Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences

Rating:
Summary: Agrees with the Agreements, Differs over the Differences
Review: 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

Rating:
Summary: Honest and moderate Author
Review: As a Theologian myself, I see this book very moderate and good to read. .... But for those deeper, more serious, and for schoolar readers, I suggest these most briliant books listed below ...:

1. Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating 2. What Catholic really believe by Karl Keating 3. Catholic for a reason by Scott Hahn 4. Refuting the Attack on Mary by Mateo

....

Rating:
Summary: Solid apologetics section, but liberal views on cooperation.
Review: As an evangelical I found the book to be very informative and useful. I found it to be very fair in its handling of the issues involved. Easy to read if you have a bible handy.

Rating:
Summary: Good
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Mostly fair and accurate
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Charitable and Fair - but I'm still Catholic :)
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Charitable and Fair - but I'm still Catholic :)
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: A Must for Catholics and Protestants
Review: 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). 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 difefrences 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 indepth book would be self-defeating. This work is just right.

Rating:
Summary: Scizophrenic On the Issues
Review: The praise given this book is too efflusive. Admittedly Geisler and MacKenzie approach the issues with an intellectual tenor that Evangelicals have often not brought to the debate. However they even abandon intellect when it doesn't suit them. When commenting on the book of acts and how the focus shift from Peter to Paul after chepter twelve there is a footnote saying- "One Cannot as Some Catholic scholars do, dismiss this dominant focus on Paul rather than Peter on the circumstantial fact that Luke wrote more about Paul becuase he was his travel companion ...... After all, it was the Holy Spirit who inspired what Luke wrote here!" Becuase it does not suit their agenda Geisler and MacKenzie are rejecting a historical-critical methodology in interpreting scripture. This is the foundation of scriptural exegesis. This isn't just a Catholic methodology- it is the main methodology of Evangelicals. Without it we become Fundamentalists ripping verses and texts to suit our agenda and not God's plan for revealing the mytery of Himself.

Some other errors include: The book relies way too heavily on Dr. Ludwig Ott's "Fudamentals of Catholic Dogma" to its detriment. It does homage to Catholic theologians such as Aquinas, Anselm and even admits that Augustine and Jerome were Roman Catholics. It even suggests that nobody taught forensic justification between Paul and Luther. Is this the historical footing for Protestantism? This is an admission that there really is none. Commenting on the early medieval period the authors state. "The theologians of this era took pains to stress that the sacraments were the means God used to mediate his grace to us. However this theological nicety was often lost on the laity, who became entaled in a works-righteousness system." It is interesting to notice that footnotes disapear from the text with the paragraph that contains this excerpt. No evidence is given that the laity were lost on this issue. In fact, in fully Christianized areas it can be shown that lay people were often more theologically versed than they are today. In semi-Christianized areas- the blend of paganism and Christianity leads to a magical or legal understanding of the sacraments. Already we are being introduced to Protestant mythologizing of the medieval period.

But this leads us to the next problem. Geisler and MacKenzie are at once trying to justify the reformation- a violent ecclesial hemmorage and trying to admit their debt to Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas. Who teach doctrines that soon after the Reformation would be called anti-Christianism, evil popery- by Reformed theologians like Whitaker.

The other major problem with this book may be a problem of the book or with Evangelicals themselves. The book refers to something vaguely called "orthodox evangelicalism". This term is never defined. Must one accept the Council of Ephesus' ruling that Mary is the Mother of God? What are the acceptable views of Baptism, the order salutis when it comes to Regeneration and Justification, the Lord's Supper? Is Arminianism heresy? What about "hyper Calvinism". Even the evangelical Theological Society has been debating very deeeply "Open Theology" which denies essential attribute to the Christian God. The fact is that they can denounce Rome's doctrines but they can hardly present their own with any specificity for fear of offending. This book merits two stars for its readability, design, feel in the hand and the intellectual tenor to which it aspires. However its approach to the issues is two-faced taking up intellectual exegesis and then throwing it away, taking the case to history and then the mythologizing of history, doing homage to Aquinas and Anselm but not letting them speak as they really did. This book is sometimes brilliant but often only an intellectually passable tract.

In the Love of God, Michael Dougherty

Rating:
Summary: Clearly Enumerates Issues
Review: 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.