Papacy Is Unbiblical

First, I'm glad to see my opponent is safe and has regained power despite being the victim of the typhoon. Here's hoping your recovery continues. Rebuttals: A. My opponent says: "If my opponent really believes that the "key of david" is the same "keys of the kingdom of heaven" then it means that the function of those keys are the same too. Therefore, if my opponent's argument is consistent then we have all Christians having the same key/keys too which Simon Peter had based on Matthew 18:18. " Two things. One, not all Christians were present when Jesus was speaking in that verse. He was only speaking to the Apostles. The authority to bind and loose makes no sense if everyone has it. Let's look at what Jesus said starting in verse 15: 15 If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that "every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will bee bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. So, here we see Jesus giving the Apostles the authority to solve disputes between Christians on matters of faith (If your brother sins against you. .. take it to the Church). This authority makes no sense if is given to everyone. If everyone has equal authority, then no one has final say, and the matter can never be resolved. 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). B. My opponent says "Firstly, the reasoning of my opponent shows that the other churches can shut the open door because my opponent asserts that Jesus is only addressing the church which is at Philadelphia. Secondly, if Peter is really the sole one having the keys then why would he not able to open the door which Jesus had shut? " 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. C. "Firstly, my opponent misapprehended my argument. I agree that "Peter" means "Rock" and that being the Rock on which the church will be built ( Matthew 16:15-19) is to be the first one to preach the gospel ( Acts 14:27,Acts 15:7-9, Romans 1:26-27). " 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. D. " Secondly, my opponent did not refute my previous argument that God did not change Simon's name to Peter. Hence, I extend my argument concerning it. " 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. " E. "On the contrary, likeness does not mean sameness. Isaiah 22 only relates to Matthew 16 in terms of "key" and "authority" not of every niceties it has because we should honor the context of Matthew 16 and not to teach anything beyond what it only teaches. " 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. F. "If Peter alone has the keys then Peter alone must have the function of the keys. The fact that all other Christians have the function of the keys per Matthew 18:18 proves that my opponent's argument here is null and void. " See my argument above (A. ). All Christians do NOT have that authority. The other Apostles were only given the power to bond and loose in specific situations. Only Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven. G. "My opponent gravely err concerning his understanding of my argument. I did not say anything like what he accuses me of. I did not say that "keys are used for building. " Notice that I only did say that the purpose why the keys of the kingdom of heaven which has the binding & loosing power was given is because of only one reason based on the text in question per-se: "to build Jesus' church. " Jesus himself said," Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church. " How can Simon Peter do this task? It is by using the keys/ power of binding & loosing. " I dint see how is misunderstood what my opponent said concerning what the keys are meant to do. I say this because again my opponent says that Peter is to build the Church with the keys. Again, Peter did not build the Church. Jesus did. He said as much ("I will build my church"). The keys are a symbol of authority. They were a symbol of authority in Isaiah 22 too. An authority that had successors. H. "I did not miss the point in here. Yes. Jesus prayed especially for Peter but why? Why did Jesus pray for Peter? The context says that Jesus prayed for Peter because there is a temptation that is about to come that very night not because Peter will be ruling as a supreme leader of the church. Yes. Jesus said to Peter to stregthen the other 11 AFTER the temptation have come to pass. Jesus did not say to rule over the other 12. " 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. I. "Jesus indeed told Peter to feed his sheep, making him sheperd of his flock but this certainly does not mean to rule over the entire church as Pope. In fact, Peter himself appealed to all other co-elders to "shepherd the flock of God" ( 1 Peter 5:2). That does not mean Peter made all bishops a ruler of the entire church! " 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). J. "They agree with what Peter preached for they are of same equal faith ( Acts 15:9, 2 Peter 1:1)but in the Jerusalem Council, it is James' judgment ( w/c is a mere "opinion" according my opponent) that had been taught in church universally. It basically sounds like, "James has spoken, the case is close. " The debate ended after Peter spoke ("they fell silent"). It was already over by the time James spoke. K. "The context of Acts 15:13-19 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. . . " Again, James was simply saying "it is my opinion". L. My opponent says:"On the Protestant View of the Rock Unbelievable. My opponent did not only take the bible out of context but he also did the same in Protestant literature. NOTICE what Dr. France says, . .. the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone of Jesus' Church. " It certainly does not come close to Papacy! Dr. France did not even spoke of Peter's successors! In fact, Dr. France did not entertain Roman Catholic Teaching Papacy as a Biblical truth but rather, he only talks about the veracity of the texts (i. e. Matthew 16:17-19). " 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. " So here we see Dr. France saying that Peter was the head of the disciples, their spokesman, a pioneer, and LEADER of the disciples. New Arguments It's not just a Catholic thing part 2: One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. " In other words, Professor Albright is admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti- Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre- eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles. " We will see. " [3] Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are the symbol of authority"" [3]