The nature of free will and where might it come from.

[percho]

1 Sam 8:7 And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

The New Covenant
Jer 31:31,33,34 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hebrews 8:10-12 says the same thing.

In either Hebrews 8 or Jeremiah 31 passages of the new covenant does anyone remotely see any evidence of there being free will toward those to whom the covenant is to be made with?

Is the nature of free will to want to rule one self or to allow God to rule over you?

Is it possible and or likely thet the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was? Free Will?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Is the nature of free will to want to rule one self or to allow God to rule over you?

It is the nature of "Free-Will" that to "allow" God to rule over you has intrinsic meaning.... It is not the nature of man to "allow" God to rule over them.

Is it possible and or likely thet the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil was? Free Will?

No, If it were...then they had no freedom either to "choose" or not to "choose" to rebel or obey by eating the fruit. Adam quite willfully ate of the tree, and was in no way deceived as Eve was. For their sin in eating the tree to be meaningful, they would have had to posses some freedom to either obey or rebel.
We sometimes seem to think that there must have been special properties to that tree. We seem to sometimes think that (like the tree of life) that there was something particularly special about that tree as opposed to any others. As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think so.
For all we know...the only thing special about that tree whatsoever was merely God's command NOT to eat of it... Theoretically, God might just as well picked out any other tree at random and told them not to east of THAT tree and the results would have been the same, I think.

 

[Van]

If mankind cannot make autonomous choices that alter the outcome of their lives, then God is the author of sin. Adam volitionally sinned when he chose to eat the fruit, thus he was able to go against God before he ate.

God created mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices which He can allow or override at His discretion. This God given ability to choose to give glory to God when we repent was according to God's purpose and plan of creation, to choose for Himself a people for His own possession.

 

[humblethinker]

Michio Kaku proposing that Quantum Physics entails free will. I like to think that free will (God's) existed prior to QP, but I get his point.

In a world populated with self determining created beings, it seems that all that is needed in the physical world is specific-event indeterminism within a generaly probabilistic universe... And it seems that science currently supports both. Without quantum physics we could not have either... And then where would free will be? For athiests, having 'indeterminism' does not get them anything more than that.

So, 'indeterminism' advances free will for the theist more than it does for the athiest.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

If mankind cannot make autonomous choices that alter the outcome of their lives, then God is the author of sin. Adam volitionally sinned when he chose to eat the fruit, thus he was able to go against God before he ate.

God created mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices which He can allow or override at His discretion. This God given ability to choose to give glory to God when we repent was according to God's purpose and plan of creation, to choose for Himself a people for His own possession.

If there is a better and more accurate or succinct way of stating these truths....Then, I personally am unaware of them...:thumbsup::wavey::godisgood:

 

[percho]

If mankind cannot make autonomous choices that alter the outcome of their lives, then God is the author of sin. Adam volitionally sinned when he chose to eat the fruit, thus he was able to go against God before he ate.

God created mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices which He can allow or override at His discretion. This God given ability to choose to give glory to God when we repent was according to God's purpose and plan of creation, to choose for Himself a people for His own possession.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world 1 Peter 1:18-20

Why before, the creation of the man of free will was it necessary for that man, to have to be redeemed?

Before the creation of the man of free will was there already in existence a sinful being/force to be dwelt with that would affect the man of free will that was to be created?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world 1 Peter 1:18-20

What point are you making by posting this verse? What are you saying Percho??

Why before, the creation of the man of free will was it necessary for that man, to have to be redeemed?

You are playing fast and loose with words like "necessary". Was it "necessary" for him to be redeemed at all?.....I would say, yes....and that is in accordance with the nature of God.

In what way is the temporal status of man's "redemption" necessary either "termporally" or "a-temporally" prior to his creation?????? Why don't you tell us.

Before the creation of the man of free will was there already in existence a sinful being/force to be dwelt with that would affect the man of free will that was to be created?

Yes, there was, and that was Lucifer....but whether or not God had created said man with or without freedom of will is essentially immaterial. There was, a volitional being who can be properly defined as "sinful" and it was Satan/ and he existed (and probably also fell) prior to God's creation of man. This is true regardless of any other actual questions regarding man's capacity for free-will or what-not...These things are independently true.......What are you driving at????

This thread smacks (to me) as a thread created by someone to attempt to prove a point that they already think they know to be true...and they are subsequently asking rhetorical questions either with the attempt to demonstrate said point, or to trap any possible detractors with the ingenuity of their questions into some kind of self-contradiction...

Neither will occur....Do you have honest questions??? or do you already "know" the answers....?

 

[Luke2427]

For their sin in eating the tree to be meaningful, they would have had to posses some freedom to either obey or rebel.

This is a claim without warrant.

Saying, "Sin is meaningless without freedom to obey or rebel" doesn't make it so.

It's the very same mistake contra-causal free will folks make with love. They contend that man must be free to choose to love or choose to hate or the love that they have is not meaningful love.

The error here is the assumption that love requires something that GOD'S LOVE has never had- the ability TO NOT DO SO.

God the Father does not have the ABILITY- he is not ABLE to NOT LOVE the Son.

He would be able to sin if he could do that.

Freedom (the ability to do one or the other) adds nothing to love.

Therefore, freedom is not necessarily essential to the meaningfulness of sin, either.

 

[percho]

What point are you making by posting this verse? What are you saying Percho??


You are playing fast and loose with words like "necessary". Was it "necessary" for him to be redeemed at all?.....I would say, yes....and that is in accordance with the nature of God.

In what way is the temporal status of man's "redemption" necessary either "termporally" or "a-temporally" prior to his creation?????? Why don't you tell us.


Yes, there was, and that was Lucifer....but whether or not God had created said man with or without freedom of will is essentially immaterial. There was, a volitional being who can be properly defined as "sinful" and it was Satan/ and he existed (and probably also fell) prior to God's creation of man. This is true regardless of any other actual questions regarding man's capacity for free-will or what-not...These things are independently true.......What are you driving at????

This thread smacks (to me) as a thread created by someone to attempt to prove a point that they already think they know to be true...and they are subsequently asking rhetorical questions either with the attempt to demonstrate said point, or to trap any possible detractors with the ingenuity of their questions into some kind of self-contradiction...

Neither will occur....Do you have honest questions??? or do you already "know" the answers....?

I posted that verse for the purpose of showing it was ordained for Christ to die before the first man Adam was created.

In other words Adam fulfilled the purpose for which he was created by sinning and bringing death to all men.

Did Adam sin by free will or according to purpose?

It wasn't ordained the Lamb to be slain if Adam sinned. The Lamb was slain and then the first man Adam was created.

It appears to me from scripture man was created knowing Satan would deceive the woman taken from the man, the man would sin and bring death to all men and then God through a sinless man child born of woman would defeat Satan at the same time redeeming the deceived and sinful.

That the free will of man would always be to put himself before God. The very concept of saying that by a man of his free will choosing God is to put the choice always being in the man. Therefore I tried to show through the new covenant there to be no free will involved. Did Adam or Eve think they had done anytning wrong. They begin to decide for themselves what was good and evil. They did not want God telling them what was good and evil.
This came from that old serpent Satan the devil who had the power of death.

God through his resurrected Son, that is the Son of man who has been given life from the dead God is re-creating the original man created subject to sin and death unto a new man not subject to sin and death.

Am I wrong concerning the new covenant? Does it have anything to say about what I have expressed?

I believe salvation to be totally of God through his election. That includes our understanding of faith. I believe the faith that brought the grace of life to be the Lamb slain. God through his Son Jesus of Nazareth has done it all. What we do or believe about what God has done has nothing to do with our salvation.

 

[jonathan.borland]

If they hadn't free will until after they ate the fruit, then how did they come to eat the fruit in the first place? Ok ok, God made them do it, and everything is just one big act with God rejecting himself through those he damned before the foundation of the world and receiving himself through those he unconditionally elected before he made satan and man sin and to God be the glory great things he has done. Get real.

 

[percho]

If they hadn't free will until after they ate the fruit, then how did they come to eat the fruit in the first place? Ok ok, God made them do it, and everything is just one big act with God rejecting himself through those he damned before the foundation of the world and receiving himself through those he unconditionally elected before he made satan and man sin and to God be the glory great things he has done. Get real.

Was the first man Adam created to bring about this purpose?

Hebrews 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; --- Was not Adam who was created in the image of God, the figure of him to come, that is the Son of Man, the Son of God, Jesus of Nazareth. Rom 5:14

Would you agree, based on the following verse, that the first man Adam was not created in a manner fit for the kingdom of God?

1 Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

Yet and correct me if I am wrong; Man, was created to have all of creation put under man, that is to inherit all things God created.

 

[psalms109:31]

I think when most talk about free will they are actually talking about a free agency. We have others who know what free will is and think of those who talk about free will is ridiculous(free will not those who talk about it). Man can only work within the boundaries that God has placed them in, so they are free agency within those boundaries. If i want to fly i can't will myself to fly without something made to help me. I can't will time to stop. If i have already started smoking and addicted i would have to fight my own will to quit. Those who want to diet have to fight against their own will to eat what ever they want.

God gave Adam over to his own evil desire, for God will for Adam was not to eat from the tree of knowledge good and evil. Where did Adam get this evil desire from, Eve who was deceived by a liar the murderer from the beginning. God was not the murderer it was Satan. God already prepared for the one who will crush the serpents head the work of the devil and whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. We are to believe God who is blessed forever even over our own evil desire, understanding.

Ephesians 6 :
The Armor of God

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is a claim without warrant.Saying, "Sin is meaningless without freedom to obey or rebel" doesn't make it so.

I think you are missing some things here....Even many Calvinists would argue that Adam had some form of volitional freedom (not strictly enjoyed by his now sinful progeny). The context is the Tree of Knowledge.....Within the context of the initial sinful act, If Adam had zero volition whatsoever, than His eyes were neither really opened or closed prior to eating the tree, he was as good as "dead" (Spiritually)....His act was in no way "willful" and the distinction between Eve's being "deceived" and Adam's "willful" sin is meaningless. Furthermore, God would have had essentially created a being less than perfect and already flawed. Nothing, if Adam had no volition, and was already necessarily pre-disposed to evil, makes man, or God's Creation..."very good"....It would no longer be accurate to say that Adam was EVER Spiritually alive at all, or that in were "in Adam" that we all die.

It's the very same mistake contra-causal free will folks make with love. They contend that man must be free to choose to love or choose to hate or the love that they have is not meaningful love.

Within the context of the Tree....it is not the same thing.

He would be able to sin if he could do that.

I disagree, actually....God could be an Omnipotent Fiend...and that would not make him "sinful". This makes God's being Loving a standard to which he would have to adhere which is above himself...Sin is that which dis-pleases God. If it "pleased" God NOT to Love the Son...it makes him neither right nor wrong. There was nothing inherently "Wrong" with the tree....(it was indeed "Good for Food") only the fact that God told Adam not to eat of it. God might as well have picked any tree at random.

Freedom (the ability to do one or the other) adds nothing to love.

Obviously, we dis-agree with this....but, within the context of Man's willful sin in the garden, I think this is an imperfect analogy. Truth be told...I don't think God has a "choice" to not love man either.

Therefore, freedom is not necessarily essential to the meaningfulness of sin, either.

Although, as a non-Calvinist, I disagree with this statement....Even many Calvinists would agree that within the context of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil....Adam had some form of volitional capacity to obey. Even if his progeny do not.

 

[Luke2427]

I think you are missing some things here....Even many Calvinists would argue that Adam had some form of volitional freedom (not strictly enjoyed by his now sinful progeny). The context is the Tree of Knowledge.....Within the context of the initial sinful act, If Adam had zero volition whatsoever, than His eyes were neither really opened or closed prior to eating the tree, he was as good as "dead" (Spiritually)....His act was in no way "willful" and the distinction between Eve's being "deceived" and Adam's "willful" sin is meaningless. Furthermore, God would have had essentially created a being less than perfect and already flawed. Nothing, if Adam had no volition, and was already necessarily pre-disposed to evil, makes man, or God's Creation..."very good"....It would no longer be accurate to say that Adam was EVER Spiritually alive at all, or that in were "in Adam" that we all die

.

I am not saying he did not have will or volition. Everybody has that even now in their sinful state.

Why would Adam have been less than perfect if he had no free will?

Are you saying that God could not create a being without will??
.

I disagree, actually....God could be an Omnipotent Fiend...and that would not make him "sinful". This makes God's being Loving a standard to which he would have to adhere which is above himself...Sin is that which dis-pleases God. If it "pleased" God NOT to Love the Son...it makes him neither right nor wrong

.

I don't recall "right or wrong" being part of my argument.

I am saying that God does not have the ability to stop loving the Son. He cannot BUT love the Son and for this very reason- his love is PERFECT.

The greatest love is UTTERLY void of the freedom of will.

 

[Yeshua1]

If mankind cannot make autonomous choices that alter the outcome of their lives, then God is the author of sin. Adam volitionally sinned when he chose to eat the fruit, thus he was able to go against God before he ate.

God created mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices which He can allow or override at His discretion. This God given ability to choose to give glory to God when we repent was according to God's purpose and plan of creation, to choose for Himself a people for His own possession.

adam had that free will that you seek all of us to have, bu since his fall, NONE of those in adam retained true free will, as it is bound up andrestrained by the sin natures now residing within us!

 

[Yeshua1]

Michio Kaku proposing that Quantum Physics entails free will. I like to think that free will (God's) existed prior to QP, but I get his point.

In a world populated with self determining created beings, it seems that all that is needed in the physical world is specific-event indeterminism within a generaly probabilistic universe... And it seems that science currently supports both. Without quantum physics we could not have either... And then where would free will be? For athiests, having 'indeterminism' does not get them anything more than that.

So, 'indeterminism' advances free will for the theist more than it does for the athiest.

Does ANY except God have absolute Free will though? is there EVER something ever occus without God know of it beforehand, and either he caused it or permitted it to happen?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I am not saying he did not have will or volition. Everybody has that even now in their sinful state.

Unless you are completely unique amongst nearly all Calvinist brethren....no they don't. That is to say, at least NOT in the same sense that Adam had it. Calvinists accept what they consider a "volitional will" or something...which is determinatively pre-disposed towards evil. But with the garden scenario....Adam is usually thought to have not been already corrupt. Within the Garden parameters.....God would have created Adam imperfect if he were pre-disposed to choose that which was evil. It would have been false to say that all was "very good"....as "sin" had already entered the scene, and man was already inherently "corrupt". Adam's "sin" would have been already meaningless.
Although I disagree with it, I can dig the Calvinist idea that post Adam's choice, man's "WILL" is so corrupted that he is incapable of choosing other than he does...but your scenario renders Adam already corrupt and sinful. That is certainly not a classically accepted Calvie view. I am sticking specifically to the parameters of the OP.

Why would Adam have been less than perfect if he had no free will?

Not my argument....he would be "less than perfect" if he possessed a "Will" already pre-disposed towards wickedness.....If he were pre-disposed towards evil, than he was in no way ever "ALIVE"....and he no more "DIED" the day he ate the fruit than the man in the moon did....He was already evil, and Spiritually dead.

Are you saying that God could not create a being without will??

.
Not at all.....I even say as much regularly. God might VERY WELL have made man without volitional will, and that would be fine.....I defend the notion however, that he DID.

I don't recall "right or wrong" being part of my argument.

Unless I mis-understand your intent...it was. This was the statement I responded to:

God the Father does not have the ABILITY- he is not ABLE to NOT LOVE the Son.
He would be able to sin if he could do that.

I am rejecting the idea that if God DIDN'T love the Son....that that would be "Sin"....I maintain that IF God could or would "choose" not to love the Son, that is no more "bad" or "wicked" or sinful than anything else...Hence my phrase (stolen from C.S. Lewis) that if God were an "Omnipotent Fiend"....he would be neither "right" nor "wrong" to be so.....What God wants is what is "righteous." What God dis-likes is what is "sin". If God had preferred that we all be vicious, thieving, violent, cowardly, selfish, arrogant beasts.....than to act accordingly would be "right". And similarly, it would be a SIN to be peaceable, generous, pacifistic, courageous, un-selfish, and humble.....The ONLY standard extant is God and God ALONE....I think your scenario appeals to an ideal of perfection which ignores God's will and subjects him to it. At least, as you have stated it.

I am saying that God does not have the ability to stop loving the Son. He cannot BUT love the Son and for this very reason- his love is PERFECT.

Agreed on all points......Exept perhaps the last...I don't see how God's incapacity to BUT love the Son renders it more perfect than if he had a choice to...at best, it is neutral. What-ever God's properties are, they are what they are, and his properties are the standard of perfection. IF God were "CAPABLE" of NOT loving the Son, it would NOT make his love "less perfect".

The greatest love is UTTERLY void of the freedom of will.

I know you think this, and I respect your argument...but, I simply don't buy it. It seems to be an un-provable assertion IMO...

What if God DOESN'T "Love" us in the same sense that he does the Son? What if he Can't not love the Son, but he COULD not love us? So what?
I maintain he "Can't" not love us, any more than he "can't" not love the Son....but that doesn't mean that his "love" must manifest itself in precisely the same way...The "Son" can't not-love the Father either....maybe God wanted a different "form" of Love with some differing properties when he made man?
God (I think) didn't "need" some repeat of precisely the same scenario he already enjoyed in Eternity past with the perfect fellowship of his God-head. Maybe his God-head also desired (and that by neccessity possibly) something altogether different!!!!:godisgood::thumbs:

Maybe..."Love" is such, that the "God-head" as a whole...is necessarily constrained to desire a consummate relationship with a volitional being which is wholly "other" than itself!!!:thumbs:
Those are ideas I banter...and they seem reasonable to me.:saint:

 

[Luke2427]

Unless you are completely unique amongst nearly all Calvinist brethren....no they don't. That is to say, at least NOT in the same sense that Adam had it. Calvinists accept what they consider a "volitional will" or something...which is determinatively pre-disposed towards evil.

The mistake you are making here is thinking that Calvinists believe that depraved men do not make choices between two options. You may want to say that it is not a real choice but to say that the belief in total depravity means that sinners do not make choices is wrong.

Sinners choose all of the time. They just always choose evil. They cannot BUT choose evil. Even the righteousnesses which they do are as filthy rags. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. Their motive is NEVER God-centered and so it is ALWAYS idolatry.

But they choose. Anecdote: Between fried catfish and raw oysters I will choose fried catfish every time. That is a willful choice and I will never do otherwise unless compelled to do so. So it is with sinners. Sinners, between an option to honor God and honor themselves, will ALWAYS choose to honor themselves. That is a choice that they will always make- every time. Like my disdain for raw oysters they have an invincible disdain for the righteousness of God and only wish to go about establishing their own righteousness.

But they still make real choices- it is just that their real choices are always self centered and totally void of a conviction that the one true God ought to be preeminent and receive glory for their actions.

But with the garden scenario....Adam is usually thought to have not been already corrupt. Within the Garden parameters.....God would have created Adam imperfect if he were pre-disposed to choose that which was evil. It would have been false to say that all was "very good"....as "sin" had already entered the scene, and man was already inherently "corrupt". Adam's "sin" would have been already meaningless.

I don't understand. Adam would have been inherently sinful if he did not have a free will???

Not my argument....he would be "less than perfect" if he possessed a "Will" already pre-disposed towards wickedness.....If he were pre-disposed towards evil, than he was in no way ever "ALIVE"....and he no more "DIED" the day he ate the fruit than the man in the moon did....He was already evil, and Spiritually dead.

I do not think he was predisposed to evil either.

I just think evil is the inevitable result of the removal of good.
.

Not at all.....I even say as much regularly. God might VERY WELL have made man without volitional will, and that would be fine.....I defend the notion however, that he DID.

I think he did, too. That's not my point. My point is that Adam did not have to have the ability to do evil in order to be truly loving and honoring toward God.

Unless I mis-understand your intent...it was. This was the statement I responded to:

I am rejecting the idea that if God DIDN'T love the Son....that that would be "Sin"....I maintain that IF God could or would "choose" not to love the Son, that is no more "bad" or "wicked" or sinful than anything else...Hence my phrase (stolen from C.S. Lewis) that if God were an "Omnipotent Fiend"....he would be neither "right" nor "wrong" to be so.....What God wants is what is "righteous." What God dis-likes is what is "sin".

Lewis is wrong about that. Lewis freely and rightly confesses that he is no theologian. He was a wonderful philosopher but a very poor theologian.

Don't get me wrong- I LOVE Lewis. I think he was brilliant. But theology was by no means his strong suit as he freely admits.

Your standard of right is bigger than and precedes God and thus becomes God itself to which who we call God must yield.

Right is what God does because God does it.

God is what God is and it so happens that what God is is a God whose love does not have contra causal free will.

Thus, contra causal free will is not that great.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Luke........I think you somehow missed the thrust of my argument before, as we BOTH were arguing the same thing too often. Maybe we can try again...I think you missed a LOT of what I was saying.....

With respect to this statement though:

But they choose. Anecdote: Between fried catfish and raw oysters I will choose fried catfish every time. That is a willful choice and I will never do otherwise unless compelled to do so.

This is fine.....as far as the analogy goes....but, if you would choose "fried cat-fish" over "STEAMED" Oysters (not raw) (especially with a cool Pint of Newcastle Brown Ale)....Than, we no longer have ANYTHING to say to one another. :wavey:

Lewis was MODEST.........he wasn't NEAR as bad a "Theologian" as he claimed he was.....Lewis was basically LYING about his own ability when it came to Theology. He was Modest...not ignorant. BTW...Take EVERYTHING he says with a grain of salt, including his "forwards" wherein he lambasts his own Theological knowledge....He was viewing Theological expertise under the umbrella of Modern COE Theology anyway...not Post-Modern American Neo-Calvinism!!!

 

[Luke2427]

Luke........I think you somehow missed the thrust of my argument before, as we BOTH were arguing the same thing too often. Maybe we can try again...I think you missed a LOT of what I was saying.....

With respect to this statement though:

This is fine.....as far as the analogy goes....but, if you would choose "fried cat-fish" over "STEAMED" Oysters (not raw) (especially with a cool Pint of Newcastle Brown Ale)....Than, we no longer have ANYTHING to say to one another. :wavey:

Lewis was MODEST.........he wasn't NEAR as bad a "Theologian" as he claimed he was.....Lewis was basically LYING about his own ability when it came to Theology. He was Modest...not ignorant. BTW...Take EVERYTHING he says with a grain of salt, including his "forwards" wherein he lambasts his own Theological knowledge....He was viewing Theological expertise under the umbrella of Modern COE Theology anyway...not Post-Modern American Neo-Calvinism!!!

We need to go out to a seafood restaurant and I'll try some of those oysters and Ale you make sound so good- so long as you pick up the check!

Lewis was a philosopher, not a theologian.

I just finished Mere Christianity and you and I both would question the foundations he lays for his theology in that book.

His philosophy is unparalleled- so don't get me wrong; I think he was BRILLIANT.

But his theology was not up to par.

Regardless, it's always a joy to converse with you! Seriously.