Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences [Paperback]

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

....

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

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.