The Accused is going to Hell (For Rejecting Catholic Dogma)

I think I need some many highlighting for everyone to see the TRUTH. :)On Cyprian's witness against PapacyI think my opponent misapprehended the text so badly. So here, i'll highlight it:7th Council of Carthage:http://www.ccel.org... remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,4675nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.4676Cyprian is explicitly against Papacy. Treatise 1, Chapter 4 http://www.ccel.org...... He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.3110 [Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs[1] designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.”] 1) Again, Cyprain is against Papal Primacy.2) My opponent made a seriously false accusation because he said that Protestants call Song of songs as "Apocrypha" when in reality Protestants accepts songs of songs (also known as Song of Solomon) as inspired and infallible. On Rome as Chief ChurchPRO:This is especially interesting because Antioch is in the East, and there were many Bishops in the East such as Jerusalem that could have handled it; but the Emperor recognized that the Church of Rome had the jurisdiction over the universal church. CON: Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria ( 239-264 C.E.) accepted he bishop of Rome , Dionysius on the doctrine of the Trinity. This doesn't mean that it's because Dionysius of Rome is the Pope but that because " Every church should agree with Rome" in doctrine not in jurisdiction just as it is said:It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority [Latin, potiorem principalitatem, or "powerful first-ness"], that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere. (Against HeresiesIII:3:2)Therefore, it is perfectly logical and historically coherent that this doesn't mean that the bishop of Rome had the jurisdiction over the universal church. On Firmilian's stance on PapacyYou might notice that Firmillian was suggesting people receive multiple baptisms. That is not biblical, he was a heretic; and Cyprian lapsed there too. Firmilian recognized the supremacy of the Papacy and was in shock and disbelief that who he considered a heretic would hold it. This is a lie. Firmllian has the same theology as Cyprian. He is against Papacy: Rome has not preserved the Apostolic traditions unchanged, for it differs from Jerusalem as to the observances at Easter and as to other mysteries. "I am justly indignant with Stephen's obvious and manifest silliness, that he so boasts of his position, and claims that he is the successor of St. Peter on whom were laid the foundations of the Church; yet he brings in many other rocks, and erects new buildings of many Churches when he defends with his authority the baptism conferred by heretics; for those who are baptized are without doubt numbered in the Church, and he who approves their baptism affirms that there is among them a Church of the baptized.… Stephen, who declares that he has the Chair of Peter by succession, is excited by no zeal against heretics" (Cyprian, c. xvii). Cyprian's denial of PapacyCyprian believes that there was no single bishop that has jurisdiction over all other bishops ( i.e. papacy).As it has been decreed by all of us — and is equally fair and just— that the case of every one should be heard there where the crime has been committed; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account of his doing to the Lord ( Cyprian, Epistle 54:14 http://www.newadvent.org...) Still they did not withdraw from the assembly of their co-bishops, nor break the unity of the Catholic Church by the persistency of their severity or censure; so that, because by some peace was granted to adulterers, he who did not grant it should be separated from the Church. While the bond of concord remains, and the undivided sacrament of the Catholic Church endures, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord. http://www.newadvent.org...) Apparently, the Catholic church Cyprian talks about is not the Roman Catholic church that has a Pope! Letter 67:5 http://www.newadvent.org...'t say that a Bishop in Spain lied to a Pope but to a fellow bishop not a fellow Pope! Letter 71:3 http://www.newadvent.org... of "free will of an autocephalous churches not of general humanity!" Context please! Letter 72:26 http://www.newadvent.org... of " free judgment of an autocephalous churches not of a Roman Bishop!)Context please!!!Conclusion: My opponent gave dead links and pretexts on Cyprian's letters. Let me remind my opponent that " a text without a context is a pretext"On the Apostolic SuccessionI already refuted the argument of Pro in Round #3 and it suffice. No need to repeat it. His O.T. proof texts is very irrelevant as we can also see in my following rebuttals.John 20:21-23 In what way do the Apostles will forgive sins? Logically, it is the same way they will retain sins and this is through the gospel for " the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" ( Romans 6:23). This is certainly not forgiveness of personal sins of a saint on earth because it is clear in the scriptures that a saint ONLY confesses his sins for forgiveness to God alone based on 1 John 1:9.Once more, James commands the saints on earth to " confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much" ( James 5:16). Leviticus 5:1-10 there were no priests in the New Testament but WHY? It's because there is no need at all. Peter told us that the one church is " a royal priesthood" ( 1 Peter 2:9) and hence, " Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" ( Hebrews 4:16). Why do wee need Priests if we can come boldly to the throne of grace??? On the Johannine and Job Passages Job 42:7-10 The intercessory commanded by God and done in his will was ON EARTH. context please. Was there a single command in the New Testament for saints on earth to ask the saints in heaven to pray for them? NONE.No need for 4th century witness for Papacy when in fact there is already straight first century up to 3rd century CLEAR-CUT evidence against IT.Conclusion:I refuted every argument Pro has against me in such a way that is logical, scriptural and historically unbiased. Pro didn't refute all of my arguments and did many fallacious non-contextual arguments. Therefore, because Pro did not presented any irrefutable arguments (logical, coherent, biblical and hostorically unbiased arguements)I am not going to Hell. In fact, because of this, I fully and truly reject Catholic dogmas that are against the Scriptures, having a very reasons to do so. So voters... Vote Wisely and God bless!