There are at least three things that are true about experiences. First, they are by their very nature subjective. Second, you can’t argue logically against them. And third, everyone has had one. If you ask a Mormon about his experience, he will testify to you that God gave him a "burning in the bosom" that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. If you ask a Jehovah’s witness about his experience, he will gladly share with you that the Watchtower Society is the true prophet of God. Such is also the case with Patrick Madrid’s new book, Surprised by Truth 2. This is a "sequel" to Madrid’s earlier book, Surprised by Truth, in which several contributors share their conversion stories of how they became Roman Catholic. The first book produced a litter of amateur Roman Catholic apologists who have taken the apologetic mantle from their predecessors, such as Madrid, Karl Keating, and Scott Hahn (one rarely hears from these anymore). This second edition will no doubt do the same.
I was recently sent a complimentary copy of Surprised by Truth 2 from the publisher, along with an invitation to write a review of its contents. Having read the first Surprised by Truth, I was already familiar with the theme and format. The book recounts how former antagonists to Roman Catholicism became "surprised" that they endeared to certain Roman Catholic "truths" they had previously rejected. The book also holds out the promise that its readers will be equally surprised by these truths. I was indeed surprised by a number of things in this book—truth, however, was not one of them. I was surprised, for instance, that one contributor who claims to have been an "educated Evangelical" could so blatantly misrepresent Evangelical soteriology by stating that it teaches that one might not actually be a Christian even if he is completely convinced he is. Such a statement betrays a woeful misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches regarding the perseverance of the saints, which states simply that if one observes phenomenologically that someone else has fallen from the faith, we may safely concluded that that person was never among the elect to begin with. That is the unequivocal teaching of the NT (cf. 1 John 2:19). This same contributor seems to be blissfully unaware that there are many educated Roman Catholics who agree with this teaching.
I was surprised by still another contributor who, as a Pentecostal, expressed angst over the fact that she couldn't find "biblical apostles" running around in the world today even though they are mentioned in the New Testament as being an integral part of the church. Never mind that the New Testament tells us that these apostles are the "foundation" upon which the church is built (Eph 2:20); once you lay a foundation, you then proceed to build the house--you don't keep laying foundations. Never mind that this same contributor seemed completely unbothered by the tortured exegesis that Roman Catholicism must engage in with that same New Testament in order to arrive at a magisterial priesthood, exaltation of Mary, a Roman papacy, a definition of the word "church" that resembles a lifeless shell, and a host of other beliefs conspicuously absent from the Bible. In short I was surprised at how uninformed this contributor was about what is by any standard a common understanding of "apostle" in the New Testament.
I was surprised by other contributors who fell prey to the common Roman Catholic error of simply assuming that the standard of truth is to be found in the post-apostolic church. The Bible, we are told repeatedly, cannot be that standard since there are so many interpretations of it. We must look instead to the church fathers. No mention, of course, that no one in the post-apostolic church was infallible in his beliefs or writings, and that there are numerous differences between their beliefs and the clear beliefs of the NT writers; nor that even among the fathers there is constant disagreement and a variety of opinions on any given issue; nor that the Roman Catholic understanding of the fathers (like the Bible) is merely that—the Roman Catholic understanding. Such rationale betrays a marked theological naïveté on these issues, and one begins to wonder why someone such as Madrid (who surely knows by now that these things are easily answered) would not be embarrassed to allow these things in his book. I, for one, had hoped that the Roman Catholic arguments would have become more sophisticated by now, and that the new-generation Roman Catholic apologists would have learned from the mistaken arguments of the past. Sadly, such is not the case.
I was surprised by still other contributors who simply rehashed the same worn-out arguments that have been refuted time and again in public debate with the best that Rome has to offer—including the "canon" argument, the "28,000 Protestant denominations" argument, the "Private Interpretation" argument, etc., all of which have been shown time and again to be deficient because they are based on epistemological fallacies (see the Roman Catholic Challenge) and erroneous citing of statistical data (see "30,000 Protestant Denominations?"). In short, I was surprised that I learned nothing new.
At the end of the day, one wonders why a book like Surprised by Truth 2 is even necessary since every one of the arguments it gives can be found multiple times elsewhere in a plethora of forums (books, Internet, and public debates included). The book has not justified its own existence since it adds absolutely nothing to the current discussion—in fact, it regresses into areas that we have long ago moved beyond. One might appeal to my earlier concession that one cannot argue logically against an experience. I stand by that concession. However, Madrid’s book purports to be much more. It purports to give the "biblical and historical reasons for becoming Catholic." To the extent that that is its goal, to that extent the book fails in its mission.
Eric Svendsen