William and Augustine

So I got an email today from William Albrecht, the Roman Catholic apologist

I've responded to a few times in regards to Tertullian and J .N .D. Kelly and things like that.

And he's begun posting responses and in these responses I've discovered that he's pretty much allied with the

Catholic legate type of Catholic apologetics, Pacheco and Bonacore and unfortunately are at SIPO.

And so probably not going to be much more meaningful interaction because that particular perspective those folks really aren't into interaction, they're into more the slash and burn type ad hominem filled apologetics.

And unfortunately Mr. Albrecht goes that direction as well. He struggles to even mention my name without using some sort of a pejorative or something along those lines, much like our

SIPO, whose attitude seems to be rather contagious. You're serving

Mother Church when you're using terms like prots and things like that, but we all know about our SIPO.

Anyway, the sad thing about it is one of his first allegations that he made in one of the very first videos he posted

I've pointed out is just simply ludicrous. It's absurd, it's irrational. To tell people that I don't want them to hear a citation from Robert St.

Janis that's in our debates. It's in material that we have reproduced and distributed for almost a decade.

That's ludicrous. It's ad hominem, it's ridiculous, it doesn't communicate anything meaningful as far as truth goes.

And once faced with it, what an honest person would do would go, I'm sorry,

I was taking a cheap shot there, I apologize. But that's not what Mr. Albrecht does. So let me play just briefly, because I want to get past this and get to some of the citations that are meaningful, but just as an illustration of the

Catholic legate mindset, let me play what he initially said, and then

I'll play what he just posted recently. And you tell me, what was his original intention, what did he actually say, and is he willing to live up to it now?

And if not, then we can sort of move on from there to more important things. Take a look at it.

You might be wondering why I'm posting this video clip. Well, I saw an interesting clip. I've been noticing

Janis Watters has gone cut and paste happy, cut in portions of his debates, making it seem as if he's prevailed over his fallen opponents.

Many of the Catholics that he's posted on YouTube have clearly defeated him in either that debate or many other debates.

Anyhow, I noticed a little portion of his debate against Robert St. Janis on the mass, and I thought, well,

I'm going to have to take a look at it. Because if you would have actually done any research whatsoever, you wouldn't have found out.

You would have known that when I posted that video clip, claiming that you did not want to show a certain material, it was before you made any of St.

Janis' material available for you viewing on YouTube, a whole month before. As far as the fact that you have this material available on your website for sale,

I understand that. But not once in my video did I ever claim that you were hiding something. Not something in particular.

I simply pointed out that you don't share the clips that are not favorable to your position on YouTube from your debates. And that is indeed true.

Well, personally, I think that speaks volumes. I think the reality of that situation is pretty clear.

And unfortunately, that is very representative of that Catholic legate style of sort of radical in -your -face

Catholic apologetics, never say you're wrong about anything type of an idea. And I think it speaks for itself.

Now, the citations that allegedly I don't want you to hear, even though we've been distributing this stuff for years, were from Augustin and Origen.

And I'm not sure how much time we're going to have here, but I want to at least get into the Augustin citation, because we had someone come in the channel.

They asked about it. And I finally had the time to look it up. I don't go back over my debates.

I don't necessarily look up every reference. As you can see from my staff here, well, that's just me.

Actually, of course, Rich is in the other room, but I'm the one who has to do all that kind of stuff. And since even this day, this evening,

I'm teaching a class on Islam for the Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, working on a book, working on an article, I do more than just simply following up on every possible discussion

I've had in the past. But someone came to the channel, asked about it. We had a chance to look it up. And when we looked it up, it was amazing how the citation in context refuted the utilization of it by Roberts and Janus in that debate so long ago.

So let's take a look at it. Judge for yourself. See who is, again, looking at the early church fathers in their own context.

O magnify the Lord our God, magnify him truly, magnify him well. Let us praise him.

Let us magnify him who hath wrought the very righteousness which we have, who wrought it in us himself.

For who but he who justified us wrought righteousness in us. For of Christ it is said, who justifieth the ungodly.

And fall down before his footstool, for he is holy. What are we to fall down before? His footstool. What is under the feet is called a footstool in Greek, hupopotion, in Latin, scabellum, or supadanium.

But consider, brethren, that he commands us to fall down before. In another passage of the scriptures it is said, the heaven is my throne and the earth is my footstool.

Doth he then bid us worship the earth? Since in another passage it is said, that is God's footstool. How then shall we worship the earth?

In the scriptures saith openly, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God. Yet, here it saith, fall down before his footstool.

And explaining to us what his footstool is, it saith, the earth is my footstool. I am in doubt. I fear to worship the earth, lest he who made the heaven and the earth condemn me.

Again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the psalm biddeth me fall down before his footstool.

I ask, what is his footstool? And the scripture telleth me, the earth is my footstool. In hesitation

I turn to Christ, and since I am herein seeking himself, and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how his footstool may be worshipped without impiety.

For he took upon him earth from earth, because flesh is from the earth, and he received flesh from the flesh of Mary, and because he walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation.

And no one eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshipped. We have found out in what sense such a footstool of our

Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping it.

But doth the flesh give life? Our Lord himself, when he was speaking and praised this same earth, said,

It is the spirit that quickens, the flesh profits nothing. But when our Lord praised it, he was speaking of his own flesh, and he said,

Except a man eat my flesh, he shall have no life in him. Some disciples of his, about seventy, were offended and said,

This is a hard saying, who can hear it? And they went back and walked no more with him. It seemed unto them hard that he said,

Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. They received it foolishly, they thought of it carnally, and imagined that the

Lord would cut off parts from his body and give unto them, and they said, This is a hard saying. And it was they who were hard, not the saying, for unless they had been hard and not meek, they would have said unto themselves,

He saith not this without reason. But there must be some latent mystery herein. They would have remained with him, softened, not hard, and would have learned from him, which they who remained when the others departed learned.

For when twelve disciples had remained with him on their departure, these remaining followers suggested to him, as if in grief for the death of the former, that they were offended by his words and turned back.

But he instructed them and said unto them, It is the spirit that quickeneth, but the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken unto you, they are spirit and they are life.

Understand spiritually what I have said. Ye are not to eat this body which ye see, nor to drink the blood which they who will crucify me shall pour forth.

I have commended unto you a certain mystery. Spiritually understood it will quicken, although it is needful that this be visibly celebrated, yet it must be spiritually understood.

A notice provided in the Erdmann set at this point that says, A clear exposition of the Catholic doctrine against the modern

Roman, which was unknown to antiquity. Augustine's teaching here is consistent with what is found elsewhere in his teaching.

For example, in other words, in respect of his divine presence in the flesh, it was rightly said to the disciples, Me ye will not have always.

In this respect the church enjoyed his presence only for a few days, and now possesses him by faith, without seeing him with the eyes.

He left the world by a bodily withdrawal. He proceeded to the Father by his ascension man, but he forsook not the world, and the ruling activity was presence.

The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which he addressed to his disciples after the supper, when he himself in immediate proximity to his passion, and as it were on the even of depriving them of his bodily presence, while continuing his spiritual presence to all his disciples till the very end of the world.

And likewise, this is then to eat the meat, not that which perishes, but that which endures to eternal life.

To what purpose do you make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten already.