Narnia

The Internet. :P
The Magician's Nephew is coming out in 2014.

I've finally seen The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe movie, and I LOVE IT!!! (I call it the "new" one, since all I'd seen until now was the '88 BBC one; don't even try to watch it if you've seen the other one.)
My favorite characters from the movie are Aslan, the fox, and Edmund (in the second half). I've not re-met Reepicheep by way of a well-animated movie, so I'll need to wait and see if he reappears on my favorite characters list once I've seen any of the other "new" movies…haha.

Watching the movie had something to do with me changing my profile picture…make that, it had a lot to do with me changing my profile picture. :-)

seriously? I have all 3 movies and i can't wait to see this one! :) same director as lww and pc or is it michael apted?

That's exciting! Do they have a website for it yet?

By the time it comes out, we Lord of the Rings fans will have had the first two Hobbit movies, if not all three. Sorry, just had to post that here.

Ok even though I agree with him please no one get offended by that! Lol :)

I think it's a bit too late for that Danielle…….

Haha u need to learn when to hold ur tounge sometimes………..

I have now seen "Prince Caspian" as well as "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and I love it! Reepicheep is so cute. (My apologies to him in case he happens to be reading these forums, but he really is so adorable…) But I think I still prefer LWW as the movie, because the story line is more easy-to-follow.

"Very great and well-thought-out points, Navah, but I have to point out one thing. I think that what C. S. Lewis said was wrong because of Acts 4:12: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." All of what you said made very good sense, but the Bible makes it clear that no man can be saved without the name of Jesus, even if they follow exactly what He taught." I think that we may need to carefully consider how we interpret Acts 4:12 or else very few of us might be saved because while Jesus was on this earth and when the gospels and Acts were written He was referred to as Yeshua. If Acts 4:12 is as exclusive as you claim, we're all in big trouble.

Have you seen Voyage of the Dawn Treader?

I'm sorry, I guess I should have said something different than what I did. :) I think that it is impossible to follow exactly what the Bible teaches without acknowledging the One who wrote it–Yeshua, Jesus, Jesús, or whatever name symbolizes the one true God. I guess there is no set line that separates the names of God from other names, but if one follows a totally different god than the one God, he cannot truly be following the Bible's teachings. Does that make sense; and do you agree? :)

I agree that if one does not follow the one true God, then it is impossible for him to keep the commandments of God. However, I believe the question is: Is it possible to follow the one true God but know Him by the "wrong" or "different" name?
I'm hesitant to say "no" to this question. By saying "no" am I insisting that God has to condemn people to an eternity without Him because they've never heard the name Jesus or Yeshua? Am I claiming that salvation is no longer based on grace through faith but rather on making sure I know God's "correct" name? Am I portraying the idea that God is limited to saving only those who have had the privilege of hearing His name spoken? Does this mean it is God's fault if people are eternally lost for having never heard His name?
I believe C.S. Lewis is emphasizing Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord," will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven," and it seems that to C.S. Lewis, it was possible to do the will of the Father (which can only happen by knowing Him and His character) without knowing His true name. I'm inclined to agree with him.
The next question is: How can anyone know Him and His character and do His will without knowing His name? I believe Romans 1:20 might apply here, "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." The rest of Romans 1 then deals with idolatry and the dangers of "exchanging the truth of God for a lie." This is where C.S. Lewis enters controversy with Emeth's story. Was Emeth "exchanging the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures" (Roman 1:23)? I don't think so and I don't think C.S. Lewis thought so either because of his description of Emeth's desire to see "the face of the personification of all that is most good and righteous" as Navah said. How could Emeth have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie," when he so longed to see His face?

Salvation IS based on grace through faith, but when God reveals His truth to a person, His name is always involved. If anyone serves someone with a different name, he cannot be following God's truth. A person who has never heard of Jesus has also never heard of how to follow Him. We cannot follow the Bible without ever hearing what it says (and thereby hearing the name of Jesus).

Yes! I own all three Narnia movies and the BBC ones too!

Honest;y, to me, Prince Caspian was a really annoying movie. And Voyage of the Dawn Treader was pathetic. I mean, Caspian having black hair instead of being blonde? Kissing Susan? The "Green Mist"? Really?

Sam…… Don't start any fights here! :) jk I think prince Caspian was a good movie for the most part, but I do have to agree with u about the whole Caspian, Susan romance was pretty dumb. I wonder why they changed his hair color too. Like they couldn't find a blond actor to play him????i never saw voyage cause I didn't think it would b worth it.

The director and producers thought that Caspian should be dark-haired because it fit better with the "Telmarines coming from an island in our world theme." Where DO you find blonde island natives anyway?

Correction, their ancestors were 'sea fairing briggins, run aground on an island…' Not island natives. :) so they very well could have been blond.

Yes they were, but they married island women. Still, you do have a point…

I think Caspian looked better with black hair than with blonde hair…:)

You have a point here. However, the movie is portraying the Telmarines as Spaniards/Portuguese descendants. Their accents are quite telling in that they are a mix between English and Spanish. Pirates in ancient times were, for the majority, Spanish, Portuguese, or English. As the movie makers chose the Spanish route, it is really no wonder Caspian has black hair. Spanish natives usually possess dark hair, so it would have been VERY difficult to find a blond-haired Caspian with a believable Telmarine accent.

If what you say is true, then what does Paul mean in Romans 1:20 when he says that "they are without excuse"-including those who have never heard of Jesus? Also, does this kind of reasoning devalue the work of the Holy Spirit? I don't want to underestimate what the Holy Spirit can do in a life even if that person has never heard of Jesus or the Bible.

We may need to find a different forum to continue this discussion since this isn't exactly focused on Narnia. What do you think SBG?

Well, I suppose we could take this somewhere else, but I'm not exactly sure where… any ideas? :) (And also, I don't exactly understand what you mean when you say that what I am saying seems to devalue the work of the Holy Spirit. Could you clarify? Thanks.)

I see what you're saying here, but the Telmarine's ancestors may have been English sailors who mutinied, then their ship ran aground. That would explain the blonde hair.

Very true. :) I was just trying to point out why the movie people chose the actor they did. After all, their accent is way more fun to listen to than it is an English accent, which almost every other character has. :)

By saying that people can follow Jesus and the commandments of God only if they have heard of Jesus and been taught directly from the Bible might underestimate what the Spirit can do. I believe that the power of God's Holy Spirit and the testimony of His Creation can lead people to become followers of Christ and His Word even if they don't know His name or have never heard the Word of God.

It might be okay if we continue on this forum, or maybe we could start a new one. It would be nice to get other people's input though, whether it be on this forum or another.

BGlad, I would be inclined to agree with you. I don't KNOW - but I would not want to limit the Holy Spirit.

SavedByGrace, as I pointed out earlier, think about this. Abraham never heard the name "Jesus." Neither did David, Moses, Ruth, Esther, Sarah, Daniel, Samuel, Jeremiah, Noah, Eve, or Jacob. Yet they came to God through Jesus - without knowing His name. How can this be? I am quite curious, SBG - what would you say about these people in the Old Testament?

The same with Matthew 25. The righteous did not recognize Jesus: "When did we see you hungry, thirsty, sick, etc.?" However, they still came to Father through Jesus - even without recognizing Him.

God is not limited by whether we hear or know the name. It isn't knowing the name; it is being IN the name. We ARE saved by the name, but it doesn't depend on us hearing the exact "J-E-S-U-S." If God works in us and enables us to seek Him, we may well be in Christ's name without even hearing it.

Several times it was mentioned that no one seeks after God naturally (so people like Emeth, for instance, cannot be seeking God). This is true. But - neither do I. Neither do you. Neither does anyone who knows the name of Jesus. Of course no natural human heart will seek God. Hearing Jesus' name does not change that. God's Spirit and God's power work within people. God's Spirit does not just work in people who have heard Jesus' name; Jesus said, "I…will draw all men to myself." God is not limited by what we may have heard or not heard with our physical ears. Ears listening to His Kingdom and His Spirit are much more important.

This is a good question, Can someone be saved through 'general revelation' (what God has revealed in nature etc.), or do they have to hear/read/be told the word of God (specific revelation).
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? Roamns 10:14 (ESV)

Thank you, MilesChristiSum; that was the verse that I was about to post. :) Sorry I haven't been able to answer you yet, Navah and BGlad, but I will try to do so soon. However, the comment above this one pretty much sums up my argument. (Also, I did not say that the letters J-E-S-U-S were necessary for salvation, but that the name of God is, whatever He has revealed that to be.)

Great verse. In fact Romans 10:8-17 goes along with your argument quite nicely. Paul is definitely emphasizing how important it is that the good news about out amazing God gets spread to everyone (and here specifically to the gentiles); I agree completely with that passion.

However, I do have a couple thoughts about v. 14. The first question in v. 14 ("How then shall they call upon Him in who they have not believed") seems to be addressing those who do NOT believe, and our debate is whether or not one CAN believe based solely on "general revelation." So it would seem that the entire verse is referring to those who don't believe in God in spite of the general revelation; therefore, they need specific revelation. (Keep in mind also, that in Romans 9-11, Paul is trying to address many of the Jews' struggles with seeing salvation extend to the gentiles, who hadn't yet had as much specific revelation as the Jews had. He is trying to help them understand that salvation is through Christ and not through a blood line. This may impact how we read and interpret these chapters.)

Another interesting thing about Romans 10 is that right after verses 8-17, Paul quotes Psalms 19. Psalms 19 specifically refers to general revelation through Creation that all people have heard. And according to Romans 1:20, that means they have seen the eternal power and divine nature of God clearly. In fact in Romans 10:18, Paul says that they HAVE heard about this God through Creation, and thus, he partially answers the question he raised in verse 14 (though he definitely wants them to hear specific revelation also).

Psalms 19: 1-4 says, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words; Their voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, And their utterances to the end of the world, In them He has placed a tent for the sun."

Psalm 19:1-6 Tells us clearly then that general revelation of creation shows us there is a creator, and some of his attributes. and
Psalm 19:7-11 Tells us what the specific revelation {the scriptures available at the psalmist's time (predominatly the law/torah)} does for us.

The second part of verse 14 of Romans 10, says " And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard?" this takes the previous question "How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed?" and asks a prerequisitory question of it, working back to where someone must be sent and preach.

Paul speaks of those who did not have the words of the new testament, like Abraham in chapter 4 "1What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
" Jesus talks about Abraham as if he was alive (spiritually or in heaven). "And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 32‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

God will save all those that he wills to be saved by what means he deems fit, but cannot go against his word. I don't know then if people can be saved today without hearing/reading the gospel, and by another means of the Holy spirit. I do know however that if God wants someone to hear the gospel, they will; no matter what is or isn't done to thwart his purpose, because he is an infinite and all-powerful God.
Edit: I think we have hijacked this forum, this discussion would fit better in the theology forums, any in favour of a move say I…

Hey MCS, Could you expand on your points about Romans 10:14 and about Abraham? I'm not quite sure I followed the line of thinking that you wanted me to.

"I do know however that if God wants someone to hear the gospel, they will; no matter what is or isn't done to thwart his purpose, because he is an infinite and all-powerful God. Edit: I think we have hijacked this forum, this discussion would fit better in the theology forums, any in favour of a move say I..." I say "I" to both comments!

I have been thinking about Romans 10, actually. Good points with that verse in this context.

But also look at what it says directly afterwards:

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. ~ Romans 10:17

By the word of God. Not by preaching. By God speaking. While God speaks through preaching and definitely through the Bible, He also speaks through creation. He also speaks through His Spirit within us. He speaks with a still small voice to us directly.

The passage continues:

But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world. ~ Romans 10:18.

How shall they hear without a preacher? Now Paul goes on to say that they have already heard! Paul never actually answers the questions in verse 14; he never actually confirms that they cannot hear without a preacher. However, he answers this question: have they not heard? Yes! The ends of the world have heard!

Finally, look at verse 20 of the chapter:

But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me.

Wow.

I think Emeth's situation fits this quite well… (back on topic :))

I've just been reading your discussion about salvation. It's alright if you keep it on this topic.

Side note: I have now seen TVOTDT. Awesome! They say it used the greatest number of special effects of the three Narnia movies, and I believe it.

Some of the additions to PC are cool (such as the castle attack scene; seriously, wouldn't you like you have a griffin flying you places?) but I also wasn't too fond of them adding the romance. Bleh.
If you watch VODT without thinking about how different it is from the book, it's an awesome movie. Lots of cool special effects, as I said before. I was warned ahead of time that it would be different, so I went into it telling myself "Pretend there's no book with the same name as this movie. This is a brand-new story. Just enjoy it." And it worked! I like how they let Eustace be a dragon longer than in the book. And the sea serpent is creepier in the movie than it is in the book.
Caspian's black hair is an improvement to me. Just like giving Edmund dark hair, too. But I do wish that Lucy had been blonde. Neither BBC or Disney got it right. (Good for Disney, though, making Susan's hair black like in the book.)

I agree; if you try to compare the VODT movie with the book, you're going to be disappointed. But if you take it as an entirely different story, it's a great movie! :)

Oh, Do u not like blonde hair on guys? Lol jk

BAH! PC was still an annoying movie! If you'd read the book, you wouldn't understand why they started it the way they did, and if you hadn't read the book, you STILL wouldn't understand what was going on in the beginning of the movie. To quote Christopher Tolkein, they made it into "an action movie suited for children 15 and up". Or at least, that's basically what he said.

Let's put that in perspective, Christopher Tokein is a movie hater. And even disapproved of the idea of LOTR being a motion picture. He just hates movies in general. And thinks literature much superior.

Um, honestly, the LotR books were WAY better! I mean, they made Gandalf and Saruman more of traditional wizards than they were in the books! In the books, they were Maia, lesser Ainur! Basically Archangels! Any power they have is because of who they are, not because of the staffs they held! And, Saruman didn't have the kind of power to posses Theoden in the book. I mean, if he did, what was the reason for Wormtounge to be his "inside man"? To stalk Eowyn? I don't think so! And the ONLY mention of Arwen in the books was once in the Fellowship, since she was at the Council of Elrond, and in the Appendices at the end of RotK. We didn't have all the unneeded kissing. At all! EVER! Don't get e wrong, I LOVE the movies, but they could have done a better job.

Well, this is going to shock u so bad that u might fall out of the computer chair but, ah, idk if I can say it, ah, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIES. There it's out. :( my worst secret.

Can we continue this on LOTR tomorrow?

That's okay! I-reads post again YOUHAVEN'TSEENTHEMOVIES?!?! AHHHH!!!!!!!!!!runs away, not to post 'till tomorrow

Do I like dark hair on guys better than blonde? It really depends on the guy. But in general, I like guys with dark hair better. Maybe because I have blonde hair and therefore think blonde is boring.

ok. Lol I was just wondering. :). So are they coming out with a silver chair?

I believe, Danielle, that they are making The Magician's Nephew right now. After that, I think, they will do the Silver Chair. :)

Really!? Cool. :)