Customer Reviews

Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree?

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

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.

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.

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!

I am afraid that this book has no value whatsoever in helping anyone understand the differences between Catholics and Protestants.

As is usually the case, this book is filled with inaccuracies and outright untruths about the Catholic Church.

If we are to seek understanding, we need to do so with accuracy and not prejudice.

It is clear by these reviews and ratings that this book changed no one's opinion. We are still debating the same topics after 450 years. I will say that if you have an Evangelical viewpoint this book will strengthen that view with very clear biblical proofs.

Let me ask Catholics this - If God wrote a letter just to you and it arrived in your mailbox would you allow someone else to read it to you and tell you what it said or would you want to read every word for yourself? Put aside the Catechism and just read God's Word. I assure you, you won't get the doctrines of the Catholic Church by just reading the Bible unless you allow someone else to tell you what it says.

Just as Jesus held the Pharisees responsible for knowing the Old Testament scripture (and condemned them for adding rules and laws that were not there), we are responsible for searching the New Testament and believing the plain truth that God gave us in the Bible.

I often find reviews such as the negative ones about this book, amazing. The reviewers, who obviously disagree, must be from the "church" that the writers are critiquing or find that discernment when looking for wolves in sheeps clothing is somehow bad for the sheep. The authors took the time to list references and most of them from the 1994 cathecism. Rome's own book! Please include your more well thought out responses other than, "They misquoute, they misquote!" Really? In what way? If your goal is to correct a supposed wrong, then correct it. Anyone can say it was a bad book because of misquotes without proving it! It's time for Christians everywhere to stand on the Truth and let no dilution whatsoever take place. If anyone preaches another gospel...Galatians 1:9&10
Thanks for a wonderful book!!

...aned being a few years old now, this book is still very "up-to-date" with all the truths that separate Roman Catholics from Christians.

I'd recommend this book for every book shelf (that is of course after you read the book).

I highly recommend this book to anyone who is wrestling with the issue of just what separates Catholics and Protestants. The authors, in my opinion, do a very good job of accurately presenting the Catholic viewpoint, showing its internal consistency, but then going on to show its Biblical inaccuracy. The biggest benefit Protestants and Catholics can get from reading this book is understanding how they both often use the same words to mean very different things -- one of the biggest causes of confusion between the two groups.

As a former conservative Evangelical who found himself slowly, by the grace of God led to full communion with the Catholic Church, I plead with any Protestant considering this book as a source of insight into Catholicism to look elsewhere. It is a shame and disservice to the Gospel of Christ.

Even if you can't see Catholics are your brothers in Christ (though we see you in that way), it's important to understand what they truly believe. You'll find nothing here but distortions, bad scholarship or worse. Lies serve only father of lies.

Even if you desire nothing but material to oppose us, read one of the Protestant converts to Catholicism like Scott Hahn ("Rome Sweet Home"), Mark Shea ("By what Authority?"), or Karl Keating ("Catholicism and Fundamentalism"). At least then you can oppose true Catholicism and not this fiction created by Ankerberg and Weldon.

This book gives valuable insight to both Protestants and Catholics about the issues that have divided these two groups for four centuries. It demonstrates how reconciliation can only occur if one side or the other changes their doctrines on the word of God and salvation. One of the crucial issues is the Catholics having to reconcile the anathemas given at the council of Trent. Until these issues are reconciled what should the relationship between Catholics and Protestants be? This book will give both groups the tools necessary as to what types of relationships they should have that do not do damage to the truth of the Biblical text.