Papacy is Unbiblical

iii. ON THE SUB-APOSTOLIC CHURCH AGAINST PAPACY I did give the source of my arguments but Con ignored it. I said in Round 3: I got all of this info from the Papacy article of Thomas P. Neill in Collier’s Encyclopedia ~ copyright 1986 ( Volume 18) on pages 398 and 399. Anyway, it seems that Con has no access with my source. Therfore, here are the links in support to my source: Clement 1 ( doctrine not jurisdiction) r. A.D. 88-97 [in the life-time of St. John) To Corinthian church: 1) Heal their schism 2) Submit to hierarchical authority in their local church SOURCE: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com... Ignatius ( President of the Society of Love) Refers to the Roman Church not specifically to the Roman Bishop. SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org... Irenaeus ( disciple of Polycarp) Against Heretics: Christianity = body of truth handed down by the apostles. Orthodoxy ( correct teaching) must be “apostolic.” “Of these the greatest and most ancient is Rome.” It did NOT say “only” Rome but “of these” which highly implies other churches. SOURCE: http://books.google.com.ph... Against Heresies 3:2 Victor 1 ( r. 189-199) – the FIRST assertion of jurisdictional authority. Why would Polycarp not submit to the Pope? SOURCE: Cleenewerck, Laurent (1 January 2008). His Broken Body: Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Euclid University Press. p. 1470-page157. ISBN 978-0-615-18361-9. Retrieved 28 October 2012. "Ending with "One could argue that the Great schism started with Victor, continued with Stephen and remained underground until the ninth century!"" Stephen 1 ( 3rd century) Why would Cyprian not submit to the Pope? SOURCE: http://www.christian-history.org... Pope Leo 1 ( 4th century) Why would the church not submit to the Pope? SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org... ANSWER: It is because there is no such thing as “singular” Pope who rules over other bishops in the early church. Conclusion: From the first 4 centuries of the church, the eastern church do not submit to the bishop of Rome as a singular ruler of the entire flock of God. iv. ON THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH POLITY AGAINST PAPACY First century Church polity had Jesus Christ as the creator/owner of the Church, St. Peter as the Vicar of Christ (the head of the Church on Earth), and various bishops/priests according to geographic need. Comparably, the 21st century Church has Jesus Christ as the creator/owner of the Church, Pope Francis as the Vicar of Christ, and various bishops/priests according to geographic need. Again, look to the link I provided (I will provide it again at the bottom of this page for convenience) for evidence of the unbroken chain of apostolic succession from St. Peter to Pope Francis. My opponent did not get what my arguments mean and hence, I am of need to reiterate it: The fact that the first century church polity is consisting only of elders (who functions as bishops) and deacons ( whose function is to serve) reveals that Papacy is non-existent in the first century church. First Century Church Polity Jesus Christ ( the only head) elders ( bishops) deacons (serves) Roman Catholic Church Polity Pope ( Vicar of Christ) Bishops (overseers) Priests (ministers of the sacrament) deacons ( serves) The difference is obvious. The church polity of Roman Catholicism today is not the original church polity recorded in the New Testament Scriptures. This is not to say that church polity evolution in itself is bad but rather, what are we trying to show is that Papacy itself is part of this church polity evolution.It means that it is not an original part of the first century church polity. In other words, Papacy do not exists in the first century Christendom. It only existed the time the church polity evolved. 2. In Support of Papacy i. Biblical Support In an attempt to refute the Biblical evidence that I provided in support of papacy, Pro simply spent his time arguing that there is no correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses that were provided. I think that the correlation couldn't be more clear when looking at the Biblical text from an unbiased perspective. My opponent should realize that if one really would look at the texts in question from an unbiased perspective the truth there is no correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses that were provided would be very clear.That’s what I did. I did look into the texts from an unbiased perspective and here’s what I have found: Isaiah 22:20-22 is not referring to Matthew 16:18-19. There is none in both texts that correlates them.In fact, the texts are different in focus: Isaiah 22:20-22 is talking about the KEY (singular) of David.It has the power to shut and open.This indicates that it is Messianic.It's context refers t's purely to Israel. Matthew 16:18-19 is talking about the KEYS (plural) of the Kingdom of Heaven.It has the power to bound and loose.It's context refers only to the church. Revelation 3:7-8 is clear that Jesus (the Messiah) alone has the keys of David and He alone uses it for his church. It was not Simon Peter who has the keys of David here.Hence, it is very clear that Isaiah 22:20-22 is not pertaining to Simon Peter but to Jesus Christ alone. The fact that I did not add to the words and let it speak for itself proves that I looked at it from an unbiased perspective. On the other hand, my opponent interpreted the texts out of context. Pro then accused me of "blasphemy" for saying that both David and Peter were shepherds of their respective peoples. There are several Biblical examples of leaders (other than Christ) referred to as shepherds. I even provided an example in my last argument, but this was apparently overlooked by Pro. Here it is again: "I will save my sheep so that they may no longer be despoiled, and I will judge between one sheep and another. I will appoint one shepherd over them to pasture them, my servant David; he shall pasture them and be their shepherd. I, the LORD, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I, the LORD, have spoken." -Ezekiel 34:22-24 I am not against the fact that God uses people to be “shepherds” of his sheep. We read in 1 Peter 5:2 that there exist shepherds of God’s flock. What I am against with my opponent is that He interpreted Ezekiel 34:22-24 as referring to the Papacy when in fact it is only referring to the Messiah, the Son of David. The proof that Ezekiel 34:22-24 is Messianic is very obvious from the texts. In fact, Jesus the Messiah himself said that He is this “one shepherd” in John 10:16. Hence, my opponent really blasphemed the Messiah God when He refers the “one shepherd” to the Papacy! Indeed this prophecy is fulfilled in my opponent’s assertions: Matthew 24:5 ‘For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah,' and will deceive many.” ii. Historical Support In an attempt to refute the historical evidence that I provided in support of papacy, Pro merely throws out an assertion that New Testament Christians did not affirm the authority of leadership, but rather only through apostolic writings. My opponent should know that a mere list of church leaders was not the 1st century New Testament pattern to follow in regards to preserving apostolic teaching. The apostolic writings was the only inspired possession of the church to keep it away from false teachings ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth ( John 17:17). And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified ( John 17:17).