13 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Biased and warped by suspicion, June 2, 2005
One of the main problems with this book is that Ankerberg and Weldon start off with several assumptions which the book never fully proves. For instance, it appears that they hold that a belief in forensic imputation is necessary for salvation. Those who've studied the history of Christianity will know how problematic this is, but in the context of the book, what is troubling is that they don't adequately explain why one has to believe in a precise formula of justification in order to be justified. Nor do they adequately defend the doctrine of forensic justification itself: they seem to assume that most of their readers already share it.
This is just one example of the authors' general failure to clarify their assumptions. In some cases, I think the problem is even bigger: they don't realize that they HAVE biases. They are fairly good about quoting Catholic sources (though at times, they may rely too heavily on Protestant sources), but they are not good about giving the full context of the quotes, and they often draw incorrect conclusions about what the statements they've quoted _mean_ in the context of Catholic theology. This is a common problem for Protestants trying to understand Catholicism. What makes it particularly frustrating in this book is that Ankerberg and Weldon criticize Catholics for reading the Bible through a "Catholic theological framework" but they don't realize that they themselves read Catholic theology through a Protestant framework, thus drawing incorrect conclusions about it. In fact, they read all Catholic document through a hermeneutic of suspicion- more on this below.
The only value I see in this book is in the second half, when Ankerberg and Weldon offer a critique of Catholic and Evangelical ecumenists, particularly the authors of "Evangelicals and Catholics together." Readers should realize that since this book was written, the ECT authors have put out documents specifically addressing justification, the role of Scripture and tradition, and other devisive issues. The ECT authors never intended their first statement to be the final word on the subject, but Ankerberg and Weldon act as if they did. Readers of this book would do themselves a service if they read the later ECT documents as well as the original one. Overall, I think the Ankerberg-Weldon critique of ECT is shortsighted and flawed, but it was useful for me to see what sorts of objections conservative Protestants might raise against the ECT group and their mission.
What was troubling even in this section, though, was the lack of charity Ankerberg and Weldon occasionally showed to the Catholic or Evangelical authors they discuss. Their description of Scott Hahn's conversion is particularly uncharitable: they seem to suspect him of unstated ulterior motives in converting, and in some places they misrepresent his story. Likewise, I suspect they have entirely misread Keith Fournier's _Evangelical Catholics_. This gets back to one of the central problems of the book: Ankerberg and Weldon have started off with the assumption that Catholicism is very, very wrong, and they read everything on the subject through a hermeneutics of suspicion, looking for the doctrinal loophole or corrupt motive that would prove any defense of Catholicism wrong. Thus, Scott Hahn MUST have unstated reasons for his conversion, because he couldn't possibly have been convinced by his study of the Bible and theology alone.
I hope that other readers will see the flaw in this approach: surely both Catholics and Protestants agree that Christians should practice a hermeneutic of charity in their reading of each other's theology, rather than reading suspiciously. It is primarily because of this hermeneutic of suspiction that I can't recommend this book to anyone. I recommend, instead, Norman Geisler's _Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Disagreements_, which is much more charitable and more scholarly.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Does not achieve desired aims, or persuade, May 14, 2000
This review is from: Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree? (Paperback)
I walked into a Christian book store, and asked for a book critiquing Catholicism from a Protestant point of view. I was told, "We don't have anything like that, but this book is pretty balanced." What I got was not a balanced book, but exactly what I asked for.
This book sets out to compare Catholicism vs. Protestantism in light of recent ecunemical movements, and aims to persuade the reader that 1) The two are still very different, and 2) Protestanism is correct.
It is a poor tool for persuasing Catholics of the error of their ways. Certain Biblical passages supporting the Catholic viewpoint are either ignored or quoted out of context. The only people who will be persuaded are those who already agree--"preaching to the choir" as it were.
In fact, reading with a skeptical eye and referencing an actual Bible as appropriate, I left feeling like Catholicism was the winner of the debate as presented.
Any Protestant looking for a decent critique of Catholicism should look elsewhere, as should Catholics looking apologetics. That being said, the book does touch on the main points of disagreement, and could prove a useful introduction to someone who is unfamiliar with these two branches of the Christian faith.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 22 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
It offered insight, September 5, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree? (Paperback)
This book was not a real easy read. It was very repetitive. I did get a lot of understanding as to what Catholics believe and how much of their beliefs are based on church tradition instead of Biblical truths. The Catholic church has been perpectuating these half truths and misteaching too long to change now and not admit major error. Salvation by works and not by grace alone, is a major issue and Catholics can never admit they are wrong. Even though the Bible is very clear on this subject. We are saved by the Grace of God alone it is a free gift!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
