THE PROTESTANT’S DILEMMA BY DEVIN ROSE: A REVIEW

Just a writer, who refuses to typecast his blog by giving it a title ^ | March 18, 2014 | Scott Eric Alt

[rwa265]

If a Protes­tant look­ing into the claims of Catholi­cism were to ask me, “What one book should I read, where I can find a quick answer to any ques­tion I have?” I would tell him to read Devin Rose’s new book The Protestant’s Dilemma. I would also rec­om­mend this book to Protes­tant apol­o­gists, even those of many years, well-skilled in polemics. It will remind them of the heavy bur­den of proof they face, and the weak­ness of their posi­tion on point after point. The truth may set them free and bring them home too. (It has happened.)

All this may seem like over­state­ment — the oblig­a­tory praise from one Catholic blog­ger to another. But it is not.

Con­sider first the range of issues this book takes up. There are thirty-six chap­ters, each one on a dif­fer­ent topic, from the papacy to sola scrip­tura, from the canon of the Bible to Pur­ga­tory, from con­fes­sion to Eucharist to infant bap­tism. If some­thing about the Catholic Church trou­bles you, this book has the answer. If you think you have found the point on which Catholi­cism fails, this book will show you why it is one more point upon which Protes­tantism fails.

Con­sider also the brevity. The book is just over 200 pages long, which means that Mr. Rose’s answers get to the root of the ques­tion with­out a knot of aca­d­e­mic detail. It is harder to do than it might seem. This is the book of a man who has spent a long time study­ing the ques­tions that divide Protes­tants and Catholics, and who knows how to present his case in a way that is easy for any­one to under­stand. At the same time, the book is use­ful for the pro­fes­sional apol­o­gist, for it recalls his mind to the basics.

[Colonel_Flagg]

"Why does HE allow any evil?"

I know you know this, but to draw us closer to Him. The world is fallen and thus Christ's redemption of fallen humanity is necessary.

It's in this context that Romans 8:28 is even more comforting.

"We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose."

Bless your day.

[metmom]

My posts in this thread have been to take gentle issue with a poster who claims the Bible was written by Catholics and with a poster who said confessing sins to God was somehow a Protestant misinterpretation despite extensive Scriptural proof to the contrary.

Nevertheless, you will eventually be accused of being *anti-Catholic* and a *hater* simply for disagreeing, no matter how much you stick to the topic.

Some people just don't deal well with other points of view and take things way too personally.

[Alex Murphy]

Islam, since 610 AD.

Humanism and Satan Worship, since Day 6 in the garden.

[LurkingSince'98]

No metmom your posts are decidedly and unabashedly anti-Catholic, which is why I wouldn’t give you the time of day.

...the Col. on the other hand gives reasoned, well thought objections, primarily in the form of questions - for which he should be commended.

AMDG
For the Greater Glory of God

[Alex Murphy]

If the Catholic Church is as horrible and evil as you say why is it still here after 2000 years?

Ping to post #403.

[metmom]

I post much Scripture.

It’s too bad that you consider that *anti-Catholic*.

I thought the Catholic church takes credit for giving us the Bible.

[Alex Murphy]

I thought the Catholic church takes credit for giving us the Bible.

IMO they regret the gift, and would now like it back.

[LurkingSince'98]

Col...

The first problem that I will address is that the majority of protestants, do not believe that anything written after the death of the last apostle is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. As such they do not read and are ignorant of the Didache http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html, which was used to instruct catechumens in the first century.

It was likely written and used in practice prior to the time the actual Gospels (John’s Revelation for sure) were written. When you read it you will know immediately why protestants do not like the Didache, because it sounds (gasp)Catholic.

Next if you read the Apostolic Church Father, those early Church leaders and writers, who studied at the feet of the apostles. In general they include: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, the author of the Didache, and the author of the Shepherd of Hermas. These earlier church fathers were associated with apostles: Clement with Peter (associated closely with Rome) and with Paul (as the Clement Paul wrote about in Philippians 4:3), Papias and Polycarp with John (associated with Asia Minor).

As were the apostles, except John, ALL of the Apostolic Fathers were martyred for their faith.

You can find most of their writings together in “The Apostolic Fathers - The Essential Guide” here: http://www.christosofautumnridge.com/product.asp?sku=068734204X

To the specifics of your question:

1) all of your quotes prior to the last quote from John were Old Testament and for which you are absolutely correct. Since Christ was not yet Incarnate, The Jews had only God the Father to confess their sins to and which they somewhat grudgingly did. It is important to note that the OT is the prototype of the NT

2) But with Christ Incarnate, and since He alone made the ultimate sacrifice, He alone became the Mediator of all reconciliation with the Father and it is Christ who ‘makes all things New”. So a strict interpretation of the OT is overridden by the NT, otherwise why did Christ come, but to change things - confession being one of them.

3) In the NT, the clear and unambiguous direction regarding confession of sins came as “...confess your sins to one another...”, which since there is only One Truth means exactly what it says: confess. your. sins. to. one. another.” For a protestant to confess “directly to God” as most claim they do is being, at best, Anti-Scriptural. A Scriptural statement, written as a direct command is not something to twist or play with. And as a Catholic we do not believe in YOPIOS (Your Own Personal Interpretation Of Scripture)- it says what it means and it means what it says.

4) Now reading the Didache and the works of the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers you will find multiple references of the faithful confessing to one another when they are gathered together - obviously necessary if one were to confess to ‘one another’. Contradiction of their personal interpretation is one reason that protestants shy away for serious study of these writings, the second is that they deny these works are in any way divinely inspired, and the third is that they ‘sound Catholic’, which is of course the truth since we base our tradition and liturgy upon them.

I’ve run out of time and hope to return to complete my explanation to you.

I do not accept your statement to “educate me” since I believe it is you who educate yourself and it is you who must remove any vincible ignorance at to the fullness of your faith, which like it or not includes what we are discussing.

Regards,

Ad Majoram Dei Gloriam
For The Greater Glory of God

[redleghunter]

I was pointing out the Medici dynastic hold on the Papacy for a season or four. An historic observed fact, no?

[LurkingSince'98]

so basically you are saying that you, redleg, cannot help anyone to achieve salvation.

[redleghunter]

Don’t forget in the monotheistic religions the Hebrews have the “history” claim all locked up. Still ongoing.

[Elsie]

It was likely written and used...

It's that unsureness that gets us...

[Elsie]

redleghunter; is your mouth big enough to hold all these words?

[redleghunter]

>>The first problem that I will address is that the majority of protestants, do not believe that anything written after the death of the last apostle is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. As such they do not read and are ignorant of the Didache http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html, which was used to instruct catechumens in the first century.<<

Since the assertion is the Catholic church gave us the Bible, then why did not the church fathers include the post apostolic period divine revelations? If they included such writings, practices and traditions in the Bible then we would not be having this conversation.

There are a few potential reasons why the church fathers did not include these other writings. The first would be they made a grave error in doing so would put to rest the claim of an infallible magesterium. Second it could be there was not consensus among them to add to the NT. And finally based on the second point they established apostolic authority as the screening criteria. The last point is well documented in the writings of the church fathers.

Lastly, you have a multitude of evangelicals and protestants here on FR who know the church fathers from their Catholic upbringing and Catholic university education. The Didache is quoted often but when one reads it, there is nothing there to promote the Roman Church we see today. It is not a “smoking gun.”

[metmom]

The first problem that I will address is that the majority of protestants, do not believe that anything written after the death of the last apostle is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit. As such they do not read and are ignorant of the Didache http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html, which was used to instruct catechumens in the first century.

That's not a problem. The extra Biblical revelation added later is, such as the Didache.

The Mormons and whole bunches of other cults also claim extra-Biblical revelation. So whose do we believe?

It was likely written and used in practice prior to the time the actual Gospels (John’s Revelation for sure) were written. When you read it you will know immediately why protestants do not like the Didache, because it sounds (gasp)Catholic.

*LIKELY* written?

No, it's not a mater of not liking it. It's a matter of it not accepting it as God breathed, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture.

It's not rejected on the basis of like or not like but on truth or not truth.

Next if you read the Apostolic Church Father, those early Church leaders and writers, who studied at the feet of the apostles. In general they include: Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, the author of the Didache, and the author of the Shepherd of Hermas. These earlier church fathers were associated with apostles: Clement with Peter (associated closely with Rome) and with Paul (as the Clement Paul wrote about in Philippians 4:3), Papias and Polycarp with John (associated with Asia Minor).

As were the apostles, except John, ALL of the Apostolic Fathers were martyred for their faith.

Opinion pieces are still opinion pieces, no matter how anyone died.

I do not accept your statement to “educate me” since I believe it is you who educate yourself and it is you who must remove any vincible ignorance at to the fullness of your faith, which like it or not includes what we are discussing.

Your better than thouness has been noted.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

As such they do not read and are ignorant of the Didache http://www.paracletepress.com/didache.html, which was used to instruct catechumens in the first century.

On the contrary I've read the Didache and much of the church fathers, especially Augustine. I'm pretty sure it's the Papists who are actually quite ignorant of them, otherwise they would become Protestants.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

On the contrary I've read the Didache and much of the church fathers, especially Augustine.

The Didache is very brief. A page or two. Every Christian can and should read it.

[Colonel_Flagg]

I do not accept your statement to “educate me” since I believe it is you who educate yourself and it is you who must remove any vincible ignorance at to the fullness of your faith, which like it or not includes what we are discussing.

My goodness gracious, Lurking. I appreciate your answer but I believe you misunderstood my request.

I guess what I was hoping you'd provide me is something from Scripture that says my belief is incorrect. My apologies for not making that plain.

Of course the Spirit moves everywhere, to believe otherwise is to deny God's ongoing power and divinity. However, I don't believe God will move in a way contrary to His word, otherwise it will return to Him void contrary to Isaiah 55:11.

Christ himself told us to pray to God for the forgiveness of our sins in the Lord's Prayer. If you continue to think that's extra-Scriptural, that's your business.

And, to nip your aggressive tone in the bud, I never made a statement to 'educate you'. I merely cited Scripture which denied the validity of your position.

I did, however, ask you to educate me, in the spirit of Christian kindness and fellowship. If you can do so using Scripture you'll find more fertile ground with me. If you can do it while treating me as a Christian adult instead of accusing me of ignorance when I've given you Scriptural reference to back my claim, you'll do better still.

Bless your day.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Cute kitty cat. :)

[LurkingSince'98]

Col..

thanks for your reply.

I am sure I did not misunderstand your request; however, you since you do not accept my answer no further discussion is necessary.

My first sentence sums up my discussion with you nicely: The first problem ... is that the majority of protestants, do not believe that anything written after the death of the last apostle is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Since you will only accept an answer from Scripture you prove my point that you are one of those protestants who do not accept that anything beyond the Bible is divinely inspired.

Therefore there is no need for further discussion.

AMDG