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

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

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...
radz
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/6/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,218 times Debate No: 38548
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)

 

DanielDate

Pro

I hold that the accused beliefs are not in alignment with biblical scripture, that there is only one true church (Catholic); and anyone outside of it is damned.
radz

Con

I will be arguing against the Roman Catholic Church as this is my oppponent's stance. I will show from the Scriptures ,which I do believe contains infallible historical data about the apostolic church or the age where the church has its Apostles alive, that the Roman Catholic church is not the true church recorded therein.

Argument # 1: Church Polity


The Apostolic church (33- 90 C.E.) was never ruled by a single Bishop known as the "Pope".
The church polity in first century Christianity was "multiple bishops" over autocephalous churches.
The congregations were led by elders (Greek: presbeteros). These elders also act as "overseers" (Greek: episkopos or bishop). This is evident is the Acts of the Apostles which gives an account of Paul's farewell to the elders of Ephesus:

Acts 20:17,28
From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders (presbeteros) of the church ... [Paul, speaking to these elders said] "Guard yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (episkopos)"

Conclusion:
Elders are functioning as bishops. Simply put, all bishops are Elders in the first century Christendom.

Argument #2: Context in Texts

Matthew 16:13-20 speaks of Petrine Honor in the church founding rather than Petrine Authority over the church.

Premise 1: Simon is Peter
Premise 2: Peter is Rock-foundation
Premise 3: Jesus will build his church on Peter.
Conclusion: Jesus will build his church on Simon.

Jesus will build his church on Simon personally and he will also build the church on the prophets and the apostles including Simon generally.

Simon was chosen by God the Father to reveal to him the orthodox faith (i.e. Jesus' godhood as the Son and salvific role as the Messiah) in order to pass it on to others who were chosen similarly like him to know the faith but not chosen identical like him to share the faith.

Premise 1: Jesus said that on Simon "the Rock" the church will be build
Premise 2: Simon was the first one to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles
Conclusion: Simon's calling is different than the rest of the saints in only one point which is in "knowing and accepting the faith". Others were called after him to share the exactly identical faith he has.Simply put, Simon was first among the saints not in rank nor in authority but in revelation.

Conclusion:
Simon was never ruling as a Pope. He received God's gift of salvation and he is to make it known to others. This priviledge was also extended to all who will ever received the only begotten Son. Simon wasn't the only one to receive this great duty. The fact is, he got it first than the rest of his fellows. Now, Jesus said," Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" ( Matthew 28:19)

--Pope Dammasus (c304-384) was the first one to use the Petrine text (Matthew 16:13-20) to assert his supremacy over the whole of Christendom.

Argument 3: Soteriology

The apostolic church were saved from hell "by grace through faith" ( Ephesians 2:8).

PRE-SALVIFIC STATE OF MANKIND

Slaves to sin ( Romans 6:20). The reality of this slavery to sin denotes that people cannot not do sin.

Anyone who wants to do good that glorifies God falls short because " there is no one righteous, no, not one. No one seeks God" ( Romans 3:10-11).

Jesus himslef said "If you want to enter life, keep the commandments" ( Matthew 19:17)

BUT Paul said in Galatians 3:10-12 that:
10 For as many as are of the works of the Law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.” 11 Now that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “The righteous man shall live by faith.” 12 However, the Law is not of faith; on the contrary, “He who practices them shall live by them.”

Jesus and Paul are in agreement. How was it? It's because the context of Jesus' words are these:

( After giving a parable that denotes impossibility of the rich man to be saved) The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?” 27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.”

So, here we see Jesus response to the rich man as " keep the commandments to have eternal life" and the rich man claim that he did all of it yet he is not save because he didn't follow Jesus which is the sign of having salvation.

Hence, Paul told us that:

-- Those who does the Law for righteousness are "under a curse"
Why? It is because a person with original sin cannot obey all of the Law that is why Paul said that "Cursed is everyone who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, to perform them.”

Paul is very explicit that it is explicit that "The righteous man shall live by faith.” Notice that to live by faith doesn't make one rightoeus but that an already righteous man shall live by faith.

James told us that "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.( James 2:10). See? Tell me then if salvation can be gained in any form through obeying God's commands who on earth could obey all of the Law without failing one of it???

For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.( Romans 8:7). It's pretty clear that no can based on this verse. Plus, Romans 3:10 already generalized it by saying that " there's no one righteous, no, not one.

Romans 6:23 is very explicit: For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

In Latin Vulgate, Romans 6:23 reads: stipendia enim peccati mors gratia autem Dei vita aeterna in Christo Iesu Domino nostro

Eternal Life IS a gift according to Paul.

Premise 1: Gift means " freely given stuff etc. out of one's will"
Premise 2: Eternal life is a gift
Conclusion: We can't work for eternal life because it's just a gift. Eternal life is free. How to receive eternal life is the same thing as how to receive a gift for eternal life is a gift. So, what do you do when your friend gives you a gift? Will you pay for it? Of course not. You just need to "accept"/ "receive" it.

In systematic theology,biblical soteriology is this:

The Son became flesh in order to live, crucified and die as to be raised from the dead after 3 days ( the Gospel i.e. goodnews). This good news must be "received by grace through faith not of works by all of the chosen ones because eternal life is a gift in Christ Jesus our Lord " ( John 1:12-13, Ephesians 1:11, 2:8-9, Romans 6:23).

POST-SALVIFIC STATE OF MANKIND


slaves to righteousness ( Romans 6:18) After receiving salvation, a saved person cannot not do good works.

A saved person will "show his faith by his works" ( James 2:18).

A faith without works is dead i.e. useless ( James 2:26).

A saved person is in the process of sanctification( i.e. making holy by the Trinity). A saved person or a "righreous man shall live by faith". He must " look on Jesus who is the source and completer of his faith" and must trust that " the one who does good work in him will be the one continuing it until the day of Jesus Christ" ( Galatians 3:11, Hebrews 12:2, Philippians 1:6).Therefore, a saved person really has an "assurance of salvation" as 1 John 5:13 explicitly said: " To You who believe in the name of the Son of God, YOU HAVE ETERNAL LIFE."

A saved person has free will to obey and to disobey. If he obey the consequence is not eternal life but blessings (Proverbs 19:23 ) and if he disobeys the consequence is not hell but chasetisemenet in order to continue to obey (Hebrews 12:6-8).

The free will to disobey of the saved person will be exterminated according to the Scriptures at either 1) death or 2) resurrection.

Conclusion:

Salvation from hell is gained by trusting Christ alone as the only Savior according to the Scriptures but the Roman Catholic church teaches a very different soteriology.
Debate Round No. 1
DanielDate

Pro

OK Great start!

I will show that the bible made Peter the Pope with authority to rule without going into debate over the "rock" question. I will show that both the bible and the earliest christian writings agree that those who take differing opinions cannot be saved, even if they have "faith".

Peter the Pope:

(1.) 3 Parallels:

Matthew 16:18. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will bed bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will bee loosed in heaven."

Isaiah 22:15-25 He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Luke 18:38 He called out, "Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!"

We see here that the keys of heaven given to Peter are the keys given to the Prime Minister of the House of David, as Jesus is the Son of David. The Prime Minister position is successive, therefore Peter would have successors.

(2.) Significance of a Name Change

Abram had his name changed to Abraham (Father of Nations)
Jacob had his name changed to Israel (Father of Zion)
Simon had his name changed to Peter (Father of the Catholic Kingdom)

(3.) John 21:16 Jesus uses the word "Poimonate" which the English has said "Tend" or "Feed", this is incorrect; "Poimonate" is used in Revelation 2:27 to mean "Rule"; this verse is telling Peter to "Rule the Sheep".

(4.) Biblical Spot-light

After Peter's conversion, he is given what Protestants would deem "unnecessary attention", but the bible is inspired by God:

Mark 16:7 "Go your way, tell his disciples, and Peter" (Why not just "Say unto the disciples"?)
Acts 2:37 "say unto Peter and the rest of the apostles." (Why not just "Say unto the apostles"?)
Acts 5:29 then Peter and the other apostles answered and said (Why not just "The apostles answered"?)
Mark 1:36 and Peter and those that were with him
Luke 8:45 Peter and they that were with him
Luke 9:32 Peter and they that were with him
Peter is always listed first and Judas as last. Mat 10:2, but Peter was not the first apostle.
John 20:4-6 John outran Peter to the Sepulchre but waited for Peter to go first.
Acts 5 Peter meets out the discipline of the church
Acts 10:9-13 PeterA279; receives the vision that the prescriptions of the old law has ended
Acts 15 Paul and Barnabas go to consult about the issue of circumcision, Peter rises up makes the final decision.

Heresy and Submission to Rome:

Galatians 5:19-21- heresies...they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

By definition "Heresy" is a Greek word meaning: "To choose at variance."

We see all forms of Protestant Sects "Choosing at variance" yet claiming to have "Faith". They are heretics.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (50-110AD) demonstrates the necessity of Submission to Rome and that of Avoiding Heresy:

**Notice the submissive language when he writes to the Pope in Rome and the authoritative language used when writing to other churches, also notice his frequent warnings against heresy.

Letter to Rome: (Submissive Language)

CHAPTER I.--AS A PRISONER, I HOPE TO SEE YOU.
CHAPTER II.--DO NOT SAVE ME FROM MARTYRDOM.
CHAPTER III.--PRAY RATHER THAT I MAY ATTAIN' TO MARTYRDOM.
CHAPTER IV.--ALLOW ME TO FALL A PREY TO THE WILD BEASTS.
CHAPTER V.--I DESIRE TO DIE.
CHAPTER VI.--BY DEATH I SHALL ATTAIN TRUE LIFE
CHAPTER VII.--REASON OF DESIRING TO DIE.
CHAPTER VIII.--BE YE FAVOURABLE TO ME.
CHAPTER IX.--PRAY FOR THE CHURCH IN SYRIA.

Letter to Trallians: (Authoritative Language)

CHAPTER II.--BE SUBJECT TO THE BISHOP, ETC.
CHAPTER V.--I WILL NOT TEACH YOU PROFOUND DOCTRINES.
CHAPTER VI.--ABSTAIN FROM THE POISON OF HERETICS.
CHAPTER VIII.--BE ON YOUR GUARD AGAINST THE SNARES OF THE DEVIL
CHAPTER XI.--AVOID THE DEADLY ERRORS OF THE DOCETAE.
CHAPTER XII.--CONTINUE IN UNITY AND LOVE.

Letter to Magnesians: (Authoritative Language)

CHAPTER III.--HONOUR YOUR YOUTHFUL BISHOP
CHAPTER VI.--PRESERVE HARMONY.
CHAPTER VII.--DO NOTHING WITHOUT THE BISHOP AND PRESBYTERS.
CHAPTER IX.--LET US LIVE WITH CHRIST.
CHAPTER X.--BEWARE OF JUDAIZING.
CHAPTER XI.--I WRITE THESE THINGS TO WARN YOU.
CHAPTER XIII.--BE ESTABLISHED IN FAITH AND UNITY.

Letter to Ephesians: (Authoritative Language)

CHAPTER III.--EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY.
CHAPTER VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
CHAPTER VII.--BEWARE OF FALSE TEACHERS.
CHAPTER X.--EXHORTATIONS TO PRAYER, HUMILITY, ETC.
CHAPTER XI.--AN EXHORTATION TO FEAR GOD, ETC.
CHAPTER XIII.--EXHORTATION TO MEET TOGETHER FREQUENTLY FOR THE WORSHIP OF GOD.
CHAPTER XIV.--EXHORTATIONS TO FAITH AND LOVE.
CHAPTER XV.--EXHORTATION TO CONFESS CHRIST BY SILENCE AS WELL AS SPEECH.
CHAPTER XVI.--THE FATE OF FALSE TEACHERS.
CHAPTER XVII.--BEWARE OF FALSE DOCTRINES.

Letter to Philadelphians (Authoritative Language)

CHAPTER II.--MAINTAIN UNION WITH THE BISHOP.
CHAPTER III.--AVOID SCHISMATICS.
CHAPTER IV.--HAVE BUT ONE EUCHARIST, ETC.
CHAPTER VI.--DO NOT ACCEPT JUDAISM.
CHAPTER VII.--I HAVE EXHORTED YOU TO UNITY.
CHAPTER IX.--THE OLD TESTAMENT IS GOOD: THE NEW TESTAMENT IS BETTER.

Letter to Smyrnaeans (Authoritative Language)

CHAPTER IV.--BEWARE OF THESE HERETICS.
CHAPTER V.--THEIR DANGEROUS ERRORS,
CHAPTER VI--UNBELIEVERS IN THE BLOOD OF CHRIST SHALL BE CONDEMNED.
CHAPTER VII.--LET US STAND ALOOF FROM SUCH HERETICS.
CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP.
CHAPTER IX.--HONOUR THE BISHOP.

Letter to Polycarp (Authoritative Language)

CHAPTER I.-- COMMENDATION AND EXHORTATION.
CHAPTER V.--THE DUTIES OF HUSBANDS AND WIVES.
CHAPTER VI.--THE DUTIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FLOCK.

Next Example will be from the Sedition of the Church of Corinth, they sent representatives 600 miles to Rome to obtain a Papal Decree to end the dispute. This is what they received:

**Notice again the authoritative language and the warning against taking opinions at variance.

1 Clement 1:1 we consider that we have been somewhat
tardy in giving heed to the matters of dispute that have arisen among
you, dearly beloved, and to the detestable and unholy sedition...

1 Clem 57:1
Ye therefore that laid the foundation of the sedition, submit
yourselves unto the presbyters and receive chastisement unto
repentance, bending the knees of your heart. Learn to submit yourselves, laying aside the arrogant and proud stubbornness of your tongue.

1 Clem 46:9 This your schism has perverted many; hath cast many into despondency; many into doubt; all of us into grief, and, as yet, your sedition remaineth.
radz

Con

1)In Matthew 16:18, Jesus used Simon to be “Peter” (the Rock-foundation) where he will build his” church” (called-out-ones).

Peter being given the keys of the kingdom of heaven is to be clearly understood as the preaching of the gospel to the Jews, Samaritans and the Gentiles which opened the doors of the kingdom for them. Therefore, we see in Acts 15:7: “. . . Peter stood up and said to them, ‘Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe’” (Acts 15:7). Peter is referring back to Matthew 16:19 when Christ gave him the keys of the kingdom which symbolize escorting new converts in.

The keys symbolize preaching and opening the door of the kingdom for converts, we are expecting to see evidence connecting primitive conversion with a spiritual door opening. One can see exactly that in Acts 14:27: “And when they arrived and gathered the church together, they declared all that God had done with them, and how he had opened a door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 14:27). Again, the keys Peter received in Matthew 16:19 unlocked the door of the kingdom for the early converts through the preaching of the word. It is in that sense that Jesus used Peter as a rock to build His church.

The word “build” in Matthew 16:18 to often denote church member growth or multiplication. The Greek verb for “I will build” here is oikodomēs!3; future indicative active which comes from the verboikodome!3;. This word is used in Acts 9:31 in the present participle form for church membership growth or multiplication where we read, “the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up[oikodomoumenē]. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied” (Acts 9:31). It is also used in Romans 15:20 of the spread of the gospel leading to membership growth: “I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build [oikodom!3;] on someone else's foundation (Romans 15:20). In 1 Corinthians 3:10 Paul can speak of being a “skilled master builder” in regards to growing or building the church. Peter in 1 Peter 2:5 can compare believers to “living stones [who] are being built up as a spiritual house” (1 Peter 2:5).

The Greek term ekkle
M2;sia [church] never denotes a physical structure in the NT, but always a community of people. The new temple is not a building of literal stones, but consists of ‘living stones’ (1 Peter 2:5)


He has the authority to “permit” or to “forbid” people from entering the kingdom.

Isaiah 22:22 (singular):

Key of David

Matthew 16:19 (plural):

Keys of Heaven

This singular key of the house of David remained with Jesus Christ himself and is messianic in nature. Revelation 3:7 affirms that Christ holds the key of the house of David:

“. . . The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens” (Revelation 3:7).

2) Simon is indeed the Father ( i.e first-source per Mt. 16:15-19)of the Catholic kingdom ( i.e. complete, universal church). This is Petrine honor not Petrine authority ( i.e. Papal Authority).

3) John 21:16 never used the Greek word " Poimonate" at all and hence, your argument is null and void.

4) I don't think this means Papal Primacy of Peter but given the overall scriptural context with Matthew 16, we are only to conclude that this denotes Simon's Honor of being "the Rock".


5) The early church fathers ONLY validates the necessity of submitting to Rome in doctrine not in jurisdiction to avoid heresy.



























Debate Round No. 2
DanielDate

Pro

"3) John 21:16 never used the Greek word " Poimonate" at all and hence, your argument is null and void."

Did you even look at the Greek?

Compare John 21:16 , Revelation 2:27

http://biblehub.com...
http://biblehub.com...

Greek Says : "Shepard my sheep" : "Shepard with a rod of iron". Bible Says: "Tend my sheep" : "Rule with a rod of iron". Thus, the obviously correct meaning is "Rule my sheep" : "Rule with a rod of iron".

"4) I don't think this means Papal Primacy of Peter but given the overall scriptural context with Matthew 16, we are only to conclude that this denotes Simon's Honor of being "the Rock"."

Take a close look at Acts 15:

6 Everyone is arguing
7-11 Peter rises up and speaks
12 And all the multitude held their peace; and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling stories.

Why did everyone shut up after Peter spoke? He exercised Papal Authority.

"5) The early church fathers ONLY validates the necessity of submitting to Rome in doctrine not in jurisdiction to avoid heresy"

Why were they in submission to Rome? Because that is where Peter's Successor was.

1 Peter 5:13 She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.

Romans 15:6 "That with one mind, and with one mouth, you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Note: The true Christian faith is of one mind, one mouth ... not 25,000. - Notice the necessity of unity.

Again in Acts 15 we see that Paul and Barnabas, though guided by The Holy Spirit; could not authoritatively decree if circumcision was necessary; the decision was left to Pope Peter at the Council of Jerusalem.

We see that, no Protestant Leader can form any sect and make dogmatic decrees without putting themselves at higher authority than Paul and Barnabas - Protestants are false prophets.

The Petrine Authority was first exercised in the 2nd Century by Pope Victor over the Quatrodecimanism Dispute:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We see he used the Keys of Heaven to excommunicate the Churches that wouldn't comply with his Papal Decree.
Here is a lecture about it: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com...

And a set of lectures about the Papacy from the 1st to 4th centuries: http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com...

Frankly, I can put out 100 bible verses that stress the importance of unity. Forming disagreeing sects is not unity, and is also to "Choose at variance" i.e. Heresy.
radz

Con


1) I’m not lying, John 21:16 doesn’t used the word “ Poimonate” but “ Poimaine”.

Poimaine means two things: 1) to shepherd 2) to rule.

According to context, Poimaine must mean “to shepherd” because of the context: sheep of Christ.

“A Text without a context is a pretext”

2) I Agree that when Peter spoke, all were silent. However, when Paul and James spoke, all were silent as well (v 12).

“The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.”

If my opponent is consistent in his argument then it means that Paul and James must be Popes also because of the silence.

3) From your own words you said that Petrine authority was FIRST exercised in the 2nd century. I TOTALLY AGREE!

My opponent just refuted his own argument. He condemned himself to Hell according to his debate based both on his very stance that Peter wasn't the FIRST one to exercise Petrine authority but a second century bishop.

4) Pro said: “again in Acts 15 we see that Paul and Barnabas, though guided by The Holy Spirit; could not authoritatively decree if circumcision was necessary…

I AGREE AGAIN. It’s because the decision was left to James NOT to Peter at the Council of Jerusalem:

“It is MY JUDGMENT, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God” – Acts of the Apostles 15:19

5) I completely concur with Christian unity. The Scriptures said:

There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;one Lord, one faith, one baptism,one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. –Ephesians 4:4-6

The problem with your argument is generalization:

Premise 1: X is this and that
Premise 2: Y is X
Conclusion: Therefore, Y is this and that too.

Protestants are various churches who “protests” against Roman Catholicism and these churches also claim to be the “only one true church” founded by Christ. I agree that Jesus Christ founded only one true church and this is in unity of the core doctrines:

1) Theology: The Trinity ( Matthew 28:19)
2) Soteriology: Salvation from hell done by the Trinity alone ( 1 Peter 1:2)

Anyone IN the one church who goes against these core doctrines are rightly called “apostates” and hence, “heretics”.

Other doctrines can be followed hand in hand with the core doctrines without being “heretics”:

~Romans chapter 14
~Dietary issuesHoly day issues

6) PATRISTIC EVIDENCE AGAINST PAPAL AUTHORITY

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")

Whether a Roman Catholic agrees with Cyprian on that or not, he is being dishonest if he quotes Cyprian on the matter of Peter's authority and then implies or suggests that Cyprian meant that the bishop of Rome had Peter's authority. Cyprian clearly states that no bishop can rule another.

So what did Cyprian think happened to Peter's authority?

This unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate [office of bishop] itself to be one and undivided. Let … no one corrupt the truth of the faith by treacherous deception. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. (On the Unity of the Church 5)

7) APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION ARGUMENT REFUTED

Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).

The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right.

Alignment with scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.

The first church, its growth, doctrine, and practices, were recorded for us in the New Testament. Jesus, as well as His apostles, foretold that false teachers would arise, and indeed it is apparent from some of the New Testament epistles that these apostles had to fight against false teachers early on. Having a pedigree of apostolic succession or being able to trace a church's roots back to the "first church" is nowhere in Scripture given as a test for being the true church. What is given is repeated comparisons between what false teachers teach and what the first church taught, as recorded in Scripture. Whether a church is the "true church" or not is determined by comparing its teachings and practices to that of the New Testament church, as recorded in Scripture.

For instance, in Acts 20:17-28, the Apostle Paul has an opportunity to talk to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus one last time face to face. In that passage, he tells them that false teachers will not only come among them but will come FROM them (vv. 29-30). Paul does not set forth the teaching that they were to follow the "first" organized church as a safeguard for the truth. Rather, he commits them to the safekeeping of "God and to the word of His grace" (v. 32). Thus, truth could be determined by depending upon God and "the word of His grace" (i.e., Scripture).



Debate Round No. 3
DanielDate

Pro

Boy you sure make me labor like Paul don't you.
__________________________________
"1) I"m not lying, John 21:16 doesn"t used the word " Poimonate" but " Poimaine".

Poimaine means two things: 1) to shepherd 2) to rule.

According to context, Poimaine must mean "to shepherd" because of the context: sheep of Christ."

Fact is, the same word is used in Revelation to mean "Rule", and John wrote both John 21:16 and Revelation.

The connotation is that Peter will "Rule the sheep." Your position here is just dishonest.

-----------------------

"2) I Agree that when Peter spoke, all were silent. However, when Paul and James spoke, all were silent as well (v 12)."

You need to visualize the situation at the Council of Jerusalem:

It was very noisy with everyone speaking over each other, then Peter spoke and everyone shut up; then to break silence Paul started telling unrelated stories.

The matter was resolved on Peter's speech, no more arguments; then James reminded everyone to get to work on what Peter said.

______________________________

"3) From your own words you said that Petrine authority was FIRST exercised in the 2nd century. I TOTALLY AGREE! "

Victor was the one to first excommunicate in the late 2nd century, but acknowledgement of the Submission to Rome went all the way back to Ignatius in the 1st century.

______________________

"4) Pro said: "again in Acts 15 we see that Paul and Barnabas, though guided by The Holy Spirit; could not authoritatively decree if circumcision was necessary"

I AGREE AGAIN. It"s because the decision was left to James NOT to Peter at the Council of Jerusalem:"

That's just a completely dishonest reading of the events.

______________________________________

"5) I completely concur with Christian unity. The Scriptures said: "

There is actually more to it than just that, if there were no Papacy we'd all be Jehovah's Witnesses today; also doctrines regarding the monophysites and Nestorius which took hundreds of years to determine.

There is also the biblical basis for Apostolic Succession which shows that no one can just upstart a church. I'll get to that in Point 7.

Also there are core dogmas regarding Mary and Communion of Saints that are covered in the bible, and in some cases censored in Protestant Bibles; but only pointed out and preserved by the Catholic Faith. I'm sure we'll get into these in the next debate.
______________________________________

"6) PATRISTIC EVIDENCE AGAINST PAPAL AUTHORITY"

I'm glad your reading Ante-Nicene Fathers, I'll quote from there too:

(Irenaeus Declares Rome is the authority and all Churches must agree with it)

Irenaeus 175-185 A.D. Against Heresies, Book III Chapter III
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, ...assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church (Rome), on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere...

(Cyprian Demonstrates Papal Infallibility, Rome is the Chief Church and Throne of Peter)

St. Cyprian Epistle LIV Letter to Cornelius:

"a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics"to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence sacerdotal unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access."

[From The Rebaptism Controversy]:

(Firmillian Acknowledges that Stephen took the Throne of Peter, disagrees with his policy about re-baptism.)

Firmilian, Bishop of C"sarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen Epistle LXXIV
"I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics."

(Cyprian acknowledged the eminent authority of Stephen as the Successor of Peter and his right to appoint bishops, even though he disagreed with him on the Re-Baptism Issue)

Letter From Cyprian to Pope Stephen [Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5 page 368-369]
"Let letters be directed by you into the province and to the people abiding at Arles, by which, Marcian being excommunicated, another may be substituted in his place. Intimate plainly to us who has been substituted at Arles in the place of Marcion."

_______________________

"7) APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION ARGUMENT REFUTED"

It is clear that apostolic authority is passed through the "Laying of Hands". (I'm sure you can find the relevant passages)

Protestant Bibles have censored Exodus 29:9 that the Priests Hands are consecrated for this very purpose. (but you won't find this one [Too Catholic For Your Bible])

Then of course we all know Acts 1 Matthias is chosen to replace Judas as the twelfth apostle.
_________________________________

WHEW!
radz

Con

On the Johannine Passage

I agree that John wrote both letters but the context of John 21:16 highly disagrees with my opponent’s stance that “Poimaine” in the said verse denotes “rulership” rather than “sheperding” which the context requires.

My opponent accuses me of dishonesty when in fact he’s the one who is dishonest by forsaking the context per se of John 21:16.

On the Jerusalem Council

I'm fond of facts not of fables and my opponent seems to resort to the latter. No regrets but he made me conclude that based on his very own words:

"It was very noisy with everyone speaking over each other, then Peter spoke and everyone shut up; then TO BREAK SILENCE PAUL STARTED TELLING UNRELATED STORIES."

The context of Acts 15:6-12 disagrees:

The apostles and the elders came together tolook into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice AMONG YOU, that by my mouth THE GENTILES would hear the word of the gospel and believe...as and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them AMONG THE GENTILES.

Paul did not started telling unrelated stories to break silence but on the contrary, he spoke of very related things about the subject per se which is soteriology.

"The matter was resolved on Peter's speech, no more arguments; THEN JAMES REMINDED EVERYONE TO GET TO WORK ON WHAT PETER SAID."

Again, 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 Honor ( Mt. 16:15-19) and 2) Scriptural Substantiation ( Amos 9:11,12 LXX).

CONCLUSION:

Peter never acted as a Pope in the Jerusalem Council. There is never a clue, not even one. Everyone could read Acts chapter 15 to see for themselves that Peter did not exercise Papal Primacy.

On the Patristics

None of the church fathers agrees with my opponent’s stance on Papal Primacy:

Ireneaus
Irenaeus' Concern Was the Preservation of Truth, Not the Handing Down of Authority:

In this order and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. (ibid. III:3:3)

It is "most abundant proof that their is one and the same life-giving faith" from the apostles until Irenaeus' time? Or is it rather proof that the church in Rome has authority over all other churches and that 1,800 years later we should all listen to the bishop of Rome whether he's preserved apostolic truth or not?

I submit that it's the former, since that is what Irenaeus said.

Cyprian

My opponent cannot use Cyprian for his stance on Papal Primacy because it is clear that he is against such notion as I pointed out in Round # 3

((( http://www.christian-history.org...))) They are not liars:

St. Cyprian Epistle LIV Letter to Cornelius:

There’s no dispute thatRomewas the chief church. None at all. Nor is there dispute that the bishop ofRomewas successor of St Peter in a unique manner, because St Peter himself helped establish the Church of Rome. The fact is, however, that this unique Petrine privilege was shared with the bishops ofAlexandriaandAntioch.

As St Gregory ofRome(540-590) puts it:

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For [Peter] himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside (Book 7, Epistle 40)

The original Greek is in the past tense- that is, priestly unity took its source inRomebecause St Peter was inRome, and St Peter is the icon of the unity of the episcopate, that is, in his person, sacerdotal unity takes its source. And, as an additional note, which was again not refuted, the word "chief" can also be translated "primeval."

(Firmillian Acknowledges that Stephen took the Throne of Peter, disagrees with his policy about re-baptism.)

The early Fathers exhibited a strong zeal to maintain unity in the Church, condemning the sin of schism in very strong terms, as seen particularly in Pope St. Clement, Cyprian and Augustine. Contrary to RC claims this episode is not evidence of universal papal jurisdiction because "being in the Church" was never conditional to being in union withRome. One early example to demonstrate this is Firmillian's letter to Cyprian on the controversy with Pope Stephen on the issue of re-baptising heretics and schismatics:

"Those who are at Rome do not observe all the things which were given at the beginning, and it is in vain that they pretend to support themselves upon the authority of the Apostles....I have reason to be indignant at the manifest folly of Stephen, who, on the one hand, glories in his episcopal seat, and pretends to possess the succession of Peter, upon whom the foundations of the Church were placed, and who, on the other hand, introduces other stones, and constructs new buildings for other churches, by asserting, upon his own authority, that they possess the true baptism...You, Africans, you may say to Stephen, that having known the truth, you have rejected the custom of error; but for us, we possess at the same time, truth and usage; we oppose our custom against that of the Romans; our usage is that of truth, preserving, since the beginning, that which Christ and the Apostles have given to us...Yet Stephen does not blush to affirm, that those in sin can remit sins, as though the waters of life could be found in the house of the dead. What! Dost thou not fear God's judgement, when thouh showest thyself favourable to heretics against the Church!....What grievous sin thou has committed in separating thyself from so many flocks! Thou has killed thyself; do not deceive thyself; for he is truly schismatic who renounces the communion of the unity of the Church! While thou thinkest that all others are separated from thee, it is thou who art separated from all others." (Firmillian ad Cyprian, Ep. 75.)

(Cyprian acknowledged the eminent authority of Stephen as the Successor of Peter and his right to appoint bishops, even though he disagreed with him on the Re-Baptism Issue)

Cyprian repeatedly denied, in multiple contexts, that the bishop of Rome or any other bishop has universal jurisdiction (Letter 51:21, Letter 54:14, Letter 67:5, Letter 71:3, Letter 72:26)

On the Laying on of hands

1) The laying on of hands doesn’t prove Papal Primacy at all.

2) Judas’ successor to apostleship NOT to bishopric.

3) Exodus 29:9 doesn’t spoke of “Laying on of hands” but on the contrary, it says “put the head-dresses on their heads”(NEB). It is very explicit that it’s not identical.

I challenge my opponent to present his irrefutable and unambiguous proof/ argument for Papacy.

Debate Round No. 4
DanielDate

Pro

Con:
Or is it rather proof that the church in Rome has authority over all other churches and that 1,800 years later we should all listen to the bishop of Rome whether he's preserved apostolic truth or not?"
--------------------
Pro:
The Pope is not allowed to change or create Dogma, I'll give an example at the bottom for the biblical basis of Indulgences which opens the door for Communion of Saints and Purgatory
-------------------
Con:

My opponent cannot use Cyprian for his stance on Papal Primacy because it is clear that he is against such notion as I pointed out in Round # 3


------------------------------
Pro:
Your Round #3 Quotes were censored and out of context. Here is a more conclusive quote and it's explanation:

7th Council of Carthage: http://www.ccel.org...
It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,4675 nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.4676

**Note: It is an acknowledgement that the Pope is not present at the Council and an agreement not to excommunicate each other for differing stances on the rebaptism issue; it is not a confirmation that there is no Pope, they were discussing if the Pope was a heretic for his rejection of re-baptism.



Treatise 1, Chapter 4 http://www.ccel.org...
3107 And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” 3108 And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;”3109 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.3110 [Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs[1] designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.”]

[1] Poetry censored in Protestant bibles

**Note: "On the Unity of the Church" is just poetry making analogies about Unity, it even references Poetry that the Protestants call "Apocrypha".

-------------------------------

Con:
There’s no dispute thatRomewas the chief church. None at all. Nor is there dispute that the bishop ofRomewas successor of St Peter in a unique manner, because St Peter himself helped establish the Church of Rome. The fact is, however, that this unique Petrine privilege was shared with the bishops ofAlexandriaandAntioch.

---------------------------
Pro:
That is just wrong. I will use the example of Paul of Samosada to demonstrate otherwise:

in 269AD Paul of Samosada was excommunicated. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History Book 7 Chapter 30 "Paul had fallen from the episcopate as well as from the Orthodox Faith, but as Paul refused to surrender the Church Building the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned and he decided the matter that the building should be given to those whom the Bishops of Italy and the City of Rome should adjudge it."

This is especially interesting because Antioch is in the East, and there were many Bishops in the East such as Jerusalem that could have handled it; but the Emperor recognized that the Church of Rome had the jurisdiction over the universal church.
----------------
Con:
"Firmillian"

-----------------
Pro:
You might notice that Firmillian was suggesting people receive multiple baptisms. That is not biblical, he was a heretic; and Cyprian lapsed there too. Firmilian recognized the supremacy of the Papacy and was in shock and disbelief that who he considered a heretic would hold it.
----------------
Con:
Cyprian repeatedly denied, in multiple contexts, that the bishop of Rome or any other bishop has universal jurisdiction (Letter 51:21, Letter 54:14, Letter 67:5, Letter 71:3, Letter 72:26)

---------------------
Pro:
Denials? He doesn't speak about it.

Letter 51:21 http://www.ccel.org... Bishops that Sinned didn't break unity


Letter 54:14 http://www.ccel.org...; Is the earliest recognition of "Papal Infallibility" "Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access"Reference to: Luke 22:32 "But I have prayed for thee (Peter), that thy faith fail not:"


Letter 67:5 http://www.ccel.org... says a Bishop in Spain lied to Pope Stephen to protect his position - LOL guy you are just proving the Papacy for me.

Letter 71:3 http://www.ccel.org... says everyone has "free will."
Leter 72:26 http://www.ccel.org... says everyone has "free judgement"

-----------------------
Con:
1) The laying on of hands doesn’t prove Papal Primacy at all.

--------------------------
Pro:
No it doesn't prove the Papacy, it proves the sole legitimacy of the Catholic Church as the one biblically compatible doctrine.

It is necessary to first understand the Apostolic Succession:
++++++++++++++++++++

In the Old Testament Spiritual Authority is passed through the "Laying of Hands":

Deut. 34:9 And Josue the son of Nun was filled with the spirit of wisdom, because Moses had laid his hands upon him. And the children of Israel obeyed him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.

In the New Testament Paul establishes Bishops through the "Laying of Hands":

2 Timothy 1:6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.


Paul tells Titus to appoint more Bishops under him:

Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:


*Note: Protestant Bibles have censored Exodus 29:9 that the Priest's Hands are Consecrated for this purpose, thus Non-Catholic Successions are Invalid. (Exodus 29:9 (DR) To wit, Aaron and his children, and thou shalt put mitres upon them: and they shall be priests to me by a perpetual ordinance. After thou shalt have consecrated their hands,)

+++++++
Now we look at the mission given to the Apostolic Succession:
+++++++++

John 20:21-23 Jesus said, "As the father sent me, I send you...If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

This Fulfills:

Leviticus 5:1-10 when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned...and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin.
+++++++++++
Indulgences:
+++++++++++++++

1 John 5:16-17 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death.
We see that Indulgences are given by Priests to forgive "Venial Sins" which prevent entry to heaven but do not condemn to hell.

This fulfills:

Job 42:7-10 God tells 2 men to repent by having Job pray on their behalf. "For him I will accept"


And enters the greater concept of the Communion with Saints and Purgatory largely censored from Protestant Bibles

----------------------

Con:

I challenge my opponent to present his irrefutable and unambiguous proof/ argument for Papacy.

Pro:
We can get into the 4th century and see how everything I laid out led up to it.

radz

Con

I think I need some many highlighting for everyone to see the TRUTH. :)

On Cyprian's witness against Papacy

I think my opponent misapprehended the text so badly. So here, i'll highlight it:

7th Council of Carthage:http://www.ccel.org... remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops,4675nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.4676

Cyprian is explicitly against Papacy.


Treatise 1, Chapter 4 http://www.ccel.org......
He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.3110 [Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs[1] designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.”]

1) Again, Cyprain is against Papal Primacy.
2) My opponent made a seriously false accusation because he said that Protestants call Song of songs as "Apocrypha" when in reality Protestants accepts songs of songs (also known as Song of Solomon) as inspired and infallible.


On Rome as Chief Church

PRO:
This is especially interesting because Antioch is in the East, and there were many Bishops in the East such as Jerusalem that could have handled it; but the Emperor recognized that the Church of Rome had the jurisdiction over the universal church.

CON:

Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria ( 239-264 C.E.) accepted he bishop of Rome , Dionysius on the doctrine of the Trinity. This doesn't mean that it's because Dionysius of Rome is the Pope but that because " Every church should agree with Rome" in doctrine not in jurisdiction just as it is said:

It is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority [Latin, potiorem principalitatem, or "powerful first-ness"], that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere. (Against HeresiesIII:3:2)

Therefore, it is perfectly logical and historically coherent that this doesn't mean
that the bishop of Rome had the jurisdiction over the universal church.

On Firmilian's stance on Papacy

You might notice that Firmillian was suggesting people receive multiple baptisms. That is not biblical, he was a heretic; and Cyprian lapsed there too. Firmilian recognized the supremacy of the Papacy and was in shock and disbelief that who he considered a heretic would hold it.

This is a lie. Firmllian has the same theology as Cyprian. He is against Papacy:

Rome has not preserved the Apostolic traditions unchanged, for it differs from Jerusalem as to the observances at Easter and as to other mysteries. "I am justly indignant with Stephen's obvious and manifest silliness, that he so boasts of his position, and claims that he is the successor of St. Peter on whom were laid the foundations of the Church; yet he brings in many other rocks, and erects new buildings of many Churches when he defends with his authority the baptism conferred by heretics; for those who are baptized are without doubt numbered in the Church, and he who approves their baptism affirms that there is among them a Church of the baptized.… Stephen, who declares that he has the Chair of Peter by succession, is excited by no zeal against heretics" (Cyprian, c. xvii).

Cyprian's denial of Papacy

Cyprian believes that there was no single bishop that has jurisdiction over all other bishops ( i.e. papacy).

As it has been decreed by all of us — and is equally fair and just— that the case of every one should be heard there where the crime has been committed; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account of his doing to the Lord ( Cyprian, Epistle 54:14 http://www.newadvent.org...)

Still they did not withdraw from the assembly of their co-bishops, nor break the unity of the Catholic Church by the persistency of their severity or censure; so that, because by some peace was granted to adulterers, he who did not grant it should be separated from the Church. While the bond of concord remains, and the undivided sacrament of the Catholic Church endures, every bishop disposes and directs his own acts, and will have to give an account of his purposes to the Lord.

http://www.newadvent.org...) Apparently, the Catholic church Cyprian talks about is not the Roman Catholic church that has a Pope!


Letter 67:5 http://www.newadvent.org...'t say that a Bishop in Spain lied to a Pope but to a fellow bishop not a fellow Pope!


Letter 71:3 http://www.newadvent.org... of "free will of an autocephalous churches not of general humanity!" Context please!


Letter 72:26 http://www.newadvent.org... of " free judgment of an autocephalous churches not of a Roman Bishop!)Context please!!!

Conclusion:

My opponent gave dead links and pretexts on Cyprian's letters. Let me remind my opponent that " a text without a context is a pretext"

On the Apostolic Succession

I already refuted the argument of Pro in Round #3 and it suffice. No need to repeat it. His O.T. proof texts is very irrelevant as we can also see in my following rebuttals.

John 20:21-23
In what way do the Apostles will forgive sins? Logically, it is the same way they will retain sins and this is through the gospel for " the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" ( Romans 6:23). This is certainly not forgiveness of personal sins of a saint on earth because it is clear in the scriptures that a saint ONLY confesses his sins for forgiveness to God alone based on 1 John 1:9.

Once more, James commands the saints on earth to " confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much" ( James 5:16).


Leviticus 5:1-10 there were no priests in the New Testament but WHY? It's because there is no need at all. Peter told us that the one church is " a royal priesthood" ( 1 Peter 2:9) and hence, " Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need" ( Hebrews 4:16). Why do wee need Priests if we can come boldly to the throne of grace???

On the Johannine and Job Passages


Job 42:7-10 The intercessory commanded by God and done in his will was ON EARTH. context please. Was there a single command in the New Testament for saints on earth to ask the saints in heaven to pray for them? NONE.

No need for 4th century witness for Papacy when in fact there is already straight first century up to 3rd century CLEAR-CUT evidence against IT.

Conclusion:

I refuted every argument Pro has against me in such a way that is logical, scriptural and historically unbiased. Pro didn't refute all of my arguments and did many fallacious non-contextual arguments. Therefore, because Pro did not presented any irrefutable arguments (logical, coherent, biblical and hostorically unbiased arguements)I am not going to Hell. In fact, because of this, I fully and truly reject Catholic dogmas that are against the Scriptures, having a very reasons to do so. So voters... Vote Wisely and God bless!

Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DanielDate 3 years ago
DanielDate
Right, indulgences are in regards to venial sin not mortal sin.

You forgot Paul of Samosata:

Likely Minutes of the Meeting with Emperor Aurelian:

Bishops: Paul of Samosata is a disgrace to our faith, we want him removed from the building in Antioch.
Paul of Samosata: I have every right to this building.
Emperor Aurelian: Hmm...Well who is in charge of your cult?
Everyone: The Bishop of Rome
Emperor Aurelian: Very well then, we'll let them decide.

Also, Cyprian does recognize the Chair of St. Peter; he may of not recognized it's complete authority. This is because the articulation of the meaning took centuries to develop as:

1. There were no intact bibles until the 4th century.
2. Information spread slowly

Cyprian also said that the New Testament was not read in the Churches, mainly Sirach "Ecclesiasticus".
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Sorry for the dead links I'm not sure what is wrong with ccel.org
Posted by radz 3 years ago
radz
Oh... i forgot for Round #5

On the Johannine Passage:

16 If any man see his brother sin A SIN WHICH IS NOT UNTO DEATH, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I DO NOT SAY THAT HE SHALL PRAY FOR IT.
17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is A SIN NOT UNTO DEATH.
Posted by DanielDate 3 years ago
DanielDate
And we looked at the Chapter Comparison of Ignatius of Antioch's writings, a look at the actual text shows he identifies Rome in a "Presiding" fashion that is not ascribed to other Churches in his letters.

THE EPISTLE OF IGNATIUS TO THE ROMANS

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also **presides** in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which **presides** over love,...
Posted by DanielDate 3 years ago
DanielDate
Forgot to note "On the Unity of the Church" by Cyprian:

Though the Keys of Heaven allow all the bishops to bind and loosen, Jesus specifically gave them to Peter; showing that all the Bishops would need to be in communion with Peter's successors.
Posted by radz 3 years ago
radz
How could you when in fact the very source they had is the patristic writings taken IN CONTEXT.

Show it to me then, if you can.

Please present an irrefutable and unambiguous evidence for Papacy ( scriptural and Pre-Nicene fathers).
Posted by DanielDate 3 years ago
DanielDate
I saw your source on Cyprian was http://www.christian-history.org...

I just completely exposed them as complete liars in Point 6. I will expose to you that all Protestant Scholars are complete liars, and that is how they became Protestants in the first place.
Posted by DanielDate 3 years ago
DanielDate
Forgot to include this on part 7, full overview of "Laying of Hands"

http://en.wikibooks.org...
Posted by radz 3 years ago
radz
@DanielDate , Mariology? Sure!
Posted by DanielDate 3 years ago
DanielDate
GodChoosesLife:

Yes God is the standard, however if you were even remotely Christian you would have an understanding of the bible like I just laid out in the last argument.

But you are not.

Con got pw3ned, I was hoping we'd get into Mary next.
Posted by GodChoosesLife 3 years ago
GodChoosesLife
I thought God was the standard? Not a pope?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
DanielDateradzTied
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: Con made significantly more convincing arguments, backed up by better translation of scripture and the church fathers. PRO simply did not make the case for the resolution, namely, that CON was going to Hell. Since both behaved, did not significantly offend the English language and used essentially the same sources those points remain tied.