The Case for Catholicism: Answers to Classic and Contemporary Protestant Objections

by Trent Horn

This is the most up-to-date, comprehensive, and thorough defense of the Catholic Church against Protestant objections in print. This book is especially relevant as the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation draws near and discussion of the arguments made against the Church during that time in history receive renewed interest.

The Case for Catholicism answers arguments put forward by early Reformers like Luther and Calvin as well as contemporary defenders of Protestantism like Norm Geisler and R.C. Sproul. It provides a meticulous defense of the biblical and historical nature of Catholic doctrines from Scripture and church history. Finally, in both answering Protestant objections to Catholicism and in providing evidence for the Faith, The Case for Catholicism cites modern Protestant scholars who question Reformation assumptions and show how evidence from Scripture and church history support aspects of Catholic theology.

This book is divided into four sections, with each answering a key question Christians have asked about the nature of their faith. Those key questions

What is my authority?What is the Church?How am I saved?Who belongs to the body of Christ?The Case for Catholicism will become a reliable, resource for any Catholic who desires a well-researched, readable, and persuasive answer to Protestant arguments made against the Catholic faith.

Genres: Catholic, Religion, Theology, Christianity, Christian, Nonfiction, Faith

437 pages, Kindle Edition

Published November 29, 2017

About the author

After his conversion to the Catholic faith, Trent Horn pursued an undergraduate degree in history from Arizona State University. He then earned a graduate degree in theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville and is currently pursuing a graduate degree in philosophy from Holy Apostles College.

Trent is a regular guest on the radio program Catholic Answers Live, a lecturer who speaks across the country on issues related to the Catholic faith, and the author of two books, Answering Atheism and Persuasive Pro-life.

Reviews

[Shenika · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've been directed by the Holy Spirit to join the Catholic church. I'm not crazy, I promise. When I attended my first Mass, this feeling of intense joy, peace and something I can't describe, washed over me. This was the best feeling I've ever felt in my life. It affirmed my decision to join. The problem with all of this is that I actually don't know much about Catholicism. Thus, I'm reading books to learn about the faith and why Catholics believe what they do.

I first heard about this book on Catholic Answers Live, a radio/tv show that has also helped me tremendously in my efforts to learn and understand the faith. If you're at all curious about Catholicism, that would be a great show to listen to.

Enough of my history and free advertisement. 😂 What about the book? Well, this book was easy to read, if a little dense. It put me in the mind of a good textbook. Trent Horn really did his research for this book and it shows. It is chock full of biblical evidence for Catholic beliefs. Moreover, it contains the why of beliefs. This is key to me.

Reading this book, though, made me realize that I actually didn't know too much about my Baptist faith. I was Baptist because I was raised Baptist. I never gave much thought about what Baptists believe and why they believe it. While this book doesn't contain much information on specific denominations, it does treat with Protestant beliefs as a whole. Several times I was surprised at what they believe and what I, by extension, espoused. Even more shocking to realize that I didn't actually believe much of the stuff that was presented and I came down on the Catholic view of things. This book will make you examine your faith and question your beliefs.

All in all, it was a good read. It's very well- researched and presents Catholic arguments in a way that is easy to follow. You'll probably reconsider your faith, if you hadn't already. This book further convinced me that I made the right decision.

Tl;dr: This book is well-researched and well-written. You'll examine your faith and question your beliefs. It gives not only the beliefs but the reasons for them. Read it; you won't be sorry.

[Noah McMillen · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a Baptist, I liked The Case for Catholicism. The beginning was extremely frustrating, but later parts contained helpful clarifications and thoughtful arguments. Ultimately, I think Horn caricatures Protestant views of authority, tradition, and Scripture, and thus, is not very persuasive to non-Roman Catholics. Though the views he represents undoubtedly are held by many Protestants, they are not the best, most thoughtful positions, which are the ones which clearly should be tackled if Horn wants to persuade thoughtful Protestants. Authority is the crux of the Protestant-Roman Catholic divide, and this area is, unfortunately, where Horn is the worst in his argumentation.

Horn says, “this perspicuity of Scripture, as some Protestants call it, is demonstrably false. Protestants disagree over ‘main things’ like baptismal regeneration, predestination, the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or whether salvation can be lost, yet what he gets wrong is these are not the “main” things (11)! Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ is a main thing. His death and resurrection are main things. How to live a holy life is a main thing. What Horn names are all secondary issues, and if he wants to critique Protestant doctrine, he should get it right.

Horn also maintains that “solo scriptura” and sola scriptura are, in practice, the same thing and that Protestants don’t give tradition any authority. However, this is completely false. Tradition is given authority, but it is just not infallible. Just like science can be an authority for us for what we believe, but if we have good reason to reject a consensus of scientific finding, we could do so because we recognize it is not infallible. The authority of tradition should give us great pause if we disagree, but that does not mean we can never disagree.

Also, he then claims we don’t have a basis for the canon because we don’t give authority to tradition. By rejecting the Protestant’s claims to give tradition authority and be able to know theological truths from outside the Bible, he defines the Protestant position into something nonsensical when that is not what a reasonable proponent of sola scriptura believes. Scripture is not our sole authority for faith and morals! It’s our sole infallible authority. Protestants and Roman Catholics agree that Scripture is an infallible authority, but the burden of proof is on the Roman Catholic to provide evidence that another authority is infallible. I do, however, think Horn provides some helpful and thought-provoking critiques of how Protestants usually interpret 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

Also regarding the canon, Horn ignores the fact that there are two streams of OT canon in early church history, and that the Jews did not need an infallible authority to be held accountable to their own Scriptures.
He tries to make Protestant attitudes toward the deuterocanon equal with atheist attitudes towards the Bible, especially with regards to apparent errors. The problem is errors in deuterocanon aren’t similar qualitatively. There’s a clear difference in that the apparent errors of the deuterocanon are much much harder to defend and more frequent than the protocanon. This is seen clearly when Horn says, “that if the author of Judith read his work aloud, ‘he would have given his listeners a slight smile or a sly wink’” (44); it just really seems like a stretch.

On justification, Horn presses hard against Protestants who believe good works are in some sense “automatic.” I think this is a good criticism, and his later criticism against proponents of once saved always saved theology (not to be confused with perseverance of the saints) is warranted. However, I simply think he misinterprets James. Horn says, “James is not telling people to have a faith that will necessarily produce good works; he is telling those with genuine faith to bring this faith to life by choosing to do good works. Works are not, as some Protestants allege, the automatic consequence of an authentic or genuine faith” (160). The first sentence here is wrong; the second sentence is correct.

Horn also quotes Augustine in support of the Roman Catholic position on faith and works: “It can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love,” but this is exactly the historic Protestant position (175). Presumably against the Protestants, Horn says, “these works don’t merely demonstrate we are saved, but they serve to increases our sanctification, or personal holiness, and contribute to our final salvation,” which I actually agree with, yet I still cannot say that my works increase my justification, if justification is understood as my standing before God, my position as saved or damned. (177)

The chapter on eternal security had many good critiques on the dangerous once saved always saved theology, but the historic doctrine of perseverance of the saints was barely touched, so the chapter wasn’t extremely persuasive. The chapter on purgatory really failed to deal with the core issues of whether purgatory is merely cleansing or whether it makes satisfaction for sins and if it is instantaneous or drawn out. If “purgatory” can be understood as an instantaneous cleansing or purification, this is what Protestants believe. The sections on Mary and the sacraments were interesting and clarifying. Though I can’t say I completely believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I now find the Epiphanian view fairly plausible and have always thought it is right to call Mary the mother of God.

[Stefanie Lozinski · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was excellent. Trent is very clear, charitable, and convincing in his arguments. I recommend this to anyone, including those who may not be Catholic but want to learn about our beliefs from an accurate source. There is a lot of confusion out there about what Catholics actually believe, especially since many Catholics are unfortunately very poorly catechized and don’t know the “why” behind their beliefs.

I’m sure I’ll reference this book in the future when talking with others :)

[Reuben Maddock · Rating 4 out of 5]

Never did I think I would find myself reading a detailed book on Catholicism - especially one focused on Protestant Objections, but here I am on the other side

In the book, beginning with the topic of Sola Scriptura, and ending with The Assumption of Mary, Trent lays out essentially all of the main pillars of Catholicism where Protestants and Catholics differ. The structure of the chapters typically begin with an introduction to the topic, and then would navigate through the sub-issues of the topic, covering the biblical arguments, counter-arguments, patristic evidence etc. I felt Trent well defined each topic, and gave an effective analysis of all of the topics sub-issues - however, reading as a Protestant with a lack of Catholic doctrinal knowledge definitely made the book difficult to understand at times (for example some Catholic terms used weren't initially defined). Although, I do understand that this book wasn't intended to be an introduction to Catholicism for Protestants, so I can cut the book some slack there.

I very much appreciated how Trent used arguments from both sides of the issue as it meant that I was not just being bombarded with Catholic doctrine, but rather could see both some of the Protestant objections, and why a Catholic wouldn't agree. This approach really helped me to better understand many parts of the Catholic faith that I didn't have a very good grasp on before (eg. The Eucharist, Intercession and Veneration of the Saints, and Sacred Tradition), and it was definitely humbling reading the cases for these doctrines; it's not as simple as "they've just misinterpreted the context of the Scripture" like a lot of Protestants may argue with.

I found that initially when reading these chapters I would be denying and quick to disagree, however often after continuing to ponder the ideas a few days after, something would click and some of the concepts would begin to make sense, and would become a bit less crazy.

Overall, even for a Protestant with very little knowledge of Catholic Doctrine, this book was brilliant at providing an overview of the differences between the Catholic and Protestant doctrines, as well as objections to Protestant doctrines. I would say this book definitely served it's purpose; it did not only educate me, but best of all challenged me to continue looking into the Catholic faith more seriously and thoughtfully (rather than from the perspective of an obtuse Protestant)

Chances are, if you're thinking about reading this - you probably should, and would benefit a lot from it.

4/5 (Not 5/5 because some of the chapters had a weird flow that made it hard for me to follow along with. In addition I felt that because Trent only had a chapter for each topic, at times I didn't feel content with his coverage of Protestant perspectives/objections. Finally, there were times where Horn would come to a conclusion which I didn't feel that he provided enough evidence for (often a conclusion that he would then use to base a further part of the doctrine on)

[Audra · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book in one hand and my Bible in the other! Trent Horn likes to cite his sources.

I found that this book was like a mix of 'Why We're Catholic' and 'The Fathers Know Best.' Trent Horn goes through many of the objections of modern protestant Christianity and defends Catholic dogma with evidence through Scripture, history, and Tradition. I was surprised that many of the early reformers like Luther, Knox, and Zwingli (not Calvin though LOL) clung to and strongly defended Catholic teachings involving baptism, Marian doctrine, and purgatory. A good book to challenge beliefs and explain the 'why' behind the 'what.'

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a superb apologetic for the Catholic Faith. The author is thorough, but clear and succinct. His tone is always respectful. This book is somewhat unique for two reasons: 1) it is more recent than many classics of the Catholic apologetic tradition and 2) it focuses more heavily on proofs drawn from Scripture and Protestant scholars than from the Church Fathers. Both of these make it ideal for readers who are likely to have more respect for R. C. Sproul than for Chrysostom or Tertullian.

[Jordan Mills · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was OK. I do like and appreciate Trent Horn, and some of his arguments were very, very interesting. I do believe that this whole debate comes down to one thing in particular—authority, and, frankly, I am not entirely convinced (I can and do appreciate some of the augments that he made, though) that the Scriptures teach that tradition (and the magisterium) is co-equal in authority with the Scriptures.

[Marcos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excelente. Argumentos sólidos basados en las Escrituras, los padres de la Iglesia y teólogos clásicos y contemporáneos. Algunos argumentos ya los había encontrado en Crossing the Tiber de Stephen Ray, así que las comparaciones serán inevitables. Mientras que Ray opta por las citas directas a las escrituras y los padres de la Iglesia, dejando que la evidencia se muestre al propio lector, Horn prefiere citar los pasajes más importantes y revisar la discusión entre teólogos y apologistas católicos y protestantes. Horn incluso incluye, entre sus argumentos, propias admisiones de protestantes que reconocen la validez de los dogmas de la Iglesia. En cuanto a las citaciones de las Escrituras, es de agradecer el esfuerzo que Horn ha puesto en contextualizar cada versículo. Los versículos citados muchas veces se analizan en el griego original y se compara con otros pasajes donde se emplean las mismas expresiones. Igualmente, se mencionan los usos y costumbres de la época (sobre todo judías) para evitar malentendidos. Sabes que un trabajo de apologética (y de historia de la religión) es bueno cuando se citan fuentes más allá de las Escrituras para interpretar los pasajes correctamente.

Las dos primeras partes del libro están dedicadas a la autoridad. Para defender la autoridad de la Iglesia, primero deben refutarse doctrinas como la sola scriptura, labor que el autor consigue con cierto éxito. Debe, a continuación, defender positivamente la Tradición y el Magisterio, y ello conlleva defender el Papado y la sucesión apostólica. Horn hace una buena defensa de ambas, sobre todo a la hora de resolver malentendidos sobre la infalibilidad. También se dedica espacio a la Eucaristía y la regeneración en el bautismo, pero no hay mucho que comentar aquí más allá de lo que ya he dicho en la reseña del libro de Ray. La última parte se dedica a diferencias doctrinales como el Purgatorio, los dogmas marianos y la comunión de los santos.

Esperaba con ansias llegar a la parte de los dogmas marianos, especialmente la Asunción corporal, aunque al final me quedé igual que como estaba. Los tres primeros dogmas (madre de Dios, siempre virgen y la inmaculada concepción) son defendibles con facilidad recurriendo a la escritura. Sin embargo, el cuarto dogma, la Asunción Corporal, se encuentra en el limbo de que las Escrituras ni lo confirman ni desmienten. Es concebible, ya que es posible que María muriera o fuera ascendida antes o durante la escritura de los Evangelios y las Epístolas. Hay un intento de justificar la Asunción mencionando Apocalipsis 12:1-6, pero no resulta convincente por lo críptico que es el libro en cuestión. Sí, la figura descrita puede ser María perfectamente, y el autor hace un buen trabajo defendiendo esa postura. Sin embargo, la ascensión de María (o de su cuerpo) al cielo parece un abuso de la interpretación. Al final, el dogma de la Asunción está mejor defendido según la Tradición, los escritos de los padres de la Iglesia y la autoridad del Magisterio. Realmente, todos los asuntos doctrinales no se resolverán hasta que se acepte la autoridad de la Iglesia y se rechace la sola scriptura.

El resto de problemas que tengo con el libro son nitpicks sin mucha importancia. Horn a veces dice que un pasaje concreto que los apologistas protestantes utilizan para criticar algunas tradiciones en realidad no puede significar lo que ellos dicen que significa, para luego ignorarlo completamente sin explicar cuál es su significado real. Por ejemplo, dice que la prohibición en Éxodo de hacer imágenes sobre aquello que está en la tierra y sobre ella en realidad no puede referirse a hacer imágenes de los santos ya que luego ordenó a Moisés hacer dos querubines para el Arca del Pacto o que en el templo de Salomón se permitió que se adornara con estatuas de ángeles. Todo bien, pero entonces Horn tiene que explicar qué significa exactamente la prohibición en Éxodo y por qué los casos mencionados no son excepciones consentidas por Dios. En otro caso se habla del ladrón que murió al lado de Jesús y aparentemente no fue al Purgatorio, a lo que él dice que Dios pudo haber hecho una excepción para él, sin explicar por qué dar esa excepción. (Además, el ladrón que muere en la cruz al lado de Jesús parece más un argumento en favor de la sola fide, como en su tiempo argumentó Wesley, porque no es posible que el ladrón cometiera buenas obras tras su acto de fe antes de morir). Otros argumentos de Horn simplemente demuestran que ciertas doctrinas "pueden ser" defendidas aludiendo a ciertos pasajes, que es una defensa más débil que efectivamente demostrar certeramente que el pasaje en cuestión defiende dicha doctrina.

En general el libro es bastante bueno, mejor que el de Ray, aunque quizás este se siente más personal al incluir la historia de su conversión. Muy recomendado incluso para católicos interesados en la apologética. Me quitaría media estrella por los pequeños problemas mencionados pero la aplicación no lo permite.

[Luke Krogh · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pretty sure Mary had sex but whatever

[Connor Longaphie · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very introductory, statement of Roman doctrine, statement of those who oppose it and then a following attempt to defend it scripturally and then historically with the early church fathers. Sadly, perhaps due to the apologetic layout and aim of the book Horn is unable to get in depth to any of the issues. He scrapes deeper than the typical Roman answer to certain questions as to the "why" at least scripturally, but the information itself doesn't get very deep. If you have a grasp on the basics of Roman doctrine you'll know everything in here. One of the possible strengths of this book is the historical vindication or attempted vindication of Roman doctrine via the early church. That is however, only a strength if you haven't read the fathers or don't have them on hand. What I'll say as far as the subjective goes is that the Romanist exegesis and scriptural arguments have always seemed extremely weak to me. Taking good and necessary consequence/reason to the extreme most often. They do have good points on some issues regarding the early church father, but as for things that no protestants whatsoever can lay claim to in the fathers they don't have much. In my subjective opinion, the case for Romanism is a case for sloppy exegesis, hard and obtrusive logical implications, and stretches in every which way. Objectively, if you want to know about it catholicism at a more basic level just read the catechism. It's more reading, but it's entirely worth it.

[Richard Jones · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hmmm… very Interesting. Trent horn is a master debater and persuader. This book makes one hell of a case. However, I still need to un-Protestant myself in order to more objectively see Catholicism. Growing up basically only around Protestants and those who debase Catholicism definitely makes it hard to have objectivity. While I am still investigating I can definitively say I am a step closer to Rome. Great job Trent

[Olga · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Case for Catholicism by Trent Horn is not light reading - it’s a deep dive into the intellectual heart of the faith.

This is apologetics done properly: rigorous, sourced, and utterly uncompromising in its pursuit of truth.

About a quarter of this book is footnotes, and honestly, that says it all. Horn leaves no argument unanswered, no Protestant objection unexplored. He moves through Scripture, Church Fathers, councils, and modern debates with confidence and clarity, grounding every claim in historical and theological evidence.

You can feel the weight of research - but also the warmth of someone who loves the Church enough to defend her with both intellect and grace.

This isn’t a book for casual reading on the train; it’s one for the desk, beside your Bible, maybe with a mug of something strong. But for anyone serious about understanding why Catholics believe what they do - and how those beliefs stand up under scrutiny - it’s gold.

Dense, brilliant, and deeply edifying.

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ - For those who love their faith with both heart and mind.

[Leslie Moellering · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author systematically lays out the evidence with copious footnotes. Easy to read and understand.

[Isabel Nester · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was truly a fantastic read. I think it is a must-read for many, but especially Catholics who want to improve their knowledge of apologetics, cradle/lapsed Catholics who need a better reintroduction to the tenets of the faith, and Protestants who are looking to compare the beliefs they hold to those of the Catholic Church. I love that Horn recognizes how the Catholic Church is truly defensible biblically and patristically. He takes the idea of sola scriptura and shows how even if it is applicable in basically every chapter, it cannot draw forth every agreed-upon Christian conclusion. He does a great job of demonstrating that the early church is the Catholic Church. I do think that if you are looking for an in-depth treatment of a particular subject (such as Mariology, the papacy, etc), it would be more beneficial to seek out a work on that subject. I found myself getting a bit lost in the section on the construction of the biblical canon because that is simply something I have never been especially interested in, but this was a thoughtful overview/intro on many of these topics.

I really appreciated the frequent quotations from Martin Luther. By pointing out exactly when and where he disagreed with the Catholic Church, I believe we can more strongly call into question the origin of certain Protestant traditions. There is also an abundance of Protestant scholarship present in this work, so it is definitely not just an exhaustive summary of Catholic literature.

Ave Christus Rex!

[Cassie Freed · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a Protestant looking into Catholicism, I found this book extremely useful. From the layout and organization to the arguments and explanations, The Case for Catholicism provides a well-researched and well-written overview and defense of the faith in clear terms that make it easy (for the most part) for anyone to read.

I also appreciate Trent's treatment of Protestant theology. Many may complain that he over-generalized or caricatured Protestant beliefs, but I think he was very fair. It is impossible to address every individual Protestant denominations as they number into the thousands, yet Trent quoted prominent theologians across denominations from Luther to James White, Baptist to Anglican.

To those who might say this book does not cover enough information or answer enough Protestant objections, did you even read the Preface? The purpose of the book is not to address EVERY objection, but the strongest and most popular. Even given this limit, Trent manages to provide evidence directly from Jesus, other books of the Bible, Apostolic and other early church fathers, and even a few well-known Protestants.

While I still have many questions and am not convinced by some of the arguments, this book has earned its 5-stars. (Also, the list of references alone gives me more books to read on the specific subjects I'm struggling with, Protestant and Catholic. Huzzah!)

[Rebecca The Files of Mrs. E, · Rating 5 out of 5]

I really appreciated the way Trent Horn approached the major issues of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants and then offered very clear evidence for why Catholics believe the way they do. While he tackled historical debates he also answered questions that I have had Protestants ask me before. I think this book is great for those who want to grow stronger in their Catholic faith, those who want to be able to discuss their faith with Protestant friends more, and even those who are not Catholic but looking to better understand the church and why we feel the way we do.

[Josh G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

Horn does a great job laying out a comprehensive case for Catholicism. I especially appreciate his effort to engage with leading critiques and Protestant apologists. Ultimately, I find the case for Catholicism un-persuasive, despite Horn’s valiant efforts. Many of his arguments were riddled with category errors, other logical fallacies, or some form of exegetical gymnastics. Even still, I learned much about the Catholic faith and was challenged to think through some of my own conclusions a little more.

[Jon Wisnieski · Rating 3 out of 5]

Exhaustively researched. Some of his arguments were more convincing than others. This book really gets down to the nitty gritty differences (exegesis, syntax/translation of Bible passages, patristics, etc.) and so it was pretty cumbersome to read through. Better used as a reference book than something to read cover to cover. Nevertheless, it hits on almost everything. Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism is much more readable though.

[The Once and Future Reader]

I found Trent Horn's book to be the most thorough and relevant response to the modern and historical arguments against Catholicism. After doing a lot of reading and research on this topic, I think I can safely assume that this is the best and most accessible book discussing these issues. It's a great and educating read and one that I believe will be a useful tool of reference for whatever future research I undertake.

If someone would have told me a year ago that I would be researching Catholicism, I probably would have slapped that person in the face. However, with my many gripes with the the way modern Christianity is handled and the astounding revelations from early church father's and their writings, the topic became more and more interesting to me and I began to realize that all of what I knew about Catholicism came from people that were Protestants and/or devout haters of anything relating to the Catholic Church. When you actually do even just a little research on Catholicism, it doesn't take long until you realize that many Christian's today are actually bearing false witness.

What I found most surprising about this book was the fact that some of the early reformers, namely Martin Luther, actually still believed and held to many Catholic traditions and teachings, i.e., the Immaculate Conception and Perpetual Virginity. My favorite topics within this book were the discussions on the Biblical canon, The Papacy, and the Eucharist. I did however find the last section of the book to be a little less compelling. Towards the end, it sort of felt like the arguments for certain teachings were not making much sense but thankfully I had already read a couple books by Scott Hahn that I think did a better job explaining those issues.

If any Christian wants to understand more about Catholicism and what what the early Church believed, this is the best place to start.

[Darren Sapp · Rating 5 out of 5]

I highly commend Trent Horn’s presentation, thoroughness, and passion, which is evidenced on every page. The writing is smooth and avoids overly academic prose so that readers can hear what he has to say and make their own conclusions. For that, I heartily offer five stars. I encourage Protestants to absorb his work with a prayerful and Holy Spirit-saturated attitude.

Everything following is a critique of some of his arguments. Generally speaking, Horn tends to depend on Scripture when it works to support an argument, but many of these arguments lack any Scriptural support. He leans on tradition which he clearly equates as having the same authority as Scripture. That goes to the heart of many Catholic doctrines that are only strengthened by their longevity but no original source of truth. He consistently uses Patristics for support, but they, like us today, had numerous disagreements and opposing viewpoints. I noticed a number of logical problems such as weak analogy, confirmation bias, begging the question, gaslighting, and straw man.

Most importantly, Horn expresses the Catholic faith’s doctrine on justification, true to the Catholic church itself. He hints at the real problem, in that how can a person of that faith ever have any certainty of their salvation? It’s not Horn’s fault that the Catholic doctrine of salvation, like so many other religions, is beyond confusion. No Catholic can ever know if they’ve confessed enough, prayed enough, or done enough good works. On page 210, he states that Jesus doesn’t say, “we must only believe in him.” I’d urge readers to focus on John 14:6, “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Salvation in Christ alone is for me and anyone else reading this.

[Steven Jaeger · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book starts out a little rough, as he picks arguments and details that are definitely not the best from the Protestant side that I've heard. However, after the first couple chapters he starts addressing real complaints and points that I have personally encountered in my 20+ years in various protestant churches and schools. In the process he also acknowledges issues that I've observed about the protestant churches that I have been unable to settle as well. The majority of the middle is rock solid, and worth reading if you aren't going to approach it defensively. While I have been thoroughly indoctrinated in all the typical anti-catholic claims that come up in this book, I did spend the first few months of my christian life in a Catholic church, which left a very positive impression on me (I switched because I went wherever my friends would take me and my catholic friend left for college). My aforementioned issues with Protestantism, and my positive Catholic experiences left me open to change despite my thorough schooling in anti-catholisism, if the arguments were compelling enough. They were. I'm not ready to buy into the whole Immaculate conception of Mary stuff, there is still too much protestant in me for that. However, the differences I have with the Catholic church are now resolved down to minor disagreements that could (and should) coexist in one unified church body. Will this book convince someone who is deadset to fight against it? No, they will simply look for more answers that reinforce their prejudices. But it will strengthen existing Catholics, and may sway previous fence sitters such as myself.

[Zach de Walsingham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mid-tier level apologetics work from 2017, (and not dealing with the Reformed Orthodox retrieval by such as Richard Muller, or Turretin and Vermigli), but aimed at a more popular level, this is interacting with contemporary Particular Baptists like James White and John MacArthur and some Presbyterians such as the 19th century Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, the late R.C. Sproul (may he rest in peace), Keith A. Mathison, and Douglas Wilson. This work stands alone yet also builds upon an earlier book from the 1980's by Karl Keating Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians" that interacted with the claims made by Rev. Loraine Boettner who also wrote Roman Catholicism in 1962. For what my recommendation is worth, it is worth reading even if you disagree, because the contemporary scene of American Catholicism has shifted quite a bit since the revival of the Latin Mass in 2007.

[Tyler Higgs · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is much better for me to read compared to "Why We're Catholic" because I am much more interested in the reason why a Protestant should be Catholic (the reason for this book) than why an atheist should be Catholic. It goes into detailed evidence why Catholics believe what they believe (and not what Protestants believe) using the church fathers, early church history, and the Bible. This book goes into every good argument against protestantism, and even some of the bad ones. It is charitable, in good faith, and can even strengthen that faith of protestants who want to be in better standing with the evidences given by the early church, the church fathers, and the Bible; he quotes from many protestants who mostly agree with Catholics on certain issues. Many of the evidences given in this book do not just advocate for Catholicsm but also for traditional Protestantism, Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, and Lutheranism. I cannot reccommend this book enough for any christian (comming from a protestant)

[Todd · Rating 4 out of 5]

An engaging and mostly comprehensive work, as a practicing Protestant I found a lot of value in this book. It hits on all the great points of contention between Christians, and carries a trove of references and mentions of other works within that make it worth revisiting on its own. However, sometimes Horn was not completely well-rounded. He often was able to demonstrate why Protestants might be wrong, but never got to a satisfying conclusion of why Catholics might be right. A lot of it, especially in the early chapters, hinges on translations and wording. If that doesn’t already convince you, then Horn’s case has little effect. However, what I appreciate the most is how respectful Horn is of Protestants. This book is not combative, but seeks to be illustrative, and that is why I think it’s a worthwhile read even if you go into it knowing it would persuade you one way or another. It’s easy enough to digest, as far as theology goes, and I look forward to revisiting it again.

[Emory Grove · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was introduced to Trent and this book through a Catholic coworker. I took pride in my supposed understanding of theology, but this book really took that pride down a peg.

I will be honest, I read this book somewhat in segments, skipping around to the chapters I had the deepest qualms about. I recommend this approach if you are a Protestant or inquiring about the Catholic faith. In the end, I agreed with most of what Mr. Trent Horn wrote. And for those questions that the book couldn’t answer for me, I dug deeper.

Not to be anticlimactic for any of those Catholic readers who might see this review, but I did not become Catholic. Instead, I started to attend an Orthodox Church, into which I was recently baptized.

So to my coworker who loaned me this book, thank you. It was a big step for me.

Great read and very well researched. Kudos to you, Trent.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Goes through several points at which Catholicism disagrees with Protestantism, and for each of the point basically 1) presents a "lite" form of the Catholic doctrine in its least offensive form (often anachronistically, as if the reformers were reacting to this watered-down version of Catholicism, 2) quoting protestant scholars who agree with him, at least in some aspect of what he's trying to argue, sometimes in a helpful way in which their arguments are well made, but sometimes replacing sound arguments with, "this protestant guy agrees with me, take that!", 3) most annoyingly, he frequently presents counterarguments to his case as weakly as possible, often not quoting the strongest arguments and verses against his position. All in all much of the book is defending a domesticated version of Catholicism against straw men. To be fair, parts of the book were more helpful.

[Katie · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can’t speak for anyone’s reversion to the Faith except my own, but I know that for most of us there is the mental/intellectual side and a heart side when it comes to conversion, and the Lord had been working in my heart and mind for quite awhile before He nudged me into finally considering His Church. He gave me such a receptivity that I was transformed almost immediately. All that to say- I didn’t need this book. But I know so many whose mind struggled to get past long held objections, biases against the Catholic Church. This book is the answer. It is exceedingly well researched and reasoned. I decided to read it because Ethan will be learning some apologetics in 9th grade and I wanted to be ready to teach, which I feel certainly more prepared to do now.

[Oscar Martinez II · Rating 5 out of 5]

What I appreciate from Trent Horn's "The Case for Catholicism" is that while it easily could've been a book that tackles the mainstream Protestant talking points regarding Catholicism one typically hears in discourse between laypeople both online and in person, Trent Horn goes the extra mile to make this book one that takes the typical Protestant vs Catholic debates to the next level. In doing so, Horn addresses the standard Protestant objections potential readers probably went to the book looking how to refute but he does so in a way that makes readers much more informed about both what Protestants and Catholics believe regarding various aspects of the Christian faith and how they reach those positions.

[Samantha Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is perfect both for the Catholic curious protestants like me, but also for the protestants that demand that Catholicism is not Christianity, but rather idolatry. Not only does he explain Catholic doctrine in an easy to understand way, but he also responds to the protestant objections well without straw-manning them. He even uses various protestant quotes, along with many from the reformers themselves, that support the Catholic claim. I think that many protestants would be shocked to find that Catholic doctrines are not as crazy as they’ve been led to believe, and that many are actually very similar to protestant beliefs as well, oftentimes just differing in their wording or application.

[Adam Shumate · Rating 5 out of 5]

Trent cooked with this one. A lot of the arguments I was extremely familiar with as they were the ones I used as a Calvinist. Moreover the responses I was also familiar with due to my conversion. Nonetheless it is well worth the read especially if you want to defend your faith in the Holy Catholic Church. This is a pillar for intermediate apologetic and serves as a sequel to “why we’re Catholic” in the sense it covers the mast majority of modern Catholic objections. Amazing book for a good response to hard objections.