There's evidence in the Bible and among the Church fathers that supports the papacy.

I DIDN'T PLAGIARIZE. CON DID I used quotation marks and sourced every time. My opponent did not use quotation marks. But don't take my word for it. Look at round two for yourself. Ask yourself which one of us began and ended our quotes with quotation marks. Either my opponent doesn't know how to avoid plagiarism (despite me educating him in round three), or he is intentionally lying about my second round. Personally, I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt and presume he is just lacking sufficient knowledge. CON'S NUMEROUS CONCESSIONS With all due respect to my opponent, I was astonished at some of my arguments he either agreed with, or admitted I was right about. His last one was the most surprising: Let's begin with a recap of the debate resolution: "There's evidence in the Bible and among the Church fathers that supports the papacy." So there's two halves of the resolution: 1. The Bible 2. The Church fathers Con just conceded the Church fathers provide evidence for the papacy. But don't take my word for it, let's read what Con said in response to my claim: I posted quotes from five Church fathers arguing for the existence of the papacy, and how did Con respond??? Con said: "All of the sources he gives were very early Christian writers, who believed that Peter was The Leader of The Church." Concession noted. Considering Con just conceded at least half of the resolution is true, this debate is almost over. All I have to do now is show there is at least "some evidence" from the Bible and I have won the debate. Let it be known I believe I've already done this, but will continue to do so. More of Con's Concessions Con admitted: 1. "Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples." Concession noted. 2. Originally, in round two, Con said that Peter never spoke for the Apostles collectively. However, after I showed him he was wrong, Con now says, "While Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles on this occasion..." So now Con admits Peter spoke for the Apostles (at least once). Concession noted. 3. Originally, when trying to refute my claim that Peter was in a leadership role during many prominent moments, Con tried to refute it by saying other Apostles were present. However, after I challenged him on this issue, Con now says: "I do apologize, I had misunderstood my opponent's point." Concession noted. 4. Concerning Peter, Con said: "My opponent also brings up the fact that Peter was given authority with The Church unlike no other apostle. To this, I also agree." Concession noted. 5. Then Con said, "Pro then goes on to show that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This functions as a way to show that Peter has authority within the church. I am not disputing this fact," Concession noted. This debate is basically over. More Logical Fallacies By Con 1. Red Herring Con absolutely detract from the main point of this debate by suggestingthat some Popes acted against scripture. He did so without offering any evidence whatsoever. But for the sake of argument, even if his claim was true, it is irrelevant. AGAIN, President Nixon committed a crime, but doing so doesn't deny that he was truly President. In the same way, just because a Pop sins, that doesn't mean he's not Pope. Bare Assertion Con CLAIMS there have been Popes who have reversed previous teachings,but offers ZERO evidence. That's the epitome of a bare assertion. Without any evidence, I know my opponent will understand if the voters reject this a the baseless claim that it is. Con also says Paul had the same authority as Peter without offering any evidence whatsoever. His bare assertions are piling up. List of Apostles Con said: "1. Judas being listed first is an absolute given, but that does not infer that whoever is put first is actually better or greater or chief of the rest." My response: If the person listed last is universally considered the least, it absolutely implies that the person listed first is "chief" (especially if the same person is listed first EVERY time all the Apostles are listed). Con said: "For instance, Phillip is always listed as the fifth apostle. Should we then infer that Phillip is an average apostle? In fact, in all instances, every apostle is listed in exact order!" My response: There is one time when all the Apostles are listed, but not in the same order. After Judas' death, Acts 1:13 records the list this way: "13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James." [6] This is different from Matthew 10:4 where Andrew is listed second instead of John. There is one similarity between the two lists, however... Peter is listed first! It seems rather unlikely that every biblical author would always list Peter first, when listing the Apostles, without it meaning Peter was first in command. Peter Leading Events/Con's Red Herring and Bare Assertion Once AGAIN, Con has mischaracterized my point. My point is Peter LEAD the Church in those events. My point was not that he was the first to do something. With that in mind, Con's argument that Paul was the first to do something is an irrelevant distraction. Also notice that Con doesn't offer any evidence that Paul was the first to do something, just asserts it. So even if his claim wasn't irrelevant, it would still have to be rejected as a baseless claim. Peter The Head of The Church Con said: " I am not disputing this fact, but this does not give him a position which could be succeeded by a Papal authority." My response: If Con admits Jesus put the Apostles in a position of authority, I ask Con where Jesus ever rescinded this authority? I would submit that when Jesus referenced Isaiah 22 while giving Peter the keys of the kingdom, that this passage implies an office that would be succeeded. Bishop of Rome Con claims that Jesus didn't give Peter authority over the Church, but I disagree. Let's revisit what I offered in round two: "Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city"an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost"meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18)." Isaiah 22:22 is key (pardon the pun). It describes a situation where God installs a prime minister. In those days, a prime minister held an authority over the kingdom while the king was away. So when Jesus invokes this passage in Matthew 16 while giving the "keys to the kingdom", this implies succession. How do we know this? Because in the passage Jesus invokes from Isaiah, the prime minister position is one that has successors. With this in mind, we can know Jesus isn't giving Peter a job that will end upon Peter's death. Shared Authority? Only Peter was given the "keys to the kingdom", so only he had the authority that came with them. Apostolic Succession The authority given to Peter and the Apostles was "whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven. Whatever you loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven." This implies the authority they posess, and will transfer to their sucessors, will be one that is protected from teaching error. If something is bound in Heaven, you can be sure it is not in error. False Teaching? Con said: "If the Pope truly is the man who is divinely lead to rule, and if that man creates certain laws that the next Pope changes, that would make him fallible and therefore not infallible." My response: Yet another bare assertion by Con. Again, he offers no evidence that any Popes ever reversed a doctrine established under the rule of another Pope. I hope Con understands if the voters reject EVERY, SINGLE baseless claim Con has made during this debate. Compare to Scripture Sure the Apostles want us to follow scripture, but nowhere do they say to ONLY follow scripture. As a matter of fact, they do the exact OPPOSITE: "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."[7] Notice EVERYTHING the Apostles taught was to be followed, and not just what they ended up writing down. What people received by "word of mouth" from the Apostles was just as binding. Apostles Infallible Paul rebuking Peter has nothing to do with whether or not he was infallible or not. Peter was rebuked for not practicing what he preached. He wasn't rebuked for what he taught. There's a difference between infallibility and impeccability. Infallibility is only about teachings being protected from error. It has nothing to do with the actions of a Pope. Again, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that the Pope is to be worshipped. We do RESPECT him, but we don't worship him. I challenge Con to show us a single magisterial document from the Church that says we are to worship the Pope. John The First Pope? No source I offered suggested Peter was chosen because he was greater. Con is using another red herring argument. With this in mind, there's no reason to respond to an argument I never made. Con said: "Also, I would like to add a few more points why The Pope is not biblical. 1. The Position of Pope violates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, if any Pope were to make a decree which contradicts the teachings of The Bible. This would include many atrocities sanctioned by The Catholic Church, most notably in the periods between 1000-1600 A.D." My response: Con's first claim falls into another category of logical fallacy. This one is called "Begging the Question": "Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true."[8]. Notice that Con assumes the papacy is false because he claims the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true. While I on the other hand would suggest that Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible. Since the doctrine is in dispute, Con needs to show where it is taught in the Bible before it can be used as an argument to support his claim. As for any "atrocities", notice Con has not offered any evidence of a single "atrocity". Even if he was able to do so, any atrocity would not have anything to do with infallibility. Remember, infallibility concerns official doctrine, not actions. Mediation Moses spoke on God's behalf, as did the prophets. This shows that God is willing to have Earthly ambassadors. As a matter of fact, since the biblical pattern shows God has a habit of establishing humans to speak authoritatively for him, it's up to Con to tell us when God ever said this practice would cease one day. Clearly this practice does not violate scripture. As long as we don't claim to mediate in the same way Jesus does, there's no violation. We know this by reading the verses immediately before the verse Con cites (1 Timothy 2:5): "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people" 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior," [9] So we see that right before we're taught Christ is our one mediator, that God wants us to intercede "for all people". Clearly, interceding for others is not a violation of 1Timothy 2:5 as long as we don't try to mediate exactly like only Jesus can. Tertullian Believed in Apostolic Succession Con misquoted Tertullian. Tertullian never said the keys had only one use. Sure He believed they could be used to unlock Heaven, but that doesn't mean he believed that was their ONLY use. He certainly never denied the doctrine of apostolic succession. As a matter of fact, he spoke out in defense of it: "But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men"a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles." (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20. A.D. 200) [10] So we see Tertullian specifically rejects any doctrine if it's origins cannot be traced to the bishops of the churches established by the Apostles. Notice that this was written some 100 years after the last Apostle died, so when Tertullian speaks of apostolic churches, he's not talking about churches where one can Still find a living Apostle. I now turn the debate back over to my opponent. I look forward to reading his response. Sources: 6. https://www.biblegateway.com... 7. http://biblehub.com... 8. http://www.nizkor.org... 9. https://www.biblegateway.com... 10. http://www.catholic.com...