Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics

A have no doubt my review, being in favour of a book that critiques another religion, will be most unpopular as many of the other reviews in favour of this book. Also my use of the term Romanism will most likely be considered bigotry, however the reason for using this is to make the point that I do not accept the premise that the Roman Catholic Church of today is the same church as the one of the 4th century AD that called itself Catholic. Setting all this aside, I will write what I thought of this book when I read it and how I've found it a help through the years that followed.Ron Rhodes surely writes wide on the area of apologetics against non-biblically based religions and maybe to breath of his writing can sometimes be a challenge to him, I'm sure. However this book does address the issue that separate Romanist and for biblically base Christianity. He deals well with the passages used by the RC to support it's claims such as infallibility of the Pope when speaking in the so called "faith & moral chair". May reviewers I see have found issue with him using scripture to refute papal infallibility and many claim that he misrepresents the RC in Magisterium being the authority. I suppose the claims are the church uses scripture and tradition, so ok we will only be correct if we agree with that. However are we not able to make our own assessment of the true nature of doctrinal development in the Roman church? Who chooses which interpretation of scripture and which traditions are the sacred traditions?I suppose as shown in by Rhodes and as logically obvious the Magisterium decides these things and thus it in any logical sense makes then the ultimate authority of the church, whether they proclaim that or not. The question is then where does the Magisterium get its authority from and how do they know they have such authority to claim they are the ultimate guide for the church acting like the Holy Spirit? Ultimately the only source that can tell them if they have authority or if the traditions of the church fathers was correct is the recoded revelation in scripture, which makes their authority an insufficient ultimate authority and scripture the only sufficient ultimate authority and as Luther said a much better presentation of the word of God than the papacy.Rhodes also then also addressed the next objection that is raised the church gave us the bible, but the fact the early church were able to recognised certain books, which is now the new testament, as inspired in no way takes away from those recognised revelation it ability to be the only sufficient ultimate authority. Rhodes also addresses the many other issue including veneration of relics, purgrutory, and the Sacramental system (where he does a job well done of showing the equivocation of the way Rome uses Grace and Faith). He deals well with passages of Mary used to support Marian doctrines and also the many other proof texts used by Catholicism. I see one reviewer did take note that he addressed the proof text, however forgot to consider his own bias, when with the slight of the hand proclaimed that Rhodes failed in this tasked. However I would suggest he should consider the bias way in which he possibly reads the text and rather ask if he never saw that text as a catholic defence, but in it true grammatical-historical context, if it would really have the catholic meaning. For what I've read in the majority of passages discussed Rhodes is much more true to the grammatical-historical context than the interpretation, or more proof texts for the doctrines already decided, by the Catholic clergy and catholic apologists.I would agree with some reviewers that Rhodes in some ways doesn't present enough of the RC's own words however, he seems to have had the purpose of more dealing with scriptural interpretations at dispute. I would recommend The Gospel according to Rome by John McCarthy( The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God ), and he suggests a Catholic catechism. The witch of endor and the transfiguration I guess is said to have been ignored, however there are plenty of other evangelical ministries that however do deal with the questions. Some example links are [...], [...], [...] , [...] ,[...]and[...] also has many informative articles on this issue. Some of my own thoughts on people using those two examples as proof for the validity of appraditions or to justify asking saint for intercession. Well it really proofs nothing, those examples are distinct allowances by God where he still does in no way encourage communicating with the dead, in the case of Saul or give revelation about if we should pray to Moses and Elijah. Thus the many warnings in the Bible against divination (speaking to the dead) still stands and there is still no proof that the Marian appraditions are the same as these occasions, especially since many of her massages are counter to the biblical command.Overall a good book, like every book written by man there are some mistakes and some gaps, which those who disagree will try to exploit, however the passages addressed are well addressed and put into context and it will provide many of those who don't want to go "back to Rome", and those who are trapped in Rome, with answers to very important questions and has helped me deal with the issue while having many RC family and friends.

I love this book, and am about to get a kindle copy so I can have it on the go. Listen, I'm not sure why you are looking into this book. If you are a Roman Catholic, or someone who's just interested in the differences between Roman Catholicism and Christianity, this is a good place to start. Roman Catholics have something in common with Mormons, in that most when asked if they are Christian, will likely affirm that they are, but will tell you first and foremost that they are Catholic etc, but will be insulted if you don't include them in the Christian category. What both groups have in common, is that they claim to be the only true Church, and consequently if you are not one of them, you're not a true Christian. I don't have a problem with making the claim that some truths are exclusively true, and that when it comes to going to Heaven, Christ explicitly stated that the way is narrow and there are few that go on it. Please, try to objectively look at the bulk of the negative reviews here; keeping what I said above in mind, why are they rating the book so poorly? Is it not because they don't like being told that Roman Catholicism as taught by Rome, is not Christian? These people are holding a double standard in that they very well know their leadership dogmatically declares, and has done so for centuries, that Rome is the one true church, and consequently, those of us who don't embrace the "mother church" are not true Christians. My point being is that I hope you, potential reader, are coming to this with a desire to know God as He is, and to submit to who He is in truth, no matter how far outside of your comfort zone that takes you. Don't read this book if you can't handle your beliefs to be held under the scrutiny of the infallible Word of God. Do read this book if you really want to know whether Roman Catholicism is what it claims to be; and if not, be willing to count all as loss, for the sake of knowing the Risen Savior.

My husband, who is very methodical and analytical, loves Ron Rhodes’ writing style.We first bought “Reasoning From the Scriptures with Mormons” and from there we have purchased several more of his books.They are packed with great theology and do a wonderful job of teaching laymen about other religions.My husband really appreciated all the points that Rhodes makes throughout his books, how he clearly lists what other beliefs are and then goes on to make counterpoints, which make strong cases for why Christians disagree and what we believe is in fact true, always pointing back to the Word.

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.

Superb. I cannot put this book down. I was a bit hesitant at first because of all the negative reviews, but this book is truly amazing, it shows the many errors in the Roman Catholic Church, whiles presenting the case for justification by Faith Alone to Catholics in a gracious and gentle way. I simply could not recommend this book more, to Roman Catholics and Protestants alike.

As a former RC I found this book very informative. So many of the doctrines I knew by the Spirit were unbiblical were proved to be so.This cleared up a lot of my own questions & will enable me to minister more effectively to Catholics still in my circle of influence.

Livre à lire absolument pour ceux qui ont à coeur de précher l'évangile à leurs amis Catholiques. Livre basé sur la Bible.

Super Reference book. But, expected the writer to write book in more detail fashion because its a reference book. Also, as it doesn't talks in much detail I need to refer many other material to cross verify whether the writer's view point is correct or not. A word to the writer - "Anyone can publish books with any viewpoints in it. But, when you are trying to publish a book which talks about the most challenging discussions. Then it should be detailed to very minute information so that the reader need not do a duplication of your handwork. From the book I know you have done a good job in studying and writing it down. But, if you are not able to convey the full information which lead you many conclusion then this book is not complete. You might be worried about the page numbers, but don't worry, if its good then people will buy it unconditionally."Thanks for selling this book.