R. C. Sproul


#1

Does anyone have a link or recommendation to refute a tape series by R.C. Sproul on catholic teachings?
Thanks for any help!


#2

How about this very website? Go to the library to find articles on the subjects Sproul brings up. I have no doubt he doesn’t say anything that hadn’t been said before him. Karl Keating wrote his famous book, Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians” precisely to refute the claims of Sroul and all those like him.


#3

Refute Sproul? In my experience, while Sproul might object to Catholic teaching, he usually states it correctly. Is he changing his MO?

His defense of the title, “Mother of God,” for Our Lady would make a Catholic proud.

He is definitely not a Fundamentalist.


#4

[quote=mercygate]Refute Sproul? In my experience, while Sproul might object to Catholic teaching, he usually states it correctly. Is he changing his MO?

His defense of the title, “Mother of God,” for Our Lady would make a Catholic proud.

He is definitely not a Fundamentalist.
[/quote]

It’s sounds like he is anti-Catholic from this link
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606fea2.asp


#5

[quote=Love_2B_an_EM]It’s sounds like he is anti-Catholic from this link
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606fea2.asp
[/quote]

Hmmm. Accusing the Catholic Church of heresy isn’t the same thing as misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

From the Protestant point of view, certain Catholic teaching does, indeed, lie beyond the range of what they call “scriptural orthodoxy.”

Bob Sungenis? Isn’t he the guy who promotes geocentrism?


#6

Love_2B_an_EM wrote:

It’s sounds like he is anti-Catholic from this link
catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606fea2.asp. Hmmm. Accusing the Catholic Church of heresy isn’t the same thing as misrepresenting Catholic teaching.

Mercygate wrote:

From the Protestant point of view, certain Catholic teaching does, indeed, lie beyond the range of what they call “scriptural orthodoxy.”

Considering their definition of “scriptural orthodoxy” is at odds with the Catholic view of the Bible’s place in Sacred Tradition why should Catholics give it any credence when they use it to refute Catholic teaching?

Bob Sungenis? Isn’t he the guy who promotes geocentrism?

He may have gone around the bend on that issue but his defense of the teachings of the Church based on Scripture are second to none. Let’s give the man his due.


#7

I just thought I would mention that it would not be completely innacurate to say that Sproul probably helped assist in my reconciling myself with the Catholic Church. Being raised a fundamentalist Protestant, it was through folks such as Sproul and D. James Kennedy that I left the vague realm of fundamentalism and became Reformed. This was the first step in the logical journey to Rome.

I went from Presbyterianism to Anglicanism and now to Catholicism. Many of the teachings of Sproul–wishing to get back to a more traditional Christianity–sparked my interest in the Church of ages past. In a real way, I benefitted immensely from Sproul’s ministry and regret deeply that we are currently on opposite sides of the Protestant/Catholic debate.


#8

Thank you MercyGate. I’m not trying to call people names, I’m just trying to understand. My (evangelical/fundamentalist) wife who has been attacking the Catholic church asked me to listen to a tape by R.C. Sproul. And to point out where he was incorrect. I assumed that it was the same old McCarthy stuff. I’ve been through this process with her a number of times (using answers from this site) and it gets us nowhere. Before I waste some of my time that I could be spending listening to Fr. Corapi, I was just hoping to save myself some time and research.

Thank you.


#9

[quote=Everyman]I just thought I would mention that it would not be completely innacurate to say that Sproul probably helped assist in my reconciling myself with the Catholic Church. Being raised a fundamentalist Protestant, it was through folks such as Sproul and D. James Kennedy that I left the vague realm of fundamentalism and became Reformed. This was the first step in the logical journey to Rome.

I went from Presbyterianism to Anglicanism and now to Catholicism. Many of the teachings of Sproul–wishing to get back to a more traditional Christianity–sparked my interest in the Church of ages past. In a real way, I benefitted immensely from Sproul’s ministry and regret deeply that we are currently on opposite sides of the Protestant/Catholic debate.
[/quote]

Thank you. What is it that Sproul teaches and does it go against the Catholic Church?


#10

Thank you. What is it that Sproul teaches and does it go against the Catholic Church?

Well, mainly, he’s an ardent proponent of the Protestant Reformation. He’s the most popular defender of Calvinism out there. And while he thinks the reformers threw the baby out with the bathwater on some issues (like getting rid of the confessional), he pretty much thinks they were right on. This is especially true when it comes to the issues of sola scriptura, sola fide, and sola gratia.

He is critical of much of modern, contempory evangelicalism, and this is what began my search into forms of Christianity that is dated prior to the Reformation. But Sproul himsef wouldn’t do this; he would probably think that I failed to make distictions and have just gone the way of Rome as a novelty and a desire for a nastalgic expression of faith. For him, the Catholic Church has erred in such a way that it is irretrevable.


#11

regarding Robert Sungenis…

I never tire of defending this man, even though he doesn’t ask or need, or require it. The issue of geocentrism won’t be resolved in our lifetime IMHO. That is because it is just as plausable a theory as any other… can’t prove, can’t disprove.

And certainl his apologetics are second to none… always nice to see he and Karl have common interests and are again working in unison to defend the faith.


#12

[quote=MrS]regarding Robert Sungenis…

I never tire of defending this man, even though he doesn’t ask or need, or require it. The issue of geocentrism won’t be resolved in our lifetime IMHO. That is because it is just as plausable a theory as any other… can’t prove, can’t disprove.
[/quote]

Which is why I stated that he “may have gone around the bend on this one.” I can’t agree with him on geocentrism, and think he’s making a huge deal out of nothing with this battle, but I still respect him. :wink:


#13

[quote=Della] Considering their definition of “scriptural orthodoxy” is at odds with the Catholic view of the Bible’s place in Sacred Tradition why should Catholics give it any credence when they use it to refute Catholic teaching?
[/quote]

That’s not the point. In the Sungenis article Sproul is said to call Catholic teaching “heresy.” From his *sola Scriptura/sola fide *point of view, we Catholics are the “heretics.” But I have never heard Sproul misrepresent the Catholic position outright, unlike others, who sometimes state the Catholic position in a way that might be accurate as far as it goes, but omit a critical point and thus de facto mis-state the Catholic view.

Sproul tends to be honest in stating the Catholic position as Catholics understand it, but from his reference point, the Catholic view is heresy.

So the OP would do better to defend the Catholic position than to look for cracks in Sproul’s representation.


#14

[quote=mercygate]That’s not the point. In the Sungenis article Sproul is said to call Catholic teaching “heresy.” From his *sola Scriptura/sola fide *point of view, we Catholics are the “heretics.” But I have never heard Sproul misrepresent the Catholic position outright, unlike others, who sometimes state the Catholic position in a way that might be accurate as far as it goes, but omit a critical point and thus de facto mis-state the Catholic view.

Sproul tends to be honest in stating the Catholic position as Catholics understand it, but from his reference point, the Catholic view is heresy.

So the OP would do better to defend the Catholic position than to look for cracks in Sproul’s representation.
[/quote]

So what if anything is wrong with what Sproul’s presents?


#15

One thing R.C. (Roman Catholic???) Sproul is NOT is a raving, fundamentalist anti-Catholic preacher!

I belonged to the same denomination as Sproul, read some of his books, listened intently to his radio show, right up to the point I returned to the Church. In fact, he helped me along the way!

He constantly refers to Augustine and Aquinas as the two greatest thinkers in Christianity, refers to the Blessed Mother as the mother of God, and tells other Protestants not to be afraid of the title, talks about hearing the Gospel when he was a child from the Italian-Catholic shoemaker, and best of all, by referring to the New Testament as a “fallible collection of infallibe books.” That last one got me. How could that possibly be? That little phrase was the beginning of the crumbling of Sola Scriptura in my thinking.

I picture R.C. coming into the Church one day. Wouldn’t that be great? It would shake a lot of Evangelical Christians up.

Peace,
Gene


#16

[quote=mercygate]That’s not the point. In the Sungenis article Sproul is said to call Catholic teaching “heresy.” From his *sola Scriptura/sola fide *point of view, we Catholics are the “heretics.” But I have never heard Sproul misrepresent the Catholic position outright, unlike others, who sometimes state the Catholic position in a way that might be accurate as far as it goes, but omit a critical point and thus de facto mis-state the Catholic view.

Sproul tends to be honest in stating the Catholic position as Catholics understand it, but from his reference point, the Catholic view is heresy.

So the OP would do better to defend the Catholic position than to look for cracks in Sproul’s representation.
[/quote]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation! :tiphat:


#17

[quote=Gene C.]One thing R.C. (Roman Catholic???) Sproul is NOT is a raving, fundamentalist anti-Catholic preacher!
[/quote]

:amen:

I belonged to the same denomination as Sproul, read some of his books, listened intently to his radio show, right up to the point I returned to the Church. In fact, he helped me along the way!

He constantly refers to Augustine and Aquinas as the two greatest thinkers in Christianity, refers to the Blessed Mother as the mother of God, and tells other Protestants not to be afraid of the title, talks about hearing the Gospel when he was a child from the Italian-Catholic shoemaker, and best of all, by referring to the New Testament as a “fallible collection of infallibe books.” That last one got me. How could that possibly be? That little phrase was the beginning of the crumbling of Sola Scriptura in my thinking.

I picture R.C. coming into the Church one day.

I pray for that – not so we can gloat but because when you have the guts to state “fallible collection of infallible books” you have placed your soul in peril by not following through on the obvious moral mandate that statement presents.

Wouldn’t that be great? It would shake a lot of Evangelical Christians up.

Peace,
Gene

It would be great for him and great for us. The “shaken” would have their own souls to deal with. Ever listen to his tapes on holiness? Fantastic!


#18

Hey, Love2B – looks like you’ve landed in the R. C. Sproul Catholic fan club! You might want to use him as a point of common ground between you and your wife because if she’s any kind of fundamentalist, and if she admires Sproul, he will bring her along the spectrum toward a fuller appreciation of Christian doctrine. This can be an inch-by-inch proposition.


#19

[quote=mercygate]Hey, Love2B – looks like you’ve landed in the R. C. Sproul Catholic fan club! You might want to use him as a point of common ground between you and your wife because if she’s any kind of fundamentalist, and if she admires Sproul, he will bring her along the spectrum toward a fuller appreciation of Christian doctrine. This can be an inch-by-inch proposition.
[/quote]

Thank you and everyone for your help and wisdom.


#20

So what if anything is wrong with what Sproul’s presents?

It’s the defense of the claims of the Reformers. He accepts them and, obviously, a Catholic will not (at least not the ones that deal with actual, offical Church dogma). He teaches that the Bible is all that is needed for the faith (sola scriptura). The Catholic believes that the Word of God comes in two forms, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. There are others issues, but that is the biggy.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.