The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
dsjpk5
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Papacy Is Unbiblical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
dsjpk5
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 620 times Debate No: 58978
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

radz

Pro

Simon wasn't given the authority of supreme jurisdiction over the church. The Bible is clear on this.

Roman Catholicism teaches this:

David = King of the Kingdom

Shebna = key holder of the kingdom. - Isaiah 22:15-19

Eliakim = Successor of Shebna. Steward/ Key holder of the Kingdom - Isaiah 22:20-25

Jesus = The Rock himself - 1 Corinthians 10:4

Simon =Steward/key holder of the kingdom: The Rock upon the church is built - Matthew. 16:15-19

Analysis:

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.

The Bible teaches this:

David = king of the kingdom

Christ = holds the key of David - Revelation 3:7 ( explicit)

Simon = Peter - First to use the keys of the kingdom- Matthew 16:15-19 ( succession is impossible)

All Christians = holders of the same keys of the kingdom - Matthew 18:18

Analysis:

The Bible proposes a non-contradictory interpretation concerning the Peter-hood of Simon. All Christians have common authority but Simon alone is Peter or the first one to use the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Conclusion:

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.




dsjpk5

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this opportunity to discuss this issue. It's one I am quite fond of discussing. I will begin this round by going over what my opponent said, and offering rebuttals.

"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.

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? 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.

Next my opponent says: "All Christians = holders of the same keys of the kingdom - Matthew 18:18 "

There'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.

"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.

Biblical support for Peter being the first Pope (earthly leader of the Church):

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). 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). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter the Rock

Peter"s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that"aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2"in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram"s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob"s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim"s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths"Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

Promises to Peter

When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)"" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

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).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled. [1]

Sources:
1. http://www.catholic.com...
Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting my debate challenge.

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 18:18
There'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 infallibility

John 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 Rock

7. Simon was decribed as "Peter" but his name "Simon" was NOT changed into "Peter."

NOTICE the real chage of name:

Abram --> Abraham
Sarai --> Sarah
Saul --> Paul

Simon--> Peter ?

It wasn't a change of name but rather, it is only a description.

John & James --> Boanerges

Simon --> 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.


dsjpk5

Con

Rebuttals:

A. My opponent says:
"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."

I would assert that the "Key of David" and the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" are the same set of keys. They just have more than one name. Let's look at how they are described:
1. In Isaiah 22:22, Eliakim is given "the Keys to the house of David" Whatever door he opens, no one can shut.
2. In Matthew 16:19 Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever he binds on Earth is bound in Heaven. Whatever he looses on Earth is loosened in Heaven.
3. In Revelation 3:8 Jesus has the Key of David. Whatever door He opens no one can shut.

So although not exact language, in each verse we have keys that open and shut doors that cannot be closed or opened. My opponent is making a distinction without a difference. And Jesus is addressing the "Church at Philadelphia" in Revelation 3:8. No one there can shut the open door. He's not addressing Peter.

B. My opponent says:

"Simon was called " Peter" because he was privileged to first use the keys just as he was privileged to first confess the faith."

Peter means "rock". It doesn't mean "privileged one". Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter because he will be the rock Jesus plans to build His Church on.

C."Simon has no successors in his Peter-hood because once the Petrine office is fulfilled, it will inevitably cease."

By invoking Isaiah 22, which tells the story of a succession, when changing Simon's name to Peter, Jesus is implying succession in Peter's New mission.

D. "On the other hand, Simon Peter's keys is the same keys all Christians have ( Matthew 18:18) .."

There is no mention of keys in this verse. I'm afraid my opponent is forcing something that isn't there.

E. " 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 that Peter had unique authority over the Church because Peter's keys is not unique to him at all for all other fellow Christians have"

With all due respect, my opponent's comments make no sense. Keys aren't used to build anything. They're used to open and lock doors. On the other hand, rocks are used to build things. Being a carpenter, Jesus knew this. That's how we know that Jesus was the one, not Peter, who built the Church. Remember, He said "I will build my church". As Jesus said, the keys were for binding and loosing, not building.

F. "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 infallibility"

My opponent missed my point here. The point is that Jesus sprayed especially for Peter, and put Peter in charge of strengthening the other 11.

G."John 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."

That's not all Jesus is doing here. He tells Peter to feed His sheep, thereby making Peter shepherd of Jesus' flock.

H. "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."

When James said "it is my judgment.." He was saying,"it is my opinion". Paul and Barnabas basically did the same thing by giving examples of how the Holy Spirit has been working through the Gentiles despite them not following the Mosaic law. All were showing their agreement with Peter.

I. "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."

Keys to a city signify authority. Jesus invokes Isaiah 22 when giving the keys to Peter. Isaiah 22 involves authority and succession. Our Lord couldn't have been more clear.

J. " Simon was decribed as "Peter" but his name "Simon" was NOT changed into "Peter."

Again, my opponent is making a distinction without a difference. It doesn't matter if I name you rock, or give you the title of rock... Your job is the same.

New arguments from me:

Peter first confesses Christ"s divinity (Mt 16:16).

Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a
special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and
spokesman of Christianity.

Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts
2:37-41; 5:15).

In Acts, Peter gave the sermon at Pentecost (Acts 1:14-36), led the
replacing of Judas (1:22), worked the first miracle of the Church age
(3:6-12), and condemned Ananias and Sapphira (5:2-11). His mere shadow
worked miracles (5:15); he was the first person after Christ to raise
the dead (9:40), and he took the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10).
Peter"s name appears 195 times; more than all the other Apostles
COMBINED.[2]

It's not just a Catholic claim:

Protestants are often ready to admit the fact that Peter is the Rock
and that the keys of succession are given to him to imply an office
that will be filled by successors. For instance, one of the top
evangelical New Testament scholars in the world, R.T. France says this
in his commentary on Matthew, "Verses 17 through 19 are addressed to
Peter and have been regarded by some as a late addition to support an
early claim to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Whether or not they
give any such support, there is no textual evidence for their addition
to the gospel after its original composition, and the strongly Semitic
or Jewish character of the language throughout these verses point to a
relatively early origin in a Palestinian environment." What is France
saying? Well, many scholars have suggested that Jesus could not have
given this gift to Peter. Jesus could not have given this original
saying. Why? Because many scholars don't believe that Jesus foresaw the
building of the Church. They think that all of these sayings of Jesus
concerning the Church were added later by the Church to support
whatever had happened to the Church.

Dr. France says, "That's just not tenable." When you study this you
realize that all of the evidence in the text shows that this is one of
the original sayings of Jesus. He goes on to say, "Jesus' beatitude of
Peter or His blessing is given to Peter alone. The other disciples may
have shared his insight but Peter, characteristically expressed it.
Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples'
group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader." He goes
on to talk about how Peter is referenced to the Rock. France says, "It
describes not so much Peter's character, that is the Rock. He did not
prove to be rock-like in terms of stability or reliability but rather
the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone
of Jesus' Church."

This is a non-Catholic. This is an Evangelical Protestant who has
absolutely no interest in supporting the Church's claims but he says,
"The term Peter, Rock, points to Simon and not his character because he
could be very unstable, but rather his official function as the
foundation stone of Jesus' Church. The word-play is unmistakable." [3]

Sources:
2.http://www.catholic.com...
3.http://www.catholic-pages.com...
Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro

radz forfeited this round.
dsjpk5

Con

My opponent has forfeited this round. I extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

I am sorry for not posting my refutations againts my opponent. There had been a devastating tymphoon [ Rammasun] that hit my area [ Metro, Manila Philippines] that caused brownout for several days. My internet connection just got fix just this afternoon of 07/25/2014.

Rebuttals

1) I would assert that the "Key of David" and the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" are the same set of keys. They just have more than one name.

If my opponent really believes that the "key of david" is the same "keys of the kingdom of heaven" then it means that the function of those keys are the same too. Therefore, if my opponent's argument is consistent then we have all Christians having the same key/keys too which Simon Peter had based on Matthew 18:18.

2)So although not exact language, in each verse we have keys that open and shut doors that cannot be closed or opened. My opponent is making a distinction without a difference. And Jesus is addressing the "Church at Philadelphia" in Revelation 3:8. No one there can shut the open door. He's not addressing Peter.

Firstly, the reasoning of my opponent shows that the other churches can shut the open door because my opponent asserts that Jesus is only addressing the church which is at Philadelphia. Secondly, if Peter is really the sole one having the keys then why would he not able to open the door which Jesus had shut? My opponent just contradicted Roman Catholic Dogma of Papacy.

3) Peter means "rock". It doesn't mean "privileged one". Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter because he will be the rock Jesus plans to build His Church on.

Firstly, my opponent misapprehended my argument. I agree that "Peter" means "Rock" and that being the Rock on which the church will be built ( Matthew 16:15-19) is to be the first one to preach the gospel ( Acts 14:27,Acts 15:7-9, Romans 1:26-27). It is indeed a priviledge, a singular grace given to Simon alone just as the privilege to first confess orthodox faith is given to him ( Matthew 16:16-17). Secondly, my opponent did not refute my previous argument that God did not change Simon's name to Peter. Hence, I extend my argument concerning it.

4) By invoking Isaiah 22, which tells the story of a succession, when changing Simon's name to Peter, Jesus is implying succession in Peter's New mission.

On the contrary, likeness does not mean sameness. Isaiah 22 only relates to Matthew 16 in terms of "key" and "authority" not of every niceties it has because we should honor the context of Matthew 16 and not to teach anything beyond what it only teaches.Let my opponent be reminded again that a text without a context is just a pretext.


5) "On the other hand, Simon Peter's keys is the same keys all Christians have ( Matthew 18:18) .."

There is no mention of keys in this verse. I'm afraid my opponent is forcing something that isn't there.

If Peter alone has the keys then Peter alone must have the function of the keys. The fact that all other Christians have the function of the keys per Matthew 18:18 proves that my opponent's argument here is null and void.

6) With all due respect, my opponent's comments make no sense. Keys aren't used to build anything. They're used to open and lock doors. On the other hand, rocks are used to build things. Being a carpenter, Jesus knew this. That's how we know that Jesus was the one, not Peter, who built the Church. Remember, He said "I will build my church". As Jesus said, the keys were for binding and loosing, not building.

My opponent gravely err concerning his understanding of my argument. I did not say anything like what he accuses me of. I did not say that "keys are used for building." Notice that I only did say that the purpose why the keys of the kingdom of heaven which has the binding & loosing power was given is because of only one reason based on the text in question per-se: "to build Jesus' church." Jesus himself said," Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church." How can Simon Peter do this task? It is by using the keys/ power of binding & loosing.

Conclusion: The Apostle Simon Peter is the instrument through which the Lord Jesus will build his church and Peter's instrument to carry his mission is to use the keys which Jesus will give him. That's what Matthew 16:15-19 teaches which is evidently the natural meaning of the text when understood in context.

7)Luke 22:32

My opponent missed my point here. The point is that Jesus sprayed especially for Peter, and put Peter in charge of strengthening the other 11.

I did not miss the point in here. Yes. Jesus prayed especially for Peter but why? Why did Jesus pray for Peter? The context says that Jesus prayed for Peter because there is a temptation that is about to come that very night not because Peter will be ruling as a supreme leader of the church. Yes. Jesus said to Peter to stregthen the other 11 AFTER the temptation have come to pass.Jesus did not say to rule over the other 12.

8) John 21:17
That's not all Jesus is doing here. He tells Peter to feed His sheep, thereby making Peter shepherd of Jesus' flock.

Jesus indeed told Peter to feed his sheep, making him sheperd of his flock but this certainly does not mean to rule over the entire church as Pope. In fact, Peter himself appealed to all other co-elders to "shepherd the flock of God" ( 1 Peter 5:2). That does not mean Peter made all bishops a ruler of the entire church!

9) When James said "it is my judgment.." He was saying,"it is my opinion". Paul and Barnabas basically did the same thing by giving examples of how the Holy Spirit has been working through the Gentiles despite them not following the Mosaic law. All were showing their agreement with Peter.

They agree with what Peter preached for they are of same equal faith ( Acts 15:9, 2 Peter 1:1)but in the Jerusalem Council, it is James' judgment ( w/c is a mere "opinion" according my opponent) that had been taught in church universally. It basically sounds like, "James has spoken, the case is close."

"The context of Acts 15:13-19 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."


On the Protestant View of the Rock

Unbelievable. My opponent did not only take the bible out of context but he also did the same in Protestant literature.

NOTICE what Dr. France says, ...
the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone
of Jesus' Church." It certainly does not come close to Papacy! Dr. France did not even spoke of Peter's successors! In fact, Dr. France did not entertain Roman Catholic Teaching Papacy as a Biblical truth but rather, he only talks about the veracity of the texts (i.e. Matthew 16:17-19).


dsjpk5

Con

Again, my round will consist of Rebuttals and New Arguments.

First, I'm glad to see my opponent is safe and has regained power despite being the victim of the typhoon. Here's hoping your recovery continues.

Rebuttals:

A.
My opponent says:

"If my opponent really believes that the "key of david" is the same "keys of the kingdom of heaven" then it means that the function of those keys are the same too. Therefore, if my opponent's argument is consistent then we have all Christians having the same key/keys too which Simon Peter had based on Matthew 18:18."

Two things. One, not all Christians were present when Jesus was speaking in that verse. He was only speaking to the Apostles.The authority to bind and loose makes no sense if everyone has it. Let's look at what Jesus said starting in verse 15:

15 If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 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. 17 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.

18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will bee bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

So, here we see Jesus giving the Apostles the authority to solve disputes between Christians on matters of faith (If your brother sins against you... take it to the Church). This authority makes no sense if is given to everyone. If everyone has equal authority, then no one has final say, and the matter can never be resolved.

Secondly, notice the rest of the Apostles have a similar authority as Peter, but only on a local level, and on a limited basis (if your brother sins against you).

B. My opponent says

"Firstly, the reasoning of my opponent shows that the other churches can shut the open door because my opponent asserts that Jesus is only addressing the church which is at Philadelphia. Secondly, if Peter is really the sole one having the keys then why would he not able to open the door which Jesus had shut?"

We don't know what the other churches could have done or not since they weren't being addressed. I wasn't claiming anything about them. Also, I never said Peter couldn't unlock something.

C.

"Firstly, my opponent misapprehended my argument. I agree that "Peter" means "Rock" and that being the Rock on which the church will be built ( Matthew 16:15-19) is to be the first one to preach the gospel ( Acts 14:27,Acts 15:7-9, Romans 1:26-27)."

None of those verses say that being the rock only means "being the first to preach the gospel" I challenge my opponent to show otherwise.

D. " Secondly, my opponent did not refute my previous argument that God did not change Simon's name to Peter. Hence, I extend my argument concerning it."

That is not accurate. I DID claim that Simon's name was changed to Peter when I said "By invoking Isaiah 22, which tells the story of a succession, when changing Simon's name to Peter, Jesus is implying succession in Peter's New mission."

E."On the contrary, likeness does not mean sameness. Isaiah 22 only relates to Matthew 16 in terms of "key" and "authority" not of every niceties it has because we should honor the context of Matthew 16 and not to teach anything beyond what it only teaches."

In every covenant God has ever had with man, God has established a visible head of it on Earth. Also, every earthly head has had successors. Adam had his sons. Noah had his sons. Abraham had his sons. Moses had his successors. David had his sons. Jesus had Peter. That is the biblical pattern. God makes a covenant that has an earthly leader, and that leader has his successor. It is up to my opponent to show us from the Bible where it says this pattern is no longer in effect.

F. "If Peter alone has the keys then Peter alone must have the function of the keys. The fact that all other Christians have the function of the keys per Matthew 18:18 proves that my opponent's argument here is null and void."

See my argument above (A.). All Christians do NOT have that authority. The other Apostles were only given the power to bond and loose in specific situations. Only Peter was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

G.
"My opponent gravely err concerning his understanding of my argument. I did not say anything like what he accuses me of. I did not say that "keys are used for building." Notice that I only did say that the purpose why the keys of the kingdom of heaven which has the binding & loosing power was given is because of only one reason based on the text in question per-se: "to build Jesus' church." Jesus himself said," Thou art Peter and upon this Rock I will build my church." How can Simon Peter do this task? It is by using the keys/ power of binding & loosing."

I dint see how is misunderstood what my opponent said concerning what the keys are meant to do. I say this because again my opponent says that Peter is to build the Church with the keys. Again, Peter did not build the Church. Jesus did. He said as much ("I will build my church"). The keys are a symbol of authority. They were a symbol of authority in Isaiah 22 too. An authority that had successors.

H. "I did not miss the point in here. Yes. Jesus prayed especially for Peter but why? Why did Jesus pray for Peter? The context says that Jesus prayed for Peter because there is a temptation that is about to come that very night not because Peter will be ruling as a supreme leader of the church. Yes. Jesus said to Peter to stregthen the other 11 AFTER the temptation have come to pass.Jesus did not say to rule over the other 12. "

Again, my opponent is missing the larger point. All of the Apostles were there, and yet Jesus only prays for Peter's faith to be upheld. Why not pray for all of the Apostles? This only makes sense if Peter was being placed in charge of them.

I.
"Jesus indeed told Peter to feed his sheep, making him sheperd of his flock but this certainly does not mean to rule over the entire church as Pope. In fact, Peter himself appealed to all other co-elders to "shepherd the flock of God" ( 1 Peter 5:2). That does not mean Peter made all bishops a ruler of the entire church!"

The rest of the Apostles are shepherds in their own right, but only Peter was told to feed Jesus's sheep (making him the CHIEF shepherd).

J.
"They agree with what Peter preached for they are of same equal faith ( Acts 15:9, 2 Peter 1:1)but in the Jerusalem Council, it is James' judgment ( w/c is a mere "opinion" according my opponent) that had been taught in church universally. It basically sounds like, "James has spoken, the case is close."

The debate ended after Peter spoke ("they fell silent"). It was already over by the time James spoke.

K.
"The context of Acts 15:13-19 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.. ."

Again, James was simply saying "it is my opinion".

L.
My opponent says:"On the Protestant View of the Rock

Unbelievable. My opponent did not only take the bible out of context but he also did the same in Protestant literature.

NOTICE what Dr. France says, ...
the name Rock or Peter points to his function as the foundation stone
of Jesus' Church." It certainly does not come close to Papacy! Dr. France did not even spoke of Peter's successors! In fact, Dr. France did not entertain Roman Catholic Teaching Papacy as a Biblical truth but rather, he only talks about the veracity of the texts (i.e. Matthew 16:17-19)."

Apparently my opponent missed part of what Dr. France said concerning Peter's role in the early Church. Let me elaborate with a relevant passage of what this protestant theologian says:

"Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples'
group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader."

So here we see Dr. France saying that Peter was the head of the disciples, their spokesman, a pioneer, and LEADER of the disciples.

New Arguments

It's not just a Catholic thing part 2:

One of the greatest Protestant Biblical scholars of the century
supports this -- W. F. Albright, in his Anchor Bible Commentary on
Matthew. I opened it up. I was surprised to see, "Peter as the Rock
will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here
uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His
purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as
confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith
or the confession of Peter." In other words, Professor Albright is
admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-
Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock
point only to Peter's faith or confession. "To deny the pre-eminent
position of Peter," Albright says, "among the disciples or in the early
Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in
Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-
eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his
behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because
Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his
mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond
to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles." We will see." [3]
Albright goes on in his commentary to speak about the keys of the
kingdom that Jesus entrusted to Peter. Here's what he says, "Isaiah 22,
verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus. The keys are
the symbol of authority"" [3]
Debate Round No. 4
radz

Pro

1. Two things. One, not all Christians were present when Jesus was speaking in that verse. He was only speaking to the Apostles.

This is utterly wrong. The context shows that it is all the disciples of Christ and not just the Apostles:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" - Matthew 18:1

2. The authority to bind and loose makes no sense if everyone has it.

Why is it so?The authority pertains to the Gospel which is "God's power for salvation to everyone who believes." ( Romans 1:16).

If everyone has equal authority, then no one has final say, and the matter can never be resolved.

Having equal authority does not mean no one has final say. In fact, Matthew 18:15-18 speaks of levels of discipline. We see that there's a protocol to be followed. If there's a brother who sinned ( X). First, personal encouragement to X, two or three witness for X do not comply, the whole assembly of God if X still does not comply. From these we have two and three people of God and then all of God's people are both involved in one singular authority.


3. Secondly, notice the rest of the Apostles have a similar authority as Peter, but only on a local level, and on a limited basis (if your brother sins against you).

This is also wrong. Simon Peter has "equal faith" with that of the rest of his fellow Christians ( 2 Peter 1:1 Dhouay-Rheims) and this faith he confessed firstly in which God also installed him into the office of Peter-hood, of being the Rock on which the church will be built ( Matthew 16:15-19). This shows that all Christians have same authority as Simon because Simon alone is Peter ( the Rock). Simon, being the first one to preach the Good News does not mean he alone preaches it. Let my opponent remember that Simon was made Peter in order for building the church using the keys he has been given.

4. We don't know what the other churches could have done or not since they weren't being addressed. I wasn't claiming anything about them. Also, I never said Peter couldn't unlock something.

Your argument highly implies it. Well, as clear as it is, only Christ functions with the key of David and not any other person based on Revelation 3:7-8. This explicitly shows that Isaiah 22 has no correlation with Matthew 16 in terms of succession in office.

5. None of those verses say that being the rock only means "being the first to preach the gospel" I challenge my opponent to show otherwise.

To be the Rock on which the church will be built means to be the first one to preach the gospel.

Simon first confessed the faith -- by the Father( Matthew 16:16-17).

Simon was made Peter for Jesus to build his church -- by the Son ( Matthew 16:18-19).

Simon Peter first preached the Good News ( the only way to be the church) to people -- by the Spirit ( Acts 15:7-9, Romans 1:16).

The church is of equal faith with Simon Peter ( 2 Peter 1:1).

6. That is not accurate. I DID claim that Simon's name was changed to Peter when I said "By invoking Isaiah 22, which tells the story of a succession, when changing Simon's name to Peter, Jesus is implying succession in Peter's New mission."

This is a huge leap onto the texts. Simon's name is "Simon" and his name wasn't changed into "Peter." I am referring to my argument in which I say this:

Simon was decribed as "Peter" but his name "Simon" was NOT changed into "Peter."

NOTICE the real chage of name:

Abram --> Abraham
Sarai --> Sarah
Saul --> Paul

Simon--> Peter ?

It wasn't a change of name but rather, it is only a description.

John & James --> Boanerges

Simon --> 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.

7. In every covenant God has ever had with man, God has established a visible head of it on Earth. Also, every earthly head has had successors. Adam had his sons. Noah had his sons. Abraham had his sons. Moses had his successors. David had his sons. Jesus had Peter. That is the biblical pattern. God makes a covenant that has an earthly leader, and that leader has his successor. It is up to my opponent to show us from the Bible where it says this pattern is no longer in effect.

There is indeed a pattern but unlike my opponent's stance this is not a pattern of Pope, Bishops, Priests but rather, of elders who functions as bishops ( Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-5). The first-century New Testament Church only shows elders =bishops church polity. Deacons serves( 1 Timothy 3:13). The rest of the Christians follow and obey God ( James 2:18,26).

8. Again, my opponent is missing the larger point. All of the Apostles were there, and yet Jesus only prays for Peter's faith to be upheld. Why not pray for all of the Apostles? This only makes sense if Peter was being placed in charge of them.

Jesus prayed to Simon (---> Luke 22:31-32 <---) because Simon alone will be tested with such a temptation that will eventually will be helpful and edifying for strengthening his brethren in the faith ( ---> Luke 22:61-62 <---). Be always reminded that a text without a context is just a pretext.

9. The rest of the Apostles are shepherds in their own right, but only Peter was told to feed Jesus's sheep (making him the CHIEF shepherd).

This is a high claim which has no scriptural basis at all. Jesus did not say that Peter alone is the sheperd of his sheep.In fact, the context shows that Simon Peter just denied Christ 3 times and that's the reason why Simon Peter was asked 3 times by Christ if he loves him.It shows re-affirmation of apostolic office not a delegation of Papal Power. In fact, Simon Peter said that he himself is a fellow elder ( bishop) and that the sheperds of God's flock must not be a lord over the church but humbly serve as co-equals in the faith ( 1 Peter 5:1-5, 2 Peter 1:1). That doesn't sound Papacy.

10. The debate ended after Peter spoke ("they fell silent"). It was already over by the time James spoke.

This is a blatant lie. My opponent must read Acts 15 in its entirety.Peter did end the debate by his preaching but James did promulgate the judgment. He alone acted authoritatively as if a Pope and not only giving a mere opinion. In fact, the same silence people offered to Peter is given to Paul, Barnabas and James [ notice the verbs "kept silent" and "were listening" in the text].

ACTS 15 ( NASB)

12 ( After Peter preached the Good News) All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they wererelating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

13 After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, “Brethren, listen to me.14 Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. 15 With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,

16 After these things I will return,
And I will rebuild the tabernacle of David which has fallen,
And I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will restore it,
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
And all the Gentiles who are called by My name,’
18 Says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.

19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 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.

11. Apparently my opponent missed part of what Dr. France said concerning Peter's role in the early Church. Let me elaborate with a relevant passage of what this protestant theologian says:

"Matthew often illustrates Peter's place at the head of the disciples'
group. He was the spokesman, the pioneer, the natural leader."

I believe that but again, Dr. France do not believe that Simon has successors in his Peter-hood.

12. In other words, Professor Albright is
admitting as a Protestant that there is a bias in Protestant anti-
Catholic interpreters who try to make Jesus' reference to the rock
point only to Peter's faith or confession.

Firstly, the comment is simply wrong. Lots of church fathers interpreted "the Rock" in Matthew 16 as either Jesus or Peter's faith or confession.

Fathers of antiquity held to:1) Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers, 2) all the apostles, 8 Fathers, 3) that the church was built on the faith that Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers, 4) Jesus as the Rock, 16 Fathers, and 5) all Christians were the living stones, held by very few Fathers.

Source: http://www.christiandefense.org...


Secondly,Prof. Albright did not believe that Simon has successors in his Peter-hood.

dsjpk5

Con

Rebuttals:

THIS DEBATE IS BASICALLY OVER. MY OPPONENT HAS NEGATED HIS RESOLUTION:

In the last round, my opponent made a startling admission. Here it is:

"Peter did end the debate by his preaching but James did
promulgate the judgment. He alone acted authoritatively as if a Pope
and not only giving a mere opinion."

So here my opponent describes James as acting "authoritatively" and
acting as if he were Pope. And where does he get this from??? FROM THE
BIBLE!!!! Now, remember what the resolution is: "The Papacy is
unbiblical". But my opponent just said James acted as the Pope in the
Bible. Now, personally I believe Peter was the first Pope, but we're
not debating who was the first Pope. We're debating if the office of
Pope is biblical, and my opponent basically just said yes. I accept
his concession.

Despite the fact that I have just won this debate, in the remaining
space allowed I will continue to rebut my opponent's claims.

A.

"Why is it so?The authority pertains to the Gospel which is "God's power
for salvation to everyone who believes." ( Romans 1:16)."

Nowhere in that passage does it say the authority "pertains to the
Gospel" It clearly says it's to "bind and loose".

B.

"Having equal authority does not mean no one has final say."

Yes it does.

C.
"This is also wrong. Simon Peter has "equal faith"

Having faith is not the same thing as having authority. I can have the
same faith in our armed forces as President Obama, but him and I
certainly don't have the same authority.

D.

"Your argument highly implies it. Well, as clear as it is, only Christ
functions with the key of David and not any other person based on
Revelation 3:7-8. This explicitly shows that Isaiah 22 has no
correlation with Matthew 16 in terms of succession in office."

The keys mentioned here and in Matthew 16 and Isaiah 22 all open and
shut. All of them denote authority, so why wouldn't they all denote
succession. Isaiah 22 clearly teaches succession, so why would anyone
suggest Matthew 16 doesn't?

E.
"To be the Rock on which the church will be built means to be the first
one to preach the gospel."

In the previous round, I pointed out that none of those verses Saud
what he claims they say. I challenged my opponent to show me where
they say that, and all I get in response is my opponent repeating
himself. And AGAIN, he does so without evidence.

F.

"This is a huge leap onto the texts. Simon's name is "Simon" and his
name wasn't changed into "Peter." I am referring to my argument in
which I say this:

Simon was decribed as "Peter" but his name "Simon" was NOT changed into
"Peter." "

Even if it was a title, that would be irrelevant. Either way, Peter
was the rock.

G.

"In fact, Simon calls himself " SIMON PETER"( Simon the Rock NOT Peter
the Rock) in 2 Peter 1:1."

He calls himself "Peter" in 1 Peter 1:1.

H.

"Simon is the name and Peter is the descriptive name of his office."

If Peter had an office, as my opponent says, that implies a line of
succession.

J.

"Jesus prayed to Simon (---> Luke 22:31-32
Luke 22:61-62 <---)."

That is not accurate. Peter wasn't the only one who was going to be
tempted, but he was the only one Jesus was praying for. If you get
into the Greek of the verse, it reads like this:

Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you
(plural), that he might sift you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed
for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail; and when
you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your (singular) brethren."

K.

"This is a high claim which has no scriptural basis at all. Jesus did
not say that Peter alone is the sheperd of his sheep. In fact, Simon Peter said that he himself is a fellow
elder ( bishop) and that the sheperds of God's flock must not be a lord
over the church but humbly serve as co-equals in the faith ( 1 Peter
5:1-5, 2 Peter 1:1). That doesn't sound Papacy."

Just because you don't "lord over someone" doesn't mean you can't be their leader. Leaders don't have to be mean in order to be effective.

L.

"Firstly, the comment is simply wrong. Lots of church fathers
interpreted "the Rock" in Matthew 16 as either Jesus or Peter's faith
or confession.

Fathers of antiquity held to:1) Peter as the Rock, 17 Fathers, 2) all
the apostles, 8 Fathers, 3) that the church was built on the faith that
Peter confessed, 44 Fathers, including the most important Fathers, 4)
Jesus as the Rock, 16 Fathers, and 5) all Christians were the living
stones, held by very few Fathers."

Simply giving numbers without examples is quite curious. How are we to know these stats are accurate without the relevant quotes? My opponent had no trouble in previous rounds offering quotes he THOUGHT helped his case. Why not now? Also, since my opponent by his example has indicated that quotes from the early Church fathers are evidence of what they believed... I would like to end this debate with one of my favorites:

"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251

Please vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Preston 2 years ago
Preston
Christ = holds the key of David - Revelation 3:7 ( explicit)

Simon = Peter - First to use the keys of the kingdom

so Christ gave Simon the keys, no one else held... guess him taking over makes no sense
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by daley 2 years ago
daley
radzdsjpk5Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro admitted that Peter was the rock on which the church was built, then tried to redefine this means. It was all over at that point. He didn't do a good enough job at rebutting Con's argument about Peter feeding Jesus' sheep. He also kept referring to Peters Petrine office while denying he had any different office from the other apostle. All in all, it was a close debate, but I think Con gave more detail exegesis of the texts.