Navigating the Tiber, by Devin Rose

We all have friends, co-workers, and family members whom we would love to welcome into the Catholic Church. And we all have those awkward and sometimes painful discussions with them, when contentious or controverted issues come up in conversation and we don't quite know what to say or how to say it.

Well, our good friend here in the Bubble, Devin Rose, has written a book that eases the way for us. Many of you already know and love him, and I've referenced and written about him many times in the past. He is, quite literally, one of the reasons I have a blog today.

Two years ago, I told you about his book, The Protestant's Dilemma (if you are a non-Catholic Christian, I cannot recommend this book highly enough!) and also linked his compelling appearance on the Journey Home, where he recounts his conversion story from atheist, to Protestant, to Catholic. He also has an important and effective program to help Catholic men fight the beast of porn addiction.

Now we can add his much-awaited Navigating the Tiber: How to Help Your Friends and Family Journey Toward the Catholic Faith, published by Catholic Answers.

I read the entire book, easily, in two nights. As I read, I became excited about how valuable it will be for the many readers who email to ask me the best way to reach their non-Catholic or anti-Catholic family members -- people who love Jesus Christ but do not understand, and in some cases despise, the Catholic Church.

I love this book because it is practical, clear, and systematic. With a clever mariner theme (we are navigating the Tiber River, after all, on our way to Rome!), Devin sets us on our journey by "surveying the depths" -- a short but excellent primer of the different Protestant branches and beliefs (so that we don't talk to a Baptist or a Pentecostal as if he were a Calvinist or a Lutheran, for example).

Then, Devin sails us through the common issues that are bound to surface when we talk to our Protestant friends, co-workers, and family members about the Faith: The question of the Canon of the Bible (which we recently touched upon here in the Bubble); the Protestant pillars of sola scriptura (the Bible alone) and sola fide (faith alone); the Protestant belief in perspicuity (the idea that the "plain meaning" of the Bible is "clear" to any Christian); whether salvation can be lost; the truths about baptism; the objections to the papacy, Mary, and the "pagan superstitions" of the mass.

Devin also sets straight the course regarding the Inquisition and the Crusades; guides us on when to introduce the Church Fathers (and also the actual beliefs of the Reformers!) to our friends; navigates the moral issues of divorce and contraception; shows us how to speak frankly about the priest scandals -- and much more.

He does all of this while giving real life examples of his own interactions with friends and co-workers over the years. There's nothing better than being able to "see" how all this goes down in real life. You'll be equipped on the most practical levels, including advice on timing, suggested reading, and end-of-chapter tips and summaries.

What I love the most, aside from the clarity and accessibility, is Devin's insistence and focus on the preservation and deepening of the relationship with the person we're engaging, even suggesting prayers that can be prayed together. Friendships should never be put in jeopardy just to score points in a debate, or to "win" a theological argument. If we approach our friends and family as if they were projects and not human beings with free will and inherent dignity, we push them further from the Church and harm the Body of Christ. And that makes us a jerk. No one likes a jerk, and jerks make terrible evangelists. :)

Thank you, Devin Rose, my friend, for pouring your heart and soul into another incredible book that every Catholic should have on his or her shelf!


And I don't think Devin would mind that I also ask for your prayers for his little daughter Josephine, who is undergoing cancer treatments. Thank you, dear readers, for your generous hearts!

Dear Protestant: Where did you get your New Testament?

Greek Manuscript New Testament

At least a couple of times every week, Protestants use New Testament verses to show me where the Catholic Church is wrong about something. I always make them take the necessary step back by asking the following:

"Where did you get your New Testament?"

When they answers that it came from God (as indeed it did), I say, "Yes, but what was the mechanism God used to bring it to you today? How did it come to you, historically and in real time, since it did not drop out of Heaven into your hands, leather-bound?"

Nine times out of ten, they have no answer because they have never considered the question.

The quick answer:

The Catholic Church officially determined and set the canon of of the New Testament approximately 400 years after Christianity began. The canon was declared by the body of Catholic bishops at the Council of Carthage (397 A.D.) and confirmed by Pope Boniface (419 A.D.).  

This is historical fact.

Let me flesh out a few more of the details, which very few Christians (Protestant or Catholic) know.

After Christ's ascension into Heaven, and after the Holy Spirit descended upon the first Christians at Pentecost, the Church thrived and grew exponentially for years before even one line of the New Testament was written. Let that sink in: Baptisms, catechesis, communal worship, conversions of thousands of sinners, Apostles and their companions traveling to other lands and risking imprisonment, torture, and death to evangelize the world with zeal -- all went on for over a decade before the New Testament was even begun, much less completed.

Without having written a word, the Church was teaching, preaching, growing, and flourishing for many years.

Eventually, a very few Apostles and their disciples starting writing down some of the Church's oral Tradition: The Gospels, which recorded the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and also the Epistles (letters) of St. Paul and others, which gave encouragement and instruction to local churches being established throughout the world. The young Church cherished those gospels and letters, and began to incorporate them into her liturgies and masses.

More and more written accounts and testimonies materialized as the Church grew, but contrary to today's popular belief, it was not obvious to the early Christians which of these writings were truly God-inspired.

As brutal persecution of the Church continued in those first centuries, clarity about Christian writings became important. After all, Christians were being martyred routinely, and it was necessary to know which books were worth dying for.

Three categories of writings existed at that time:

1. Those writings that were universally acknowledged/accepted
2. Those writings that were disputed or controverted
3. Those writings that were known to be spurious or false

The first group included divinely-inspired books that we have in our Bible today, such as the four Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles.

The second group included books that were simultaneously accepted in some Christian regions, rejected in others, and disputed in others. Some of these were indeed divinely-inspired, such the Epistles of James and Jude, one of Peter's, two of John's, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Book of Revelation, even as many Christians did not believe they were. Some were books that never made it into the final canon of the New Testament, but which several Christian communities considered inspired (and even used for catechizing and in the liturgy), such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, Apostolic Constitutions, the Epistle of St. Clement, St. Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans, etc.

The third group consisted of the fakes floating around, spurious works which were never acknowledged or claimed by the Church, such as about 50 false gospels including the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of James, a couple dozen "Acts" (Acts of Pilate, Acts of Paul and Thecla, etc.), and some epistles and apocalypses.

Under the promised guidance of the Holy Spirit and after a long series of historical events, a gathering of Catholic bishops went through the process of authoritatively and infallibly setting the books of the Christian canon, using the following criteria: a) The book in question must have been written in apostolic times by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle, and b) The book in question had to be doctrinally sound, completely conforming to Catholic Church teaching.

Several books met those criteria, and so it happened that some four centuries and 20 generations after Christ's Resurrection, the Magisterium of the Catholic Church authoritatively set the canon of the New Testament, ending all confusion and doubt among the faithful.

Rome had spoken, and the canon was closed.


Which leaves us with some takeaways:


-- If the Catholic Church (bishops and pope) had the authority from God to set the New Testament canon, then she cannot be the corrupt and un-Christian "Whore of Babylon" as is claimed by many Protestants.

-- If one accepts the canon of the New Testament, one must also accept the authority of the entity who gave it to us, i.e., the Catholic Church.

-- If one rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, one should and must also reject the canon of the New Testament that came to us through the authority of the Catholic Church. (It makes sense that Martin Luther, the rebel behind the Protestant Reformation in the 1500s, wanted to throw out several of the New Testament books that he despised.)

-- The New Testament cannot be "personally interpreted" by each individual Christian, because it was never meant to be taken outside of the Church from which it came.

-- The New Testament cannot and does not contradict Catholic doctrine, as it was Catholic doctrine that was used as a criterion for its authenticity and authority.

-- The New Testament was discerned and canonized by men who had divine authority to do so -- men who believed explicitly in the Mass, the Eucharist, the ministerial priesthood, Confession, Purgatory, veneration of Mary, infant baptism and infused grace, justification by faith and works, the Communion of Saints, etc., etc.

-- The Bible came from the Church. In other words, the Bible is Church-based, not the other way around. If you get this paradigm wrong, you get some messed-up theology.

-- If a Protestant uses Scripture to attack the Catholic Church, it's like ripping off a man's arm to beat him with it. Using a Catholic Book to beat up the Catholic Church makes no sense.

-- If you believe that your eternal salvation is based entirely on a Book, isn't it important to know where the Book came from and who was given authority to proclaim it? Who meticulously copied, preserved, protected, and guarded it with their lives, and who ultimately vouched for the fact that it is indeed the written Word of God?


There is so much more to discuss, and I would love to do so in the comments. Meanwhile, one of the best books on the subject, which I devoured when I came back to the Church, is Where We Got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church, by Henry G. Graham.





**Note: I did not include the Old Testament canon in this post, because I wanted to work with something that both Protestants and Catholics agree on, namely, the 27 books of the New Testament.

A Protestant "comes out"

For the first ten or fifteen years after my reversion, my main apologetical interest was in debating and discussing with Protestants. These days, I rarely engage the Protestant/Catholic debate, and I focus more on the "culture wars" by debating secularists and atheists. Protestants are fellow Christians, our brothers and sisters in Christ, and the Church is very clear on that.

However, every so often, I revisit the issues that divide Protestants and Catholics because Truth matters, and because the Church is a stronger witness to the world when we are undivided. At the Last Supper, hours before His death, Jesus prayed that his followers all be one. Not some loosey-goosey "oneness of fellowship", but a Trinitarian oneness. True unity, no dissension, no separation. 

So, there was this epic thread that took place on my Facebook page the other day, and while I very much encourage you to read through all 700+ comments (get some popcorn and settle in; it's that good!), I have excerpted for you here some comments from a woman named Renee Joy, who jumped into the discussion and unexpectedly "came out" as a Protestant-turning-Catholic! She had been researching and praying and pondering this move privately, but this was her first public statement! 

Her insights and thoughts on this journey are truly compelling, and I think anyone on either side of the Protestant-Catholic divide will appreciate her intellect, sincerity, and deep faith. Please note, this is not a discussion about sin vs. sanctity (there are sinners and saints in both camps), rather, this is a discussion about doctrinal truth vs. doctrinal chaos.

Read the whole Facebook thread, here (it's public), and meanwhile, here's just a taste of what Renee Joy had to say (I've strung together several of her comments) as she primarily engaged a thoughtful Protestant named Allison. 

+++++++

After 38 years in the Protestant world -- growing up Southern Baptist, under the teachings of Adrian Rogers (and any good S.B. knows who that is), going to a Evangelical Christian school K-12 heavily dominated by Reformed Presbyterians and non-denominational Evangelicals and Southern Baptists in the heart of the Bible Belt, I was frustrated with "church" for many reasons.

A few years ago, I started meeting Catholics, and realizing, oh my goodness, they are not the cult I was taught, and hey, wait a minute -- they make a lot more sense than anything I've seen. If you've lived Protestant then you know that Protestants cannot agree on anything. Sola scriptura my big foot! That's the issue! Everyone interprets everything their own way, and it has led to a complete disaster.

There are more denominations and subsets of those denominations, than is even believable. Independent Baptists eschew the Southern Baptists, who of course teach that the Methodists and Presbys are completely off base, the Lutherans and Episocopalians are totally different, Church of Christ, Church of God, Assembly of God, COGIC, none of them agree on much of anything -- not the way they define the relationship of God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, not on baptism, not on what is considered "necessary".

Predestination? Huge point of contention -- so much so that most Baptist churches say that it's just a mistranslation, yet the Presbys insist it's foundational. Some allow female preachers, teachers, elders. Some allow homosexual marriage. The majority are fine with artificial birth control even though we all know that it risks causing miscarriage. The divorce rate is astronomical. The churches tend to be either dominated by men (with women in a completely subservient mode with no opinions or purpose) or dominated by women, mostly single mothers with kids, or married women whose husbands stay home. The average family size is tiny -- and their belief of "prolife" really just translates to anti-abortion. They don't agree on the proper method or function of baptism (sprinkle? dunk? indoor dunk or lake?). Even all the Baptists don't agree with the other Baptists -- you have Southerns, Independents (which can be very conservative or far out there), and a ton of little offshoots.

I've seen more Southern Baptist churches split over the dumbest things: a fight about the new carpet color (blue or burgandy???), adultery with the pastor/secretary, fights about what version of the Bible to use (and don't get me started on the nonsense that is the "Message" or the many discrepancies in the various translations), even one split occurred over the replacement of a steeple. And don't get me started on "cultural relevance" -- the turning of most Protestant churches into semi-heathen pep rally environments mixed with rock concerts, where trashy, revealing clothes are the norm, and the focus is on having a good time, getting "pumped up for the Lord" -- on "experiences" and "feelings", not Truth, not discipleship, sacrificial living, ministry.

I'm not Catholic yet -- but the more I walk, the closer Rome looks on the horizon. The dissension in the Protestant churches, for me, stems from the fact that yes, they were based on "protesting"-- someone saying "I don't like this, I'm taking it out". And ever since then, that's what they've done. Each denomination, purging out the things they don't want/like/understand, until they're all practicing some mutilated version of pseudo-Christianity that leaves the congregants unsatisfied, unguided, and unhappy.

Sola scriptura, which clearly is not supported by Scripture itself, since it would mean that we could only use the Old Testament, has resulted in at least a dozen different translations of the "Bible" -- many vastly different than the others, and hundreds, if not thousands, of tiny "churches", each thinking they have it all right, none in agreement with others, and a lot of folks walking around saying "I'm saved" but having lives that look no different in functionality than the people walking around saying "I don't believe in anything except being good to fellow man."

The confusion that has arisen from everyone trying to interpret things their own way, has led to a disaster. And if Protestants truly believed that the Holy Spirit alone interpreted Scripture, and that church meetings were for fellowship (let us not forsake assembly), then there wouldn't be preachers sharing anecdotes and interpretations. There wouldn't be denominations.

And I will say, my husband and I were both raised very heavily in the Southern Baptist/Protestant world -- with my husband's family in the ministry in multiple generations, both of us raised in private Protestant schools, etc. There's a lot of false teaching that we've received over the years, about Catholicism, that we're having to research and refute, if that makes sense. But the more Church history we read, the more we confront the reality of what we see happening in Protestant churches (like the claims that Catholics are wrong for reciting prayers, despite the fact that Protestant churches not only recite the Lord's Prayer, but also typically have an altar call where people are led through a "Sinner's Prayer" to "get saved," etc.), the chaos and collapse of so many families, the blatant disregard for so much of Scripture that Protestants just can't reconcile with their particular denomination's beliefs and so they just ignore/discard it. The more my husband and I talk about it and put it out there, the more obvious the answers are.

And if you ever ask a Protestant, how, if they believe the Catholic Church was in error all those years, and that the Apostolic traditions are invalid, how the Protestant churches went from the New Testament housechurch pattern, to the set-up that exists today, which is often more like a corporation with tiered levels of authority, or conversely, is completely separate from all other churches, neither of which is true to New Testament teaching, they have no answer. If they truly believe that the Bible alone defines everything, then how do they reconcile those differences? If teaching stopped with the books in the New Testament, then how can it be correct to have what they have now? They have no answer.

I think two of the biggest issues were the "Romans Road" (i.e., Cliff Notes version of the Bible?) and the reality of what "salvation" was described as being in the Southern Baptist church, versus the reality of how that played out. For one, if all we really needed to understand salvation and Christianity was the handful of verses from Romans that most Protestant groups use to persuade people into joining their church, then why did God provide all the other books? Why is everything else necessary or important? You can't whittle away at it, taking away all the rest, pulling things out of context, and expect it to mean anything.

I think to be a Protestant, you have to be able to just say "it doesn't make sense but that's ok." I'm serious. There's so much you can't question -- or you're treated like an outcast. There's no consistency, no firm answers. It's all subjective. To be honest, I was talking about this earlier with another Catholic convert, and she pointed out that being Catholic isn't easy. In contrast, being Protestant is. Especially Southern Baptist. Once you've "prayed the prayer" and "gotten saved" (which are very important phrases), then you have your fire insurance. Anything you do, from then on, well, do your best but it's ok regardless. You can't get "unsaved" in that denomination. You're good to go. It's easy, in so many ways.

For years, I was taught that Catholics believed and taught things contradictory to Scripture. Purgatory, for instance. The respect they have for Mary, as another thing. In fact, there was a whole list of "violations." So, I started digging- not just to see if Catholics were right or wrong, but to see if the denomination I belonged to was also right or wrong. Because I grew up influenced by so many different "religions" (paternal grandfather, Southern Baptist; paternal grandmother, Methodist; maternal grandmother, Roman Catholic; maternal grandfather, Church of Christ. Went to a school taught by Reformed Presbyterians, non-denominational Evangelicals, and Southern Baptists. Went to Southern Baptist church. Nannied for a Jewish couple, worked a college job for a Sikh, had Muslim customers in Saudi Arabia and UAE, etc., and had a few Mormon friends. Worked in the inner city, where most worshipped at COGIC or Missionary Baptist denominations. You name it, I've heard it) -- I knew they could not all be correct. Someone has to be wrong. I don't want to be part of the ones that are wrong!

So here's the thing: I agree there are false teachers within the religious world. No doubt. That's obvious. The question is, who are they? So I started looking at that specifically -- across the board.

Presbyterians rely on Calvin, and to be honest, Scofield. I have a Scofield Bible on my nightstand, actually, and had used it for years. They set the standard and wrote the belief systems, pulling out the Scriptures they needed/liked to formulate what was "right" vs. "wrong." But who gave them that authority?

Most independent Baptist churches are pretty insistent on KJV. Why? I've even been in a church where I was carrying my Scofield NIV, and the church elders politely informed us that we couldn't read aloud in the Bible studies from the NIV, we had to use the KJV, and to help us "no longer be in error" then they had purchased us KJV's and left them in our pew. What gave them that authority?

None of the Protestant denominations agree foundationally on the majority of their religion. Even though they might say that "anyone who believes in the Trinity, in the fact that we are all sinners in need of a savior, and then confesses the name of Jesus Christ as Lord" is "saved," do they practice that? Is there unity between the churches? NO. Not at all. They are fundamentally different, and if you stay in any denomination for very long, you'll hear how/why they believe they have the "correct" interpretation of Scripture. The problem is, they seem to evolve with time, with this cultural relevancy concept. I cannot fathom how a church can believe that homosexuality is fine, acceptable to God, that gay marriage should be performed -- and yet, last year, the Presbyterian USA voted to allow it, it's up to the individual churches. Without a standard of interpretation and teaching to hold to -- that "tradition" that is mentioned in 2 Thess 3:6 -- this is what happens. Everyone comes up with his own thing, something that suits him. And the scary thing is, they all contradict.

Every Protestant denomination thinks they have it right. They can all cite Scripture to support their own doctrines, often pulling things out of context, or ignoring other Scripture that clearly adds to/supports/mitigates the tiny little bit they've decided to pull out and build a religion on -- like the importance of baptism, or the function of taking the Lord's Supper. Without the teaching from the apostles to round things out, to explain things, it's like looking at the framework of a house being built. You need the drywall, the shingles, the wiring, the plumbing, to make it a home. That's why we're not supposed to forsake gathering together. that's why we're supposed to not just go off on our own and read the Bible and think that's sufficient.

When I first posted on my Facebook wall over a year ago that I was frustrated beyond belief with the Protestants, I had no desire to become a Catholic. None. I was firmly convinced that the Pope might be the anti-Christ, as I had been taught from the pulpit, that they worshipped Mary, talked to dead people like witchcraft, etc etc etc. I had trouble reconciling that with the Catholics I knew, though, including my grandmother and the many Godly, faithful, peace-loving, kind, inclusive, "die to self and live for Christ" women I had met through Reece's Rainbow. I was looking for the "best" Protestant denomination to join. But over and over, people in various Protestant churches were commenting and PM'ing and emailing me to say they had the same struggles -- and over and over Catholics were saying "I think you're looking for us" and "I think you're Catholic and don't know it yet" haha.

I started studying not to become Catholic, but to disprove it, to find that fatal flaw that allowed me to cross them off my list as a viable option. But the more I dug, the more I learned and the more it made sense. I had to learn to separate what I had drilled in my head for years, decades really, by the teachers/preachers in my life, the code phrases that were programmed in -- the "compare everything to Scripture" (but not necessarily Scripture in context, but Scripture as interpreted and presented by the leadership of that denomination, hence the major debate over sprinkling vs dunking, predestination vs foreknowledge, etc). It all really does come down to the apostolic tradition, and the verses in the New Testament that refer to that being relevant. How we interpret anything is dependent on who is doing the interpreting and what criteria they use, what bias they have. The fact that the Catholic Church can trace the Popes all the way back, and the fact that Jesus renamed Peter and then in the same sentence said that on that rock He would build His Church, is huge. It was minimized in the Southern Baptist church, written off as a coincidence of naming -- but why would Jesus do that? Why would God want to confuse us? He's not the one that's the author of confusion! If He had wanted to rename Peter, He could have done that at any point, and not followed that with "and upon (the new name I just gave you that means Rock, i.e. foundation that is not sinking sand) I build My Church". When I realized that -- realized that it made more sense that Peter was named Rock because he would be the first Pope, just like Abraham was renamed to "Father of Multitude" because that was his role -- it started all making sense....

+++++++

Renee knows more about Catholicism as a Protestant than most Catholics know about their own faith! Again, to read the entire thread, which includes a lot of other voices, go here. It was a real barn burner, and I heard from Protestants who enjoyed it and learned a lot. Go give it a look. And remember the words of Jesus to the Father on the night before He died, after consecrating the Apostles to go forth and teach in His name:

“I ask not only on behalf of these, but also on behalf of those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one. As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." -- John 17: 20-23

Trinitarian unity of Christians is what God desires, and it's what Christ chose to pray for for in the precious hours before His agony. It cannot be minimized. God bless Renee and the countless others who have heeded Jesus' call to unity, so that the world may believe that He is Lord, sent by the Father. 

Related post:  Catholicism is objective, Protestantism is subjective

Devin Rose and The Protestant's Dilemma

You all know I love a good debate.

My first foray into internet debates (the best kind!) was in '98 or '99, when I first got internet access and found a Catholic apologetics forum. I spent large chunks of my day in dialogue with Protestants, defending Catholicism alongside other amazing Catholics.

For many years, I imagined that I would stay with the Protestant/Catholic debates, as that is how I thought my way into the Church. It was such a passion of mine! But as time went on, it started to bum me out to realize how divided Christians are today, even more than when the Protestant Reformation (really a rebellion) tore Christendom asunder. And since I had neither the time nor the energy to become an expert on each of the 30,000+ Protestant denominations and their contradictory beliefs on a bazillion different topics -- even on essential issues that touch on salvation itself -- I engaged in fewer and fewer of those discussions.

When I started this blog in 2010, I did expect to do a lot more Protestant/Catholic apologetics than I actually have done (though I have done some), but I eventually ended up taking on more of the secular and atheist arguments, which became increasingly fascinating to me.

The shift in my interest and emphasis has not, however, lessened my admiration for those who do charitably engage our separated brethren. Long before he and I became friends, I was an ardent fan of former atheist and former Protestant Devin Rose, blown away by the skill and knowledge he brought to the debate. His was one of the first blogs I ever read regularly -- perhaps the first -- and there are two characteristics of his work that I deeply appreciate: His clarity and and his charity.

Years ago, when Devin told his readers that he was writing a book, I was giddy. The finished product, If Protestantism is True, was so good that I hoped it would be picked up by a big publisher. Sure enough, Catholic Answers saw its potential, revamped it, and gave it a new name. The fine result is The Protestant's Dilemma: How the Reformation's Shocking Consequences Point to the Truth of Catholicism.

Isn't that a cool cover??

If you like how we talk here in the Bubble, you will love the format of The Protestant's Dilemma. The book is divided into four parts: The Church of Christ, The Bible and Tradition, The Sacraments and Salvation, and Christian History and Practice.

The parts are further divided into chapters. Each chapter names a topic, then follows first with the Protestant beliefs and implications, then with the Catholic beliefs and implications regarding that topic.

For example, Chapter 12 is entitled:

 "The Principle of Individual Judgment"

It begins:

"If Protestantism is true, we all decide for ourselves what God's revelation means."  

For a couple of pages, Devin expands upon this proposition with Scripture, Christian history, and logic, and then presents the other side:

"Because Catholicism is true, the Bible was not intended to be studied in isolation from the Apostolic Tradition and apart from the teaching authority of Christ's Church."

Devin follows with more expansion of Scripture, Christian history, and logic.

Finally, each short and readable chapter is capped with an airtight summary of "the Protestant's dilemma" on that particular topic. Chapter 12 sums up:

If Protestantism is true, then difficult parts of Scripture should be understandable through careful study, prayerful consideration, and application of other parts of Scripture that are ostensibly clearer. Yet when faithful members of Protestant communities study hard, prayerfully seek God's illumination, and diligently apply other parts of Scripture, they still arrive at different interpretations -- often leading to the founding of a new community or denomination. For a Protestant, sola scriptura makes him, and not the Bible, the final authority. 

See what I mean? Systematic, reasoned, clear. That's the way I like my own blog, and that's the way I like my books of apologetics. Devin's contribution to the Protestant/Catholic dialogue is invaluable, and I wouldn't be caught in an online debate without The Protestant's Dilemma on my shelf and at the ready!

+++++++

PS: If you really want to know the kind of man we are dealing with here, please watch Devin's recent interview with Marcus Grodi on EWTN's The Journey Home. His story is quite painful at first (as an atheist, and dealing with crippling anxiety, he came close to suicide), but powerfully redemptive:

Protestants: It's time to come back

To my Protestant brothers and sisters:

It's time to come back to Mother Church. We want you, we need you, we love you.

I've spent a lot of time in dialogue with activist atheists recently, and the direction we are going is not pretty. We are witnessing a rapid cultural decline into amorality.

Satan seeks the ruin of souls through the destruction of marriage and family, and the quickest route to his goal is the profanation of sex. The truth and meaning of human sexuality is our era's cultural fault line, and unfortunately, Protestant denominations have been tumbling into its widening crevace at an alarming pace.

The first cracks denying the sacred nature of human sexuality began mere decades ago with the first tentative acceptance of contraception by a Christian church (the Anglicans). After 1,900+ years of unbroken Christian teaching on the immorality of contraception (including 400+ years of unbroken Protestant teaching), a moral evil was suddenly declared good. The entirety of Protestantism, although horrified at first, soon followed suit.

"Woe to those who call evil good" -- Isaiah 5:20

Then came other issues -- sterilization, masturbation, abortion, fornication and cohabiting, homosexual activity and homosexual "marriage". One by one, Protestant communities have broken from Christian teaching and sided with the secular culture. Many Protestant communities do not accept all the aforementioned evils as good, of course, and some are making a valiant attempt to fight one or more of them. However, there is no guarantee that those denominations won't eventually accept other sexual sins in the same way they accepted contraception, sterilization and masturbation. A majority vote by church leaders could launch an unsuspecting Protestant from the Spirit of the Gospel right into the spirit of the age -- the Planned Parenthood age.

Look where you are standing. Unless you stand with the Catholic Church, you may already have one foot off the cliff.

How to guarantee that you'll stand firmly on the ground of moral Truth? Come back home to the Catholic Church.

For over two thousand years:

The Catholic Church has never taught that contraception is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that sterilization is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that masturbation is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that abortion is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that fornication is a moral good, and she never will.
The Catholic Church has never taught that homosexual activity is a moral good, and she never will.

The moral teachings of the Church have never changed, and they never will.

Human sexuality is transcendent, life-giving and sacred, and the Catholic Church will teach that Truth till the last day.

Dear Protestant, a church with a changing morality is a church built on shifting sand. If you want to build your life and eternity on something solid, build it on the Rock of Peter. Don't be carried about by every wind of social change; come back to the Catholic Church and stand strong with us -- one united Body as Jesus intended.

America may not survive many more generations at the rate we are going, but the Church and her teachings will stand regardless, speaking the same Truths, undisturbed, till the end of time. Believe me, it's a really nice place to be in a storm. Extremely peaceful.

So, come on. You'll like it here, living in peace and joy and certainty. It's your rightful home anyway.

Come back to Holy Mother Church. It really is time.






.

Catholicism is objective, Protestantism is subjective

Please note: When I address the differences between Catholics and Protestants, I am addressing doctrinal issues; I am not judging anyone's personal holiness or love for Christ. 

Once upon a time, five hundred years ago, a group of Christians broke away from the Catholic Church in protest, declaring that the Bible was a Christian's only legitimate authority. Without an authoritative Church, each protesting (i.e., Protestant) Christian was now able to interpret the Bible himself, as Protestants believe God intended. 


However, this new paradigm of each Christian interpreting Scripture for himself means that there are as many interpretations of Scripture as there are Protestants. As you can imagine, this leads to a host of problems for a religion that exists to proclaim Truth.


Protestants will tell you that sincere Christians can find the Truth easily, because the "Scriptures are clear" -- and yet Protestants cannot seem to agree on even the essentials of salvation. This reality has led to division after division after division among the Protestant churches over the centuries. It's a real quandary, one which many Protestants acknowledge.


Catholics, thankfully, don't have that headache. We know what the Church teaches on every issue that touches on salvation, because Tradition has been handed down intact throughout the centuries, both written and orally, and those teachings are accessible to all. Anyone who wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches can know.


However, something has come up time and again in my dialogues with Protestants over the years. They tell me that we Catholics have a more serious problem with our Sacred Tradition paradigm than they have with their "Bible only" paradigm. They say that since Catholic Tradition is not "written down" (except for the part of Tradition that is written down, i.e., the Bible), then it is subjective, almost impossible to pin down.


To show how the argument goes, I'll reprint an excerpt from a facebook dialogue I've had with a thoughtful and godly Protestant Christian whom I'll call Brian (his words in red):


It seems to me that if there is no written Tradition (primary sources), then that makes Tradition highly subjective.



I responded:


Hi again, Brian! 

Okay, so if I read you correctly, you contend that submitting to Church authority/teachings/Tradition is highly subjective, but that submitting to the written Word (the Bible alone) is objective. 

I don’t think, practically speaking, that that bears itself out.

For example, let’s set up a simple comparison: 

Group A: 1,000 Bible-believing Protestants (sola scriptura adherents, who believe in the Bible as our only authority). They are all “true believers” who are saved and who love Jesus, and who sincerely want nothing more than to submit their lives to Christ’s Truth as found in the Bible.

Group B: 1,000 Church-loving Catholics (who believe the Church is the final authority). They are all “true believers” who are in a state of grace and who love Jesus and who want nothing more than to submit their lives to Christ’s Truth as found in the Church.

***Note: None of the Protestants or Catholics are dissenting or liberal Christians… i.e., no “Jesus Seminar” types in the Protestant group, and no Pope-bashers in the Catholic group. 

First, ask the individuals in Group A questions about what they believe on important matters of doctrine. Then, ask individuals in Group B the same questions about what they believe on important matters of doctrine. Here’s what you will find (and just as an example, let's use baptism):

Group A (Sincere Protestants):

Q. Is baptism a sacrament? A. Answers will vary.
Q. Is baptism regenerative? A. Answers will vary.
Q. Is infant baptism legitimate? A. Answers will vary.
Q. Can baptism be repeated? A. Answers will vary.
Q. Must baptism be by immersion only? A. Answers will vary.

Group B (Sincere Catholics):

Q. Is baptism a sacrament? A. All will answer “yes”
Q. Is baptism regenerative? A. All will answer “yes”
Q. Is infant baptism legitimate? A. All will answer “yes”
Q. Can baptism be repeated? A. All will answer “no”
Q. Must baptism be by immersion only? A. All will answer “no”


To me, this shows that adhering to “sola scriptura” leads to a much more subjective result than adhering to Church authority/teaching, which leads to an objective result.

I am willing to hear why you think my example is inaccurate.

Blessings to you,
Leila


Here is the pertinent part of Brian's response:


[T]he example that you give is in fallacious in a big way. The same example can be given of any organization. For example, you can place Jehovah's Witnesses in group A and Mormons in group B; Protestants in group A and Anglicans in group B. A general consensus doesn't necessarily mean truth. 

Thanks for allowing me to discuss this with you.

I responded:


Brian, you misunderstand. I never argued that my example proves "truth". I was only arguing that my system (true or not) is less subjective than yours. You were arguing that Catholicism's paradigm led to more subjectivity, no? I was showing you that your system leads to more subjectivity. So, I think I am on firm ground there.

Even Mormonism (which is false), has a system that is more objective than yours [i.e., the Protestant paradigm].

At base, the divide between Protestants and Catholics boils down to authority. If there is no earthly, human authority, if everyone gets to decide for himself what the Bible means, then we have a system of subjectivity and chaos. It is unworkable, as evidenced by the lack of agreement by Protestants not only of how to understand the essentials of salvation, but even what those essentials are!


Here is a short list of things that touch on salvation itself, about which Protestants cannot agree:

• The existence of, nature of, and number of the sacraments in general, especially Baptism and Eucharist
• The moral law, including degrees of sin and teachings on human sexuality
• The meaning of justification
• The cycle of redemption
• The nature of the Church and Church authority
• The existence and nature of Purgatory
• The implications of the Incarnation
• Whether salvation is once and done, or a lifelong process
• Whether one can lose his salvation
• The nature of predestination

And many more.

As I told Brian, I have not tried to prove the truth of the Catholic Church in this discussion. But consider that if God loves us (and He does) then He would not leave us confused, forced to reinvent the wheel with every new Christian. A loving God would leave us with clarity and truth throughout the centuries and millennia. And He did. Christ established His Church so that we would not be left orphans, and the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into all truth since that time.