What do you think?
Rate this book
Church of Rome at the Bar of History
Focusing on major issues and in a non-polemical way, William Webster raises questions about doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church that current Catholics claim as part of a changeless creed, but which were not held by predecessors.
244 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1997
6 people are currently reading
146 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
September 6, 2021
Really dense and thorough, but also accessible. Goes through the early church and shows that Rome's anathemas fall on many they would claim as their own. It is simply not true that the early church unanimously believed in the canonicity of the apocryphal books, the primacy of the bishop of Rome, the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, Peter as the rock that the church was built upon, authoritative tradition being on par with Scripture, sacerdotal priests, the real presence of Christ in the supper, or the Marian dogmas. Will be returning.
July 9, 2012
It has been suggested by more than one scholar that the Reformation was chiefly a contest over Church authority. Both the facts of history and contemporary debate give credence to this view. While the Reformers declared the Scriptures to be the only infallible, inerrant authority for the Church, Roman Catholics maintained that Church tradition stands as an equally valid source of truth. Of course, the notion of authority being central, even key, to the Reformation would be severely undercut if Church tradition actually supported the case of the Reformers--or, conversely, if the Bible really supported the doctrines of Rome.
John Calvin is said to have converted several Roman priests by quoting only from the Church fathers. In The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William David Webster tries to do the same.
I was excited to read this book because Webster's approach should allow for a more substantive dialogue. It bypasses the exhausting and sometimes circular argumentation on the authority issue, and it enables Protestants to meet Roman Catholics on their own turf, so to speak. As such, Webster's book was a success, but a qualified one. What Webster did well was pick the major doctrinal issues--faith and justification, papal infallibility, sacramentalism, Mariology, and yes, the authority of Scripture--and analyze them through the eyes of the early Fathers and the history of the Church.
On the other hand, one problem with the book is its size. It's just too short. The book sits at under 200 pages, not counting the numerous appendices at the end. These appendices are rich and informative, a must read really, but much of the information found in them would have found better use incorporated throughout the rest of the book. Webster also allows plenty of room for rebuttal. For instance, he quotes from Augustine as an example of a Church Father who explicitly advocated Sola Scriptura, yet much later in his book, he admits that Augustine played an instrumental role in developing the doctrine of purgatory. Webster argues against this doctrine, successfully I think, by noting that it originated from Greek writings (such as the Aeneid) as well as aprochyphal literature (such as The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas), and that it undermines the sufficiency of Christ's atonement as expressed by Scripture. So far, so good. The careful reader, however, is left somewhat confused. Why did Augustine believe in purgatory if it contradicted the Bible? Either he was flawed and inconsistent, as are indeed all saints, or his remarks regarding Scripture were earlier taken out of context. The question is not unanswerable, but it needs addressed. Webster, though, never even mentions this inconsistency.
The second problem with the book is related to the first--Webster does not seem to understand the limits of his work. His language is both denunciatory and strident sounding in its tone, which is not altogether suited to a work this size. Webster seems to have thought his brief work single-handedly disproved Roman Catholicism. The following quote, found on pages 149-150, should be example enough:
In the current religious climate where almost every book critical of Roman Catholics is branded by the same as "anti-Catholic," Webster's work will doubtless prove unhelpful when used as a direct evangelism tool. Most Catholics will be turned off by the language, and, being able to pick out problems because of the works brevity, will quickly reject it. This is unfortunate. Webster has provided some real gems in this book, and he deserves high marks for what he did accomplish. The book is a welcome addition to the bookshelf as an aid in discussions with Roman Catholics. I would never hand this book out expecting it to change minds, however, and I would discourage others from using it that way.
John Calvin is said to have converted several Roman priests by quoting only from the Church fathers. In The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, William David Webster tries to do the same.
I was excited to read this book because Webster's approach should allow for a more substantive dialogue. It bypasses the exhausting and sometimes circular argumentation on the authority issue, and it enables Protestants to meet Roman Catholics on their own turf, so to speak. As such, Webster's book was a success, but a qualified one. What Webster did well was pick the major doctrinal issues--faith and justification, papal infallibility, sacramentalism, Mariology, and yes, the authority of Scripture--and analyze them through the eyes of the early Fathers and the history of the Church.
On the other hand, one problem with the book is its size. It's just too short. The book sits at under 200 pages, not counting the numerous appendices at the end. These appendices are rich and informative, a must read really, but much of the information found in them would have found better use incorporated throughout the rest of the book. Webster also allows plenty of room for rebuttal. For instance, he quotes from Augustine as an example of a Church Father who explicitly advocated Sola Scriptura, yet much later in his book, he admits that Augustine played an instrumental role in developing the doctrine of purgatory. Webster argues against this doctrine, successfully I think, by noting that it originated from Greek writings (such as the Aeneid) as well as aprochyphal literature (such as The Passion of Perpetua and Felicitas), and that it undermines the sufficiency of Christ's atonement as expressed by Scripture. So far, so good. The careful reader, however, is left somewhat confused. Why did Augustine believe in purgatory if it contradicted the Bible? Either he was flawed and inconsistent, as are indeed all saints, or his remarks regarding Scripture were earlier taken out of context. The question is not unanswerable, but it needs addressed. Webster, though, never even mentions this inconsistency.
The second problem with the book is related to the first--Webster does not seem to understand the limits of his work. His language is both denunciatory and strident sounding in its tone, which is not altogether suited to a work this size. Webster seems to have thought his brief work single-handedly disproved Roman Catholicism. The following quote, found on pages 149-150, should be example enough:
The Roman system is no more the friend of Christ than was Judaism. The Roman Catholic Church has distorted the truth by elevating man and man's authority and works to the central place which belongs to Christ and God alone.... Through its legalistic teachings it has invalidated the work of Christ in salvation. By elevating Mary to the position of mediatrix and queen, and the pope as visible head of the Church, it has set aside the bible teaching that Christ is the only head and sovereign over the church. By encouraging the worship of Mary it has promoted idolatry. By its teachings on the sacraments and the priesthood it has undermined the sufficiency of the atonement of Jesus Christ and his unique and exclusive role as mediator and priest. In it's teaching on grace and justification it has shifted the foundation for salvation from the imputed righteousness of Christ to imparted grace which enables a man to merit heaven by his own works.... Through its teaching on asceticism and purgatory it has embraced the influences of pagan philosophy in Gnosticism, Stoicism and Platonism. In short, by elevating the teachings of men in its tradition to a place of authority equal to the Scriptures, it has displaced God's authority with its own.
In the current religious climate where almost every book critical of Roman Catholics is branded by the same as "anti-Catholic," Webster's work will doubtless prove unhelpful when used as a direct evangelism tool. Most Catholics will be turned off by the language, and, being able to pick out problems because of the works brevity, will quickly reject it. This is unfortunate. Webster has provided some real gems in this book, and he deserves high marks for what he did accomplish. The book is a welcome addition to the bookshelf as an aid in discussions with Roman Catholics. I would never hand this book out expecting it to change minds, however, and I would discourage others from using it that way.
Want to read
December 12, 2018"Protestant evangelicals are often curious about church history, especially as it relates to claims made by the Roman Catholic church. In a concise yet comprehensive way, Webster digs through early church history to show how Rome’s bold assertions do not hold up to either biblical truth or historical fact. This work will not only affirm your evangelical convictions, it will also equip you to reach out with gospel truth to Roman Catholic family members and friends." – Dr. N. Busenitz
February 29, 2024
William Webster presents a compelling and well-researched exploration into Catholic teachings. With clarity and thoroughness, he demonstrates through numerous quotes from key early church fathers how many core dogmas of Catholicism lack solid biblical support and were not consistently endorsed, and sometimes even contradicted, by these early figures. Written in an accessible style and bolstered by meticulous analysis, this book serves as an invaluable primer for understanding the discrepancies between Catholic doctrine and historical evidence, shedding light on the beliefs of the Catholic Church in an easy-to-understand manner.
February 21, 2026
William Webster shows conclusively that the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are outlandish and untenable, namely that their doctrines agree with the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” and of the infallible nature of the Popes and the Roman Magisterium. History is a witness against these claims, but much more so the writings of sacred Scripture.
For anyone needing assistance on the claims of Rome, Webster’s book will be a great help to you.
For anyone needing assistance on the claims of Rome, Webster’s book will be a great help to you.
January 1, 2026
Solid read. It was not exactly what I was hoping for as I was looking for a rather detailed history of the decline of the Church at Rome, but it was useful nevertheless. Webster does well in documenting the belief of the early church—particularly showing how Rome has departed not only from Scripture, but from actual early church beliefs (and tradition). She makes claims that are faith-based. Period.
This one is worth the time.
This one is worth the time.
May 5, 2019
A decent book but a few problems.
Webster quotes personal views of certain church fathers as if it negated the church coming to a conclusion on the subject via a council or some other means. He also seems content to cite those who would disagree with him elsewhere, so why are these disagreements any different than where they would disagree with him? He also seems to confuse what the phrase "uniamous consent of the fathers" means. Typically when an informed Catholic refers to the uniamous consent, they're talking about interpretation, not tradition. They are also not claiming that every single father agreed personally.
He just causally dismisses Aquinas on pg. 134 when talking about faith and justification, erroneously claiming that Aquinas denied the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ.
It is an otherwise well-researched book and brings up good points, but these errors should not go unnoticed.
Webster quotes personal views of certain church fathers as if it negated the church coming to a conclusion on the subject via a council or some other means. He also seems content to cite those who would disagree with him elsewhere, so why are these disagreements any different than where they would disagree with him? He also seems to confuse what the phrase "uniamous consent of the fathers" means. Typically when an informed Catholic refers to the uniamous consent, they're talking about interpretation, not tradition. They are also not claiming that every single father agreed personally.
He just causally dismisses Aquinas on pg. 134 when talking about faith and justification, erroneously claiming that Aquinas denied the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ.
It is an otherwise well-researched book and brings up good points, but these errors should not go unnoticed.
October 23, 2019
A decent book but a few problems.
Webster quotes personal views of certain church fathers as if it negated the church coming to a conclusion on the subject via a council or some other means. He also seems content to cite those who would disagree with him elsewhere, so why are these disagreements any different than where they would disagree with him? He also seems to confuse what the phrase "unanimous consent of the fathers" means. Typically when an informed Catholic refers to the unanimous consent, they're talking about interpretation, not tradition. (Though interpretation can be part of tradition) They are also not claiming that every single father agreed personally.
He just causally dismisses Aquinas on pg. 134 when talking about faith and justification, erroneously claiming that Aquinas denied the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ.
It is an otherwise well-researched book and brings up good points, but these errors should not go unnoticed
Webster quotes personal views of certain church fathers as if it negated the church coming to a conclusion on the subject via a council or some other means. He also seems content to cite those who would disagree with him elsewhere, so why are these disagreements any different than where they would disagree with him? He also seems to confuse what the phrase "unanimous consent of the fathers" means. Typically when an informed Catholic refers to the unanimous consent, they're talking about interpretation, not tradition. (Though interpretation can be part of tradition) They are also not claiming that every single father agreed personally.
He just causally dismisses Aquinas on pg. 134 when talking about faith and justification, erroneously claiming that Aquinas denied the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ.
It is an otherwise well-researched book and brings up good points, but these errors should not go unnoticed
May 31, 2017
An absolutely devastating critique of the Roman Catholic institution. It clearly shows that what the RC church believes and teaches isn't what it has always believed and taught. Rather what it now teaches has evolved through the centuries. The RC church hierarchy claims that what it believes and teaches is in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Church Fathers. This book shows that this is a fantasy and that the "Church Fathers" very often disagreed with each other over just about everything. Even the popes disagreed with other popes and at times they disagreed with church councils and the church councils disagreed with them!
My only criticism of this book, hence the four star rating, is that the author uses a demonstrably inferior version of the Bible for its Bible references.
My only criticism of this book, hence the four star rating, is that the author uses a demonstrably inferior version of the Bible for its Bible references.
August 10, 2019
More of a survey of the key extrabiblical doctrines of the Roman church, and the their underlying traditions, than an exhaustive exploration of them, but does provide ample coverage of what they are, what major documents of figures in church history had to say one way or another (with plenty of references provided for later exploration), and an analysis from the exegesis of Scripture. Definitely worth reading for any Catholic wanting to know how some of their distinctive beliefs came to be and how much credibility they have, and for any Christian interacting with a Catholic wanting to be able to speak knowledgeably on such matters.
June 16, 2020
A mainly historical critique of Roman Catholicism. Some topics are addressed better than others, but a fair and balanced perspective without. Webster though obviously protestant does not sink to anti-catholic rhetoric and keeps it on the topics instead of attacking Catholics.
January 23, 2021
The book that carefully and fairly evaluates the Roman church throughout history. Key for understanding and evangelizing Roman Catholics today.
April 30, 2022
Amazing!
July 9, 2022
Quite dense, but that was enjoyable.
July 26, 2025
Concise yet potent. Apologetic Artillery
February 3, 2020
Short, concise, simple, and helpful. A Christian must-read.
July 14, 2016
A quick look at how peculiar Roman Catholic doctrines (concerning Mary, eucharist, purgatory, etc.) were developed/created over the centuries from Apostles, early church fathers, Middle Ages... As well as solid responses and refutation of said doctrines. The book also includes interesting appendices to read church fathers and others on key Church doctrines.
December 3, 2011
Have any Catholic friends you're witnessing to? Read this book. It systematically debunks all the heterodox Catholic dogmas, using a blend of Scripture and original citation of the fathers.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews