What this is about
An earlier page on this site, Dossier 29, argued that a person raised in one church can end up believing the opposite without ever deciding to — and that the remedy is small: read a few passages, read what your own church once wrote down, and ask your teacher one polite question.
Pages like that sometimes get answered with a label instead of an argument. This page is not written at anyone. It describes no person, church or conversation, and the three labels above are just typical examples. It is written for anyone — including a pastor — who thinks Dossier 29 is wrong. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to think.
So the question: if the article’s claims can be checked, shouldn’t disagreement come with evidence rather than a label? And what would that look like?
The first way of seeing it
Answer a claim by naming it and showing why it is wrongNobody has to reply to anything. But if you do reply, say which point you disagree with and point to something others can check — a verse, a document, a fact. This is what the page holds.The second way of seeing it
An experienced teacher can recognise an old mistake and name it in a wordTime is short; nobody can answer every article. A short word can protect people from being unsettled, and the Bible warns against quarrels. People who think this way are sincere, and usually care about the people listening. This is the view the page tests.What this page is not doing
It does not argue about baptism or the Lord’s Supper — other dossiers do that. It does not ask anyone to reply to anything, or to stay in or leave any church. It says nothing about anyone’s motives. It names no living person and no church, and every example is made up by the page and labelled that way.
The short answer
- Disagreeing is fine. Silence is fine too. Nobody owes any article a reply.
- A label is a verdict with the reasons left out. It might even be right. But the listener is given nothing to check. Even the most famous test for “baloney” — the astronomer Carl Sagan’s — starts with checking the facts, and its example of a bad argument is a Christian minister dismissed with a label.
- Dossier 29’s claims are numbered. There are eleven, and each says where to check it. Someone who thinks it is wrong can pick a number and say why. One of them — that no Bible passage praises a hearer for not checking his teacher — could be overturned with a single verse.
- Old doesn’t mean wrong. C. S. Lewis called the idea that whatever has gone out of date must have been disproved “chronological snobbery”. The article’s key texts are Acts, Ephesians and Hebrews. If “ancient” means discredited, every sermon on those books goes too.
- It isn’t legalism. In the Bible’s sense, legalism means trying to be right with God by keeping rules — the problem Paul fights in Galatians. Dossier 29 sets no rule for anybody’s salvation and takes no side on baptism. It asks people to read a few passages and ask one polite question.
- Behind the word there may be a real concern — that creeds and confessions get between a person and the Bible. That’s a sincere view, and Dossier 29 describes it fairly as its “second way of seeing it”.
- The Bible tells teachers how to answer a challenge. “By sound doctrine … to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). “In meekness instructing those that oppose” (2 Timothy 2:25). “A reason … with meekness and fear” (1 Peter 3:15). That standard applies to everyone — including people who agree with Dossier 29.
- Independent churches exist because people once claimed the right to test their teachers. Luther wrote a whole booklet in 1523 saying a congregation may judge all teaching. Catholic and Orthodox documents agree that ordinary believers have a part in guarding the faith.
Pick a number. Say what is wrong with it. Point to something the rest of us can read.
Label or argument?
Six replies to Dossier 29, all made up by this page. For each, decide whether it’s a label (a verdict with nothing to check) or an argument (a reason someone could check). An argument can still be wrong — that’s not the question.
0 of 6 answered.
“Ancient” and “legalistic”
“Ancient.” Lewis’s test for any idea called out of date was a question: “Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do?” (Surprised by Joy, 1955). If the ideas in Dossier 29 were refuted, someone did it and it can be cited. If they only went out of fashion, their age proves nothing.
And the Bible itself treats old as a recommendation, not a defect: “Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way” (Jeremiah 6:16); “contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3).
There is a fair point in the word “ashes”: it is possible to worship old forms for their own sake. The historian Jaroslav Pelikan put it well: “Tradition is the living faith of the dead, traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” But Dossier 29 doesn’t ask anyone to revere old documents. It asks them to use them — as a standard both the hearer and the teacher can check.
“Legalistic.” In the Bible’s sense, legalism is making a rule a condition of being saved. The case that started it: “Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1). Paul’s answer: “a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 2:16). So the fair question is: what rule does Dossier 29 make a condition of anything? None. It asks for some reading and one question. If “legalistic” is meant in the everyday sense — rigid, cold — that’s a fair complaint about tone, and it helps most when it points to the sentence.
Old is not the same as disproved. And legalism means making rules a condition of salvation — which Dossier 29 never does.
Where would you draw the line?
Suppose “ancient” really meant “discredited”. Move the slider to the date before which a source shouldn’t count any more, and watch what goes. (Dates are approximate; the order isn’t.)
How the Bible says to answer a challenge
These are quoted as the standard every Christian teacher already accepts — not as a charge against anyone. They apply to this page and its readers first.
… that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
Titus 1:9. Part of the description of a church elder. “Gainsayers” means people who speak against.
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those that oppose themselves.
2 Timothy 2:23–25.
Someone might fairly say: the Bible tells me to avoid foolish questions. True — and the very next words say to instruct those who disagree, gently. The “foolish questions” Paul means are endless speculations (“genealogies, and contentions”, Titus 3:9). Whether a verse says what the article says it says isn’t that kind of question. You can settle it by reading.
… be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.
1 Peter 3:15. Said to every Christian.
And one more fact worth knowing. Every independent church exists because Christians once claimed the right to test their teachers against Scripture. Luther argued it in 1523 in a booklet titled That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching. The Catholic Catechism says lay people have “the right and even at times a duty” to tell their pastors what they think, respectfully (§907). Orthodox patriarchs in 1848 called “the people themselves” the protector of the faith. Asking your teacher a polite question is the same freedom, in miniature.
Listen first. Answer with a reason. Answer gently. That is the Bible’s standard for everyone in a disagreement — on every side.
Which claim is false?
Here are Dossier 29’s eleven claims. Mark each one. If you disagree with a claim, say why and give a source. Then press the button: the page will turn your answers into a short written reply you can copy and send to anyone, including the author of this site. Nothing you type is stored or sent anywhere.
What’s fair to reject — and one question
Fair to reject outright: every box in Dossier 29 headed “Where this page stands”. Those are opinion, meant to persuade, and nobody owes them anything. The house-and-surgery comparisons, where they break down — the article admits they do. And the tone, if it feels pointed; that’s a fair thing to say.
Should be answered with evidence: what Acts 17:11, Ephesians 4 and Hebrews 13:17 say; what ordination vows contain; what Luther wrote in 1523; whether any verse praises a hearer for not checking; and whether a particular statement of faith says anything about baptism, the Lord’s Supper and the creeds.
Privately, politely, and as a real question rather than a test: “What do you hold about the baptism I received as an infant, and about what is given in the Lord’s Supper?”
Any teacher, of any church, can answer that in a few sentences, and most would be glad to be asked. A clear answer helps everyone: you know where you stand, and your teacher has been heard in his own words. If Dossier 29 is wrong to think the question matters, one conversation will show it.
Check it yourself
Six things. The first three take an afternoon between them. The last one takes five minutes.
- 1. Read Dossier 29’s eleven claims. Ten minutes. The quick version lists them; the full dossier gives the source for each.
- 2. Read Titus 1:5–9, 2 Timothy 2:14–26 and 1 Peter 3:13–17. Fifteen minutes. What a teacher is to do when challenged.
- 3. Read Acts 15:1–29 and Galatians 2. Twenty minutes. What legalism actually was.
- 4. Read your own church’s statement of faith. Ten minutes. Does it say what baptism is, who may be baptised, what the Lord’s Supper is, and whether the church confesses the historic creeds? Don’t argue with it — just notice.
- 5. Read C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy, chapter 13. Fifteen minutes. Where “chronological snobbery” comes from.
- 6. One reply, with one reason. Do this one. If you think Dossier 29 is wrong, say so — and name the claim and the evidence. If you think it’s right, ask the one question above, privately and politely. Either way, you’ll have turned a verdict into a conversation.
Want the whole thing?
The full dossier has every source, a closer look at Sagan’s test and Lewis’s, an “is this legalism?” exercise, a five-question test for any statement of faith, cards for the Bible passages on answering a challenge, a quiz on who said what about testing teachers, and the prompt that produced it all.
Read the full dossier → Simple English →