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.

[LurkingSince'98]

Protestants do have a dilemma they are loath to mention let alone discuss.

Biggest one I’ve found is that they agree what their pastor preaches less than 3/4 of the time, which I have heard from the majority I have asked.

As a Catholic if I disagree on even one point I get myself before the blessed Sacrament to conform myself to the Church.

will never happen with protestants.

AMDG

[Elsie]

Thank you for the sage advice, since you have not been able to tell me the meaning of AFSD, I will chalk that up as a humongous win.

Smugness: 14
Humility: 5

[metmom]

Let me know if you get an answer to that.

It’s interesting that someone will post a *sharp stick in the eye* kind of thread and then complain when there is a reaction.

HELLO!!!

Just what did anyone expect?

[Iscool]

What gets me is the KJV only crowd.

How do they respond to someone from Spain?

The KJV has been translated into more languages than all the rest of them combined staying as close to the KJV as humanly possible...

[LurkingSince'98]

Hey Elise

She will not tell metmom, a so-called ‘former Catholic’ because it would give away the double- secret password. LOL

[Iscool]

LOLOLOL...

[Elsie]

Keep telling yourself that little man, keep telling yourself that.

[Elsie]

I'd chalk that up as a win, Iscool.

A. If you say something along the lines of “the moderators might ban me for saying this, but…” then you lost.

B. Anyone who says “well, ban me if you want to, but…” is actually saying; “in the name of a loving God, please ban me because I am losing this argument so badly that my only hope of escaping it with a shred of dignity is if I can make myself out to be some sort of martyr to free speech.”

C. If you claim to have supporting evidence available online, but instead of linking to it you say “Look it up yourself,” you lose. Similarly to the banning thing, “look it up yourself” clearly means “please please please don’t look it up yourself.” It’s an admission of failure.

D. If you invoke the name of a logical fallacy without explaining its relevance, you lose. Logical fallacies are not Harry Potter spells. You don’t just get to shout them out and wiggle your wand to make magic happen. Plus, there’s a logical meta-fallacy: Just because someone’s making an error in reasoning doesn’t mean they’re wrong.

E. If you claim to be winning, you lose. This should be self-evident: If you’re so desperate that you have to tell someone you’re winning, you’re obviously not. http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/alt-text-internet-arguments

 

[Elsie]

1. You see, the problem arises when someone teaches something the apostles didn’t teach.
2. As others see it, the problem arises when someone does not teach something that the apostles did teach.

---

What happened to #3??

3. ...when someone teaches something DIFFERENT than what the apostles did teach.

[Elsie]

Catholics, remember that the Catechism says that those followers of Christ who came out of the Reformation have the right to be called Christians and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord.

It appears that many C's have ignored the second part...

[LurkingSince'98]

If you don’t like it don’t read it.

If it hurts your eyes then close them.

If you disagree state your case.

If you cant abide their response you CA lump it or leave it.

Catholics are not going away as much as you would like.

For the Greater Glory of God

[Iscool]

But as a Catholic, I believe that many teachings were handed down from Jesus through the apostles and St. Paul by word of mouth, and that these oral teachings make up the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

Problem is, you don't have any traditions from the apostles...You can't show a single tradition from an apostle...

Your traditions started much later so we know that none of your traditions come from Jesus or the apostles...They came from men in your religion long after the apostles were gone...Your tradition has no legitimacy...

[Elsie]

You deny the continuity of the papacy, and still complain when the Popes are elected and have hands laid upon them by Cardinals who were elected and have hand laid on them by Popes who were earlier elected and have had hand laid upon by Cardinals......etc ......etc in a continuous line from Peter.

I think you have explained it perfectly!

[Elsie]

You will also note that the most ignorant are those that were Catholic, or claim to have been Catholic at some point in their lives.

What happened to #3??

---

1. You will also note that the most ignorant are those that were Catholic
2. or claim to have been Catholic at some point in their lives.

3. or are STILL Catholic.

[boatbums]

It is amazing how ignorant a protestant can be regarding the Catholic Church. You deny the continuity of the papacy, and still complain when the Popes are elected and have hands laid upon them by Cardinals who were elected and have hand laid on them by Popes who were earlier elected and have had hand laid upon by Cardinals......etc ......etc in a continuous line from Peter.

It's amazing how ignorant Catholics can be regarding the MYTH of the continuity of Popes back to Peter. We can deny the "continuity of the papacy" because HISTORY proves it wasn't true. Here is a site to educate those who want to know the truth Roman Catholic History.

[LurkingSince'98]

not going to waste my time on some anti-Catholic screed.

[Elsie]

Please provide the sources for verification purposes.

 

 

[Elsie]

Most of you have shown a inability/ unwillingness to accept the truth.

 

[LurkingSince'98]

And most protestant denominations have a continuity of exactly ONE.

[Elsie]

As a Catholic if I disagree on even one point I get myself before the blessed Sacrament to conform myself to the Church.

So; you are NOT a Berean; eh?

---

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.