As a general rule I don’t get excited about Sproul. He is a Nestorian and his son is a lunatic. Still, this book was relatively good.
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.