Problems In Lewis' Theology

Thanks Faeriechylde, now for my question. When Aslan died and came back, the stone table was split. Christianity teaches us that Christ came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it. The image of the broken table always gives me the idea that its ideas are obsolete now that Aslan rose again. There is the idea that we, as Christians, need not sacrifice for our sins since Christ was the ultimate Sacrifice. Should Christians still obey Jewish Law, being that it's in the Bible, even as it says things like don't cut the hair on your sides (Lev. 19:27) or if your camping with troops, dig a hole in the ground outside the camp for when you do business (Deu. 23:13). If we shouldn't obey these laws, why? Is the whole table broken, or just part of it? We obey the 10 Commandments, what about the rest of the Law? I'd really like an explanation on these ideas. I realize it might be a little of subject, so I apoligize for that. Thanks a bunch.
 
Originally posted by I'mbigger/you'reolder@Oct 10 2004, 09:56 PM
Please note that this whole time, we are dealling with human language (a finite thing) trying to describe heveanly things (infinite things), so we get to a point where our language can begin to confuse us, and even contradict itself. In Layman's terms, it can be really hard to put stuff into words sometimes.
Click to expand...
Have you ever read Dante's Paradiso? He has that same problem, but the book is still immensely, incredibly beautiful!!!!

I agree with Fae (I was all ready to type the same things, but you laready had, sooo...




About your question, I'mbigger/you'reolder (welcome, by the way!), I think the imagery Lewis is using there is in refernce to the dividing cloth in the temple beeing torn--because of Christ's sacrifice, we don't need a High Priest to talk to God; Christ is our High Priest. This is contrary to some R.C.C. beliefs, but it is what I believe the Bible says (rather explicitly in Hebrews!)
 
You have made a very good observation here, I'mbigger/you'reolder. I'll start to answering the part pertaining to the stone table: all your questions have whole theological reference books trying to answer them, so I can't pretend to be able to fully answer them here.
In LWW, what law is written on the Stone table? The Witch says, "Have you forgotten the Deep Magic?... [The Magic that] is written on that very Table of Stone which stands behind us? You know that every traitor belongs to me as my lawful prey and that for every treachery I have a right to kill."
The traitor in this instance is, of course, Edmund. So what did this law (or "Magic") written on the Stone Table do? It declared Edmund a traitor condemned to die at the hands of the Witch. Through this Lewis is making a very clear allusion to Romans 7, where the apostle Paul describes how the law shows us what sin is, and because we are all sinners, we all stand condemned by the law.
When Aslan raises from the dead and the Stone Table is broken, it is symbolic of what Paul writes in Romans 7:6, "We have been released from the law so that we serve the new way of the Spirit, and not the old way of the written code," and in Romans 8:1-2: "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death."
One thing we need to be careful to do when we are studying the Jewish law is to distinguish between the moral laws that God gave the Israelites as his people, and the governmental laws that he gave them as a nation. There is a very big difference, and they are literarily separated in the books of the Law (the Pentateuch, or Torah). Some of the laws you mentioned, I'mbigger/you'reolder, are sanitary or cultural laws that were necessary for the people of Israel as a nation, but were not moral laws in the technical sense (though notice that to them everything was done to please God, there was no obvious division between religious and secular).
We as Christians are God's people and have entered into his covenant, but we are not (at least according to what I have learned) merely a continuation of the ancient nation of Israel. We are therefore not required to live by their ancient national laws. (To see how this issue came up in the early church and how they dealt with it, read Acts 15.)
Which laws should we obey then? To answer this question, most Christians look to the teachings of Jesus in the gospels. Look, for example, at his answer to the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:16-21) and his answer to the Pharisees (Matt. 22:34-40).
Jesus also had a very thorough and unique interpretation of how we should obey the Law. (Matt. 5)
I hope this helps a little. I sort of ran through all of this very quickly, but it was still really long! ;)
 
Yep, I think you got it. I asked this question to some people I knew to be wise, so with your interpertations and theirs, I think it's all good. Does anyone else have any questions? I love reading this thread.
 
Oh, did I just miss an entire theological debate! :angry: *kicks stack of textbooks across the floor* See what you made me miss!

As *everybody* here seemed to jump on my case (in a good kinda way :D ) about my post about the 'gods' and 'godesses' in CoN, I'd like to make one statment:

Concerding if you've read the Silmarillion by Tolkien concerning the deeper parts of his mythology, his coments about the Valar and the Maiar I prefer to those of Bachus and Selenus in PC. These are powerful angelic being, but they are never refered to as 'gods' they are the 'Valar' even though all of them have qualities, aspects, and fetures about them that vastly resemble the old god's of mythology.(I mean, does Valinor remind *anyone* else of Mount Olympus :rolleyes: )

This said I comend all those who posted their replies, as I understand what you're saying, and partically agree with it, just not compleatly. :D

Oh, and welcome I'mbigger/you'reolder, I'm so glad someone else decided to post here and discuss this kind of stuff. Let's hope someone post something *really* contraversal!
 
Okay, in ten words or less, explain your views on all the parallels in CoN to the Christian faith! :lol:

No, really. Anyway, I know this site is devoted to CoN, but what theological stuff do you guys think on Lewis' other books?
 
The fact that Lewis uses the term "gods" to refer to some of his characters in his books, I don't have a problem with. I think that, especially in fantasy works, it's perfectly acceptable to use that word in reference to higher beings as long as it's fairly clear that those "higher beings" are not objects of worship. I think Lewis does this in the Chronicles of Narnia. However, going along with what GrayCloak said... Lewis uses actual greek gods. I don't exactly see a problem with that either, however, as was mentioned, the gods used have a somewhat saudry reputation. Bacchus is like, the god of wine and revelry... He could actually be described as the god of debauchery. Moreover, Lewis does not seem to portray him in any different light when you see him in the CoN... statements were made that when he comes to Narnia, the rivers ran with wine instead of water. (In my mind, that part is actually kind of cool) But the more telling aspect of this "god's" character is that it mentions that the girls were afraid of him, and wouldn't have been comfortable with his presence if it had not been for the fact that Aslan was with them. Just the way Lewis described him seemed to emit a sense of immorality, yet Bacchus was still clearly on Aslan's side. Now, given the fact that it is a fantasy work, I think it works out fine... it's just a bit ironic. I'm going to really go out on a limb here and hypothesize something: Perhaps Lewis's use of Bacchus was almost like a rejection of certain ideas found within traditional Christianity. Drunkenness is clearly against Christian values, and it would have been even more so in Lewis's time. Now, he was from England, and I don't know how that was viewed over there in their time, but definitely there was a strong prohibitionist movement within the church here in America. In fact, there still is... I don't know of a single Protestant church that approves of ANY alcoholic consumption by any of its members. I personally am AG, and they'll fight to the bitter end insisting that Christians should never partake, and that the wine drunk by Jesus and the disciples in the Bible was only grapejuice. So, maybe Lewis used Bacchus particularly to illustrate that he believed it was acceptable and perhaps even good for Christians to cut loose and be wild once in a while. But, like I said... that's only a theory. Since Lewis is dead, there's not way to really know what he was getting at.
 
Wow, what a thought! I don't really remember which book it was in, but I definitely remember Bacchus from the books. I guess this would be my take on it. I'm not C.S. Lewis, and I'm definitely only a Religion/Philosophy MINOR in college, but, here goes!

Lewis may not have wanted to make the point that not all "gods" (CoN gods, not Space Trilogy gods) were good (for the moment, we'll pretend that term is completely cool and understood by all [for more info. read the last theological discussion this thread saw]). He might have wanted to make the point that even these great beings even make mistakes. No matter how "on Aslan's [God's] side" we may be, we still mess up. I like how the kids were only comfortable with Bacchus when Aslan was around. That was maybe the main point Lewis sought to make. I'm sure that Mr. and Mrs. Beaver lied, cheated, and were mean at one point in their life. Tumnus was a great faun, who made the mistake of following Jadis, but he comes around! The point is, is that none of these characters are perfect, Aslan is. We all make mistakes, no soldier is perfect. But the more soldiers willing to fight, the better.

As to drunkenness (how do you spell that, anyway?), you might be right on Lewis' thinking. You might notice that Bacchus was the ONLY character that ever appeared to be a drunkard. I personally think that drinking to get drunk is wrong, and, for me (maybe not for you), drinking period is wrong. For me, it's unwise (family history of drunkeness [is that how you spell it?] will do that to you), I'd loses some credibility as a witness, and it's not a part of the abundant Life that I seek.

I hope that at least makes sense in relation to your queries.
 
Originally posted by Ephinie@Oct 17 2004, 08:55 AM
Drunkenness is clearly against Christian values, and it would have been even more so in Lewis's time. Now, he was from England, and I don't know how that was viewed over there in their time, but definitely there was a strong prohibitionist movement within the church here in America. In fact, there still is... I don't know of a single Protestant church that approves of ANY alcoholic consumption by any of its members. I personally am AG, and they'll fight to the bitter end insisting that Christians should never partake, and that the wine drunk by Jesus and the disciples in the Bible was only grapejuice. So, maybe Lewis used Bacchus particularly to illustrate that he believed it was acceptable and perhaps even good for Christians to cut loose and be wild once in a while. But, like I said... that's only a theory. Since Lewis is dead, there's not way to really know what he was getting at.
Click to expand...
Just to make this clear, I do not believe that alcohol is wrong. I think that when the Bible talks about wine it means literal wine and NOT grape-juice.

Now I am not trying to offend anybody here by what I said, but I think that it is very clear that God says wine is a good thing, as long as we do not abuse it.
 
This may sound like I'm contradicting myself, but I make sense to me. I've actually heard that a glass of wine a day or something is pretty healthy. That'd make sense, I guess, if it's true. Here's the verse that is the one we've all been referring to, I believe.

Eph 5:18 And "do not be drunk with wine," in which is debauchery, but be filled by the Spirit, (LITV)
If you want an elaboration on this, check out the first few chapters of Acts, to see what is meant by this verse.

I punched in "drunk" in the Bible search and got almost 40 verses, and all of them that were referring to wine-drinking, made the distinction between "drinking" (permissable) and "drinking to get drunk" (bad move).
 
Right, it's like the difference between drinking to someone's health, or a marriage toast, or whatever versus binge drinking, which is definitely not right!

Ephinie, could you show some verses that support your belief that the wine in the Bible was just grape juice, cuz I'm pretty sure that it was wine, or at least, there would have been a distinction between wine that is obviously alcoholic (the marriage feast at Capernaum) and the wine Jesus explicitly drank at the Last Supper.
 
Um, Aragorn, I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that Ephinie's post said only that her church believed that the wine in the Bible was grape juice, not that she did. Let's not jump to conclusions. ;)
Anyway, I just want to make it clear that, while I was raised in a home that thought any kind of alcohol consumption was wrong, I don't agree with that. I believe that drunkenness is wrong, but the whole prohibition thing actually began as a social movement and was embraced by the church in the late 1800's. It was not one of the original teachings of the Bible or beliefs of the church followers.
And, Ephinie, I go to a Protestant church that doesn't consider all kinds of alcohol consumption a sin. It's a nondenominational church that's part of the (funnily enough) Vineyard fellowship of churches.
 
Yeah, there are no verses that support the belief that the wine mentioned in the Bible was just grapejuice... because it wasn't. That's an unBiblical belief cited by certain Protestant demoninations (most notably the Assemblies of God and various Baptist groups) so that their doctrine goes unchallenged in that area.
 
Originally posted by faeriechylde@Oct 19 2004, 08:42 AM
Um, Aragorn, I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that Ephinie's post said only that her church believed that the wine in the Bible was grape juice, not that she did. Let's not jump to conclusions. ;)
Click to expand...
My bad.
 
OH GUYS This is a question that I was asked when I was a little kid to see if I could take the lords supper!


If you died today and saw God at the gates of heaven then God asked you "Why should I let you into heaven?" What would you say!
 
Well, until recently I would have said, "Oh, Lord, dear God, haven't you toyed with me enough?" But that was purely hubris speaking.
 
Haha, I guess I've never thought about this hypothetical situation...
I would probably say, "I don't know, why should You? I'm still trying to figure that out..."
 
Well, TC, now that it's about 5 months later, I have time to answer your question (I may have read it, but most likely didn't have the time to reply).

If I died today, and God asked me why He should let me into His perfect Heaven, I'd say, "Because I trust Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour, for he has cleansed me from all my sin by His death on the cross."

Something to that effect, anyhow...........
 
Back
Top