is traceable to Martin Luther, not the Bible.

2) Bishops are not singled out to be excluded from the activity of binding and loosing;

The idea in the meme is that most Protestants don’t have bishops at all, despite their being cited as a Church office in the Bible (“bishop” appears four times in the NT in RSV). Technically (where I disagree with the meme), priests — not just bishops — bind and loose as well, in the course of confession, absolution, and penance. But most Protestants don’t have priests, either, so it makes little difference as to the overall point being made. Catholics believe that Jesus’ original disciples represented as a prototype, priests (or pastors, if one “Protestantizes” it).
*
Hence, Jesus told Peter to “Feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep” and “feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17). And the Apostle Paul, speaking to “the elders of the church” (Acts 20:17), said, “Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God” (Acts 20:28). Similarly, the Apostle Peter wrote: ” So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder . . . Tend the flock of God that is your charge” (1 Pet 5:1-2).

Now, one might ask what we mean by “binding and loosing.” International Standard Bible Dictionary (“Bind, Bound”) states:

In a figurative sense, to bind heavy and burdensome (extra) so-called religious duties on men (Mt 23:4). This figurative use of the word in Mt 16:19 and Mt 18:18 has given special interest to it. Necessarily certain powers for administration must be conferred on this company of men to carry out the purpose of Christ. That this power was not conferred on Peter alone is evident from the fact that in Mt 18:18 it is conferred on all the apostles. The use of the word in the New Testament is to declare a thing to be binding or obligatory (Joh 20:23).

New Bible Dictionary (“Binding and Loosing”) affirms that this means “the Church’s power to excommunicate and reconcile the sinner.” Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (“Binding and Loosing”) likewise defines it as “the authority to to determine the rules for doctrine and life . . .” These are all Protestant sources.

3) Most Protestants do not believe in commanding angels. I don’t…nor does anyone I know;
*

Again, it’s a proverbial-type meme. I agree with you that this particular item applies to only a small number of Protestants. Even you assumed that by using the word “most.” If “most” Protestants don’t believe this, then by the same token, “some” do! They exist. You mentioned Kenneth Hagen in your biography. His fellow “Word of Faith” minister Kenneth Copeland teaches this:

2. Command your angels

Can you really do this? In short, yes. Keep in mind, you aren’t commanding them in the same way you are commanding and rebuking the devil. You are releasing them to do the work they’ve been assigned to perform on your behalf.

You have been given the authority of Jesus Christ, as an heir, and you can command your angels to move on your behalf to carry out the Word (Psalm 103:20). Kenneth Copeland advises saying something like this: “In the Name of Jesus, ministering spirits, I assign you according to Hebrews 1:13-14 to see to it that I have protection in this car, in this airplane, in this building. I claim this right as an heir to salvation.” (“5 Ways To Put Your Angels To Work,” Kenneth Copeland Ministries)

Another Protestant site has an article entitled, “You Can Command Angels to Help You!” The Bible passages it cites don’t prove this, in my opinion. A third site states, “Yes, you CAN command angels with your words and your prayers.” There is even a book called Commanding Angels. So this exists. But it would be very difficult to find any Catholic of any note who believes in something this stupid and unbiblical. And this is the point. The error exists in your ranks. It doesn’t in ours. And I think that you have to ask yourself why that is?

It’s important to realize that the meme doesn’t necessarily have to mean that all Protestants believe all these things. That false notion is at the root of many objections in my Facebook thread. It’s implying (at least in my opinion and interpretation) that these beliefs can be or are found among Protestants.

To use an analogy, I could put up a meme about “The Democratic Party” and list seven things that some or many Democrats believe (free abortion and widespread illegal immigration and opposition to fossil fuels would be three examples). It wouldn’t follow that every Democrat believes all seven things; as Democrats (the men and women on the street; not just the politicians) are quite diverse as a group, just as Protestants are. But the generalizations would hold. Democrats are absolutely overwhelmingly in favor of legal abortion, etc. The fact that some aren’t doesn’t negate the legitimacy of the generalization. And the same applies to this meme.

It’s not our fault that Protestantism includes many weird and false beliefs within itself. You get angry when we merely point some of these out. But every difference of opinion within Protestantism entails at least one false view or two. They can’t both be true. Therefore, Protestantism by nature contains much false doctrine, simply because of the innumerable contradictions. It’s up to you to change that, but the grossly unbiblical spectacle of denominationalism has never been resolved and never will be because your own rule of faith of sola Scriptura precludes the possibility. We can solve things because we abide by the biblical notions of authority: an authoritative Church and tradition in harmony with and guided by the inspired revelation of Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit.

By the way, I , too, opposed and wrote about the “name it claim it” / “all are healed” heresy and nonsense as an evangelical Protestant (and charismatic) in 1982. It was one of my earliest apologetics projects. I was also refuting the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the same time-period and defending the Deity of Jesus and the Holy Trinity from Scripture.
*

The other part of this entry is “not ask[ing] their [angels’] help.” The vast majority of Protestants certainly oppose invocation of angels or departed human beings. That is absolutely indisputable. But this action is biblical. There is even a passage in Scripture where prayer petitions are asked of an angel and granted (!):

Genesis 19:15, 18-21 When morning dawned, the angels urged Lot, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”. . . And Lot said to them, “Oh, no, my lords; behold, your servant has found favor in your sight, and you have shown me great kindness in saving my life; but I cannot flee to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me, and I die. Behold, yonder city is near enough to flee to, and it is a little one. Let me escape there — is it not a little one? — and my life will be saved!” He said to him, “Behold, I grant you this favor also, that I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken.

That’s asking an angel to help, and prayer to an angel, and the Bible presents it as perfectly fine and dandy. We’re biblical in this respect; probably 99% of Protestants aren’t (some high Anglicans would agree with us).

4) I don’t talk to the devil, but he (unlike deceased Christians) is around and might actually hear me;

I make numerous biblical arguments for the invocation of saints, which this item in the meme mentioned, as a thing Protestants deny. The best one, I think, is the rich man’s prayer petitions to Abraham (Luke 16). Abraham never rebukes him for petitioning him, but he answers “no”: just as God does when we ask something improper or against His will. So that’s one thing. As for talking to the devil, Jesus did that in the wilderness, so we certainly can (He being our model: 1 Cor 11:1; 1 Thess 1:6; Heb 12:2-3).
*
I think James 4:7 (“Resist the devil and he will flee from you”) is consistent with the practice of talking to him when resisting him. Jesus said, “Begone, Satan!” (Mt 4:10), so we could say the same thing, applying James 4:7. So the relevant question here for Protestants, is, why are they reluctant to do a thing (talk to the devil) that Jesus Himself did?

5) Who ever suggested that Mary does not get a crown?
*

Again, the meaning behind this is that Protestants resist any mention of Jesus as the Queen of Heaven, etc., as supposed idolatry (“Mariolatry”), even though this is explicitly biblical (Rev 12:1: “on her head a crown of twelve stars”). Why? Several of the points in the meme are criticizing the very common Protestant shortcoming of “either/or” false dichotomies. An entire (brilliant) book was written about this very tendency, called The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, by Louis Bouyer, a Lutheran convert to Catholicism. My very highest recommendation!

6) Everyone who is in Christ actually IS the Church;
*

This point was about interpreting Scripture. Protestants — in the final analysis, or bottom line — essentially give the individual the final say in this, by adopting sola Scriptura, since it removed infallibility for the Church. Therefore, the individual (like Luther, who invented this!) can judge the institutional (Catholic / Orthodox) Church. That’s exactly what Luther did in 1521 at the Diet of Worms. He knew better than the entire unbroken 1500-year tradition of the Catholic Church. I’ll get to what the Church is in my next reply.

7) The Church is comprised of all who are in Christ. No church building or organization is “the Church.” That identity is reserved for the disciple community—the whole body of Christ globally. No one local congregation can claim to be the whole body of Christ.

This is untrue. The name of the group which is comprised of “all who are in Christ”: at last in terms of all who are actually saved and go to heaven in the end, is “the elect.” And the problem with that is that no one knows for sure who is in the elect, because we don’t perfectly know the future, and Christians can fall away from the faith. In the Bible, there are many instances of folks who are probably fallen away already, being included in the blanket term as members of the local church. So, for example, when Paul wrote to the Galatians, he addressed them as “To the churches of Galatia” (Gal 1:2). That is, he’s writing to those whom he considers part of the Church.

Yet in that group were terrible folks, since Paul wrote, “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?. . . Are you so foolish? Having begun with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh?” (Gal 3:1, 3). It’s the same with the seven churches in revelation. In that instance, Jesus is talking to them, commending and rebuking. But he addresses them as [local] churches. The people in those assemblies are part of the Church, in other words. There are bad people in the Church. And we don’ know who the elect are until we get to heaven and literally see who made it.

“Church” (ecclesia) is used many times in Scripture in the sense of the entire institutional Church. There are many arguments to be made along these lines, and I have made them. One of my favorites is the Jerusalem Council. This was led by Peter and the bishop of Jerusalem, James, attended by Paul, and consisted of “apostles and elders.” It made a decree that was agreed with by the Holy Spirit (i.e., an infallible or even inspired one) — Acts 15:28 — , which was proclaimed by Paul far and wide as binding on Christians (Acts 16:4).

That’s undeniably an institutional Church, and one that produced infallible binding decrees in council: all of which is contrary to the beliefs of most Protestants. Sola Scriptura denies that councils can be infallible, but the Jerusalem Council was. You deny that the Church was an organization. Yet here it was. BIG discussion — and if you hang around, we can get into that in far more depth — , but that is my short, nutshell answer for now.

Who told you these falsehoods about your “separated brethren”?

I draw these conclusions from my own study as an apologist (over 43 years) and “sociological observer” (I’m a sociology major) and my 13-year history as a zealous evangelical Protestant. I’ve defended them now and have pointed out the broad, general nature of the meme, which is always necessary in any “statement” about Protestantism.

I simply responded truthfully, line-by-line to the meme.

And now I have extended to you the same “favor” and courtesy.

[To someone else] you did not find Christ in a Protestant setting, which tells me you were never actually a “Christian” in Protestantism. . . . you have never known Christ–only religion

You don’t know that. You can’t say that about him because you don’t know his heart. Only God knows that. You don’t know enough about him to make such a sweeping judgment, because he didn’t say that much about his personal spiritual life. But here you are judging his soul. And the insult is complete with a Protestant slogan: the pitting of Christ against religious observance, as if that is valid to do. Religion is not a bad thing. It’s not a dirty word. It appears six times in the NT in RSV (and religious also appears three times), in an entirely positive sense. So who are we to make it a term of condescending disdain when the Bible doesn’t?

Since neither Christ nor the apostles affirmed any point in this paragraph, I will assume you take these things to be true on the authority of the particular religious establishment in which you have chosen to place your confidence.

All of them are affirmed in the Bible, and I have shown that in many of my articles and books. You make bald statements. I make elaborate biblical and historical, rational arguments. The Mormon comparison is an old tired and boorish saw. Don’t even try that, if I am around.

this was also true of many early Christian congregations before the idea of apostolic succession was invented.

Apostolic succession is explicitly biblical. See, for example:

*
Visible, Hierarchical, Apostolic Church [1996]

Apostles Became Bishops (Apostolic Succession) [1997]

Biblical Arguments for Apostolic Succession [9-9-09]

Dialogues on Various Biblical Arguments for Apostolic Succession [1-5-17]

*
Apostolic Succession: More Biblical Arguments [1-6-17]

Apostolic Succession as Seen in the Jerusalem Council [National Catholic Register, 1-15-17]

Apostolic Succession: Reply to Certain Misconceptions [7-1-20]

Answers to Questions About Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 7-25-20]

A New Biblical Argument for Apostolic Succession [National Catholic Register, 4-23-21]
*

Apostolic Succession, Judas, & Matthias [5-26-23]

Jerusalem Council & James, Bishop Of Jerusalem: The Ambivalence and Inconsistencies of Protestant Thought on the Earliest “Monarchical” Bishops [1-30-24]

You may have been around Pentecostals. Most Protestants do not believe in such things.

Yeah, I agreed above. I contend that the meme doesn’t require an interpretation that “all Protestants believe everything in the meme.” Wikipedia (“Pentecostalism”) states that “worldwide Pentecostal and Charismatic Christianity numbers over 644 million adherents.” I was a charismatic evangelical for ten years and I attend a Catholic charismatic parish now (since 2020). I never believed that I could command an angel, but if even, say, a third of pentecostals believe this (I don’t know how many do), that’s about 215 million people (60 million more than all worldwide Lutherans and Presbyterians combined).

That’s more than sufficiently enough to note this as a belief of [some] Protestants. By contrast, there are 80 million Lutherans worldwide, 85 million Anglicans, 80 million Methodists, 170 million Baptists, and 75 million Presbyterians. There is overlap in the categories, but assuming for comparison’s sake that pentecostals are a distinct group, they have 154 million more people than all of these very mainstream denominations combined. That even brings into question the notion that pentecostals are a minority in Protestantism. Sounds like they are a majority and by far the largest single distinct group.

I have been in very many different Protestant churches and do not find this to be accepted in the vast majority of cases. No Protestant I know believes in commanding angels.

Then you must not have been to many pentecostal churches. I have. As I said, I was a charismatic evangelical, and most of my time was spent there (Assemblies of God, where I got married, and non-denominational congregations).

I have been in (probably) about 100 (I have taught in many around the world over the last 55 years), and have never seen such a reaction to the mention of the mother of Jesus. Your experience seems very limited.

The mere mention of Mary doesn’t do that (after all, Protestants talk about her quite a bit at Christmas, but not much the rest of the year), but if anyone dares mention “Catholic” views of Mary, even those which all Protestants once believed (like her perpetual virginity) or say she is the “mother of God” there is plenty of scorn.

What all of these people, including you, have in common is a blind loyalty to a preferred religious system, which has no support from scripture.

If you believe that, then you may have come to the very last place you want to be online: to the person whose career is centered around “biblical Catholicism.” I hope you stick around. You’ll see how biblical Catholicism is. We can discuss whatever you like. I’ve covered all of the major areas of theology in my 4,800+ articles and 55 books. You didn’t even claim we have “less” support than Protestantism does, but rather, “no“ support. Every Christian group supports their views from Scripture. We are no exception. I can attest to the fact that as a Catholic, I have learned about Scripture in exponentially more depth than I ever did as a Protestant. And I say that as one with deep respect for Protestantism and for my own former teachers during my evangelical experience.
*

If you wish to explore the controversy at a somewhat more thoughtful level, you might be interested in hearing my five debates with Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers—or my five debates with Tim Staples at my own website
*

Good for you. Then perhaps you will be willing to dialogue with me, too. I hope so! You can start by replying to this, or by picking another topic of your choice (but I hope you do that after you respond to this). I’ve done probably over 1,000 written debates.
*

I promise never to complain about any truth. However, you have only repeated controversial and unsupportable Catholic talking points, which I have heard hundreds of times, but which I know to have no scriptural case in their favor.
*

Then you must not have run across me before. I can defend, and have defended virtually every Catholic “distinctive” doctrine from Scripture: most many times. And this has been done for a long time. A book that highly influenced me was James Cardinal Gibbons‘ book, The Faith of Our Fathers (1876). It’s filled with scriptural arguments. So is St. Francis de Sales’ superb book, The Catholic Controversy, which helped convert over 70,000 Calvinists in France (not to mention St. Thomas Aquinas’ work, too).
*
So yeah, Protestants don’t have a monopoly on biblical argumentation, much as you may have deluded yourself is supposedly the case. We all make sincere biblical arguments; we all revere the inspired revelation of Scripture. That’s what we have in common. And that’s why I defend Catholicism from Scripture. We’re by far the most thoroughly biblical communion in Christianity.
*

Sadly, you have done nothing to demonstrate that these statements even have the slightest likelihood of being true.

He may not have (I don’t know), but I have. If you want to get into this discussion, then do it with the person who has devoted his life for now 34 years (the last nearly 23 as a professional, full-time, published apologist), to defending Catholicism from Scripture. That’s what Protestants (generalizing! — but in this instance from long personal experience) are so unwilling to do. They’re very reluctant to engage with Catholics who are willing and prepared to engage their arguments (from Scripture or history) point-by-point and in great depth. I was willing to do that as a Protestant, and as a result I am a Catholic. I knew the superior arguments once I finally came into contact with them.

No, you are not restricted to one choice, namely, to generalize about Protestants. You admit that Protestants vary broadly from each other, so generalization is simply impossible and irresponsible.

That’s simply untrue. We generalize all the time about many things. There is nothing wrong with it. I have defended each point of the meme. If you disagree, now is your chance to counter-reply.

If you have known some Protestants who hold the views you listed, you might mention which brand you are referring to, while pointing out that they would represent a tiny minority of those under the diverse Protestant rubric.

I have done some of that. I already blew away your insinuation that pentecostals are but a tiny fraction of Protestantism. They are not at all. They are the fastest growing sector, by far.

Making irresponsible and false generalizations

I vehemently deny that, per my above argumentation and much more that I could provide. You act as if no one can ever make any generalizations about anything, which is patently absurd. Sociology (my major) and many other fields heavily utilize it. See, for example, “Generic Generalizations,” by Sarah-Jane Leslie and Adam Lerner, in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It states:

It is clear that generics are not equivalent to universal statements, but rather permit exceptions—that is, generics can be true even if some (or sometimes many) members of the kind lack the property in question. Generics also do not mean “most”; it is false that most mosquitoes carry the West Nile virus and true that most books are paperbacks, but our intuitions about the truth/falsity of the corresponding generics are reversed.

I love the following piece about generalizations that I found in a search:

When someone posts a generalization someone will post an exception.
Why is that?

Exceptions do not mean generalization are not generally true.
Generally does not mean always.

Hypothetical examples:

Someone posts that men are generally stronger than women, so someone will mention a very strong woman they know.
Someone generalizes that hybrid cars are usually driven more slowly than other cars, so someone will mention a hybrid owner that drives fast.
Someone generalizes that cats are more aloof than dogs, so someone will mention a very affectionate cat they know.
Someone generalizes that people with higher education usually make more money, so someone will mention a rich high school drop out they know of, or a person with a master degree working at a low-paying job.

There are a thousand examples here on PS.
I’m sure I’ve done it myself.
Why do we bother post exceptions?
It seems redundant.

Are generalizations somehow upsetting or threatening to people?
Do they think people making generalizations are so stupid that they think there are no exceptions?
Do they think exceptions neutralize what usually holds true?
Is this just PC-ness run amok?

Generalizations are okay.
They are only generalizations, in this article

you are not opposed to misrepresenting those who are not in your camp—giving the profound impression that only such lies make it possible to make your view seem valid.

As I have shown, I have not done that. All of the points in the meme have been believed by Protestants; often, by many, and sometimes by very many. These are strong words. You need to counter-reply, since I have expended so much effort to refute your charges, and other similar ones in the same thread, in this article.

I don’t think it is right for one group to mischaracterize the other. It only makes points with the ignorant.

I completely agree. Again, I vigorously deny that I have done this, and have now explained why I have done so. You are the one grotesquely misrepresenting, by claiming that Catholics have “no” biblical arguments at all to support our positions. I assume for the sake of charity that you are profoundly ignorant of Catholicism, to say such a silly and outlandish thing. You couldn’t possibly claim this if you had even a rudimentary familiarity with Catholic apologetics and theology.

[we also had this exchange about how Christian Catholicism is]

I wanted to clarify one thing with you: can someone who believes and practices all that the Catholic Church teaches be saved, be a Christian, a believer, a disciple of Jesus, and heaven-bound? In other words, is Catholicism a species of Christianity alongside all the other groups or denominations? Or are we out of the fold because we’re Catholic?

I believe very many Catholics have been true followers of Jesus (St. Francis, Girolamo Savonarola, G.K. Chesterton, and Mother Theresa come immediately to mind).

Vatican II, likewise, seems to allow that many Protestant believers are also saved (assuming they don’t understand that the Catholic Church is the true church).

I don’t think it is right for one group to mischaracterize the other. It only makes points with the ignorant. No one needs my permission to choose their church assembly according to their conscience. You may notice that I have not said one word of attack about Catholicism. I simply (without rancor) corrected the misrepresentations of Protestantism in the meme.

Okay, good, so a Catholic, and a solid Catholic can possibly be saved. St. Francis, St. Teresa of Calcutta, and G. K. Chesterton all accepted all that the Church teaches. So you do believe that Catholicism a species of Christianity alongside all the other groups or denominations?

I believe there is only one species of Christianity, but several varieties (as there are 200 varieties of dogs, but all the same species). The one species of Christianity in the Bible is comprised only of true disciples of Jesus (Acts 11:26). In biblical times, there was only one variety.

*
Over the course of history, disciples have developed various worship forms and theological controversies that did not exist in the original movement, but these differences do not all place a person outside the fold under the Shepherd. These varieties are not all equally valid, of course, but nor do they, if believed by a true follower of Christ, necessarily make that person “not a Christian.”
*
So just to be clear, you hold that Catholicism is a “variety” of true Christianity (just as, say, Lutheranism or Calvinism are)? It seems so, by your last sentence, but I just wanted to be absolutely sure. It’s relevant because unless you acknowledge this, you would be dialoguing with me as an outsides, not a brother in Christ, and in a superior-subordinate relationship, not an equal one: as two committed disciples of our Lord and Savior and Redeemer Jesus Christ.

I do not know you personally, so I hold no theories concerning your salvation. All true disciples of Jesus are saved. They are “Christians” by the only definition of that word found in scripture (Acts 11:26). If you are a disciple of Jesus (I am in no position to have an opinion about that), then you are a Christian. I don’t decide these things about others. You do not need my affirmation about this, if you have God’s.

I didn’t ask you if I was saved. I asked you (now for the third time): “do you hold that Catholicism is a ‘variety’ of true Christianity (just as, say, Lutheranism or Calvinism are)?”

You are asking about an institution; I am talking about the community of Christ. In the latter, there are Catholics and Protestants. If you wish to reframe this to say “Catholic (Christians) are Christians, and therefore part of Christianity,” I have no objection, but it is hardly different from what I have said previously every time you asked.

By the way, why are you so interested in my opinion about this? God’s opinion is the only one that matters. I have never set out to cut any particular group of Christians off from the Christian fold. My point is that Christians are individuals who follow Christ. I don’t care where they sit on Sunday mornings. That is irrelevant to their following of Christ.
*

Thank you for the clarification. This is a specific aspect of the larger determination of whether anti-Catholicism is in play or not (i.e., the denial that Catholics who adhere to all of the Catholic Church’s teachings can be Christians or be saved). With this answer you prove that you are not anti-Catholic, so I’m delighted to hear that.
*

In light of no responses whatever to my counter-reply blog post in over 8 1/2 hours (after scores and scores of rapid-fire criticisms yesterday), perhaps we could add an 8th point to the list in the “controversial” meme:

[8] Where it’s considered proper to go to Catholic sites to preach, troll, and condescend, but not to dialogue or even to read a counter-reply . . .

Note: several commentators flatly refused to even read my reply. They said so. Very open-minded and confident in their views, huh?
*

Oh, pardon me. I didn’t realize that I had signed up for an endless dialogue with you. I actually have a life, and a Facebook page where I am called upon to answer many questions on different subjects.
*

I did not troll you. Your meme showed up in the notifications on my page. I read it, and responded to it without rancor or challenge. Your meme was inaccurate, so I thought a person who cared about truth, like yourself, would welcome correction. You were not discussing doctrine, but seeking to describe Protestant beliefs. As a Protestant myself, I simply pointed out that neither I nor any Protestants that I know hold those beliefs. If I had known that you didn’t like to be informed, I would have refrained from intruding. I am not used to visiting pages where the host wants to maintain an amen club echo chamber.

*
You extended the discussion beyond my first response, so I interacted with you as long as I had time to do so. Then (you must have made the mistake of thinking I am obsessed with conversing with you), you began posting long and irrelevant responses to Protestantism, using me as your example (I don’t object to that).

*
What I do object to is that someone thinks himself so important as to oblige me to take hours of my day to read his essays, and (worse yet) to respond to them. If you want my responses to your familiar talking points, feel free to listen to my responses to Tim Staples and Jimmy Akin (I gave you the website). I am not interested in spending my life making the same points to every Catholic who craves my attention. If Scott Hahn wants to debate, I would give him the time. No offense, but you simply are not that big a priority in my life. In fact, I never heard of you before.

*
I do not troll Catholic (or any other websites). I don’t even know where they are, nor go looking for them, because they are not of particular interest to me (sorry, again, if that makes you feel less important). I spend as little time online as I can manage, since (as I said) actually have a life in the real world.

Of course, none of what I wrote applied to you. It was a generalization, as all of this is. That’s what has been so misunderstood. You apparently have a difficulty with understanding statements in context. I referred to “scores and scores of rapid-fire criticisms”: i.e., posts from many commentators. I was contrasting all of that bustling activity to the dead silence today.
*

Then I noted that “several commentators flatly refused to even read my reply. They said so.” That wasn’t you. You never said that (though now you do). I was clearly referring to the general tenor of discussion in a very lively thread with many participants. So what do you do? You casually assume that I am referring only to you. And you call me self-important?
*

You had shown arrogance in the thread already, particularly in reply to other people: judging their hearts, as if you can read minds. Now your pharisaical, judgmental attitude comes out again, directed towards me. I have less than no desire to interact with an arrogant pompous ass. You argued well, but your attitude stinks to high heaven. And now you won’t have to reply at all to my reply. How convenient!

Yes. Very convenient. I like convenience. I also like to dialogue with people whose skin is a bit thicker than that of tissue paper. I will leave you to your unoffending audience.
*
After this idiotic childish outburst you now accuse me of having a thin skin and wanting to have an echo chamber? You are too much! You’re blind as a bat to your own faults: at least in this instance, as all can see.
*

I have no secrets. I am glad that all can see.
*

***
*

Practical Matters: I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 4,800+ free online articles or fifty-five books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: dnet (1-11-08) [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License]

Summary: I reply to & interact with well-known Protestant apologist Steve Gregg, who didn’t like a meme I put up which generalized about certain errors in various sectors of Protestantism.

Calvinism & General Protestantism

generalizations

Protestant ecclesiology

Previous Post

August 12, 2024

Reply to Luther's "On the Councils & the Church"