Is Roman Catholicism the True Church?
By Trevin Wax on Mar 11, 2009 in Book Reviews | 
Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
It has become evident in recent years that some evangelicals are attracted to Roman Catholicism. For some, this attraction occurs because of the Catholic Church’s intellectual tradition or institutional stability. Others are attracted to the Church’s apologetic certainty or beautiful liturgy. Whatever the reason, it is clear that some evangelicals come to see evangelicalism as inferior to the deeper, richer Christianity they find in Rome.
In Is Rome the True Church?: A Consideration of the Roman Catholic Claim (Crossway, 2008), authors Norm Geisler and Joshua Bethancourt seek to build a response to this growing number of evangelical converts to Catholicism by mounting serious arguments against the Roman Catholic claim of being the one true church. Anyone who is involved in apologetics regarding the Roman Catholic Church (whether for its exclusivity or against) will find this book to be a helpful resource that lays out the issues at stake and explains the areas of disagreement between the two sides.
The book begins by explaining the Roman view of exclusivity and the historical development of this idea. Then, the writers seek to dismantle the arguments that hold the Roman view together: the primacy of Peter, the infallibility of Peter, and apostolic succession. The weight of their argument goes something like this: If one link in the chain comes out, the entire Catholic claim collapses upon itself.
What I appreciate about Geisler and Bethancourt’s book is that they seek to carefully describe the Roman Catholic view. They do not set up straw men that they can tear down. They are careful to describe actual Roman Catholic dogma before explaining their reasons to reject the Catholic claims. The appendices are especially helpful in giving additional resources for those interested in these arguments.
Yet there were two frustrating aspects to this book. First off, large sections dealing with the infallibility of Peter are repeated almost word-for-word in later chapters dealing with apostolic succession. The book is intended to have a logical flow, but because of the repetition, it reads more like a book of essays.
The other frustrating aspect of the book is something that frustrates me in Roman Catholic apologetics as well: the tendency to quote from Church Fathers and make assumptions and inferences about subjects they were not specifically addressing. Both Catholics and Protestants are guilty here. Why not instead recognize the tendency to make the early fathers say or deny things they were not intending to make statements about? It is anachronistic to read our own battles back into the Fathers.
Readers of Is Rome the True Church? should understand that this is a free-church, Anabaptist response to Roman primacy. Geisler and Betancourt do not merely seek to unravel the Catholic claim for apostolic succession; they also seek to show how the episcopal form of church government is unbiblical. (This is most curious when considering that Betancourt received his ordination as a clergyman from an Anglican bishop!) Likewise, Geisler argues for the value of creeds, but does not see them as binding – a suggestion that will raise the eyebrow of a good many readers within other streams of the Reformation.
I do not believe that Is Rome the True Church? will cause Catholics to turn to evangelicalism. At the most, it might draw back a few evangelicals who are waffling on some of these issues. It will strengthen the Protestant (and Eastern Orthodox) reasons for rejecting Roman primacy. Geisler and Betancourt recognize that evangelicals do not convert to Catholicism after having been persuaded by the kind of arguments contained in this book, which makes one wonder exactly why the book focuses solely on the intellectual arguments against Catholicism.
At any rate, Is Rome the True Church? is well worth reading for Catholics and Protestants alike who are interested in the issues at stake and the reasons for the Protestant view.
written by Trevin Wax © 2009 Kingdom People blog
Related Articles:
Conversations with a Catholic
Justification – the Defining Doctrine of the Reformation
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
Among the 33,000 current denominations, I don’t know whether Rome is “the” True church or not. It is certainly the oldest one. I don’t think anyone questions that. As usual to be a contrarian here I would submit the book by Scott Hahn entitled “Reasons to Believe — How to understand, explain, and defend the Catholic faith”. I will be doing a review of this book in the coming months.
I must admit that while I am not a Catholic I am fascinated by some of their practices and history. I am not as anti-pope as most evangelicals seem to be but I can’t get beyond the Mary worship almost to the point of deity? I believe that each of us 33,000 denominations need to learn from each other as, in my opinion, none of us have it totally right and therefore none of us can lay claim to be the “true” church.
RJ | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
Trevin,
Thanks for the review. I haven’t read the book so I cannot comment on it specifically. On the broader subject however I can understand why many evangelicals are converting to (or back to) Catholicism, especially those who have a mainline denomination background.
I grew up Catholic but have been an evangelical for over 20 years. I have no intention of going back to the RCC but boy there are some things that I miss. The beauty of the liturgy, a Magisterium, a true connection to the early church (not apostolic succession), observance of the church calendar/year, etc. In becoming an evangelical I feel that I have in some ways thrown the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Being connected with an independent evangelical church often leaves me feeling very disconnected from the church universal, kind of like spinning off into orbit all by ourselves, doing our own thing. There is great security in being a part of a more definable and cohesive expression of the body of Christ. I do miss that.
Charlie | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
“If one link in the chain comes out, the entire Catholic claim collapses upon itself.”
Is that really true though? It might be true that you can use that argument to disprove papal authority, but does that mean Rome is wrong about the rest?
I’m a Protestant, and certainly have disagreements with Rome and the papacy, but at the same time imagine the Reformation was more successful and papal authority was chastened or rejected without the Church splitting, would we be wondering it if was the true church in that case?
I don’t think Rome is the only true church, and I think it has many doctrinal issues, but so do we, and I think is inconsistent of us if we go so far as to say Rome is not part of the true church while all the diverse protestant churches are…
Mason | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
RJ,
Actually, Eastern Orthodoxy is the oldest Christian church.
Trevin Wax | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
Speaking of the Orthodox Church, I would like to see a similar apologetic treatment of them. Their liturgy and doctrine is in some ways significantly different and other ways very similar to the RCC.
Charlie | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
Trevin,
Thanks for correcting me. Yeah, I did think of that soon after I submitted the comment. I just wanted to see if anyone would notice (ha).
RJ | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
Norm Geisler’s book on Evangelicals and Catholics was one of the catalysts for me deciding to become Catholic.
Kevin | Mar 11, 2009 | Reply
You’re right; not only do we cherry pick scriptural passages to make our points, we do the same with the early Fathers. When one considers that the entirety of Scriptures places God’s relationship to his people in a familial context, specifically in a marital context (Adam and Eve, Isreael as bride, NT Church as Bride of Christ, Revelation’s heavenly wedding feast, etc), perhaps one doesn’t have to answer the question, “Is Rome the True Church”, but at the very least, one seems pressed to answer, “If the Church and Christ are one, as a bride and groom are one, where is that Church?”. I think we all feel the frustration that we aren’t united in a way that seems to answer Christ’s prayer in John 17. There we see the Trinity as the model for Christian unity. Could all Christians possible enjoy such incomprehensible unity? Where do we find such a spiritual unity, rooted in the Oneness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? If Geisler and Betancourt kick the Roman Catholic Church to the curb, perhaps we should all be come Eastern Orthodox. Surely the Church Jesus established would have a visible lineage tied to the first century, and would have a unified, cohesive doctrinal history. As you know, “Rome” isn’t a church; it’s a city in Italy, so the book’s title is obvisously used for rhetorical effect. But, if you believe in an episcopacy, you’d say the apostolic tradition carries on through the bishops throughout the world. Whether the see of Rome has primacy of a sort could be debated, but apostolic succession through an episcopacy seems to hold water both historically and scripturally.
brian | Mar 15, 2009 | Reply
I seriously considered becoming a Catholic (Latin Rite) but after many meetings and counsel with a priest, decided against it. I could not defend papal infallibility after studying church history and reading many papal encyclicals. Purgatory and indulgences were two dogmas that I was unable to defend either scripturally or from the Early Church Fathers, although I understood the arguments. Also, the Vatican II Council and the liberalism and extreme ecumenism that resulted convinced me that the RCC is compromising the gospel of Jesus Christ. I have been searching for the Church that most fully expresses and teaches the Apostolic Tradition and faith as the ECF’s understood it. Increasingly, I am becoming convinced that it is the Orthodox Church, which is able to claim lineage all the back to the early church of the First Century. Their liturgy is the most ancient of all Christian traditions.
Darlene | Mar 16, 2009 | Reply
Darlene,
Brian | Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
Darlene… If you think going the Orthodox route assists in dodging the understanding of purgatory, you’ll not be able to accomplish much. While the Orthodox don’t like the word “purgatory” – for they relish accepting mystery without necessarily defining it – in practice you’ll find they accept purgatory in principle. Where? You’ll find in their sacred liturgy prayers for the dead. Why pray for the dead? And, if their liturgy is, as you say, “the most ancient of all Christian traditions,” why aren’t there prayers for the dead in Protestantism as their is in Roman Catholicsm, Orthodox, and Judaism? Seems you may want to rethink this.
Brian | Mar 21, 2009 | Reply
So, Latin Catholics should leave the Church at Rome for the Church at Antioch and all Latin Catholics should become Melkite Catholics?
The authors main flaw seems in only attempting to disprove the Latin Church at Rome and omit the other 22 Catholic Churches (Melkite, Chaldean, etc.).
The other obvious flaw seems to be that the Reformers all recognized the Church at Rome as being the Church, but in need of reform. By attempting to disprove the Church at Rome as being the/a true Church, the authors seem to also pull the rug of legitimacy out from under Reformation sects as well.
God bless…
Timothy | Apr 4, 2009 | Reply
THE WEBSITE IS INFORMATIVE. THANK YOU. IAM A CATHOLIC AND I LIKE THE TEACHINGS OF THE CHURCH.
BENEDETTA WASONGA | Apr 7, 2009 | Reply
Benedetta,
It is considered a mortal sin to worship Mary. You can read that in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
David
David Ulmer | Oct 7, 2009 | Reply
You should read the writings of Vatican II rather than listen to some liberal priest’s interpretation. Orthodox is certainly a step in the right direction. May you know the truth in your pursuit of Him. Jesus is the Truth.
David Ulmer | Oct 7, 2009 | Reply
J. Betancourt, on of the authors just converted to Catholicism. i guess the arguments he put forth didn’t end up holding water for him.
Many converts and reverts to Catholicism started out trying to disprove a Faith sytem they never understood. So as they set out to attack Catholicism, they quickly see the arguments have always been those of straw men and the beauty of Catholicism resonates with them. It’s a magnet that’s awfully hard to resist. I couldn’t
Russ Rentler | Jan 13, 2010 | Reply
Yes, Francis Beckwith discusses Joshua Betancourt’s move to the RCC on his blog romereturn.blogspot.com. Having read this book and Trevin’s review of it above, this is quite surprising – something I didn’t see coming.
Brian | Jan 13, 2010 | Reply