It is indeed a great privilege to be here on this Internet apostolate to discuss the will of God. I extend to Catholicsource my sincere congratulations for their recent Petersnet AAA rating. It is an honor to be part of such an important ministry.

 In his opening statement and first rebuttal, my former self has offered evidence that the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation is the predominantly American Protestant sect which calls itself "the Church of Christ." This is the message which one will hear if he attends a church of Christ. This is the message which the children of the Church of Christ are taught from their earliest youth. It is the message which I was taught as I grew up, and the context in which my entire world view was shaped. Before examining my opponent's evidence, I'd like for everyone involved to consider a question: What if my opponent is right? On the surface, that seems like a simple question with a simples answer. If he's right, then everyone should simply stop going to their own churches and go to the church of Christ down the street. That requires some changes in daily life to be sure, but it's no Copernican Revolution. The truth of the matter is that if my opponent is right, the world becomes a terrible and depressing place. If the Church of Christ is the one true Church outside of which there is no salvation, that means that everyone who considered himself a Christian from the first century until the nineteenth century is in Hell! That means that all the great holy men and women who loved Jesus and served him with all their strength have been condemned by the Lord that they loved to the eternal fires of Hell. Think about that for a moment: St. Francis of Assisi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, and your own non-Church of Christ family members are all suffering in the Lake of Fire.

If my opponent is right, the coming of Jesus ushered in an age of unprecedented damnation. Before Christ, faithful Jews and those Gentiles who strove to follow the natural law could be saved. After Christ, everyone went to Hell! God allowed his Holy Church to fall away, not to be restored for 1,800 years. That implies a semi-Deist view of history. God is totally uninvolved in the lives of those whom he has created in his Divine Image. All of the great accomplishments of humanity are rendered worthless. History is nothing but the record of the damned! The Church of Christ in Joliet, IL to which I belonged had about 100 members. There are about 100,000 people in Joliet. From my earliest youth, I believed that all but the 100 of us were condemned to Hell. We would pray for God to let us save a few people from "the lost and dying world!" Friends and family alike were fuel for the Devil's fire.

The world view which my opponent is defending is truly macabre. If my opponent is right, would that I had never been born!

 In his opening statement, my former self outlined the basic Church of Christ answer to that all important question: "What must I do to be saved?" The plan, as well known to every member of the Church of Christ as "accepting Jesus as personal Savior" is the every Evangelical, is as follows:

1) Hear the Gospel (Romans 10:17)
2) Believe the Gospel (John 3:16)
3) Repent of Sins (Acts 2:38)
4) Publicly Confess Faith in Christ (Acts 8:37)
5) Be Baptized (Mark 16:16)
6) Live Faithfully (1 Corinthians 9:27)

Each of these steps is very Catholic and very true. Members of the Church of Christ feel they have a monopoly on the plan of salvation, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Catholic Church had been proclaiming this same message for 1,800 years before there even was a Church of Christ! The Catholic Church demands that all hear the gospel, believe the gospel, repent of sins, publicly confess faith in Christ, be baptized, and live faithfully.

Where the Church of Christ errs in this picture is in her legalistic insistence that each of these steps be done exactly in this order. Catholic baptism is invalid, in the eyes of the Church of Christ, partially because it is placed at the top of the list. The Church of Christ teaches such Pharisaical legalism based on the enormous influence of Francis Bacon's theory of knowledge on her founder, the pioneer preacher Alexander Campbell. The Bible is viewed simply as a collection of facts, similar to mathematics, which are to be processed and synthesized by everyone in the same manner, independent of any magisterial authority.

Non-Baconian thinkers are not impressed by the Church of Christ's plan of salvation. The Church of Christ's dogmatism over this plan seems to imply a Scriptural passage in which Christ states: "To be saved, first you must hear. Having heard, you must believe. Having believed, you must repent of your sins. Having repented, you must publicly confess your faith. Then and only then, you must be baptized. You are now a Christian and saved. Prior to baptism, you were not a Christian. If you were not baptized during the right part of the process, you are not a Christian. As a Christian, you must live faithfully. So let it be written; so let it be done."

One finds no such clear biblical layout of the plan of salvation. Rather, the plan is a classic case of proof-texting. Notice the passages cited to back up the plan: Romans 10:17, John 3:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 8:37, Mark 16:16, 1 Corinthians 9:27. These passages are taken from totally unrelated parts of the Bible. They are taken out of context and out of order. In the Romans passage, St. Paul is in the middle of condemning Israel for having ignored the gospel message which they have heard. What has that to do with the Lord's discourse with Nicodemus in John 3:16, or with the discourse on salvation history on Pentecost in Acts 2:38 or with the encounter between St. Phillip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:37 (a verse which is not in the best biblical manuscripts), or with the Lord's Great Commission to the apostles in Mark 16:16, or with St. Paul's words to the church of Corinth in 1 Corinthians 9:27. The Church of Christ has taken several ideas which are true in and of themselves and arranged them in an unjustifiable fashion based on randomly selected biblical passages with no logical connection to each other. (The plan of salvation is sometimes presented with different verses, but they are no more connected to each other than those here presented.)

The Church of Christ claims to have no creeds other than the Bible, but this plan of salvation is a creed in every sense of the word. The Apostle's Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, the Credo of the People of God, and other creeds accepted by the Catholic Church are statements of faith based on the Word of God to which all Christians are bound. How is the plan of salvation any different? One might object that it's not a written creed. I would counter that it's written in every Church of Christ book, magazine, or tract every published! The only difference is that it is not worded uniformly in every case. This is a difference of increment and not of essence, and a truly weak argument.

The cry of "no creed but Christ," (as if the Lord were a "creed") is totally false.

The Church of Christ has made a name for herself among Protestants by her unique doctrine of baptism. She is Anabaptist in accepting only the baptism of adult believers by immersion, rejecting infant baptism and baptism by pouring or sprinkling. She is Catholic in accepting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that baptism actually effects the cleansing of sins. Her innovation is the notion that only those who understand baptismal regeneration can be truly baptized. This has led the Church of Christ to conclude that only her own members are true Christians, since only they receive adult believer baptism by immersion with the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in mind. In a later essay, I hope to show how this baptismal doctrine, so essential to the Church of Christ, gradually developed and was not her original position.

I hope also to show that Alexander Campbell and Barton Warren Stone themselves were opposed to the macabre exclusivism developing within their new Church. For the time being, we will focus on refuting my opponent's evidence for this doctrine.

First of all, we should examine my opponent's denial of the doctrine of original sin. In his first rebuttal, my opponent stated: "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)"

Those not familiar with the Church of Christ were probably surprised to read this argument. The doctrine of original sin is one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity, on which members of nearly all denominations are in agreement. Some express it slightly differently, but Christendom is virtually united on the fact that people inherit the sinful nature of Adam. In denying original sin, the Church of Christ has resurrected some of the ancient Pelagian heresy. Of the nine errors of Pelagianism which St. Augustine outlined, the Church of Christ teaches three: "Adam's sin injured himself alone, not the human race...New-born infants are in the same condition as Adam before the fall...That infants, even if unbaptized, have eternal life." (1)

Against the constant tradition of all Christians, the Church of Christ denies original sin. The proof-text from Ezekiel is taken out of context. In context, the Prophet Ezekiel is responding to injustice in the land of Israel, where the governing authorities punished children for their parents' crimes. It is not speaking of how God deals with man. In Exodus 20:5ff, God declares that he is "a jealous God, inflicting punishment for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate me, down to the third and fourth generation; but bestowing mercy down to the thousandth generation, on the children of those who love me and keep my commandments."

In my opening statement, I quoted Psalm 51:7, in which David laments: "Truly I was born guilty, a sinner, even as my mother conceived me." St. Paul explains original sin in his letter to the Church of Rome: "Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned--for up to the time of the law, sin was in the world, though sin is not accounted when there is no law. But death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, who is the type of the One who was to come." (15:12-14)

As Christians of all denominations have always understood, physical death is a consequence of sin. Infants die. As sad as it is, it is a fact of life. Whether before birth through miscarriage or feticidal abortion, or after birth through disease, accidents, or violence, infants and children are taken from us all the time. This is a case of a simple logical syllogism which my opponent will have difficulty disproving: People die because they have sin. Infants die. Therefore, infants have sin. As a believer in baptismal regeneration, my opponent should accept infant baptism as the only way to regenerate infants.

My opponent's second argument is that every case of baptism in the Bible is of adult believers. It is true that the Bible neither specifically commands the baptism of infants separate and apart from all of humanity, nor specifically mentions the baptism of infants. (Such an argument presupposes the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, which is a fundamental issue in any debate between Catholicism and Protestantism and cannot be assumed. It remains to be proven by my opponent--or by anyone--that the Bible alone is the sole sufficient rule of faith.) At the same time, enough passages imply the baptism of infants to amount to a substantial biblical argument for infant baptism. (Along similar lines, no passage states that the Holy Spirit is God, but no true Christian denies this.)

There are three cases in the Bible where entire households are baptized at the same time: the household of Lydia (Acts 16:15), the household of the Philippian jailor (Acts 16:33), and the household of Stephanas (1 Corinthians 1:16). The word "household" includes the entire family, as well as any servants and their families. In any age not yet cursed with birth control, it is highly unlikely that all three families, their servants, and their families were without young children. What can be said for certain is this: If their families did include children, those children were baptized.

St. Paul compares baptism to circumcision. "In him, you were also circumcised with a circumcision not administered by hand, by stripping off the carnal body, with the circumcision of Christ. You were buried with him in baptism." (Colossians 2:11,12) Circumcision was administered to Jews upon the 8th day after birth. Here, the Apostle calls baptism "the circumcision of Christ," without ever mentioning that infants are excluded from this Covenant.

St. Paul's advice to those in interfaith marriages also implies infant baptism. "If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he is willing to go on living with her, she should not divorce her husband. For the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother. Otherwise your children would be unclean, whereas in fact they are holy." (1 Corinthians 7:13,14) Is St. Paul saying that a non-Christian becomes holy simply by being married to a Christian? Of course not! The unbeliever becomes holy by being influenced by the holy example of his Christian spouse and becoming a Christian. How does one become a Christian? Through baptism! St. Paul describes the children in the same way. Children, unclean through original sin, are made holy by being raised as Christians.

The truth of the matter is, Jesus commands everyone to be baptized. The Bible makes no exceptions to the rule. Jesus stated that "whoever does not accept the Kingdom of God like a child will not enter it." (Luke 18:17) St. Peter proclaimed a message to the international Pentecost crowd which the Catholic Church has consistently proclaimed through the ages: "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all who are far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." (Acts 2:38,39)

My former self's third objection is that baptism is only valid by immersion. In his first rebuttal, he stated: "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."

I do not deny that the Greek word "baptizo" means immersion. This is not, however, the only meaning of the word, as James Akin points out: "In the Bible, baptizo sometimes means bathing the whole body, as when Naaman, at Elisha's direction, 'went down and dipped himself seven times in the Jordan' (2 Kgs. 5:14, Septuagint Greek Old Testament), and sometimes it just means washing up, as when Luke 11:38 explains that Jesus went to dine with a Pharisee, and 'the Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash [the Greek word for 'washed' is baptizo] before dinner.' No one in ancient Israel practiced immersion before dinner, but the Pharisees 'do not eat unless they wash their hands' (Mark 7:3).

More linguistic evidence about the meaning of baptism is that some early manuscripts of Mark 7:4 state that the Jews baptized (bapto--a derivative of baptizo) couches, yet the Jews never immersed couches; they only ritually sprinkled them." (2)

The Catholic Church recognizes that immersion is a valid form of baptism. Often, she baptizes adults by immersion to this day. She even considers immersion the best form of baptism, because it best signifies the burial with Christ. However, the Church has always recognized immersion, pouring, and sprinkling as valid ways to administer the sacrament.

It might be argued that all cases in the Bible show immersion. Certainly, immersion is implied in the cases of the baptisms of Jesus and the Ethiopian eunuch. Other cases, however, do imply non-immersion baptisms. Ancient homes of common people did not normally contain bathtubs or swimming pools. St. Paul, Cornelius, and the Philippian jailor were all baptized within homes. (See Acts 9:17,18; 10:47,48; 16:32,33) Without a tub or a pool, baptism by immersion would have been impossible. In fact, the scripture give the impression that St. Paul himself was baptized standing up! "Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name." (Acts 22:16)

The earliest nonbiblical Christian writing, the Didache, is clear that, while immersion was to be preferred, pouring was also a valid way to baptize. "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit in living water. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

My opponent's fourth objection is that infant baptism was an invention. In his first rebuttal, he set the date at 370. Attempts to date the so-called inventions of Catholicism would be quite amusing if they weren't so inexplicably successful in stealing souls from the Holy Catholic Church. I do like one thing about date-setters, however: They are very easy to refute. Infant baptism is mentioned in the writings of Origen, St. Hippolytus, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, the Council of Carthage, and others, all of which predate the arbitrarily chosen 370. Origen, who was tortured for the Catholic faith and died in the late second century wrote that "the Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants." Try telling him that infant baptism was invented in 370!

In his opening statement, my opponent quoted 1 Peter 2:9, which refers to all Christians as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation." This, according to my opponent, proves that "the New Testament Church of Christ knows of no 'sacramental' ordination of an elite class of clergy."

The idea of the universal priesthood of all Christians is not unique to Protestantism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The term 'laity' is here understood to mean all of the faithful except those in Holy Orders and those who belong to a religious state approved by the Church. That is, the faithful, who by Baptism are incorporated into Christ and integrated into the People of God, are made sharers in their particular way in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly office of Christ, and have their own part to play in the mission of the whole Christian people in the Church and in the world (3)." (CCC 897)

The universal priesthood of all Christians does not, as my opponent would have us believe, necessarily exclude a distinct order of sacrificial priests. St. Peter's words are actually a quotation from Exodus 19:6, where God says to the children of Israel: "You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation." The Jews, too, enjoyed a universal priesthood. This did not, however, exclude a special class of Levitical priests.

As far as the distinction between clergy and laity in the scriptures, it could not be clearer. The leaders of God's people are called shepherds, while the people are called sheep. There is no question of equality between sheep and shepherds on a sheep farm.

My former self would have us believe that all religious truth must be found in the Bible. This is a vast topic which cannot be thoroughly dealt with here. However, I would like to point out just a few flaw's in my opponent's reasoning.

First of all, the doctrine of sola scriptura is self contradictory inasmuch as it is never taught in the Bible. Protestants offer several proof texts, but all of them fail to teach this doctrine. Even 2 Timothy 3:16, which my opponent cited, states only that the scriptures are "profitable," not that they are exclusively sufficient. I challenge my opponent to provide a place where this doctrine is taught in the Bible.

Secondly, the doctrine is a case of the logical fallacy of begging the question. The scriptures did not originate as one volume. Instead, they were separate letters. Few of them claim inspiration, and none of them list which books are or are not inspired. To state that all authority must come from the scriptures, one must be able to identify what books are scripture. Since the Bible never says which books are scripture, one must rely on an authority outside of the scriptures.

There are numerous other flaws with sola scriptura, about which volumes can (and have) been written. However, as I stated in my opening statement, God established the Catholic Church and entrusted to her the entire deposit of faith. To know the will of God, one must simply listen to the voice of "the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)

In my opening statement, I offered a brief picture of the establishment of the Church, beginning with ancient prophecies and ending with the continuing work of the Catholic Church. All nations were to find blessing in the Church, God's Covenant Family and Kingdom. (Gen. 12:3) The throne of Christ, the final Davidic king, would stand firm forever. (2 Sam. 7:12-14) The people of the Church would teach the truth by the guidance of the Holy Spirit for all generations. (Is. 59:19ff) Pagan kingdoms would give way to the Church. (Dn. 2:44) The Church would stand against the gates of Hell. (Mt. 16:18) The Church is Christ's instrument to teach "the manifold wisdom of God." (Ep. 3:10) That wisdom was brought to the nations, under the assurance of St. Paul that "they will listen." (Acts 28:28) The conclusion, I believe, is quite evident: The Church has not, will not, and cannot fall away. The Church of the Ages is the true Church. Which Church is that? To paraphrase Bl. Newman, to be deep in history is to cease to advocate the Protestant sect, the Church of Christ.

My opponent has argued that the Great Apostasy is foretold in the scriptures. To support this, he quoted Acts 20:29-31, in which St. Paul warns the Miletians and Ephesians that "savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. And from your own group, men will come forward perverting the truth to draw disciples away after them."

He also cited 1 Peter 2:1,2: "There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled."

What are we to make of this? Are Ss. Peter and Paul warning the faithful that the entire Church is going to fall away? Or, are they warning that some will fall away from the Church? The Catholic Church does not deny that there was an apostasy. In fact, there were many, many apostasies. Both scripture and history shows us, though, that these apostasies were heretical sects which fell away. The so-called Great Apostasy was an apostasy FROM the Church, and not of the Church. St. Jude also wrote about the rise of heretical sects: "These people revile what they do not understand and are destroyed by what they know by nature like irrational animals. Woe to them! They followed the way of Cain, abandoned themselves to Balaam's error for the sake of gain, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they carouse fearlessly and look after themselves." (Jude 10-12)

St. Jude's insight is very important. He compared the heretics to Korah. Korah, in Numbers 16, rebelled against the divinely appointed leaders of Israel. The words of Korah have echoed throughout history on the lips of all heresiarchs: "Enough from you! The whole community, all of them, are holy; the Lord is in their midst. Why then should you set yourselves over the Lord's congregation." (Numbers 16:3)

The apostasies throughout history have been sects which rejected the authority of God's Holy Church. These men often came forward as savage wolves from within the Catholic Church. Perverting the truth, they have led thousands to abandon the faith of their fathers. The Church of Christ's theory of the Great Apostasy has backfired. It works against them. The apostate sects were those which rejected the successors to the apostles who, guided by the Holy Spirit, possessed the charism of infallibility.

My opponent has offered some specific objections to the papacy and apostolic succession. If not retracted, I will answer them in my next rebuttal. However, I hope to save time by reminding my opponent that we have established that the Catholic Church cannot fail to teach the truth.

That alone should answer any objections to particular matters. Until next time, I commend all readers to the Divine Mercy of Jesus Christ.

"For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world." --Bl.. Faustina Kowalska Chaplet of Divine Mercy

(1) St. Augustine. De gestis Pelagii, 23.
(2) James Akin. "Baptism: Immersion Only?"
(3) Lumen Gentium, 27

Return to Childers vs. Childers Main Debate Page

Return to Catholicsource Main Page