Authentic Christianity: Recent Episodes
Authentic Christianity
Authentic Christianity seeks to present the traditional faith of the Christian Church as it was found from the 1st century through the 15th century and can still be found today.
The host of this podacst, Justin West, and I'm a revert to the Pre-denominational Christian faith which called itself Catholic, and professed faith in the triune Godhead and a visible, hierarchical church on earth which retained authority via apostolic succession and the guidance of the holy Spirit.
He wants to answer your questions simply and honestly Email question to askcatholics@gmail.com to learn what the oldsest traditions (east and west) have believed about the faith)
You can support this channel here: http://bit.ly/DonateToAskCatholics
Here is a short syllogism that has to premises that SEEM true, but which lead to a conclusion that utterly undermines the very scriptures they seek to bolster.
Premise 1) SCRIPTURE IS THE SOLE/ONLY INFALLBILE SOURCE OF AUTHORITY
Premise 2) THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.
CONCLUSION: THEREFORE, THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE IS FALLIBLE
One of those
Jesus himself taught Purgatory exists.
And he's pretty clear that those there can be saved, but there is a level of punishment or suffering there.
In Luke 12, he gives a series of eschatological parables.
The first one ends thus:
"You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
This makes it clear that his parable was about the end.
But then Luke continues:
41 Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?”
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
This is an eschatological (pointed towards the end) parable...
A - One steward is rewarded for being faithful and wise.(Heaven)
B - A second steward is a drunk, and he's "cut in half" (literally: διχοτομήσει- that's the word we get "dichotomy" from) and sent to be with the unbelievers (Hell)
Then we have two more.
C The third steward knows the master's will and doesn't get ready, he intentionally disobeys, so he's beaten with MANY blows (but not kicked out like B).
D The fourth steward doesn't know things, and thus is not as culpable for his mistakes. He is beaten with FEW blows (but again, is not thrust out like B was)
Escatalogically, this is purgatory. The one who knew more and failed IS beaten or punished, but ultimately attains heaven. The one who knew less is judged with more mercy. Still something akin to punishment happens (because being purified is a process) but salvation is the end for C and D, as it is of A. It is only B who is utterly destroyed.
And what's the next part of this gospel? In case you needed confirmation, Jesus gives ANOTHER parable about some place of punishment after this life that is not hell.
Luke 12:58-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.
Jesus himself taught Purgatory exists.
And he's pretty clear that those there can be saved, but there is a level of punishment or suffering there.
In Luke 12, he gives a series of eschatological parables.
The first one ends thus:
"You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”
This makes it clear that his parable was about the end.
But then Luke continues:
41 Peter asked, “Lord, are you telling this parable to us, or to everyone?”
42 The Lord answered, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom the master puts in charge of his servants to give them their food allowance at the proper time? 43 It will be good for that servant whom the master finds doing so when he returns. 44 Truly I tell you, he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But suppose the servant says to himself, ‘My master is taking a long time in coming,’ and he then begins to beat the other servants, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk. 46 The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.
47 “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
This is an eschatological (pointed towards the end) parable...
A - One steward is rewarded for being faithful and wise.(Heaven)
B - A second steward is a drunk, and he's "cut in half" (literally: d???t?µ?se?- that's the word we get "dichotomy" from) and sent to be with the unbelievers (Hell)
Then we have two more.
C The third steward knows the master's will and doesn't get ready, he intentionally disobeys, so he's beaten with MANY blows (but not kicked out like B).
D The fourth steward doesn't know things, and thus is not as culpable for his mistakes. He is beaten with FEW blows (but again, is not thrust out like B was)
Escatalogically, this is purgatory. The one who knew more and failed IS beaten or punished, but ultimately attains heaven. The one who knew less is judged with more mercy. Still something akin to punishment happens (because being purified is a process) but salvation is the end for C and D, as it is of A. It is only B who is utterly destroyed.
And what's the next part of this gospel? In case you needed confirmation, Jesus gives ANOTHER parable about some place of punishment after this life that is not hell.
Luke 12:58?-59 – Jesus teaches us, “Come to terms with your opponent or you will be handed over to the judge and thrown into prison. You will not get out until you have paid the last penny.” The word “opponent” (antidiko) is likely a reference to the devil (see the same word for devil in 1 Pet. 5:8) who is an accuser against man (c.f. Job 1.6-12; Zech. 3.1; Rev. 12.10), and God is the judge. If we have not adequately dealt with satan and sin in this life, we will be held in a temporary state called a prison, and we won’t get out until we have satisfied our entire debt to God. This “prison” is purgatory where we will not get out until the last penny is paid.
The Ballad of the White Horse. By G K Chesterton BOOK V. ETHANDUNE: THE FIRST STROKE
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse. By G K Chesterton BOOK V. ETHANDUNE: THE FIRST STROKE
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse BOOK IV. THE WOMAN IN THE FOREST | G. K. Chesterton
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse BOOK IV. THE WOMAN IN THE FOREST | G. K. Chesterton
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse - Book 3 - The Harp of Alfred - G. K. Chesterton
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse - Book 3 - The Harp of Alfred - G. K. Chesterton
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse - Book 2: The Gathering of the Chiefs - G. K. Chesterton
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse - Book 2: The Gathering of the Chiefs - G. K. Chesterton
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse - Book 1 - The Vision of the King - G. K. Chesterton
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Ballad of the White Horse - Book 1 - The Vision of the King - G. K. Chesterton
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Dedication of The Ballad of the White Horse - and Epic poem by G. K. Chesterton.
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
The Dedication of The Ballad of the White Horse - and Epic poem by G. K. Chesterton.
Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1719/1719-h/1719-h.htm
R. C. Sproul's quote has been taken down by Ligonier Ministries (for what seems to me obvious reasons) but here's the archive of it: https://web.archive.org/web/201203140...
My argument:
"The Bible is simply not sufficient by itself and there's a simple proof of this.
The Bible does not actually give you a list of books that belong in the Bible.
That had to come from an external Source - it came from a church which called itself Catholic and had Bishops and priests and deacons and prayed to Mary and the Saints and believed that the Eucharist that they celebrated with the actual body and blood of Jesus.
They're the ones who gave you the list of books that belong in scripture and if that list of books is infallible, it's because they - that church--are infallible and you should heed them still (ie you should be Catholic)
If they were mistaken, if they were not infallible, then the entire list of books you have in your Bible is itself fallible. Which means you have no reason to believe that any of the 27 books in the New Testament what's a 46 or 39 books that are in the Old Testament or actually inspired.
You can accept as true that all scripture is inspired by God and God breathed Etc, but if you can't answer the simple question "is this book scripture?" then you have no Bible. You have at best good spiritual reading, like Augustine's Confessions."
R. C. Sproul's quote has been taken down by Ligonier Ministries (for what seems to me obvious reasons) but here's the archive of it: https://web.archive.org/web/201203140...?
My argument:
"The Bible is simply not sufficient by itself and there's a simple proof of this.
The Bible does not actually give you a list of books that belong in the Bible.
That had to come from an external Source - it came from a church which called itself Catholic and had Bishops and priests and deacons and prayed to Mary and the Saints and believed that the Eucharist that they celebrated with the actual body and blood of Jesus.
They're the ones who gave you the list of books that belong in scripture and if that list of books is infallible, it's because they - that church--are infallible and you should heed them still (ie you should be Catholic)
If they were mistaken, if they were not infallible, then the entire list of books you have in your Bible is itself fallible. Which means you have no reason to believe that any of the 27 books in the New Testament what's a 46 or 39 books that are in the Old Testament or actually inspired.
You can accept as true that all scripture is inspired by God and God breathed Etc, but if you can't answer the simple question "is this book scripture?" then you have no Bible. You have at best good spiritual reading, like Augustine's Confessions."
Got a question?
Email askcatholics@gmail.com
DONATE to support this channel:
http://bit.ly/DonateToAskCatholics?
Pretend you're St. Paul. Pretend it's towards the end of your life, and you're writing letters to the churches that - once you and the other apostles die, will serve as the SOLE RULE OF FAITH.
Why, if that is the case, would you NOT write something like this:
"Timothy, my child, please take care to make copies of this letter, and pass it around to all the churches, for this is the sole rule of faith, along with this set of 26 other texts, including the first letter I wrote to you..."
No, instead he gives instruction for the living dissemination of the truth through the church: "what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2)
THAT is the biblical church. "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thes 2:15?)
Word of mouth was the MAIN way that the teachings were spread - though to be sure people HIGHLY regarded the writings, too, reading them in their eucharistic liturgies.
But the teaching was alive, guarded by the holy spirit, and passed down from the apostles to other men (bishops/episcopoi) whose job it was to guard the truth and teach the truth. And that's just what their successors did. Paul references 4 generations of men in that one sentence from 2 Tim above: Himself, Timothy, those Timothy would teach, and those that THOSE would teach.
Paul was a voluminous writer, but he did more than write - and he expected people to adhere to the TEACHING he gave them no matter how it was delivered. That's why when he chides the Galatians, he tells them to compare any new gospel they receive to the one he already delivered to them - orally. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we PREACHED to you, let him be accursed." (gal 1 :8) The expectation is that they should look back to that TRUTH that they had received - not in a written fashion - and compare ANYTHING else (written or unwritten) to that truth.
If you knew that the Christians were going to NEED the NT as their sole rule of faith, you should NEVER write something like: "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face." (2 john 12) Instead, you should have written out a systematic theology that could not have been mistaken or misread.
But instead the Apostles left us teachers. This is based on the model laid down by Christ, in Luke 10:16 Jesus tells His apostles, "he who HEARS you, hears Me."
And, as a reminder, 99% of the world was illiterate, too. So for most people not just then but for all of human history, it could NEVER have been "me in my bible."
It was always the church. And the earliest of documents bear this out:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Bishop Clement of Rome, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
Got a question?
Email askcatholics@gmail.com
DONATE to support this channel:
http://bit.ly/DonateToAskCatholics
Pretend you're St. Paul. Pretend it's towards the end of your life, and you're writing letters to the churches that - once you and the other apostles die, will serve as the SOLE RULE OF FAITH.
Why, if that is the case, would you NOT write something like this:
"Timothy, my child, please take care to make copies of this letter, and pass it around to all the churches, for this is the sole rule of faith, along with this set of 26 other texts, including the first letter I wrote to you..."
No, instead he gives instruction for the living dissemination of the truth through the church: "what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2)
THAT is the biblical church. "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings[a] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thes 2:15)
Word of mouth was the MAIN way that the teachings were spread - though to be sure people HIGHLY regarded the writings, too, reading them in their eucharistic liturgies.
But the teaching was alive, guarded by the holy spirit, and passed down from the apostles to other men (bishops/episcopoi) whose job it was to guard the truth and teach the truth. And that's just what their successors did. Paul references 4 generations of men in that one sentence from 2 Tim above: Himself, Timothy, those Timothy would teach, and those that THOSE would teach.
Paul was a voluminous writer, but he did more than write - and he expected people to adhere to the TEACHING he gave them no matter how it was delivered. That's why when he chides the Galatians, he tells them to compare any new gospel they receive to the one he already delivered to them - orally. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we PREACHED to you, let him be accursed." (gal 1 :8) The expectation is that they should look back to that TRUTH that they had received - not in a written fashion - and compare ANYTHING else (written or unwritten) to that truth.
If you knew that the Christians were going to NEED the NT as their sole rule of faith, you should NEVER write something like: "Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink. Instead I hope to come to you and talk face to face." (2 john 12) Instead, you should have written out a systematic theology that could not have been mistaken or misread.
But instead the Apostles left us teachers. This is based on the model laid down by Christ, in Luke 10:16 Jesus tells His apostles, "he who HEARS you, hears Me."
And, as a reminder, 99% of the world was illiterate, too. So for most people not just then but for all of human history, it could NEVER have been "me in my bible."
It was always the church. And the earliest of documents bear this out:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops s in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.'... Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry...For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Bishop Clement of Rome, Epistle to Corinthians, 42, 44 (A.D. 98).
Cyprian of Carthage, “On the Unity of the Church,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 421–429.
Cyprian of Carthage, “On the Unity of the Church,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 421–429.
Got a question? Email askcatholics@gmail.com
DONATE to support this channel:
http://bit.ly/DonateToAskCatholics
Let's be frank, your interpretation of scripture sucks. So does mine.
We are thousands of years removed from the writings themselves, and we don't speak the languages they were written in. So does that mean scripture is useless? Does that mean we can never understand it or Plumb its depths?
No. Of course not. However, when reading scripture we have to be careful that we not twist it out of context and 2000 years remove the single greatest way to do that is to read it in the context of the living tradition of the church which is safeguarded those scriptures, including their Cannon which is itself a part of tradition, for those two thousand years.
Got a question? Email askcatholics@gmail.com
DONATE to support this channel:
http://bit.ly/DonateToAskCatholics
Let's be frank, your interpretation of scripture sucks. So does mine.
We are thousands of years removed from the writings themselves, and we don't speak the languages they were written in. So does that mean scripture is useless? Does that mean we can never understand it or Plumb its depths?
No. Of course not. However, when reading scripture we have to be careful that we not twist it out of context and 2000 years remove the single greatest way to do that is to read it in the context of the living tradition of the church which is safeguarded those scriptures, including their Cannon which is itself a part of tradition, for those two thousand years.
Got a question? Email askcatholics@gmail.com
DONATE to support this channel:
http://bit.ly/DonateToAskCatholics
Perpetual Virginity?
Mother of God?
The New Eve?
The Ark of the New Covenant?
The First Christian?
All of these are apt phrases to describe the Theotokos, Mary, the mother of God.
Got a question? Email askcatholics@gmail.com
DONATE to support this channel:
http://bit.ly/DonateToAskCatholics
Perpetual Virginity?
Mother of God?
The New Eve?
The Ark of the New Covenant?
The First Christian?
All of these are apt phrases to describe the Theotokos, Mary, the mother of God.