Replies

The Childers-Childers Debate

A Virtual Cross-Time Debate Between Jeff Childers 1996 and Jeff Childers 1998 About the Identity of the New Testament Church

1996 Third Rebuttal

(Resolved: The Church founded by Jesus Christ is the so-called Protestant denomination, the Church of Christ, and not the Roman Catholic Church.)

"For this was I born and for this I came into the world: to testify to the truth." (John 18:37)

This was our dear Lord's only plea as he stood before Pontius Pilate. His life hung in the balance, but his only defense was that he was here to proclaim the truth. We who even today, twenty centuries after the Nazarene carpenter walked the earth, choose to follow in his footsteps must make his divine mission our own. As Christians, we were born and we came into the world for but one purpose: the testify to the truth. I must continue to express my sincere thanks to Martin Beckman and the kind people at Catholicsource for allowing us to use their Internet ministry for a free and open expression of differing ideas. When Brother Eldred Stevens met Monsignor Eric Beevers for debate on some of these very issues nearly fifty years ago, moderator O. C. Lambert stated: "This is a great occasion, because this is Americanism in action, with its freedom of speech." The same holds true, I am confident, for this unique discussion.

This has certainly been an eye-opening experience for me as well. I have gained much respect for my friends in the Catholic Church. I must admit, in all candor, that in the past I have not held Catholicism in very high esteem. I, and many of my brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ, have tended to view the claims of the Roman Church as totally absurd and untenable, with absolutely no grounding in scripture, history or logic, their continuation due only to the superstition and ignorance of the laity. Much to my surprise, I have been confronted with very powerful arguments which have, very often, been steeped in scripture.

I say all of this because I believe it is essential that we be honest and fair with our opponents. It is remains true that Roman Catholicism, despite her long history and great wisdom, is an apostasy from the pure Christianity of the New Testament. However, we in the Church of Christ must convince Catholics of this without stooping to misrepresentation of their faith.

THE PAPACY

My opponent has offered a quite compelling argument for the papacy. With regards to the pope being the Man of Sin in Paul, I recognize that some might find Caligula or other evil personages of the ancient world better candidates. With men greater than me on both sides of this question, and with its not being essential to making or breaking Romanism, I will withdraw the argument.

With regards to Matthew 16:18ff, I must admit that the standard objection to the Catholic interpretation of this passage has been successfully answered by my opponent. I apologize to readers of this debate for wasting your time with arguments based in Christ's "original Greek," inasmuch as I knew full well that Jesus spoke Aramaic. I hope my brothers and sisters in the Church of Christ will take notice of this flaw in their argumentation and refrain from using this argument in the future.

While I have conceded that Peter is, at least in the figurative language of this passage, the foundation of the Church, it has yet to be established that this made him head of the Church, that he, if head of the Church, has successors to this day, that those successors are the popes of Rome, and that these popes of Rome are infallible.

The argument that, by entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom, Jesus made the Apostle Peter his "Major Domo" is quite compelling indeed. However, even if this does prove that Peter was an acting head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ or his Prime Minister, my opponent has still failed to establish that Peter's successor in this position is Pope John Paul II. So, while I have been forced to concede some points which I had not expected, I still challenge my opponent to bridge the gap between Petrine primacy and papal primacy.

I imagine that my future self will find this difficult. First and foremost, the scriptures are silent about the apostles having successors. This doctrine of apostolic succession is the very foundation of Roman Catholicism, yet it is entirely absent from the Sacred Scriptures. This is a silence which speaks out loudly and clearly.

Secondly, there is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, much less that he appointed any Roman Christian his successor as Major Domo. Peter's preeminent position in the Church was based on a special calling from Jesus Christ. No one else was given the Keys of the Kingdom, and so no one else can claim the authority of Peter.

Greg Litmer explains the third reason that the Roman Pontiffs can not claim to be successors of Peter: "Roman Catholic authorities make it appear that Peter never made a mistake in matters of faith or divine truth' after the Church began and that his successor, through the same help of the Holy Spirit, will not either. A quick glance at Gal. 2:11-14 will show that Peter wasn't infallible. He made a mistake in a matter of faith and Paul said he was to be blamed. That destroys any basis for saying that the Bible implies Papal Infallibility." (1)

This is the passage in question, and I invite my future self to consider it carefully: "And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he was clearly wrong. For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised. And the rest of the Jews also acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were no on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?'"

INFANT BAPTISM

We have gone back and forth on the infant baptism question for some time now. My opponent has offered some very compelling logical and emotional arguments. This has opened my eyes somewhat. Perhaps we in the Church of Christ has tried so hard to invent arguments against this practice that would fill volumes that we have become guilty of the fallacies of which he has accused us. His point about arguing etymology instead of theology does hit home. In all honesty, I say now that I wish I could believe what he was written about infant baptism. Oh, how many precious souls would be saved from the eternal fire! But, my future self has failed to answer one crucial question: Regardless of logic, philosophy, history, emotions, and all other forms of rhetoric--where is infant baptism in the Bible? It is nowhere to be found in the scriptures, and so must be rejected as an addition to the will of God.

BIBLE AUTHORITY

We come now to the most central issue at hand--Bible authority. We in the Church of Christ go by the Bible alone, rejecting all human traditions and man-made creeds. Where the Bible speaks, we speak, and where it is silent, we are silent. Our position has been aptly stared by Mr. Roy Cogdill: "The sum total of what the scriptures teach is the pattern of the Lord's will in any matter. When we go beyond what the scriptures teach in worship or in our efforts to serve God's purpose, we depart from the pattern, disrespect God's silence, and become guilty of the sin of presumption. This sin has always been condemned by God. We cannot bring into divine worship and service those things which men invent. They are profane and unholy in the service of God. We must determine whether a practice comes from God or man!" (2)

One of the ways that the Catholic Church is commendable is that she believes in the inspiration of the Bible. Just as much as the Church of Christ, the Roman Church teaches that the words of the Bible are, in fact, the Word of God. She differs from us, however, in rejecting that the Bible alone is our authority in religion. Dear Catholic friends, please consider these next few words carefully.

If it can be established from the scriptures, which you believe to be divine truth, that the Bible is our only guide, then it must be so.

First of all, consider the words of the Apostle Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. In this passage, the apostle gives us a very clear description of what the scriptures provide us. "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." How clear and how beautiful are these words! The inspired scriptures contain every good work. They are sufficient to make a man adequate and equipped. Other translations have "perfect" or "complete" and "thoroughly furnished." What magnificent heights of faith this should enflame in our souls.

The simplest man can, by reading his Bible, know every good work and be complete! Praise God!

If we look at this passage in the negative, we are faced with a dilemma. If, as Paul clearly teaches, every good work is found in the scriptures, can an unscriptural work, even if done in a sincere spirit of piety, be considered good? Simple logic forces us to answer a reluctant, no. As beautiful as it may be, the melodies of musical instruments and all other non-biblical acts of religion (such as holy water, candles, incense, the rosary, graven images, clerical dress, etc.) must be rejected as evil. They are not in the scriptures and so they do not benefit the perfection or completion of the man of God. Likewise, the divinity of Mary and any doctrinal belief absent from the scriptures (such as Purgatory, the sacraments, apostolic succession, the Assumption of Mary, the worship of saints, etc.) are evil as well.

It is might sound harsh, but this is consistent with how God has always dealt with his people. In Deuteronomy 4:2, God commands: "In your observance of the commandments of the Lord, you God, which I enjoin upon you, you shall not add to what I commanded you nor subtract from it." This prohibition from going beyond the scriptures is stated again in Galatians 1:8-9: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let that one be accursed." Again, in Revelation 22:18-19: "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes way from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city described in this book."

David Banning explains: "Some of the most hash warnings in the scripture are pronounced upon those who would dare to tamper with God's message...Just as a medication that has been tampered with loses its ability to cure disease, so God's message, if tampered with, loses its ability to accomplish the great good God intended. If we believe the truths stated above about this book, we ought to be content to learn its message and do those things, nothing more and nothing less."(3)

When the Catholic Church grew and began to add doctrines and practices which the Bible did not contain, it quickly lost its identity as the Body of Christ. As Paul warned, only one gospel can save. Throughout history, many wise and morally sound religious leaders made the mistake of leaning upon their own wisdom. They would have done well to heed the warnings of King Samuel: "Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death." (Proverbs 14:12)

The Pharisees of Christ's time has lost sight of the truth of sola scriptura. They had brought into their worship and belief teachings and practices which were not in the Bible. Jesus answered their errors with scathing criticism: "Well did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: This people honors me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines human precepts.' You disregard God's commandment but cling to human tradition." (Mark 7:6-8)

My future self and my Catholic friends, when Jesus looks at you with all your man made beliefs and practices, he sees modern day Pharisees. You honor him with your lips, but not your hearts, for your doctrines are the inventions of men. Paul saw a similar danger among the Corinthian Christians of his day. His warning to them should serve as a warning to you. All Catholics who love truth, please hear your saint, Paul: "Now these things, brothers, I have applied to myself and Apollos because of you, that in us you may learn not to go beyond what is written, that you not be puffed up one for one against the other." (1 Corinthians 4:6)

David J. Riggs has compiled a biblical list of what the scripture provides:

Acts 1:1-2- All necessary things Jesus did
Luke 1:3-4- Certainty of his action and teaching
John 20:31- Life in the name of Jesus
II Tim. 3:15- Instruction to salvation
I Cor. 14:37- Commands of the Lord
I Tim. 3:14-15- The proper conduct
II Tim. 3:16-17- Every good work
I John 2:1- Protection against sin
I John 5:13- An assurance of eternal life
Acts 17:11- Standard by which teachers are tested
I Cor. 4:6- Standard which we cannot go beyond
Rev. 1:3- Blessings from God
I John 1:3-4- Joy that is complete
Rev. 20:12- Standard of judgment

"If a man reads and studies his New Testament and obtains from it all the things mentioned above, what else would he need?" (4)

Elsewhere, Mr. Riggs has complied a similar list describing all practices and teachings which are not in the Bible. "When one believes or practices something in religion which is not in the written New Testament, all of the following divine principles immediately apply.

1. It is is not a good work. (II Tim. 3:16-17)
2. It is does not pertain to life and godliness. (II Pet. 1:3)
3. It is causes one to not have God. (II John 9)
4. It is is not authorized by Christ. (Col. 3:17)
5. It is cannot be done by faith. (II Cor. 5:7; Rom. 10:17; 14:23)
6. It is is going beyond what is written. (I Cor. 4:6)
7. It is is not as the oracles of God. (I Pet. 4:11)
8. It is is not according to the pattern. (Heb. 8:5)
9. It is does not pertain to the seed of the kingdom. (Luke 8:11; Matt.
13:18-19)
10. It is is not of righteousness. (Rom. 1:16-17; 10:1-4)
11. It is is iniquity. (Matt. 7:23)
12. It is is of men. (Matt. 21:25)
13. It is is not of truth. (John 4:24)
14. It is is another gospel. (Gal. 1:6-9)
15. It is is adding to the Word of God. (Rev. 22:18-19)" (5)

In conclusion, then, Catholicism must be rejected because many of her doctrines and practices are absent from the scripture. One must search the scriptures to find the will of God. Man is capable of judging for himself what is the true meaning of scripture. All disunity in religion would be eradicated if all religious people would simply go back to the Bible. This is, essentially, the Restoration Plea, a plea for all to unite on the apostolic foundation of the one true Church of Christ.

"Every question must be answered, every issue must be resolved, every problem must be settled in the light of God's word. Peter said, If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion forever and ever. Amen.' (I Pet. 4:11) We've stated that principle through the years in this fashion--We'll speak where the Bible speaks, and we'll be silent where the Bible is silent. Upon this principle of divine truth we must stand if God is to be pleased and our souls are to be saved." (6)

(1)Greg Litmer. "Papal Infallibility." Catholicism Examined, Vol. 1, No. 2, February, 1984. p. 3.
(2)Roy E. Cogdill. A Study of Authority. Cox Printing and Bookbinding,1992.
(3)David Banning. Finding God's Way. Unpublished paper, 1995.
(4)David J. Riggs. "Contains All Truth." Catholicism Examined, Vol. 1, No. 7, July, 1984. p. 4.
(5)ibid. "Confessing to Priests." Catholicism Examined, Vol. 2, No. 9,September, 1985. p. 4.
(6)Roy E. Cogdill. Bible Authority: How Established? How Applied? Guardian of Truth Publications.

http://www.catholicsource.net/debate/1996thirdrebuttal.htm