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.

[rwa265]

Satan is still around and it’s been much longer than 2000 years. Just sayin.

---

And Satan is yukking it up at the way we are tearing each other down on the way we follow Christ instead of focusing on following Christ. Just sayin.

[metmom]

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.

So why is that a problem?

[redleghunter]

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

What that above has to do with Medici popes, one wonders.

However, since you asked I direct you to an aposlte of Jesus Christ for the message of the Gospel:

1 Corinthians 15:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.

3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, who am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace toward me was not in vain; but I labored more abundantly than they all, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. 11 Therefore, whether it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

[redleghunter]

Should have pinged you to the response, sorry.

[redleghunter]

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).

Can you point to the clearly "Catholic" teachings of Polycarp? I've read his epistle many times and see no hint of "Roman Catholic" teachings in it.

Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians

[redleghunter]

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.

Wisest post on the board. God Bless you!

[LurkingSince'98]

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

red...

your progenitors have had 25 - 30 generations from the time of Christ before you arrived on earth...

in the intervening 25 - 30 statistics dictate that your ancestors have included psychopaths, manic/depressives, schizophrenics, thieves, rapists, murderers, surely sinners of all stripes - statistically speaking of course.

having such a degenerate background, it would certainly be impossible for you, RLH to be capable of bringing any good into the world. You and your progeny would forever be incapable of helping anyone and could bring the faith to no one. You and you progeny are forever damned.

Stupid analogy you say, bad premise you say, big Red Herring you say, anti-RLH you say!!!

Well not as stupid an analogy, not as bad a premise, not as big a Red Herring and not as anti-Catholic as that tripe your peddling about the Medici popes.

For the Greater Glory of God

[Colonel_Flagg]

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.

Let me postulate this to you: if the truth is on your side as you say, you wouldn't mind proving it to me through the Word of God, would you?

Thanks for the discussion. Believe it or not, I do appreciate it.

[Colonel_Flagg]

You are most kind. Thank you.

[LurkingSince'98]

Now that would be the exact waste of my Catholic time that I was speaking of.

I make it a point of never furthering a discussion in which my partner does not accept the very first premise.

You and your Protestant friends can just coffee klatch the day away affirming each other - that is one sure way of broadening your horizons.

AMDG

[CynicalBear]

I read this far in your Didache and didn’t need to read any further.

“4:6 If you have anything, by your hands you should give ransom for your sins.”

The ransom for our sins was Christ.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

Hebrews 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

That proves the Didache cannot be inspired by the Holy Spirit thus not to be used by Christians.

[Colonel_Flagg]

I’m sorry you feel using the source of all truth, God’s Word, to prove a Scriptural argument is a waste of time. I truly do hope the Word is more important to you than that, and I trust that it is.

I wish you well. Bless your day.

2 Ti 3:16

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

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).

Quite risky of you to include the Shepard of Hermes. That book seems to support adoptionism, which is contrary to the Trinity. Cultists use it quite frequently hoping to connect anti-Trinitarian heresy with the early church. I will also add that the early church did not recognize the writings of any Bishop or "holy person" as having the same or even similar strength to the scriptures, contrary to your claims. For example:

Cyril of Jerusalem on Sola Scriptura:

Not even his own teachings, he teaches, if it cannot be shown out of the holy scriptures, should be accepted:

“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)

Tradition is the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testament (a summary of it, or its teachings), not that which is invented by man, transmitted by word of mouth to the illiterate:

“But in learning the Faith and in professing it, acquire and keep that only, which is now delivered to you by the Church, and which has been built up strongly out of all the Scriptures. For since all cannot read the Scriptures, some being hindered as to the knowledge of them by want of learning, and others by a want of leisure, in order that the soul may not perish from ignorance, we comprise the whole doctrine of the Faith in a few lines. This summary I wish you both to commit to memory when I recite it, and to rehearse it with all diligence among yourselves, not writing it out on paper, but engraving it by the memory upon your heart , taking care while you rehearse it that no Catechumen chance to overhear the things which have been delivered to you. I wish you also to keep this as a provision through the whole course of your life, and beside this to receive no other, neither if we ourselves should change and contradict our present teaching, nor if an adverse angel, transformed into an angel of light 2 Corinthians 11:14 should wish to lead you astray. For though we or an angel from heaven preach to you any other gospel than that you have received, let him be to you anathema. Galatians 1:8-9 So for the present listen while I simply say the Creed, and commit it to memory; but at the proper season expect the confirmation out of Holy Scripture of each part of the contents. For the articles of the Faith were not composed as seemed good to men; but the most important points collected out of all the Scripture make up one complete teaching of the Faith. And just as the mustard seed in one small grain contains many branches, so also this Faith has embraced in few words all the knowledge of godliness in the Old and New Testaments. Take heed then, brethren, and hold fast the traditions which you now receive, and write them on the table of your heart.” (Ibid, Lecture 5, Ch. 12)

[CynicalBear]

>> And Satan is yukking it up at the way we are tearing each other down on the way we follow Christ instead of focusing on following Christ. Just sayin.<<

It’s not that simple rwa265. You see, the problem arises when someone teaches something the apostles didn’t teach.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

Not only are we directed to admonish those who do that but we aren’t even to wish them God’s speed.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Christ didn’t teach praying to anyone other than the Father. Christ didn’t teach the Mary was to be the “queen of heaven”. In fact Christ said this when addressing the question of adoration of Mary.

Matthew 12:47 Someone said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside seeking to speak to You." 48 But Jesus answered the one who was telling Him and said, "Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers! 50 "For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother."

So you see, there is a wide gulf between those who hold scripture and what the apostles taught to be supreme and those who have added to it and consider some “magesterium” to be supreme.

[WVKayaker]

Now that would be the exact waste of my Catholic time that I was speaking of.

I've been kibitzing on this thread for a while, now, and can't help but laugh at the twists and lack of Scripture coming from Roman Catholics. The Catholics would rather posit that tradition and Rome are the arbiters of the truth and that Scripture is only relevant with a defining word from their interpretation.

When confronted with the clear and precise Scriptural refutation of their point(s), they will begin to accuse of anti-this or that or simply say they won't waste their precious Roman Catholic time. It seems that Satan has a stronghold and God is allowing it to stand (as previously demonstrated in the many responses to another red herring).

Tradition is the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testament (a summary of it, or its teachings), not that which is invented by man, transmitted by word of mouth to the illiterate: -GPH

Mark 7: 8 You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observec your own traditions! 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ 11 But you say that if anyone declares that what might have been used to help their father or mother is Corban (that is, devoted to God)— 12 then you no longer let them do anything for their father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

[CynicalBear]

>>Now that would be the exact waste of my Catholic time that I was speaking of.<<

And still here you are.

[CynicalBear]

>>I've been kibitzing on this thread for a while, now, and can't help but laugh at the twists and lack of Scripture coming from Roman Catholics.<<

You noticed that to ey? It’s a puzzlement to me why anyone who would purport to call themselves Christian would reduce the very word of God to secondary status.

[CynicalBear]

That’s not even taking into consideration the contradictions to scripture contained in them such as the one I posted.

[daniel1212]

Can you point to the clearly "Catholic" teachings of Polycarp? I've read his epistle many times and see no hint of "Roman Catholic" teachings in it.

knowing that "by grace you are saved, not of works," Ephesians 2:8-9 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.... I trust that you are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures.

Over 60 Scripture references in this letter, making up about a half of it, and which make him sound more like Puritan than a RC.

[daniel1212]

Thanks.