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

I am very thankful to God for the opportunity to continue in this important discussion. The scriptures encourage Christians to contend earnestly for the faith, exhorting us to always be ready to give an answer to any who will challenge us. For two millennia, Catholics have been subjected to waves of persecution and opposition-from the Roman martyrdoms to the American Protestant anti-Catholic hysteria. It is in free and charitable discussions such as this, where both sides of the issue are presented, that hatred and prejudice can give way to love, understanding, and, ultimately, truth. When, at long last, we come to find the truth, then we shall be set free!

Over the course of this debate, I've tried to present evidence in support of the papacy. My opponent has recognized the special calling of St. Peter as undeniably scriptural. However, he has argued that the primacy of Peter does not apply to the bishops of Rome. It is illogical, however, to insist that Jesus created an office of central leadership in the Church which would cease to function after the death of its first holder.

Let us look back to the biblical account of the establishment of Peter's office:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:18,19)

The passage tells us three things about the Petrine ministry:

1) It is a position of authority the rulings of which are confirmed by God. ("Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven...")

2) It is so fundamental to the constitution of the Church as to be called, symbolically, her foundation. ("Upon this Rock I will build my Church."

3) It is a guarantor against the Church's falling into error. ("...the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.")

This Petrine ministry, that of the key-bearer of the Kingdom of God, is obviously very important to the life of the Church. Our Lord's promise to protect the Church forever (cf. Mt. 28:20, Eph. 3:21) is intimately related to this foundational Petrine ministry. If, as my opponent has suggested, the office of key-bearer was held only by St. Peter, how can it be the guarantor of the Church's stability into perpetuity. The idea of a community of believers bound by God to obey the decrees of a dead man-of an eternal kingdom built upon a long dead Rock, is an absurdity suggesting a biased desperation to avoid the necessary conclusions of scripture.

The nature of the position of key-bearer also requires succession. As I established in my previous argument, Peter was given the position of major domo in the New Covenant Kingdom, the Church. Stephen K. Ray explains:

Many in the Church of Christ like to argue from the silence of the scriptures. My former self has done this here by arguing that, since Matthew 16 does not specifically mention successors, we must assume there were to be none. However, since Jesus appointed St. Peter to a position which was understood by the Jews to be dynastic, the silence of the scriptures actually benefits the Catholic belief. Consider:

1) Jesus, the king, made Peter his major domo.
2) Major domos, particularly those of the Kingdom of Judah, have successors.
3) The scriptures are silent about any exception to the generally accepted notion that major domos have successors.
4) Therefore, one can assume from the silence of the scriptures that Peter was to have successors.

Peter traveled to Rome and led the Christian community in Rome for years. It was in Rome that he was martyred for the faith, and in Rome that his office was first vacated. The office was passed down to his successor as leader of the Roman Christians-first to Linus, then to Anacletus, then to Clement I, and on down the centuries to John Paul II, our 264th pope.

My opponent has cited Galatians 2 as evidence that St. Peter and his successors are not infallible. In this famous passage, St. Peter refused to eat with Gentile Christians when prominent Jewish Christians were present. St. Paul confronted him on this and accused him of hypocrisy. St. Paul was correct in doing so. St. Peter was behaving hypocritically.

However, this episode has no bearing on the question of papal infallibility. St. Peter's lapse was one of judgment and personal behavior. Catholics do not believe that the pope is incapable of making poor judgments or behaving improperly. What Catholics believe is that when the pope teaches a doctrine of faith or morals intending that the entire Church accept this doctrine-what we call ex cathedra, or from the chair-God, on account of the infallibility of the Church, preserves him from error. Or, in other words, what he binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what he looses on earth is loosed in heaven.

Regarding infant baptism, my opponent wrote: "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."

Here again, as is common in the Church of Christ, my opponent has constructed an argument based on the silence of scriptures. As with the dynastic nature of the papacy, however, in this matter the scriptural silence actually works in favor of the Catholic view. Consider:

1) Every Covenant God has made with mankind prior to Christianity included infants.
2) Infants were made part of the Jewish Covenant through circumcision.
3) Jesus established the New Covenant first among the Jews.
4) One enters the New Covenant through baptism.
5) The scriptures never state that infants are excluded from the New Covenant.

What would a Jewish person hearing the gospel in the first century assume? Without being specifically told otherwise, would the Hebrew not assume that, just as in every other covenant God has made with man, in this New Covenant, infants were to be included. My opponent has, however, brought us to the crux of the issue: the authority of the Bible alone.

...and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16,17) My opponent has cited this passage in an attempt to prove that every aspect of the will of God-both doctrine and practices-must be specifically written in the scriptures. This is an unwarranted conclusion for several reasons.

St. Paul's beautiful words about sacred scripture contain nothing contrary to catholic teaching. Catholics recognize that scripture is inspired, that it is inerrant, that it is authoritative, that it is profitable for doctrines and for righteousness and for the upbuilding of the Christian. These are truths which have been clearly and forcefully taught by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. In all of his praise of scripture, however, St. Paul never states that it is exclusively sufficient-that it is all we need and all we are permitted to use. My opponent would have St. Paul say, "All scripture is inspired by God and is SUFFICIENT for doctrine." St. Paul does not say "sufficient"; he says "profitable."

2) No other passage teaches sola scriptura.

Much ink has been spilled examining passages which are supposed proof-texts of sola scriptura to demonstrate that they do not teach this Protestant heresy. My former self has cited a passage from Deuteronomy forbidding the Israelites from tampering with the Law of Moses. Does this teach sola scriptura? Obviously not! If the Israelites has understood Moses the way my opponent does, the Jewish faith would not have progressed beyond Sinai. There would be no Judges, no Levitical priesthood, no Temple, no Davidic kings, no prophets and, God forbid, no Messiah! The Jews were to follow the Law of Moses, but this does not mean they were bound to the scripture alone. Rather, they had leaders ordained by God ruling on the Chair of Moses whom they were bound to obey. Even while the Jews revered the written Word of God, they recognized that oral tradition preserved by their leader also contained divine revelation. (2)

Similar language to the Deuteronomy passage is used at the end of the Book of Revelation. The words in Revelation no more exclude authoritative leaders in the Church than did the words in Deuteronomy exclude them from Israel.

My opponent has also cited St. Paul's words in 1 Cor. 4:6 to not go beyond what is written. This can not teach the Church of Christ's idea of sola scriptura since it would eliminate all scripture recorded after 1 Corinthians 4:6. Secondly, it fails to identify what writings are under consideration, damaging the idea that he is binding his readers to a canon of scripture. Thirdly, the Greek of the passage is very questionable, and scholars have never agreed on how it should be rendered. Fourth, the question of Bible authority vs. Magisterial authority is totally irrelevant to the context of the passage.

In context, St. Paul is in the midst of a discourse against the pride of the Corinthians. To condemn their pride, he cites a number of Old Testament passages:

1) Is. 29:14: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside." (1:19)

2) Jer. 9:23: "Whoever boasts should boast in the Lord." (1:31)

3) Is. 64:3: "They eye has not seen nor the ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of man, what things God has prepared for them that love him." (2:9)

4) Alluding to Is. 40:13: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he should instruct him." (2:16)

5) Job 5:13: "I will catch the wise in their own craftiness." (3:19)

6) Ps. 94:11: "The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise that they are vain." (3:20)

How does St. Paul wrap up this veritable survey of the Old Testament? By informing the Corinthians that he and Apollos have applied the words of scripture to themselves, and by encouraging the Corinthians to do likewise: "I have applied these things to myself for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another." (1 Cor. 4:6) In context, what is going beyond what is written? Ignoring the scriptures and being proud. The question of the authority of the Bible alone is irrelevant here. Inasmuch as St. Paul continues to speak against pride for 15 verses, one should not assume that he has here briefly changed the subject to condemn extra-biblical authority.

My opponent reproduced 2 lists from David J. Riggs which supposedly prove sola scriptura. I will comment briefly on each passage as explained by Mr. Riggs:

This reference is only to the Gospel of Luke. This one Gospel contains enough information to spark faith in Theophilus, but makes no pretense to be the entire standard of Christian authority.

Catholics agree that we can be certain of the authenticity of the scriptures.

Catholic agree that reading the scriptures produces faith which gives us eternal life. This particular passage is referring only to the Gospel of John.

Catholics recognize that the scriptures provide us with valuable instruction.

Catholics recognize that the scriptures contain commands of the Lord, but also recognize that an infallible interpreter is necessary to apply those commands to the needs of 20th century society. Where in scripture can we learn if human cloning or fetal experimentation are morally acceptable-in line with the commands of the Lord?

Certainly, Catholics accept that the conduct authorized in the scripture is proper. It is interesting, however, to examine this passage. The proper conduct for what? "You know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."

This passage only calls the scriptures "profitable" toward learning every good work.

Catholics agree.

Catholics agree that following the instructions of the Apostle John in this epistle lead to eternal life. (These words, by the way, refer only to 1 John.)

A reference to the Old Testament. The Bereans examined the Old Testament to see if Christ really did fulfill the prophecies.

"That which is written" is the Old Testament warnings against pridefullness.

Catholics accept this.

The "joy" in this passage is that of St. John who longed to put into writing the message of this epistle.

While Catholics recognize that we will be judged according to how we lived up to the words of God, it is a great assumption that the "scrolls" in this symbolic passage refers to the New Testament.

All of these passages fail to teach sola scriptura.

Jesus Christ established a Church. As has been established, he appointed leaders over that Church and insisted that his people obey these leaders, guaranteeing that they will not teach error. Therefore, St. Paul could rightfully proclaim: "the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth."

4) Sola scriptura begs the question.

The Bible never identifies what books are and are not inspired. One must go beyond the Bible to establish a canon of scripture. The canon accepted by my former self is one established by the Catholic Church in the 4^th century.

We now have come to the final portion of this debate-the question and answer session. I have attempted to demonstrate so far that Jesus established and preserved only one Church, guiding her teachings so that Christians could know the truth and, by that truth, be set free. I have tried to answer all of my opponent's arguments against Catholicism using our common ground, the sacred scriptures. As we move along toward the end of this endeavor, I hope those who read my words will examine further the teachings of Christ's Holy Church. Any errors in my writing are my own fault, and not the fault of the Church. My arguments for the faith-any arguments for the faith-are not to be confused for the faith itself. My arguments, my polemics, my conjectures, my logic may stand or fall, but the faith of our fathers once and for all delivered to the saints will last forever. In all things, I humbly submit my paltry and feeble musings to the judgment of the Magisterium of the Church.

(1)Upon This Rock. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999. Pp. 289-291.

(2) For example: Matthew 2:23 cites a well known prophecy absent from the scriptures. 2 Timothy 3:8 cites an oral tradition about the names of the sorcerers who opposed Moses. Jude 9 cites an oral tradition about the death of Moses. Jude 14,15 quotes words of the Prophet Enoch preserved in oral tradition. Our Lord's condemnation of the Pharisees was for exalting human traditions above the Word of God, not for preserving that part of the Word of God which was given orally.

Return to Childers vs. Childers Main Debate Page

Return to Catholicsource Main Page