C.S. Lewis argues that Christians should read ancient theological works directly rather than relying on modern interpretations, as primary sources like St. Athanasius's 'On The Incarnation' provide deeper understanding and help avoid the blindness of contemporary assumptions. This approach, called 'ad fontes' (back to the sources), allows readers to engage with the original arguments and context of historical theologians, which is essential for developing a solid foundation in Christian doctrine.
Instala nuestra extensión para buscar dentro de cualquier video al instante
Episode 13: C. S. Lewis intro to On The IncarnationAñadido:
Good morning everybody. How's it going?
>> Good morning friends. We are here another beautiful Friday uh for our Faith Through the Generations podcast.
It is a very exciting Friday because we're on episode 13. Episode 13. Mine says the joy of the Lord is your strength. I actually was trying to grab the other cup that said, "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." But it was dirty. So the joy of the Lord is my strength. And that feels very fitting today. Another shameless plug for our nonprofit. Sorry buddy. while you're finding your verse is uh we have our first junior rodeo club today. I'm so excited. Uh we host a weekly or not weekly because we don't have enough time for weekly but at least twice a month.
We do a free community event where we bring the kids and the horses together and it's really fun. And that today is our first one and it's always a hair overwhelming because we don't know who's going to show up and we don't know how many kids but it's always exactly as the Lord intends. So I'm pretty excited.
Right. So, you had a verse in mind, right, Isaac?
>> You have a verse, too, right?
>> Oh, I'm the junior rodeo verse is going to be Philippians 2:3, which is, "Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves."
And we're going to tie that into how we can help each other. Um, the kids who are more advanced, helping the kids who are younger is a great way to show esteem and humility. Uh, the kids making sure the hor's needs are met. it gets pretty warm. So, making sure they have plenty of water, that they're being well cared for, those are all ways that we can esteem others. So, it's pretty exciting. Um, as far as that goes, we are only using one camera today because I have learned my editing skills are utterly lacking. And our dear friend who helped us figure out this whole setup is going to help me figure out how on earth to actually use it. So until then, until further notice, we'll be back to the one camera and just hanging out, which is unfortunate because I really appreciated being able to just sort of zoom in on Isaac's face and I could be over here doing whatever I wanted. So I will miss them. But for now, for today at least, we are back to one camera. So all right, Isaac, go ahead. Take it away.
>> So today's verse is second Timothy 4:13, but we're going to start at verse 6.
>> Okay. For I am already being poured out as a drink offering, and the and the time of my departure has come. I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.
Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day. And not only to me, but also to all who have loved his appearing.
Do your best to come to me soon for Deus in in love with the present world has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica Cesaria and gone to Galatia Titus to Telma and Luke al also with me to get Mark and to bring him with you for he is very useful to me for ministry that's interesting too because of their fight in acts I know you know you see a later >> sort of reconciliation although that's not really the core point.
>> Um TIS hopefully I'm pronouncing that right. I have sent to Ephesus when you come bring the cloak that I have left with see with Carpass at Taurus also the books. Now this is where it gets interesting. The books and above all the parchments.
>> Paul here we see is on the edge of martyrdom right? He's locked. He's probably imprisoned in some sense here and he's probably it seems that he's pretty aware that he's going to be martyed soon is highly likely. And it's funny that one of the things that he asks for is books and parchment. You know, Paul here wants to read and write and personally I find that really interesting and it shows us something about Paul and I think in a lot of ways we should be inspired by Paul. Paul was a very literate man. And I mean we see that when he debates with the philosophers in Asens in the book of acts where he's actually quoting from ancient Greek poets. It's obvious that he knows the Old Testament extremely well. I mean if you read any of his letters they're full of Old Testament verses. But Paul was a very literate man and he loved to read. And I think Christians in the modern day also need to love to read. And that's really been one of the core convictions of Christians throughout the ages, especially Protestants, is that Christians need to be very literate because we are people of the book. Our the word of God is in the written form.
God decided to speak to humanity through a book. So if you're not very well literate, then and of course if you know that might not necessarily be your fault. You know, I'm not trying to put blame on anyone here, but if you're not very well literate, then that's actually a problem because God has chosen and ordained to speak to you through the written word. So that's something that and that's the reason why Protestant countries actually became substantially more literate than most other countries >> in the past. I mean, if you take a census of and even to this very day, if you look at Protestant countries, they're the most literate countries, our historically Protestant countries, because Protestants were firmly convicted that people need to be able to read the Bible for themselves. I mean, that really starts in Geneva, you know, Calvin's Geneva, where they started up public schools in some sense to teach people to read the Bible. And you see that all around Protestant countries.
Whereas in other countries, even Christian countries, you know, you might have a 30 40% literacy rate, you know, back in the day. And in Protestant countries, you'd have like an 80 or 90% literacy rate because people were firmly aware that they needed to be able to read the word of God. And you know, I think that's really something that's very interesting and very important is remembering that. But I think that it goes beyond just reading the Bible, but not of course exclusively to the Bible.
There's a there's a term from the Reformation. Hopefully I'm going to say it right, but it's called adfontes, which means back to the fountain head or back to the sources is an easier way to understand in English.
>> Um, can I interject there? He said this morning we're going to talk about Ad Fontis and I thought he said Ed Fontis and I'm like I don't know who that is.
So I found that quite amusing. So it is not Ed Fontis. I know that much.
>> Ed Fontis. Back to the fountain head. Is that good?
>> Yep. Back to the fountain head or back to the sources would be an easier way of saying it in English and more understandable to us, >> right?
>> But back to the, you know, back to the sources was a rallying cry for both the Protestant Reformation. It was also a rallying cry for the Renaissance. You know, both of these massive movements came about. And the reason that these terms became so popular is because Protestants were saying we should go back to the sources. Obviously the Bible is the number one and then the most ancient of church fathers would be the second you know ancient sources of church history. And then so and then back to the scholastics whereas at that point everything had been dominated by the scholastics readings of the church or of the Bible and of the church fathers. You know it's really rooted in the scholastics. And I'm not here to say that the scholastics are bad. And the Protestant reformers didn't dislike the scholastics either. I mean Martin Luther puts his the second most important book that he read behind the Bible as um St. St. Thomas Aquinas's Sum Theologica which is extremely scholastic obviously you know so it's not as though the Protestants dislike the scholastics but they felt like we shouldn't just be steeped in what do the scholastics say about this but we should go back to the Bible itself and re re-evaluate and try to understand from what the apostles and the prophets said and then what the early and ancient church fathers said and then understand the scholastics in light of that instead of just taking what they were saying at that time.
>> Right. And you know, and then also it ties back to the fact that there was a lot of Greek um Greek immigrants who were obvious they're Christian, they were Orthodox who were fleeing Muslim persecution at that time period and they were bringing back these um Greek texts that we had lost. We'd lost a lot of the works of the ancient Greek philosophers and of the church fathers and a lot of these different writings were being brought over by persecuted um Greek Orthodox Christians who are fleeing from the Muslim persecution.
And when this, you know, when all these documents came, it was also at about the same time period that the printing press was coming out a little bit before and then during that time. And this meant that the information that was in these Greek texts could be massively much faster than it was before because before that scribes would basically write out everything. And if you re look at the books from that time, they're actually very beautiful because it was an art. You know, people would masterfully scribe each of their letters. They would color in the books, right? But it took a long time. I mean, you could imagine it would cost a fortune to have somebody spend months writing out the Bible, right? But now the printing press existed, you could just have it carved out or the letters put in and then you just stamp it onto the page. Yeah.
>> It wasn't a fast process like it would be nowadays to make a book. But it was way way faster which meant that reading at that time period went was able to come to the common man's hands much more affordably and much more easily while also a lot of new information of literature had come had come about.
Also, we had basically started rediscovering Greek from these um Greek people who were, you know, these Greek Orthodox Christians who were coming over because we had kind of lost Greek in the Latin world. Like the Latin Vulgate was the Bible of that time and most people I don't even know if anyone really could speak Greek even out of the great theologians of the time. They were all um dependent upon the Latin Vulgate.
It was necessary. And there are minor differences that can have theological impacts in the Latin Vulgate to the um Greek text of the New Testament, especially in books like Romans. See, you know, whereas in the Latin Vulgate, you're going to have things that aren't going to emphasize what would be called salvation by faith in the Latin Vulgate to the same degree that the Greek is going to be clear. And that's something that Martin Luther would see, you know.
All these things coming together is really kind of what started to form the Renaissance movement and the reformation movement.
And I think that it's really important that we actually go back and start reading the ancient texts ourselves.
>> Because in the modern day, we actually don't have much of an excuse. It's not as though the ancient texts aren't available to us.
>> Now, when you say ancient texts, clarify. What are you speaking of? I'm talking about the primary sources of >> are you talking like Josephus and >> that would be I mean this includes the Bible you know what I mean this doesn't >> this doesn't exclude the Bible the Bible is actually probably the the supreme primary text right >> in some sense but when I'm saying primary text I'm saying what might be called the great books of the western world >> you know or just the great books of the world in general >> you're talking even Plato and >> I'm talking about all of these great books including Plato Josephus Aquinus right? All of these writers that have been seen as the core influences of um world thought and western thought. Now, the reason that I distinguish between those two is because in world history, there are pockets of ideas that don't really mingle all that much throughout history. Nowadays, there's actually starting to be more of a, you know, connection between these different cultures and more communication, although there's still distinction, but the Western world really had a conversation in and of itself. the western. So let's say for example this is what might be called the great conversation right let's say for example Plato would write about the Iliad and the Odyssey which was written by Homer right he's going to have commentary on that and his thought is going to be influenced by those works >> and of other um Greek mythology >> right >> and then people like you get a little bit further people like St. Augustine are going to be really influenced by the Bible, but they're also going to be very influenced by people like Plato and the Neoplatonists. And the neoplatinists are obviously going to be very influenced by Plato, >> right? So, you have this conversation and they're also going to be influenced by the Iliad and the Odyssey. So, all of these readers are going to have read what came before them and when they're writing, they're going to be deeply influenced by that and are in some ways going to be commenting and expanding upon those earlier ideas.
>> And as this conversation expands, this is what's been called the great conversation.
and the great >> who calls it the great conversation.
>> Um Mortimer J. Adler and there are some other guys who came up with this term for a book set called the great books of the western world. Okay, >> that's that book set that I have the 52 volume one that I've been reading through >> that is really been influential on you know this kind of concept for me >> and there's an essay that I actually kind of want to read through but we'll discuss it as I read it >> by CS Lewis which is a little bit older than this book set.
>> Oh, is that this book? No, this one is um 1662 Book of Common Prayer. That was for if we decided to talk about the three ecumenical creeds.
>> Oh, gotcha.
>> But I don't know if we'll get there or not today. Yes, but at some point that would be a fun conversation. I have it on my phone.
>> Oh, perfect. Yeah, I say we dive into it because >> I think it'd be interesting to hear uh I love CS Lewis and I'd like his thoughts on the matter.
>> Yeah. And I also think it'd be um interesting. We are also maybe going to talk about aliens today.
>> Well, it feeds together.
>> So, we'll see if we get there and it will feed together. I think >> I'll tell you while you find that. I'll tell why I feel like it would feed together is because I don't know about everyone else's social Oh my goodness, I'm not even in the frame. I'm terrible at setting this up. Um uh the um I don't know, everyone's social media feeds are probably different, but I was like mine is all about this potential new giant scandalous like they're going to talk about aliens and it's going to ruin Christians ideas of God because they're going to be so wrapped up in this idea of creation and if there's other things and blah blah blah like this is what I don't know if everyone else's feet is in that but one of the concepts that I think is so vital vital if we are to have our core strong in our faith is understanding the solid foundation that we grow off of. And so the alien conversation that may or may not happen depending on how long-winded our CS Lewis is is uh it's interesting to me. So as we're going forward, just be keeping that in mind like we might be having some unprecedented in our minds uh shaking of our theological background, our roots and our understanding. But I don't think that it should shake our faith because I think our faith is not in what is tangible in the world right now or even things that we may or may not hear coming in and out. I don't think that there's something to that. I am in the camp of oh can I can I even say it on our podcast? I don't think that aliens are real. I think it's demonic. I think that demons are in fact real and I think that there is plenty of times where the scripture confirms that. If I were to hear that aliens are will, that would be my thought process. But I do believe and this is something that I just uh I really liked how it was phrased today or this week in one of my lecture series.
It talked about like the four different types of belief that we have. We have the beliefs that we would die for. And those are obviously our core doctrines that we cannot veer from about you know the divinity of Jesus and the trinity.
And those things are are the things we die for. Jesus is Lord. um the things that we would be willing to divide for.
And those are the things that can cause conflict within a church body, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that we aren't friends. It just means that we aren't going to fellowship in the same church because we're going to divide over certain topics. Sometimes that's women in leadership. Sometimes that can be baptism. You know, it's one people love to divide over. But these are things that are uh divide for. So die for are the things we stand on firmly divide for. Then there is the defend for and those can be things That could be baptism or women in leadership right there even. But those are the things that we are willing to have that debate, that argument. Um, and then the last one is we decide for and those are things that can be like music styles and things that might make us want to do things a certain way. And I would as these things are coming out, I would caution believers, decide what camp that's falling into for you. because if that's something you're willing to die for, um, you might have your faith in something other than the foundational truths of the word of God. And I think that's just kind of important to understand. So, >> all right, on to you. Read us some CS Lewis now that I've jumped in my >> although I do think it is interesting and sometimes concerning when you find somebody who's willing to die for something like, you know, um, how the church service should look but don't care about the trinity. Yeah.
>> They're like, oh, you know, it doesn't matter if you're a heretic, but if you have a different view of church service, you know, Yeah, >> that's a little bit concerning >> if you're not lurggical >> or if you're not uh contemporary.
>> Yeah. If you're not evangelical enough or you're not >> charismatic enough.
>> Charismatic enough or you're not um >> yeah, lurgical enough. All those things.
>> Yep. There's so many things that we could accidentally put into the wrong camp there. That's why I really liked that four-part term. It really helped me start sorting my ideas out.
>> In fact, I you're about to move into essentials of faith, >> which is your core doctrines. I'm I'm sidebarring you everywhere, but one of the things that it's going to ask you to do is decide what your um core doctrines are and what are the other ones.
>> I wish that I'd had this class before I did that class because I just did that one. It would have really actually helped me layer it out better. I think I would have done a better job on that class had I had this >> first. So, >> you should probably tell them that.
Maybe.
>> I probably will.
>> See what they say.
>> All right. CS Lewis. Yes. There is a strange idea abroad that in every subject the ancient book should be read only by the professionals and that the amateur should content himself with the modern books. Thus, I have found as a tutor in English literature that if the average student wants to find out something about Platonism, the very last thing he thinks of doing is to take some translation of Plato off the library shelf and read the symposium. He would rather read some dreary modern book 10 times as long about isms and influences and only once in 12 pages telling him what Plato actually said.
The error is rather an amuable one for it springs from humility. The student is half afraid to meet one of the great philosophers face to face. He feels himself inadequate and thinks he will not understand him. But if he only knew the great man just because of his greatness is much more intelligible than his modern contemporary or yep I'll just go with that the simplest student will be able to understand if not all yet a very great deal of what Plato said but hardly anyone can understand some modern books on platonism. It has always therefore been one of my main endeavors as a teacher to persuade the young that firsthand knowledge is not only more worth acquiring than secondhand knowledge, but is usually much easier and more delightful to acquire. I think that's where we'll stop here for a second and talk about it.
>> Yeah.
>> Do you want to do you have any takes on that or you >> you know, one of the things that I was thinking in my mind is I feel like as Christians we do that a lot. We take the Bible and we say, "Well, I want to know what the Bible says about >> second Timothy and we open up YouTube and we put on a pastor and we say sermons on second Timothy." I do it all the time where instead of just sitting down and reading it and saying, "What does this say?" I'm like, "What does Skip whatever his name is?
>> What does John Piper say about this?
>> What does Piper say about this? What does somebody that's, you know, topically expository scripture say about this?" because it's so easy to access now >> and I think that's a blessing and I also think it's damaging at the same time because I think that within moderation and within proper use taking a secondary work and saying what is somebody who's really intellectual about this and understands it what do they think and what do they say one of this other things in this lecture series I'm doing he says you always need to take it to three people you take it to somebody you love and trust and that you believe their feelings and you take it to somebody who has the opposite view of you.
>> But above all, you have to take it straight to the word of God and see what the word of God actually says. Because when you take it like say your pastor, it is their job to be able to rightly discern and handle the word of truth.
And what he said was if you do that and they screw it up, that's on them. So, uh but if you don't, then you would actually be able to uh you want to do all those steps. So, are you going to go talk to our siblings? You have a microphone on. Oh, >> it's okay. I can keep talking if you keep talking.
>> You can keep talking while I keep talking.
>> Anyway, so yes, it is interesting and I really appreciated that. So, >> one of the things that I really uh liked about my current lecture series I'm on systemic systemic systematic theology >> non-sistic theology >> systemic theology it's like a gangrronous thing which I wish it were.
It would grow much faster but um systematic theology is what I'm studying and it's kind of fascinating. Um, and it is not something that I think we approach enough in our churches. I think it'd be really interesting for people to have that opportunity. Our church Bible study is doing a fashion of systematic theology as we work our way through the synoptic gospels. We're almost done with them and I do appreciate that. So anyway, all right, you're back. Carry on.
>> I'm back. But yeah, I you know, I thought that point was really interesting. And Plato is interesting because he's one of the first books of I had read the Bible front to back, but I hadn't really considered them in the same way in some sense because you kind of know the Bible exists. But I didn't realize that you could read Plato until I actually read and just all those ancient writers until I read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography.
>> And you realized how much he'd read of >> how much he'd read of the ancients and just how he and he didn't seem like when he was young he was all that different.
And it seems like he actually had, you know, less substantial of an education in some sense in his youth, >> you know. I mean, a lot of the founding fathers had a much better education, but he really wasn't overly I mean, he had some Latin lessons and things like that, but he was not really a great school student, but he was always reading. And obviously, Benjamin Franklin was a genius >> in a lot of different subjects. And he was always mentioning Plato and Aristotle and mentioning, you know, all these different um ancient works of history from the Greeks and the Romans along with mentioning the Bible. I was like, well, he's mentioning all these different works.
>> I imagine that there's got to be a way that I could actually read them myself.
Yeah. And I'd read history books where it talks about the importance of figures like Plato and Aristotle, but I just didn't realize that these figures are actually >> figures that you can just pick up and start reading. Right. So after I finished that book, that's actually when I started reading Plato's Republic for the first time. And that's kind of what started getting me into what I would call the Great Conversation because I'd read the Bible, which obviously puts me in there in some sense. I'd read a lot of great books before that, but from no later than the late 1700s and largely from like the 1800s and after.
>> So there were still really good books and books that might even be classics now. But I hadn't realized how far back the conversation stretched.
>> Where what year was Plato writing? Um he was writing in I believe the 500s before Christ.
>> Okay.
>> So you know pretty ancient.
>> Yeah.
>> Now the most ancient books book in really the great conversation of you know at least the western great conversation is the Iliad and the Odyssey.
>> Although you can go back even further with books like the Epic of Gilgamesh and stuff like that. Although those really didn't tie into the Great Conversation because they'd been lost.
But they are still interesting pieces of history. But the Iliad and the Odyssey are the books that really are remembered from the time they were written until now as core major works.
>> Excuse me.
>> And then it goes down from there into um works like you know Plato, Socrates and the great historians, the epic historians such as Slicedities history of the Pelpeneisian war and um Herododus' histories so on and so forth.
And then you can get into the ancient Romans such as Virgil with his Anid. And you can get into even more Romans such as Plutarch. Plutarch's lives is probably my f favorite of all the Roman writers.
>> And you know then you can get into like Josephus with the Jewish writers and obviously the Old Testament is essential and that ties back just as far and even further in some sense in the Iliad and the Odyssey especially if you take Mosaic authorship as I do. So I would actually presume that parts of the Old Testament are much older >> in the Pentetuk than the um works of the Iliad and the Odyssey. But >> yeah, >> you know, those are some of the core documents of Western foundations. And really, Western history starts out in three major distinct strands. Although there are other existing groups too that are important, such as the barbarians, but they didn't really write anything.
>> All the barbarians really worried about is their next raid, their next plunder, their next gaining of wealth. So they didn't really build civilizations. They just took from civilizations. So but that strand of conquering um bold warrior spirit does some in some sense still exist in the west.
>> Yeah.
>> But that is one strand. But they didn't really build civilization. They more so actually just wrecked civilization. Took things for themselves. Then there was obviously the Greeks which are the very philosophical and very intellectual side of western civilization. And then there is the Romans who are militant and very judicial and very how would you even put it? They're very um political. And then there is the Jewish and there's the Jewish side of it. And then all of that those three strands really come together in Christianity in Christ because in some sense Christ came to bring the world together. You know, I think that really is a core point of the Christian faith.
And you can see this in the New Testament. You'll see that the core influence is the Old Testament. You know, the Bible and the New Testament is ultimately the fulfillment of the Old Testament story, but in some sense is also been viewed, I mean CS Lewis said this and I can't remember what lecture it was, but in one of his lectures, he really is the fulfillment of all these different cultures in some sense at their best.
When each of these cultures are at their best, Christ is really, I believe, the fulfillment of all of them. Although that doesn't mean that, you know, it's a continuation of pagan deities or anything like that. But much of the greatest thought of the Greeks, much of the greatest thought of the Romans really is very valuable to Christian thought. And we see this in the New Testament. I mean, there's certain ideas in the Old Testament about the spirit realm and things like that that really we don't see come up until later. Like, there's just metaphysical concepts that the ancient Jewish people didn't understand. It doesn't seem in the same way that the later Jewish people and the writers of the New Testament would have understood them. And I don't think that that's a bad thing. I actually think that in some ways demonstrates Christianity even better because you know we shouldn't think that all thought outside of biblical thought is wrong. There's actually a massive degree that can be brought out of it but should always be checked and and it should always be guided by biblical thought.
All right, let me continue in now. I'll read a little bit more.
>> Thank you.
This mistaken preference for modern books and the synthesis of the old ones is nowhere more rampant than in theology. Now, I should have mentioned this is from his introduction to on the incarnation by St. Aanasius.
>> Oh, we talked about >> that's where this um this is where this comes from. It's one of my favorite essays from him and it's a great book.
It's it's a must readad for every Christian after they finish the Bible >> if you want to understand historical theology.
>> And it is not a long read. It's not a long read and it's not terribly difficult. I don't think either. Would you say it was terribly difficult?
>> I listened to it twice to make sure I fully understood it. But to be fair, I also sometimes have to read Toeser twice in order to fully >> Oh, yeah. And I mean, CS Lewis says that um the sign of a non-literate man is he only reads the book once.
>> So CS Lewis, he says the book is useless to me. I can't say anything about it until I've at least read it two or two or three times.
>> Agreed.
>> So I mean one reading really is just you let it hit you like a waterfall >> and then the next time you can actually start sorting out the pieces. Yeah, I agree.
>> So, I think you really need to read a great book a lot of times to really sort it out.
>> Whenever you find a little circle of Christians of Christian ley, you can almost be certain that they are studying not St. Luke or St. Paul or St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinus or Hooker or Butler or Miyard or M. Martin or M. Neber or Missayers or even my Oh, okay. Hold on. I or Hooker or Butler, but Embeer um M. Martin. There's a lot of M names in these times. Who knew?
Yes.
>> M Neber or Missayers or even myself. I think the way I read that may have been a bit confusing. But the first part is he's saying people like, >> you know, you have your average Christian ley, right? And when they read, they're usually not studying in a, you know, a little like group reading of Christian theology. They're not usually reading the great thinkers. You know, they're often not reading St. Luke or St. Matthew. I think that amongst evangelical Protestants were actually pretty good at reading the Bible, at least >> in these kind of groups, which I think is a positive in some sense, >> but you know, they're often not reading the great theologians like Thomas Aquinus either or Augustine, >> but they're usually reading much more contemporary writers like Miss Butler.
or I don't even know who these figures are. They're probably not really all that relevant anymore. The only one who really out of that group that I know is obviously even myself, Lewis, >> who I think in some sense actually has put himself into the great books. I think he's aspired to that level. I don't think he's as great at the other theologians in his ability to >> deepen theological ideas. Although he does in some sense actually expand on the deepening of theological ideas. I think his role is really bringing theological ideas to in explaining them in a simpler way.
>> Yeah. you know that the average person can understand in some sense.
>> Although I will say that for our current vernacular he is still hard to digest at first.
>> I know that was actually kind of a culture shock to me because I've read so many of these books and I was like oh I'll just recommend Lewis. Lewis explains um theological topics so simply but maybe that's because I'd read much more complex theological books and then when I read him it was like oh this is so easy.
>> But a lot of people when they get into Lewis have told me that he's still difficult.
>> Yeah.
>> When I try to recommend him because I'm like oh yeah they'll have no problem with Lewis. He may be difficult, but I mean that's the point of working your way up. And something that's great is that once you've tried to read Thomas Aquinus and felt like a child taking your first steps, when you go back and read Lewis, it just feels easy.
>> Yeah, that's true. Like running a 5K after you ran a marathon.
>> Yeah. You know, now this seems more topsyturvy.
Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish ordinary readers to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. I would and I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusively contemporary diet. A new book is still on his trial and the amateur is not in a position to judge it. I think this is a good point, too. Something that's great about the great books and the classics is that they have been books that have been valuable to people for hundred to thousands of years.
>> You know, Plato's work and Plato's thought isn't going anywhere anytime soon unless a totalitarian regime comes and basically destroys all knowledge, >> right?
>> You know, as long as, you know, we hold on to this kind of knowledge, then Plato isn't going anywhere, right? Socrates isn't going anywhere. These books are the great books >> whether you like it or not. You know, these books are the core books of Western thought. Now, that doesn't mean that you agree with everything they say, right?
>> That's actually part of the very interesting part about reading the great books. And in the introduction to the great book set, there's a interesting book called um The Great Conversation or the >> Yeah, I think it's The Great Conversation or something like that.
>> But it's really interesting because it does talk about reading these great books. And one of the highest levels of reading these books is called ctopical reading. That's when you've read enough of these books and understand enough of these books that you're actually able to start having a conversation between the books. You're able to start thinking about what Thomas Aquinus would have thought about what Augustine thought and you'll see what he says about Augustine obviously because he's influenced by him and you think what would Augustine say about Thomas Aquinus because you know Augustine well enough >> right? And you can start thinking for yourself too. How do I think about this?
And you can start putting in Plato. what would Plato think of the Christian thought? You know, and you and you start using the using these different writers to understand each other better. And at that point, you've started copically reading, which is where you're reading the great books, but you're able to think from a thousand miles up about all the great books, how they're communicating with each other, how are they built upon each other, how is that book influencing this book, >> right?
>> That's where it starts to get really, really interesting. Mhm.
>> And at that point too, you're also able once you've read the primary sources to actually read outside literature because I don't say never ever read >> texts that are about these great books.
You know, there are great scholars that are worth reading. Just don't be don't have that be the first thing or even the second thing you do with them, right?
>> You know, when you start reading scholarship on a book, have read the book a couple times maybe or at least once for sure. But if it's a great book, you might even want to read it two or three times before you start trying to dig into the scholarship >> because you want to understand the book for yourself in some sense. And then once you've read it a couple times, you're actually able to look at what the scholar says and be like, I don't know if I feel that way. You know what I mean about this one point? Like you're mostly on it. You know, I think you're right about most of this and I mostly agree, but I don't know if I get this part. So then you can go back to the book and read it and be like, hm, oh yeah, I guess he was actually right. Or maybe sometimes you'll be like, I don't know.
I just don't feel it. And you can look at other scholars and other great thinkers about this book or other just great writers who comment on this book, somebody like Plato, how he's going to mention the Iliad or the Odyssey, see how they think about it and then think actually, you know, this person agrees with me or maybe he doesn't. And you can just kind of work your way through and start actually having a conversation >> with these documents and you've entered into that world.
>> Yeah.
>> Which I think is really interesting.
Mhm.
>> And but one of the problems is these books have been decided to be the great books and modern books you just don't know. I mean 90% of the modern books are going to be forgotten.
>> 99% probably.
>> Interestingly if you look back we were just talking about the people that he mentioned the ones who are still around is CS Lewis. I we could look up the other writers and see if theirs have stood this test of time. But it is it's it's time that tells if these things are going to carry forward or if they're going to be valuable in the future.
There are some of these books that we read for our lecture series that are so relevant to a specific time that they make absolutely no impact for our current time. I found that quite interesting. Like they're talking so much about certain issues of that exact time, >> you know, like what are the big things?
And that doesn't mean it won't circle around and become helpful again, you know, but it's maybe not the primary supreme issue that we're facing today.
So, I think that's interesting. Okay, carry on.
>> All right, where was I?
Hold on. You'll keep talking for a second. I'm gonna try to find where I was.
>> This is hard. It's so hard to read. I can't believe you can read it on that tiny phone. We need like a bigger iPad for it.
>> All right, here it is.
It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down through the ages and all its hidden implications often unsuspected by the author himself have to be brought to light. Oftentimes it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of a good many a good many other modern books.
This is actually really interesting point too is the untold implications of thought. Like for example, I you can't imagine St. Augustine um when he wrote on the trinity when he wrote book 14 where he talks about how the hol holy spirit is the love proceeding from the father and the son >> right >> that would be the document that would lead to the filioquay that concept of his >> that would lead to the great schism between the east and the west I mean that was one of the core issues was although I think it would have happened either way probably because I think the deeper bigger underlying issue was authority who's more authoritative the pope and the um you know the latch inside of the Holy Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire. Who's in charge over the church and what's happening? I think that was really the core issue, >> right?
>> But the filioquay was a huge riff in the church, right? Because in the nine creed it says the we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life. And in the original it says who proceeds from the father.
>> But in the Latin creed, the creed that us Protestants use, it says who proceeds from the father and the son.
>> And that is one of the biggest debates and that comes from St. Augustine's um on the trinity. I believe it's book 14 where he talks about how the Holy Spirit is the love who proceeds between the persons and that's something that is that later thinkers of the east would very much disagree with >> and that would cause basically a giant riff in the church.
>> Yeah.
>> And you can't imagine how him writing that there's no way he would have thought that would be that would happen.
So the implications of thought can be huge.
>> Right. I'm trying to find where you are so I can follow along. What you what part are you on? We're on a different one, so I don't know if I can help you.
>> You just keep reading and I'll find it.
>> If you join Oh, here we are. Oftentimes it cannot be fully understood without knowledge of a good many other modern books. If you join at 11:00 a conversation which began at 8 at 8, you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not even see why. The reason of course being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point.
In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed at some other book. I think this is an interesting point because he mentions that conversation. This was before the great conversation concept was really right >> brought out in that great book set >> which was really a great piece of scholarship actually I think people undervalue that really unless you're in the great book world people love that book set and the Mortimer J Edler and all those thinkers right people are really into great books of the western world and that sort of thought but CS Lewis here is really drawing out that point you know you need to read the old great books because you're entering into a conversation when you read great books even modern ones that's been going on for a couple thousand years, >> right?
>> And you don't know what's going on if you don't read those books.
>> And so I think it is interesting how even Lewis sees this. You know, this is and obviously isn't the first and he obviously isn't the last person to have this. This is something that is actually really fundamental to reading the great books.
>> In this way, you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plan of plane central to Christianity.
Mere Christianity as Baxter called it. I wonder where he got where he'd use that term later.
I at least I imagine it was later. I don't know if he if he wrote this essay first or if he wrote mere Christianity.
That's interesting.
>> Doing a nod to his own book there.
>> Well, he I think Baxter is the first one to use the term and then he uses from Baxter's term um >> ah >> he used that on his own book.
>> Got it. I've I'm caught up with you now, so I'm moving along.
>> I don't know. That's interesting. It'd be interesting to look into what was written first, this essay or mere Christianity.
>> I'll look real quick.
>> Which puts the um conversation of the moment in its proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule after reading a new book never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one between an old one in between. If this is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones. I mean, I think that's a really good piece of advice.
>> It is actually.
>> And I think that and I think that could even be stronger if you really wanted it to, you know, I think you could probably go three old books to every new one >> if you really wanted the opposite. Huh?
>> I would go the opposite. And I think that he was saying you should do one to one at least.
>> Oh, interesting. So it says, and now let's obviously take this with a grain of salt because I just Googled it real quick, but it says mere Christianity was published in 1952 while his introduction to on the incarnation was actually written later. Oh, >> interesting. So he mentions I guess he is nodding to his own book kind of in >> to his own work. That's you clever devil.
>> All right, I'm too blind to read it that way.
>> Every age has its own outlook. It is specifically good at seeing certain truths and especially liable to make certain mistakes. We all therefore need the book that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.
All contemporary writers share to some extent the contemporary outlook. Even those like myself who seem most opposed to it.
Nothing strikes me more when I read a word where what is hold on it's kind of a small word um controversies of a past age the fact that both sides were usually assuming with without question a good deal which we should now absolutely deny. They thought that they were as completely opposed as two sides could be, but in fact they were all the time secretly united.
United with each other and against earlier and later ages. A great mass of common assumptions.
We may be sure. Oh, hold on.
Hold on. Where was I? A great c a great mass of common assumptions. We may be sure that were characteristic of blindness of the 20th century. The blindness about which posterity will ask, "But how could they have thought that lies where we have never suspected?"
We have never suspected it and concerned something about which there is undoubted agreement between Hitler and President Roosevelt or between Mr. HG Wells and Carl Bar. None of us can fully escape the blindness, but we shall certainly increase it and weaken our guard against it if we read only modern books.
>> We should pause there. That's an interesting fact because that is true.
And you we'll find it. I mean, if you really are honest with yourself, you'll find it in your own self where you just see the two sides as so polar opposite that you fail to see the common ground that they're growing on. And we do that >> in our theology and we also do it in our politics. We do it in everything in our lives. That's a really keen observation, Mr. Lewis.
>> Yeah, I actually agree. That is a really good point and I think his um notion about both um I mean the examples that he brings up that it's something that everyone's going to be in agreement about. It's something that both Hitler and President Roosevelt are going to be in agreement about and it's something that you know or something that Carl Bar and HG Wells the famous naturalist >> and if you know Carl Bars he's the um Calvinist theologian >> of the 19th century really >> here we were at where there are where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill.
>> Do you want me to read for a bit?
>> Sure you can read for a The only palative is to keep the clean sea breeze and the centuries blowing through our minds. And this can be done only by reading old books. Not, of course, that there's any magic about the past. People were no cleverer then than they are now.
They made as many mistakes as we, but not the same mistakes. They will not flatter us in the errors we are already committing, and their own errors, now being now open and palpable, will not endanger us. Two heads are better than one. Not because either is infalluable, but because they are unlikely to go wrong in the same direction. To be sure, the books of the future would be just as good a corrective as the book of the past. But unfortunately, we cannot get at them. I would say this is an interesting concept too because one of the things when you look at say scripture, when you read all the various scribes, one of the ways that they confirm what was truth is how many of them had the right word in the right spot. So, like if there's errors in all of these different parchments and documents, they're able to say, "Okay, this is what it should say because >> Oh, that's actually is an interesting point.
>> 15 of these say this exact word and only one of them is wrong." And so, we're going to stick with the majority. That's an interesting fact and I actually really appreciate that because >> I think it's important that we do carefully.
>> That is an interesting point. I don't know if everyone's going to fully understand that though. Um she's talking about the how we take biblical texts in their original language. We find manuscripts and then how we piece them together and figure out what is actually the >> correct reading. What was the original reading? Because when things are handcopied, there's this almost certain mistake that people are going to make.
They're going to misspell something.
They're going to forget one word or something or other. And it's not really going to substantially change the documents from document to document >> or the meaning or the meaning. But there will be small changes and sometimes they'll have a small change in meaning and sometimes they'll accidentally add a word or for theological piety they'll add an extra word something like that.
And we can then take all these different documents because one of the great things about the New Testament is that it was very widely um passed about to the different Christian churches all around the Roman Empire. So that means that when somebody starts writing these out, there may be mistakes on each individual um copy, you know, just minor spelling errors because everyone who writes something by hand is going to make errors.
>> But the powerful thing is that we can actually go back and find these thousands of different manuscripts. We can put them side by side and see what they say. Mhm.
>> And when we see that this grouping here seems to commonly have this error, you know, they add this word on accident here that just barely changes the meaning, not substantially, but just a little bit. But all the other ones don't have that, then we can usually be confident when we're you when we're studying these that the correct one is the one that all the different churches in all the other places say and not the one that this one region seems to commonly have this air.
>> Yep. And so as far as theological truth goes or even just historical truth and interestingly enough facts go, you could see where maybe there was a growth on understanding the Holy Spirit and you can see where that sort of evolves. It's a similar process. You can kind of pull out the ones that you're like, you know, these ones had this thought, but it does not feed into what the majority believes. And that's kind of what I think CS Lewis is saying here. When you go back to those older documents, we can see where we're starting to veer away >> because our truth is starting to expand beyond what scripture says. So, obviously, scripture has to be the foundational truth, but you can see where they're building on it through their understanding. So, I think that's pretty cool >> and that is important, too. I mean when you study the early Christian writers all the way up to the council of Nika and actually if you like study their different thoughts on trinitarian doctrine is very very interesting because they're going to be debating things that now we've pretty much settled but there's going to be theological disputes on certain matters that are not quite settled at that point because people are still figuring out how should we execute these texts and then eventually real theologians would eventually come to the conclusion that many of the ideas >> are not tenable >> you know but the vast vast majority tended to be in the correct in some sense although they would commonly make minor errors on theological doctrine. So for example, you know, certain writers of the anti-nyene, which is pre- nyine era, would >> there's chaos above behind us.
>> Chaos, so hopefully it doesn't bother you. You know, some of them have our songs through the mic. So >> for example, subordinate the son to the father in a way that the Bible doesn't teach, >> right? It's very natural to start to come to those conclusions just through logic. But when you read the Bible, you know, the Bible teaches, for example, in John chapter 5 that Jesus is equal to God, >> you know, so some people and they wouldn't say that and they would say that he is God, but they would say that he is like a lesser emanation. I believe that would be the heir of Tertullan in some sense. And they would believe that the Holy Spirit is a lesser emanation of God from the sun to the Holy Spirit.
Yeah.
>> And so on and so forth. So you'd have these minor heirs. Is it still trinitarian? But we wouldn't say that, you know, because as we worked our way through and went back to scripture, you know, we would come to the conclusion that no, the Bible doesn't teach what you're teaching. You know, you're adding in too much philosophy.
>> You're adding out too much influence from the outside or just using your own reason, things that seem very natural but aren't taught in the word of God, >> which is another important reason to understand. What is the uh Oh goodness, I got to think of his name. He's the Nope, I'm not going to remember his name. Anyway, he was a uh um from like the Asian uh influence of philosophers, but he would always say, "If you know your enemy, you will know you'll win 50% of the time. If you know yourself, you'll win 50% of the time. If you want to win 100% of the time, you have to know your >> yourself and your enemy." And so that I think it's important that you understand some of the logic behind the other >> I don't think you can hear them. I hope you can't, but my children are here because we have junior rodeo club soon and they are yelling. So, I hope that you can't hear that. I'm going to read some more. Is that okay?
>> Yeah. Where are we at again?
>> Uh, we're at I myself was first led into reading the Christian classics almost accidentally as a result of my English studies. Some such as Hooker, Herbert, Trey, Trhernie, >> I don't know that one.
>> Taylor and Bunan I read because they themselves are great English writers.
Others such as Botheus, >> I think it's Botheus maybe Botheus and St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinus, and Dante because they were influences, which is interesting to me. George Macdonald I had found for myself at the age of 16.
Who doesn't love George Macdonald? And never wavered in my allegiance, though I tried for a long time to ignore his Christianity. They are, you will note, a mixed bag, representative of many churches, climates, and ages. And that brings me to yet another reason for reading them. The divisions of Christianom are undeniable and are by some of these writers most fiercely expressed. But if any man is tempted to think, as one might be tempted, who read only contemporaries, that Christianity is a word of so many meanings that means nothing at all, he can learn beyond all doubt by stepping out of its own century. That is not so measured against the ages mere Christianity.
He's used it twice there. Turns out to be no insepid interdenominational transparency, but something positive, self-consistent, and inexhaustible.
I know it indeed to my cost. In the days when I still hated Christianity, I learned to recognize like some all too familiar smell that the most unvarying something which met me now in Puritan Bunan, now in Anglican hooker, now inist Dante. It was there, honeyed and floral, in France desales. It was there grave and homely and Spencer and Walton. It was there grim but manful in Pascal and Johnson. There again with a mild frightening parasitial flavor in Vaughn and Boeing and Trhern in the urban sobriety of the 18th century. One was not safe. Lawn and Butler were two lions in the path. The supposed paganism of the Elizabethians could not keep it out.
It lay in weight where a man might have supposed himself safest in the very center of the fairy queen and the Arcadia. It was of course buried and yet after all so unmistakably the same recognizable not to be invaded evaded the odor which is death to us until we allow it to become life. It's a good line.
>> An air that kills from yan far country blows. We are all rightly distressed and ashamed also at the divisions of Christendom. But those who have always lived within the Christian fold may be too easily dispirited by them. They're bad. But such people do not know what it looks like from without. Seeing from there, what is left intact, despite all the divisions, still appears, as it truly is, an immensibly formidable unity. I know, for I saw it, and while our enemies know it, the unity any of us can find by going out of his own age. It is not enough, but it is more than you had thought till then. Once you were well soaked in it, if you then venture to speak, you will have an amusing experience. You'll be thought a papist when you are actually reproducing bunan, a pantheist when you are quoting Aquinus and so forth. For you have now got got on to the great level voduct which crosses the ages and which looks so high from the valley, so low from the mountains, so narrow compared to the swamps and so broad compared with the sheep tracks. Do you want to comment there or keep reading?
>> I I think I really like that picture actually. I won't comment too much but >> because it it can be problematic and it can be struggling to look at how divided Christianity has become in some sense.
>> Yeah.
>> And I mean that is a struggle especially because when you look at the early church how much more although in some sense it was united it was more united in especially as time went on in structure. Although in theology, especially during the anti-cene period and in the anti-cene period, there was a lot more diversity, >> there's actually in some ways more diversity in the earliest days of the church, the first few hundred years, than there was in the modern church.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, there's a lot of things that are that were basically heresy >> that were somewhat common and fortunate to have existed and were upheld by, you know, bishops who had been, you know, who had by every measurable right proper and valid. what might be called succession from the prophets and the apostles which became a very important core you know a very important core tenant that came about such a you know for a lot of people during that time period what are the kids doing >> they're trying to get my attention >> they're distracting us >> they're so distracting >> yeah you know so even if you do come from an ecclesial tradition such as you know the Catholic church let's say where apostolic succession is absolutely necessary for valid priesthood there were time periods I mean even during and after the ning creed where there were actual Aryan bishops I mean St. Athanasius was deposed multiple times and put in his place were Aryan bishops who were by every means valid in that sense and Athanasius actually accepted they were the valid bishop of where he was although he still opposed them in every way he was like these guys are actually the valid people they're in charge >> because they've been put there which is a really interesting point >> yeah I see how you say that I also like his point that the uh church from the outside does not look >> as divided as it feels from the inside >> but yeah and I that's where I was trying to get to but and that is good that you put me on track a little bit. But you know the point is that there was actually massive massive divisions in the early church that were a lot bigger than modern divisions.
>> Although they were institutionally more united although but theologically were a lot more united than a lot of the early church. you know our trinitarian you know how we understand the trinity is a lot more united and it's actually you know it's really good how united it is because it is the correct scriptural way of understanding it >> right >> but you and in baptism too I mean we have a similar amount of disagreement in baptism you look in the early church you have people the earliest treatis we have on baptism is you know against infant baptism it's by um or I believe it was by origin or maybe it's by trulian I can't recall >> and then you know that's the earliest one. But that also implies if there's a treat against infant baptism that there was also infant baptism. Yeah.
>> You know, so even in the earliest church, we have disputes about these things, >> right, >> that existed >> and that still exists >> and that still exists even to this very day. So although there is division that we might see from the outside, I think there is a massive unity >> and I think that goes back to prioritizing those four Ds of die for, divide for, >> debate for, and decide for. I think that prioritizing those and organizing them in your thought and in your heart can help preserve the unity of Christ that he prayed for us. If you read John for 17 where he's praying for the church to be one just as he is one, it's really important.
>> All right, I'm jumping ahead reading more before my kids interrupt us yet again.
>> The present book is something of an experiment and I'm assuming it the present book he's talking about on the incarnation.
>> Yeah, that's that'd be correct. The translation is intended for the world at large, not only for theological students. If it succeeds, other translations of other great Christian books will presumably follow. In one sense, of course, it is not the first in the field. Translations of theologica Germanica.
>> Yeah, that is >> the imitation >> discovered by actually Martin Luther.
>> Oh, cool.
>> It's very common amongst Anglicans.
>> Nice.
>> The scale of perfection and the revelations of Lady Julian of Norwich are already on the market and are very valuable. Well, some of them are not very scholarly, but it will be noted that these are all books of devotion rather than doctrine. Now, the layman or amateur needs to be instructed as well to be exhorted in this age. His need for knowledge is particularly pressing. Nor would I admit any sharp division between the two kinds of books. For my own part, I tend to find the doctrinal books often more helpful in devotion than the devotional books. And I rather suspect that the same experience may await many others. I believe that many who find that nothing happens when they sit down or kneel down to a book of devotion would find the heart sings unbidden while they are working their way through a tough bit of theology with a pipe in their teeth and a pencil in their hand.
>> Yeah, we should stop there.
>> There's a good image.
>> Yeah, I don't know. I love that picture and I This is one of the This is really a great point. It's a point that I found is that in my personal experience, I'm not really a touchyfey kind of guy usually, you know. So that means that it's very difficult for me to I don't know there's a lot of people who are more touchyfey than me and that means that when they come into like a more evangelical sort of church worship it's very easy for them to just get into the rhythm. It was very easy for them just to like let their heart sing with the um with the emotions and the tide of the atmosphere, >> right?
>> You know, and is that very devotional?
But I think for a lot of people, especially people who struggle with Christianity and look at it from the outside because I can understand that when I was an atheist, it was very hard for me to look at, you know, the evangelical sort of movement and be like, "These guys are just look like wacky nut jobs." You know what I mean?
And that's not to be rude by any means, but it's just it isn't my personal form of piety usually naturally is to get really emotional about it. That's something that just doesn't come to me naturally.
>> It's something that actually has but what has brought me to actually be able to come to that level where I can actually have that emotional sort of connection with God is theologically, >> right?
>> You know, it for me it is working through tough theology. And that actually working through tough theology actually helps me to come to a place where I actually can have that more emotional form of worship where the devotional books are actually useful.
But first it starts with the head for me. It starts with the mind and then works into the emotions. I think perhaps for some people it could be the opposite. Starting with the emotions and then working into the mind, >> right?
>> But for me it just >> couldn't penetrate, you know, my scales of armor. You know what I mean? Until >> I got on to the theological side of things. That's what bids my heart to worship is when I'm studying through tough theology. And I think there's a lot of men who are like that.
Especially, >> you know, there's a lot of guys who struggle going to church. You know, it's very common that trope of it's the mom who drags the kids to church and the dad wants to sit at home with the newspaper or whatever, watch the football game and just, you know, sit back and he's like, I'm not going to church today.
>> Yeah. You know, that's the that's the common trope that has come to exist, which is really really unfortunate because uh I think the fathers need to be the leaders of the house. And I've heard a statistic that if the father is Christian, the vast majority of the ch and the mother isn't, the children are going to vast majority become Christian.
>> That's the most common way for things to be.
>> It's not always the case, of course, right? You know, we can't always expect that. But if the father is Christian, then the kids will probably become Christian. If the mother's Christian, the father is not, they probably won't become Christian. Well, that's interesting.
>> You know, it's more common for the kids to not be Christian if the if the um father isn't Christian.
>> I've been very impressed with our church specifically because there are times when the moms aren't there and the dads still bring the kids.
>> And I just thought, you know what that is? It's a testimony to the strength of it. Um back to your point on theology and doxology. One of my favorite quotes is good theology should always lead to good docology and good docology must always find its roots in good theology.
And that's one of my favorites because I truly believe the more we understand God, the more we will want to worship him. And it becomes it transcends that emotional component because we do have a tendency to emotionalize things with music. You can have an experience of powerful emotions in any music genre, but true worship has to come from true understanding of who God is. And I think that's really important. All right, you ready for me to read on?
>> Let me touch on that just a little bit more, though. But I really do think it's true, though. There's a lot of men who don't realize how deep the Christian faith is and I feel like they could be reached through the intellectual side.
Mhm.
>> I think there's a lot of people who in this modern day especially in and of course the opposite error can be made also >> right >> I'm not coming to say that only you know there's people who need to be reached through the emotional side and there's been times in church history especially if you look at certain reformed traditions where it's super duper intellectual but it's not very emotional you know that can be a con and then there's also the opposite where there's extremely um evangelical sort of worship which is very very emotional but it's not very deep in int intellectual.
>> Mhm.
>> And both those sides can actually be problematic. And often I think that it's a pendulum swing is that I think the reason very emotional evangelical worship is very popular and common now is because in the past super rigorous intellectualism was the Protestant thing.
>> And I think that there was a swing of the pendulum because people saw that the intellectual side was not personally devotionally deep enough.
Right? And now I think the opposite swing has happened where it's become too emotional in some sense without the deep of the intellectual side. I think both need to be present.
>> No, I agree. That is a really good point.
>> Cool. All right. Carry on now.
>> Yes, I'm ready.
>> All right. This is a good translation of a very great book. Again, talking about the book uh in on the incarnation, St. Athanasius has suffered in popular estimation from a certain s sent sentence in the Athanasian creed. I will not labor the point that that work is not exactly a creed and not was not by St. Athanasius for I think it is a very fine piece of writing. The words which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled without doubt he shall perish everlastingly are the offense. They're commonly misunderstood. The operative word is keep not acquire or even believe but keep. The author in fact is not talking about unbelievers but about deserters. Not about those who have never heard of Christ nor even those who have misunderstood and refused to accept him but those who having really understood and really believed then allow themselves under the sway of sloth or of fashion or of any other invited confusion to be drawn away into subchristian modes of thought. They are a warning against the curious modern assumption that all changes of belief, however brought about, are necessarily exempt from blame. This is not my immediate concern. I mentioned the creed commonly called of St. Athanasius only to get the out of the reader's way what may have been a bogey. A bogei bogey.
>> I think a bogey is the term >> to put the true Athanasius in its place.
His epitap is Athanasius contraundom.
Athanasius against the world. We are proud that our own country has more than once stood against the world. Athanasius did the same. He stood for the trinitarian doctrine whole and undefiled when it looked as if all of the civilized world was slipping back from Christianity into the religion of Aras into one of those sensible synthetic religions which are so strongly recommended today and which then as now included among their devotees many highly cultivated clergymen. It is his glory. It is it is his glory that he did not move with the times. It is his reward that he now remains when those times as all times do have moved away.
>> I think that's a really important >> component too because what I think CS Lewis is trying to say here is that Athanasius was standing against and he stood against to his own banishing his own stripping of his title. Right? He was removed from his position because he refused to back down on this doctrine of the trinity when Aras basically bought off the leaders to say this is what we should say.
>> He got friendly with the emperor and >> you know there was a lot of disagreement but and really they weren't even saying that asius couldn't necessarily stay in his position but he had to accept the Aryan school >> into the church and he said we're not going to accept that. Yep.
>> We can't accept this these ideas in the church and he's willing to be banished from his position. Yeah, for this belief in Jesus is in fact God.
>> And it's very vital that we remember how many uh people have gone before us as >> I mean they've paid with their blood, their sweat, their tears and their time.
And I think that's one of the key components to reading some of these old truths is that you can actually see how much >> they were willing to sacrifice. I mean read how the various apostles were murdered >> or attempted to be murdered if you look at John. Yeah, >> I mean it was hard. It was not easy.
>> I think it's also valuable to look at the valuable to look at the passing um heresies and how for a time aranism was huge.
>> You know, it probably was larger than orthodoxy for a short time even some think or at least close to the size of orthodoxy, >> right?
>> Which is I mean a crazy idea. But it really did happen. But these are passing fads.
>> Yeah. they you know and they come back >> and they come back in different forms in different cloaks and new fads will come about whether perhaps modern liberalism and you know a lot of churches in mainline churches and such and you know Catholic churches and larger churches tend to have this um issue of for example liberalism >> but I do believe that these things will pass in time.
>> I agree.
>> You know if we hold to the faith.
>> Yeah.
>> But it's going to be to our glory if we hold to the true faith and not to these passing fads that come about.
>> I agree. All right, carrying on. When I first opened his deincarnation, I soon discovered by a very simple test that I was reading a masterpiece. I knew very little Christian Greek except that of the New Testament, and I had expected difficulties. To my astonishment, I found it almost as easy as Zenapon, and only a mastermind could in the 4th century have written so deeply on such a subject with such classical simplicity.
Every page I read confirmed this impression. His approach to the miracles is badly needed today, for it is the final answer to those who object to them as arbitrary and meaningless violations of the laws of nature. There are here shown to be rather a retelling in capital letters of the same message which nature writes in her crabbed cursive hand and the very operations one would expect of him him with a capital H who was so full of life that when he wished to die he had to borrow death from others. What a cool line that is.
The whole book indeed is a picture of the tree of life, a sappy and golden book full of buoyancy and confidence. We cannot, I admit, appreciate appropriate all of its confidence today. We cannot point to the high virtue of Christian living and the gay almost mocking courage of Christian martyrdom as proof of our doctrines with quite that assurance which Athanasius takes as a matter of course. But whoever may to be blamed for that, it is not Athanasius.
The translator knows so much more Christian Greek than I that it would be out of place for me to praise her version, but it seems to me to be in the right tradition of English translation.
I do not think the reader will find here any of the sawdusty quality which is so common in modern renderings from the ancient languages. That is, as much of the English reader will notice, those who compare the version with the original will be able to estimate how much wit and talent is presupposed in such a choice. for example, as these wise acres on the very first page.
>> It's a great that's a great introduction and I do recommend that uh if you are watching this that you find a copy. I mean, you can find it on Audible. You can probably find it on YouTube.
>> Yeah, this is I actually found it on a free PDF on that you can read if you want to read it online. So, just look up St. Nassinius on the incarnation um PDF and you can get the whole book for free or you can listen to it on YouTube for free if you want to listen to the audio book. And I think it's a twohour maybe.
>> Yes, it's two and a half hours on audiobook. And it's been free on Audible before. Right now it's not, I don't think. But I've I listen to it free on Audible even.
>> Mhm.
>> So it's very available. You're you know it's easy to get to.
>> And it is very listen to it twice, >> listen to it once uh kind of fast so you get an overdose of it and then go back and listen to it and pause on some of the greater thoughts. That's what I did and it really helped break it down. It was really good. So >> yeah, I mean that's a great way of doing it. Or even if you have the time, you could listen over it and then read it.
>> Yeah.
>> Over it the second time or however you prefer. But I mean there's a it's just a great work and even if you just listen to it once, get the brief overview. You can come back to it at a later time.
>> Yeah.
>> You know, it calls back to you don't have to read it and then front to back and then read it again.
>> You can actually read it once, take some time, read some other books, and then go back to and read it more deeply.
>> It is. It's really well articulated.
Highly recommend. Good choice. I really enjoyed this today. Ice, anything else you want to touch on before we >> finish? Did you have a prayer out of the book of common prayer you want to close?
>> Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Here's my book recommendation of the day kind of. Okay.
>> This will be my book recommendation. I was al So we had two ideas of what we might talk about today. It was either on reading old books as we went over or we were going to talk about the three ecumenical creeds, which we might do soon. And it might be fun to read over the three ecumenical creeds >> um and basically do what we did here and talk about them as we read over them.
That could be a fun thing to do at some point. But um this is the book of common prayer. It is an Anglican book. I'm not an Anglican, but it is a wonderful, wonderful book. I recommend the 1662 personally. This is the international edition. And I know that a lot of people prefer the one that's read that isn't international because it is more exact to the original translation. So there are reasons to prefer the other.
Although this one is still pretty good and it's very beautiful if you're just using as a devotional book. And I found this to really be my favorite devotional book. As somebody who isn't really necessarily overly um emotional in my worship usually for personal devotion, this is one of my favorite books to go to. And it has three ecumenical creeds in it. It has the Apostles Creed, the Nyine Creed, and the Asanasian Creed. And I mean, those three creeds are really important. I think if you're going to read something outside of the Bible, which I recommend every Christian eventually gets to, but if you are going to read Christian theology and you're like, I've never read Christian or historic Christian theology at least outside of the Bible, the first place I would look at is the three ecumenical creeds, which is the Apostles Creed, the Nying Creed, and the Asanian Creed. And it'll take you maybe 10 minutes to read all three front to back if you really felt like it. Now to understand them, it'll take a lot more time.
>> But I mean these are worthwhile creeds to read. Martin Luther used to re basically do the basic catechism. And if you look at what was the basic catechism of children back in the day in the Christian church outside of just like the stories of the Bible, it was the three main points that they would teach.
And I think that this is something we should actually kind of bring back was the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, and it would either be the Apostles or Nyine Creed.
>> Mhm.
>> And those were really the three core documents. And I would recommend, and this is something I've tried to start doing as much as I can, is I try to read over the the um Ten Commandments as often as I can and ideally even daily if you can do this.
>> Then do the Lord's Prayer. Although I don't I'm not here to say you must do it daily because I fail at that. So, I'm not here to, you know, try to be a hypocrite and tell people how to do it, but this can be valuable. But then you can read over or and I'd even recommend that you actually learn to memorize it like I have and just pray the Lord's Prayer.
>> Yeah.
>> Just to, you know, memorize and then also meditate upon what each of the words mean.
>> You know, and then reading over one of the three creeds and you can switch it up of the three ecumenical creeds and those that can be very valuable as rep.
It is it is repetition, but I think it can be very valuable repetition. Yeah.
if you're doing it well and you're memorizing what it's saying and you're trying to remember what it talks about just to get your yourself familiar with these major major points of Christian thought.
But and my favorite of them I think is the Aanian creed.
>> That's your favorite?
>> Yeah, I think that is my favorite.
>> Although the night scene is really great.
>> But I think we could go over those soon.
>> Yeah. I also think going over the Lord's Prayer is a good idea. We uh every night I pray the Lord's prayer with my kiddos and we do um my father always used to do when we were kids. Uh >> the Lord bless you and keep you, be gracious to you, Lord, make his face shine upon you, give you peace and a good night's sleep. So that's our nightly prayer ritual. It's kind of fun.
Um well, yeah. No, that's great. Are you going to read us one right now?
>> Let me see. I'm gonna find one that reads.
>> It's somewhere in here. It might be >> I think um that's a pretty tiny book. I am getting way too old for books that small. My eyeballs are like playing trombone when I try to read it. I'm like, what does that say?
>> It's actually not too small a text if you >> Oh, I guess it's not so bad.
>> Yeah, it's just a small book, so it's easy to carry, but it's not that big of a book either.
>> Yeah, >> it's a little bit thick. I'm trying to find the creed that I'm looking for.
Distract the crowd, mother.
>> Distract the crowd. Good. Well, yes. So, um, when we go, we do them at bedtime. I am not as good at morning prayer time with my kids. I've realized that's kind of something that I need a bit of more holy conviction on. I believe. But uh it would be nice. I think it's important.
But I do love to do the evening time. I should do the Lord's Prayer in the morning and then the night time do the other one. All right.
>> And I'd think when they're younger, it would probably be wise to start out with the um Apostles Creed because the shortest and simplest and then when they get older work into the Nying creed >> and then probably eventually go to the Athanasian creed.
>> Are we reading the Aanian? Yeah, I think we'll go over the assassination if we want to.
>> I don't think we have time to actually go over it, but if you want to.
>> No, that's not what I mean. I'm just saying read over it for the ending.
>> Yeah.
>> Whosoever will be saved before all things, it is necessary that he hold the Catholic faith which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled without doubt, he shall perish everlasting.
>> Very strong warning. It's a strong This is the strongest of all the creeds too in its warnings and condemnations. And the Catholic faces us that we we worship one God and trinity and trinity and use unity neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the father another of the son and another of the holy ghost. But the godhead of the father of the son and of the holy ghost is all one. The glory equal the majesty co-eternal. Such as the father is such as the son and such as the holy ghost.
The father unccreated the son unccreated. the Holy Ghost uncreated, the Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal. And also there are not three incomprehensibles, but or nor three uncreated, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise, the Father is Almighty, the Son is Almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet there are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the father is God, the son is God, and the holy ghost is God. And yet there are not three gods but one God. So likewise the father is lord, the son is lord, and the holy ghost is lord. And yet there are not three lords but one lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian varity to acknowledge every person by himself to be god and lord. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say that there are three gods or three lords. The father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The son is of the father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The holy ghost is of the father and of the son. Filioquay neither it doesn't say that but I was mentioning >> you couldn't help yourself.
>> I couldn't help myself. Neither made nor created nor begotten but proceeding.
So there so there is one father not three fathers one son not three sons the holy ghost. One holy ghost not three holy ghosts.
And in this trinity, none is before after another. None is greater, lesser than another. But the whole three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal. So that in all things, as is a fores said, the unity and trinity, and the trinity and unity is worship, he therefore that will be saved must think thus of the Trinity.
Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he hold that he also believe rightly the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ for the right faith is the is that we believe and confess that the Lord Jesus Christ the son of God is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the world, and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world. Perfect God, perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh, subsisting equal to the Father as touching his Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood. Who although who although he is God and man, yet is not two, but one Christ, one not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of the manhood into God, one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ, who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again on the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and sitth at the right hand of the father, God Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, at whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting, and they that have done evil into everlasting fire. This is the Catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.
Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.
>> Amen. It's quite a hearty, very, very staunch.
>> That is the staunchest of all the creeds.
>> Yes.
>> And is the most um theologically precise.
>> Yeah. And it isn't really a creed either.
>> No, >> it is actually a really originally a study guide that became a creed.
>> And it wasn't written by Athanasius either either, which is interesting. And it's more influenced by St. Augustine than it is by Athanasia.
>> Who actually wrote it?
>> Um, we don't know.
>> Oh, some monk.
>> Oh, gotcha.
>> But it's I mean it's a powerful >> based on their work.
>> I see.
>> But it is based off of and influenced in some sense by um St. Aanasius. And Aanasius is the most important defender of the Trinity and that's why it's named in his honor. Oh, that makes >> But it is more Augustininian in its way of thinking as more Latin whereas >> Athanasius is more Greek and you'll find two schools of sought which are not opposed to one another although they are distinct in how they explain and describe the trinity.
>> Yeah.
>> So they start in different places and use different frameworks in some sense but they are not in disagreement which is >> really important to remember but the Latin view of the trinity is more precise. That's what the asination creed is. And that's the value of the Latin view of the trinity is that you get more technical precision in what you're talking about and it's less likely to fall into error or mistake. The Greek view of the trinity on the other hand is more mystical in some sense. It almost feels more mystical and uh and it's also it feels it's able to pull language directly from the Bible more. Whereas the Latin view is going it isn't opposed to the Bible. It teaches what the Bible teaches, but it uses more technical philosophical language. Whereas the Greek view is going to use more direct biblical language, which is also very, you know, it's a very high positive. And it's going to explain what the Bible teaches closer to biblical language >> and using that language more, which can be very helpful. But neither is wrong or opposes the scriptures.
>> Yeah, that's cool. All right, that will be a whole topic in itself. Wow, we've already almost got an hour and a half with screaming kids in the background.
We have >> with screaming kids. Good job, us.
>> All right, why don't you pray us out, son? All right. Thank you Lord for bringing us together. We are thankful that you have given this opportunity given us this opportunity to talk about your word and talk about your church and to talk about the great books and the importance of studying and trying to be as understanding as we can so that we can ultimately try to understand you better. We are thankful for our ability to gather together without persecution in this nation and our ability to come together on a weekly basis and talk to each other.
We praise you. We praise your greatness as father, son, and holy spirit. One God before all time.
We are very, very thankful that you sent your son on the cross. That you sent him down. Although it wasn't natural to estate as God, you sent him down and allowed him to take on human flesh and in that human flesh that he would die on the cross for our sins and for our salvation.
Thank you, Lord. Amen.
>> Amen. Go with God and be a blessing.
Videos Relacionados
BSA Goldstar - I gave up! And why animals beat humans!
thebingleywheeler
102 views•2026-05-31
The 'Islamic dilemma': Quran tells Christians to judge by the Gospel
canceledkings
1K views•2026-05-29
3 Dreams That Changed Philosophy Forever
mommyplus24
731 views•2026-05-31
Seneca - Escape The Crowd, Find Your Inner Peace!
realfreewisdom
114 views•2026-05-29
Scholar Explains: WHAT IS A GNOSTIC?
fightbackpodcast
965 views•2026-05-31
Fulton Sheen: A Mente Tenta se Manter Jovem para não Sofrer com os Impactos do Tempo
SantoCotidiano-port
673 views•2026-05-29
Why Pure HEDONISM Is IRRATIONAL
qnaline
12K views•2026-05-31
When They Ignore You, Do This Instead | Stoicism
ZenithWisdom-e3k
615 views•2026-05-31
