What is Reformed Theology? (Sproul)

[RamistThomist]

Sproul, R. C. What is Reformed Theology? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, reprint 2016.

There is one drawback to Sproul’s success as a writer: because he was so successful as a teacher, when a book is labeled as basic, one risks confusing it as simple. This is certainly true to an extent. The second half of the book, the so-called “five points,” is familiar ground and likely found in other Sproul books. The first half of the book is where it shines. He covers the five solas.

Nature

Before beginning with the solas, Sproul grounds his work, not only in the centrality of God, but in God’s self-revelation, both in nature and speech. The former should not be missed. Sproul, following the historic Reformed faith, champions natural theology. If natural revelation is God’s speech in creation to us, natural theology is our response to it. Its scope is universal. It is clear enough that those who reject its testimony are in sin.

Sproul’s remarks, while excellent, could have been more developed. When those who first approach Reformed theology, or worse who fancy themselves budding apologists, hear of God’s revelation in nature, they likely think it refers to trees or mountains. It does, but it covers much more. It also includes the laws of logic. Sproul brings this out in Classical Apologetics. Before I can even assent to God’s special revelation, I have to use God’s natural revelation (e.g., grammar, logic). If the latter is so obscure that I inevitably suppress it, then it is unclear how I can even affirm the gospel.

God

God is incomprehensible but not unintelligible. Sproul makes this clear by the dictum finitum non capax infinitum, the finite cannot contain the infinite. If I had perfect knowledge of God, then I would be God–at least I would know what God knows.

Although he does not label it as such, Sproul champions the analogia entis, the analogy of being. If God is “wholly other,” per Karl Barth, then there is no basis of communication between God and man. Indeed, we would not even have grounds to say God is wholly other, for the “is” in that sense would be a radically different type of being to which we have no access.

Faith Alone

Justification is a forensic activity. We hold to a synthetic, not an analytic justification. A synthetic proposition is when something is added to the predicate. An analytic proposition is a tautology. Rome holds to analytic justification. God declares me just because I already am just (see below). For Rome, baptism is the instrumental cause of justification. God washes away the stain of original sin and infuses grace in the soul. I then cooperate with grace for the rest of my life.

By contrast, Protestantism holds to an alien righteousness, for us, not in us. We receive it by saving faith.

Conclusion

This book is basic. It advertises itself as such. It is dated in some respects, for there is no mention of the New Perspective on Paul, but that is not a drawback. Those who fall prey to the New Perspective are weak on foundations. Sproul’s survey of the Five Points is what you would expect. There is a brief survey of covenant theology, but it is too brief to warrant any evaluation.

 

[retroGRAD3]

This book was instrumental for my journey into reformed theology. It was very helpful and made sense at the time when my theology was more basic.

 

[JvMill]

I love Sproul, his work, and especially some of his teaching series, but I don't think I like his writing style. I have only read two of his works (this and the Holiness of God) but in both he seems to wander. It seems he did the same thing in his preaching at times.

Just my preference. I think because I came to reformed theology without Sproul, I do not find his introduction stuff that earth shattering. I can see how it would be for some who read him before other things. In fact, my younger sister is reading this work and she said it's the first theology book she's read, so I pray God will use it like He did for Jason and many many others.

 

[joebonni63]

This is a Great book for those who have been in the Church for many many years and never knew what Reformed Theology was. Also this is good for the new believer and learning believer if the book is used correctly it could cover a lot of ground. As for the seasoned Reformed believer this book could be a good read but might be to easy for them to encounter something they never saw before.

 

[No Other Name]

I never read this one. My intro to Reformed theology via Sproul in book form came with Everyone's a Theologian.

His apologetics videos were desperately needed for my hyper-skepticism that was masking a self-pride hiding behind my false humility. His book and videos drew me to the Word where God made this blind beggar see.

 

[MW]

Before I can even assent to God’s special revelation, I have to use God’s natural revelation (e.g., grammar, logic). If the latter is so obscure that I inevitably suppress it, then it is unclear how I can even affirm the gospel.

Thankyou for another thoughtful review. I am glad to see you back in action.

Grammar and logic have content. They're not empty instruments. You can use grammar and logic instrumentally to deny the existence of God. In fact, if you are dependent on grammar and logic to prove the existence of God you can use grammar and logic independently of Him. The question then is, Which God have you proven? It certainly isn't the God of the Bible Who created all things, including grammar and logic.