Finding Gravity

Here are my complete comments from reading through Lewis’ Mere Christianity: 

 Here’s my quick rundown of the first book:

Chapter 1: The moral law (law of human nature) is different from natural laws (ie gravity) because it can be followed or not followedNo one keeps the moral law

Chapter 2: The moral law is not our instinctsThe moral law is not a social convention

Chapter 3:The law of human nature is a real thing, not made by man, but which we find pressing on us

Chapter 4:The moral law is a clue that something is irecting the universe“which appears in (us) a law urging (us) to do right and makes (us) feel responsible and uncomfortable when (we) do wrong”

Chapter 5:“we find out more about God from the moral law than from the universe”

To sum up book 1:

There is a moral law
There is a “power” behind the law
We have broken the moral law
We have thus offended the “power” behind the law

“Christianity begins to speak”

Book II, Chapter 1:

Most religions contain some truth (some more than others)

Division 1- you believe in God/gods or you do not
Division 2- God is above good and evil or God is good and righteous

Within division 2 there are those who believe that God animates and those who think that God creates. The latter raises the question of why does evil and suffering exist (this is vexing in light of the latter conclusion of division 2 lewis then returns us to one of the main ideas of book one by pointing out that the question of evil is framed with the assumption of justiceLewis concludes be stating that atheism is too simple because “if the whole universe has no meaning, we should have never have found out that it has no meaning

Chapter 2:“Real things are not simple”Again Lewis raises the question of evil or “badness” and states that there are only two views that face the question1-A good world has gone wrong
2-there are two equal and opposite powers behind everything

Lewis decides on the first because “all the things which enable a bad man to be effectivly bad are in themselves good things”Here’s a good quote to sum up the chapter “But I freely admit that real Christianity (as distinct from Christianity-and-water) goes much nearer to Dualism than people think. One of the things that surprised me when I first read the New Testament seriously was that it talked so much about a Dark Power in the universe-a mighty evil spirit who was held to be the Power behind death and disease, and sin. The difference is that Christianity thinks this Dark Power was created by God, and was good when he was created, and went wrong. Christianity agrees with Dualism that this universe is at war. But it does not think this is a war between independent powers. It thinks it is a civil war, a rebellion, and that we are living in a part of the universe occupied by the rebel.”          

  I enjoyed this quote from Book 4 Chapter 1

“But it is not so now. Everyone reads, everyone hears things discussed. Consequently, if you do not listen to Theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones-bad, muddled, out-of-date ideas.”

Lewis is pushing us to love God with our mind

Here is the format for this comment. (1) List the book and chapter (2) Lewis quote(s) (3) A brief thought on the quote

Book 4, Chapter 2

“It is only the Christians who have any idea of how human souls can be taken into the life of God and yet remain themselves-in fact, be very much more themselves than they were before.”

I very much like this idea of being very much more ourselves. There is the issue of genetics and environment shaping our personality, but sinless, whole, complete, expanding for ever increasing joy…that idea is beautiful.

Book 4, Chapter 3

“In a sense, He does not know your action till you have done it: but then the moment at which you have done it is already “Now” for Him.”

Sounds a lot like Open Theism to me.

Book 4, Chapter 4

“But this spirit of love is, from all eternity, a love going on between the Father and Son.”

This sounds like Edwards’ explanation of the Holy Spirit, where the Son is God’s “perfect idea” of Himself and the Spirit is the manifestation of the love and affection that the Father has for the son and the Son has for the Father. Edwards wrote an essay on the trinity, here is a brief section:

“The Godhead being thus begotten by God’s loving an idea of Himself and shewing forth in a distinct subsistence or person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sacred energy arises between the Father and Son in mutually loving and delighting in each other, for their love and joy is mutual, (Prov. 8:30) “I was daily His delight rejoicing always before Him.” This is the eternal and most perfect and essential act of the Divine nature, wherein the Godhead acts to an infinite degree and in the most perfect manner possible. The Deity becomes all act, the Divine essence itself flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third Person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz., the Deity in act, for there is no other act but the act of the will.”I’m following the same format as the last comment.

Book 4, Chapter 5

“Of course, you can express this in all sorts of different ways. You can say that Christ died for our sins. You may say that the Father has forgiven us because Christ has done for us what we ought to have done. You may say that we are washed in the blood of the Lamb. You may say that Christ has defeated death. They are all true. If any of them do not appeal to you, leave it alone and get on with the formula that does. And, whatever you do, do not start quarrelling with other people because they use a different formula from yours.”

All I can say here is what in the world? “They are all true. If any of them do not appeal to you, leave it alone and get on with the formula that does.” To quote Carson, “these things are jolly well close to the heart of the Gospel.” This chapter left a bad taste in my mouth (if Lewis meant what I think he meant). My point here is this: these things are “true,” there is no other formula. If you “leave it alone” you are leaving the gospel. I am hoping that he meant how we think about what is true and not what works for us is true. Does this quote set anyone else off or am I all alone?

Book 4, Chapter 7

No quote

I think I prefer the term “become” instead of “pretend.” I think I would say it this way, “become what you are by God’s grace.” (Col. 3) Imputed righteousness is not pretend, in our justification we have be given an alien righteousness, now we labor to be transformed by it. When Christ is our righteousness, “God himself comes into our lives and inclines our hearts away from sin and toward righteousness. (Piper)” Philippians 1:6 says, “being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.”

Again same format as the last few comments (in no particular order)

Book 4, Chapter 11

“It is something like that with Christ and us. The more we get what we now call “ourselves” out of the way and let Him take us over, the more truly ourselves we become.”

Yep. There it is “become.” See comment #13 for the details.

Book 4, Chapter 10

“I think this is the right moment to consider a question which is often asked: If Christianity is true why are not all Christians obviously nicer than all non-Christians?”

Interesting argument here, I’ve never heard it like this before. Here is where the pretenders are.

Book 4, Chapter 8

“What we have been told is how we men can be drawn into Christ -can become part of that wonderful present which the young Prince of the universe wants to offer to His Father-that present which is Himself and therefore us in Him. It is the only thing we were made for. And there are strange, exciting hints in the Bible that when we are drawn in, a great many other things in Nature will begin to come right. The bad dream will be over: it will be morning.”

Let me just say it without going into detail: The aspect of “becoming” sons and sharing in the intertrinitarian affections or our ever increasing joy in beholding the intertrinitarian affections. Check my blog for a post about this.

Random thoughts and Conclusion

Is there a Kingdom aspect of Lewis’ “New Men” concept? The next book I’m reading will I think make the connection (I say this because I have read about ¼ of it a while ago) The book is called “The Divine Conspiracy’ by Dallas Willard. If anyone wants to read along I would be happy for the company. I have to be honest in saying that the posting for “mere Christianity” was not what I hoped for. (i.e. I think I have made the last 8 comments). My own personal reading was very beneficial, time well spent. Although I do not agree with everything Lewis has to say his “Mere Christianity” made me think, grow, change, and perhaps “become.”