Papacy Is Unbiblical

Rebuttals: THIS DEBATE IS BASICALLY OVER. MY OPPONENT HAS NEGATED HIS RESOLUTION: In the last round, my opponent made a startling admission. Here it is: "Peter did end the debate by his preaching but James did promulgate the judgment. He alone acted authoritatively as if a Pope and not only giving a mere opinion. " So here my opponent describes James as acting "authoritatively" and acting as if he were Pope. And where does he get this from? ?? FROM THE BIBLE! !! ! Now, remember what the resolution is: "The Papacy is unbiblical". But my opponent just said James acted as the Pope in the Bible. Now, personally I believe Peter was the first Pope, but we're not debating who was the first Pope. We're debating if the office of Pope is biblical, and my opponent basically just said yes. I accept his concession. Despite the fact that I have just won this debate, in the remaining space allowed I will continue to rebut my opponent's claims. A. "Why is it so? The authority pertains to the Gospel which is "God's power for salvation to everyone who believes. " ( Romans 1:16). " Nowhere in that passage does it say the authority "pertains to the Gospel" It clearly says it's to "bind and loose". B. "Having equal authority does not mean no one has final say. " Yes it does. C. "This is also wrong. Simon Peter has "equal faith" Having faith is not the same thing as having authority. I can have the same faith in our armed forces as President Obama, but him and I certainly don't have the same authority. D. "Your argument highly implies it. Well, as clear as it is, only Christ functions with the key of David and not any other person based on Revelation 3:7-8. This explicitly shows that Isaiah 22 has no correlation with Matthew 16 in terms of succession in office. " The keys mentioned here and in Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 all open and shut. All of them denote authority, so why wouldn't they all denote succession. Isaiah 22 clearly teaches succession, so why would anyone suggest Matthew 16 doesn't? E. "To be the Rock on which the church will be built means to be the first one to preach the gospel. " In the previous round, I pointed out that none of those verses Saud what he claims they say. I challenged my opponent to show me where they say that, and all I get in response is my opponent repeating himself. And AGAIN, he does so without evidence. F. "This is a huge leap onto the texts. Simon's name is "Simon" and his name wasn't changed into "Peter. " I am referring to my argument in which I say this: Simon was decribed as "Peter" but his name "Simon" was NOT changed into "Peter. " " Even if it was a title, that would be irrelevant. Either way, Peter was the rock. G. "In fact, Simon calls himself " SIMON PETER"( Simon the Rock NOT Peter the Rock) in 2 Peter 1:1. " He calls himself "Peter" in 1 Peter 1:1. H. "Simon is the name and Peter is the descriptive name of his office. " If Peter had an office, as my opponent says, that implies a line of succession. J. "Jesus prayed to Simon (---> Luke 22:31-32 Luke 22:61-62 <---). " That is not accurate. Peter wasn't the only one who was going to be tempted, but he was the only one Jesus was praying for. If you get into the Greek of the verse, it reads like this: Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (plural), that he might sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail; and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your (singular) brethren. " K. "This is a high claim which has no scriptural basis at all. Jesus did not say that Peter alone is the sheperd of his sheep. In fact, Simon Peter said that he himself is a fellow elder ( bishop) and that the sheperds of God's flock must not be a lord over the church but humbly serve as co-equals in the faith ( 1 Peter 5:1-5, 2 Peter 1:1). That doesn't sound Papacy. " Just because you don't "lord over someone" doesn't mean you can't be their leader. Leaders don't have to be mean in order to be effective. L. "Firstly, the comment is simply wrong. Lots of church fathers interpreted "the Rock" in Matthew 16 as either Jesus or Peter's faith or confession. Fathers of antiquity held to:1) Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers, 2) all the apostles, 8 Fathers, 3) that the church was built on the faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers, 4) Jesus as the Rock, 16 Fathers, and 5) all Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers. " Simply giving numbers without examples is quite curious. How are we to know these stats are accurate without the relevant quotes? My opponent had no trouble in previous rounds offering quotes he THOUGHT helped his case. Why not now? Also, since my opponent by his example has indicated that quotes from the early Church fathers are evidence of what they believed. .. I would like to end this debate with one of my favorites: "[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]. .. On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? "