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.

[metmom]

the Catholics were the only ones there to write it down

The authors of most of the NT were Jewish, not Catholic.

[metmom]

the point of Christ and the cross was to actually forgive the sin....the priest forgives your sin through the power of Christ, he is a mediator and Christ forgives the sin.

Wrong about the priest. He is not a mediator between man and Christ. Christ is the only mediator and he is the mediator between man and God.

1 Timothy 2:5-6 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

If you confess your sin to a priest, and are SINCERELY sorry for it and try faithfully not to repeat the sin, Christ forgives it.

God promises to forgive us if we confess our sins. He doesn't put any other conditions on it like the Catholic church does.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

[ealgeone]

your point if I understood it correctly, is that if we don't confess every sin to a priest, they cannot be forgiven...right? well then what was the point of Christ dying on the cross??

you really don't understand the Catholic church....every sin should be confessed to a priest, however most sins are forgiven because they are venial, or minor....bad language, minor lie, cursing...etc. Major sins can also be forgiven by a sincere act of contrition before you can get to confession.

the point of Christ and the cross was to actually forgive the sin....the priest forgives your sin through the power of Christ, he is a mediator and Christ forgives the sin. However, Christ promised the priest that whose sins the he would forgive, would be forgiven. If you confess your sin to a priest, and are SINCERELY sorry for it and try faithfully not to repeat the sin, Christ forgives it.

And your point is predicated upon Peter being the rock upon which Christ founded His church. I still have a very hard time not looking at the entire passage in this exchange and coming away with the belief that Christ built His church upon Peter's confession that Christ was the Son of God which makes more sense from a context perspective.

If we go with the catholic position of Peter being the first priest(which I don't think was a title given as an official office of the NT church) I guess this negates 1 Peter 2:5-9 and Rev 1:6 where we, as believers, are described as a holy priesthood and a kingdom of priests.

I guess the tearing of the veil in the Temple when Christ died symbolizing that we now have direct access to God without the intervention of the OT priesthood, means nothing in this regard.

Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we can approach the Throne of Grace that we may receive mercy and find grace in the time of need. if we had to go through a priest wouldn't it be mentioned here?

does 1 Timothy 2:5 not tell us that there is one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus.

I guess you're right....I do not understand the Catholic church. I understand Christianity however.

[metmom]

So I choose to confess to God who promises to forgive me if I do.

I don’t need a priest to get in the way and lead me to believe something that may or may not be true.

I believe God because He said so, not because a man told me so. I trust God over man.

[redleghunter]

Wise words. Thanks for the response.

[metmom]

11:9 Any prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it; if he does, he is indeed a false prophet.

What the heck kind of nonsense is THAT?

Why would someone waste food to order a meal and then not eat it?

And eating it makes him a false prophet?

What garbage.

[redleghunter]

I would love to hear the exegesis on why the prophet cannot eat a meal he ordered.

[boatbums]

Adultery, fornication, bastard children, extortion, abuse of power, etc,.... Minor mistakes????? With an attitude like that it sure explains a lot about Catholics........

it took Catholics 2,014 years to make those mistakes, the Protestants have accomplished them in only about 450 years to do so....nice going!!

Just answer me a simple question...would St. Peter have approved of those DDDP (DEpraved, DEgenerate, DEbauched Popes) to lead the church he set up?

[redleghunter]

When I searched for why a prophet cannot eat a meal he ordered all I could find was this:

http://www.ghazali.org/ihya/english/ihya-vol3-C3.htm

It comes from the “learnings of Imam Ghazzali”.

[boatbums]

I don't think it's a matter of being “careless”, more like delusional. ;o)

[Iscool]

they had no choice....we do.

Naw, we too can chose not to confess to God just as you chose...But we know better...

[Iscool]

I would love to hear the exegesis on why the prophet cannot eat a meal he ordered.

You won't get it...

[metmom]

That would be interesting.....

[metmom]

That muslim connection again.....

[redleghunter]

Sending you a link to the Muslim connection.

[metmom]

I don’t say this often, but OMG!!! What a hysterical read....

That’s one sick and twisted *theology*.

Satan loves nothing more than to twist and pervert the natural desires of mankind.

[redleghunter]

Wish I could share the link with all but rules are rules!

[21twelve]

That was interesting on the birthday party for Mary. I have a tough time on how much is veneration, and how much is too close to worship.

One of these days us Christians, regardless of our differences, will need to come together against the Muslim horde. Or the sinful culture and our soon-to-be godless government. Perhaps not unlike the 13 colonies with THEIR vast differences (slave vs. free, Purtian vs. Diest, etc.).

[21twelve]

That muslim explanation - I didn’t read all of it. But when you say “connection”, does it refer to the books in the Catholic Bible that aren’t considered Canon by the Protestants? (I forget what they are called now.)

[RegulatorCountry]

Perhaps not unlike the 13 colonies with THEIR vast differences (slave vs. free, Purtian vs. Diest, etc.).

While there were some fairly major differences between the colonies, slave vs. free was not one of them in the colonial era. The move to abolish slavery began almost concurrently with the Revolution. And, neither was Puritan vs. Deist a major difference between the colonies. Religious differences were most often internal within a given colony, with "dissenters" such as Baptists, Presbyterians etc. being penalized and persecuted by the established church of that colony. Most southern colonies had established the Church Of England. New England had Congregationalist, Puritan, etc. Maryland began as not a colony but a Palatinate, for Catholics.