What do you think?
Rate this book
Papa Don't Pope: Why I'm Not a Roman Catholic
Papa Don't Why I'm Not a Roman Catholic (And Why the Future is Protestant) evaluates some of the most important issues between Roman Catholics and Protestants, including personal interpretation, apostolic succession, sola Scriptura, and so on. So this little book should be a huge help for anyone (Catholic or Protestant) with honest questions, as well as for anyone looking to interact with the original Protestant vision.But what's the point in stirring up differences between Geneva and Rome? Don't we have enough division over church and theology already? The truth is, we don't have nearly enough clear disagreement -- because clear disagreement is a necessary step on the way to agreement. So you could say this book has a catholic purpose (even if the future is clearly Protestant).
The classical Protestant expression is Soli Deo Gloria. Roman Catholics might prefer Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. May God hasten the day when we can say 'amen' to both.
The classical Protestant expression is Soli Deo Gloria. Roman Catholics might prefer Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam. May God hasten the day when we can say 'amen' to both.
202 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 13, 2015
36 people are currently reading
242 people want to read
About the author
Douglas Wilson
319 books4,552 followersI write in order to make the little voices in my head go away. Thus far it hasn't worked.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
Want to read
October 9, 2023Here's what Wilson would say if he had 5 minutes with the pope (reform the church on sola fide, sola Scriptura, Mariolatry and other saint-worship); but Catholics can be saved. WORLD review here. Related details here.
September 4, 2022
Notes and gleanings, with page numbers:
-Rome’s claim of an unbroken magisterium is: “a deception.” (7)
-If the Jews can someday again be grafted in, so may Rome and the EO. Who is to say that God cannot do it?
-Wilson expresses dire concern for Protestants leaving for Rome. (20)
-On the difficulty of debating Catholics because of their presuppositions about the infallibility of Rome: “If there is a foundational assumption that Rome cannot fall away into damnable error, it is useless to try to show how Rome has taught some damnable error–say, on Mary, indulgences, or whatnot.” (25)
-Romans, Paul’s letter, is very much a letter to the Church of Rome–even as that church has persisted down to this day. “...in a real way, that letter stands as a Song of Moses to them; it is a testimony against them. In multiple ways, the Church of Rome formally denies various doctrines which *their* letter requires them to affirm.” (27)
-Rome’s claim of exclusivity in God’s affections parallels the same error among the Jews, which Paul deals with (and that sin among the Jews is something the Gentiles are warned against, should they likewise become arrogant toward the Jews). “[Paul] contrasts the exclusion of the Jews to the inclusion of the Gentiles and tells the Gentiles not to become haughty about this.” (28) And: “He reminds the Church at Rome that they are *not* the root, and that they do *not* bear the root. Rather the root bears them.” (30)
-The Church does not outrank scripture: “So just as John the Baptist pointed to Jesus without outranking Him, so also the Church pointed to the Scriptures in the Canon without outranking the Canon.” (40)
-The authority granted by an “unbroken line of pedigree” which Rome claims is exposed as a construction of Man–especially when one considers the fact that pedigreed “spiritual authorities” who were contemporaries of John the Baptist and Christ Himself found John and Christ to be without pedigree and without authority. (45)
-Rome’s insistence on an exclusive priesthood and ordinations defies the message of the New Covenant and the sacrament of baptism: “These ancient ordinations are a type of what is declared of all Christians in baptism.” And: “Christian baptism is *the inundation of the world* and, like the water flowing out over the threshold of Ezekiel’s Temple, it only gets deeper and deeper as it goes.” (51) And: “[Christ] prayed that He would inherit the ends of the earth for His possession, and He will. The day is coming when the waters of baptism will soak the world. The day is coming when certain Christian communions, bobbing around in their own little boat, will stop claiming that the water exists for their boat only.” And: “...[the Catholic] view is a disparagement of the actual privileges conferred in baptism.” (53)
-Wilson agrees (with Luther) that the magisterium and its councils have massively contradicted themselves. (63)
-To Protestants considering leaving for Rome or EO, Wilson recommends taking a long visit in a place where such a church “has had the run of a place” for several hundred years; “move to a small island off Greece (for Orthodoxy) or a mountain village in Mexico (for Roman Catholicism) and see what life is actually like there…. To do anything else is really too much like converting to Hinduism in Beverly Hills.” (79)
-On the infallible, authoritative Church of Rome: “...apart from the assertion that it does speak with a single voice, this authority does *not* speak with a single voice.” (89)
-Rome’s idolatrous use of images:
- - There are at least 4 types of idolatry, and one is “idolatry as the worship of the true God through images.” (97) The distinctive error here is creating images FOR WORSHIP.
- - While (at least in theory) not dead-set against all depictions of Christ in art, Wilson writes: “...attempts to capture the reality of the *personality* of Jesus in a painting, or by an actor in a Jesus film, or by a novelist in attempted dialogue, reveal next to nothing about Jesus, and reveal a great deal of manifest coxcombry of artists who are not nearly as good at their craft as they think they are. It makes me think less of Jesus in an edifying way, and more about how some artistic types could spend a couple days in the stocks in an edifying way.’ (101)
- - Be wary of what you involve your children with, in worship: “We do not bring them into a worship service with graven or painted images because we do not want a millstone tied around our stiff necks (Mt. 18:6).” (102)
- - “Idolatry is a grievous and soul-threatening sin, and not a denomination distinctive.” (103)
- - “...there are two central arguments against the use of images in worship. The first is that the Bible plainly says not to worship in this way. The second is that the early Church did not worship in this way.” (106)
- - The Gospel went to the Gentiles, partly, as a message of freedom from image worship. Wilson quotes Acts 17: “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. At the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent ....”
- - And: “...go back to a believing synagogue in Judea, a synagogue that worshiped Jesus as Messiah, in 57 A.D. If you can find a painting there that was used as an object of religious veneration, I would be happy to eat it. But I would not bow down to it–because whether or not this particular argument is any good, my God is still a jealous God.” (114)
- - Reacting in frustration to the “crude mailings” sent out by Catholic churches “with the approval of the Church,” offering blessings in exchange for idolatrous veneration, Wilson writes: “Why aren’t the Levites strapping on their swords? [see Exodus 32] Um… just to be perfectly clear, the previous sentence was a metaphor.” (118)
-In distancing ourselves from the many errors of Rome, we must not be arrogant: “It is not possible to leave an error forcefully without creating a situation in which you are forcefully headed toward another error. This situation arises *whenever there is any motion at all*. If we are called to walk on the old paths, and we are, then this scriptural illustration makes it clear that there are two ways to disobey. We can veer off to the right or to the left, and we are commanded to neither.” Wilson quotes Deut. 5:32. “There is no road to Rome. Rome is across the road in the other ditch. But we should worry less about the ditch they are in and more about the ditch *we* are in, and our responsibility to stay on the road once we have regained it. Our basic responsibility to the right ditch is to stay out of it–and not to taunt those in it. I’m still covered with mud from the left ditch and to accuse others of right-ditch-muddery doesn’t seem fitting somehow. At the same time, it is crucial to recognize what is going on with the right ditch and to recognize the temptations presented to us by any movement away from the left ditch.” (122-123)
-The view of Rome on justification is that “justification occurs as God infuses righteousness into us” while Wilson’s view, as a Reformed Christian, is “that it occurs as the result of righteousness being imputed, credited, or reckoned to us as a forensic act.” (128)
-Contrary to Rome’s view of justification: “...I do not need a work in progress–I need a definitive declaration, and to be told by the bailiff that I am free to go. Anything less and I am not actually justified. I am just on probation, walking around town being followed by a censorious parole officer, and the ankle bracelet is starting to itch” (130)
-No visible church (contrary to Catholicism’s teachings) has infallibility and ultimacy. Only scripture has that. This is the essence of sola Scriptura. “...the claim is that the Bible is the only religious authority in the lives of believers that has the two particular characteristics of infallibility and ultimacy.” (136)
-Praying to saints is a doctrine filled with bad logic and bad assumptions. To submit to this doctrine: “I… have to assume that the one to whom I am praying has a better ‘in’ than I do. I have to assume a distance between God and me that the Bible does not encourage me to assume at all. Quite the reverse. If I pray the way the Bible instructs me to pray, then it makes no sense afterwards to turn to a lesser prayer, with a lesser mediator.” (140)
-Wilson will not debate that Rome has maneuvered a nuanced position on Mary that they believe has covered the bases and not displaced Christ as the unique mediator of believers. But: “My problem is that when we bring it down from the realm of abstractions, what actually happens in the world where regular people pray? What actually happens is that people render ‘worship’ to creatures that is *on a practical level* indistinguishable from the worship they render to God, and this is the definition of idolatry.” (143-144)
-Praying to Mary (off in Heaven as she is) for help in our times of need... “cannot be done *without assuming that Mary has all the functional attributes of Deity*.” (144)
-Asking Mary to pray for us “assumes that she has a relationship to the world, and to everyone in it, including me, that Scripture does not give me any basis for believing.’ (145)
-Regarding the extra-biblical assumptions supporting prayer to the saints: “...it is my view that it is the responsibility of faithful Christians to stay far away from them.” And: “Lurking in the background of all this is the assumption that God somehow isn’t able or willing to readily hear and quick to respond when His children cry out to Him.” (146)
-Always represent your opponent’s views accurately. That is, be fair to Catholics regarding their actual beliefs: “...apologetics ought never to do battle with a straw man.” (147) That said, Wilson’s considerable experience with Catholics and ex-Catholics leads him to this observation of such people: “...there is a very common response of having felt distant from God, of having to earn approval of Him, and of having no practical understanding of grace.” (149)
-Protestants need to recover a sense of fundamentals–need to understand the reason behind unity or disunity. There is a flattening out of issues in our time. “If everything is of equal importance, then schism can occur over every little thing, because there is actually no such thing as a ‘little thing.’ Many ministers have received single-spaced typewritten letters, with typing up the side margins, from the peculiar kind of individual who thinks this way. He has the spiritual gift of Rebuking, and if you have deviated from his interpretation of anything whatever, out comes the typewriter. In this view, nothing is tolerated.” (161)
-What is Wilson? “I am a classical Protestant, a high church Puritan, a sacramental Calvinist, and a soteriological Augustinian.” (164) And: “I am told that my Protestantism is disconnected from the ancient church, but I belong to a confederation of churches, every member of which is required to have the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicean Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon in their confessional statements. Not only that, but all the elders and pastors in our churches are required to *believe* them. We are a tiny splinter presbytery, you say, and I admit it. There are not many of us. In fact, there are more Roman Catholic priests in some states of our fair Republic who don’t believe *any* item in the Apostles’ Creed than we have ministers who believe them *all*.” (165)
-And: “...when you actually start reading in the early church fathers, one of the first things you discover is that they are *all over the map*, just like us.” Irenaeus of Lyons writes disapprovingly of Gnostics who raise up images for veneration, including images of Christ. And Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, was dead-set against worshiping images of Christ and the saints. (171)
-Unlike the practice of Rome, Protestants ought to treat the Lord’s Table as a table and not as an altar. (173)
-Be wary of “[ramping up] your particular articulation of the truth to such a high pitch that the only ones joining your new denomination are the neighborhood dogs.” (177) On the other hand, do not err in the other direction and “announce that doctrine divides and Christ unites. Right. Cool. Christ who?” There is a middle way, one that hopes that our own errors will be corrected–and also those of the Jews, the Catholics, and the EO. “But this is a hope based on the promises of God, and it therefore involves much more than a group hug approach to doctrinal issues.” (178)
-On tradition: “Tradition is to be honored and accepted, but never absolutized, and never privileged above the plain statements of the Word of God.” (186)
-Closing: “...I am vulnerable and dependent. I am not autonomous, and cannot get free by myself, or off to myself. If I give thanks to God the Father for the Lord Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and do so in the midst of His congregation, I have every confidence that He will save me. He has promised, and I believe Him. ‘But what if he doesn’t?’ somebody asks. Well, if I perish I perish–but I know beyond disputing that if God does not save me, I will certainly not be able to scramble off somewhere else to save myself, or find a savior on my own who will authoritatively bypass my need to trust in Jesus, receiving all His covenant blessings. No, it is all grace, grace upon grace, and grace that saves to the uttermost.” (186)
-Rome’s claim of an unbroken magisterium is: “a deception.” (7)
-If the Jews can someday again be grafted in, so may Rome and the EO. Who is to say that God cannot do it?
-Wilson expresses dire concern for Protestants leaving for Rome. (20)
-On the difficulty of debating Catholics because of their presuppositions about the infallibility of Rome: “If there is a foundational assumption that Rome cannot fall away into damnable error, it is useless to try to show how Rome has taught some damnable error–say, on Mary, indulgences, or whatnot.” (25)
-Romans, Paul’s letter, is very much a letter to the Church of Rome–even as that church has persisted down to this day. “...in a real way, that letter stands as a Song of Moses to them; it is a testimony against them. In multiple ways, the Church of Rome formally denies various doctrines which *their* letter requires them to affirm.” (27)
-Rome’s claim of exclusivity in God’s affections parallels the same error among the Jews, which Paul deals with (and that sin among the Jews is something the Gentiles are warned against, should they likewise become arrogant toward the Jews). “[Paul] contrasts the exclusion of the Jews to the inclusion of the Gentiles and tells the Gentiles not to become haughty about this.” (28) And: “He reminds the Church at Rome that they are *not* the root, and that they do *not* bear the root. Rather the root bears them.” (30)
-The Church does not outrank scripture: “So just as John the Baptist pointed to Jesus without outranking Him, so also the Church pointed to the Scriptures in the Canon without outranking the Canon.” (40)
-The authority granted by an “unbroken line of pedigree” which Rome claims is exposed as a construction of Man–especially when one considers the fact that pedigreed “spiritual authorities” who were contemporaries of John the Baptist and Christ Himself found John and Christ to be without pedigree and without authority. (45)
-Rome’s insistence on an exclusive priesthood and ordinations defies the message of the New Covenant and the sacrament of baptism: “These ancient ordinations are a type of what is declared of all Christians in baptism.” And: “Christian baptism is *the inundation of the world* and, like the water flowing out over the threshold of Ezekiel’s Temple, it only gets deeper and deeper as it goes.” (51) And: “[Christ] prayed that He would inherit the ends of the earth for His possession, and He will. The day is coming when the waters of baptism will soak the world. The day is coming when certain Christian communions, bobbing around in their own little boat, will stop claiming that the water exists for their boat only.” And: “...[the Catholic] view is a disparagement of the actual privileges conferred in baptism.” (53)
-Wilson agrees (with Luther) that the magisterium and its councils have massively contradicted themselves. (63)
-To Protestants considering leaving for Rome or EO, Wilson recommends taking a long visit in a place where such a church “has had the run of a place” for several hundred years; “move to a small island off Greece (for Orthodoxy) or a mountain village in Mexico (for Roman Catholicism) and see what life is actually like there…. To do anything else is really too much like converting to Hinduism in Beverly Hills.” (79)
-On the infallible, authoritative Church of Rome: “...apart from the assertion that it does speak with a single voice, this authority does *not* speak with a single voice.” (89)
-Rome’s idolatrous use of images:
- - There are at least 4 types of idolatry, and one is “idolatry as the worship of the true God through images.” (97) The distinctive error here is creating images FOR WORSHIP.
- - While (at least in theory) not dead-set against all depictions of Christ in art, Wilson writes: “...attempts to capture the reality of the *personality* of Jesus in a painting, or by an actor in a Jesus film, or by a novelist in attempted dialogue, reveal next to nothing about Jesus, and reveal a great deal of manifest coxcombry of artists who are not nearly as good at their craft as they think they are. It makes me think less of Jesus in an edifying way, and more about how some artistic types could spend a couple days in the stocks in an edifying way.’ (101)
- - Be wary of what you involve your children with, in worship: “We do not bring them into a worship service with graven or painted images because we do not want a millstone tied around our stiff necks (Mt. 18:6).” (102)
- - “Idolatry is a grievous and soul-threatening sin, and not a denomination distinctive.” (103)
- - “...there are two central arguments against the use of images in worship. The first is that the Bible plainly says not to worship in this way. The second is that the early Church did not worship in this way.” (106)
- - The Gospel went to the Gentiles, partly, as a message of freedom from image worship. Wilson quotes Acts 17: “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device. At the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent ....”
- - And: “...go back to a believing synagogue in Judea, a synagogue that worshiped Jesus as Messiah, in 57 A.D. If you can find a painting there that was used as an object of religious veneration, I would be happy to eat it. But I would not bow down to it–because whether or not this particular argument is any good, my God is still a jealous God.” (114)
- - Reacting in frustration to the “crude mailings” sent out by Catholic churches “with the approval of the Church,” offering blessings in exchange for idolatrous veneration, Wilson writes: “Why aren’t the Levites strapping on their swords? [see Exodus 32] Um… just to be perfectly clear, the previous sentence was a metaphor.” (118)
-In distancing ourselves from the many errors of Rome, we must not be arrogant: “It is not possible to leave an error forcefully without creating a situation in which you are forcefully headed toward another error. This situation arises *whenever there is any motion at all*. If we are called to walk on the old paths, and we are, then this scriptural illustration makes it clear that there are two ways to disobey. We can veer off to the right or to the left, and we are commanded to neither.” Wilson quotes Deut. 5:32. “There is no road to Rome. Rome is across the road in the other ditch. But we should worry less about the ditch they are in and more about the ditch *we* are in, and our responsibility to stay on the road once we have regained it. Our basic responsibility to the right ditch is to stay out of it–and not to taunt those in it. I’m still covered with mud from the left ditch and to accuse others of right-ditch-muddery doesn’t seem fitting somehow. At the same time, it is crucial to recognize what is going on with the right ditch and to recognize the temptations presented to us by any movement away from the left ditch.” (122-123)
-The view of Rome on justification is that “justification occurs as God infuses righteousness into us” while Wilson’s view, as a Reformed Christian, is “that it occurs as the result of righteousness being imputed, credited, or reckoned to us as a forensic act.” (128)
-Contrary to Rome’s view of justification: “...I do not need a work in progress–I need a definitive declaration, and to be told by the bailiff that I am free to go. Anything less and I am not actually justified. I am just on probation, walking around town being followed by a censorious parole officer, and the ankle bracelet is starting to itch” (130)
-No visible church (contrary to Catholicism’s teachings) has infallibility and ultimacy. Only scripture has that. This is the essence of sola Scriptura. “...the claim is that the Bible is the only religious authority in the lives of believers that has the two particular characteristics of infallibility and ultimacy.” (136)
-Praying to saints is a doctrine filled with bad logic and bad assumptions. To submit to this doctrine: “I… have to assume that the one to whom I am praying has a better ‘in’ than I do. I have to assume a distance between God and me that the Bible does not encourage me to assume at all. Quite the reverse. If I pray the way the Bible instructs me to pray, then it makes no sense afterwards to turn to a lesser prayer, with a lesser mediator.” (140)
-Wilson will not debate that Rome has maneuvered a nuanced position on Mary that they believe has covered the bases and not displaced Christ as the unique mediator of believers. But: “My problem is that when we bring it down from the realm of abstractions, what actually happens in the world where regular people pray? What actually happens is that people render ‘worship’ to creatures that is *on a practical level* indistinguishable from the worship they render to God, and this is the definition of idolatry.” (143-144)
-Praying to Mary (off in Heaven as she is) for help in our times of need... “cannot be done *without assuming that Mary has all the functional attributes of Deity*.” (144)
-Asking Mary to pray for us “assumes that she has a relationship to the world, and to everyone in it, including me, that Scripture does not give me any basis for believing.’ (145)
-Regarding the extra-biblical assumptions supporting prayer to the saints: “...it is my view that it is the responsibility of faithful Christians to stay far away from them.” And: “Lurking in the background of all this is the assumption that God somehow isn’t able or willing to readily hear and quick to respond when His children cry out to Him.” (146)
-Always represent your opponent’s views accurately. That is, be fair to Catholics regarding their actual beliefs: “...apologetics ought never to do battle with a straw man.” (147) That said, Wilson’s considerable experience with Catholics and ex-Catholics leads him to this observation of such people: “...there is a very common response of having felt distant from God, of having to earn approval of Him, and of having no practical understanding of grace.” (149)
-Protestants need to recover a sense of fundamentals–need to understand the reason behind unity or disunity. There is a flattening out of issues in our time. “If everything is of equal importance, then schism can occur over every little thing, because there is actually no such thing as a ‘little thing.’ Many ministers have received single-spaced typewritten letters, with typing up the side margins, from the peculiar kind of individual who thinks this way. He has the spiritual gift of Rebuking, and if you have deviated from his interpretation of anything whatever, out comes the typewriter. In this view, nothing is tolerated.” (161)
-What is Wilson? “I am a classical Protestant, a high church Puritan, a sacramental Calvinist, and a soteriological Augustinian.” (164) And: “I am told that my Protestantism is disconnected from the ancient church, but I belong to a confederation of churches, every member of which is required to have the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicean Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon in their confessional statements. Not only that, but all the elders and pastors in our churches are required to *believe* them. We are a tiny splinter presbytery, you say, and I admit it. There are not many of us. In fact, there are more Roman Catholic priests in some states of our fair Republic who don’t believe *any* item in the Apostles’ Creed than we have ministers who believe them *all*.” (165)
-And: “...when you actually start reading in the early church fathers, one of the first things you discover is that they are *all over the map*, just like us.” Irenaeus of Lyons writes disapprovingly of Gnostics who raise up images for veneration, including images of Christ. And Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, was dead-set against worshiping images of Christ and the saints. (171)
-Unlike the practice of Rome, Protestants ought to treat the Lord’s Table as a table and not as an altar. (173)
-Be wary of “[ramping up] your particular articulation of the truth to such a high pitch that the only ones joining your new denomination are the neighborhood dogs.” (177) On the other hand, do not err in the other direction and “announce that doctrine divides and Christ unites. Right. Cool. Christ who?” There is a middle way, one that hopes that our own errors will be corrected–and also those of the Jews, the Catholics, and the EO. “But this is a hope based on the promises of God, and it therefore involves much more than a group hug approach to doctrinal issues.” (178)
-On tradition: “Tradition is to be honored and accepted, but never absolutized, and never privileged above the plain statements of the Word of God.” (186)
-Closing: “...I am vulnerable and dependent. I am not autonomous, and cannot get free by myself, or off to myself. If I give thanks to God the Father for the Lord Jesus Christ, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and do so in the midst of His congregation, I have every confidence that He will save me. He has promised, and I believe Him. ‘But what if he doesn’t?’ somebody asks. Well, if I perish I perish–but I know beyond disputing that if God does not save me, I will certainly not be able to scramble off somewhere else to save myself, or find a savior on my own who will authoritatively bypass my need to trust in Jesus, receiving all His covenant blessings. No, it is all grace, grace upon grace, and grace that saves to the uttermost.” (186)
November 17, 2018
There are enough straw men in this book to carry buckets for the sorcerer's apprentice.
When I was a child I came across Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian in the public library and I said to my mother - because I was a precocious brat - 'who cares?' I feel the same in this case. Why do some Protestants insist on fighting a 500 year old war when (almost) no one beyond the Reformation pale cares one whit about their beliefs, or at least not in a 'give me your best shot and I might be persuaded' way? I don't at all mind knowing what Wilson believes. I don't want or need to know why he thinks, in a partial, somewhat ungraceful, and misinformed way, that what non-Protestants believe is wrong. I suppose I might if his argument were better but it's tired and mostly unreferenced and smart-alecky and I don't. On the whole, apart from a few vivid passages on what he believes (as opposed to what he thinks others believe), this book is for Protestants with a taste for lowbrow theology.
Well, that was uncharitable.
When I was a child I came across Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian in the public library and I said to my mother - because I was a precocious brat - 'who cares?' I feel the same in this case. Why do some Protestants insist on fighting a 500 year old war when (almost) no one beyond the Reformation pale cares one whit about their beliefs, or at least not in a 'give me your best shot and I might be persuaded' way? I don't at all mind knowing what Wilson believes. I don't want or need to know why he thinks, in a partial, somewhat ungraceful, and misinformed way, that what non-Protestants believe is wrong. I suppose I might if his argument were better but it's tired and mostly unreferenced and smart-alecky and I don't. On the whole, apart from a few vivid passages on what he believes (as opposed to what he thinks others believe), this book is for Protestants with a taste for lowbrow theology.
Well, that was uncharitable.
December 20, 2015
No new ground is plowed here. Wilson's witicisms and overly clever writing obscure his intent and add confusion. Lack of nuance, especially in the limited sections specifically referencing Eastern Orthodoxy. Wilson's preaching to the Protestant choir. Not sure why this book was published. Good title though.
December 5, 2023
The front cover alone gets 5 stars.
August 21, 2025
worth the read for the arguments about the inescapable nature of the choice in personal knowledge
August 10, 2018
Some really helpful thoughts here, wish it was more comprehensive and methodical in its approach, though.
December 5, 2023
Listened to the audio version. Really helpful.
January 21, 2018
I'm not a Roman Catholic, but my main takeaway from this book is that I'm not a classical Protestant either. (I already knew that, btw. This just confirmed it.)
The book is nowhere near as flippant as the title would make it out to be. The author, a pastor in Idaho, is nowhere near as clear a writer as he thinks he is, either. Maybe his short chapters play better as sermons, but there is a lot of jargon in the prose that should have been explained or defined better. This is definitely NOT a beginning comparative theology book. I have a basic or intermediate level understanding of the schism between Roman Catholic and Protestant theologies, and I found it muddled and confusing in spots. For some reason, the author referred to certain things by initials only. Some I could figure out by the context, some took a web search to identify, but some remain mysterious. Talk about preaching to the choir.
I found the author to be condescending in tone, to both Roman Catholics and others who don't hold his version of doctrine--ironically, all in the name of "unity". In doing so, he is himself guilty of what he accuses the Roman church of doing--we should unite by everyone agreeing with him.
The book is nowhere near as flippant as the title would make it out to be. The author, a pastor in Idaho, is nowhere near as clear a writer as he thinks he is, either. Maybe his short chapters play better as sermons, but there is a lot of jargon in the prose that should have been explained or defined better. This is definitely NOT a beginning comparative theology book. I have a basic or intermediate level understanding of the schism between Roman Catholic and Protestant theologies, and I found it muddled and confusing in spots. For some reason, the author referred to certain things by initials only. Some I could figure out by the context, some took a web search to identify, but some remain mysterious. Talk about preaching to the choir.
I found the author to be condescending in tone, to both Roman Catholics and others who don't hold his version of doctrine--ironically, all in the name of "unity". In doing so, he is himself guilty of what he accuses the Roman church of doing--we should unite by everyone agreeing with him.
December 2, 2015
I didn't like it.
June 28, 2024
A real Protestant take on Roman Catholicism without the straw men we hear from baptistic bretheren so often…
December 11, 2023
Pretty good. Wilson takes on the RCC in his own ways. Some of his critiques were really good and I put them in my back pocket for when the time comes. Others are more representative of Wilson’s views than for Protestant views as a whole. I always ask myself who I would recommend a book to that I just finished reading. I’m not sure who this book is for. If they are decidedly Catholic, this book simply wouldn’t do much for most people. The arguments are sometimes intramural and may confuse more than help. If they are on the fence, then there are likely far more key arguments to be used than the whole icon debate. If they are decidedly Christian, they either don’t know anything about the RCC or they do know a lot about the RCC, and in both cases this book isn’t academic nor stringent enough. The main audience I could see for this work are DW fans who enjoy his writing, or Reformbros who are looking for more spicy material.
March 25, 2025
Witty, enjoyable, and thought provoking. Wilson is not an austere theologian writing for the academics, he writes for the everyday normal guy, and in this book he did a fantastic job laying out the differences between Rome and the Protestants. He did so without disparaging the Roman church (or the East) and with a spirit of charity and brotherhood, but still hit hard against the circular reasoning found there. Easy recommendation for protestants who don't understand Roman Catholicism and want to stop misrepresenting them.
December 6, 2023
This book is a roller-coaster ride on the Roman Catholic / Protestant / Eastern Orthodox debate, and if you don't like pulling polemical g's (because what is truth anyway, man), you won't like this book either. On the opposite side of things, Doug offers gracious arms to the RCs and EOs in distant hope for reunification. A good read.
January 9, 2024
I thoroughly enjoyed the book. I found Wilson’s arguments for apostolic succession of all baptized believers through baptism in the Triune name especially interesting and somewhat convincing. The hope for the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and Confessional Protestants to one day unite is a noble one.
April 18, 2024
I have never been tempted to cross the Tiber, but I can understand something of the appeal for some evangelicals. This book addresses the main issues that come up with humor, wisdom, and solid Protestant groundings. We need more men who can show that Geneva is truly superior to Rome, Constantinople, and even Canterbury.
Liked it a lot.
Liked it a lot.
July 30, 2024
This book is very balanced and helpful in understanding the Catholic Church. Protestants often miss the main point of the debate with Catholics, but this book gets to the heart of the matter in a simplified way.
May 12, 2025
I recently read and reviewed James White's book on Catholicism, this was the next one to tackle. It is highly recommended in my circles. I am very disappointed because this book was not only unhelpful, it has strawman problems, it didn't offer anything, and was as clear as mud.
May 16, 2025
Roman Catholicism is just so untempting to me that I can't even make myself feel terribly interested in the arguments against it, sound though they be.
Between "parTIciples" and a slew of words overpronounced with extra syllables, this wasn't the best narration.
Between "parTIciples" and a slew of words overpronounced with extra syllables, this wasn't the best narration.
August 16, 2025
I benefited greatly from this concise rebuttal of many Catholic doctrines. While it's certainly no exhaustive, systematic breakdown of Catholicism, the book provides simple, memorable, yet charitable arguments in favor of a robust, historic Protestantism. John 17.22-23
December 31, 2025
Good stuff. Wilson puts his finger on a lot of critical distinctions, not only in the department of straight theology and arguments, but also in terms of human psychology/will in decision making which impacts all of us more than we'd like to admit.
June 16, 2018
The book is a compilation of Doug’s blog posts on this theme. Good stuff on loyalty, authority, and the incarnational trajectory of theology.
June 10, 2019
Excellent in logic and theology; poor in communicating to those not already in his circle.
December 22, 2020
Douglas Wilson addresses why he isn't a Roman Catholic and why he doesn't think Catholicism will stand the test of time.
September 12, 2023
A fun read and a good succinct argument for the Orthodox and Reformed faith over against the Roman Catholic Church.
December 24, 2023
Polemical, but not unfair. Humorous, but pointed. Clear on the central issues.
January 4, 2024
Fantastic and informative.
January 24, 2024
Good. I listened to this on Canon+.
June 6, 2025
Figured it was the time to read this if I was going to. The kinds of witty arguments you would hope and expect from DW on Rome
October 10, 2025
very good
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews