Tash

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I've always found The Last Battle one of the more difficult of the Chronicles to read. If it weren't for the glorious ending, I'd have a difficult time reading it. Despite the heroic and enchanting figures of Tirian and Jewel, the story is pretty much a "downer", with the bullying Ape, scheming collaborators like Ginger the cat, those wretched turncoat dwarfs, and the tyrannical Calormenes.

For all that, the story still proceeds like a typical Narnia tale: light narrative, simple characterizations, nothing too heavy - with one critical exception:

Tash.

Placed slap in the middle of the story, the description of Tash floating through the woods of Narnia toward Stable Hill is not just bone-chilling but almost desperately horrible because you know it belongs there. What's going on in Narnia makes Tash's appearance not only expectable but inevitable, and Lewis tells it as well as his Tolkien describes Shelob or Williams describes the damnation scene in War in Heaven. (It also shows the truth of the statement that it takes a good man to write horror, since only a good man understands it. Bad men do not understand the evil that grips them well enough to describe it with accuracy.) I'd always just shuddered my way past that whole part, then read quickly until I could get to the place where the High King banishes Tash - I didn't want to dwell on the monster.

But this time through the Chronicles, I got to wondering about Tash - what he signifies, how he is summoned, and what his coming into Narnia means. I've got some thoughts, but I want to see what others think. Here are some things that I got to wondering:



What mightTash correspond to on our spiritual battlefield?
Since Jadis was the primordial evil presence in the Narnian world, what role does Tash play? Where might he have come from?
What does Aslan have to say about Tash?
What might the High King mean when he refers to Tash's "rightful prey"?
What summoned Tash to Narnia? Is there an equivalent in our world?
How do the Calormenes worship Tash? What kind of people does it make them?
What does it mean to say Tash is "inexorable"?
What might the coming of Tash to Narnia mean for Narnia?
Any thoughts? Or questions to add?

Under the Mercy!

[Jewel of Narnia]

I think that Tash represents the current thinking that all gods and religions are equal/the same. For example: the Calormenes combining the names of Tash and Aslan, to confuse the Narnians.
And shows that a strong believer in God/Aslan can tell the difference.
I don't know if what I said was clear, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say. :o

[Wallis]

It appears to me that Lewis took much of his inspiration from Revelation. He might have added a dash of some of the other eschatological writings from the Old Testament as well.

It may well be that Lewis believed in angels and demons; I have nothing at hand to support either side of the arguement/discussion.

As one who disregards the mythological aspect of angels and demons, I look at the world, its history, and the Last Battle in a context where we humans struggle within ourselves as to whom we are going to accept as God: Christ or ourselves.

Tash, to me, represents the Old Adamic nature that is always at war with the New Adam. Paul, in his Hellenic tradition and nature, compared it with the spirit wrestling with the flesh. Tash is as inexorable (Not capable of being persuaded by entreaty; relentless) as we cannot shed the human (or animal, in some cases) nature from our being.

From a perspective on the spiritual side, we are in constant battle against our human nature in trying to be living Christs while in the flesh. The Tash represents those desires that originate in the flesh (human nature), and these desires become the objects that we begin to worship. In simple terms, we could quote "power, wealth, beauty" as just the tip of the iceberg. But in more subtle terms, we need to add "self-esteem, admiration, well-being" and many other ME-centered desires that are a part of our make-up.

---

In response to your second point, I will admit up front that I might be a bit facetious in my response. I feel that the "irst joke" was already indicative of human nature entering into the world of Narnia. It didn't really need a Jadis or a "fallen" human or any spirit of evil to enter into the world. Narnia was not created as perfect as we would like to think but with all of the foibles of every other world created in the real world and otherwise.

Tash is not necessarily an offshoot of Jadis and her ilk but a personification of the imperfectness of human nature, even as portrayed in animal and mythologic form.

---

Aslan and Tash Commentary (http://www.geocities.com/malchats/commentaries/030908.html)

---

7 Deadly Sins in CON (http://cslewis.drzeus.net/papers/7sins.html)

---

I believe there is an absence of Aslan ever having mentioned Tash, as much as there is an absence in the Old Testament of God talking about the other gods that are worshipped. There should be a great significance in this absence. If we all speak with one voice: "there is One God!", then any reference to other gods by the One God would create the impression that there are many gods who all operate at the same level. I believe Aslan, like Christ, recognizes that people set up their own false gods within their own framework and view of the world, and it is this battle that we must fight on a minute-by-minute basis to reject all other gods.

---

The wages of sin is death. The sin against the Holy Spirit is the one unforgiveable sin. Thus, Tash's rightful prey is none other than the person who gives his/her entire being to his/her gods and rejects the Truth, the Life, and the Way. In my opinion, it is not God who damns but our own human nature that leads right down that path into hell, however you want to define the term.

---

Contrary to most posters here in this forum, I do not look at the Calormenes as being a distinct people (e.g., Moslem, Arabians, et al). I view the Calormenes as being all of the people inhabiting the Earth, and they represent the anti-Christ nature of our human nature. They glorify the physical world. They adorn themselves with pride as well as rich clothes. They blind themselves to a philosophy of the real world that refuses to include the glory of Christ and the Kingdom of God brought to Earth.

---

In conclusion, I don't feel that Tash came to Narnia. He was part and parcel to Narnia upon its creation, especially with the creation of all creatures and imparting some of those with sentience and a soul, if you will.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Again, a few things worth responding to here. Anyone else?

[Gibby]

Since Jadis was the primordial evil presence in the Narnian world, what role does Tash play? Where might he have come from?
The ape represents the false Christ and the donkey, perhaps his prophet. Tash must represent the devil. Does this mean the witch was Tash? Maybe. The witch was more like the serpent who was a deceiver, possibly not entirely revealed to Narnia and Tash was the entire manisfestation of evil that was allowed to materialize due to the great wickedness in Narnia.


What does Aslan have to say about Tash?
I can't remember. I would have to read it again to answer that.


What might the High King mean when he refers to Tash's "rightful prey"?
Those who were willingly deceived by the ape possibly


What summoned Tash to Narnia? Is there an equivalent in our world?
The great wickedness in Narnia. I think there is. The way is being paved for antichrist as we speak. I could go on forever on this subject but in a nutshell:

2 Timothy 3:2-4

2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—

As our world begins to turn their backs on God more and more, this is becoming commonplace, wouldn't you agree?

Also, technology advances are the setup for the one world government, cashless society, and the mark of the beast. Look at identity theft. Why not have a chip implanted in your skin with all your financial information on it so that no one can steal that info? They are already implanting chips in elderly patients with their medical info. A company in Florida is producing these chips. Look at Europe and the "euro" . The stage is being set. The only thing that is left is the rapture of the church (if you believe in the pre-trib rapture).

How do the Calormenes worship Tash? What kind of people does it make them?
Deceived by the ape.


What does it mean to say Tash is "inexorable"?
His "purpose" cannot be stopped (but his "purpose" is limited and allowed for a short time)



What might the coming of Tash to Narnia mean for Narnia?
The end of the story. But a happy ending eventually, just like the book of revelation is a gloomy read but at the same time, a story of hope and victory!

[Gibby]

I believe there is an absence of Aslan ever having mentioned Tash, as much as there is an absence in the Old Testament of God talking about the other gods that are worshipped. There should be a great significance in this absence. If we all speak with one voice: "there is One God!", then any reference to other gods by the One God would create the impression that there are many gods who all operate at the same level. I believe Aslan, like Christ, recognizes that people set up their own false gods within their own framework and view of the world, and it is this battle that we must fight on a minute-by-minute basis to reject all other gods.
.


I think God does mention the worship of other God's but in no way suggests that they are at the same level. After all, like you mentioned, God hardwired us to worship Him but we turned our back on Him. Therefore, because of our "hardwiring" we will worship something, like it or not: money, objects, self, other gods, you name it! God talks about us worshiping other "gods" but exposes the folly.





Judges 6:24-26



24 So Gideon built an altar to the LORD there and called it The LORD is Peace. To this day it stands in Ophrah of the Abiezrites. 25 That same night the LORD said to him, "Take the second bull from your father's herd, the one seven years old. [a (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=6&verse=24&end_verse=26&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-6680a)] Tear down your father's altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole [b (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=6&verse=24&end_verse=26&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-6680b)] beside it. 26 Then build a proper kind of [c (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=6&verse=24&end_verse=26&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-6681c)] altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second [d (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=7&chapter=6&verse=24&end_verse=26&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-6681d)] bull as a burnt offering."





Matthew 6:23-25



23But if your eyes are bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!

24"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.

25"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?



---

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It may well be that Lewis believed in angels and demons; I have nothing at hand to support either side of the arguement/discussion.
I find this an astonishing assertion regarding the author of The Screwtape Letters, Perelandara, and That Hideous Strength. In the introduction to Screwtape, he explicitly discusses that the Enemy has generally followed two strategies throughout history: either getting people to focus too much on him, or to ignore him altogether. Lewis held that our current age was one that fell into the latter error, but he was unswerving in his belief in spiritual beings, both benevolent and malevolent. Nobody who knows his work could honestly come away with any other conclusion.

As one who disregards the mythological aspect of angels and demons, I look at the world, its history, and the Last Battle in a context where we humans struggle within ourselves as to whom we are going to accept as God: Christ or ourselves.
I think you're missing the point, Wallis - the issue is not whether you regard or disregard angels or demons, but whether they objectively exist. If they do, then your disregard will not make them go away; if they do not, my belief in them will not create them.

Tash, to me, represents the Old Adamic nature that is always at war with the New Adam. Paul, in his Hellenic tradition and nature, compared it with the spirit wrestling with the flesh. Tash is as inexorable (Not capable of being persuaded by entreaty; relentless) as we cannot shed the human (or animal, in some cases) nature from our being.

From a perspective on the spiritual side, we are in constant battle against our human nature in trying to be living Christs while in the flesh. The Tash represents those desires that originate in the flesh (human nature), and these desires become the objects that we begin to worship. In simple terms, we could quote "power, wealth, beauty" as just the tip of the iceberg. But in more subtle terms, we need to add "self-esteem, admiration, well-being" and many other ME-centered desires that are a part of our make-up.
The classic Christian view is that we fight three enemies during our earthly struggle: the World, the Flesh, and the Devil. It seems to me that you're confusing two of them: the Devil and the Flesh (i.e. concupiscence, the weakness and propensity to evil which is the consequence of Original Sin, even after it is removed.) Tash is clearly an external malevolent being - even if one disregards him.

In response to your second point, I will admit up front that I might be a bit facetious in my response. I feel that the "first joke" was already indicative of human nature entering into the world of Narnia. It didn't really need a Jadis or a "fallen" human or any spirit of evil to enter into the world. Narnia was not created as perfect as we would like to think but with all of the foibles of every other world created in the real world and otherwise.

Tash is not necessarily an offshoot of Jadis and her ilk but a personification of the imperfectness of human nature, even as portrayed in animal and mythologic form.
Again, I'm astonished that you could get that out of the text. The "first joke" was an expression of the ability to speak and to love - a mark of the image of God in the selected creatures (who were not even human, so how could they have "human" natures?) It was Aslan who said to Digory that His new world was not hours old yet already evil had entered into it - in the person of Jadis. The clear message is that Narnia was pure, virgin, clean of sin. Lewis proposes the same thing in Perelandara - an unfallen world, until it is literally invaded by an evil man who acts as a bridge for an even worse spirit. You're assuming that evil is innate to human nauture, not something external. This defies Christian orthodoxy and much of what Lewis wrote.

I believe there is an absence of Aslan ever having mentioned Tash, as much as there is an absence in the Old Testament of God talking about the other gods that are worshipped. There should be a great significance in this absence.
Dead wrong on both counts. Aslan discusses Tash directly and pointedly with the young Calormene officer Emeth when He explains why Emeth's service, which he thought was to Tash, was in fact to Aslan. Furthermore, God extensively discusses false gods, directly and by name, throughout the OT. Here are a few samples:





Lev 18:21: You shall not give any of your children to devote them by fire to Molech, and so profane the name of your God: I am the LORD.
Lev 20:3: I myself will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people, because he has given one of his children to Molech, defiling my sanctuary and profaning my holy name.
Is 57:9: You journeyed to Molech with oil and multiplied your perfumes; you sent your envoys far off, and sent down even to Sheol.
Jer 32:35: They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.
Jer 48:7,13: For, because you trusted in your strongholds and your treasures, you also shall be taken; and Chemosh shall go forth into exile, with his priests and his princes... Then Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh, as the house of Israel was ashamed of Bethel, their confidence.
If we all speak with one voice: "there is One God!", then any reference to other gods by the One God would create the impression that there are many gods who all operate at the same level. I believe Aslan, like Christ, recognizes that people set up their own false gods within their own framework and view of the world, and it is this battle that we must fight on a minute-by-minute basis to reject all other gods.

The wages of sin is death. The sin against the Holy Spirit is the one unforgiveable sin. Thus, Tash's rightful prey is none other than the person who gives his/her entire being to his/her gods and rejects the Truth, the Life, and the Way. In my opinion, it is not God who damns but our own human nature that leads right down that path into hell, however you want to define the term.
While it is certainly true that we must fight our own tendency to idolatry, particularly self-idolatry, that is far from the only enemy we fight. To ignore the clear Word of God in this struggle is to set ourselves up to be assaulted on unguarded walls.

Contrary to most posters here in this forum, I do not look at the Calormenes as being a distinct people (e.g., Moslem, Arabians, et al). I view the Calormenes as being all of the people inhabiting the Earth, and they represent the anti-Christ nature of our human nature. They glorify the physical world. They adorn themselves with pride as well as rich clothes. They blind themselves to a philosophy of the real world that refuses to include the glory of Christ and the Kingdom of God brought to Earth.
You are certainly right in that the Calormenes are all those things, but what is to prevent them from also being a separate race?

In conclusion, I don't feel that Tash came to Narnia. He was part and parcel to Narnia upon its creation, especially with the creation of all creatures and imparting some of those with sentience and a soul, if you will.
My conclusion regarding your conclusion is that you brought a lot of assumptions to the text which seem to have blinded you not only to the immediate meaning but to much of the deeper meaning as well. For my part, I have no difficulty believing the mythology of demons and angels, as Lewis defined mythology - a story that means more than it says. Even as the beings in Perelandara were both real and mythological at the same time, so beings in our world - and Narnia - can be both symbolic and real. Lewis's work, the Scriptures he believed in, and the clear teaching of the Church are all in agreement: there are malevolent spiritual forces that are distinct and separate from the sinful tendencies of our fallen natures. Yes, there is an internal struggle, but there is an external one, too, as St. Paul makes clear in Ephesians 6:12: For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.
You may contend that you have a right to your opinion, which may be true, but I also have a right to believe my automobile runs on homogenized milk - if I want to live with the consequences of that decision. I defy you to find any reference to Tash at the creation of Narnia, or any other reference to his presence in Narnia before the closing chapters of Last Battle - and by "reference", I mean actual text, not some sort of isogetic reading whereby you project your own presuppostitions onto what is plainly there.

[Wallis]

Well, my dear Prince. I see that when you asked for other people's opinions, your true agenda was to set them up so that you could knock them down.

Inasmuch as I opened up to you with my opinions, I do not appreciate you willy-nilly knocking them around and down, just because you happen to view the world in a very myopic way.

I take umbrage with people like you who set yourself up as an authority of both Lewis and the Word. Let me see some credentials. I have been a theologian for 35 years, and the fact that angels and demons do not exist is a demonstrated fact, if you will do some research on the subject. And the Devil does not exist except in the nature of mankind. Do some research on the history and development of the doctrine of the Devil.

Lewis wrote in the vein of mythology, and he used mythologic themes both inside and outside the church.

[inkspot]

Now boys. Don't get offended with each other. That's just what the devil wants! Tee-hee. :p

Wallis, I did not know you did not believe in angels and demons. Why not?

Because I am a Christian, I personally believe in them because they are referred to in the Bible (as that old Scot would say in That Hideous Strength, "Show it to me in the Word of God") -- but I am curious how you can say not just that you don't believe in them, but that they don't exist? Don't you think there are more things under heaven and earth than are dreamt of in philosophy, Horatio?

As for ol' Tash, I tend to think like Wallis that he was created or at least existed at the time of the creation of Narnia, and Aslan makes it clear that he has a role to play, albeit a terrible one. He's like a demon, or an angel of death, maybe?

[Saruman]

I take umbrage with people like you who set yourself up as an authority of both Lewis and the Word. Let me see some credentials. I have been a theologian for 35 years, and the fact that angels and demons do not exist is a demonstrated fact, if you will do some research on the subject. And the Devil does not exist except in the nature of mankind. Do some research on the history and development of the doctrine of the Devil.

Lewis wrote in the vein of mythology, and he used mythologic themes both inside and outside the church.

I don't know about this so-called research, Wallis, but I have had the most awful experience of seeing and praying for a demon-possessed person. How do I know this 20-some year old girl was possessed and not merely influenced by drugs or had not taken her medication that night? Perhaps seeing her writhe and growl, and hearing her most hellish bloodcurdling screams from far off, was enough to convince me she was trapped and that there was some other being there. Not to mention the fact that someone said she had dabbled in witchcraft. And even further, I saw her come back after the Holy Spirit set her free, and was able to hear how this had not been the first time she had been in this state (her boyfriend and mother were there as personal witnesses). Particularly since it happened at my church, after a youth study in the sanctuary had exited. I had been working that evening, least expecting something of that nature to transpire.

Clearly you are strongly opinionated in such matters as you view them, in your fashion, but I am an eye-witness (and I have no doubt I am one in a sea of others). One need only to look at the world of men today, in which people engage in all sorts of vile and heinous activities and practices, opening themselves up to a spiritual realm far beyond their grasp to comprehend. But even more than having seen it with my own eyes I have already known of the existence of angels and demons, for it is in God's Word, the Bible, where history has been written down. Within the four Gospels alone Jesus freed so many people who were bound by demons, and spoke extensively on such issues.

I do not intend to take part in any theological battle, but I must correct a flawed viewpoint.

[unleavened]

I didn't read the whole thing so this may be repetitive. I'll make it short.

In my Opinion:
Tash = Saten
Rightful Prey = Those who didn't have faith in Aslan through the incident. I think someone said those who were willingly decieved. I'd add "or part of the deception.
How do the Calerman's worship Tash? No clue, but I'd bet it's not by exchanging chocolate and teddy bears.
What kind of people does that make them? Decieved into cruelty. Very sad when you look at the reality of it.
Inexorable? Hmmm, dunno
What does Tash's comming mean for Narnia? End Times! ENDTIMES!!!!

[Saruman]

I'm not sure if it was in A Horse and His Boy or in The Last Battle, but Lewis writes that the Carlomenes would offer human sacrifices to Tash in Tashbaan. (I am almost certain it is in TLB.)

And, unleavened, might I add that you have a pretty pure outlook on the subject. I admire that. :)

[Wallis]

There is no flawed viewpoint, Curumo. There is only a matter of opinion.

You would prefer to believe that the maladies of the brain are caused by demons. To me this is mythology. That Christ spoke within the confines of the religious and medical understanding of the day is quite consistent of His ministry, but in no way should be construed as being fact.

I have no desire to discuss angels on this thread, but I will invite you to read the following from another thread: Angelology 1 (http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=41;t=000334)

Bottom line: I really don't care if people want to believe in angels and demons. To me, it is all a distraction from a relationship to the living One God.

[Wallis]

Why Does Evil Exist?
It was of no interest to God to create a species consisting of virtuous automata, for the 'virtue' of automata who can do no other than they do is a courtesy title only; it is analogous to the 'virtue' of the stone that rolls downhill or of the water that freezes at 32 degrees. To what end, it may be asked, should God create such creatures? That He might be praised by them? But automatic praise is a mere succession of noises. That He might love them? But they are essentially unloveable; you cannot love puppets. And so God gave man free will that he might increase in virtue by his own efforts and become, a free moral being, a worthy object of God's love. Freedom entails freedom to go wrong: man did, in fact, go wrong, misusing God's gift and doing evil. Pain is a by-product of evil; and so pain came into the world as a result of man's misuse of God's gift of free will. (Dr. Joad as quoted in the The Christian World of C. S. Lewis by Clyde Kilby pp. 65-66)

You don't need the invention of a devil to bring about evil.

----

From Lewis himself:

Mere Christianity (http://members.aol.com/thompsonja/cslewis.htm)

----

Perhaps a reading of God in the Dock would be of benefit to us all.

[Wallis]

Beyond the parameters of traditional Arminianism, however, Lewis expected that some non-Christians would be saved. "Though all salvation is through Jesus, we need not conclude that He cannot save those who have not explicitly accepted Him in this life." On the radio he announced: "We do know that no [one] can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him."

In the children’s Narnia series, the lion Aslan is Lewis’s Christ-figure. In The Last Battle deceivers say: "[The god] Tash and Aslan are only two different names for You Know Who." Later they use the hybrid or compound name Tashlan to make their point. At the end of this last book in the Narnia series one of the outsiders, a Calorman named Emeth (which is the transliteration of the Hebrew word for "truth"), who has been a life-long worshiper of Tash, approaches Aslan. To this Tash-server Aslan says, "Son, thou art welcome." Emeth counters, "I am no son of Thine but a servant of Tash." Aslan rejoins: "All the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me." This is a clear indicator that for Lewis the non Christ-worshiper may be received into heaven. Similarly, in another fictional setting, Jane Studdock, an unbeliever, says to Ransom the Pendragon: "I know nothing of Maleldil [the Christ-figure]. But I place myself in obedience to you." To her acknowledgment Ransom replies:

It is enough for the present. This is the courtesy of Deep Heaven that when you mean well, He always takes you to have meant better than you know. It will not be for always. He is very jealous. He will have you for no one but Himself in the end. But for tonight, it is enough.

This issue raises the question of Christianity in relation to other world religions. Lewis said: "I couldn’t believe that 999 religions were completely false and the remaining one true." Similarly he stated: "We are not pronouncing all other religions to be totally false, but rather saying that in Christ whatever is true in all religions is consummated and perfected." Kathryn Lindskoog wrote: "Lewis expressed hope that many true seekers like Akhenaton and Plato, who never had a chance to find Christ in this life, will find Him in the next one."

Theology of Lewis. Lewis (http://www.faithalone.org/journal/2000i/townsend2000e.htm)

[High King Peter]

I think that Tash is a direct representation of Satan. I think this because Alsan says that "he is his opposite". I took that to mean that if he is the opposite of the figure of Christ, he must represent the evil one.
Its a chilling thought. Forgive me if this sounds blunt.

[inkspot]

Thanks for your explanation, Wallis! I do not have time to look up the links you gave, but I am still curious, if you believe the Bible, why you don't believe in angels and demons?

There are places in the Bible with specific references to angels with names, such as Michael and Gabriel, and the certain actions that they did, such as the Annunciation, and rebuking the devil when they fought over the body of Moses... So, I wonder why God would inspire the Bible-writers to put these references in the Bible, if they were just fairy tales?

Also, what do you think about Ephesians 6:12, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

(Maybe we should do this in another thread, but I am curious -- I know you are a smart and sincere believer, and I am wondering how it is you don't believe some things that seem to me to originate with the Bible.)

[Saruman]

There is no flawed viewpoint, Curumo. There is only a matter of opinion.

You would prefer to believe that the maladies of the brain are caused by demons. To me this is mythology. That Christ spoke within the confines of the religious and medical understanding of the day is quite consistent of His ministry, but in no way should be construed as being fact.

Of course there is a matter of opinion, as I stated before, but there indeed is a flawed point of view. Obviously I wasn't born yesterday; I know the difference between one who suffers mental maladies (having worked at a church I saw all sorts of loonies come on to the campus from time to time, and clearly they weren't demon-possessed). What I witnessed, however, was something as if it had come directly from one of the histories of the Bible.

but in no way should be construed as being fact.

How, then, ought we to take the collective histories of the Bible? As an achievement of excellent literary prose of the day? As a born-again Christian, I know and realize that the Word of God has been influenced by His Holy Spirit, and all that is included therein (i.e. things Satan said, things an angel said, etc., etc.) were meant to be in there to teach and instruct us. Since it seems you do not believe Jesus' ministry in setting people free from demons to be factual, then we should take a look at the many examples found in the Old Testament (Jacob wrestling with an angel of the Lord, a lone angel wiping out an opposing army , inter alia). The Old Testament is scattershot with examples of the existence of these "other beings"; that is to say, they are a very real presence. If my God is apt to believe in their existence, then I think I will follow in His footsteps.

Emeth counters, "I am no son of Thine but a servant of Tash." Aslan rejoins: "All the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me." This is a clear indicator that for Lewis the non Christ-worshiper may be received into heaven


For me, theology doesn't begin and end with Lewis. Just because he was born-again and a fellow believer doesn't mean he was free from error. I will follow Christ, the God-Man, the Second Member of the Holy Trinity of One God in Three Persons, when He said this (Jn 14:6): "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no man comes to the Father, but by Me." Apart from Christ there is no salvation. It is therefore impossible for one who doesn't accept Christ's gift of pardon for sin to enter into His Kingdom.

In sum, you are well entitled to your opinions, whether they are flawed or not. They, of course, remain opinions, as do mine, and those of every other living person in the world. When pointing out facts, however, then one ought to set aside opinions for the time being. If one who is a Christian does not view the Word of God as the ultimate authority on any given issue, then they have fallen short of a greater relationship and [I]ginosko of the Living God, no matter how long they've been saved by grace. In all, I think this is a sad commentary.

I have written all I have desired to write.

[Gibby]

Bottom line: I really don't care if people want to believe in angels and demons. To me, it is all a distraction from a relationship to the living One God.

The bible is God's complete revelation to mankind. Part of the relationship with our Father is to study His Word and live by it. The bible talks about angels and demons frequently so I am going to trust God by His Word. To discredit one single statement or word in the bible is to invalidate the entire scripture! That is where the power of His Word comes from; believing every stroke of the pen as pure fact! Otherwise it is dead...

[inkspot]

To discredit one single statement or word in the bible is to invalidate the entire scripture! That is where the power of His Word comes from; believing every stroke of the pen as pure fact! Otherwise it is dead...
Yah, this is kind of my view, but it is not every believer's view. As Lewis' theology points out, a person can be a sincere believer in Christ Jesus, forgiven and following the Lord's teachings and doing great work for the kingdom, without believing every word in the Bible to be literal.

Let's promise right now not to get contentious in this thread about whether the Bible is lterally true and if it is still valid if it isn't literally true, or else they will lock this thread up like the theology ones! :(

[Gibby]

Yah, this is kind of my view, but it is not every believer's view. As Lewis' theology points out, a person can be a sincere believer in Christ Jesus, forgiven and following the Lord's teachings and doing great work for the kingdom, without believing every word in the Bible to be literal.
:(

One more statement and I will close my lips...
You may be right, Inkspot, but if people really want the power of the gospel to work in their lives, they will believe it to be literal. To pick and choose what to believe is to put God in a box, only pulling Him out when they need Him. To say that a claim in the bible is too outrageous to believe is to put limits on the Holy Creator of the entire universe. If people want the power of God to completely transform their lives, they will put their trust in God's Word. Faith like a child. You said it God, I believe it!

Luke 10:21-22

21At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.
22"All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

Sorry Prince, we all hijacked your thread! Tash, evil...Narnia rules!!

[inkspot]

Yah, as I said, I believe the Word to be inerrant and delivered through men by the Holy Spirit, from God.

But I know there are real believers who don't believe that. And I think the power of the Gospel must be at work in them -- witness CS Lewis, and Wallis. :)

For me, it doesn't work: if the Word is lying on one count, why believe any of it? But for others it works very well: it is the Word of God delivered through imperfect human beings and was fitted to the mental capacity and cultural mores of the people at that time -- so it is true in concept and spirit if not at every literal level.

I can see where they are coming from, and I believe Christ has put His hands on them, too. I just don't beleive that way.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I stand falsely accused. Fellow forum member Wallis has said the following regarding my initial post:

Well, my dear Prince. I see that when you asked for other people's opinions, your true agenda was to set them up so that you could knock them down.
I am fully aware of my motivation when I made that post, which was exactly what I said it was: to get other people's thoughts on the topics. I had no hidden agenda, nor was it my intention to knock others down.

Having said that, I make no apologies for my response. Had your statements only been opinions, Wallis, I might have answered them as such. However, you took as departure points positions that were simply wrong (e.g. your "belief" that Aslan never mentions Tash, or that God never mentions the name of false gods in the OT, or that Tash never came to Narnia - in clear contradiction to the plain text in all cases), and proceeded from there to begin speaking authoritatively on a variety of issues. Did you expect not to be challenged on the incorrect portions of your statements?

I take umbrage with people like you who set yourself up as an authority of both Lewis and the Word.
I know - it's just terrible when people do that, isn't it?

Let me see some credentials. I have been a theologian for 35 years, and the fact that angels and demons do not exist is a demonstrated fact, if you will do some research on the subject. And the Devil does not exist except in the nature of mankind. Do some research on the history and development of the doctrine of the Devil.
I'm afraid I've had far too much contact with theologians - and some big names who you'd probably recognize - to be too impressed by that. Any theologian who claims "the fact that angels and demons do not exist is a demonstrated fact" is not a good theologian but a bad logician or scientist. "Demonstrated facts" are in the realm of science, i.e. things that belong to this space-time continuum, such as the boiling temperature of water at sea level. If angels and demons exist, they are outside of the bounds of our four dimensions, and hence outside the range of science. Their non-existence could not be a "demonstrated fact" any more than their existence. To even know of them, we would have to take someone else's word on the matter.
I'm well aware of the Babylonian Origin theory regarding spiritual beings, as well as the Documentary Hypothesis upon which it is based. I'm also aware there are large holes in both (see Before Abraham Was, Kikawada & Quinn), so that's not going to prove anything.

Lewis wrote in the vein of mythology, and he used mythologic themes both inside and outside the church.
At the risk of sounding like someone who sets himself up as an authority on Lewis, it was Lewis himself who maintained most strenuously that just because something is mythological does not mean it is not also objectively, historically real. For pete's sake, that's how Tolkien hooked him into seriously considering Christianity! The Incarnation is The Great Myth, the Dying and Rising God, Balder and Osiris both; the Corn God who feeds his people. Yet at the same time He was "born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he suffered under Pontius Pilate..." The interpenetration of the objective and the mythological was one of the major themes of Lewis' work! You seem to be claiming that Lewis' use of spiritual beings in a mythological vein means he did not think they objectively existed; I submit that his use of them as myth says nothing about his belief in their objectivity.

I agree that the issue of spiritual beings is not essential to the salvation message. In my tradition, it is considered a doctrine but not a dogma; that is, one can not believe and still have saving knowledge of God. St. Paul even warns against obsessing over the topic - most interpretations I've seen of 1 Tim 1:4(...nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith...) explained that it referred to the obsession with hierarchies of spiritual beings which was a mark of Hellenistic mystery cults. Yet, the clear revelation of God in the Scriptures and Church tradition testifies that such beings exist, for the good and ill. If angels do not exist, then who appeared to Mary at the Annunciation? Who was at the tomb to announce the Risen Christ to the women? It is not a question of inventing a devil to bring about evil, it is a question of believing what we're told.

That's the core of my concern. It isn't the doctrine itself, it's the grounds on which you reject it. At the risk of sounding like unsophisticated, or even worse (to a theologian), fundamentalist, I can see on one hand the uniform witness of the sacred Scripture and the tradition of the Christian church throughout history down to the present day. On the other hand, you seem to be offering only "the history and development of the doctrine of the Devil" - a "history" which, oddly enough, didn't show up until the historical and higher critics of the mid to late 19th Century. That seems to me a weak reed, and leaves a dangerous gate open. After all, if you're going to reject one witness of Scripture based on modern scholarship, why not others? If Gabriel is excluded, what of his message? Does the Virgin Birth go next, and then Incarnation itself? Where does one draw the line, and by what criteria? And for my part, I've never found the doctrine of spiritual beings to distract from my devotion to Christ - in fact, in Lewis' hands, the mythological accounts of their obedience spurred me on to greater devotion.

I don't know how the thread got turned to the issue of qualifications for salvation, but I'll again take the risk of sounding like a self-appointed Lewis expert in order to say that I think he was standing in the tradition of Augustine and Aquinas regarding the salvation of those who never get a chance to hear of Christ. The conversation between Aslan and Emeth is illuminating in that regard. Here I definitely speak under correction, but I believe it was Lewis who advanced the idea that all men come to the Father through Christ, but we do not know exhaustively what that means. We know one way ("Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit..."), and we're certainly under mandate to do that, but that does not say that God has not opened up other avenues through Christ that we don't know of. Not that any of this should diminish our missionary fervor - we are under orders!

[Wallis]

My dear brothers and sisters in Christ.

Look. One of the reasons why the religious threads were closed were because we posters acted more like raging bull elephant fighting over the last female on Earth.

1. Faith should be irrespective of theology, yet theology has a direct impact--often derogative and damaging to faith. A faith that can be shaken by new information was never a faith in the first place.

2. People will quote the Bible until the cows come home, and yet they have no idea what they are quoting. Usually, these quotes will come from the Pauline letters. We are 2,000 years removed from the society from which these quotes were written. Without painstaking research, we have no idea of the concept, the thinking, the society, or the world in which they were written. We have to go beyond what we learned in Sunday School last Sunday or something that the pastor mentioned in his sermon.

3. Again, I am not going to discuss angels and demons. I have provided ample reference to a cornucopia of research. I'm not going to fill 4 to 6 pages in this forum with documentation by researchers who are a lot smarter than I. I will reiterate a statement I made on that other forum: if one wishes to denigrate brain maladies to demons, then cancel all your doctor appointments and call a priest.

4. Much of the religious discussion, as evidenced in the closed forums, is a kin to teaching a pig to sing. First, it is a waste of time, and second, it annoys the pig.

5. If people feel comfortable with the concept that God wrote the Bible through the fingers of people (men and women), then who am I to disturb their very myopic view of the supernatural. But they will miss the richness of the Bible and the history of the Jews and the mechanisms they employed to espouse that God is One and is the true God. Want to read something highly interesting? Read Hebrew Myths, The Book of Genesis by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai. You don't have to believe what they wrote, but at least you will have provided a window onto a "real" world that exists outside of the closed world encompassed by theology. Once one opens up the consciousness to a much larger world the relationship and wonderment with God increases.

****

And, Prince, one last word. Instead of approaching the discussion as an adult, you took the adolescent approach. You could have very patiently pointed out errors regarding Lewis by using chapter and verse from sources I could have checked out.

The fact that you will blatantly write that I am in error is laughable. This is not discussion. This is tyranny. And, I'm sorry--both for you and your pitiful attempt of explanation--but you did have a hidden agenda. You turned your nukes or phasers on me in a deliberate attack. The venom in your words was unconsciousable. You will rarely view such a response from me to other posters, but when you have knowingly and maliciously wronged me and others, I will not accept such impropriety and mannerless expression by you or anyone else.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Well, then, moving right along here...

I believe I've been remiss in one duty - posting my own thoughts on my own questions. If I'm going to be commenting on other's posts, I should offer others the opportunity to comment on mine, so here goes:

To me, it seemed that Tash corresponds to the malevolent spiritual forces we face here on earth. Furthermore, he seems the worst of the lot, whoever he is and however he got to the Narnian universe. If there is a Satan equivalent in the Chronicles, I would submit it is Tash, not Jadis (which is somewhat odd, considering that Jadis was the original "stain" on the world of Narnia.) Yet as someone pointed out in another thread, the circumstances in Narnia do not parallel ours exactly, so one would expect the theology to be different.

Aslan's words about Tash are most illuminating (related through Emeth). He says "Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou have done to him, for I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man do a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted." The point that stuck out for me was that Aslan and Tash are opposites, so much so that the same deed cannot rest on both their altars at the same time (so to speak).

It seems to me that Tash's "rightful prey" (the exact quote is "lawful prey" - sorry!) would be the ones whose deeds were a suitable offering to Tash, as Aslan explains above. I find it fascinating that the specific instance is Rishda Tarkaan. It is to him that Tash says specifically, "Thou hast called me into Narnia, Rishda Tarkaan. Here I am." This is extremely interesting, considering that earlier in the story Rishda is exposed as a complete unbeliever. In his discussion with Ginger the Cat regarding Tash and Aslan, Ginger states his belief that "there is no such person as either", which Rishda confirms, "all who are enlightened know that." Rishda does not believe in Tash, but rather in worldly power, symbolized by Calormene military and political might. Rishda is one of "...those who care for neither Tash nor Aslan but have only an eye to their own profit, and such a reward as the Tisroc may give them when Narnia is a Calormene province..." The greatest power he can see is the might of men, and it is that which he worships. The last person to explicitly "call" Tash would be Rishda, since he did not even believe there was such a being. Poggin the Dwarf indicts Shift of the same sin, "...this fool of an Ape, who didn't believe in Tash, will get more than he bargained for!" As Tirian puts it, "It has come to dwell among us. They have called it and it has come." It was unbelief that did the calling.

I see this as a warning, particularly to our age, when the might and knowledge of Man is exaulted and the knowledge of and obedience to God is frequently ignored or disdained. I believe it was St. Augustine who spoke of a "God-shaped hole" in our hearts that only He can fill. If Lewis' parable is as accurate as it seems to me, that hole will not be unfilled for long. Either we fill it with Christ, or something much worse will take up residence. If the parable of [i]The Last Battle is right, unbelief is what opens the door.

Somewhat fortunately, Lewis doesn't go into detail about the worship of Tash, but he does let slip toward the end of the chapter The Ape in Its Glory that human sacrifice is involved. ("...the terrible god Tash who fed on the blood of his people...") The effect it seems to have on the Calormenes (more obvious in Horse) is to make them a fear-dominated people. Even the leaders are but exaulted slaves, whose lives and positions are precarious. Tash is demanding and bloodthirsty; there is no good side to him and he accepts no appeal (the definition of "inexorable" - unable to be swayed or moved.) Slavery and fear mark every level of Calormene society, as opposed to the freedom of Narnian life.

The unfolding of the story makes clear what the coming of Tash to Narnia signifies: the End. But nobody knew that until Aslan throws open the Stable Door. To the ordinary Narnians, perhaps those who slunk away from the last battle itself, it appears that things are just going from bad to worse. After generations of trying, the Tisroc has finally succeeded; "Narnia is no more." It reminds me of Jesus' discourse in Luke 21. He's describing all these catastrophic things, and then He says, "Now when these things begin to take place, look up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." (v. 28) What a thing to say after curdling everyone's blood with these descriptions of famines, pestilence, and wars! Yet for the Narnians, that was exactly the case. Just when things looked totally lost, the Real Power showed up and solved the matter for good and ever.

How about us? What do conditions in our world look like? Do we have the courage to "raise our heads"?

Under the Mercy!

[inkspot]

The French poet Baudelaire said, "The devil's best trick is to persuade you that he doesn't exist!" The non-belief of the key Calormenes and traitor Narnians such as Ginger and Shift was key the evil that took place. The same could be very true in our world! If we refuse to recognize that there is a devil, or even a fixed condition of "evil," then there can really be no defense of what is good -- because who could agree on what is really good? :eek:

This is why, I think, Americans in the Bible belt (or the Red States, whatever we are) are so incomprehensible to most Europeans: because we really believe in good and evil as fixed concepts, and they feel themselves advanced beyond that stage, to an age of reason that denies God and the devil. We are coming from totally different worldviews and what seems vitally important to us seems trivial to them ...

[Gibby]

This is why, I think, Americans in the Bible belt (or the Red States, whatever we are) are so incomprehensible to most Europeans: because we really believe in good and evil as fixed concepts, and they feel themselves advanced beyond that stage, to an age of reason that denies God and the devil. We are coming from totally different worldviews and what seems vitally important to us seems trivial to them ...

This is funny, because alot of prophecy watchers are keeping their eyes on Europe as where the antichrist will arise. They say the stage is being set by Europe for the tribulation one world government and currency and Europeans are setting the pace worldwide for secularism in society. It's not working so great for France right now; secularism that is.

[Johan 72109]

I think it's slightly dangerous to do prophecy watching... To be honest, EVERY generation has perceived itself as the end times, but none has been. Remember, the Bible says that not even Jesus knows when the End will come. If HE doesn't know, you can be sure we won't.

However, I agree on the other points. Unbelief and modernism, the idea that humanity has ascended and has entered a philosphical renaissance, is the true danger in post-christian society in Europe. Places where atheism has thrived, combined with atheistic philosphy, has created all the states that ring through the ages as the most oppressive regimes known to man - such as communism and Naziism.

But unbelief and modernism is not the only ways of letting in the devil. What about the empire of Christendom? An empire that reigned Europe for over a thousand years, and caused some of the most oppressed and ignorant peoples in history, with the first cracks only appearing after a millenia, when the Reformation began. Here Satan was let in, but by a different means, which was fanatiscism and the blending of religion with politics, resulting in the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Wars of Religion, along with countless massacres and unneccesary deaths due to the hindrances set by the church upon intellectual advancement.

[Gibby]

I think it's slightly dangerous to do prophecy watching... To be honest, EVERY generation has perceived itself as the end times, but none has been. Remember, the Bible says that not even Jesus knows when the End will come. If HE doesn't know, you can be sure we won't.

.

You're definately right about us not knowing. Jesus just gave us hints as to the end times so that we would be ready and to place a sense of urgency to our witness. Although there have been wars galore since Jesus' time, I do remember hearing some statistics that state that worldwide earthquakes are increasing, there are, in number, more and more armed conflicts globally, and increased famine and plagues. I am not sure where the wicked weather and other natural disasters fit in. Here is an article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3666474.stm)on natural disasters. I certainly don't dwell on prophecy or label particular events as fulfillment on prophecy but I am going to be ready and I am not going to be alarmed by disturbing trends in our society.
[/url]

Matthew 24:5-7

5For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,[[url="http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=24&verse=5&end_verse=7&version=31&context=context#fen-NIV-23960a"]a (http://gldss7.cr.usgs.gov/neis/qed/qed.html)]' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.

[Wallis]

My last replies were rather heated, and I will apologize for reacting in such matter. But when it comes to religious beliefs, tenets, and faith, NO ONE has the right on this forum to tell anyone here that they are wrong. Discussion of one's beliefs should be encouraged, and through thoughtful and rational discussion, one might alter their perception.

To answer some of the questions put to me:

1. The Bible is not a history. It is a witness by people of God acting in their lives. Most of Genesis, for example, is a badly comprised collection of myths that the compilers wrote to justify Israel, especially after David's kingdom was established and the Israelites whomped their neighbors.

1a. If we are to take the Bible so literally, then we must reject that the Earth is a spherical body, for the Bible clearly gives proof that the Earth is flat.

1b. If we are to take the Bible so literally, then we have to alter our own place within the supernatural. We no longer have free will. We are mere pawns on a giant chessboard, pulled this way and that not by our own minds and thoughts but dependent upon the whims of supernatural beings. Remind you of the Roman and Greek mythologies? And then, we add the whimsy of God into the equation, who rewards and punishes according to our deeds and words.

1c. Scripture should not define faith. If the Bible included the sentence that the Moon is made of green cheese, and then by going to the Moon we find that there is no green cheese, what happens to our faith which is based on the Bible? Having a faith based on words on a page is like building a house on sand. No, make that quicksand. Scripture is good for teaching, like moral teaching. But faith should be built upon that rock which we Christians call Christ. Born-again emphasize a personal savior and relationship. Whatever. But it is the "proof" that is established within an individual's mind and heart that faith should be founded: Christ acting within an individual's life and Christ acting through the individual in interaction and confrontation with the world.

1d. If Christians spout the infallibility of Scripture as a basis of faith and outward actions and inward thinking, what makes Christians so different from Moslems who declare that the Koran is the living Word of Allah? All is vanity and a house of straw. The Living Word should be existent within the very soul of the individual.

2. Does anyone know what the meaning of Satan is? A show of hands, please. Is my hand the only one raised here? My provided reference will explain it. One only has to research the development of this mythological creature to understand how the Jews understood the term and how Helenic thought changed the philosophical thought of the supernatural. Start with the original meaning: adversary.

2a. The whole of the Bible, the spirit of the Bible, clearly demonstrates that people are God's adversary. People have the choice to either follow God's will or not. Because we do have free will, we do have the choice of following our own natures. It is as one of my professors eloquently stated: every moment of our lives, we must make a choice: do I be God today or do I let God be God today.

2b. While most Christians search the Scriptures and the heavens and the Earth for signs of the Anti-Christ, they fall short of recognizing that the Anti-Christ dwells within their hearts and minds. Every moment of our lives we are the antithesis of Christ. We are selfish, hateful, spiteful, and so full of ourselves that we often kick Christ right out of our lives. The Devil didn't make me do anything. I did it. I am the Anti-Christ, the Old Adam. And I need to renew the New Adam every second of my life.

3. I highly recommend people read Alfred Edersheim. His century-old works are still valid and are full of insight, especially when one is trying to understand the culture and times of the Christ. His works are on-line, meaning that they are not only free but can be liberally copied and inserted into this and other forums. Visit Alfred Edersheim (http://philologos.org/online.htm#Edersheim)

4. By elevating Tash to the level of Aslan or Satan to the level of God, as many popular television programs and movies promote, is in direct confrontation with the profession of the Christian faith. God is One God. There are no other gods.

5. When a person believes something, it becomes real. How many people here believe in Santa Claus? Is my hand the only one raised? At an early point in time in our childhood, we realize that there does not exist a fairy elf who flies through the air in a sled pulled by reindeer. Yet, this "proof" is not satisfactory to completely obliterate the existence of Santa Claus. Because Santa is an idea, a spirit of love and giving. I sincerely doubt that anyone here would not share with their young children the concept of Santa. Parents do this sharing out of love and enjoyment, sometimes going way out of their way to perpetuate the child's fantasy.

5a. When enough people believe something, that reality becomes very tangible. The malevolent forces that we see everyday are not supernatural but have their origin of existence within the minds of people. At the same time, I was witness to a 24-hour prayer vigil for a young boy who had been diagnosed with an in-operable brain cancer/tumor. The day after that vigil had concluded, the tumor was gone. I mean, gone. The power of people believing in the power of God to heal this boy was real. And, yet, many of the people who participated in the vigil were just astounded at this miracle. Puts a whole new meaning on the phrase that faith the size of a mustard seed can move a mountain.

5b. When people stop believing in something, whatever it was ceases to be real.

[Parthian King]

1.The Bible is not a history,etc.

This is essentially a false choice by implication. The Bible is both a history AND a testimony by God’s people. It is also other things. I am not sure what definition of “history� you might be using, but before you go too far, recognize that pretty much everyone (in both the realms of secular history and biblical interpretation) recognizes that objectivity is a chimera. In other words, simply because the (I believe, inspired) writers of the Bible were testifying according to their faith does not mean it is not a legitimate history on its own terms, as other histories are, also on their own terms. With an eye to historical value, the idea that somehow the New Testament should be viewed (at best) with an attitude of bemused endearment while Josephus is swallowed more or else whole is absurd. Such a judgment speaks as surely of ideological presuppositions as does the confessional stance that opposes it.

As for your judgment of Genesis (a favorite whipping boy when it comes to approach of the historical critical school), I find it somewhat odd that you open your statement by arguing that no one has a right to say anyone else is “wrong,� then you proceed to accuse the canon of being so. Oh, those aren’t your literal words, but that’s what is heard when it is repeated, especially in the ears of the young. I find it even more puzzling to read such a description (“badly comprised�) applied to a masterpiece of ancient literature, so sweeping in its grandeur and majesty, and rich with spiritual truth that it played (and continues to play) a central role in transforming entire societies in occident and orient alike, quite literally changing the course of human history. Have those affected by its words been so naïve? Or could it be that they were tapping into a message in its lines that had nothing to do with Post-Enlightenment constructs and academic artifices that determine what is “badly comprised� when it comes to ancient literature? Those who were inspired to write the Scriptures were not at all concerned with producing a work that appears like the New York Times, but rather something that answers other questions entirely. It is a question of wavelength, and I wouldn’t bet against the Scriptures and their implicit worldview being the right one to be on.

C.S. Lewis himself gives pretty direct warning about these matters in “Of Fern-seed and Elephants.� He points out that many biblical scholars claim to be able to see fern-seed (tiny, obscure issues relating to the issues of the biblical text), but miss elephants (huge, centrally important issues relating to the text). He uses his own writings as an object lesson, pointing out that when it came to determining the origins of any given passage he had written, not only could his colleagues not determine the history of their development from what was before them, but HE HIMSELF could not! To apply that lesson in this context (assuming a disregard for the traditional stance that Moses wrote the Pentateuch): In what epoch, and for what motives Genesis was written, and how it was or was not pieced together—that’s fern-seed. That the book of Genesis in the form we have it is answering questions that make these latter questions seem ridiculously puny and unimportant by comparison—those are elephants.

1a.If we are to take the Bible so literally,etc.

Taking the Bible literally is not the issue, and rarely is. The issue is taking the Bible seriously and interpreting it according to responsible interpretative parameters. Poetry, parable, metaphor—these are not MEANT to be taken literally, and I have yet to meet the “literalistâ€� that wants to. By your numbering of your points, you imply that if one does not adopt a stance similar to your own vis-Ã*-vis Genesis, then one is a literalist in the strictest sense and is on the verge of arguing for a flat earth or (closer to home) a literal seven day creation. These are straw men, and it simply is not necessarily so.

You will not find the terms, or even really the concept of a divide between “natural� and “supernatural� in the Bible. We use those terms commonly, but again, they are Post-Enlightenment constructs. The “divide� between these “realms� is a perceived reality imposed upon us by the fall, but ultimately it is illusory. Again, look to Lewis’ comments in Screwtape about the “real world� of the atheist, and the remarks about the risen Christ being able to walk through walls not because He was less real than they were, but rather more. The continual insistence that the “natural� world is real and the “supernatural� one is somehow less real is to employ categories that are not contained in Scripture, aside from the conclusions we may draw about their respective “solidity.�

The Bible says nothing about the Moon being made of green cheese. You offer no example that carries your argument, so it is difficult to otherwise respond. The fact is, Scripture, with the aid of the Spirit who inspired it, mediates Christ in our lives. That is why it is called “canon� (rule, yardstick). It is not there to be worshipped apart from Christ, but the Fathers who helped form it never have considered that an option anyway. We worship Christ, but we have a rule that not only reveals Christ to us, but also guides us and binds us together in a community so we aren’t each one “doing what is right in our own eyes.� Good grief, there’s enough of that as it is, even among those who claim to respect the canon. To simply say that the written word has value only a moral textbook is extremely reductionist. It IS that, but it is a whole lot more than that.

1d.If Christians spout,etc.

I do not "spout" my position, and neither do I accuse you of "spouting." To belittle a position with verbs like "spout" is a caricature. As for your reasoning, IF Christians were to begin treating the Bible as the Muslims treat the Koran, then we could talk. The implication is that if I hold the Bible to be infallible (even just for faith and living—an incredible qualifier that even theological moderates would certainly subscribe to), then I will end up as a Muslim. The reality is, if I hold the Bible to be infallible in these matters then I will draw close to its Author through the Holy Spirit, and I will enjoy a living relationship with Him. The world of pure argument in which you appear to live (at least as far as these matters go) bears little resemblance to the one millions of Christians live in.

2.Does anyone know,etc.

Again, your tone is condescending. For starters, Satan is a Hebrew term apart from Hellenistic categories; “devil� is the Hellenistic term. Second, you fall into what philosophers call the genetic fallacy, that being the idea that if doubt is cast upon something’s origin, then it by corollary must be all wrong. Neither term is used in either Is.14 nor Ez.28, yet both bear witness to spiritual realities that the prophets were aware of, and are referenced by the more common terms used, whether they be “Satan,� “devil,� or “god of this age.� That his nature became clearer to God’s people, even as they interacted with the nations that had skewed views of him, should not confuse us. It doesn’t matter what you call him, or how the terms applied to him now came about through the complexities of history. Need we go into how the name of a pagan, Norse deity (Got) came to be used of the Beloved One, whom we name Father?

2a...people are God's adversary...

So, “Satan� means “adversary,� and people are “adversaries,� therefore people are “Satan� (in the broad sense of being the force of evil in the world). This is commonly known as syllogism: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Simple enough. Problem: Syllogisms can be easily manipulated, and badly applied they can lead to incorrect conclusions, e.g., I saw a group of Indians walking single file, ergo, all people who walk single file are Indians. This is a non-sequitur.

The fact that fallen people do in fact reject God and do generally fit your description does not rule out the existence of an intelligent, malevolent being who opposes God. It simply does not follow.

By elevating Tash,etc.

Correct, and hence Aslan’s growl when it is spoken to Him. Satan is a created being, and God Almighty is creator. But again, to argue for Satan’s existence as I have done here is hardly making the claim that Hollywood does.

5.When a person believes something,etc.

This is perhaps the most difficult and dangerous of your statements. You are essentially arguing that reality is in the mind of the believer, much as beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Yet Lewis would never swallow this essentially Postmodern construct, because it stands opposed to the teaching of Scripture and the Church. I actually think you have not fully appreciated what this stance does to your own confession of faith. Lewis argues that beauty is NOT merely in the eye of the beholder, but rather in the hand of the Creator, and we are empowered as ones made in his image to perceive it.

Reality is reality, whether we believe it or not. Screwtape goes on at length about those materialists who adamantly did not believe in either God or devils, but came to know better after death. Here he entices Wormwood to muddle his “patient,� so that later he can enlighten him with “the particular clarity that Hell affords.� There is no comparing the “myth� of Santa Claus with the Sacred Myth that escapes lesser methods to express found in Scripture, much less discursive and direct statements made in theological discourse about God and other spiritual realities.

[inkspot]

Welcome to the discussion, Parthian King. I didn't see you post before. Aren't you an erudite laddie? :)

I agree with you that just because a concept of the devil developed in ancient culture that there can't be a real Lucifer who fell from heaven like lightning (as Jesus mentioned in Luke 10:18 that he saw Satan fall) - in fact, it would seem to me to imply the opposite: that because there is a real devil, even other ancient cultures (without Jehovah and the Bible) got wind of it and put it into their mythologies.

What I am really trying to understand, from Wallis, still, is why not believe in these things the Scriptures seem to treat as fact?

If you can believe in the very wild idea that a perfect God would assume the form of man and that His death on the cross after a sinless life could somehow promise you life eternal with God and make a difference in the way you life your life today and the fulfillment you take from it ... if you can believe that ... why not believe in angels and demons as they are mentioned in Scripture?

That gift of salvation (as we believers understand it) is like Lewis' deep magic. If you can believe in that wonder of wonders without a lot of scientific evidence, why not believe in the other magical concepts of the Bible?

Still not getting it ... :(

[PrinceOfTheWest]

It would be nearly impossible to add to the posting by Parthian King, so I won't try to cover the same ground. In fact, I hope to cover as little as possible, for I think this thread has more than accomplished its original intention. (I certainly learned what at least some others think!)

My brother Wallis, I'm afraid you're going to have to put me with those "people feel comfortable with the concept that God wrote the Bible through the fingers of people (men and women)," those whose "very myopic view of the supernatural" you are so reluctant to disturb. Fortunately, I am in good company there, with C.S. Lewis himself, as well as my entire tradition (Roman Catholic). The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the definitive theological statement of the Church's beliefs, states the following:

"God is the author of Sacred Scripture. 'The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.'" (Article 105, emphasis in original)

"God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. 'To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.'" (Article 106)

So I guess you'll have to categorize all the theologians who helped drew up the Catechism as having a "myopic view of the supernatural." I don't mind being in such company. It makes much more sense than the approach you seem to be advancing: putting between yourself and a simple text all manner of "scholarship" and human wisdom, to the point that the human learning can obscure the divine wisdom of the text. I don't need such spectacles.

The Lord Jesus Christ told us that "by their fruit you shall know them" (Matt 7:16-20). Though I'm but an amateur historian, I've studied enough to know the fruit of the theology you espouse. Denying the miraculous in Scripture was only the beginning for the demythologizers of the 1800s; eventually Scriptural inspiration was cast into doubt, and ultimately as the Incarnation itself. That thinking so thoroughly destroyed the vitality of Protestant Christianity in Europe so the poisonous shoots of Naziism and Communism sprouted among the decaying corpses. It leapt across the Atlantic to eviscerate the mainline traditions of North America, so much so that even now they're tottering and collapsing.

Fortunately, God does not abandon His people even when they abandon Him. C.S. Lewis and his scholarship was one of the weapons He used to fight back the intellectual challenge of this school, as well as Tolkien in the realm of imagination. He sent renewal to His Church across a broad range of traditions - Evangelical, Catholic, and even Orthodox. Interestingly, where the renewal brought the most power was where people approached the Scriptures with simple faith and hard obedience. I have seen that renewal in action, and it has far more power than your advanced scholarship. Power to heal, power to change lives, power to turn people into what God really wants to be - all done for simple, "myopic" people who take God's word at face value and act in simple obedience.

So I won't say you're wrong. Perhaps you're right. Perhaps the Scriptures are a "badly comprised selection of myths", and I'd need years of proper theological training to understand them aright. Perhaps I really should always live wondering if I've ever gotten enough to catch their meaning. Perhaps yours is the proper view of the world, and mine is wrong (or "myopic"). But if so, my wrong view is one of majesty and glory that licks yours all hollow. I've seen the sun, and I've seen Aslan. I've wandered through the woods when the streams were flowing with wine and birds in the branches spoke to me. I've read the Words on the Stone Table and felt Aslan's breath confirm them in my heart, and even if I'm far away in some dingy hole, I remember them. So, I'm sorry to grind my foot into your fire here, but I'm off to follow the simple path of simple obedience. I'll pray for you as I go.

Under the Mercy.

[Wallis]

I am content that people believe what they want to believe if it will reinforce their faith. I will not try to persuade anyone from their position if it will endanger their faith. I merely provide a perspective that in the now or the future will be regarded and either accepted or disregarded. Remember that faith is not static. Faith will continue to grow, and in the coming days, our individualistic faiths will be continually challenged.

Inkspot, you haven't read my referenced postings, for the answers have already been provided. I encourage you, please, to read those. This thread is growing quite long enough without repeating what I have already written. And the fact that God became incarnate has nothing to do, really, with the cosmology of angels and demons. Also, we need to look very closely past the English translation of Christ's words to understand what he was conveying to Jewish ears. Since the Jews were much more into eschatologic and apocaylitic matters, we need to understand first what He was imparting to the Jews. The Jews loved their hyperbole and metaphors.

As we see from Edersheim, Christ vanquished all that is perceived to be the Prince of this world. The Jews would have quickly recognized the yoke of Rome. The fall of Satan is the final felling of the shackles of sin and human nature. And while the Bible speaks of demons, the medical age of Christ's times knew nothing of the maladies that can affect the human brain, just for a specific example, but still attributed disease as either being inflicted upon the individual by a demon or as retribution by God for a sin committed by a parent. The meaning of Christ's words should not be taken so literally but as cry of rejoicement, for even through today, as we continually conquer our own anti-Christ nature, Christ's victory through the cross continues.

Parthian King, you are most welcome to nitpick my verbs all you want. I accept the criticism.

That said, and given the fact that the written and the spoken word is inadequate to communicate what exists in the individual mind, I feel that you have not understood my argument for what exists and what does not exist. I would ask you to reread what I wrote and consider the "spirit" of what I am trying to convey. Santa Claus is an apt example of how people conceive the world and the actions within, assigning animals to talk and "angels" to protect.

As far as Genesis goes, one only needs to research a very limited selection to understand that not only is the writing of various passages indicative of different authors but several stories are joined together patchwork, often with contradictions of events and the jumbling of chronological order.

-----

Scripture is not all that important, when you boil everything down to the essence. I am not advocating the tossing out of Scripture. When we look at the very early church, shortly after the resurrection, we find people gathered together to worship the Christ. Edersheim will tell you that almost every Jewish household had scrolls of scripture, not necessarily a Bible, mind you. In fact, one of the duties of the Jewish mother was to instruct her children in the ways and means of the faith. The early church who was not Jewish did not have scripture, per se. They obviously had letters and notes that were passed down and through the apostles and other teachers.

The essence of Christianity is the Christ.

One of my favorite songs when I was a child was "Jesus Loves Me Because The Bible Tells Me So." I now regard this song as horrendous. Jesus loves me not because the Bible tells me so but because every nano-second of the day I feel His love, through thick and thin, through sickness and health, through joy and grief, etc.

While a majority of Christians want to believe in angels and demons, especially a malevolent being popularly called Satan, I will challenge this concept with an "How Dare You!" Now that your hackles are raised, let me proceed.

How dare we place ourselves in such an exalted position in the cosmology of a heaven, and Earth, and a hell. That we are so important as to merit the attention of supernatural beings at war with each other. There are billions of other Earths and probably just as many other sentient beings in the universe. Yet we, the people of the Earth, are so important that we are the "prize" of a battle that we did not seek nor did we ask for.

This postulation of importance is indicative of our adversarial nature to God. From the very beginning, the "war" being raged is We versus God. But note: it is not God versus Man. The fact that the universe is in constant warfare with itself is distilled down to the very nature of man. We need no supernatural "help" from a Satan to wage war against God. We can do it all by ourselves. And while we wage war with God, it is God who continually sheds His Love and Acceptance and eventually welcomes us home.

[Saruman]

Ah, if life could be so easy not to have a devil or demons, and therefore, with that said, not to have a hell. I can go and sleep with my neighbor's wife and it will not amount to anything, I wager. After all, it would be a personal choice and, without any demons to persuade me to do something "rash" (if, in light of certain others' positions, one can even consider that "amoral"). So let us eat, drink, and be merry: we're all going to go to heaven, right?

As far as God's "Acceptance," that is a dreadful mistake. God accepts no person. He loves all, and created men with whom He could have a personal relationship. Things began rightly, but soon deteriorated once Adam and Eve (listening to the counsel of Satan, who took the form of a serpent) ate of the forbidden fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And so we have entered into this world sinful and in need of salvation. And even at the very beginning, after man had sinned, God gave a promise concerning the salvation of men: and it came in the form of the Second Member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ. Concerning angels and demons, does God speak, then, to nothing? If we forget this most simple and yet powerful message of our origins and the state in which man now finds himself, merely by coming to the presumption that "Satan" and "angels and demons" are mere illustrations of an internal warfare within the hearts of men, then we have come very short of truth. Why would Jesus, the living God, speak so much during His three years of ministry on this earth concerning the devil and his demons? What would Jesus mean, then, in speaking to the pharisees, proclaiming that they "serve their father the devil"? It becomes, then, much of an enigma, and in this way Satan achieves his goal. What better way to deceive men by having them believe he doesn't exist? One of his many tactics.

As I have stated (or, at the very least, have implied) in the past, everyone is entitled to an opinion. But opinions cower in the face of reality, and in the face of logic, and in the face of facts. God is not that much of a "mystical" Being that we cannot come to know Him and know what He intends for us in the life which He has given us. That's why we have the Bible, the literal Word of God, history-based and for the spiritual edification of mankind: to learn from the mistakes committed by those in the Bible and learning how pleasing it is to come to God by faith (Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" and also, Hebrews 11:5-6 "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. But without faith it is impossible to please Him: for he that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.").

In conclusion, I am truly sorry that Wallis seems to fall in the line of today's psychobabblers, who profess that the so-called demon-possessed persons of former days (and even in these days) are poor folk who suffer from mental incapacities. And rest assured that I am not one with a medieval train of thought. I know (and have seen) the difference between one who suffers from mental disorders to one who is truly trapped by some other spiritual being. But at any rate, my brother is free to believe as he chooses. But truth will overrule any opinions we could ever form about God or His Word, and about reality.

One of my favorite songs when I was a child was "Jesus Loves Me Because The Bible Tells Me So." I now regard this song as horrendous. Jesus loves me not because the Bible tells me so but because every nano-second of the day I feel His love, through thick and thin, through sickness and health, through joy and grief, etc.

This is also unfortunate. One of the many songs that relate and demonstrate the love of Christ has been officially denounced by one who is more content on his feelings rather than laying himself out upon Christ. Is it truly all about feeling Him and feeling His presence rather than relying upon Him and resting in Him? I do not always feel the presence of the Lord, but this in no way implies that He is not with me, for I have the blessed assurance in His Word that He will never leave me nor forsake me. This song is quite the opposite of "horrendous," but is sweet and simple, the way it ought to be. I think in becoming too "scholarly," we set ourselves up for an horrendous fall.

[inkspot]

Hey, don't call a brother in Christ a psychobabbler. I don't know what it means, but it sounds pretty bad.

Anyway, back to Wallis' post on the other page. When a person believes something, it becomes real...When enough people believe something, that reality becomes very tangible. The malevolent forces that we see everyday are not supernatural but have their origin of existence within the minds of people.
I have been ruminating on this, and I cannot think you mean that our belief in something makes it real. If that were the case, then you would think angels and demons real because so many of us believe in them! And I cannot think that because you believe in Christ, that He is the Savior. Surely He is the Savior, and when you believe on Him, you are saved?

And you can't think if you don't believe in the devil, that will make the devil go away? The devil's best trick is to persuade you that he doesn't exist! Seems like you would be playing right into his hands. :p

No, the very reason you say there is no devil is the reason I think there must be one (in addition to the Bible tells me so). You say the atrocities that humans commit against each other are all because of the evil in men's hearts. But I think that men couldn't dream up the atrocities that we do to each other. I was just editing a book about the Rwandan genocide of 1994, where nearly 1 million people were slaughtered by their neighbors in a space of three months -- not mowed down by mindless military, but hacked to pieces by the next-door neighbors. Man is evil in his fallen state, but it takes something more to get into people and make them do that. There must be a devil.

Fuller Theological Seminary Professor Charles Kraft says demons only get their way in the world to the extent that people cooperate with them. Fallen man is evil enough, but I can't doubt there are spiritual forces urging him on.

Also, I have to agree with Curumo that the overwhelming feeling of Christ's love need not be present for Christ to save you. I think of poor, doomed Kurt Cobain who sang, "Jesus Doesn't Want Me for a Sunbeam." But of course, Jesus did want him, and did love him, and did die to set him free from sin, but Kurt didn't feel that love, so he didn't accept what the Bible told him about that love. How tragic to reject the message of the good news because you don't feel loved.

If anybody reads this, and you don't feel the love of God, that's okay: God still loves you, feelings or no. Just keep following Jesus, and you will feel that Presence some day!

[Gibby]

I
Scripture is not all that important, when you boil everything down to the essence...

The law was given to us to reveal lawlessness. Jesus came to save us because we cannot live up to the standards of the law on our own. Jesus also said that He would help us live according to His will or the law by changing our hearts. The Word of God is living and breathing and reveals the darkness in our hearts. Like any surgery, there is going to be pain as he cuts through to our hearts with His surgical knife and removes the "tumors". Much like Eustace submitting to Aslan and His sharp claws taking off his dragon skin. His claws pierced Eustace's heart, but he was healed! Jesus affirmed the authority of the law as well. To discredit scripture as "not important" suggests that we should just "make up" Jesus in our minds and tailor Him into what we think He should be in order to justify living our lives the way we see fit. That removes Him from the throne in our lives and allows us to live according to the way we think it should be. This is incredible folly and sets us to be swept away on a sea of post modernism.

Judges 17:6
In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.

Without scripture as the authority in our lives, we are setting ourselves up for disaster.

Matthew 7:24-29
24"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
28When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, 29because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

Wallis, I pray you would open your heart to the possibility of the Word of God being the rock to build your house on. I know this might make you appear to be committing intellectual suicide to those who know you, but consider it at least? The Lord says if you seek with your heart, you will find. I did! In his Word...

I say this out of love, not "I'm right, you're wrong"; I hope it does not come across that way.

[Parthian King]

For clarity’s sake, let me reiterate that we were speaking of Tash, a being analogous with “the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world� (Rev 12:9). The author of the book in which Tash appears, The Last Battle, was C.S. Lewis, a one-time atheist covert to orthodox Christianity who was a philosopher, scholar, and apologist at Oxford and Cambridge in the earlier part of the 20th century.

The lay of the land in this discussion appears fairly clear. Most are on the same page, though it has taken a bit to triangulate on Wallis’ point of reference in order to understand where he is coming from. I believe I have a fairly good idea now.

Inkspot, Wallis answers your question as to the core “why� he cannot accept the existence of angels and demons, or a literal Satan: Scripture is not authoritative for him. It forms some sort of a starting point for him, and perhaps a handbook on morality for the road, but otherwise his epistemology is based upon an eclectic mix of a materialistic application of certain critical schools of thought, empirical data, and apparently a measure of science fiction. Most of all, however, he is betting his eternity on how he feels, falling squarely into the Postmodern milieu (which sounds less derogatory than psychobabble). My earnest prayer is that by the grace of Christ, Wallis, your feelings endure long enough to place you in His hand on that Day.

It is not sufficient to speak of physical maladies when it comes to the presence of demons and especially the devil, for the very reason that Carumo points out: To do so attributes mental illness and inexplicability not only to the demonized souls described in the Gospels and Acts, but also to the writers of the New Testament, and through them, to God and Jesus themselves. I won’t waste space going into the implausibility of the theological stance that God is merely “humoring� the first hearers of the Gospels when it comes to Jesus’ (and His disciples’) encounters with the demonized, and therefore His current humoring of us (or, if you like, His silent expectation that we “grow out� of such a view). What is far more germane to the discussion are the numerous references elsewhere where no demonization (or “malady�) is ever brought into the issue. There the Enemy is variously described as “the god of this age,� “the enemy of our souls,� “The prince of the power of the air,� and so forth. There is no need to list them all, since concordances are readily available, and it appears that present are those who respect Scripture’s authority enough to accept these, and at least one person who does not.

Wallis, my hackles are not raised, and I fail to be provoked, although I would tender (given that you have granted me permission) that your use of the verb “nitpick� would indicate that a negation should have accompanied your use of the verb “accept.�

We do not believe in angels or demons, or the devil, because we want to, but rather because we are compelled to by Scripture. We accept it as authoritative because it has stood the test of time and because through it we came to know Him, Jesus Christ, and (as Prince of the West puts it) we continue to feel Aslan’s breath upon our faces in a community of faith. The focus of this discussion may be the existence of a real spiritual foe, but it is hardly the focus of our faith, and in a moment, a twinkling of the eye all things—especially him, will be nothing more than a dim memory (if that), as we hurtle into an eternity in God’s light. In the meantime, however, God sees fit to warn us of the existence of this “other lion� who roams seeking to devour (1 Peter 5:8), and we are not going to ignore the warning. Although my confession of faith does not rest upon my recognition of his existence, my long-term spiritual well-being appears to bear significant relation to it (given the aforementioned warning), so I’m going to heed it.

My point about Genesis was that the nature of its composition is secondary to the weight of its final form. This is precisely what Lewis argues in chapter 23 of Screwtape concerning the Gospel narratives: They say what they say, and no amount of theorizing can change that. Either you accept them or reject them, and bear the consequences for your decision. Although you claim that you will say nothing to undermine another’s faith, I can hardly conclude anything else given your posture toward the Bible, especially since Genesis and indeed the authority and integrity of the Scriptures on a whole hadn’t been an issue in the discussion to that point. From my youth I have been familiar with the tenor I perceive in your words, that of an arbiter who stands above the din of reckless belief to calmly speak reason into the ears of the ignorant masses those mysteries they would otherwise never know about the black leather book they naively carry to church each Sunday. What took me some time to find out (I have done some research—even more than the little that you keep suggesting) was that the historical critical school (or the Tübingen School, if you like) in its pure form met its demise in the Academy a century ago. Why? Among other reasons, because it was recognized that its proponents (F.C. Baur the principal, among others) were unmasked as interested players like the rest of the people on the field. For some time they got away with the charade that they didn’t have a stake in the game, laying out their research and conclusions like theological chemists in white lab coats, above the sweat and striving of the religious plebs below them. But their cover was finally blown, and scholars across the ideological spectrum recognized that an arbiter and a player one cannot be. Albert Schweitzer (hardly a “literalist�) noted that their study had been the same as staring down a deep well for several decades, the result being that they only saw a dark reflection of themselves rather than finding what they were looking for. Historical critical scholarship has exegetical value for shedding light on the text (great value, as a matter of fact), but because of its own history it can easily be used in a high-handed, deconstructive fashion. It can also be a most deceptive mask for one’s own presuppositions for the simple fact that since many do not in fact know its methods or the fruit thereof, they have little hope of articulately countering the conclusions of one who does, even if those conclusions are mistaken. But the fact remains that when it comes to presuppositions, the ivory tower scholar (or one who pretends to be) is on a level playing field with the peasant in the potato patch below. This is why going by individual feelings is so dangerous. They’re certainly great (spiritual ecstasy, I mean), but one cannot live by them any more than one can live alone.

Karl Barth (someone with a fair amount of theological credentials, I believe), when asked what was the most profound theological statement he had ever heard, responded, “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Bible tells me so.� I have some problems with Barth, but I’m with him there. He recognized the central importance of Scripture in an unsure world.

And so we return to the inception of the discussion. When someone asks what we “think� about what a writer has written (as opposed to what we think, period), the issue is one of interpretation. In the case of our opinion, we are free to say whatever we like (at least philosophically speaking). But in this case, the point is a discussion about what Lewis intended regarding the character of Tash. Lewis without a doubt believed in the existence of Satan and demons (or as he calls them in Screwtape, “devils�). Unless we fall into the willy-nilly world of reader-response, wherein the author has no say whatsoever in the meaning of a text once it leaves his or her pen, we are left to determine that for Lewis, Tash is the devil, or at very least one of his higher minions. I would tender, in fact, that Lewis’ creation of Tash is yet another proof that he believes that the devil is a malevolent personality, worshipped by some, and capable of evil in the world. I am a fan of Narnia and Lewis, and Lewis’ other writings, because although not perfect, he’s pretty close for a mortal. We would do well to heed his warnings on the subject, and the warnings of the Lord he served.

[Wallis]

Inkspot, this is where you and I would have to agree to disagree. I am convinced that the nature of mankind is so corrupt that it needs no "outside" agency to spurn it to action.

[Wallis]

Curumo, you made a leap that I did not state. You went from the nonexistence of angels and demons to the nonexistence of hell. Again, if you review the sources I cite in my reference many posts above, you will learn what many theologians present for the history of hell. The hell as described by modern day Christians is a old but still modern day conception and divergent from our Jewish brethren, not to mention the Eastern philosophy of thought. And, Christianity really is an Eastern religion that has been usurped by the West and Western thought.

To deny God's Acceptance is outside Christian dogma. No one can come to the Father except through Me, Christ said. In that very simple statement, God's arms are wide open. I remember as a child seeing a picture of the Christ knocking at a door, the door representing a person's heart. The opening of the door to Christ is not man's acceptance of Christ but his surrender to the open arms of God.

Now, when people read my words along with other posters words, I see a great problem: people have not learned to read or think. I fault the schools and the parents for some of the people here inability to do either. Words raise certain hackles and immediately put cause filters within the mind to fall into place. It is these filters that disallow careful reading and following the meaning of a person's words. Thus, the easy dismissing of my posts as being psychobabble (LOL!), arrogant, et al.

We all have our Tashs, and the walling in of our precious ideas as being the Truth and only the Truth is just another Tash. Instead of that Truth serving us, we begin to serve that individual truth as a slave to that Tash.

[Wallis]

Gibby, you missed my point entirely. Please read it again without all the filters. So many people have come to know Christ without scripture mostly because there was no scripture in their language.

The LAW is just another Tash. The LAW has been fulfilled. The LAW is dead. It has been replaced by the GOSPEL of the Christ, which is not a LAW. In fact, the GOSPEL is the hardest concept to accept and understand. It is harder to follow than the LAW, because the LAW lays out a lot of DOs and DON'Ts. But the GOSPEL entails that you and I have to be the Christ to the world. There is no black and white in the GOSPEL. Loving one another exclusively is so stressful that it will drive the sanest man absolutely crazy.

[Wallis]

I appreciate that people will be praying for me, but please do not pray for me to somehow come back to a fundamentalistic core of a cosmology that does not exist. I have left that Tash behind.

The fact that Lewis believed in a devil is just one point of view when discussing his works. He may, in fact, have had that central in his mind when he wrote of the existence of Tash. Yet, that does not negate any discussion that Tash exists in many forms within the human mind and existence.

I will reiterate what I wrote before: I am Satan, and I am Tash. As long as I wear this Earthly flesh and possess a human nature, my very being and core is Anti-Christ. Therefore, living with and in the Christ, I struggle every nanosecond of the day to cast out the Satan/Tash that desires ascendancy and show the Love and Light of the Christ around me.

Prince, from your posts, I have to conclude that you are a Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics are required to believe in angels. Again, see my reference that details that dogma. Dogma, in and of itself, ends up being a Tash. Rather than dogma serving us, we end up serving the Dogma.

Now before anyone accuses me of Roman Catholic bashing, the same principle holds true for every Christian sect, right down into the individual congregation. There are so many Tashs set up with a single congregation, which become the all-important that needs servicing, and Christ is conveniently removed so that servitude to a particular Tash may be conducted.

[Wallis]

One very conspicuous absence from Narnia is the existence of angels and demons, bar Tash, if one wants to refer it to a demon.

Instead, the Will of Aslan is conducted solely through very real and animate creatures, human and otherwise. You will also note the absence of any kind of deus ex machina in Lewis' Chronicles.

How many times do we hear of Lucy asking for Aslan to be present? Her thinking is that if Aslan makes his presence known that he will fix everything. The blessed news is that Aslan is with her and the others at all times. But it is not Aslan doing the work; it is those who love him and believe in him that do the work.

So, too, in this very real world. In essence, God does nothing. But He receives the glory. In our apparent inability to fathom God, we like to assign very human attributes to God: He is male; He has ears to hear; He has eyes to see; He has hands and feet. In actuality, God is not corporeal at all but exists in all things as all things exist in Him. People are His hands, feet, voices, mouths, etc. We people are charged with performing His will, and even when we screw up, "good" will triumph over the "evil," which is the best that we humans can do at the best of times.

-----

There is one more point I'd like to reiterate for people to just think about.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label that circle God. God is the entire universe. He is All. Now, where are you going to put hell? If most people draw another circle and label it hell, then they have negated the most basic teaching of both the Jewish and Christian religions. They have just created another universe that is equal to that of God, and that cannot be accepted if we profess that Christ is God and that God is All.

We worship the Living God, the One and Only God. Everything belongs to this One God, including whatever hell a person wishes to conceive.

[Parthian King]

Tennis anyone?

[Vanceone]

Tennis indeed! This is a very interesting thread; it really is. I suspect I come from a slightly different point of view than many here. As I gather the thread; we are discussing whether or not there is a literal devil or angels; as well as the authority of scripture. Oh, and Tash, of course. :D

For the record--I am firmly convinced of the reality of both. Yet, I also agree with Wallis to an extent--we do have the natural man who tempts us. Part of being here on earth is to overcome the natural man.
As for angels--I believe the term means Messenger--so under that defintion, there are angels--there have to be. Or do you think that if, say, John the Revelator showed up at your door he would not be an angel? Or Isaiah, or Ezekiel? They all would qualify as Angels, I believe. And if you say they cannot appear--why not? Are they gone, or dissolved, or what? If they are--then are you not arguing that the Resurrection is a falsity? And if so--then belief in Christ seems rather pointless, if there is no resurrection.

As to devils and the existence of Tash--I agree that C.S. Lewis believed in a literal devil; the Screwtape letters seem to be ample proof of that. I also don't think that the Lord created the devil--the Devil fell, it says; presumably of his own choice. And how can man have freedom to choose, save he is enticed by both sides? I know that temptations come to me that are not from just my flesh; as they would not naturally come at that point. Satan is tempting me, then. Yes, just because we have a natural man which influences us does not mean that there is no devil, either.

I agree-there is a problem in scripture about the Devil--he is not mentioned much. But if he tempted Christ (who, I hope you would say, does not have the natural man as much as any of us) then why would he not exist? Every day, I must choose my master--God, or Satan. Sometimes, every hour or minute--both are striving for my allegience. It is, however, up to me to choose which one to follow.

In your last post, Wallis, you are painting a picture of God that is very, very different than the one I believe the scriptures demonstrate. From what I can tell--you are saying God doesn't exist, in any meaningful sense. He is nowhere, and everywhere. You say, draw a circle--it is the universe, and it is God. I'd like to know--where does that come from? I certainly never read about that in the New Testament... I read things like the Voice of God speaking on the mount of Transfiguration to Jesus and his apostles. I agree that people do God's work, but that doesn't mean that God cannot do His own work. Jesus commanded us to pray to our Father in Heaven--what did He mean? Where is Heaven, and what does "Father" mean? If Jesus was speaking to the great unlearned, and thus couldn't tell them the truth, should we then be praying to the great amorphous mass who is everywhere and nowhere? It sounds like God is unknowable, as you describe him. Yet, Paul seemed to think that he could teach people how to know God.

I'm not trying to attack you; nor am I a fundamentalist or Catholic. I'm just honestly confused as to what you believe in--it sounds like you believe in nothing. Or, rather, whatever you believe in is for all practical purposes nothing. I hope I'm wrong. For the record, I agree with lots of what you say--the Bible, in my view, has some errors; whether they be translation, copying, what have you. Clearly, we know much more about mental illnesses now, too. But just because it's not perfect do I think it's all wrong, either. I think I hew a middle road in this discussion....

As for Tash (to bring this semi-ontopic), I think Lewis meant him to represent evil. There are but two churches only, really--the Church of God, and the church of the devil. What I mean is that there are true followers of Christ in every religious sect, as well as hypocrites, liars, etc.--followers of evil. I think Tash is a representation of that idea. :)

Wow, this is a long post... I think I'm up for some tennis. :D

[waterhogboy]

Tennis anyone?

HAHAHAHA!! Nice one!

Right, I'm a terror for these threads cos I have a short attention span and end up flickin thru the really long ones!! :o (A bit like in the duffers where you come on and theres 5 pages of new posts to read through) Anyway, I tend to skim read and pick up on things that come to my attention, so if I make any incorrect quotes or pickups please forgive me and correct me!

I disagree with Wallis statement that the LAW has gone. I believe this is totally incorrect. The LAW still stands now. The GOSPEL preaches that, although the LAW still stands, we cannot fulfil it through our own strength and we must rely wholly on God and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the LAW to be fulfilled. The LAW still stands though.

[Gibby]

HAHAHAHA!! Nice one!

Right, I'm a terror for these threads cos I have a short attention span and end up flickin thru the really long ones!! :o (A bit like in the duffers where you come on and theres 5 pages of new posts to read through) Anyway, I tend to skim read and pick up on things that come to my attention, so if I make any incorrect quotes or pickups please forgive me and correct me!

.

I'm with you WHB. As I get into some of the longer posts, my mind starts to wander and I have to wake up and go back to the last point on the post that I remember my noggin soaking up the info and then I have to pick it up from there. Maybe I have adult ADD or something...what was I talking about? Ah, yes...I like tennis too you guys; it's fun! That's the game where you hit the ball with a bat, right? (no wait, that's football, DOH!).
j.k.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Okay, then, I'll keep this post brief. The stance "God is the entire universe" is the very definition of a theology called Pantheism. That is explicitly not the Judeo-Christian faith. To put that out there as a model and then say it doesn't support hell is not only a logical fallacy, but a phenomenal ignorance of theology.

[Wallis]

Nope. Pantheism: 1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena. 2. Belief in and worship of all gods.



As a college professor, I am no longer appalled and disappointed with the lack of ability in my students. They are a product of the school system, after all. People cannot read and comprehend; they cannot listen and understand; and, above all, they lack the ability to think for themselves.

I am disappointed that in this forum and others that posters refuse--repeat--refuse to do any research before writing their posts. So many people engage their fingers before they engage their brains. And what they do impart again is just another Tash they are serving.

Before I start posting, showing my ignorance, I do practice research. Since the WWW is so handy, it takes but a few key strokes and a click or two to view what is out there. And then, it takes open cognizance to evaluate what might hold true for me.

"We conclude from the Bible that God is sovereign over all things, eternal and infinite, all powerful, all knowing, and present everywhere at once." God, Everything (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=165)

What the Prince seems to imply is that God is separate from the universe. God just created it but is only reactive. Reactive: 1. Tending to be responsive or to react to a stimulus. 2. Characterized by reaction. No credence is given to the possibility that God can be proactive as well. Whatever his implications are, he is practicing a characteristic denial of any information or thought that disturbs his individualistic, fabricated understanding of the cosmology of Christiandom. In addition, to deny that God is in everything and is the source of everything is to embody the idea that God is reduced to a player, vying for souls against an opponent almost as powerful as Himself.

Anyone who has studied any psychology classes will understand that a person is a product of his/her environment. And, as a person matures, filters are created within the brain that discriminate and even block forms of communication. One word alone is enough to trigger these filters. When I speak the word "dog," disparate images and thoughts emerge involuntarily within the minds of the listeners. So, too, here, when certain words are typed, such as "theologian," "angel," "Satan,": images pop up in the minds of the readers that prevent understanding.

Understanding that each of us are biased is understanding that we have created a Tash within us that we serve. We view the world through an internal colored lens that most of us do not wish to remove. Otherwise, we might see something challenging to our inner convictions, something unstabizing to that comfortable little world that each of us has constructed. Again, we have created a Tash, and we are subservient to that idealized world that we just created.

Goes back to when you believe something, it becomes real. As a child, I believe all of us played with dolls and teddy bears and whatnot. We spoke to our toys, and they talked back. Maybe some of us had invisible friends or playmates. They were as real as real can be. That most of us have put away the "childish" things and concepts, what was real is no longer real and no longer exists. Instead, we have created new ideas and concepts that are real to us. And most of us cannot let go of these "real" things.

But when we understand that Christ is real, that Salvation by Grace is real, that Christ is with us and in us every nanosecond of the day is real, then all else really isn't real. All the rest does not matter. All the Tashs of the world fall apart, and the real Aslan stands alone as the center of our lives. All of the missions we feel that we must do in this life, bar one, are meaningless and become only Tashs that seek out to control us. That one mission in life is to love one another unconditionally. Unconditionally, without reservation, without prejudice or discrimination, without judgment or condemnation.

[Wallis]

Smallcald Articles

THE THIRD PART OF THE ARTICLES
Article XIII: How One is Justified before God,
and of Good Works
__________
What I have hitherto and constantly taught concerning this I know not how to change in the least, namely, that by faith, as St. Peter says, we acquire a new and clean heart, and God will and does account us entirely righteous and holy for the sake of Christ, our Mediator. And although sin in the flesh has not yet been altogether removed or become dead, yet He will not punish or remember it.
And such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sins is followed by good works. And what there is still sinful or imperfect also in them shall not be accounted as sin or defect, even [and that, too] for Christ's sake; but the entire man, both as to his person and his works, is to be called and to be righteous and holy from pure grace and mercy, shed upon us [unfolded] and spread over us in Christ. Therefore we cannot boast of many merits and works, if they are viewed apart from grace and mercy, but as it is written, 1 Cor. 1, 31: He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord, namely, that he has a gracious God. For thus all is well. We say, besides, that if good works do not follow, faith is false and not true.
Smallcald Article (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/concord/web/smc-03m.html)

-----

God's Reconciliation (http://www.abideinchrist.com/devotion/aug25.html)

-----

God's acceptance is extended to all. The plan of God was to work with a chosen people to effect his plan of salvation for all the nations (Gen.12:3). Now, in the "fullness of time" (Gal. 4:4), those who have been outside of God's revelation have the light shown to them. In the "Great Commission," the Gentiles would receive the good news of God's grace to all people, Jew or Gentile. Survey of the NT (http://www.xenos.org/classes/ntsurvey/ntweek5.htm)

-----

Biblical support: God's Acceptance, Bible (http://www.intouch.org/myintouch/exploring/promises/acceptance_93797.html)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

You're confusing terms. The latter half of your definition ("Belief in and worship of all gods") is that of polytheism (http://www.polytheism.net/). Pantheism is the identification of god with everything that exists. A pantheist believes himself to be "part" of god in the same way that a skin or nerve cell is part of our body. A strict pantheist would also believe the same thing about his neighbor, his dog, and his toaster.

This is the standard definition of pantheism used by theologians and philosophers, including Schaeffer, Von Balthasar, Lewis, and the pantheists themselves (http://www.pantheism.net/manifest.htm). I'm sorry you're not clear on it, as your definition indicates, but if you make statements like "Draw a circle on a piece of paper. Label that circle God. God is the entire universe. He is All.", then you can expect that to be interpreted as pantheism.

The Judeo-Christian teaching is that God is transcendant. This means He is separate from His creation. He created all things, but remains distinct from them, wholly other (the literal meaning of "Holy"). No created thing, from the greatest seraph to the smallest dust mote, is a "little bit" of God.

Yet His is also immanent. He is "right here" throughout all creation, and there is nowhere He is not. I once read a phrase that put it beautifully: "He is closer than your next breath." Though He is separate from His creation, He loves it and is intimately involved with it - it just remains separate from Him.

Keeping these two concepts in balance is difficult (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm#IIB). It is simpler for our minds to focus on one or the other. To focus primarily on God's transcendence will lead you to Deism - the "Watchmaker God" who sets up a universe and then steps back and dispassionately watches it run, not caring to intervene. Focus too much on immanence and you risk confusing creature and Creator, and end up with Pantheism.

Fortunately, Jesus Christ made it simpler for us. God Himself took on flesh and walked among us, a touchable expression of immanence. He suffered death at our hands and then walked out of the tomb, vindicated in His innocence. He ascended back to His Father's throne, taking our human nature with Him. To keep immanence in balance with transcendence, look to Jesus.

Now: I don't know about others reading this forum, but this whole "nobody knows nuthin' but Wallis" schtick is getting a little thin. Wallis, you seem to be under the impression that any time someone says something you don't like, the problem lies with them. They don't know how to "read and think", or don't do research, or have psychological filters, or are narrow minded, or simply don't know enough to even discuss matters with you. You don't seem to be considering another alternative: people are understanding you just fine - they just don't agree with you. Your arguments and support aren't consistent, or are simply not orthodox Christianity.

I say this realizing that you'll probably once again trot out your college professorship and 35 years as a credentialed theologian, and they won't impress me any more than they did the last time. They don't seem to impress you, either, at least when they're not yours - I notice that when Parthian King (who didn't seem to lack theological credentials) answered you in close detail, you swiftly moved on to easier targets. Some of the most bigoted and narrow-minded people I've known have been university theology professors. On the other hand, one of the wisest, most insightful theologians I've known was a plumber by trade.

I've read back over the postings by people other than me, and I see insightful questions by people who seemed to have a clear understanding of Christian orthodoxy (what else did you expect on a Lewis forum?) and Scripture. They seemed to grasp your arguments quite clearly and understand their implications better than you do. They have treated you with courtesy and charity, and you have answered with condescension ("Is mine the only hand raised?", "you missed my point entirely") and contempt ("people believe what they want to believe","People will quote the Bible until the cows come home, and yet they have no idea what they are quoting"). These are your brothers and sisters, and they probably know a lot more Scripture and theology than you give them credit for.

You seem to take greatest offense at people whom you perceive set themselves up as arbitrary experts, issue dogmatic statements, and have filters through which they put everything they read. Yet the great Thomas á Kempis observed in Imitation of Christ that usually the things that bother us most about others are our own faults. Perhaps you and I both need to go off and prayerfully ponder á Kempis' point.

[Parthian King]

This discussion is only loosely connected to the character of Tash itself, and has produced a number of tangents that have more to do with biblical theology and (even more removed from the original theme) systematic theology. This is practically inevitable given the nature of Lewis’ writings, but the observation itself should help to clarify things.

As with any discussion/debate, it is helpful to lay some terms of engagement down, or perhaps a better way to put it is to speak of academic protocol. Recognizing and observing these will keep us on task.

As a college professor, I am no longer appalled and disappointed with the lack of ability in my students. They are a product of the school system, after all. People cannot read and comprehend; they cannot listen and understand; and, above all, they lack the ability to think for themselves.

I am disappointed that in this forum and others that posters refuse--repeat--refuse to do any research before writing their posts. So many people engage their fingers before they engage their brains.

Respectfully, the above represents an egregious breach of such protocol. First, its tone is chokingly condescending. Second, it is sweepingly general. Finally, and perhaps worst of all, it appeals to strength of pedigree rather than the merits of its own statements (which follow).

I will begin with the last. Granting you, Wallis, the full benefit of the doubt as to your credentials, they have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. Nothing at all. For starters, great theologians with very impressive credentials have disagreed with each other for years. How have they debated (either in person or through their publications)? By quoting their diplomas and resumes to each other? No, by sustained critical discussion. That leads me to the second point: I have never heard any professor I have ever had at any level of higher education ever counter anything anyone has ever said with the statement “I have been an academic in my field for (say) 35 years,� or “I am a college professor.� They defend their position on the basis of the merits of their argument, or they are not worth their salt. Just an observation.

Next issue: I have seen some pretty frustrated professors. But I have never heard the demeaning description of students that you have laid down, even from the hardest unbelievers I have ever sat under. Wow. Nothing further need be said.

Lastly, I would like to address the implication that somehow you are the professor here, and we are all errant students, still chewing on our erasers or throwing spitballs while you tap your feet in frustration. I will say directly what I stated indirectly earlier: You cannot both an arbiter and a player be. You stand on the turf with the rest of us, and operating blind (i.e., without the benefit of hearing our credentials), a bit of humility towards the supposed lack of research that you accuse your peers of in this forum would be a handy show wisdom as well as Christian virtue. I find no need to elaborate further on what Prince has already stated.

Now, for some things that cannot ignore comment:

There is no black and white in the GOSPEL

I do wish you would qualify this, although I cannot know that even under the most elaborate qualification it could still stand as a statement. I am all for the discontinuity position in the Law and Gospel debate (which you seem to take), and I have no desire to put my neck under the yoke that Peter refers to in Acts 15. But to say there is "no black and white in the gospel"? Paul, the champion of grace for all, fought long and hard against the apparently antinomian position that your statement could at very least be construed as being.

The fact that Lewis believed in a devil is just one point of view when discussing his works. He may, in fact, have had that central in his mind when he wrote of the existence of Tash. Yet, that does not negate any discussion that Tash exists in many forms within the human mind and existence.

The fact that Lewis believed in the devil is hardly “just one point of view when discussing his works.� Here is the slippery slope of the reader-response approach: Everything is "open to interpretation." Yet think well: If one can even cast the slightest shadow of doubt (= "may..have had that..in his mind") on the fact that Lewis believed in the devil (when in his introduction to the Screwtape Letters he says point blank that he does, and expresses fear for those who don’t), then one can cast doubt upon interpreting anything at all. That is, I can read the Declaration of Independence and interpret it as a recipe for minestrone.

If I might digress for a moment, I would like to observe that Lewis, graduating first in his class with a degree in philosophy from Oxford, and a professor for his entire life in the finest universities in the world, believed unabashedly in angels, demons, Satan, heaven, and hell—all quite literally. These realities are the essence of this discussion, and I believe we can all have a pretty good idea of where he would stand. Would he, Oxford don and scholar, also be accused of not doing any research before he "engaged his fingers"?

Beyond this, you do something that appears repeatedly in your recent posts: You allegorize Lewis’ allegory. I believe Lewis would roundly reject this tactic. His work is already an allegory of spiritual truths he draws from his orthodox Christian tradition and directly from Scripture. To turn Tash into anything negative that we want him to be is to greatly distort Lewis’ intent. I am hardly stripping you of your right (though I do dislike how we swing that word around these days) to believe and express what you will, I am simply saying it is out of line to take Tash, a figure to which is ascribed quite specific significance within Lewis’ schema, and make it you own. Just say it if you want to, but don’t twist Lewis. In fact, it would be more acceptable to use the term “devil� for what you are doing (given its broad popular use) than “Tash.�

I will reiterate what I wrote before: I am Satan, and I am Tash. As long as I wear this Earthly flesh and possess a human nature, my very being and core is Anti-Christ. Therefore, living with and in the Christ, I struggle every nanosecond of the day to cast out the Satan/Tash that desires ascendancy and show the Love and Light of the Christ around me.

Prince of the West addressed the issue of pantheism quite adequately, so I’ll deal with this one: There is no Scripture that sustains the drastic ontological equivalency you are posting here. John in his first epistle warns his spiritual children to test and reject the spirit of anti-Christ as something foreign. Nowhere does he (or anyone else) say that it lives within us continually, much less consist of our inner being and our inner being of it. Yes, Paul reflects on the struggle he has with his flesh (sinful nature) in Romans 7, but in Galatians 2 he declares that he is “crucified with Christ�—yet alive, but it is not he, but rather Christ that lives within him. Similarly, Jesus declares that we are not of this world any more than He is of it (John 17:16). Remember, Jesus had a human nature, too, and died on a cross to impart that new nature to us. We are in process, but through him we are "born from above" (John 3:3), and are no longer under the dominion of the old nature (Romans 6). Usually people try and go soft on human nature and deny our sinfulness and lostness without Christ—a great error. But yours is an equally great error, Wallis, and cannot be sustained except by the most liberal reader-response method of interpretation.

[Wallis]

That some people here take my tone as condescending, the problem lies with them. If they hear me speak and see my face, they would quickly understand that I am not being condescending in any way, shape, or form.

I repeatedly stated that what people wish to believe is certainly okay with me. I present other views that people may accept, reject, or what have you.

You see, when I mentioned that I am a college professor, it was completely taken out of context. It was meant that I have personal experience with students inability to read. Obviously, the lesson is emphasized in this thread.

And Parthian King, your "accusation" that I have not addressed all the issues raised by fellow posters must fall along the lines of falling asleep while reading the longer posts.

I am not here to impress anyone. I rarely rise to the occassion to impress myself. That is one Tash I am not going to serve.

[Wallis]

When researching the "Old Adam", I recommend a persusal of this site: Old Adam, New Adam (http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=434)

[Wallis]

While the Prince will adamantly stick to his particular definition of pantheism, I will stick to the dictionary.

Now the question of God in the circle.

To say that God is outside His creation is true if one views that there are many universes and many creations. Yet, each creation is a part of God and God is definitely within His creation. This concept does not nullify God in the least. That God acts through us and within us does not necessarily make him nebulous. The complete surrender to God allows God to completely use us for His Will.

Many people are comfortable with a concept that Marty Marty expounds on in his book Your God Is Too Small. We tend to create an image of what God is, and we are comfortable with that image. If God is merely an actor, for example, in a far away place who has to be coerced through prayer to act, that may be a very comfortable way of viewing God. It is not a view I share, by the way. I tend to see God acting around me and through me. I do not necessarily feel God acting through me, unless I turn around and view my past, where I can see God working His Will. At the same time, I fail most of the time seeing God acting around me. But again, if I turn around and look at my past, I can see how God is acting around me through all the people I interacted with.

We also read what other people wrote about their own experiences. We are left to believe them 100% literally or, most often, understand them in the same context as we might express things. My dog didn't talk English to me, for example, but she did express her feelings, which I, in the vernacular, describe as speaking to me.

When we examine scripture, we do have to get into the heads of the people who wrote these words down. We have to understand what they were thinking before we can apply a lesson to our own times. Just look at the Pauline letters: if we did not dissect them to understand why they were written, when they were written, and in which chronological order they were written, we might be led to believe that none of us should have sex, get married, and have children, for those who are virgin will be blessed higher in heaven than those who have experienced carnal knowledge. When it became obvious that the Christ was not returning withing Paul's lifetime, he had to reverse himself about marriage. Otherwise, the new church was going to be very short-lived.

[Wallis]

There is no "black and white" in the GOSPEL.

In the LAW, there is definitely a "black and white." You are either perfect or a sinner. There is no in-between. Since the LAW shows that we are all sinners, we all fall on the "black" side of the LAW.

But in the GOSPEL, it is not just a matter of Loving Christ and emulating Christ versus loving oneself and emulating all things associated with sin and human nature.

The GOSPEL, which demands unconditional love for both God and our fellow man, we are going to err. We cannot help but err. This does not mean that we are not trying to follow the GOSPEL.

We have to love unconditionally the murderer, the rapist, the dregs of society. We have to unconditionally love them even as we perform capital punishment under society's law. We have to unconditionally forgive them even as we incarcerate such sociopaths. We have to unconditionally love our enemies, even as we must kill them before they kill us in battle.

In the GOSPEL, there are no distinctions made between people who are righteous and who are not. Only God knows what is in a person's heart, and we must leave the final judgment up to God while we unconditionally love all people.

I unconditionally love all of you, even though I have been painted with many brushes, most of which are false.

Sorry, folks, but I also unconditionally forgive all of you who would think ill of me. For you see, that is what the GOSPEL really is. The "Old Adam" in me would want to lash out, rip and tear, burn and trash. The "New Adam" that I try to live up to merely shrugs his shoulders and says: "Believe what you will."

So, I'm out of here. I will not lead others to anger and ill feelings.

[Parthian King]

I am relieved that after hearing that I am too irresponsible to do research, don't connect my brain before I write, and fall asleep while reading other posts (indeed, I am hardly able to read at all), that no ill-will is intended. Apparently the reader-response method that Wallis uses is expected of everyone else when his words are read, with a predetermined outcome of entirely positive vibes prescribed no matter what he says. If we read otherwise, the problem lies with us. I will leave it up to the others who are reading this post to read his most recent (first) reply to determine whether any tone of condescension is present.

A few closing comments:

I am not sure what "accusation" of mine you are referring to; perhaps you were thinking of Prince of the West's response to you. The closest I come to such a statement is to point out that one cannot use credentials to browbeat one's (supposedly) less well-endowed listeners--a tactic that can be used with or without a response. And the point of my bringing the matter up had nothing to do with context, but the fact that you did it at all in an anonymous forum where people go by whimsical names so as to create some sense of parity.

The issue of allegorizing the allegory was ignored, and the error repeated.

For the sake of some who might read this, I might note that a review of what I stated earlier about the historical critical method would be wisely applied to Wallis' final statement. What he says is (generally) true: We need to do research and place ourselves as much as possible within the "setting in life" (German Sitz im Leben) of Paul and other biblical writers to better understand them. Yet there are two implicit errors here in his statement, and they should be pointed out: 1) The idea that everyone needs a Ph.D. in biblical criticism to understand the Bible is simply not true. You will miss some things, but the Scriptures will still make you "wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15). 2) Regarding the example Wallis used, the issue of "progressive development" within Paul's theology in general, and in relation to his eschatology in particular, is hotly debated, and not just a few Pauline scholars (even those who lean heavily on the very method and means Wallis constantly chides us all that we use before cracking the Book) roundly reject on purely exegetical grounds his conclusion that Paul "reversed himself." In other words, a careful reading of the text in its original tongue brought them to the conclusion that such a position is untenable. To be sure, others take the position that Wallis does, but it is hardly the only position to be had; very learned men and women in the Academy on both sides of the Atlantic firmly oppose it, and sustain what they say with cogent argument. The point of this observation (responding to concrete example with concrete example) is to illustrate that this method should not be used as if the conclusion drawn by its user is forgone (indeed, it cannot be so used in the scholarly community unless one desires to end up as academic swiss cheese).

There are other issues that could be addressed. Many have been raised that only tangentially have anything to do with Tash, the original theme of this thread. I, personally, have felt it necessary at some points to address these tangents (and it seems others have, too) because they have a direct bearing on how we come to our conclusions about the devil. I will leave those other issues alone, but I will reiterate (and this certanly has been of value): C.S. Lewis, a brilliant scholar and one-time materialist (i.e., not that he was greedy for material things, but he philosophically held that all reality was fundamentally material and not spiritual) and atheist, came to the conclusion that the devil and his minions were real, independent entities. This belief was merely a corollary of his faith in Christ, that is, it was hardly his central focus (see his warning in Screwtape about taking excessive interest in devils) but it was significant insofar as he perceived it in Scripture. It appears that while his representation of the devil takes a personal and almost idiosyncratic form in Screwtape, Lewis addresses broader, ultimate questions with the figure of Tash, issues having to do with the finality of every person and indeed of the creation itself.

[Saruman]

There is no "black and white" in the GOSPEL.

There is absolutely and unequivocally black and white with the Gospels. I realize you have stated the difference between the Law and the Gospels, and that, with the Law, a man is either a sinner or he is "perfect." Clearly we know that no man is perfect or can ever hope to achieve perfection at any degree. I will continue on this particular subject in a moment. As for the "black and white" in the Gospels, one particular statement that Jesus made comes directly into my mind, and that is, You are either for Me or against Me. Such statements as this are key to defining a structuring of black and white in the Gospels, as well as within the entire context of the New Testament. With God there is no grey area, but certainty on every level, and with making decisions one cannot stand on a middle ground.

In the LAW, there is definitely a "black and white." You are either perfect or a sinner. There is no in-between. Since the LAW shows that we are all sinners, we all fall on the "black" side of the LAW.

But in the GOSPEL, it is not just a matter of Loving Christ and emulating Christ versus loving oneself and emulating all things associated with sin and human nature.

The GOSPEL, which demands unconditional love for both God and our fellow man, we are going to err. We cannot help but err. This does not mean that we are not trying to follow the GOSPEL.

Correct. We will err, being fallible men, but we at the very least ought to strive for excellence, seeking to be in the center of God's will, doing our Father's business as we ought. Furthermore, we pray to Him and lay ourselves out upon Him (much in the way Peter wrote - casting our cares upon Him, for He cares for us; literally, roll your way out upon Him, I Pet 5:7). Yes, the Law was black and white, but, just as Paul said in writing to the church in Galatia, Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. The law served its purpose: to be a schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ. Christ is the Bridge, filling the gap between God and man through His immaculate fulfilment of the Law. To say that the Gospels and (perhaps if this is what you imply) the New Testament are not black and white is to err without appropriately observing the contents of the New Testament and the statements of the God of Heaven and Earth, Jesus Christ. (E.g.) Let your yes be yes and your no be no (Jas 5:12).

In the GOSPEL, there are no distinctions made between people who are righteous and who are not. Only God knows what is in a person's heart, and we must leave the final judgment up to God while we unconditionally love all people.

While it is true God knows what is in a person's heart, the fruits that emanate from a person are quite obvious to the eye of the beholder. And the Gospels are a plenary example of defining those who are righteous and those who are not. Did not Jesus say to His disciples that unless their righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, that they would not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Mt 5:20)? Clearly we understand (as I have already mentioned) that none is perfect, and none can ever achieve perfection. But here Christ defines those who are righteous and those are not. And He is the Bridge, the One who makes us righteous in the sight of the Father. It is by, in, through, and upon Him alone, in every aspect.

I unconditionally love all of you, even though I have been painted with many brushes, most of which are false.

Sorry, folks, but I also unconditionally forgive all of you who would think ill of me. For you see, that is what the GOSPEL really is. The "Old Adam" in me would want to lash out, rip and tear, burn and trash. The "New Adam" that I try to live up to merely shrugs his shoulders and says: "Believe what you will."

I am grateful for your unconditional love. Such is an example of black and white in the Gospel, my friend. And in mentioning "psychobabble" in a previous post, it was not my intent to place a personal affront on you, but merely to state my opinion that, in your attempts at dismissing my argument concerning the differences between those who suffer from mental ailments and those who are truly possessed, you fall in the line of worldly psychologists and theorists. I state again that I did not intend to derail you personally.

As far as an "Old" and "New" Adam, I think none of us falls into that category. We are new creations in Christ, who is described as the "New Adam" - the God-Man who, acting as a Man, did not commit any sin or err as such, and thus fulfilled the Law. He is our Absolute Guarantee. There are no other alternatives to Christ.

Yes, others have clearly pointed out that this thread is entirely about Tash as an allegory, a subject, a discussion. My apologies for deviating so from the topic, but there were some issues raised that I was desirous to address. And now that I have addressed them, I bow out graciously from this thread. Blessings to you all.

[Parthian King]

Well said in many ways, Curumo. And there's no need to apologize for replying to matters you did not raise, but your faith constrains you to address. Lewis would be proud.

[inkspot]

Nobody has to apologize for tangents in these threads, that's what makes the discussion fun. If we all just stated what we thought about Tash, then the Thread would end when each of us had a go, and that would be that. I enjoy hearing what everyone thinks on the different subjects, with Lewis' writing as a starting point. I enjoy hearing what Wallis says, even if I don't really agree with all of it.

What I don't like is anybody being mean to somebody else for what they believe, or implying that they don't have the brain power to understand what's been presented. I think most everyone who posted on here has a lot of brain cells directed toward the discussion, so to say, "Oh well you can't understand my point cuz you can't read and won't think" is condescending, no matter what good humor was intended.

Now:

• I think we cannot convince Wallis that his God/circle analogy is not believeable to us based on Scripture, because he doesn't regard Scripture with the authority that we see in it. But Wallis, if you cannot take Scripture as your basis for the God/circle analogy, what is your basis? Where did you get this idea, which is not in Scripture. Scripture says God is the source, and that He is always present, but it does not say that He is everything -- it says He created everything.

• As for the Gospel having no black and white, surely there is a point where someone is following Christ or not following Christ, a pretty clear dividing line? I agree that we cannot judge another's state of heart, but God can: and for Him I think there is a clear distinction between who is seeking after Him and who is living for Tash ...

[Gibby]

• I think we cannot convince Wallis that his God/circle analogy is not believeable to us based on Scripture, because he doesn't regard Scripture with the authority that we see in it.



I was going to stay out of this thread but I can't help it. Inkspot, you may be right, but I have been quoting scripture "until the cows come home" and I am leaving it up to God now because He said:

Isaiah 55:10-11
10 As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Amen! God's Holy Word is a solid foundation, not a filter to the views of the world!

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Hast hit it, friend wiggle! :D

[Parthian King]

Ditto! Would that we would all quote (as well as read, preach, meditate upon, etc.) Scripture not only until the cows come home, but until Jesus comes and we enter eternity crying "farther up and further in!" What else is there?

[inkspot]

Ditto! Would that we would all quote (as well as read, preach, meditate upon, etc.) Scripture not only until the cows come home, but until Jesus comes and we enter eternity crying "farther up and further in!" What else is there?
That's what I think, too, but I was wondering where Wallis was getting his idea of that whole God/circle thing ... C'mon Wallis, don't go away mad ... :)

[Parthian King]

Our God is a consuming fire, or as Lewis would say, Aslan is not a tame lion. That means God is awesome, terrible, wonderful, precious, merciful, holy, wrathful, powerful, and gentle, (and a bunch of other things) all at the same time. His word is not to be toyed with, and by its own description it cuts and divides by sifting motives and attitudes. It is not simply a point of departure for what we would say. We should handle it with fear and trembling for the Author that begot us, for how we handle it speaks volumes about where we are. Aslan sees through us. Who can stand before Him in the day of His coming? And what good are our ideas anyway? The issue never really is "what we think." The issue is a striving to responsibly submit to His word. His words about the enemy of our souls are critical for our well-being, so naturally that enemy wants to muddle the issue. It would be more surprising if there were no controversy at all. Remember Shift and all the confusion he brought to the issue...

[unleavened]

That's what I think, too, but I was wondering where Wallis was getting his idea of that whole God/circle thing ... C'mon Wallis, don't go away mad ... :)
This sounds rather interesting. I'd definately want to know more about it so I can understand people better. I've considered similar theories, but I have always come back to what I believe now.

[inkspot]

His word is not to be toyed with, and by its own description it cuts and divides by sifting motives and attitudes. It is not simply a point of departure for what we would say. We should handle it with fear and trembling for the Author that begot us, for how we handle it speaks volumes about where we are.
This is also how I feel, that everything we need for godly living can be found in the Word, and that the answers to all life's questions are there ... but if you are a believer who sees the Bible merely as a guideline, with lots that is simply untrue, then quoting a Scripture at you that says the Word will never pass away or something means nothing to you, because you don't think the Bible is that big a deal. I am trying to understand how a person like that has any foundation for his Christianity at all? But I guess Wallis has gone away and won't explain it ... :(

[Nenya]

Question: Did Wallis say he is a Christian? I actually fear his views...

[Parthian King]

Although he does not say so, he certainly seems to indicate that he is a Christ follower, though his beliefs don't seem to follow Christian orthodoxy on a number of points. I say this as pure observation piecing together what has been said in this forum. Unless some qualifying explanation came forward, I would fear holding his views myself. The stakes are too high...

[inkspot]

He definitely is a Christ follower. He is just one of those who doesn't take the Bible as the literal truth in all circumstances. But as far as salvation through Christ, I am certain this is what he believes in.

[Vanceone]

This discussion has been quite fascinating; and I'm sorry I was unable to come back to it until now. I see Wallis has not returned, nor do I expect him to. I'm glad to read such good answers to him as well. I would dispute them differently than everyone here did, but that's to be expected.

To get back somewhat on the topic of this thread; and also to stay in line somewhat with the discussion we've had--Wallis argued that we all have a bit of Tash in us. He denied the existence of a devil outside of that. I disagree--I believe there is a real devil, plus legions of his angels.

However, I do agree that the devil, or Tash as Lewis puts it, can tempt us, and lurks within each of us. Do others think the same--that we all have our tendancies to follow Tash, as it were? And if so... how can we over come those tendancies? For, I think that we must--we must strive for as much perfection and cleansing in this life as we can, and where we fail, Christ will pick up the slack. But we cannot expect Him to do everything--we must do our part.

[Nenya]

Is everything in the Chronicles, as in all 7 books, theologically correct? Are we supposed to see them all as having a Biblical interepretation?

I am asking this because, if the first book LWW was about the liberation of Narnia like our own salvation (when we accepted Christ), is Tash is to be interepreted as the things that tempt us when we are already saved ...the day to day things that find us struggling as we continue the walk, what Paul talked about in Romans 7, and what John wrote as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life?

Please fogive me if this is confusing. I thought the stories had a bit of Christian symbolism in them, but I just want to know if Lewis intended all of it as a theological presentation.

[inkspot]

But we cannot expect Him to do everything--we must do our part
I think we must let Him do everything -- when we try to do our part is when we mess up. In Galatians 3:2-10, Paul says:

Let me put this question to you: How did your new life begin? Was it by working your heads off to please God? Or was it by responding to God's Message to you? Are you going to continue this craziness? For only crazy people would think they could complete by their own efforts what was begun by God. If you weren't smart enough or strong enough to begin it, how do you suppose you could perfect it? Did you go through this whole painful learning process for nothing? It is not yet a total loss, but it certainly will be if you keep this up!

Answer this question: Does the God who lavishly provides you with his own presence, his Holy Spirit, working things in your lives you could never do for yourselves, does he do these things because of your strenuous moral striving or because you trust him to do them in you? Don't these things happen among you just as they happened with Abraham? He believed God, and that act of belief was turned into a life that was right with God.

Is it not obvious to you that persons who put their trust in Christ (not persons who put their trust in the law!) are like Abraham: children of faith? It was all laid out beforehand in Scripture that God would set things right with non-Jews by faith. Scripture anticipated this in the promise to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed in you."

So those now who live by faith are blessed along with Abraham, who lived by faith--this is no new doctrine! And that means that anyone who tries to live by his own effort, independent of God, is doomed to failure.
(The Message Bible)

Our human striving is doomed to failure -- only Christ's Spirit in us can bring us to perfection.

I thought the stories had a bit of Christian symbolism in them, but I just want to know if Lewis intended all of it as a theological presentation.
I think your first assumption is right, these are stories with Scriptural themes, not to be taken as a theology lesson for children. I don't think CSL ever intended them as such.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

I'd agree with that given your starting premises, Inkspot, but be aware that you're touching on the border of something that is literally a Mystery (to use the precise theological term): the resolution of Free Will and God's Sovereignty. It's true to say that only God working through us can do true Good - but we have to cooperate, do we not? Otherwise, why the repeated encouragements by the Apostles for us to strive to do good? It is a mystical intertwining, as expressed in Ephesians:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God -- not because of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
2:8-10

We were created to do good works, which God prepared beforehand - but even then it is Him working through us - yet the very desire is a gift from God - yet even our feeble efforts are pleasing to Him - yet never enough to earn justification...

It all gets very intricate.

[Parthian King]

I agree. Lewis weaves Scriptural truths into his works, but to push things to far is, well, to push things too far.

On that note, and watching the paramenters well, I would like to answer a comment made by Vanceone, and about which he asked for reply:

However, I do agree that the devil, or Tash as Lewis puts it, can tempt us, and lurks within each of us.

First, continuing this thread along the lines it held before, I would strongly agree that Tash is the Devil according to Lewis' allegory, or the closest he wishes to get to it. There is no doubt that Lewis believes in the Devil as an independent, intelligent and willful being, once good, but fallen and rebellious. Perhaps his best description of him is not (as most would think) in the Screwtape Letters, but rather in the possessed Weston of Perelandra.

That said, I cannot subscribe to the idea that we all have this being "lurking within us" (to quote you precisely, Vanceone, not to make light of your words). I truly understand this perspective, given human behavior. But it is on this point that I may be inclined to agree with Wallis, if such was his intention: Some (not to say you) may take this to adopt a "Devil made me do it" attitude, and thus exculpate themselves from responsibility for their actions. We are not granted that luxury. We are fallen, willful creatures, and fully capable of sin on our own. That the Devil constantly works to facilitate this activity by drawing us into more sin (as you note correctly) does not negate this simple truth. It is our sinful nature (or "flesh," as Paul and others put it) that "lurks within" (see Romans 6 and Galatians 5 especially for this). The other problem with adopting this view of the Devil is that some may feel that their situation is hopeless. If I have the Devil within me, even as a Christian, what hope have I versus sin? Again, Romans 6 addresses this reality as well: Christ's crucifixion put to death the sinful nature in us, and though it is a lifelong struggle to mortify the flesh, the work is done and the reality will be fully consummated at the Second Coming.

Of course, the real kicker is that nowhere in the Scriptures is there anything that indicates the Devil himself lives within any human being continually. Yes, Satan "entered into" Judas the night of Jesus' betrayal, and there are multiple instances of demonization in the Scriptures. But the term "possession" is not even Scriptural (oddly, the terminology is usually reversed: The person "has" the spirit, not the other way around), though we often use it (as I did in referring to Weston). Judas' remorse was certainly not inspired by the Enemy, who had used him for his purposes, and moved on. We have to conclude that the Devil is not an equal and opposite of the Holy Spirit: he cannot be in all places at once, he is limited. That which we see in ourselves and others is the sinful nature. Of course, when it comes to our actions, one may very well argue that we might as well have the Devil with us, given how we act sometimes, but the distinction is important for the reasons I have named.

[Vanceone]

Thanks for the comments. First off, let me say I agree with Parthian King here: You should not say "the devil made me do it." No, God has granted us free will. We are enticed by both sides, as it were--both Satan and God influence us--but neither will force us. God will not let Satan tempt us beyond what we can withstand. Neither will God force us to heaven.

Sure, I believe that Satan can possess us--if we let him in. Sometimes he wants to come in, and we have to be vigilant, but we can always resist him. It's our choice. And I believe we can evict Satan as well. We may have to do it repeatedly, but we can always do it. Ultimately, however, we must rely on Christ to completely master Satan and our own flesh. For it is only through Christ that we can serve him completly. Thus, we do have Satan within us... but Christ is also influencing us, too. WE must decide whose influence is greater--and that is each humans own choice.

I also agree that our own fallen natures cause us to sin, as well--no one can blame the devil for everything. Indeed, no one can blame the devil at all--for while he may persuade, it is us who decides to follow.

Now, to the other discussion--faith versus works. That is a historically charged discussion within Christianity. I think that the answer is that both are required for salvation. You cannot get to heaven by doing works alone--no matter how many times I'm baptized, it means nothing if I have no faith. I'm just getting wet. You must believe. On the other side, as James says--faith without works is dead, being alone. The devil believes and trembles, too.

You must have faith--and works. Fortunately, if you really have faith, I think the works come. If you are converted to Christ, being charitible is more natural. You are meeker, humbler, etc. Faith and works go hand in hand, and you must have both. They reinforce one another, and strengthen each other. I would say that you cannot have faith without works--because otherwise it's just an opinion. Works show your faith.

I do hope that I'm not crossing some line here, but I just wanted to set forth my beliefs. :)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

The best analogy I've heard here is the smoke-and-fire one. If we consider faith to be the fire, and good works to be the smoke - well, as St. Paul makes clear, you can pump all the smoke into a room you'd like, but nothing is going to get "cooked". Our good works cannot save us. Yet, as St. James points out, fires always produce smoke. If there's no smoke, there's no fire. We may have something, perhaps even the same knowledge the demons do, but if there's no "smoke" of good work, there's no "fire" of faith.

[inkspot]

Fortunately, if you really have faith, I think the works come. If you are converted to Christ, being charitible is more natural. You are meeker, humbler, etc. Faith and works go hand in hand

If we consider faith to be the fire, and good works to be the smoke - well, as St. Paul makes clear, you can pump all the smoke into a room you'd like, but nothing is going to get "cooked". Our good works cannot save us. Yet, as St. James points out, fires always produce smoke.

These are both valid points and exactly what I believe. When Christ enters you as Savior, then you will begin to flow with His Spirit, and good works are the natural by-product. I especially like the smoke/fire analogy because the fire doesn't have to strive to smoke -- no one says to it, "C'mon, get ahold of yourself and start smoking, if you're a real fire, let's see some smoke!" That would be silly. The fire will smoke because it is a fire. Likewise its crazy (Galatians 3) for us to condemn ourselves or others for a lack of works -- because now there is no condemnation, Romans 8:1 -- and because the good works flow out of us as Christ enables us, not from our own human effort.

Don't put yourself on a trip about what a poor Christian you are, or how you're not a Christian, if you haven't done a bunch of good works today. God is bulding up that fire in you little bit by little bit, and as you follow him, it will blaze hotter and hotter. In the meantime, relax. It's all HIS doing. They that wait upon the Lord will renew their strength, Isaiah 40:31.

[Parthian King]

The Prince and Inkspot have addressed the issue of faith v. works, and I'll leave that alone.

As for the issue of Satan "within" us, I feel that in describing the dynamics of temptation and responsibility, we are on the same page. Perhaps the use of prepositions is an issue of semantics, but I have been burned too many times departing from precise biblical language on these matters. I think to say "Satan is within us"--even to some extent--is a very strong statement. Satan is not the same as "sin" (in fact, sin is stronger, since it binds even him). That's what I was attempting to get at: I cannot find a biblical basis for accepting that Satan (even a "little bit" of him, whatever that might mean) is "within us." That we still have within us a root of the sinful nature that will take a lifetime to work out, and that this nature within us has a penchant for yielding to the designs of the Enemy, well, yes, that I buy. But to say that this particular being, a fallen angel that actually exists in a particular place (since he is not omnipresent like the Holy Spirit), or even one or several of his lesser minions live within us--that I cannot accept because I don't see it sustained by Scripture.

On the other hand, I agree that the door can be opened that some of these named lesser minions may "live" within and thereby oppress humans. I have dealt with some who have "had" such a spirit (and sometimes "spirits"), and seen them set free by the love and power of Christ. Almost without exception, some event and/or pattern of behavior is what allowed the Enemy to come in. But those cases are special ones, and mentioned in Scripture, and not common to all people.

[inkspot]

There is an interesting book called "I Give You Authority" by Charles Kraft on this subject. He is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, but has a background in sociology, and he lived and worked in South America where he became convinced (he was already a believer but did not "believe" in demons) that demons can oppress humans, and that even Christians attract demonic attack. (Not physical attack like a scary movie, but spiritual attacks that can derail your plans and attempt to spoil your walk with God, relationships with others, etc.)

It is not wacky at all when you read the book, because he has a real solid (I think) scriptural foundation for what he says. And he doesn't say that demons possess anyone, but rather that demons only get their way on earth when humans cooperate with them. It is very interesting. And, helpful, I thought.

[Parthian King]

Kraft is excellent, of course.

I have seen some things in South America myself that have given me pause, to say the least. When praying for a young woman who had been abused as a child, and then taken to a witch to "cure" her of her problems, I saw some noteworthy things. A man there who did not happen to speak Spanish was rebuking the Enemy in English. The woman--a Venezeulan who had lived in Colombia, and had never spoken anything but Spanish--turned to him and parroted his words back to him--with a masculine voice in accent free English. I saw this myself. She was set free, by the way, and is faithfully serving the Lord even now.

The devil is real. He is not omnipresent. He stands no chance against the Name above all names.

[Inklet]

I'm a Catholic, and so I don't know the Bible as well as I should.

But yet, I remember where people are being sorted and someone comes up thinking he is saved and Jesus says "I never knew you."

Protestants, help me out with a verse here!

Couldn't the same thing happen in reverse? Someone comes up ready to be cast aside, and Jesus recognizes him?

I hope so.

[Nenya]

<But yet, I remember where people are being sorted and someone comes up thinking he is saved and Jesus says "I never knew you.">

I think this is the verse you were looking for:

Matthew: 7
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

[Inklet]

Faster than I thought!

I knew you'd come through!

And in the same chapter, Jesus says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Who knows if the good people of Tash are saved or not?

Christians know how to be saved. What we don't know is whether others are damned.

[Gibby]

Faster than I thought!

I knew you'd come through!

And in the same chapter, Jesus says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged." Who knows if the good people of Tash are saved or not?

Christians know how to be saved. What we don't know is whether others are damned.

We do have somewhat of an idea who is saved, however.

Matthew 7:16-17

16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

(this was a reference to false teachers, but I think it goes both ways)

Isaiah 58:8-9

8 Then your light will break forth like the dawn,
and your healing will quickly appear;
then your righteousness [a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah%2058:8-9;&version=31;#fen-NIV-18795a)] will go before you,
and the glory of the LORD will be your rear guard

Exodus 34:29

29 When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets of the Testimony in his hands, he was not aware that his face was radiant because he had spoken with the LORD

God's Word is clear that we, as true believers, are going to stick out like a sore thumb. Awesome!

[Parthian King]

Well spoken, Gibby.

There are also sticky verses such as Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be savedâ€� (spoken by Peter), and John 14:6, " Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.'"

On top of that, speaking with utmost respect for your clearly sincere heart, Inklet, there isn't anyone that's good. Take a quick gander at Romans 3, and you'll see that we are all rotten to the core, and that's why we need Christ Jesus.

This is hard, but as hard as it is for us, it is harder for the Lord. When it comes to these matters, sometimes we act as if the Lord hasn't thought of them, or doesn't have a plan, or doesn't care. Jesus came and died to save sinners, and nobody loves all people more than He. He spoke His word. He is perfect mercy. He is perfect justice. We should not mess with His word simply because we don't see the end from the beginning like He does. It says what it says, and we'd better stand by it. Our task here is to know God and make Him known: The rest is drivel.

[Gibby]

Well spoken, Gibby.

There are also sticky verses such as Acts 4:12 “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be savedâ€� (spoken by Peter), and John 14:6, " Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.'"

On top of that, speaking with utmost respect for your clearly sincere heart, Inklet, there isn't anyone that's good. Take a quick gander at Romans 3, and you'll see that we are all rotten to the core, and that's why we need Christ Jesus.



Yes, good points Parthian King. To say that there is another way to heaven would be suggesting that Jesus died on the cross for nothing.

[Parthian King]

Indeed. If there is another way, then why the cross?

Forgive me for putting it this way, but I sort of imagine Monty Python's Knights of the Round Table from his Holy Grail standing around saying, "Oh, well, if you want to do it that way, sure. That's one way to do it."

The colossal and horribly ugly sacrifice of the cross is deliberately so, first because it had to be, and also because by corollary it conveys this very message: If humankind could do it, God wouldn't be sacrificing His Son like this. To put it in Lewis' terms, it takes someone blameless. There is no countering the Deep Magic. Creation itself would be overturned. Yet people act like this supreme sacrifice the Father made is just an option.

The issue is those who have not heard, and I think Lewis is trying to answer that question in good faith by writing of the young Calormene soldier who served Tash, but was really serving Aslan. I am not sure he succeeds, because I am not sure anyone can succeed at this question. I have the deepest respect for Lewis, and I know this might seem blasphemous here in this forum. In truth, I don't feel that far from him. The point is, God is just and merciful, and will judge people according to the knowledge of God they had. Yet this does not take away the simple fact that we are all sinners, know it, and stand responsible for that sin before Him (see Romans 1). Nor does it change the fact that all salvation comes through the cross. Period. Now, how that salvation is dispensed (i.e., in some context and encounter that hardly fits the evangelical altar call model), well, that's another matter. The point is, all salvation must come through Jesus Christ by name. In the end the young soldier had to accept Aslan by name, face to face.

[unleavened]

Well, did he? I just want to hear your answer. (Not to riddicule you, I promise.)

[Parthian King]

Well, yes, he did. His extended retelling of his encounter with Aslan was in fact a testimony of his acceptance of Aslan. He did not contradict Aslan when the Lion told him, "You've been serving Me the whole time," responding with something like, "Wait just a minute here. I was really serving Tash, and I want nothing to do with You." Whether it is semantical or substantial, the issue is the same: Before entering into eternal bliss with the Divine, he came to a recognition of Who that Divine really was, and that what he had thought was divine was really a lie.

The question is how that works for those who have not heard. I find solace in the justice and mercy of God, even as I assume nothing and work as hard as I can to tell as many as I can.

[Dernhelm]

I think Paul addresses that...somewhere...(Your not the only one who doesn't know where things are, Inklet!) He says something like this; "How can they be justified who have not heard, and how can they hear if they are not taught..." If someone knows where that is, that would be great; but anyway, that seems to me to indicate that one cannot be saved (justified) if one has not heard the Gospel.

I may find the verse later...if I do, I'll post it!

[Parthian King]

That's Romans 10:14-15. The tension is caused by Romans 2:11-16, though as I have noted before, even that text seems to point to universality of lostness and culpability rather than human goodness.

[Basilides]

If a person could go to heaven by being good, even if they had never heard of Jesus, then the cross was a monumental mistake. Furthermore, all of Paul's arguments regarding justification would have to be disregarded.

If, as I have heard some say, people only come under God's wrath once they have heard of Jesus and reject Him, but can go to heaven if they have never heard of Him, then missionaries and evangelists have been responsible for sending more people to Hell than Satan himself! If that way of looking at the human condition were true, then the Great Commision is an eternal death sentence for many who would otherwise have been just fine.

I think the above ways of looking at things result from a misunderstanding of the lostness of the human race. We are universally lost. The human race has joined the Rebellion since the Fall, and regardless of the degree of our individual lostness, we are all headed toward dismal defeat along with the rest of the Rebellion (Satan and his angels). It matters not whether each of us of our own volition chose to be a part of the rebellion...we are part of it by virtue of the "country" we live in..."Adamia", if you will.

But it gets worse than that. Each of us has also personally joined the rebellion the first time we did something we knew was wrong. Even telling a white lie or acting selfishly for one moment is enough to show our true colors. The situation is not, unfortunately, one of God weighing our good deeds and bad. That's another religion...not the Christianity of the books of Romans and Galatians and so on. Christianity asserts that spoiled goods can not enter heaven...and even the tiniest bit of leaven leavens the whole loaf. Absolute perfection is required. Since none of us is absolutely morally perfect, the gates of heaven are shut completely. It really is a horrific set of circumstances for humanity.

But then God comes along and actually paratroops in behind enemy lines --and puts on human flesh and has human blood coursing through His veins. We are used to the idea since we have heard about it since Sunday school. But it really is earth-shatteringly shocking. Maybe not so shocking if you believe in Krishna or Osiris or Odin, but unthinkable if you follow the true, infinite-personal God the Jews kept describing. It is so totally improper, from a "numinous awe" standpoint! But to think God would go to such lengths to rescue - not hostages - but soldiers participating in enemy activities! Amazing doesn't even begin to describe this. It is the coolest story imaginable, more so because it actually happened!

It gets better. The Ultimate Counterattack is a mission in which God - in human flesh mind you, and after living that perfect moral life no one else can - lays down His own life and opens a grace account. Any who are converted may draw upon that account to cover their debt. Or to go back to the military analogy, we now have authority of the King to desert the Rebellion and seek asylum in the Kingdom of Heaven. The rebellion is seriously undermined, and we who were enemies are now ambassadors of the true King.

Under the circumstances as described, any other way to heaven (except by the authority of God who died and rose again for us) would be tantamount to a victory for the Rebellion. It simply cannot be. If the cross is the only means by which people are saved, Christianity is true. If there is any other way to heaven, Christianity (at least the kind described in Scripture) must be false.

[Parthian King]

Ah Basilides, would that thou would publish. With a pen such as that, perhaps thou hast...

I could not have said it better; your words detail concisely what the issues are. Yet at the risk of gilding the lily, let me simply concur strongly on a couple of points:

What you say about (fallen) human nature and our relationship to God is spot on. People assume we are at all good without Christ. We are not, not even a little bit in terms of God's holiness--Romans 3 addresses this. Conversely, there is an assumption of innocence in ignorance. There is none (see Romans 1). What I said about God judging people according the the knowledge they have is true, yet Romans 1-2 makes clear everyone knows enough from Creation itself (externally) and the moral thermometer we call a conscience (internally) that God exists and is to be feared (whatever they might say), that all are "without excuse" before Him. Hence judgment becomes a matter of degree. The starting point is not a blank slate that is soiled if we reject Christ; it was already soiled, clean only until we dirtied it by deliberate sin. That is enough to send us down, and the message of Christ that comes to us is undeserved mercy. We are evil by our own choices with or without Him.

As for the missionary comment, I suggest Robertson McQuilkin, The Great Omission. He drives this whole thing home very economically (a thin book).

This brings us back to Tash and the young soldier who served him. As I said, I believe Lewis tried to deal with the issue of God's even handedness when it comes to judgment (something which also must be an a priori assumption is this discussion). Since it is obvious that there is inequaility within this age when it comes to the knowledge of Christ (i.e., many die without even having heard, while others get chance after chance, and finally submit, such as your truly), Lewis, I believe, is trying to level the playing field another way. As I said before, I am not sure he succeeds. The words Christ has given to us, especially in the New Testament, need to be taken at face value, and we need to wrestle with them and allow them to make us uncomfortable (a "comfortable gospel=tame Aslan" is one of our biggest problems), especially regarding the missionary task. These things are granted to us; they are our realm. We are to try and reach as many as we can, as if their lives depended on it--because they do.

As for the rest, i.e., trying to work out what happens to those unreached, we cannot assume anything but lostness as per God's word. Those people belong to God, even in their perdition, and we are not to pass judgment either way. Lewis, I believe, attempts to go beyond this into a sort of mystical realm, the twilight between time and eternity, conjecturing on conversations he guesses could happen between Creator and creature. I will not rule against this out of hand, but it is a dangerous assumption to make, to build one's theology around this idea rather than obey the Great Commission. I do not think that even Lewis would suggest this.

In the end, we must say that Lewis' story is a children's book and though theological in nature, is not meant to be read as a systematic theology. Besides, it is allegory, and allegory inevitably breaks down at some point. Following the New Testament vis-a-vis The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, the reality would have been better painted as having all four children follow the White Witch, that Aslan would have died on the Stone Table not just for Edmund, but for Peter, Susan, and Lucy as well. What's more, to be really true to the Scriptures (and things as they play out in life), fully three of them, after hearing of His sacrifice, would still go with the Witch. But again, it is a beautiful story, and Lewis never meant it to serve as a substitute for Scripture but at most a pointer to it. We have to keep this in mind when discussing the young Calormen soldier and Tash.

[Roonwit]

What mightTash correspond to on our spiritual battlefield?
Since Jadis was the primordial evil presence in the Narnian world, what role does Tash play? Where might he have come from?
What does Aslan have to say about Tash?
What might the High King mean when he refers to Tash's "rightful prey"?
What summoned Tash to Narnia? Is there an equivalent in our world?
How do the Calormenes worship Tash? What kind of people does it make them?
What does it mean to say Tash is "inexorable"?
What might the coming of Tash to Narnia mean for Narnia?
[/list]Any thoughts? Or questions to add?

Under the Mercy!

I've always strongly believed that Tash was at least linked to Allah; even as a kid I saw the strong parallels between the Calormenes and the Turks/Muslims of the crusade era.

For this reason alone, I see an uncanny prophetic dimension to Lewis' portrayal of the Calormenes and their god Tash as the key instrument in Narnia's end... just looking at the rise of Islam in opposing Judaio-Christian ethics today, there is a familiar resonance.

There is also a powerful illustration of the slow demise wrought by compromise with lies by those meant to follow the truth, especially for fiscal gain. From memory, the story almost begins with the Calormenes being allowed to destroy Narnian trees for trade profit.

I think C.S. Lewis had a very good hold on the drift of time and how there must be a final pervasive, ungodly spirituality to cause The End. Antichrist... Tribulation... words we all know too well. Will we see Tash equated with Aslan in our world yet??? Most likely.

<b>in·ex·o·ra·ble Audio pronunciation of "inexorable" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-ksr--bl)
adj.

Not capable of being persuaded by entreaty; relentless: an inexorable opponent; a feeling of inexorable doom.</b>

Matthew.

[inkspot]

Welcome, Roonwit. I didn't see you post before.

Basilides, PK, well done.
UL, I like your new avi!

[Vanceone]

So, I'm back. Interesting discussion, once again. We've tangled over this one before, Parthian King; as I recall. :) Emerth, the soldier of Tash, and the question of what happens to those who never heard of Christ is a puzzling one. In this post (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52825&postcount=3), I made an argument that states what I think happens. In brief, I think that Lewis has it pretty much right on. Every human will at some point hear of Christ. Fortunately for us, we heard of him while we were alive. For the vast majority of people, it's after they are dead, as they had no chance in this life to hear of Christ. Regardless of when we hear of Christ--we must accept Him. If we don't, it won't matter. (Side note--I think the rebellion of Lucifer himself, as he fell from heaven, demonstrates that entities not on earth have free will, too; so I see no reason why our ability to choose vanishes after death).

If we do accept Christ, however, then we are judged according to what we knew. Each person knows, to a greater or lesser extent, what is right and what is wrong--we will be judged according to our works, as Revelations says. (Thus, this is not universal salvation, either). If we knew of Christ in this life--did we follow Him? If we, say, knew only of Osiris, because that's all we knew--did we still be a good person, and try to follow Osiris (to the extent such service is good, of course; worship services for say Molech would likely not be accepted)? Lewis has Aslan accept the good Emerth does in the name of Tash; I would say that Christ would accept good works done in the name of Osiris, if that's all the person knew in this life.

Does this mean, then, that as Parthian King put it, the Great Commission is worthless, since it won't matter? Not at all. There is a huge, huge benefit to knowing and following Christ in this life. Namely--it is so much easier to become Christlike here, than it is after this life. Consider--When we are Resurrected, we receive our bodies again, correct? If we receive the same bodies--will we not receive the same habits, cravings, and desires? We must overcome our desire for sin, and become master of our flesh eventually. That's hard to do, if you have no flesh. So, it's behooves every man who has been warned, to warn his neighbor. I also think this opportunity ends before you are resurrected--at that point, you are fixed. Done. You can't change your mind after that. :)

Of course, as I believe Inkspot pointed out in the other thread, if you do have a chance to accept Christ in this life, and don't; well, that's it. Choices do have their consequences, of course.

But this solution I've outlined is about the only way I know of that God could be both a merciful God to those who never had a chance, and yet be a just God, requiring all mankind to accept Christ before entering heaven. It also explains, I think, Lewis' ideas regarding Tash, Emerth, and Aslan. It would also explain Peter's comments about preaching to the spirits in prison (explicitly labeled as spirits from the flood, Parthian King. :) ); they were being taught about Christ. I hope most of them accepted.

[Parthian King]

Greetings and welcome back, Vanceone, and well met. Let me say in first response that I believe the themes covered in the present direction of this discussion are indeed the ones most germane to Lewis’ Tash narrative (that is, most theologically controversial and relevant), rather than any discussion about the existence of an intelligent and determined Enemy of our souls, which was really a tangent (albeit a significant one) that was developed earlier in this thread. Lewis assumes his existence and argues for a form of limited universalism, not the other way around.

Vanceone, you raise some interesting points that spring from sincere and legitimate concerns. In your favor, you reject unlimited Universalism, and you require Christ (and, I assume, by implication His sacrificial death on the Cross) for salvation. On these points we are on the same page.

Yet beyond these there are significant points of departure. Your theology of salvation (soteriology, to be concise) is based on several premises that find little or no basis in Scripture, as well meaning as you clearly are. If you can sustain them by something I have not found, and bring together an argument grounded in a sustained unpacking of the text(s), then I am willing to hear you. But at present I see serious problems with your position for the following reasons:

First, you base a great deal of what you say upon the idea that people can hear of and “accept� Christ after death even as they can during life. I believe, first of all, that biblical phraseology is more helpful here: You are indicating that someone can receive the proclamation of the gospel and be born again, or converted, outside of time if they failed to so within time, albeit with the condition that they had not heard the gospel during their earthly lifetimes. You sustain this position based upon 1) An appeal to the justice of God, 2) an interpretation of 1 Peter 3:19-20, and 3) the reference to our Enemy’s ability to exert freewill in the timeless realm and therefore, by corollary, to our own ability to do the same.

Let me deal with these in reverse order. It is true that if we are free now, we will be free in the eternal, timeless realm (freer, actually). I even believe that, in theory, we could revolt against God still, just as Lucifer did. Heaven would not be Heaven if it ever became a prison. Yet the Scriptures do not broadly indicate that, after death, this can be done in the “direction� you indicate, i.e., toward God after a lifetime of rebellion against him. It is also worthy to note that while we may hold freewill in common with the Enemy, and at some point in the future we will also dwell in the timeless realm, the similarities end there. (He is not and never was created in God’s image as we are, nor has he ever been physical or mortal, among other things.) The Scripture says “it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment� (Hebrews 9:27). Meaning, one life, one death, and judgment follows. The deafening silence about the afterlife containing “another chance� should give us great pause when attempting to circumvent the breathtaking economy of the words found in Hebrews 9:27. Everything about them indicates that this life is the chance we get, and we are judged after it is over concerning what we did with it (as you yourself note).

As for 1 Peter 3, this passage is seen by many scholars as perhaps the most difficult in the entire New Testament, even trumping many in Revelation itself. It is terribly ambiguous, though doubtless the first recipients understood Peter’s meaning better than we, at least right off the bat. At issue are the identities of the spirits (it never says they are human), and the nature of Christ’s proclamation (it doesn’t say what He preached). This can get rather complicated, and there are opinions across a broad spectrum here about the best way to interpret the verse. But it is worthy to note that at the same time the verse never identifies these as departed human souls, it also associates them with the time of Noah, when angelic spirits sinned by taking human wives (Genesis 6). Concern over these spirits and their actions, not the human souls annihilated by the Flood, was a major theme in Jewish literature at the time Peter wrote his letter. What is more, “spirits� as such are usually identified negatively in the New Testament when mentioned alone (i.e., not as a part of the human make up, as in, say, 1 Corinthian 12-14, or 1 Thessalonians 5); they are the forces of the Enemy. (For more on this understanding of 1 Peter 3:19-20, see Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, Hermeneia Series, Augsburg Press 1996, and J. Ramsay Michaels, 1 Peter, Word Biblical Commentary, 1988.)

What then did Christ proclaim to them? It seems in His sovereignty, God is interested in “showing� His Enemy where things stand in the celestial realm. In other words, that He is boss. The dialogue in the opening of Job features this attribute, with God "boasting" of Job's virtue. Ephesians 2 speaks similarly of God doing what He does to make His truth known to the “powers and authorities�—i.e., evil spirits (see Ephesians 6). So, Christ “proclaimed,� but it does not say He preached the gospel of salvation. What He declared was His sovereignty, and the eternal consequences of His work of the Cross, which while meaning salvation for repentant humans, also meant destruction for disobedient spirits.

Perhaps the more germane passage is that concerning the gospel being preached to “those now dead� (1 Peter 4:6). That clearly does refer to departed human beings, but the grammatical structure of the verse leads best to the interpretation that though the people to whom Peter refers are dead now, they were not when they heard the preaching he describes (I believe I mentioned this before).

Finally, you appeal to the justice of God, and rightly so. But in reality your line of reasoning appeals more to the concept of fairness on God’s part than it does to justice. And God is not fair, at least not by our standards. He does not, anywhere in His word, declare all are created equal, that all have the same gifts, that all will have the same opportunities, that there will be a level playing field in this fallen world. All have equal value before Him, and all are made in His image, but all are not granted the same crack at things. (If it were not so, why all the commands to care for the weak?) This is just flat not fair by modern, egalitarian standards, and we seek to make it work by those standards, even if we must go beyond what is written to do so. But God is not concerned with modern egalitarianism. He is not only just, He is Justice. All will get justice when all bow and confess His name, either to damnation or salvation. It is well to consider these things as we work this difficult issue out.

All will not hear of Christ, but all will be justly judged. Why? Because in Romans 1 Paul says knowledge gained through general revelation (i.e., that knowledge God gained by observing His glory through the created order) is enough to condemn; one does not need special revelation (i.e., knowing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God), though this latter knowledge carries greater benefits and consequences, respective of our response to it.

There is nothing within the Scriptures to justify what you are saying, either in the form of abstractly expressed theological maxim (Romans, Galatians, etc.) or by example in a narrative (Acts, or even Revelation). In other words, there is nothing mentioned either as a theological truth or by means of a story (like Lewis’), anywhere, that says anyone can count on the gospel being presented to themselves or anyone else after death. It simply is not there to be found. This is admittedly an argument from silence, but it is a strong one.

Without me having to tease anything out from what you say, Vanceone, you yourself tell us where this view leads: The fulfillment of the Great Commission on our parts has primarily an earthly effect, and only incidentally an eternal one. Since, if we don’t preach to others in this life they will eventually be told by Christ anyway after they die, the benefit of sharing the truth with them holds value only for the here and now. I would tender that compared to the vastness of eternity, that is nothing, and if I had my choice as to whether to hear the gospel from imperfect, sinful humans or from Jesus Himself, there really isn’t much of a choice to make. In light of eternity, your concept of it being somehow "easier� to become like Christ in this fallen world rather than in eternal bliss with Him is somewhat perplexing.

What this view embraces is the idea (remarkably like that found in Islam, though surely not your intent) that ultimately there are no consequences to human action other than those pertaining to the individual. In other words, only I suffer eternally if I fail God. As a corollary, it is highly reductionist in regard to the co-regency and co-laboring that were so central to Paul’s theology of mission. No, there are real consequences, both positive and negative, to our obedience of God’s Great Commission. It shakes us, especially in this modern age. But it is what the Scriptures say.

In spite my difficulites with your views here, I believe the most stunning departure from New Testament theology in your statement, though again very well meaning on your part, is the idea that anyone can “be a good person�—in service to any god. Here’s where Paul’s thought in Romans 3 comes in. There is no good person, no, not one. Take way the idea that anyone can be good, and the whole falls rather quickly.

I wish it were true. I really do. It would make things easier, to be sure. But as Anselm wrote to Boso, “we have not yet considered the gravity of sin.�

[Vanceone]

Greetings and well met, Parthian King! Thanks for the reply; I appreciate the well-thought out response. You bring several charges against my views, each of which I will try to answer.

Just to be clear--yes, all mankind must accept Christ and His gospel (which, of course, involves his sacrifice for sin and redemption from death). No one enters heaven without being a follower of Christ. That is the law; and God will enforce the law. To be saved in the Kingdom of Heaven, a person must follow Christ.

Now, you first raise the issue of whether those who are dead can still choose to follow Christ; or in other words is salvation for the dead possible? I believe the Bible does say it is. To this, (I use the KJV, btw) I would cite John 11: 25-26 ("I am the resurrection and the life; he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live"). This states that those who believe in Christ, even though they are dead, shall live. Then, Psalms 16: 9-11; where David states that God will not leave his soul in hell. If he's not in hell, then where will he go?

Now, I agree that this life is the time for men to prepare to meet God. Once we are dead, we cannot change our ledger of our lives; we will be judged exclusively on our works performed here in life, whether they be good or ill. And I do agree that we only get one chance to accept Christ, or receive the gospel. There is no "second chance" after death. However, those who never had a chance must receive one. For, as you point out, Christ is the only name given whereby men can be saved. Where is the justice of God condemning men who never had a chance? This is not a question of fairness. If I am to be condemned or rewarded based on my opinion of Christ, then justice requires that I be given a chance to hear of Christ, in order to accept or reject Him. To say otherwise implies that the greatest determinant for salvation is sheer chance--the place of our birth. Only a few humans have ever heard of Christ to accept or reject Him. How can God condemn men in justice, if they never rejected Christ? Conversely, how can God bless men for accepting Christ, if they never accepted him? Justice, I believe, requires the oppurtunity be given. And since most do not get that in this life, then it must happen after they are deceased.

Now, I agree that those who do not hear the gospel in this life cannot be admitted to heaven, without first accepting Christ. They are not in heaven, then, when they die. Where do they go? To prison, I believe the scriptures call it. We discuss 1 Peter 3: 18-19, and 4:6. But Isaiah mentions this as well. In a Messianic scripture, 61:1, preaching to the captives is mentioned. Also, Isaiah 24:21-22; and 42:6-7, where preaching to the captives is mentioned as a primary mission of Christ (The messiah). As Peter mentions, the spirits of Noah's time were in prison. But you equate them with rebellious angels, as they were the sons of God. Now, Adam was called the son of God, too, so I don't see your interpretation as strictly referring to angels; it could easily just mean the descendents of Adam. But I think it's more consistent to agree that those who die without Christ are in prison (Because they are limited and restricted, or are captives of the devil, without Christ).

Thus, one of Christ's missions is to preach liberty to the captives. Christ didn't free slaves in His earthly ministry. This is a spiritual prison, and Christ was the only one who could do it. I refer to Paul, now. 1st Corinthians, chapter 15, and several verses. First, verses 19-22; where Paul says that if in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. This must refer to having hope after this life. Now, if we do accept Christ in this life, and have hope in Him, are we not saved, as you put it? Thus, there is no need for hope after this life. That must therefore refer to those who have no hope in Christ in this life (due to not having a chance to hear the gospel). Then, there is verse 29, or baptism for the dead. I'm fairly certain that this verse is confusing, as well, but Paul implies that baptism is being performed on behalf of those whom are dead, and that it is effective. I would therefore say that if baptism can be performed effectively on behalf of those who are dead, then they have the oppurtunity to receive the gospel.

Now, to the justice of God. Under your interpretation, God is a respecter of persons--He offers salvation to those whom were born in the correct place. To those who were not, they have no hope. There is nothing they can do. I think I must reject this idea of God. While we are not equal in skill, talent, placements, abilities, etc., I think that the parable of the talents shows that God offeres each of us a chance to do what we can with what we have; not foreclose salvation completely just because I happen to have been born in Mongolia instead of Tennessee.

Now, to the Great Commission. You state that my view elimanantes the importance of the Great commission, as it reduces it to the Earthly sphere only. Well, I believe that the great commission continues after this life--those preaching to the spirit's in prison are those who knew the gospel here. Admittedly, that's not in the bible, but it makes sense. But does it therefore, matter if someone accepts the gospel in this life? What benefits are there to that? Great ones, I believe. Like I said--God commands us to be perfect. Now, when we die, to be at all recognizable as ourselves, we must take our habits, good and bad, with us. Take the case of a heroin addict. In life, he can overcome his addiction, though it is difficult. He can master his flesh. Can a spirit master something it does not have? I think addiction is more spiritual than physical in many cases. Those addictions need to be conquered--and it is far, far easier to conquer them here in life.

To close, you take issue with my statement that anyone can be a good person. Well, as you point out, compared to Christ or God, none of us are good, no, not one. Yet, through Christ we can become good, and have no more disposition to do sin. And God accepts those good things we do, since He is the source of all good. When we are judged on our works, we will be judged on whether we did good. If we have become a disciple of Christ, then Christ takes our punishment for the bad we all do.. and thus we are allowed to enter heaven. Without Christ, we must suffer for our own sins--and in so doing, forfeit heaven. With Christ, we can escape the punishments of the law, as Christ suffered those punishments for us.

[Parthian King]

Oh, Vanceone, you have me in a quandary! Your positions are resulting in a blow by blow review of the Scriptural basis for an entire theological paradigm, and is boiling down to a series of exegetical résumés of some of the stickier verses in the New Testament. I will answer these as briefly but completely as possible. Let us remember that we are discussing the issue of the young Calormene officer’s salvation by Aslan, after having served Tash his entire life.

First, your citation of John 11 and Psalm 16 (I could think of a few more as well) is fine, but it does not address the issue. Those passages promise eternal life, it is true (Psalm 16 first being a promise of Christ’s resurrection, see Acts 2:25-28), but that fact hardly makes the case that the dead can “switch sides� after their earthly life has ended. They (and many others like them) merely promises the living that they have a hope in the face of the universal human fear.

Similarly, the preaching of Christ to the captives is well and good, but nowhere in these passages from Isaiah (or anywhere else, for that matter) do the elements necessary for sustaining your position appear. They merely refer to Jesus Christ’s liberating ministry while He walked the earth (see Luke 4:18ff and Acts 10:38 for similar passages). Arguably His ministry continues to this day through His church (Acts 1:1), but neither does that sustain that “Christ preaches to captives� mean “Christ preaches salvation to the dead.�

The passages from 1 Corinthians 15 cannot mean anything other than what they do at face value: That is, that the Corinthians, a group of young Christians in a thoroughly pagan environment in which a premium was placed upon immortality as per Greek philosophy rather than resurrection as per Hebrew theology, were belittling the resurrection. Their disdain for the human body (cf. Platonic philosophy) had led to other problems as well, including asceticism and libertinism (see 1 Corinthians 6-7). Paul was setting the record straight. As for the passage about baptism for the dead, this is, respectfully, a red herring. A great deal of work has been done to debunk this, and the only group that I know that respects it is the Mormon Church, which is a pseudo-Christian sect (however large) and hardly adherent to the orthodoxy which Lewis espoused. For information on this passage, investigate here (http://www.carm.org/questions/baptismfordead.htm) and here (http://www.irr.org/mit/baptdead.html). More information is readily available. In short, there is nothing in the text to indicate that “baptism is being performed on behalf of those whom are dead, and that it is effective.� Rather, most hold that this is a textbook example of an ad hominen argument on Paul’s part, that he is appealing to a commonly held belief and practice, even if erroneous, to make a point that is on his agenda at the moment. Neither Jesus, nor Paul, nor any other writer in the Old or New Testament teach baptism for the dead. Paul, in this one verse found in a context of correcting errors on the resurrection, refers to it as a practice by others. He does not endorse it.

As for 1 Peter 3:19-20, we will simply have to agree to disagree. Obviously, if one interprets this as Christ personally preaching the good news to departed human spirits so that they might believe after death what they did not (for whatever reason) while alive, then the argument is over. But let me say for one and all to read, the mainstream, orthodox view does not hold this position, and that is what I am attempting to follow. I do not by any means wish to “strong arm� the situation by appealing to biblical scholarship, but in some cases (such as confusing, difficult verses) it is often necessary. And I have already mentioned two scholars of high repute who hold that this passage has nothing to do with the evangelization of the dead. BTW, the Mormons also use this passage to justify their positions.

With great respect for what I believe and grant as a benefit of the doubt to be a sincere heart on your part, I must say that the most telling comment you make is that you admit that the concept of the Great Commission extending after death is “not in the Bible, but ...makes sense.� That, I suggest, is where we get into trouble. Because we cannot work something out, we start filling things in, and going by our reasoning. What we come up with may make sense to our minds, but if it goes beyond what is written and stands at odds with was is written, we must rework our position.

This life is for sanctification, for molding us in Christ’s image. But that goodness comes after we come to know Him. Your previous note applies it as a premise of qualification for His acceptance of those who have not heard of Him. These are two very different things. “When He comes, we shall be like Him for we shall see Him as He is (1 John 3:2), and “we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in an instant, in the twinkling of an eye� (1 Corinthians 15:51-52). However imperfect I am when He comes, the message I read in the Bible is that it is a reality of life that those imperfections are not entirely purified, but will rather be subsumed by His glory in that instant.

I am not arguing by any means that God plays favorites, that he loves some more than others, etc. Given that the largest church in the world is located in South Korea, that the greatest church growth in the world is found in Latin America, and that hundreds of churches are born every week in Africa, while Europe and North America (where most of the readers of this site are clearly from) become increasingly post-Christian, I have to say I am not entirely sure about the geographical references in your argument. But for the sake of it all, I cede the point. Again, I am not sure that I am making myself quite clear: God is already justified to condemn all, in fact, John says all who don't know him "stand condemned already." We don’t start clean, then get dirty by refusing Christ (and thus are unfairly marked “dirty� if we don’t hear of Him); we are dirty already. The story is over at the end of Genesis 3. We belong to a damned race.

This is the message of Romans 1:18-20:

“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.�

I will repeat what I said before: God is perfectly loving, perfectly just, and perfectly proactive in regard to human salvation. He sent His Son to die for humanity. We all want as many as possible to be saved by Jesus Christ’s sacrifice. God wants it more than we ever will in this life, for us and everyone else. I rest in that truth. Therefore I am secure as I read His word, not going beyond what is written, not filling in gaps, not “leaning on my own understanding� (Proverbs 3:5). I recognize the breathtaking truth that God has commanded me to go and tell as many as possible, knowing that my response to that command carries eternal consequences.

I am not sure exactly where you are standing on this, but to me it appears we are closer together than it appears at first sight. For you, also, believe that there are eternal consequences for us not going and telling. You hold that those who do not know Christ in this life, but only receive Him after death through His proclamation to them, are stuck with an imperfect character for all eternity, since they were not able to be transformed into His image on earth. Doesn’t that put you in the same difficulty that you find in the orthodox position? Doesn’t that seem like God is playing favorites? This isn’t so easy to work out as it seems...

So I live with the difficulty that I have real, eternal responsibility. It is hard to read Ezekiel 3:18:

“When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die’; and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand.�

If the man is going to hear from Christ anyway, and reject or accept the message as he will, why does God require his blood at my hand? Is that merely the issue of sanctification, as you imply? Given that God is charging me with blood guilt, I hardly think that works. We must go, we must tell, they must receive, and hear, and repent, to be saved.

I have stated before that I will not put God in a box, an declare that he may not reveal Himself in a way I do not understand to a soul who has not heard. There are plenty of examples (currently, many among Muslims) of direct, special revelation of Jesus by the Holy Spirit (in dreams and other means). These testimonies fill me with joy, not frustration over my theological perspective. But when the word is quite clear as to our responsibility in the light of human lostness, I will not give way to wishful thinking at the cost of a soul. Because the reality is, on the ground, if we take the position that post-death evangelism by Christ is possible, precious few Christians will spend much energy on sharing the gospel with their neighbor, much less someone of another land. I am very glad the person who told me considered the stakes as high as they did.

[unleavened]

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.

[Vanceone]

Hmm. Well met, again, Parthian King. Good arguments; I'm glad I'm making you work. :D

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. :)

[Inklet]

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.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

Not the only one, Inklet.

[Parthian King]

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.

[Vanceone]

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.... :D) 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.

[TimmyofOz]

I'm moving to Utah soon, so I hope I do well as a Fundamentalist Christian among all the LDS :D .

[Vanceone]

Totally off topic, but TimmyofOZ; you should be just fine. :D I live here, after all. And Utah is not all LDS; not by a long shot. You should be welcomed with open arms.

[CSLewisFan]

Tash is for the story, the "anti Christ".

I've thought about it many times before and that was the conclusion I drew.

-Austin

[CSLewisFan]

Hmm. Well met, again, Parthian King. Good arguments; I'm glad I'm making you work. :D

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 :)

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 :D :P.

[Parthian King]

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.

[Gibby]

I have not posted on this thread for a while but I had another thought on Tash:

Perhaps Tash is symbolic of Satan's power being unleashed on earth following the rapture of Christ's Church? Hmmm.....

[inkspot]

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[I] to overcome your addiction, [I]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 ... :o 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]

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 (http://www.thebiblepage.org/avoid/soaft.shtml):

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

[Parthian King]

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.

[inkspot]

Yes, that makes sense. To the extent we can know what Lewis intended, we don't want to re-imagine it as something that would totally be at odds with his idea. I can see that ...

[Parthian King]

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...

[Vanceone]

Okay, I see that many posters have questions or concerns with my faith, so I've started a discussion thread here (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1618). 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?

[Parthian King]

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.

[Basilides]

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.

1Pe 3:16 yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
1Pe 3:17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if that should be God's will, than for doing evil.


1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1Pe 3:19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
1Pe 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
1Pe 3:21 Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

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.

[Inklet]

We should not mess with His word simply because we don't see the end from the beginning like He does.

I didn't think I was messing with His word.

It's my sincere belief, and I believe it's backed up by my faith, that no human being can say anyone is damned. That's not within our authority. That doesn't mean that I don't think that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. None of us deserves salvation, and our only hope is for God's mercy.

What I am saying, is that in a case of a person brought up hating Aslan's (or Jesus' name), and yet being a decent and God-fearing person, who am I to say he's going to Hell? I'm not ignoring Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, I'm just saying I'm not fit to judge anybody. Didn't Jesus die for all?

And no, when I say I'm not fit to judge anybody, I'm not saying I can't recognize and condemn a sin when I see it. I'm talking about judging a person's soul. That's God's job, and I'll stay out of it.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

With respect, Inklet, I think you're misunderstanding Parthian King's meaning. He never said anywhere that anyone is damned. What he did say was that, based on what we've been told, people who haven't heard of Christ run a substantial risk of damnation - one we dare not take lightly.

[Parthian King]

A couple responses are in order here. Basilides, I appreciate the tact and thoroughness of your response. Based on some careful reading I have done, however, I cannot hold that Christ preached the the imprisoned souls of the antediluvian peoples. As I noted before, a careful unpacking of the text in the light of other Jewish literature as well as what the text itself does and does not say points to another meaning. Again, nowhere does it say these sprits are or have ever been human, and no where does it say Christ preached the gospel to them. In fact, the Greek verb used is kerusso (proclaim) rather than the typical euangelizo (preach the gospel) which would normally be used for heralding the glad tidings of salvation. With a rather large contigent of scholars (though admittedly there is no unanimity on this text, which is to be expected considering how sticky it is), I consider these to be fallen spirits, disobedient angels, probably in reference to the debacle mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. However, your insight into the application of the verse stands either way it is interpreted.

My most important response, however, is to Inklet, who I feel has almost totally misunderstood me, though surely that is my fault. Let me make clear, God wants to condemn no one, and wants everyone to be eternally saved (John 3:17, 1 Timothy 2:4, and a host of others). I consider it a life work to share the good news with as many as possible to this end. I have never looked at anyone, either in my heart nor to their face (nor to a third party) and said with finality, "Because of what you have done or failed to do, you are/shall be damned." That is unbiblical and, quite frankly, disobedient, since the Lord commands us to leave the judgment up to him. HOWEVER, some confuse this rather obvious (and in today's pluralistic society, everpresent and oft-cited) truth, and make it the ONLY thing that can EVER be applied when dealing with those who do not know Christ. There is a difference between me, in my heart and by my faculties of discernment (not to mention my corrupt human emotions) determining the eternal fate of a particular soul, and the matter of me faithfully reading, applying, and declaring the word of God. The Bible makes clear that we will all be judged by that word. I think we can all agree that even while we are not appointed to judge, God certainly is. And he is not mute on this issue. The Scriptures about God's desire to save are true, more, they are TRUTH. But there are other truths within his word that must be considered as well, and we must hold these "complex whole truths" (to quote Prince of the West from another post) in tension so as to avoid "simple half truths." Consider these passages:

And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. --1 John 5:11-12 (the same epistle wherein it is written, "God is love," 1 John 3:16)

Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him. --John 3:36 (the same chapter wherein it is written 'For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, etc.')

As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. --John 12:47-48.

Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide, and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and many are those who enter by it. For the gate is small, and the way is narrow that leads to life, and few are those who find it. --Matthew 7:13-14.

He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."--Mark 16:15-16

But 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! As 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! --Galatians 1:8-9.

There are many more, but I think this is enough to work with. My question is simply this: If we don't tell them, who will? If we don't warn them, who will? If speaking God's word as a herald, not condemning any individual with finality or even in my heart (i.e., not casting either the first or any stone), but warning of a universal condemnation that hangs over the race for sin--if that preaching is wrong, then the first apostles were wrong. For that truth forms the essential justification for their mission. It is not our word that condemns or justifies, it is God's. Don't ask me why he appointed us to it declare it, but it is inescapable that he did. When the gospel in our mouths speaks of condemnation, it is the fire alarm going off for a world sleeping in a burning home, not the gavel coming down on the bench. That court is not yet in session, nor do I pretend that it is.

[Basilides]

I do not hold it either, Parthian King. Peter was referring to a past event, while Noah was building the ark. Christ preached (not using "Euangeloo" due tot he fact that this was prior to His incarnation) to the antedeluvians through Noah while they were alive, and their lack of response is the reason for their current imprisonment. Sorry about the complex way I originally wrote that simple idea. Albert Barnes also held this theory, as surely he explained better in his "notes".

Your own theory would, by the way, be my second choice and was the one held by the majority of my friends and teachers back in Bible college.

[Parthian King]

Got it. Thanks for the clarification, and the fault surely lies with me (early morning posts and all that). Your interpretation is also legitimate and falls within the bounds of orthodoxy, Aslan be praised.

[unleavened]

I agree PK.

[The Tisroc]

YOU ARE ALL WRONG! TASH IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!
TO DISOBEY HIS WILL IS TO DISOBEY MY WORD!
I, COMMANDER OF THE FAITHFUL, SHALL BRING THE SWORDS OF CALORMENE TO THINE NECKS











(just kidding)

[inkspot]

YOU ARE ALL WRONG! TASH IS THE ONE TRUE GOD!
TO DISOBEY HIS WILL IS TO DISOBEY MY WORD!
I, COMMANDER OF THE FAITHFUL, SHALL BRING THE SWORDS OF CALORMENE TO THINE NECKS




LOL! May you live forever, Tisroc! Wecome to the site.

[PrinceOfTheWest]

As my son would say, "rofl"! I'm quaking in my boots already, O Tisroc (may you live forever!)

[PrinceOfTheWest]

How is it that we have two Tisrocs? This mystifies me - are they both living forever?

[Charn_Tim]

Since we've been in the spirit lately of reviving old threads, I thought I'd do the same. I think this thread should be required reading for new members, especially this post (http://www.narniafans.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52519&postcount=33) I only regret that the main discussion ended just before I joined the forum; there are some gems in here :)

[Copperfox]

Having followed the link to the earlier comments by Prince of the West, I feel a modest addendum coming on.

Imagine that I were an aspiring professional baseball player, but that I never amounted to much--couldn't even get out of the minors. Then suppose that, instead of accepting my limitations gracefully, I worked hard at convincing myself that the major league team owners were plotting against me, arranging _everything_ in their hiring policies for the sole purpose of _uniquely_ holding ME back and refusing to let my greatness be seen. If I managed to deceive myself that profoundly, I might also decide that the world should know how terribly corrupt the baseball establishment was. I might thus write a book full of half-truths, quarter-truths, and lots of entirely made-up "disclosures" from anonymous "inside sources"--all to convince my readers that there was no honesty in the game, that _everything_ was rigged.

The actual Devil, of whom the literary character Tash is an echo or a shadow, probably exists continually in an emotional state like the failed baseball player of my analogy. He has had God knows how many millenia to stew in his bitter self-justifications. Nothing is his fault, the whole problem is that God is so mean and unfair. So he wants mortals to feel the same way about God--not that he feels any affection for mortals and wants an alliance with them, but because it's a way to lash out at his Maker. And it follows like a mathematical equation that the Devil would want to discredit God's communications to mankind.

So we see movies appearing like "The DaVinci Code," and "scholarly" TV specials like "From Jesus To Christ": attacks on the validity of Scripture, saying _anything_ they can come up with to contradict God's Word.

[~Lava~]

In considering the questions PotW asks in his first post, I would have to say:

What mightTash correspond to on our spiritual battlefield?

In my mind, Tash must be the devil, or at least a high-up Demon.

Since Jadis was the primordial evil presence in the Narnian world, what role does Tash play? Where might he have come from?

Actually, Jadis is there at the beginning of the world, not before it, Tash seems to have a different role in the world that Jadis cannot occupy because when Jadis came to Narnia, she could die. It was only after eating fruit in the garden atop the hill, that she came to the point where natural causes could not kill her. Perhaps it would be better to look at Jadis as representing the fallen nature of man, something that could only be gotten rid of when the Christ died.

What does Aslan have to say about Tash?

Aslan tells the Calormene, Emeth, that He and Tash are opposites: nothing good can be done in the service of Tash, and nothing bad can be done in the service of Aslan.

What might the High King mean when he refers to Tash's "rightful prey"?
The people who willfully chose to turn their backs on God, and decieve others into doing the same.

What summoned Tash to Narnia? Is there an equivalent in our world?

The ape and the Calormene summoned Tash into Narnia, the anti-Christ and his prophet fit the bill for the ape and the Calormene.

How do the Calormenes worship Tash? What kind of people does it make them?

It seems to me that Tash was worshipped in the same way that a lot of pagan gods were worshiped i.e. with great festivals (HHB) and sacrifices (also HHB)

What does it mean to say Tash is "inexorable"?

The definiton of the word inexorable is "Not capable of being persuaded by entreaty; relentless" therefore, to call Tash inexorable is to call him relentless, a quality that probably would have been highly regarded by the Calormenes.

What might the coming of Tash to Narnia mean for Narnia?

The End Times, the book of Revelations talks about the Dragon, who the angel chains up for a thousand years, then for a short time the dragon will be released. After that, the Last Judgement occurs.

This is just my take on the questions PotW asks.

[Copperfox]

Good summation, Lava; it will earn you a Magma Cum Lava degree.

Now for the shameless plug.

In my Narnian story, still reachable via my graphic, I imagine that, at the time of the events in "The Magician's Nephew," Satan was aware of Uncle Andrew's experiment, and issued an invitation for any demon interested in "stowing away" with Andrew to become the "lesser Satan" of a new world. Tash was the demon who took the offer, slipping into the newly-made Narnian world with Andrew, Digory and the other characters. No one but Aslan was aware that Tash had come; and Aslan didn't bother mentioning Tash to Digory because Tash's presence was irrelevant for the moment. As soon as Tash saw Aslan, being FAR more knowledgeable than Jadis, he fled into the deepest depths of the new world, much deeper than Bizm, to hide trembling until he thought Aslan was no longer taking notice of him. I imagine Tash subsequently contacting Satan, and being advised by Satan to take it easy and allow Jadis to achieve as much evil as she could first. By seeing how quick or slow Aslan might be to make an end of Jadis, Tash would form an idea of what he in turn could get away with.

[inkspot]

Whoa, is that what your story winds up explaining, Joseph? That's very cool. I like it.

I like Lava's explanations, too, but I have wondered why Tash has nay "rightful prey" in Narnia, if he is evil. Would we say sinners are the "rightful prey" of Satan in our world? We know he goes about seeking whom he may devour, but we're taught there is nothing "rightful" in this exchange, that in fact Satan came to "rule" here as he does by deceit of Adam and Eve, so there's nothing rightful about it.

Could Aslan have appointed the hideous Tash to be a kind of Grim Reaper in the new world, but then the demon in his own way rebelled and set himself up as a god, at least among the Calormenes?

[Copperfox]

Well, if you like it, then click the tiger and read it!

Tash's rightful prey are inhabitants of the Narnian world who have been given clear opportunity to obey Aslan, but who in their pride preferred falsehood over truth.

[~Lava~]

It all goes back to free will.