Catholic Room

Read more: catholic apologetics: Frequently tagged products at Amazon.com

12 of 18 people found the following review helpful: Better Off Elsewhere, May 22, 2006 By  Christian Book Reviews "www.christianbookrevi... (Philadelphia, PA United States) - See all my reviews The role of tradition in the Church is a thorny issue and easy answers are usually wrong. This is the crux of the problem with Catholic apologist Joel Peters' little booklet Scripture Alone. In attempting to reduce a complex problem into a simple one and scoring a slam dunk for the Roman position, he merely scores a victory over a position, while common enough in the more theologically simplistic streams of contemporary Evangelicalism, far different from that of Luther, Calvin, and the Anglican Reformers. Thus rather than proving the truth of the case for an infallible tradition, Peters merely attacks a contemporary caricature. As mentioned, some contemporary Protestants do hold the view Peters attacks. They have not only had their views subjected to criticism by apologists from the Catholic and other historic churches, but by Protestant apologists as well. For example, Keith Mathison has derisively referred to their view as "solo scriptura." However, thw "me and my Bible" outlook was not the traditional Protestans position. Sola scriptura does not assert that Holy Scripture is the only authority - it states it is the only infalible authority and the final authority. That is, all tradition is to be judged in light of Scripture. This is not Peters' only problem. A significant portion of the booklet - consisting of an exposition of 21 reasons why sola scriptura is wrong - is taken up by issues that logically have no bearing on the issue. For example, the fact that the first Christians did not have a Bible does not mean the Bible, once completed, was not sufficient in all doctrine. Similarly, Martin Luther's alleged emotional problems does not rule out his being correct on this issue. Such an ad hominem attack fail to add any substance to Peters' thesis. Peters does far better when he sticks to discussing the interaction between Holy Scripture and the Church. He gives a good basic outline of why the "me and my Bible" version of sola scriptura fails at an introductory level. However, despite this one area of success, he fails to address the more complex issues. He also falls into the trap of equating tradition with the tradition of the Roman Magisterium. The Eastern Churches also value tradition and it can be argued they are far closer to the tradition of the early Church than Rome. Overall, far better defenses of the Church's use of tradition exist by apologists in the historic Churches of both East and West. Thus, despite a few plusses, Scripture Alone? cannot be reccommended.  Comments (3) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

21 of 36 people found the following review helpful: Wow, May 20, 2003 By  Jeff Lloyd "Catechist" (Michigan) - See all my reviews If you care at all about the subject of Sola Scriptura, you MUST buy this little book. Joel Peters nails the the errors of Sola Scritura. It is 72 pages long and very well written. This was the best 3 bucks I have ever spent! The back of the book says, "Totally devastates one of the two pillars of Protestantism." And I agree 100% with that statement!  Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

6 of 21 people found the following review helpful: Another Catholic apologist who discredits the bible, February 17, 2006 By  Ronald Arndt (Lagrange, Ohio United States) - See all my reviews    Joel Peters is no different from Robert Sungenis or Karl Keating who deny the bible is inspired of God by just examining it's pages. Mr Peters must have the Catholic church tell him it is so before he will believe this to be so. Unfortunately, Mr Peters hasn't even read the first four gospels, which contain the very words of Christ himself.John 5:39 Since Christianity accepts Christ as divine, then logically Christ's words as written in scripture are also of God as well. A fact Mr Peters cannot accept unless his church tells him he can do so. Also Mr Peters also overlooks the fact that many of the letters of the New Testament were written to churches by the apostle Paul and he himself identifies himself as the author. Apparently, Mr Peters also denies what Paul wrote was inspired of God as well, unless of course he asks the Roman Catholic church first. Mr Peters claims the Roman Papacy was the ones who decided the the exact canon of the New Testament. What Mr Peters overlooks is the fact that the last of the written parchments were concluded by 100 A.D. The Papacy of Rome was formed much later. Also it is true Christ and the apostles taught orally, but what they spoke was written down as well. Mr Peters fails to tell us what extra biblical oral tradition was said by the apostles other than what is found in the New Testament we have in print today? Perhaps in his next publication he could list for us these "other oral traditions" that the apostles spoke of and taught to the church that is not ALREADY found in our printed New Testament today? Perhaps Mr Robert Sungenis could help him in this endeavor as well. Lastly, since we have no evidence either in written form or oral form of Mary as our Mediatrix, our Queen and that she was bodily assumed to heaven Mr Peters and Mr Sungenis could bring forth apostolic evidence either in oral form or written form of these modern day Catholic dogmas? Also I would ask both men if what we read in scripture is truly sufficient for a sinner to find salvation? If all that is necessary for a sinner to find eternal life or salvation can be found in scripture ALONE, then isn't scripture alone sufficient for us? Or do we need the Roman Catholic church to tell us THEIR interpretation of achieving salvation? This was and is the REAL intent of Mr Peter's biased booklet. That salvation cannot be found by studying and applying to one's life what is found in God's word alone.  Comments (2) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)