Mere Christianity – Book IV – Chapter 10 (“Nice People Or New Men?”)

Book-4

Picking back up my notes for C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”…

1. If Christianity is true, why are all Christians not obviously nicer than all non-Christians?

(a) Part of this question is very reasonable

“If conversion to Christianity makes no improvement in a man’s outward actions… I think we must suspect that his ‘conversion’ was largely imaginary…”

(i) Jesus told us to judge by results

“Fine feelings, new insights, greater interest in ‘religion’ mean nothing unless they make our actual behaviour better; just as in an illness ‘feeling better’ is not much good if the thermometer shows that your temperature is still going up… Christ told us to judge by results”

(ii) When we fail to live up to our calling, we make Christianity harder to believe for others

“When we Christians behave badly, or fail to behave well, we are making Christianity unbelievable to the outside world… Our careless lives set the outer world talking; and we give them grounds for talking in a way that throws doubt on the truth of Christianity itself”

(b) Part of this question is very unreasonable

But there is another way of demanding results in which the outer world may be quite illogical…. they should see the whole world neatly divided into two camps -Christian and non-Christian – and that all the people in the first camp at any given moment should be obviously nicer than all the people in the second.

There are several flaws with this kind of thinking…

Read more

Epicurians and Stoics

Yesterday, during our Acts of the Apostles Bible study, we read the section in Acts 17 where St. Luke talks about St. Paul’s interaction with some philosophers in Athens:

“While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him” – Acts 17:16-18

Who were these “Epicurean and Stoic philosophers”? What did they believe? All will be answered in the video below:

So, the Epicureans were founded by Epicurus. They believed that things are “good” and “bad” based upon whether they give pleasure or pain. The Epicureans were negative hedonists, attempting to eliminate desires since Epicurus regarded it as a kind of pain. His followers didn’t fear death because once you’re dead no harm can come to you.

Zeno was the founder of the Stoics. They determined “good” and “bad” based upon whether something was seen as virtue or vice. Pleasure was seen as a vice and was therefore to be avoided. Unrealistic expectations were seen as the source of grief in life.

Abortion and Quality of life

For today’s entry in this series, I would like to address another comment which appeared on Facebook last year in response to my presence at the March For Life in Washington DC. One of my former work colleagues wrote the following:

“Pro life has to do with wanting people to live lives, including unborn children. But is the quality of life for both child and mother taken into consideration, or is it only about “saving” the life of the child?”

The question concerning quality of life is often raised in the abortion debate. The motivation behind it is good – we don’t want people to suffer, we want them to live the happiest lives possible.

Pregnant

Read more

Dateless: Something Something Relationships

Last week I wrote a short post saying that I was soon going to try and tackle a question I often hear asked among my female friends:

Why doesn’t that nice Catholic boy ask me out?” 

I wrote that blog entry announcement partially to ensure that I didn’t chicken out! The subject of relationships and dating is tricky and it’s inevitable that many people would not agree with my conclusions. I’ve tried to do this series a couple of times before but I always managed to find something else to do instead. By publicly saying that I’m going to do it, I’m making sure that I actually will…

Read more

Mere Christianity – Book III – Chapter 12 (“Faith”)

Book-3

Picking back up my notes for C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”…

Notes & Quotes

1. Faith (in the second sense) arises after attempting the Christian life

“…Faith in this sense arises after a man has tried his level best to practise the Christian virtues, and found that he fails, and seen that even if he could he would only be giving back to God what was already God’s own. In other words, he discovers his bankruptcy”

2. What God cares about is the kind of creatures we are

“Now, once again, what God cares about is not exactly our actions. What he cares about is that we should be creatures of a certain kind or quality – the kind of creatures He intended us to be-creatures related to Himself in a certain way…if you are right with Him you will inevitably be right with all your fellow-creatures, just as if all the spokes of a wheel are fitted rightly into the hub and the rim they are bound to be in the right positions to one another”

3. This involves discovering our bankruptcy

“And as long as a man is thinking of God as an examiner who has set him a sort of paper to do, or as the opposite party in a sort of bargain – as long as he is thinking of claims and counterclaims between himself and God – he is not yet in the right relation to Him. He is misunderstanding what he is and what God is. And he cannot get into the right relation until he has discovered the fact of our bankruptcy”

(i) This must be truly recognized

“When I say ‘discovered,’ I mean really discovered: not simply said it parrot-fashion. Of course, any child, if given a certain kind of religious education, will soon learn to say that we have nothing to offer to God that is not already His own and that we find ourselves failing to offer even that without keeping something back. But I am talking of really discovering this: really finding out by experience that it is true.”

(ii) This requires us to try our hardest

Now we cannot, in that sense, discover our failure to keep God’s law except by trying our very hardest (and then failing). Unless we really try, whatever we say there will always be at the back of our minds the idea that if we try harder next time we shall succeed in being completely good. Thus, in one sense, the road back to God is a road of moral effort, of trying harder and harder. But in another sense it is not trying that is ever going to bring us home. All this trying leads up to the vital moment at which you turn to God and say, “You must do this. I can’t.”

(iii) This requires us to look back

“It is often only when he looks back that he realises what has happened and recognises it as what people call ‘growing up.’… A man who starts anxiously watching to see whether he is going to sleep is very likely to remain wide awake. As well, the thing I am talking of now may not happen to every one in a sudden flash – as it did to St Paul or Bunyan: it may be so gradual that no one could ever point to a particular hour or even a particular year”

4. It is then we put our trust in Christ

“The sense in which a Christian leaves it to God is that he puts all his trust in Christ: trusts that Christ will somehow share with him the perfect human obedience which He carried out from His birth to His crucifixion: that Christ will make the man more like Himself and, in a sense, make good his deficiencies”

(i) It’s a great deal

“…Christ offers something for nothing: He even offers everything for nothing. In a sense, the whole Christian life consists in accepting that very remarkable offer… What we should have liked would be for God to count our good points and ignore our bad ones”

(ii) This still requires obedience

…handing everything over to Christ does not, of course, mean that you stop trying. To trust Him means, of course, trying to do all that He says. There would be no sense in saying you trusted a person if you would not take his advice. Thus if you have really handed yourself over to Him, it must follow that you are trying to obey Him. But trying in a new way, a less worried way. Not doing these things in order to be saved, but because He has begun to save you already. Not hoping to get to Heaven as a reward for your actions, but inevitably wanting to act in a certain way because a first faint gleam of Heaven is already inside you.

5. Christians have often disputed about faith and works

“Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary”

(i) Looking at the parodies of these positions can point us to the truth

(A) Works

“One set were accused of saying, ‘Good actions are all that matters. The best good action is charity. The best kind of charity is giving money. The best thing to give money to is the Church. So hand us over $10,000 and we will see you through.’ The answer to that nonsense, of course, would be that good actions done for that motive, done with the idea that Heaven can be bought, would not be good actions at all, but only commercial speculations”

(B) Faith

“The other set were accused of saying, ‘Faith is all that matters. Consequently, if you have faith, it doesn’t matter what you do. Sin away, my lad, and have a good time and Christ will see that it makes no difference in the end.’ The answer to that nonsense is that, if what you call your ‘faith’ in Christ does not involve taking the slightest notice of what He says, then it is not Faith at all-not faith or trust in Him, but only intellectual acceptance of some theory about Him”

(ii) Scripture puts the two together in one sentence

The first half is, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” – which looks as if everything depended on us and our good actions: but the second half goes on, “For it is God who worketh in you”*- which looks as if God did everything and we nothing. I am afraid that is the sort of thing we come up against in Christianity. I am puzzled, but I am not surprised. You see, we are now trying to understand, and to separate into water-tight compartments, what exactly God does and what man does when God and man are working together… you will find that even those who insist most strongly on the importance of good actions tell you you need Faith; and even those who insist most strongly on Faith tell you to do good actions.

* St. Paul’s epistle to the Philippians

6. Christianity isn’t just about morality

“I think all Christians would agree with me if I said that though Christianity seems at first to be all about morality, all about duties and rules and guilt and virtue, yet it leads you on, out of all that, into something beyond. One has a glimpse of a country where they do not talk of those things, except perhaps as a joke. Every one there is filled full with what we should call goodness as a mirror is filled with light But they do not call it goodness. They do not call it anything. They are not thinking of it. They are too busy looking at the source from which it comes”

Discussion Questions

1. Why is it important to discover our bankruptcy? How do we reach that point?

2. What does it meant to trust God? Does it still require effort and obedience?

3. How does Jack respond to the Reformation argument concerning Sola Fide?

C.S. Lewis Doodle

No doodle!

Quick Apologies

I’ve recently had a couple of people tell me that they like my blog because my posts are…short. Well, I guess there are worse compliments you could get! Seriously though, one of the reasons that people seem to come back to my blog is that my articles are rarely very long and therefore easily readable during a short coffee break.

In light of this, I’m going to start doing something new. I’m now going to try and post a “Quick Apology” most weeks. These will be articles on apologetics, but they will be short and snappy. The goal is to help readers better defend their faith by consuming bite-sized posts.

I’ve often found that when I’ve been called to give an account for my faith (1 Peter 3:15), I am rarely granted much time to give a response. There isn’t time to offer a thorough explanation or refutation. Instead, I have to give an “elevator pitch”, a short 30 second response. That is how these posts will be structured. I will present an objection to the Catholic Faith and then give an extremely short response designed to answer the objection and open up the conversation to further dialogue.

In my next post I’ll respond to the objection given by some to calling Mary “Mother of God”…

Mere Christianity – Book IV – Chapter 6 (“Two Notes”)

Book-4

Picking back up my notes for C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity”…

1. Why did God not beget many sons at the outset?

“…if God wanted sons instead of ‘toy soldiers,’ He did not beget many sons at the outset instead of first making toy soldiers and then bringing them to life by such a difficult and painful process”

(a) There are two kinds of answer:

(i) The easy answer

“The process of being turned from a creature into a son would not have been difficult or painful if the human race had not turned away from God centuries ago. They were able to do this because He gave them free will: He gave them free will because a world of mere automata could never love and therefore never know infinite happiness”

(ii) The answer beyond human knowledge

All Christians are agreed that there is, in the full and original sense, only one “Son of God.” If we insist on asking “But could there have been many?” we find ourselves in very deep water. Have the words “Could have been” any sense at all when applied to God? You can say that one particular finite thing “could have been” different from what it is, because it would have been different if something else had been different, and the something else would have been different if some third thing had been different, and so on. (The letters on this page would have been red if the printer had used red ink, and he would have used red ink if he had been instructed to, and so on.) But when you are talking about God-i.e. about the rock bottom, irreducible Fact on which all other facts depend- it is nonsensical to ask if It could have been otherwise. It is what It is, and there is an end of the matter. 

(b) How could there be many sons?

But quite apart from this, I find a difficulty about the very idea of the Father begetting many sons from all eternity. In order to be many they would have to be somehow different from one another. Two pennies have the same shape. How are they two? By occupying different places and containing different atoms. In other words, to think of them as different, we have had to bring in space and matter; in fact we have had to bring in “Nature” or the created universe. I can understand the distinction between the Father and the Son without bringing in space or matter, because the one begets and the other is begotten. The Father’s relation to the Son is not the same as the Son’s relation to the Father. But if there were several sons they would all be related to one another and to the Father in the same way. How would they differ from one another? One does not notice the difficulty at first, of course. One thinks one can form the idea of several “sons.” But when I think closely, I find that the idea seemed possible only because I was vaguely imagining them as human forms standing about together in some kind of space. In other words, though I pretended to be thinking about something that exists before any universe was made, I was really smuggling in the picture of a universe and putting that something inside it. When I stop doing that and still try to think of the Father begetting many sons “before all worlds” I find I am not really thinking of anything. The idea fades away into mere words. (Was Nature-space and time and matter-created precisely in order to make manyness possible? Is there perhaps no other way of getting many eternal spirits except by first making many natural creatures, in a universe, and then spiritualising them? But of course all this is guesswork.)

Read more

1 98 99 100 101 102 137