Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Cloud9 · Apr 27, 2015

Years later as a newly baptized Christian I switched over to Catholicism to please my ex. I thought he'd be more comfortable among the Catholics because he came from a Catholic country.

But the priest was a moron. He hardly ever taught from the scriptures which is the Source of God's strength...

Instead the priest told doddering stories about his own life...weak stuff no moral message at all...

But out of respect for God I went along not realizing the Catholic Church was keeping me disabled.

I always loved the scriptures so I went back and studied them diligently then I tried to teach them to atheists and I found God unlocked His power to provide me with daily revelation.

He wouldn't unlock His power to the atheists though no matter how hard I tried because they refused to acknowledge, love,or,respect Him or do anything He said to do.

But maybe they will get a surprise touch from Him someday when they least expect it.

I know I did. God touched me one day after I returned from a trip overseas and told the Gospel to my goddaughter on an airplane.

I wasn't even praying and He touched me with His energy.

notuptome · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

My argument is straight from scripture. Peter cannot be the rock upon which the church is founded because that rock is Christ.

You are free to pursue all the logic of man you want but I'm going to stick with the scriptures. I do not care what Calvin thought if it differs from scripture. I do not care what Augustine thought if it differs from scripture. I do not care what any of the ECF's thought if it differs from scripture.

Your argument has no merits if it contradicts scripture. It is obvious that it does since there are several other scriptures that clarify the Christ is the foundation of the church and Peter never asserts any authority to the contrary.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

mikeuk · Apr 27, 2015

notuptome said:

So you disagree with what scripture says, ...because of what scripture says.
Excuse me if I fail to follow that line of reasoning!

mattp0625 · Apr 27, 2015

Cloud9 said:

The Victory belongs to Christ so don't let the pope steal the credit for Christ's victory.

The pope can't give anyone eternal life. Not one of them rose from the grave.

Jesus demonstrated all the power.

The popes are pompinjays trying to distract you from Jesus with their finery.

Character is more important than silk robes.

Character is true raiment.

No one claims he gives eternal life

notuptome · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

Scripture teaches that Christ is the rock upon which the church is built. Eph 2:19-20, 1 Cor 3:11

There is no biblical evidence to support the RCC position that Peter is the rock upon which the church is built. There are supporting verses which to no one's surprise support the interpretation that Christ is the rock upon which the church is built.

You and the RCC are the parties guilty of disagreeing with the scripture.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Cloud9 · Apr 27, 2015

You want to know how ironic this life is....I am a descendant of the famous pilgrim William Bradford and I realized one day I was being religiously persecuted in my own home by almost all my close relatives except my mother. It wasn't overt persecution ...it was so subtle yet constant that I almost missed it....

That is how the devil works...if you won't fix your eyes on Jesus and let him personally teach you the scriptures then you give away a lot of your freedom to this world.

Cloud9 · Apr 27, 2015

mattp0625 said:

Just stop arguing. Debating won't teach you what studying the scriptures for yourself will.

The scriptures will make you godly because you are spending time communing with God and assimilating His nature when you read them.

You can't have a relationship with God through another person. Can you have a relationship with your wife through another man?

No you can't.

Relationships require direct contact without anyone blocking you or getting in between you.

valiant · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

well here was one person who differed petros from petra.

Augustine of Hippo - But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Augustine of Hippo Sermon 229).

I didn't know Augustine smoked LOL

He tentatively supports a list of bishops of Rome. NOWHERE does he claim that it gave them any special authority. Nor does he ever say that they were all rocks. And as I showed you in that very quote he made clear that Peter was representative of the church that was built on the rock, not the rock itself.

Note again that he says IF IF IF He is not convinced of the fact himself.

Note that Peter represented THE WHOLE CHURCH. So in the citation he represents the church which is built on the rock, not the Rock itself. That is in accord with the quotations above. Peter is the church. Jesus, and his words about Jesus, are the Rock. OPEN YOUR EYES

Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius.

Click to expand...

I note you leave out his REASON for the list

'In order of succession not a Donatist bishop is to be found." No more no less

Can you tell me why he disagrees with Irenaeus? Because the beginning of his list is fictitious. Linus, Clement and Anacletus were bishops AT THE SAME TIME. They were never sole bishops. Peter was never sole bishop of Rome. There is no actual PROOF that Peter ever went to Rome. The second century fathers were silent on the matter. The late fathers based their ideas on false traditions gathered from heretical writings. There is an actual record of Simon, son of Jona having been buried in a Christian cemetery on the Mount of Olives.

WAKE UP AND RISE FROM THE DEAD AND CHRIST WILL GIVE YOU LIFE.

valiant · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

And none of that waffle addresses the issue that your arguments on petra petros, or sola scriptura are both untenable. But you hope to disguise it with yet more smoke. You are even dishonest about the church fathers. Augustine quotes the entire succession from Peter using that scripture as basis, in a letter I quoted, yet you pretend he did not support it?

Here he quotes both the scripture and the succession in a letter to generosus, at the time of the donatist heresy - using that very scripture.

SO YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG VALIANT> PERIOD . nothing more to be said.

Letter of Augustine to Generosus [400 A.D.] on Apostolic Succession

[53, 1, 2] "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it .' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius.

you really are so deceitful. why did you not give the last words in the quotation which demonstrate that you are deliberately misusing the list. What does Augustine say about his list?

'' In order of succession not a Donatist bishop is to be found."

So his purpose was to show that no bishop of Rome had been a Donatist. It had nothing to do with Apostolic succession. You should hide your face in shame BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT and pretended otherwise.

mikeuk · Apr 27, 2015

valiant said:

Which changes nothing.

It says what I said it does, that Augustine believed the succession from Peter, and in that context uses it as the reason why Donatism was heresy. But I did not want the thread to become a discussion of donatism. - Which also proves the point that the bishops of Rome were where Augustine looked to see where true doctrine lay. In this case NOT donatism, and he lists the bishops of Rome to provbe it.

It is PROOF POSITIVE of Augustines view of the succession from Peter based on the scripture of "peter the rock on which I build my church"

So YOU ARE WRONG VALIANT! As all can see if they read it - Augustine supported succession from Peter based on the "rock I will buildd my church".

Augustines view again - just so all can read it

[53, 1, 2] "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it .' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius.

KenAllan · Apr 27, 2015

John 3:16
[SUP]16 [/SUP] For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

John 3:18
[SUP]18 [/SUP] He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 1:1-5
[SUP]1 [/SUP] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP] He was in the beginning with God.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
John 1:14
[SUP]14 [/SUP] And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:17
[SUP]17 [/SUP] For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

John 14:6
[SUP]6 [/SUP] Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

John 16:13
[SUP]13 [/SUP] However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

Jesus Christ is the Truth. The Holy Spirit is the Truth. The Holy Spirit guides us into ALL the Truth. Only God has the Truth.

Its a shame so many false Christians on this chat site are so willing to put themselves in the Lake of Fire because of their Pride. Look at Cloud9. mwc68, mattp0625. They are so willing to reject everything in the Scriptures. Calling them lies from Satan. Its Cloud9. mwc68, mattp0625 who are walking in darkness because they really have not accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

It does not matter what Cloud9. mwc68, mattp0625 say for they do not have the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Its only God and His book the Bible which has the Truth we need to enter into Heaven. Do not listen to evil men who corrupt the Word of God. Don't look to the World. Don't even look to me! Look to Jesus Christ and follow Him only! For I am only His servant doing the Will of the Father, bringing the Truth to a corrupted World and showing all who will receive it the Salvation God has for everybody!

Elin · Apr 27, 2015

Cloud9 said:

And I'm thinking that includes all the Scriptures, disbelieving none.

"All Scripture is God-breathed. . ." (2Tim 3:16), from the very breath/mouth of God himself.

valiant · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

you hypocrite. It changes everything. It gives the reason WHY Augustine made the list, not to prove Apostolic succession but to prove that none were Donatists..

It proves nothing of the kind. It simply proves that he gave the list for a purpose. To show that no Donatist had been a bishop of Rome.

-

which was hardly likely.

No it simply demonstrates that he saw them as a useful example. The fact that they were not Donatists does not prove that they were all reliable. Augustine looked to the Scriptures for true doctrine NOT TO BISHOPS.

As he says to demonstrate that they were not Donatists.

LOL that is NOT why he give the quotation. Just get yourself sorted out. After all you claimed to be intelligent. I don't see much evidence of it. You don't even argue your case. You just make dogmatic statement and quote someone else.

You mean that is what YOU want to see in it. It is not what it says. SO YOU ARE WRONG MIKEUK.

It is quite clear from this that the Donatists had been listing bishops of another church for Augustine says, "IF the order of episcopal succession IS TO BE CONSIDERED.' He was using their argument against themselves.

Notice that the citation is referred ONLY to Peter himself who REPRESENTED THE WHOLE CHURCH which had been built on the Rock, Christ Jesus. That was the point. The true church were those who believed what Peter believed, that Jesus was 'the Messiah, the Son of the living God'. That confounded the Donatists.

He then lists bishops of Rome in order to show that none of them were Donatists. He says NOTHING about Apostolic succession. Think how useful such an argument would have been in combatting heresy. BUT HE DOES NOT USE IT.

And as Irenaeus' list demonstrates Augustine got his list wrong. Indeed they were both wrong, for they assumed single bishops of Rome when there were none. Irenaeus used the succession of bishops from a number of churches to prove his case. He did not believe in Apostolic Succession either.

mikeuk · Apr 27, 2015

valiant said:

He uses the succession to show that donatism, cannot be right because none of the successors to Peter believed it, listing them in order, and Peters justification deriving from the scripture.

You simply enforce your own views on everything Valiant - you never read what is actually there. For as long as you contest it, I will keep repeating it, so that the audience can see you are WRONG about Augustine, who did believe in apostolic succession and said so , moreover used the views of the bishops of rome, to show what is heresy and what is not.

Letter of Augustine to Generosus [400 A.D.] on Apostolic Succession

[53, 1, 2] "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it .' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius.

And if you must.. In order of succession not a donatist bishop was to be found, which is Augustines reason for saying the Donatists were wrong, so deferring to the authority of Bishops of Rome!

You can say you do not agree with Augustine. You can NEVER challenge that he believed in succession because he says it there, the scripture and succession from Peter.

An expensive education was wasted on you!
You lose on this valiant, give it up, and the silly distinction between petra and petros that is simply not there!

Jeff_56 · Apr 27, 2015

tourist said:

don't say that

....

..... greek is not nearly as bad as latin...

or as harmful to the faith of little ones around the world.

so, even though greek influence has corrupted a lot of ... well... just a lot.....

it's not nearly as deadly as latin has been (because of it's use and association with total deception)...

Jeff_56 · Apr 27, 2015

p.s. all the 'argument's mike and thomas and all the others who dwell in heresy bring up

cannot change the heresy. it is futile. there has never been a question whether or not rcc is heresy - it

always has been and always will be until yahshua puts an end to it (soon).

the only question of any true import is will anyone be saved out of the heresy before it is too late ?

valiant · Apr 27, 2015

mikeuk said:

So you now admit that Matt 16 is only applied to Peter. That's a beginning. Now admit that the idea of succession had nothing to do with Rome being special. it had to do with comparing the succession of one church with the succession of the other.

Of course, apart from you, everyone realises that Peter never was bishop of Rome. Augustine was relying on a false tradition.

I have argued my case. you just simply quote something and assume it means what you want it to say WHEN IT PATENTLY DOES NOT. It seems it is you who do not read what is there.

Well you have to. You have no argument otherwise. And even this one is invalid. All my citations have shown you to be wrong. You have never answered one of them. If anyone want to know what Augustine is saying let them compare his words elsewhere,

Augustine of Hippo

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. (Retractations 20.1).

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Augustine of Hippo Sermon 229).

He neither believed in it nor said so.

he does not mention their views. He simply says they are not Donatists in order to combat a list of Donatist bishops.

people can refer back for my replies. But all should notice that Apostolic succession is not mentioned. All he is talking about is successions of bishops.

he is not appealing to the authority of the bishops of Rome. He is simply replying to a list of Donatist bishops by using a list of Roman bishops.

I challenge it here and now if you mean by that Apostolic succession. obviously every church had a succession of bishops. He was of course wrong to suggest that Peter was ever bishop of Rome (if that's what he means. He may only be saying that Peter ordained Linus while he himself was awaiting execution).

SeekingAegis · Apr 27, 2015

I agree with what you said about catholic heresy. I grew up in a catholic community but I've never attended their church. I wasn't particularly appealed nor had a feeling of belonging to the catholic church. No, instead my father taught me about God's word every once in awhile with only the Bible in his hands, but we're not protestants nor christians either...
We're not religious but we believe that we have not come to start a religion with God but to hold a meaningful relationship with Him.
Don't misunderstand me though, we firmly believe that Jesus is our Saviour and that He is the only way through God.

mikeuk · Apr 27, 2015

valiant said:

Everyone just read it. See that Augustine believes the succession, and the origin in scripture, and uses that to decide that donatism is heresy, because none of the Bishops of Rome believed it.

YOU LOST VALIANT. You can twist words all you like. You cannot change what they so obviously said ,and obviously meant, and every time you present your b/s I will present what Augustine said, so all can make up their minds that you are clearly wrong.

You can say you disagree with him. You cannot say, he did not believe in the succession, he clearly did.

Letter of Augustine to Generosus [400 A.D.] on Apostolic Succession

[53, 1, 2] "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it .' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Sixtus, Sixtus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Sixtus, Sixtus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Eutychian, Eutychian by Caius, Caius by Marcellus, Marcellus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, Siricius by Anastasius.

Jackson123 · Apr 27, 2015

Originally Posted by notuptome

My argument is straight from scripture. Peter cannot be the rock upon which the church is founded because that rock is Christ.

Roger

Mikeuk said

So you disagree with what scripture says, ...because of what scripture says.
Excuse me if I fail to follow that line of reasoning!

Jackson

Brother Mikeuk, what do you interpreted by Peter is a rock ?

Peter will be foundation of the church building?

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Jesus ask who is He,

Peter answered He is Christ.

Jesus said upon this rock I will build my church.

What is the foundation of the church?

The foundation of the Church is a faith that Jesus is Christ, the savior.

A true Church must build/ believe/ founded/ have a faith that Jesus is Christ/ savior.

So what Peter believe/ Jesus is Christ a son of living God foundation or the Church.

in other word, the foundation of the Church is Jesus Christ, the son of living God.

Not Peter, Peter is human, he deny Jesus 3x. Is the foundation of the church deny Jesus?

Catholic Heresy (for the record)

Banned

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

mattp0625

Guest

Senior Member

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

mikeuk

Guest

Banned

Banned

Senior Member

SeekingAegis

Guest

mikeuk

Guest

Senior Member