Papacy Is Unbiblical

I am sorry for not posting my refutations againts my opponent. There had been a devastating tymphoon [ Rammasun] that hit my area [ Metro, Manila Philippines] that caused brownout for several days. My internet connection just got fix just this afternoon of 07/25/2014. Rebuttals1) 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. 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 18:18.2)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.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? My opponent just contradicted Roman Catholic Dogma of Papacy. 3) 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.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). It is indeed a priviledge, a singular grace given to Simon alone just as the privilege to first confess orthodox faith is given to him ( Matthew 16:16-17). 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. 4) 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.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.Let my opponent be reminded again that a text without a context is just a pretext.5) "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.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. 6) 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.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. Conclusion: The Apostle Simon Peter is the instrument through which the Lord Jesus will build his church and Peter's instrument to carry his mission is to use the keys which Jesus will give him. That's what Matthew 16:15-19 teaches which is evidently the natural meaning of the text when understood in context.7)Luke 22:32My opponent missed my point here. The point is that Jesus sprayed especially for Peter, and put Peter in charge of strengthening the other 11.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. 8) John 21:17That's not all Jesus is doing here. He tells Peter to feed His sheep, thereby making Peter shepherd of Jesus' flock.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!9) 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.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 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 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." On the Protestant View of the RockUnbelievable. 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 stoneof 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).