Customer Reviews

Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

This book deals with most of the doctrinal disagreements between Catholics and Protestants. The best thing about this book is that it delves into many of the "proof texts" used by Catholics to support their doctrine and explains how the Catholic interpretation is false. He does a good job exposing Catholic errors regarding transubstantiation, Mary, and the Papacy. However, I was disappointed by holes in several of his arguments, including the overlooking of much Biblical material. For example, in talking about the appearances of Mary at Lourdes and Fatima, Rhodes just makes the blanket statement that God does not want to allow us to ever have contact with the dead, and that therefore these appearances are demonic impersonations. However, in making this conclusion, Rhodes ignores the appearance of Elijah and Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration as well as the appearance of Samuel to Saul at Endor, both of which are Biblical examples of appearances to the dead. Also, Rhodes sometimes makes statements of great import without giving any documentation for them, such as his statement that some of the Church fathers believed in the Immaculate Conception while others did not. Not only this, but he relies on James White's book as a source at times, which is not good scholarship, since Dr. White's book is also a popular book, not written at the scholarly level. Finally, he does not devote enough time to the question of justification in the Catholic Church, and seems to just dismiss Catholicism as "works salvation" when Catholic doctrine is actually more complex than that. I would not recommend this book to anyone who wants to delve into the subjects very deeply, but it is a decent book for getting a general picture. I would not recommend taking everything at face value, though.

I was so excited to get this book after I heard about its recent release at my church from some of the congregation. They hadn't read it yet but were going to buy it so I thought I would beat them to it. Well I got it and found that it has many holes in it, especially in describing papal infallibility, Mary, and the Saints. It falls back to previous books in the field such as Roman Catholicism by Loraine Boetner that was written in the 1920s, and used many myths about Catholicism that any educated Catholic could shoot down instantly because they are simply myth.

This book offers little insight into real Catholic dogma. I know because I have studied it extensively becaues I have many Catholic friends and family and have studied their faith with great scrutiny and have found much to my great sadness that their faith is in fact scriptural, and the doctrines of papal infallibility and devotion to Mary do hold water. Don't get me wrong, I am not converting, but merely stating that many of the things we believe about Catholics are myth, and trust me the Catholics are catching onto this myth.

They now have books such as Karl Keating's "Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on Romanism by Bible Christians" and "What Catholics Really Believe-Setting the Record Straight: 52 Answers To Common Misconceptions About the Catholic Faith", and Henry G. Graham's "Where We Got The Bible", and Marc P. Shea's "An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition".

It is in these books that we can truly understand the Catholic church (who best to understand it then from Catholics themselves) and then share our faith with them. After reading the above books I have come to a greater understanding of what Catholics believe and why and this has helped me in opening up dialogue with them. Anyone serious about apologetics will get these books.

Four quick comments:

1. Even though the book claims to be reasoning "from Scriptures", it in fact relies heavily on something else - the theories and interpretations of some U.S. Evangelical Protestant SCHOLARS who, allegedly, help us "understand the real meaning" of controversial biblical passages. Paradoxically, this serves as a perfect illustration of the Catholic truth that the Scriptures cannot be understood in isolation (as if they just "fell from heaven"), and that we (the Church) need SOMETHING ELSE in making sense of God's revelation. Now, where do we find this "something else"? In the latest generation of Ph.D. graduates from U.S. Evangelical Protestant colleges? What is this "something else" that we need (clue: it is also mentioned in the Bible)? Academic scholarship? Or perhaps SHEPHERDSHIP (apostolic authority guided by the Holy Spirit through history - i.e., tradition)?

2. Even though the book claims to be based on Scripture alone, it does resort quite a bit to theology--although only the kinds of theories that support the views of SOME U.S. Evangelical Protestant traditions. Furthermore, Rhodes does not ponder the deeper theological arguments of the Universal and Historic Church. Even though Rhodes seems to have read the Catechism and a few papal documents, he does not meditate long enough on what they say and mean.

3. The very title of the book assumes as a given what Catholics since apostolic times never believed or practiced: That the Christian message is to be discerned from Scripture alone, without reference to the living and ongoing tradition of the Christian community and its pastors, guided by the Holy Spirit. This "sola scriptura" assumption was not St. Paul's approach, nor St. Luke's, nor St. Justin Martyr's, nor St. Ignatius of Antioch's. Hence, the very purpose of the book (stated in its title) determines its very limited relevance.

4. Rhodes does not fail to note when an author happens to be a former Catholic turned Protestant. However, when mentioning (quickly and without comment) Scott Hahn, Peter Kreeft, and others, he fails to note that they are well respected former-Protestants-turned-Catholic academics.

In sum, the book provides an opportunity for Catholics to sharpen their arguments in defense of Historical Christianity. For Evangelical Protestants, it can only feed them with a traditional set of biases about the One Church.

Beyond these differences, Catholic and Protestant Christians have a lot of work to do to understand each other and face the real adversary of Christ's Gospel.

I just wanted to comment on an interesting quote from Ron Rhodes other book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses. On page 30 there's a rebuttal quote for Jehovah's Witnesses which states " If the Jehovah's Witnesses are the only true witnesses for God, and if the Jehovah's Witnesses as an organization came into being in the late nineteenth century (which is a historical fact), does this mean God was without a witness for over eighteen centuries of church history"

Can't Catholics say the same thing to Protestants? I just wanted to comment that, like some people here, I was searching at one point in my life for the Lord and I had lots of questions. Every single one of my doubts have been answered by pro and anti-Catholic books, and today I'm back in the Church. Especially helpful was a book by Scott Hahn, an ex Presbyterian minister who came home to the Church. I also want to say that with all my heart I feel that we are all Christians if we believe the Apostle's Creed and some people should use their strenghts to preach to the unpreached and people in cults (including Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons) who have distorted the truth.

I was given this book by a friend of mine who knew I was researching Roman Catholic teaching and my friend feels as though the teachings of the Catholic Church are not that of Christ or the early church. After reading the second page of the book (page 12 of the actual book) the actual teachings of the Catholic Church are gravely misrepresented.

The book portrays the practice of celibacy of the priesthood and praying the rosary as Catholic doctrines. However these are not doctrines, they are customs, discplines, or devotions, none of which are required for Catholics to believe and certainly not apart of what the Catholic Church calls the deposit of faith; what Christ and the Holy Spirit gave to the Apostles.

It is one thing to disagree with Catholic teaching. It is an entirely different matter to blatantly misrepresent the teaching of that church in an attempt to disprove it. Why is it that the author needs to misrepresent the teachings of the Catholic Church in order to attempt to refute them?

I think one of the major problems that people like Rhodes are going to be running into is that there are so many well-read converts to the Catholic faith in the United States. We've not only read Hahn, Keating, Cavins, Howard, Madrid et al, we've also read the writings of the Early Church Fathers and the saints and the history of Christianity and...

...and,oh yes. The Bible. Yes, that very same Bible that Rhodes proposes to "reason" with us from.

One of the biggest problems for people like informed Catholics reading books like this one is that the writers have a tendency to only want to consider verses from Scripture that support their own pet beliefs, while conveniently ignoring the entire breadth of the Holy Scripture. This is always a big mistake and Rhodes makes it here, over and over again. It really tries the patience of Catholics who know their Bibles to be put in the position of having to convince evangelicals and fundamentalists that the Bible is actually true.

When I first read this book three years ago, I had already read and profited from several of Rhodes' other books. I had never really viewed Catholicism as an anti-biblical religion, however, with my Protestant background I had always felt that there was something "weird" about it. So I decided to check out his critique of Catholicism.

After reading it, I came away with the view that something was definitely more "weird" with Protestant theology than Catholic theology and that lead me to research the topic more closely and, eventually, convert to the Catholic Church.

So how could a book so thoroughly dedicated to making people not want to be Catholic, turn a person into a devout Catholic? Well for starters misleading quotes, ignoring or downplaying scirptures that directly contradict the author's views and slipping in numerous unproved assertions as though they were fact.

For instance, Rhodes insists on the idea of the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture and that although not every verse is clear, the main doctrines are clear(saying that "in the Bible the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things"). But when he tries to answer the assertion that the Bible nowhere says that its the final authority on matters of faith and practice, he jumps back and says that there doesn't need to be an explicit statement in the Bible teaching Sola Scriptura. Wait a minute! What happened to the clearness of Scripture? Of all things, that should be a "plain thing." Moreover, Rhodes doesn't even attempt to deal with Phillip's preaching to the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8. An instance that directly contradicts his doctrine of perspicuity.

This sort of analysis carries over into his specific explainations of verses. Consider Acts 2:38:

"Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit"

He starts his explanation by saying: "Admittedly, this is not an easy verse to interpret. But a basic principle of Bible interpretation is that difficult passages should be interpreted in light of easy, clear verses." Now lets think about this for a second, is what Peter is saying to the Jews really all that unclear? It certainly seems to be a simple response to a simple question the Jews asked ("Brothers, what shall we do?") after being affected by Peter's preaching. The way he "answers" this is by appealing (selectively, I might add) to a nuance in the Greek language and by piling on verses that emphasize faith in salvation(but never faith ALONE).

Explanations like this can be found in virtually every chapter. The only way this book will convince you that the Catholic Church is wrong is if you are only looking for something to confirm what you believe to be true. While I respect his desire to share the good news with us Catholics and his overall curteous manner. I still cannot recommend this as a good exposition of the Protestant position (or, more correctly, the Dipensational Protestant position) or a good critique of the Catholic position. Save your money.

The reason I gave this book one star was becasue I could not give it a Half or even zero.
Rhodes makes two error in this book.
first he gives information that is second hand at best and does not go to the primary source. He cites very few Catholic sources instead reling on what others have said about the Catholic Cbhurch
Second he wastes a lot of time setting up strawman arguements around this mis-beliefs and even more time knocking them down.
An example of this is on page 27 when he says that Catholics beleive the definitions of the Catholic Church because the Church stands over the Bible. Catholic do not beleive that. And it wopuld have taken very little investigation for Rhodes to discover this. Instead Catholics beleive that the Bible and Church stand together on equal footing to bring out mans salvation.
Perhaps Rhodes should have taken some history classes while he was pursuing his degree.
I would stongly reccomond that the reader save their money and spend it instead on books like "Catholicism and Fundamentalism", or "What Catholics really Beleive." by Karl Keating, or "The Salvation Congtroversy" by Jimmy Akin.

Well, I'm back. You will see my review as one of the first for this book. It was released new when I first reviewed it and found it to be quite lacking. Since that time I have been doing much research and praying while continuing my dialogue with my Catholic friends. What I have had is indeed a conversion experience. I am NOW Catholic! It saddens me that Protestants belittle Catholicism. Strangely enough, one of the things that got me looking into Catholicism was the statement oft said that "Catholics worship Mary instead of God". I wanted to find out if this was true and I have to say this is totally inaccurate and I'll prove it. It is true Jesus loves every one of us, including his mother Mary. I feel sorry for those who relegate her and demean her - she is afterall the mother of Jesus. She is the first person on earth to accept Jesus as her Lord and Savior! She freely chose to give birth to Jesus and let His Will be hers. How much love Jesus had for his mother, and how sad it is for people to belittle someone whom Jesus so loved.

Catholics do not worship Mary, but hold her in such veneration because she completely gave herself unto God's will while the apostles were fickle and not sure what to believe. As is true of us in our world today, a person's rage can be enkindled when someone talks about their mom in a bad way, just imagine how Jesus feels when his mom is talked about badly. For those who don't know, veneration is not worship, it is what one does to honor someone when they do something exemplary such as winning the Nobel Peace Prize or something similar.

Which leads me to my proof that we are to venerate Mary the mother of Jesus. This is taken from the Gospel of John 19:26-28 "When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his home." This is said right as he is close to death on the cross, entrusting Mary into the care of one of the apostles and to us. It's right there in scripture, I don't see how it can be ignored.

She is not to be worshiped, but for someone who lived their whole life as a YES to God, she is someone to be looked on with much gratitude for showing that it is very possible to follow the will of God for all one's life. For that is the reason Catholics hold her in such high esteem. They are simply following the commandment Honor thy father and mother.

The rosary is often thought of as Marian worship, but it is not. It is a celebration of Jesus' wonderful life and his breaking into this world of sin and death to redeem us. It is, basically, a prayer of the Bible. One will meditate on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus from a biblical perspective - what's wrong with that?

I would talk more about the truth of the wonderful church I have discovered, but such would take more than my limit in this review. If you still remain doubtful, check out www.catholic.com. My best wishes to all of you on your faith journeys. Just don't let this book be the final answer for you on Catholicism - hear it from the horses mouth.

Rhodes has a more impressive bibliography than most "save the Catholics" texts. He doesn't seem to directly quote from Hahn, (the one reference is second hand), Madrid or some others, and sparingly and selectively of Keating. Has he really read them? Maybe his next book should be a detailed critique of all of Hahn's books. That would be interesting. He does quote a number of Documents and other papal writings. He relies on Hardon's dictionary, the Catholic Catechism and Ott for definitions which is fine. Oddly, he seems to rely heavily on quotes from Mary White the founder of the SDA and writer of numerous very Cathophobic works, as well as a James White who seems to be Mary's echo. I would hope that Protestant apologists reading this book would read all the books in his bibliography instead of relying on Rhodes interpretation and select quotes. I need to reread before going into a detailed critique of his commentary on the various issues. At first read, it appears to be the same old tired stuff trotted out with more detail but not a lot more sense. Again, Rhodes is another "Bible expert" claiming to be the authority on what the scriptures say or do not say, while poo-pooing the idea of any church having been gifted with authority. I give this book three stars for its detail and the fact that any serious Catholic apologist should read it and shelve it along side the Book of Mormon, JW texts, the Great Controversy, and etc. Good reference.