Review #1 of 'Are We Together?' by R.C. Sproul

"It is our calling to hold high the truth and expose falsehood. To this end, it is essential that we know and understand what Rome is teaching, so distinctions can be made. It is important that the people in the pews be educated about what Protestants believe over against what Roman Catholics teach."

This quote is taken from renowned Presbyterian pastor and professor R.C. Sproul's book "Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism." In this book, Sproul "takes his stand for the bedrock doctrines of Protestantism in opposition to the errors of the Roman Catholic Church." Tackling issues such as Scripture, justification, the Church, the Sacraments, the Papacy, and Mary, he argues that "the teachings that the Protestant Reformers found to be in contradiction to the Bible are still affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church today." Therefore, says Sproul, "the Reformation remains vital and must be maintained until such time as Roman Catholicism alters its teachings."

In the conclusion to his book, R.C. Sproul explains, "I have written in strong terms in this book because I believe the errors of the Roman Catholic Church are deep and significant." And so, we as Catholics must rise to the challenge and analyze Sproul's claim that we "have anathematized the Gospel," defending the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church from the accusations of our Protestant interlocutors. Over the course of this blog-post series, I myself will write in strong terms about the truth of Catholicism and the errors of Protestantism, drawing on the careful exegesis of Sacred Scripture, the witness of the early Church Fathers, the teachings of Catholicism, and just plain common sense. All the while, though, I will address what divides Catholics and Protestants with charity and consideration, attempting to make the case for the faith of our fathers found in the Holy Catholic Church. Let us then begin by examining the introduction to this book, titled "At Stake: The Gospel."

Sproul begins the introduction by declaring, "The Gospel of Jesus Christ is always at risk of distortion." As Catholics, we wholeheartedly agree. God's Divine Revelation, the holy faith "once for all handed down to the holy ones (Jude 3)" is attacked, disregarded, and twisted in every age. For example, in the introduction to Sproul's book, Reformed Protestant theologian Dr. Michael Horton refers to the heresies of Gnosticism, Arianism, and Socinianism, all of which are directly opposed to the integrity of the faith. And, as Sproul very accurately notes on page three: "In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the gospel was threatened by theological liberals who denied the supernatural work of Jesus." He then relates how he witnessed firsthand the trial of a certain heretical Protestant pastor who denied both the deity and the sacrificial/salvific atonement of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Sproul explains how this event really opened his eyes to the reality of theological liberalism in Christianity, something that is far more widespread these days than in previous ages. In fact, this beast has been dubbed "Modernism," called "the synthesis of all heresies" by Pope Saint Pius X in his powerful encyclical 'Pascendi Dominici Gregis.'

Modernism is a vicious enemy that all Christians constantly have to deal with in our day and age. It repudiates and reduces the supernatural to the natural, explaining away even the most fundamental teachings and realities of the faith. Furthermore, it has virtually eaten away at the bulwark of traditional morality, replacing it with a pseudo-morality based on a relativistic and atheistic materialism rather than the unchanging moral precepts given to man by God, commands that never change because of the fact that they are grounded in the very nature of the human person whom God has made for a noble purpose and who participates in the very life and love of the Trinity.

Moving on to page 4 of the book, Sproul explains how he perceived the movement called "Evangelicals & Catholics Together" as pernicious and a "crisis over the purity of the gospel."

"Evangelicals & Catholics Together" was a movement between members of various Christian denominations to come together and form a document that highlighted their strong agreements on theological and especially moral issues, as well as their shared hope for unity. Among those present were Charles Colson, founder of the Prison Fellowship ministry, J.I. Packer, a famed Anglican/Reformed theologian, and George Weigel, a Catholic political analyst and social activist. "Evangelicals & Catholics Together" was part of a larger ecumenical movement prompted by the Evangelical Protestant organization "Moral Majority," founded by the popular pastor and social activist Jerry Falwell at the behest of the famous Reformed author and speaker Francis Schaeffer.

The document itself, subtitled "The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium," is not very long and can be accessed by clicking here. In the words of its authors, the purpose of their common gathering and statements was to "address what we have discovered both about our unity and about our differences," to "pray for the fulfillment of the prayer of Our Lord: "May they all be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, so also may they be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me (John 17:21)," and "to explore patterns of working and witnessing together in order to advance the one mission of Christ."

In a post-modern society that we Christians find ourselves in, it is vital that we stand together against grave evils such as abortion, the dissolution of marriage, and the obvious detriments that things like these pose to the well-being and flourishing of civilization. Sproul takes a strong stand for this mission, saying that he would join with anyone in the fight against such heinous things, as we all should. However, he cautions, Protestants do not "have a unity of faith with Roman Catholics." Now, Catholics actually agree with Sproul's assertion: Protestants and Catholics are most certainly not together, they are not one and the same church/belief system.

As we read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:




"'This is the sole Church of Christ, which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.' These four characteristics, inseparably linked with each other, indicate essential features of the Church and her mission. The Church does not possess them of herself; it is Christ who, through the Holy Spirit, makes his Church one, holy, catholic, and apostolic, and it is he who calls her to realize each of these qualities."


"... the unity of the pilgrim Church is also assured by the visible bonds of communion:
- profession of one faith received from the Apostles;
- common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments;
- apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God's family."

"In fact, 'in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle [Saint Paul] strongly censures as damnable [1st Corinthians 12:25]. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame.'"

As these paragraphs describe, there are definite and important differences between Catholics and Protestants. However, we are called to unity with one another, a fact that was heavily emphasized by Our Lord who prayed that all might be one, as we read in John 17. Furthermore, the writings of the New Testament Scriptures and the early Church Fathers show us a Church that is unified in belief and practice, a reality far from the state of Christianity today with its many, many competing and differing denominations and communities. And so, the Catechism presents several means by which we, Catholic and Protestant, may strive for unity with one another, most especially through personal conversion of heart, prayer, fraternal knowledge of one another, ecumenical formation of leaders and followers in the truth of the Gospel, and purposeful, charitable dialogue with one another.

Furthermore, as 'My Catholic Faith', a helpful catechetical book published in 1949, explains:




"Catholics should first be keenly aware of the scandal of our divisions [as Catholic and Protestant]... The dissensions among Christians are the chief cause of the weakness of Christianity in the modern world and the greatest obstacle to its propagation among non-Christians... We should feel kindly towards non-Catholics, be they Protestant or Orthodox. We should regard them, not as enemies, but as our separated brethren."

Sproul, however, notes:




"The statements produced by Vatican I referred to Protestants as schismatics and heretics. In marked contrast, the rhetoric of Vatican II was kind, warm, and appeasing. Protestants were called 'separated brethren.'"

He misunderstands, however, the position of the Catholic Church in regards to the Protestant communities and their members. It is true that Protestants are not in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. This fact, however, does not mean that all Protestants are just terrible people or that they are totally devoid of either theological truth or personal holiness. Not at all. In fact, the Catechism says, quoting "Lumen Gentium" of Vatican II, that there are "many elements of sanctification and of truth" to be found "outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church..." It seems that Sproul thinks that Vatican II did away with the view of Protestantism as being false and deviating from the truths of Scripture as protected and promulgated by the Catholic Church. However, this is simply a misunderstanding that only serves to obscure the important conversation.

Additionally, as the book 'My Catholic Faith' explains:




"At present the obstacles to the union of Protestant or even of Orthodox churches with the Catholic Church are indeed great... In talking with non-Catholics we should avoid discussions that only serve to increase bitterness. We should know our own faith well enough to present it clearly and honestly, and we should be aware also of the many basic truths that unite us all as Christians."

This quotation highlights an important fact, namely, that while there are definite and important disagreements and differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, there are also many common beliefs, practices, and values, on which we can together pursue the fullness of the truth and bring our separated brothers and sisters to the truth, goodness, and beauty of the Church that Our Lord Jesus Christ established on the Apostles and their successors.

Sproul suggests that the Catholic Church has changed her stance in regards to Protestantism, but, as we have seen, that is just simply not the case. While the teachings of the original founders of the Protestant ecclesial communities (at least those who were originally Catholic) have been declared heretical and opposed to the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles, this fact does not exclude at all the fact that Protestants are our "separated brethren" who uphold many of the truths of the faith and have valid, Trinitarian baptisms, even if they hold to many erroneous beliefs and also do not believe many of the fundamental truths or realities of the faith handed down to us by Our Lord through His Apostles and their successors in the Church.

Before we move on with our discussion, let us look at another helpful quotation from 'My Catholic Faith' regarding the relationship between Protestants and Catholics:




"Among theologians also, the old polemical discussions are being replaced by "dialogue," that is to say, a friendly exchange in which each side endeavors to understand the position and doctrines of the other. This 'irenical' approach does not mean that the Catholic [or the Protestant for that matter] waters down the truth, but he learns how to present it so that it will be better understood and more easily received."

This quote highlights a very important fact, namely, that the truth must never be compromised out of a false sense of ecumenism, which can be more properly called "ecumania". While unity is something Catholics and Protestants can and must seek out, it is most definitely not something that is to be obtained by rejecting the fundamental and important truths of the holy faith. Furthermore, we must not resort to the fiery polemics that were often used by some members of the Protestant/Catholic debate in bygone times, seeing as how they produce much more heat than light and don't further the important dialogue very much, if at all.

Movements like "Evangelicals & Catholics Together" seem to be a phenomenon that began in the late 1900's, mainly due to the growing force of secularism in Western culture. Christians of all stripes felt the need to come together and unite behind a common banner of traditional morals and beliefs. However, along with Sproul and many concerned Catholics and Protestants, we must not paper over our vital differences, nor should we view Protestants as being in communion with the Church. Honestly, I actually appreciate those certain Protestants who take the differences between Protestantism and Catholicism seriously, recognizing that if they are right, then the Catholic Church is severely wrong, and if the Church is right, then they are in grave error. It is my hope that we will find and establish the truth regarding these important issues in this series on my blog, not drawing on our own wisdom, but on the clear teaching of the God-breathed Scriptures, the insightful writings and reflections of the early Church Fathers, and overall, the historical pedigree of the Catholic Church.

And so, having examined in some detail the nature of the relationship between Catholicism and Protestantism, let us move on with our discussion.

On page 5 of his book, Sproul declares that the issue of imputation in the classical Protestant conception of salvation is a nonnegotiable doctrine for him and traditional Protestantism as a whole. As a Catholic, I actually agree with this statement, seeing as how if the concept of imputed righteous is found to be false, the classic Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone is itself rendered false and unbiblical. And so, this doctrine is absolutely vital to many Protestant beliefs, especially Lutheranism, Calvinism, and Anglicanism, as well as many Protestant communities that are offshoots of these main groups.

And so, because of this fact, we will be spending a considerable amount of time in future posts refuting this doctrine of imputed righteousness, seeing as how it is not only unbiblical, but is also not taught by the witnesses we find in the early Church, and also in all of the Church councils throughout the history of Christendom. Not only this, but it also promotes a presumptuous understanding of our salvation that can pose serious issues for a Christian in his or her quest towards Heaven.

Back to the discussion, on page 6, Sproul says:

"I think ECT [Evangelicals & Catholics Together] and similar efforts to make common cause with Roman Catholics are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of where the Roman Catholic Church is theologically and what it actually teaches."

I agree with this statement. Many Protestants fail to understand the teachings of Catholicism and what they entail for their own theological systems. Catholicism has declared the doctrines of justification by faith alone through the imputed righteousness of Christ to be heretical, false, and contrary to the deposit of faith. Furthermore, the Church upholds the true, Biblical understanding of the reality of the Sacraments and their importance in the Christian life as we read about in the Sacred Scriptures and in the writings of the early Fathers.

Now, on pages 6-9, Sproul brings up several topics regarding Catholicism and Protestantism that warrant a considerable amount of explanation and discussion. He makes several claims that are rather short and not the most nuanced, thus opening the door to confusion and misunderstanding. However, I will attempt to keep my comments short, trying to get to the heart of the matter at hand.

Sproul explains to the reader how the Catholic Church has changed since the time of the Reformation. This statement, however, is very misleading and must be addressed. This kind of accusation fails to understand how the Church relates to the deposit of faith that was delivered once and for all by Our Lord and His Apostles. The Church does not and cannot add to or subtract from the divinely-revealed truths of our faith. This is simply not possible and has never occurred in all of Church history, thanks to the constant protection and power of the Holy Spirit. However, this established deposit of faith throughout the history of Christendom has undergone significant attacks from certain individuals and groups, such as the Gnostic, Arian, and Pelagian heretics. Like the Apostles, bishops, and presbyters in Acts Chapter 15, the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, gathered together in a Church council to defend the truth, using the authority given to them by God to preserve the integrity of the holy faith.

And so, for example, the Church didn't change her teachings when the Council of Nicaea declared and clarified the truths of the faith against the Arian heretics and their pernicious beliefs. The Church didn't change her teachings when she established the Apostles' and Nicene creeds, far from it. And so, it is pretty obvious to see that this usual Protestant accusation is unfounded and is far from the truth. All of the Councils of the Church were aimed at a specific issue in Christendom at a given time, a fact that is so readily obvious by even a cursory study of Church history.

Moving on, Sproul then begins to address the Second Vatican Council, a unique council among the rest. Rather than putting forward declarations against any heresies or errors circulating at the time, Vatican 2 was geared towards an inner renewal of the Church and also an outreach towards other Christian groups in the quest for unity. This council was different than, for example, the Council of Trent or the First Vatican Council, both of which established definite, infallible, and binding declarations. Vatican 2, however, like the first three Lateran councils which began in 1123 AD, was aimed at certain goals other than putting forward infallible statements. Like many other people, Sproul misunderstands the ecumenical language of Vatican 2 and instead perceives it as mere warm, fuzzy touchy-feely language promoting a false ecumenism. On the contrary, the council perceived the differences between Catholics and Protestants and also recognized the great similarities that we share. Consequently, the council fathers determined to build on these important, shared realities, and thus further the quest for Christian unity through dialogue aimed at the attainment of truth and the conquest of those issues that divide us.

Then, Sproul brings up the Nouvelle théologie, a 19th-century school of thought in Catholicism that placed a high emphasis on a return to the theological ideas of the early Church Fathers, a renewed interest in Biblical exegesis and typology, and an overall recognition of the historical element in the Christian faith. Sproul, however, claims that this movement in Catholicism is a major split and source of division in the Church, leaning heavily towards Protestantism. In fact, he declares that "Some see this rupture as almost as serious as the Reformation." In the space and time in this blog series, I will not be going into the Nouvelle théologie at all, leaving that task up to future posts. Let it suffice to say, however, that it is most definitely not as serious a development as were the novel doctrines, practices, and views wrought by men like Martin Luther, John Calvin, or any of the other Protestant leading men of later years. Many people in the Catholic world (including myself) have voiced concern about some of the views of the Nouvelle théologie. However, the great, Biblical truths of Catholicism are not undermined merely by the fact that some people of a more liberal/progressive bent tend to either misrepresent or disagree with them. In any institution (including religion), there will be those who seek to explain away or even flat-out disregard what that group believes, teaches, and practices.

Moving on further into the introduction of the book, Sproul states the following on page 7:

"... it is important to remember that when we analyze the Roman Catholic Church, we are not talking about the American church, the Dutch church, the German church, or the Swiss church. We are talking about the Roman Catholic Church. The supreme pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church is not the bishop of New York or Los Angeles. He is not the bishop of Berlin, Heidelberg, or Vienna. He is the bishop of Rome. He is the one who, along with church councils, defines the belief system of the Roman Catholic Church."

We will be looking at the reality of the Papacy and its Biblical and historical roots in response to Sproul in a future post in this series. For now, I just want to state the fact that the Church of God and the doctrines that She believes cannot just be arbitrarily crafted or made up by the Pope. So many people, especially our Protestant brethren, misunderstand the true meaning and significance of the Petrine office, the Papacy, often thinking that Catholics believe that the Pope is perfect and can't ever be wrong or in error, or that Catholics need to wake up everyday and see what the Pope is currently saying or teaching.

Like any bishop, the Pope is called to be a pastor to his flock, to see to their needs, to teach, and to guide. Also, because he shares in the Petrine office and in the promises that Christ made to Peter and to the Church, he has the Divine right and power to exercise the power of the keys to make authoritative decisions for the Church of God, being protected by the Holy Spirit from binding the Church to error. Rather than being unbiblical or even anti-biblical, the reality of the Papacy is strongly grounded in both Scripture and history, and all Bible-believing Christians ought to recognize this great aspect of the faith which is based on the very power and promise of Christ. Our Lord gave us the teaching office of the Papacy, of Saint Peter and his successors, to preserve His holy teachings, to lead, and to guide the Church, the people of God here on Earth.

Sproul then discusses the phenomenon of Protestants converting to Catholicism, taking note of a couple reasons why he believes this occurs. He writes:

"First, those who are going to Rome love the Roman liturgy, seeing it as more transcendent than the informal and contemporary worship practiced in a growing number of evangelical churches. They long for the beauty, the sense of gravity, and the transcendent majesty of classical worship. I think this is the biggest factor pulling evangelicals toward the Roman Catholic Church."

In response, while it is generally true that Catholic worship tends to have more of a sense of gravity and solemn majesty than many Protestant worship services, I think Sproul is wrong is his assertion that the driving factor in the conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism is a personal taste in worship. As someone who has read countless conversion stories and has spoken to many people who have converted to Catholicism from Protestant evangelicalism, I think that Sproul misses a vital, fundamental point in this discussion. It is disingenuous to label all those who make the decision to convert to Catholicism as being merely stuck-up on the niceties of this or that style of worship, as if choosing how we worship God is something like choosing which ice-cream we will eat or which movie we want to watch.

In fact, seeing as how God has told us in His Divine Revelation how we are to worship Him, it is therefore sinful and idolatrous to decide for oneself how we want to worship God. To get to the point, Protestants don't become Catholic because they like how Catholic worship looks or feels; they convert to Catholicism because Catholics worship God in the manner that God has revealed to us in Jesus Christ and through His Apostles. In evangelical circles today, the highest form of Christian worship essentially consists in singing hymns or modern Gospel music, and listening to their pastor give a sermon. Now, while none of these things are wrong at all and are actually quite beneficial in Christian life, neither of these things is how God has told us to worship Him in the New Covenant Sunday liturgy, our highest form of worship. Sacred Scripture says that our worship of God consists in celebrating the Body and Blood of Christ, offering it up to God and participating in the once-and-for-all bloody sacrifice of Calvary.

This reality is firmly grounded in the Bible and also the entirety of Church history up until the Protestant Reformation. Even Martin Luther himself believed in the power of the Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Christ, writing the following in his Small Catechism:




What is the Sacrament of the Altar?
It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ under the bread and wine, instituted by Christ Himself for us Christians to eat and to drink.

Where is this written?
The holy Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul write:Our Lord Jesus Christ, on the night when He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks, He broke it and gave it to the disciples and said: “Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.”
In the same way also He took the cup after supper, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; this cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the forgiveness of sins. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”

What is the benefit of this eating and drinking?
These words, “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins,” show us that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.


How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?
Certainly not just eating and drinking do these things, but the words written here: “Given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” These words, along with the bodily eating and drinking, are the main thing in the Sacrament. Whoever believes these words has exactly what they say: “forgiveness of sins.”

While Luther definitely differed from the Biblical, historical, and Catholic understanding of the Eucharist and the Mass, his words do go to show that the classical Protestant understanding of worship is totally out-of-line with the historical record. In fact, Luther contended violently over these issues with people like Ulrich Zwingli who personally rejected the reality of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It really was men like Calvin, Zwingli, and the Anabaptist leaders who generated novel and unheard of theological ideas regarding the nature Christian worship and the reality of the Body and Blood of Christ.

And so, while we will be considering Sproul's specific claims regarding the Eucharist and the Mass in a later post, let it suffice to say for now that Catholics do not convert out of a sense of personal taste when it comes to worship; they convert because the Church worships how God has told Her to worship. We know from both Scripture and the testimony of history that the early Christians both during and right after the time of the Apostles believed both in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and also in the sacrificial nature of the Mass. I would encourage all our Protestant brothers and sisters to go read Saint Paul's words in 1st Corinthians Chapters 10 and 11 where we read:




"For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers and sisters, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them; their bodies were scattered in the wilderness (1st Cor. 10:1-5)."

Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf. Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons (1st Cor. 10:14-21)."

For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world (1st Cor. 11:23-32)."

Furthermore, take Our Lord's words in John 6:53-56:



"Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them."

The next reason Sproul gives for as to why Protestants become Catholic is a sense of doctrinal unity and stability. He says:



"Protestantism seems to be splintered into an infinite number of divisions and troubled by endless disputes and discussions of doctrine, while Rome seems unified and doctrinally settled. This appeals to many who long for unity, peace, and certainty."

First, I do want to point out that it is true (even Protestants themselves admit it) that Protestantism is split into many, many different denominations and belief systems. This is a completely straight-forward, easily understandable fact. Just by driving down the street, one encounters all kinds of different churches who are a part of many different larger groups, most of whom are really splinters of larger systems that had previously existed. Even in the years right after the Protestant Reformation, the Protestant communities had numerous theological debates (very vigorous ones!) about various doctrines that they disagreed with one another upon. Furthermore, these weren't about minor issues that separated them from one another; these were about issues that these men rightly believed were of fundamental importance for the people of God.

Once again, I believe that Sproul misses the mark, mainly because people don't become Catholic out of a false sense of unity and doctrinal certainty but out of a strong and real assurance that is based on Scripture, Church history, and common sense. Therefore, once again, I think that it is wrong-headed to label those who convert as being merely hung-up on a false sense of unity in order to make them feel good. If anything, it is more in accord with the varying whims of human nature to desire an ecclesial community that doesn't proclaim doctrines with authority and certainty. But, we shall dive into the Biblical and historical details in a later post.

Sproul ends the introduction by stating that the Catholic Church has not changed Her teachings (which is obviously true) and that therefore he will be exploring these allegedly heretical doctrines, proving the truths of the Reformation (at least according to Calvin and the other Reformed theologians). In future posts, we will read through what Sproul has to say, responding to his accusations against the Church, and attempting to prove the truths of Catholicism in a winsome and intelligent way.