Protestants and Church Fathers

[oscar_gamboa]

chimakuni:

My opinion is that if protestants read and studied what the early Church fathers wrote that they would come to the conclusion that the early church IS the Catholic Church and then they would have to do something about it - as in convert to Catholicsm. Protestants have been told that their church is the right church and their way of worshipping is the same as the early church…and so they go along with what they are told from the pulpit. It takes work to read and study and studying the bible, which I dare say protestants do a lot more frequently than us Catholics, takes time, so why would they read the early Church fathers?

“To be steeped in history is to cease to be protestant.” John Cardinal Newmann.

 

[Xavier]

itsjustdave1988:

Like who? Protestant Bible scholar Bruce Metzger asserts with regard to Matt 16:19, “***The Keys of the Kingdom ***are a symbol of Peter’s power as the leader of the church.”

From another Protestant scholar, FF. Bruce,
Seems it isn’t St. Paul but St. Peter who is the “chief of all Church Fathers.”
The opinion of the 1st thousand years of Christianity disagrees with you. It seems when the Bible is interpreted through the lens of “enlightenment” Reformation era philosophy, many re-visions of Christian teaching result. Yet, when novel Biblical interpretations after 1500 years of Christian history are contradictory to the Christianity of the first 1500 years, one ought to conclude the novel interpretation to be without consequence.

Does the mass resemble 1 Corinthians to you?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Xavier,

The Bible didn’t include many details of liturgy. Why would it need to? My family has daily, weekly, and annual traditions that we seem to remember without having to write them down.

One can begin to see evidence of Christian liturgy even within the earliest documents of the Church, such as the Didache and the writings of St. Justin Martyr.

For example, the 2nd century description of the Sunday liturgy by St. Justin is one of the earliest extant. YES, Scriptural description of the liturgy, as infrequent as it is, sounds Catholic. Just as decades later, as the Church grew and the liturgy necessarily developed. It continued to sound Catholic, not Protestant. If you studied liturgy instead of restricting your knowledge of Christianity to “Bible alone” you’d understand the historical context to the practices of the earliest Christians.

Question: does you denomination annoint with oil? Use incence? The NT Christians did. So do Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Here’s the Catholic Mass as described only decades after apostolic times by St. Justin (b. AD 100, martyred AD 165):

… There is then brought to the president [presiding at the Mass] of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. … And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

CHAPTER LXVI – OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist or “thank-offering”], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. …

… And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read i.e., Liturgy of the Word], as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things i.e., Homily]. Then we all rise together and pray i.e., profession of faith], and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons i.e. Liturgy of the Eucharist]. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit i.e., offering]; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. (St. Justin Martyr, First Apology)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Xavier,

Does the mass resemble 1 Corinthians to you?

1 Corinthians, while an inspired letter from Paul, is not the sum total of the deposit of faith to which the apostles taught. As St. Justin above testifies, that which they did every Sunday was enjoined upon them by the apostles.

Do you really expect me to be convinced that your post-reformation version of Christianity is closer to the fountain of truth than the practice of the holy martyrs of 2nd century Christianity? That’s absurd.

 

[petra]

I think one of the reasons for the lack of knowledge of Church Fathers on the part of Protestants is a mistrust of anything outside the Bible. Since the Bible is infallable and people are not, I think Protestants would rather just stick with what they know is a reliable and complete source of Truth. That was generally my perspective when I was a Protestant.

But to be honest, I had never heard of many of the Church Fathers. The term Doctors of the Church was brand new to me when I started investigating Catholicism. I had previsously heard of Polycarp, Augustine, Origen, and Thomas Aquinas, but that was about it. I think the reason Augustine is so frequently referenced among Protestants (particularly Calvinists) is his views on predestination.

I happened to go to our local Christian bookstore recently to buy a coffee mug as a birthday gift for someone—it is actually a Protestant bookstore. (This is a small town and there isn’t a Catholic bookstore anywhere near.) Out of curiosity, I checked to see what their Church History section had. They had Josephus’ writings, then fast forward to Martin Luther, John Calvin and others from the past few centuries. It made me very sad that Aquinas and others were not there.

 

[Cat]

I am from an evangelical Protestant background; I was received into the Catholic Church April 10, 2004.

Even though I went to nationally-known evangelical churches pastored by men who have since become best-selling authors, we were never taught anything about the Fathers, except that they helped formulate our doctrines. But nothing specifically was ever mentioned, and like someone else above said, we just believed what we were told from the pulpit.

When we heard the term “Church Fathers,” we all thought of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwinglii, etc.

Or Jonathan Edwards, A.B. SImpson, Wesley, Campbell, etc.–whoever founded our particular denomination.

Or Billy Graham, Chuck Swindoll, Dr. James Dobson, Erwin Lutzer, John R. W. Stott, C.S. Lewis (I never realized that C.S. Lewis was an Anglican, I just assumed he was a Baptist like me!), and all the other guys…and a few gals like Evelyn Christensen, etc…who really knew their Bibles.

I think that many Protestants like me are using the Internet now to research Church Fathers and find out the truth about what we were taught all our lives. I think the Internet has been fantastic for the Catholic Church.

 

[Archbishop_10-K]

Cat:

When we heard the term “Church Fathers,” we all thought of Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwinglii, etc.

Or Jonathan Edwards, A.B. SImpson, Wesley, Campbell, etc.–whoever founded our particular denomination.

Or Billy Graham, Chuck Swindoll, Dr. James Dobson, Erwin Lutzer, John R. W. Stott, C.S. Lewis (I never realized that C.S. Lewis was an Anglican, I just assumed he was a Baptist like me!), and all the other guys…and a few gals like Evelyn Christensen, etc…who really knew their Bibles.

I think that many Protestants like me are using the Internet now to research Church Fathers and find out the truth about what we were taught all our lives. I think the Internet has been fantastic for the Catholic Church.

Same experience here, sort of, except my church fast-forwarded from St. John to Ellen White with no stops in between. Egad… to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant, indeed.

 

[Hesychios]

petra:

…to be honest, I had never heard of many of the Church Fathers…

I happened to go to our local Christian bookstore recently to buy a coffee mug as a birthday gift for someone—it is actually a Protestant bookstore. (This is a small town and there isn’t a Catholic bookstore anywhere near.) Out of curiosity, I checked to see what their Church History section had. They had Josephus’ writings, then fast forward to Martin Luther, John Calvin and others from the past few centuries. It made me very sad that Aquinas and others were not there.

I used to go to the Christian bookstore in the area a lot (that big chain), I have spent a fortune on books like Josephus and Eusebius and even Spurgeon! Bible Atlases, devotional art, and gifts for friends. But they eventually ran out of the things I needed so I took my trade elsewhere.

Well I was on their mailing list and email list and they eventually hit me with a poll to see what I would recommend that they carry on the shelves and “by the way, wouldn’t you like to stop in again?”

Well, what I wanted wasn’t on the multiple choice list so I added into the comments that they should carry Patristic literature! I mentioned many of the great Fathers of the church such as Origin, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Maximos Confessor plus the Philokalia etc. "and while you’re at it can you get some Romano Guardini, Ronald Knox and John Newman?"and even suggested two publishers and a University Press that I was certain could help them.

Well I never heard back from them, and I have been in there, they didn’t take my advice either :yawn:

O well

In Christ Always,
Michael

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

petra:

I think one of the reasons for the lack of knowledge of Church Fathers on the part of Protestants is a mistrust of anything outside the Bible. Since the Bible is infallable and people are not, I think Protestants would rather just stick with what they know is a reliable and complete source of Truth. That was generally my perspective when I was a Protestant.

But to be honest, I had never heard of many of the Church Fathers. The term Doctors of the Church was brand new to me when I started investigating Catholicism. I had previsously heard of Polycarp, Augustine, Origen, and Thomas Aquinas, but that was about it. I think the reason Augustine is so frequently referenced among Protestants (particularly Calvinists) is his views on predestination.

I happened to go to our local Christian bookstore recently to buy a coffee mug as a birthday gift for someone—it is actually a Protestant bookstore. (This is a small town and there isn’t a Catholic bookstore anywhere near.) Out of curiosity, I checked to see what their Church History section had. They had Josephus’ writings, then fast forward to Martin Luther, John Calvin and others from the past few centuries. It made me very sad that Aquinas and others were not there.

As to the last paragraph - bookshops have to make ends meet, and if there is no previous demand for Evagrius of Pontus, or Zachariah of Mitylene, or Minucius Felix - they aren’t likely to be stocked Calvin and Luther are household names, in a largely Protestant culture, in a way that Aquinas and Scotus are not. Talking of Scotus, how many Catholics have ever read any of him ? Or of post-Patristic writers like Amalarius of Metz ? Or even Bede, who is a doctor of the Church? Or Bellarmine - a very influential Doctor ? Not, one suspects, that many, unless they are university students or seminarians or scholars. So it’s hardly surprising that even Christian bookshops don’t regularly stock them.​

Although there is a very good series of English translations of excerpts from the Fathers to the Reformation, easily available from the Library of Christian Classics. So it’s by no means true that Protestants neglect the Fathers - they are quite able to argue that they are theirs, indeed.

And then, most people have very busy lives - reading Origen, or Clement of Alexandria, or Bede, is unlikely to be a very high priority for most of us ##

 

[Zski01]

New_Life:

Zski01,

I have a some questions for you, if you don’t mind me asking.

1. What is an “anti-catholic”?
2. Why do you consider R.C. Sproul an “anti-catholic”?
3. What is an “anti-protestant”?
4. Are there Roman Catholics who are “anti-protestant”?

R.C. Sproul wrote an entire book on how the Catholic Church is false, non-Christian, etc. It’s called Faith Alone. It’s eye-watering, bigoted, and one-sided to say the least.

I read an interview by him where he claimed “Catholics, if they believe the doctrines of their Church, are not saved.” I’ve read other books and articles by him and listened to a few radio shows. He’s not shy about giving his opinion about the Church and how opposed to it he is. An anti-Catholic is someone who is against the Church and considers us non-Christians. I consider him one.

An anti-protestant is the inverse of that in the Catholic sense. Are there anti-Protestants? Of course. Is the Catholic Church anti-protestant? Of course not. The Catechism is very clear about how Protestants are “Separated Brethren.”

The fundamental writing backing up Calvinist Churches today (the Westminster Confession of Faith) calls the Pope the AntiChrist (some Churches reject that part of the confession, though, to their credit). I would say that is anti-Catholic, and Mr. Sproul is definitely a Calvinist.

Anyhow, I hope that answers your question. I don’t hate Mr. Sproul or anything, but I can say that I do not care for his writings!

 

[Hesychios]

This great opportunity came up and I thought I would share it with you all!

The company selling these sets appears to be a Protestant outfit, but they are a great deal. I figure the value to be $400.00 at least and the list price is over $1000.00! You can buy them for 200 bucks.

I would recommend this to any Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant.

38 volume Early Church Fathers

This comes out to $5.27 per hardcover volume. I don’t know if they come with commentary or detailed introductions, the editor was a Protestant scholar.

The interesting thing about Philip Schaff is that he started out as an Evangelical and came to understand the centrality of the Eucharist, although he never approached Catholicism directly. I think his views were probably shaped by his study of the Fathers.

This is a quote from his bio, that can be linked to from the page:

To counter the sectarian trend of revivalism within the church, the Mercersburg Theology reflected the leaders’ desire to embrace, in Nevin’s words, “not the notion of supernatural things simply, but the very power and presence of the things themselves.” To this end, Schaff and Nevin stressed the centrality of the Eucharist, believing that only through the sacrament could the individual believer gain true spiritual knowledge. Calling for a new vision of the church as one, catholic, and holy, they also sought to combat sectarianism and promote unity through the use of the creeds, catechism, and liturgy.

Check it out

 

[Xavier]

The answer is NO

The mass does not resemble 1 Corinthians!

 

[p90]

Zski01:

R.C. Sproul wrote an entire book on how the Catholic Church is false, non-Christian, etc. It’s called Faith Alone. It’s eye-watering, bigoted, and one-sided to say the least.

If the official documents of a denomination denied central tenants of Christianity (Trinity, ceasing of new revelation, etc.), would it be “eye-watering, bigoted, and one-sided” to state that the denomination is “false, non-Christian”? Do you consider books like *Not By Faith Alone * to be “one-sided”? Why or why not?

R. C. Sproul’s book was a lot more calm and reasoned than many other Protestant materials out there. His opinion of the Catholic Church is based on what he believes to be the essentials of Christian doctrine. Since the Catholic Church denies such, he is only being honest with his conscience. Is it really “bigoted” to state a negative opinion of the Catholic Church, especially when it is only consistent with your understanding of theology?

~Matt

 

[Zski01]

p90:

If the official documents of a denomination denied central tenants of Christianity (Trinity, ceasing of new revelation, etc.), would it be “eye-watering, bigoted, and one-sided” to state that the denomination is “false, non-Christian”?

First off, you need to make a list of essential doctrines. I have found if someone affirms the Nicene Creed, it would be tough for them to not be affirming essential doctrines.

If you can qualify a statement of someone being a non-Christian with pleny of scripture and logic, then you may have a case in appealing to them to see your side. When you’re speaking to another denomination of Christianity, you may want to be very well documented in scripture. I know that Mr. Sproul doesn’t use the same anger and resentment in his apologetics towards atheists or Muslims. I have only seen such sentiment directed at my Church (except for Luther, who seemed to hate Jewish folks even more in his writings).

Mr. Sproul used absolutely no scripture to back his claims that Catholicism is a false religion. He presented the issue of justification and qualified his view, but he failed totally to show why, if Catholics believe they have to actually do what Jesus commanded, then they are not saved. Granted he attacked what he thinks is Catholicism, and implied that Catholics feel they “earn salvation,” but that is without backing of any sort and is absolutely contrary to Catholic doctrine.

p90:

Do you consider books like *Not By Faith Alone *to be “one-sided”? Why or why not?

I’ve only read about this book ; I haven’t read the entire text. However, I’d be willing to bet the author didn’t come to a conclusion that Protestants are non-Christians because they believe they are saved by intellectual assent alone. If he did say that, he would be:

1. misconstruing Protestant doctrine because, contrary to what some Catholics may think, faith is not the same as intellecual assent (a very important distinction)
2. coming to a VERY presumptuous conclusion without proper scriptural backing

But that is the exact thing Mr. Sproul did in his book, only the other way around. He presented Catholic doctrine misleadingly, without defining key theological terms where Protestants and Catholics disagree, and used that as his proof.

p90:

R. C. Sproul’s book was a lot more calm and reasoned than many other Protestant materials out there.

True, he (unlike many past Reformed Protestant theologians) didn’t assert the Church to be the Whore of Babylon, nor did he call the Pope the AntiChrist.

p90:

His opinion of the Catholic Church is based on what he believes to be the essentials of Christian doctrine.

I see a lot of ingrained anti-Catholic sentiment that has plagued Protestants for 500 years seeping from his book. The overall conclusion of the book is this: Catholics are non-Christians because they do not believe they are justified by faith alone.

Now this conclusion really needs to be addressed in several respects:

1. he offers no scripture to back his claim that his definition “faith alone” is a central tenet that not observed by Catholics, especially in light of what the Catholic Church actually believes

[CONTINUED ON NEXT POST]

 

[Zski01]

1. he never addresses the fact that Catholic and Protestant definitions of justification are very different, which has historically caused mass confusion between the two camps of Christianity. If he would change his claim to “initial justification by faith alone” which is what Catholics view Protestants’ definition of justification as, he might see we’re very similar in theology
2. he uses more quotes from Luther and Calvin to back his claims than than the Bible (from what I remember). These men both said a lot of things, some of which you might be surprised to hear. If you’re going to call Catholics non-Christians, I would not rely on two men with such controversial backgrounds to offer the denoument in bringing home the point that a misunderstanding of justification is an unforgivable sin, warranting eternal damnation, even if you do love Christ, trust in Him, and believe that He will save you if you follow Him. Catholics believe this, and yet we are doomed in his opinion. I call that bigoted and lacking reason.

p90:

Since the Catholic Church denies such, he is only being honest with his conscience. Is it really “bigoted” to state a negative opinion of the Catholic Church, especially when it is only consistent with your understanding of theology?

The big issue of bigotry and one-sidedness is the total disregard for true Catholic doctrine in his book. Sure, he quotes some lines from Trent (out of context), hits on Vatican II a bit, and even pokes at the Catechism, but he does that to build a bibliography. There are MANY Catholic authors who have reconciled the historical disagreements between Protestants and Catholics with regards to justification, but he ignores their writings. Catholic apologetics were never even mentioned in the book beyond a passing remark.

Matt, I imagine you’re a Protestant. Now, you may believe in sola scriptura, although the Bible never says scripture alone should be authoritative. You may adhere to the Westminster Confession where it calls the Pope the AntiChrist. You may believe that Calvin was justified in having a man killed with whom he disagreed. You may even believe that Luther was right when he said James and Revelation were non-canonical and did not belong with Scripture in the Bible. But you know what…I trust that you know in your heart that Christ died for us and that we have to pick up our crosses and follow him for salvation. We have to believe in Him, trust in Him, try to love as Him, and in the end, hope in Him. Just because we differ on syntax in our “equations” of justification, we both know we’re saved by grace alone through a “faith working in love” (c.f. Gal 5:6).

After I have read Protestant theology (which I have done very much of) I trust you hold these things true, and I trust you are a Christian, even though you may define “faith” and “works” differently than I do.

I trust that had Mr. Sproul truly read, not copied, Catholic theology and apologetics writings (which are so abundant) and incorporated them into his book, he might have come to the same conclusion, only the other way around.

Anyhow, lucky for me I don’t need his permission to be a Christian! His book really hurt my feelings, and showed a lot of emotion, but I still trust that he is a Christian as well. In the end though, I see anti-Catholicism and the response it elicits as only distracting us from the true evangelization that this world needs so badly.

 

[Cat]

I don’t have a lot of time to post this morning, and I will try to get my husband, who is more knowledgeable about Sproul, to post.

My husband is a Sproul fan from way back. He has listened to hours and hours of Sproul over the years.

When my husband was first considering becoming a Catholic, he turned to Sproul’s tapes about Catholicism, looking for reasons not to become Catholic. He figured if ANYONE could talk him out of it, Rev. Sproul could!

My husband claims that Sproul does not make any incorrect statements about Catholics, which is what many of the “anti-Catholic” teachers do. (He does draw some incorrect conclusions.)

All of Sproul’s statements about Catholicism are correct. This is certainly an improvement over speakers who make ridiculous claims about Catholics e.g., “they worship statues.” Sproul makes no such incorrect claims.

Rev. Sproul did NOT talk my husband out of becoming a Catholic. As someone else said in this thread, Rev. Sproul argues against Catholicism out of Reformed tradition, from the Heidelburg Catechism (which is Biblically-based) and the other Reformed Canons. So the question then becomes, do you believe in the Reformed doctrines? My husband does not (we were part of a Reformed church for two years, and my daughter attends a Reformed college.)

Sproul actually agrees with much of Catholicism. His biggest disagreement is with the doctrines about the Reconciliation. He also has problems with the doctrines about Merit. Other Catholics will admit to having problems with these doctrines, too.

I encourage you not to lump Rev. Sproul in with the same kind of rapid anti-Catholicism of others. Rev. Sproul is deservedly known as an “intellectual” among Christian teachers today. He really digs deep into the Word of God and takes the high road. If you are a Protestant, you will do well do listen to Rev. Sproul. We heard him talking about the fallacy of “Seeker” churches a few weeks ago on the radio. A real breath of fresh air to Protestants, who, unfortunately tend to ignore him to listen to preachers who merely “entertain” and go over the same old “milk of the Word.”

 

[Zski01]

Cat:

I don’t have a lot of time to post this morning, and I will try to get my husband, who is more knowledgeable about Sproul, to post.

My husband is a Sproul fan from way back. He has listened to hours and hours of Sproul over the years.

When my husband was first considering becoming a Catholic, he turned to Sproul’s tapes about Catholicism, looking for reasons not to become Catholic. He figured if ANYONE could talk him out of it, Rev. Sproul could!

My husband claims that Sproul does not make any incorrect statements about Catholics, which is what many of the “anti-Catholic” teachers do. (He does draw some incorrect conclusions.)

All of Sproul’s statements about Catholicism are correct. This is certainly an improvement over speakers who make ridiculous claims about Catholics e.g., “they worship statues.” Sproul makes no such incorrect claims.

Rev. Sproul did NOT talk my husband out of becoming a Catholic. As someone else said in this thread, Rev. Sproul argues against Catholicism out of Reformed tradition, from the Heidelburg Catechism (which is Biblically-based) and the other Reformed Canons. So the question then becomes, do you believe in the Reformed doctrines? My husband does not (we were part of a Reformed church for two years, and my daughter attends a Reformed college.)

Sproul actually agrees with much of Catholicism. His biggest disagreement is with the doctrines about the Reconciliation. He also has problems with the doctrines about Merit. Other Catholics will admit to having problems with these doctrines, too.

I encourage you not to lump Rev. Sproul in with the same kind of rapid anti-Catholicism of others. Rev. Sproul is deservedly known as an “intellectual” among Christian teachers today. He really digs deep into the Word of God and takes the high road. If you are a Protestant, you will do well do listen to Rev. Sproul. We heard him talking about the fallacy of “Seeker” churches a few weeks ago on the radio. A real breath of fresh air to Protestants, who, unfortunately tend to ignore him to listen to preachers who merely “entertain” and go over the same old “milk of the Word.”

Cat,
Thanks for the info. I read an article where Mr. Sproul said “If catholics believe the doctinres of their church, they are not saved” or something to that effect. That (and the book I took so long to write about above) really saddened me. Has he changed his view? (he very well may have and maybe I missed the boat!). If so, I’ll gladly give him the benefit of the doubt about that book.

Like I said though, I don’t hate the man, but I don’t like his literature about the Church very much! God Bless.

 

[p90]

Zski01:

I know that Mr. Sproul doesn’t use the same anger and resentment in his apologetics towards atheists or Muslims. I have only seen such sentiment directed at my Church (except for Luther, who seemed to hate Jewish folks even more in his writings).

Anger and resentment? Do you have documentation of such from the text of Faith Alone?

1. he never addresses the fact that Catholic and Protestant definitions of justification are very different

Have you read chapter five?

The big issue of bigotry and one-sidedness is the total disregard for true Catholic doctrine in his book. Sure, he quotes some lines from Trent (out of context), hits on Vatican II a bit, and even pokes at the Catechism, but he does that to build a bibliography.

Since this is the “big issue of bigotry,” the focus of discussion should be here. You’ve mentioned many other things that would be of interest to discuss (such as comments about Martin Luther, whether or not I’m a Protestant, etc.), but, unfortunately, I don’t have time to address or respond to. Returning to the focus, I would ask how thoroughly you read Sproul’s work. Can you cite examples from the book that demonstrate his misuse of the documents from Trent, Vatican II, etc.? That would be much more helpful in determining if the work is really “bigoted.”

There are MANY Catholic authors who have reconciled the historical disagreements between Protestants and Catholics with regards to justification, but he ignores their writings. Catholic apologetics were never even mentioned in the book beyond a passing remark.

Why would Sproul have to address such writings in his work, especially since he engages the central texts–Trent, etc.–themselves? Are you arguing that people who don’t address writings that are contrary to their position in their works are bigoted?

~Matt

 

[Corpus_Cristi]

They’re simply denying verifiable fact and history. Pray for them, it looks like they really need it!

God bless!