Thursday, May 10, 2012

We’ll see how this goes

Devin Rose has chimed in on some comments on Dr Kruger’s blog, and he also responded to my comment there on his own blog. (I last encountered Devin having a returned a twenty-dollar bill of his, which he sent in via a bitter anti-Protestant blog which shall remain un-named and un-linked, lest I find that I have again stepped in dog poo or something).

Now Devin says he has purchased the book and is going to begin reading it (no telling if he’ll make it through to the end). Given that the hardcover version of the book is $15.00 (probably $19.00 with shipping), I take this as a miraculous sign from the Lord that my decision to return Devin’s $20.00 was due to the Lord providentially working in his life.

It will be interesting to see if a person who’s perpetually asking the question “yeah, but whose interpretation?” can gain any insight from this work. 


  1. Hi John,

    My conviction is to always search for the truth, to keep digging, studying, praying, examining. I believe that the Truth is Jesus Christ, and I want to know him in truth.

    So while I'm Catholic, if I find that the Catholic claims are false and that there is another church/tradition/community that is closer to the truth, I will join that one.

    The canon is a crucial issue. I'm glad Dr. Kruger made this foray into the area. And...I saved some monies by getting the Kindle version, and got it "instantly!":

    God bless,

  2. Every cell in my body is convinced that Roman Catholic claims are not true.

    To be sure, they have a good, tightly-knit story. They have had a lot of time to work on it, and even today, there are lots of people devoted to changing the story as new historical facts are uncovered. (I know you've read Fortescue. Compare that with some of the more recent statements about the papacy, which reflect not only a softening of the language, but a genuine retreat on the "doctrine" of the papacy: See this statement by John Reumann:

    Biblical and patristic studies make clear that historically a gap occurs at the point where it has been claimed “the apostles were careful to appoint successors in” what is called “this hierarchically constituted society,” specifically “those who were made bishops by the apostles . . .,” an episcopate with an “unbroken succession going back to the beginning.” [64] For that, evidence is lacking, quite apart from the problem that the monepiscopacy replaced presbyterial governance in Rome only in the mid-or late second century.[65] It has been noted above how recent treatments conclude that in the New Testament no successor for Peter is indicated.

    Check the footnotes on this one.

    And consider, if Roman claims are not true, then all you're left with is what's left.