Section 1 Mere Christianity Flashcards
Where does the title “mere christianity” come from?
Richard Baxster first coined
What is the difference between quarrelling and fighting?
Quarrelling is trying to prove the other person wrong, fighting is actual combat, whether with words or physical force.
Why is it called “the Law of Nature”?
Emphasis should be made that this law is itself an observed law like those said to be physical laws; however, this law is different in the sense that it is a transcendental law (without experience) in that it is inherent in every mind prior to observation, much like the rules of mathematics (Lewis’ multiplication table) can be reasoned prior to seeing mathematics be worked out. It is observed in the sense that one recognizes that everyone has it.
What are the two basic concepts of chapter one?
There is a moral law, and we have broken it.
Is the Moral Law social convention or instinct? Why or why not?
Moral law is not instinct, in fact it runs contrary to instinct quite often. Instincts are also often in conflict with one another.
Moral law is more like mathematics, it exists regardless of social convention. Mathematics is also transcendental (without experience), which was what Socrates showed when he asked a slave boy to work out a couple problems even though the boy had not previously experienced the problems beforehand (his intention was actually that the boy had past experience of the problems from the soul living many lives before now).
Why is the Moral Law not “what human beings, in fact, do”?
Because it is something that we are not capable of fully keeping, it goes against what we want.
The Moral Law tells humans what they ought to do or not do.
How do the laws of nature contrast with this idea?
We can avoid following and keeping the Moral Law unlike the physical laws of nature.
Is a violation of the Moral Law the fact that what a person did is inconvenient to you?
No necessarily.
Is morality what is useful?
Often not at all.
What are the two major views held about the universe and what are their implications?
Theistic (religious), Materialism/Naturalism (Lewis specifically describes what is more commonly called Naturalism today where there are only natural causes and natural objects–nothing supernatural; we would say that this means that everything is thought to be out of Creation and defined by Creation)
What is the first bit of evidence about the Somebody?
The universe, nature, the person in nature capable of observing nature (anthropic principle). Moral Law. The moral law is a sensible, transcendental object–which means that we only have experience of it within our own minds and so is the thing in ourselves that we have evidence for the Somebody.
What is the other bit of evidence we have about the Somebody besides the Moral Law?
Ability to look inside of ourselves (the realization that there is a Moral Law, a Power behind the law, and we have broken the Moral Law and have put ourselves wrong with the Power behind it).
What does Lewis conclude from the second bit of evidence?
That the Being behind the universe is extremely interested in “right conduct” or morality of His creatures.
We could conclude that God is a great artist, but also that he is merciless and no friend to man (the universe is beautiful but also dangerous).
What facts must one face in order for Christianity to make sense? Why?
There is a moral law and we do not abide by it. That we are sick. Throwing pearls before swine. Gospel before people who don’t care is hard. Law/Gospel important.
What one thing do Christians not have to believe?
That all other Religions are completely wrong “all through” (pg.35)
What is the first big division in rival religions?
Those who believe in some sort of God or gods and those who do not.
What is the next big division in rival religions?
Of those who believe in God, they can be divided between those who believe that God is beyond good and evil ie Pantheism (Good and evil are based on one’s perspective). The other group are those who believe that God is most definitely good and righteous (i.e. Theism).
What two things are too simple?
Atheism and the view that there is a good God in heaven and everything is alright- leaving out the difficult and terrible doctrines.
Comment on the sentence, “It is a religion you could not have guessed.”
If it were simple and made logical sense we might feel that it were all made up. But just like the reality of the universe, Christianity has strange “twists” that you would not expect if it were man made. The divine hiddenness and the infinitude of God make it impossible for man to have guessed. He can neither comprehend God’s work nor has it been shown to him in its fullness so it would only make sense to conclude that Christianity must be outside of our realm of experience and rationality. “I believe because it is absurd.”
What two views face all the facts?
The Christian view that this is a good world gone wrong, and the other is dualism- two equal and independent powers behind everything.
What is the catch in dualism?
If one is bad and one is good, there must be some higher power to determine what is good and what is bad, there must be some third thing judging by a law or standard. Evil in itself cannot be ruled against. It is the opposite power to goodness and a necessary aspect of existence. Worshipping good is the same as worshipping evil, just opposite in aspect. One cannot make judgments on the opposite side. In order to say that things must be wholly good, one must admit that evil is foreign to existence and must be eradicated.
Comment: “Badness is only spoiled goodness.”
Goodness is, so to speak, itself; badness is just spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled. We called sadism a sexual perversion; but you must first have the idea of normal sexuality before you can talk of it being perverted; and you can see which is the perversion, because you can explain the perverted from the normal, and cannot explain the normal from the perverted.”
P. 44. Can you think of any evil that’s not goodness gone bad?
No idea?
What is the point of Lewis’s discussion of free will?
Free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.
What is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn?
God Himself. This works into Lewis’ view of joy (sehnsucht) where we experience some sort of happiness/contentedness but we are at once faced with the prospect of seeing this as a miniscule aspect of perfection itself. Therefore we strive after perfection (God) as we constantly try to refuel ourselves to obtain fullness (completion, joy, telos).
What especially remarkable claim (shocking thing) did Jesus make?
That He forgives men their sins.
What is “The Shocking Alternative”?
He is either the Son of God or He is a madman or something worse (a demon, liar).
What are good dreams?
Stories scattered all through the heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men.
What are the three alternatives about Jesus?
Jesus is Lord, liar or lunatic (or legend). That Jesus’ statement about his Godhood was him telling the truth, a lie or a delusion. Either you believe he meant what he said (truth, delusion), or that he believed otherwise (lie). Jesus showed no signs of lunacy–people actually thought he was a great teacher (the modern people holding this view are whom Lewis was specifically speaking against). Therefore one must choose whether they believe if Jesus is God or a liar.
Is it necessary to believe a particular theory of atonement?
There are many theories such as: vicarious, ransom and Christus Victor.
What is the only way out of a “hole”?
For someone on the outside to reach in after you.
What is the catch about repentance?
Only bad people need to repent but they can never do so perfectly. Therefore only a perfect person can repent perfectly, but they don’t need to. Therefore bad people need a perfect person to repent perfectly for them.
