The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part One)

Beggers All ^ | Jan. 13 2015 | James Swan

[RnMomof7]

Recently I picked up The Protestant's Dilemma: How the Reformation’s Shocking Consequences Point to the Truth of Catholicism (San Diego: Catholic Answers Press, 2014). In the preface of the Kindle edition, an unidentified author states that the primary author, Devin Rose, has put forth a book looking to engage in "dialogue" specifically"with members of the thousands of Protestant sects." The book is said to raise issues that a Protestant "has never considered before," not simply to have dialogue for the sake of mutual understanding, but rather to have "conciliar" dialogue in which the goal is to show the logical inconsistency of Protestantism while leading a reader into "the fullness of truth that Catholic Church alone possesses in fullness." In response, I offer these reviews of The Protestant's Dilemma (T.P.D.), to demonstrate that the book does the opposite of its intentions. It presents caricatures of Protestant positions, illogical conclusions, shoddy documentation, assumes the truth of the Roman Catholic worldview without proving it, and demonstrates that the author did not apply his own criteria to his own position.

The Conversion Story
It's not surprising that T.P.D. begins with the conversion story of the author.

Conversion stories like that offered by Mr. Rose typically point to the abilities of a person and the supposed wisdom gained by crossing the Tiber. For instance, Rose begins by showing how as a new convert to Christianity, he was already quick to ask about the problem of multiple denominations: "How had I, a newly minted Christian, come so quickly to a conclusion about which denomination taught the real truth?" He says also,

It was never a question in my mind that God is a reasonable being. I assumed it to be true, because even as an atheist I observed that the world functioned in a logical manner: Scientific laws were provable, mathematics could produce correct answers to problems, and deductive and inductive reasoning were demonstrably useful for understanding reality. The Christian faith, therefore, must also be supported by sound reasons, even if its truths also exceeded the limits of what reason could prove. I brought such an analysis with me into my new found faith, and I discovered that Protestantism’s tenets led to untenable conclusions. It simply was not possible to maintain a reasonable basis for my Christian faith while remaining Protestant.

This is not to say that reason is not important, or that people should not reasonably think about their faith. What irks me about Rome's converts is that they take their reasoning only so far. Rose's conversion story displays the same logical inconsistency that most of them do. His story is filled with the traumatic uncertainly felt as a Protestant and then the joys of certainly that a conversion to Roman Catholicism brings. The author states as a Protestant he "prayed that Jesus would guide [him] into the denomination that was the truest." He was befuddled by Christians "claiming to be 'led by the Holy Spirit'" using the "the Bible alone" and having different understandings of the Bible. He asks, "How did I know who was right?" He concluded that the Holy Spirit would lead such a person to the true church, this along with "investigating the Catholic Church in earnest." What Rome's converts rarely admit though is that the story they so cling to as an objective reality is a subjective experience, as all personal stories are. There's not much different between this story and that put forth by a Mormon or an Islamic convert (and particularly a convert to Orthodoxy). It was the fallible decision of Devin Rose to conclude that Rome was the true church.

Elsewhere in T.P.D. the author speaks against "the principle of private judgment." He states,

At the root of the endemic divisions within Protestantism lies the absence (and by definition, the impossibility) of an interpretive authority for Scripture above that of the individual Christian. Protestants cannot accept that any person or group has this power, because the Bible itself has to be the ultimate authority. Ideally, Protestants would be united in their interpretation of the Bible; but as we have seen, from the beginning of Protestantism this has not been the case. This lack of unity leads inevitably to the principle of private judgment, which makes each believer the final interpreter of Scripture. Just as inevitably, each believer’s interpretation will be at least partly wrong, because no believer is infallible.

But yet, private judgment was the very principle which led him to Rome rather than Orthodoxy or Islam! Why is private judgment acceptable when choosing to become Roman Catholic, and then once becoming a Roman Catholic, it is no longer acceptable?

Mr. Rose claims he investigated those claiming to possess "the fullness of truth"- Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Mormonism (why not Islam?). His research most certainly included interpretations of Scripture. His study led him to conclude that Rome was the true church. But this raises the same problem. The body of literature that Mr. Rose went through is the same body of literature that Rome says is not open for private judgment, nor can it be understood properly without the infallible guidance of the Roman church. Yet, Mr. Rose used the very thing Rome says one is not to rely on, private judgment.

Eric Svendsen pointed all this out years ago:

"The fact is, he had to engage in the very same principle of private judgment that we all must use to decide among the various options; namely, a thinking, objective reasoning process, apart from reliance upon the system to which he would eventually subscribe. But it is that very same principle of private judgment that leads him to Rome and others of us away from Rome. Certainly Rome condemns the decision we reached, but she cannot condemn the principle we used to that decision, since it is the very same principle that all Roman Catholics must use to decide that Rome is the ‘true’ church. The Roman Catholic cannot introduce a double standard at this point and still be consistent.” [Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock, 34]. 

It is simply gratuitous to suggest that private judgment is sufficient to interpret Scripture and church history to determine whether Rome is the true church, but insufficient to interpret Scripture and church history once we either accept or reject Rome. After all, in order to arrive at the conclusion that Rome is the true church, we must first compare Rome to Scripture and church history; hence we must first engage in private interpretation of these things before choosing Rome. But if our private interpretation of Scripture and church history is sufficient to inform us that Rome is the true church, how is it that that same private judgment is suddenly rendered deficient once we either get to Rome or reject Rome? [Eric Svendsen, Upon This Slippery Rock, 34-35]

An irony about Rome's conversion stories is that one never knows when they're finished. Take the ex-poster child for Catholic Answers, Gerry Matatics. He certainly loved to tell his story. Simply go back and listen to his debates with Dr. White. He’d tell that story every chance he could get. He’d even stay late into the night to tell it again and again. Now, go ask Karl Keating why Mr. Matatics is no longer endorsed by Catholic Answers. Gerry likewise used his reason.  Similarly, how do I know that Devin Rose isn't going to keep having a new conversion story? How do I know his intelligence won't lead him to the positions held by Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis or Father Gruner?

This is typical of these conversion stories.  They do not point to Christ---they point to a triumphal entry into the Roman Church from one's own intellectual abilities. Their conversion stories are about what they did. They are about what wisdom and glory they achieved. They are not conversion stories of the broken sinner bowing his knee to the merciful God, given by the Father to Christ and irresistibly drawn (like Paul’s recounting in Galatians 1; cf. Acts 9); rather, these are accounts of people accepting the alleged Roman Catholic “fullness of truth”, and a rejection of Protestant essentials like sola fide and sola scriptura. In other words, the emphasis is not on spiritual rebirth, but rather the acceptance and realization of a “higher knowledge.” The conversion is not to Christ, but to an infallible church.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. good luck with all that .. it doesn’t interest me in the slightest.

I’m from the Evangelical movement .. and speaking in other tongues is still considered “evil” in some Catholic churches.

But .. that’s not my problem. If they wish to miss out on a direct communication with God .. it’s their problem.

But, as for me, I can go directly to my Father God; and I don’t need an intermediary. It always amazes me to remember that when all the disciples and their followers gathered in the upper room, Mary (Jesus’ Mother) was there, and she too got filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke in other tongues just like all the others.

[CyberAnt]

No, no, he didn’t.

And, your underlined statement is NOT FROM JESUS; it’s from Paul and Barnabus .. and they assumed it was okay with the Holy Spirit to request such things from the congregation. But, nowhere does it say the Holy Spirit confirmed to Paul that his decision was correct.

IT WAS NOT DOCTRINE .. it was just permission for one act.

I totally do not agree with you at all. And .. if you’re Catholic .. you might as well give up. I had a lot of Catholic friends growing up .. went to church with them .. I never could understand what all the pomp and circumstance was about. So, you can stop with the volumes and volumes of stuff you seem to think is relevant .. but the key to being a Christian is KNOWING THE LIFE OF JESUS .. not what Paul did years later.

[cva66snipe]

The churches founded by the apostles had no mass, no priests, no 7 sacraments ,no holy water, no statues etc...no the church of the NT was no Roman.

{Not directed at you personally just a general comment} Services were held in homes, The Gospel was preached in public in the streets, in public forums, before leaders in official chambers, in prisons, on a Chariot with an Ethiopian official, a few times in Temples. Not a one Disciple nor Apostle is recorded as being called father, rabbi, nor is recorded to have taken on priestly titles, holding ritualistic ceremonies beyond observance of Communion.

We also see John rebuked by angels {simply told not to bow before them} who were talking to him in Revelation chapters 19 & 22 As well Acts ch 10 v 26 Peter tells Cornelius to stand up "I am a human being like you".

The Apostle Paul didn't write a huge book of laws on behaviors and standards of conduct required in church and expected standards of leaders and how services were to be conducted. He didn't write out you will say these words each day you meet, you will wear robes, you will take persons into booths for their confessions. He wrote a few simple chapters. That should suffice for any church and keep any church in line with GOD's Will.

Jesus Christ told us how we should pray to GOD. Go to where you can be left alone in secret no distractions and pray to The Father in secret. IOW you talk to Him not recite a prayer over and over. Yes that is in scripture as well. After His ascending into Heaven to The Father Christ made this even more easier. He sent us an Intercessor dwelling within us to minister to us, to interceded for us when our own words fail us, & to free us of the corrupt hold The Priest of the day held on men. Jesus Christ is our Priest, Our Pope, Our Savior. He can handle it all and He can hear us all. Can we and should we pray for each other? Yes. The living in mortal bodies should pray for each other. The departed mortal bodies have been separated from this world. Not even Abraham could intercede.

The beginning of Christianity as in physical location was Jerusalem that was never rescinded but Christianity is everywhere it is recieved and accepted then followed. No place hold claim as the center for the center is our own hearts toward Jesus Christ. Man may have tried to set up a church government in Rome but Rome has not replaced Jerusalem nor the Sons of Israel. Nor have mans writs. The denomination of the Disciples and Apostles? Why the were Believers and followers Jesus Christ of Course :>}

[Alex Murphy]

Some years back (unfortunately I did not keep bookmarks then) there was a particular conversion story put forward by the FR Romanists. This guy went from Jehovah's Witness, to Roman Catholic. OK, fine. Well, when you dug deeper into the guy's story, this convert had been everything. If I remember right, this convert'd been an independent fundamental baptist, an adventist, and Eastern Orthodox. And probably a few steps I've forgotten. He'd spend a few years as one thing, before being convinced of something else and moving on. And, at the time his RCC conversion was recounted here, he'd already moved on to something else.

Alex, can you help out?

The details don't match, but that sounds a lot like the the story of Rodney Beason, supposedly a former Calvinist turned Catholic. His story was so well-loved by FRoman Catholics that five months later, they re-solicited it as a "powerful conversion story". When Beason was a first year college student, he claimed to have "a library full of Calvin, Luther, Warfield, Hodge, Murray, Owen, Machen, etc" and he claimed to have "helped plant a local Orthodox Presbyterian Church". All before he finished his first year of college!

Miracle of miracles, Rodney Beason himself signed up to FR just to provide all with the rest of his "powerful conversion story". He abandoned the Catholic Church within five years of his oft-heralded 2002 conversion....

Well, I had no idea this was still circulating. I have asked for this ‘powerful conversion story’ to be removed numerous times. Sadly, it has not and it still finds it way to those who wish to make something of it. Yes, I have been a spiritual wanderer. I found very hateful criticism in the Catholic Church and I must admit, my taste for it did wane to the point of not associating with it anymore. I also found that Masonry is very boring as they really just want to sit around and eat and talk about people behind their backs, much like the Church I left behind so I left them as well....

....Have I fooled around with Hinduism? Yes, I have and I have studied many eastern religions. I am in search of something and everything else I have tried has not brought me to where I wish to be. So, quote scriptures, talk about how I am a boat tossed about on the waters to and fro. Talk about how I will convert for food.

On the other hand, Lee might be thinking of that mightiest of converts, Rob Evans. Rob's claim to fame was a direct-to-VHS children's series in the 1990s titled The Donut Repair Club, marketed to children in Evangelical households. When he wasn't entertaining children, Rob was a Presbyterian Pentecostal Baptist multiple-church-splitting spiritual wanderer, changing churches an average of every five years, even being excommunicated from one congregation before his conversion to Catholicism. That conversion coincided neatly with EWTN acquiring broadcasting rights to his out-of-production Donut Repair Club.

[Mark17]

Communion was not considered a "sacrifice" until around 300 ad..it was then that the "priesthood" became a necessity ...after all you need a priest to sacrifice .. before that time the church pastors were called"clerks" ( from which we get clergy)

I think they were called clerks for a long time after that too. John Newton, the writer of Amazing Grace, had it written on his gravestone, in Olne, England. "John Newton, clerk. Once an infidel and libertine." I believe he saw, and understood the simplicity of the gospel. I would not classify him as one who was ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. He came to the truth, or maybe I should say, the truth came to him.

[OneWingedShark]

And, your underlined statement is NOT FROM JESUS; it’s from Paul and Barnabus .. and they assumed it was okay with the Holy Spirit to request such things from the congregation. But, nowhere does it say the Holy Spirit confirmed to Paul that his decision was correct.

It wasn't [just] Paul; it was James, Peter, and both the apostles and the elders.

One of the signs that the Gentiles were indeed accepted by Christ was that they too received the same [Holy] Spirit that they did.

I totally do not agree with you at all. And .. if you’re Catholic .. you might as well give up. I had a lot of Catholic friends growing up .. went to church with them .. I never could understand what all the pomp and circumstance was about. So, you can stop with the volumes and volumes of stuff you seem to think is relevant .. but the key to being a Christian is KNOWING THE LIFE OF JESUS .. not what Paul did years later.

I'm not Catholic.
But the point remains that the Holy Spirit did confirm this; it's the response to those who would place the Christian under the Mosaic Law. (You can find these types in the Jewish Roots and It has to be YESHUAH-types.)

[Lee N. Field]

I think I found what I (slightly mis-)recalled. The Journey Home (Ecumenical) (with an "ecumenical" tag so we were all supposed to play nice). On the wandering journey of one Ken Guindon. With comments on the use of conversion stories as an apologetic.

[CyberAnt]

So, unless the scripture says GOD condemned it .. then it was okay ..??

You’re mixing up what I’m saying. GOD did not designate that people separate into denominations. HE never made any provision for that.

And .. GOD gave to man the greatest gift: FREE WILL. The ability to make our own decisions. Maybe some of us will never know if the choices we made were good. But, GOD gave us the free will to make them. If we are lazy and don’t seek GOD often enough .. we’ll just have to live with our choices.

To me .. that can mean choosing the wrong church. In Ephesians, it talks about “GOD sets” .. meaning GOD has the perfect church for you to attend. It’s perfect for each person, because God has prepared the perfect Pastor to teach you all that GOD wants you to know .. in order for you to do whatever He has called you to do. If you attend the wrong church .. you may never fulfill the call of GOD on your life.

[Zionist Conspirator]

You are right. It all started to happen in the 16th century. Before that there was not denominations; there was one, holy, catholic and apostolic church.

Well, except for the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Syrian Church, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Church, the Assyrian Church, the Armenian Church, and all the various Indian churches . . . every one of which can trace itself back to the original apostles.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but it burns my biscuits when Catholics pretend there were no rival claimants to being the "one true church" prior to the sixteenth century.

[Alex Murphy]

I think I found what I (slightly mis-)recalled. The Journey Home (Ecumenical) (with an "ecumenical" tag so we were all supposed to play nice). On the wandering journey of one Ken Guindon. With comments on the use of conversion stories as an apologetic.

ROTFL I missed that one. As you summarized in that thread, Ken Guindon went from Roman Catholic to Jehovah's Witnesses to Baptist back to Roman Catholic over to Eastern Orthodox over to Plymouth Brethren and then returned to Eastern Orthodox again!

[RnMomof7]

Yep ! no cathedrals, no statues,no mass ...Thanks for the post

[RnMomof7]

I remember Evans ...touted here as well ... :)

[RnMomof7]

I think they were called clerks for a long time after that too. John Newton, the writer of Amazing Grace

Thats interesting..thanks for the factoid..

[Gamecock]

Deny what is plainly acted out in Scripture. Do so at your own peril.

[RnMomof7]

You’re mixing up what I’m saying. GOD did not designate that people separate into denominations. HE never made any provision for that.

Actually the early church had Bishoprics that were similar to different denominations ..each Bishop decided what books of the scriptures were valid.. and he decided what that church looked like

But Cyberant ..I agree that there is only one church ..that church is the bride of Christ and composed of the elect in Christ.. and at the end..the tares will be thrown into the fire and the church glorious will reign with Christ

[CyberAnt]

Who are you to threaten me ..??

And .. if there is something “plainly acted out in scripture” .. then please, by all means .. write it out.

Geeeeee .. I know a lot of Catholics .. and they don’t ever threaten me. We just agree to disagree.

However, Catholics study a “missal”; not the Bible. I don’t need somebody rewriting the Word of God for me .. I’m fully capable of reading it for myself; and also fully capable of discerning what it says.

[CyberAnt]

Wow! After 3 years of Bible School, I don’t recall studying anything like that.

God sees the heart, not the denomination. That’s the most important thing to me.

[RnMomof7]

Yep..He sees the New heart He has given us... the old one had nothing good in it

[CyberAnt]

Yes, I thank God for our new life in-Christ.

[HarleyD]

You’re mixing up what I’m saying. GOD did not designate that people separate into denominations. HE never made any provision for that...And .. GOD gave to man the greatest gift: FREE WILL.

There is God's will and there is man's will. As Christians we can choose to follow God or follow our own passions and lusts.

You are right that there should be only ONE denomination. But I would submit to you that the reason there are so many denominations is because of people following their own will-not God's will.

So think about how "great" free will really is.