Customer Reviews

Roman Catholic Controversy, The

5 star:		(24)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(11)
1 star:		(21)

 

 

In the wake of the publication of Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT), there has been a lot of soul searching among Evangelical Protestants as they attempt to evaluate the proper stance that should be taken towards the Catholic Church. Among the most vocal critics of the ECT movement has been Protestant apologist James R. White who has a long record of debates and other confrontations with popular Catholic apologists.

White expresses his strong views on the Roman Church in The Roman Catholic Controversy. Among those often classified by Catholic apologists as "anti-Catholic", White certainly presents the most challenging arguments. Rather than take a "throw everything up and hope something sticks" approach common to Dave Hunt and others, he usually tries to key in on certain foundational issues and then further expand it to put forth a comprehensive critique of the Catholic system. While this approach may be sound as a general methodology, the question remains whether the critique holds up in its details.

One does have to read White carefully since his status as a controversial figure in disputes often clouds the analysis of his comments. Personally, I find many of the comments he makes in his apologetical work to be so severly strident and narrowly focused within the Reformed Baptist exegetical tradition that the usefulness of said comments in terms of gaining a proper perspective of the greatness of the Christian faith throughout history to be relatively useless. However, no matter what one makes of White's views in general, one should refrain from letting weaknesses in one area fail to allow one to see useful comments he may make elsewhere.

In the case of this book, White's critique is neither as irrelevant as his detractors claim nor does he deliver the great knockout blow his fans insist has been made. Rather what has happened is that he makes some very sharp and well placed citicisms of Rome that tend to be occasionally lost within an overall framework that is completely reliant upon an exegetical methodology that is largely a product of trends within Western culture in general and American culture in particular. This particular failure has the effect of drowning out more cogent points buried within the book's pages and opening White up to the criticism that he "doesn't get" Christian history.

White begins the book by acknowledging the recent phenomenon of Evangelical Protestants (including many pastors) leaving their churches for Catholicism. For most of the last few decades, most Evangelicals assumed the movement could only be in one direction - away from Rome. This has caught many Evangelicals off guard since they were not aware the Catholic Church had arguments in favor of their doctrines - including Biblical arguments! This was compounded by the fact that many Catholics were not familiar enough with their own faith to defend their doctrines. In White's view, the unfamiliarity with Catholic arguments and the unfamiliarity with how to counter them has left many Protestants open to being swayed by those Catholics that could defend their faith. Furthermore, this process has been accelerated by the closer ties established between Evangelicals and Catholics in such agreements as ECT.

Having established the need for a better Evangelical understanding of Catholic beliefs and practices and how to defend the Evangelical view, White begins his case strongly by trying to separate fundamental from peripheral issues. Seeing the ECT agreement and other Protestant/Catholic dialoges that blur the distinctions as compromising fundamental Christian beliefs, he then seeks to separate the nonnegotiable points from those items that believers may disagree upon while still recognizing each other as brothers in Christ. As examples, he points to various liturgical and rubrical practices as nonessential matters that have had devout believers and those without saving faith alike fall on either side. White also dismisses claims against Catholics (and others) based upon conspiracy theories that see "Jesuits behind every bush". Instead, the issue for White is not one of alien practices or plotting clerics but one of the Gospel itself and the peace it gives. Without this peace - a peace that comes solely from the grace of God - there is no Gospel and there is no true faith.

White then discusses the first of the issues that he believes negates any Catholic claims to presenting the true Gospel of Christ - the issue of authority and particularly the place of the authority of Holy Scripture. Evangelicals hold to a doctrine of <em>sola scriptura</em> and prior to defending it he first seeks to define it. In so doing, he first seeks to avoid misunderstandings by clarifying what <em>sola scriptura</em> is <em>not</em> and only then gives a proper definition. Thus White seeks to differentiate the doctrine from what is sometimes called <em>solo scriptura</em> - a position that removes the Scriptures from any contextual considerations. While this does correspond more closely to what the Protestant Reformers actually taught and what more traditional Protestants from Reformational traditions would support, it might be argued that this is not a definition commonly upheld by most Evangelical Protestants and that in practice the doctrine over time will by its nature deteriorate to the solo scriptura position.

Having given a defintion of sola scriptura defined the doctrine, White then seeks to defend it by providing a Scriptural basis. He cites a few passages but concentrates primarily on II Timothy 3:14-17 and attempts to sidestep the issue of the passage applying only to the Old Testament by emphasizing its application to defining the nature of Scripture. This strategy is highly questionable since even if White's assessment is correct (a reasonable assumption), his thesis is undercut since the sufficiency must hold at the time of the letter's composition. Furthermore, the use of the phrase "all scripture" is a case of universal quantification that would logically pass to each of the objects quantified on its own. It is far more reasonable to assume St. Paul was referring to the importance of Scripture and its role in the Church than of the sufficiency of a collection of writings - many of which did not yet exist. In his exegesis, White - like many of his Catholic opponents - attempts to seize upon Scriptural passages discussing Scripture and tradition and anachronistically apply them to settle debates they do not address.

White then moves on to explain the differences between two Catholic views of tradition - the older Catholic explanation he calls the "partim-partim" view (the deposit of faith is partly in Scripture, partly in tradition) and the more recent material sufficiency view (tradition interprets Scripture). He attempts to demonstrate the Protestant vs. Catholic debate defaults to a choice between sola scriptura and sola ecclesia. He then counters Roman arguments for tradition using both concepts. The most interesting case is his analysis of the nature of the Canon of Scripture where he argues it is a function of the Scriptures' inspiration rather than an additional revelation and hence does not pertain to the existence of a divinely inspired tradition. While correct on this point, one is left to wonder how the Church is to know the canon the Church recognized is correct. Both Catholics and Orthodox Christian might easily counter that the assurance these books are correct is assured by the unbroken recognition of most of these books from the earliest days of the Church and the discernment of the rest later. The canon itself may not be a separate revelation, but a tradition of the Church's discernment process led by the Holy Spirit's guidance can be established.

Moving on to the topic of the papacy, White gives an alternate exegesis for passages that Rome uses as prooftexts. The chapter is one of the stronger in the book but its brevity in dealing with the topic leaves much unanswered. If there are future editions of this book, he should consider expanding this section to make his points clearer as many who move to Rome ultimately rest upon the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

With the issue of authority dealt with, White then moves to what the Reformers considered to be the heart of the Gospel - the issue of justification. He points out there is no controversy that sin is a rebellion against God and that grace is necessary for salvation. However, he is quite emphatic that Rome loses contact with Scripture over the issue of whether grace is sufficient. Here the presentation is rather muddled as he claims both that Rome teaches both faith and works to be outgrowths of God's grace but that the claim for the necessity of works subtracts from the sufficiency of grace. Yet if the works are consequences of grace, then is the grace not sufficient? Also, his claim that Catholic teaching implies that grace can be "gained and lost, gained and lost" is misleading. It is not the grace that can be gained and lost but the right standing with God - the state of grace and not the grace itself. The dispute is not over whether the grace exists but whether it can be resisted. However, this is not just an issue between Catholics and Protestants but between Protestants and Protestants as well as White's disputes with Arminian Protestants demonstrates.

The whole question of what makes us justified - whether it is by faith alone (sola fidei) as Protestants believe or by faith together with works as Catholic believe is an issue that entire volumes have been dedicated to but White does a credible job of presenting the standard Evangelical Protestant case in the restricted space available. One drawback is that he does not deal with the James 2:24. White undoubtedly has run across this arguement in his debates and must have his own interpretation but not dealing with the issue directly is such a glaring oversight that he might appear to be fudging the data.

Probably the weakest section on the book is White's analysis of the Catholic Mass. Although he gives a nice summary of what Catholics believe and where Evangelicals disagree, he presents these two views in a false dichotomy as if these were the only choices. The fact is that a good number of Protestants are closer to Rome than White's Evangelical interpretation and Christians outside the Roman/Protestant divide are as well. While it can be argued that Rome's defining transubstantiation as dogma went too far, the historic position of Christianity until modernity was that Christ became present to the believer in the celebration of the liturgy. This was no less true for Luther and Calvin as for their Catholic opponents. The Evangelical view of it as symbolic (in the modern western sense of the word) is an innovation that has little support in the historical context of the early Church.

White recovers a bit with his section on the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory and related issues such as indulgences and the "treasury of merits". He raises some interesting points on the use by Catholic apologists of such passages as I Corinthians 3:10-15. He makes a direct assault on the Catholic position (one where Catholicism not only differs with Protestants, but with the Orthodox as well) and rebuts the most common Catholic defenses.

Returning to the topic of sola scriptura, White gives some examples - all involving Catholic devotion to Mary and the Saints - that he contends are consequences of rejecting this foundational doctrine of Protestantism. Yet in his critique, he fails to mention that much of what he criticizes was accepted by the early Church and so could hardly be considered an invention of the papacy. This is important since this undermines his claim that the doctrine of sola scriptura is the historic postion of the Church. Yet in many key issues White discusses, the Church Fathers are usually closer to the Catholic position than White's own (although there are important distinctions between the details of Catholic and patristic thinking).

The assumption White makes is that he reads any historical figure claiming to find all they believe in Scripture to mean all they believed could be found using the exegetical methodology employed by modern Evangelical Protestants. He misses completely that the Church fathers greatly employed typological and mystical interpretations of Scriptural passages and their exegesis was not based upon modern histoical-critical exegesis.

White closes by returning to the original context of ECT and stating that nothing has changed in Rome seeks to rally the troops and avoid any weakening of resolve with regards to Catholicism. Whatever the validity of his claim that Rome has not moved, something has definitely changed in Protestantism and continues to do so and perhaps this failure to maintain any theological stability is what has begun to send disgruntled Evangelicals looking Romeward in the first place.

Despite reservations I have about White's comments elsewhere, I would recommend The Roman Catholic Controversy as a book to read on the differences between the two traditions and especially to apologists on both sides. As one of the most widely known critiques of Rome from the Evangelical side and one of the more clearly presented, the case made here will continue to be repeated (and opposed) in debates for years to come.

On the positive side: James White provides in this book a thoughtful, well-researched, well-organized, and well-written analysis of the key differences in Roman Catholicism and Protestant (particularly evangelical) theology. Unlike other critiques of the Catholic faith, this book is not harsh or mean spirited. The author avoids sensationalizing or misrepresenting beliefs of Catholics, and doesn't take cheap shots like some I've read in numerous other books that seek to explain why the Catholic doctrine is inferior to that of Protestants. It should be noted, however, that in order to demonstrate what he claims the Catholic Church or the majority of Catholics believe he in some instances quotes from Catholic writers that appear to be either outside of the mainstream of current Church thinking and practices.

I read this book to get a succinct explanation of how a Baptist theologian understands what Catholics believe about the way to salvation in contrast to what Protestants believe. And this book delivered just that. In chapter 9, titled "Justified Before God: Rome's View", and chapter 10, Justified Before God: By Grace Through Faith Alone," the differences in understanding are clearly presented. All points are supported by Scripture citations and numerous footnotes to the Council of Trent, Vatican I and II, The Catholic Catechism and numerous Catholic theologians.

Regardless of whether you are Protestant or Catholic and regardless of what your personal belief is concerning the significance of good deeds (works) to your salvation, you may find useful this book's discussion of the difference in imputed and imparted justification. A sharp contrast is made --- Protestants say the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to a believer so that the believer is credited as righteous even though his life may remain unchanged and unimproved. Catholics say the righteousness of Jesus is imparted to a believer so that the believer actually becomes a new person that can become righteous in God's eyes. The author acknowledges that Catholics teach that the good works can only be accomplished as a gift of God through grace, but he explains the Protestant belief that no matter how it is that we are capable of doing good works, it diminishes God's free gift of salvation to say that works are necessary. As explained here, Protestants insist that salvation is by faith alone.

On the negative side: The author fails to address the book of James at all. It's as if the book doesn't exist. I suppose its easier to ignore it than to have to explain that James says that "Faith without works is dead" or that James also says that " Man is not saved by faith alone...." He also fails to mention that Martin Luther added the key word "alone" to the text of the apostle Paul who in Romans said that man is "saved by faith." The only time the word alone is directly linked to faith in the Bible it is when the epistle of James tells us that we are not saved by faith alone. I wish the author had acknowledged this and explained how James and Paul can be read together to be consistent.

Another negative is that the author states that the Gospel of Christ is one of peace because it assures or guarantees that once a person proclaims faith in Jesus that person is saved once and for all and can never lose that salvation - but he fails to explain how this is so in light of dozens of verses of Scripture that suggest otherwise. A more reasonable treatment of the subject contained in this book would have to address that scripture. If these verses actually mean what they appear of their face to say, then the Catholics would be correct when they describe their salvation by explaining that they are saved (past), are being saved (present) and will be saved (future). They would be correct when they look to the apostle Paul who warned of the necessity of preserving to the very end to achieve the sought for prize (salvation). They would be correct when they say that genuine faith of the kind Jesus desires is that kind described by James which will be accompanied by good works.

In conjunction with the book, I'd recommend reading several good books by Catholic theologians that describe the Catholic faith in their own words and in the words of the Catholic Church. These include: "Unabridged Christianity" by Fr. Mario P. Romero; "Catholic and Christian" by Alan Schreck; "Born Fundamentalist - Born Again Catholic" by David B. Currie; and "Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on `Romanism' by `Bible Christians'" by Karl Keating.

I was really, really hoping. Too many books against the Catholic Church go over-the-top and attack straw men, without ever really touching what the Church truly teaches. In White's introduction to this book, it seemed he would be taking a different approach.

He didn't.

He does present the Roman arguments, sometimes citing official documents of the Church, but when it comes to answering the really tough questions (sola scriptura, sola fide, the Real Presence), he doesn't seem to address Rome so much.

He quotes from Catholic authors (Ludwig Ott and others), and attacks their arguments, but that won't suffice. Perhaps he does too much attacking and not enough defending of his own doctrines... perhaps.

For example... he cites the Roman claim that divisions in the Protestant camp prove that they cannot be the true, united Church, but then attacks that claim by saying that Rome is just as divided... interesting hypothesis, but he provides no evidence to prove it.

He calls Catholics "circular" in their arguments of Scripture pointing to an infallible Church, since it is only the Church that can interpret the Scripture - but he fails to address the circular reasoning in the Protestant claim that the Scripture is infallible because the Scripture says so.

He addresses the issue of oral tradition presented in Jesus' teaching on the "Seat of Moses" (Mt. 23:1-3), and refutes the claim by pointing out that Jesus attacks the Pharisees who sit in Moses' Seat. No mention of where this teaching of a Seat of Moses came from (there's no record of it in the Bible), and no treatment of Jesus' words that "you must obey them," precisely because they DO sit on Moses' Seat.

These are just a few of the examples from this book that really left me still asking questions... this book feels like it was too rushed in its writing.

2 stars, because at least he quotes some official Church docs.

White's critique of Catholicism focuses on two areas: salvation and authority. He does use Roman Catholic documents and citations to support this critique. For any uninformed Catholic, his use of bible and history may seem compelling. For anti-Catholic Protestants this work will confirm their belief that Roman Catholicism is unbiblical.

In spite of this, the book falls flat in a number of areas; On the issue of justification he does not deal with the many biblical passages that show that works are indeed necessary for salvation (ie. James 2:14-26, Romans 2:6-13, Matthew 25:31-46, etc.). He is selective in his quotations from Romans and Galatians; Although he spends much time and space attacking the biblical basis for the Roman Catholic view of authority, he fails to give strong scriptural support for sola scriptura (the tradition that the bible is the exclusive rule of faith for Christians). He basically uses two verses and blows them up to say things not in the mind of the biblical authors.

This book does an excellent job at what its author knows best - contrasting *his* understanding of the Catholic faith with the traditional Reformed perspective on similar issues. The result is a warmed over polemic for the Reformed tradition.

The tone is set early. The author likens himself to the apostle Paul (who can deny that this plays into the sentiments of non-Catholic readers whose theology of the evangel derive primarily from the Pauline epistles?). The issue set before us is that the integrity of the gospel itself is at stake. What is this difference? *HOW* one is made right before God -- known in other terms as justification (for the author, by faith ALONE--JBFA).

The author glosses over all the other distinctives of Christian orthodoxy with which he agrees with Catholics (the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, the Death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Jesus) and goes to the primary issue which he believes separates Catholics from "true" Christianity. He does not give a basis for this distinction. For example, if justification by faith alone is *THE* defining element of christian orthodoxy, how did it manage to escape inclusion in the creeds of the Church? The fact is, it is NOT the defining element of Christian orthodoxy but it IS a point of sharp disagreement between the author and the Catholic faith -- and the opportunity to write a book :)

Catholics *can* be saved; but the author's intimation is that is done by renouncing the Catholic faith for JBFA before death (see the list of examples he gives on page 27.)

Infallibility is having *exhaustive* knowledge of historical minutae. Wrong.

Overall, the book does a good job presenting the *authors* conceptions but does not ever really engage the issues because it does not fairly present the opposing position (eg the question of *HOW* one is justified is necessarily couched in *WHY* God justifies -- which is where the *REAL* difference -- and opportunity for healing and reconciliation -- lies; one wonders if he has read the excellent summary found in "A Father Who Keeps His Promises" by Scott Hahn). The author offers no hope that the two theologies can brought to a common understanding. One is left with a choice. The author leaves no doubt about his personal choice and what he considers the only right choice to be.

If you are looking for a balanced review of the issues with a view to conciliarity, this is not it.

James White has done a good job in this book. James has balanced up the issues well and not in a condeming way.

Martin Luther was certainly right when he made the bold comment that the issue of the human free will is really the "hinge on which the whole turns".

Wether it be the Roman Catholic church or any other of the religions of man. It all comes down to the great issue, does God save or does God simply lay out a plan and leave it up to the creature to decide, wether it be by sacraments, confession, mass, free will, ect, ect.

Not only do Catholics hate Dr White but so do many people who would call themselves protestants. Dr White is proudly a christian from the Calvinist side, and by the grace of God so am I. That is the issue that will put a lot of people off this book.

God Bless

I am a staunch Catholic. I didn't used to be. I left the Church twelve years ago because of rebelliousness and plain old ignorance. I was persuaded by those who espoused much of the same papp that James White does. It was only through a long scholarly study, engaging debates, and heartfelt prayer that I learned the errors of my ways. The Catholic Church has had it right for nearly two thousand years and the gates of hell aren't about to prevail upon it now. As for White, I complement his intellectual approach. He, unlike so many of his ilk, does not resort to outright lies and demagoguery to prove his points. For this, at least, he should be applauded. Nevertheless, Mr. White reaches one mistaken conclusion after another. The reader is no more enlightened on sola scriptura (the Bible alone) than he was when he started. The Catholic Church has asked a simple question: If the Bible is the SOLE source of faith, where does scripture teach this doctrine? It should be a simple matter of quoting the chapter(s) and verse(s). But White can't and nor can anyone else. Instead, he leads the reader on a never-ending, philosophical wild goose chase that leaves you more convinced that the Catholic Church hit the bullseye again. White, and many others in the Protestant world, are attempting to put a finger in the dike as fundamentalists and evangelicals are joining the Catholic Church in droves. This work falls FAR short of its goal. For really great reading, try ROME SWEET HOME by Scott and Kimberly Hahn, SURPRISED BY TRUTH by Patrick Madrid, BORN FUNDAMENTALIST;BORN AGAIN CATHOLIC by David Currie, BY WHAT AUTHORITY? by Mark Shea, ANSWERING A FUNDAMENTALIST by Albert Nevins, or try the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. All of these titles are available right here at AMAZON.COM. In Excelsis Deo.

I read this book during my discernment process while in the RCIA program. I had expected that Dr. White would unconvincingly prove to me to remain a Protestant. While Dr. White does make an initial prima facie case against Catholicism, his arguments are easily defeated by Catholic rebuttals. Furthermore, Dr. White deliberately avoids many of the tougher counter-arguments posited by Catholic apologists. Hence, instead of convincing me to remain Protestant, it affirmed the fact that the fullness of Christian Truth has only been fully revealed through the Roman Catholic Church, which I was honored to be welcomed into communion with this Easter.

This book is the typical lies Protestants bring against Christ's One True Church. Total garbage. If Protestants would just use simple logic there is no way they can justify their "SOLA" beliefs.

James R. White explores much of what he considers the gray area of the Roman Catholic Faith, and uses an incredible array of resources to help him explain his beliefs on what the Catholic Church teaches. White admits that he is not a former Catholic, but claims to have debated some of the leading Catholic apologists in the United States over the past few years. I think that it shows in this book. Of all the books that I have read of this nature, White at least does his best to present the Catholic view in a favorable light, then presents why he can't accept it. Unfortunately, in my opinion, he misses the mark!

That being said, if anyone felt that he was called to be a Catholic apologist, I would suggest that they obtain a copy of this book, so that they could decide how they would answer White's comments and criticisms of the Catholic Faith. Yet, they should also try to obtain some of the resources that White quotes, so that they can explore that topic in detail, not just the quotes that White choses to include. Ultimately, we each have to make our Faith decision within our own hearts, and although this book is heavily documented, it didn't really persuade me away from the Catholic perspective on any single point. In fact, I would venture to say, that if Mr. White opened up his mind a little more, those same gray areas that he explores might not be so gray after all!

If you want to really explore the Catholic Faith, grab some Scott Hahn or Tim Staples tapes or some of the excellent Catholic Apologetic books mentioned in other reviews of this book. And finally crack open your Bible and Catechism of the Catholic Church with an open mind and heart!