The Roman Catholic Controversy is James White's main book on Roman Catholicism. White is well-known for his dozens of debates against Roman Catholic apologists, and extensive coverage of the topic of Catholicism on his radio program and blog. He knows, and fairly represents, what Catholicism teaches, and has well-thought-out responses, many of which are touched on in this book.
Click to Expand Table of Contents
Chapter 1 - I Can't Believe He Did That, covers the extremely important fact that fundamentalists and evangelicals need to understand that Catholics have answers, and that naïve critiques of Catholicism are not enough:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 1, pg. 19-20
For most Protestants the first question that comes to mind when they hear of such a conversion is, "How could you do that? Rome teaches so many things that aren't in the Bible - or even directly contradict it!" Many assume that Roman Catholics have no biblical defense for their beliefs. It is easy to understand why this assumption is made; a high percentage of Roman Catholics don't have such a defense. This is due to the fact that many of them have rarely opened a Bible let alone seriously studied it, making Protestants believe there must not be any way of defending Roman idea from the Bible....
However, just because the large majority of Roman Catholics are not as likely to be as biblically literate as their conservative Protestant counterparts does not mean that Rome cannot defend her beliefs from the Bible. It is a critical mistake to think otherwise.
The reason the above resonated with me so much is that it matches my own experience. I was satisfied, ignorantly, with relatively shallow critiques of Catholicism, for a long time after my conversion away from the Catholic Church when I was 16 years old. However, it was a rude awakening to realize that there are book-length rejoinders to many of those critiques, which needed to be dealt with. Often, the naïve critique panned out, but it took a mature, and serious study - and engaging with the opposite side more fairly - to prove that out in a sincere and robust way.
This chapter also covers the fact that the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity are fundamental, and irreconcilable, in opposition to well-intentioned ecumenical efforts. Nevertheless, White contends that "there are still those within Roman Catholicism that are heirs of eternal life" (pg. 27) - that is, those who are saved, in spite of the Church's teachings, having "understood what it was to be justified by faith" (pg. 27).
Chapter 2 - Cutting Through the Fog, covers how to have effective dialogue with Catholics, or really any other theological opponent. White begins by stressing the importance of not using double standards, and not misrepresenting our opponent's beliefs. He then exhorts not getting bogged down in the nonessentials, citing as examples crossing oneself with pure motives, not out of superstition, wearing or displaying a cross versus a crucifix, lighting candles in a religious setting out of pure motives, and the form of a church's liturgy. White also warns to avoid appealing to conspiracies.
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 2, pg. 38
Before we move on to the central topics, I pause to reiterate a most important point. We must major on the majors, and minor on the minors. If someone's objection to Rome is based on nonessentials and not on major issues, something is wrong. If we fail to see the central issue - how people are made right with God - we will generate a great deal of heat - but little light - in our debates. Our thinking must be clear and unshakable: What is the Gospel? What does the Bible teach about the Gospel? What does Rome teach about the Gospel? If there is a difference, what is it? Where does it come from. Everything else pales into insignificance.
Chapter 3 - The Essential Issue: The Gospel of Peace, covers that the Gospel is ultimately the only thing that matters, and because we differ with Catholicism on this topic, "these arguments have to do with nothing less than people's eternal destiny" (pg. 39).
White then expresses the Gospel of peace throughout the chapter, which I will quote at length here, because it is excellent:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 3, pg. 39-40
We cannot discuss the Gospel without discussing peace. A gospel that does not bring peace is not a Gospel at all, for surely anything that is described as "good news" (what the word "gospel" means) must speak of true and lasting peace. A message of works-righteousness, for example, that calls someone to strive to obtain peace with God through various ceremonies or duties, could not logically be called a gospel, for such would not qualify as good news. Such a message would bring about not peace but turmoil to the hearts of those who struggle to meet the impossible standards built into such systems.
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 3, pg. 41-42
The perfection of our Savior establishes the basis for our peace with God. His work on the cross is the means by which we who are sinful can be at peace with our holy God. Nothing else avails to bring us into right relationship with Him. We are incapable of making peace ourselves - all sides agree to that. But beyond this, we are incapable of maintaining peace with God if, in fact, our relationship with Him is based on anything other than the firm foundation of the Just One who died for the unjust, the Savior who gave His life as a ransom for many, the Shepherd who gave His life for the sheep. Christ's death as the foundation of this peace is laid out clearly in Scripture (Romans 3:24-26).
We will discuss justification in some depth later. Right now let's examine the work of Christ in making redemption, and the fact that God, by His grace, justifies men freely, as a gift, without cost. God then is described as the "justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:26). God justifies, God makes righteous, on the basis of the works of another - Jesus Christ. People do not justify themselves. Then are all justified? No, for not all have faith. Paul goes on to describe the means of justification - it is by faith, and faith alone. He writes:
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28).
And then,
Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness (Romans 4:4-5).
Those who have faith in Jesus Christ appropriate His righteousness. His perfect righteousness is "imputed" (credited) to the believer on the basis of faith. It is not credited to those who work to gain it (Romans 9:30-10:4), but only to those who trust in the all-sufficient Savior alone. And why does God make the passive act of faith the means of justification? The Scriptures have a ready answer:
For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also those are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (Romans 4:16).
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 3, pg. 43
The peace I have with God is not of my own making. In fact, its steadfastness depends totally on the work of another, the perfect Peacemaker, the Savior, Jesus Christ. It is abiding and secure because it is solely His work. If it were based on my actions, my contributions, it would be anything but secure, anything but lasting. But it is true peace, lasting peace, blessed peace because it is based on His perfect and completed work on the Cross, given to me by god's free and eternal grace (2 Timothy 1:9-10). This peace will not break down tomorrow, making me at enmity with God again. It is a perfect peace. It cannot be disturbed by a higher power or authority, since the Creator himself has vouchsafed it to me! Peace with God. Certain peace. Mine through Jesus Christ and Him alone.
Chapter 4 - Who Defines the Gospel?, begins by covering the Roman Catholic Church's claims to be the sole legitimate interpreter of Scripture. White then covers the circularity of the Church appealing to the Bible to establish its legitimacy, while also claiming to have the authority to determine what is or is not Scripture. He also points out that seeking refuge in an "infallible interpreter" may seem alluring, however, the choice to submit to the Roman Catholic Church in the first place is itself a fallible decision:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 4, pg. 50
The Roman Catholic has no more certainty than the Protestant at this point. The Roman Catholic makes a decision to follow a particular guide. That decision is fallible. He could make other decisions....
A Roman Catholic born into the faith may not have consciously chosen among these options. But the person contemplating conversion to Rome with the goal of finding infallible certainty outside of personal responsibility before God cannot avoid the simple fact that the first step along that path is an obviously fallible step. Rome's voice is just one among many, and it is up to the individual to choose to follow it or not. Therefore, the offer of certainty is illusory: you have to make a fallible decision to buy into the plan, and any certainty offered thereafter rests solely on the first - fallible - choice that was made.
White then points out that the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers compels us to bear our personal responsibility before God for our beliefs, and respond by checking what any teacher tells us against the witness of Scripture.
Chapter 5 - Sola Scriptura: God Speaks Clearly, begins with a discussion of what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not:
White then moves on to what Sola Scriptura is:
White then exegetes 2 Timothy 3:14-17 at length, and demonstrates that it provides the Biblical foundation for Sola Scriptura. He also comments on Matthew 22:31-32:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 5, pg. 67
However, we should not miss the importance of the introductory phrase the Lord uses: "Have you not read (i.e., in the Scriptures), What was spoken to you by God...?" The Lord Jesus held his hearers accountable for reading the Scriptures. In fact, He did not simply view these words of Scripture as something that God said long ago to someone else. Instead, the plain and inescapable meaning of His words informs us that in His divine and infallible opinion, what God said in the sacred text God continues to say to this day. People remain accountable for the words of Scripture - just as accountable as the day when God uttered the words, "I am the God of Abraham,", etc. Just as His Apostle would later put it, Jesus viewed the Scriptures as "God-breathed".
Lastly, White covers Matthew 15:1-9, which culminates with the Lord saying "But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men" (Matthew 15:9). White states in his discussion of this passage that "any tradition, no matter what its alleged pedigree, is to be tested by the known standard, the Holy Scriptures" (pg. 69).
Chapter 6 - The Thousand Traditions, begins by pointing out that the Catholic Church's statements "are not only equally as liable to various interpretations" as the Scripture, "but often more liable" (pg. 71). White then begins a discussion on tradition's role in the Church, noting that Rome claims not only "the exclusive right of interpretation of the Scriptures, but the exclusive right of both definition and interpretation of tradition, as well" (pg. 74). As such, White argues, the Church has elevated itself above both Scripture and tradition, resulting in "Sola Ecclesia" (pg. 80).
This chapter also contains a discussion on the two major views of tradition's role within Roman Catholicism (Partim-Partim vs Material Sufficiency), and a section on genuine vs illegitimate development of doctrine.
Chapter 7 - Sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition, is intended to be a rejoinder to various Roman Catholic critiques against the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. In response to the charge that Sola Scriptura results in doctrinal chaos, White begins by arguing that Scripture is perspicuous enough for the sincere reader, and is not to blame for heretical or strange interpretations any more than a perfectly written book on logic, which could just as well be abused by lazy, reckless, and insincere readers.
Then, White discusses the Catholic claim that the canon is a product of the Church, and cannot be discerned the Church's infallible guidance. Part of this response, dealing with the self-attesting nature of Scripture, reads:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 7, pg. 93-94
The canon is a function of the Scriptures themselves. The canon is not just a listing of books; it is a statement about what is inspired. The canon flows from the work of the Author of Scripture, God himself. To speak of canon outside of speaking of what is "God-breathed" is to speak nonsense. Canon is not made by man. Canon is made by God. It is the result of the action of His divine inspiration. That which is "God-breathed" is canon; that which is not "God-breathed" is not canon. It's just that simple. Canon is a function of inspiration, and it speaks to an attribute of Scripture.
The canon of Scripture tells us something about Scripture: that is, the canon speaks to the extent of the work of God in inspiring Scripture. God defines the canon not by giving some revelation outside of the scriptura but by giving the scriptura itself! The Roman error lies in creating a dichotomy between two things that cannot be separated, and then using that false dichotomy to deny sola scriptura.
White then addresses the most common Roman Catholic prooftexts for the authority extra-Biblical tradition:
Chapter 8 - The Claims of the Papacy, covers the claims of the First Vatican Council (1870 AD), which stated that "Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction". And, that this "absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church" is opposed by those with "distorted opinions", who are "anathema".
White then demonstrates the overwhelming case against this doctrine from the testimony of Scripture, noting the following passages in a survey of the New Testament:
White then addresses the three major Roman Catholic prooftexts for the Papacy, John 21:15-17, Luke 22:31-32, and Matthew 16:13-20:
Finally, of the interpretation of the meaning of "the rock" on which Christ built His Church in Matthew 16:18, White notes:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 8, pg. 120
The French Roman Catholic Launoy surveyed the patristic evidence and found seventeen citations supporting the concept that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16. Please note that this does not mean that all sixteen of these Fathers also felt that this meant that the bishop of Rome was a Pope, but only that they saw Matthew 16 and the phrase "this rock" as referring to Peter. However, Launoy found sixteen citations that identified the rock as Christ. He found eight that identified all the Apostles together as forming the rock of Matthew 16. And he found forty-four citations indicating that the rock of Matthew 16 was the confession of faith made by Peter in Jesus Christ. If we add these numbers together, we find that the Roman Catholic position, which claims to have always been the faith of the Catholic Church, in Launoy's survey actually represents twenty percent of the Fathers (17/85). Eighty percent of the time, then, the early Fathers expressed, in Vatican I's words, "perverse" opinions at the very best. I might note that even as late as the Council of Trent it was said this passage was referring to the faith that Peter expressed.
White then cites one of these early writers, Hilary of Poitiers (310-367 AD), who identifies the "rock" as the faith expressed by Peter's confession:
Hilary of Poitiers - On the Trinity, Book 6
37 This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
White also cites Augustine's (354-430 AD) commentary on the passage:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 8, pg. 121-22
And what of the great Augustine? His most famous commentary on the passage is found in his Retraciones, written toward the end of his life. He writes,
I have somewhere said of St. Peter that the church is built upon him as the rock.... But I know that I have since frequently said that the word of the Lord, "Thou art Petrus, and on this petra I will build my church," must be understood of him, whom Peter confessed as Son of the living god; and Peter, so named after this rock, represents the person of the church, which is founded on this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him: "Thou art a rock" (petra), but, "Thou art Peter (Petrus)"; and the rock was Christ, through confession of whom Simon received the name Peter. Yet the reader may decide which of the two interpretations is the more probable.
I would point out that Augustine left his readers to decide how they would interpret the passage. We should think seriously about what it means that Augustine, the great bishop of Hippo, could think that how one views this passage is a matter of freedom, when Vatican I tells us it is a matter upon which the anathema can and should be used. Notice the huge movement in thought that has taken place between the early part of the fifth century and the latter part of the nineteenth.
Chapter 9 - Justified Before God: Rome's View, contains a survey of the Roman Catholic concept of the economy of Salvation. There is a discussion on Rome's view of the nature of sin, types of sin, temporal and eternal penalties for sin, the sacraments, justification, and the meaning of grace with respect to Salvation.
Chapter 10 - Justified Before God: By Grace Through Faith Alone, offers the Protestant rejoinder to the Catholic doctrine of justification covered in Chapter 9. It pairs well with Chapter 3, in the sense that it contains quite a few great excerpts emphasizing the freeness of Salvation:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 10, pg. 143-44
Justification is based solely and completely upon the merits of another - Jesus Christ. How can God, as a just and holy Judge, declare a sinner to be sinless? How can He rightly release the guilty prisoner? Because the Perfect Substitute has intervened. The basis of justification is the perfect work of Jesus Christ. Even though the term "merit" is not a biblical term, if we are to use in in this discussion it must be limited to the only One who possesses such a thing: Christ. All we have before God, due to sin, is demerit, nothing more. Christ, however, has perfect righteousness, so that the declaration of the righteousness of the believer is based upon His work alone.
Justification involves the imputation of the righteousness of Christ - both His perfect life as well as His perfect, all-sufficient atoning sacrifice - to the believer. On this basis the believer is called "righteous". God is the one who imputes this righteousness to the believer. Imputation is another one of those words that should cause the believer's heart to swell with praise, for it is an act of grace beyond comprehension, and without that term there would be no salvation, no peace with God.
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 10, pg. 152
One of the fundamental differences between the Roman Catholic doctrine and the Protestant doctrine is simply this: the righteousness by which we stand before God, according to the Protestant, is the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. No one will ever stand before God clothed in the righteousness of Christ, Mary, the saint, and himself. The righteousness of Christ is the actual and real possession of the believer. This is the righteousness a Christian pleads before the judgment throne of God. Christ is our Substitute. Our sins are imputed to Him; His righteousness is imputed to us. Christ not simply merit for us grace so that we can then do good works to earn our way to heaven; by God's grace Christ's righteousness becomes ours, and we have eternal life because of Christ's righteousness, not because of our own.
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 10, pg. 158
Every time we bow in prayer, we are forced to realize the awesomeness of justification by faith. We draw ear to a holy God, yet we do not do so in servile fear, but with a boldness that is based upon our full assurance of acceptance because of our union with Jesus Christ. We know we could never approach God on the basis of anything we might do. We know our own hearts well enough to realize that even our best work is tainted and stained with selfishness and pride. But we come near to God not on the basis of who we are or what we have done - we do no dare plead our own supposed "righteousness" - instead, we come before the throne of grace with hearts full of thankfulness and praise for our Lord Jesus Christ, who by His work has provided for us full and complete remission of sins and a perfect standing before the Father.
Chapter 11 - What of the Mass?, begins with citations from Roman Catholic sources establishing what the Catholic Church teaches about the Mass. White then exegetes John chapter 6, because John 6:53-57 is a common Roman Catholic prooftext for Transubstantiation. He notes that John 6:40, 6:44, 6:47, 6:54 all have the same consequence - Everlasting Life - and this demonstrates that Christ's mention of eating His flesh and drinking His blood in verse 54 is, in context, clearly a metaphor for faith. "Jesus is obviously not speaking of a Sacrament of the Eucharist supposedly established years later" (pg. 172).
White then covers the Lord's words at the Last Supper, along with the Apostle Paul's reference to the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians 11:23-31. White notes that after saying "this is my blood" (Matthew 26:28, Mark 14:24), the Lord then calls it the "fruit of the vine" (Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25). This demonstrates that the Catholic absurdly-literal view of Christ's words is inappropriate. White notes that the Apostle Paul, also, says "as often as you eat the bread and drink the cup" (1 Corinthians 11:26), demonstrating that the communion elements are not flesh and blood.
Lastly, White covers Hebrews chapters 9-10, which speak of the completed nature of the atonement of Christ, in contrast to the Roman Catholic system of repeated, partial purification that its followers believe they obtain through the Mass.
Chapter 12 - The Divine Waiting Room, covers the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, and Indulgences. White points out the radical departure from the Biblical doctrines of atonement and justification that both of these doctrines entail. He also deals with the Roman Catholic prooftexts for Purgatory:
Chapter 13 - When Sola Scriptura Is Rejected, covers Mariolatry within Roman Catholicism. First, White addresses the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and covers Luke 1:28, 1:42, and Genesis 3:15, which are verses put forth in attempt to Biblically support the idea that Mary was altogether sinless, even having been conceived without Original Sin:
This chapter also addresses the distinction - or rather, the Biblical lack thereof - between dulia, which is reverence given to the Saints, and latria, which is reserved only for God within Catholicism. Additionally, it includes a discussion of reverencing the Saints more generally:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 13, pg. 211
Certainly there are examples of people reverencing and honoring other people in Scripture. but the biblical injunction is that in any and all religious contexts this activity is strictly forbidden. When Cornelius bowed before Peter, Peter told him to stand because was just a man (Acts 10:25-26). When John tried to bow down before the angelic messenger (Revelation 19:10; 22:8-9), he was rebuked and told to worship only God. And today, when a man or a woman bows down before a statue of Mary or Peter or John or the Angel Michael and says a prayer or lights a candle, that person, despite the fact that they may have been taught from childhood that this was right and honorable and good, is engaging in veneration within an inarguable religious context. That person, therefore, is doing exactly what Exodus 20:5 forbids.
Finally, this chapter covers extensive quotations from Roman Catholic Saints, prayers, and Popes demonstrating the absurd degree of Mariolatry that exists within official Roman Catholicism.
Chapter 14 - Sola Gratia, is a short concluding chapter, once again emphasizing that the differences between Protestants and Catholics are foundational, and prevent true ecumenism:
The Roman Catholic Controversy - Chapter 14, pg. 220-21
While we are thankful God's grace surpasses even the most stubborn human barriers, we must also begin with basic truths and face the obvious conclusions. Rome's official gospel is not the Apostle Paul's Gospel. Paul would have never recognized the treasury of merit, indulgences, purgatorial cleansing, etc. Nor would he have understood the concept of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. His doctrine of justification differs in a marked way from that taught by the Vatican today. Can we seriously think that while Paul responded strongly to the addition of circumcision to the Gospel in his letter to the Galatians, he would have overlooked the teaching that we can merit eternal life by words done in a state of grace, or that we can draw near to the death of Christ a thousand times and yet die in an impure state? Can we really think he would have viewed as a matter of "freedom" the teaching that men can undergo the "suffering of atonement" in Purgatory to merit release from temporal punishment fo their sins? Listen to Paul's words in Galatians 5:1: "It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery".
This is an extremely valuable book for all those who engage with the claims of Roman Catholicism.