Papacy Is Unbiblical

Rebuttals: A. My opponent says: "The problem with this assertion is that there is no New Testament passage that speaks of Jesus giving Simon the "key of David." In fact, it is so clear in Revelation 3:8 that Simon Peter cannot even shut the door that Jesus opened through the key of David. Jesus speaks: "I know thy works. Behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it." I would assert that the "Key of David" and the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" are the same set of keys. They just have more than one name. Let's look at how they are described: 1. In Isaiah 22:22, Eliakim is given "the Keys to the house of David" Whatever door he opens, no one can shut. 2. In Matthew 16:19 Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever he binds on Earth is bound in Heaven. Whatever he looses on Earth is loosened in Heaven. 3. In Revelation 3:8 Jesus has the Key of David. Whatever door He opens no one can shut. So although not exact language, in each verse we have keys that open and shut doors that cannot be closed or opened. My opponent is making a distinction without a difference. And Jesus is addressing the "Church at Philadelphia" in Revelation 3:8. No one there can shut the open door. He's not addressing Peter. B. My opponent says: "Simon was called " Peter" because he was privileged to first use the keys just as he was privileged to first confess the faith." Peter means "rock". It doesn't mean "privileged one". Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter because he will be the rock Jesus plans to build His Church on. C."Simon has no successors in his Peter-hood because once the Petrine office is fulfilled, it will inevitably cease." By invoking Isaiah 22, which tells the story of a succession, when changing Simon's name to Peter, Jesus is implying succession in Peter's New mission. D. "On the other hand, Simon Peter's keys is the same keys all Christians have ( Matthew 18:18) .." There is no mention of keys in this verse. I'm afraid my opponent is forcing something that isn't there. E. " I totally have no problem with Jesus not mentioning the keysuntil after AFTER He mentions building His Church as my opponent argues because in fact, the keys were given because of solely one reason: " to build Jesus' church" ( Matthew 16:19). My opponent is right that the keys are for binding and loosing and in Matthew 18:18 it is said that all Christians have these keys for binding and loosing. Therefore, my opponent is utterly wrong when he said that Peter had unique authority over the Church because Peter's keys is not unique to him at all for all other fellow Christians have" With all due respect, my opponent's comments make no sense. Keys aren't used to build anything. They're used to open and lock doors. On the other hand, rocks are used to build things. Being a carpenter, Jesus knew this. That's how we know that Jesus was the one, not Peter, who built the Church. Remember, He said "I will build my church". As Jesus said, the keys were for binding and loosing, not building. F. "Luke 22:32 Jesus prays that Peter"s faith will not fail during the temptation that is about to come that very night. There is absolutely nothing explicit or implicit in the text concerning the faith of potential successors of Peter. Nor is there anything in the text even remotely suggesting that Jesus" prayer involved the bestowal of any gift of infallibility upon either Peter or any successors. A prayer that Peter"s faith will not fail in a specific coming test simply does not entail infallibility" My opponent missed my point here. The point is that Jesus sprayed especially for Peter, and put Peter in charge of strengthening the other 11. G."John 21:17 Peter's thrice denial of Christ ensues Christ's threefold question to Peter: Do you love me? and Peter's re-affirmation of love of Christ made Christ to re-affirm his office common to all ( Matthew 18:18, Acts 20:28,1 Peter 5:1-5).Although Peter did not officially lose his office as apostle or his faith by denying Christ three times, he was nevertheless extremely distraught for denying Christ to the point to where he broke down and wept bitterly in Mark 14:72 and needed to be made glad again as John 20:20 shows. Hence, Peter in John 21:15-17 needed that re-instatement and forgiving reassurance that he was still worthy to feed and shepherd Jesus" people as an apostle of Jesus. As opposed to being elevated above the other apostles as unique shepherd of the flock, as Rome asserts, the contextual evidence suggests that Peter was actually only being restored back to the level of the other apostles who had not denied Jesus." That's not all Jesus is doing here. He tells Peter to feed His sheep, thereby making Peter shepherd of Jesus' flock. H. "The context of Acts 15:13-19 disagrees: After they had stopped speaking, JAMES answered, saying, "Brethren, LISTEN TO ME. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name.With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written...THEREFORE it is MY JUDGMENT that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." When James said "it is my judgment.." He was saying,"it is my opinion". Paul and Barnabas basically did the same thing by giving examples of how the Holy Spirit has been working through the Gentiles despite them not following the Mosaic law. All were showing their agreement with Peter. I. "As of the rest of the verses mentioned Simon being FIRST, I totally agree with these but this does not mean Petrine Supremacy. Matthew 16:15-20 and 18:18 do not teach Petrine Supremacy. Simon wasn't made Supreme head of the entire church but rather, he was made "Peter" ( The Rock-Foundation) whereon the church will be built NOT whereon the church will be ruled." Keys to a city signify authority. Jesus invokes Isaiah 22 when giving the keys to Peter. Isaiah 22 involves authority and succession. Our Lord couldn't have been more clear. J. " Simon was decribed as "Peter" but his name "Simon" was NOT changed into "Peter." Again, my opponent is making a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter if I name you rock, or give you the title of rock... Your job is the same. New arguments from me: Peter first confesses Christ"s divinity (Mt 16:16). Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17). Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity. Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15). In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age (3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Peter"s name appears 195 times; more than all the other Apostles COMBINED.[2] It's not just a Catholic claim: Protestants are often ready to admit the fact that Peter is the Rock and that the keys of succession are given to him to imply an office that will be filled by successors. For instance, one of the top evangelical New Testament scholars in the world, R.T. France says this in his commentary on Matthew, "Verses 17 through 19 are addressed to Peter and have been regarded by some as a late addition to support an early claim to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not they give any such support, there is no textual evidence for their addition to the gospel after its original composition, and the strongly Semitic or Jewish character of the language throughout these verses point to a relatively early origin in a Palestinian environment." What is France saying? Well, many scholars have suggested that Jesus could not have given this gift to Peter. Jesus could not have given this original saying. Why? Because many scholars don't believe that Jesus foresaw the building of the Church. They think that all of these sayings of Jesus concerning the Church were added later by the Church to support whatever had happened to the Church. Dr. France says, "That's just not tenable." When you study this you realize that all of the evidence in the text shows that this is one of the original sayings of Jesus. He goes on to say, "Jesus' beatitude of Peter or His blessing is given to Peter alone. The other disciples may have shared his insight but Peter, characteristically expressed it. Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples' group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader." He goes on to talk about how Peter is referenced to the Rock. France says, "It describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church." This is a non-Catholic. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims but he says, "The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because he could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable." [3] Sources: 2.http://www.catholic.com... 3.http://www.catholic-pages.com...