I count myself as highly privileged to have the opportunity to proclaim the truth of God in this medium. To my Roman Catholic friends, I hope and pray that this message reaches you in good health, with an open mind, and open heart, and an open Bible. Religious error infiltrates the world all around us. This error leads people away from Christ, and to everlasting doom. It is in love that I write this, hoping to spare as many as possible the doom that awaits sinners.

My future self, my opponent in this debate, is teaching error. His error is a most dangerous kind, for it mixes error with the truth. Like a barrel of apples tainted by only one rotten fruit, the errors of Catholicism have robbed the Catholic people of salvation for centuries. This essay is a rebuttal of 1998 Opening Statement.

In the early portions of his opening statement, my opponent says much with which I agree. He tells of how God created man in his own Divine Image. My opponent shares the tragic fall of man in the Garden of Eden, and the resulting separation of man and his God. Then, he illustrates how God revealed through prophecy the coming of his Messiah, Jesus, who gave his life for our sins. Our papist friend also speaks of the founding of the Church. I am in complete agreement that Jesus founded only one true Church. This I made clear in my opening statement: "There is only one true Church of Christ. Jesus said, ‘I will build my Church,' (Matt. 16:18) not many Churches or denominations." I must take issue with my opponent, however, in his claim that the Church is some kind of divinely guided institution, incapable of error. The Church, we will see, is simply the collective people of God. All who have been saved in the legitimate New Testament fashion are members of the Church.

My opponent provides an overview of Bible history in order to support his notion that the divine Church can not fall away. However, he has unwittingly provided his own downfall in the very beginning of his history. This he has done by teaching the false doctrine of original sin. This doctrine holds that all are born with the sin of Adam on their souls. According to Catholicism, even infants who have never had the chance to sin are guilty of sin. Infants who die, in the Romish system, die bound for eternal Hell. As my opponent states it: "All are born into sin, and from then on life is a slippery slope. As the Psalmist laments, ‘True, I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me.'"

 Did David teach original sin, or was he using a figure of speech to communicate the true depths of his sin? Here we must let the scripture interpret the scripture. Catholicism teaches that all people are punished for the sin of their first father. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches something very different: "Only the one who sins shall die. The son shall not be charged with the guilt of his father, nor shall the father be charged with the guilt of his son. The virtuous man's virtue shall be his own, as the wicked man's wickedness shall be his." (Ezekiel 18:19-20)

This false doctrine put Catholic leaders in quite a bind. Catholics were horrified at the thought of their children going to Hell. Thus, a solution was sought after. That solution was the false practice of infant baptism. Infant baptism is not Bible baptism. It is imperative here to recall that the apostle Paul tells us there is but "one baptism." (Eph. 4:5) False baptisms, then, must be rejected. Only the true baptism is the new birth, and only those born again will inherit the kingdom of God.

The first reason that infant baptism is a false baptism is that it is generally performed by pouring or sprinkling water. Sprinkling and pouring are not baptism. Baptism is synonymous with immersion. Scholar T.W. Brents shares this information: "The word baptisma, rendered baptism, occurs in the New Testament twenty-two times. The word baptismos occurs four times, three times rendered washing and once baptism. Baptistees occurs fourteen times connected with John, and is rendered baptist. Baptidzo occurs eighty times, seventy-eight times rendered baptize, baptized, etc., and one time each wash and washing. This family of words is derived from bapto...Language has no law that is better established than that derivative words inherit the radical form and primary meaning of the words from which they are derived. This being so, the primary meaning of bapto being dip, does it not follow that its derivative baptidzo must be rendered dip, immerse, or by some word equivalent thereto? If baptism may be performed by sprinkling or pouring, is it not strange that we never have baptidzo, the word used to indicate it, rendered sprinkle or pour?...

"Webster, in his unabridged dictionary, defines ‘baptisma baptismos, from baptidzein, to baptize, from baptein, to dip in water.' Then he defines baptism as from these: ‘The act of baptizing, the application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible Church of Christ. This is usually performed by sprinkling or immersion.' When defining the Greek it means to dip, but in these days it is usually performed by sprinkling or immersion! Can dipping be done by sprinkling?" (1)

Baptism is immersion. Indeed, the two words are interchangeable. Mark 16:16 could be rendered: "He that believes and is immersed will be saved." The Scripture is very clear on this matter, as well. The apostle Paul teaches that baptism is a burial. "We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life." (Romans 6:4) Those who were not buried with Christ by immersion cannot rise to walk in newness of life.

Infant baptism is also invalid because infants are incapable of fulfilling the requirements of baptism. David J. Riggs explains: "An infant is not a subject of the baptism ordained by God in his holy Word. First, a candidate for baptism must be a hearer of the Word of God. (Rom. 10:17; Acts 2:22, 37; 15:7) He must be taught and he must learn the will of God...Furthermore, one must believe the gospel before being baptized. Again Christ said, ‘Go into the whole world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved...'(Mark 16:16) Another prerequisite to baptism is repentance. Peter said, ‘Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins...'(Acts 2:38) A verbal confession of Christ is also necessary before baptism. ‘For if thou confess with thy mouth that Jesus is Lord, and believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.' (Rom. 10:9; see also Acts 8:37)" (2)

As I mentioned in my opening statement, God has given to us in the Bible a clear and simple plan of salvation:

1. Hear the Gospel
2. Believe the Gospel
3. Repent of Sins
4. Confess Faith in Christ
5. Be Baptized by Immersion
6. Live Faithfully

An infant can do none of these things. Therefore, infant baptism, which is not really baptism, ought not take place. Parents should not worry. Infants are without sin, and those who pass away are assured of eternal glory.

Lastly, an infant cannot be baptized because an infant cannot be a Christian. Scripture teaches that a Christian is a disciple of Christ. (Acts 11:26) A disciple is a committed follower of Christ. He or she is one who commits his or her life to avoiding sin, learning the will of God, prayer, worship, and so forth. Infants cannot be disciples, therefore they cannot be Christians. If they cannot be Christians, they cannot be baptized.

Infant baptism, inspired by the false doctrine of original sin, was invented in 370 AD. Historian Robert Brumback chronicles this apostasy: "370 AD. The First Case of Infant Baptism. Christian baptism was immersion of believers in water for the remission or forgiveness of sins." (3) The Bible, the complete and infallible Word of God, was finished by the beginning of the second century. How, then, can my Catholic opponent justify a practice which was not in existence when the Bible was written? The early Christians did not baptize infants, therefore, true Christians even to this day follow suit.

My opponent claims that his Church is the true Church. This cannot be true. The true Church is made up of Christians. His Church is made up of people who received a false baptism as infants. These men and women are not Christians.

Here again, my opponent has mixed truth and error. It is true that God intended to establish a New Covenant with man and, in so doing, establish the Church of Christ. It is also true that Jesus placed over the Church his twelve apostles. The apostles received the Holy Spirit and the Word of God. To them was given the duty to bring the truth to the nations. I agree wholeheartedly with my future self that "to ensure the success of the Church in her mission, Jesus granted to the leaders of the Church (meaning, of course, the apostles and prophets of God) the charism of infallibility."

I disagree, on the other hand, with my opponent's unbiblical conclusion that "from the first through the twentieth century and beyond, the Church has been guided by the same charism of infallibility." He defends this contention using the false doctrines of the papacy and apostolic succession: "Bishops have inherited from the apostles magisterial authority. The bishops rule the Church with the same authority as did the apostles. Likewise, the successor of St. Peter, the Pope of Rome, rules the Church with the same authority as did St. Peter himself."

"The Apostle Simon Bar Jonah," says my future self in his opening statement, "was chosen by the Lord to be the leader of the apostles, and thus, the head of the Church on earth." The Bible teaches that "Christ is the Head of the Church." (Eph. 5:23) Catholics have exalted Peter and the popes to the role of God. Such blasphemy must be condemned without wavering.

The Bible does not teach that Peter was leader of the apostles or head of the Church. Catholics, my opponent included, often cite Matthew 16 to back up their false claim. "Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

The name "Peter," argue Catholics, means "Rock," and so, Jesus was promising to build his Church on Peter. Robert Harkrider, a well known gospel preacher from Orlando, Florida, answers this claim. "The words ‘Peter' and ‘rock' are translated from two different Greek words. This fact alone should settle the issue!

‘Peter' in Greek is PETROS (masculine gender) and usually means a detached stone which can be tossed. ‘Rock' in Greek is PETRA (feminine gender) and usually means a mass of stone, a cliff, or ledge of rock. "The rock on which the Church is built is the fact that Jesus is ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God.' (Matt. 16:16) Peter understood this truth, because in 1 Peter 2:6-7 he quoted Isaiah 28:16 and applied it to Christ. Then in 1 Peter 2:8, he referred to Christ as the ‘rock' (PETRA)."

The papacy was not instituted by Christ, but rather gradually developed among the apostates. As late as 588, when Patriarch John of Constantinople declared himself Universal Bishop of the Church, "Saint" Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome objected: "I am bold to say that whoever adopts or affects the title of universal bishop has the pride and character of Antichrist, and is in some manner his forerunner in this haughty quality of elevating himself above the rest of his order."(4)

The development of the papacy continued, however, despite Gregory's objections. Greg Litmer explains: "Actually, the title of Pope, as universal bishop, was applied to this same Gregory in 604 by the extremely wicked emperor, Phocas. This was a man who had ‘beheaded each of his predecessor's five sons, then put out Mauritius' eyes (this was his predecessor) and after torture, disemboweled him.' (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, Malachi Martin, G.P. Putnam's Sons, New York, p. 80--Malachi Martin is a former Jesuit professor who served in Rome with Cardinal Augustine Bea and Pope John XXIII). Gregory refused the title, but it was later assumed by his second successor, Boniface III, in 607."

Litmer aptly summarizes what the development of the papacy was NOT, which is far more important that what it was. "The Papacy did not spring form the mind of God, it did not start with Peter. History shows that it grew in the minds of men, ambitious men at that, and what exists in the Vatican today is not what Jesus planned." (5)

My opponent holds that the Roman Catholic hierarchy has received in succession the authority of the apostles. He believes that Catholic deacons, priests, and bishops receive upon their ordination the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, in Romish thought, preserves the Church from teaching error.

This is untrue, first of all, because the Catholic hierarchy is absent from the scripture. The Bible sets forth a pattern for church government. Local congregations in the Bible are independent from one another. There is no bishop over several churches, and no patriarch or pope over several bishops. Local congregations are led by a plurality of elders and deacons. J.W. Shepherd offers this fine discussion of the Biblical eldership:

"In every fully developed church in apostolic times, there was a plurality of elders or bishops. Luke says: ‘And from Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus, and called to him the elders of the church. And when they were come to him he said unto them...Take heed unto yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feel (sic) the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood.' (Acts 20:17-28) From this we not only learn that there was a plurality of elders at Ephesus, but that they were also called bishops, which clearly proves that the terms ‘elder' and ‘bishop' are used synonymously...

"The eldership is the most sacred trust of God to his church. God is the legislator, the only lawmaker of his people. His authority is absolute, his power omnipotent. To the elders is committed the work of teaching and enforcing the laws of God and of guarding them against all perversion or corruption by adding to or taking from, or by bringing in customs, traditions, or doctrines of men...

"They are to make no rules of their own, as though they are the lords or rulers over God's house. They have no authority save to enforce the law of God, and so set an example of fidelity to God to be followed by the church." (6)

And of the deacons, Shepherd comments: "There were also a plurality of deacons in every fully developed congregation. Luke tells us (Acts 6:3) that the Church in Jerusalem selected seven deacons. It is true that they are not here called deacons, but the work to which they were called corresponds to that of deacons as described by Paul in his letter to Timothy. The work of both is expressed by the same word in the Greek." (7)

Catholic leaders have perverted the Church organization ordained by God. The office of elder, also known as bishop or pastor, was divided into two classes: bishops and priests. In so doing, bishops were exalted to roles set aside for the apostles alone, while elders were robbed of their proper position and the so-called laity was robbed of its role as the true priesthood. The Bible teaches that an elder must be "the husband of one wife, having children who believe." (Titus 1:6) Catholics have not only place unqualified men into ecclesiastical offices, but have gone so far as to forbid their priests and bishops from marrying. A Roman Catholic bishop, unlike a true bishop of the Church of Christ, cannot be the husband of one wife! Mandated celibacy, as we will see momentarily, was one sign of the Great Apostasy of the Church. Beside the perversion of the true Church organization, apostolic succession cannot be true because it is based on the false doctrine of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Charismatics as well as Catholics would do well to pay attention to the gospel truth that is to follow. The Bible teaches that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit was intended to validate the apostles' and early Christian preachers' message until such a time as it was available in complete, inspired form. (See 1 Cor. 13:10)

One could receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the accompanying charisms (including, but not limited to, the charism of infallibility) only by the laying on of hands of the apostles. Those on whom the apostles laid their hands shared in the miraculous power and authority of the apostles. However, they did not have the ability to lay their hands on anyone else. Notice that my future self's entire premise is based on the idea of continuous laying on of hands: "The apostles, with the authority of Christ, passed down their authority to successors. These successors are the hierarchy of the Church: deacons, presbyters, and bishops. Men were ordained to these offices by the laying on of hands by the apostles. The bishops continue the line of succession to this day. Succession from the apostles is directly traceable from Jesus Christ himself to every bishop in the Roman Catholic Church."

The Bible paints a much different picture than does the Church of Rome. In Acts 6, Phillip is chosen as one of seven men to carry out special work for the apostles. "They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them." (Acts 6:6) Phillip later travels to Samaria. Having received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit from the apostles, he is able to perform miracles. Many are converted and baptized. These Samaritans wish to share in Phillip's special charisms. However, even though the apostles had laid their hands on him (making him, according to my opponent, a so-called successor to the apostles) he could not lay his hands on them. "Now when the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent them Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for it had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit." (Acts 8:14-17)

Catholics and Pentecostals alike are in error in teaching that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit continues to this day. For Catholic bishops to hold the authority which my opponent claims for them, they have to have had the hands of an apostle laid upon them. That, of course, is impossible.

The infallibility of the Church is based upon apostolic succession, not upon scripture. The apostles have left no successors. The so-called Church Fathers whom my opponent quoted only prove that the apostasy was at work in the time of the apostles. These Fathers were forerunners of apostasy.

The Church of Christ is eternal, but only because it is made up of triumphant saints in heaven as well as militant saints on earth. Even if there were no Christians on the face of the earth, the Church of Christ would remain. It is not necessary, as my opponent asserts, to be able to trace the Church through the pages of history. David J. Riggs explains:

"Some claim that a Church must be able to authentically trace its history back to Christ in order to be the true Church. However, we do not need a continual succession back to the original Church for that same Church to exist today. We need only to plant the word of God (the incorruptible seed of the kingdom--Luke 8:11, Matt. 13:13, 1 Pet. 1:23) in the hearts of individuals. Those who believe and obey the word constitute the Church in any given locality.

"If one wanted to grow Florida watermelons in Kentucky, he would not need to go to Florida and stretch a vine back to Kentucky, but would need only to obtain the seed and plant it in Kentucky. Likewise, in order to have the true Church today, a historical succession is not necessary; one needs only to plant the same seed which produced the Church in the first century." (8)

 Catholic assertion that the Great Apostasy was impossible because of the Church's divine guidance falls apart with the dismantling of apostolic succession. "If the Church of Christ is to be taken seriously," says my future self, "it remains for my opponent to show that the Catholic Church, the Church historically established by Jesus Christ, somehow ceased to be the true Church." Very well, then. In my opening statement, I cited several scriptures which demonstrate that the apostasy was under way even during the lifetime of the apostles. (See Acts 20:29-31 and 1 Peter 2:1,2) The most striking prophecy of the Great Apostasy comes from the apostle Paul. In this prophecy, Paul warns specifically of the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.

"Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

My opponent argues that the Church cannot fall away, basing this assertion on the false doctrines of the papacy, apostolic succession, the hierarchy, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. The Bible, on the other hand, teaches that the Church will fall away. However, the Word of God lasts forever. At any time in the history of the world, men who read the Bible can know the truth and be set free. In any age, people are able to see from the scriptures that a Church which forbids marriage in its clergy and insists that its people abstain from certain foods during special seasons is a Church of demons, not the Church of Christ. The apostles did not leave successors to lord over the people of God. We need not take any man's word for truth. Truth can be found in the Word of God, the true legacy of the apostles to the Church. Each individual can read and understand what is the will of God. So says the apostle Paul: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16)

The Bible alone, my friends, (or, if you prefer, sola scriptura) contains the will of God. We must all stand before the tribunal of God some day. We will render an account for what we have done. Will we have followed the will of God or of man?