• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Successful Rebels to the End....

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
IN AN earlier chapter it was admitted that the pain which alone could rouse the bad man to a knowledge that all was not well, might also lead to a final and unrepented rebellion. And it has been admitted throughout that man has free will and that all gifts to him are therefore two-edged.

From these premises it follows directly that the Divine labour to redeem the world cannot be certain of succeeding as regards every individual soul. Some will not be redeemed. [The doctrine of Hell] .... has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord's own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it) and he may refuse. I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully "All will be saved." But my reason retorts, "Without their will, or with it?" If I say "Without their will" I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary If I say "With their will," my reason replies "How if they will not give in?"

... As things are, however, this doctrine is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous and the goodness of God impugned. We are told that it is a detestable doctrine—and indeed, I too detest it from the bottom of my heart—and are reminded of the tragedies in human life which have come from believing it. Of the other tragedies which come from not believing it we are told less. For these reasons, and these alone, it becomes necessary to discuss the matter.

The problem is not simply that of a God who consigns some of His creatures to final ruin. .... Christianity, true, as always, to the complexity of the real, presents us with something knottier and more ambiguous—a God so full of mercy that He becomes man and dies by torture to avert that final ruin from His creatures, and who yet, where that heroic remedy fails, seems unwilling, or even unable, to arrest the ruin by an act of mere power. I said glibly a moment ago that I would pay "any price" to remove this doctrine. I lied. I could not pay one-thousandth part of the price that God has already paid to remove the fact. And here is the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is Hell.

.... but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven....

Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man "wishes" to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved ....

In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a Question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them! They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.

... He has his wish—to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And what he finds there is Hell.

... In all discussions of hell we should keep steadily before our eyes the possible damnation, not of our enemies nor our friends (since both these disturb the reason) but of ourselves. This chapter is not about your wife or son, nor about Nero or Judas Iscariot; it is about you and me.

selected excerpts from Chapter 8 of The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis
 

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
IN AN earlier chapter it was admitted that the pain which alone could rouse the bad man to a knowledge that all was not well, might also lead to a final and unrepented rebellion. And it has been admitted throughout that man has free will and that all gifts to him are therefore two-edged.

From these premises it follows directly that the Divine labour to redeem the world cannot be certain of succeeding as regards every individual soul. Some will not be redeemed. [The doctrine of Hell] .... has the full support of Scripture and, specially, of Our Lord's own words; it has always been held by Christendom; and it has the support of reason. If a game is played, it must be possible to lose it. If the happiness of a creature lies in self-surrender, no one can make that surrender but himself (though many can help him to make it) and he may refuse. I would pay any price to be able to say truthfully "All will be saved." But my reason retorts, "Without their will, or with it?" If I say "Without their will" I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary If I say "With their will," my reason replies "How if they will not give in?"

... As things are, however, this doctrine is one of the chief grounds on which Christianity is attacked as barbarous and the goodness of God impugned. We are told that it is a detestable doctrine—and indeed, I too detest it from the bottom of my heart—and are reminded of the tragedies in human life which have come from believing it. Of the other tragedies which come from not believing it we are told less. For these reasons, and these alone, it becomes necessary to discuss the matter.

The problem is not simply that of a God who consigns some of His creatures to final ruin. .... Christianity, true, as always, to the complexity of the real, presents us with something knottier and more ambiguous—a God so full of mercy that He becomes man and dies by torture to avert that final ruin from His creatures, and who yet, where that heroic remedy fails, seems unwilling, or even unable, to arrest the ruin by an act of mere power. I said glibly a moment ago that I would pay "any price" to remove this doctrine. I lied. I could not pay one-thousandth part of the price that God has already paid to remove the fact. And here is the real problem: so much mercy, yet still there is Hell.

.... but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven....

Finally, it is objected that the ultimate loss of a single soul means the defeat of omnipotence. And so it does. In creating beings with free will, omnipotence from the outset submits to the possibility of such defeat. What you call defeat, I call miracle: for to make things which are not Itself, and thus to become, in a sense, capable of being resisted by its own handiwork, is the most astonishing and unimaginable of all the feats we attribute to the Deity. I willingly believe that the damned are, in one sense, successful, rebels to the end; that the doors of hell are locked on the inside. I do not mean that the ghosts may not wish to come out of hell, in the vague fashion wherein an envious man "wishes" to be happy: but they certainly do not will even the first preliminary stages of that self-abandonment through which alone the soul can reach any good. They enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded, and are therefore self-enslaved ....

In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a Question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them! They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.

... He has his wish—to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And what he finds there is Hell.

... In all discussions of hell we should keep steadily before our eyes the possible damnation, not of our enemies nor our friends (since both these disturb the reason) but of ourselves. This chapter is not about your wife or son, nor about Nero or Judas Iscariot; it is about you and me.

selected excerpts from Chapter 8 of The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis

Craig does adore old CS, doesn't he?
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
And on top of all that, he's dead.
If read several of his works, and over and over found myself wanting to ask:"But have you ever thought about that from this way? Have you considered that?"

You can't debate with a dead person. But of course you can cite him as an authority.

Makes talking to his fans a little difficult.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Better writers, better thinking, better conclusions.

In your eyes, do they think better and come to better conclusions, because what they state is more palatable to your personal beliefs?

Or is there an objective means you use to determine the above?
 
Upvote 0

Paradoxum

Liberty, Equality, Solidarity!
Sep 16, 2011
10,712
654
✟35,688.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Why is self-surrender needed, and what does that mean?

Lewis is a moron to say that we choose not to be forgiven. We don't choose that! If I can be forgiven that would be nice, but I don't believe in God or Christ. So we would ask that he makes it clearly known to us that this God exists, and that he did this.

All God does (apparently) is give us an old faulty immoral book, and vague religious feelings. God, if he wants people saved, is incompetent to the extent of grave negligence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Why is self-surrender needed, and what does that mean?

Lewis is a moron to say that we choose not to be forgiven. We don't choose that! If I can be forgiven that would be nice, but I don't believe in God or Christ. So we would ask that he makes it clearly known to us that this God exists, and that he did this.

All God does (apparently) is give us an old faulty immoral book, and vague religious feelings. God, if he wants people saved, is incompetent to the extent of grave negligence.

Before you die, you will be given whatever it takes to make your unbelief and rejection of Christ inexcusable if you indeed reject Him.

God knows what exactly what each person needs in order to make their unbelief inexcusable.

Lewis' point here is that for those who have indeed had the light of God's self-revelation shine upon them, and have turned from that light, their turning was a result of them not wanting God. Thus, God gives them what it is that they have turned to, existence without Him. This is fundamentally what hell is.
 
Upvote 0

variant

Happy Cat
Jun 14, 2005
23,790
6,591
✟315,332.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Before you die, you will be given whatever it takes to make your unbelief and rejection of Christ inexcusable if you indeed reject Him.

God knows what exactly what each person needs in order to make their unbelief inexcusable.

This is an assumption based upon your world view being correct.

In logical circles we call it begging the question.
 
Upvote 0

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
This is an assumption based upon your world view being correct.

That is correct.

In logical circles we call it begging the question.

This discussion is not about whether or not my view and Lewis' view of hell and free will is true, but rather, WHAT our view of hell and free will is.

So the charge of arguing in a circle is groundless.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Does not follow.

Some writers are simply better at constructing their arguments so as to hide the flaws in their arguments from both others and themselves.

Correct.

Which is why, skilled debaters can win debates against a less skilled debater, with lessor evidence on their side.

Similar with the highly skilled trial lawyer, that can overcome solid evidence, if his opponent can't keep up with him.
 
Upvote 0

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Does not follow.

Some writers are simply better at constructing their arguments so as to hide the flaws in their arguments from both others and themselves.

Horrible reasoning bro...

If a writer is writing in such a manner as to hide the flaws in his arguments, then he has to know what those flaws are to begin with.

So how could such writers hide the flaws from themselves if they already know what they are? :doh:
 
Upvote 0

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship
Correct.

Which is why, skilled debaters can win debates against a less skilled debater, with lessor evidence on their side.

Similar with the highly skilled trial lawyer, that can overcome solid evidence, if his opponent can't keep up with him.

But such people know the flaws in their arguments if said flaws exist, for if they did not know where or what their flaws were, they would not be able to hide or cover them up with their oratory skill.
 
Upvote 0