Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
I wish I could state what I believe for certain as regards free-will, predestination, the sacraments and Mother Kirk, as C.S. Lewis called her, but I’m just beginning to be able to think all of these things through for myself, unencumbered by penalty, so just give me some time.
In A Grief Observed, Jack Lewis -I feel like I know him, as if he were my friend- speaks of God in this way, when he is weighing his idea about whether God is either the Eternal Veterinarian or the Eternal Vivisector: “Sometimes it’s hard not to say “God forgive God.” Sometimes it’s hard to say so much. But, if our Faith is true, He didn’t. He Crucified Him.” If any of you have lost a loved one, and want to be moved in a most human way, please read it, if you already haven‘t.
Apparently, Lewis’s Catholic friends were embarrassed by his evangelism and writing, I guess they thought them too unsophisticated, but his writing has enriched my understanding of Christ tremendously. His humanity, his magnanimity, is inspiring to me. With that being said, I just want to begin to end with an exerpt from a writer who was speculating on Lewis’s unrelenting adherence to his Protestanism, in his review of a book concerning that topic:
“Let us begin by admitting that we all assign Christians not of our communion to whatever purgatories we can muster—or at least, this Protestant reviewer (1) will admit it for himself. We have our opinions on where they have gone wrong that can hardly be articulated in a sociable way, apart from what the other will perceive as patronizing and belittling of the kind that Pearce here visits upon Lewis. It is impossible, after all, from a purely Catholic point of view, to see non-Catholic Christianity as anything but systemically flawed and any non-Catholic as what he is apart from sins that blind him to the truth, particularly when it faces him full-on, as it did Lewis, in friends like Tolkien and writers like Dante, Newman, and Chesterton. For those who are interested in a well-researched, well written, and eminently Catholic solution to the riddle of Lewis the Protestant, this book will serve. I put forward here, however, another, non-Catholic, one.In Pilgrim's Regress, we find the principal character visited in childhood by a beguiling vision of an Island in the West. This is accompanied by a feeling of indescribable joy, which, for fleeting moments, penetrates to the heart, and provides the impetus for his pilgrimage through the world and his eventual conversion to the Christian faith. In finding Mother Kirk, as he calls the Church—the Church, that is, as Protestants understand her—he does not finally lay hold of joy, but understands that he has found in her the way to it, even though in her present state she is plain and unimpressive.
In coming to the Faith, Christians like Lewis experience as essential to Christianity what might be called an eschatological displacement, the belief that while this world reflects the life of God and transmits it sacramentally, the Object of faith and hope is realized only beyond this world, where it must always be firmly kept not only by the tellers of tales, but the custodians of the life and faith of the Church. Lewis states this explicitly in Father Wisdom's discourse in Pilgrim's Regress:
I am old and full of tears, and I see that you also begin to feel the sorrow that is born with us. Abandon hope: do not abandon desire. Feel no wonder that these glimpses of your Island so easily confuse themselves with viler things, and are so easily blasphemed. Above all, never try to keep them, never try to revisit the same place or time wherein the vision was accorded to you. You will pay the penalty of all who would bind down to one place or time within our country that which our country cannot contain. Have you not heard from the Stewards of the sin of idolatry, and how, in their old chronicles, the manna turned to worms if any tried to hoard it? Be not greedy, be not passionate; you will but crush dead on your own breast with hot, rough hands the thing you loved. But if ever you incline to doubt that the thing you long for is something real, remember what your own experience has taught you. Think that it is a feeling, and at once the feeling has no value. Stand sentinel at your own mind, watching for that feeling, and you will find—what shall I say—a flutter in the heart, an image in the head, a sob in the throat: and was that your desire? You know that it was not, and that no feeling whatever will appease you, that feeling, refine it as you will, is but one more spurious claimant—spurious as the gross lusts of which the giant speaks. Let us conclude then that what you desire is no state of yourself at all, but something, for that very reason, Other and Outer. And knowing this you will find tolerable the truth that you cannot attain it. That the thing should be, is so great a good that when you remember "it is" you will forget to be sorry that you can never have it. Nay, anything that you could have would be so much less than this that its fruition would be immeasurably below the mere hunger for this. Wanting is better than having. The glory of any world wherein you can live is in the end appearance: but then, as one of my sons has said, that leaves the world more glorious yet.Accompanying this conviction, as one might imagine, is deep suspicion of realized eschatology, precluding identification of the True Church (or the heavenly Narnia, or Britain) with any of its present, earthly forms. This conviction is also at the heart of Protestant ecclesiology, which in its purer form does not arise from mere anti-Catholicism, but from a positive vision of the nature of reality and our manner of comprehending it, a vision far older than the Reformation-era confessions on the nature and identity of the Church in which it came forward with such force. Lewis believed this vision of the nature of things is taught by ancient Wisdom itself.
To the Protestant Lewis was, the temptation to regard any ecclesial form, as faithful as it might be to its heavenly archetype, as the One, True, Church that comprehends heaven and earth, presenting itself as offering in the here and now, especially to disappointed seekers after certitude, the kind of supernal finalities the Catholic Church appears to offer her children, is something to be resisted in every one of the many forms it takes within that Church. What we find here, in the darkened glass of our present existence, are reflections—true reflections, but still only reflections—of glory that leads us on toward it, but cannot fully comprehend that glory or its joy in itself.
One cannot make a perfectly loyal church member, a wholly devoted convert, of any Christian who thinks this way, for he will never take his church, whichever church that might be, with the ultimate seriousness the accredited magisteriums (as they must to be what they are) require. He will always look beyond them for something higher and better, of which their communions are at best only worthy reflections. He will always be accused by the partisans of those churches with malignant individualism, and be classed with the truly malignant individualists, for doing it, even when his deepest love and firmest devotion is for the same City Father Abraham saw afar off, for the Kingdom that is not of this world, for the heavenly Jerusalem of which every earthly Jerusalem is only the barest reflection.
Perhaps he doesn’t speak to all of you in this piece, but this is a close an articulation to what I’ve never really been able to articulate but what has nearly always moved within me, as I’ve ever come across.
xzins, I pinged you too, because I thought you indicated in other posts that you’re a fan of Lewis’s, and thought you might be interested in reading it too.
(1)Author is S.M. Hutcheon, and is reviewing a book by Joseph Pearce, titled “C.S. Lewis and the Catholic Church."
FK to Kosta: Now let's say that your two-year-old wanted to go out and play on the roof. Would you weave those wishes into your plan and hoist a ladder? If you did, would you really be sovereign over your child?
If climbing over the roof of your house was the way for your child to get where you want him/her to go, convoluted as it may seem, I would say that your providing the ladder would be essential in accomplishing your intention to bring the child to the other side.
You think of it as cruel, yet you have no problem believing that God created humanity, some of whom were predestined to perdition? You have no problem with God drowning wicked humanity? Is that what we do to our kids -- what the Old Testament seems to say God does to man? When we see how wicked our children are, unable to do any good of their own, do we drown them? Or do we kick them out of the house?
You have used examples of letting children play in the traffic and doing nothing, and now this one with the roof. sadly, they compltetely miss the mark.
To use paradigms consistent with your theology (Calvinism), not only do you have children in your house who could have come only from you, yet some you acknowledge as your children while others you deny; you favor some while others you reject and have, in fact, favored or rejected them according to your own thinking before they were even born!
You find nothing wrong with God placing his own children in a situation where they are tempted and, when they act on their temptation despite your warning, you cast them out of your home and let them fend for themselves; you not only punish them, but their offspring for all generations too!
Yet, somehow, I trust that your household, and how you relate to your children, born or unborn, is not as your theology portrays God -- and humanity He created. And certainly it is not ours.
What I was trying to impress upon you is that God knows our decisions and that the eternal and all-knowing God knew them from eternity. His Plan is like a puzzle, and each man's decision is a separate piece of it, all laid out in front of God, weaved into what we call His plan.
If God created laws that govern billions of galaxies to move effortlessly and gracefully as island universes, He can integrate our decisions and weave whatever He wants with our free will in order to save those who are willing to be saved by choosing to come to Him.
At no point does free will diminish God's sovereignty, power or glory.
It doesn't apply, but I just like the line.
"it is in whom the authority rests to forgive the sins."
Only God can forgive sin since as David said "Against Thee and Thee only have I sinned..." sin is breaking God's commandments. You are correct in your reading of 1 Tim. 2 and 3. There is only one God and only one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus. Three times in Hebrews the writer states that the mediator is Jesus. It is an insult to the sovereignty of God and a devaluation of the supreme sacrifice of Jesus to think we can devise a way other than the way commanded and sacrificed for. King Saul tried it and brought down a curse on his house.
In the 3rd chapter there is no mention of the authority to mediate anything or give absolution for sin. It is clear that the overseers and deacons must be family men, husbands of one wife and have children in order to demonstrate they are settled, patient and able to lead. However there is no mention that overseers and deacons receive their authority from the laying on of hands. The members of the church that is calling them and that recognizes the gifts given by God for the ministry lay hands on them in identifying with them and in solidarity with them in ministry.
If you want to maintain your power over the people then keep them coming back to the ruling class for knowledge and absolution. If you want them to be free and mature then teach them that they are "chosen of God, [and] precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1Pe 2:4&5)
Hmmmm, Job comes to mind...and Judges 9:23, and 1 Sam 16:14, and 1 Sam 16:15, and 1 Sam 16:16, and 1 Sam 18:10, and 1 Sam 19:19, and 1 Kings 22:23, and 2 Chron 18:22. (Notice how they are all from the Old testament, by coincidence I am sure).
I read all of your verses. Only the last two, which are the same, are even arguably relevant to this topic. But even those fail. First of all, Ahab was warned about the false prophecies of his prophets by Micaiah, therefore nothing terrible (sinful) happened because of any false prophecies. Secondly, I would equate this scene to God simply levying His justice. Elsewhere in the Bible, God ordered Joshua to go and lay waste to the countryside. God didn't use a demon, but what's the difference? If you even believe that Joshua did any of those things, do you say that God ordered Joshua to sin? Of course not! It is the same here. I don't think any of your examples are evidence that God proactively caused anyone to sin.
I read all of your verses
All those verse contained the words "evil spirit of the LORD," which was in response to your suggestion that there is no such thing (I agree, but the Old testament seems to use it, especially and exclusively in the Historical Books).
The rest of your post is a rationalization. In one place you say "God ordered Joshua to go and lay waste to the countryside...do you say that God ordered Joshua to sin?" Well, only you can read something so clear and say it's not what the Bible suggests. In fact, in the OT, God orders slaughters of thousands of people. But, those much better versed in the OT than I am tell me they find "rivers of love" and even Christ in all that. Curious.
Let me say this: I don't ever think that God would make or cause anyone to sin. I just don't see it so clearly in the OT.
You must be the only one who does not find that in the Bible.
Oh, I don't know, I'll bet you a nickel that I can find some takers of this view on this thread. :)
The Bible makes it very clear that God is a Judge. Judges judge, either by pardoning or condemning. Those who are "saved" are saved from all eternity according to your theology, and those who are not saved (i.e. "lost") are, by God's decision (therefore judgment), destined to perdition.
Yes, God is a judge. In my understanding, what you are describing here is double predestination. I do hold this view. God made the universe and it is His to do with in any way that pleases Him. He is the Potter, and we are His creations. We have no standing to object or complain about anything we may "think" sounds unfair. However, as has been pointed out to me, double predestination is not a majority Protestant view. (On a trivial matter, judges actually do not have the power of pardon, that power is held by the executive.)
I am not placing blame or crying "foul" but simply stating that, looking at your theology, those who will be lost (i.e. not-saved) have no reason to seek anything from God because none will be given. Their fate has been sealed from all eternity. I am glad you see "justice" in that, because I don't.
I am eternally thankful to God almighty that He doesn't give a wit about my sense of justice. :) God's sense of justice is perfect, definitionally. Man's is flawed beyond any comparison. If God ever adopted my sense of justice, then I would be toast. :) You are correct that my view is that those whom God will pass over, will be passed over, and there is nothing that can be done. I am thankful that God chose to save some, BTW in contradiction to our sense of justice. Such an act by Him results in the glory of Himself and His sovereignty.
Now, I know that AG thinks my theology stinks, but even I can say that God's justice is mercy and not condemnation, and frankly I see no mercy in your theology dear friend.
If you want to know what AG thinks of your theology, just ask her! :) I have read every post so far, and I have never heard her say anything like that.
When you say that God's justice is mercy then it is clear that we look at these concepts completely differently. I would say that God has mercy IN SPITE OF His justice. Justice is getting what you deserve. Mercy is NOT getting what you deserve. IIRC, the third pillar of this saying is that grace is GETTING what you do not deserve. These are all very different, but believe me, my theology is packed with God's mercy. :)
Sorry to have burned that image into your head! The tagline is no a GC original, I got it from a friend!
As Jo is my witness, I never directly argued against the idea that God was timeless, or even that He sees all time as happening at once. I say that I really do not have a problem with that. What he and I disagreed on strongly was the implications of this for certain issues.
All of us agree that men make sinful choices. But, when you say that God integrates those choices into His plan, that makes me wonder who is in control. ("Integrate" is a time-sensative word.) God has perfect foreknowledge, but does He or does He not create and ordain that foreknowledge? If He does not, then history could have turned out any which way, right? What if prior men's choices had added up to everyone being doomed? That has to be a possibility in your book if God does not ordain. This is why I am a little puzzled when you say that God is in control.
LOL.
It doesn't apply, but I just like the line.
A good line is always worth repeating.
A good line is always worth repeating.
No Sir! The Christian Bible is no truth to a Jew or a Muslim or Hindu or a Buddhist or a Wiccan for that matter -- because he or she does not believe in what it proclaims.
You misunderstand me. The Bible isn't true because I say it is, I was simply stating the fact that the Bible is, indeed, true. That is a fact regardless of whether I or anyone else believes it. The reality that Muslims, Hindus, or anyone else does not believe it does not change the fact that it is true.
Unlike you, I trust that the Church has better understanding of the Scripture, based on Tradition and collective knowledge. You, on the other hand, trust what you read in it as the truth. So, either way, it all falls down to the common denominator -- that you "know" what God is saying.
I would never go so far as to proclaim that I "know" what all scripture means. I do "know" about some things, I "think" I know about others, and I "wonder" about still others. I read the words that are there, I find out if there is companion scripture, and then I see if it fits in with the integrity of the whole document. The Spirit leads me as He will. I think you believe that the Spirit doesn't lead me, or any layman, so that would only leave me to self-interpretation. I'm not sure how to give you proof that you would accept.
Your reply could also mean many things. :)
OK. If the Catholic and Orthodox representatives on this thread are in agreement, then I suppose I'm not exactly in a position to argue about it. :) I'm sure that you are right that I just don't have the background, and, that's why I'm here and I am appreciative of what I have learned.
Now I see it. Thank you Dr. E., and thank you to your husband. :) This makes perfect sense. Wow, in this context, that passage has a brand new meaning for me. It makes me think of so many things I can't even keep track. I'll have to think on this for a while. Thanks again.
You wouldn't be imputing human sense of justice here and confusing it with God's, would you? Again, you seem to know what God's justice is, and you seem to be suggesting that somehow we deserve something. Hebrew word for God's justice was translated into Greek incorrectly. The original Hebrew word is "means of accomplishing man's salvation" (by His mercy alone, because none of us deserved it).
You keep saying that, FK, but your words tell otherwise.
What if prior men's choices had added up to everyone being doomed?
That's because you believe that all men are dead. God knows that not all men are dead and that some can be the vessels of God's goodness in the world; therefore not all men will make evil choices as your theology conveniently suggests.
That is just about the weakest "argument" you could ever muster, FK. Try it on a Muslim or a Hundu and see what they have to say. Among other things, they will probably show their own scripture into your face and say "this is the true word of God, and it's a fact!" Or, just try telling a Jew that the New Testament is a seamless continuation of the Old Testament and see how far you get on that one.
Sacred is that which we hold sacred.
For humans, but for God I doubt it. It was none other than Blessed Augustine who translated from Greek his famous line "Qui vivit in aeternum creavit omnia simul" (He Who lives in eternity, created everything at once). It turns out his knowledge of koine Greek was not too good, so the correct word is not "at once" but "together," but nonetheless the meaning is the same — God not only made, but integrated everything from the beginning.
That's why I have been telling you all along (with no avail apparently) that God's plan has been accomplished, and all our decisions and lives, past, present and future, incorporated (i.e. integrated) into it.
I don't have the urge today to repeat ad nauseaum what I have already said a number of times. From our discussions, I have found that the concept of "timelessness" has not transferred over to your (FK) paradigm of God and how He "sees" and "acts" within our history. Sorry if I was unable to help...
Christ is risen...Oh death, where is thy sting!!!
Regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.