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

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

• 
  Shenika

  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.
• 
  Stefanie Lozinski

  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 :)
• 
  Noah McMillen

  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.
• 
  Reuben Maddock

  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)
• 
  Connor Longaphie

  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.
• 
  Jordan Mills

  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.
• 
  Richard Jones

  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
• 
  Rebecca The Files of Mrs. E,

  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.
• 
  Jon Wisnieski

  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.
• 
  David

  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.
• 
  Steven Jaeger

  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.
• 
  Aurore

  Trent Horn répond aux objections des protestants sur le catholicisme romain. Évidement chaque sujet mériterait un livre entier dédié, néanmoins Trent Horn arrive à proposer une réponse claire et argumentée pour chaque opposition. La lecture permet de se rendre compte de la faiblesse de certains arguments protestant et de mieux connaître la position des catholiques. 
  
  Il m'a semblé que Trent Horn a du sortir les rames sur la question de l'infaillibilité pontificale et de son autorité. En revanche je l'ai trouvé très à l'aise et assez convaincant sur d'autres sujets comme la justification, le baptême et l'eucharistie. 
  
  Le pont négatif du livre est l'utilisation excessive que fait Trent Horn des théologiens protestants. La diversité du protestantisme fait qu'il y aura toujours un théologien pour s'opposer à tel autre. Presque à chaque page, Trent Horn pioche un théologien protestant pour contredire la position de tel autre théologien protestant et conclut en disant : voyez même un protestant est d'accord avec ma position ou sur l'interprétation de tel verset. Assez agaçant sur plus de 300 pages. Un plus grand nombre de citations de théologiens catholiques aurait rendu la lecture bien plus équilibrée et intéressante.
• 
  Katie

  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

  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.
• 
  Josh G.

  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.
• 
  Drew

  Every chapter in this book is the perfect balance of concise and thorough. The arguments are extremely easy to follow and convincing. Further, Horn writes with great respect to his reader that might disagree with him. I've read it twice now, and it is so dense that I learned a ton during both readings. One of those books in which you want to highlight something in every paragraph.
• 
  Nancy Robinson

  Excellent
  
  Point by point referenced to scripture and history. Valuable introduction to the various ways to interpret Catholic positions and Protestant objections. Well done.
• 
  Herb Dulzo

  As always Trent does a great job proving the truths of the Catholic Church. Good read and great reference.
• 
  Steven Mills

  Do I need a boat for this river or can I just swim across?
  
  Horn answered everything. All my questions. My mind is reeling.
• 
  Anne

  This started well, but I'm tabling it since I don't have the head space right now. Looking forward to coming back to it.
• 
  Will Jones

  Heck of a case
• 
  Jacksonian

  Excellent overview of Catholic vs. Protestant issues. Avoids focusing on low-hanging fruit and instead concentrates on the most reasonable objections. Would recommend as THE text for curious Protestants and Catholics attempting to edify their faith vis-a-vis Protestantism.