Rebuttal to Catholicism and Fundamentalism

  • Thread starter Thread starter RikasAngel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RikasAngel

Guest
Hello All,

I recently purchased all of Karl Keating’s books. As I looked up Mr. Keating’s books, I noticed several critiques to Catholicism and Fundamentalism. There two books by Robert Zins Romanism: The Relentless Roman Catholic Assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Formidable Truth: A Vindication of Lorainne Boettner which are suppossed to be rebuttals to Mr. Keating’s book. The main claims are:
  1. Karl Keating quoted scripture out of context.
  2. Karl Keating misquoted Lorainne Boettner
  3. Karl Keating relies on “Church Fathers” like Irenaus, Origen, Tertulian, and Justin Martyr who supported heretical views.
There is also a book Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William David Webster which claims that the “Roman” Church’s reliance on History is unfounded.

Has anyone ever heard about or read these works? How accurate are they? I’m a young Catholic who wants to be informed. Thank you.
 
I don’t know about the Romanism and Boettner stuff, but Steven Ray’s “Upon This Rock” is a rebuttal of Webster’s book, I think. Also, I John Henry Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” addresses this topic of historicity, but is deep reading.
 
I’ve heard Hank Hanagraff, a popular Protestant apologist, acknowledge the weaknesses in Boetnner’s book. I personally haven’t seen it for sale in Evangelical bookstores in many, many years. I think anyone defending it is in a minority, except in die-hard anti-Catholic circles.

As far as Karl “quoting verses out of context,” that charge is a common knee jerk defensive reaction of a desperate apologist (including some inexperienced Catholic ones, unfortunately). It relies on the presumption that you won’t go and look up the context yourself, which is easy enough for anyone with a $1.50 Bible to do.
 
40.png
Fidelis:
I’ve heard Hank Hanagraff, a popular Protestant apologist, acknowledge the weaknesses in Boetnner’s book. I personally haven’t seen it for sale in Evangelical bookstores in many, many years. I think anyone defending it is in a minority, except in die-hard anti-Catholic circles.

As far as Karl “quoting verses out of context,” that charge is a common knee jerk defensive reaction of a desperate apologist (including some inexperienced Catholic ones, unfortunately). It relies on the presumption that you won’t go and look up the context yourself, which is easy enough for anyone with a $1.50 Bible to do.
Click to expand...
The out of context allegation can be a defensive reaction, but at times, the proof text is so violently manipulated that something has to be said. But, I would venture that in order to make the statement, you’re better off having a Bible available. Otherwise, the statement will most likely have little effect on the dialouge at hand. Thanks and God Bless.
 
40.png
RikasAngel:
Hello All,

I recently purchased all of Karl Keating’s books. As I looked up Mr. Keating’s books, I noticed several critiques to Catholicism and Fundamentalism. There two books by Robert Zins Romanism: The Relentless Roman Catholic Assault on the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Formidable Truth: A Vindication of Lorainne Boettner which are suppossed to be rebuttals to Mr. Keating’s book. The main claims are:
  1. Karl Keating quoted scripture out of context.
  2. Karl Keating misquoted Lorainne Boettner
  3. Karl Keating relies on “Church Fathers” like Irenaus, Origen, Tertulian, and Justin Martyr who supported heretical views.
There is also a book Church of Rome at the Bar of History by William David Webster which claims that the “Roman” Church’s reliance on History is unfounded.

Has anyone ever heard about or read these works? How accurate are they? I’m a young Catholic who wants to be informed. Thank you.
Click to expand...
Anyone who supports Boettner’s sloppy scholarship and poor exegesis automatically gets put on my “Do not read this garbage” list.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
Anyone who supports Boettner’s sloppy scholarship and poor exegesis automatically gets put on my “Do not read this garbage” list.
Click to expand...
Karl Keating and Boettner each had different agendas. Boettner apparently did not believe that Catholics were going to heaven and wanted to prove how misguided and wrong the Roman Catholic Church is. During the preface of his book Keating makes certain to point out tht the majority of fundamentalists do not use such terms as papist or Romish or any other anti-Catholic term and are willing to stand with Catholics in many social and political matters. According to his own words it is the subset of fundamentalist who are anti Catholic that his book is aimed against. SO, he doesn’t even crticize all fundamentalist-just a select few. He is anti Protestant or anti fundamentalist at all, so his agenda is completly different then Boettner’s.
 
40.png
deb1:
Karl Keating and Boettner each had different agendas. Boettner apparently did not believe that Catholics were going to heaven and wanted to prove how misguided and wrong the Roman Catholic Church is. During the preface of his book Keating makes certain to point out tht the majority of fundamentalists do not use such terms as papist or Romish or any other anti-Catholic term and are willing to stand with Catholics in many social and political matters. According to his own words it is the subset of fundamentalist who are anti Catholic that his book is aimed against. SO, he doesn’t even crticize all fundamentalist-just a select few. He is anti Protestant or anti fundamentalist at all, so his agenda is completly different then Boettner’s.
Click to expand...
It is a well documented fact that Lorraine Boettner either did not research the topics on which he referenced, or misrespresented them. If one is going to publish any type of “authoritative” work, then one needs to be meticulous to represent the truth accurately. Boettner did neither. His research was sloppy and many of his points are easily counter by just reading the documents that he references, which indicates to me that he didn’t even bother to read the very documents that he references. Second, he rarely if even appropriately cites references. He makes vague references to “authoritative Catholic documents”, then does not supply a way to look up that reference. That is sloppy scholarship. Third, and the most troubling, is that he intentionally mischaracterizes Catholic doctrine. That is the same as lying, which is a violation of the 5th commandment “Thou shall not bear false witness”. As a result, one is forced to reject “Roman catholicism” outright as a Christian work and classify it in the same category as Dan Brown’s DiVinci Code.
 
40.png
deb1:
Karl Keating and Boettner each had different agendas. Boettner apparently did not believe that Catholics were going to heaven and wanted to prove how misguided and wrong the Roman Catholic Church is. During the preface of his book Keating makes certain to point out tht the majority of fundamentalists do not use such terms as papist or Romish or any other anti-Catholic term and are willing to stand with Catholics in many social and political matters. According to his own words it is the subset of fundamentalist who are anti Catholic that his book is aimed against. SO, he doesn’t even crticize all fundamentalist-just a select few. He is anti Protestant or anti fundamentalist at all, so his agenda is completly different then Boettner’s.
Click to expand...
I am correcting myself. I meant to say tht Keating is **not **anti protestant or anti fundamentalist.
 
40.png
deb1:
I am correcting myself. I meant to say tht Keating is **not **anti protestant or anti fundamentalist.
Click to expand...
This I agree with. From all that I have read from Karl and all of the tracts on CA, there is no anti-anything bent to them. Truth is truth, so when you objecively stand in defense of truth, those who stand for anything but the truth will tend to demonize you.
 
40.png
Scott_Lafrance:
This I agree with. From all that I have read from Karl and all of the tracts on CA, there is no anti-anything bent to them. Truth is truth, so when you objecively stand in defense of truth, those who stand for anything but the truth will tend to demonize you.
Click to expand...

Saying “truth is truth” is all very well, but then, “sausages are sauges” 🙂 - just as Uzis are Uzis :), or other things are those other things: the point being, that qualifying a noun as that noun does not tell one anything about the content denoted by its name; that is, “truth is truth”, does not tell one what the content of truth is. So truth, remains an abstraction.​

Which in practice means, that two people who disgree in doctrine can both insist that they are “standing up for the truth”. But this gets one no forrarder in seeing which version of the truth (if any) is true. Which is why so many controversies between Christians are unprofitable, and unedifying. ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top