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

Dear friends, I am highly privileged to continue in this most unique discussion. I believe that much progress is being made in this debate. As Christians, we have at the very center of each and every aspect of our lives Jesus Christ. It is to him we appeal, and it is in him that we trust. He alone is the Holy One, he alone is the Lord, he alone is the Most High! Trusting in Christ our God, who himself is the way, the truth, and the life, we need not have any question about one thing: Truth will be vindicated.

In his first rebuttal, my opponent argued against the papacy. Not having withdrawn those arguments, we'll begin in this essay by examining them. My former self quoted an argument from Mr. Robert Harkrider's "Examining Popular Doctrines": "The words 'Peter' and 'rock' (in Matthew 16:18ff) 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." This is a very common attack on the Biblical foundation for the papacy. It does not hold up to scrutiny. The Greek words "petros" and "petra," admittedly, can refer small stones and large stones respectively. In ancient Greek epic poetry, the words were often used like that. However, scholars of Greek literature know that, by the time of Christ, the difference had faded from usage. 19th century Baptist scholar John Broadus explains:

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose term being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed. (1)

One might object: Why, if "petros" and "petra" mean the same thing, are different Greek words used? Historical evidence points to the fact that Simon Bar Jonah was the first person ever to be named "Peter." To his contemporaries, calling himself "Peter" must have seemed just as odd as someone today calling himself "Concrete" or "Astroturf." Grammatically, "petra" was the proper word to use in saying "on this rock." However, "petra" is a feminine noun, which would have been unsuitable for a man's name. "Petros" is simply the masculine form of "petra." After all, Peter was bound to take plenty of heat from his fishing buddies for calling himself "Rock." Imagine the bedlam which would have ensued should he have called himself "Rockette!" The difference in Greek words becomes even less important when one considers that Jesus did not speak Greek. Our Blessed Lord spoke Aramaic. In the Aramaic language, the word "Kepha" is used for both "rock" and "Peter." Jesus looked at his disciple and said: "You are the rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church." Presbyterian J. Knox Chamberlain testifies: "By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." (2)

William E. McCumber, of the Church of the Nazarene, asserts: "The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession. (cf. Eph. 2:20) The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history." (3)

Dr. Broadus explains: "As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted…The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter, and on this rock' he pointed to himself, incolves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive." (4)

Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Ridderbos concurs: "It is well known that the Greek (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special significance." (5)

I could go on and on citing the conclusions of honest non-Catholic scholars. Those interested should consult the book "Jesus, Peter, and the Keys" from Queenship Publishing.

To avoid confusion, I should point out that I have seen several Church of Christ apologists attempt to avoid the power of this argument by denying that the Gospel of St. Matthew was composed in Aramaic. While it is true according to Catholic Tradition (the very same Tradition which tells us that the anonymous fist Gospel was penned by the apostle) and modern scholarship that Matthew was written in Aramaic, and while this truth should be defended against ahistorical and unscholarly attacks, this is not the crux of the argument. Whether the Gospel was written in Greek, Aramaic, American Brail, or Pig Latin originally is of no consequence! The argument is grounded not on the language of the written Gospel, but on the spoken language of the Lord, Aramaic.

After renaming Simon "Peter," making him the New Abraham, Patriarch of the New Covenant (cf. Is. 51:1), promising to build his Church upon him, Jesus then said to him: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 16:19)

The keys of the kingdom were a symbol of the ancient royal office of Major Domo. With the advent of Jesus, the Davidic kingdom was restored. Jesus Christ, Son of David, is the King of the New Isreal, the Church. He reigns forever. Under the King is the Major Domo, an office which was conferred on Peter and passed on to his successors.

Apologist Robert Sungenis, a former member of the Boston Crossroads Movement in the Church of Christ, explains: "In Isaiah 22:22 Eliakim is given the key of the house of David and fulls the role of palace administrator for King Hezekiah. In Isaiah 36:3 he is designated literally as the person 'over the house' (Hebrew: al habayith). The house refers to the residence of the king, otherwise known as the king's palace…As specified in Isaiah 22:22 the palace administrator was a very prestigious and responsible position since what he 'opens no one can shut, and what he closes no one can open.' Isaiah 22:22 also give and indication as to the origin of the office by the phrasing, 'the house of David.' We would assume from such language that the position of palace administrator would have been a perpetual office beginning with David…Unlike Old Testament kings, however, Jesus remains the only King of the Church. Before he left, Jesus designated as 'palace administrator' or 'chief of staff' to rule the affairs of his house, the Church. His name was Peter. Significantly, Peter is given the keys to bind and loose even as Eliakim was given the key to open and shut. Peter's successors, even as Ahishar (King Solomon's Vicar) had successors stretching throughout the history of Isreal, would assume the same ruling prerogatives throughout the duration of the Church. All of these New Testament 'palace administrators,' i.e., popes, would be under one king, that is, Jesus." (6)

St. Peter exercised his authority over the Catholic Church in Jerusalem, then Antioch, and then Rome. It was in Rome that he was martyred under Nero, and buried in Vatican Hill. The Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, the office of Major Domo of the Church, were passed on to the next leader of the Roman Christian community, St. Linus, then to St. Anacletus, St. Clement I, St. Evaristus, and on through the ages to our current Holy Father (cf. Is. 22:21), John Paul II. Certainly many developments have been made in 2,000 years in the way these leaders exercise their ministry. However, the institution of the papacy has remained fundamentally and essentially the same for twenty centuries. I remind my opponent that I have all ready offered historical evidence that Christians in all parts of the world in every century recognized the leader of the Roman Christian community as the leader of the world Christian community.

My opponent has continued to object to infant baptism. He rejects the Catholic doctrine of original sin based on an irrelevant passage in the Prophet Ezekiel, ignoring the Biblical evidence and the common testimony of nearly every Christian tradition. In a later essay, we will delve into why members of the Church of Christ don't flinch at the absurdity of the notion that they are the first and only people ever to have honestly and accurately interpreted the scriptures.

He also objects to infant baptism on the grounds that it is not performed by immersion. I quote from his most recent essay: "My Catholic friends, please realize that no denomination--not even the Catholic Church--baptizes infants! No infant has ever been baptized in the history of Christianity. How can I assert such a thing? It is indeed very simple. Baptism means immersion. As I pointed out before, the two words are interchangeable. This is why many people in the brotherhood have taken to referring to our Lord's forerunner as 'John the Immerser.'"

Catholics do not deny that the literal meaning of the Greek "baptidzo" is immersion. What we do fervently object to is the trend in the Church of Christ and, to some extent, in all of Fundamentalist Protestantism, toward a desacramentalization and demystification of the Christian faith. This is difficult for the Catholic to comprehend. How can a Christian, one who believes that history itself was mysteriously written by the hand of God as a typological foreshadowing of Jesus Christ, who believes that the plasma which poured out of the puncture wounds of a 30 year old Jewish man 2,000 years ago remove the guilt of his sin, who believes that words penned by mere mortals contain the thoughts of the ineffable Supreme Being, insist upon grammatical literalism when it goes against the continuous understanding of the People of God?

Words are one of God's greatest gifts to his people. Indeed, they are the very imprint of the Divine Image which we bear on our souls. With words, human beings communicate their innermost thoughts and feelings. So great is the mystery of human language that the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, even before revelation as the Son, was revealed to the philosophers as "the Word." (cf. John 1:1)

Words are governed by laws of grammar. These laws are unique to each human language, and nobody really knows who makes them. Words must be adapted to situations in order to convey the inner spiritual reality for which they are intended. Both an agonizing traitor on the rack in the Tower of London and an amused friend may say, "you're pulling my leg," but they do not mean the same thing by that. One intends to be taken somewhat literally, the other does not.

If words take on special meaning in light hearted conversation, how much more so is this true when words are used for spiritual purposed. Consider the word "holy." Literally, this means "set apart." In this sense, convicted murderers are made holy by being set apart from society. The greatest movie ever made, Planes, Trains, and Automobiles, is holy because it is set apart as the crowning achievement of American culture. My favorite chair is holy, because it is set apart for my usage.

God is holy and calls us to be holy ones, or saints. Surely, God's holiness does not simply mean that he is set apart in the same way that my chair is. God's holiness and the holiness to which he calls us is an entirely essentially different concept. It is not a profane truth, but a sacred one.

When words are given religious meanings, we cannot stubbornly insist that they be understood linguistically rather than theologically. Holy means set apart, but it also means so much more. Likewise, the Spirit of God is literally the breath of God, yet so much more. Yes, my former self, baptism does mean immersion, but it is immersion into the death of Christ, into the blood of Christ, into the grace and love of God. None of these things are literal grammatical truths, so why must the baptism be a literal grammatical immersion. If it is truly as simple as my former self has claimed, why did nobody figure this out before the Anabaptists of the 16th century? Were all Catholics too simple to grasp even the painfully simple?

Water baptism is only the fist baptism through which a Christian must go. The second is the baptism of the Holy Spirit brought about by the laying on of hands through Confirmation. The Bible itself describes this "immersion of the Holy Spirit" as having the Spirit poured out upon us.

My opponent is fighting hard for his notion of a Great Apostasy. This is quite understandable. The early (but not the first, as will be explained in a later essay) pioneer preachers of the Church of Christ won thousands of converts with their Restoration Plea of a return to primitive New Testament Christianity. Should my opponent admit that the Bible teaches the true Church cannot fall away, he will be left with only two options-either become Catholic or prove that the Church of Christ existed through the ages. Since this is a cross time debate and my opponent is my former self, I am blessed with a unique insight into his thinking, and I think I know which one he'll choose. That, however, remains a question for another day.

To defend his notion of a Great Apostasy, my opponent has quoted two passages which describe the nature of the apostasy and offered his commentary:

Quoting from 1996 Second Rebuttal: "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 utterances through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God has created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." (1 Timothy 4:1-3)

To whom is St. Paul referring in 1 Timothy 4:1-3? History shows that he was condemning, not the Catholic Church, but the Gnostic heretics who were developing even then. The Gnostics taught a very dualist heresy. They believed that the universe was created by an evil god, Demiurge, who was the god of the Old Testament. As a result of the evil origin of the

universe, all matter is condemned by Gnostics as evil. They forbid all marriage and were strict vegetarians. This error has been repeated by radical sects though the years, most notably the Albigensians of France, whom certain erring members of the Church of Christ have attempted to portray as New Testament Christians. (7)

St. Paul is not condemning abstinence from foods for the sake of piety and penance, as is common in the Catholic Church. This practice is not evil. What he condemns is the demonic doctrine behind the practice. In much the same way, Jesus condemned the Pharisees for praying, fasting, and almsgiving in order to be seen. It was not the practice that was evil, but the underlying motives. As for forbidding marriage, the Catholic Church does no such thing. Celibates in the Church are those who have voluntarily renounced marriage in order to be more Christlike. The Church forces no one to be celibate.

As for the Man of Sin prophecy, I will quote a letter to another member of the Church of Christ who made the same accusation. "The historical interpretation of this passage is that it had both an immediate fulfillment and a later fulfillment. (This is the case with many Messianic prophesies which applied to men such as Solomon, Hezekiah, and Cyrus as well as Christ.)

According to the traditional Catholic understanding, shared by many non-Catholics as well, the immediate fulfillment of this prophecy was in the person of Emperor Caligula. Caligula was a criminally insane wretch of a man. His decadence and evil were virtually without parallel. (He was so evil that the movie based on his life was rated X.) In his arrogance, he dared to erect a statue of himself in the Holy Temple of Jerusalem to be worshipped. Indeed, Caligula fulfilled this prophecy literally. This interpretation is in keeping with parallel prophesies in the Book of the Prophet Daniel. (7:23-25; 8:9-12; 9:27; 11:36,37; 12:11)

Daniel foresees this same event. He tells of the terrible persecutions which Rome would perform against the people of God. This is the occasion of a great apostasy. (I will momentarily address the nature of this apostasy.) It is not, however, an apostasy which corrupts the Church and turns her into a False Church. Notice what Daniel says is to take place when God judges the Emperor: "But when the court is convened, and his power is taken away by final and absolute destruction, then the kingship and dominion and majesty of all kingdoms under the heavens shall be given to the holy people of the Most High, whose kingdom shall be everlasting: all dominions shall serve and obey him." (Daniel 7:26,27)

Let me anticipate, sir, a possible objection. 'Despite the parallels with Caligula and the Roman Empire,' one might say, 'the passage makes the advent of the Man of Sin a direct precursor to the Second Advent of our Lord. Caligula's abomination was nearly two thousand years ago, and certainly was not a harbinger of the Day of Wrath.'

I can not offer a decisive answer to this problem. I have heard it plausibly argued by, among others, Dr. Scott Hahn of Franciscan University that the immediate fulfillment of this prophecy in Caligula was a precursor, not to the final judgment, but to the destruction of Jerusalem 30 years later. A future antichrist would then be the precursor to final judgment.

"Regardless of whether the passage is about Jerusalem, the end of the world, or both, the same objection could be made against a papal interpretation. I believe that patristic evidence shows a papacy in the earliest Church. The pope and Caligula coexisted. Even if you date the rise of the papacy in the 700's, there's still 1300 years between the harbinger of the Day of Wrath and the Day itself. If you, like many others, believe that medieval papacy of the 1200's through 1500's to be the subject, there's a five to eight century discrepancy. Even if one goes out on a limb to point to the definition of papal infallibility in 1870, there's still 130 years between the harbinger and the first possible date for the Lord's return.

"The pope really does not fit the picture of the man of sin in this passage. There are so many problems with that interpretation. First of all, the pope does not set himself up to be above God. He himself will be the first to tell you that. Were I to worship him, he would be the first to rebuke me, for he is just a man.

"Secondly, to call the Man of Sin the pope, one is forced to admit that the Catholic Church is here referred to as the Temple of God.

"Thirdly, while there have been corrupt popes, the vast majority of them have been holy and righteous men. Compare John Paul II or Innocent III to Caligula and Nero (or Jimmy Swaggart or President Clinton)! In fact, for the first 250 years of the Catholic Church, every pope--without exception--willingly laid down his life for the cause of Christ. These men did not have time to be the Man of Sin--they were too busy being killed by him!" (8)

The fact remains that Jesus has promised to preserve his Church from apostasy. My opponent claims that the entire Church fell away only to be restored 1800 years later by the Church of Christ's pioneer preachers. He has failed so far to offer Biblical evidence that such an apostasy is possible, or to offer any accurate historical evidence that is took place. I reassert fervently that the Great Apostasies of the ages have been, like Korah of old, apostasies from the Church and not apostasies of the Church.

I look forward to continuing this discussion, and I thank you all for your patience.

(1) Dr. John A. Broadus. Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886, p. 355.

(2) J. Knox Chamberlain. "Matthew," in Walter A. Elwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989, p. 742.

(3) William E. McCumber. "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds., Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1. Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975, p. 125.

(4) Broadus, pp. 355, 356.

(5) Herman N. Ridderbos. Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987, p. 303.

(6) Robert A. Sungenis in Scott Butler, et. al., eds. Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship, 1996, p. 50.

(7) See Keith Sisman. "Church History," Gospel Truths Magazine, January, 1999.

(8) Jeff Childers. Letter to Mr. Jediah Logiodice, October, 1998.

Return to Childers vs. Childers Main Debate Page