C.S. Lewis: "If nothing remains...

[Pastor Larry]

OK, so now there are 2 things: 1) chosen/"elect" and 2) belief. Is that right?

Well, in terms of this precise discussion, yes.

Is "elect" a pre-existing status or does it occur simultaneous with belief?

Election in Scripture is from the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), from the beginning (2 Thess 2:13). So whatever election is, it is prior to belief.

 

[skypair]

Election in Scripture is from the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), from the beginning (2 Thess 2:13). So whatever election is, it is prior to belief.

So it IS like gas in the tank of the elect and not in the non-elect. So it does pre-exist the "key" -- it's a "precondition" that allows one to be saved and another not?

I hope you don't mind me picking your brain on this. It is still not clear to me how God sees nothing in the elect that He should save them if, indeed, He has preselected them to salvation.

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

So it IS like gas in the tank of the elect and not in the non-elect. So it does pre-exist the "key" -- it's a "precondition" that allows one to be saved and another not?

No it's not. Election is God's choice of people to salvation, to bring them to belief and repentance.

It is still not clear to me how God sees nothing in the elect that He should save them if, indeed, He has preselected them to salvation.

Why isn't this clear? And why does it matter? The fact that we don't understand why or how God does something does not really affect the fact that he does it. If God sees something in an individual that causes him to elect them, then it is not really of grace, I think.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

I can't seem to find the quote in the chapter.
Can you give a larger quote?

The chapter, 'Horrid Red Things' is chapter 10 of "Miracles".

I certainly has NOTHING to do with Calvinism!

"All the essentials of Hinduism would, I think, remain unimpaired if you subtracted the miraculous, and the same is almost true of Mohammedanism.
But you cannot do that with Christianity.
It is precisely the story of a great Miracle.
A naturalistic Christianity leaves out all that is specifically Christian."
'Horrid Red Things' in the book Miracles by C.S. Lewis

Rob

I agree. It's amazing how these threads can take off on a favorite tangent even though the first post has nothing whatsoever to do with it. In this case this quote from C.S. Lewis which stresses the critical necessity of miracles to Christianity which has nothing to do with Calvinism as you say.

 

[skypair]

No it's not. Election is God's choice of people to salvation, to bring them to belief and repentance.

Be all that as it may, I was asking you to clarify because you seemed to have picked up on another C.S. Lewis analogy with the "gas" and "key" illustration (In Mere Cristianity). See if this doesn't make more sense ---

"... A car is made to run on petrol, and it wouldn't run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. That is why it is just no good asking God to make us happy in our own way without bothering about religion..."

"...them machine seems to start up all right and runs a few yards, and then breaks down. They are trying to run it on the wrong juice. That is what Satan has done to us humans."

"And what did God do? First of all He left us with a conscience, the sense of right and wrong."

It seems to me that in C.S. Lewis's illustration, it is pretty clear that the "gas" is there and turning the "conscience" is the way to get it going properly. This to me compares more favorably with John 16:8. The Spirit brings the "gas" and the "key" to start us up, right?

skypair

 

[Pastor Larry]

I was asking you to clarify because you seemed to have picked up on another C.S. Lewis analogy with the "gas" and "key" illustration (In Mere Cristianity). See if this doesn't make more sense ---

It doesn't make more sense because my comments have nothing to do with Lewis. I don't read Lewis much. My comments were merely an analogy that was explained to be referring to the fact that two things are necessary. There was no implication as to which thign was what. There was none intended.