seeking light, direction this a.m. and greatly helped, reading in matthew henry a bit of comment on this verse.
'He will help the WILLING,
will help those who, in HUMBLE DEPENDENCE upon Him,
HELP THEMSELVES,
and will do well for those who DO THEIR BEST, (vs. 30-1).
those who trust to their own sufficiency
and are so confident of it
that they neither EXERT THEMSELVES TO THE UTMOST
nor SEEK UNTO GOD FOR HIS GRACE,
are the youths and the young men,
who are strong, but are apt
to think themselves stronger than they are.
and they shall faint and be weary,
yea, they shall utterly fail
in their services,
in their conflicts and
under their burdens;
they shall soon be made to see the folly of
trusting in themselve.
but those that wait on the Lord,
who MAKE CONSCIENCE (obs. consciousness, self knowledge) of their duty to Him,
and by faith RELY UPON Him
and COMMIT themselves to his guidance,
shall find that God will not fail them.
1. they shall have grace sufficient for them
they shall renew their strength as their work is renewed, as there is new occasion;
they shall be anointed and their lamps supplied with fresh oil.
god will be their arm every morning (isaiah 33.3))
if at any time they have been foiled and weakened
they shall recover themselves and so renew their strength.
they shall change their strength-
as their work is changed-doing work, suffering work;
they shall have strength to labour
strength to wrestle,
strength to resist,
strength to bear.
as the day so shall the strength be.
2. they shall use this grace for the best purposes.
being strengthened,
first, they shall soar upward, upward towards God....
in the strength of divine grace, their souls shall ascend above the world,
and even enter into the holiest.
pious and devout affections are the eagles wings...
secondly, they shall press forward, forward towards heaven.
they shall walk,
the shall run (in) the way of God's commandments,
cheerfully and with alacrity (they shall not be weary),
constantly and with perseverance (they shall not faint)
and therefore in due season they shall reap.
let jacob and israel therefore,
in their greatest distresses, continue waiting upon God
and not despair of
timely and effectual relief and succour from Him.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
7.30.2013 VAN TIL
the following is appendix 1 in the back of a biography, 'Van Til' written by william white, jr. van til was a professor of apologetics (a branch of theology concerned with the defense/proof of christianity) at
westminster seminary in glenside, pa. for many years.
A. my problems with the traditional method (the classic, historic attempts to prove the existence of God, derived primarily from roman catholicism-and especially aquinas-but still widely used even by evangelicals.)
1. this method compromises god Himself by maintaining that His existence is only 'possible'
albeit 'highly probable',
rather than ontologically (having to do with the nature of being or existence) and 'rationally' necessary.
2. it compromises the counsel of God by not understanding it as the
only all inclusive, ultimeate 'cause' of whatsoever comes to pass.
3. it compromises the revelation of god by:
a. compromising its NECESSITY.
it does so by not recognizing that even in paradise man had to interpret the general (natural
revelation of god in terms of the covenantal obligations placed upon him by God
through specail revealtion.
natural revelation, on the traditional view, can be understood 'on its own'.
b. conpromising its CLARITY.
both the general (creation) and special (the Bible) revelation of God
are said to be unclear to the point that
man may say only that God's existence is 'probable.'
c. compromising its SUFFICIENCY.
it does this by allowing for an ultimate realm of 'chance' out of which might come 'facts'
such as are wholly new for God and for man.
such 'facts' would be uninterpreted and unexplainable in terms of
the general or special revelation of God.
d. compromising its AUTHORITY.
on the traditional position the word of god's self attesting characteristic,
and therewith its authority,
is secondary to the authority of reason and experience.
the Scriptures do not identify themselves,
man identifies them and recognizes their 'authority' only in terms of his own authority.
4. it compormises man's creation as the image of God
by thinking of man's creation and knowledge as
independent of the Being and knowledge of God.
on the traditional approach man need not
'think god's thoughts after Him.'
5. it compromises man's covenantal relationship with god by not understanding
adam's representative action as absolutely determinative of the future.
6. it compromises the sinfulness of mankind resulting from the sin of adam
by not understanding man's ethical depravity as extending to the whole of his life,
even his thoughts and attitudes.
7. it compromises the grace of God by not understanding it as
the necessary prerequisite for 'renewal unto knowledge'.
on the traditional view man can and must renew himself unto knowledge
by the 'right use of reason.'
B.my understanding of the relationship between christian and non-christian,
philosophically speaking.
1.both have presuppositions about the nature of reality:
a. the christian presupposese the triune god and His redemptive plan for the universe
as set forth ONCE FOR ALL in scripture.
b. the non-chirsitna presupposes a dialectic between 'chance' and 'regularity',
the former acconting for the origin of matter and life,
the latter accounting for the current success of the scientific enterprise.
2. neither can, as finite beings, by means of LOGIC as such,
say what reality MUST be or CANNOT be.
a. the christian, therefore, attempts to understand his world
through the observation and logical ordering of facts in
self conscious subjection to the plan of the self attesting Christ of scripture.
b. the non-christian, while attempting an enterprise similar to the christian's,
attempts nevertheless to use 'logic' to destroy the christian position.
on the one hand, appealing to the NON-RATIONALITY of 'matter,'
he says that the chance-character of 'facts' is
conclusive evidence against the christian position.
then, on the other hand, he maintains like parmenides
the the christian story cannot possibly be true.
man must be autonomous,
'logic' must be legislative as the the field of 'possiblity'
and possibility must be above God.
3. both claim that their position is 'in accordance with the facts.'
a. the christian claims this because he interprets the facts and his experience
in th light of the revelation of the self attesting Christ in Scripture.
both the uniformity and the diversity of facts have at their foundation the
all embracing plan of God.
b. the non-chirsitn claims this because he interprets the facts and his experience
in the light of the qutonomy of human personality,
the ultimate 'givenness' of the world and
the amenability of matter to mind.
there can be no fact that denies man's autonomy or attests to the world's and man's
divine origin.
4. both claim that their position is 'rational'.
a. the christian does so by claiming not only that his position is self consistent
but that he can explain both the seemingly 'inexplicable' amenability of fact to logic
and the necessity and usefulness of rationality itself in terms of Scripture.
b. the non-christian may or may not make this same claim.
if he does, the christian maintains that he cannot make it good.
if the non-christian attempts to account for the amenability of fact to logic
in terms of the ultimate rationality of the cosmos,
then he will be crippled when it comes to explaining
the 'evolution' of men and things.
if he attempts to do so in terms of pure 'chance' and ultimate 'irrationality'
as being the well out of which both rational man and a rationally amenable world sprang,
then we shall point out that such an explanation is in fact no explanation at all
and that it destroys predication. (that which is affirmed or denied concerning the subject of a proposition.)
C. my proposal, therefore, for a consistently christian methodology of apologetics is this:
1. that we use the same principle in apologetics that we use in theology:
the self attesting, self explanatory Christ of Scripture.
2.that we no longer make an appeal to 'common notions'
which christian and non-christian agree on,
but to the 'common ground' which they actually have
because man and his world are what Scripture says they are.
3. that we appeal to man as man, God's image.
we do so only if we set the non-christian principle of
the rational autonomy of man against the christain princilple
of dependence of man's knowledge
on God's knowledge
as revealed in the person and by the Spirit of Christ.
4. that we claim, therefore, that christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold.
it is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of christianity.
chirstianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of 'chance.'
5. that we argue, therefore, by 'presupposition' (that which is taken for truth in advance).
the christian, as did tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position.
the only 'proof' of the CHRISTIAN POSITION is that
UNLESS ITS TRUTH IS PRESUPPOSED
THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF 'PROVING'
ANYTHING AT ALL.
the actual state of affairs as preached by christianity is the necessary foundation of 'proof' itself.
6. that we preach with the understanding that the acceptance of the Christ of Scripture
by sinners who,
being alienated from god,
seek to flee His face,
come about when the Holy Spirit,
in the prsence of inescapably clear evidence,
opens their eyes so that they
SEE THINGS AS THE TRULY ARE.
7. that we present the message and evidence for the christian position
as clearly as possible,
knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is,
the non-christian will be able to understand
in an intellectual sense
the issues involved.
in so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him
what he 'already knows' but seeks to suppress'. (romans 1.18)
this 'reminding' process provides a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit,
who in sovereign grace may grant the non-Christian repentance (van til obviously is calvinistic)
so that he may know Him who is
eternal life.
westminster seminary in glenside, pa. for many years.
A. my problems with the traditional method (the classic, historic attempts to prove the existence of God, derived primarily from roman catholicism-and especially aquinas-but still widely used even by evangelicals.)
1. this method compromises god Himself by maintaining that His existence is only 'possible'
albeit 'highly probable',
rather than ontologically (having to do with the nature of being or existence) and 'rationally' necessary.
2. it compromises the counsel of God by not understanding it as the
only all inclusive, ultimeate 'cause' of whatsoever comes to pass.
3. it compromises the revelation of god by:
a. compromising its NECESSITY.
it does so by not recognizing that even in paradise man had to interpret the general (natural
revelation of god in terms of the covenantal obligations placed upon him by God
through specail revealtion.
natural revelation, on the traditional view, can be understood 'on its own'.
b. conpromising its CLARITY.
both the general (creation) and special (the Bible) revelation of God
are said to be unclear to the point that
man may say only that God's existence is 'probable.'
c. compromising its SUFFICIENCY.
it does this by allowing for an ultimate realm of 'chance' out of which might come 'facts'
such as are wholly new for God and for man.
such 'facts' would be uninterpreted and unexplainable in terms of
the general or special revelation of God.
d. compromising its AUTHORITY.
on the traditional position the word of god's self attesting characteristic,
and therewith its authority,
is secondary to the authority of reason and experience.
the Scriptures do not identify themselves,
man identifies them and recognizes their 'authority' only in terms of his own authority.
4. it compormises man's creation as the image of God
by thinking of man's creation and knowledge as
independent of the Being and knowledge of God.
on the traditional approach man need not
'think god's thoughts after Him.'
5. it compromises man's covenantal relationship with god by not understanding
adam's representative action as absolutely determinative of the future.
6. it compromises the sinfulness of mankind resulting from the sin of adam
by not understanding man's ethical depravity as extending to the whole of his life,
even his thoughts and attitudes.
7. it compromises the grace of God by not understanding it as
the necessary prerequisite for 'renewal unto knowledge'.
on the traditional view man can and must renew himself unto knowledge
by the 'right use of reason.'
B.my understanding of the relationship between christian and non-christian,
philosophically speaking.
1.both have presuppositions about the nature of reality:
a. the christian presupposese the triune god and His redemptive plan for the universe
as set forth ONCE FOR ALL in scripture.
b. the non-chirsitna presupposes a dialectic between 'chance' and 'regularity',
the former acconting for the origin of matter and life,
the latter accounting for the current success of the scientific enterprise.
2. neither can, as finite beings, by means of LOGIC as such,
say what reality MUST be or CANNOT be.
a. the christian, therefore, attempts to understand his world
through the observation and logical ordering of facts in
self conscious subjection to the plan of the self attesting Christ of scripture.
b. the non-christian, while attempting an enterprise similar to the christian's,
attempts nevertheless to use 'logic' to destroy the christian position.
on the one hand, appealing to the NON-RATIONALITY of 'matter,'
he says that the chance-character of 'facts' is
conclusive evidence against the christian position.
then, on the other hand, he maintains like parmenides
the the christian story cannot possibly be true.
man must be autonomous,
'logic' must be legislative as the the field of 'possiblity'
and possibility must be above God.
3. both claim that their position is 'in accordance with the facts.'
a. the christian claims this because he interprets the facts and his experience
in th light of the revelation of the self attesting Christ in Scripture.
both the uniformity and the diversity of facts have at their foundation the
all embracing plan of God.
b. the non-chirsitn claims this because he interprets the facts and his experience
in the light of the qutonomy of human personality,
the ultimate 'givenness' of the world and
the amenability of matter to mind.
there can be no fact that denies man's autonomy or attests to the world's and man's
divine origin.
4. both claim that their position is 'rational'.
a. the christian does so by claiming not only that his position is self consistent
but that he can explain both the seemingly 'inexplicable' amenability of fact to logic
and the necessity and usefulness of rationality itself in terms of Scripture.
b. the non-christian may or may not make this same claim.
if he does, the christian maintains that he cannot make it good.
if the non-christian attempts to account for the amenability of fact to logic
in terms of the ultimate rationality of the cosmos,
then he will be crippled when it comes to explaining
the 'evolution' of men and things.
if he attempts to do so in terms of pure 'chance' and ultimate 'irrationality'
as being the well out of which both rational man and a rationally amenable world sprang,
then we shall point out that such an explanation is in fact no explanation at all
and that it destroys predication. (that which is affirmed or denied concerning the subject of a proposition.)
C. my proposal, therefore, for a consistently christian methodology of apologetics is this:
1. that we use the same principle in apologetics that we use in theology:
the self attesting, self explanatory Christ of Scripture.
2.that we no longer make an appeal to 'common notions'
which christian and non-christian agree on,
but to the 'common ground' which they actually have
because man and his world are what Scripture says they are.
3. that we appeal to man as man, God's image.
we do so only if we set the non-christian principle of
the rational autonomy of man against the christain princilple
of dependence of man's knowledge
on God's knowledge
as revealed in the person and by the Spirit of Christ.
4. that we claim, therefore, that christianity alone is reasonable for men to hold.
it is wholly irrational to hold any other position than that of christianity.
chirstianity alone does not slay reason on the altar of 'chance.'
5. that we argue, therefore, by 'presupposition' (that which is taken for truth in advance).
the christian, as did tertullian, must contest the very principles of his opponent's position.
the only 'proof' of the CHRISTIAN POSITION is that
UNLESS ITS TRUTH IS PRESUPPOSED
THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF 'PROVING'
ANYTHING AT ALL.
the actual state of affairs as preached by christianity is the necessary foundation of 'proof' itself.
6. that we preach with the understanding that the acceptance of the Christ of Scripture
by sinners who,
being alienated from god,
seek to flee His face,
come about when the Holy Spirit,
in the prsence of inescapably clear evidence,
opens their eyes so that they
SEE THINGS AS THE TRULY ARE.
7. that we present the message and evidence for the christian position
as clearly as possible,
knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is,
the non-christian will be able to understand
in an intellectual sense
the issues involved.
in so doing, we shall, to a large extent, be telling him
what he 'already knows' but seeks to suppress'. (romans 1.18)
this 'reminding' process provides a fertile ground for the Holy Spirit,
who in sovereign grace may grant the non-Christian repentance (van til obviously is calvinistic)
so that he may know Him who is
eternal life.
Monday, July 29, 2013
7.29.2013 JUDGE MEDINA
this is a biography by hawthorne daniel (1952) about a judge who overcame tremendous obstacles
inside and outside the courtroom over a 7 month period during which the communist party tried
to destroy him or cause a mistrial by many different delaying and disruptive methods. the part quoted below starts on p252 and describes one of the many scenes of courtroom chaos which he had to navigate through. this was the beginning of the end
for the communist plan and for justice to be served. picked it out of the library booksale...it called to
me and i am very glad to have read it. my father, for exposing a high ranking communist sympathizer
during the korean war...a few years after this (1948-9) courtroom event, was returned to a military mental hospital in valley forge. after some action taken on his behalf he was released with an honorable discharge.
the beginning of the trial...
the strain of his court duties was beginning to wear him down...
he recalled the 1944 sedition trial in washingtom
-the trial over which judge eicher had presided, until his death,
amid just such mad conditions as now were daily taking place in new york.
and suddenly he understood that these defendants and their supporters were doing their utmost
both in court and outside, to wear him out-
even, perhaps, to shorten his life
or to break him down mentally or physically.
it was when he began to understand their plan that he made his decision (i call it 'limitation of everything inwardly and outwardly' for the purpose of focus and stamina).
NO MORE DELEGATIONS (they were swamping him and constantly demanding 'audience' with him)
NO MORE CASUAL USE OF ANY PORTION OF HIS TIME
NO MORE IRREGULAR HOURS
SCHEDULE EVERYTHING (he laid out a program that covered every minute of the day-
a program that revolutionized his habits
and even controlled the least detail of his private life
..gregarious and friendly...he closed the door on every social and personal contact save only with his wife.
NO MORE PASTIMES
NO MORE PARTIES
NOTHING EXTRA
..finding it difficult to sleep he was given a mild liquid sedative by his doctor
..every day after the court was adjourned at 4:30 he went to a nearby building where he went through
a mildly strenuous series of exercises. next he went to the 'dry-hot' room for several minutes,
then to the shower, hot and cold,
and finally to the massage table.
...mrs. medina carefully designed dinner to place the least possible strain on his digestion.
delegations cut off, a new campaign began...letters, postcards, telegrams.
the phrases they contained were often repeated. many times he was called
'a degenerate from the bowels of hell,
tyrant
a fiend incarnate
a travesty on justice.
he was referred to as an SOB or, more openly, a son of a bitch.
withing three or four weeks he had begun to realize that the task that faced him was
INFINITELY MORE DIFFICULT
-AND INFINITELY MORE VITAL TO THE WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY
-than he had imagined it could be when he first faced this assignment.
but now he was seeing it clearly,
and knew that day by day for an indefinite period
he had need to watch his every move
-TO GUARD AGAINST ANY (IR?)REVERSABLE ERROR
as he considered the endless points and motions and objections that were raised in court.
he was being GUARDED WHEREVER HE WENT...
yet he was ALONE...
courtroom chaos....
'the courtroom in which the trial was being held is on the main floor of the cour house
and is easy of access from the large, marble walled entrance hall.
each morning for weeks the limited space available for the public
had been filled by observers who waited in line outside the courtroom doors
until they were opened.
always there were many who, because of the lack of space, could not gain admittance,
and if any person left while court was in session his place was certain to be taken at one
by someone else who was waiting at the door.
but on the morning of june 3 the throng outside the courtroom
began to gather earlier than usual.
it was larger than usual, too, and by 8 oclock, though court would not be convened until 10:30,
the police assigned to the court house entrance began to see that
this gathering was made up almost exclusively of communists and their sympathizers,
many of whom they recognized from having seen them among the omnipresent pickets
or at earlier sessions of the court.
when the doors were opened, the courtroom was filled in a single hurried rush
so that almost every person in the place, except for
the officials, the reporters, and perhaps a few individuals who
had gained entrance through the courtesy of some of the district judges,
was a partisan of the 11(communists) who were on trial.
john gates, the editor of the daily worker, had been put on the stand more than a week before
as the first witness for the defense (of the communists), and now he was called again
for the eighth day.
at intervals during the preceding week difficulties had arisen.
gates himself had not caused much trouble until the day before,
but the lawyers for the defense had been more than usually intractable,
and Benjamin j. davis jr., the negro defendant who was also city councilman in new york,
had been especially obstreperous.
'its pretty hard, he had shouted at one time,
for the defendants to sit like bumps on a log while the court cuts the guts out of the defense!
'i consider that an extremely offensive statement, judge medina warned.
'well, the whole trial is offensive to me, davis retorted , continuing to argue and object.
'if you insist on being disorderly, the judge remarked,
i shall remand (put back in prison) you for the remainder of the trial.
threatened so definitely with jail, davis sat down;
and during the days that followed, the trial had gone on with little more wrangling,
except that gates, also, had almost been remanded for contempt (of court).
this had been on the day before, when he had refused to answer a question.
'we have a man here, the judge had explained,
who insists on being his own counsel. (this one of the 11 had dismissed his lawyer,
with the judge's permission)
he is not learned in the law, and for his own protection i excuse the jury.
the judge had then explained that having taken the oath as a witness,
gates could not choose which question he would or would not answer.
at first, despite the explanation, gates seemed inclined to continue to refuse,
but harry sacher (one of the 5 remaining lawyers representing the communists)
advised him to reply to the question,
and when the jury had been called back he had done so.
now, as the next morning session of the court began with gates still on the stand,
the cross examination went quietly for a time.
in the course of the questioning, the witness testified that three members
of the party's national veterans' committee had helped him prepare a
postwar pamphlet for veterans.
'who are they? mr. mcgohey (the prosecuting attorney for the government) asked.
'these people are engaged in private industry, gates replied.
i will not disclose their names because they will lose their jobs.
'i ask the court, mr. mcgohey began after a pause,
to instruct the witness to answer.
'strike out the answer (that gates had just given),
judge medina instructed the court stenographer, and then he turned to gates.
'answer the question, he ordered.
harry sacher leaped to his feet.
'i advise him of his constitutional right to refuse, he shouted.
'i repeat my direction, said the judge.
'on the grounds of the first and fifth and tenth amendments i decline to answer,
gates replied.
'i would have to bow my head in shame and i could never raise my head
in decent society if i ever became a stool pigeon even under the courts direction.
'strike out the answer, ordered the judge.
'would the court please tell the witness he has no such right? asked mr. mcgohey.
'i do so advise him, said the judge.
gates still refused and an argument began in which
all the lawyers for the defense attempted to join.
the jury was consequently excused,
and judge medina quietly turned to the man on the witness stand.
'now, mr. gates, he began, pursuant to the authority vested in me
by title 18 of the united states code, section 401...
i now adjudge you guilty of wilful and deliberate contempt
and by reason thereof i sentence you as follows:
you are to be remanded until you have purged yourself of your contempt
for a period not to exceed 30 days.
the words were hardly spoken when the courtroom was filled with an angry roar.
almost as one man the whole room rose,
with hardy a person remaining in his seat
except judge medina,
the counsel fro the prosecution,. the startled gates,
and the occupants of the press section.
the defendants, their lawyers, the observers who filled the room,
leaped to their feet in a pandemonium of sound.
with arms waving, one or two of the defendants advanced toward the bench
a step or tow,
almost as if threatening the judge,
and amid the angry uproar only an occasional voice,
here and there,
could be hear more clearly than the rest.
'it was only by the help of the good Lord, judge medina later told me,
that i was able to carry on that day.
i really felt that Somebody was helping me.
in all that excitement i felt perfectly calm.
i did not raise my voice.
and i know that my unguided will alone was unequal to that test.
if ever a man felt the presence of Someone beside him,
strengthening his will and giving him aid and comfort,
i felt it on that day.
henry winston (one of the communists defendants) was shouting more loudly than most,
and judge medina listened carefully, noting what he said, getting it down on the record.
'more than 5000 negroes have been lynched in this country-
'now, mr. winston, the judge said quietly.
'-and the government of the united states should be ashamed for bringing in this monstrosity.
'mr. winston, the judge repeated in a voice that was almost lost in the furor,
i hereby direct that you be remanded for the remainder of the trial.
the courtroom was still filled with noise-with voices-
with a scrape of chairs and the shuffle of feet.
deputy marshals who had been on duty at alger hiss perjury trial
which was being conducted in an upper courtroom, came hurrying down.
they moved rapidly to the rail -stood tense and watchful
as the defendants and their lawyers alike kept up their angry shouting.
'it sounds more like a kangaroo court than a court of the united states, shouted gus hall.
(another communist defendant)
i've heard more law and more constitutional rights in kangaroo courts.
'now let me see, remarked the judge. ' this is mr. hall?
he paused for a moment.
'mr. hall, he went on quietly.
you are hereby remanded for the balance of the trial.
more argument followed , but the judge's
quiet confidence
and his controlled voice
began to have its effect/
the shouting among the onlookers in the courtroom lessened.
the visitors fell silent
-listened
-sat down.
only the defendants and their lawyers still remained standing.
the noise was greatly less,
but eugene dennis was still shouting,
apparently bent on forcing the judge to remand him to jail with the others.
'mr. dennis, the judge remarked.
don't you remember that i told you i was going to treat you as one of the lawyers?
i have tried to stick to my determination not to do anything to counsel.
they may do whatever they choose and take the consequences in due time.
(good to his word after the guilty verdict was given to all 11 defendants by the jury,
judge medina said,
'i will now proceed to judgment, he went on and
listed the lawyers again, one by one, with the contempts charged against them
and their punishment.
harry sacher - six months
richard gladstein - six months
george w. crockett, jr. -four months
louis f. mccabe - thirty days;
abraham j. isserman - four months
eugene dennis - six months
isserman was the first to speak, and excitedly insisted that the finding
'was unwarranted by anything that took place during the trial.
sacher followed shouting his comments and finally referring to 'the price of liberty.
'it is not the price of liberty, the judge replied calmly.
it is the price of misbehavior and disorder.)
the judge paused and then leaned forward.
'i think, he added, that it would be much better if you all sat down.
dennis lowered his voice and turned toward his fellow defendants,
apparently telling them to sit down, and, as david snell described in in the new york sun,
'they took their seats immediately, like a well disciplined platoon.
sacher and gladstein asked for a stay of the order remanding the defendants.
mccabe insisted that no contempt had been intended.
but the judge refused the requests
-denied the motions that were offered.
his order remained in effect and when, a few minutes later, a recess was ordered,
gates, hall and winston were taken into custody by the marshals.
inside and outside the courtroom over a 7 month period during which the communist party tried
to destroy him or cause a mistrial by many different delaying and disruptive methods. the part quoted below starts on p252 and describes one of the many scenes of courtroom chaos which he had to navigate through. this was the beginning of the end
for the communist plan and for justice to be served. picked it out of the library booksale...it called to
me and i am very glad to have read it. my father, for exposing a high ranking communist sympathizer
during the korean war...a few years after this (1948-9) courtroom event, was returned to a military mental hospital in valley forge. after some action taken on his behalf he was released with an honorable discharge.
the beginning of the trial...
the strain of his court duties was beginning to wear him down...
he recalled the 1944 sedition trial in washingtom
-the trial over which judge eicher had presided, until his death,
amid just such mad conditions as now were daily taking place in new york.
and suddenly he understood that these defendants and their supporters were doing their utmost
both in court and outside, to wear him out-
even, perhaps, to shorten his life
or to break him down mentally or physically.
it was when he began to understand their plan that he made his decision (i call it 'limitation of everything inwardly and outwardly' for the purpose of focus and stamina).
NO MORE DELEGATIONS (they were swamping him and constantly demanding 'audience' with him)
NO MORE CASUAL USE OF ANY PORTION OF HIS TIME
NO MORE IRREGULAR HOURS
SCHEDULE EVERYTHING (he laid out a program that covered every minute of the day-
a program that revolutionized his habits
and even controlled the least detail of his private life
..gregarious and friendly...he closed the door on every social and personal contact save only with his wife.
NO MORE PASTIMES
NO MORE PARTIES
NOTHING EXTRA
..finding it difficult to sleep he was given a mild liquid sedative by his doctor
..every day after the court was adjourned at 4:30 he went to a nearby building where he went through
a mildly strenuous series of exercises. next he went to the 'dry-hot' room for several minutes,
then to the shower, hot and cold,
and finally to the massage table.
...mrs. medina carefully designed dinner to place the least possible strain on his digestion.
delegations cut off, a new campaign began...letters, postcards, telegrams.
the phrases they contained were often repeated. many times he was called
'a degenerate from the bowels of hell,
tyrant
a fiend incarnate
a travesty on justice.
he was referred to as an SOB or, more openly, a son of a bitch.
withing three or four weeks he had begun to realize that the task that faced him was
INFINITELY MORE DIFFICULT
-AND INFINITELY MORE VITAL TO THE WELFARE OF THE COUNTRY
-than he had imagined it could be when he first faced this assignment.
but now he was seeing it clearly,
and knew that day by day for an indefinite period
he had need to watch his every move
-TO GUARD AGAINST ANY (IR?)REVERSABLE ERROR
as he considered the endless points and motions and objections that were raised in court.
he was being GUARDED WHEREVER HE WENT...
yet he was ALONE...
courtroom chaos....
'the courtroom in which the trial was being held is on the main floor of the cour house
and is easy of access from the large, marble walled entrance hall.
each morning for weeks the limited space available for the public
had been filled by observers who waited in line outside the courtroom doors
until they were opened.
always there were many who, because of the lack of space, could not gain admittance,
and if any person left while court was in session his place was certain to be taken at one
by someone else who was waiting at the door.
but on the morning of june 3 the throng outside the courtroom
began to gather earlier than usual.
it was larger than usual, too, and by 8 oclock, though court would not be convened until 10:30,
the police assigned to the court house entrance began to see that
this gathering was made up almost exclusively of communists and their sympathizers,
many of whom they recognized from having seen them among the omnipresent pickets
or at earlier sessions of the court.
when the doors were opened, the courtroom was filled in a single hurried rush
so that almost every person in the place, except for
the officials, the reporters, and perhaps a few individuals who
had gained entrance through the courtesy of some of the district judges,
was a partisan of the 11(communists) who were on trial.
john gates, the editor of the daily worker, had been put on the stand more than a week before
as the first witness for the defense (of the communists), and now he was called again
for the eighth day.
at intervals during the preceding week difficulties had arisen.
gates himself had not caused much trouble until the day before,
but the lawyers for the defense had been more than usually intractable,
and Benjamin j. davis jr., the negro defendant who was also city councilman in new york,
had been especially obstreperous.
'its pretty hard, he had shouted at one time,
for the defendants to sit like bumps on a log while the court cuts the guts out of the defense!
'i consider that an extremely offensive statement, judge medina warned.
'well, the whole trial is offensive to me, davis retorted , continuing to argue and object.
'if you insist on being disorderly, the judge remarked,
i shall remand (put back in prison) you for the remainder of the trial.
threatened so definitely with jail, davis sat down;
and during the days that followed, the trial had gone on with little more wrangling,
except that gates, also, had almost been remanded for contempt (of court).
this had been on the day before, when he had refused to answer a question.
'we have a man here, the judge had explained,
who insists on being his own counsel. (this one of the 11 had dismissed his lawyer,
with the judge's permission)
he is not learned in the law, and for his own protection i excuse the jury.
the judge had then explained that having taken the oath as a witness,
gates could not choose which question he would or would not answer.
at first, despite the explanation, gates seemed inclined to continue to refuse,
but harry sacher (one of the 5 remaining lawyers representing the communists)
advised him to reply to the question,
and when the jury had been called back he had done so.
now, as the next morning session of the court began with gates still on the stand,
the cross examination went quietly for a time.
in the course of the questioning, the witness testified that three members
of the party's national veterans' committee had helped him prepare a
postwar pamphlet for veterans.
'who are they? mr. mcgohey (the prosecuting attorney for the government) asked.
'these people are engaged in private industry, gates replied.
i will not disclose their names because they will lose their jobs.
'i ask the court, mr. mcgohey began after a pause,
to instruct the witness to answer.
'strike out the answer (that gates had just given),
judge medina instructed the court stenographer, and then he turned to gates.
'answer the question, he ordered.
harry sacher leaped to his feet.
'i advise him of his constitutional right to refuse, he shouted.
'i repeat my direction, said the judge.
'on the grounds of the first and fifth and tenth amendments i decline to answer,
gates replied.
'i would have to bow my head in shame and i could never raise my head
in decent society if i ever became a stool pigeon even under the courts direction.
'strike out the answer, ordered the judge.
'would the court please tell the witness he has no such right? asked mr. mcgohey.
'i do so advise him, said the judge.
gates still refused and an argument began in which
all the lawyers for the defense attempted to join.
the jury was consequently excused,
and judge medina quietly turned to the man on the witness stand.
'now, mr. gates, he began, pursuant to the authority vested in me
by title 18 of the united states code, section 401...
i now adjudge you guilty of wilful and deliberate contempt
and by reason thereof i sentence you as follows:
you are to be remanded until you have purged yourself of your contempt
for a period not to exceed 30 days.
the words were hardly spoken when the courtroom was filled with an angry roar.
almost as one man the whole room rose,
with hardy a person remaining in his seat
except judge medina,
the counsel fro the prosecution,. the startled gates,
and the occupants of the press section.
the defendants, their lawyers, the observers who filled the room,
leaped to their feet in a pandemonium of sound.
with arms waving, one or two of the defendants advanced toward the bench
a step or tow,
almost as if threatening the judge,
and amid the angry uproar only an occasional voice,
here and there,
could be hear more clearly than the rest.
'it was only by the help of the good Lord, judge medina later told me,
that i was able to carry on that day.
i really felt that Somebody was helping me.
in all that excitement i felt perfectly calm.
i did not raise my voice.
and i know that my unguided will alone was unequal to that test.
if ever a man felt the presence of Someone beside him,
strengthening his will and giving him aid and comfort,
i felt it on that day.
henry winston (one of the communists defendants) was shouting more loudly than most,
and judge medina listened carefully, noting what he said, getting it down on the record.
'more than 5000 negroes have been lynched in this country-
'now, mr. winston, the judge said quietly.
'-and the government of the united states should be ashamed for bringing in this monstrosity.
'mr. winston, the judge repeated in a voice that was almost lost in the furor,
i hereby direct that you be remanded for the remainder of the trial.
the courtroom was still filled with noise-with voices-
with a scrape of chairs and the shuffle of feet.
deputy marshals who had been on duty at alger hiss perjury trial
which was being conducted in an upper courtroom, came hurrying down.
they moved rapidly to the rail -stood tense and watchful
as the defendants and their lawyers alike kept up their angry shouting.
'it sounds more like a kangaroo court than a court of the united states, shouted gus hall.
(another communist defendant)
i've heard more law and more constitutional rights in kangaroo courts.
'now let me see, remarked the judge. ' this is mr. hall?
he paused for a moment.
'mr. hall, he went on quietly.
you are hereby remanded for the balance of the trial.
more argument followed , but the judge's
quiet confidence
and his controlled voice
began to have its effect/
the shouting among the onlookers in the courtroom lessened.
the visitors fell silent
-listened
-sat down.
only the defendants and their lawyers still remained standing.
the noise was greatly less,
but eugene dennis was still shouting,
apparently bent on forcing the judge to remand him to jail with the others.
'mr. dennis, the judge remarked.
don't you remember that i told you i was going to treat you as one of the lawyers?
i have tried to stick to my determination not to do anything to counsel.
they may do whatever they choose and take the consequences in due time.
(good to his word after the guilty verdict was given to all 11 defendants by the jury,
judge medina said,
'i will now proceed to judgment, he went on and
listed the lawyers again, one by one, with the contempts charged against them
and their punishment.
harry sacher - six months
richard gladstein - six months
george w. crockett, jr. -four months
louis f. mccabe - thirty days;
abraham j. isserman - four months
eugene dennis - six months
isserman was the first to speak, and excitedly insisted that the finding
'was unwarranted by anything that took place during the trial.
sacher followed shouting his comments and finally referring to 'the price of liberty.
'it is not the price of liberty, the judge replied calmly.
it is the price of misbehavior and disorder.)
the judge paused and then leaned forward.
'i think, he added, that it would be much better if you all sat down.
dennis lowered his voice and turned toward his fellow defendants,
apparently telling them to sit down, and, as david snell described in in the new york sun,
'they took their seats immediately, like a well disciplined platoon.
sacher and gladstein asked for a stay of the order remanding the defendants.
mccabe insisted that no contempt had been intended.
but the judge refused the requests
-denied the motions that were offered.
his order remained in effect and when, a few minutes later, a recess was ordered,
gates, hall and winston were taken into custody by the marshals.
7.29.2013 DILIGE, ET QUOD VIS FAC
the following is taken from 'abounding grace' an anthology of wisdom edited with commentary by
m. scott peck
'the first of the quote in the chapter 'diligeence' is in latin.
it was spoken by st. augustine at a time when
latin was the closest thing we had to a universal language
(english did not yet exist).
because latin tends to be the most elegantly condensed of languages,
this quote is not easily translatable.
but i have placed it first because when i do translate it,
i believe you will find it to be simultaneously
the most incontrovertible and the most liberating moral prescription
ever made.
dilge, det quod vis fac, it reads.
although somewhat condensensed
the last four of the five words are simple.
they simply mean: 'and what you want do.'
dilige is not do simple.
it is declined in the exhortative tense,
meaning
1. BE DILIGENT!
and what st. augustine meant by this was what i've already mentioned:
take the time, energy, thoughtfulness, and care that the endeavor deserves.
it so happens, however, the dilige has two other alternative translations
from the complex language of latin.
one is the exhortation
2. LOVE!
the other is the exhortation to
3. LOVE GOD.
i believe that st. augustine meant all three in one.
if i am correct about this,
then his exhortation offers us the greatest of all paths to moral freedom.
translating his exhortation in its fullest, i think he was saying,
'if you are being loving,
if you are loving God,
and if you are being diligent about it all,
then you can do whatever you want.
what you do under those circumstances will inevitable
be moral and pleasing in the sight of God.'
submission to those three preconditions may seem a strict or severe commitment,
even to some calvinists.
to me they seem a small price for the liberation of knowing that i am on the right
track.
m. scott peck
'the first of the quote in the chapter 'diligeence' is in latin.
it was spoken by st. augustine at a time when
latin was the closest thing we had to a universal language
(english did not yet exist).
because latin tends to be the most elegantly condensed of languages,
this quote is not easily translatable.
but i have placed it first because when i do translate it,
i believe you will find it to be simultaneously
the most incontrovertible and the most liberating moral prescription
ever made.
dilge, det quod vis fac, it reads.
although somewhat condensensed
the last four of the five words are simple.
they simply mean: 'and what you want do.'
dilige is not do simple.
it is declined in the exhortative tense,
meaning
1. BE DILIGENT!
and what st. augustine meant by this was what i've already mentioned:
take the time, energy, thoughtfulness, and care that the endeavor deserves.
it so happens, however, the dilige has two other alternative translations
from the complex language of latin.
one is the exhortation
2. LOVE!
the other is the exhortation to
3. LOVE GOD.
i believe that st. augustine meant all three in one.
if i am correct about this,
then his exhortation offers us the greatest of all paths to moral freedom.
translating his exhortation in its fullest, i think he was saying,
'if you are being loving,
if you are loving God,
and if you are being diligent about it all,
then you can do whatever you want.
what you do under those circumstances will inevitable
be moral and pleasing in the sight of God.'
submission to those three preconditions may seem a strict or severe commitment,
even to some calvinists.
to me they seem a small price for the liberation of knowing that i am on the right
track.
Sunday, July 14, 2013
7.13.2013 J.E.D.P. theory
taken from 'biblical christianity', a book of letters, written to questioners, by professor allen macrae, phd who ended his ministry as president of biblical seminary in hatfield, pa.
the first is written to explain facts about the theory...
'during the past 2000 years many a theory that was not founded on fact has gained wide acceptance,
but has later been shown to be without foundation and has completely disappeared.
one instance of a theory that is being widely publicized today,
even though it lacks any factual support,
is the claim that the first five books of the bible,
instead of being originally written as units in substantially the form in which we have them today,
came into existence through a process of interweaving and combining sources that had previously circulated separately.
according to this theory the so called J document was written many centuries after the events that it describes.
a century of so later another document, more or less parallel to the J document, was written.
after each had circulated separately for a time someone combined them,
inserting portions of the newer E document into the J document,
purporting to contain moses' farewell addresses, was composed.
eventually this was inserted into the latter part of the combined JE document.
about the time of the exile a group of priests composed still another document,
the so called P document,
paralleling much of the ground already covered by the J and E documents.
eventually this was cut into large and small sections,
between which similar sections of the other documents were inserted.
as a result, it is said that the pentateuch as we know it today
is composed of intertwined parts of all these documents,
so that we often read a section of one document, followed by a section of another,
then perhaps half a verse of the first again, then a portion of the third,
then more of the second, and so on in a complicated patchwork arrangement.
according to many critics the literary mosaic thus produced
included not only the books we know today as
genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, but also the book of joshua.
such is the theory that is held and propagated today in
practically the same form as when it was first presented, a century ago.
in the intervening time no new facts have been discovered in its favor,
and many of the theoretical grounds on which it was originally advanced
have been now almost completely abandoned.
yet the theory continues to be presented as established history,
and is even taught in high schools of some of our states.
since this is the case, it is important for every churchgoer and every bible student
to know just what the facts are about this theory,
which has been variously called
'source theory'
'the multidocumentary theory' or
'the Graf-Wellhousen theory'
in order to see how slim a foundation the theory rests upon, let us note certain vital facts.
we have hundreds of manuscript copies of the first five books of the bible,
all of which present them in the form in which we have them today.
not even one ancient copy of J, E,D or P as a separate and continuous
has ever been found.
no record that has come down to us from ancient times contains any mention of these documents.
there is no ancient reference to the writing of any such document
or to such a process of combining them as the theory assumes.
there is no evidence that any such process actually occurred.
the theory is almost the lone survivor of a method of 19th century literary study
that has otherwise been almost completely discarded,
except in the field of biblical criticism.
a century ago it was a common practice to develop theories of this type
regarding almost any ancient or medieval document.
most such theories have today been abandoned
and are viewed merely as literary curiosities.
it is only in the field of biblical study that this 19th century attitude has been retained.
during the 19th century various german scholars presented widely differing theories
regarding the origins of the first five books of the bible.
not one of these theories gained complete ascendancy until 1878,
when a particular theory, strikingly different from most of the views previously held,
as advanced by julius wellhausen.
this new theory was publicized throughout the english speaking world
by a.r. driver and other followers of wellhausen.
even though a century has passed, in the course of which no new evidence for the theory has been discovered,
it is today being widely taught in almost the identical form in which it was then presented.
a great part of the reason for the acceptance of the multidocment theory
advanced by professor wellhausen in 1878 was the fact that
he based it upon his skillful presentation of a particular idea of the development of israelite religion.
this idea, however, has now been almost universally discarded.
few scholars today hold to a theory of hebrew religious development
that is even approximately similar to that which wellhausen based his idea of the sources of the pentateuch;
and yet wellhausen's method of dividing these alleged sources
and his view of the order of their composition
(although based upon a theory of development no longer held)
are still being presented as established fact.
an essential feature of the theory as taught by professor wellhausen,
was his claim that the various documents
-all of them written, according to the theory, long after the time of the patriarchs
-present only the thought patterns and ideas of the various periods in which they are alleged to have been written,
and tell us nothing about the actual time of the patriarchs.
in the light of archaeological discoveries it is now recognized that this attitude is no longer tenable.
therefore most of the recent presentations of the theory assert that a great part of the material
in each of the documents was transmitted orally for many centuries before being incorporated into written form,
and that even the latest of the documents contain much material that is really early.
thus an important basis of the wellhousen idea has really been abandoned by its present promoters.
its protagonists assert that the theory can be demonstrated
by pointing out differences of style between the documents.
yet these alleged differences in style mostly settle down to the fact that
certain pars of the pentateuch are statistical or enumerative,
while other pars have more of a running narrative style
and the greater part of the book of deuteronomy consist of exhortation.
there is no reason why the same writer should not use any one of these three styles,
depending on the nature of the particular subject matter.
thus we have an enumerative style in genesis 1 where the formation of the material universe
is set forth in definite stages.
for the subject matter of genesis 2,
which describes in more detail the creation of man and the formation of a proper habitat for his life,
the narrative style is more fitting.
in addresses of warning and admonition, the style of exhortation is natural.
similar instances of the use of styles at least as different as these
could be found in the works of almost any extensive writer of recent days.
it is frequently said that the names given to two of these documents
are based upon the allegation that the so called J document uses the name JHWH
('Lord' in the KJV).
yet actually each of these alleged sources uses both divine names in the pentateuch
and in all the alleged sources the name JHWH is far more common than the name Elohim.
in explanation the supporters of the theory assert that ,
according to the E and P documents,
the name JHWH was not revealed until the early chapters of exodus.
the theory is thus not that each document preferred a certain name,
but that each introduced and deliberately avoided it before that point in the account.
since all the documents are alleged to have been written many centuries after the time of the exodus,
a procedure such as the theory assumes would be artificial and rather unlikely to have occurred.
furthermore, its foundation in biblical statements is extremely weak.
moreover, the use of varying names in different connections is not at all unusual,
and can be easily explained on other grounds than that of a patchwork origin.
the claim that there is constant duplication of material in the various alleged sources is
grossly exaggerated. some of these so called duplicates are really different events that are somewhat similar,
but actually no more so than is often the case in ordinary life,
as can be demonstrated fairly easily.
in other cases an alleged repetition is merely a summary given at the beginning
or end of an account, a helpful recapitulation or a literary device
to make an account more vivid.
most of the alleged repetitions or duplications,
if examined without prejudice,
can be shown to have a natural purpose in the narrative.
most of the alleged contradictions between the
so called sources disappear on careful examination.
thus it is alleged that the j and P documents
exhibit rebecca as influenced by different motives in suggesting jacob's departure from canaan:
the motive being in one case to enable him to escape his brother's anger;
and in the other case to induce him to procure a wife agreeable to his parents' wishes.
actually there is no contradiction whatever in supposing
that rebecca was influenced by both motives
and that, in dealing with the two men whom she wished to influence,
she used in each case the argument that she knew would appeal to him,
rather than the one that would be apt to antagonize him.
these facts indicate the existence of logical reasons for the phenomena in the pentateuch,
all of them consistent with the idea of a unified authorship,
and not requiring the adoption of an ungrounded theory that is a survival from the 19th century,
and that is quite inconsistent with present methods of literary study.
the overwhelming majority of people who accept the Multidocumentary Theory,
including most of those who teach it,
do so because of confidence in the men by whom it is advanced,
rather than on the basis of any thorough investigation.
the interest of Truth demand that the facts be examined objectively and with prejudice.
when this is done it becomes apparent that the theory lacks
both factual evidence and sound logical basis.
the first is written to explain facts about the theory...
'during the past 2000 years many a theory that was not founded on fact has gained wide acceptance,
but has later been shown to be without foundation and has completely disappeared.
one instance of a theory that is being widely publicized today,
even though it lacks any factual support,
is the claim that the first five books of the bible,
instead of being originally written as units in substantially the form in which we have them today,
came into existence through a process of interweaving and combining sources that had previously circulated separately.
according to this theory the so called J document was written many centuries after the events that it describes.
a century of so later another document, more or less parallel to the J document, was written.
after each had circulated separately for a time someone combined them,
inserting portions of the newer E document into the J document,
purporting to contain moses' farewell addresses, was composed.
eventually this was inserted into the latter part of the combined JE document.
about the time of the exile a group of priests composed still another document,
the so called P document,
paralleling much of the ground already covered by the J and E documents.
eventually this was cut into large and small sections,
between which similar sections of the other documents were inserted.
as a result, it is said that the pentateuch as we know it today
is composed of intertwined parts of all these documents,
so that we often read a section of one document, followed by a section of another,
then perhaps half a verse of the first again, then a portion of the third,
then more of the second, and so on in a complicated patchwork arrangement.
according to many critics the literary mosaic thus produced
included not only the books we know today as
genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers and deuteronomy, but also the book of joshua.
such is the theory that is held and propagated today in
practically the same form as when it was first presented, a century ago.
in the intervening time no new facts have been discovered in its favor,
and many of the theoretical grounds on which it was originally advanced
have been now almost completely abandoned.
yet the theory continues to be presented as established history,
and is even taught in high schools of some of our states.
since this is the case, it is important for every churchgoer and every bible student
to know just what the facts are about this theory,
which has been variously called
'source theory'
'the multidocumentary theory' or
'the Graf-Wellhousen theory'
in order to see how slim a foundation the theory rests upon, let us note certain vital facts.
we have hundreds of manuscript copies of the first five books of the bible,
all of which present them in the form in which we have them today.
not even one ancient copy of J, E,D or P as a separate and continuous
has ever been found.
no record that has come down to us from ancient times contains any mention of these documents.
there is no ancient reference to the writing of any such document
or to such a process of combining them as the theory assumes.
there is no evidence that any such process actually occurred.
the theory is almost the lone survivor of a method of 19th century literary study
that has otherwise been almost completely discarded,
except in the field of biblical criticism.
a century ago it was a common practice to develop theories of this type
regarding almost any ancient or medieval document.
most such theories have today been abandoned
and are viewed merely as literary curiosities.
it is only in the field of biblical study that this 19th century attitude has been retained.
during the 19th century various german scholars presented widely differing theories
regarding the origins of the first five books of the bible.
not one of these theories gained complete ascendancy until 1878,
when a particular theory, strikingly different from most of the views previously held,
as advanced by julius wellhausen.
this new theory was publicized throughout the english speaking world
by a.r. driver and other followers of wellhausen.
even though a century has passed, in the course of which no new evidence for the theory has been discovered,
it is today being widely taught in almost the identical form in which it was then presented.
a great part of the reason for the acceptance of the multidocment theory
advanced by professor wellhausen in 1878 was the fact that
he based it upon his skillful presentation of a particular idea of the development of israelite religion.
this idea, however, has now been almost universally discarded.
few scholars today hold to a theory of hebrew religious development
that is even approximately similar to that which wellhausen based his idea of the sources of the pentateuch;
and yet wellhausen's method of dividing these alleged sources
and his view of the order of their composition
(although based upon a theory of development no longer held)
are still being presented as established fact.
an essential feature of the theory as taught by professor wellhausen,
was his claim that the various documents
-all of them written, according to the theory, long after the time of the patriarchs
-present only the thought patterns and ideas of the various periods in which they are alleged to have been written,
and tell us nothing about the actual time of the patriarchs.
in the light of archaeological discoveries it is now recognized that this attitude is no longer tenable.
therefore most of the recent presentations of the theory assert that a great part of the material
in each of the documents was transmitted orally for many centuries before being incorporated into written form,
and that even the latest of the documents contain much material that is really early.
thus an important basis of the wellhousen idea has really been abandoned by its present promoters.
its protagonists assert that the theory can be demonstrated
by pointing out differences of style between the documents.
yet these alleged differences in style mostly settle down to the fact that
certain pars of the pentateuch are statistical or enumerative,
while other pars have more of a running narrative style
and the greater part of the book of deuteronomy consist of exhortation.
there is no reason why the same writer should not use any one of these three styles,
depending on the nature of the particular subject matter.
thus we have an enumerative style in genesis 1 where the formation of the material universe
is set forth in definite stages.
for the subject matter of genesis 2,
which describes in more detail the creation of man and the formation of a proper habitat for his life,
the narrative style is more fitting.
in addresses of warning and admonition, the style of exhortation is natural.
similar instances of the use of styles at least as different as these
could be found in the works of almost any extensive writer of recent days.
it is frequently said that the names given to two of these documents
are based upon the allegation that the so called J document uses the name JHWH
('Lord' in the KJV).
yet actually each of these alleged sources uses both divine names in the pentateuch
and in all the alleged sources the name JHWH is far more common than the name Elohim.
in explanation the supporters of the theory assert that ,
according to the E and P documents,
the name JHWH was not revealed until the early chapters of exodus.
the theory is thus not that each document preferred a certain name,
but that each introduced and deliberately avoided it before that point in the account.
since all the documents are alleged to have been written many centuries after the time of the exodus,
a procedure such as the theory assumes would be artificial and rather unlikely to have occurred.
furthermore, its foundation in biblical statements is extremely weak.
moreover, the use of varying names in different connections is not at all unusual,
and can be easily explained on other grounds than that of a patchwork origin.
the claim that there is constant duplication of material in the various alleged sources is
grossly exaggerated. some of these so called duplicates are really different events that are somewhat similar,
but actually no more so than is often the case in ordinary life,
as can be demonstrated fairly easily.
in other cases an alleged repetition is merely a summary given at the beginning
or end of an account, a helpful recapitulation or a literary device
to make an account more vivid.
most of the alleged repetitions or duplications,
if examined without prejudice,
can be shown to have a natural purpose in the narrative.
most of the alleged contradictions between the
so called sources disappear on careful examination.
thus it is alleged that the j and P documents
exhibit rebecca as influenced by different motives in suggesting jacob's departure from canaan:
the motive being in one case to enable him to escape his brother's anger;
and in the other case to induce him to procure a wife agreeable to his parents' wishes.
actually there is no contradiction whatever in supposing
that rebecca was influenced by both motives
and that, in dealing with the two men whom she wished to influence,
she used in each case the argument that she knew would appeal to him,
rather than the one that would be apt to antagonize him.
these facts indicate the existence of logical reasons for the phenomena in the pentateuch,
all of them consistent with the idea of a unified authorship,
and not requiring the adoption of an ungrounded theory that is a survival from the 19th century,
and that is quite inconsistent with present methods of literary study.
the overwhelming majority of people who accept the Multidocumentary Theory,
including most of those who teach it,
do so because of confidence in the men by whom it is advanced,
rather than on the basis of any thorough investigation.
the interest of Truth demand that the facts be examined objectively and with prejudice.
when this is done it becomes apparent that the theory lacks
both factual evidence and sound logical basis.
Saturday, July 6, 2013
7.12.2013 HELL
taken from C.S. Lewis, Mere Christian by kathryn lindskoog...a good summary of lewis' thoughts on various areas
when lewis was a young adult he had been far more eager to escape pain than to achieve happiness,
and he even resented the fact that he had been created without his own permission.
one advantage of the anti christian materialism he clung to
as its limited danger of pain.
no disaster can be infinitude death ends all.
and if this life becomes too painful,
one can always commit suicide for an early escape.
in contrast, the horrible thing about christianity
is that it offers no such escape.
it assures each person that he is going to live forever.
the christian universe has no door marked exit.
perhaps a person's temper or his jealousy are getting worse so slowly that in 70 years
they are not very noticeable.
but in a million years they would be hell itself;
'in fact, if christianity is true,
hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be. '
about 30 years after L's youthful enthusiasm for materialism,
he was asked in public if the devil is as real as we think he is.
he answered that it is quite possible to be a christian without
believing in the devil or devils;
they are not mentioned in the christian creeds.
'i do believe such beings exist,
but that is my own affair.
he eventually got the feeling that he and the devil were all too closely related
in the public mind.
they even appeared together on the cover of time magazine.
on the other hand, L felt that a belief in hell was indeed basic.
God is not safe or tame.
there is that ahead which immortal spirit can desire and dread.
L claimed in his last book that he had never met anyone who fully disbelieved in hell
and yet had a life giving belief in heaven.
there are only three eternal alternatives:
to be God, to be like God or to be miserable.
that means for humans the choice of heaven or hell.
how about earth?
L felt that a person who chooses earth instead of heaven
will find that earth was, all along, just a part of hell.
and the person who puts earth second to heaven will find earth
to have been all along a part of heaven itself.
it is no use crying for something else;
God can only give us what is.
those who want annihilation will find the closest thing to it in hell.
but there is no exit.
infernal fiction
lewis published 4 works of adult fiction in which damnation was a central theme.
they came out between 1942-6.
first was the screwtape letters. ..
no book was ever easier for L to write than this one,
and none left a worse taste in his mouth.
he said it was not fun for long and almost smothered him before he was done.
the state of mind he needed to write from a devil's viewpoint was all
dust, grit, thirst and itch.
although he was often asked to add to these letters,
it was at least 17 years before he indulged in any more 'diabolical ventriloquism'
-and then it was a dinner speech by screwtape, not a letter.
in that speech screwtape expresses in passing the goal of hell.
'the overthrow of free peoples and the multiplication of slave states
are for us a means (besides, of course, being fun);
but the real end is the destruction of individuals.
for only individuals can be saved or damned,
can become sons of the Enemy or food for us.
screwtape advises wormwood that jargon, not argument,
can keep a man out of the enemy's clutches.
he assures him that hundreds of adult converts have been reclaimed for hell.
'keep everything hazy in his mind now,
and you will have all eternity wherein to amuse yourself
by producing in him the peculiar kind of clarity which hell affords.
the reword for all the labors of devils is the anguish and bewilderment of a human soul;
it becomes a brimful chalice of despair, horror and astonishment
which a devil can drink as wine forever, according to screwtape.
wormwood is reminded not to reveal himself to his patient.
the fact that devils are today pictured as comic figures in red tights will help keep people
from believing in them until it is too late.
although devils can make use of the comic element at times,
joyful laughter is disgusting to them
and a direct insult to the realism, dignity and austerity of hell.
silence and melody are also banished there.
it is the kingdom of noise.
the whole philosophy of hell is one of competition.
every gain by one being in hell is loss to another.
and when a soul manages to go to heaven instead of hell,
everyone in hell loses.
a howl of sharpened famine re echoes all the way down to the throne itself.
a tempter has no need to produce big sins in order to win.
all he needs to do is edge a man away from the Light
and out into the nothing.
'murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick.
indeed the safest road to hell is the gradual one-
the gentle slope, soft underfoot,
without sudden turnings,
without milestones,
without signposts.
screwtape has made the difference between hell and heaven clear.
the devils want cattle who can finally become food;
God wants servants who can become sons.
the devils want to suck in;
God wants to give out.
and in this struggle Hod has limited Himself;
He can woo, but not ravish.
either God or satan will eventually say 'mine'
of everything that exists,
and especially of every person.
God now claims everything on the grounds that He made it.
satan hopes to claim it all by conquest.
man will learn that he cannot in reality claim anything for himself, according to screwtape.
'they will find out in the end, never fear, to whom
their time, their souls and their bodies really belong -
certainly not to them, whatever happens.
in a poem directed to satan, L said,
'all that seemed earth is hell or heaven.
God is: thou art: the rest illusion...'
he concluded his overwhelming realization with a prayer to God.
'Lord, open not too often my weak eyes to this.
the idea of the devil possessing a human mind and body was the horror of the unforgettably
beautiful space novel perelandra which came out one year after the screwtape letters.
in this sequel to out of the silent planet,
the evil physicist, weston, claimed to have come into contact with his life's guiding spirit.
this 'life force' took control of him, using him as a tool
to get the newly created first woman on venus to disobey her maker.
ransom, God's man on venus, soon realized that weston had become
a living corpse, a bogey, an Un-man.
he was a creature who at rare moments cried out to ransom to save him
from some horrors he could hardly describe:
'i'm down in the bottom of a big black hole...he does all my thinking for me.
superficially, the Un-man weston seemed to be pursuing great designs against heaven
which involved the fate of worlds;
but deep within he seemed obsessed with a puerile lust for even tiny, stupid cruelties
performed with the mentality of an imbecile or a monkey or a very nasty child.
ransom had always pictured hell as containing lost souls
that were still human;
now he saw to his horror that only a ghost would be left-
an everlasting unrest, a crumbling, a ruin, an odor of decay.
elsewhere L called it 'remains'.
he saw that there is a confusion of persons in damnation.
the question whether satan or a person digested by satan is acting on a specific occasion
has in the long run no clear significance.
L described that hideous strength, which follows perelandra,
as a tall story about devilry with a serious point behind it.
the sinister National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.)
was quickly taking over a small university in england,
under the direction of evil Masters.
as this project met its destruction, its senior leader, Wither,
knew with perfect clarity
that he could still divorce himself from the spirits
and save himself.
but in his last moments before damnation he did not implore God for mercy.
seeing that endless terror was about to begin,
he drifted passively into his last moments of murder and devil worship and death,
losing all contact with joy and reason forever,
drowsily watching the trap close upon his sou.
it was similar with his partner, Frost.
suddenly he had a chance to see that he had been on an utterly wrong course;
that souls and personal responsibility existed.
he hated that knowledge, rejected it and entered eternity.
after this book was published, L wrote in a personal letter
that N.I.C.E. is not quite the fantastic absurdity some people think,
but he had thought the part about dabbling in magic was fantasy.
only later did he learn that it was taking place.
he concluded, 'the trouble about writing satire is that
the real world always anticipates you,
and what were meant for exaggerations turn out to be nothing of the sort.
damnation is somehow sadder but less grisly in the great divorce.
L doesn't include devils in that portrayal of hell,
but there, too, all who are in hell have chosen it.
(as L says in 'the magician's nephew,
'all get what they want: they do not always like it.
the whole trouble with trying to understand hell is that
the thing to be understood is so nearly nothing.
all hell is smaller than one pebble on earth and smaller than one atom of heaven.
if a butterfly in heaven swallowed all hell,
hell would not be big enough to do it any harm or to even have taste.
hell seems big enough when one is in it.
but if all its loneliness, angers, hatreds, envies and itchings were rolled together and weighed
against the least moment of joy that is felt by the least in heaven,
it would have no weight that could be registered at all.
the damned soul is shrunk, shut up in itself; it is nearly nothing.
L wanted to arouse no curiosity about details of the afterlife.
but he portrayed hell as a dismal twilight city in which people,
consumed with self,
moved light years away from each other.
everything there is rather shoddy and insubstantial.
no one has joy, but all can have possessions galore by wishing for them.
as one cynical resident put it, it's a flop, just like everything else he ever visited.
he was led to expect red fire and devils and all sorts of interesting people like henry 8th
sizzling on grids, but when you get there it is just like any other town.
ultimately, the damned will in some sense say that they were always in hell
and the saved that they were always in heaven.
it will be true, because both heaven and hell are retroactive.
heaven will saturate the past life with joy and hell will poison it.
although heaven is reality itself, hell is a state of mind-
the dungeon of self.
good beats upon the damned incessantly,
like sound waves beating on the ears of the deaf.
but they will not, then cannot, receive it.
even in his children's series, L showed some of god's creatures refusing heaven.
millions of creatures streamed up from the dying land of narnia to aslan where he stood at a huge door.
as they came right up to him
they either looked into his face with love and went through the door to his right into heaven
or else they looked at his face with fear and hatred and went to his left.
there they disappeared into his huge black shadow
and were never seen by the others again.
in that story, lucy, being full of love, wanted to no one to suffer.
she found a circle of miserable, surly dwarfs who
insisted that they were in pitch dark, stinky, smelly little hole of a stable.
lucy tried to show them the sky and trees and flowers but they insisted
that it was all darkness and filthy stable litter.
at last lucy implored aslan himself to help them.
aslan agreed to show lucy what he could and could not do.
when he growled softly, the dwarfs claimed that someone was
trying to frighten them with a machine.
when he provided them with a magnificent feast,
they took it to be dirty water and hay
and ended up in a brawl which destroyed the feast entirely.
then they agreed smugly that no one could take them in.
'they have chosen cunning instead of belief, said aslan.
'their prison is only in their own minds,
yet they are in that prison;
and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.
in 'the pilgim's regress john asked his Guide if there is really 'a black hole.
when the guide said yes, john asked then if God is 'so kind and good.
the Guide replied that nowadays God is often accused of cruelty.
to the contrary, God chould be accused of taking risks.
He has taken the risk of making people free.
(chesterton once said that hell is God's great compliment to humanity
-it is part of the reality of man's freedom.)
when man sins, God saves him from it if He can.
but god doesn't save people against their will.
God cannot force a man to do freely what a man has freely made impossible for himself.
god does not make the darkness;
the darkness is there already wherever sin has done its work.
only One is great enought to make Himself small enough to enter hell.
He did not do it just once, briefly, 2000 years ago,
because God is not really in our time.
Christ's descending into hell somehow includes all moments that ever were.
every spirit in prison hears Him preach.
what more can you ask God to do?
to cancel human sins and offer miraculous help?
He has done that on calvary.
to forgive them?
some will not accept forgiveness.
to finally leave alone those who refuse Him?
L says, alas, that is what He dose.
and once a person separates himself from God, L asks, what can he do but wither and die?
a bad person's perdition is not simply a sentence imposed upon him or her,
but the mere fact of being what he or she is.
'it's not a question of God 'sending us to hell.
in each of us there is something growing up which will of itself BE HELL
unless it is nipped in the bud.
the matter is serious:
LET US PUT OURSELVES IN HIS HANDS AT ONE-THIS VERY DAY, THIS HOUR.
part two;: father out
when L was a young atheist, he embraced materialism
and thought he had disposed of christianity forever.
but he learned, to his surprise, that there were some responsible adults who believed,
after all, in a world behind or around, the material world and yet were not christians.
here were unorthodox people who dismissed the whole materialist philosophy out of hand.
it was a disturbing but exciting idea.
perhaps there was 'something else' after all,
and perhaps it had nothing to do with christian theology.
young L developed a ravenous desire for the occult
-a mingled desire and revulsion.
it had a special appeal to him because it was known to very few and scorned by many.
the fact that magic was unorthodox to both christians and materialists
made a special appeal to the rebel in him
he went on a spiritual debauch, and if there had been an experienced dabbler in dirt
of the magical kind nearby to lead him on,
in his own view he might have become a satanist or a maniac.
fortunately, L had no personal teacher at hand.
fortunately, too, he experienced some strong fears from childhood
which made him at least wish at night that the occult were untrue.
and, further, he came to see that even if he had the extremely interesting experience of raising
a spirit, his deeper desires would say, 'what is this to me?
his confidence in materialism had been shaken, but he developed an
absolute antipathy to everything occult and magical
which carried him safely through future temptations of this king.
there were future temptation, to be sure.
but L was set in his refection of the occult
when he saw an acquaintance of his go mad and die in a wretched state after pursuing it.
in his preface to the screwtape letters L declares that devils hail both
materialists and magicians with equal delight.
the devils are had put to choose between those two errors into which men often fall;
disbelief in the existence of devils or an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.
screwtape himself expressed hopes that eventually these two opposite errors
could be combined producing Materialist Magicians.
these would be men who retain their disbelief in God and their allegiance to 'science',
while slipping into a worship of 'Forces' they don't understand,
which are in fact the very devils of christian theology.
this is exactly the extreme case that L illustrated in perelandra and 'that hideous strength
with the exceptional destruction of atheists weston, wither and frost.
in fact after weston became an Un-man, he told ransom how hopeless and horrible death is
from the viewpoint of the damned
-all darkness, worms, heat, pressure, salt, suffocation and stink.
all ghosts, he claimed, are witless, twittering, gibbering, decaying
and full of hatred for the living.
'then there's Spiritualism, he continued.
'i used to think it all nonsense.
but it isn't. it's all true...ectoplasm-slimy films coming out of a medium's belly
and making great, chaotic, tumbledown faces.
automatic writing producing reams of rubbish.
so much for the occult!
the End of Evil
it is obvious that few men fall prey to the devils in this atheist-satanist way.
but it is not obvious that a few men are damned.
after all, Christ said,
'narrow is the way...and few there be that find it.
L considered that the most distressing text in the bible,
although he felt that it certainly was not meant to be simply statistical.
speaking to a minister once about the insanely cruel teacher
they both had suffered under as children,
L said, 'well, we shan't see him again.
'you mean we HOPE we shan't,
the cleric had answered with a grim smile.
it was a joke, but not a joke.
L believed that in all discussions of hell we should have ourselves in mind,
not other people.
L did not pretend to have any information on the fate of the virtuous unbeliever.
he simply assumed that in some way the result of such a life
is less satisfactory than the result of a life based upon the truth...
some will not be saved.
L claimed that he would have paid any price to change that doctrine truthfully
to 'all will be saved.
but scripture (especially the words of our Lord),
tradition and reason all support the former.
it is said that hell is a detestable doctrine; of course it is.
L's favorite writer, G. Macdonald, seemed to be a Universalist,
talking in his books as if all people would finally be saved.
in 'the great divorce L boldly discusses this with macdonald in heaven.
Mac tells L that it is ill to talk of such questions on earth
because the ultimate answers cannot be understood by people who are still in time.
surely anyone may choose eternal death,
and those who choose it shall have it.
in contrast, Universalism, like predestination, would seem to destroy freedom.
Universalism and predestination may be true,
but freedom is a deeper truth.
it is useless now to try to see the shape of eternity.
one of the main objections to hell is the complaint that
life is so short compared to eternity;
death should not deprive people of a second chance.
L believed that if a million chances would do any good, God would give them.
but finality must come some time,
and surely in each case god knows when.
in 'the great divorce people are told on their visit to the lowlands of heaven that
if they don't return to the grey town it will have been purgatory for them;
if they return, it was and is hell.
L frankly admitted believing in purgatory.
to him it was a place for souls already saved but in need of purifying-purging.
he agreed with the protestant reformers in tossing out the distorted idea of purgatory
as a place of torture (worse yet, used as a fun-raising device for the church).
there is no place of torture and punishment for the saved,
only a place of cleansing.
...is it possible for any charitable person to enter into the full joy of heaven
knowing that others are lost in hell?
it has to be.
otherwise hell should be able to veto heaven.
if the makers of misery were able to infect the joy of heaven,
they would destroy in others the happiness they refused for themselves.
...there shall be no suffering of pity in heaven..
besides, hell is in no sense parallel to heaven.
they are not like two neighboring countries,
one starving and the other flourishing simultaneously.
hell has a finality about it that heaven does not have.
hell is only the outer darkness,
the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.
those in hell enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demand,.
and they are self enslaved.
even if hell contained pleasure instead of pain,
that kind of pleasure would send any soul not already damned
flying to its prayers in nightmare terror.
as L explained in 'the pilgrim's regress,
if hell is a deep hole,
and limit the darkness.
the walls are like a tourniquet on the wound of the lost soul
to stop the flow of evil.
it is God's best service to those who will let Him do nothing better for them.
when lewis was a young adult he had been far more eager to escape pain than to achieve happiness,
and he even resented the fact that he had been created without his own permission.
one advantage of the anti christian materialism he clung to
as its limited danger of pain.
no disaster can be infinitude death ends all.
and if this life becomes too painful,
one can always commit suicide for an early escape.
in contrast, the horrible thing about christianity
is that it offers no such escape.
it assures each person that he is going to live forever.
the christian universe has no door marked exit.
perhaps a person's temper or his jealousy are getting worse so slowly that in 70 years
they are not very noticeable.
but in a million years they would be hell itself;
'in fact, if christianity is true,
hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be. '
about 30 years after L's youthful enthusiasm for materialism,
he was asked in public if the devil is as real as we think he is.
he answered that it is quite possible to be a christian without
believing in the devil or devils;
they are not mentioned in the christian creeds.
'i do believe such beings exist,
but that is my own affair.
he eventually got the feeling that he and the devil were all too closely related
in the public mind.
they even appeared together on the cover of time magazine.
on the other hand, L felt that a belief in hell was indeed basic.
God is not safe or tame.
there is that ahead which immortal spirit can desire and dread.
L claimed in his last book that he had never met anyone who fully disbelieved in hell
and yet had a life giving belief in heaven.
there are only three eternal alternatives:
to be God, to be like God or to be miserable.
that means for humans the choice of heaven or hell.
how about earth?
L felt that a person who chooses earth instead of heaven
will find that earth was, all along, just a part of hell.
and the person who puts earth second to heaven will find earth
to have been all along a part of heaven itself.
it is no use crying for something else;
God can only give us what is.
those who want annihilation will find the closest thing to it in hell.
but there is no exit.
infernal fiction
lewis published 4 works of adult fiction in which damnation was a central theme.
they came out between 1942-6.
first was the screwtape letters. ..
no book was ever easier for L to write than this one,
and none left a worse taste in his mouth.
he said it was not fun for long and almost smothered him before he was done.
the state of mind he needed to write from a devil's viewpoint was all
dust, grit, thirst and itch.
although he was often asked to add to these letters,
it was at least 17 years before he indulged in any more 'diabolical ventriloquism'
-and then it was a dinner speech by screwtape, not a letter.
in that speech screwtape expresses in passing the goal of hell.
'the overthrow of free peoples and the multiplication of slave states
are for us a means (besides, of course, being fun);
but the real end is the destruction of individuals.
for only individuals can be saved or damned,
can become sons of the Enemy or food for us.
screwtape advises wormwood that jargon, not argument,
can keep a man out of the enemy's clutches.
he assures him that hundreds of adult converts have been reclaimed for hell.
'keep everything hazy in his mind now,
and you will have all eternity wherein to amuse yourself
by producing in him the peculiar kind of clarity which hell affords.
the reword for all the labors of devils is the anguish and bewilderment of a human soul;
it becomes a brimful chalice of despair, horror and astonishment
which a devil can drink as wine forever, according to screwtape.
wormwood is reminded not to reveal himself to his patient.
the fact that devils are today pictured as comic figures in red tights will help keep people
from believing in them until it is too late.
although devils can make use of the comic element at times,
joyful laughter is disgusting to them
and a direct insult to the realism, dignity and austerity of hell.
silence and melody are also banished there.
it is the kingdom of noise.
the whole philosophy of hell is one of competition.
every gain by one being in hell is loss to another.
and when a soul manages to go to heaven instead of hell,
everyone in hell loses.
a howl of sharpened famine re echoes all the way down to the throne itself.
a tempter has no need to produce big sins in order to win.
all he needs to do is edge a man away from the Light
and out into the nothing.
'murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick.
indeed the safest road to hell is the gradual one-
the gentle slope, soft underfoot,
without sudden turnings,
without milestones,
without signposts.
screwtape has made the difference between hell and heaven clear.
the devils want cattle who can finally become food;
God wants servants who can become sons.
the devils want to suck in;
God wants to give out.
and in this struggle Hod has limited Himself;
He can woo, but not ravish.
either God or satan will eventually say 'mine'
of everything that exists,
and especially of every person.
God now claims everything on the grounds that He made it.
satan hopes to claim it all by conquest.
man will learn that he cannot in reality claim anything for himself, according to screwtape.
'they will find out in the end, never fear, to whom
their time, their souls and their bodies really belong -
certainly not to them, whatever happens.
in a poem directed to satan, L said,
'all that seemed earth is hell or heaven.
God is: thou art: the rest illusion...'
he concluded his overwhelming realization with a prayer to God.
'Lord, open not too often my weak eyes to this.
the idea of the devil possessing a human mind and body was the horror of the unforgettably
beautiful space novel perelandra which came out one year after the screwtape letters.
in this sequel to out of the silent planet,
the evil physicist, weston, claimed to have come into contact with his life's guiding spirit.
this 'life force' took control of him, using him as a tool
to get the newly created first woman on venus to disobey her maker.
ransom, God's man on venus, soon realized that weston had become
a living corpse, a bogey, an Un-man.
he was a creature who at rare moments cried out to ransom to save him
from some horrors he could hardly describe:
'i'm down in the bottom of a big black hole...he does all my thinking for me.
superficially, the Un-man weston seemed to be pursuing great designs against heaven
which involved the fate of worlds;
but deep within he seemed obsessed with a puerile lust for even tiny, stupid cruelties
performed with the mentality of an imbecile or a monkey or a very nasty child.
ransom had always pictured hell as containing lost souls
that were still human;
now he saw to his horror that only a ghost would be left-
an everlasting unrest, a crumbling, a ruin, an odor of decay.
elsewhere L called it 'remains'.
he saw that there is a confusion of persons in damnation.
the question whether satan or a person digested by satan is acting on a specific occasion
has in the long run no clear significance.
L described that hideous strength, which follows perelandra,
as a tall story about devilry with a serious point behind it.
the sinister National Institute of Co-ordinated Experiments (N.I.C.E.)
was quickly taking over a small university in england,
under the direction of evil Masters.
as this project met its destruction, its senior leader, Wither,
knew with perfect clarity
that he could still divorce himself from the spirits
and save himself.
but in his last moments before damnation he did not implore God for mercy.
seeing that endless terror was about to begin,
he drifted passively into his last moments of murder and devil worship and death,
losing all contact with joy and reason forever,
drowsily watching the trap close upon his sou.
it was similar with his partner, Frost.
suddenly he had a chance to see that he had been on an utterly wrong course;
that souls and personal responsibility existed.
he hated that knowledge, rejected it and entered eternity.
after this book was published, L wrote in a personal letter
that N.I.C.E. is not quite the fantastic absurdity some people think,
but he had thought the part about dabbling in magic was fantasy.
only later did he learn that it was taking place.
he concluded, 'the trouble about writing satire is that
the real world always anticipates you,
and what were meant for exaggerations turn out to be nothing of the sort.
damnation is somehow sadder but less grisly in the great divorce.
L doesn't include devils in that portrayal of hell,
but there, too, all who are in hell have chosen it.
(as L says in 'the magician's nephew,
'all get what they want: they do not always like it.
the whole trouble with trying to understand hell is that
the thing to be understood is so nearly nothing.
all hell is smaller than one pebble on earth and smaller than one atom of heaven.
if a butterfly in heaven swallowed all hell,
hell would not be big enough to do it any harm or to even have taste.
hell seems big enough when one is in it.
but if all its loneliness, angers, hatreds, envies and itchings were rolled together and weighed
against the least moment of joy that is felt by the least in heaven,
it would have no weight that could be registered at all.
the damned soul is shrunk, shut up in itself; it is nearly nothing.
L wanted to arouse no curiosity about details of the afterlife.
but he portrayed hell as a dismal twilight city in which people,
consumed with self,
moved light years away from each other.
everything there is rather shoddy and insubstantial.
no one has joy, but all can have possessions galore by wishing for them.
as one cynical resident put it, it's a flop, just like everything else he ever visited.
he was led to expect red fire and devils and all sorts of interesting people like henry 8th
sizzling on grids, but when you get there it is just like any other town.
ultimately, the damned will in some sense say that they were always in hell
and the saved that they were always in heaven.
it will be true, because both heaven and hell are retroactive.
heaven will saturate the past life with joy and hell will poison it.
although heaven is reality itself, hell is a state of mind-
the dungeon of self.
good beats upon the damned incessantly,
like sound waves beating on the ears of the deaf.
but they will not, then cannot, receive it.
even in his children's series, L showed some of god's creatures refusing heaven.
millions of creatures streamed up from the dying land of narnia to aslan where he stood at a huge door.
as they came right up to him
they either looked into his face with love and went through the door to his right into heaven
or else they looked at his face with fear and hatred and went to his left.
there they disappeared into his huge black shadow
and were never seen by the others again.
in that story, lucy, being full of love, wanted to no one to suffer.
she found a circle of miserable, surly dwarfs who
insisted that they were in pitch dark, stinky, smelly little hole of a stable.
lucy tried to show them the sky and trees and flowers but they insisted
that it was all darkness and filthy stable litter.
at last lucy implored aslan himself to help them.
aslan agreed to show lucy what he could and could not do.
when he growled softly, the dwarfs claimed that someone was
trying to frighten them with a machine.
when he provided them with a magnificent feast,
they took it to be dirty water and hay
and ended up in a brawl which destroyed the feast entirely.
then they agreed smugly that no one could take them in.
'they have chosen cunning instead of belief, said aslan.
'their prison is only in their own minds,
yet they are in that prison;
and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.
in 'the pilgim's regress john asked his Guide if there is really 'a black hole.
when the guide said yes, john asked then if God is 'so kind and good.
the Guide replied that nowadays God is often accused of cruelty.
to the contrary, God chould be accused of taking risks.
He has taken the risk of making people free.
(chesterton once said that hell is God's great compliment to humanity
-it is part of the reality of man's freedom.)
when man sins, God saves him from it if He can.
but god doesn't save people against their will.
God cannot force a man to do freely what a man has freely made impossible for himself.
god does not make the darkness;
the darkness is there already wherever sin has done its work.
only One is great enought to make Himself small enough to enter hell.
He did not do it just once, briefly, 2000 years ago,
because God is not really in our time.
Christ's descending into hell somehow includes all moments that ever were.
every spirit in prison hears Him preach.
what more can you ask God to do?
to cancel human sins and offer miraculous help?
He has done that on calvary.
to forgive them?
some will not accept forgiveness.
to finally leave alone those who refuse Him?
L says, alas, that is what He dose.
and once a person separates himself from God, L asks, what can he do but wither and die?
a bad person's perdition is not simply a sentence imposed upon him or her,
but the mere fact of being what he or she is.
'it's not a question of God 'sending us to hell.
in each of us there is something growing up which will of itself BE HELL
unless it is nipped in the bud.
the matter is serious:
LET US PUT OURSELVES IN HIS HANDS AT ONE-THIS VERY DAY, THIS HOUR.
part two;: father out
when L was a young atheist, he embraced materialism
and thought he had disposed of christianity forever.
but he learned, to his surprise, that there were some responsible adults who believed,
after all, in a world behind or around, the material world and yet were not christians.
here were unorthodox people who dismissed the whole materialist philosophy out of hand.
it was a disturbing but exciting idea.
perhaps there was 'something else' after all,
and perhaps it had nothing to do with christian theology.
young L developed a ravenous desire for the occult
-a mingled desire and revulsion.
it had a special appeal to him because it was known to very few and scorned by many.
the fact that magic was unorthodox to both christians and materialists
made a special appeal to the rebel in him
he went on a spiritual debauch, and if there had been an experienced dabbler in dirt
of the magical kind nearby to lead him on,
in his own view he might have become a satanist or a maniac.
fortunately, L had no personal teacher at hand.
fortunately, too, he experienced some strong fears from childhood
which made him at least wish at night that the occult were untrue.
and, further, he came to see that even if he had the extremely interesting experience of raising
a spirit, his deeper desires would say, 'what is this to me?
his confidence in materialism had been shaken, but he developed an
absolute antipathy to everything occult and magical
which carried him safely through future temptations of this king.
there were future temptation, to be sure.
but L was set in his refection of the occult
when he saw an acquaintance of his go mad and die in a wretched state after pursuing it.
in his preface to the screwtape letters L declares that devils hail both
materialists and magicians with equal delight.
the devils are had put to choose between those two errors into which men often fall;
disbelief in the existence of devils or an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.
screwtape himself expressed hopes that eventually these two opposite errors
could be combined producing Materialist Magicians.
these would be men who retain their disbelief in God and their allegiance to 'science',
while slipping into a worship of 'Forces' they don't understand,
which are in fact the very devils of christian theology.
this is exactly the extreme case that L illustrated in perelandra and 'that hideous strength
with the exceptional destruction of atheists weston, wither and frost.
in fact after weston became an Un-man, he told ransom how hopeless and horrible death is
from the viewpoint of the damned
-all darkness, worms, heat, pressure, salt, suffocation and stink.
all ghosts, he claimed, are witless, twittering, gibbering, decaying
and full of hatred for the living.
'then there's Spiritualism, he continued.
'i used to think it all nonsense.
but it isn't. it's all true...ectoplasm-slimy films coming out of a medium's belly
and making great, chaotic, tumbledown faces.
automatic writing producing reams of rubbish.
so much for the occult!
the End of Evil
it is obvious that few men fall prey to the devils in this atheist-satanist way.
but it is not obvious that a few men are damned.
after all, Christ said,
'narrow is the way...and few there be that find it.
L considered that the most distressing text in the bible,
although he felt that it certainly was not meant to be simply statistical.
speaking to a minister once about the insanely cruel teacher
they both had suffered under as children,
L said, 'well, we shan't see him again.
'you mean we HOPE we shan't,
the cleric had answered with a grim smile.
it was a joke, but not a joke.
L believed that in all discussions of hell we should have ourselves in mind,
not other people.
L did not pretend to have any information on the fate of the virtuous unbeliever.
he simply assumed that in some way the result of such a life
is less satisfactory than the result of a life based upon the truth...
some will not be saved.
L claimed that he would have paid any price to change that doctrine truthfully
to 'all will be saved.
but scripture (especially the words of our Lord),
tradition and reason all support the former.
it is said that hell is a detestable doctrine; of course it is.
L's favorite writer, G. Macdonald, seemed to be a Universalist,
talking in his books as if all people would finally be saved.
in 'the great divorce L boldly discusses this with macdonald in heaven.
Mac tells L that it is ill to talk of such questions on earth
because the ultimate answers cannot be understood by people who are still in time.
surely anyone may choose eternal death,
and those who choose it shall have it.
in contrast, Universalism, like predestination, would seem to destroy freedom.
Universalism and predestination may be true,
but freedom is a deeper truth.
it is useless now to try to see the shape of eternity.
one of the main objections to hell is the complaint that
life is so short compared to eternity;
death should not deprive people of a second chance.
L believed that if a million chances would do any good, God would give them.
but finality must come some time,
and surely in each case god knows when.
in 'the great divorce people are told on their visit to the lowlands of heaven that
if they don't return to the grey town it will have been purgatory for them;
if they return, it was and is hell.
L frankly admitted believing in purgatory.
to him it was a place for souls already saved but in need of purifying-purging.
he agreed with the protestant reformers in tossing out the distorted idea of purgatory
as a place of torture (worse yet, used as a fun-raising device for the church).
there is no place of torture and punishment for the saved,
only a place of cleansing.
...is it possible for any charitable person to enter into the full joy of heaven
knowing that others are lost in hell?
it has to be.
otherwise hell should be able to veto heaven.
if the makers of misery were able to infect the joy of heaven,
they would destroy in others the happiness they refused for themselves.
...there shall be no suffering of pity in heaven..
besides, hell is in no sense parallel to heaven.
they are not like two neighboring countries,
one starving and the other flourishing simultaneously.
hell has a finality about it that heaven does not have.
hell is only the outer darkness,
the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.
those in hell enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demand,.
and they are self enslaved.
even if hell contained pleasure instead of pain,
that kind of pleasure would send any soul not already damned
flying to its prayers in nightmare terror.
as L explained in 'the pilgrim's regress,
if hell is a deep hole,
and limit the darkness.
the walls are like a tourniquet on the wound of the lost soul
to stop the flow of evil.
it is God's best service to those who will let Him do nothing better for them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)