Rating: 
Summary: The ONLY Gospel is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Review: Assuredly Sproul enunciates the Protestant and Catholic postions accurately and proves that the Protestant position is Biblical, and the only way to justification - by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone! We are justified by His righteousness imputed to us. Sproul understands Roman doctrine better than the Romans. He accurately oultines the positions and exposes the heretical teachings of the council of Trent. He then deftly outlines the true Gospel - a must read for ALL who claim Christ. As one can see by the Roman reviews on this site, this is a good book! By the way, LUTHER did believe and teach that regeneration precedes faith - please read Bondage of the Will - I USED to be Lutheran! Sproul is obvously one of the most lucid and readable authors on theology today!!!!!!!!! He brings sense and great biblical application to the reader.I will say that if you want a condensed and comprehensive Biblical exposition on the Biblical Gospel, read Jonathan Edwards!
Rating:
Summary: The Reformers would applaud
Review: Dr. Sproul has written an excellent work on the differences between the catholic and protestant positions of justification. He does good exegesis on the text of James which describes faith and works, a passage often snatched from the rest of the canon of scripture, given meaning and then rammed back into its context. What I find most delightful about this work is the passion Dr. Sproul has as he writes concerning this crucial doctrine. It doesn't seem to be just mental gymnastics for Sproul. Calvin, Knox, and Luther would be pleased. History would testify that it was a little more than academic to those guys as well. Soli Deo Gloria.
Rating: 
Summary: Incomplete
Review: I bought this book hoping to gain a better understanding of the historical doctrine of justification by faith alone, and that is exactly what I got. If you are looking for a biblical defense of the doctrine, this book probably won't satisfy you. It does have scriptural references in many places, but it is primarily a clear description of what the Reformers' position was on the matter. My one complaint about the book was that it spends a bit too much space criticizing the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" statement. Setting aside the question of whether or not the criticism is valid, I would just say that that isn't what I wanted from this book.
Rating:
Summary: Great intro. to Evangelical doctrine
Review: I've only recently decided to take up a study of this issue, and this book has greatly helped me in understanding both the Catholic and Evangelical doctrines of Justification. Being intended as only an introduction, this little book could hardly be expected to completely destroy the Catholic position. Still, it is a great introduction. Well written, with a very humble style.
Rating:
Summary: A Reprimand of Evangelicals
Review: If someone opens this book hoping for a sophisticated apologetic in defense of Faith Alone, as I did, they will be sorely disappointed. I got this book hoping to read the best defense of Faith Alone on the market after having read Sungenis' excellent book for the other view point. Sproul was more intent it appears in writing a diatribe against those in the evangelical movement who abandoned the historical position and dared to try to find common ground with the Catholic Church. In his introductory analysis he does however miss a major point in what he terms the essentials of the faith, stating as he does that Faith Alone is an essential. Unfortunately this cannot be and this fact alone justifies the work of the ECT and brings in to question the whole book. The reasoning is as follows: You cannot have differing levels of essentialness, thus if Faith Alone is an essential then Faith must be as important as Grace in salvation. But even Sproul would admit that no matter how great our Faith if the free gift of salvation had not been offered our Faith would be insufficient for our justification. No, sola gracia is the only essential. In this regard I would ask him if in addition to faith our salvation is dependent on a deep theological understanding of this issue? Or can someone of faith (who for the sake of argument - incorrectly believes works are part of the proper acceptance of the free gift) be saved. Or are they condemned because of their misunderstanding of a theological issue the best minds of the past 500 years have yet to convince each other of? The book does its best to express the historical position of the reformers and in the process does offer some defense of the concept of Faith Alone. Unfortunately the text can often be found relying on analogy which, while useful in illuminating a concept while teaching, has no legitimacy in logical discourse or proofs. Additionally one finds little reliance on scripture and more on quoting from Calvin and Luther as if making an appeal to authority, another very weak form of logical argument. In fact more scripture is referenced in the section on the Catholic position, through quoting the Council of Trent, than in the rest of the book. Beyond this the author ignores the difference between these two human sources which were in many cases as deep as those that separate Catholics and Evangelicals today. He also ignores their differences with modern Christians over the issue of free will and this is significant in many places throughout the book. When it does serve as an apologetic much of the text is confusing due to apparent inconsistencies that I could not relate strictly to the nature of the Protestant. For example he claims that no works are needed for justification as is to be expected from the title, but in another place he claims that justification is not available to those who have not already been regenerated/sanctified. Thus placing repentance and works prior to faith which is prior to justification. This scenario seems contrary to the historical position that sanctification follows justification and that works are merely fruit of the indwelling. His position places the fruit and therefore the indwelling prior to justification. He also makes no attempt to say how great a change is necessary for this regeneration. All of these issues strike at the very heart of the value of works and are glossed over in a very confused manner. I am glad I read this book but now see it as more a reprimand of Evangelicals than a true defense of sola fide. I am left to continue looking for a protestant apologetic of the same depth and scope of Sungenis' Not by Faith Alone.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Book, but Misses the Mark
Review: R.C. Sproul is an excellent writer and I have come to expect no less from him, but I think he misses the mark on what the "Gospel" is. First to the positives: Sproul has a good overview of the debates which raged on during the Reformation. He has a good assesment of quotes from the two central figures of the Reformation, and an excellent summary of the Protestant position on Sola Fide. He also is right in critisizing people for not giving the historic Protestant doctrine its rightful place.
Now to the negatives: As noted above, Sproul has a very narrow definition of what the "Gospel" is. He seems to hold to justification by faith by believing in justification by faith (contra his assertions concerning Packer), because he asserts that Sola Fide is an essential truth of the Gospel, and if you deny this, you deny the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus is risen, and by means of the resurrection, Christ is Lord (see Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption). I am including a quote from the great German Theologian Zacharius Ursinus from the Heidelberg Catechism of 1553 to prove that this is not historic Reformed teaching:
Question 22. What is then necessary for a christian to believe?
Answer: All things promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic undoubted christian faith briefly teach us.
Question 23. What are these articles?
Answer: 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 11. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting.
As is obvious, 1/3's of the great Three Forms of Unity does not see fit to include Sola Fide as what must be believed by Christians.
Another problem is that Sproul is content to only quote the Council of Trent, and has nothing to say of Vatican II whatsoever. This is disturbing, because Vatican II "modernized" Trent's medieval Catholicism.
This is a decent work, but has its flaws on the definition of the "Gospel" is.
Rating:
Summary: Good Book, but Misses the Mark
Review: R.C. Sproul is an excellent writer and I have come to expect no less from him, but I think he misses the mark on what the "Gospel" is. First to the positives: Sproul has a good overview of the debates which raged on during the Reformation. He has a good assesment of quotes from the two central figures of the Reformation, and an excellent summary of the Protestant position on Sola Fide. He also is right in critisizing people for not giving the historic Protestant doctrine its rightful place. Now to the negatives: As noted above, Sproul has a very narrow definition of what the "Gospel" is. He seems to hold to justification by faith by believing in justification by faith (contra his assertions concerning Packer), because he asserts that Sola Fide is an essential truth of the Gospel, and if you deny this, you deny the Gospel. The Gospel is that Jesus is risen, and by means of the resurrection, Christ is Lord (see Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption). I am including quotes from the great German Theologians Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus from the Heidelberg Catechism of 1553 to prove that this is not historic Reformed teaching: Question 22. What is then necessary for a christian to believe? Answer: All things promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic undoubted christian faith briefly teach us. Question 23. What are these articles? Answer: 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 11. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting. As is obvious, 1/3's of the great Three Forms of Unity does not see fit to include Sola Fide as what must be believed by Christians. Another problem is that Sproul is content to only quote the Council of Trent, and has nothing to say of Vatican II whatsoever. This is disturbing, because Vatican II "modernized" Trent's medieval Catholicism. This is a decent work, but has its flaws on the definition of the "Gospel" is.
Rating: 
Summary: In many ways very strong, in some ways weak
Review: RC Sproul's effort here is a solid contribution to the ongoing debate over justification. It's not perfect, as I'll discuss below, but the strengths of the book are sufficient enough to warrant serious consideration. Sproul wrote this book in 1995 in large measure as a response to a specific event that occurred in 1994 - the publicizing of the ECT document. Sproul writes with great concern that this ecumenical document signed by a number of prominent evangelicals and Roman Catholics inappropriately dodges the central point of disagreement between the two camps (justification). I think Sproul is absolutely right in expressing this concern and believing that the document's effort to minimize and even not acknowledge such a fundamental disagreement is deceptive because the document ends up claiming a level of unity that does not exist. While some have criticized the book for dwelling too much on the ECT document, I thought Sproul's treatment was quite appropriate and necessary. It once again moves to central stage the issue of justification by faith, and what evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe about the doctrine and why it's important. Sproul's brief summary of the history of justification in the church is very educational for the beginner. I also felt that Sproul nuanced the discussion very well by showing how important this issue was to Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers. By doing this, Sproul draws a clear distinction between the weight the original reformers gave to this issue versus the modern day tendency to downplay its importance within evangelicalism (and Roman Catholicism) in order to achieve a superficial unity. It is very insightful to see very clearly that the issue itself hasn't changed, the disagreements which led to the reformation haven't been resolved. All that's changed is the church's unwillingness to thoughtfully engage in the debate because many Christians believe that in the whole scheme of things, the doctrine of justification is no longer an issue worth debating and simply isn't a big priority anymore. I thought Sproul handled this attitudinal change well and effectively demonstrated that the doctrine of justification is not merely a dusty theological issue of no current importance, but remains a central part of the gospel that we dare not water down. Sproul also does a good job here of contrasting the imputation of righteousness that undergirds the Reformed view, versus the infusion view that undergirds Roman Catholicism. I think a reader who is willing to seriously interact with this issue will get a great deal out of Sproul's discussion here and will see very clearly that Rome's view has been and continues to be antithetical in many ways to the Protestant view of justification. The biggest negative of this book is the lack of Scriptural exegesis. I found this book to be an examination of justification not from a Biblical perspective, but from a church history and denominational perspective. This book is about what Reformed Protestants and Rome think about justification. It is not really a book that attempts to ground either side's views in the Bible. This is a disappointment. Sproul goes to great lengths in arguing that justification by faith alone is at the heart of the gospel message every bit as much as the deity of Christ is at the heart of the gospel message. Yet it was surprising to me that having argued for the centrality of justification to the gospel, Sproul doesn't spend much time actually interacting with the text of the gospel to solidify his point. Sproul unnecessarily leaves open the possibility that the reader may walk away from his book believing that the importance of justification is a matter of man's opinion rather than Scriptural reality. So overall, this is a solid book that effectively contrasts the Protestant and Roman Catholic views on justification and why these views are important and should be central in any meaningful dialogue between Protestants and Roman Catholics (which the ECT did not do). But the lack of Scriptural grounding is a weakness that unnecessarily limits the scope of this book to human opinions, creeds, bulls, and councils - none of which are inerrant. The importance of the doctrine of justification should have first been established in the pages of inerrant Scripture, and it is here that Sproul's work comes up short.
Rating:
Summary: In many ways very strong, in some ways weak
Review: RC Sproul's effort here is a solid contribution to the ongoing debate over justification. It's not perfect, as I'll discuss below, but the strengths of the book are sufficient enough to warrant serious consideration. Sproul wrote this book in 1995 in large measure as a response to a specific event that occurred in 1994 - the publicizing of the ECT document. Sproul writes with great concern that this ecumenical document signed by a number of prominent evangelicals and Roman Catholics inappropriately dodges the central point of disagreement between the two camps (justification). I think Sproul is absolutely right in expressing this concern and believing that the document's effort to minimize and even not acknowledge such a fundamental disagreement is deceptive because the document ends up claiming a level of unity that does not exist. While some have criticized the book for dwelling too much on the ECT document, I thought Sproul's treatment was quite appropriate and necessary. It once again moves to central stage the issue of justification by faith, and what evangelicals and Roman Catholics believe about the doctrine and why it's important. Sproul's brief summary of the history of justification in the church is very educational for the beginner. I also felt that Sproul nuanced the discussion very well by showing how important this issue was to Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers. By doing this, Sproul draws a clear distinction between the weight the original reformers gave to this issue versus the modern day tendency to downplay its importance within evangelicalism (and Roman Catholicism) in order to achieve a superficial unity. It is very insightful to see very clearly that the issue itself hasn't changed, the disagreements which led to the reformation haven't been resolved. All that's changed is the church's unwillingness to thoughtfully engage in the debate because many Christians believe that in the whole scheme of things, the doctrine of justification is no longer an issue worth debating and simply isn't a big priority anymore. I thought Sproul handled this attitudinal change well and effectively demonstrated that the doctrine of justification is not merely a dusty theological issue of no current importance, but remains a central part of the gospel that we dare not water down. Sproul also does a good job here of contrasting the imputation of righteousness that undergirds the Reformed view, versus the infusion view that undergirds Roman Catholicism. I think a reader who is willing to seriously interact with this issue will get a great deal out of Sproul's discussion here and will see very clearly that Rome's view has been and continues to be antithetical in many ways to the Protestant view of justification. The biggest negative of this book is the lack of Scriptural exegesis. I found this book to be an examination of justification not from a Biblical perspective, but from a church history and denominational perspective. This book is about what Reformed Protestants and Rome think about justification. It is not really a book that attempts to ground either side's views in the Bible. This is a disappointment. Sproul goes to great lengths in arguing that justification by faith alone is at the heart of the gospel message every bit as much as the deity of Christ is at the heart of the gospel message. Yet it was surprising to me that having argued for the centrality of justification to the gospel, Sproul doesn't spend much time actually interacting with the text of the gospel to solidify his point. Sproul unnecessarily leaves open the possibility that the reader may walk away from his book believing that the importance of justification is a matter of man's opinion rather than Scriptural reality. So overall, this is a solid book that effectively contrasts the Protestant and Roman Catholic views on justification and why these views are important and should be central in any meaningful dialogue between Protestants and Roman Catholics (which the ECT did not do). But the lack of Scriptural grounding is a weakness that unnecessarily limits the scope of this book to human opinions, creeds, bulls, and councils - none of which are inerrant. The importance of the doctrine of justification should have first been established in the pages of inerrant Scripture, and it is here that Sproul's work comes up short.
Rating:
Summary: Strikes Down Legalism and All Its Forms
Review: Rev. Sproul's work compels the reader to "earnestly contend for the faith that was once delivered to the saints." He logically, scripturally, and systematically destroys the eccumenical position on salvation as its proponents have arrogated to themselves the responsibility to decide what is "essential" for man to be saved, even though Jesus Himself said that "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Papists and their apologists will hate this book, for Rev. Sproul leaves no doubt that there cannot be "two Gospels." He masterfully shows how the signers of the ECT have been duped into thinking they have achieved some great milestone for "unity," when what they really have done is compromised on a key doctrine (justification)the loss of which threw Christendom into 1000 years of the Dark Ages. A classic work to be read by all Christians in order to gain a foundational understanding of our faith. Far too many who profess Christ no so little about what His Word teaches. This book is an exhortation to all to "endure sound doctrine."
| 
