A lot of people make use of C. S. Lewis’ apologetic work, and understandably so. But our use of his apologetics doesn’t reflect what came to be Lewis’ own opinion of those arguments. Wikipedia (if it’s to be trusted, but in the case the footnote seems accurate) has an interesting note:

“A 1948 loss in a debate with Elizabeth Anscombe led to his reevaluating his role as an apologist, and his future works concentrated on devotional literature and children's books.”

The footnote to this reads,

“Frequently Asked Questions about C.S. Lewis. “According to George Sayer, Lewis's friend and biographer, Lewis regarded the debate as a defeat, and felt humiliated by it: ‘He told me that he had been proved wrong, and that his argument for the existence of God had been demolished’. ...The debate had been a humiliating experience, but perhaps it was ultimately good for him. In the past, he had been too proud of his logical ability. Now he was humbled. ‘I can never write another book of that sort’ he said to me of Miracles. And he never did. He also never wrote another theological book.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/18/2008 3:02:32 AM (GMT-5)

Catherine H. Crouch, assistant professor of physics at Swarthmore College, reviews Francis Collins' The Language of God and Tom Wright's Simply Christian by comparing each with C. S. Lewis here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/10.26.html

Regarding Collin's book, Crouch notes that "Collins essentially gives the same argument for belief that Lewis presents in Mere Christianity: the Moral Law—the human instinct that right and wrong come from outside the individual, rather than simply being defined by each individual with reference to him or herself—points to the existence of One who is the source of right and wrong."  Crouch finds this to be a "limitation of Collins's book" and "a rather narrow slice of all the evidence that might be considered".  In terms of the choice of evidence, "Collins, far more than Wright, is Lewis' successor".

In contrast to Collins (and Lewis), Wright describes "four 'echoes of a voice': human beings' longing for justice, spirituality, relationship, and beauty, which Wright argues are longings because they reflect the character of God. Out of these longings, even before Christian theology is introduced, Wright paints a rich picture of what we might expect God to be like, one that dovetails far more closely with historical Christianity than the Moral Law alone."

Money quote:

P.S. A little late adding this, but here goes: Concerning judgement, I think judgment is necessary to reveal or affirm God's particular sentient nature to us. We have previously discussed the idea of ill-desert. But it is not judgment, per se, that is deserved, I think. It is PARTICULAR judgments that are deserved for PARTICULAR works--IOW, rationality requires justice in the administration OF judgment. So the necessity of judgment, per se, has to do with God's self-revelation.

As to how death plays into human accountability as opposed to that of angels, I'm still not sure. I think differences have been discussed on this board, but I didn't keep up with all that was said at the time. The closest thing I can get to an explanation is the statement in Genesis that God would not strive with man always since he is FLESH.

Maybe the point, there, is simply that man, by virtue of needing a body to remain conscious in that mode of existence designed for him (although God can make a dead soul conscious if He so desires), can be ressurected for judgment, with no need for intervening consciousness in between. Angels (those that are supposedly imprisoned til judgment, anyway) would perhaps need to be annihilated to terminate consciousness, though. If that's the case, it would make sense that death would be appropriate for humans, though not so, or even impossible, for angels. Just guessing.

That said, I would think the strongest scriptural argument against UR is Christ's statement that we should fear Him who can destroy BOTH body and soul in gehenna. What does it mean to "destroy" the soul? I would like to believe that it just means that God can apply suffering EVEN to a bodiless soul to implement a fully just judgment, if necessary.

Post Edited (Similtude) : 3/21/2008 9:23:56 AM (GMT-5)