Why the year 0 CE?

Very good point! Yes, he often reflects that as Christ is the exact representation of God, that’s the view God wants us to see

Great description. I know I have had to adjust my point of view often in the recent months.

Right–and parts of Macdonald (and Jesus) remind me that He even sees and brings us to gentle and firm repentance from the prejudice of us “older brothers” who too soon exclude those who are stumbling, and let the log of our own eyes get in the way.

Yes, good point–though that might be an adaptation from the animal point of view, as Ginger the Cat, who reverted to animal muteness and lost the forebrain–sort an annihilation. He keeps the Dwarves (the agnostic/atheists) in the prison of their own minds, and I sort of wonder if they had an option to change down the road.

Thanks!

2 Likes

I forgot about those dwarves! Yeah - whatever became of them?! I remember they were sitting in the stable of the old (and fast passing away) Narnia world, refusing to be “taken in” by all the humbug. It was a fairly pointed criticism (I remember thinking) of materialists who - in Lewis’ view - have already decided they will never see anything of any other world than the physically sensible one they are in.

I suppose the whole situation could have been seen as some intermediate “purgatory”, but on the other hand, their stable prison was in a world that was freezing and passing away. So if they refused to leave that world, their future could not have been anything nice! I guess all we know is that Lewis never developed their fate beyond the stable.

[It’s fun to think of the curious inhabitants of the new Narnia occasionally checking on the dwarves by pounding on the wooden door to carry on some conversation! That door was just left standing there, wasn’t it?]

2 Likes

I remember that there were some dwarves that participated in shooting the Horses that actually wound up going to Aslan’s Country (they had apparently died in the fight) at the Judgment.

I’m trying to remember–but I think they remained on the Aslan’s Country side of the door. Is that not right? I am in the passenger’s seat of a van going to Kalamazoo, and my copy of the book is back home :slight_smile:

So–if I am not mistaken, it was on the outer skirts of Aslan’s Country, but they refused to go farther up and farther in–in fact, one was pretty sure Tirian had bonked his nose on the wall of the Stable when he carried him out of the ring.

I would enjoy picking Lewis’ brain about what made him put these different details in. He strongly identified with the Dwarves, I think, coming from the agnostic/naturalist position (as do I; I can see myself hesitating to walk “farther up and farther in”). I’m the sort of person who would rather be comfortable in a spot than risk anything outside.

1 Like

Well, I am at home, and so my only excuse is that I can’t find it. [okay - now my son found them!]

None of the dwarves come into the new Narnia (at least not within the bounds of the story as it’s told). Tirian tries to physically remove one stubborn dwarf from inside the stable, but the dwarf runs back to his circle of comrades and complains that Tirian nearly broke his nose bashing it against the stable wall. Aslan even makes a feast appear before the dwarves, (which apparently everybody else can see in their bright heavenly surroundings). But to the dwarves it is all the dark insides of a dirty stable and they mistake the feast for lesser stuff one might expect to find in a stable and are soon fighting over bits of it. Aslan ends the chapter with this thought for the concerned onlookers:

You see, they will not let up help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds, yet they are in that prison, and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out. But come, children, I have other work to do.

after which Aslan proceeds to summon up Father Time.

1 Like

I’ve only read about 5% of the books y’all mentioned. I had no idea people wondered whether Lewis flirted with universalism or inclusivism.

In general though, I find Pharaoh’s hard-heartedness very believable and realistic, and the same goes with passages like Revelation 16:9-11:

They were scorched by the fierce heat, and they cursed the name of God who had power over these plagues. They did not repent and give him glory. The fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and its kingdom was plunged into darkness. People gnawed their tongues in anguish and cursed the God of heaven for their pain and sores. They did not repent of their deeds.

I don’t think the people in hell will be asking for a 2nd chance. But I also don’t think we need to take the lake of fire literally. For example, in Luke 16 although the rich man in hell says, “I am in anguish in this flame”, he’s not screaming in nonstop agony but instead carries on a conversation with Abraham.

Yes, I remember Emeth. :slightly_smiling_face: (I didn’t remember his name, since it’s been close to half a century since I’ve read the Narnia series, but I have thought about him in the interim.) The distinction in the article between universalism and inclusivism is good, and agree that neither are heresy, as opposed to pluralism and universalism which are.

We can trust our good Father, that he just and fair. Just as there are degrees of reward, I suspect that there are degrees of punishment. (And speaking of Lewis, noting The Great Divorce here is appropriate.)

I also remember reading (probably longer ago than I read The Chronicles) an account of an aboriginal tribesman in Africa who knew that the animism of his fellows was wrong. So he set out on his own, leaving the tribe, seeking. And he was found of Christ because in his travels he ‘happened’ upon some Christian missionaries laboring in or among another tribe or tribes. I wish I knew the citation for the story, because I don’t think it was apocryphal.

That accords with Lewis’s take in The Great Divorce – they all chose to get back on the bus.

I don’t know. Maybe we deceive ourselves (no, there’s no maybe about it) as to the severity of our own sinfulness, and the severity of the sinfulness of mankind.

All too often it takes a lot to bring us to that point. Before I can ask for a 2nd chance, I first have to admit I was wrong and repent of that. Pride/desire often get in the way before we can even make that first step. It may take sufferings, punishments, even some hellfire itself to teach me to loath my sin as I ought (i.e. to see it as God sees it). Prior to that point, I’m a genius with rationalizations and excuses and every variety of reason why “I shouldn’t need to let go of this one just quite yet…” And we have our ready stocks of “well, at least I’m not as bad as …” and many other salves to help our sin-laden souls muddle through for the moment.

To hear Macdonald tell it, there will be no hellfire spared by God to the utmost reaches of eternity if that’s what it takes to help us loath our own sin. I’ve quoted this Macdonald line before and it bears repeating here: “the man is not yet saved that does not prefer hell to his own sin.” (from his unspoken sermon: “Justice”, I believe.)

In many ways this is the much harder and higher road than the atonement formulation where all my sins are paid for by Christ and subsequently forgotten - never to be thought of again by either God or myself. That sort of ‘get out of jail free’ card is the more immediately attractive one on the surface (and scriptural support can be found for it too … sins being separated from us as far as east is from west, etc.) - at least when we search for such passages with that desired message in mind. But the much more demanding understanding is that Christ has (and will continue to) enable me to put away my sin and never return to it so that I am indeed cleansed and made fit for citizenship in His Kingdom. I.e. I won’t be just a forgiven sinner anymore, but will actually be a saint, courtesy of all those perfecting sufferings that Christ himself leads us through (and was obliged to go through himself - and none of us are greater than our master). Otherwise I’m still just the naughty boy who broke the window. Never mind that dad paid for it. If I haven’t learned my lesson, learned the obedience needed to be a member of good-standing in the household, then it doesn’t matter if all of my past indiscretions were made to “go away” - I’m still a filthy sinner.

1 Like

I think the man who struggled with sexual temptation stayed…maybe another too…the whining lady was iffy. would like to do a thread on GD too. Great stuff there about sin and grace!

Am at the air zoo in Kalamazoo. Enjoying the posts here in between!

1 Like

If it is through our own transforming sufferings, then why did Jesus die? (Sufferings are not always transformative for the better. I think that is the lie of universalism.)

Because that is what sinful people do when visited by the author of life himself. Had Jesus done anything else (like call down legions of angels, and so scorn that despicable treatment of himself as well as those who would so treat him) then we would simply be the conquered naughty sinners who would forever remain in that enslaved status. Instead he refuses to be drawn into our transactional politics, even when death itself is on the line. In that way he went to the heart of our ultimate fears ahead of us, opening the door. That was his saving work - vouchsafed to us by the testimony of His risen self, that all will be well. Our former enemy, death, has now been revealed as a doorway and we are invited to follow this heretofore impossible trail Christ blazed for us. Even though he made the impossible possible, it still isn’t easy. We still need the help and prodding of the Spirit to urge us along that way. I don’t pretend this explains everything, of course. No theory of atonement does. And when “theory” interests us more than obedience, then we are already in trouble anyway - even if our theory was completely right.

1 Like

Your description sounds a lot like works righteousness – we have to be eventually good enough by going through a purgatory. There is much scripture that refutes that… What comes to mind first is from 1 Peter 2:24…

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

Now I can live in gratitude and peace – not neglecting obedience! If universalism is true, then everyone can live as they ■■■■ well please.

(By peace, I do not mean effortlessness! Obedience definitely requires striving.)

1 Like

I’ll agree there are a lot of teachings (especially from Paul) that can be levied (whether rightly or not, let’s set aside for the moment) against this. By faith and not by works you are saved … and so forth. Let me ask you this: if works are not at all important (and I don’t think you are saying they aren’t important), then what is to prevent me from reaching the same conclusion as your parting line? …that I can do whatever I please, then? Paul seems to be quite at pains in Romans to head off that same much-anticipated conclusion. Think about it this way: which boy is most likely to go on disobediently playing baseball in the house: the one who’s been told by his parents: “it doesn’t matter what you do or that you broke the window … we’ll always love you, honey!” or the one who’s been told “We know you aren’t old enough to fix this yourself, yet; but daddy’s going to fix it, and you too will learn what is involved so that you can grow up to be a good helper around this household - we love you and will not shield you from all the consequences!”

It is not clear to me that the latter category (what you broadly paint as “universalism”) is necessarily in the greatest danger of taking on a cavalier attitude toward righteousness - though that danger is still there for all of us, to be sure.

So just to reiterate: I’ve turned the question back on you:
Why should our doing whatever we please be a concern, Dale? If my righteousness has no tie to my works at all, then why not eat, drink, and be merry? So long as I check all the right belief boxes, and made the right noises in my throat, I’d be fine, right?

Your view seems to completely ignore the idea of family, that we were rebellious delinquents on the street or in prison with the law hanging over us, but out of grace and mercy and love for his lost sheep, the Good Shepherd became himself the Angus Dei and suffered the penalty in our stead. Those accepting his redemption (and we can allow the non-heretical inclusivism, mentioned above :slightly_smiling_face:) are joyfully adopted into his family among the other children of promise, we who were once among the delinquents, but no more.

If you think that results in a Get out of Jail Free card and a cavalier attitude, then I don’t think you understand what it means to rejoice in being adopted. You want to please your Father and receive his smile, not grieving his Spirit but being obedient to the active, not passive, laws of love.

1 Like

Well, sure. That “cavalier attitude” I mentioned is not the exclusive property of some particular side that has understood atonement wrongly. That would indeed make theorizing much easier! All of us will or have struggled with the “what does it matter anyway” attitude regardless of our theories or their correctness. Hence Paul’s eagerness to head all that off at the pass.

Am I correct to think that we’re actually agreeing then that works are important; they just aren’t the source of our salvation so much as the outcome of it?

[I should hasten to add - you and I are probably thinking of salvation differently. Some (including you?) may think it a one-off event that happens in a particular hour of a day when you first made some deliberate decision or recited a prayer. I’m thinking of salvation as an ongoing (indeed life-long - probably even longer) process or work done first for us by Christ, and then also by us as we learn obedience and grow into our salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God that is at work in us and through us. (summary of Philippians 2:12). I.e. we are saved *to do works* prepared beforehand for us to do.]

Yes, but that certainly does not equate to any stripe of universalism, narrow or broad, nor is it ‘transactional politics’!

Be careful, you are close to sounding like a providentialist like myself. :grin:

1 Like

I always rest on the fact that you cannot even define or understand the concept of predestination unless you also define the concept of free will (i.e. good works). Somehow they are mutually dependent upon one another. It’s like how a child can’t learn the meaning of the world blue unless he also learns the meaning of words like green and red. The fact that the later three combine to make white light poses a mystery that we cannot full comprehend, but one in which we can still walk.

But mercy and justice are reconciled in Christ, and salvation is always personal. (After all, demons believe all kinds of profound theology.)

1 Like