Catholicism is not Biblical (2)

I am Catholic. This best defines my world view. I was born Catholic, but I spent several years considering alternate world views (ex.: Protestantism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Atheism, etc.). So far, I found that Catholicism best answers the questions about our existence. Although non-Catholic Christians may not agree with some elements of the dogma of Catholic faith, I feel it is disingenuous not to acknowledge that their belief system is a derivative of Catholicism. I would also like to note that I firmly believe that the abundance of moral relativism that we experience today is a direct result of the Protestant reformation. After all, if you attempt to diminish the authority of the Church that Christ established, the same authority which determined the cannon of scripture, you are left with individual authority. If authority resides within the individual, then it is not surprising that Protestantism has splintered into 20,000 different denominations. In this debate I am a bit hamstrung, because 1) I have agreed to argue against points that Pro has made in a separate debate, and 2) there are four topics that Pro has raised. Although each in themselves could be subjects of separate debates, I have agreed to the terms, and as a result, I will be forced to make my arguments and associated rebuttals brief in order to stay within the character limit. 1) The Papacy Pro rightly points out that Matthew supports the Catholic claim that Peter was the first Pope. Matthew 16:17-19 reads, "Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" 1A) Peter as Rock Jesus changes Simon"s name to Peter. In Aramaic (Jesus' primary language [1]) Jesus calls Peter Kepha, meaning "Rock". He makes the statement, you are Rock and on this rock I will build my church. Prima facie, Jesus is establishing Peter as the rock on which He will build His Church. I can see no other reason Jesus has for changing Peter"s name. Pro argues, "it is clear that Jesus is referring to himself" as the rock and not Peter. In fact, it is extremely unclear. Pro needs to explain Jesus' purpose for changing Simon"s name to Rock in order for there to be clarity. 1B) The Keys to the Kingdom Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom. He is giving Peter great authority to bind and loose. Jesus uses almost the same language from Isaiah 22:22 where the Lord gives Eliakim the authority of the House of David. Pro wants the reader to believe that Jesus is giving the keys to all of the disciples. While I agree the disciples are given authority in Matthew 18:18, the keys denote a specific office. As highlighted in Isaiah, this office is held by one person. The keys are for Peter alone. 2) Mary"s Holiness With all due respect, I find it a bit amusing that Pro is arguing that Mary isn't holy. We are all called to holiness (Lev. 11:44; 1 Pet. 1:16), but if Mary isn't holy, I don't hold out much hope for the rest of us. Let's look at a few pieces evidence on Mary's holiness. 2A Hail Mary The angel Gabriel greets Mary with, "Hail, favored one! The Lord is with you." (Luke1:28). Gabriel recognizes that Mary is favored by God. More favored than any other human being, for she alone will be the arc of the new covenant. Gabriel continues to recognize Mary's holiness by stating that, the Lord is with her. 2B Most Blessed If Mary is an unholy sinner, why would her cousin Elizabeth greet her with, "Most blessed are you among women." (Luke 1:41). Note that she does not say Mary is highly blessed or very blessed. Mary is "Most" blessed among women. If Mary isn't holy then no other woman can ever be considered holy. 2C Not Relevant Pro makes the claim that the passage in John 19:25-27 is the key verse which supports the Catholic view that Mary is holy. Catholic's might point to this verse for other reasons, but it is a stretch to claim that May's holiness hinges upon the interpretation of this one passage. This passage is not relevant to the topic. 3) The Deuterocanonicals As part of the Reformation, Protestants removed seven books from the Old Testament even though they had always been included in the Canon up until that point. Unfortunately, they opposed Martin Luther"s personal view of theology [2], so they were tossed out. The bottom line here is that the Catholic Church established the cannon of the Christian Bible beginning in 367 AD. This includes all the books of the New Testament. Pro would like us to believe that the Catholic Church was correct in its selection of New Testament scripture, but was somehow flawed in what should be included in the Old Testament. You simply can't have it both ways. The title of this debate is "Catholicism is not Biblical", but God used Catholicism to create the Bible. 4) Salvation " Infant Baptism I respond to this topic by asking Pro the following question. If a person accepts Jesus has his personal Lord and Savior and dies before he is baptized, is he still saved (i.e.: does he go to heaven)? If the answer is "yes", then what is the specific biblical purpose of baptism? If the answer is "no", then baptism must have some salvific value in and of itself apart from anything else. Catholics believe that the latter is the case. Apart from any other action an individual may take, baptism itself has the power to save. Once Pro puts forth his position, a reasonable debate on this topic can be had. Conclusion To make the claim that Catholicism is not biblical is simply false. Pro himself points to specific passages that Catholics use to support their beliefs. Pro"s main argument is that Catholics misinterpret what the bible is saying. But where does the authority of proper interpretation come from? Catholics have the apostolic Church established by Christ as their authority. Where does Pro derive his authority, Thomas Campbell, the local church elders, or does the bible interpret itself? After exhaustive biblical research what happens when a Christian feels there is no biblical warrant for excluding infant baptism? Where does he go for a definitive answer? Or are they just doomed to heresy? Maybe they just start a new Church (20,000 + 1) [1] http://www.answering-christianity.com... [2] http://www.catholicbible101.com...