Monday, February 11, 2008

Augustine vs. Modern Catholicism

Augustine, as demonstrated in the video below had a view of the Real presence that was more similar to the Reformed (or Orthodox) view, than to the Lutheran or Roman Catholic view. Skip to 5 minutes, 30 seconds, for the relevant material. The first five and half minutes are interesting, but mostly relevant to the attacks on Dr. White posted on Youtube by GNRHead (William Albrecht).



You see, Augustine explained that it was foolishness to suppose that Christ was to be carnally consumed.

Thanks be to our Risen and Ascended Lord Jesus!

-Turretinfan

5 comments:

Albert said...

Turretinfan,

Thanks for posting the video here in your blog. The message was very clear.

I have been following your posts since last year. You have addressed Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other Reformed issues. If it's ok with you, could you also address the error of paedocommunion, a practice of the Eastern Orthodox and some churches claiming to be Reformed, particularly the FVs? Thanks.

Turretinfan said...

Hi Albert,

The main argument against paedocommunion is the caution against eating or drinking the body and blood of Christ without discernment.

1 Corinthinans 11:27-30
27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

It's hard to imagine that infants engage in proper self-examination. Thus, the Reformed churches have typically fenced the table from those who are unable to discern the Lord's body.

That argument seems conclusive for those who hold to Sola Scriptura.

-Turretinfan

zog said...

TF & Albert,

I agree that only professing Christians should partake of the table based on the fact that scripture states self examination is required and children are incapable of doing so. However, when we baptists point out that Scripture says that "as many as believed were baptized" we are told that this cannot apply to children because they are incapable of believing. I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't agree with the FV's on infant communion but I see them as being more consistent, particularly given that children were allowed the passover as soon as they could eat solid food.

Zog

Turretinfan said...

Dear Zog,

FVist are sort of "consistently different from Baptists" but they are not consistent with God's word.

It is the latter kind of consistency that is important.

I think you'd be hard pressed to establish that Jewish practices regarding paedo-passover were Biblical based.

Regardless, no similar prohibition (to the one about the Lord's Supper) regarding baptizing is found in Scripture. Furthermore, paedo-circumcision is explicitly set forth in Scripture, although it was a sign of faith (as is Baptism).

Accordingly, the "more consistent" claim breaks down, because it simply more consistently contrary to Baptist practices. It's not more consistently Scriptural, or more internally self-consistent, or anything like that

-Turretinfan

Albert said...

zog,

In my study, I have learned that the Bible, the Reformed confessions, and the Reformed theologians since the Protestant Reformation reject paedocommunion. I don't see paedocommunion as something consistent with paedobaptism as the FVs would like to have it. Turretinfan has already pointed that out. After all, baptism and the Lord's Supper are two DIFFERENT sacraments. What is true for one is not necessarilty true for the other.