Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Is this Divinely Inspired / or Divinely Retarded?

Is this Divinely Inspired / or Divinely Retarded?

  • 1. Divinely Inspired! Good text on the nature of right action towards man and God.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    1
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.

assisi.jpg


2 Corinthians 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

2 Corinthians 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

2 Corinthians 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
 
bibleberean said:
The bible points to Jesus and life the Gita points to death and destruction while claiming it points to life.


Why do you come out with this nonsense?

I imagine this kind of claim all comes down to 'faith', which tells us nothing about truth.

If instead of being Christian, you happened to be a Muslim, very possibly you would be just as convinced and fanatical about the "truth" of Islam, as you actually are about the "truth" of Christianity.

:roll:
 
I am a Christian and it isn't nonsense.

"God said it, I believe it and that settles it."

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

If the people that don't honor the bible or the Divine author of it don't like or agree with the words of Christ they can take a hike.

This is a Christian forum. :-D
 
DivineNames said:
Gita 11:53-54 (53) Not by the Vedas, or an austere life, or gifts to the poor, or ritual offerings can I be seen as thou hast seen me. (54) Only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me.

Gita 18:55 By love he knows me in truth, who I am and what I am. And when he knows me in truth he enters into my Being.

compare with-

1 Corinthians 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing. (NIV)

1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. (NIV)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gita 9:27 Whatever you do, or eat, or give, or offer in adoration, let it be an offering to me; and whatever you suffer, suffer it for me.

compare with-

1 Corinthians 10:31 So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. (NIV)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Something that we do not find in the Bible:


Gita 4:11 In any way that men love me, in that same way they find my love: for many are the paths of men, but they all in the end come to me.

Gita 9:23 Even those who in faith worship other gods, because of their love they worship me, although not in the right way.

So even worshipping the "God of the Bible" may be acceptable...

(Bhagavad Gita translation: Juan Mascaro)

Why did you only quote part of the text? Let us consider your quotes in full context.

Therefore, O adorable Lord, I seek Your mercy by bowing down and prostrating my body before You. Bear with me as a father to his son, as a friend to a friend, and as a husband to his wife, O Lord. (11.44) I am delighted by beholding that which has never been seen before, and yet my mind is tormented with fear. Therefore, O God of celestial rulers (Devas), the refuge of the universe, have mercy on me and show me that (four-armed) form. (11.45) I wish to see You with a crown, holding mace and discus in Your hand. Therefore, O Lord, with thousand arms and universal form, please appear in the four-armed form. (11.46) The Supreme Lord said: O Arjun, being pleased with you I have shown you --- through My own yogic powers --- this particular, supreme, shining, universal, infinite, and primal form of Mine that has never been seen before by anyone other than you. (11.47) O Arjun, neither by study of the Vedas, nor by sacrifice, nor by charity, nor by rituals, nor by severe austerities, can I be seen in this cosmic form by anyone other than you in this human world. (11.48) Do not be perturbed and confused by seeing such a terrible form of Mine as this. With fearless and cheerful mind, now behold My four-armed form. (11.49) Sanjay said: After speaking like this to Arjun, Krishn revealed His (four-armed) form. And then assuming His pleasant human form, Lord Krishn, the Great One, consoled Arjun who was terrified. (11.50) Arjun said: O Krishn, seeing this lovely human form of Yours, I have now become tranquil and I am normal again. (11.51)

The Supreme Lord said: This (four-armed) form of Mine that you have seen is very difficult, indeed, to see. Even celestial controllers (Devas) are ever longing to see this form. (11.52) This (four-armed) form of Mine that you have just seen cannot be seen even by study of the Vedas, or by austerity, or by acts of charity, or by the performance of rituals. (11.53) However, through single-minded devotion alone, I can be seen in this form, can be known in essence, and also can be reached, O Arjun. (11.54) One who does all works for Me, and to whom I am the supreme goal; who is my devotee, who has no attachment, and is free from enmity towards any being --- attains Me, O Arjun.

So nothing about "love" in this translation.

Also...

Absorbed in the Supreme Being (ParBrahm), the serene one neither grieves nor desires. Becoming impartial to all beings, one obtains My Paraa-Bhakti, the highest devotional love. (18.54) By devotion one truly understands what and who I am in essence. Having known Me in essence, one immediately merges with Me. (18.55)

Again, having no grieves or desires is hardly "love".... now imparial to all beings!

Whosoever offers Me a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or water with devotion, I accept and eat the offering of devotion by the pure-hearted. (9.26) O Arjun, whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer as oblation to the sacred fire, whatever charity you give, whatever austerity you perform, do all that as an offering unto Me. (9.27) You shall become free from the bondage --- good and bad --- of Karm by this attitude of complete renunciation (SamnyaasYog). Becoming liberated, you shall come to Me. (9.28)

So in context, the yogi is free from both good and bad!!!

:)
 
Gary said:
Therefore, O adorable Lord, I seek Your mercy by bowing down and prostrating my body before You. Bear with me as a father to his son, as a friend to a friend, and as a husband to his wife, O Lord. (11.44) I am delighted by beholding that which has never been seen before, and yet my mind is tormented with fear. Therefore, O God of celestial rulers (Devas), the refuge of the universe, have mercy on me and show me that (four-armed) form. (11.45) I wish to see You with a crown, holding mace and discus in Your hand. Therefore, O Lord, with thousand arms and universal form, please appear in the four-armed form. (11.46) The Supreme Lord said: O Arjun, being pleased with you I have shown you --- through My own yogic powers --- this particular, supreme, shining, universal, infinite, and primal form of Mine that has never been seen before by anyone other than you. (11.47) O Arjun, neither by study of the Vedas, nor by sacrifice, nor by charity, nor by rituals, nor by severe austerities, can I be seen in this cosmic form by anyone other than you in this human world. (11.48) Do not be perturbed and confused by seeing such a terrible form of Mine as this. With fearless and cheerful mind, now behold My four-armed form. (11.49) Sanjay said: After speaking like this to Arjun, Krishn revealed His (four-armed) form. And then assuming His pleasant human form, Lord Krishn, the Great One, consoled Arjun who was terrified. (11.50) Arjun said: O Krishn, seeing this lovely human form of Yours, I have now become tranquil and I am normal again. (11.51)

The Supreme Lord said: This (four-armed) form of Mine that you have seen is very difficult, indeed, to see. Even celestial controllers (Devas) are ever longing to see this form. (11.52) This (four-armed) form of Mine that you have just seen cannot be seen even by study of the Vedas, or by austerity, or by acts of charity, or by the performance of rituals. (11.53) However, through single-minded devotion alone, I can be seen in this form, can be known in essence, and also can be reached, O Arjun. (11.54) One who does all works for Me, and to whom I am the supreme goal; who is my devotee, who has no attachment, and is free from enmity towards any being --- attains Me, O Arjun.

So nothing about "love" in this translation.


That is a bit strange. But then the visions in the Bible are also very strange.

Could "devotion" be being used for something equivalent to love ?



Revelations 4:1-11 (NIV)

(1) After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.

(2) And immediately I was in the spirit: and, behold, a throne was set in heaven, and one sat on the throne.

(3) And he that sat was to look upon like a jasper and a sardine stone: and there was a rainbow round about the throne, in sight like unto an emerald.

(4) And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

(5) And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

(6) And before the throne there was a sea of glass like unto crystal: and in the midst of the throne, and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind.

(7) And the first beast was like a lion, and the second beast like a calf, and the third beast had a face as a man, and the fourth beast was like a flying eagle.

(8) And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, LORD God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

(9) And when those beasts give glory and honour and thanks to him that sat on the throne, who liveth for ever and ever,

(10) The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying,

(11) Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.
 
Gary said:
Again, having no grieves or desires is hardly "love".... now impartial to all beings!



I have seen Christians say that agape is "impartial" love.
 
Gary said:
So in context, the yogi is free from both good and bad!!!

:)

Free from the karmic consequence of, why would that be a problem?
 
The problem is the followers of Hindu teaching are not free from sin and it's consequences.

Only Jesus can free someone from that and Hindus do not follow the Jesus of the bible.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.

John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

The false god's of the Hindus are devils.

1 Corinthians 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

Big, big difference between the bible and Hindu teachings.

Big problem for the deluded Hindus.
 
bibleberean said:
I am a Christian and it isn't nonsense.

"God said it, I believe it and that settles it."


Which only confirms what I said:

"I imagine this kind of claim all comes down to 'faith', which tells us nothing about truth"


bibleberean said:
If the people that don't honor the bible or the Divine author of it don't like or agree with the words of Christ they can take a hike.

This is a Christian forum. :-D

That this is a Christian forum doesn't change the fact that "faith" in these kinds of matters is no guide at all to truth.

If you don't like being told this truth, then I suggest that you do not use this forum, or any other forums where religion is discussed.

OK?

:D
 
Logic 101....

DivineNames said:
If you don't like being told this truth, then I suggest that you do not use this forum, or any other forums where religion is discussed.

Hinduism claims that there are many paths.

So what if Bibleberean believes something which is different to you?

In your world view, it is all an illusion and all paths lead to the god with many arms.

So why worry?

:roll:

"The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18)

The Hindu claim that there are many ways to God is also a narrow and exclusive view. It excludes all other views, including the Christian view that there is only ONE way to God.

Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

Either you believe and know that.... or you don't.

I pity Hindus.

:-?
 
Gary said:
Hinduism claims that there are many paths.


In reality, Hinduism is a provisional pluralism. There are various paths but there is an ultimate criterion of truth. Some Christians believe in an (obviously Christian) kind of provisional pluralism. C.S. Lewis perhaps? I am not sure about that however.

Gary said:
So what if Bibleberean believes something which is different to you?

In such speculative matters, shouldn't people admit this and be a little humble about their truth claims?

Gary said:
In your world view, it is all an illusion and all paths lead to the god with many arms.

In my world view? Where did you get that from? Where did I say anything like that?

:D

Gary said:
So why worry?


I am not worrying. I just pointed out that faith is no guide to truth in such matters. If you want to dispute that, then fine. Find an argument.

Gary said:
The Hindu claim that there are many ways to God is also a narrow and exclusive view. It excludes all other views, including the Christian view that there is only ONE way to God.

Its a provisional pluralism as I mentioned.

Hinduism makes truth-claims that are incompatible with Christianity, it does indeed involve a kind of "exclusive" truth.

Nevertheless, a provisional pluralism seems preferable, and to result in practice to less narrow-minded followers, than an exclusivist position.

Anyway, what does that have to do with anything?


If people believe in Christian exclusivism, that is fine. I merely say that its a "faith" claim, not a truth claim. (Or if it is true, it is by accident...)

Faith is not a guide to truth.
 
Gary said:
Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6


And William Law, in The Spirit of Prayer said-

"Now there is but one possible Way for Man to attain this Salvation, or Life of God in the Soul. There is not one for the Jew, another for a Christian, and a Third for the Heathen. No; God is one, human Nature is one, Salvation is one, and the Way to it is one; and that is, the Desire of the Soul turned to God. When this Desire is alive and breaks forth in any Creature under Heaven, then the lost Sheep is found, and the Shepherd has it upon his Shoulders. Through this Desire the Poor prodigal Son leaves his Husks and Swine, and hasteth to his Father: it is because of this Desire, that the Father sees the Son, while yet afar off, that he runs out to meet him, falleth on his Neck, and kisseth him. See here how plainly we are taught, that no sooner is this Desire arisen, and in Motion towards God, but the Operation of God's Spirit answers to it, cherishes and welcomes its first Beginnings, signified by the Father's seeing, and having Compassion on his Son, whilst yet afar off, that is, in the first Beginnings of his Desire. Thus does this Desire do all, it brings the Soul to God, and God into the Soul, it unites with God, it co-operates with God, and is one Life with God. Suppose this Desire not to be alive, not in Motion either in a Jew, or a Christian, and then all the Sacrifices, the Service, the Worship either of the Law, or the Gospel, are but dead Works, that bring no Life into the Soul, nor beget any Union between God and it. Suppose this Desire to be awakened, and fixed upon God, though in Souls that never heard either of the Law or the Gospel, and then the Divine Life, or Operation of God, enters into them, and the new Birth in Christ is formed in those who never heard of his Name."


I am guessing Gary and BB will not agree.
 
DivineNames said:
Some Christians believe in an (obviously Christian) kind of provisional pluralism. C.S. Lewis perhaps? I am not sure about that however.


Updated March 1, 2005 (First published July 1, 2000) (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

The late British author C.S. (Clive Staples) Lewis (1898-1963) is extremely popular with Evangelicals today. According to a Christianity Today reader’s poll in 1998, Lewis was rated the most influential writer. Though Lewis died in 1963, sales of his books have risen to two million a year. In an article commemorating the 100th anniversary of Lewis’s birth, J.I. Packer called him “our patron saint.†Christianity Today said Lewis â€Âhas come to be the Aquinas, the Augustine, and the Aesop of contemporary Evangelicalism†(“Still Surprised by Lewis,†Christianity Today, Sept. 7, 1998). Wheaton College sponsored a lecture series on C.S. Lewis, and Eerdmans published “The Pilgrim’s Guide†to C.S. Lewis.

In its April 23, 2001, issue, Christianity Today again praises C.S. Lewis in an article titled “Myth Matters.†Lewis, called “the 20th century’s greatest Christian apologist,†wrote several mythical works, such as The Chronicles of Narnia, which Christianity Today recommends in the most glowing terms, claiming that “Christ came not to put an end to myth but to take all that is most essential in the myth up into himself and make it real.†I don’t know what to say to this except that it is complete nonsense. In his Chronicles, Lewis depicts Jesus Christ as a lion named Aslan who is slain on a stone table. Christianity Today says, “In Aslan, Christ is made tangible, knowable, real.†As if we can know Jesus Christ best through a fable that is vaguely based on biblical themes.

Was C.S. Lewis a strong Bible believer? By no means. Christianity Today noted that he was “a man whose theology had decidedly unevangelical elements†(Ibid.). Lewis was turning to the Catholic Church before his death. He believed in prayers for the dead and purgatory and confessed his sins regularly to a priest. He received the Catholic sacrament of last rites on July 16, 1963 (C.S. Lewis: A Biography, pp. 198, 301). Lewis denied the total depravity of man and the substitutionary atonement of Christ. He believed in theistic evolution and rejected the Bible as the infallible Word of God. He taught that hell is a state of mind: “And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind--is, in the end, Hell†(Lewis, The Great Divorce, p. 65). D. Martin Lloyd-Jones warned that C.S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement (Christianity Today, Dec. 20, 1963). In a letter to the editor of Christianity Today, Feb. 28, 1964, Dr. W. Wesley Shrader, First Baptist Church, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, warned that “C.S. Lewis... would never embrace the (literal-infallible) view of the Bible†and “would accept no theory of the ‘total depravity of man’†(F.B.F. News Bulletin, Fundamental Baptist Fellowship, March 4, 1984).

At age 58, the long time bachelor C.S. Lewis married Joy Gresham. She met Lewis in England, returned to the States and was divorced from her husband, then traveled back to England to marry Lewis. According to two of Lewis’s friends, Gresham’s husband divorced her on the grounds of desertion (Roger Lancelyn Green & Walter Hooper, Light on C.S. Lewis).

In the book A Severe Mercy by Sheldon VanAuken a personal letter is reproduced on page 191 in which Lewis suggests to VanAuken that upon his next visit to England that the two of them “must have some good, long talks together and perhaps we shall both get high.†In light of this, it is interesting that in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, Lewis’s fantasy children’s tale, a hero named Edmund meets a magical witch who conjures up for him a box of Turkish Delight, which Edmund devours and begs for more. Turkish Delight is a name for hashish.

Lewis claimed that followers of pagan religions can be saved without personal faith in Jesus Christ: “There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it ... For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ's birth may have been in this position†(C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, pp. 176-177).

In 1993, Christianity Today explained why C.S. Lewis is so popular among Evangelicals. Among the reasons given for his popularity was the following “Lewis’s … concentration on the main doctrines of the church coincided with evangelicals’ concern to avoid ecclesiastical separatism†(Christianity Today, Oct. 25, 1993). CT admits that C.S. Lewis is popular to Evangelicals today because, like them, he despised biblical separation.

C.S. Lewis was very ecumenical. The following is an overview of his ecumenism and his influence on present-day ecumenical movement:

“Lewis was firmly ecumenical, though he distanced himself from outright liberalism. In his preface to Mere Christianity, Lewis states that his aim is to present ‘an agreed, or common, or central or mere Christianity.’ So he aims to concentrate on the doctrines that he believes are common to all forms of Christianity--including Roman Catholicism. It is no surprise that he submitted parts of the book to four clergymen for criticism--an Anglican, a Methodist, a Presbyterian, and a Roman Catholic! He hopes that the book will make it clear why all Christians ‘ought to be reunited,’ but warns that it should not be seen as an alternative to the creeds of existing denominations. He likens the ‘mere Christianity’ that he describes in the book to a hall from which various rooms lead off. These rooms are the various Christian traditions. And just as when you enter a house you do not stay in the hall but enter a room, so when you become a Christian you should join a particular Christian tradition. Lewis believes that it is not too important which room you enter. It will be right for some to enter the door marked ‘Roman Catholicism’ as it will for others to enter other doors. Whichever room you enter, says Lewis, the important thing is that you be convinced that it is the right one for you. And, he says, ‘When you have reached your own room, be kind to those who have chosen different doors.’

“Mention should also be made of Lewis’ views of the sacraments. The sacraments ‘spread the Christ life to us’ (Mere Christianity, book 2, chapter 5). In his Letters to Malcolm Lewis states that he does not want to ‘unsettle in the mind of any Christian, whatever his denomination, the concepts--for him traditional--by which he finds it profitable to represent to himself what is happening when he receives the bread and wine’ of the Lord’s Supper. What happens in the Lord’s Supper is a mystery, and so the Roman Catholic conception of the bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Christ might be just as valid as the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial (Letters to Malcolm, chapter 19). ...

“This enigma of C.S. Lewis was no more than a slight bemusement to me until recently three things changed my bemusement into bewilderment.

“In March 1994 the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement produced its first document. This was a programatic document entitled Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium. It was rightly said at the time that this document represented ‘a betrayal of the Reformation.’ I saw no connection between this and C.S. Lewis until a couple of years later when the symposium Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Working Towards a Common Mission was published. In his contribution to the book, Charles Colson--the Evangelical ‘prime mover’ behind ECT--tells us that C.S. Lewis was a major influence which led him to form the movement (Billy Graham was another!). In fact Colson says that Evangelicals and Catholics Together seeks to continue the legacy of C.S. Lewis by focusing on the core beliefs of all true Christians (Common Mission, p. 36). The enigma took on a more foreboding aspect.

“The enigma darkened further when just last year (after becoming connected to the Internet at the end of 1996) I discovered, quite by accident, that C.S. Lewis is just as popular amongst Roman Catholics as he is amongst Evangelicals. Perhaps I should have known this already, but it had never struck me before.

“The third shock came last autumn when I read that Christianity Today--reputed to be the leading evangelical magazine in the USA--had conducted a poll amongst its readers to discover whom they considered the most influential theological writers of the twentieth century. You will have already guessed that C.S. Lewis came out on top!

“After these three things it came as no surprise to me this year to find that C.S. Lewis has exerted a major influence on the Alpha course, and that it quotes or refers to him almost ad nauseum. Could not the Alpha course be renamed the ‘Mere Christianity’ course? ...

“In conclusion, I offer the following reflection. If it is true to say that ‘you are what you eat,’ then it is also true to say that ‘a Christian is what he hears and reads’ since this is how he gets his spiritual food. Thus if Christians are brought up on a diet of C.S. Lewis, it should not surprise us to find they are seeking ‘to continue the legacy of C.S. Lewis.’ The apostle Paul said, ‘A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump’ (Gal. 5:9--the whole passage is relevant to the present context); thus if evangelicals read and applaud such books as Mere Christianity it should come as no surprise if we find them ‘working towards a common mission’ with the enemies of the gospel. The young Christian should be very careful what he reads, and those in positions of authority (pastors, teachers, parents) should be very careful what they recommend others to read†(Dr. Tony Baxter, “The Enigma of C.S. Lewis,†N Journal, Winter 1998, Christian Research Network, Colchester, United Kingdom, p. 30; Baxter works for the Protestant Truth Society as a Wycliffe Preacher).

In April 1998, Mormon professor Robert Millet spoke at Wheaton College on the topic of C.S. Lewis. In a recent issue of Christianity Today, Millet, dean of Brigham Young University, is quoted as saying that C.S. Lewis “is so well received by Latter-day Saints [Mormons] because of his broad and inclusive vision of Christianity†(John W. Kennedy, “Southern Baptists Take Up the Mormon Challenge,†Christianity Today, June 15, 1998, p. 30).


http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/cslewisand.htm
 
With regard to the criticism against C.S. Lewis, I guess that if your not a hardcore bible basher then there will always be Christians who will condemn you as a heretic. Such is Christianity...
 
Why only quote part of what William Law wrote?

Why not quote this as well?.... It is from the same chapter!

William Law said:
But you will say, Do not all Christians desire to have Christ to be their Saviour? Yes. But here is the Deceit; all would have Christ to be their Saviour in the next World, and to help them into Heaven when they die, by his Power, and Merits with God. But this is not willing Christ to be thy Saviour; for his Salvation, if it is had, must be had in this World; if He saves Thee, it must be done in this Life, by changing and altering all that is within Thee, by helping thee to a new Heart, as He helped the Blind to see, the Lame to walk, and the Dumb to speak. For to have Salvation from Christ, is nothing else but to be made like unto Him; it is to have his Humility and Meekness, his Mortification and Self-denial, his Renunciation of the Spirit, Wisdom, and Honours of this World, his Love of God, his Desire of doing God's Will, and seeking only his Honour. To have these Tempers formed and begotten in thy Heart, is to have Salvation from Christ. But if thou willest not to have these Tempers brought forth in thee, if thy Faith and Desire does not seek, and cry to Christ for them in the same Reality, as the Lame asked to walk, and the Blind to see, then thou must be said to be unwilling to have Christ to be thy Saviour.

Are you unwilling to have Christ as your Saviour?


-source-
 
Gary said:
Which books by C.S. Lewis have you read?

:) :-?
I've read nearly everything that he published. One thing that was clear to me when I read 'The Great Divorce':
C.S.Lewis' theology is decidedly non-Evangelical. If one needs further proof, read the account of Aslan's judgement of the prince who served Tash in 'The Last Battle.' Though this is only an allegory, Lewis makes the astonishing claim there that works and faith done in the name of another (such as Tash) that were done in the spirit of Aslan (Christ) are as if done in Aslan's name. Likewise, those done supposedly in Aslan's name that do not reflect who Aslan is are as if done to a pagan God.

The latter statement is clearly biblically defensible without any interpretive dalliance. The former statement is an interpretation of scriptures regarding God's mercy and justice.

We see this belief expressly and explicitly stated in the quote from Mere Christianity
“There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it ... For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ's birth may have been in this positionâ€Â
Clearly there were those who were Jews that predated Christ that "were in this position"- for the gosel proclaims that many of them were Resurrected, and went and showed themselves in Jerusalem after Jesus' Resurrection.

Upon reading those aforementioned works, I immediately saw that Lewis was right, and from that moment I was at odds with the traditional Evangelical view on Judgement.

Lewis expressed the notion that God's judgement is not as positive or inflictive as Evangelicals express. To come to the point: There is no 'separation from God,' for even David demonstrated to us that there is nowhere where God isn't. God does not condemn us to hell- rather, in His presence, those who love Him will be in heaven; those who hate Him will suffer indignity in the darkness of their mind and being.

We see that to be true even in this life.

I knew way back when as a young Evangelical that Lewis was an odd choice for an Evangelical hero. I'm not surprised now to see fundamental Baptists savaging his corpus, however- that's what they do. Lewis was found guilty by association with Colson, (gulp) Catholics, and is found palatable by a Mormon-Lord knows, anyone found palatable by a Mormon must be a heretic, right?
LOL

as Divine Names said with astonishing accuracy:
With regard to the criticism against C.S. Lewis, I guess that if your not a hardcore bible basher then there will always be Christians who will condemn you as a heretic. Such is Christianity...
 
Orthodox Christian said:
C.S.Lewis' theology is decidedly non-Evangelical. If one needs further proof, read the account of Aslan's judgement of the prince who served Tash in 'The Last Battle.' Though this is only an allegory, Lewis makes the astonishing claim there that works and faith done in the name of another (such as Tash) that were done in the spirit of Aslan (Christ) are as if done in Aslan's name. Likewise, those done supposedly in Aslan's name that do not reflect who Aslan is are as if done to a pagan God.

The latter statement is clearly biblically defensible without any interpretive dalliance. The former statement is an interpretation of scriptures regarding God's mercy and justice.

We see this belief expressly and explicitly stated in the quote from Mere Christianity

[quote="C.S. Lewis":ff939] “There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it ... For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ's birth may have been in this positionâ€Â
[/quote:ff939]

Nice try... but wrong again.

The particular quote being used by Divine Names and now by OC is from Mere Christianity. That I concede. However, what is the context?

I doubt either has actually read that particular passage IN FULL. If they have, they abuse and quote it out of context.

It is from the chapter titled "Nice People or New Men" (p171-179 in my paperback version). Lewis starts the chapter by asking, in the second paragraph: “…If Christianity is true why are not all Christians obviously nicer than all non-Christians?†and the particular part-quote that Divine Names and now OC use is from a page later when Lewis builds the argument to show that the world cannot be divided into two simple camps – Christian and non-Christian – and that all people in the first camp at any given moment should be obviously nicer than all the people in the second. He goes on to give 3 arguments to show why this is not true.

The argument is about “nice people and new menâ€Â…. hence the title of the chapter.

What OC claims is simply untrue. OC said: “…Lewis makes the astonishing claim there that works and faith done in the name of another (such as Tash) that were done in the spirit of Aslan (Christ) are as if done in Aslan's name. Likewise, those done supposedly in Aslan's name that do not reflect who Aslan is are as if done to a pagan God.â€Â

In fact, Lewis says the exact opposite. A few pages later, he says:
C.S. Lewis said:
“But we must no suppose that even if we succeeded in making everyone nice we should have saved their souls. A world of nice people, content in their own niceness, looking no further, turned away from God, would be just as desperately in need of salvation as a miserable world – and might even be more difficult to save.â€Â
So much for OC’s reading of C.S. Lewis! As Lewis said with astonishing accuracy, "One soul in the whole creation you do know: and it is the only one whose fate is placed in your hands."

:)

Read what C.S. Lewis wrote... in context: -here-

:wink:
 
Lewis' point was that being "nice"- ie, acting the part- isn't enough. He made a mediating statement, so as not to be confused with Pelagianists and Universalists. Now let's see what you do with this quote:






Emeth, seventh son of Harpa Tarkaan of the city of Tehishban, a figure of no small resemblance to a Sultan of the East, spoke and said:
Surely this is the hour death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honor) will know that I have served Tash all of my days and not him. Nevertheless, it is better to see the Lion and die than to be Tisroc of the world and live and not to have seen him. But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said , Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no on of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou has done to Tash, I account as service done to me.Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear andq uestioned the Glorious One and said Lord, is it true, as the Ape said, that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites. I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not,and it is I who reward him.And if any man do cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted. Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I said also (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek.

I won't bother highlighting the key points, they should be quite obvious. Bottom line is that Lewis' perspectives were very much the same as Eastern Orthodox and Catholic perspectives on the necessity of a clear orthodoxy, mitigated by an abiding respect for the mystery of God's judgement.

And this is at odds with Evangelical orthodoxy, which insists on very clear lines of demarcation. Evangelicalism is not comfortable with gray, nor with the unknown.
 
Back
Top