unleavened
New member
Wow, I have some views on this that I've not found to be contrary to Scipture, but I don't think I'll share them just yet.
Tash
- Thread starter PrinceOfTheWest
- Start date
Hmm. Well met, again, Parthian King. Good arguments; I'm glad I'm making you work. 
As a note, I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to Mormons as a "Pseudo-Christian" sect. The official name of my church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," not Mormon, and I do happen to be a Christian. I've not said it before now, since I know that for many "born-agains" being a Mormon is worse than being Atheist. I do hope I'm not flamed for my beliefs now, but I won't hide them. Sadly, based on previous contacts with many of the more fundamentalist Christians, I expect to be told I'm going to hell now, etc, and also everything I say to be discounted as heresy, etc. *sigh* We do believe in the Bible, you know.. and use the KJV. We do believe in Christ; we don't worship aliens, or whatever the most recent anti-mormon propaganda is. I admit we are not "mainstream" Christian, but I doubt anyone knows what a mainstream Christian believes, anyways; what with differences on whether baptism is required, etc.
Anyway, now that I've cleared that up (and those sites you linked me to are professional anti-mormon sites [they make money by selling anti-mormon literature], so I don't really trust anything they say; nor do I believe they are great scholars, since they address nothing LDS scholars argue); let me address some of the issues you've raised.
This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God. You state that if all men hear the gospel at some time, the great commission is lessened. This is clearly not true, since I myself spent two years preaching the gospel full time, and I believe it. One advantage to learning and repenting in this life is you are not in prison when you die. Second, repentance is a hard process--and the more you must repent for, the worse it is. It is far better to do that in this life, and not commit sin that you must repent of. Therefore, it is logical that God will hold us accountable for those sins that would never have happened, had we fulfilled our calling and preached the Gospel.
As for intantaneous glorification when Christ comes; I agree that that is available for those (who qualify, of course) who are still here when Christ comes back in person. When that is, I don't know. For those who (like me, most likely) will die before that day, I don't think that I have to wait until the second coming to enter heaven. See Stephen's stoning, and the parable of the rich man and the poor man, with Abraham's bosom.
I'll pass on the discussion of original sin; that is not necessarily germane to this thread.
I know you and I don't see eye to I on this matter, but I submit there is nothing which says God does not offer everyone a chance to accept or Reject Christ, whether it be in this life or the next. You admit your argument is an argument by silence; I say that we don't know all that Christ taught--especially during the 40 days after His resurrection.
As further evidence that this concept was known to the ancients, I would cite to Justin Martyr, Dialouge with Trypho; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:6; the Pastor of Hermes, Sim. 9:16, and others, too. Yes, they are not in the canon, but they are at least evidence that the gospel being preached to the dead is not just my idea.
As a note, I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to Mormons as a "Pseudo-Christian" sect. The official name of my church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," not Mormon, and I do happen to be a Christian. I've not said it before now, since I know that for many "born-agains" being a Mormon is worse than being Atheist. I do hope I'm not flamed for my beliefs now, but I won't hide them. Sadly, based on previous contacts with many of the more fundamentalist Christians, I expect to be told I'm going to hell now, etc, and also everything I say to be discounted as heresy, etc. *sigh* We do believe in the Bible, you know.. and use the KJV. We do believe in Christ; we don't worship aliens, or whatever the most recent anti-mormon propaganda is. I admit we are not "mainstream" Christian, but I doubt anyone knows what a mainstream Christian believes, anyways; what with differences on whether baptism is required, etc.
Anyway, now that I've cleared that up (and those sites you linked me to are professional anti-mormon sites [they make money by selling anti-mormon literature], so I don't really trust anything they say; nor do I believe they are great scholars, since they address nothing LDS scholars argue); let me address some of the issues you've raised.
This life is the time for men to prepare to meet God. You state that if all men hear the gospel at some time, the great commission is lessened. This is clearly not true, since I myself spent two years preaching the gospel full time, and I believe it.
One advantage to learning and repenting in this life is you are not in prison when you die. Second, repentance is a hard process--and the more you must repent for, the worse it is. It is far better to do that in this life, and not commit sin that you must repent of. Therefore, it is logical that God will hold us accountable for those sins that would never have happened, had we fulfilled our calling and preached the Gospel. As for intantaneous glorification when Christ comes; I agree that that is available for those (who qualify, of course) who are still here when Christ comes back in person. When that is, I don't know. For those who (like me, most likely) will die before that day, I don't think that I have to wait until the second coming to enter heaven. See Stephen's stoning, and the parable of the rich man and the poor man, with Abraham's bosom.
I'll pass on the discussion of original sin; that is not necessarily germane to this thread.
I know you and I don't see eye to I on this matter, but I submit there is nothing which says God does not offer everyone a chance to accept or Reject Christ, whether it be in this life or the next. You admit your argument is an argument by silence; I say that we don't know all that Christ taught--especially during the 40 days after His resurrection.
As further evidence that this concept was known to the ancients, I would cite to Justin Martyr, Dialouge with Trypho; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6:6; the Pastor of Hermes, Sim. 9:16, and others, too. Yes, they are not in the canon, but they are at least evidence that the gospel being preached to the dead is not just my idea.
Welcome, VANCEONE!
I'm very glad that you gave me a nice synopsis of Mormon belief! Before your summary, I really didn't know that you were Christians. Thanks!
I'm a Roman Catholic. I think that I share with the Protestants here the belief that revelation was closed with the death of the last apostle. How do you reconcille that with Joseph Smith's unearthing of the angels' instructions?
Also, the Christian belief of a man and a woman becoming one flesh seems so right... How do a man and dozens of women become one flesh?
Please answer.
As far as I can tell, I'm the only Roman Catholic on this board, but no one has ever mocked me because of it. We're very open minded hee!
I'd love to hear from you.
I'm very glad that you gave me a nice synopsis of Mormon belief! Before your summary, I really didn't know that you were Christians. Thanks!
I'm a Roman Catholic. I think that I share with the Protestants here the belief that revelation was closed with the death of the last apostle. How do you reconcille that with Joseph Smith's unearthing of the angels' instructions?
Also, the Christian belief of a man and a woman becoming one flesh seems so right... How do a man and dozens of women become one flesh?
Please answer.
As far as I can tell, I'm the only Roman Catholic on this board, but no one has ever mocked me because of it. We're very open minded hee!
I'd love to hear from you.
Not the only one, Inklet.
Meaning no disrespect whatsoever, Vanceone, I made my reference without knowing, although with an "inkling" (forgive the pun, all), that Mormonism was your point of departure. I nevertheless stand by it, though as a clarifying point I use the term "pseudo-Christian sect" as a technical term, not a pejorative.
I appreciate Inklet's explicit questions (which consist of just a few in the vast array that an orthodox would have to make concerning the LDS statement of faith), and Prince of the West's implicit ones. I, on the other hand, will refrain from a discussion of systematic theology comparing two different groups. You're a Mormon, Inklet and Prince of the West are Catholics, I am a Protestant (I declare this here for the first time, though it could probably have been inferred). This mixture alone could lead to a great deal of fireworks. Yet that is not the purpose of this forum, and I'm afraid I'm going to stay on task, which is Lewis, Narnia, The Last Battle, and (at the moment) Tash.
I believe I have covered my bases, and I'm going to let others into the ring, or at least invite them. The reason I am going to back off, at least for a bit, is that I want things to remain both cordial and on-task. If we continue in this vein, we will deal with many things that have almost nothing to do with the subject. As it is, I don't think anyone would like to see what Lewis would do with the LDS statement of faith. I can say with great confidence though that he would surely not accept the vast majority of it. Aslan, for one, is the unique Son of God, divine alone.
I appreciate Inklet's explicit questions (which consist of just a few in the vast array that an orthodox would have to make concerning the LDS statement of faith), and Prince of the West's implicit ones. I, on the other hand, will refrain from a discussion of systematic theology comparing two different groups. You're a Mormon, Inklet and Prince of the West are Catholics, I am a Protestant (I declare this here for the first time, though it could probably have been inferred). This mixture alone could lead to a great deal of fireworks. Yet that is not the purpose of this forum, and I'm afraid I'm going to stay on task, which is Lewis, Narnia, The Last Battle, and (at the moment) Tash.
I believe I have covered my bases, and I'm going to let others into the ring, or at least invite them. The reason I am going to back off, at least for a bit, is that I want things to remain both cordial and on-task. If we continue in this vein, we will deal with many things that have almost nothing to do with the subject. As it is, I don't think anyone would like to see what Lewis would do with the LDS statement of faith. I can say with great confidence though that he would surely not accept the vast majority of it. Aslan, for one, is the unique Son of God, divine alone.
Last edited:
Thanks, everyone. I agree that this thread in particular is not the place for discussion of our various religious beliefs; this thread is about Tash. I'd be more than happy to have a thread and answer questions though. Not sure where that would be appropriate. It could lead to fireworks, yes, although I hope we would be cordial. And yes, there are many questions that could be asked. I appreciate the revelation one, and of course polygamy will come up (it always does.... ) But that's for another thread. (Would it be appropriate to start one in the Christianity and Lewis forum?) I will say that Lewis is actually quite the beloved figure in our faith; even though he's not LDS, I would say we agree with tons of his positions. This current issue of Tash, Emerth, and salvation for those who have never heard of Christ is one of them. I don't think Lewis ever really was exposed to my faith, so I don't know what he would say.
Back to Tash; I agree that my positions do come from the LDS background. However, I have pointed out scriptures in the Bible that we use for support; I think we at least can agree that it is a plausible interpretation, though not, maybe, the mainstream view. In other words, there is some support in the Bible, though it is true most of my reasoning is from more modern revelation. The canon certainly doesn't stand in the way of what I've proposed as the answer to the question of salvation for those who never heard of Christ.
) But that's for another thread. (Would it be appropriate to start one in the Christianity and Lewis forum?) I will say that Lewis is actually quite the beloved figure in our faith; even though he's not LDS, I would say we agree with tons of his positions. This current issue of Tash, Emerth, and salvation for those who have never heard of Christ is one of them. I don't think Lewis ever really was exposed to my faith, so I don't know what he would say. Back to Tash; I agree that my positions do come from the LDS background. However, I have pointed out scriptures in the Bible that we use for support; I think we at least can agree that it is a plausible interpretation, though not, maybe, the mainstream view. In other words, there is some support in the Bible, though it is true most of my reasoning is from more modern revelation. The canon certainly doesn't stand in the way of what I've proposed as the answer to the question of salvation for those who never heard of Christ.
Tash is for the story, the "anti Christ".
I've thought about it many times before and that was the conclusion I drew.
-Austin
I've thought about it many times before and that was the conclusion I drew.
-Austin
Vanceone said:Hmm. Well met, again, Parthian King. Good arguments; I'm glad I'm making you work.
As a note, I would appreciate it if you didn't refer to Mormons as a "Pseudo-Christian" sect. The official name of my church is "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints," not Mormon, and I do happen to be a Christian. We do believe in the Bible, you know.. and use the KJV. We do believe in Christ; we don't worship aliens, or whatever the most recent anti-Mormon propaganda is. I admit we are not "mainstream" Christian, but I doubt anyone knows what a mainstream Christian believes, anyways; what with differences on whether baptism is required, etc.
The Latter Day Saints believe in many Gods. Thus Polytheists.
Christians believe in one Trinitarian God.
Mormons believe that God wasn't always God. They believe he progressed from a man into Godhood.
Mormons also believe humans can become Gods or like them.
Christians believe the was only one God before all time and always will be one God.
Mormans believe that humans were procreated in the preexistence.
Christians believe that humans were created.
Mormans believe that the Church was destroyed but rebuilt.
Christians believe that the Church cannot be shaken and that not even the gate of hell can stand against it.
Mormons believe the bible is corrupt and incomplete.
Christian believe it is reliable, sufficient and inspired by God.
Good works are necessary for to live with God forever.
Once we are saved by faith in Jesus and faith in Jesus alone. We will want to become more like him. It was in Jesus' character to love everyone.
Helping others selflessly is an act of love.
By definition it is not possible to be a Latter Day Saint and a Christian.
I, myself am a Christian, I don't think your going to hell or do I want you to. I just wanted to let you know that I disagree with you
Vanceone said:I'll pass on the discussion of original sin; that is not necessarily germane to this thread.
None of this is germane to this thread
.
That many in the Church of LDS appreciate Lewis is certainly good news. My sincere hope is that every Mormon develop an insatiable appetite for his writings in all their forms.
I know of no place where Lewis addresses the writings of Smith or Young, or for that matter those of the founders of any number of groups that arose during the rather religiously fertile 19th century in North America. Lewis was extraordinarily well-read and educated, but in the end any assertion would be conjecture either way. What I do know, however, is that Lewis was not only a firm adherent to historical, orthodox Christianity, but he is widely considered one of the foremost champions of it in the modern age. His stories may be, and should be, appreciated and enjoyed by many people of different stripes. In particular, his allegories, when read alone, may be interpreted and applied variously. A prime case in point is the present issue, wherein Vanceone applies his church's theology of post-death redemption to a character's encounter with Aslan after he steps through a cosmic portal of sorts. Though the text says nothing about the young man dying, one may interpet it that way, as in this case.
Yet when one reads Lewis' broader corpus, there can be little doubt as the where he stands on things. The linch pin of the whole rests on who he considers Jesus Christ to be (in comparison to this, much of what remains is secondary and indeed proceeds from it), and Lewis' other books and articles make clear that he is an historical Christian who sees Jesus Christ as the unique, one and only, eternally preexistent, all powerful Creator God, Yahweh, who became flesh (rather than just appeared as flesh), and walked among us, and will soon come to judge the living and the dead. In other words, Lewis is an incarnationist in the classical sense, and if we are to understand Lewis (the theme of this site and this forum), whether we agree with him or not, that is really to only way to see him. Otherwise we go back to reader-response when it comes to his texts, i.e., using his writings as a casual point of departure from which we can go nearly anywhere.
Given that Lewis sees things this way, we should discuss things accordingly. We may or may not agree with him. But let's be transparent about who he was as we discuss who we are and what we think in light of his writings, keeping in mind always that the forum (as I understand it) is overwhelmingly about him, and not the comparative particulars of our respective confessions of faith, for which there exist a multitude of venues by which we can express ourselves.
I know of no place where Lewis addresses the writings of Smith or Young, or for that matter those of the founders of any number of groups that arose during the rather religiously fertile 19th century in North America. Lewis was extraordinarily well-read and educated, but in the end any assertion would be conjecture either way. What I do know, however, is that Lewis was not only a firm adherent to historical, orthodox Christianity, but he is widely considered one of the foremost champions of it in the modern age. His stories may be, and should be, appreciated and enjoyed by many people of different stripes. In particular, his allegories, when read alone, may be interpreted and applied variously. A prime case in point is the present issue, wherein Vanceone applies his church's theology of post-death redemption to a character's encounter with Aslan after he steps through a cosmic portal of sorts. Though the text says nothing about the young man dying, one may interpet it that way, as in this case.
Yet when one reads Lewis' broader corpus, there can be little doubt as the where he stands on things. The linch pin of the whole rests on who he considers Jesus Christ to be (in comparison to this, much of what remains is secondary and indeed proceeds from it), and Lewis' other books and articles make clear that he is an historical Christian who sees Jesus Christ as the unique, one and only, eternally preexistent, all powerful Creator God, Yahweh, who became flesh (rather than just appeared as flesh), and walked among us, and will soon come to judge the living and the dead. In other words, Lewis is an incarnationist in the classical sense, and if we are to understand Lewis (the theme of this site and this forum), whether we agree with him or not, that is really to only way to see him. Otherwise we go back to reader-response when it comes to his texts, i.e., using his writings as a casual point of departure from which we can go nearly anywhere.
Given that Lewis sees things this way, we should discuss things accordingly. We may or may not agree with him. But let's be transparent about who he was as we discuss who we are and what we think in light of his writings, keeping in mind always that the forum (as I understand it) is overwhelmingly about him, and not the comparative particulars of our respective confessions of faith, for which there exist a multitude of venues by which we can express ourselves.
Last edited:
Turn my back for a few days, and there's lots to catch up on!
I don't know that we have to stick to what Lewis meant when he dreamed up Tash, our opinions of the text and our own personal viewpoints also contribute to what make the stories special for us. And for me, the fun part is when everyone's opinions go rambling off into the cosmos and we have a discussion of whether you can receive salvation after death. I enjoy this stuff. because I am a freak.
Anyway, one point I noticed in Vanceone's posts was this idea that after death we will still have to overcome our addicitons and bad habits, and after death the worse things we have to repent of the harder time we're going to have, and through strenthg of will in this life we can and should overcome those bad sins.
(Don't make me go back and find the quote, do you know the part I'm talking about?)
I just wanted to say, no matter what your denomination, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, this idea of paying for your sins, or overcoming your struggles by will-power, or receiving wors punishment after death than somebody else who did less sins ... that's all not in the Bible and should not worry you.
When Jesus paid the price for your sins, and you accepted that gift of forgiveness, then all the price-paying was done, and you will never have to PAY any price for any sin, that's all over.
And Jesus also doesn't want you to kill yourself trying to overcome your tendency to sin on the strength of your will, because it's useless. He says, "Apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). He doesn't want you to overcome your addiction, He wants to overcome it through you! Your human struggling is not necessary to your salvation. All that is necessary is your surrender to Him.
Just thought I would say this, in case anyone was getting bummed by the idea of having to pay for sins of get punished after death ... because, you know, Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" so, you know, don't be scared.
I don't know that we have to stick to what Lewis meant when he dreamed up Tash, our opinions of the text and our own personal viewpoints also contribute to what make the stories special for us. And for me, the fun part is when everyone's opinions go rambling off into the cosmos and we have a discussion of whether you can receive salvation after death. I enjoy this stuff. because I am a freak.
Anyway, one point I noticed in Vanceone's posts was this idea that after death we will still have to overcome our addicitons and bad habits, and after death the worse things we have to repent of the harder time we're going to have, and through strenthg of will in this life we can and should overcome those bad sins.
(Don't make me go back and find the quote, do you know the part I'm talking about?)
I just wanted to say, no matter what your denomination, if you are a believer in Jesus Christ, this idea of paying for your sins, or overcoming your struggles by will-power, or receiving wors punishment after death than somebody else who did less sins ... that's all not in the Bible and should not worry you.
When Jesus paid the price for your sins, and you accepted that gift of forgiveness, then all the price-paying was done, and you will never have to PAY any price for any sin, that's all over.
And Jesus also doesn't want you to kill yourself trying to overcome your tendency to sin on the strength of your will, because it's useless. He says, "Apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). He doesn't want you to overcome your addiction, He wants to overcome it through you! Your human struggling is not necessary to your salvation. All that is necessary is your surrender to Him.
Just thought I would say this, in case anyone was getting bummed by the idea of having to pay for sins of get punished after death ...
because, you know, Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" so, you know, don't be scared.
Gibby
New member
I was going to stay out of this one, but the Word of God is complete and perfect. To add or delete is bad news. I am not just singling out the LDS either. I may be opening myself up here but God's Word is clear; there not my words by any means.
What God's Word says about adding or deleting from His Word:
Deuteronomy 4:1-2
1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Galations 1:6-10
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
A list of warnings against false teachings:
Matthew 7:15-23; Matthew 24:10; Mark 22:23; Acts 20:25-31; Romans 16:17-18; Galatians 1:6-9; Colossians 2:8,18-19; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 1 Timothy 4:1-8,16; 1 Timothy 5:3-10; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; 2 Timothy 2:14-18; 2 Timothy 3:1-9; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; Titus 1:9-16; 2 Peter 2:1-22; 2 Peter 3:14-18; 1 John 1:18-27; 1 John 4:1-6; 2 John 7-11; Jude 3-19
What God's Word says about adding or deleting from His Word:
Deuteronomy 4:1-2
1 Hear now, O Israel, the decrees and laws I am about to teach you. Follow them so that you may live and may go in and take possession of the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, is giving you. 2 Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Galations 1:6-10
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!
10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ.
A list of warnings against false teachings:
Matthew 7:15-23; Matthew 24:10; Mark 22:23; Acts 20:25-31; Romans 16:17-18; Galatians 1:6-9; Colossians 2:8,18-19; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; 1 Timothy 1:3-7; 1 Timothy 1:18-20; 1 Timothy 4:1-8,16; 1 Timothy 5:3-10; 1 Timothy 6:20-21; 2 Timothy 2:14-18; 2 Timothy 3:1-9; 2 Timothy 4:1-5; Titus 1:9-16; 2 Peter 2:1-22; 2 Peter 3:14-18; 1 John 1:18-27; 1 John 4:1-6; 2 John 7-11; Jude 3-19
Very good, Inkspot. But just to clarify: There is a distinction between varied applicability and varied interpretation. I believe what you may be getting at is that the truth that Lewis conveys (whether in this story or another) can be applied in an endless variety of ways depending upon everyone's life situation, imagination, personality, etc. That is fine--even better than fine, it is desirable.
What I mean is that it can be ascertained (better in some cases than in others) that the author had an intent when he wrote. If we are not to end up in total chaos (i.e., "I think Tash means Tweetie bird gets really bad heartburn when he stays up late and eats pizza" or the like), we have to have some sense of bearing on where the author is coming from. Since Lewis was so prolific, that is not terribly hard to do in his case. Given the allegory surrounding the figure, and the fact that this worshipped idol actually manifested and did harm, it is fair to say that it is Lewis' intent to project an thoroughly evil being, that parallels either the devil himself or one of his higher minions.
Backing up the lens a bit for the bigger picture, I think it only reasponsible to say that Lewis quite intentionally is projecting a particular theological view of reality based quite directly on his orthodox faith. He hopes this will have a redemptive effect, and judging from the many (including myself) who have fallen in love with Jesus Christ after having fallen in love with Aslan (then seeing the allegorical connection), I would say he was a success. "Aslan=Jesus" is pretty much his intent, and it would not be responsible to say "Aslan=the Apostle Peter," or worse, "Aslan=Judas Iscariot." But once we settle that, how I relate to Aslan, apply the truths he speaks to various Narnians, etc., well, that's up to each of us, again, within the sensible parameters implied in the story.
What I mean is that it can be ascertained (better in some cases than in others) that the author had an intent when he wrote. If we are not to end up in total chaos (i.e., "I think Tash means Tweetie bird gets really bad heartburn when he stays up late and eats pizza" or the like), we have to have some sense of bearing on where the author is coming from. Since Lewis was so prolific, that is not terribly hard to do in his case. Given the allegory surrounding the figure, and the fact that this worshipped idol actually manifested and did harm, it is fair to say that it is Lewis' intent to project an thoroughly evil being, that parallels either the devil himself or one of his higher minions.
Backing up the lens a bit for the bigger picture, I think it only reasponsible to say that Lewis quite intentionally is projecting a particular theological view of reality based quite directly on his orthodox faith. He hopes this will have a redemptive effect, and judging from the many (including myself) who have fallen in love with Jesus Christ after having fallen in love with Aslan (then seeing the allegorical connection), I would say he was a success. "Aslan=Jesus" is pretty much his intent, and it would not be responsible to say "Aslan=the Apostle Peter," or worse, "Aslan=Judas Iscariot." But once we settle that, how I relate to Aslan, apply the truths he speaks to various Narnians, etc., well, that's up to each of us, again, within the sensible parameters implied in the story.
Last edited:
On a totally different line of reasoning, and perhaps a serious long shot, I was musing that "Tash" is effectively the anglicized (phonetic) version of the French word for "cat" (chat, pronounced shah, since the final "t" is silent unless followed by another word beginning with a vowel)--in reverse. (Once reversed, of course, the "t" is no longer silent, but the soft "sh" for "ch" may be retained.)
Could it be that Lewis' conception of this name is nothing more complicated than the Great Cat Aslan, in reverse? This, by the way, fits rather well with the concept of Antichrist, which is more accurately understood to mean "anti-type of Christ" rather than "one who is against Christ." It's just a thought...
Could it be that Lewis' conception of this name is nothing more complicated than the Great Cat Aslan, in reverse? This, by the way, fits rather well with the concept of Antichrist, which is more accurately understood to mean "anti-type of Christ" rather than "one who is against Christ." It's just a thought...
Last edited:
Okay, I see that many posters have questions or concerns with my faith, so I've started a discussion thread here. I hope the mods let it stay. I don't want it to turn into a bash or argument thread, and posts (like one here already) that are just an excuse to tell me I'm evil I'll ignore. Hopefully, we can get back on track in this thread. I'll not answer any of the questions specifically directed at me here, they can be asked in that new thread.
Now, I'll just say that I am an Incarnationist as well; Yahweh or Jehovah is the premortal Christ, who took a physical body, not just appeared to have one. Thus, I'm firmly in Lewis' camp there. I agree that usually you can figure out what Lewis was talking about, and thus should not try and argue that Aslan is equal to John the revelator or something.
As far as Tash being a backward name for the french "cat," I've never heard that, although it would be really a clever thing if it were true. Did Lewis know French well enough to think of something like this, or would it be mere coincidence?
Hopefully, we can get back on track in this thread. I'll not answer any of the questions specifically directed at me here, they can be asked in that new thread. Now, I'll just say that I am an Incarnationist as well; Yahweh or Jehovah is the premortal Christ, who took a physical body, not just appeared to have one. Thus, I'm firmly in Lewis' camp there. I agree that usually you can figure out what Lewis was talking about, and thus should not try and argue that Aslan is equal to John the revelator or something.
As far as Tash being a backward name for the french "cat," I've never heard that, although it would be really a clever thing if it were true. Did Lewis know French well enough to think of something like this, or would it be mere coincidence?
Greetings again, Vanceone. Thank you for your responses. In reply to your post, let me say first that, yes, Lewis knew French quite well, as well as Latin and Greek, and doubtless German as well, though I cannot speak with great authority on the last one. He was one who benefitted from an elite education in the finer schools of England, and knowing French to such a person would have been extremely basic. He also seems to assume at certain points in his other writings that his readers will have at least a basic knowledge of it as well.
As far as you being "firmly in Lewis' camp" in your christology, I'm delighted to hear it. When did the Church of LDS change their doctrine to adhere to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds? The latter of these states:
"3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. 21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
This is classical, historical, orthodox Christianity at its very heart (note that "catholic" small "c" includes Roman Catholicism but does not exclude other forms of orthodoxy), and it is this that Lewis believed--his "camp" to use your term. If you can confirm that this is what you believe, and indeed it is what the LDS confession consists of with no wavering or modification, my joy will be very, very great indeed.
As far as you being "firmly in Lewis' camp" in your christology, I'm delighted to hear it. When did the Church of LDS change their doctrine to adhere to the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds? The latter of these states:
"3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. 13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. 14. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one almighty. 15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; 16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. 17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;
18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. 19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; 20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. 21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. 22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. 23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. 24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. 25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. 26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. 27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. 28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
This is classical, historical, orthodox Christianity at its very heart (note that "catholic" small "c" includes Roman Catholicism but does not exclude other forms of orthodoxy), and it is this that Lewis believed--his "camp" to use your term. If you can confirm that this is what you believe, and indeed it is what the LDS confession consists of with no wavering or modification, my joy will be very, very great indeed.
Basilides
New member
Apparently I've missed a significant number of developments in this thread while I have been mostly away. I've only a couple of things to add to this:
Vanceone and Parthian King, I want to congratulate both of you for your respective conduct in the debate thus far. There have been several opportunities for one or the other of you to resort to slander, or to react to certain arguments in the flesh. Neither of you have done so (I haven't read the Mormonism thread yet...so I am saying some of this in faith ).
Also, Lewis - by his own admission - was not a theologian. Personally, I think if he truly delved into formal theology he would have tuned up his views in one or two areas before proceeding to rock the dogmatic world. We will never know. But we can count on Lewis in his writings to be consistently insightful in a way few writers have ever been. In this way he can take an admittedly challenging subject (What happens to those who have never heard?) and, in the form of allegory, propose a question (What if some people are serving Christ without realizing it?). I would give a great deal to be a bug on the wall if Lewis were to have lunch with the likes of Luther and R.C. Sproul or Spurgeon to hash it out. But the years do divide our champions, don't they?
As for I Peter 3:19ff, I think Peter must have just finished reading some of Paul's epistles before he dictated it. It is a confusing construction. However, it is one of those cases that can be illuminated if we consider Peter's verbal context as he says these words.
Peter has several thoughts going here at once. Verse 18 is a complete thought, following a remark that if we suffer it should be for doing that which is good, and not for doing evil (a poignant reminder) because (v 18) Christ the only righteous One died for us who are unrighteous for the express purpose of making peace between us and God. The idea is that if Christ's suffering was to make us closer to God, what kind of "closer to God people" are we to suffer for being sinful? Naturally, that makes no sense. So don't go to jail for drunk camel-driving, he is saying. If you go to jail, let it be for preaching the Gospel or something. But at the end of this thought he adds that Christ was able to "bring" us closer to God because, even during the period before His resurrection He was still alive in the Spirit even though He was dead in the flesh.
To prove that Christ was alive in the spirit during that time (a statement that would have raised skepticism among Jewish believers), Peter uses as proof the accepted belief that the sinners at the time of Noah - now in prison - had been preached to by Christ in the person of Noah. Since this was before the incarnation, it had to have been in the spirit. The idea is, that if "in the spirit" Christ could have preached to the (now condemned) antedeluvian peoples - albeit through Noah - then "in the spirit" He could also have accomplished the "drawing us near to God" after He died in the flesh. He was just as alive after the crucifixion as He was in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in other words. v 19 He proclaimed then to the spirits now condemned (because they didn't listen), even though He was not alive inthe flesh. v20 But they did not obey back then when God patiently waited for a positive response while the ark was being built, and thus the explanation for their current imprisonment.
This reminds Peter of the salvation of the eight people in the ark through the water, and the symbolism is clear...Christ is the ark that carries us through the water, just as when we are baptized in water we are already "in Christ" because of the resurrection (He lives His resurrected life through usnow, as we learn to walk inthe spirit). Our good conscience is a matter of Christ's forensically imputed righteousness and gives us grounds by which we can appeal to God, and the water in baptism - physically just a means to wash dirt fromthe body - spiritually signifies what Christ has done.
He said all this to convict Christians who were getting themselves in trouble with the law...but not for being Christians. No, some were in trouble for the traditional reasons. After hearing what Christ did and being reminded of their baptismal announcement to the world that they were New Creatures, I'm sure they felt a bit sheepish.
It is only as the years pass and the circumstances are different than when Peter wrote to the church that people have come up with all kinds of creative interpretations for this passage. In the day in which it was written, I think it was perfectly understood...understood with red faces.
Vanceone and Parthian King, I want to congratulate both of you for your respective conduct in the debate thus far. There have been several opportunities for one or the other of you to resort to slander, or to react to certain arguments in the flesh. Neither of you have done so (I haven't read the Mormonism thread yet...so I am saying some of this in faith
). Also, Lewis - by his own admission - was not a theologian. Personally, I think if he truly delved into formal theology he would have tuned up his views in one or two areas before proceeding to rock the dogmatic world. We will never know. But we can count on Lewis in his writings to be consistently insightful in a way few writers have ever been. In this way he can take an admittedly challenging subject (What happens to those who have never heard?) and, in the form of allegory, propose a question (What if some people are serving Christ without realizing it?). I would give a great deal to be a bug on the wall if Lewis were to have lunch with the likes of Luther and R.C. Sproul or Spurgeon to hash it out. But the years do divide our champions, don't they?
As for I Peter 3:19ff, I think Peter must have just finished reading some of Paul's epistles before he dictated it. It is a confusing construction. However, it is one of those cases that can be illuminated if we consider Peter's verbal context as he says these words.
Peter has several thoughts going here at once. Verse 18 is a complete thought, following a remark that if we suffer it should be for doing that which is good, and not for doing evil (a poignant reminder) because (v 18) Christ the only righteous One died for us who are unrighteous for the express purpose of making peace between us and God. The idea is that if Christ's suffering was to make us closer to God, what kind of "closer to God people" are we to suffer for being sinful? Naturally, that makes no sense. So don't go to jail for drunk camel-driving, he is saying. If you go to jail, let it be for preaching the Gospel or something. But at the end of this thought he adds that Christ was able to "bring" us closer to God because, even during the period before His resurrection He was still alive in the Spirit even though He was dead in the flesh.
To prove that Christ was alive in the spirit during that time (a statement that would have raised skepticism among Jewish believers), Peter uses as proof the accepted belief that the sinners at the time of Noah - now in prison - had been preached to by Christ in the person of Noah. Since this was before the incarnation, it had to have been in the spirit. The idea is, that if "in the spirit" Christ could have preached to the (now condemned) antedeluvian peoples - albeit through Noah - then "in the spirit" He could also have accomplished the "drawing us near to God" after He died in the flesh. He was just as alive after the crucifixion as He was in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in other words. v 19 He proclaimed then to the spirits now condemned (because they didn't listen), even though He was not alive inthe flesh. v20 But they did not obey back then when God patiently waited for a positive response while the ark was being built, and thus the explanation for their current imprisonment.
This reminds Peter of the salvation of the eight people in the ark through the water, and the symbolism is clear...Christ is the ark that carries us through the water, just as when we are baptized in water we are already "in Christ" because of the resurrection (He lives His resurrected life through usnow, as we learn to walk inthe spirit). Our good conscience is a matter of Christ's forensically imputed righteousness and gives us grounds by which we can appeal to God, and the water in baptism - physically just a means to wash dirt fromthe body - spiritually signifies what Christ has done.
He said all this to convict Christians who were getting themselves in trouble with the law...but not for being Christians. No, some were in trouble for the traditional reasons. After hearing what Christ did and being reminded of their baptismal announcement to the world that they were New Creatures, I'm sure they felt a bit sheepish.
It is only as the years pass and the circumstances are different than when Peter wrote to the church that people have come up with all kinds of creative interpretations for this passage. In the day in which it was written, I think it was perfectly understood...understood with red faces.