What do you think?
Rate this book
Are We Together?: A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism
In recent years, some evangelical Protestant leaders have signed statements pledging themselves to joint social action with Roman Catholics. Others have refused to participate, declaring that, in their view, the statements went too far, touching on the gospel, which remains a point of disagreement between Protestants and Roman Catholics. Many evangelical Christians have found themselves confused by the different directions taken by their leaders. In Are We Together? A Protestant Analyzes Roman Catholicism , R.C. Sproul takes his stand for the cardinal doctrines of Protestantism in opposition to the errors of the Roman Catholic Church. Sproul, a passionate defender of the gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone, cites the historic statements of the Protestant Reformers and the Roman Catholic authorities, then references modern doctrinal statements to show that the Roman Catholic Church has not altered its official positions. In light of this continuing gap, he writes, efforts by some in the evangelical camp to find common ground with Rome on matters at the heart of the gospel are nothing short of untrue to biblical teaching. In Sproul’s estimation, the Reformation remains relevant. Are We Together? is a clarion call to evangelicals to stand firm for the gospel, the precious good news of salvation as it is set forth in Scripture alone.
129 pages, Paperback
First published July 30, 2012
158 people are currently reading
1348 people want to read
About the author
R.C. Sproul
675 books1,972 followersDr. R.C. Sproul (1939–2017) was founder of Ligonier Ministries, an international Christian discipleship organization located near Orlando, Fla. He was founding pastor of Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Fla., first president of Reformation Bible College, and executive editor of Tabletalk magazine.
Ligonier Ministries began in 1971 as the Ligonier Valley Study Center in Ligonier, Pa. In an effort to respond more effectively to the growing demand for Dr. Sproul’s teachings and the ministry’s other educational resources, the general offices were moved to Orlando in 1984, and the ministry was renamed.
Dr. Sproul’s radio program, Renewing Your Mind, is still broadcast daily on hundreds of radio stations around the world and can also be heard online. Dr. Sproul produced hundreds of lecture series and recorded numerous video series on subjects such as the history of philosophy, theology, Bible study, apologetics, and Christian living.
He contributed dozens of articles to national evangelical publications, spoke at conferences, churches, and academic institutions around the world, and wrote more than one hundred books, including The Holiness of God, Chosen by God, and Everyone’s a Theologian. He signed the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and wrote a commentary on that document. He also served as general editor of the Reformation Study Bible, previously known as the New Geneva Study Bible.
Dr. Sproul had a distinguished academic teaching career at various colleges and seminaries, including Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando and Jackson, Miss. He was ordained as a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 168 reviews
Want to read
July 22, 2025The title is a clear response to Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT) in 1994. Sproul has said that this moment was the most painful part of his career.
I'm making this "review" a collection of Protestant responses to Catholic howlers. Consider it a kind of repository. And if you feel like your system is getting backed up with Catholic propaganda, consider it a kind of suppository.
On the issue of the misperception that Rome is unified and only Protestantism is fragmented, Doug Wilson, who has written a similar book, has some excellent thoughts here. And here is one Protestant who "came home" to Rome, only to reject it later. Here's why: "I felt angry, betrayed and lied to. I believed the rhetoric which spoke of patrum consensus, a continuous uniform tradition and unchanging historical church. Instead what I got was a cacophony of contradictory voices, writings and even councils and decrees. The Romans, as much as the Protestants, are guilty of convenient selective reading of the Church Fathers, the Councils and tradition. The only difference however is that at least the Protestant is honest about what they are doing. The Protestants do claim that only the Scriptures alone are infallible and fathers and even councils have erred and do err. On the other hand with rhetorical flourish the Roman appeals to their infallible Church. But when it comes to locating this infallible church, they fudge and dodge." The following point re: Cardinal Manning is very important too: "With the rise of historical criticism, many Protestant historians and theologians pointed out that there was no evidence in the early church for many of the doctrines of the Roman Church which they have claimed to have been present in the Church right from the very start. While Cardinal Newman attempted to spin his 'Theory of Development' to account for the discrepancy, Cardinal Manning with refreshing honesty simply admitted that history indeed cannot justify the Roman claims."
Here's another post by Wilson, who mentions Tim Challies's post about Catholics' understanding of Protestant justification by faith alone, and their damnation of it. Here's another post by Challies as he recounts a talk by Sproul: According to Rome, faith is a necessary condition for justification, but not the sufficient condition.
After "The Future of Protestantism" debate, Wilson posted about the affair and made some good points. And here's more on "tribalism" (and rootlessness), plus a "yeah, but". And some ecumenical sunshine. In another flare up (Fall 2016), based on Leithart's book, Leithart raises the issue again, Wilson responds, Leithart responds, and Wilson responds. Leithart's book on the subject is now published.
You may have heard that Catholics believe in salvation by works. And you may have heard the reply that, hey, that's not fair—stop perpetuating a mean caricature of Catholicism. But it seems that the original charge has some weight.
Wilson on the Catholic notion that Protestants have no rituals. James K. A. Smith has also written on the subject of ritual and Protestant sacramentality.
A Protestant response to Catholic criticism of sola Scriptura (including a response to the charge that the diversity of Protestantism entails the incoherence of sola Scriptura).
A Catholic explanation that Protestants and Catholics can agree on what "faith" means—so that both sides can affirm "sola fide." I'm not convinced, however, that the Protestant and RC views of justification are the same, or even compatible. Akin talks about mortal sin, as if our performance can do anything to alter our justification. Catholics have traditionally talked about penance as the second plank in justification, as if we need to regain the status of being justified after mortal sin destroys our personal virtue. Protestants have seen justification as God's act of imputing righteousness.
John Piper talks about why some Evangelicals go to Rome, and why he has not. Here's another Desiring God post about what changed at Vatican II, and how to pray for Catholics.
Alan Jacobs on some nuances in Catholic doctrine, relating to the issue of hiring Catholics at Wheaton.
Posts by Toby Sumpter on "Why I won't convert."
Derek Rishmawy explains why we shouldn't be ashamed of still calling ourselves Protestant and celebrating the Reformation. This piece includes a link to a Catholic who insists that people stop spreading the Protestants-have-33-thousand-denominations nonsense.
Ludwig Ott (Catholic systematic theologian): "Mary's intercessory co-operation extends to all graces, which are conferred on mankind, so that no grace accrues to men without the intercession of Mary. The implication of this is not that we are obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor that Mary's intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but that according to God's positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary."
Derek Rishmawy responds to Stanley Hauerwas's non-explanation for why he's still kind of Protestant.
Carl Trueman on why he's Protestant.
Brad Littlejohn had a free two-part treatment at the Davenant Institue on why Protestants convert, but now it's a book.
Onsi A. Kamel on how Rome led him to the Reformation.
See some responses to B. S. Gregory's The Unintended Reformation.
See here for a Catholic claim that the vicar of Christ could be a condemned heretic. See here for a Catholic comment that the average layperson should not read the Bible.
Even Catholics have a long list of reasons that Francis was a terrible global representative. Catholicism is not monolithic and is shot through with liberalism.
KDY provides 8 key differences: church, Scripture, Lord's Supper, baptism, Mary, Purgatory, merit, justification.
I'm making this "review" a collection of Protestant responses to Catholic howlers. Consider it a kind of repository. And if you feel like your system is getting backed up with Catholic propaganda, consider it a kind of suppository.
On the issue of the misperception that Rome is unified and only Protestantism is fragmented, Doug Wilson, who has written a similar book, has some excellent thoughts here. And here is one Protestant who "came home" to Rome, only to reject it later. Here's why: "I felt angry, betrayed and lied to. I believed the rhetoric which spoke of patrum consensus, a continuous uniform tradition and unchanging historical church. Instead what I got was a cacophony of contradictory voices, writings and even councils and decrees. The Romans, as much as the Protestants, are guilty of convenient selective reading of the Church Fathers, the Councils and tradition. The only difference however is that at least the Protestant is honest about what they are doing. The Protestants do claim that only the Scriptures alone are infallible and fathers and even councils have erred and do err. On the other hand with rhetorical flourish the Roman appeals to their infallible Church. But when it comes to locating this infallible church, they fudge and dodge." The following point re: Cardinal Manning is very important too: "With the rise of historical criticism, many Protestant historians and theologians pointed out that there was no evidence in the early church for many of the doctrines of the Roman Church which they have claimed to have been present in the Church right from the very start. While Cardinal Newman attempted to spin his 'Theory of Development' to account for the discrepancy, Cardinal Manning with refreshing honesty simply admitted that history indeed cannot justify the Roman claims."
Here's another post by Wilson, who mentions Tim Challies's post about Catholics' understanding of Protestant justification by faith alone, and their damnation of it. Here's another post by Challies as he recounts a talk by Sproul: According to Rome, faith is a necessary condition for justification, but not the sufficient condition.
After "The Future of Protestantism" debate, Wilson posted about the affair and made some good points. And here's more on "tribalism" (and rootlessness), plus a "yeah, but". And some ecumenical sunshine. In another flare up (Fall 2016), based on Leithart's book, Leithart raises the issue again, Wilson responds, Leithart responds, and Wilson responds. Leithart's book on the subject is now published.
You may have heard that Catholics believe in salvation by works. And you may have heard the reply that, hey, that's not fair—stop perpetuating a mean caricature of Catholicism. But it seems that the original charge has some weight.
Wilson on the Catholic notion that Protestants have no rituals. James K. A. Smith has also written on the subject of ritual and Protestant sacramentality.
A Protestant response to Catholic criticism of sola Scriptura (including a response to the charge that the diversity of Protestantism entails the incoherence of sola Scriptura).
A Catholic explanation that Protestants and Catholics can agree on what "faith" means—so that both sides can affirm "sola fide." I'm not convinced, however, that the Protestant and RC views of justification are the same, or even compatible. Akin talks about mortal sin, as if our performance can do anything to alter our justification. Catholics have traditionally talked about penance as the second plank in justification, as if we need to regain the status of being justified after mortal sin destroys our personal virtue. Protestants have seen justification as God's act of imputing righteousness.
John Piper talks about why some Evangelicals go to Rome, and why he has not. Here's another Desiring God post about what changed at Vatican II, and how to pray for Catholics.
Alan Jacobs on some nuances in Catholic doctrine, relating to the issue of hiring Catholics at Wheaton.
Posts by Toby Sumpter on "Why I won't convert."
Derek Rishmawy explains why we shouldn't be ashamed of still calling ourselves Protestant and celebrating the Reformation. This piece includes a link to a Catholic who insists that people stop spreading the Protestants-have-33-thousand-denominations nonsense.
Ludwig Ott (Catholic systematic theologian): "Mary's intercessory co-operation extends to all graces, which are conferred on mankind, so that no grace accrues to men without the intercession of Mary. The implication of this is not that we are obliged to beg for all graces through Mary, nor that Mary's intercession is intrinsically necessary for the application of the grace, but that according to God's positive ordinance, the redemptive grace of Christ is conferred on nobody without the actual intercessory co-operation of Mary."
Derek Rishmawy responds to Stanley Hauerwas's non-explanation for why he's still kind of Protestant.
Carl Trueman on why he's Protestant.
Brad Littlejohn had a free two-part treatment at the Davenant Institue on why Protestants convert, but now it's a book.
Onsi A. Kamel on how Rome led him to the Reformation.
See some responses to B. S. Gregory's The Unintended Reformation.
See here for a Catholic claim that the vicar of Christ could be a condemned heretic. See here for a Catholic comment that the average layperson should not read the Bible.
Even Catholics have a long list of reasons that Francis was a terrible global representative. Catholicism is not monolithic and is shot through with liberalism.
KDY provides 8 key differences: church, Scripture, Lord's Supper, baptism, Mary, Purgatory, merit, justification.
December 6, 2012
Sproul begins his book with utter clarity: in the debate between Roman Catholicism and evangelical, Reformation Protestantism, the gospel itself is at stake. It takes him just a page and half to specify the fundamental difference between the two groups:
The fundamental difference was this. [The Roman Catholic council of] Trent said that God does not justify anyone until real righteousness inheres within the person. In other words, God does not declare a person righteous unless he or she is righteous. So, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, justification depends on a person’s sanctification. By contrast, the Reformers said justification is based on the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus. The only ground by which a person can be saved is Jesus’ righteousness, which is reckoned to him when he believes. (2)
Sproul is driven to write by current ecumenical efforts, especially the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) initiative. Apparent changes in Roman Catholic theology have led some evangelicals to seek a rapprochement with Rome. Some notable evangelicals, such as Evangelical Theological Society president Francis Beckwith, have even crossed the Tiber.
Sproul is not shy about naming areas of agreement between Catholicism and Protestantism, But Sproul won't give in on the imputation of Christ's alien righteousness. That, he says, is his nonnegotiable. Catholicism's sober liturgy (more attractive to many than the casual, even flippant, worship of many evangelical churches) and apparent unity and certainty (more attractive to many than the fissiparousness of Protestantism) are not enough to bring Sproul into the pope's fold.
Sproul makes his book's thesis quite clear:
In this book, I have a simple goal. I want to look at Roman Catholic teaching in several significant areas and compare it with Protestant teaching. I hope to show, often using her own words, that the Roman Catholic Church has not changed from what it believed and taught at the time of the Reformation. That means that the Reformation is not over and we must continue to stand firm in proclaiming the biblical gospel. (9)
And his book's organization is also simple and straightforward; the "several significant areas" he covers are the following:
* Scripture
* Justification
* The relationship of the visible church and redemption
* Sacraments
* Papal infallibility
* Mariology
(I write these reviews/posts for my own later consumption, and I want to hold on to the major points of Sproul's arguments—so there will be a book report feel to this one.)
Scripture
Sproul opens by showing from various conciliar documents that the Catholic church does have an "officially" high view of Scripture. He notes carefully that Vatican II's statement on the Bible's inerrancy was ambiguous: it made conservatives feel that the Church had definitively proclaimed the Bible's inerrancy, and it made liberals feel that the door was still open to ascribe historical and scientific errors to Scripture.
There are significant differences between Catholic and Protestant approaches to Scripture of course, and two obvious ones are 1) the extent of the canon and 2) the relationship of Scripture and tradition.
1. Sproul argues that "orthodox Protestants believe that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books" (in other words, we may have inadvertently left some out) while "the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books." (22)
2. In the case of Scripture and tradition we have another ambiguity: did Trent make them both authoritative sources of revelation, or just one, namely Scripture? What Trent leaves ambiguous, later Catholic theology (including the 1994 Catholic Catechism) makes clear: there are two deposits of divine authority available to the Catholic faithful.
To Sproul (and to me), this means ecumenical dialog can get nowhere. "All the efforts to have biblical discussions between Protestants and Roman Catholics have come to dead ends when they encountered a papal encyclical or a conciliar statement." (28) And Trent doesn't allow for interpretations of Scripture which contradict that of "holy mother Church—whose it is to judge of the true sense ... of the holy Scriptures." (28, quoting Trent)
Justification
In Catholic theology, grace is infused into a person at baptism (as long as he or she is not actively resisting it). But that grace comes in a quantity—a quantity which can be increased or diminished, even to the point of being lost. "Mortal sins"—the list of which is not agreed upon by all Catholic theologians—can cause one to lose his justification.
But this is different from saying that salvation is earned by works. Faith is still necessary; it's just that, in the Catholic system, justification can be lost even if faith remains. (37)
Sproul argues that the concept most precious to Protestants in Reformation-era debates with Catholics was the imputation of Christ's alien righteousness.
My sin goes to Jesus and His righteousness comes to me. This is a truth worth dividing the church. This is the article on which the church stands or falls, because it is the article on which we all stand or fall. (44)
Sproul spends some time arguing for a careful harmonization of Paul and James' teaching on justification, and then he quotes the Catholic Catechism at length, showing how it differs from biblical teaching.
Sproul is very clear that Rome is teaching another gospel, and he cites Galatians 1:8, anathematizing Rome for its false teaching.
The Church
Deep distrust between communities of Protestants and Catholics was a feature of Sproul's Pittsburgh childhood, and it lasted into his adult life. He tells a few interesting stories from those days—a Catholic friend not allowed to attend Sproul's wedding, Catholic children throwing trash and mud on the devil's house (the town's Protestant manse).
These attitudes, among Catholics at least, stemmed from the hard line the Church had taken on Protestantism. The early father Cyprian gave the hardest line: "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" ("Outside the church there is no salvation.") Pius IX in the 19th century allowed that some Protestants "are struggling with invincible ignorance" about the Catholic faith. If they "live honest lives," "sincerely observing the natural law," they will receive mercy. But those Protestants who know what they're rejecting are bound for hell, Pius said.
By the 1960s, however, Vatican II was calling Protestants "separated brethren." And it has continued to speak somewhat ambiguously since then. Sproul quotes the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium and other authoritative Catholic sources to display that ambiguity, and he contrasts it with the biblical clarity of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The Sacraments
Sproul very briefly describes each of the seven Catholic sacraments, explaining what graces they are thought to convey ex opere operato (basically meaning "automatically").
He points to penance as the biggest area of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. "The question of how a person is justified has eternal consequences." (73)
The sacrament of penance was instituted by the church to help people who commit mortal sin. As I mentioned in the introduction, it is regarded as the second plank of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls. One makes shipwreck of his soul by committing mortal sin, which destroys the grace of justification. However, the person can be restored to justification through penance. (73)
Penance is performing actions of satisfaction for one's sin. A penitent sinner might be required to recite three particular prayers or, for a more serious sin, give alms or even make a pilgrimage. The merit he receives is "congruous," not "condign" (in other words, the sinner didn't do anything extra), but it's still merit. Only when someone gets enough merit can he make it into heaven, but the Church has access to the full "treasury of merit" made up of all the extra merit various saints have earned over time. Using this merit, it can lessen someone's time in purgatory. Protestants, of course, believe that if there is a "treasury of merit," it is full of the merit of only one person: Jesus Christ, and it is infinite and inexhaustible, available for all people.
Regarding the mass, Sproul raises the issue of transubstantiation and of the apparent re-sacrifice of Christ.
Particularly in its continuing insistence that baptism conveys the grace of justification and its teaching that the body of Christ is broken anew each time the Mass is celebrated, Rome is proclaiming things that are repugnant to those who believe and trust the Word of God. (84)
The Papacy
Papal infallibility was not officially put forward as Catholic doctrine until July 18, 1870, during the ecumenical council Vatican I. Its declaration was a fruit of the fight between "Gallicanism" and "ultramontanism," between those who bucked the pope's authority (beginning first with the French [or Gaul]) and those who sought to keep it no matter its distance from them "over the mountains."
The pope who led the Church in 1870 was Pius IX, who began his papacy (the longest ever) as a liberal—definitely not an ultramontanist. But after some of his reforms failed to take hold, he became a firm opponent of the Gallicans. He unilaterally declared Mary's immaculate conception in 1854.
By 1860, the pope had suffered a political blow: Italian king Victor Emanuel II had seized his lands. He won the PR battle however; an outpouring of sympathy from the faithful carried the pope into Vatican I. Sproul quotes the Vatican I documents which define papal infallibility, and he carefully explains that this infallibility only appears when the pope speaks "ex cathedra," or in his official capacity of teacher of the Church.
This doctrine was not without controversy. A largely European splinter group, the Old Catholic Church, even left the church.
Vatican II tied up some of the loose ends left by Vatican I concerning papal infallibility. It clarified the authority of the bishops under the pope.
Mary
Official Catholic doctrine concerning Mary did not reach its current state till 1950, but Sproul notes that Mary has long been an object of Catholic veneration. Sproul opens this chapter by focusing on the "Hail Mary," the prayer at the heart of the rosary. He takes particular exception to the prayer's call upon Mary to "pray for us sinners"—the Bible makes Christ the sole mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).
Other Catholic teachings about Mary that are objectionable to biblically minded Protestants are her immaculate conception (or sinlessness, a doctrine defined in 1854), the belief that she was taken up into heaven bodily (a doctrine defined in 1950), and her status as "Queen of Heaven" alongside King Jesus (a doctrine defined in 1954). Mary, in Catholic teaching, is the Mother of the faithful, the Second Eve.
One Catholic idea Sproul brings out that was entirely new to me was that Mary's response to the Annuncation—"Let it be to me according to your word"—was not a humble acquiescence to God's plan so much as a command to set redemption in motion! And it's a good thing, too: "from the Roman Catholic perspective, Mary had to be the one to bear the Savior. Why? Because she was the only sinless woman in the world." (112)
While carefully allowing the Catholic Church to speak for itself, Sproul makes a key point:
Officially, the Roman Catholic Church does not sanction worship of Mary—but it comes very close. Rome sees a difference between what it calls latria and dulia. Latria is the Greek word for worship, while dulia is the Greek word for service. Giving latria to something other than God would be to worship an idol. Giving dulia is simply to give service, obeisance, or veneration, which can be given to things other than God. Rome made this same distinction with regard to statues during the iconoclastic controversy in the Reformation era; it said that when people bowed down and prayed before images, they were not worshiping them, they were merely doing service, using them as means to stimulate their own worship. Rome insists that Mary is given dulia, not latria; she is venerated but not worshiped.
However, for all practical purposes, I believe I can say without fear of ever being proven wrong that millions of Roman Catholic people today worship Mary. In doing so, they believe they are doing what the church is calling them to do. I grant that there is a legitimate technical distinction between latria and dulia, between worship and veneration, but it can be very hard to spot the line of separation. When people are bowing down before statues, that is of the essence of worship. (114–115)
Praises
Sproul endeavors to be fair. I'm not an expert in Catholic theology by any means (that's why I read Sproul's book), but I noticed several places in which he was careful to represent the Catholic position correctly in the face of common Protestant caricatures.
For example, Sproul points out that the practice of confession was not necessarily opposed by the Reformers, and that the priest in the booth need not necessarily be standing in between the penitent and God. The problem was not having to confess one's sins to the priest; it was that "in order to be restored to a state of grace, the repentant sinner has to perform works of satisfaction." (34; cf. 73–74)
Sproul also notes that Johann Tetzel, the indulgence-hawker of Luther's day, was abusing the Catholic system of indulgences by omitting to call for contrition—something Sproul says the Catholic Church acknowledges to this day. So it would be wrong to say that Tetzel was acting with the full blessing of the Church.
The most important and common caricature Sproul attacks is one I'll let him speak on:
If you ask a Protestant the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, the Protestant will typically say: “We believe that justification is by faith but Roman Catholics say it is by works. We believe it is by grace but Roman Catholics say it is by merit. We believe it is through Christ but Roman Catholics believe it is through one’s own righteousness.” These are terrible slanders against Rome. From the sixteenth century to today, the Roman Catholic Church has said that justification requires faith, the grace of God, and the work of Jesus Christ. The debate arose because Protestants said justification is by faith alone, whereas Rome said justification requires faith plus works, grace plus merit, Christ plus inherent righteousness. It was those pluses that became so problematic in the sixteenth century, particularly with respect to the works of satisfaction that were part of the sacrament of penance. (34)
But this where one of my relatively minor criticisms comes in.
Relatively Minor Criticisms
* I did not see much acknowledgment in the book that the official teachings of the church and the actual theology of the person in the pew tend to be very different. Nearly every Roman Catholic I've ever had the chance to speak with did basically believe that his good works got him to heaven. But I think one line saying this in the final chapter would have been sufficient.
* I doubt that the Latin justificare always meant "make righteous" and that the Greek (near-?) equivalent dikaioo always meant "declare righteous." (30) Sproul makes it sound as if the Reformation's ad fontes return to the Greek New Testament, and therefore to the lexeme chosen by the Holy Spirit, was what got us all back on the right theological track.
* "Mariolotry" is misspelled twice on the one page on which it appears. As anyone who knows his Greek roots can tell you, the would should be spelled with an "a"—"Mariolatry"—because it derives from latria, worship. (Interestingly enough, Sproul actually cites the word latria on the same page.)
* Also, I was a bit surprised that Sproul did not mention the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. But he says he could have gone into much greater detail on many more doctrines.
Conclusion
The book enjoys a fairly impressive array of endorsements, and many of them use the same adjectives I have: careful, charitable, concise. Indeed, Sproul is refreshingly simple, straightforward, and brief. He zeroes in on the essentials and buttresses his points with responsible quotations from authoritative Catholic and Protestant sources.
Sproul ends his book with a brief but—and again I find myself using this word—careful call to biblically minded evangelical Protestants to love their Catholic neighbors and ally with them on cultural issues—but to make clear when appropriate what our differences are. Sproul lays out these differences responsibly, concisely, and without rancor or invective. This is definitely the book to hand to someone who raises the questions it addresses.
The fundamental difference was this. [The Roman Catholic council of] Trent said that God does not justify anyone until real righteousness inheres within the person. In other words, God does not declare a person righteous unless he or she is righteous. So, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, justification depends on a person’s sanctification. By contrast, the Reformers said justification is based on the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus. The only ground by which a person can be saved is Jesus’ righteousness, which is reckoned to him when he believes. (2)
Sproul is driven to write by current ecumenical efforts, especially the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) initiative. Apparent changes in Roman Catholic theology have led some evangelicals to seek a rapprochement with Rome. Some notable evangelicals, such as Evangelical Theological Society president Francis Beckwith, have even crossed the Tiber.
Sproul is not shy about naming areas of agreement between Catholicism and Protestantism, But Sproul won't give in on the imputation of Christ's alien righteousness. That, he says, is his nonnegotiable. Catholicism's sober liturgy (more attractive to many than the casual, even flippant, worship of many evangelical churches) and apparent unity and certainty (more attractive to many than the fissiparousness of Protestantism) are not enough to bring Sproul into the pope's fold.
Sproul makes his book's thesis quite clear:
In this book, I have a simple goal. I want to look at Roman Catholic teaching in several significant areas and compare it with Protestant teaching. I hope to show, often using her own words, that the Roman Catholic Church has not changed from what it believed and taught at the time of the Reformation. That means that the Reformation is not over and we must continue to stand firm in proclaiming the biblical gospel. (9)
And his book's organization is also simple and straightforward; the "several significant areas" he covers are the following:
* Scripture
* Justification
* The relationship of the visible church and redemption
* Sacraments
* Papal infallibility
* Mariology
(I write these reviews/posts for my own later consumption, and I want to hold on to the major points of Sproul's arguments—so there will be a book report feel to this one.)
Scripture
Sproul opens by showing from various conciliar documents that the Catholic church does have an "officially" high view of Scripture. He notes carefully that Vatican II's statement on the Bible's inerrancy was ambiguous: it made conservatives feel that the Church had definitively proclaimed the Bible's inerrancy, and it made liberals feel that the door was still open to ascribe historical and scientific errors to Scripture.
There are significant differences between Catholic and Protestant approaches to Scripture of course, and two obvious ones are 1) the extent of the canon and 2) the relationship of Scripture and tradition.
1. Sproul argues that "orthodox Protestants believe that the canon of Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books" (in other words, we may have inadvertently left some out) while "the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Bible is an infallible collection of infallible books." (22)
2. In the case of Scripture and tradition we have another ambiguity: did Trent make them both authoritative sources of revelation, or just one, namely Scripture? What Trent leaves ambiguous, later Catholic theology (including the 1994 Catholic Catechism) makes clear: there are two deposits of divine authority available to the Catholic faithful.
To Sproul (and to me), this means ecumenical dialog can get nowhere. "All the efforts to have biblical discussions between Protestants and Roman Catholics have come to dead ends when they encountered a papal encyclical or a conciliar statement." (28) And Trent doesn't allow for interpretations of Scripture which contradict that of "holy mother Church—whose it is to judge of the true sense ... of the holy Scriptures." (28, quoting Trent)
Justification
In Catholic theology, grace is infused into a person at baptism (as long as he or she is not actively resisting it). But that grace comes in a quantity—a quantity which can be increased or diminished, even to the point of being lost. "Mortal sins"—the list of which is not agreed upon by all Catholic theologians—can cause one to lose his justification.
But this is different from saying that salvation is earned by works. Faith is still necessary; it's just that, in the Catholic system, justification can be lost even if faith remains. (37)
Sproul argues that the concept most precious to Protestants in Reformation-era debates with Catholics was the imputation of Christ's alien righteousness.
My sin goes to Jesus and His righteousness comes to me. This is a truth worth dividing the church. This is the article on which the church stands or falls, because it is the article on which we all stand or fall. (44)
Sproul spends some time arguing for a careful harmonization of Paul and James' teaching on justification, and then he quotes the Catholic Catechism at length, showing how it differs from biblical teaching.
Sproul is very clear that Rome is teaching another gospel, and he cites Galatians 1:8, anathematizing Rome for its false teaching.
The Church
Deep distrust between communities of Protestants and Catholics was a feature of Sproul's Pittsburgh childhood, and it lasted into his adult life. He tells a few interesting stories from those days—a Catholic friend not allowed to attend Sproul's wedding, Catholic children throwing trash and mud on the devil's house (the town's Protestant manse).
These attitudes, among Catholics at least, stemmed from the hard line the Church had taken on Protestantism. The early father Cyprian gave the hardest line: "Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" ("Outside the church there is no salvation.") Pius IX in the 19th century allowed that some Protestants "are struggling with invincible ignorance" about the Catholic faith. If they "live honest lives," "sincerely observing the natural law," they will receive mercy. But those Protestants who know what they're rejecting are bound for hell, Pius said.
By the 1960s, however, Vatican II was calling Protestants "separated brethren." And it has continued to speak somewhat ambiguously since then. Sproul quotes the Vatican II document Lumen Gentium and other authoritative Catholic sources to display that ambiguity, and he contrasts it with the biblical clarity of the Westminster Confession of Faith.
The Sacraments
Sproul very briefly describes each of the seven Catholic sacraments, explaining what graces they are thought to convey ex opere operato (basically meaning "automatically").
He points to penance as the biggest area of disagreement between Catholics and Protestants. "The question of how a person is justified has eternal consequences." (73)
The sacrament of penance was instituted by the church to help people who commit mortal sin. As I mentioned in the introduction, it is regarded as the second plank of justification for those who have made shipwreck of their souls. One makes shipwreck of his soul by committing mortal sin, which destroys the grace of justification. However, the person can be restored to justification through penance. (73)
Penance is performing actions of satisfaction for one's sin. A penitent sinner might be required to recite three particular prayers or, for a more serious sin, give alms or even make a pilgrimage. The merit he receives is "congruous," not "condign" (in other words, the sinner didn't do anything extra), but it's still merit. Only when someone gets enough merit can he make it into heaven, but the Church has access to the full "treasury of merit" made up of all the extra merit various saints have earned over time. Using this merit, it can lessen someone's time in purgatory. Protestants, of course, believe that if there is a "treasury of merit," it is full of the merit of only one person: Jesus Christ, and it is infinite and inexhaustible, available for all people.
Regarding the mass, Sproul raises the issue of transubstantiation and of the apparent re-sacrifice of Christ.
Particularly in its continuing insistence that baptism conveys the grace of justification and its teaching that the body of Christ is broken anew each time the Mass is celebrated, Rome is proclaiming things that are repugnant to those who believe and trust the Word of God. (84)
The Papacy
Papal infallibility was not officially put forward as Catholic doctrine until July 18, 1870, during the ecumenical council Vatican I. Its declaration was a fruit of the fight between "Gallicanism" and "ultramontanism," between those who bucked the pope's authority (beginning first with the French [or Gaul]) and those who sought to keep it no matter its distance from them "over the mountains."
The pope who led the Church in 1870 was Pius IX, who began his papacy (the longest ever) as a liberal—definitely not an ultramontanist. But after some of his reforms failed to take hold, he became a firm opponent of the Gallicans. He unilaterally declared Mary's immaculate conception in 1854.
By 1860, the pope had suffered a political blow: Italian king Victor Emanuel II had seized his lands. He won the PR battle however; an outpouring of sympathy from the faithful carried the pope into Vatican I. Sproul quotes the Vatican I documents which define papal infallibility, and he carefully explains that this infallibility only appears when the pope speaks "ex cathedra," or in his official capacity of teacher of the Church.
This doctrine was not without controversy. A largely European splinter group, the Old Catholic Church, even left the church.
Vatican II tied up some of the loose ends left by Vatican I concerning papal infallibility. It clarified the authority of the bishops under the pope.
Mary
Official Catholic doctrine concerning Mary did not reach its current state till 1950, but Sproul notes that Mary has long been an object of Catholic veneration. Sproul opens this chapter by focusing on the "Hail Mary," the prayer at the heart of the rosary. He takes particular exception to the prayer's call upon Mary to "pray for us sinners"—the Bible makes Christ the sole mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5).
Other Catholic teachings about Mary that are objectionable to biblically minded Protestants are her immaculate conception (or sinlessness, a doctrine defined in 1854), the belief that she was taken up into heaven bodily (a doctrine defined in 1950), and her status as "Queen of Heaven" alongside King Jesus (a doctrine defined in 1954). Mary, in Catholic teaching, is the Mother of the faithful, the Second Eve.
One Catholic idea Sproul brings out that was entirely new to me was that Mary's response to the Annuncation—"Let it be to me according to your word"—was not a humble acquiescence to God's plan so much as a command to set redemption in motion! And it's a good thing, too: "from the Roman Catholic perspective, Mary had to be the one to bear the Savior. Why? Because she was the only sinless woman in the world." (112)
While carefully allowing the Catholic Church to speak for itself, Sproul makes a key point:
Officially, the Roman Catholic Church does not sanction worship of Mary—but it comes very close. Rome sees a difference between what it calls latria and dulia. Latria is the Greek word for worship, while dulia is the Greek word for service. Giving latria to something other than God would be to worship an idol. Giving dulia is simply to give service, obeisance, or veneration, which can be given to things other than God. Rome made this same distinction with regard to statues during the iconoclastic controversy in the Reformation era; it said that when people bowed down and prayed before images, they were not worshiping them, they were merely doing service, using them as means to stimulate their own worship. Rome insists that Mary is given dulia, not latria; she is venerated but not worshiped.
However, for all practical purposes, I believe I can say without fear of ever being proven wrong that millions of Roman Catholic people today worship Mary. In doing so, they believe they are doing what the church is calling them to do. I grant that there is a legitimate technical distinction between latria and dulia, between worship and veneration, but it can be very hard to spot the line of separation. When people are bowing down before statues, that is of the essence of worship. (114–115)
Praises
Sproul endeavors to be fair. I'm not an expert in Catholic theology by any means (that's why I read Sproul's book), but I noticed several places in which he was careful to represent the Catholic position correctly in the face of common Protestant caricatures.
For example, Sproul points out that the practice of confession was not necessarily opposed by the Reformers, and that the priest in the booth need not necessarily be standing in between the penitent and God. The problem was not having to confess one's sins to the priest; it was that "in order to be restored to a state of grace, the repentant sinner has to perform works of satisfaction." (34; cf. 73–74)
Sproul also notes that Johann Tetzel, the indulgence-hawker of Luther's day, was abusing the Catholic system of indulgences by omitting to call for contrition—something Sproul says the Catholic Church acknowledges to this day. So it would be wrong to say that Tetzel was acting with the full blessing of the Church.
The most important and common caricature Sproul attacks is one I'll let him speak on:
If you ask a Protestant the difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism, the Protestant will typically say: “We believe that justification is by faith but Roman Catholics say it is by works. We believe it is by grace but Roman Catholics say it is by merit. We believe it is through Christ but Roman Catholics believe it is through one’s own righteousness.” These are terrible slanders against Rome. From the sixteenth century to today, the Roman Catholic Church has said that justification requires faith, the grace of God, and the work of Jesus Christ. The debate arose because Protestants said justification is by faith alone, whereas Rome said justification requires faith plus works, grace plus merit, Christ plus inherent righteousness. It was those pluses that became so problematic in the sixteenth century, particularly with respect to the works of satisfaction that were part of the sacrament of penance. (34)
But this where one of my relatively minor criticisms comes in.
Relatively Minor Criticisms
* I did not see much acknowledgment in the book that the official teachings of the church and the actual theology of the person in the pew tend to be very different. Nearly every Roman Catholic I've ever had the chance to speak with did basically believe that his good works got him to heaven. But I think one line saying this in the final chapter would have been sufficient.
* I doubt that the Latin justificare always meant "make righteous" and that the Greek (near-?) equivalent dikaioo always meant "declare righteous." (30) Sproul makes it sound as if the Reformation's ad fontes return to the Greek New Testament, and therefore to the lexeme chosen by the Holy Spirit, was what got us all back on the right theological track.
* "Mariolotry" is misspelled twice on the one page on which it appears. As anyone who knows his Greek roots can tell you, the would should be spelled with an "a"—"Mariolatry"—because it derives from latria, worship. (Interestingly enough, Sproul actually cites the word latria on the same page.)
* Also, I was a bit surprised that Sproul did not mention the Catholic doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary. But he says he could have gone into much greater detail on many more doctrines.
Conclusion
The book enjoys a fairly impressive array of endorsements, and many of them use the same adjectives I have: careful, charitable, concise. Indeed, Sproul is refreshingly simple, straightforward, and brief. He zeroes in on the essentials and buttresses his points with responsible quotations from authoritative Catholic and Protestant sources.
Sproul ends his book with a brief but—and again I find myself using this word—careful call to biblically minded evangelical Protestants to love their Catholic neighbors and ally with them on cultural issues—but to make clear when appropriate what our differences are. Sproul lays out these differences responsibly, concisely, and without rancor or invective. This is definitely the book to hand to someone who raises the questions it addresses.
November 27, 2024
Sproul does a great job at showing the differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants. Protestants in this book is specifically Presbyterian I would say. There are less differences with Anglicans or Lutherans and the most with Reformed Baptists and so forth.
The differences discussed are The Canon of Scripture, Justification, the Church, the Sacraments, Papal Authority, and Mary. I think everyone agrees any individual Christian would probably have slight differences with another Christian in at least one of these subjects however slight it may be.
While I have my own beliefs and differences regarding the content of this book, I do strongly disagree with Sprouls ending remarks assuming Roman Catholics aren’t Christians. That’s a horrible generalization. I’m against generalizing any denomination on the positive or negative. Yes I understand he’s saying this with the Council of Trent in mind and his interpretation of it, the main issue is the gospel for him. But I’ll bet you 100$, ask your nearest Roman Catholic priest what the gospel is and they will give you the gospel from the Scriptures preached by the apostles. I was most against everything “catholic” when I was the most ignorant and had zero catholic friends.
The differences discussed are The Canon of Scripture, Justification, the Church, the Sacraments, Papal Authority, and Mary. I think everyone agrees any individual Christian would probably have slight differences with another Christian in at least one of these subjects however slight it may be.
While I have my own beliefs and differences regarding the content of this book, I do strongly disagree with Sprouls ending remarks assuming Roman Catholics aren’t Christians. That’s a horrible generalization. I’m against generalizing any denomination on the positive or negative. Yes I understand he’s saying this with the Council of Trent in mind and his interpretation of it, the main issue is the gospel for him. But I’ll bet you 100$, ask your nearest Roman Catholic priest what the gospel is and they will give you the gospel from the Scriptures preached by the apostles. I was most against everything “catholic” when I was the most ignorant and had zero catholic friends.
April 28, 2014
J. C. Ryle said there is a hatred that is downright charity and that is the hatred of false doctrine. Sproul demonstrates great charity in this book as he addresses the false teachings of the Catholic church while also addressing the misunderstandings that Protestants often have about Catholic theology. Sproul's tone is loving and firm and unapologetic. This book is essential reading, especially in an age when so many Protestants are casually dismissing the significance of justification by faith alone and insisting that Catholics and Protestants are together in the gospel.
December 25, 2012
Excellent contrast between Rome and Protestantism. Short on analysis and critique. Offers some pointers towards a critique. What I picked up in this book:
1. Rome's viwe of justification is analytic: a man is right with God because God makes him right with God. Infused grace. Substance. Not too much to get excited about. ~1. Prot. holds synthetic view. God declares a man to be right. Imputes, by contrast. Further, Rome can't criticize Reformers for holding to imputation as legal fiction. Rome, too, believes in imputation: Adam's guilt, merits of the saints transferred, etc.
2. Decent section on Mary. Nice move by showing how Thomas Aquinas rejects key catholic doctrines on Mary. Had a chance to show how the "Hail Mary" prayer's theology rests on a big mistranslation, but missed it.
3. Good section on the sacraments. He should have spent more time showing how Rome demands an Aristotelian physics for transubstation to work, but Sproul didn't pursue that route.
4. Section on Scripture was okay. He should have pointed out in passing how the Book of Tobit is so factually inaccurate, that Rome and Orthodox conservatives must abandon inerrancy or the deuterocanonicals.
5. Section on the Church was okay: debate between Cyprianic and Augustinian interpretations of the Church.
1. Rome's viwe of justification is analytic: a man is right with God because God makes him right with God. Infused grace. Substance. Not too much to get excited about. ~1. Prot. holds synthetic view. God declares a man to be right. Imputes, by contrast. Further, Rome can't criticize Reformers for holding to imputation as legal fiction. Rome, too, believes in imputation: Adam's guilt, merits of the saints transferred, etc.
2. Decent section on Mary. Nice move by showing how Thomas Aquinas rejects key catholic doctrines on Mary. Had a chance to show how the "Hail Mary" prayer's theology rests on a big mistranslation, but missed it.
3. Good section on the sacraments. He should have spent more time showing how Rome demands an Aristotelian physics for transubstation to work, but Sproul didn't pursue that route.
4. Section on Scripture was okay. He should have pointed out in passing how the Book of Tobit is so factually inaccurate, that Rome and Orthodox conservatives must abandon inerrancy or the deuterocanonicals.
5. Section on the Church was okay: debate between Cyprianic and Augustinian interpretations of the Church.
June 12, 2016
The Reformation is not over. Many thanks to Dr. Sproul for this little book. It is very clear and well-organized. Highly recommended!
January 13, 2022
This book successfully does what Sproul sets out to do, and I think the analysis on different views of justification is especially well done. But I also think this book could just be 1 page that says "No" and would still answer the question of "Are we together?"
November 29, 2018
You can tell R.C. Sproul is familiar with a charity found in good scholarship for opposing positions. One needs to present the arguments of their opponents in the best possible light in order to then take them down with weightier arguments from your own perspective. I will submit that R.C. Sproul deceives the reader into thinking that he is charitable in his analysis of the RCC, while he begins to articulate positions correctly and uses rhetoric which smells charitable, he will end his analysis half finished and tell the reader that his exposition is sufficient, when it is in fact anemic. I believe the net output of this work is to produce a sense of confirmation bias for the Reformed Protestant, thinking that they have sufficiently research the claims of the RCC and can thus be dispensed with.
The fulcrum of the divide for RC Sproul is found in his framework of justification. However, after peeling back the onion you find that the core of the issue for his view of justification is not through philosophical rigor as a figure like Aquinas would perform, but rather of scrupulosity found in a misunderstanding in Catholic soteriology. In the Chapter on Justification:
"This [justification] is the very heart of the gospel. In order to get into heaven, will I be judged by my righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ [false dichotomy to the Catholic]? If I have to trust in my righteousness to get into heaven, I must completely and utterly despair of any possibility of ever being redeemed."
This is his bedrock argument against Catholic soteriology, all the other scaffolds of the book rest on his presentation of justification, and at the end of the day we find that his understanding of Catholic soteriology is misinformed, this then weakens the force of his book and leaves the reader with angst against the RCC which is rooted in misinformation.
There is a great dialog to be had between the Catholic and the Reformed on these critical issues, however, it cannot be found here. I would suggest folks to visit http://www.calledtocommunion.com/ as a responsible forum for discussing the material which was weakly provided in this book.
The fulcrum of the divide for RC Sproul is found in his framework of justification. However, after peeling back the onion you find that the core of the issue for his view of justification is not through philosophical rigor as a figure like Aquinas would perform, but rather of scrupulosity found in a misunderstanding in Catholic soteriology. In the Chapter on Justification:
"This [justification] is the very heart of the gospel. In order to get into heaven, will I be judged by my righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ [false dichotomy to the Catholic]? If I have to trust in my righteousness to get into heaven, I must completely and utterly despair of any possibility of ever being redeemed."
This is his bedrock argument against Catholic soteriology, all the other scaffolds of the book rest on his presentation of justification, and at the end of the day we find that his understanding of Catholic soteriology is misinformed, this then weakens the force of his book and leaves the reader with angst against the RCC which is rooted in misinformation.
There is a great dialog to be had between the Catholic and the Reformed on these critical issues, however, it cannot be found here. I would suggest folks to visit http://www.calledtocommunion.com/ as a responsible forum for discussing the material which was weakly provided in this book.
May 4, 2024
As someone who did not know a ton about Roman Catholic beliefs, I was shocked at some of the things that I learned. This book is wild.
Sproul explains the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on the issues of Scripture, Justification, the Church, Sacraments, Papacy, and Mary. He emphasizes that these differences should not be brushed aside today, despite attempts to do just that.
Sproul dives into the history of Roman Catholic teachings and declarations and explains that the Roman Catholic Church still holds these beliefs today by citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995), and comparing it to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
I really enjoyed this book and found it incredibly helpful to explain what divides us. Through reading this, I have become a much bigger fan of the Reformation, not that I wasn’t before.
Sproul explains the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics on the issues of Scripture, Justification, the Church, Sacraments, Papacy, and Mary. He emphasizes that these differences should not be brushed aside today, despite attempts to do just that.
Sproul dives into the history of Roman Catholic teachings and declarations and explains that the Roman Catholic Church still holds these beliefs today by citing the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1995), and comparing it to the Westminster Confession of Faith.
I really enjoyed this book and found it incredibly helpful to explain what divides us. Through reading this, I have become a much bigger fan of the Reformation, not that I wasn’t before.
June 7, 2018
I'm not sure who this book is for. Each chapter ends with a selection of quotations from official Catholic documents, which are then answered by quotations from the Westminster Confession. But like, was anybody confused about whether Presbyterian doctrine disagrees with the RCC? Sproul's book is far too brief to really argue any of the disputed points on the merits. He does discuss relevant Bible texts at certain times, but the structure of the book ends up emphasizing the authority of the Reformed tradition, which is... ironic.
The fact that he leans so hard on the WC makes this pretty much a confessional Presbyterian response rather than a Protestant response. Furthermore, he isn't careful enough at certain points to avoid making condemnations of Catholic doctrine that could be applied equally to Anglicans and Lutherans, which further muddies the waters. "A Presbyterian analyzes churches with higher ecclesiology than Presbyterianism."
Sproul deserves credit for explaining some of the historical background of the Catholic tradition and how certain doctrines were developed. You can tell he wants to give a fair picture of what Catholics believe, but he doesn't try hard enough, and the whole thing is kind of undercut by the introduction where he states plainly that he doesn't think Catholics have the Gospel. This move depends (predictably) on the equation of Justification with the entire Gospel, which is not even good Protestant theology.
Ultimately this book is a screed against ecumenism. While it gestures at mutual understanding at times, and may provide some help to those who know very little about one side or the other, its message is ultimately that Catholics are not real Christians and that it is wrong to see the divisions between Protestants and Catholics as lamentable divisions within Christ's church.
But Sproul doesn't even give us a book arguing against ecumenism head on. The chapter about the Gospel is only the introduction, a small part of what is already a very short book, and this chapter leans more heavily on clichéd anti-Catholic rhetoric than the rest of the book does. So there isn't much to really engage with here.
He also tells us the story of how he left his previous denomination because they departed from the truth—not by changing official teaching, actually, but by tolerating a pastor who was preaching error. (At the same time he insists that we must judge the RCC on the basis of its official documents and not the statements of individual priests or bishops that may be closer to Protestant positions.) He seems to accept without question the American fundamentalist assumption that the unity of the church consists in your personal approval of whatever is going on in it.
It is not at all interesting to read condemnations of ecumenism by a Presbyterian who couldn't even remain in fellowship with other Presbyterians, and who doesn't seem to feel that as any kind of tragedy.
The fact that he leans so hard on the WC makes this pretty much a confessional Presbyterian response rather than a Protestant response. Furthermore, he isn't careful enough at certain points to avoid making condemnations of Catholic doctrine that could be applied equally to Anglicans and Lutherans, which further muddies the waters. "A Presbyterian analyzes churches with higher ecclesiology than Presbyterianism."
Sproul deserves credit for explaining some of the historical background of the Catholic tradition and how certain doctrines were developed. You can tell he wants to give a fair picture of what Catholics believe, but he doesn't try hard enough, and the whole thing is kind of undercut by the introduction where he states plainly that he doesn't think Catholics have the Gospel. This move depends (predictably) on the equation of Justification with the entire Gospel, which is not even good Protestant theology.
Ultimately this book is a screed against ecumenism. While it gestures at mutual understanding at times, and may provide some help to those who know very little about one side or the other, its message is ultimately that Catholics are not real Christians and that it is wrong to see the divisions between Protestants and Catholics as lamentable divisions within Christ's church.
But Sproul doesn't even give us a book arguing against ecumenism head on. The chapter about the Gospel is only the introduction, a small part of what is already a very short book, and this chapter leans more heavily on clichéd anti-Catholic rhetoric than the rest of the book does. So there isn't much to really engage with here.
He also tells us the story of how he left his previous denomination because they departed from the truth—not by changing official teaching, actually, but by tolerating a pastor who was preaching error. (At the same time he insists that we must judge the RCC on the basis of its official documents and not the statements of individual priests or bishops that may be closer to Protestant positions.) He seems to accept without question the American fundamentalist assumption that the unity of the church consists in your personal approval of whatever is going on in it.
It is not at all interesting to read condemnations of ecumenism by a Presbyterian who couldn't even remain in fellowship with other Presbyterians, and who doesn't seem to feel that as any kind of tragedy.
May 8, 2013
R.C. Sproul has offered a very helpful contribution to the discussion of Roman Catholicism vs. Protestantism. It is far from settling the debate though. And there are pros and cons to this book, but the pros outweigh the cons, which is why I gave it four stars.
PROS: It's brief and very easy to read. It covers six major concerns of the Roman Catholic Church, and all six of those concerns are modern concerns (not ancient or medieval concerns which aren't very relevant today). Sproul also presents a very optimistic view of that tradition as well. He doesn't bash Roman Catholicism anywhere in the book, which was very refreshing. The last chapter on "Mary" is worth the price of the book alone. In fact, I consider the evidence presented in chapter 6 on Mary to be a very clear expose of mariolatry which pervades some, if not most of Roman Catholicism.
CONS: The major downside to this book is found in his closing thoughts. R.C. Sproul concludes that Roman Catholics could possibly be considered Christian brethren, but protestants should not presume to do so. Moreover, Sproul contends that protestants should evangelize Roman Catholics as though they cannot be saved unless they embrace the "protestant" doctrine of justification by faith alone and stop venerating Mary. Even though the Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary are so obviously contrary to Scripture to protestants, and their view of Justification is also contrived and compounded with man-made contradictory traditions, I don't personally conclude that Roman Catholics should not be considered Christians right from the outset, especially if they've been baptized and profess faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. I also don't personally think that Roman Catholics should be singled out as targets for evangelism. Many protestants need evangelization too, but I wouldn't presume that they weren't christians either because they hold to man-made contradictory and unbiblical protestant traditions.
PROS: It's brief and very easy to read. It covers six major concerns of the Roman Catholic Church, and all six of those concerns are modern concerns (not ancient or medieval concerns which aren't very relevant today). Sproul also presents a very optimistic view of that tradition as well. He doesn't bash Roman Catholicism anywhere in the book, which was very refreshing. The last chapter on "Mary" is worth the price of the book alone. In fact, I consider the evidence presented in chapter 6 on Mary to be a very clear expose of mariolatry which pervades some, if not most of Roman Catholicism.
CONS: The major downside to this book is found in his closing thoughts. R.C. Sproul concludes that Roman Catholics could possibly be considered Christian brethren, but protestants should not presume to do so. Moreover, Sproul contends that protestants should evangelize Roman Catholics as though they cannot be saved unless they embrace the "protestant" doctrine of justification by faith alone and stop venerating Mary. Even though the Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary are so obviously contrary to Scripture to protestants, and their view of Justification is also contrived and compounded with man-made contradictory traditions, I don't personally conclude that Roman Catholics should not be considered Christians right from the outset, especially if they've been baptized and profess faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. I also don't personally think that Roman Catholics should be singled out as targets for evangelism. Many protestants need evangelization too, but I wouldn't presume that they weren't christians either because they hold to man-made contradictory and unbiblical protestant traditions.
December 6, 2018
This is not the worst book that I've read this year, but it is certainly the most disappointing. This effort by one of the leading Evangelicals of our era is almost completely devoid of scriptural exegesis, and filled with fallacious arguments and non sequiturs.
The book ends with the naked assertion "The cause of sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo Gloria remains the cause of and for biblical truth". That sounds great and all, but I would have liked for Sproul to propound an argument in support of that statement somewhere prior to his conclusion.
Much of the body is quotes from papal encyclicals, followed by a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith, which Sproul simply states is clearly superior without any argumentation based on scripture.
As a reasoned comparison, or as argument for the superiority of Reformed theology over Catholic theology, this is a failure. As a polemic against the Roman Catholic church, this is mediocre.
The book ends with the naked assertion "The cause of sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and soli Deo Gloria remains the cause of and for biblical truth". That sounds great and all, but I would have liked for Sproul to propound an argument in support of that statement somewhere prior to his conclusion.
Much of the body is quotes from papal encyclicals, followed by a quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith, which Sproul simply states is clearly superior without any argumentation based on scripture.
As a reasoned comparison, or as argument for the superiority of Reformed theology over Catholic theology, this is a failure. As a polemic against the Roman Catholic church, this is mediocre.
August 1, 2022
Two Disparate Systems of Religion
The Reformation of the sixteenth century resulted in a serious division in the church that has lasted for five hundred years all the way down to today. The Roman Catholic Church council of 1870 called Vatican I referred to Protestants as “schismatics and heretics,” and as late as the 1950s Protestants and Catholics lived on opposite sides of the tracks, as it were, and viewed each other with suspicion and even hostility. Author R.C. Sproul recalls being a young minister in a small town where at Halloween the manse where he lived would be pelted with mud and tomatoes by Catholic children of the community who had been told by their parents that the Devil lived there.
However, with Vatican II in the 1960s, there seemed to be a thaw, and that Roman Catholic council referred to Protestants, no longer as schismatics and heretics, but as “separated brethren.” And historically unprecedented communication between the two communions began to take place, leading to the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” movement in the 1990s, which claimed to find not only a unity of worldviews but a unity of faith.
R.C. Sproul was approached to sign on with this movement, but found himself unable to do so. This short book, “Are We Together?” explains why. And I heard him speak to the central point of the book in one of his talks that at one time was available on cassette but unfortunately no longer is. What he said was such a penetrating analysis that really cut to the heart of the matter that I thought I would reproduce part of it here in what follows. So the rest of this review is more or less his words which communicate the essence of the book.
The Reformation of the sixteenth century resulted in a serious division in the church that has lasted for five hundred years all the way down to today. The Roman Catholic Church council of 1870 called Vatican I referred to Protestants as “schismatics and heretics,” and as late as the 1950s Protestants and Catholics lived on opposite sides of the tracks, as it were, and viewed each other with suspicion and even hostility. Author R.C. Sproul recalls being a young minister in a small town where at Halloween the manse where he lived would be pelted with mud and tomatoes by Catholic children of the community who had been told by their parents that the Devil lived there.
However, with Vatican II in the 1960s, there seemed to be a thaw, and that Roman Catholic council referred to Protestants, no longer as schismatics and heretics, but as “separated brethren.” And historically unprecedented communication between the two communions began to take place, leading to the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” movement in the 1990s, which claimed to find not only a unity of worldviews but a unity of faith.
R.C. Sproul was approached to sign on with this movement, but found himself unable to do so. This short book, “Are We Together?” explains why. And I heard him speak to the central point of the book in one of his talks that at one time was available on cassette but unfortunately no longer is. What he said was such a penetrating analysis that really cut to the heart of the matter that I thought I would reproduce part of it here in what follows. So the rest of this review is more or less his words which communicate the essence of the book.
What is required of a person in order to be saved? The Reformation of the sixteenth century, followed by Evangelicals down do today, read the Bible as saying the following: that if a person places their trust truly on the perfect righteousness of Jesus, and the work that Jesus has done for us in his atonement and in his life of perfect obedience, that the second we put our trust in that, God counts us righteous – he imputes to us somebody else’s righteousness, the righteousness of Jesus. On the basis of Jesus’ righteousness God adopts us into His family. Our sins are forgiven and we are translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light and we are saved now and forever. So that if you truly believe in Jesus, and put your trust in him, when you die, you will go to heaven, and you’ll get to heaven by virtue of his righteousness, not your own.
That’s one way of telling the good news of the gospel to people. Now let’s look at it another way, the Roman Catholic way. You say to me, what do I have to do to be saved? I say well, first of all, you need the sacramental grace of the church to pour into your soul the grace of the righteousness of Jesus. Now, if you cooperate with that grace that God has put in your soul freely and kindly, and assent to it (or work with it), so that you become inherently righteous, and stay inherently righteous, when you die, you will go to heaven.
But, if after you receive this gift of grace you commit a mortal sin, that saving grace that has been poured into your soul will be killed; it will be destroyed. You may still have faith, says the Council of Trent, and while you still have faith, your faith is intact but you commit mortal sin, you will lose the grace of justification. So there you have the clearest repudiation of justification by faith alone because Rome clearly says you can have faith and not have justification.
So if you commit mortal sin, then you have to be justified again through the work of the sacrament of penance. Now if, when you die, you don’t have mortal sin on your soul, you won’t go to Hell, but if you’re not yet inherently righteous, actually just in the sight of God, no matter how much grace you’ve received, when you die, you will not be ready for Heaven. You will go to Purgatory.
Purgatory is called the place of purging. While the fires of Purgatory are not as hot as the fires of Hell, they are designed to cleanse you of your abiding impurities. [Here, by the way, you undergo personal, propitiatory atonement which is outside of Christ’s atoning work. You literally are “filling up that which is lacking in the suffering of Christ.”] You may spend 3 hours in Purgatory, 3 days, 3 years, or 75,000 years, until finally, you’re cleansed to the degree that your righteousness is inherent enough to get you into Heaven. Now you may get some relief from that sentence in Purgatory if the Church grants you indulgences by which they borrow from the merits of the great Saints who actually had more merit on their account than they needed, like St. Thomas or St. Francis and so on. So you may get a certain reduction in your sentence in Purgatory.
Now we’re where religion meets people in their real lives. To hear those two different messages: the one I say to you, what must I do to be saved? – Put your trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and God will receive you into His Heaven today. Or on the other hand, cooperate with the grace that God gives you in the sacraments, and maybe after 30,000 years in Purgatory you’ll get to Heaven.
Now, when I hear those two views in their whole systemic underpinnings, I hear one of them as glorious news and the other one as terrible news. One is good news, the other is bad news. One is the gospel, and the other one is not the gospel. And one thing you have to know for sure – they cannot both be the gospel. If the Evangelical gospel is true, then the Roman Catholic understanding of the gospel is not true. And conversely, if the Roman Catholic understanding of the gospel is true, the Evangelical doctrine of the gospel could not possibly be true. Because they are not differing at the fine points, at trivial levels, but they are differing at the heart and core of disparate systems of religion.
Now I wish I could wave a magic wand and heal the great divide. I wish we could get past the disunity that fragments the church. But the unity that we are called to have by Jesus is that we are to have one Lord and one faith and one baptism. And the question here is whether there is one faith, or systemically different faiths. I am convinced that the problem of the gospel, as serious as it was in the 16th century, is as serious today.
And so I believe the single greatest issue for the church in the 20th century in America is the question “What is the gospel of Jesus Christ? - What must I do to be saved?"
March 2, 2016
I'd imagine it might be difficult to find a more balanced book on the subject, Dr Sproul gives a very fair reading of the current literature on the Catholic church, and helps Protestants over some of their typical misreadings of the situation. At the same time he holds firm to the five solas, and brands the RC position as one that has departed from the gospel. Thoroughly recommended.
January 3, 2022
Having many Catholic family members, I have made so many assumptions about the Catholic Church over the years, but this book was so helpful in clarifying what the Roman Catholic Church believes. This book provided the accessible tools to articulate the differences between Christianity and Roman Catholicism which boils down to, is Christ alone sufficient for all things?
October 10, 2022
This book was a good introduction to the fundamental differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. It’s concise, clear, and easy to get through. It is from a Protestant perspective, but I found it to, for the most part, be very fair and intellectually honest. Would definitely recommend to anyone wishing to learn more about this topic!
August 14, 2023
I deserve prison for not reading Sproul sooner...
"I am happy to make common cause with Roman Catholics on social issues, but we have no common cause in the gospel."
Indeed, Rome has not just anathametized protestants, but also the gospel of Jesus Christ. This book has been so helpful, will 100% read again.
"I am happy to make common cause with Roman Catholics on social issues, but we have no common cause in the gospel."
Indeed, Rome has not just anathametized protestants, but also the gospel of Jesus Christ. This book has been so helpful, will 100% read again.
February 23, 2024
Good book! Easy to read yet to some extent felt like I was back in school which I didn’t loveeee (but just a different style of book than I’ve read recently).
“The cause of sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and sola Deo Gloria remains the cause of and for biblical truth.”
“The cause of sola Scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, and sola Deo Gloria remains the cause of and for biblical truth.”
April 22, 2016
As Protestant Christians, we have the charge and privilege of proclaiming the Gospel to those who haven't placed their faith in Christ alone. But nobody will ever gain a listening audience if he confronts or corrects an error that doesn't exist. RC Sproul sets out to identify clearly, not out of bias, but by the bearing out of historical evidence, that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are most definitely not together. It would be inappropriate to categorize Protestants and Catholics as having the same beliefs and equally being Christians. Yet, Sproul doesn't simply hammer away at the RC Church. He firmly challenges the Protestant Church to be able to correctly articulate what these differences are, lest we make straw men out of RC beliefs by sayings things such as "we believe salvation is by grace, while they believe it's by works". Sproul identifies misrepresentations such as these as "slanders against Rome". To be sure, the differences are as significant as they can be, since they hinge on the foundation of Christian doctrine: justification. But if we're out for more than just embattled relationships with the Roman Catholics in our lives, we have to be able and willing to understand the errors accurately so we can speak the freedom and power of the Biblical Gospel to those who have not yet placed their faith in Christ ALONE.
April 11, 2023
Really disappointing read… I was hoping for a strong polemic against Roman Catholicism that could rival Catholic apologists such as Trent Horn, Jimmy Akin, or Joe Heschmeyer. RC Sproul did not deliver this; “Are we Together” reads like a Reformed summary of what Catholic doctrine is and what reformed doctrine is. It doesn’t do much to explain why we should believe reformed doctrine. Sproul makes very little effort to convince the reader that his position is correct, and rarely explains why the Catholic doctrines he disagrees with are wrong. He simply states the Catholic doctrine, states the Protestant doctrine, then says something to the effect of “clearly the Catholic doctrine is wrong and unbiblical and we must reject it.”
Also, as another reviewer mentioned, Sproul’s attempts at being charitable towards Catholic doctrine don’t come off as genuine. He’ll spend pages dispelling a common Protestant misconception about Catholicism in order to appear irenic and understanding, then he’ll immediately under-explain or present a strawman of Catholic teaching.
Overall this isn’t a very helpful book against Catholicism; I don’t think a Catholic would read it and become Protestant. This may be useful for those who are already strongly reformed and want to confirm their beliefs, but otherwise I’d look elsewhere.
Also, as another reviewer mentioned, Sproul’s attempts at being charitable towards Catholic doctrine don’t come off as genuine. He’ll spend pages dispelling a common Protestant misconception about Catholicism in order to appear irenic and understanding, then he’ll immediately under-explain or present a strawman of Catholic teaching.
Overall this isn’t a very helpful book against Catholicism; I don’t think a Catholic would read it and become Protestant. This may be useful for those who are already strongly reformed and want to confirm their beliefs, but otherwise I’d look elsewhere.
February 6, 2017
This is an important book that attempts to answer an important question: Can theological differences between Roman Catholics and Protestants be bridged? Dr. Sproul's answer, which I believe to be the correct one, is simply, 'No'.
Sproul summarizes the differences between these competing theologies on various subjects such as Scripture and tradition, questions about the Virgin Mary, the Papacy, and others, and he makes sure to explain the progression of Rome's theology in some areas from the Reformation era - for instance, their doctrine of Mary.
My main concern would be that this short work felt too brief and concise for a deep study, but perhaps slightly heavy for a popular-level book. Regardless, it is well worth reading by both sides
Sproul summarizes the differences between these competing theologies on various subjects such as Scripture and tradition, questions about the Virgin Mary, the Papacy, and others, and he makes sure to explain the progression of Rome's theology in some areas from the Reformation era - for instance, their doctrine of Mary.
My main concern would be that this short work felt too brief and concise for a deep study, but perhaps slightly heavy for a popular-level book. Regardless, it is well worth reading by both sides
May 29, 2020
Sproul analyzes six of the primary points where Catholics and Protestants disagree, providing a thoughtful explanation of the position of each side. He is careful not to fall prey to caricatures of what others believe, decrying simplistic statements like "Catholics believe in salvation by works and Protestants believe in salvation by faith", and instead diving into the official positions of the Catholic church.
I appreciated his measured approach to the subject, as well as his firm-yet-kind conclusions.
I appreciated his measured approach to the subject, as well as his firm-yet-kind conclusions.
March 26, 2017
Informative and concise. Important read in an age of "don't we all basically believe the same thing". Presented with grace/respect yet also firm on author's beliefs. I learned a great deal from this short book.
June 29, 2017
Not a bad book. Sproul tries to be fair. If you're Reformed, you'll probably agree with most of what he says. If you're not Reformed, it won't play well outside the echo chamber of Reformed Theology.
May 23, 2020
The short answer is no.
August 7, 2023
Sproul was finally able to give me what I’ve been looking for: a historical contextualisation of Roman Catholic theology. Providing a timeline of declarations and councils and their implications was super helpful. He gives a harsh critique of the motivations in the development of Catholic theology, but I don’t think it’s entirely without merit. I wish he provided more counterarguments rather than just assuming the reader is a sturdy reformer themselves. Overall, Sproul is very broad in his analysis. Gregg Allison’s “Roman Catholic Theology and Practice” filled some gaps for me. But I would still recommend this book to anyone who wants to form a simple foundation of why the reformation was/is relevant. But know if you disagree with Sproul you will probably have your feelings hurt. He is not exactly soft in speech.
April 10, 2024
This book clarified many questions I had about Roman Catholicism.
One thing I appreciated was that Sproul was quick to point out incorrect assumptions many Protestants use to criticize Catholics by giving unbiased facts regarding historical events. Nothing makes a person look more foolish than arguing a point that is easily disproven by a quick google search.
However, the written beliefs laid down by Rome lead me to believe Protestants and Catholics are more different than I realized. Several Roman doctrines mentioned in the book (and others I've since researched) have made me realize just how different Protestants and Catholics are and it saddens me to see the gospel so distorted by Rome.
This is a great starter book to answer your questions regarding the historical origin of Catholic beliefs and compare them with the reformation views.
One thing I appreciated was that Sproul was quick to point out incorrect assumptions many Protestants use to criticize Catholics by giving unbiased facts regarding historical events. Nothing makes a person look more foolish than arguing a point that is easily disproven by a quick google search.
However, the written beliefs laid down by Rome lead me to believe Protestants and Catholics are more different than I realized. Several Roman doctrines mentioned in the book (and others I've since researched) have made me realize just how different Protestants and Catholics are and it saddens me to see the gospel so distorted by Rome.
This is a great starter book to answer your questions regarding the historical origin of Catholic beliefs and compare them with the reformation views.
November 16, 2024
Are We Together is classic RC and at the same time not the popular RC. It is classic RC and that it is easy to understand and the arguments are well formulated, and there is a lack of technical language. It is not the popular RC and that there are not a lot of stories or narratives, but it really gets down to the basic of the argument. His thesis is that there is a misunderstanding of the sufficiency of Christ. He admits that it is on both sides and that no one has it figured out, which is why we must continue to study and be diligent in the Word.
February 19, 2024
Short, fairly easy to read, Respectful in tone towards Roman Catholics, clearly opposed to their teaching, but If anything I wish that sproul was more powerful in his language against some of the Roman Catholic errors. that being said I appreciated that he didn’t attack straw men, but gave credit to the Catholics where it was due and grappled with the real issues.
Will probably give this book out to many people
Will probably give this book out to many people
October 17, 2024
Easy to understand and enlightening explanation of some of the central differences in doctrine between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism with a general fairness (albeit with strong language in the rhetorical sense as Sproul says). I’m still not quite sure I quite agree on absolutely everything he said about our relationship as Christians to Roman Catholics, but I definitely found this book very helpful and grounding in the defence of the Reformation.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 168 reviews