Customer Reviews

Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I bought this book on a whim one day while browsing books, and I was very pleased with what I found. I had previously read Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating, as well as some books by Scott Hahn, Stephen Ray, among others. Reading those works, I became familiar with the arguments, and subsequently, the critiques of less than fair polemic works.

The positive comments from Catholics on the back cover (no less a figure than James Akin praised the work for its fairness) made me give in and buy it. The first section was wonderful, presenting the great amount of agreement we have in very charitable terms. The second section, where differences are discussed, the authors seem to go out of their way to "get it right." Most Catholic arguments for a given position are presented, and then refuted in generally kind, charitable terms. There are some exceptions though, where they leave out the most convincing arguments for the Catholic position. One glowing example is the chapter on justification. On page 227, some Catholic Scriptural arguments for their position are presented, and they cite such things as Matthew 5:12, 25:34, Romans 2:6, among others. Curiously missing from this, and hence never discussed, is James 2. One has to wonder why they would decline to interact with the one verse in the whole Bible that contains the clause "faith alone", and condemns it (James 2:24).

While I think that many of their arguments are very inadequate, and at times they seem to apply a double standard when quoting the fathers (depending on if the fathers seem to support or refute their positions), others are very well presented. In fact, their chapter on baptism got me thinking very, very hard. Wonderful stuff indeed.

This work stands miles apart from other works that are often used to refute Catholicism. In general, other books written in opposition to Catholicism lack scholarship, as if the authors don't want their readers to check the sources, but rather just accept what they're presented as fact (oftentimes fabricated out of thin air). Further, some authors show no interest in presenting the Catholic defense of a given doctrine. Geisler and MacKenzie go out of their way to footnote everything, present facts fairly, and make a genuine effort to initiate REAL discussion about the issues, and that is something that is greatly needed. Readers who are truly interested can easily identify and consult the source documents in their own time.

This is the book I give to my staunch Protestant friends who need to learn what the Church really teaches, but won't trust Catholic sources.

The actual arguments and methodology contained within only merit 4 stars from a scholarly and logically consistent point of view, however, given that this book sets a new standard in dialogue, I have to give it 5. I truly hope this sets an example for the future of dialogue between Catholics and Evangelicals.

As an evangelical, I found this book to be very helpful in providing a fair treatment of this topic. Rather than trying to paint Catholics in a negative light, Geisler attempts to sort throught the theologies of Catholics and evangelicals in order to find out what things we agree on and also those things with which we disagree. Unlike some evangelicals, Geisler doesn't appear to be on a 'witch hunt'. He seems sincere in trying to have honest dialogue with Catholics and I think this is the main strength of this book.

Some of the differences addressed in this book are the canon of Scripture, papal infallibility, the role of sacraments, the role of Mary, purgatory, and justification. Geisler highlights areas of theological agreement and those practical areas such as evangelizing non-Christians, social reform, and education where evangelicals and Catholics can find common ground.

This book contains a wealth of information that would benefit Catholics and evangelicals along with helping us to better understand each other. Geisler and MacKenzie have given all of us a great resource for further dialogue. Buy this book if you are the least bit interested in getting to know the 'other side' in a more accurate light. This goes for Catholics and evangelicals.

I am a Catholic, and I am in a position to tell you, that unlike most books written by Protestats about Catholicism, this one by Geisler is a very fair, charitable, and mostly accurate presentation of the differences between Catholic and evangelicals. Most Protestants writing about Catholicism (e.g. James White) adopt a condescending tone towards Catholics, and attempt to set Catholics straight about what we really believe. This book, however, allows Catholics to define for ourselves what Catholicism is all about, it allows Catholics to speak for themselves, it goes back to the original source documents, which is unusual for this kind of book, which usually rely on works by former Catholics, or non Catholics. I am afraid that I believe they misinterpret and distort some of the teachings of the early Fathers of the Church, plus there are a few minor factual errors in the text (i.e. the claim that the "apocryphal" books of the Old Testament were first recognized by the Council of Trent) so I am afraid that I must take away two stars for sloppiness. And, of course, I believe that in some cases they commit some serious logical errors and bad arguments. Overall, I would much pleased if evangelicals interested in Catholicism would turn to this book instead of, say, the intellectually dishonest works of Loraine Bottener.

A recent balanced treatment of the Roman Catholic and Evangelical-Protestant debate from an Evangelical (and "baptistic") perspective, the book _Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences_ (Baker Books, 1995) by Norm Geisler/Ralph MacKenzie should retire older (and recent) sensationalist anti-Catholic works (as noted by Catholic apologist James Akin on the back cover) but it may take a few years given the vastness of the Internet and the many misunderstandings of Catholicism in Protestant thinking (especially among the more anti-Catholic Fundamentalists/Evangelicals).

The book is divided into two major sections: (1) Agreements that Catholics and Evangelicals have with each other; and (2) the Differences that (some) Evangelical Protestants have with the Catholic Church.

I generally agree with the Agreements section and appreciate the authors fairness in the book. The use of terms can be confusing or perhaps even in error (e.g. the term "Augustinian" as a synonym for salvation by grace: Evangelicals will be shocked just how "Roman Catholic" St. Augustine really was once they study his actual writings). The topics in the Agreements section on the historic Catholic and Christian creeds, the Trinity and Christology, the Bible, salvation, and other doctrinal issues are well done. We Catholics and Evangelicals do have a lot in common.

I have differences over the Differences section but that is to be expected given I am a Catholic reader but have been a big Catholic fan of Norm Geisler's work for many years. Some of his arguments against Catholic teaching in this second section are quite complex and I can't hope to respond to them all in this short review but I can recommend recent books that address the major Evangelical objections to Catholic teaching found in the Differences section.

Generally the book is fair with its presentation of Catholic teaching but perhaps relies too heavily on one primary Catholic source: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott. The authors could have found more comprehensive books of Catholic apologetics to which to respond. Ott is very compact and does not present the strongest arguments that could be made for Catholic doctrine, although it is a classic text for showing the precise teaching of the Catholic Church and the development of dogma.

One major weakness in the book is its failure to deal with the early Fathers of the Church in any detail. It is a simple fact that the authors would disagree with those Fathers, Saints, and Doctors of Christianity for the first 1,500 years whether we are talking Baptism, Eucharist, a sacramental worldview, Church government and apostolic succession, and other quite clear Catholic teachings of the early Church.

Catholics acknowledge the development of doctrine (whether the Trinity, the canon of the Bible, the Sacraments, the Papacy) but for one to suggest the authors' interpretation of the Biblical texts represent original and true Christianity is simply begging the question. On what basis should we take the authors' doctrines as true?

I would recommend this book for any Catholic or Evangelical who wishes to investigate some of the better arguments against Catholicism and the areas of doctrinal agreement and common moral cause in this increasingly secular world.

For a complete biblical and historical response to the major issues in the Differences section, I would recommend two books edited by Robert Sungenis: Not By Scripture Alone and Not By Faith Alone (both Queenship Publishing, 1997) also available from Amazon.Com

Phil Porvaznik

This book does a very good job of clearly enumerating the significant issues of agreement and disagreement in a methodical, easy-to-understand way. While I am Catholic (and the book is certainly written from an evangelical perspective), I found the tone and treatment of issues to be sensitive and in a genuine spirit of love and concern.

I would advise the reader, though, to carefully consider the quotations of the early church fathers as they are used in this (and other) books. On first glance, it is easy to read these quotations (often rather short and, I believe, outside of their full context) and conclude decisively that the early church fathers would not recognize today's Catholicism--and I think the issue is much more complex than that.

In short, I would definitely recommend this book (and have) to others.

At first and even second glance this is an impressive, not to mention beautiful, book. It has extensive quotes from excellent first and secondhand sources of Catholic teaching, is written with a very readable style, and tries to balance "thorough" with "brief." It is far and away superior to, for example, the "hack" work of John Ankerberg. Even so, it is not without flaws. For example, it: 1) ignores or glosses over disputes between Protestants on issues essential to salvation 2) contains implicit christological errors 3) misrepresents the Catholic sources it quotes 4) and takes many Bible passages out of context. For example (#3), Geisler and MacKenzie quote Catholic Peter Kreeft on the issue of "sola scriptura," but their "refutation" of Kreeft changes his words so substantially that it is no longer commentary on Kreeft. The words "magisterium" and "tradition" do not even remotely mean the same thing, but the authors substitute the latter for the former (Kreeft said "magisterium") with no explanation. This is triumph over a straw man at best. Be careful with this one. Fortunately, many of its errors have since been corrected in Robert Sungenis' Not By Scripture Alone.

For at least twenty five years, I have become increasingly aware of the damage to Christ's body due to the often bitter infighting between Catholics and Evangelicals. Although Christ cannot be crucified again, this has not stopped various Christian factions from drawing and quartering His body, the church.

Upon discovering this book in a local book store I was intrigued by the title. My interest was further piqued by the forward written by Howard Brown. Brown stated something I have known to be true for some time, namely, that orthodox Roman Catholics and conservative Evangelicals have more in common with each other than they have with their modernists, revisionists components within their own groups. He went further to point out that Catholics and Evangelicals often find themselves standing together fighting common enemies. Reading further into the introduction the authors state their purpose, "to examine some of our common spiritual roots and see if we have any theological or moral bridges upon which we can both travel." What a grand endeavor! I purchased the book and started to read it from cover to cover. My initial delight, however, was soon replaced with grief and sorrow.

My first hint that something was amiss can be found toward the end of the introduction, where the authors instruct Evangelicals to read through the whole book but they recommended that Catholic readers should skip the middle third of the book. This struck me as odd, since the implied purpose was to find common ground which implies a desire for open and frank discussion. I was later to discover why.

The first part of the book outlines very well areas of agreement between Catholics and Evangelicals. In this part are some very fundamental doctrines on faith and morals that are shared between Catholics and Evangelicals.

The second part is an entirely different matter. Instead of a balanced outline of the differences between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics it is a one-sided attack on various Catholic dogmas. Upon finishing this part of the book, I was convinced the whole purpose of the book was a veiled attempt to sugar coat a one-sided attack on Catholicism. This was no better than a highly polished version of the same anti-catholic comic books published by various Evangelical groups containing slanderous material. The authors entice Catholics who desire a union with other denominations to share a conversation with them, and then start shoveling upon them a pile of anti-catholic spite. I felt very much like an innocent child being invited into a car by dirty old man with promises of candy.

I expected instead a presentation of both sides of the issues to be placed in juxtaposition so that readers could understand the differences, in an even handed fashion. What I found instead were statements of Catholic dogma taken mostly out of a book by Dr. Ludwig Ott titled "The fundamentals of Catholic Dogma". Although a very good reference book, this is certainly not a current book of choice containing detailed explanations of various Catholic dogmas (it was first published in 1955). Nor is it the most complete source of `proof-text' from Scripture or Tradition. A more current and far better resource would be the most recent Catechism of the Catholic Church (first published in the USA in English in 1994). The most recent catechism was written not so much as a denial of other denominations nor as a defense of the Catholic beliefs, but instead provides a better description of what Catholics do believe. The principle task entrusted to those who wrote this book was `...not first of all to condemn the errors of the times, but above all to strive calmly to show the strength and beauty of the doctrine of faith..." (from the introduction by John Paul II).

The Catholic statements were followed by lengthy and often repetitious arguments against the Catholic viewpoint. (Does one really need to repeat for each examined dogma the sola scriptura argument, ignoring the fact that Catholics do not ascribe to this viewpoint, having a counter viewpoint of prima scriptura?) Many Catholic references attempt to discuss these matters with non-Catholics on their terms--by using scripture alone; this is done as a courtesy to find common grounds of discussion. The authors focus into Ott's book because it was one of the few attempts at the time to be more inclusive of writings of early church Fathers in a single book.

My main concern with this section is that there appears to be no real attempt to understand the Catholic viewpoint. If this section were a live conversation between the authors and a Catholic scholar, it would come across as if the authors have already formed a response to the Catholic's statement before even hearing him out. This is amazing since they obviously studied Ott's book in detail. The authors do not acknowledge that many honest, God-fearing, Catholics ascribe consciously to the Catholic faith. I shudder to think of the conversations had with one author's Catholic daughter-in-law. Statements like "we have examined carefully the catholic arguments...and found them all wanting" belie the authors stated attempt to `not be rancorous in spirit'. The authors would do well to ponder Paul's words: "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:4).

The third section of the book does provide a more positive end to the book, outlining where both Catholics and Evangelicals can cooperate on a more personal and social level. However I'm not so sure the first and last sections prevail over the rancor of the middle section.

Before I state my opinion about the book, allow me to swiftly present my background: I was born of an Eastern Orthodox father (thus I am officially an Orthodox), raised as a Catholic by my mother and my school, and I've recently getting quite acquainted with the Protestant doctrines. So I can safely say I am not blindly biased toward any of those three main Christian lines of thoughts, as I cherish them all and think each has a good reason why it exists.

As for this book, it was written by two highly respected "moderate" evangelicals in an effort to present the Catholic faith along side the Protestant one and compare them.

In the first part, the areas of doctrinal agreements are presented. This was a much needed part as people nowadays tend to only concentrate on the differences making the two faith seems like at a bitter war, neglecting the deep agreements on THE most essential doctrines such as the revelation of the bible, the notion of God and his character, the fall of mankind, Christ and his God-Man central place in our salvation, the role of the church, ethics, and the general thought about the last days. Plus it underlines their common heritage and common stand in our society. It was a pure pleasure to read this part, as it shows you that the foundation and basis of our Christian faith is ONE! I was even amazed at how much alike their doctrine of justification is, knowing that this is one of the crucial topics where the debate rages between Catholics and Evangelicals.

In the second part comes the area of doctrinal differences. Here the authors discuss the apocrypha (is it sound to include the apocrypha as canon of the old testament?), the scripture (what should dictate our doctrines: scripture alone or scripture plus tradition?), the infallibility of the Pope (is he the earthly head of the church with infallible decisions?), the doctrine of justification (are we saved by our faith alone, or by faith and works?), the sacraments (did Christ establish seven or two sacraments, and are they means of receiving grace or simply symbols of grace?), the system of the church (does the new testament establish priesthood or does it teach that all believers are priests and thus can approach God directly?) , Mariology (Is Mary our mediatrix, co-redemptrix, queen of heaven? Is it biblical to pray to her, to saints, to venerate relics?), and finally the purgatory (Heaven/Hell, or Heaven/Purgatory/Hell?). Each topic is first presented from the Catholic point of view with the corresponding scriptures to back their doctrine and the tradition and literature of some of the early church fathers as support. Then the authors present their refutation of each of the points then go to build a positive case for their evangelical doctrine. The presentation was honest and most importantly extremely gentlemanly; the authors talk with a sincere and appropriate language, avoiding any bashing or fanatic sarcasm. Although the book is biased (it's impossible for such a book to be neutral), it is really hard not to agree with the authors on many points. I am afraid a lot of the catholic doctrines have simply drifted from the scriptural truth and have been reshaped a lot along history especially with the accumulation of so called infallible decisions. Catholic doctrines do suffer a lot when faced with scripture. And also, contrary to what many people believe, many highly respected early church fathers taught contrary to the current catholic doctrines and were more along the evangelical line of thought.

The last part of the book deals with the areas of practical cooperation. Being divided along many areas shouldn't let us forget the many agreements and the single stand of both faiths: proclaiming the good news of our Lord Jesus Christ. Social action, educational goals, spiritual heritage and evangelism are but few of the points where both can work hand in hand.

At the end of the book, there is also many minor appendixes dealing with some subjects such as the churches of the east, liberalism, reformation,.....

This book deserves a 5 star for being so complete in its approach, so scholarly in its presentation and most importantly for being truly well spirited. It is such books that should be the basis of debating and discussion, not like many others that picture the other side as an ugly devil. The Christian faith is ONE with different toppings :).

Since the reformation, the schism in the Western church has been great and caused a disunity among Christ's body. This work, presents a fair and balanced view about both sides (Geilser-Protestant/MacKenzie-Catholic: note -MacKenzie argues from teh Catholic viewpoint as a former Catholic, but is himself now a Protestant). They both, as one reviewer put it, "go out of their way", to present non-emotional and non-trigger igniting arguments that only increase tensions.

The format increases the superiority of this book. The first section addresses the "agreements" between the two bodies. This is important, because there are many things in common between the two. Section two speaks about the differences. This is well done, and easy for the lay reader to understand. This is not a debate and it is not written as an evangelistic tool to sway individuals from one side to another (even though both would prefer if you were in their camp). The third section is on areas where we can cooperate together when going into the world. Part two and three clearly demonstrates that we have more unity among each other than most want to admit.

The differences are still great, but they should be discussed in a manner of love and honesty. These authors do their best to do just that. The book is great and I recommend it to anyone who wants to learn the other side and encounter them with a more pure heart. Not all the issues are discussed in fullness, however, this book is trying to speak to laity, not scholars and therefore, a more in-depth book would be self-defeating. This work is just right.

This book is divided into three sections plus six appendices. Section 1 is about the beliefs that Roman Catholics and evangelicals hold in common. This section draws mostly on Roman Catholic sources, including early sources such as Jerome, Augustine, and Aquinas, plus more recent sources, to define the doctrines. For some of the beliefs, the core doctrine is held in common but there are nuances within the doctrine where there is disagreement, and some of these nuances are explained. Many readers will be surprised at how much agreement there is, and nearly all readers will enjoy this section. In Section 1, some of the chapters cover more details than I need. The chapter on ethics includes a discussion of law, defining eternal law, natural law, human law, and divine law. I thought it was a bit too much, but some people will be happy that it is so thorough.

Section 2 covers many of the doctrines where Roman Catholics and evangelicals disagree. Here, it is clear that the authors are on the side of evangelicals. The typical pattern for each topic is to state the Roman Catholic belief and the arguments supporting it. The arguments are often categorized as Scripture, tradition, and logical. The authors then present evangelical arguments to oppose each one of the Roman Catholic arguments, plus additional arguments. The arguments on the evangelical side are much longer and detailed and it is clear that the authors believe that the evangelical arguments are the correct ones. At times, when introducing the Roman Catholic doctrine, the authors say that the doctrine is repugnant to evangelicals. Evangelicals would agree with them. I can imagine that Roman Catholics would be offended by that, but it is the honest truth about how evangelicals feel about some doctrines. The authors try to be polite (and generally succeed), but not at the expense of watering down the evangelical point of view. Sometimes it seems, even to me, that the authors' arguments are too lengthy, bringing up some points that just will not impress a Roman Catholic who doesn't hold to sola scriptura. I recommend that you should read the first two arguments in favor of each evangelical doctrine, then skim the rest. Throughout this section, there are quotations from Roman Catholic councils, stating infallible Roman Catholic doctrine, in the form of "if anyone says ... let them be anathema," where they are usually referring to important evangelical doctrines. Sadly, since these statements are infallible, they are also irreversible.

I expected to see a detailed discussion of infused righteousness (held by Roman Catholics) vs. imputed righteousness (held by evangelicals). Imputed righteousness is mentioned in passing several times: page 229, 447, 495, and 500. Most of these are actually quotes of someone else speaking of imputed righteousness, and the doctrine is not explained in detail or contrasted with infused righteousness. The book gives more attention to "extrinsic justification" and "forensic justification", which mean either the same thing, or something similar to, imputed righteousness.

Speaking of the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification, it mentions "works" quite a bit. It does not specify exactly what these works are, give examples of such works, or say how many works are needed for justification.

The book does not explain all seven of the Roman Catholic sacraments. It discusses baptism and Eucharist quite a bit, and penance some, but most of the others are not explained.

One bone to pick with Section 2 is that the book introduction, and the promotional material on the back cover do not mention that book is includes arguments to refute Roman Catholic doctrines.

Section 3 is about cooperation and joint action between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. Some of the material is about activities that were current at the time the book was written, 1995, so this information is out of date. I enjoyed Chapter 19, Spiritual Heritage, which gives a short summary of many Roman Catholic books, starting with The Life of Antony, by Athanasius, A.D. 357, through Pensees, by Blaise Pascal, 1670. It also mentions hymns and other art forms. Much of this section is about events that were current when the book was published, 1995, but are no longer current.

The appendices are very good - don't skip over them just because they are formatted as appendices. They could just as well have been formatted as chapters, but they don't neatly fit into one of the three sections of the book.

This book does not define "evangelical." For the purposes of this book, the word probably should be defined in a wide sense, to include anyone who identifies himself as an evangelical or protestant. One who affirms sola scriptura - the doctrine that all faith is based on the Bible, not on church tradition. Evangelicals are not a monolith. That is, various evangelical denominations and various evangelical individuals agree on some doctrines but disagree on other doctrines. The book mostly deals with doctrines that are shared by all evangelicals to a considerable degree. Sometimes it deals with doctrines which are disputed among evangelicals, and it mentions the various evangelical views, along with the Roman Catholic view. It is written from a conservative to moderate Baptist position, affirming beliefs such as the virgin birth of Jesus, the deity of Jesus, and Biblical infallibility. Norman Geisler describes himself as a "moderate Calvinist." I read somewhere that he is a two-point Calvinist, accepting total depravity and perseverance of the saints, and rejecting unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace. I also watched his video on Youtube, "Why I am not a five point Calvinist", where he rejects and refutes all five points, making him what - a 0 point Calvinist?

One of the reviews says that the book is poor because it is written by two evangelicals. The first section of the book is about doctrines where Roman Catholics and evangelicals agree. These doctrines are explained using many quotes from early Roman Catholic theologians (Augustine, Aquinas, and Anselm), more contemporary Roman Catholic theologians (Ludwig Ott, Cardinal Ratzinger), Roman Catholic councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, Trent, Vatican II). Considering the many quotes of Roman Catholic sources, it is hard to see how the Roman Catholic doctrines could be inadequately or improperly presented. Some Roman Catholic reviewers of the book affirm that this is well done. It is true that if you only want to learn about Roman Catholicism, you would want a book written by Roman Catholics. But this book is about comparing and contrasting Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. One reviewer complained that too much is based on Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. This was first published in 1957, so it may be a bit dated. It has a five-star rating on Amazon, based on 28 reviews.

I recommend this book to evangelicals and Roman Catholics who want to know more about the doctrines of both groups. If you are Roman Catholic who believes and loves all of your doctrines, exercise some tolerance as you read the arguments against your doctrines. You are learning what those arguments are, even though you do not agree with them.

Addendum, Sept 7, 2010
I read Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, then I read Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. The first, being written by a two person team, is more consistent. It follows a pattern of explaining a Roman Catholic doctrine, briefly giving a list of the Roman Catholic arguments in favor of the doctrine, giving a longer evangelical response to each Roman Catholic argument, then giving additional evangelical arguments. It mostly discusses official Roman Catholic theology, based on the Council of Trent and other infallible writings of the Roman Catholic Church.

The second book, Roman Catholicism, is a collection of 13 essays. It is about 100 pages shorter, but some of the essays, especially the first six, are more technical and difficult to read. It is not as structured with lists of arguments, and the writing is less uniform because of the various authors. Roman Catholicism describes the theology of the Council of Trent, various creeds, writings of popes and other councils, Vatican I and Vatican II, writings of twentieth century liberal Roman Catholic theologians, and the practices and beliefs of the laity.

Which book is better? If I had read just one of these books, I would have to choose the Geisler book, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, because it is easier to read. But Roman Catholicism has a lot more historical information that is very valuable and some of it is reasonably easy to read. Both books are written from a conservative viewpoint.