What do you think?
Rate this book
Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences
This comparative study shows that Protestants and Catholics are not as separated theologically as they may think. An excellent reference tool or textbook.
538 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 1995
18 people are currently reading
601 people want to read
About the author
Norman L. Geisler
227 books322 followersNorman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
January 2, 2026
I have read many of these types of books (denomiational comparisons). Before starting this one I had heard that Geisler was different from the hordes of other books of this genre. Geisler was supposed to be fair, even handed, avoiding strawmen, etc. Put simply, this book is terrible. Given the intent of the book as a popular level examination of the differences between Catholics and Evangelicals, the arguments Geisler gives for his evangelical positions are not exhaustive, and I have no interest in arguing against them or correcting every fallacy and factual error (that would take a whole other book). What I want to do here is note some of my biggest complaints with this book.
Citing Sources (or a Lack Thereof)
Perhaps the most frustrating part of this book is the citations. There are two main issues with the citations in this book: a lack of proper Catholic theologians, and selective silence on citations that hurts his case.
To take the first issue, let me explain what a book like this should do. Imagine that a Catholic were to write a book on Lutheran theology. When explaining Lutheran theology, where should the author get their information? Everyone recognizes that asking a lutheran off the street is a bad method, as would reading modern articles by Lutheran apologists. Contemporary Lutheran theologians are a better source. But still, wouldn’t it behoove the careful researcher to read the great Lutheran theologians? If a book claims to give a fair examination of Lutheran theology but never cites Melanchthon of Gerhard, what is it doing?
Geisler fails in this exact regard in this book. Take for example the chapter on Tradition and Sola Scriptura (Chapter 10). The definitive treatment of the Catholic view of Tradition has been, for the past 150 years, Cardinal Franzelin’s tract on Divine Tradition. Other widely recognized definitive treatments of sacred tradition would be Matthias Joseph Scheeben’s Handbook of Dogmatics, The Sacrea Theoliogea Summa’s tract on tradition, and even a more modern treatment like Yves Congar’s The Meaning of Tradition. So which of these does Geisler cite? None of them. There is a brief quotation from Congar on page 179, but the footnote reveals Geisler is getting this from an article by Jimmy Akin, not by reading Congar himself. To be fair, Franzelin, Scheeben, and the STS were not translated into English when Geisler wrote this book. Still, Congar, Journet, Doronzo, and an abridgement of Scheeben’s handbook were available, as were many others. Geisler cites none of them, presumably because he has not read them. This is understandable for the lay person, but if one has not read Catholic theologians, why speak on Catholic theology in such a lengthy book? I would say the same if a Catholic wrote a book on Lutheran theology and never read Gerhard. It’s disqualifying. It also leads to Geisler not understanding what the Catholic view of tradition even is. For example, he thinks the writings of individual church fathers, or even groups of church fathers, are “tradition”. This misunderstanding would be corrected by even a cursory glance from any of the above mentioned works.
The second issue relating to citations is more pernicious. Geisler is annoyingly selective with his citations generally (i.e. many times he will simply write something like “as one Catholic scholar put it…” then give no citation. This would fail an undergrad student.) But beyond this habitual practice, there are multiple areas where he intentionally avoids quoting or citing an author, presumably because it would undermine his point. Chapter 9, on the canon of scripture, is the most obvious example. Geisler freely cites St. Jerome in those passages where he denies the canonicity of the "apocryphal" books. However, Geisler makes an interesting claim above the historical precedent for his position. He claims that “Many of the early Fathers of the Christian church spoke out against the Apocrypha, including… Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius” (page 169). Later he claims that the Council of Trent’s decree on the canon went against “a continuous line of teaching, including noted Jewish and Christian fathers, such as Philo, Josephus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Jerome.” (Page 171). Putting those names in such a list clearly implies they held the same view regarding the canon of scripture. Geisler spends a few pages quoting Josephus and Jerome, two writers he believes held the protestant view of the canon. Yet he never quotes Cyril of Jerusalem or Athanasius. I think it is no great stretch to say he did not quote them because they do not support his claim. Namely, both Saints Athanasius and Cyril teach that the book of Baruch (which Geisler believes to be non-cannonical apocrypha) is scripture.
Athanasius: “There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows… Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.” (Festal Letter of 367). Athanasius also excludes Esther from his canon, placing it among the apocrypha.
Cyril states: “And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy… And after these [he listed the rest of the Old testament before] come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.”(Fourth Catechetical Lecture). Saint Cyril of Jerusalem even uses Baruch as a prophecy for the Incarnation in Lecture 11 (Geisler explicitly denies that the apocryphal books have prophecies or “new messianic truths” on page 167).
Ultimately these quotes do not matter very much when talking about the canon (Geisler seems to fluctuate between saying that the opinions of the father are irrelevant and championing the "continuous line of teaching” of these fathers when he wants to scold the Council of Trent). What they do reveal, however, is that Geisler cannot be trusted with his evidence. He does not quote Saint Athanasius or Saint Cyril because he does not want the reader to know what they said. If the reader knew, they would realize that what geisler claims is a "continuous line of teaching” is really just one post-Christian Jew and St Jerome. This is, at best, sloppy work. At worst, it is deception.
Treatment of Counterarguments
Given the polemical nature of the book, one would expect an engagement with counterarguments from the Catholic side. The reader with such expectations would be disappointed. Take his treatment of the Galileo affair as an example. On pages 218-220, he presents the condemnations of Galileo as a “historical problem with infallibility”. Geisler claims that the condemnation of Galileo and his heliocentric theory is an instance of papal infallibility that was later disproven. The Catholic counter argument, or the argument of any objective observer, is that the condemnation was not an exercise of papal infallibility, for a few reasons. (1) The condemnation was of a scientific theory, which is not the subject of the pope’s teaching office or his infallibility (as Geisler himself recognizes on pages 203-204 and 217). (2) Neither condemnation was made by the Pope! Geisler lists these, and various other observations from Catholic sources on page 219. His response to these statements of fact? “None of these ingenious solutions is very convincing, having all the earmarks of after-the-fact tinkering with the pronouncements that resulted from this episode.” (Page 219). What? Where is the argument? Many of the quotes he provides on page 219 aren’t even “ingenious solutions” or even “solutions”, they are statements of fact. Both the 1619 and 1633 condemnations were not issued by the pope, certainly not in a way that has ever been thought to have infallibility. That is a fact. Geisler’s assertion that this fact is a product of after-the-fact tinkering is baseless, bordering on conspiratorial. And this is supposed to be a fair assessment? Moments like this make it nearly impossible to believe that Geiler is writing in good faith. He knows this is not a valid argument, has no answer to the counterarguments, and yet he puts it in anyway so his contempt can be displayed to the reader.
Strange Accusations
I was a bit surprised to see reviews describe this book as “non-polemical” or even “charitable”. Would a charitable person make accusations they know are not true, or at the very least are misleading? This book is full of offhand remarks, sidebar arguments, and baffling fixations that make it hard to believe the authors did not have an axe to grind. A few small examples and one big one will suffice. He calls the vulgate’s translation of Acts 2:38 an embarrassment to modern Catholic, no citation (he also extolls Jerome as the greatest ancient and medieval biblical scholar, while harboring this contempt of his work that he saves for page 480). He uses the phrase “begs the question” to dismiss Catholic arguments as circular even when they evidently are not, such as when he says the argument that the Council of Rome’s pronouncement on the canon was infallible because it was promulgated by Pope Damasus. He says this begs the question because it “assum[es] that Damasus was a pope with infallible authority.” That’s not begging the question, that is (at most) an unsupported premise. Geisler likes to through these little phrases like “begs the question” out to avoid doing the work of actually engaging with the argument.
The clearest example of this phenomenon is Geisler's treatment of the Council of Trent’s decree on the canon in pages 171-173. Before I discuss this section, read this footnote geisler put on page 164:
“Even before Luther, the Council of Florence (A.D. 1442) had proclaimed the Apocrypha inspired, which helped bolster the doctrine of purgatory that had already blossomed in Roman Catholicism. However, the manifestations of this belief in the sale of indulgences came to full bloom in Luther’s day, and Trent’s infallible proclamation of the Apocrypha was a clear polemic against Luther’s teaching.”
So Geisler is aware, and even mentions to the observant reader, that an ecumenical council already proclaimed the Catholic canon of scripture, including the inspiration of the “apocrypha”. Why, then, does Geisler claim that the Council of Trent “added” books to the canon? “Furthermore, the official infallible addition of books that support prayers for the dead is highly suspect, coming as it did only a few years after Luther protested against this very doctrine.” (Page 164). “Adding them to the Bible with an infallible decree at the Council of Trent has all the markings of a dogmatic and polemical pronouncement, geared by Roman Catholicism to bolster support for doctrines for which they cannot find clear support in any of the sixty-six canonical books.” (Page 174). According to Geisler, Trent’s decree on the canon of scripture, which was identical to the list of an ecumenical council 100 years before it, “added” books. Geisler knows this is not true. He has admitted it is not true. Yet he continues to say it, even when it contradicts what he wrote on the same page.
Keeping with the council of Trent, the same issues mentioned above appear, namely the strange rhetorical asides that he acts as if substitute for arguments. He claims that Trent's decree on the canon is “dogmatic and polemical”(page 174), then acts as if this makes the council illegitimate (on page 172 he lists the council’s “polemical overreaction” as a reason that its canon list is “unjustified” and “fallible”). What? How does that follow? Is the Nicene Creed unjustified because it is “dogmatic” and “polemical”? Of course the decree of Trent was dogmatic and polemical, it dealt with dogma that was being attacked. The same decree could be called “dogmatic” and “polemical” when it says that the book of Revelation is inspired (opposing the views of some of the reformers). I'm not even saying that you can’t make an argument that the decree being “polemical” makes it unjustified. But one actually has to make that argument. Geisler slings words like “dogmatic” around as if they are slurs and thinks that constitutes an argument. Pathetic scholarship.
These are just a few of the many issues this book has. I would not recommend it to someone who wants to know the “agreements and differences” between Catholic and evangelicals. You would be much better off just reading Catholic and Evangelical theologians.
Citing Sources (or a Lack Thereof)
Perhaps the most frustrating part of this book is the citations. There are two main issues with the citations in this book: a lack of proper Catholic theologians, and selective silence on citations that hurts his case.
To take the first issue, let me explain what a book like this should do. Imagine that a Catholic were to write a book on Lutheran theology. When explaining Lutheran theology, where should the author get their information? Everyone recognizes that asking a lutheran off the street is a bad method, as would reading modern articles by Lutheran apologists. Contemporary Lutheran theologians are a better source. But still, wouldn’t it behoove the careful researcher to read the great Lutheran theologians? If a book claims to give a fair examination of Lutheran theology but never cites Melanchthon of Gerhard, what is it doing?
Geisler fails in this exact regard in this book. Take for example the chapter on Tradition and Sola Scriptura (Chapter 10). The definitive treatment of the Catholic view of Tradition has been, for the past 150 years, Cardinal Franzelin’s tract on Divine Tradition. Other widely recognized definitive treatments of sacred tradition would be Matthias Joseph Scheeben’s Handbook of Dogmatics, The Sacrea Theoliogea Summa’s tract on tradition, and even a more modern treatment like Yves Congar’s The Meaning of Tradition. So which of these does Geisler cite? None of them. There is a brief quotation from Congar on page 179, but the footnote reveals Geisler is getting this from an article by Jimmy Akin, not by reading Congar himself. To be fair, Franzelin, Scheeben, and the STS were not translated into English when Geisler wrote this book. Still, Congar, Journet, Doronzo, and an abridgement of Scheeben’s handbook were available, as were many others. Geisler cites none of them, presumably because he has not read them. This is understandable for the lay person, but if one has not read Catholic theologians, why speak on Catholic theology in such a lengthy book? I would say the same if a Catholic wrote a book on Lutheran theology and never read Gerhard. It’s disqualifying. It also leads to Geisler not understanding what the Catholic view of tradition even is. For example, he thinks the writings of individual church fathers, or even groups of church fathers, are “tradition”. This misunderstanding would be corrected by even a cursory glance from any of the above mentioned works.
The second issue relating to citations is more pernicious. Geisler is annoyingly selective with his citations generally (i.e. many times he will simply write something like “as one Catholic scholar put it…” then give no citation. This would fail an undergrad student.) But beyond this habitual practice, there are multiple areas where he intentionally avoids quoting or citing an author, presumably because it would undermine his point. Chapter 9, on the canon of scripture, is the most obvious example. Geisler freely cites St. Jerome in those passages where he denies the canonicity of the "apocryphal" books. However, Geisler makes an interesting claim above the historical precedent for his position. He claims that “Many of the early Fathers of the Christian church spoke out against the Apocrypha, including… Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius” (page 169). Later he claims that the Council of Trent’s decree on the canon went against “a continuous line of teaching, including noted Jewish and Christian fathers, such as Philo, Josephus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and Jerome.” (Page 171). Putting those names in such a list clearly implies they held the same view regarding the canon of scripture. Geisler spends a few pages quoting Josephus and Jerome, two writers he believes held the protestant view of the canon. Yet he never quotes Cyril of Jerusalem or Athanasius. I think it is no great stretch to say he did not quote them because they do not support his claim. Namely, both Saints Athanasius and Cyril teach that the book of Baruch (which Geisler believes to be non-cannonical apocrypha) is scripture.
Athanasius: “There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows… Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations, and the epistle, one book; afterwards, Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.” (Festal Letter of 367). Athanasius also excludes Esther from his canon, placing it among the apocrypha.
Cyril states: “And of the Old Testament, as we have said, study the two and twenty books, which, if you are desirous of learning, strive to remember by name, as I recite them. For of the Law the books of Moses are the first five, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy… And after these [he listed the rest of the Old testament before] come the five Prophetic books: of the Twelve Prophets one book, of Isaiah one, of Jeremiah one, including Baruch and Lamentations and the Epistle; then Ezekiel, and the Book of Daniel, the twenty-second of the Old Testament.”(Fourth Catechetical Lecture). Saint Cyril of Jerusalem even uses Baruch as a prophecy for the Incarnation in Lecture 11 (Geisler explicitly denies that the apocryphal books have prophecies or “new messianic truths” on page 167).
Ultimately these quotes do not matter very much when talking about the canon (Geisler seems to fluctuate between saying that the opinions of the father are irrelevant and championing the "continuous line of teaching” of these fathers when he wants to scold the Council of Trent). What they do reveal, however, is that Geisler cannot be trusted with his evidence. He does not quote Saint Athanasius or Saint Cyril because he does not want the reader to know what they said. If the reader knew, they would realize that what geisler claims is a "continuous line of teaching” is really just one post-Christian Jew and St Jerome. This is, at best, sloppy work. At worst, it is deception.
Treatment of Counterarguments
Given the polemical nature of the book, one would expect an engagement with counterarguments from the Catholic side. The reader with such expectations would be disappointed. Take his treatment of the Galileo affair as an example. On pages 218-220, he presents the condemnations of Galileo as a “historical problem with infallibility”. Geisler claims that the condemnation of Galileo and his heliocentric theory is an instance of papal infallibility that was later disproven. The Catholic counter argument, or the argument of any objective observer, is that the condemnation was not an exercise of papal infallibility, for a few reasons. (1) The condemnation was of a scientific theory, which is not the subject of the pope’s teaching office or his infallibility (as Geisler himself recognizes on pages 203-204 and 217). (2) Neither condemnation was made by the Pope! Geisler lists these, and various other observations from Catholic sources on page 219. His response to these statements of fact? “None of these ingenious solutions is very convincing, having all the earmarks of after-the-fact tinkering with the pronouncements that resulted from this episode.” (Page 219). What? Where is the argument? Many of the quotes he provides on page 219 aren’t even “ingenious solutions” or even “solutions”, they are statements of fact. Both the 1619 and 1633 condemnations were not issued by the pope, certainly not in a way that has ever been thought to have infallibility. That is a fact. Geisler’s assertion that this fact is a product of after-the-fact tinkering is baseless, bordering on conspiratorial. And this is supposed to be a fair assessment? Moments like this make it nearly impossible to believe that Geiler is writing in good faith. He knows this is not a valid argument, has no answer to the counterarguments, and yet he puts it in anyway so his contempt can be displayed to the reader.
Strange Accusations
I was a bit surprised to see reviews describe this book as “non-polemical” or even “charitable”. Would a charitable person make accusations they know are not true, or at the very least are misleading? This book is full of offhand remarks, sidebar arguments, and baffling fixations that make it hard to believe the authors did not have an axe to grind. A few small examples and one big one will suffice. He calls the vulgate’s translation of Acts 2:38 an embarrassment to modern Catholic, no citation (he also extolls Jerome as the greatest ancient and medieval biblical scholar, while harboring this contempt of his work that he saves for page 480). He uses the phrase “begs the question” to dismiss Catholic arguments as circular even when they evidently are not, such as when he says the argument that the Council of Rome’s pronouncement on the canon was infallible because it was promulgated by Pope Damasus. He says this begs the question because it “assum[es] that Damasus was a pope with infallible authority.” That’s not begging the question, that is (at most) an unsupported premise. Geisler likes to through these little phrases like “begs the question” out to avoid doing the work of actually engaging with the argument.
The clearest example of this phenomenon is Geisler's treatment of the Council of Trent’s decree on the canon in pages 171-173. Before I discuss this section, read this footnote geisler put on page 164:
“Even before Luther, the Council of Florence (A.D. 1442) had proclaimed the Apocrypha inspired, which helped bolster the doctrine of purgatory that had already blossomed in Roman Catholicism. However, the manifestations of this belief in the sale of indulgences came to full bloom in Luther’s day, and Trent’s infallible proclamation of the Apocrypha was a clear polemic against Luther’s teaching.”
So Geisler is aware, and even mentions to the observant reader, that an ecumenical council already proclaimed the Catholic canon of scripture, including the inspiration of the “apocrypha”. Why, then, does Geisler claim that the Council of Trent “added” books to the canon? “Furthermore, the official infallible addition of books that support prayers for the dead is highly suspect, coming as it did only a few years after Luther protested against this very doctrine.” (Page 164). “Adding them to the Bible with an infallible decree at the Council of Trent has all the markings of a dogmatic and polemical pronouncement, geared by Roman Catholicism to bolster support for doctrines for which they cannot find clear support in any of the sixty-six canonical books.” (Page 174). According to Geisler, Trent’s decree on the canon of scripture, which was identical to the list of an ecumenical council 100 years before it, “added” books. Geisler knows this is not true. He has admitted it is not true. Yet he continues to say it, even when it contradicts what he wrote on the same page.
Keeping with the council of Trent, the same issues mentioned above appear, namely the strange rhetorical asides that he acts as if substitute for arguments. He claims that Trent's decree on the canon is “dogmatic and polemical”(page 174), then acts as if this makes the council illegitimate (on page 172 he lists the council’s “polemical overreaction” as a reason that its canon list is “unjustified” and “fallible”). What? How does that follow? Is the Nicene Creed unjustified because it is “dogmatic” and “polemical”? Of course the decree of Trent was dogmatic and polemical, it dealt with dogma that was being attacked. The same decree could be called “dogmatic” and “polemical” when it says that the book of Revelation is inspired (opposing the views of some of the reformers). I'm not even saying that you can’t make an argument that the decree being “polemical” makes it unjustified. But one actually has to make that argument. Geisler slings words like “dogmatic” around as if they are slurs and thinks that constitutes an argument. Pathetic scholarship.
These are just a few of the many issues this book has. I would not recommend it to someone who wants to know the “agreements and differences” between Catholic and evangelicals. You would be much better off just reading Catholic and Evangelical theologians.
December 27, 2025
A DETAILED CRITICAL COMPARISON OF CATHOLIC/EVANGELICAL DOCTRINES, AND PRACTICES
Norman Geisler is a famed apologist and theologian, who has written/cowritten many other books such as 'Philosophy of Religion,' 'Christian Apologetics,' 'Introduction to Philosophy,' 'Systematic Theology,' etc.
He and his coauthor wrote in the Introduction to this 1995 book, "With the coming to the fore of the secularist agenda... some Catholics and evangelicals have been doing some soul searching and reevaluation. The purpose of this book is to examine some of our common spiritual roots and see if we have any theological or moral bridges upon which we can both travel. We will examine similarities and differences in both doctrine and practice... We will also speak to some interesting relationships and alliances that have developed between Catholics and Protestants, and address the issue of whether cooperation or conflict should characterize these unions." (Pg. 15)
They note, "There may be New Testament allusions to the Apocrypha, but there are no clear New Testament quotations from it. Not once is there a direct quotation from any apocryphal books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, although the New Testament cites the Hebrew Old Testament, it never once quotes any of the ... apocryphal books as divinely authoritative or canonical." (Pg. 160-161)
They argue, "The Bible teaches sola Scriptura... As Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible. For example, nowhere does the Bible formally and explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity." (Pg. 184)
They point out, "There are serious theological problems with papal infallibility. One is the question of heresy being taught by an infallible pope... Pope Honorius I... was condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching the monothelite heresy (that there was only one will in Christ)... by disclaiming the infallibility of the pope on this and like situations the number of occasions such pronouncements actually were made is relatively rare. For example, the pope has spoken 'ex cathedra' only one time this whole century (on the bodily assumption of Mary!). If infallibility is exercised this rarely then its value for all practical purposes is nil. This being the case ... the pope speaks with only fallible authority on most occasions..." (Pg. 214)
They observe, "'Baptism of desire' proves baptism is not essential to salvation." (Pg. 261) About abortion, they state, "Perhaps evangelicals felt a bit guilty when they realized they were 'Johnnie-come-latelies,' given the fact that Roman Catholics had been alert to the moral dimensions of the problem while their evangelical neighbors were spiritually asleep." (Pg. 360)
They assert, "One of the reasons so many Roman Catholic lay persons are converting to evangelicalism is that they did not find a dynamic personal relationship with Christ in their Catholic church. The reality is often lost in the ritual. On the other hand, one of the reasons that a number of noted evangelical scholars (e.g, Thomas Howard and Richard Neuhaus) have converted to Catholicism is that there is a deep intellectual tradition not found in the typical evangelical church. Ironically, while Rome is losing many of its laity 'out the bottom' to evangelicals, evangelicals are losing some of their intellectuals 'out the top' to Catholicism. Obviously, each has something to learn from the other." (Pg. 392)
This is perhaps the most thorough critical examination of Catholicism by Evangelicals, and its relatively non-polemical tone makes it all the more valuable---for both Protestants AND Catholics.
Norman Geisler is a famed apologist and theologian, who has written/cowritten many other books such as 'Philosophy of Religion,' 'Christian Apologetics,' 'Introduction to Philosophy,' 'Systematic Theology,' etc.
He and his coauthor wrote in the Introduction to this 1995 book, "With the coming to the fore of the secularist agenda... some Catholics and evangelicals have been doing some soul searching and reevaluation. The purpose of this book is to examine some of our common spiritual roots and see if we have any theological or moral bridges upon which we can both travel. We will examine similarities and differences in both doctrine and practice... We will also speak to some interesting relationships and alliances that have developed between Catholics and Protestants, and address the issue of whether cooperation or conflict should characterize these unions." (Pg. 15)
They note, "There may be New Testament allusions to the Apocrypha, but there are no clear New Testament quotations from it. Not once is there a direct quotation from any apocryphal books accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. Furthermore, although the New Testament cites the Hebrew Old Testament, it never once quotes any of the ... apocryphal books as divinely authoritative or canonical." (Pg. 160-161)
They argue, "The Bible teaches sola Scriptura... As Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible. For example, nowhere does the Bible formally and explicitly state the doctrine of the Trinity." (Pg. 184)
They point out, "There are serious theological problems with papal infallibility. One is the question of heresy being taught by an infallible pope... Pope Honorius I... was condemned by the Sixth General Council for teaching the monothelite heresy (that there was only one will in Christ)... by disclaiming the infallibility of the pope on this and like situations the number of occasions such pronouncements actually were made is relatively rare. For example, the pope has spoken 'ex cathedra' only one time this whole century (on the bodily assumption of Mary!). If infallibility is exercised this rarely then its value for all practical purposes is nil. This being the case ... the pope speaks with only fallible authority on most occasions..." (Pg. 214)
They observe, "'Baptism of desire' proves baptism is not essential to salvation." (Pg. 261) About abortion, they state, "Perhaps evangelicals felt a bit guilty when they realized they were 'Johnnie-come-latelies,' given the fact that Roman Catholics had been alert to the moral dimensions of the problem while their evangelical neighbors were spiritually asleep." (Pg. 360)
They assert, "One of the reasons so many Roman Catholic lay persons are converting to evangelicalism is that they did not find a dynamic personal relationship with Christ in their Catholic church. The reality is often lost in the ritual. On the other hand, one of the reasons that a number of noted evangelical scholars (e.g, Thomas Howard and Richard Neuhaus) have converted to Catholicism is that there is a deep intellectual tradition not found in the typical evangelical church. Ironically, while Rome is losing many of its laity 'out the bottom' to evangelicals, evangelicals are losing some of their intellectuals 'out the top' to Catholicism. Obviously, each has something to learn from the other." (Pg. 392)
This is perhaps the most thorough critical examination of Catholicism by Evangelicals, and its relatively non-polemical tone makes it all the more valuable---for both Protestants AND Catholics.
October 5, 2009
A good book if you want to know SOME of what the title says..."Agreements and Differences" between Evangelicas and Catholics. I read this when I just started to walk with the Lord but since have learned more about Catholics and there are many facts that Norman Geisler either omits or did not know about.
February 7, 2020
Re-Read. This is an excellent, careful work that serves not only to bring understanding to the topic at hand, but also serves as a good survey of essential christian doctrine and church history. The authors present the agreements and differences between Catholics and Evangelicals in a without the usual straw men and mischaracterizations, winning the approval of Catholic voices for an accurate presentation of their doctrine.
The structure of the book is in three parts; things both traditions hold in common, things that both groups are irreconcilably divided on (including the weight of such differences), and areas that both groups can cooperate together without compromising either of their systems of belief.
The tone is charitable and respectful, yet direct in what the authors consider to be the biblical and logical errors of Catholicism. Though not the ultimate purpose of the book, the authors conclude in the appendix that though catholics present a significantly incomplete gospel (lacking the "alone" portion of grace and faith), they nonetheless proclaim a saving gospel - disagreeing with the Reformers that the Catholic Church is an apostate one after the Counsel of Trent.
A revelation to me was the great breadth of disagreement there is within the Catholic Church both in categories of traditionalist, conservative, liberal, radical, charismatic, and cultural as well as in the various orders of the Catholic Church such as Benedictine, Augustine, Dominican, Carmelite, Jesuit, and Franciscan. Many of the concerns Evangelicals would raise about Catholicism have voices within Catholicism that raise those same concerns. Even the official positions of the Catholic Church are variously interpreted within the different camps. As a result, one cannot easily say "Catholics believe..." just as one cannot fairly critique Mainline Presbyterian theology to chastise Southern Baptists simply because they are both Protestant.
I can't imagine there are many Catholics or Evangelicals who would not benefit from reading this book and learn something not only of the other's belief, but also something of their own.
The book will be challenging for those unaccustomed to reading nuanced theology with a more philosophic approach and I would love to see a simplified book written at the more popular level - yet it would be hard to do so without loosing the greatest strengths of this book which are its precision, thorough expositions, and extensive quotes and citations.
The structure of the book is in three parts; things both traditions hold in common, things that both groups are irreconcilably divided on (including the weight of such differences), and areas that both groups can cooperate together without compromising either of their systems of belief.
The tone is charitable and respectful, yet direct in what the authors consider to be the biblical and logical errors of Catholicism. Though not the ultimate purpose of the book, the authors conclude in the appendix that though catholics present a significantly incomplete gospel (lacking the "alone" portion of grace and faith), they nonetheless proclaim a saving gospel - disagreeing with the Reformers that the Catholic Church is an apostate one after the Counsel of Trent.
A revelation to me was the great breadth of disagreement there is within the Catholic Church both in categories of traditionalist, conservative, liberal, radical, charismatic, and cultural as well as in the various orders of the Catholic Church such as Benedictine, Augustine, Dominican, Carmelite, Jesuit, and Franciscan. Many of the concerns Evangelicals would raise about Catholicism have voices within Catholicism that raise those same concerns. Even the official positions of the Catholic Church are variously interpreted within the different camps. As a result, one cannot easily say "Catholics believe..." just as one cannot fairly critique Mainline Presbyterian theology to chastise Southern Baptists simply because they are both Protestant.
I can't imagine there are many Catholics or Evangelicals who would not benefit from reading this book and learn something not only of the other's belief, but also something of their own.
The book will be challenging for those unaccustomed to reading nuanced theology with a more philosophic approach and I would love to see a simplified book written at the more popular level - yet it would be hard to do so without loosing the greatest strengths of this book which are its precision, thorough expositions, and extensive quotes and citations.
November 22, 2019
This seems to be a very thoroughgoing book exhaustively detailing agreements and differences in theology and practice between Evangelicals and Catholics. The appendixes are invaluable going through the history of the Catholic and Protestant divide, the teaching on baptismal regeneration, and the Colson-Neuhaus Declaration.
Since this book was published in 1995, here's hoping there will soon be an updated version.
Since this book was published in 1995, here's hoping there will soon be an updated version.
November 28, 2025
I picked this up because I was having some friendly debates with catholic friends. It taught me so much about Catholicism and the specific differences we have but also everything we have in common. Truly a great read. Took me forever because I wanted to soak it all in. My only wish is that a devote catholic wrote it with them cause it can be one sided at times.
October 1, 2022
Excellent reference resource to understand obscurities within Catholic doctrine and coherent Christian rebuttals.
November 23, 2013
Outstanding and largely objective comparison between Roman Catholics and evangelicals. It's refreshing to see a book that not only exposes the differences, but reinforces the common doctrines as well. Great book.
June 17, 2009
Really good analysis of the commonalities and differences. I would recommend for anyone wanting to know where each group stands.
March 11, 2009
Good intro. to some of the issues that divide Roman Catholics and Evangelical Protestants.
September 11, 2011
Pretty good. The John Armstrong book is better.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews