# Question about J.R.R. Tolkien



## cih1355 (Sep 11, 2010)

When Tolkien wrote his book, _The Lord of the Rings_, did he get any of his ideas from Plato? According to Tolkien's book, wearing a certain ring can make one invisible. This same idea is found in Plato's _Republic_.


----------



## paculina (Sep 11, 2010)

It wouldn't be surprising if Tolkien did get it from Plato, and it wouldn't be surprising if Plato himself got it from somewhere else as well.


----------



## Bern (Sep 11, 2010)

I believe he as influenced by CS Lewis in some respects. Probably not regarding magic rings though.


----------



## Zenas (Sep 11, 2010)

He and Lewis were good friends.


----------



## FenderPriest (Sep 11, 2010)

I do not know of any influence Tolkien would have had on the nature of the One Ring from Plato. However, seeing as that he was a Medievalist he was certainly influence by the Ring from The Nibelungenlied and Saga of the Völsungs. However, the whole idea of "The One Ring to Rule Them All" is unique in it's nature and application in Tolkien.

If you're interested in Tolkien's thoughts on story telling, he wrote an essay called "On Fairy Stories" where he describes the "sources" of any good story being like a pot of stew that one takes a spoon full from. Certainly there are sources, but how they mix, and how they taste is unique to every story teller (the spoon full of soup).


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 11, 2010)

Correct if I am wrong but C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and others belonged to the Anglo-Catholic movement of their day. I don't understand the evangelical infatuation with C.S. Lewis. His theology was incomplete or inadequate although I did enjoy his Screwtape Letters.


----------



## Philip (Sep 11, 2010)

> I do not know of any influence Tolkien would have had on the nature of the One Ring from Plato. However, seeing as that he was a Medievalist he was certainly influence by the Ring from The Nibelungenlied and Saga of the Völsungs.



Actually, when asked about this connection, Tolkien responded "Both rings were round and there the resemblance ends."

As an educated academic of the mid-20th century, Tolkien would certainly have been familiar with Plato and _The Republic_, so there's certainly some influence there. Certain racial divisions in his mythos also bear similarities to Plato's three types of men.

The connection to C.S. Lewis is probably just here, as Lewis was a kind of Christoplatonist that hadn't been seen since the Medieval period (pre-Thomistic).



> Correct if I am wrong but C.S. Lewis, J.R.R. Tolkien, and others belonged to the Anglo-Catholic movement of their day.



Tolkien was a Roman Catholic, who was instrumental in converting Lewis to Christianity. Lewis never identified with any party in the Church of England, though his friends did tend to be Anglo-Catholic. Instead, Lewis advocated "Mere Christianity:" that set of things which all Christians agree upon.



> His theology was incomplete or inadequate



He would agree with you: Lewis never claimed to be a professional theologian, but a lay apologist and devotional writer. Criticizing Lewis's theology as "incomplete" is like criticizing Machen's apologetic for being incomplete: Machen wasn't a professional apologist, but a New Testament scholar. 

As for the "evangelical infatuation" with Lewis, it's simple: he was a _really_ good writer who had a lot of great things to say. He addressed modernism before most others had reason to doubt it and provided a solution: western culture needs to be really Christian again.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 11, 2010)

And yet Machen was a better apologist (The Christian View of Man and Christianity & Liberalism) than Lewis was a "professional" theologian. The analogy fails. In my own early search and study, I found Bishop J.C. Ryle to be more reliable. At that time I was coming out of the Roman Catholic C. in Singapore and was involved with the Charismatics. In that Charismatic church, I found a microfiche in the library and read Warfield's Perfectionism and Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology. Lewis was never quite satisfying, beautiful writer or not, In my humble opinion.


----------



## Philip (Sep 11, 2010)

> And yet Machen was a better apologist (The Christian View of Man and Christianity & Liberalism) than Lewis was a "professional" theologian.



Machen's apologetic was almost entirely directed to those in the church, therefore his arguments would make little sense to those outside. However, it is successful in that _Christianity and Liberalism_ (for example) does exactly what it is supposed to do: Machen is not addressing the outside world, but the church. Similarly, Lewis is not trying to be a systematic theologian, but to provide a very (and I mean very) basic "merely Christian" theology that a convert could build off of. In fact, I would say that the style of Packer's _Knowing God_ makes it an excellent follow-up to _Mere Christianity_ (if I could only have two theology books in my library, excluding the Bible, I would choose those two).



> Lewis was never quite satisfying, beautiful writer or not, In my humble opinion.



That's a subjective analysis of how his thought affected you personally. You might find his critiques of scientism and modernism to be more helpful as well as his professional work on literary criticism.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 12, 2010)

My "subjective" analysis of Lewis was based on my prior reading of Pink, Hodge, and yes J.I. Packer and did I mention J.C. Ryle. At that time I had no need for Lewis as a Cambridge literary critic. 

I would never have given Lewis to a new convert, rather I would have picked Packer. Lewis had students in his classes that were shocked to learn that their professor was a Christian! As far as to what group apologetics is aimed, I disagree. The primary aim of apologetics is to prepare Christians to defend their faith against outsiders and not to persuade outsiders of the truth-worthiness of Scriptural claims. I say this carefully, in the light of the fact that fallen man's mind is in enmity against God and will not hear the things of God. The noetic effect of sin is that the intellect is in darkness and that man's reasoning process is flawed. Paul in Athens, to my mind, is proclaiming the incarnation of Christ and the reason for that Incarnation. It is not an extended apologetic of the Christian faith. The response of the majority is revealing. Of the few that did want to hear more, how many actually became Christians? 

I am not an evidentialist. I am a presuppositionalist, I will not multiply words unnecessarily to win an argument. The best approach is to the preach the Gospel. Repent and believe not "please believe my argument." This was driven home to me by an underground church planter and preacher from Communist China. He also told me that he had come to the U.S. to study exegesis and theology, not apologetics and "church growth" techniques.

Fallen man is desperately wicked. Only the word of God proclaimed can have an effect on him (condemnation or salvation via the Holy Spirit) . Most of the Muslims I speak with are unfazed by apologetical arguments. But the moment you confront them with Christ crucified, his claims to deity, and his demands of us, you get an immediate response!

Finally, if Lewis is to the convert then would that not make his efforts toward the church and not toward the outside world.


----------



## Philip (Sep 12, 2010)

> As far as to what group apologetics is aimed, I disagree. The primary aim of apologetics is to prepare Christians to defend their faith against outsiders and not to persuade outsiders of the truth-worthiness of Scriptural claims.



In which case it is no longer apologetics.



> Most of the Muslims I speak with are unfazed by apologetical arguments. But the moment you confront them with Christ crucified, his claims to deity, and his demands of us, you get an immediate response!



You seem not to have actually read Lewis's argument, which boils down precisely to this: either Christ was the Son of God, or He was a liar, or He was a lunatic---what He could not have been was a great moral teacher or simple prophet (the Muslim claim).

You also forget that Islam, since the Middle Ages, has denied the reality of human reason, so naturally argument is useless: the Islamic world blinded itself to reason, largely, I think, due to the relentless logic of the Christian response to Arabic scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas).



> Finally, if Lewis is to the convert then would that not make his efforts toward the church and not toward the outside world.



His apologetics (I think primarily of _Mere Christianity_) are geared toward the non-believer.



> The best approach is to the preach the Gospel. Repent and believe not "please believe my argument."



You oppose faith to reason. Can't the the Holy Spirit use an argument? I think you certainly can present the Gospel through argument. 

You also forget that part of the purpose of apologetics is to explain the Gospel in terms that a nonbeliever can understand---to explain why we do what we do and why we believe what we believe.

At any rate, we are off-topic. PM me if you want to hear more about Lewis (I've been studying Lewis for years).


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 13, 2010)

Philip, no offense, but I do not want to know more about Lewis. In my day I had read about Lewis and read many things that he said that were questionable. Also, you cannot in all fairness rebut my arguments and then tell me we are off-topic and that I should PM you so that I can learn more about Lewis. So here is my response to what you said about what the Muslims did or did not know. 

“In which case it is no longer apologetics.”

Maybe we should reexamine the idea of aplogetics and what it does and does not achieve.

“You seem not to have actually read Lewis's argument, which boils down precisely to this: either Christ was the Son of God, or He was a liar, or He was a lunatic---what He could not have been was a great moral teacher or simple prophet (the Muslim claim).”

And guess what, many in the world are not impressed with this argument, many have chosen Lunatic and Liar! What does that prove?

“You also forget that Islam, since the Middle Ages, has denied the reality of human reason, so naturally argument is useless: the Islamic world blinded itself to reason, largely, I think, due to the relentless logic of the Christian response to Arabic scholasticism (Thomas Aquinas).”

You are sadly mistaken. The Muslims scholars were thoroughly cognizant of Aristotle's works on among other things his Prior Analytics (al-kitab al-qiyas) and his Posterior Analytics (al-kitab al-burhan) or as the Latins came to understand (demonstratio) Logical Demonstration and this was back in the 9th Century in Baghdad. There were Jews, Syriac, and other scholars who knew Greek and Arabic. There was an extensive translation movement going on during that time. As to relentless logic it was used by Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Averroes (Ibn Rushd) who influenced those who were teachers of Thomas Aquinas! 

Also, the later middle ages saw the questioning of Thomas Aquinas's approach, Ockham etc. Gregory or Rimini and Thomas Bradwardine (both followers of a resurgent Augustinianism) began to question the semi-pelagian strain of Thomism. 

Ibn Taymiyya, Taqi Ad-Din, who was a 14th Century Suni Hanbali Jurist doctor of Suni Islam in Damascus, Syria questioned the use of a Greek (man made) logical construct to valorize what he believed to be divine revelation. We mention him, there were others, but he is prominent. That is logical demonstration cannot be used because in the end it is self-defeating; that Allah can and does use other methods of the process of reasoning (other than demonstration like analogy or analogical thinking - qiyas) to reveal himself to his creatures. 

He was denying a rationalist approach to religious revelation as well as denying an irrational attitude as well. 

Gregory of Rimini had similar strictures against the use of demonstration in valorizing divine revelation in God's Holy Scriptures. He said that when we study scripture we do not stand in judgment over it with our human tools of logical demonstration however, when we want to create some theological guide to study it or when we articulate doctrinal systems we can use these tools, these methods, as long as they do not alter what God has revealed to us. 

So one 14th century Muslim theologian says absolutely no and one of a few 14th century Roman Catholic Augustinian gives a qualified yes. This strain of Augustinian, Aristotelian, Humanist, and scholastic theology evolved and became known as Protestant Scholasticism. It was very successful but its very success made it vulnerable to Cartesian rationalism in the late 17th to early 18th centuries. 

“You oppose faith to reason. Can't the the Holy Spirit use an argument? I think you certainly can present the Gospel through argument.” 

No, I oppose the revelation of God in Holy Scripture to the endless multiplication of words from men. Scriptures are like a double-edged sword and cuts through all the arguments in the world of man's wisdom. Plus, and it is a mighty plus, is God's Holy Spirit who will not allow God's Word to return to Him empty.

You also forget that part of the purpose of apologetics is to explain the Gospel in terms that a nonbeliever can understand---to explain why we do what we do and why we believe what we believe.

When the Holy Spirit visited on Pentecost, He gave witnesses the ability to speak many languages in order to testify of the Gospel good news that indeed Christ has risen! Not an apologetics guide book on how to explain the Gospel. Missionaries speak of this all the time. When I was in Singapore, I met a group of young teens, there were five young men. Truthfully, there was a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Catholic and a "Free thinker." I was at my wits end as to how I was going to explain the Gospel to them. I was a new Christian then myself and so I started at the beginning with Adam and Eve and not with Gordon Clark or Cornelius Van Til though I believe neither man would have disagreed with my approach.


----------



## Philip (Sep 13, 2010)

> You are sadly mistaken. The Muslims scholars were thoroughly cognizant of Aristotle's works on among other things his Prior Analytics



Indeed, but after the time of Thomas, they rejected their own scholasticism.



> No, I oppose the revelation of God in Holy Scripture to the endless multiplication of words from men.



I guess I need to go burn my Calvin then. Sorry, but this applies just as much to theology proper as it does to apologetics.

May I suggest that we move this over to the apologetical methods forum?


----------



## Zenas (Sep 13, 2010)

"You also forget that part of the purpose of apologetics is to explain the Gospel in terms that a nonbeliever can understand---to explain why we do what we do and why we believe what we believe."

I'm of the opinion that the purpose of apologetics is to shut the mouth of the blasphmer.


----------



## Philip (Sep 13, 2010)

Zenas said:


> "You also forget that part of the purpose of apologetics is to explain the Gospel in terms that a nonbeliever can understand---to explain why we do what we do and why we believe what we believe."
> 
> I'm of the opinion that the purpose of apologetics is to shut the mouth of the blasphmer.


 
Both/and.


----------



## Theoretical (Sep 13, 2010)

Calvinus said:


> Fallen man is desperately wicked. Only the word of God proclaimed can have an effect on him (condemnation or salvation via the Holy Spirit) . Most of the Muslims I speak with are unfazed by apologetical arguments. But the moment you confront them with Christ crucified, his claims to deity, and his demands of us, you get an immediate response!



I would apply the same to most of the atheists I know. I think apologetic arguments, as the name implies are necessarily defensive weapons suited to help protect and reassure sheep in the fold and to explain the blindness in men's hearts to truth that is plain as day to us as believers.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 13, 2010)

Theoretical said:


> Calvinus said:
> 
> 
> > Fallen man is desperately wicked. Only the word of God proclaimed can have an effect on him (condemnation or salvation via the Holy Spirit) . Most of the Muslims I speak with are unfazed by apologetical arguments. But the moment you confront them with Christ crucified, his claims to deity, and his demands of us, you get an immediate response!
> ...


 
I could not have said it better! You are also correct about Atheists. In Singapore they were called Free Thinkers. Some Free Thinkers were Agnostics but then what does that mean?

---------- Post added at 02:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 PM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> > You are sadly mistaken. The Muslims scholars were thoroughly cognizant of Aristotle's works on among other things his Prior Analytics
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
No, even before Thomas Aquinas, they realized that scholasticism as a method had significant failings. 

Calvin's work in his Institutes was a guide for those coming out of the Roman Catholic milieu. A doctrinal guide to Scriptures and commentaries on each book or letter of Scriptures were needed pedagogically to help God's sheep. Just as apologetics were to equip the saints. All of these were and are to equip the saints in their daily lives. Having the Bible is the main requirement though. However, doctrinal guides, commentaries, and apologetics are not to replace Holy Scriptures and that is the spirit with which my statement was made. 

You cannot shut the mouths of unbelievers. That will be done when Christ returns in His Glory. Then every knee shall bend, and every tongue confess that Jesus in Lord.


----------



## Philip (Sep 13, 2010)

> Calvin's work in his Institutes was a guide for those coming out of the Roman Catholic milieu.



It's still words of men, so your critique of apologetics still applies to it.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 13, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > Calvin's work in his Institutes was a guide for those coming out of the Roman Catholic milieu.
> 
> 
> 
> It's still words of men, so your critique of apologetics still applies to it.


 
Let me clarify further, what Calvin was doing was to comment on the Word of God in his commentaries not to engage in apologetics per se. He did this elsewhere where he re-engaged with Pighius - even though he did not want to beat a dead dog as he put it. His was a program of exegeting Holy Scriptures and not multiplying words unnecessarily - human philosophical arguments. 

Even though these were the words of men (i.e. Calvin), they were in the very tight context of what Scriptures say and an even tighter context of verse and chapter and book or letter. Scripture interprets Scripture and /or that a more clear Scripture clarifies a less clear Scripture.

When he wrote the Institutes it was to give a systematic, topical understanding of what Scriptures reveal chronologically (for the most part) and in all its different genres. It is not a product of Philosophical and Apologetical Theology. For that go to Turretine's Institutes of Elenctic Theology.
The purposes here are thoroughly different as I see it, and I am not alone in my assessment.


----------



## Wayne (Sep 13, 2010)

I would say that you both seem to enjoy debate for its own sake, but you'd probably take issue with me.


----------



## nicnap (Sep 13, 2010)

Wayne said:


> I would say that you both seem to enjoy debate for its own sake, but you'd probably take issue with me.



THAT was good!


----------



## Philip (Sep 13, 2010)

Wayne said:


> I would say that you both seem to enjoy debate for its own sake, but you'd probably take issue with me.


 
No argument there, at least so far as I am concerned.

Richard, as this thread has clearly moved off-topic, I will jump over to the apologetics forum in a few minutes to restart it.


----------



## Calvinus (Sep 14, 2010)

I disagree.

Hey Wayne, is that director job at the PCA Historical Center part of a make work program?

I'm heading over to the firearms forum where at least you can dream of shooting the snide remarks and other unwarranted sarcastic statements.


----------



## Wayne (Sep 14, 2010)

I'll meet you there, Richard.
No, wait...I'm a conscientious observer.
Never mind. Shoot a few for me.


----------

