C.S. Lewis' Most Controversial Beliefs

4,736 Views | 78 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by Zobel
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
C.S. Lewis' Most Controversial Beliefs

Quote:

An Open View of Genesis

Lewis' view on the creation account did a good deal of evolving over the course of his life. Even before he converted to Christianity, Lewis expressed skepticism about Darwin's theories. Following his conversion, he addressed it often enough (although he declined to write the forward for an anti-evolution book.) After he became a Christian, he wrote about the evolution of humanity in The Problem of Pain.

Quote:

For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man

But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say 'I' and 'me,' which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past.

Quote:

An Inclusive Gospel

The final book in The Chronicles of Narnia features a character named Emeth who had spent his life worshipping Tash (Narnia's take on a false god) instead of Aslan (Narnia's Christ figure). However, when Emeth finally meets Aslan, he is told that his service to Tash had really been worship of Aslan all along, on account of his purity of heart.

As the book says,
Quote:

[Aslan] answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reasons of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true that thou and Tash are one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him.

Therefore if any man swear by Tash and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him. And if any man does a cruelty in my name, then, though he says the name Aslan, it is Tash whom he serves and by Tash his deed is accepted.


Quote:

A Not Totally Inerrant Bible

Lewis believed the Bible was the Word of God, but he did not think that meant every word in Scripture ought to be regarded as literal history. He wrote that most Christians "still believe (as I do) that all Holy Scripture is in some sensethough not all parts of it in the same sensethe Word of God."
As he wrote in a personal letter:

The total result is not "the Word of God" in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone and temper and so learning its overall message.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
What does Jesus say about those three things?
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Is there more evidence about his belief in an inclusive gospel? I don't think a fiction series he wrote is the most convincing source.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Is there more evidence about his belief in an inclusive gospel? I don't think a fiction series he wrote is the most convincing source.
Good question. I'm honestly not sure. I haven't really looked into it but just found the article interesting. Was actually hoping some of our resident CS Lewis fans could fill in the gaps.
fightinags2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/cautions-for-mere-christianity/

I think DeYoung is correct- on an evangelical perspective.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Pay careful attention to what Lewis says in that paragraph. He does believe in a substitutionary theory of the atonement, but he rejects penal substitution.
Amen to that.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fightinags2013 said:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/cautions-for-mere-christianity/

I think DeYoung is correct- on an evangelical perspective.



Thanks for that. Definitely supports the theory of the original article.
fightinags2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I highly recommend Alister McGrath's biography of Lewis. I read Lewis with more clarity and understanding as a result of McGraths book.
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
fightinags2013 said:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/cautions-for-mere-christianity/

I think DeYoung is correct- on an evangelical perspective.

Ugh. This highlights some of my biggest disagreements with the evangelical perspective. Lewis describes a substantially fairer or more benevolent creator. The evangelical here describes an arbitrary monster.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I wonder if Lewis believed in the so-called Gap Theory which held the earth was in fact billions of years old and had pre-Adamic rulership by Satan or other fallen angelic entities? Life forms found in fossils, oil deposits from biological remains and even pre-Adamic civilizations would be part of such an intellectual construct. He might have been influenced by the work of one George H. Pember ---Earth's Earliest Ages. But I am not certain about that.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Silent For Too Long said:

fightinags2013 said:

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/cautions-for-mere-christianity/

I think DeYoung is correct- on an evangelical perspective.

Ugh. This highlights some of my biggest disagreements with the evangelical perspective. Lewis describes a substantially fairer or more benevolent creator. The evangelical here describes an arbitrary monster.
It goes further than that. If you google this subject, there are fellow Christians saying Lewis is in Hell because he believed in the Liturgy, endorsed ecumenical activities with other Christian faiths, and as mentioned above, was inclusive to all "who called upon the name of the Lord will be saved" Romans 10:13. The only people Jesus seemed to be "exclusive" with the Gospel(Good News to ALL men)were the religious leaders who were very exclusive in who was "in" and who was "out".
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was a fan of Lewis for several years, as he kept me in the faith for longer than I would have been.

My biggest influence from him was with The Great Divorce, as my biggest issue with christianity has always been the concept of Hell.

With that book I got the sense that Lewis did not see hell as a destination for those who merely did not ask Jesus into their hearts, but for those that actively rejected christ and wanted to remain in sin. This made me much more comfortable with my beliefs as I saw it as a way to see the good people within other religions getting into heaven, if not initially after death, then eventually.
7nine
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

was inclusive to all "who called upon the name of the Lord will be saved" Romans 10:13.


I might have read his view incorrectly but I think what the Lewis quote said was those who don't call on the name of the Lord could be saved if they followed their religion devoutly.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Fair enough. I have always looked at like Jesus is the Way, Truth, and Life and nobody comes to the Father except by Me as inclusive, I. E. He reconciles everyone over time.

And edited to add that the narrow gate is Jesus. He will justly decide who he allows which I believe will be everyone after purification.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Quote:

was inclusive to all "who called upon the name of the Lord will be saved" Romans 10:13.


I might have read his view incorrectly but I think what the Lewis quote said was those who don't call on the name of the Lord could be saved if they followed their religion devoutly.
And of course, if you are a Calvinist, you do not even need to call upon the name of the Lord if you are of the "elect". And on the other side, if you are not of the "elect", calling on the name of the Lord does zero good.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I disagree that all will be saved. I wish that were so. This verse always sobers me:

Matthew 7:21-22
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I can at least understand the reservations the TGC author has w/ the "inclusive" comments from Lewis. Not saying I agree or disagree, but I can at least understand it. What doesn't make sense to me is that, even though the author recognizes he held a substitutionary view of atonement, he has what appears to be significant issues with his rejection of penal substitutionary atonement. I've noticed that about many who subscribe to penal substitution. It's almost treated as blasphemy to not share that view which didn't really become prominent until 1000 years after Christ.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think that is kind of what Lewis was saying. That many place too much importance on exactly how it works. We don't really know how but what we do know is that it does work.

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

I disagree that all will be saved. I wish that were so. This verse always sobers me:

Matthew 7:21-22
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Who do you think He is talking to there? And who was almost all his scorn directed to? Obviously, I think it was the religious leaders, the Pharisees,( and I think I know who that would be today). To my knowledge, ordinary laypeople early Christians were not doing what Christ talked about. And He never even condemns those to "Hell", whatever that is to you. Not entering the Kingdom of God to me means that they do not get to share in the Kingdom of God on Earth provided by the Holy Spirit to believers with the fruits you are aware of. And as he does not condemn them to Hell, He also does not deny that they can be reconciled. It all depends on what you think the character of God is as to how you interpret these Scriptures.

And nothing I post is meant to upset or deride. I just wonder about folks who seem so happy to declare that they know C S Lewis is in Hell because He did not believe the way they did on what I think are non salvific issues. Jesus was not exclusive imho.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I've never seen anyone condemn Lewis to hell. I'm sure there are some on the internet who do that. But in general Lewis is one of the most quoted 20th century christian thinkers that I can think of.

I don't think Jesus is only talking to the religious leaders. I think that statement should cause any confessing believer to check themselves.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I've never seen anyone condemn Lewis to hell.
Never been to a fundamental independent baptist church, I see. The churches I grew up in condemned even Billy Graham to hell. Heck, they condemned to hell anyone "saved" with anything other than the KJV.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Those don't count. Literally everyone is a heretic.

I used to follow a blogger who was a hyper-fundamentalist. For some reason I thought it would be fun to engage him. Bad idea. As ridiculous as his views were he would argue them well and just piss me off.

dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

I think that is kind of what Lewis was saying. That many place too much importance on exactly how it works. We don't really know how but what we do know is that it does work.


Blue star my friend. And edited it to add that a Baptist preacher friend of mine calls it the "Christian circular firing squad". We are on the same side.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Those don't count. Literally everyone is a heretic.

I used to follow a blogger who was a hyper-fundamentalist. For some reason I thought it would be fun to engage him. Bad idea. As ridiculous as his views were he would argue them well and just piss me off.


I always ask those folks why the Early Church were not "fundamentalists". Or at least how it is insisted upon today.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
UTExan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Never been to a fundamental independent baptist church, I see. The churches I grew up in condemned even Billy Graham to hell.
Now that is not even radical; it is even cultish. Did they believe in street evangelism? Outreach to the poor?
It is better to light a flamethrower than to curse the darkness- Sir Terence Pratchett
“ III stooges si viveret et nos omnes ad quos etiam probabile est mittent custard pies”
DirtDiver
How long do you want to ignore this user?

Quote:

This made me much more comfortable with my beliefs as I saw it as a way to see the good people within other religions getting into heaven, if not initially after death, then eventually.
Truth - is always true no matter what our comfort level is.
"Good people within other religions"


9 Those who fashion a graven image are all of them futile, and their precious things are of no profit; even their own witnesses fail to see or know, so that they will be put to shame. 10 Who has fashioned a god or cast an idol to no profit? 11 Behold, all his companions will be put to shame, for the craftsmen themselves are mere men. Let them all assemble themselves, let them stand up, let them tremble, let them together be put to shame.
12 The man shapes iron into a cutting tool and does his work over the coals, fashioning it with hammers and working it with his strong arm. He also gets hungry and his strength fails; he drinks no water and becomes weary. 13 Another shapes wood, he extends a measuring line; he outlines it with red chalk. He works it with planes and outlines it with a compass, and makes it like the form of a man, like the beauty of man, so that it may sit in a house. 14 Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. 15 Then it becomes somethingfor a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image and falls down before it. 16 Half of it he burns in the fire; over this half he eats meat as he roasts a roast and is satisfied. He also warms himself and says, "Aha! I am warm, I have seen the fire."17 But the rest of it he makes into a god, his graven image. He falls down before it and worships; he also prays to it and says, "Deliver me, for you are my god."
18 They do not know, nor do they understand, for He has smeared over their eyes so that they cannot see and their hearts so that they cannot comprehend. 19 No one recalls, nor is there knowledge or understanding to say, "I have burned half of it in the fire and also have baked bread over its coals. I roast meat and eat it. Then I make the rest of it into an abomination, I fall down before a block of wood!" 20 He feeds on ashes; a deceived heart has turned him aside. And he cannot deliver himself, nor say, "Is there not a lie in my right hand?"

6 "Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts:
'I am the first and I am the last,
And there is no God besides Me.
7 'Who is like Me? Let him proclaim and declare it;
Yes, let him recount it to Me in order,
From the time that I established the ancient nation.
And let them declare to them the things that are coming
And the events that are going to take place.
8 'Do not tremble and do not be afraid;
Have I not long since announced it to you and declared it?
And you are My witnesses.
Is there any God besides Me,
Or is there any other Rock?
I know of none.'"
Texaggie7nine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So you are saying that that scripture justifies a little girl who is kissing a toe of some statue that is revered by her family going to hell if she were to die that day?

Being eternally damned with no hope of ever getting relief? That the people within that same religion that treat other people with love, that honestly believe that they are communicating with a good and loving god or gods, they deserve eternal torment because some words in a book say it's really mean to the true god?
7nine
The Debt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dermdoc said:

And of course, if you are a Calvinist, you do not even need to call upon the name of the Lord if you are of the "elect". And on the other side, if you are not of the "elect", calling on the name of the Lord does zero good
titan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
S
Frok said:

Is there more evidence about his belief in an inclusive gospel? I don't think a fiction series he wrote is the most convincing source.
I don't know that answer, but some of the early Church even had the take and concept of of virtuous pagans who `had or saw the truth incomplete' or as but shadow or archetype. This sounds a bit like what Lewis is driving at. Certainly the was so in how much of Greek philosophy was looked at, especially by the East.
The Debt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
No mention of the wide and narrow gates.

Universalism and even ecumenicalism fail to heed Christ's words. Jesus never said he would make the narrow gate open for all.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The Debt said:

dermdoc said:

And of course, if you are a Calvinist, you do not even need to call upon the name of the Lord if you are of the "elect". And on the other side, if you are not of the "elect", calling on the name of the Lord does zero good

I would love for a Calvinist to explain to me how it works. And according to Calvinism, has not God chosen the elect who are the only ones who can get through the narrow gate? What say so do we have?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
And if you believe like I do that the "narrow gate" is Jesus, then it can be as wide as the entire Universe if He decides to. It all comes down to whether you believe in "exclusion" or "inclusion". And it is fascinating how many we'll trained, well meaning, brilliant folks have read the exact same Scriptures and come out on different sides. I am not sure and certainly can not condemn or save anyone. Just ask for mercy for all.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's both inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive in that it's available to all tongues, tribes, and nations but exclusive in that it is the only way and not all will accept it.


dermdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

It's both inclusive and exclusive. Inclusive in that it's available to all tongues, tribes, and nations but exclusive in that it is the only way and not all will accept it.



So do you think they do not accept it because they are predestined not to accept it(Calvinism)or do you think they reject it via free will? I believe the latter.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The Debt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As a creature of dirt, why do you "need a say" in your salvation?

When Jesus called Lazurus out of the tomb, did Lazurus have the agency to say no? "No thanks jesus, I'll just stay in here."

At the end of the day, you think you are smart enough to choose Jesus. You may not say it out loud, but you think you made a decision that all these unsaved folks are just too selfish to make. That's what sets you apart, your wisdom.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.