“What we want is not more little books on Christianity, but what we need is more little books by Christians on other subjects, with their Christianity latent”... Wow, that is so profound and true...
"It has to have the supernatural" yes but I draw the line at modern so called Charismatic Prophet's predictions &/or Angelic inspired dreams especially the American political stuff, smh.
@@johnmichaelson9173 right… but then … are we to say that Jordan B Peterson waters down Christianity with his psychological and scientific breakdowns of the biblical stories?
@@avataraang4312 Perhaps. But Peterson's work *did* help bring me back to the faith. So I suppose he serves a purpose. Keep in mind he's a clinical psychologist, not an apologist. I wouldn't expect him to talk about Christianity on philosophical or theological grounds
Now the ordinary man can also have a similar education to those Dr Lewis was talking to in 1945. After the War there was a Labour Government in Britain which allowed talented children into grammar schools, with the prospect of university education. This has not completely been discontinued. Therefore clergy in Britain should not presume that all the congregation is ignorant and easily persuaded into the latest theological fad, like Christianity and Environment. We mostly have read 'Mere Christianity' at least! Dr Lewis saved us!
Strongly disagree. I attended one of the former grammar schools (it still has ‘grammar’ in the name of the school for some reason). The education they provide is now fully in line with other state schools. Zero classics, minimal religion/zero theology, and a focus of English (literacy) and maths (numeracy). When I went to university I was flabbergasted at the education the kids who had attended the prestigious public schools (here in the U.K. that means private, for international ppl). They were already far more advanced at 18 than I and people like me would be when graduated university. The post war idea of providing a quality education to non posh kids is gone. Nobody in politics is in favour of it, and see education as work training/preparation, as far as I can tell. The big oxbridge colleges do make some effort to admit state school kids, but the chances of them going on afterwards and becoming professor or leaders in any other area is very small, given how far behind they already are by the time they get to university.
Of all the apologetics Lewis is the only one who can explain a complex matter in such a way that even a child can understand. His books are a torch for me to find the light in the darkness. I wish there was a Lewis-annotated Bible or something like a Bible for Beginners written by him. I have lots of difficulties understanding God in the OT as all loving and all forgiving. What I wouldn't give for Lewis to enlighten me and answer my many questions.
Hello , hope all is well u can get that enlightenment through Holy Spirit he can help you understand 100X better then him.Just ask him👍🏿Hope this helps and I hope you understanding better now
Bring on the storm Lord, as the weather advisors have warned, only you know Lord... all battened down and ready... here’s hoping the thunder roars, there is nothing like the sound of that thunder... Be charitable, humble and kind... a good lesson. God be with all the Clergy. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
With so much of the world being overly concerned with feelings who tend to act more on emotions than reality, I am grateful for those who put out materials such as these essays. Facts are just facts and have no interest in our feelings about it. Back in this more enlightened era as Tolkien and Lewis inherited, they were more inclined to accept facts as reason whereas in our time it is popular to be unreasonable about facts. Thank you for putting out this material. I am grateful to you.
I find today, people seem to think reality is completely malleable and subjective… I wish Lewis was still alive… he’d have so much to say to our generation
Interesting. So, what camp do you fall in: are trans people valid or not? Is Trump a good candidate for the US presidency or not? Is evolution real or an imagining?
Such “a one...” interesting learning experience... may you Rest In Peace, Sir... thank you for this discussion... I’m super grateful and thankful. I am grateful that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West...” God knew exactly what he was doing it’s the perfect arising and setting in his creation... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I had friends who spent time in a country where becoming a Christian would lead to death or prison. People there associated Christianity with war and western leaders. If they visited the west, they would see drug and alcohol abuse, see the materialism, look at things like abortion, and, believing the countries of the west to be "Christian" , would go home believing drunkenness, etc, to be hallmarks of Christianity, not realising that our societies are pretty secular, and that much in them is opposed to the teachi gs of Christ. My friends wouldn't even use the word "Christian", as it would be immediately misunderstood. They had to explain themselves as followers of Jesus. But far more than that, they had to live in a way that clearly demonstrated the difference.
@@HkFinn83 Hi HKFinn, Oh, absolutely it was. In the eyes of many of the Muslim guys, all European countries, the US, etc, are Christian. They- especially devout Muslims, who are taught from childhood to memorise chapters of the Qu'ran, to enter a room with one particular foot first, wash and eat and use left or right hands in ways that reflect Mohammed's behaviour, to the extent that ordinary language and everyday life and even people's names are crammed full of theology, with the equivalents of God-willing and Praise God, etc, ever-present- they are going to assume that it is the same, here. When they see the mess that our countries are in, they don't think of this as being to do with our turning our backs on God and choosing other ways, but rather that this is an expression of what Christianity is. If you come from that background, you'll assume that the UK is as fundamentally Christian as Saudi Arabia or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or Ayatollic Iran are Islamic. Therefore, any person from those countries is considered a representative of Christianity- so, you would be and I would be, and all those that they would meet or see in the media, including world leaders. Back in the day, that was George W Bush and Tony Blair. These days it might be Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer, Biden and Trump. It might be Justin Beiber and Harry Kane and Tom Cruise and Putin and Nigel Farage and Bernie Sanders and your average serial killer. We think of a world leader as a representative of a country, but in their eyes, they will also represent a religion. And of course, if you want to make Christianity look bad, you can cherry-pick your villains easily enough, even if you are honest enough not to include just every westerner, but only those who call themselves "Christian". Of course, the real counter to that would be to say- do you expect me to judge Islam by a guy who calls himself a Muslim, but doesn't go to mosque, gets drunk, has a collection of idols and eats bacon sandwiches for lunch? Jesus himself taught us to know people by their fruits. In the Muslim community, there are things going round on Facebook comparing "Christian" ( ie Western) and Muslim nations in terms of statistics of alcoholism, (reported) domestic violence, drug abuse, adultery, homicide- and all kinds of crimes, with the point being to say that that's what you get with Christianity. I have a Libyan friend who was sharing that last year- obviously it's been going the rounds, and is very popular. Now, some of those sharing it will know that the UK or Denmark are secular countries, but many many Muslims will not know that. To say that all those things are actually forbidden in Christianity and go against Christ's teachings is going to be one small stream versus a flood. Listen to the late Nabeel Qureshi's testimony and those of other Muslims who have become Christians, as an example of how he, as a Muslim saw the West- how he was brought up to know all the counter-Christian arguments, etc, so that he knew far more about at least some aspects of Christianity than most Westerners and even- shamefully- than many professing Christians. Every follower of Jesus is an ambassador- and we can make a difference :)
You can be a person of deep personal Faith but not what anyone would call 'religious'. I have followed the Guidelines of Problacism for many years and consequently I have been given everything I could possibly ever need or want. I also don't suffer from any anxieties, fears or depression. Problacism does not require any prayer, churches, iconoclasm or worship. All it requires is that you lose all your ego and indiscriminately help everyone who is 'sent' to you without any expectation of recognition or reward. Trust in the Universe and be Relentless.
We christians believe in a person, because that person is the literal key to literal heaven. And no amount of good works will even be considered in the judgement of God on those who "do not have the Son".
To be listened to again... but his last point on the dangers of being involved in apologrtics reminds me of what happened to Ravi Zach. And CS Lewis was aware decades ago!
This blessed soul reminds me of my Grandfather Walsh I never got the pleasure of meeting... I did when I was two however... I don’t remember that encounter, wish I did... look forward to meeting you Grandpa... I love you, dearly... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 My grandpa puffed on a pipe pipe that looks just as this brilliant man puffs upon;)
Your pupil, not your teacher... hmmm quite interesting... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 I feel you are my teacher, for you have taught me much... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 - A lover of God our Heavenly Father, the only King... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
If you apologize, apologize to God. I don't accept apologies. (I realize that isn't what apologetics are. But forgiveness and repentance are very important aspects of Christianity.)
Whenever people go forth unatending the meaning of the words, it yields, in the best, a formidable fight around words, a Logomaquia. But even with a comonal understanding and agreement on the subject´s terms, the hard thing is to access the primordial and direct experience from wich we, by the execise of our various faculties, then derive the knowledge of the premisses. To put the a whole set of premises tranlated into sentences, and those into a discoursive logical frame is one thing. But to go to and fro from that abstract discourse of propositions and conclusions into originary experience, as a real philosopher like Plato, Aristoteles, oh boy, what a huge poetic imagination and imagery one needs.
@@LostArchivist “ For me the fundamental answers about the meaning of life come not from science but from a consideration of the origins of our uniquely human sense of right and wrong, and from the historical record of Christ's life on Earth.” - Dr. Francis Collins
@@LostArchivist Yup. But it is much easier to read and follow than to create and write. How many times one thinks he has come up with an original tought or plot just to realize it has already been put into paper before. One of my preferred fiction writers is Robert Musil. Wich one is thine?
@@kimmyle0 Hi. I fully agree to the quote´s content. The moral dimension is far more important and lasting than the eartlhy life of the bodies. We won´t carry them for long, but the deeds done in those bodies of ours will follow us into eternity. If we would end with our bodies into the dust, the question of morals, conscience and the decision pertaining our ways in life would be truly absurd with all the pangs, pains and burdens they imply. There is a price to be paid for to be both human and everlasting, the highest indeed. It demanded God´s incarnation, life an cruelest death.
The scientific concept expressed by the words "Laws of nature" is much better translated into "ordinary recuring appearances", those appearances then meaning a small set of phenomena sorted out by the diferent criteria and method suited for the formal object of each science invented. The expression "exact" as it has been predicated to many science is also a delusional: it is much better translated with the word "quantitative", quantity being only one among a set of categories depending all on the main cathegory, substance, as put by Aristotle. And even that main cathegory remains functional (for the sake of doctrine) only as long as restrained to what is universal (gender and species) in the being, wich gives not the slightest account to the concrete character of the creatures, on the metaphisical necessity of the accidents (wich of course, sounds contradictory, since the accidental by definition is the contradiction of necessity), on Duns Scott Haecceitas. It is said that Scottus denied the Universals, but I think (I confess I do not know) he rather denied the conception of Universal as independent from the accidental. Thomas Aquinas (Suma contra gentiles) seems to solve it by separating the questions pertaining the "Quid est" (essence - what it is) from the "Si est" (existence - "the conditions to be"). Now one can state this: no matter how rich and accurate modern descriptions of fenomena are, they remain inevitable far of saying the what the thing is.
No but they are held together by Mathematics which as I have discovered looking long at the matter is one big reason the sciences owe their success to. As a scholar this has been incredibly edifying and enlightening as once accepted, whole new disciples-worth of exploration and insight open up. As a Christian it is very vindicating since Mathematics is primarily a description of relationships and how they behave and there is essentially no way that these can be random then. Structure requires robust rules and even the chaotic motions of the Universe have at least the potential to be explained algorithmically, save it seems certainly the human mind as we transcend algorithms by understanding them and their behavior and their base nature as we show in tbe creation of computers and the mathematics that show these to begin with. Another interesting discovery in this vein is that only humans seem capable of creating stories entirely coherent to humans, neural networks always jumbling things. Art is also above them since they lack abstract thought as a rule. Now this may well strengthen certain Platonic arguments, Christian philosophical tradition is much better equipped to handle that after battling the Neoplatonists and other pagan philosophers for several hundred years. At that point though and perhaps much sooner, the ball is then out of my court.
I got off-track a bit but another key is that we see the results of the mathematics but not the mathematics themselves, they seem almost interwoven like an unseen skeleton giving everything shape and function. Mathematics proper can not be the creative force since when we use them they do not spontaneously bring things to being. No they are descriptive only in their ontology and are dependent upon another thing both to form them and to give them expression. This thing we call a mind or an intellect. Add the Argument from Contingency or from Motion and remember Mathematics are real but so is this all around us. So even if we conclude Plato is onto something regarding what he called universals, these do no explain either their mechanism of effect or their origin as they are being intertwined by another and are not necessary since they are contingent on an intellect.
"Bismillah, Al Rahman, Al Rahim" really means "In the Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" (Exodus 34:6) Titus 2:11-14 shows that Jesus is the Al-Rahman. Here is why. The Qur'an doesn't go against Monophysite Christology. The Begetter is the Father's Spirit (Rahim/Haq). The Father sends his Spirit upon his chosen ministries (Surah 40:15) only *BY* The Begetter/Rasul/Rahim/Haq (Surah 3:86 & 9:128) and this Holy Spirit/Ruh al-Qudus (not Jibreel) brings down Good News from The Lord (Surah 16:102). The same Begetter became present as Yesod by Kadmon (Surah 58:22) Allah = God Ruh al Qudus= Holy Spirit Muhammad = Jesus Qur'an = Perfectly Preserved Word of God made flesh by the Ruh into The Messiah. Many Muslims are going to apostate from Islam this year when the realise Allah's two right hand are The Kalimatullah and The Ruh Al-Qudus. The Kalimatullah becomes The Shin when He returns to make the world His footstool
John10::29KJV" My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Note please that the God and Father of Jesus (JEHOVAH) is greater than ALL not most. Thus contrary to the confusion being pedaled by Trinitarians Jesus'union with his God is not a union of equals.
John20:17KJV"17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father(i.e our Father); and to my God, and your God(i.e our God). " I really can't see what else can be gotten from these texts other than that our Lord considered himself subordinate to his God and Father.
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 yes bc He was sent to be servant to fulfill the covenant which Old Testament in order to bring in new covenant. Yet He was fully Man yet fully God. He obedient unto death of the cross. So He could redeem mankind from sin. Which set us apart from God.
Addendum to the dream: My first thought regarding what does this mean: summarily pulling the teeth of a squad for something their coach did was like forcing people to take the jabbo.
Peter's watchword apo-logia for the integrity of Christianity already had survived that crucial Early periods if any could've been manipulated, new contaminants infiltrated else subtley corrupted have come to limelights if not now further damning it's purpose to saving lost souls as assessing for helping hands where harmful effects mirrored back to society's are tasks assigned by Holy Spirit's personified.
Millennial history's witnessed to the tussles between Established church under dominant powers challenged by Oliver Cromwell's that ensued for Newly created Reformations across Continentals while Royalist loyalists went on to Eastern traditionalists or underdogs who continued suppress God's children not seen light or life's redeeming works which Enlightened revolutionary exposed through blight given an Even planks to tread upon?!
Religious apologetics shouldn't take modern science as their Truth's lest flying gods and tooth picking island maybe Roles reversed in place fliers or else submerged mountains really can't be extracted, yet point is taken Christian apologia only be defences.
C.S. was 46 years old when he gave this speech. He’d been a Christian for ~14 years. I took a liking to C.S. after reading a portion of Mere Christianity. He was obviously a very intelligent man who worked out his faith in ways that many/most of us have not. But this particular speech made me realize that even those who are extremely intellectually gifted share with us common folk a proneness to fundamental error. This speech was so rife with pride and arrogance that I could hardly believe that such an intelligent man, who’d thought deeply on the fundamental principles of Christianity, had neglected the core virtue of humility. With some reflection I realized this is precisely why we don’t look to theologians as a guide through challenging questions in matters of faith. What makes people like C.S. particularly dangerous is that we (mankind) are inclined to look to those we consider more intelligent than ourselves with a less critical eye. I’m won’t seek out C.S. again. I’m certainly not questioning his salvation, but I will stick with pastors who focus on the attributes of God and our position before almighty God. Apologies for the critical word - my only intent was to ask whomever is reading this to not overlook the possibility of critical error by the “intelligentsia.”
Did you per chance miss the entire first potion of his speech? He offers his opinion with utmost hesitation and then he speaks mostly of the need of clear communication and offers his experience. Possibly you are not familiar with how professors talk? Or how educated gentlemen of the previous century talk? Nothing in this speach suggests arrogance to me. But you are of course free to read or not read whatever you see fit.
I know what arrogance is and it's not in this speech. Reason being is that arrogance is when someone is pretending to say high things for the sake of seeming wise and intelligent, yet their words; hollow. What I hear (and also see as I also turned on captions to follow) was that he had covered several core topics with the intent to give advise and perspective to the angelican priests and youths. Cutting down to the heart of several problems with solutions. You are right that he is using "high words", but he's doing so because for 2 reasons, he's expressing his thoughts with absolute precision so that his words ( as to not be interpreted differently than intended If analysed) And So that he can place greater emphasis on certain ideas. And when he said "uneducated" it is not as an derogatory term here, you can be a professor and be "uneducated" because what he's referring to is uneducated in Christian theology, which he did expressed prior. Hopefully you are not swayed by the current age where meaning taken for granted and ignored. I hope that you can dissects his words sufficiently so that you may come off aroused to think of pastors critically as I have come to be relieved of my suspicions. And trust me, this is how professors who know what they are talking about will speak.
1) CS Lewis never considered himself a theologian. 2) CS Lewis was a gifted writer and teacher who as a college professor had time to continue his education, far beyond average. As writer precision in word usage mattered to him. 3) We are literally less educated today than the average person back then, something obvious in encountering pop culture from back then. Unfortunately, if you are going to call this speech arrogant (and hint around he's in Hell just for fun), I would suggest looking in the mirror. Your unwillingness to even attempt cope with a 50+ year time lag and differences in education and speech are about you, not CS Lewis.
Arrogant? Prideful? How!? Lewis was one of the most irritatingly humble thinkers I've read, constantly downplaying his own authority and avoiding recognition almost wherever possible. I'm curious if his word use, taken out of its nearly century old context, is really what the problem is. The conclusions you've drawn from this are very troubling to me. I've read nearly everything Lewis read and his ability to synthesize hundreds of ancient writers into easy to understand prose is exactly why he is worth a look regarding challenging questions. Lewis was not the intelligentsia, he spent nearly his whole Christian life criticizing intelligentsia - a good portion of this very essay was about criticizing Christian intelligentsia. There is an element to Lewis that requires one to learn how to read him before one actually can get anything out of it, I'd recommend broadening your horizons - look up George MacDonald or GK Chesterton - and familiarize yourself with others from an older time to see if it starts to come clearer.
"Heaven and Earth shall move with the times but My Word shall not move with the times." Does that mean that Heaven has become more progressive, despite what is written in the Bible? Or am I misinterpreting that line?
Though CSL was aware of God, his theology was wrong. He was a grand apologist, but he didn't teach the Bible or the Gospel, "rightly dividing the Word".
I do not have problems with this. For Bible teaching I refer to the Bible, to Dr James Tour, to Professor John Lennox. But we can ask in prayer direct to the Word Himself and often.
@@kateknowles8055 The Word is all there is. God controlled the writing and creation of the Bible. Why has it not been tampered with these past 2000 years. Listening to PHDs talk is for children. I have studied for 36 years, and I demand the truth of all who speak about God or claim to teach. 99% of all denominations these past 2000 years deny the Bible with all doctrine that doesn't exist within the pages of the original texts. The words in the New Testament is the only religion of God since Pentecost. There is nothing else to say except read the Bible and study it because we die tomorrow and only God's truth will save us-and obedience to it because Christ said so!
@@kateknowles8055 The Word is all there is. God controlled the writing and creation of the Bible. Why has it not been tampered with these past 2000 years. Listening to PHDs talk is for children. I have studied for 36 years, and I demand the truth of all who speak about God or claim to teach. 99% of all denominations these past 2000 years deny the Bible with all doctrine that doesn't exist within the pages of the original texts. The words in the New Testament is the only religion of God since Pentecost. There is nothing else to say except read the Bible and study it because we die tomorrow and only God's truth will save us-and obedience to it because Christ said so!
The temptation to skip over what a person disagrees with in Scripture. Talking about being open-minded. And how difficult it might be for a lot a lot a lot of people. I heard about the Flat Earth 3 years ago, and laughed, but now I see it no other way. Now I laugh at people who think we live on a spinning ball.
The word I would avoid, today, is "evangelical". To too many people, it will be understood to mean a harsh, self-righteousness, a tendency not to listen, to be inclined to look down others, to be legalistic and not really to believe in grace. Kind of like being an anti-witness. If you mean that you take scripture seriously, I'd suggest finding another expression to say that.
“In many ways, Christian apologetics is like a corporate customer relations department. It is their job to defend, apologize, and explain away certain defects in a given product. They often do this by leading the customer to believe that they somehow misunderstood the product when the truth of the matter is, the product is defective and the company is corrupt.” -Michael Sherlock
@@LostArchivist I did not feel that way. Perhaps you felt that way because currently it's seen as poor taste to be spreading your believes especially regarding religion yet CS lewis here is actively teaching how to do it like he has an agenda, which he does. That is to defend what he believes in and that starts by making sure you can communicate as clearly as possible what you indeed believe in.
"I have never helped to organize youth and when I was young myself I successfully avoided being organized" 🤣🤣
🤣🤣🤣🤣
“What we want is not more little books on Christianity, but what we need is more little books by Christians on other subjects, with their Christianity latent”...
Wow, that is so profound and true...
Very true.
Seems to me that the atheists, leftists and woke have been doing this for all my lifetime, and not the Christians.
25:22 "do not try to water down Christianity down , it has to have the supernatural "
"It has to have the supernatural" yes but I draw the line at modern so called Charismatic Prophet's predictions &/or Angelic inspired dreams especially the American political stuff, smh.
@@johnmichaelson9173 right… but then … are we to say that Jordan B Peterson waters down Christianity with his psychological and scientific breakdowns of the biblical stories?
@@avataraang4312 Perhaps. But Peterson's work *did* help bring me back to the faith. So I suppose he serves a purpose. Keep in mind he's a clinical psychologist, not an apologist. I wouldn't expect him to talk about Christianity on philosophical or theological grounds
@@maxalain9948 He'll finds his way home, no doubt
@@maxalain9948 useless appeal to authority fallacy
He makes me think about things I never knew existed 🤗
Woot Woot! Such a brilliant... Daggone! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
He’s my biggest inspiration- the man was a genius!
"Science twisted in the interest of apologetics is sin and folly..." @11:09.
Seems to me, a perfect example of “watch what you feed your mind as far as reading material...” 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
So good, amen to that 😊
Brilliant! so clear and easy to understand yet so complex.It makes me eager to evangelize for some reason.
He makes it seem so simple and easy… a rare talent 😊
@Vivec's Vassals is that his nickname? That’s amazing!!
Now the ordinary man can also have a similar education to those Dr Lewis was talking to in 1945. After the War there was a Labour Government in Britain which allowed talented children into grammar schools, with the prospect of university education. This has not completely been discontinued. Therefore clergy in Britain should not presume that all the congregation is ignorant and easily persuaded into the latest theological fad, like Christianity and Environment. We mostly have read 'Mere Christianity' at least! Dr Lewis saved us!
Strongly disagree. I attended one of the former grammar schools (it still has ‘grammar’ in the name of the school for some reason). The education they provide is now fully in line with other state schools. Zero classics, minimal religion/zero theology, and a focus of English (literacy) and maths (numeracy). When I went to university I was flabbergasted at the education the kids who had attended the prestigious public schools (here in the U.K. that means private, for international ppl). They were already far more advanced at 18 than I and people like me would be when graduated university. The post war idea of providing a quality education to non posh kids is gone. Nobody in politics is in favour of it, and see education as work training/preparation, as far as I can tell. The big oxbridge colleges do make some effort to admit state school kids, but the chances of them going on afterwards and becoming professor or leaders in any other area is very small, given how far behind they already are by the time they get to university.
love this man.. praise the Lord
Of all the apologetics Lewis is the only one who can explain a complex matter in such a way that even a child can understand. His books are a torch for me to find the light in the darkness. I wish there was a Lewis-annotated Bible or something like a Bible for Beginners written by him. I have lots of difficulties understanding God in the OT as all loving and all forgiving. What I wouldn't give for Lewis to enlighten me and answer my many questions.
Hello , hope all is well u can get that enlightenment through Holy Spirit he can help you understand 100X better then him.Just ask him👍🏿Hope this helps and I hope you understanding better now
Bring on the storm Lord, as the weather advisors have warned, only you know Lord... all battened down and ready... here’s hoping the thunder roars, there is nothing like the sound of that thunder...
Be charitable, humble and kind... a good lesson. God be with all the Clergy. 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The greatest thinker of all time. Period.
With so much of the world being overly concerned with feelings who tend to act more on emotions than reality, I am grateful for those who put out materials such as these essays. Facts are just facts and have no interest in our feelings about it. Back in this more enlightened era as Tolkien and Lewis inherited, they were more inclined to accept facts as reason whereas in our time it is popular to be unreasonable about facts. Thank you for putting out this material. I am grateful to you.
I find today, people seem to think reality is completely malleable and subjective… I wish Lewis was still alive… he’d have so much to say to our generation
Interesting.
So, what camp do you fall in: are trans people valid or not?
Is Trump a good candidate for the US presidency or not?
Is evolution real or an imagining?
Such “a one...” interesting learning experience... may you Rest In Peace, Sir... thank you for this discussion... I’m super grateful and thankful. I am grateful that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West...” God knew exactly what he was doing it’s the perfect arising and setting in his creation... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I love this guy
Wow, this essay brings so much to mind to ponder... all I know is God’s Word rules no matter the what...
I had friends who spent time in a country where becoming a Christian would lead to death or prison. People there associated Christianity with war and western leaders. If they visited the west, they would see drug and alcohol abuse, see the materialism, look at things like abortion, and, believing the countries of the west to be "Christian" , would go home believing drunkenness, etc, to be hallmarks of Christianity, not realising that our societies are pretty secular, and that much in them is opposed to the teachi gs of Christ. My friends wouldn't even use the word "Christian", as it would be immediately misunderstood. They had to explain themselves as followers of Jesus. But far more than that, they had to live in a way that clearly demonstrated the difference.
Some people may have given that as a reason for oppressing Christianity, but you don’t really believe that that’s what they believed?
@@HkFinn83 Hi HKFinn, Oh, absolutely it was. In the eyes of many of the Muslim guys, all European countries, the US, etc, are Christian.
They- especially devout Muslims, who are taught from childhood to memorise chapters of the Qu'ran, to enter a room with one particular foot first, wash and eat and use left or right hands in ways that reflect Mohammed's behaviour, to the extent that ordinary language and everyday life and even people's names are crammed full of theology, with the equivalents of God-willing and Praise God, etc, ever-present- they are going to assume that it is the same, here.
When they see the mess that our countries are in, they don't think of this as being to do with our turning our backs on God and choosing other ways, but rather that this is an expression of what Christianity is. If you come from that background, you'll assume that the UK is as fundamentally Christian as Saudi Arabia or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan or Ayatollic Iran are Islamic.
Therefore, any person from those countries is considered a representative of Christianity- so, you would be and I would be, and all those that they would meet or see in the media, including world leaders. Back in the day, that was George W Bush and Tony Blair. These days it might be Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer, Biden and Trump. It might be Justin Beiber and Harry Kane and Tom Cruise and Putin and Nigel Farage and Bernie Sanders and your average serial killer. We think of a world leader as a representative of a country, but in their eyes, they will also represent a religion. And of course, if you want to make Christianity look bad, you can cherry-pick your villains easily enough, even if you are honest enough not to include just every westerner, but only those who call themselves "Christian".
Of course, the real counter to that would be to say- do you expect me to judge Islam by a guy who calls himself a Muslim, but doesn't go to mosque, gets drunk, has a collection of idols and eats bacon sandwiches for lunch? Jesus himself taught us to know people by their fruits.
In the Muslim community, there are things going round on Facebook comparing "Christian" ( ie Western) and Muslim nations in terms of statistics of alcoholism, (reported) domestic violence, drug abuse, adultery, homicide- and all kinds of crimes, with the point being to say that that's what you get with Christianity. I have a Libyan friend who was sharing that last year- obviously it's been going the rounds, and is very popular. Now, some of those sharing it will know that the UK or Denmark are secular countries, but many many Muslims will not know that.
To say that all those things are actually forbidden in Christianity and go against Christ's teachings is going to be one small stream versus a flood.
Listen to the late Nabeel Qureshi's testimony and those of other Muslims who have become Christians, as an example of how he, as a Muslim saw the West- how he was brought up to know all the counter-Christian arguments, etc, so that he knew far more about at least some aspects of Christianity than most Westerners and even- shamefully- than many professing Christians.
Every follower of Jesus is an ambassador- and we can make a difference :)
You can be a person of deep personal Faith but not what anyone would call 'religious'. I have followed the Guidelines of Problacism for many years and consequently I have been given everything I could possibly ever need or want. I also don't suffer from any anxieties, fears or depression. Problacism does not require any prayer, churches, iconoclasm or worship. All it requires is that you lose all your ego and indiscriminately help everyone who is 'sent' to you without any expectation of recognition or reward. Trust in the Universe and be Relentless.
We christians believe in a person, because that person is the literal key to literal heaven. And no amount of good works will even be considered in the judgement of God on those who "do not have the Son".
To be listened to again... but his last point on the dangers of being involved in apologrtics reminds me of what happened to Ravi Zach. And CS Lewis was aware decades ago!
Sin is sin... The Ten Commandments teach... forgive me Dear Lord, God, a sinner... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
@25:40 size of universe compared to us
This blessed soul reminds me of my Grandfather Walsh I never got the pleasure of meeting... I did when I was two however... I don’t remember that encounter, wish I did... look forward to meeting you Grandpa... I love you, dearly...
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
My grandpa puffed on a pipe pipe that looks just as this brilliant man puffs upon;)
What even is the description? I appreciate the "blessed posters are welcomed" but the other 2?
For those outside the mythos, no explanation is possible. For those on the inside, no explanation is necessary.
So much logic and common sense.
Your pupil, not your teacher... hmmm quite interesting... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I feel you are my teacher, for you have taught me much... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
- A lover of God our Heavenly Father, the only King... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
I truly believe we can too, teach Priests... I believe they learn from God’s people’s confessions;)
He was so ahead of his time.
If you apologize, apologize to God. I don't accept apologies. (I realize that isn't what apologetics are. But forgiveness and repentance are very important aspects of Christianity.)
Really.
I tried to make them apologize but they refuse
I think it true and believe it true...
Whenever people go forth unatending the meaning of the words, it yields, in the best, a formidable fight around words, a Logomaquia. But even with a comonal understanding and agreement on the subject´s terms, the hard thing is to access the primordial and direct experience from wich we, by the execise of our various faculties, then derive the knowledge of the premisses. To put the a whole set of premises tranlated into sentences, and those into a discoursive logical frame is one thing. But to go to and fro from that abstract discourse of propositions and conclusions into originary experience, as a real philosopher like Plato, Aristoteles, oh boy, what a huge poetic imagination and imagery one needs.
Being both a fiction writer and a philosopher can help.
@@LostArchivist “ For me the fundamental answers about the meaning of
life come not from science but from a consideration of the origins of our uniquely human sense of right and wrong, and from the historical record of Christ's life on Earth.” - Dr. Francis Collins
@@LostArchivist Yup. But it is much easier to read and follow than to create and write. How many times one thinks he has come up with an original tought or plot just to realize it has already been put into paper before. One of my preferred fiction writers is Robert Musil. Wich one is thine?
@@kimmyle0 Hi. I fully agree to the quote´s content. The moral dimension is far more important and lasting than the eartlhy life of the bodies. We won´t carry them for long, but the deeds done in those bodies of ours will follow us into eternity. If we would end with our bodies into the dust, the question of morals, conscience and the decision pertaining our ways in life would be truly absurd with all the pangs, pains and burdens they imply. There is a price to be paid for to be both human and everlasting, the highest indeed. It demanded God´s incarnation, life an cruelest death.
Do u think using all this advanced terminology accomplishes anything beside making u look like a snob show off
Thank you for posting
The scientific concept expressed by the words "Laws of nature" is much better translated into "ordinary recuring appearances", those appearances then meaning a small set of phenomena sorted out by the diferent criteria and method suited for the formal object of each science invented. The expression "exact" as it has been predicated to many science is also a delusional: it is much better translated with the word "quantitative", quantity being only one among a set of categories depending all on the main cathegory, substance, as put by Aristotle. And even that main cathegory remains functional (for the sake of doctrine) only as long as restrained to what is universal (gender and species) in the being, wich gives not the slightest account to the concrete character of the creatures, on the metaphisical necessity of the accidents (wich of course, sounds contradictory, since the accidental by definition is the contradiction of necessity), on Duns Scott Haecceitas. It is said that Scottus denied the Universals, but I think (I confess I do not know) he rather denied the conception of Universal as independent from the accidental. Thomas Aquinas (Suma contra gentiles) seems to solve it by separating the questions pertaining the "Quid est" (essence - what it is) from the "Si est" (existence - "the conditions to be"). Now one can state this: no matter how rich and accurate modern descriptions of fenomena are, they remain inevitable far of saying the what the thing is.
No but they are held together by Mathematics which as I have discovered looking long at the matter is one big reason the sciences owe their success to. As a scholar this has been incredibly edifying and enlightening as once accepted, whole new disciples-worth of exploration and insight open up. As a Christian it is very vindicating since Mathematics is primarily a description of relationships and how they behave and there is essentially no way that these can be random then. Structure requires robust rules and even the chaotic motions of the Universe have at least the potential to be explained algorithmically, save it seems certainly the human mind as we transcend algorithms by understanding them and their behavior and their base nature as we show in tbe creation of computers and the mathematics that show these to begin with. Another interesting discovery in this vein is that only humans seem capable of creating stories entirely coherent to humans, neural networks always jumbling things. Art is also above them since they lack abstract thought as a rule.
Now this may well strengthen certain Platonic arguments, Christian philosophical tradition is much better equipped to handle that after battling the Neoplatonists and other pagan philosophers for several hundred years. At that point though and perhaps much sooner, the ball is then out of my court.
I got off-track a bit but another key is that we see the results of the mathematics but not the mathematics themselves, they seem almost interwoven like an unseen skeleton giving everything shape and function. Mathematics proper can not be the creative force since when we use them they do not spontaneously bring things to being. No they are descriptive only in their ontology and are dependent upon another thing both to form them and to give them expression. This thing we call a mind or an intellect. Add the Argument from Contingency or from Motion and remember Mathematics are real but so is this all around us. So even if we conclude Plato is onto something regarding what he called universals, these do no explain either their mechanism of effect or their origin as they are being intertwined by another and are not necessary since they are contingent on an intellect.
"Bismillah, Al Rahman, Al Rahim" really means "In the Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit" (Exodus 34:6)
Titus 2:11-14 shows that Jesus is the Al-Rahman. Here is why.
The Qur'an doesn't go against Monophysite Christology.
The Begetter is the Father's Spirit (Rahim/Haq). The Father sends his Spirit upon his chosen ministries (Surah 40:15) only *BY* The Begetter/Rasul/Rahim/Haq (Surah 3:86 & 9:128) and this Holy Spirit/Ruh al-Qudus (not Jibreel) brings down Good News from The Lord (Surah 16:102). The same Begetter became present as Yesod by Kadmon (Surah 58:22)
Allah = God
Ruh al Qudus= Holy Spirit
Muhammad = Jesus
Qur'an = Perfectly Preserved Word of God made flesh by the Ruh into The Messiah.
Many Muslims are going to apostate from Islam this year when the realise Allah's two right hand are The Kalimatullah and The Ruh Al-Qudus. The Kalimatullah becomes The Shin when He returns to make the world His footstool
Thank you. This is very interesting and helpful. 🙏☘
@@kateknowles8055 Get Muslims to throw out Abbasid Islam. The Abbasid Empire created the Haddiths
John10::29KJV" My Father, which gave them me, is greater than ALL; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." Note please that the God and Father of Jesus (JEHOVAH) is greater than ALL not most. Thus contrary to the confusion being pedaled by Trinitarians Jesus'union with his God is not a union of equals.
So your point being is that Jesus is not God?
It's not my point, it's Jesus' point.
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 I’m asking is that wat you get from scripture?
John20:17KJV"17Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father(i.e our Father); and to my God, and your God(i.e our God). " I really can't see what else can be gotten from these texts other than that our Lord considered himself subordinate to his God and Father.
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 yes bc He was sent to be servant to fulfill the covenant which Old Testament in order to bring in new covenant. Yet He was fully Man yet fully God. He obedient unto death of the cross. So He could redeem mankind from sin. Which set us apart from God.
Addendum to the dream: My first thought regarding what does this mean: summarily pulling the teeth of a squad for something their coach did was like forcing people to take the jabbo.
17:04
Don’t roast me if I’m wrong .. is this cs lewis voice or someone reading his work ?
I wondered the same thing. I was told it’s someone reading his work
Voice actor
For his own voice he made a recording of the four loves.
❤️🙏👍
Peter's watchword apo-logia for the integrity of Christianity already had survived that crucial Early periods if any could've been manipulated, new contaminants infiltrated else subtley corrupted have come to limelights if not now further damning it's purpose to saving lost souls as assessing for helping hands where harmful effects mirrored back to society's are tasks assigned by Holy Spirit's personified.
Millennial history's witnessed to the tussles between Established church under dominant powers challenged by Oliver Cromwell's that ensued for Newly created Reformations across Continentals while Royalist loyalists went on to Eastern traditionalists or underdogs who continued suppress God's children not seen light or life's redeeming works which Enlightened revolutionary exposed through blight given an Even planks to tread upon?!
Religious apologetics shouldn't take modern science as their Truth's lest flying gods and tooth picking island maybe Roles reversed in place fliers or else submerged mountains really can't be extracted, yet point is taken Christian apologia only be defences.
But then a Roman Church Pope and Protestant Crown Parliament maybe Oxymorons.
I heard of him through Dr. Frank Turek
I heard of him when Narnia was published. We eight-year-olds all sat spellbound while our teacher read The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe!
How would you summarize Lewis' apologetic method?
Be aware of your listeners, converse with relevance, use your skill at paraphrasing.
C.S. was 46 years old when he gave this speech. He’d been a Christian for ~14 years. I took a liking to C.S. after reading a portion of Mere Christianity. He was obviously a very intelligent man who worked out his faith in ways that many/most of us have not. But this particular speech made me realize that even those who are extremely intellectually gifted share with us common folk a proneness to fundamental error. This speech was so rife with pride and arrogance that I could hardly believe that such an intelligent man, who’d thought deeply on the fundamental principles of Christianity, had neglected the core virtue of humility. With some reflection I realized this is precisely why we don’t look to theologians as a guide through challenging questions in matters of faith. What makes people like C.S. particularly dangerous is that we (mankind) are inclined to look to those we consider more intelligent than ourselves with a less critical eye. I’m won’t seek out C.S. again. I’m certainly not questioning his salvation, but I will stick with pastors who focus on the attributes of God and our position before almighty God. Apologies for the critical word - my only intent was to ask whomever is reading this to not overlook the possibility of critical error by the “intelligentsia.”
Did you per chance miss the entire first potion of his speech? He offers his opinion with utmost hesitation and then he speaks mostly of the need of clear communication and offers his experience. Possibly you are not familiar with how professors talk? Or how educated gentlemen of the previous century talk? Nothing in this speach suggests arrogance to me.
But you are of course free to read or not read whatever you see fit.
I know what arrogance is and it's not in this speech. Reason being is that arrogance is when someone is pretending to say high things for the sake of seeming wise and intelligent, yet their words; hollow.
What I hear (and also see as I also turned on captions to follow) was that he had covered several core topics with the intent to give advise and perspective to the angelican priests and youths. Cutting down to the heart of several problems with solutions.
You are right that he is using "high words", but he's doing so because for 2 reasons,
he's expressing his thoughts with absolute precision so that his words ( as to not be interpreted differently than intended If analysed)
And
So that he can place greater emphasis on certain ideas.
And when he said "uneducated" it is not as an derogatory term here, you can be a professor and be "uneducated" because what he's referring to is uneducated in Christian theology, which he did expressed prior.
Hopefully you are not swayed by the current age where meaning taken for granted and ignored. I hope that you can dissects his words sufficiently so that you may come off aroused to think of pastors critically as I have come to be relieved of my suspicions.
And trust me, this is how professors who know what they are talking about will speak.
1) CS Lewis never considered himself a theologian.
2) CS Lewis was a gifted writer and teacher who as a college professor had time to continue his education, far beyond average. As writer precision in word usage mattered to him.
3) We are literally less educated today than the average person back then, something obvious in encountering pop culture from back then.
Unfortunately, if you are going to call this speech arrogant (and hint around he's in Hell just for fun), I would suggest looking in the mirror. Your unwillingness to even attempt cope with a 50+ year time lag and differences in education and speech are about you, not CS Lewis.
Those such as yourself unintentionally act as a deterrent to the Christian faith. I do hope you find God. There are no more words to add to this.
Arrogant? Prideful? How!? Lewis was one of the most irritatingly humble thinkers I've read, constantly downplaying his own authority and avoiding recognition almost wherever possible. I'm curious if his word use, taken out of its nearly century old context, is really what the problem is. The conclusions you've drawn from this are very troubling to me. I've read nearly everything Lewis read and his ability to synthesize hundreds of ancient writers into easy to understand prose is exactly why he is worth a look regarding challenging questions. Lewis was not the intelligentsia, he spent nearly his whole Christian life criticizing intelligentsia - a good portion of this very essay was about criticizing Christian intelligentsia. There is an element to Lewis that requires one to learn how to read him before one actually can get anything out of it, I'd recommend broadening your horizons - look up George MacDonald or GK Chesterton - and familiarize yourself with others from an older time to see if it starts to come clearer.
Very delicious to hear
Brilliant
"Heaven and Earth shall move with the times but My Word shall not move with the times." Does that mean that Heaven has become more progressive, despite what is written in the Bible? Or am I misinterpreting that line?
Though CSL was aware of God, his theology was wrong. He was a grand apologist, but he didn't teach the Bible or the Gospel, "rightly dividing the Word".
Tommy's a fundamentalist loony or an American.
I do not have problems with this. For Bible teaching I refer to the Bible, to Dr James Tour, to Professor John Lennox. But we can ask in prayer direct to the Word Himself and often.
@@kateknowles8055 The Word is all there is. God controlled the writing and creation of the Bible. Why has it not been tampered with these past 2000 years. Listening to PHDs talk is for children. I have studied for 36 years, and I demand the truth of all who speak about God or claim to teach. 99% of all denominations these past 2000 years deny the Bible with all doctrine that doesn't exist within the pages of the original texts. The words in the New Testament is the only religion of God since Pentecost. There is nothing else to say except read the Bible and study it because we die tomorrow and only God's truth will save us-and obedience to it because Christ said so!
@@kateknowles8055 The Word is all there is. God controlled the writing and creation of the Bible. Why has it not been tampered with these past 2000 years. Listening to PHDs talk is for children. I have studied for 36 years, and I demand the truth of all who speak about God or claim to teach. 99% of all denominations these past 2000 years deny the Bible with all doctrine that doesn't exist within the pages of the original texts. The words in the New Testament is the only religion of God since Pentecost. There is nothing else to say except read the Bible and study it because we die tomorrow and only God's truth will save us-and obedience to it because Christ said so!
Sounds like the whole “ telephone game...” thing... Prayers for all worldwide... let there be peace on Earth between all... 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
The temptation to skip over what a person disagrees with in Scripture. Talking about being open-minded. And how difficult it might be for a lot a lot a lot of people. I heard about the Flat Earth 3 years ago, and laughed, but now I see it no other way. Now I laugh at people who think we live on a spinning ball.
The word I would avoid, today, is "evangelical". To too many people, it will be understood to mean a harsh, self-righteousness, a tendency not to listen, to be inclined to look down others, to be legalistic and not really to believe in grace. Kind of like being an anti-witness. If you mean that you take scripture seriously, I'd suggest finding another expression to say that.
“In many ways, Christian apologetics is like a corporate customer relations department. It is their job to defend, apologize, and explain away certain defects in a given product. They often do this by leading the customer to believe that they somehow misunderstood the product when the truth of the matter is, the product is defective and the company is corrupt.”
-Michael Sherlock
I used to think he was so profound, just a talented wordsmith; another empty suit.
I'm still in the profound stage. Could you point out what parts are empty?
@@mattmatician They actually appear to be atheistic.
@@mattmatician He looks very angry for some reason.
Lol. Move on.
@@LostArchivist I did not feel that way. Perhaps you felt that way because currently it's seen as poor taste to be spreading your believes especially regarding religion yet CS lewis here is actively teaching how to do it like he has an agenda, which he does. That is to defend what he believes in and that starts by making sure you can communicate as clearly as possible what you indeed believe in.