The Protestant's Dilemma

http://protestantsdilemma.com/ ^ | February 27, 2014 | Devin Rose

[NKP_Vet]

What if Protestantism were true? What if the Reformers really were heroes, the Bible the sole rule of faith, and Christ's Church just an invisible collection of loosely united believers?

As an Evangelical, Devin Rose used to believe all of it. Then one day the nagging questions began. He noticed things about Protestant belief and practice that didn't add up. He began following the logic of Protestant claims to places he never expected it to go—leading to conclusions no Christians would ever admit to holding.

In The Protestant's Dilemma, Rose examines over thirty of those conclusions, showing with solid evidence, compelling reason, and gentle humor how the major tenets of Protestantism—if honestly pursued to their furthest extent— wind up in dead ends of absurdity.

The only escape? Catholic truth, which Rose patiently unpacks. In each instance, he shows how Catholicism solves the Protestant's dilemma through the witness of Scripture, Christian history, and the authority with which Christ himself undeniably vested his Church.

The Protestant's Dilemma is the perfect book to give non-Catholics trying to work through their own nagging doubts, or for Catholics looking for a fresh way to deepen their understanding of the Faith.

[boatbums]

One for your collection of threads and posts that you claim NEVER bash Protestants.

[DesertRhino]

Don’t see it here on this one. And besides, is pinging only allowed for Catholics?

[bk1000]

“While I’m not sure what catholics mean by “protestant,” I’m guessing they simply mean people who take the Lord at His Word and rely on the Bible and who don’t rely on man-made traditions and works for their salvation, but who instead rely solely on Jesus—you know, just like Jesus told us to. I’ll take the Lord’s Word over corrupt, man-made, extra-biblical traditions ANY DAY.”

AMEN!

[CommerceComet]

In The Protestant's Dilemma, Rose examines over thirty of those conclusions, showing with solid evidence, compelling reason, and gentle humor how the major tenets of Protestantism—if honestly pursued to their furthest extent— wind up in dead ends of absurdity.

You do recognize that this is the essence of the logical fallacy of reductio ad absurdum? It is really nothing more than a straw man argument and proves nothing.

Honestly pursued? A critic of a doctrine has little credibility in claiming to honestly pursue it. Everyone knows that the examination is only being done to discredit the idea.

[JPX2011]

Not at all. But it’s been my experience when discussing religion with protestants on FR it is rarely a one-on-one discussion. Why are people being pinged to a discussion that they aren’t even a part of? For their own edification and understanding to the poster’s point? Color me skeptical. Protestants jump on Catholics as if they were playing knockout king.

[ansel12]

I think you are way, way, way off track there.

[DManA]

Maybe. There are simple ways to deal with this but they refuse to do it.

[boatbums]

Protestants jump on Catholics as if they were playing knockout king.

Oh you poor, pitiful, persecuted papists! This thread, as well as several others just today, is a REPEAT of one posted a mere two weeks ago and is designed to intentionally provoke non-Catholic Christians. Don't whine when answers come back.

[JPX2011]

Oh I ain’t whining. Just making an observation. Which I noticed you didn’t deny. But that’s okay. I’d wager money on one good catechized Catholic versus a horde of Protestants and their cognitive dissonance.

However, I’ll remember your intentionally provoke comment the next time certain members of the FR protestant contingent decides to post Protestant Pedoporn. Which is done purely for news consumption I’m sure.

[ConservativeMind]

Tell me again, which Saint do I pray to to eliminate the smells from farts?

[Salvation]

The only escape? Catholic truth

Coming Home Network

[ConservativeMind]

Oh, and where can people pray before “The Holy Toenail” shrine?

[Salvation]

Many Protestants convert because one Catholic dared to share the truth.

[right way right]

Nothing like feasting on the rotten fruit of the religious forums at free republic.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Every “ism” will miss the mark on Christ.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Many Catholics believe because one Protestant witnessed.

[faucetman]

The whole premise is ridiculous. I’m not a Protestant, I’m a Christian. Catholicism is a “religion”. I don’t belong to a religion, I belong to Jesus.

Now I attend a church affiliated with the Southern Baptist Convention, but I’m not a Baptist, again, I’m a Christian.

I didn’t CHOOSE to be a Protestant, I read the bible.
Billy Graham wasn’t in there and the pope wasn’t in there. Mary was in there, but she had a very small role. It was about God of the old testament and the Savior to come and Jesus of the new testament, born, died, and risen to forgive the sins of the world for those who accepted Him.

It’s not about what “club” you belong to, Protestant or Catholic. These are silly labels invented by men.

Just be a Christian. There even is an instruction book to follow. You don’t need other books or people to tell you what it means. The Holy Spirit will guide you.

[faithhopecharity]

Thank you very much.
1. nature of the Eucharist or Lord’s supper...
a. RCC: literally the body and blood of Jesus (Matt. 26:26-28)
b. Ignatius of Antioch: “The Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior, Jesus Christ...”
c. Justin Martyr: ...”the elements are both the flesh and blood of that same incarnate Jesus...”
d. Clement — may have leaned to a more symbolic understanding?
e. Origin — may have leaned to a more symbolic understanding?
f. Augustine — referred to the bread and wine as the body and blood, but also distinguished between the sign and the thing signified (in that he believed that non-believers partaking of the Eucharist do not partake of the body even though they ingest the bread....)so that, in modern language, we might say Augustine saw the Eucharist as principally symbolic
g. conclusion of above by about year 500 or so — Christ IS at least spiritually in the Eucharist (”the real presence” doctrine), with some probably still holding to the “actual body and blood” perspective

---

h. in year 818, Paschasius Radbertus (abbot) said that the regular bread and wine are transformed into the actual body and blood of wine (by the priest, so this raises the additional question of the role and “powers” of the priesthood in the church, the two questions now become intertwined!)...
i. arguments against Paschasius — he confuses the sign with that which is signified (Rabanus Maurus)
j. in year 1050, Berenger of Tours said that Jesus is present not in essence but in power, and that the recipient must have faith for this power to be effective. (Note how this harkens back to Augustine in a way that the recipient must have faith for anything to happen)
k. 1089 priest Humbert: the very body of Christ ... is truly chewed by the teeth of the faithful “ (literal view again)
l. Hildebert of Tours agrees with Humbert, literal view.
m. 4th Lateran Council in 1225: adopted this literal view.
n. Thomas Aquinas — God performs a miracle by causing the Eucharist to change into, or at least contain (I can’t recall) the actual body and blood of Christ..even though we can’t see the difference (falling back on Aristotle that an object can have an Essence which we maybe cannot discern with our limited senses — so the assertion can be put forward without fear of refutation by any evidence to the contrary)
o. Council of Trent in 1546: the entire body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ are present in their entirety in the Eucharist (upon consecration by the priest), which in turn may properly be venerated
p. Luther, as a RCC priest, began with the then-current transsubstantiation view of the Eucharist, that it IS the body and blood, once consecrated by him or another priest...... and then moved to a “real presence” point of view (cosubstantiation), that Christ is present IN the Eucharist but the Eucharist remains real unchanged bread and wine just like the look like...
Luther maintained this POV but Zvingli argued that some scriptural passages were meant to be taken symbolically or figuratively...that to force a strictly literal reading on everything is both unnatural and unsubstantiated (so to speak). Zvingli argued that Christ moved away from a strictly literal reading of this in John 6, and cited many other verses which everyone, or most people at least, agreed were in fact symbolic.
Calvin took over the Reformed school after Zvingli, Calvin felt that Christ was present in a spiritual but not literal sense in the Eucharist. Calvin saw the presence of a miracle but that the miracle was centered on the spiritual aspect of the Lord’s Supper and not on its physicality. Calvin said Luther’s view of the ubiquity of Christ’s presence was a “phantasm,” and that Christ’s body remains in Heaven. He considered the transsubstantiation doctrine to be a work of Satan.

And it is from these origins that so many of today’s arguments derive, indeed today’s debaters often just repeat both the ideas and the invective style of language (at least when it comes to Luther and Calvin).

But, it is interesting, thanks for raising the topic!
I am always open to better ideas, too.... so jump right in if you like.
All the best,
fhc

[Salvation]

Catholics were the first Christians. It’s in the Bible!