Papacy Is Unbiblical

1. Two things. One, not all Christians were present when Jesus was speaking in that verse. He was only speaking to the Apostles.This is utterly wrong. The context shows that it is all the disciples of Christ and not just the Apostles: At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" - Matthew 18:12. The authority to bind and loose makes no sense if everyone has it. Why is it so?The authority pertains to the Gospel which is "God's power for salvation to everyone who believes." ( Romans 1:16).If everyone has equal authority, then no one has final say, and the matter can never be resolved.Having equal authority does not mean no one has final say. In fact, Matthew 18:15-18 speaks of levels of discipline. We see that there's a protocol to be followed. If there's a brother who sinned ( X). First, personal encouragement to X, two or three witness for X do not comply, the whole assembly of God if X still does not comply. From these we have two and three people of God and then all of God's people are both involved in one singular authority. 3. Secondly, notice the rest of the Apostles have a similar authority as Peter, but only on a local level, and on a limited basis (if your brother sins against you).This is also wrong. Simon Peter has "equal faith" with that of the rest of his fellow Christians ( 2 Peter 1:1 Dhouay-Rheims) and this faith he confessed firstly in which God also installed him into the office of Peter-hood, of being the Rock on which the church will be built ( Matthew 16:15-19). This shows that all Christians have same authority as Simon because Simon alone is Peter ( the Rock). Simon, being the first one to preach the Good News does not mean he alone preaches it. Let my opponent remember that Simon was made Peter in order for building the church using the keys he has been given. 4. We don't know what the other churches could have done or not since they weren't being addressed. I wasn't claiming anything about them. Also, I never said Peter couldn't unlock something.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. 5. None of those verses say that being the rock only means "being the first to preach the gospel" I challenge my opponent to show otherwise.To be the Rock on which the church will be built means to be the first one to preach the gospel. Simon first confessed the faith -- by the Father( Matthew 16:16-17).Simon was made Peter for Jesus to build his church -- by the Son ( Matthew 16:18-19). Simon Peter first preached the Good News ( the only way to be the church) to people -- by the Spirit ( Acts 15:7-9, Romans 1:16).The church is of equal faith with Simon Peter ( 2 Peter 1:1).6. That is not accurate. I DID claim that Simon's name was changed to Peter when I said "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."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." NOTICE the real chage of name: Abram --> AbrahamSarai --> SarahSaul --> Paul Simon--> Peter ? It wasn't a change of name but rather, it is only a description. John & James --> BoanergesSimon --> Peter In fact, Simon calls himself " SIMON PETER"( Simon the Rock NOT Peter the Rock) in 2 Peter 1:1. Simon is the name and Peter is the descriptive name of his office. Jesus himself calls Simon Peter by name: " Simon, Simon" NOT Peter, Peter" in Luke 22:31-32.7. In every covenant God has ever had with man, God has established a visible head of it on Earth. Also, every earthly head has had successors. Adam had his sons. Noah had his sons. Abraham had his sons. Moses had his successors. David had his sons. Jesus had Peter. That is the biblical pattern. God makes a covenant that has an earthly leader, and that leader has his successor. It is up to my opponent to show us from the Bible where it says this pattern is no longer in effect.There is indeed a pattern but unlike my opponent's stance this is not a pattern of Pope, Bishops, Priests but rather, of elders who functions as bishops ( Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-5). The first-century New Testament Church only shows elders =bishops church polity. Deacons serves( 1 Timothy 3:13). The rest of the Christians follow and obey God ( James 2:18,26). 8. Again, my opponent is missing the larger point. All of the Apostles were there, and yet Jesus only prays for Peter's faith to be upheld. Why not pray for all of the Apostles? This only makes sense if Peter was being placed in charge of them.Jesus prayed to Simon (---> Luke 22:31-32 <---) because Simon alone will be tested with such a temptation that will eventually will be helpful and edifying for strengthening his brethren in the faith ( ---> Luke 22:61-62 <---). Be always reminded that a text without a context is just a pretext.9. The rest of the Apostles are shepherds in their own right, but only Peter was told to feed Jesus's sheep (making him the CHIEF shepherd).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, the context shows that Simon Peter just denied Christ 3 times and that's the reason why Simon Peter was asked 3 times by Christ if he loves him.It shows re-affirmation of apostolic office not a delegation of Papal Power. 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. 10. The debate ended after Peter spoke ("they fell silent"). It was already over by the time James spoke.This is a blatant lie. My opponent must read Acts 15 in its entirety.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. In fact, the same silence people offered to Peter is given to Paul, Barnabas and James [ notice the verbs "kept silent" and "were listening" in the text]. ACTS 15 ( NASB) 12 ( After Peter preached the Good News) All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they wererelating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.14 Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written, 16 ‘After these things I will return,And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,And I will rebuild its ruins,And I will restore it,17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago. 19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 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. 11. Apparently my opponent missed part of what Dr. France said concerning Peter's role in the early Church. Let me elaborate with a relevant passage of what this protestant theologian says:"Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples'group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader."I believe that but again, Dr. France do not believe that Simon has successors in his Peter-hood. 12. In other words, Professor Albright isadmitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rockpoint only to Peter's faith or confession. 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.Source: http://www.christiandefense.org...Secondly,Prof. Albright did not believe that Simon has successors in his Peter-hood.