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.
Hi John,
ReplyDeleteMy 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!": http://devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/images/orbook.jpg
God bless,
Devin
Every cell in my body is convinced that Roman Catholic claims are not true.
ReplyDeleteTo 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.