A problem in mere christianity

[repo_man]

… i realize it’s not a divinely inspired book or anything. but i was wondering if anyone could clear this up.

amid reasoning for the law of human nature and the force that drives it, lewis seemed to have made a contradictory statement that nullifies the whole work. he is making the case that god shows himself through the inherent law of human nature and correct behavior in us all. which is good except he then says:

If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside that universe - no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house.

isn’t that what christianity is based around? the idea that god was able to show himself to his creation by taking on the role of his creation in a mere man.

i ask this because every other loophole he has opened so far he has immediately closed in another clause. this one seems, so far, to have been left ignored. anyone? anyone? bueller? …

edit: i copied and pasted this from another board i post on. right now i’ve about 30 pages left in the book and still it is unresolved.

 

[SedesDomi]

… i realize it’s not a divinely inspired book or anything. but i was wondering if anyone could clear this up.

amid reasoning for the law of human nature and the force that drives it, lewis seemed to have made a contradictory statement that nullifies the whole work. he is making the case that god shows himself through the inherent law of human nature and correct behavior in us all. which is good except he then says:

If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside that universe - no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house.

isn’t that what christianity is based around? the idea that god was able to show himself to his creation by taking on the role of his creation in a mere man.

i ask this because every other loophole he has opened so far he has immediately closed in another clause. this one seems, so far, to have been left ignored. anyone? anyone? bueller? …

edit: i copied and pasted this from another board i post on. right now i’ve about 30 pages left in the book and still it is unresolved.

Lewis’s point is that the architect of a house can never be totally contained within a stair-case or fire-place within the house.

Jesus may have been both God and man, but Jesus’s Godness was not totally contained within his human-ness.

 

[teachccd]

It’s been a while since I read this book but my take from reading your post is that God is not a part of His creation. Pantheism says that God is in all things. So when you see a beautiful tree pantheists would admit to actually seeing God. Christianity maintains that God is known through His creation as an artist is known through his artwork. So while we have the attributes of love because we are made in the image and likeness of God, our love is not God. God is love but love is not God. God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are an infinite entity residing outside of time and space. Creation is part of the eternal now in which God exists; but it is not Him…Did I make any sense?? Sometimes I confuse myself. Whenever we speak of God we ALWAYS fall short in our human language. He is always “more than” so nothing in creation could ever contain Him. Even in His incarnation, Jesus retains His eternal divine nature which is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not part of creation. He is God taking on human flesh and while His humanity has a place in space and time, the Person of Jesus is eternal and He can
never be considered a created being. …God Bless…teachccd

 

[repo_man]

touche. i guess it sorta makes sense. because later he says humans beget humans, but humans can only create non-human things. likewise god only beget god, but he can only create non-god things. what was confusing me was, although i realize christ was eternally begotten and always existed, christ’s body was created. but the person of christ wasn’t. so i get it.

thank you.

 

[teachccd]

touche. i guess it sorta makes sense. because later he says humans beget humans, but humans can only create non-human things. likewise god only beget god, but he can only create non-god things. what was confusing me was, although i realize christ was eternally begotten and always existed, christ’s body was created. but the person of christ wasn’t. so i get it.

thank you.

Exactly and your welcome…