Skip to main contentAccessibility feedback

Fatally Flawed Thinking

Many people think overt anti-Catholicism is found only among elderly, anti-intellectual Fundamentalists. Not so. One younger Fundamentalist author, by no means anti-intellectual, shows his anti-Catholicism publicly by refusing to shake hands with Catholic debate opponents or to pray the Lord’s Prayer with Catholics. He has been known to walk off the stage when an ecumenical prayer is offered by a Catholic. 

His name is James White, and he is a Calvinist who directs Alpha and Omega Ministries, an Arizona-based apologetics group that offers advice on dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, atheists, and Catholics. Small as it is, Alpha and Omega distributes some of the more soberly written anti-Catholic literature published today. [White might protest that he is not anti-Catholic because he loves Catholics and only wants to help them, but it is fair to describe his literature as anti-Catholic since it attacks Catholicism as a “system” and tries to convince people to leave the Catholic Church.] 

White believes Catholics must disown their faith and embrace “true” Christianity. He does not regard them as Christians, which is perhaps why he has refused at times to shake hands or pray with them in front of audiences.[While at home he presumably would be willing to shake the hand of a Catholic repairman or mailman.] White declares this belief in his most popular anti-Catholic book, The Fatal Flaw: “[A]ll who hold to biblical authority . . . refuse to the Catholic system the name ‘Christian,’ for one cannot truly own Christ as Savior and Lord when one denies the complete efficacy and power of his atoning blood!”[James White, The Fatal Flaw (Southbridge, Massachusetts: Crowne Publications, 1990), 151. The many conservative Protestant Bible scholars who regard Catholics as Christians would reject White’s implication that they do not hold to biblical authority. White might argue that some individual Catholics are Christians, but only because they do not believe or apply the gospel of their Church but White’s gospel instead. They would be saved in spite of their Catholicism, not because of it. But anyone who knowingly rejects the Church’s gospel in favor of White’s is not a Catholic in the proper sense, and that means that those who are Catholics in the proper sense are not Christians in White’s view.] 

Catholics deny the complete efficacy and power of Christ’s blood, White argues, because they believe in purgatory, the sacrifice of the Mass, and indulgences. He says these are means of atonement outside of Christ’s atonement, and their existence implies Christ’s blood was not sufficient for us. This is what White identifies as Catholicism’s “fatal flaw.” “Here then is the fatal flaw of Romanism: The Church of Rome teaches a gospel that is devoid of the all-sufficient and finished work of Jesus Christ and therefore declares that there are ways of expiation, atonement, [and] forgiveness that are outside of and distinct from the atonement of Jesus Christ.”[White, 156. This is the first time White states the central thesis of his book. It is disappointing that a book titled The Fatal Flaw does not give a clear statement of the flaw until two-thirds of the way through itself. Even then White’s claim must be read carefully to be understood. If taken in isolation, it would appear White thinks Catholic teaching is “devoid of the . . . work of Jesus Christ,” meaning Catholics have nothing to say about the work of Christ. But anyone who walks into a Catholic church and sees the crucifix hanging above the altar or who looks at the stations of the cross knows the work of Christ is central to Catholic life and worship. White knows this too, which is why his claim must be read carefully. He does not mean Catholic teaching is utterly devoid of the work of Christ, but that it does not view Christ’s work as being “all-sufficient and finished.”] 

To back up his claim White must show that the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences offer “ways of expiation, atonement, [and] forgiveness” outside of Christ’s atonement–that they add to the work of Christ. His book ultimately fails because White is not able to prove this point. 

To show the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences add to what Christ has done for us, he appeals to a particular Calvinist doctrine called “limited atonement.” This is the teaching that Christ did not die for all men but only for the elect–those who will end up with God in heaven. Limited atonement is the most controversial of the “five points of Calvinism,”[The five points of Calvinism are often taught using the well-known TULIP acrostic: Total depravity of man, Unconditional election by God, Limited atonement by Christ, Irresistible grace in conversion, and Perseverance of the saints.] and even many Calvinists deny it.[Those who deny it are called Amyraldians or four-point Calvinists, in contrast to five-point Calvinists, who accept all of TULIP.]Since few Christians believe in the doctrine of limited atonement, the potential of White’s book is diminished. Only five-point Calvinists will accept one of its key premises,[In personal correspondence with me, White states he does not care that he has limited the potential of the book, saying, “It is not my desire to write a ‘popular’ book that would find a wide audience. . . . Instead, I desire simply to present God’s truth, even if that truth is not popular in my culture at this time in history.” He adds, “the Reformed understanding of the atonement is the only view that can properly address the Roman Catholic concept of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice.” This is an implicit admission his argument against the Mass will not work properly without limited atonement.] and only they are likely to accept fully its overall argument. 

Furthermore, White’s use of limited atonement also limits the number who count as Christians. He wishes to exclude only Catholics and possibly Eastern Orthodox from the family of Christians, but his argument requires him to exclude many more people if he applies it consistently. It requires him to deny the name Christian to anyone who is not a five-point Calvinist. 

White says Catholics are not Christians because “one cannot truly own Christ as Savior and Lord when one denies the complete efficacy and power of his atoning blood!”[White, 151.] By the complete efficacy and power of Christ’s blood White has in mind the standard Calvinist view that the atonement automatically saves all those for whom it is offered, so men do not need to add anything such as faith or love to it to be saved.[White would argue that if anything, including faith or love, needs to be added, then “works-salvation” is true. Since works-salvation is not true, White sees this as reason for rejecting the premise which led to it. He mistakenly assumes that any action one does, including acts of interior faith, count as one of the works the apostle Paul says cannot save us. He is wrong. Paul explicitly states that he is denying “works of law” (Rom. 3:20, 28, Gal. 2:16, 3:2, 5, 10), and numerous references prove the law he is talking about is the Mosaic Law (Rom. 2:14, 17, 20b, 25-28, 3:21, 28-29, 5:13-14, Gal. 2:14-16, 3:10, 17, 4:21, 5:3). What Paul says is that we cannot be justified by “works of the Law.” He does not mean to include acts of faith. Christ specifically tells one woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:50).] If men do need to add something, Christ’s blood does not have complete efficacy and power. 

This is where limited atonement comes in. White reasons that if Christ’s atonement automatically saves those for whom it is offered, and if it is offered for all men, then all men receive final salvation. But the existence of hell indicates not everyone will be saved, so the atonement must not be for everyone. It must be limited, offered for some people, but not for all. 

Most Protestants deny this and claim the atonement was made for everyone. Since most Protestants also believe some people will be lost, five-point Calvinists claim they must say the atonement is not sufficient in and of itself, that it does not automatically save those for whom it is offered, and if a person says the atonement does not automatically save those for whom it is offered, then, according to five-point Calvinism, he is denying the complete efficacy and power of Christ’s blood.[This is the standard charge five-point Calvinists make against those who disagree with them and yet believe in hell.] 

White says such people “cannot truly own Christ as Savior and Lord” and therefore must be refused the name “Christian.” It turns out that anyone who denies limited atonement and believes in hell must not be a Christian. Almost all traditional Protestants[Everyone except five-point Calvinists.] deny limited atonement, so almost all traditional Protestants must not be Christians. 

That White does not say that only five-point Calvinists are Christians shows he is employing a double-standard. He has failed to think through the implications of his argument.[In correspondence with me White tries to avoid the conclusion that Protestants who deny limited atonement are not Christians by arguing that they do not add such things as the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences to the atonement. This argument does not work because it does not matter what one adds to the atonement. If one adds anything then, according to five-point Calvinism, one is denying the complete efficacy and power of the atonement. If rejecting limited atonement means something must be added to Christ’s work, as five-point Calvinists claim, then those who reject limited atonement do not count as Christians on White’s definition. If his argument works against Catholics, it works against anyone who, in White’s sense, “denies the complete efficacy and power of his atoning blood,” Protestants included.] 

Yet does the Church reject the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice? No. White himself admits one must have faith and repentance in order to be saved, so why aren’t these counted as additions to the work of Christ? White would answer they are not true additions because they are gifts of God. “[T]he truth is that both repentance and faith are the gifts of God. Man is not capable of repenting or believing outside of the supernatural enablement of God.”[White, 141; emphasis in original.] 

In White’s view faith and repentance do not count as additions since the work of Christ makes them possible. The Catholic Church agrees with this wholeheartedly. The Council of Trent excommunicated “anyone [who] says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him.”[Decree on Justification, canon 3.] 

The Catholic Church teaches that faith, hope, love, and repentance are gifts of God, so on White’s definition they do not qualify as additions to the work of Christ and the Church is not open to White’s charge that it rejects an all-sufficient view of Christ’s work. [White might respond to this by pointing out that some Catholics, known as Molinists, claim God’s enabling grace does not always produce faith and repentance in the sinner, meaning God’s grace would not be all-sufficient in this way. But other Catholics, known as Thomists, claim God’s enabling grace always produces faith and repentance in the sinner. White’s argument would at most work against only Molinists but would not affect Thomists, meaning it would not work against the teaching of the Church itself, which allows both Thomism and Molinism.] 

That the Church teaches love is a gift of God is also important. True love manifests itself in acts of love–good works–meaning good works are gifts of God and therefore do not count as additions to Christ’s work.[Ironically, while proving faith is not an addition to the work of Christ, White quotes a passage which proves love and thus good works are not additions. White insists “the Scriptures are . . . plain in teaching that faith is a supernatural action and the gift of God himself. Paul confessed that ‘the grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus'” (White, 143, citing 1 Tim. 1:14). If this passage proves faith is a gift of God, it also proves love and thus good works are gifts from God and not additions to the work of Christ.] White’s failure to understand this leads him to make statements such as this: “The idea that there can be any merit before God outside of Jesus Christ boggles the Christian’s mind.”[White, 155; emphasis in original.] And he is right. It does boggle the Christian’s mind–Catholic minds included! 

The Catholic Church does not claim there is any merit before God outside of Christ. Merit is only possible for those in Christ [For this reason, the Council of Trent states that “nothing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification” (Decree on Justification, ch. 8). See also Ott, 266f.] because only someone with the grace of God has the supernatural virtue of love. To quote Augustine, “[O]nly grace works every one of our good merits in us, and God, when he crowns our merits, crowns nothing other than his own gifts.”[Augustine, Epistles 194:5:19. The Catholic doctrine of merit is virtually identical to the Protestant doctrine of rewards. The term meritum was introduced in the second century as a Latin translation for the Greek word for reward.] But what about White’s charges against the Mass, purgatory, and indulgences? 

White attacks the Mass by claiming that, since Catholics refer to it as a sacrifice, it must add to Christ’s work. Catholics deny this (which White admits), saying the sacrifice of the Mass merely re-presents to God Christ’s work on the cross. It does not add anything to that work. To refute this White appeals to limited atonement. “If Christ’s death actually saves those for whom it is made, then obviously the Mass is in contradiction to the work of Christ for there would be no need of a ‘re-presentation’ of his death since those for whom the atonement is made are perfected thereby.”[White, 132; emphasis in original.] But two pages later White admits Christ’s work is still being presented to God. “His work of intercession is not another or different kind of work, but is the presentation of the work of the cross before the Father… [B]y presenting his finished work on Calvary before the Father, he assures the application of the benefits of his death to those for whom he intercedes.”[Ibid., 134f; emphasis in original. White makes the same claim on pages 150 and 156.] 

This shows White’s argument, that the Mass adds to Christ’s sacrifice, is wrong. The Mass does not accrue any new merit on Christ’s part; it serves as the means by which Christ’s work on the cross is applied to us, just as in White’s scheme it is applied to us through Christ’s intercessory ministry apart from the Mass. The fact that Christ’s merits remain to be applied to us does not mean one is adding to the sacrifice of the cross, just that the results of the cross are being played out over time. 

The Church agrees that, through Christ’s intercessory ministry in heaven, his work on the cross is presented to the Father. The visible, earthly outworking of that presentation is the Mass. When Mass is offered, we plug into Christ’s on-going intercessory ministry in which his work is presented to the Father and its benefits are applied to us.[It is ironic that White criticizes the Catholic teaching that Christ’s work is re-presented to the Father. He admits Christ is in heaven presenting his work to God. He thus refutes his own position, just as he did when he tried to limit Christianity to Calvinistic Protestantism.] 

White also fails when he attacks the Catholic teaching on purgatory. This doctrine is based on the recognitions that sin makes one subject to temporal and eternal penalties and that when God removes one he does not always remove the other. If some temporal penalties remain at death. 

White argues purgatory denigrates Christ’s work because it implies Christ’s satisfaction was not all-sufficient. He asserts that when God forgives a sin he removes both its eternal and temporal consequences, but he cites no verses to support his claim. As a Protestant he is bound by sola scriptura and must be able to prove every point from Scripture alone. Unless he can name passages of Scripture to prove temporal penalties are always remitted with eternal penalties, his attack fails. 

But he cannot name any such verses because the Bible indicates temporal penalties can remain when eternal penalties are forgiven.[White fails to rebut or even mention any passages Catholics cite to show this, though he is aware of them.] When Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery, we read, “Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die'” (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God indicates he has forgiven David’s sin, even to the point David will not even die a temporal death for it, but David is still going to suffer the loss of his son, and he will suffer other temporal calamities as well.[See 2 Sam. 12:7-12 for a list of the particulars.] 

Another example of a temporal penalty remaining after forgiveness is physical death. Even people who have been forgiven of their sins end up dying, and they die because of original sin. Since physical death is a temporal rather than an eternal penalty (it is not eternal because we will all be resurrected), temporal penalties remain even after forgiveness. Protestants should acknowledge this point since they in fact teach that physical death is a penalty for original sin. 

Catholics have grounds for claiming temporal penalties of a sin can remain even after forgiveness.[A Protestant might object, as White does in correspondence with me, that these are intended to teach the sinner a lesson, making them acts of discipline. There are three responses to this: (1) Nothing in the text says they are disciplines. (2) A Catholic can be perfectly happy saying they are disciplinary rather than retributive punishments. (3) There is nothing wrong with calling them punishments, since disciplining a child is universally spoken of as punishing a child (for instance, “My son disobeyed me, so I punished him by grounding him for a week”).] White’s claim that all the penalties of sin are forgiven at once is simply unbiblical. As Greg Krehbiel, a Protestant who has written for This Rock, points out in a privately-circulated manuscript, “This is the error at the heart of the ‘health and wealth gospel,’ vis., ‘Jesus took my poverty and sickness away so I should be well and rich.'”

James White attacks indulgences by saying they add to the work of Christ. According to the Catholic doctrine of indulgences, the temporal penalties on one person can be lessened because someone else has pleased God. Suppose a father prays for his son, who is seriously ill, and says, “Dear Lord, if I have pleased you then please heal my son!” The father is asking for healing as a reward for his having pleased God. Indulgences work on this principle: God helps one person as a way of rewarding another. 

What biblical evidence is there for this? A great deal. We can show from Scripture that God sometimes lessens a temporal penalty on one person because somebody else has pleased him. Just as one of the most apologetically useful examples of temporal punishments remaining comes from the case of David’s and Bathsheba’s first son, the one who died, so one of the best examples of temporal punishments being lessened comes from the case of their second son, Solomon. 

Solomon’s heart was led astray from the Lord toward the end of his life, and God promised to rip the kingdom away from him as a result. But look at what God said: “Since this is what you want, and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes which I enjoined on you, I will deprive you of the kingdom and give it to your servant. I will not do this during your lifetime, however, for the sake of your father David; it is your son whom I will deprive. Nor will I take away the whole kingdom. I will leave your son one tribe for the sake of my servant David and of Jerusalem, which I have chosen” (1 Kgs. 11:11-13). 

God lessened the temporal punishment on Solomon in two ways: by deferring the removal of the kingdom until the days of Solomon’s son and by leaving one tribe, Benjamin, under the control of Judah. 

God is clear on why he does this: It is not for Solomon’s sake, but “for the sake of . . . David.” If David had not pleased God and if God had not promised him certain things concerning his kingdom, then the kingdom would have been removed during Solomon’s reign. If not for the sake of David and Jerusalem, God would have removed the entire kingdom and would not have allowed Judah to keep the tribe of Benjamin. This is an example of God lessening a punishment for the sake of one of his saints.[Other examples are easy to think of. In Genesis 18:16-33 God promised Abraham that if there were a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he would defer the destruction of the city for the sake of the righteous. In Romans 11 Paul tells of the special place the Jews have as chosen people of God because of the patriarchs. He says, “In respect to the gospel, the Jews are enemies of God for your sake; in respect to the election, they are beloved by him because of the patriarchs. God’s gifts and his call are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28-29). This concept is understood in Jewish theology as well. Jewish theologians talk about “the merits of the fathers” as a way of explaining precisely this point. The idea is that the patriarchs pleased God and as a result inherited certain promises as a reward. God fulfills these promises and in the process ends up treating later Jews more gently than they otherwise would have deserved. The idea of the merits of the fathers is essentially the same as the Catholic idea of the “treasury of merits.” Both postulate a class of individuals, the Old Testament figures on the one hand and Christ and the saints on the other, who have pleased God and whom God chooses to reward in a way that involves lessening temporal punishments on others.] 

Does God’s lessening of one person’s punishment as a way of rewarding someone else add anything to what Christ did? No, since love–the thing which pleases God and moves him to give the reward in the first place–is itself a gift of God.[As White acknowledges in correspondence with me.] Loving actions which please God are not additions to the work of Christ, but fruits of the work of Christ. The atonement is not added to if God rewards one person by helping another. Thus the doctrine of indulgences is not subject to White’s claim that it adds to the atonement. 

In the final analysis, James White’s book fails because it does not prove its central claim, that the Catholic Church adds to the work of Christ. It fails because limited atonement fails. The irony is that The Fatal Flaw itself is fatally flawed. 

Did you like this content? Please help keep us ad-free
Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission!Donatewww.catholic.com/support-us