There's evidence in the Bible and among the Church fathers that supports the papacy.
1. My opponent may begin his/her case now or simply accept the debate. If he/she begins his/her case now, he/she must waive the final round.
2. Both of us accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God.
End of rules.
I won't be beginning my case this round. I will simply be giving an outline as to how I will be making my case.
Both me and my opponent will be quoting the Bible (sometimes even the same verses). The key, I believe is deciding which approach is the best way to interpret those verses.
I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY
To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard
Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once:
Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old
book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin
to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the
author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was
in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase:
I never said you stole money.
Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may
be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote
I never said you stole money... He said it. Or...
I never SAID you stole money... But I sure thought it. Or...
I never said YOU stole money... I said she stole it. Or...
I never said you STOLE money... I said you borrowed it. Or...
I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car.
Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You
have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for
different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at
different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on
to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later?
Development of doctrine.
Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the
implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians
recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until
some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the
difference between development versus departure is this... Is the
teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one
expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller
and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't
expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip.
Development versus departure.
I shall allow you to give your biblical and logical defense for the papacy, and I shall shortly respond to your point on understanding texts in my next round.
Biblical Support for Peter Being the First Pope (earthly leader of the Church):
"There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ"s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Peter the Rock
Peter's preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that"aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2"in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Adam's name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob's to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim's to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths"Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Look at the scene
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
Promises to Peter
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)"" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city"an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost"meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled." 
I would like to thank my opponent for the brilliant copy paste.
Firstly, though, I would like to address my opponent's first claim on those who need authority to interpret scripture.
The Pope is not such an authority, as many Popes have misunderstood Biblical passages, changed the decrees of other Popes, and have even taken actions which directly contradict the Holy Texts.
So the son in the analogy given would be more like a committee of people who always disagree with eachother.
Now, I shall respond to my opponent's points numerically.
1. Was Peter the first Pope?
The texts which my opponent gives to support the authority of the apostles are all ones where all the Apostles are mentioned. Unless my opponent can give reasons as to this being a list from greatest to least, I do not see this as any evidence for Peter being any better or in any other place of leadership than any other apostle.
My opponent also gives Luke 9:32 to show that the apostles were collectively known under the name of Peter. This is simply false, as later on Peter is asking a question to Jesus. The narrative focuses around Peter because Peter is the one who says what is recounted in the text.
My opponent also tries to say that Peter often spoke on the behalf of the apostles. The texts which he gives are all where Peter is saying something as himself, not his words as a collective among all the disciples. Peter was often the one to speak up, yes, but this does not mean he was their leader.
Pro states that Peter was a part of many important events, however many other apostles were also in key events.
I could go on and on and on, but seeing as my opponent would rather not make an original argument, I will stop there and provide an equally representative case against Peter being the first Pope.
While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behindMatthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). SeeActs 15:1-23;Galatians 2:1-14; and1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (seeMatthew 18:15-19;1 Corinthians 5:1-13;2 Corinthians 13:10;Titus 2:15;3:10-11).
Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2;4:2-5;Titus 1:5;2:1;2:15;1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10;16:16;2 Corinthians 8:23).
What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18;Psalm 19:7-8;119:160;Proverbs 30:5;John 17:17;2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).
Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).
Argument #1: Peter was only a man.
Although this declaration is obvious to many, sometimes its implications are overlooked. When Cornelius lay prostrate before Peter, he told him, “Stand up; I too am just a man”. With this statement Peter implied three very important points: (a) that he was “too...a man”—that is to say, a man just like Cornelius; (b) that he was “a man”—that is to say, just like all men; and (c) that he was “just a man”—that is to say that he was not God, and ultimately was unworthy of worship. Peter, with all humility, understood that his human nature prevented him from accepting worship. On the other hand, the pope, being just a man like Peter, expects men to bow before him, kiss his feet, and revere him, thus receiving worship that does not belong to him. What a difference between Peter and his alleged successors! Not even God’s angels allow men to show adoration by kneeling before them. One can only be astonished at the tremendous audacity of one who usurps the place that belongs only to God!
Argument #2: Peter was an apostle with the same authority and rights as the other apostles.
On one occasion, the apostles of the Lord were arguing about who was the greatest among them, so Jesus told them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them.... But not so among you”. Jesus never would have made this comment if Peter had more authority and rights than the other apostles as Catholicism suggests. In fact, if Peter was to be considered more honorable than the other apostles, this would have been the opportune time to clarify this point to the rest of the apostles who were “hungry for another’s glory.” However, Jesus assured them that this would not be the case among His apostles.
On another occasion, the mother of John and James came before Jesus with them, asking Him to allow her two sons to sit by Him in His kingdom, one on the right and the other on the left (Matthew 20:20-21). Jesus pointed out that they did not know what they were asking, and added, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them.... Yet it shall not be so among you” If Jesus considered Peter as greater than the other disciples, He could have clarified the issue immediately by telling Zebedee’s wife and sons that they were asking for an honor already given to Peter. But, He did not do that. Today it seems that many religious people want to make it so, and exalt Peter above the other apostles, in spite of what Jesus said.
Many Catholics try to justify their claim that Peter was the first pope by affirming that he was the greatest of the apostles. They declare that Peter was greater because: (1) he always is mentioned first in the lists of the apostles. 2) he was the apostle who recognized Jesus as Lord in Matthew 16:16; and (3) Jesus told him to care for His sheep. Are these arguments sufficient for establishing the papacy or supremacy for Peter? No. Consider the case for any other apostle. For example, it could be said that John was the “greatest” of the apostles because: (1) in the Bible he is referred to as the “disciple whom Jesus loved”; (2) he rested on Jesus’ bosom just before His arrest—certainly a posture that suggests a close relationship; and (3) Jesus charged him with the responsibility of caring for His mother. Does this mean that we also should consider John as a pope? If not, should we consider Peter as a pope when all of the apostles had the same authority and their own privileges? Indeed, Jesus gave all of His disciples, not just Peter, authority.
Finally, consider the words of Paul. He said: “For in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing”. From this verse, we conclude that Paul was inferior to none of the apostles, and that Peter was neither lesser nor greater than Paul.
very interesting. Having said that, I did find some flaws in it. I
would like to go over those now:
I ask my opponent to be careful not to fall into acts of plagiarism. I
asked Voting Rights Moderator, Bluesteel, about your practice, and here is what I found out... It's ok to copy and paste chunks of
information, but you have to be sure you place quotations marks before and after the quote. Simply providing the source is not good enough. I doubt Con was deliberately engaging in plagiarism, but I wanted to make sure it didn't happen again.
I will leave it up to the voters to decide if this warrants a conduct
point or not.
Con said that when it comes to interpreting scripture, "The Pope is not
such an authority." He also said that "many Popes have misunderstood Biblical passages, changed the decrees of other Popes,..." and acted contrary to scripture.
This argument is a combination of a couple of logical fallacies:
Red Herring: "A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic
is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue." 
How the Pope acts is not relevant to the question of authority.
President Nixon broke the law, but that doesn't mean he didn't have any authority. This has no bearing on the issue at hand.
Bare Assertion: "A premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true." 
List of Apostles
Con asked me to give a reason to believe why the way the Bible lists
the Apostles is evidence that Peter was the leader. I'd be happy to
1. Every time the Bible lists the Apostles by name, Peter is listed
first, and Judas Iscariot is listed last. But don't take my word for
it, check the verses I offered from last round. Now, does anyone think
that Judas being listed last is an accident? Of course not. Judas was
the betrayer of our Lord, so he was the least of the Apostles. Well,
if it's no accident Judas was listed last, it's no accident Peter was
listed first. He was listed first because he was their leader.
2. The fact Luke 9:32 calls a group of them "Peter and his companions" is more evidence Peter was their leader.
Peter Spoke for the Apostles
For Con to say Peter was only speaking for himself in the pages of
Scripture is not accurate. As I alluded to by offering Luke 12:41,
Peter asks Jesus if our Lord was addressing "us" (the Apostles), or the
crowd. If Peter were only asking about himself, he wouldn't have used
the word "us".
Con went on to say, "Pro states that Peter was a part of many important events, however manyother apostles were also in key events." This is a mischaracterization of what I said. I didn't just say Peter was present at many key events in the early Church. I said he LEAD the Church in these events. As I mentioned in the last round:
" 1. On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts
2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts
2. It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32)
and Peter is given Christ"s flock to shepherd (John 21:17).
3. An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7),
and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34).
4. He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts
1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41).
5. He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated
the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23).
6. He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the
first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11).
7. It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be
baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48)."
So as anyone can see, in each of these examples, Peter either lead the
Church, or was the only one to do something. Sounds a lot like a
leader to me.
Con said that scripture doesn't teach that Peter was the leader of the
I would disagree.
I would assert that in Matthew 16 Jesus appointed Peter as the earthly
head of His new Church. As I pointed out in the last round, "Later,
after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time,
they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of
faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16).
Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then
he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given
similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys
of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were
the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and
that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the
key to the city"an honor that exists even today, though its import is
lost"meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The
city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself.
This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22,
Bishop of Rome
Con made another irrelevant comment by saying the Bible nowhere says the Bishop of Rome was to be the earthly leader of the Church. The point is Jesus appointed a man to be the head of His Church
Only Peter was given "the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" and only Peter was the "Rock" which Jesus built His Church (Matthew 16)
Con claims that scripture doesn't teach that "the authority of the
Apostles was passed on. Well let's see about that:
When the Apostle Judas died, was he replaced, or did they just go on
with 11 Apostles? Acts 1 gives us the answer:
"15 In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) 16 and said, "Brothers and sisters,[d] the Scripture had to be fulfilled in which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus. 17 He was one of our number and shared in our ministry."
18 (With the payment he received for his wickedness, Judas bought a
field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his
intestines spilled out. 19 Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so
they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of
20 "For," said Peter, "it is written in the Book of Psalms:
""May his place be deserted;
let there be no one to dwell in it,"[e]
""May another take his place of leadership."[f]
21 Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been
with us the whole time the Lord Jesus was living among us, 22 beginning from John"s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
23 So they nominated two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24 Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone"s heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25 to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 
So we see the Bible records the succession of an Apostle. As a matter
of fact, it was Peter who made the decision. No surprise considering
he was their leader.
False Teaching/Bare Assertion
Scripture is silent on what the false teaching would be. For Con to
claim it is concerning the papacy is yet another bare assertion by my
Compare to Scripture
Nowhere does the Bible teach we should compare teachings by comparing them to scripture ALONE. Instead, it tells to follow Apostolic Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
Con says the Bible doesn't teach the Apostles were infallible, but
Jesus said, "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven"
Definition of Pope (for the purpose of this debate)/ Con's Concession
On the one hand, Con says Peter wasn't the first Pope, but then in the
very same paragraph, explicitly says "Yes, the Apostle Peter has a
leadership role among the disciples."
Sounds to me like Con subconsciously knows Peter was the first Pope.
Peter Was a Man, So What?
With all due respect, these next few arguments seem like they're
grasping at straws.
I agree that Peter was only a man, but so what? That's irrelevant.
David was only a man too, but that doesn't change the fact that God put David in charge of His people.
Sure, Peter was unworthy of worship, but so what? That's irrelevant.
Catholics don't worship the Pope.
Jesus Giving Authority
Con misrepresented scriptures here concerning the Apostles "arguing who was the greatest. Jesus's point was they were not to Lord it over
them, but to rather lead other in service. To know this we only need to read what Con quoted: "The kings of the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them.... But not so among you".
John the First Pope?
Jesus's best friend is irrelevant. Peter wasn't leader because of some quality he had. He was pope because Jesus made him so.
Historical Evidence that One of the Apostles Was the Leader of the Church
"Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3"5 [A.D. 200]).
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, "On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven" [Matt. 16:18"19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9"10 [A.D. 220]).
The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church." . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]). " 
Pro asserts that I plagiarize. However it was in response to the plagiarism of my opponent by giving the exact words of his source as his only words in round 2.
I clearly said that I could go on, but that since my opponent was not interested in making an actual argument, I would do the same as he.
For my opponent to then accuse me of plagiarism is hypocrisy.
But, my opponent has responded to many of the points which I and the sources brought up. I shall answer them in kind.
1. Red Herring
Pro asserts that I make a point which detracts from the issue. However, if The Pope is in a position of power to dictate the meaning of scripture, then in the presence of changes in this meaning his position cannot be of the divine, meaning the doctrine of Papal Supremacy is erroneous.
Note: This only applies to instances where a Pope has changed the decisions of a past Pope.
2. Bare Assertion
I thought it only clear that in the presence of differing views of different Popes, that the doctrine is in err. This is simply ignorance on the fault of my opponent.
List of Apostles
1. Judas being listed first is an absolute given, but that does not infer that whoever is put first is actually better or greater or chief of the rest.
For instance, Phillip is always listed as the fifth apostle. Should we then infer that Phillip is an average apostle?
In fact, in all instances, every apostle is listed in exact order!
Therefore, given the arguments of my opponent, I could make the same point that the apostles were assembled in a hierarchy. This, of course, is not the case.
Just because one is listed the first, does not make him greater or in any better position.
2. As I said, because this was only one instance, and because Peter speaks on his own behalf two verses later, it is more reasonable to assume that Peter is named before he speaks because the author is centering the story around Peter being the one who spoke.
Peter Spoke for the Apostles
While Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles on this occasion, this does not show him to be any greater.
In John 14:5, Thomas does the same exact thing:
Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?”
This is not evidence of any sort of leadership.
Peter leading events
I do apologize, I had misunderstood my opponent's point.
Though, do note that all of my opponents points were directly taken from his source, word for word.
Even in all of these instances, this does not make Peter any greater than any other. Peter was very influential in the early church, but to say that this shows a form of leadership is pure conjecture. Paul was also the first to do many things in the church, and many things also happened to him, however this does not qualify him a position of leadership such as what my opponent is arguing for Peter.
Now I shall address my opponent's refutation of my sources.
Peter The Head of The Church
Although my opponent is only quoting his last round, which was the direct words from his source, I shall answer it.
I agree with my opponent that Peter is The Rock which Christ built his church upon, after all Peter was very influential in the spread of the early church.
However, as I said before, this does not mean that he is of any position of power. This is simply Jesus telling Peter that he will be an important tool in the uprising of the church.
This does not show that Peter is of any greater position, just that his actions will effect more people. Again, the same argument can be made with Paul.
My opponent also brings up the fact that Peter was given authority with The Church unlike no other apostle. To this, I also agree. But this does not give him any sort of position of leadership. He is simply the one who will have the greatest impact on the church than the rest of the disciples.
Pro then goes on to show that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This functions as a way to show that Peter has authority within the church. I am not disputing this fact, but this does not give him a position which could be succeeded by a Papal authority.
Bishop of Rome
Nowhere does Jesus give authority over the church to Peter. In the verses given, it only shows that Peter has authority within the church, and that The Church will have its foundation upon him in some way. This does not show that Peter is somehow the head of the church.
The source given lists verses as to this authority being shared. If my opponent would like to refute this claim, I would ask him to address the verses just as I have.
The source given does not say that apostles were never succeeded. I shall quote the source once more:
"Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession)"
Judas was not succeeded to keep the church from error, as my opponent has so graciously offered us evidence for. I rebuke him for misrepresenting my arguments but at the same time thank him for providing the evidence as to why he is at fault.
Now, my opponent may argue that if they did not make such a successor, that they would have invalidated the scriptures.
If such is the case, then please keep in mind that this is also false.
Judas was succeeded so that an ungodly follower would be replaced by a godly follower. While this does keep the church out of error, it is not the same as apostolic succession...where an apostle was believed to pass down his position to a member of his foundation so that the entire church would not fall apart.
If the Pope truly is the man who is divinely lead to rule, and if that man creates certain laws that the next Pope changes, that would make him fallible and therefore not infallible.
And, if the Pope is fallible, then why would God give him Supreme power? God has never given any one man Supreme power over a people if they are not in align with God. Always when a person like David or Moses or Zedekiah was given Supreme authority, it was contingent upon God.
So is The Papacy infallible, or is it fallible?
Compare to Scripture
The Apostles, in the verse Pro has given, tells a group of people to follow the teachings of The Apostles.
These were based on their writings and beliefs, which then became Scripture.
This is why 2 Thessalonians 2:14 talks about them being saved by their own gospel:
He called you to this through our gospel, that you might share in the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
This is also why Paul says that it does not matter about who tells you something, but of what the teaching itself is.
As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. -Galatians 1:9
This obviously is giving great expression to the point that Peter would have a prominent place in The Church. If not, then how could Paul have rebuked Peter?
But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him in public, because he was clearly wrong. -Galatians 2:11
While the issue here is that Peter withdrew from Gentiles of fear of what Jews might think of him, should this not signify an infallible message to not associate with Gentiles when one is with the Jews?
To say that the apostles were infallible, or even just Peter, is a clear mistake.
Definition of Pope
A Pope is the Supreme head of The Catholic Church.
Peter was a Man, So Everything.
The Pope demands such things as shown, and yes these are modes of showing unworthiness, to one who is worthy. If not of worship, then of what?
Peter was a man, not of any power than what is given to any other man. That is what the source is showing.
Jesus Giving Authority
So often is there disconnect when someone does not use original arguments.
As you can see, Pro doe snot provide any biblical justification to show that this is what Jesus is really saying.
John The First Pope
The source is showing that the justifications given to Peter on the basis of him being GREATER can be applied to John in a different way. My opponent misrepresents the arguments once again.
I shall now refute my opponent's positive case.
All of the sources he gives were very early Christian writers, who believed that Peter was The Leader of The Church.
My question is...so what? These people write no scripture, they have no authority from God, why is this important?
Early people had their own interpretations of Scripture. Good for them? I don't see how this is any evidence to support your view.
At best, you just named off early Christians who agree with you.
How is that evidence?
Also, I would like to add a few more points why The Pope is not biblical.
1. The Position of Pope violates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, if any Pope were to make a decree which contradicts the teachings of The Bible. This would include many atrocities sanctioned by The Catholic Church, most notably in the periods between 1000-1600 A.D.
2. The Position of Pope violates the doctrine of Sola Singulis, due to the fact that The Pope is in a position to mediate between God and Christians. This goes against the verse of 1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus
3. For what it is worth, Tertuillian actually disagrees with you.
"He himself finally opened first of all the gate to the kingdom of Heaven in the baptism in Christ and by the baptism are loosened the sins, earlier bound and are bound those which never were loosened according to the true salvation"
- De Pudicitia, XXI
Clearly, Tertuillian thinks that the keys to the kingdom were a means to only be used once, therefore succession of Peter on such grounds are unfounded if you wish to use Tertuillian to defend your own position.
My opponent has not given us any good reasons to think that Peter is The Church Leader.
I would like to ask my opponent to not use direct quotes from his sources in bulk, and instead summarize, as courtesy.
I used quotation marks and sourced every time. My opponent did not use quotation marks. But don't take my word for it. Look at round two for yourself. Ask yourself which one of us began and ended our quotes with quotation marks. Either my opponent doesn't know how to avoid
plagiarism (despite me educating him in round three), or he is
intentionally lying about my second round. Personally, I am going to
give him the benefit of the doubt and presume he is just lacking
CON'S NUMEROUS CONCESSIONS
With all due respect to my opponent, I was astonished at some of my
arguments he either agreed with, or admitted I was right about. His
last one was the most surprising:
Let's begin with a recap of the debate resolution:
"There's evidence in the Bible and among the Church fathers that
supports the papacy."
So there's two halves of the resolution:
1. The Bible
2. The Church fathers
Con just conceded the Church fathers provide evidence for the papacy. But don't take my word for it, let's read what Con said in response to my claim:
I posted quotes from five Church fathers arguing for the existence of
the papacy, and how did Con respond???
"All of the sources he gives were very early Christian writers, who
believed that Peter was The Leader of The Church."
Considering Con just conceded at least half of the resolution is true,
this debate is almost over. All I have to do now is show there is at
least "some evidence" from the Bible and I have won the debate. Let it
be known I believe I've already done this, but will continue to do so.
More of Con's Concessions
1. "Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples."
2. Originally, in round two, Con said that Peter never spoke for the
Apostles collectively. However, after I showed him he was wrong, Con
now says, "While Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles on this
occasion..." So now Con admits Peter spoke for the Apostles (at least
3. Originally, when trying to refute my claim that Peter was in a
leadership role during many prominent moments, Con tried to refute it
by saying other Apostles were present. However, after I challenged him on this issue, Con now says:
"I do apologize, I had misunderstood my opponent's point."
4. Concerning Peter, Con said: "My opponent also brings up the fact
that Peter was given authority with The Church unlike no other apostle. To this, I also agree."
5. Then Con said, "Pro then goes on to show that Peter was given the
keys to the kingdom of heaven. This functions as a way to show that Peter has authority within the church. I am not disputing this fact,"
This debate is basically over.
More Logical Fallacies By Con
1. Red Herring
Con absolutely detract from the main point of this debate by suggestingthat some Popes acted against scripture. He did so without offering any evidence whatsoever. But for the sake of argument, even if his claim was true, it is irrelevant. AGAIN, President Nixon committed a crime, but doing so doesn't deny that he was truly President. In the same way, just because a Pop sins, that doesn't mean he's not Pope.
Con CLAIMS there have been Popes who have reversed previous teachings,but offers ZERO evidence. That's the epitome of a bare assertion. Without any evidence, I know my opponent will understand if the voters reject this a the baseless claim that it is.
Con also says Paul had the same authority as Peter without offering any evidence whatsoever. His bare assertions are piling up.
List of Apostles
"1. Judas being listed first is an absolute given, but that does not
infer that whoever is put first is actually better or greater or chief
of the rest."
If the person listed last is universally considered the least, it
absolutely implies that the person listed first is "chief" (especially
if the same person is listed first EVERY time all the Apostles are
"For instance, Phillip is always listed as the fifth apostle. Should we
then infer that Phillip is an average apostle?
In fact, in all instances, every apostle is listed in exact order!"
There is one time when all the Apostles are listed, but not in the same
order. After Judas' death, Acts 1:13 records the list this way:
"13 When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were
staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James." 
This is different from Matthew 10:4 where Andrew is listed second
instead of John. There is one similarity between the two lists,
however... Peter is listed first! It seems rather unlikely that every
biblical author would always list Peter first, when listing the
Apostles, without it meaning Peter was first in command.
Peter Leading Events/Con's Red Herring and Bare Assertion
Once AGAIN, Con has mischaracterized my point. My point is Peter LEAD the Church in those events. My point was not that he was the first to do something. With that in mind, Con's argument that Paul was the first to do something is an irrelevant distraction. Also notice that
Con doesn't offer any evidence that Paul was the first to do something,
just asserts it. So even if his claim wasn't irrelevant, it would
still have to be rejected as a baseless claim.
Peter The Head of The Church
" I am not disputing this fact, but this does not give
him a position which could be succeeded by a Papal authority."
If Con admits Jesus put the Apostles in a position of authority, I ask Con where Jesus ever rescinded this authority? I would submit that when Jesus referenced Isaiah 22 while giving Peter the keys of the kingdom, that this passage implies an office that would be succeeded.
Bishop of Rome
Con claims that Jesus didn't give Peter authority over the Church, but I disagree. Let's revisit what I offered in round two:
"Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city"an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost"meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18)."
Isaiah 22:22 is key (pardon the pun). It describes a situation where God installs a prime minister. In those days, a prime minister held an authority over the kingdom while the king was away. So when Jesus invokes this passage in Matthew 16 while giving the "keys to the kingdom", this implies succession. How do we know this? Because in the passage Jesus invokes from Isaiah, the prime minister position is one that has successors. With this in mind, we can know Jesus isn't giving Peter a job that will end upon Peter's death.
Only Peter was given the "keys to the kingdom", so only he had the authority that came with them.
The authority given to Peter and the Apostles was "whatever you bind on Earth is bound in Heaven. Whatever you loose on Earth is loosed in Heaven." This implies the authority they posess, and will transfer to their sucessors, will be one that is protected from teaching error. If something is bound in Heaven, you can be sure it is not in error.
"If the Pope truly is the man who is divinely lead to rule, and if that
man creates certain laws that the next Pope changes, that would make
him fallible and therefore not infallible."
Yet another bare assertion by Con. Again, he offers no evidence that any Popes ever reversed a doctrine established under the rule of another Pope. I hope Con understands if the voters reject EVERY, SINGLE baseless claim Con has made during this debate.
Compare to Scripture
Sure the Apostles want us to follow scripture, but nowhere do they say to ONLY follow scripture. As a matter of fact, they do the exact OPPOSITE:
"So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."
Notice EVERYTHING the Apostles taught was to be followed, and not just what they ended up writing down. What people received by "word of mouth" from the Apostles was just as binding.
Paul rebuking Peter has nothing to do with whether or not he was infallible or not. Peter was rebuked for not practicing what he preached. He wasn't rebuked for what he taught. There's a difference between infallibility and impeccability. Infallibility is only about teachings being protected from error. It has nothing to do with the actions of a Pope.
Again, the Catholic Church does NOT teach that the Pope is to be worshipped. We do RESPECT him, but we don't worship him. I challenge Con to show us a single magisterial document from the Church that says we are to worship the Pope.
John The First Pope?
No source I offered suggested Peter was chosen because he was greater. Con is using another red herring argument. With this in mind, there's no reason to respond to an argument I never made.
"Also, I would like to add a few more points why The Pope is not
1. The Position of Pope violates the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, if any
Pope were to make a decree which contradicts the teachings of The
Bible. This would include many atrocities sanctioned by The Catholic
Church, most notably in the periods between 1000-1600 A.D."
Con's first claim falls into another category of logical fallacy. This one is called "Begging the Question":
"Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.".
Notice that Con assumes the papacy is false because he claims the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is true. While I on the other hand would suggest that Sola Scriptura is not found in the Bible. Since the doctrine is in dispute, Con needs to show where it is taught in the Bible before it can be used as an argument to support his claim.
As for any "atrocities", notice Con has not offered any evidence of a single "atrocity". Even if he was able to do so, any atrocity would not have anything to do with infallibility. Remember, infallibility concerns official doctrine, not actions.
Moses spoke on God's behalf, as did the prophets. This shows that God is willing to have Earthly ambassadors. As a matter of fact, since the biblical pattern shows God has a habit of establishing humans to speak authoritatively for him, it's up to Con to tell us when God ever said this practice would cease one day. Clearly this practice does not violate scripture. As long as we don't claim to mediate in the same way Jesus does, there's no violation. We know this by reading the verses immediately before the verse Con cites (1 Timothy 2:5):
"I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people" 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior," 
So we see that right before we're taught Christ is our one mediator, that God wants us to intercede "for all people". Clearly, interceding for others is not a violation of 1Timothy 2:5 as long as we don't try to mediate exactly like only Jesus can.
Tertullian Believed in Apostolic Succession
Con misquoted Tertullian. Tertullian never said the keys had only one use. Sure He believed they could be used to unlock Heaven, but that doesn't mean he believed that was their ONLY use. He certainly never denied the doctrine of apostolic succession. As a matter of fact, he spoke out in defense of it:
"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men"a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles." (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20. A.D. 200) 
So we see Tertullian specifically rejects any doctrine if it's origins cannot be traced to the bishops of the churches established by the Apostles. Notice that this was written some 100 years after the last Apostle died, so when Tertullian speaks of apostolic churches, he's not talking about churches where one can Still find a living Apostle.
I now turn the debate back over to my opponent. I look forward to reading his response.
My opponent submits that I plagiarize.
The definition of plagiarize depends on the contention that someone passes off another' work as one's own. As the data from my sources were in response to my opponent's complete lack of original argumentation, it is with good reason to assume that it was not my intention to pass off the work as my own.
While I do concede to many points that Pro gives, most all of them have nothing to do with the resolution.
I shall address each supposed concession numerically.
1. Church Fathers support the Papacy.
This, I agree with. However Pro's BOP is not to show evidence that supports the papacy in The Bible OR The Church Fathers, it is evidence supported by The Bible AND The Church Fathers.
Therefore, the actual resolution has not tipped in Pro's favor at all, since he must show that both The Bible and Church Fathers support the papacy.
2. Peter having a role of leadership
This was never something which I was against. Peter was an important apostle, it is no doubt that he had authority within the church. This does not effect the resolution and was never said against, so this is not a concession.
3. As you will see in round 3, a clear distinction is made in my points between Peter speaking for the Apostles and the verse in which Peter speaks on his own behalf. Check my response in round 3 for this information.
My opponent is in error. When I said that Peter is speaking on his own behalf, it did not relate to the verse in which he speaks on the behalf of the apostles. This is clear since the two paragraphs are separate.
My opponent is wrong, either out of deception or ignorance.
4. This was an actual concession. I had misrepresented my opponent's argument.
5. This is not a concession, as again Peter having authority in the church, even that which is not shared by other Apostles, does not effect the resolution or anything which I have previously said.
6. This is not a concession, as again Peter having authority in the church, even that which is not shared by other Apostles, does not effect the resolution or anything which I have said previously.
1. Red Herring
Pro does not understand the concept of The Papacy. If one man is given Supreme power over the interpretation of Scripture and infallibility in certain areas, then such a person acting against God's Word would seem to show a lack of divine inspiration in his actions, thus showing The Papacy to not be something which God supports.
2. Bare Assertion
The list of Popes contradicting or reversing previous decisions and Popes can be found in sources "1", "2", and "3". My opponent shall now have nowhere to run.
The list of scripture detailing Paul having the same authority as Peter can be found in sources "4" "5" and "6".
List of Apostles
My opponent shows that one Apostle changes in the texts. I recant the second exclamation, however Phillip is still fifth in all instances.
Since one of my opponents arguments for Peter being Pope is that he is listed first, it seems that using the same argument for Phillip being a mediocre apostle shows its own fallacious nature.
Just because a name is mentioned in the exact same order every time it is mentioned, does not mean there is a connection. I will leave it up to my opponent to show how his argument works for Peter and not Phillip.
Peter Leading Events
Pro simply misunderstands my point. If one does do the first of something, they are in a position of power in this situation. This is why my opponent gives so many verses which show Peter doing the first of something. Paul also did these things, and it gives him no more power than that of Peter.
Pro also says that I give no evidence for Paul doing first things. This shall be source "7"
Peter as Head of The Church
The fact which I do not dispute is the fact that Peter was given the keys to the kingdom, which gives him authority WITHIN the Church.
Unintentional or with intent, my opponent models my words to fit the persuasion that I was agreeing that Peter was head of The Church.
Also, Isaiah 22 says that the keys are to be exclusive to one man. Unless that one man is the position of Pope, which my opponent has not shown, it seems that the claim that Isaiah 22 is a figure which is passed on is simply false. In fact, verse 24 shows that the glory of his own family will be hanging from him, showing that this is not something which shall be passed down.
However, do note that the name of the servant can refer to a king or his position, but that it is not used in such a way here, as it expresses singularity.
Bishop of Rome
Firstly, my opponent fails to give sources that the keys of the kingdom were supposed to function as a role of Prime Minister in Isaiah, and how this position is supposed to be passed down.
Secondly, Peter was already told that he was the foundation of The Church, not the top from which to rule.
I will leave this alone until my opponent can give some verifiable sources.
Concerning the keys to the kingdom, the keys are given to all The Church in Matthew 18.
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 bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be 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.”
Note verse 19, it refers to two of you on earth. The Pope is only one man, so therefore the keys to the kingdom is not a good argument in support of The Papacy.
Clearly, as shown here, The Church has the keys to the kingdom, for it has the power to bind and loose.
My opponent here even agrees that the binding and loosing was given to The Apostles, furthering my argument above.
Pro also is silent about the part where I showed he was himself in error about the succession of Judas.
My opponent gives us no good reasons to think that this authority is to be passed down. He even asserts that it will be passed down without giving a reason why.
I shall grant him an extension on this front to show us that apostolic succession for keeping the church out of error is biblical.
Again, these can be found in sources "1" "2" and "3".
In my own defense, however, I thought it only common knowledge that a Pope has reversed the decision of another Pope.
Compare to Scripture
My opponent's claim for us to follow everything The Apostles taught is indeed very true, however the original claim was that we are not to base our comparison on scripture alone. The verse which he uses to defend this claim is a verse which is explicit to only Paul and his companions, when preaching in Thessalonica. (See source "8")
Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. (See source "9")
If my opponent wishes to show us that infallible means something else only to Peter, I shall AGAIN extend this point to him.
Definition of Pope
Opponent agrees, as I shall guess.
John The First Pope
Every source my opponent offered, however, does show that Peter is greater than the rest. This is used to show that he was The Pope. I am simply showing that the same arguments can be applied to John.
I shall, once AGAIN, extend this point to Pro so that he can make a relevant rebuttal.
This is not begging the question, as the conclusion is not assumed, but only made false when the premise is correct.
So, for instance, if my opponent claimed that the Earth was 6000 years old, and I said that this is impossible due to carbon dating, my opponent's rejection of carbon dating does not make my argument a question begging argument.
If my opponent would like to suffice the BOP for his suggestion, I will extend it to his conclusion.
Official doctrine which was sanctioned by The Pope shall be listed in source "10".
Also, should it matter? If The Papacy is truly a divine position, then anything allowed by The Pope should also be infallible.
My opponent makes a non-point here, by talking about intercession for all people. This does not further the point that there is but one mediator between God and Man, as if this verse supports The Papacy, then The Pope cannot be one position, as the verse address all prayers.
My opponent has not shown us why The Pope is an exception to this rule.
The beliefs of tertullian on Apostolic Succession have no meaning, as the quote given has nothing to do with The Papacy nor the function of the keys of the kingdom.
Pro gives no reasons why Tertullian does not believe in the very thing which he is arguing for.
Pro has not given us any good reasons to accept his claim. Vote Con.
3. http://www.quora.com... (informal)
While I've always maintained Con probably accidentally plagiarized, his
latest abuse is one that certainly was done on purpose. As anyone can
easily see, Con on several occasions didn't actually counter any of my
arguments, but simply referred us to read his sources. For example,
one time, Con simply tells us to read "1,2, and 3" and "4,5,6". This
is not an argument This is an abuse of the character limit of our debate. There is a 10,000 character limit per round. By not making an argument and referring us to his source is both lazy and patently unfair because it circumvents the character limit.
I ask the voters to award me conduct points based on Con's actions.
Con Didn't Make Arguments
Concerning the numerous times Con didn't really make an argument, I
extend all my arguments that went unrefuted. How am I supposed to know what type of argumentation my opponent was implying whenever He simply referred me to.his source? I'm not a mind reader.
CON'S SOURCE CONCEDES THE EXISTENCE OF THE PAPACY
One thing that was easily discerned by one of Con's sources was that
Peter was the first Pope. This was Con's fifth source. Here's the
One need only to scroll down to the "predecessor" line and see it says
Peter was the "first Pope". So, since Con asks us to accept his source
as a good one, we can only presume that Con now believes Peter was the "first Pope".
I also noticed that apparently Con accepts Wikipedia as a valid source.
With that in mind, I'm sure he won't mind if I use it as well as
evidence their is biblical evidence for the papacy. For example:
"Scriptural texts proposed in support of Peter's special position in
relation to the church include the words of Jesus to him:
I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and
the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.
Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift
you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail.
And when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers.
Feed my sheep." 
So we see from one of Con's approved sources, that there is biblical
evidence supporting the existence of the papacy.
Look, I never meant for this to be a big deal. That's why I originally
called it a warning. That's why I have always thought Con probably did
it on accident. If he'd simplify put quotation marks before and after
the quote, there would have never been a problem.
While Con admits "While I do concede many points that Pro gives...", He is now trying to minimize the damage. I will be responding to the ones where he tried as much. There's no reason to talk about the ones where Con fully admits his concessions.
2. Peter having a role of leadership
Con admits Peter was a leader and had authority. Sounds like a Pope to me. And as such, definitely has an affect on the resolution, despite
his claim to the contrary.
3. As you will see in round 3, a clear distinction is made in my points
between Peter speaking for the Apostles and the verse in which Peter
speaks on his own behalf. Check my response in round 3 for this
Sure, sometimes Peter spoke on behalf of the Apostles (as their
leader), and sometimes he spoke for himself. I don't see how this is
not a concession. For example, sometimes Barack Obama speaks for
himself, but that doesn't mean he's not the president.
"5. This is not a concession, as again Peter having authority in the
church, even that which is not shared by other Apostles, does not
effect the resolution or anything which I have previously said."
Sure it's a concession. Notice Con admits Peter had "authority in the
church...which is not shared by the Apostles,". So Con ADMITS Peter
had authority that WAS NOT shared with anyone. Sounds like he was the leader of the Apostles, which would make him the Earthly leader of the Church. Sounds like a Pope to me. I extend this argument for denial 6.
1. Red Herring
Again, Con seems to confuse infallibility with impeccability. Just
because someone may sin doesn't deny they have legitimate authority in God's eyes. David was an adulterer and a murderer, but God Still kept him as king until his death. 
2. Bare Assertion...AGAIN
Con tries to rebuild his bare assertion by telling us to read "1,2, and
3" and "4, 5, and 6". He can't expect us to take this seriously. This
is mot an argument. Expecting us to read these sources and guess what he's trying to prove is ridiculous. There's nothing more to say here.
List of Apostles
Maybe Philip was a mediocre Apostle. He wasn't mentioned much in
scripture, especially when compared to Peter. As a matter of fact,
Peter is mentioned 195 times in the New Testament (more than all the
other of the 12 Apostles combined). We get this from page 134 of "Life
of Christ". 
Peter Leading Events
Again Con misunderstands my point. Peter wasn't just the first to do some things. Unlike when Paul did something, Peter was LEADING the Church when he did certain actions. On the other hand, when Paul was working, he was by himself. No other Apostles were present. However, when Peter led the first Church council, all the other Apostles were there. When Peter preached first at Pentecost, all the other Apostles were there. Peter was LEADING.
As for Con's alleged rebuttal, again he only posts a source without offering any arguments. With this in mind, there's nothing for me to refute.
Another concession by Con:
"The fact which I do not dispute is the fact that Peter was given the
keys to the kingdom, which gives him authority WITHIN the Church.
Unintentional or with intent, my opponent models my words to fit the
persuasion that I was agreeing that Peter was head of The Church."
Sounds like a concession to me.
Con falsely claims Isaiah 22 speaks of the keys not being passed down. We can see this is not accurate by pointing out how the passage recalls God taking taking the authority He originally gave to Shaebna and transferring this authority to Eliakim. Then in Matthew 16:18, scripture records Jesus using the same words to give Peter authority. This implies that this authority will be transferred to another one day.
Bishop of Rome
"Firstly, my opponent fails to give sources that the keys of the kingdom
were supposed to function as a role of Prime Minister in Isaiah, and
how this position is supposed to be passed down."
Con asks for evidence the prime minister mentioned in Isaiah 22 was an office of succession. I'd be happy to do so:
"There the prophet foretells the fall of one royal steward and the
succession of another. Shebna is being replaced by Eliakim, and the
prophet says to the rejected Shebna, "I will clothe him with your robe
and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house 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" (Is
The true holder of the keys to the kingdom is the king himself, and in
the Book of Revelation we see that the risen and glorified Christ holds
the power of the keys"the power to bind and loose. John has a vision of Christ who says, "I am the First and the Last. I am the Living One; I
was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys
of death and Hades" (Rv 1:18).
So the king holds the keys of the kingdom, but he delegates his power
to the steward, and the keys of the kingdom are the symbol of this
delegated authority. The keys not only opened all the doors, but they
provided access to the store houses and financial resources of the
king. In addition, the keys of the kingdom were worn on a sash that was a ceremonial badge of office. The passage from Isaiah and the customs all reveal that the role of the royal steward was an office given by the king, and that it was a successive office"the keys being handed to the next steward as a sign of the continuing delegated authority of the king himself (See "A Successive Ministry," above)." 
The fact that Peter was called rock in no way means he can't be the leader of the Church. Jesus is called "cornerstone" in Ephesians 2:20, and certainly Con wouldn't say that Jesus does not rule from Heaven. 
"Concerning the keys to the kingdom, the keys are given to all The
Church in Matthew 18."
This is not accurate. But don't take my word for it, let's read the passage Con believes supports his case:
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 bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be 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
Notice, there's no mention of keys in the entire passage. Con is trying to force something into the passage that's simply not there.
The Apostles have authority as long as their in union with then one who has the keys (as we see in the passage). The authority rests with the keys.
Con gave no evidence to support his claims about Judas, so there was nothing to refute.
Con makes ZERO arguments. He simply tells us to read his sources. Nothing here to refute.
Compare to Scripture
Ask yourself why any doctrinal teachings would be for only citizens of a specific city? This is a ridiculous argument by Con. If that were the case, then only those who were in earshot of Jesus would be expected to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc. Again, this is a silly argument.
"Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong. (See source
If my opponent wishes to show us that infallible means something else
only to Peter, I shall AGAIN extend this point to him."
As shown in Matthew 16, the Apostles are infallible when in union with the keeper of then keys.
John The First Pope
"Every source my opponent offered, however, does show that Peter is
greater than the rest."
This is not accurate. I challenge my opponent to show me ONE of my sources that said Peter was Pope because he was "greater" than all the rest. If he cannot, I ask Con to concede yet another of my arguments.
I still claim Con is begging the question here, but for the sake of argument, let's assume he is not. Even if that is the case, Con still hasn't shown Sola Scriptura to be a biblical doctrine. I contend that it is not. Since Con is the one making the positive claim about it, the burden of proof is on him to show it is biblical. Since this is my last round, I won't be able to rebut anything Con says in his round. But I can do this: If Con does try to prove the doctrine, ask yourself this question:
Does the passage teach we should use the Bible ALONE when determining what is right doctrine? I don't deny we should use the Bible, but would assert that nowhere does the Bible say we should ONLY use the Bible. If Con is unable to do so, his arguments hold no water.
Intercession is mediation. I've shown the Bible promotes intercession. With this in mind, there's nothing wrong with the Pope mediating on our behalf. It doesn't violate scripture.
I've shown Tertullian believed in the papacy being a position where authority was transferred from one person to the next. This prove that he believed the keys had more than one purpose.
SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE
1. Con plagiarized and tried to circumvent the 10,000 character limit. The first was probably an accident, bit the second was not. With this in mind, I should be awarded conduct points.
2. Con conceded numerous arguments of mine as well as offering sources that agreed with me. He also on sever occasions in round four
merely listed sources without making any arguments. With this in mind I should be awarded points for arguments.
3. I think my sources were more reliable, but that's up to the voters.
4. I think spelling and grammar should be a tie. Both of us did a good job.
I thank Con for his efforts, and hope to debate him in the future!
AlphaTBITW forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|