1517 wrote: 1. To say Lewis was unequivocally embracing witchcraft ...
2. Lewis ... rejoices in the presence of God.
3. Thanks for proper debate.
1. This has not been asserted as you state it. It is your private deducting reasoning, though truely there are hints here and there of his knowledge, involvement and writings.
2. Did you know that Lewis believed in purgatory?
3. You are welcome
* * * *
Seeing you care so much for this author, it will do no harm to come to know the other take about him.
Recommended listening in SA, C.S.Lewis, by Robert W. Reed C.S.Lewis- false teacher, by Laurence Justice C.S.Lewis, the real witch of Narnia, his witchcraft, by Jason Cooley.
These men come from different backgrounds, yet, from different angles, they arrive to similar conclusions and document their findings.
See included below the testimony of Lottie (11/5/2014) from Ohio after listening to Cooley â€śThe Other Side of C.S. Lewis!â€ť For almost 30 years I'd only heard the orthodox Christian quotes of C.S. Lewis, so I just knew Pastor Jason had this one wrong! Well, I did the research after listening to this message. I haven't found anyone saying that these pagan/not orthodox Christian quotes didn't come from Lewis."
1517 wrote: 1. Paganism LIKE witchcraft IS sinful. Paganism being anything not of the true God. Pagan is no less sinful in PRACTICE than witchcraft
2. Paul used pagan poets and pagan athletic games to illustrate truth.
3. Lewis used mythological illustrations to do the same.
4.... unless you have read the material, you cannot make claims for or against.
5.... appreciate your commitment to preservation of purity,... discernment is necessary to make distinctions between illustration and practice
1. Witchcraft is engaging devils by craft. Paganism is often a false system of belief that may or may not engage directly on that. It might be a collateral often. You are trying too hard to defend the untainable.
2. Not witchcraft. Where he faced this he burn the bridges, rebuked and separated. You are trying too hard to defend the untainable.
3. He goes beyond this. You are too naive. You are trying too hard to defend the untainable.
4. Mr. Justice, Mr Reed and Mr Cooley have. Try them. You are trying too hard to defend the untainable.
5. With Lewis illustration derives from practice
Thanks for your kind appreciation though deferring. It is a worthwhile topic to think about.
1517 wrote: 1. Why not reference Lewis material rather than someoneâ€™s opinion? Again, Paul used pagan illustrations because the crowd would understand.
2. Pagan is no less sinful in PRACTICE than witchcraft.
3. You would be hard pressed to provide an actual example of Lewis approving or supporting witchcraft/occultism in his writings.
4. Discernment helps in recognizing distinctions.
1. Because it would take too long in this medium in which there is limited space.
These three people, Laurence Justice, Robert W. Reed and Jason Cooley, as given in previous posts, give what you ask in detail on this particular topic. Take a listen to the three sermons on Lewis they preached. You will benefit much.
2. Not all paganism is witchcraft. Sorry, this is an unfounded blank statement out of ignorance. See the proper definitions and concepts.
3. Did you know that Lewis was a member of a "spiritualist" society? Do not go merely by what he choosed to conceal, but what he did. Refer to the above authors for contexts of proofs you are asking.
1517 wrote: Paul quoted pagan poets and made divinely inspired points using analogies referencing Greek/pagan athletic games. The use of mythological imagery to illustrate truth is no different when it was done by Lewis. This notion he was somehow infiltrating young minds with witchcraft and occultism is real stretch and actually reveals that some have never really read his material. A Problem with Pain and A Grief Observed are two examples of a Christianâ€™s wrestling with pain in all its forms, and grief in particular.
Paul did not medlle with, or borrow from pagan witchcraft as Lewis did.
Sorry, Adriel, but when talking about 'imagery' we are not talking about imagination, but about symbols that identify concepts, persons, ideas or make connexions. For instance, knowning of Christ as the Lamb of God immediately, to the knowledgeable, this title of his, connects him to the order of atonning sacrifices established in the OT. In the same way the occult has its own key symbols that make connections inside the craft having its own meaning and significance.
The familiarity of Lewis with such occultic imagery makes it obvious that he knew personally more about the craft than his professional life demanded. Nothing commendable about him to say the least.
More on this line here, C.S. Lewis - The Real Witch of Narnia-His Witchcraft, by Jason Cooley
1517 wrote: C.S Lewis never referred to himself as a theologian, in fact, he was professor of Medieval literature. His writings do not presume to e theological treatises, but one manâ€™s experiential understanding and use of conspicuous talent to express it. Does his work have errors? Yes. But does his work express what God has done in man and highlight His divine creation of imagination? Absolutely.
Every writer writes of what he/she knows, or is familiar with.
It appears Lewis knew first hand the world related to occult imagery. Sadly with this Lewis aided rather to the perpetuation of pagan mythology in children's minds than of Biblical revelation. Worse is the blending of heavenly imaginary with occult types coexisting in a supposily 'Christian' litery work. What fellowship can have Christ with Belial? The only profit of deriving from such practice must be by necessity confusion.
Lurker wrote: For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
There were two instances where the seed of the word had a start but then fell away.
Such became partakers of heavenly enlightment from the Holy Ghost and even it says that they received the word with joy, went forth and *believed*, but their end was not of true enduring permanence:
"They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, *receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe*, and in time of temptation fall away.
And that which fell among thorns are they, which, *when they have heard, go forth*, and are choked with cares and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to perfection."
It could be said that such are cases of tasting of heavenly things in vain
* * * *
"Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns...?"
Stevenr wrote: Sorry, you have to read those from the bottom up.
Sorry Steven, but the issue is not of committing a sin at a particular time, but of conciously endorsing and persistently enrolling oneself in that which God considers an abomination in his eyes.
A habitual, consenting engagement into a reprobate outlook of life, according to what is given about it in Romans 1, and a traspassing of a particular command at a certain time, in which category David's sin enters, are two predicaments that differ altogether from each other. See, according to Romans 1 God only gives unconverted people into that reprobate state, not believers.
The matter in question is as one entering into the sin of atheism. It is incompatible with belonging to Christ, which thing plainly manifests that he never belonged to Him. This is what the passage quoted in my previous post from 1 John 3 points to.
However this does not exclude him from future mercy as an unsaved man if God so willed to have mercy.
Partaker1611 wrote: Salvation is an eternal gift... Any Christian, since he still has to carry around this 'old man' is subject and able to commit any sin a lost man can commit, Joshua is probably a saved individual who seared his conscience day after day and is now in a spot he never saw himself in.
To uphold by conscious assent that which God abhors is an indicator were the person is.
"Little children, let no man deceive you: he that does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
He that commits sin is of the devil; for the devil sins from the beginning.
Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin; for his seed remains in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.
In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever does not righteousness is not of God"
* * *
"... without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, (pornos, in Greek meaning male prostitute) and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie."
Unprofitable Servant wrote: The teaching of doctrine is, according to II Timothy 3:16 and 17 is for the one termed â€śthe man of Godâ€ť or we could simply say the Redeemed.
This exclusive meaning is not generally found throughout Scripture. A search for the word doctrine in the OT and in the gospels show doctrine is used for teaching in general.
E. G. Some examples here "my doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass"
" - But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is a doctrine of vanities."
"then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees"
"they were all amazed, insomuch that they questioned among themselves, saying, What thing is this? what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth he even the unclean spirits, and they do obey him."
"they were astonished at his doctrine: for he taught them as one that had authority, and not as the scribes"
John UK wrote: ... I have given out thousands and thousands of gospel tracts... and it would bring me such joy to see in heaven even one person who was saved...
Our 'work in the Lord is not in vain' John , because whatever the outcome, they always will know that 'there was a prophet in the land' for their witness and testimony as God's mystery of profound wisdom unfolds in his day, showing in each season of dearth or fruit his own design.
There is tract distribution, market and shows work and door to door visitation, besides some open air work going on in Northern Ireland with sparce fruit also. However, we know of two dear seeking souls of RC background in which the last link in their conversion was the handling of a tract by a personal contact.
By all means it is good to let Christ be known in season and out of season as we do not know 'how the wind of the Spirit listeth'. However, it is mindfully not to be found as 'bitting the air' while engaging poor routes of work.
The 7 letters of revelation, besides most of the NT, demonstrate enphasizes on being a witness rather than 'mass evangelism'. Living for Christ is the best and what one perceives at this level as a witness is true of the whole picture in matters of reception
Biblical Christians wrote: www.chapellibrary.org/read/wiab 'What is a Biblical Christian-Albert N Martin' In bygone days folk in the UK had at least some basic knowledge of Christianity.
Thank you BC. Your imput is positive and valuable.
Well, in the first place the tract is a relative modern invention. The good news were meant to be passed by word of mouth. In modern times (nineteenth century) we invented the 'Christian business card' to pass around, never to be as effective as the word of mouth.
Secondly, in the absence of the fear of God, whatever the religious say it counts for nothing because accountability is gone before we start.
Thirdly, as pointed before, everyone is at different station of understanding and hardly a tract will do the trick for all. A tract cannot think and adjust to the hearer as a personal contact can.
Fourthly,with the huge amount of unimportant propaganda being distributed, a tract may rise little interest specially with preset dispositions. E. G. In Catholic Ireland nothing that 'smells' as none Catholic will arrive too far but to the trash bin because of trained prejudice imparted to the people through centuries. Besides social media kidnapping dialogue...
John UK wrote: I'm very sorry Sister B, but I haven't got a clue what you're driving at. Have a chat with someone else, will you? Please? Someone who has experienced twenty years or more of university life.
It might help to be aware that the big word 'doctrine' that in many's ears translates something like the 5 points of Calvinism or a treatise on the doctrine of the atonement, simply means *teaching* in Scripture.
Jesus 'taught and people marvelled at his *doctrine*', (which is 'teaching' , or information that builds up knowledge in the understanding of the recepient)
Run a concordance on the word doctrine to discover the meaning of this concept that in our day has converted into something out of reach for the average person.
It is worth a study.
So in this sense you can perceive how the topic in question simplifies, because people need to be taught, say they need to be imparted the knowledge, or the 'words by which they might be saved' Trust this helps
John UK wrote: Yes indeed brother! The Holy Spirit is extremely powerful. Now if a modern preacher, of the intellectual variety, was up on the roof of his house praying and fell into a trance (well, they don't seem to do that these days - maybe they should try it! ) and the Lord told him to prepare for a visitor, and go with him, and take a message to a man called Cornelius which would be instrumental in his salvation, I wonder if he would prepare a series of 50 minute sermons on the atonement of the cross, to be preached twice a day for three days? When I tested out Simon Peter's actual message with my stopwatch, even speaking quite slowly, it worked out at 1 minute and thirty seconds. The Holy Spirit did not want to wait a moment longer. He saved all present in the room 90 seconds after Peter began speaking.
Please read the account of Cornelius to check out inaccuracies of detail or presupposition in your hyperbolic thoughts.
The hyperboles stated so far by you and John point to missing the line of thought presented in the thread.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: ... faith comes by hearing... the Word of God... A tract with a Biblical message of salvation that has the printed Word of God in it is an effective means ...
Our present evangelism is monocrom. Most tracts are stereotyped. We copy and paste or plaster them with either John 3:16 or 'you must be born again' expecting to meet each person at that particular point, when everyone is at a different stage of belief or understanding.
When observing Christ's mode of teaching we note a variety of themes, approaches, focuses and targets, that led the individual in their need. E. G.the Samaritan woman was not addressed as Nicodemus with 'you must be born again' , neither the Pharisees got that message or the Eunuch with Philip.
The same with Paul. He did not address the pagans in Athens as he did Agrippa whom he knew was versed in Judaism.
The Spirit works effectually, we rather clumsily.
Sometimes people need to understand a particular point of doctrine before their understanding comes to light.
We have so rigid doctrinal positions, that when something as this is mentioned we shut the wagon of correctness before digesting the information presented. And yes, all is of God btw, but he acts with reason.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Paul didn't give a doctrinal dissertation to the Philippian jailer and he told the Corinthians he used much plainess of speech.
All the presentations of the gospel on record in Scripture include a measure of doctrine one kind or another in whatever extend the record had been passed. E. G. The first message of Peter focused on the doctrine of the resurrection :this us what the Jews post pentecost needed to perceive in order to believe