Reviews - What do customers think about Answering a Fundamentalist?
Not a Strong Defense for Catholic Teaching Apr 18, 2008
Father Nevins organizes the book by discussing 15 different challenges/topics of debate with Fundamentalists. Being a Fundamentalist, I found the "common criticisms" of Catholicism to be taking the most childish criticisms, ignoring the scholarly ones. Father Nevins took Fundamentalist objections, turned them into straw men, and then destroyed them. He spends very little time arguing the actual fundamental differences between Catholicism and Fundamentalism--for instance, if you accept the first 5 chapters, then the rest make a little more sense, but if you don't accept the first 5 chapters, then the last chapters are untenable to the highest degree. Nevins argues with word semantics in about half of the chapters, and takes much for granted by way of logical argumentation. Some of the chapters seemed merely to be a forced defense of a certain doctrine in light of binding doctrines already accepted, such as infallibility, etc. For instance, he uses a few "the Bible doesn't say this couldn't happen" phrases to contradict what the Scripture does say. For instance, he argues that even though Christ is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5), it doesn't mean He can't appoint other people to be mediators. How else could you contradict that verse but by the way he did?
In short, logical fallacies and red herring arguments makes this volume weak if it's meant to be a defense against Fundamentalism.
I Hope He Makes Me- Quaker Oct 6, 2007
You are encouraged to seek out Quaker- those are the English fundamentalsts as in Quaker Oats. I had and knew too teachers who were Quaker. He covers: the Bible, tradition, sacraments, purgatory, Mary, the Inquisition, papacy and infallibility. I thought it was witty and well written, which the Quakers were known for not really being successful, bujt witty. I don't what these people who are giving me a hard time think of when they think of a Christian, But f or me I think of Quaker, P;ilgrim and Amish the Lutheran itself that is similar to Quaker. I was baptized and confirmed in the Pilgrim denomination after I accepted Jesus as my savior, the Bible as God's word to his people, the creation theory in Genesis and the pilgrims still around are the American fundamentalists who still own the Consitution. To compare this Quaker argument to my own denomination and beliefs, it is similar to what is laid down in Luther's catechism. They both are fundamentalists who worship God, and are saying in these books that most of yesterday's supposed "Christians" are missing the whole point; when you convert to a religion the goal is to get the person so that they're not such a geek. The opposite can be said of supposed Satanists who were allegedly born into it and become a BIG- GENERIC- GEEK.
Pretty good for starters Nov 11, 2005
I believe this was the first Catholic book I ever read. I never did review it, so I am doing it now. This is the book that introduced me to the world of apologetics. What is apologetics? Put simply, it is a reasoned defense of the faith which we subscribe to. As St. Peter says:
1 Peter 3:15 DRB But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you.
This book, among other more detailed works I read after this, saved me from Christian fundamentalism as I was reeling back from years of atheism. As I sat and read an apologetic book which seemed to explain Catholicism called Understanding Roman Catholicism by Rick Jones, that book absolutely decimated my Catholic faith, however much of it was left. It made sense and it was "biblical". Little did I know, or would I expect that any person going by the label "Christian" would ever mislead. Taken out of context, all of Jones' arguments seem to fit. Until I read this book, Answering a Fundamentalist by Fr. Albert Nevins.
This book gives a simple approach to answering common objections to Catholic doctrines. He uses Holy Scripture and history to substantiate his arguments. It is not as powerful as Karl Keating's Catholicism and Fundamentalism, but it's good for beginners.
The chapters are as follows: 1. The Fundamentalist Phenomenon 2. The Bible 3. Tradition 4. The Church 5. The Papacy 6. Infallibility 7. The Magisterium 8. The Sacraments 9. Confession 10. The Eucharist 11. Purgatory 12. Mary 13. Saints and Images 14. "Call No Man Father" 15. The Inquisition 16. No Salvation Outside the Church
Good book. I recommend it for beginners...
good for a beginner May 18, 2005
I picked up this book as I was beginning my study of Catholicism. Coming from an anti-Catholic background, I appreciated reading the response to most of the things I had been taught. This led me to further study, in which I later found most of the concepts I had been taught regarding Catholicism, were wrong. It is a quick read and a basic overview of the beliefs. I recommend it as a starting place to begin your study between the two doctrines.
A Defense of Catholic Doctrine Apr 14, 2005
If anyone ever wondered where some of the beliefs and practices of Catholicism originated, this is the book to read. It gives a brief explanation of some widely held Catholic beliefs and practices in an easy to read book. It also explains some of the more contriversial beliefs. He gives a good explanation of how these beliefs and practices originated and why they originated.
The assumption of Mary into heaven is called "The Great Assumption". And what a great assumption it is. It is based on absolutely no facts.
This book also contains several other great assumptions like purgatory and praying to saints. These are based on nothing other than assumptions. The author calls this Tradition. Some of these doctrines conflict with the writings of the apostles themselves (i.e. saints interceding for the living and calling someone "father"). The author admiringly admits this and proceeds to makes excuses for the false doctrine.
Many of the beliefs and practices of catholocism are based on what the author calls Tradition. He gives an indepth definition of what he calls "Tradition". This is acceptable to some extent. It is not acceptable when the doctrines based on Tradition are contrary to what is written in the scriptures. In this the author comes up short.