Papacy Is Unbiblical

1. "Revelation 3:7 is clear that Jesus holds the key of David and not only he did hold it but he also did use it! In fact,Matthew 18:18 shows that the same authority Simon has is also possessed by all Christians. "Just because Jesus is the rightful owner of the keys doesn't mean He can't give them to someone else in order that they may speak for Him authoritatively.1. The problem with this assertion is that there is no New Testament passage that speaks of Jesus giving Simon the "key of David. " In fact, it is so clear in Revelation 3:8 that Simon Peter cannot even shut the door that Jesus opened through the key of David. Jesus speaks: "I know thy works. Behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it. "2. My opponent went on to say:"Simon = Peter - First to use the keys of the kingdom- Matthew 16:15-19 ( succession is impossible)"First, my opponent contradicts himself here by admitting that Peter was the first to use the keys. How can Peter use the keys unless Peter has. them?2. My opponent's preconceived idea of keys of heaven as identical to the key of David led him to conclude that I contradicted myself by affirming that Simon was the first to use the keys. Let the readers be aware that I did not contradict myself. I truly and fully agree that Simon has the keys of the kingdom of heaven.3. Second, not only is apostolic succession possible, but Jesus implies its existence by referencing Isaiah 22. As my opponent has alluded to, this passage speaks of Shebna and how he is going to be SUCEEDED by Eliakim. By referencing this passage, Jesus makes a part of Peter becoming the rock an office that has succession.3. Simon was called " Peter" because he was privileged to first use the keys just as he was privileged to first confess the faith. Simon has no successors in his Peter-hood because once the Petrine office is fulfilled, it will inevitably cease. On the other hand, Simon Peter's keys is the same keys all Christians have ( Matthew 18:18) and these certainly has successors based on Matthew 28:19-20. Therefore, Simon as Peter, is the first one to use the common authority. This means that Simon alone is Peter or else are there other Peter (i. e. first to use the keys? ). First is First. If there is a Petrine Succession then the successor is a second to use the authority.4. Next my opponent says: "All Christians = holders of the same keys of the kingdom - Matthew 18:18There's only one problem with this. .. It's not true. Nowhere in this verse does scripture record Jesus telling anyone other than Peter that they've been given the keys. "4. The function of Simon Peter's keys is to bind and loose just as Eliakim's key's function is to shut and open. In Matthew 18:1,18, it is explicit that all Christians have the same keys Simon Peter has.5. "The purpose of the keys of the kingdom of heaven is "to build the church"( Matthew 16:18). It has something to do with the Gospel because it is alone "the power of God himself for salvation to everyone who believes. " ( Romans 1:16). In fact, Acts 14:27 speaks of "the door of faith opened for the Gentiles" which Paul and Barnabas has opened for them. "Unfortunately for my opponent, he has offered something that is linguistically problematic. Here's why: Jesus doesn't even mention the keys until after AFTER He mentions building His Church. Actually, Jesus tells us what the keys are for: binding and loosing. This is what authorities do, and it is clear evidence that Peter had unique authority over the Church.5. I totally have no problem with Jesus not mentioning the keysuntil after AFTER He mentions building His Church as my opponent argues because in fact, the keys were given because of solely one reason: " to build Jesus' church" ( Matthew 16:19). My opponent is right that the keys are for binding and loosing and in Matthew 18:18 it is said that all Christians have these keys for binding and loosing. Therefore, my opponent is utterly wrong when he said thatPeter had unique authority over the Church because Peter's keys is not unique to him at all for all other fellow Christians have it. MATTHEW 18:18 IN CONTEXT:At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? ”. .. “If your brother or sistersins,go and point out their fault,just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 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. ’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. “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven. “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for themby my Father in heaven. For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them. ”6. Biblical support for Peter being the first Pope (earthly leader of the Church):6. It is Peter"s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ"s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11)These verses are taken out of context. Let's deal with it bit by bit:Luke 22:32 Jesus prays that Peter’s faith will not fail during the temptation that is about to come that very night. There is absolutely nothing explicit or implicit in the text concerning the faith of potential successors of Peter. Nor is there anything in the text even remotely suggesting that Jesus’ prayer involved the bestowal of any gift of infallibility upon either Peter or any successors. A prayer that Peter’s faith will not fail in a specific coming test simply does not entail infallibilityJohn 21:17 Peter's thrice denial of Christ ensues Christ's threefold question to Peter: Do you love me? and Peter's re-affirmation of love of Christ made Christ to re-affirm his office common to all ( Matthew 18:18, Acts 20:28,1 Peter 5:1-5). Although Peter did not officially lose his office as apostle or his faith by denying Christ three times, he was nevertheless extremely distraught for denying Christ to the point to where he broke down and wept bitterly in Mark 14:72 and needed to be made glad again as John 20:20 shows. Hence, Peter in John 21:15-17 needed that re-instatement and forgiving reassurance that he was still worthy to feed and shepherd Jesus’ people as an apostle of Jesus. As opposed to being elevated above the other apostles as unique shepherd of the flock, as Rome asserts, the contextual evidence suggests that Peter was actually only being restored back to the level of the other apostles who had not denied Jesus. The fifth century Bishop Cyril of Alexandria agreed: “And what is the meaning of the words, Feed my Lambs, and the like? We reply, that the inspired Peter had indeed already been elected, together with the other disciples, to be an Apostle of God, but, when the events connected with the plot of the Jews against Him came to pass, his fall came betwixt; for the inspired Peter was seized with uncontrollable fear, and he thrice denied the Lord . . . Therefore, by his thrice-repeated confession the thrice-repeated denial of the blessed Peter was done away with, and by the saying of our Lord, ‘Feed my lambs,’ we must understand a renewal as it were of the apostleship, already given unto him. . . ” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Commentary on John, Book 12). Acts 15 -- He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11)The context of Acts 15:13-19 disagrees: 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. James did not merely reminded everyone to get to work on what Peter said but on the contrary, James just is the ONLY ONE who made the decision (v. 19) based on two sources: 1) Peter’s Petrine Office ( Mt. 16:15-19--> Acts 15:7) and 2) Scriptural Substantiation ( Amos 9:11,12 LXX). As of the rest of the verses mentioned Simon being FIRST, I totally agree with these but this does not mean Petrine Supremacy. Matthew 16:15-20 and 18:18 do not teach Petrine Supremacy. Simon wasn't made Supreme head of the entire church but rather, he was made "Peter" ( The Rock-Foundation) whereon the church will be built NOT whereon the church will be ruled.7. Peter the Rock7. 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 22:31-32.8. Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? —referring lovingly to those sad words of Peter, shortly before denying his Lord, "Though all men shall be offended because of Thee, yet will I never be offended" (Mt 26:33). There is not even a hint of Petrene Supremacy in here.