The Instigator
radz
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
1Credo
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Papacy is Unbiblical

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
1Credo
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 670 times Debate No: 62002
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

radz

Pro

This debate challenge is for Catholics only.

My debate challenge is this: PAPACY IS UN-BIBLICAL

RULES

Church fathers citation can be used but the primary source would be the Bible because we're dealing with first century Christianity.

Round 1 Acceptance of the Debate Challenge by Con
Round 2 Pro's argument.
Round 3 Con's rebuttal and arguments
Round 4 Pro's rebuttal / Con's rebuttal
Round 5 Final Remarks

NOTES

http://www.britannica.com...

http://www.gotquestions.org...
1Credo

Con

I accept. Looking forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
radz

Pro

I thank my opponent in accepting my debate challenge. The following are my arguments:


ON THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

Question: How many keys was given in Matthew 16:19?

Answer: According to the context, there are only two keys:

1) The key to bound and;

2) The key to loose.

Question: What does bounding and loosing mean?

Answer:

To bound means to tie up.

To loose means to set free.

Both of these are metaphors that represents a reality.

The reality it represents is the very authority it to function with those keys.

Question: In what context do these keys are used?

Answer: The context wherein these keys are used is in the context of both church growth and church discipline.

Church growth

Matthew 16:18

I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Church discipline

Matthew 18:15-18

15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

Question: Who uses the keys?

Answer:

Simon who was called Peter:

13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

All the Disciples ( Every Christians)

Matthew 18:1, 15-20

1 At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] 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.’[d] 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 be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by
my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

ON SIMON AS PETER

Simon is the name of the son of Jonah based on Mt.16:17.

Jesus Christ calls Him by another new name which is Cephas (Aramaic for “rock”) based on Jn 1:42 and Peter (Greek for “rock”) based on Mt.16:18.

NOTE

Simon’s new name as “Rock” did not replace his name “Simon.” Jesus still calls him by his name “Simon” even after He gave him the name “Peter” (Luke 22:21-22 and John 21:17). Accoring to Simon himself, he is “Simon Peter” or “Simon the Rock” ( 2 Peter 1:1).

Question: What does the new name “Peter” of Simon means?

Answer: The new name “Peter” of Simon has twofold meanings:

1) It represents the firm-ness, solid-ness and stability of the church at large ( 2 Pet 1:10) and its relationship with Simon as the foundation-instrument specifically of theChristian faith wherein others are built upon ( …living stones…1 Pet 2:5).
2) It speaks of the office or task-job of Simon as the one whose function is to be the foundation-instrument of the church because he is styled by Jesus Christ himself as the one on whom He will build his church (…upon this Rock I will build my church…Mt. 16:18).

Question: How is Simon a “foundation-instrument”of the church?

Answer: Simon is a foundation-instrument of the church by his active office of imparting the Good News. He is such because Jesus Christ is the “chief-cornerstone” of the church based on Eph 2:20.What this means coheres with Mt. 16:18 wherein it says that Jesus Christ will build his church through Simon and Simon can do that by being Peter.Simon Peter is not the one who will build Jesus’ church but rather, the church will be build on him by Jesus himself. It’s Jesus Christ , not Simon, who will build a church and that’s this church is not Peter’s but Christ’s. These are the obvious reasons why Simon is the foundation-instrument.

Question: How did Jesus Christ build his church through Simon by making him “Peter”?

Answer: Jesus Christ build his church through Simon by making him “Peter” or the foundation-instrument of the church.

Jesus said to Simon, ” You are Peter and on this Rock i will build my church.” Matthew 16:18

The task of the Lord Jesus is “to cause the church to exists.” That’s his goal and He uses Simon to accomplish just that. He did this by assigning Simon with a task which is evident the new name He has given him which is “Peter.”

Purpose: BUILD THE CHURCH ( Mt. 16:18).

—> Who does it? JESUS CHRIST based on Mt. 16:18.
—> How did Jesus Christ do it? THROUGH SIMON’S PREACHING OF THE GOOD NEWS based on Acts 2 and 10 ( 15:9) THROUGH THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT based on Acts 16:4 ( 19:2) and THROUGH THE FAITH OF THE ONE CALLED INTO THE GOOD NEWS based on 2 Thess 2:14 (Rom. 1:16-17, 3:22).

As we can see, there exist three acts working together to obtain the free gift instantaneously. All of the power comes from God himself (Mt. 28:19).

ON THE SUB-APOSTOLIC CHURCH AGAINST PAPACY

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

Ignatius ( President of the Society of Love)

Refers to the Roman Church not specifically to the Roman Bishop.

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.

Victor 1 ( r. 189-199) – the FIRST assertion of jurisdictional authority.

Why would Polycarp not submit to the Pope?

Stephen 1 ( 3rd century)

Why would Cyprian not submit to the Pope?

Pope Leo 1 ( 4th century)

Why would the church not submit to the Pope?

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.

ON THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH POLITY AGAINST PAPACY

The word “catholic church” is in reference to the sub-apostolic church based on Acts 9:31 ( ekklessia kath holes). Yup. St. Ignatius did get it from the Bible as well as the whole “orthodox” church at that time for there is no division yet between the eastern church and western church.

Concerning the lists of the bishops of Rome, it does not necessarily means that those bishops were “Popes” in the sense of the word today. Rather, the evolution of church “polity” makes it obvious that Papacy or the claim of the bishop of Rome as the supreme leader of the entire church does not exists prior to the sub-apostolic age.

See for your self:

1st century church polity = autocephalous plurality of elders who functions as bishops among its local church ( Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-5).

2nd century church polity = autonomous one bishop ( Diocesan) over elders and its local church ( Episcopal Presbytery)

3rd century church polity = one bishop ( Metropolitan) ) over other local church ( city)

4th century church polity = one bishop ( Patriarch) over other local church ( geography)

1Credo

Con

Thanks Pro.

1. Rebuttal

i. ON THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

I agree with what was said by Pro on this point. Pro shows that the Church was given the authority by Jesus to "bound" and to "loose".

ii. ON SIMON AS PETER

Again, I have no disagreement over what was stated by Pro here. Pro shows that Peter was selected by Jesus as the rock on which to build His Church. However, it does seem as if Pro misunderstands Catholic doctrine here:

"Simon Peter is not the one who will build Jesus’ church... this church is not Peter’s but Christ’s."

Pro implies that in order to support the concept of papacy, one must affirm that Peter built the Church himself (without the help of God) and that the Church belonged to Peter. This is false. I (nor any Catholic I have ever heard) do not believe that Peter built or owned the Church himself. It is Christ who built the Church, using Peter as the chosen method. It is Christ who "owns" the Church, not Peter. It seems pretty clear that Pro and I agree on the idea that Jesus built the Church through Peter.

iii. ON THE SUB-APOSTOLIC CHURCH AGAINST PAPACY

I didn't really see any type of argument against papacy here. I would ask my opponent to please provide source links for the points he lists. Even if there was an argument against papacy present in this section, I would be unable to address the points because I know neither their source nor their content.

iv. ON THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH POLITY AGAINST PAPACY

Here again I don't really see any sort of argument against papacy. Pro appears to (please correct me if I'm wrong) suggest that the Church's evolving structure throughout the centuries is evidence against papacy. I do not see any reason to think that this is the case. It seems obvious to me that there should be an expectation of structural change in a Church that grew from hundreds in number and a relatively small geographic area (in the time of Christ) to over a billion in number and a worldwide geography (at present.) Papacy has remained throughout this time period (I will show this later on) but the number of bishops and the geographic area that they serve has changed dramatically in order to best serve the growing population and geographic size.

2. In Support of Papacy

i. Biblical Support

In an article on the authority of Peter, Fr. Dwight Longenecker proposes that there are three images which support the idea of papacy:

"The three images are rock, steward, and shepherd. These three images are found not just in one verse, but are rooted in the Old Testament and affirmed in the New. Like a strong, three-strand, braided rope, these three images of rock, steward, and shepherd provide a powerful interlocking and interdependent support for the authority Christ intended to leave with his Church on earth."

Let us start with the image of the rock. The Old Testament is full of referrals to the "rock", looking to it for foundational authority. Perhaps the best example is found in Isaiah 51:1-2:

"Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the rock from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried; Look to Abraham, your father, and to Sarah, who gave you birth..."

Here, the Jews are told to look to Abraham (the rock) for foundational authority. To vindicate this status, Abraham is given a new name- Abram. Similarly, in Matthew 16:17-18, Peter is given this foundational authority and has his name changed as well:

"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."

Next, let's take a look at the image of the steward. Though the King (God) is the ultimate authority, Kings delegate authority to stewards (in this case, God delegates authority to an earthly steward.) In Isaiah 22:20-22, we see an example of this:

"On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."

God clearly delegates authority to Eliakim here in the Old Testament. Again, this Old Testament verse is similar to the authority given by Christ to Peter in Matthew 16:18-19:

"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."

Finally, let us look at the image of the shepherd. In Ezekiel 34:22-24, God calls upon David to be the shepherd of His people:

"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."

Similarly, Jesus calls upon Peter to be the shepherd of His people in John 21:15-17:

"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep."

Now let us consider the ramifications of these three images that Christ appoints upon Peter. Jesus' apostles were Jews; this means that they were educated in Old Testament scripture and understood what Jesus meant when He gave Peter the very same authority that was given in the Old Testament by God to the Jewish leaders. Peter was the fulfillment of earthly authority over God's people. The other apostles recognized Peter's authority. To give one example, let's take a look at John 20:3-6:

"So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first; he bent down and saw the burial cloths there, but did not go in. When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial cloths there..."

This passage clearly shows Peter's recognized authority. Even though John arrived first to the tomb from which Christ had risen, he waited for Peter to arrive before entering the tomb.

ii. Historical Support

Papacy has been in place since the time of Peter and is still in place today. The unbroken chain of popes over the last 20 centuries can be easily accessed (I have provided a link at the bottom in the sources section.)

Furthermore, papacy was accepted by early Church fathers (including the original apostles) and is accepted by the Church today. Here are a few writings from early Church fathers (I can provide more later if necessary, but I am running out of space):

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

"Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there..." (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


3. Summary

In conclusion, my opponent and I largely agree over what he stated in his argument. However, I did not find anything in his argument that even remotely suggested that papacy was unbiblical. In contrast, I have presented good reasons, both Biblical and historical, to think that papal authority is Biblical and was instated by Jesus during His time on Earth.

Sources:
http://www.vatican.va...
http://www.catholic.com...
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com...
Debate Round No. 2
radz

Pro

i. ON THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

It is clear that my opponent conceded on my stance about the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.

ii. ON SIMON AS PETER

"Simon Peter is not the one who will build Jesus’ church... this church is not Peter’s but Christ’s."

I do not misunderstood Roman Catholic dogma here. I just explained my stance explicitly.

iii. ON THE SUB-APOSTOLIC CHURCH AGAINST PAPACY

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

Ignatius ( President of the Society of Love)

Refers to the Roman Church not specifically to the Roman Bishop.

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.

Victor 1 ( r. 189-199) – the FIRST assertion of jurisdictional authority.

Why would Polycarp not submit to the Pope?

Stephen 1 ( 3rd century)

Why would Cyprian not submit to the Pope?

Pope Leo 1 ( 4th century)

Why would the church not submit to the Pope?

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.

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

iv. ON THE FIRST CENTURY CHURCH POLITY AGAINST PAPACY

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.

2. In Support of Papacy

i. Biblical Support

Jesus did give Simon a new name which is "Peter" but it did not replace Simon's name as "Simon." Jesus still calls him by his name “Simon” even after He gave him the name “Peter” (Luke 22:21-22 and John 21:17). Accoring to Simon himself, he is “Simon Peter” or “Simon the Rock” ( 2 Peter 1:1).

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.

My opponent quotes Ezekiel 34:22-24 and refers it to Simon Peter, an apostle. This is a blasphemy. The church has only "one Shepherd" who is God alone (Psalm 23:1, John 10:16).

ii. Historical Support

The apostolic succession teaching is not a first century Christian teaching. The NT Christians do not teach that the Christian doctrines would be preserved by a list of people.Rather, the Christian teachings would be preserved by apostolic writings against false teachings ( John 17:17, Acts 20:32).

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).

When Stephen, bishop of Rome, made a claim that he was a bishop over other bishops, Cyprian called a council of 87 north African bishops specifically to deny his claim. Cyprian believed all bishops were the successor of Peter together, representing one united "episcopal throne."

Cyprian was overseer ["bishop" in Greek,episkopos, literally means overseer or supervisor] of Carthage from A.D. 249 to 258. He belongs to a period 200 years after the apostles, and he was one of the first to refer to elders as priests (which may have as much to do with his writing in Latin as with his theology). But to him, and to all the bishops of north Africa, there was no pope, not even 200 years after the apostles.

No one says Peter's authority was passed on until A.D. 250, when Cyprian does so, and Cyprian specifically rejects the authority of the bishop of Rome.Cyprian called the 7th Council of Carthage in A.D. 258. The council was called specifically because Stephen, bishop of Rome, had condemned the decrees of a previous north African council. There, as he introduced the council to 87 bishops of North Africa, he declared:

On this matter, each of us should bring forth what he thinks … for neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop … has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. (Ante-Nicene Fathersvol. V, "The Seventh Council of Carthage under Cyprian").

SOURCES:

http://www.christian-history.org...

http://carm.org...

http://www.gotquestions.org...

http://www.gotquestions.org...


1Credo

Con

Thanks Pro.

1. Rebuttal

i. ON THE KEYS OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

"It is clear that my opponent conceded on my stance about the keys of the kingdom of Heaven."

I haven't conceded anything. Rather, Pro has failed to put forward an argument on this point. As such, I have no disagreement with what was said.

ii. ON SIMON AS PETER

"I do not misunderstood Roman Catholic dogma here. I just explained my stance explicitly."

Good. Then Pro understands that here too, our stances align. Again, nothing in this section was provided as evidence against papacy being Biblical. I take no issue with the idea that the Church was created by and is owned by Christ. As stated previously, I completely agree.

iii. ON THE SUB-APOSTOLIC CHURCH AGAINST PAPACY

Pro continually fails to provide source links in this section for the quotes that he inserts. We shouldn't be expected to take Pro's word on these quotes, I think it is only fair to be provided with source links (as I provided when I gave quotes of my own.) Furthermore, Pro uses this section to ask and answer his own question. This seems meaningless to me given the structure of the debate.

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.

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. 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

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. Here again, the sources I provided seem to have been overlooked by Pro. I have provided several quotes (more can be find in the link posted in my sources section) from early Church writings affirming the authority of the pope. These quotes include:

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

"Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there..." (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).


3. Summary

In summary, Pro has failed to bring forward a single argument in support of his assertion that papacy is unbiblical. As such, Pro has thus far been unsuccessful in carrying his share of the burden of proof.

I have demonstrated support for the concept of papacy through both Biblical passages (see last round) and historical evidence (unbroken chain of apostolic succession and quotes from the writings of early Church fathers.) None of this evidence has been sufficiently refuted by Pro, as he has instead spent his time arguing that I am a blasphemer whilst blatantly ignoring the scriptural and historical quotes that I have provided in support of my position. I would invite Pro to bring forward at least one reasonable argument in favor of his initial claim- that papacy is unbiblical- in the next round.

Thanks, back to Pro.

Sources:
http://www.newadvent.org...
http://www.vatican.va...
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com...
Debate Round No. 3
radz

Pro

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).

1Credo

Con

Thanks Pro.

Rebuttal

"To Corinthian church:
1) Heal their schism
2) Submit to hierarchical authority in their local church"

I fail to see how these are examples of a church against papacy. I would ask Pro to please provide his reasoning for this in the next round.

"Refers to the Roman Church not specifically to the Roman Bishop."

Again, this is not evidence of a church against papacy. It does not follow from there being a pope that therefore each and every letter must specifically refer to the pope. There are plenty of letters and writings even today that refer to the Church but do not specifically name the pope. These modern letters and writing certainly do not serve as evidence against papacy, so why should ancient ones?

“Of these the greatest and most ancient is Rome.” It did NOT say “only” Rome but “of these” which highly implies other churches."

I agree that this implies that the Church was present in other areas of the world than Rome. Who would disagree? In either case, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not there was a pope.

"Why would Polycarp not submit to the Pope?"

I didn't see any evidence provided of Polycarp refusing to submit to the pope, so I'm not sure where the controversy lies here.

"Why would Cyprian not submit to the Pope?
SOURCE:
http://www.christian-history.org...;

I hardly think that this is a reliable source. Using this source to justify the claim against papacy is the equivalent of asking a man whether or not he is lying about something.

"Why would the church not submit to the Pope?"

Again, no evidence is provided of the Church refusing to submit to the pope. I could ask "Why would the church submit to the pope?" And this question would have just as much standing as the one proposed by Pro.

"ANSWER:
It is because there is no such thing as “singular” Pope who rules over other bishops in the early church."

It must be convenient to answer one's own questions in a debate, but unfortunately I won't be able to settle with these sorts of answers unless some kind of evidence is provided as justification.

"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 structure of the first century Church and the structure of today's Church are identical, with the exception of added positions due to a larger Church body and geographic area (i.e. more bishops, more priests, etc.)

First Century:
Creator of the Church: Jesus
Vicar of Christ (or leader of the Church on Earth): St. Peter
Bishops, Priests, etc.

Today:
Creator of the Church: Jesus
Vicar of Christ (or leader of the Church on Earth): Pope Francis
Bishops, Priests, etc.

The difference between the church structure that I have proposed (namely, a structure that includes a pope) and the structure proposed by Pro is that my proposition is backed with evidence (both Biblical and historical) whereas Pro's is backed merely by his own unwarranted claims of knowledge about first century Church polity (and a blatant misunderstanding of Church hierarchy.)

"the truth there is no correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses that were provided"

I suppose we will each have to decide for ourselves whether we believe there to be correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses that I provided in my opening argument. I am very confident of the clarity of these correlations. Each of the refutations that Pro makes against the concept of a correlation are relative speculations, and thus I see no need to respond to them. Pro is perfectly welcome to his own interpretation of the Biblical text, but I think I'll stick with the interpretation that's most clear to me (and the heavy majority of Biblical scholarship) which is that there is a very obvious correlation between the Old Testament and New Testament verses.

"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"

I do not think it is wise (or fair) to simply ignore the unbroken chain of apostolic succession that has been in place for 20 centuries. This list is widely accepted and is not refuted by one individual's thinking that it "was not the pattern to follow." But, even if my opponent chooses to ignore this, he is still left to deal with the various quotes I have provided from early Church fathers and their apostolic writings, the very writings which Pro claims are "the only inspired possession of the Church." However, it seems Pro has decided to ignore these as well.

Summary

Pro has yet to provide any sort of evidence to support his claim that papacy is unbiblical. In each round, Pro has simply provided his relative opinion on the subject matter. It is vital to understand that though Pro's opinion may be enough to convince himself, it comes nowhere close to fulfilling the burden of proof of the claim that he has made. In order to justify his claim that papacy is unbiblical, Pro must provide evidence in order to give us some reason to accept his claim. Pro's personal opinion does not suffice. Pro has failed to put forward any sort of argument or reasoning to support his assertion, and thus it seems he has been unsuccessful in fulfilling the burden of proof.

I have given several reasons, both Biblical and historical, to refute Pro's claim that papacy is unbiblical. First, I showed the correlation between the Old Testament scripture's referral to Jewish leaders as rock, steward, and shepherd, and Jesus' New Testament referral to Peter as rock, steward and shepherd. Next, I provided a list of the unbroken chain of apostolic succession, listing in detail the popes from St. Peter to the current Pope Francis. Finally, I provided quotes from the writings of early Church fathers that clearly support the concept of papacy.

Sources:
http://www.newadvent.org......
http://www.vatican.va......
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com......
Debate Round No. 4
radz

Pro

radz forfeited this round.
1Credo

Con

Conclusion

I don't have much to add, as my opponent has forfeited his last round of the debate. I would just like to again point out that Pro has failed to carry the burden of proof for his original claim that "papacy is unbiblical". I have provided several arguments in favor of my own position. This, along with the forfeiture made by Pro in the last round, is reason enough to vote Con as the winner in this debate.

I would like to thank Pro for creating the debate and for an interesting discussion on the topic. It is always enjoyable to hear another's perspective, especially when it pertains to Biblical text. I hope to continue to discuss this topic in the future.
Debate Round No. 5
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
I apologised for not posting my argument in Round 5. I did not intend it as I got busy and hence, forgot debating in here. Anyways, As for Round 4, i can only say that my opponent was in complete denial of the facts i have presented. I did post arguments with reliable unbiased sources and Con did try to ignore it.Let all the readers of this debate challenge scrutinize the debate and judge henceforth who's the true winner based on an unbiased criteria.Thank You!
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
No worries! Just wanted to be sure. :)
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
and my rebuttal in Round 3! I am sorry about my mistake lol
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
1Credo, oh... it should have been Con's rebuttal. :)
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
Thanks! Also, in round 2 it only says "Pro's arguments." What would you like from the Con side in this round?
Posted by radz 2 years ago
radz
@1Credo, Okay. Request granted.
Posted by 1Credo 2 years ago
1Credo
I would like to accept this debate, however it seems to me that the writings of the early Church fathers are relevant given the topic of debate and should be used (though I agree that the focus should be on Biblical text.) Can this be changed?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
radz1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: it was mostly the ff that ruined pro's case.
Vote Placed by TrasguTravieso 2 years ago
TrasguTravieso
radz1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: FF Arguments: Con shows the flaws in Pro's positive case and provides a positive case of his own that Con does not adequately answer.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
radz1CredoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round so conduct to con. Pro didn't initially offer sources, so sources to con. Pro dropped some of con's arguments from round two, so arguments to con