Well if Jesus still bears the scars of his death then oobviously we’ll get to see him. The actual verses used in support of that are kind of obscure though…

Byron Smith - 24 August 2007 02:00 AM

Having said this, I do think that Lewis has platonic tendencies in his thought (and he would have been the first to admit it - check out the final couple of chapters in The Last Battle).

I agree, though having platonic tendencies is different to being a neoplatonist.

One could say that the Bible has platonic tendencies.
Mind you, it also has aristotelian tendencies.
But, of course, it is neither Platonic, nor Aristotelian.

BTW - the parable comes from a sermon called ‘Transposition’, found in “Screwtape Proposes a Toast”.

Byron Smith - 24 August 2007 02:00 AM

The images of lines are true images in Lewis’ account.

Then it is a misleading analogy, as the child in the analogy rightly and instinctively picks up.

But they are only partial.

What the child reacts to—in the analogy as Mark reports it—is not the bits that everyone would agree to as being true, partial though they may be. The child reacts to the patent falsehood that the real world consists of pencilly lines.

“For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face.” (1 Cor 13.8)

Yes. Isn’t this a far better way of expressing what Lewis seems to be trying to get at?

Sorry, not irritated at you. It’s just that so many people seem to love CS Lewis with an unreasoning love, like I used to before I was a Christian. Now I look on him as a sincere Christian with the gift of prose, and an Anglo-Catholic amateur philosopher operating outside his area of expertise.

I think I understand you platonic concerns here...but I don’t think that Lewis is saying that the present life is the sketches - the sketches are the attempts to describe the world to come within the limitations of the present age and experience - the lines are illustrative of the limitations of our present language and experience.

Gordon Cheng - 24 August 2007 09:30 AM

Byron Smith - 24 August 2007 02:00 AM

Sorry, not irritated at you.

So...that means you’re irritated at me?

It’s just that so many people seem to love CS Lewis with an unreasoning love, like I used to before I was a Christian. Now I look on him as a sincere Christian with the gift of prose, and an Anglo-Catholic amateur philosopher operating outside his area of expertise.

Next time I’ll remember not to mention C.S. Lewis
;-)

Gordon wrote: The child reacts to the patent falsehood that the real world consists of pencilly lines.

As opposed to reacting to a blurry image in an old metal mirror? “But I thought everything there was going to be fuzzy, how will we know each other?”

Mark Williamson wrote:  I think I understand you platonic concerns here...but I don’t think that Lewis is saying that the present life is the sketches - the sketches are the attempts to describe the world to come within the limitations of the present age and experience - the lines are illustrative of the limitations of our present language and experience.

Too right Mark. I can’t conceive how the Godhead works and so have a real hard time visualizing what I am going to “see” in heaven. The best explanation so far of the “irreconcilable” facts of God’s omnipresence and yet bodily form in Jesus appear to be in Byron’s blog… but I take it all such descriptions are just “lines” and / or “blurred images” and the reality may be too hard to describe to us in our current form. If that sounds too platonic, well, it just seems to be that way anyway.

Dave Lankshear - 24 August 2007 11:53 AM

Gordon wrote: The child reacts to the patent falsehood that the real world consists of pencilly lines.

As opposed to reacting to a blurry image in an old metal mirror? “But I thought everything there was going to be fuzzy, how will we know each other?”

Paul’s comment in 1 Corinthians makes sense. We don’t see face to face now. We will then. There’s nothing misleading in either this idea, or the analogy he uses to describe it, and hence nothing for a child to be misled or confused about. His experience in heaven will match up precisely with what Paul describes. In that sense, Paul does not draw with pencilly lines, but his words are inerrantly true.

So the medium of creative words is inherently superior to the medium of creative drawings? What if God had spoken to us through Hieroglyphics, then images would have been inerrant as well? ;-)

I don’t understand why you are being so harsh on that illustration Gordon. The words Paul used describe a reality I can only just visualize. The illustrations the boy received in gaol of the outside world also described a reality he could just barely visualize. The illustration is good in that it indicates the sheer magnitude of the difference of our preconceptions about heaven with what the reality will be… and if ever used in a sermon, I’m sure the preacher would come back to the bible to indicate that we have been given true descriptions of heaven, but they remain just that.

The fact that we are diverted into debating mediums of communication may indicate just how challenging that ultimate reality is to really describe. We’d rather argue over scribbles versus verses.

Dave Lankshear - 24 August 2007 12:20 PM

So the medium of creative words is inherently superior to the medium of creative drawings?

Probably another thread, but yes.

What if God had spoken to us through Hieroglyphics, then images would have been inerrant as well? ;-)

My understanding is that hieroglyphics are words.

The fact that we are diverted into debating mediums of communication may indicate just how challenging that ultimate reality is to really describe. We’d rather argue over scribbles versus verses.

Gordon Cheng - 24 August 2007 09:30 AM

Sorry, not irritated at you. It’s just that so many people seem to love CS Lewis with an unreasoning love, like I used to before I was a Christian. Now I look on him as a sincere Christian with the gift of prose, and an Anglo-Catholic amateur philosopher operating outside his area of expertise.
(Terry added bold)

Hi Gordon,

While your comment may be valid for some of CS Lewis’s non-fiction work,
in his essay Fern Seed and Elephants he showed how liberal Bible critics were trying to operate in his area of expertise and doing a clueless job of it.

Fern Seed and Elephants, originally presented in 1959, is still the best short demolition of liberalism’s pretensions in Biblical criticism that I have seen.

Unmerited favour & peace,

Terry

Was kinda spacing out flicking through this thread when my eyes locked on to this:

Mark Williamson - 24 August 2007 01:40 AM

So, by the same measure, Cheng=Spanish Inquisitor?
;)

Ohhhh… you mean Gordon…

Incidentally I had no idea there was some Spanish in Gordon.  How we Chengs get around.

Don’t mind him - he’s from Barcelona.

On a marginally more serious side, my scripture kids are of a similar age to Dave’s and they ask similar questions, so I’m very appreciative of what people have said.

<tangent>My favourite question so far came when I took a day off work and turned up to scripture wearing something other than my work uniform:

“Did you get fired?”

</tangent>

Proceed.

:-)

How do you fit scripture into your working week? I can only do it because I’m a home business manager.

My other favourite scripture question was about my scripture teacher assistant, my puppet, Sammy.

“Did Sammy flush Harry’s head down the toilet this week?”

Don’t ask.

Dave Lankshear - 24 August 2007 03:53 PM

How do you fit scripture into your working week?

The school I teach scripture at (Coniston Public) has scripture on Wednesdays from 9 to 9:30.  So I turn up to work sometime around 10am on Wednesdays and make up the time somewhere else during the week.  I block out the time on my Outlook calendar so I don’t generally get meetings and things scheduled then so it works out.

I started teaching scripture because I was asked.  At the time I (even flippantly) said “Sure, I’ll ask work and see if they’re cool with me teaching scripture”, thinking for all money they would say no, and I’d just tottle on merrily - kind of a “I’d love to but...”.  However to my surprise they were okay with it and I’ve been doing the above for the last 2 yrs.

Goes to show it’s always worth asking.  It’s also turned out to be a good conversation starter at work even when scripture has gone (to my reckoning) really badly - perhaps even especially so since it’s apparently obvious when I walk in the front door at work.  I hope the good weeks are obvious too.

Meanwhile, back on topic, heaps earlier Craig T wrote:

Craig Thacker - 22 August 2007 03:52 PM

Dave it is a good question.
Just having a quick look at Revelation;
God’s glory appears to be in Heaven and it surrounds Jesus, called the ‘Lamb’.  God’s glory is represented as light.  However we know from Colossians 1:15 that God is invisible.  He has no form.  Which is part of the reason why an idol could never represent God, that and an idol is mute.  So in Heaven we get to see everything that is able to be seen of God, but the only person of the Trinity that is visible is the Lamb.

This does not mean that the Father and the Spirit are not experienced in Heaven.  They will have a very real presence, but there presence will not be in the shape of a person.

How figurative then are things like:

[quote author="Psalm 11:7"]For the LORD is righteous,
he loves justice:
upright men will see his face.

Or the appearances of God to Moses or Isaiah?