Lewis Defective on Salvation
John McKay, Th.D.
philosopher, his view of salvation was defective in two key respects: (1)
Lewis believed and taught one could reason oneself into Christianity, and
(2) he was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal theory of the
Atonement."
Matt Atwood
John McKay, Th.D. wrote in message <7smj1c$k08$1...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net>...
In _Mere Christianity_, Lewis says that there are many different ways of
looking at the atonement and that it goes far beyond what any human theory
could come up with. The most important thing, he says, is to realize that
it happened and that we are saved by it. He then goes on to say that the
particular theory which he likes to think of is not the "substitutionary and
penal theory" and explain the view which he personally holds. But he
certainly does not reject the substitutionary theory per se, nor does he
condemn those who hold it. I would therefore hardly call him an "opponent"
of it, even if he personally disagreed with it. One of many things that I
like about Lewis is that he's never afraid to confess that he's not an
expert on any given topic, and that he always takes the view (as he says
somewhere, I forget where) that whatever the real truth is, it will
certainly be at least as good and probably better than all the theories
about it.
As for #1, I think that Lewis certainly realized that divine action was
necessary for a soul to be saved. Think of _The Pilgrim's Regress_. Reason
(in personified form) liberates John from the dungeon of the Spirit of the
Age, but it's up to Mother Kirk to bring him across the chasm - Reason does
not and could not do that.
So, I think that while Dr. Lloyd Jones certainly has two very good
points - Lewis did place a high emphasis on the power of human reason and he
did prefer to think of the Atonement in a context other than the
substitutionary/penal one - I think his wording is a bit strong for me to
agree with him completely.
-Matt
Chad and Patricia Mackin
original post.
It seems that CSL was a Christian if we take his writing at face value,
which I do since I have no evidence that he wasn't. While he defended
Christianity on the grounds of reason remember that to him reason was a
divine gift, and therefore if pursued to the bitter end with intellectual
honesty in every case, it could only lead one to the truth of Christ. This
does not exclude divine intervention, but rather amplifies it. One must in
the end make a choice to be accept Christ.. if you do this on grounds of
Reason then I do not feel that God would find that less than satisfactory.
Is Dr. Lloyd-Jones suggesting that CSL thought reason alone was the path to
Salvation, in a sense replacing Christ with reason? If he is I think that he
has not read the same works that I have. If he is attempting to say that
you can not arrive at the decision to accept Christ on the grounds of
reason, I must respectfully disagree. The Lord gathers believers in each
generation, and only He knows the best way to reach them. If reason is one
of the gifts he bestows on us why wouldn't he use it as a tool to gather
followers? CSL seems to imply that much of his decision to convert was
founded on the basis of reason, is Dr, Lloyd-Jones challenging the reality
of CSL's conviction or conversion? If so he steps into territory that is
only fit for the Lord to walk. Or is he suggesting that CSL had a naive
approach to the process of reason that led him, by not giving credit God for
leading him? In that case I would recommend _Miracles_ to him so that CSL
could tell him himself the credit he gives God for the gift of reason alone.
As for the atonement issue could someone please explain the conflicting
theories involved. I don't really have a clue as to what Dr. Lloyd-Jones
is referring to here but I would like to.
Thank you.
Andrew Rilstone
<the...@defnet.com> writes
>Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "Because C. S. Lewis was essentially a
>philosopher,
I don't understand the meaning of the word "philosopher" in this
sentence. Or, come to that, of "essentially". (If it means "he made his
living teaching the historical traditions of western philosophy" then it
isn't true. If it means "he is regarded as a leading figure in the
historical traditions of western philosophy" then it definitely isn't
true. If it means "he had read Plato" or "he thought a lot" then it
isn't very helpful.)
>his view of salvation was defective in two key respects: (1)
>Lewis believed and taught one could reason oneself into Christianity, and
Lewis described himself as an "apologist". This does not mean "someone
who goes around saying sorry for Christianity", as I used to think. For
example, Socrates "Apology" at his trial is his strident case of the
defence (in which he refuses to apologise for anything.) In Lewis's
sense, an "apologist" is one who "answers objections" to Christianity.
And in that sense, Lewis certainly thought that "reason" was important:
he thought that Christianity was "reasonable" and when people said
things like "but a good God wouldn't allow suffering", or "science has
disproved God" or "miracles are scientifically impossible" or "history
shows that the Bible is not true", you could give reasonable answers
which would impress reasonable people. But I challenge anyone to find
any text anywhere in Lewis which suggests that he thought that you could
"prove" that Christianity was true; much less that, having "proved"
Christianity to be true, you had made someone a Christian. The whole
argument behind "Mere Christianity" is that what "makes you a Christian"
is not believing the right things, but having the "zoe", the divine Life
inside you. Lewis says that the "new life" is transmitted and nurtured
by baptism, faith and Communion.
In his essay on "Apologetics", he suggests that the ideal approach might
be to have to preachers working together -- an apologist like himself to
answers rational objections to Christianity, and an "evangelist" who
made a direct, spiritual appeal.
Somewhere, Lewis points out that one might use the words "becoming a
Christian" in different ways. He uses this analogy: you could say, quite
correctly, that someone "became a soldier" on the day he signed up to
the army. On the other hand, you might say after six months of training
"Well, I think we've made you a soldier."
>(2) he was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal theory of the
>Atonement."
This is so preposterously untrue as to make one suspect malice. "We are
told that Christ was killed for us, that His death washed out our sins,
and that by dying He destroyed death itself. That is the formula. That
is Christianity. That is what has to be believed." (Mere Christianity
II:4) How you can deduce from this that Lewis was an opponent of any
orthodox position rather boggles my mind.
He says that before he became a Christian, he was under the impression
that what you had to believe was one particular theory of how this
"formula" works. This "theory" was, indeed the "penal theory", or
rather, a particularly naive and mechanical version of it (God wanted to
punish everybody, but Jesus volunteered to take the punishment, so God
let everybody else off.) Lewis says that he now thinks that that theory
was simply one way of looking at it. He then goes on to present "his"
view, which actually turns out to be a commentary on St Anselm. (Man
needs to repent, but cannot; God could repent, but need not: Jesus,
being both God and Man could repent on Man's behalf.)
Lewis says that the "penal" theory is "on the face of it a very silly
theory", but having stated his objections to it, he immediately goes on
to show in what ways it is NOT silly at all, and develops his Anselmic
argument from there. He thinks it unhelpful to think in terms of "taking
the punishment", but helpful to think in terms of "paying the debt" or
"accepting the consequences."
It is, on any view, quite untrue that Lewis "opposed" a substitutionary:
the whole point of the argument is that he thinks that Jesus was doing
on our behalf something which we could not do for ourselves.
If Doctor Martin-Lloyd Jones thinks that it is essential to believe in a
punishment based theory of the Atonement and that you are Not A Proper
Christian if you don't. then I would say that he had a defective view of
salvation. I guess I should look up the context of the argument and find
out what he actually said.
--
Andrew Rilstone and...@aslan.demon.co.uk http://www.aslan.demon.co.uk/
*******************************************************************************
"Then shall the realm of Albion come to great confusion"
*******************************************************************************
Andrew Rilstone
<the...@defnet.com> writes
>Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "Because C. S. Lewis was essentially a
>Lewis believed and taught one could reason oneself into Christianity, and
>Atonement."
>
>
agreed that philosophers are the class of people most likely to reject
susbstitionary theories of the atonement. And if so, on what grounds.
I have no problem at all with Lloyd-Jones use of "was" and "a", though.
David Garrett
<the...@defnet.com> wrote:
>Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "Because C. S. Lewis was essentially a
>philosopher, his view of salvation was defective in two key respects: (1)
>Lewis believed and taught one could reason oneself into Christianity, and
>(2) he was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal theory of the
>Atonement."
As to the first, others have spoken well. However at no time has the
Church committed itself to ANY particular theory of the Atonement.
-David
=======================================
-David Garrett - Newport, TN
-remove the ANIMAL SOUNDS to e-mail me!
moo.garr...@planetc.meow.com**********
URL: http://www.planetc.com/users/garrett (no ads or popup boxes!)
Posters of HTML, VCF's or other such stuff cheerfully & immediately killfiled for 1 year!
==========================================
Edward Green
John McKay, Th.D. <the...@defnet.com> wrote in message
news:7smj1c$k08$1...@ffx2nh5.news.uu.net...
> Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "Because C. S. Lewis was essentially a
> philosopher, his view of salvation was defective in two key respects: (1)
> Lewis believed and taught one could reason oneself into Christianity, and
> (2) he was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal theory of the
> Atonement."
>
I will endeavour to express ideas without turning this newsgroup into
christnet.theology :).
I Imagine MLJ made these comments because he and Lewis stood on opposite
sides of one of the greatest divides in Christianity. I.e. it was political.
The issue is actually, philospohical. In the 1st Century, Augustine
skillfully integrated Plato into Christianity, replacing the Early Church
view of mans freewill (Evidence available on request) with a philisophical
idea of determinism and a God that could not change (Dispite biblical
instances of God "Repenting"). This divide has continued through the
centuries - on one side, erasmus, arminius, wesley, finney and lewis, on the
other, calvin, edwards, and Dr Martin Lyod Jones to name a very few.
The Determinists have tended to be Restrictivist (only Christians in Heaven)
use Legal Terms to define Salvation "Penal Substitution), focus on Origional
Sin, and claim to base theology on Scripture only (as translated by
Augustine, and Calvin ...).
Us free willers (to state my bias) have tended to believe in salvation by
Christ for those outside the Church, often use more Relational terms to
express salvation "Reconciled Man to God", reject the idea that Humans are
so evil as to be incapable of doing good, or expressing faith in Christ, and
many have recognised that theology is influenced by reason, practice,
tradition and culture.
Unfortunately theology is somewhat of a Pick and Mix affair these days, so
you will find combinations of the above ideas in the average Christian,
sometimes in tension.
The Determinist Fundamentalists in the U.S. didn't like Lewis (Clark Pinnock
recounts being told Lewis was a dangerous Liberal), but were fond of MLJ so
I imagine some distancing was needed by the Westminster Chapel - seen as the
U.K.s home of determinism by some.
Lewis is so precious to me because he is niether liberal or fundamentalist,
he writes with rich emotion, yet values reason and scripture highly. His
books bring us closer to God, because God is reasonable, passionate, and
truth (among other perfections).
I rec. Unbounded Love by Pinnock & Brow (Paternoster) available from S.P.C.K
for those further interested in Free will thiesm.
God Bless,
Edward.
(Forgive my poor spelling)
AJA
<erg...@lineone.net> wrote:
>
[...}
>I rec. Unbounded Love by Pinnock & Brow (Paternoster) available from S.P.C.K
>for those further interested in Free will thiesm.
>
>God Bless,
>Edward.
Edward, thanks for pointing in this direction! Proves to me yet again
that there is no such thing as mere coincidence. I just finished
reading Owen Barfield's _Saving the Appearances_. The church is
almost a dead thing- because the message is almost dead in us. It has
become an external thing, something we look at and even contemplate,
but from outside. Rather like a scientific study. But Barfield
writes hopefully of a change in consciousness. And his book echoes in
the theology of love so wonderfully outlined by Pinnock and Brow cited
above. But even writing such a phrase, theology of love, makes me
shudder because of what we have done to words like that. They are
utterly external- and are the subject of derision or at the least, oh
another one of *those* books.
Here now are theologians writing about an astounding shift, in the
tradition of Lewis in Chronicles of Narnia from which millions of kids
are getting the message clearer than we are, and at a deeper level.
Or reading them as kids we may have gotten it once, and then lost it.
Brow writes that it is as if a new type of thinking has appeared-
namely, that the church is but *one* of the instruments of the love of
God. It must be terrifying to some as Edward noted in his post. But
it will happen. Barfield, for instance, makes the case that humankind
has entered a stage of final participation in the creative process,
our cherished ways of knowing are being challenged. Barfield: "A
renewal of that lost insight will almost certainly be one of the first
steps to be taken by religion through the rebirth in her of that
cosmic wisdom, which is the source not only of the world of
appearances, but also of man's changing relation to them. I suspect
that, for the Church, it will not be easy. It will not be easy for
the nursing mother to accept the possibility that her charge has grown
to need additional nourishment; or that revelation of the mystery of
the kingdom was not turned off at the tap when the New Testament canon
was closed, but is the work of an earth-time." Robert Brow in his
article Evangelical Megashift: "New-model thinking views the church as
one of the instruments of the love of God. Instead of a stockade for
the saved, or an agency to save souls, the church is viewed as a royal
priesthood functioning to make known the love of God, to say 'your
sins are forgiven' as Jesus did, and to offer the resources of the
Spirit to all who want to learn how to love and enjoy god and their
neighbors."
You can find the article at:
http://www.brow.on.ca/Articles/Megashift.html
All the best,
Ann
"Ambulavi in miribilibus supra me." -C. S. Lewis
Daryl Gene
I quite agree. The substitutionary picture of Christ we are given in TLTW&TW
is poignant, simple and clear.
Daryl
VOCATUS atque non VOCATUS Deus aderit {bidden or unbidden God is present}
(remove XXXX for e-mail)
Mike W. Perry
religions, Anthroposophy clearly ranks among the losers, too
intellectually egotistical ("cosmic wisdom") and too out of touch with the
enduring realities of a fallen human nature ("her charge has grown...") to
appeal to anyone who isn't inordinately vain and proud.
Though they were friends we need to remember that Lewis and Barfield
differed quite substantially when in came to religion, so much so that
their expressed differences are known as the "Great War." One of Lewis
greatest mistakes may have been to give the non-Christian Barfield such a
substantial influence over his literary estate.
The gospel has no need to change because neither God nor human nature has
changed.
--Mike Perry
Edward Green
Mike W. Perry <black...@foxinternet.net> wrote in message
news:blackhole33-28...@sea214213.foxinternet.net...
> The gospel has no need to change because neither God nor human nature has
> changed.
Hmm, our culture has changed. And the Gospel many Christians preach is not
that of the sermon on the mount. - "blessed are the poor" not "blessed are
the poor who are clearly born again, come to church and don't put the rich
tithers off".
I find little biblical evidence that going to heaven and being blessed have
anything to do with being "a christian" in the modern sense.
Regards
Edward.
Hal Friederichs
<the...@defnet.com> wrote:
>Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "Because C. S. Lewis was essentially a
>philosopher, his view of salvation was defective in two key respects: (1)
>Lewis believed and taught one could reason oneself into Christianity, and
>(2) he was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal theory of the
>Atonement."
>
Methinks I spot a troll.
Take care,
Hal
AJA
W. Perry) wrote:
[...]
>Though they were friends we need to remember that Lewis and Barfield
>differed quite substantially when in came to religion, so much so that
>their expressed differences are known as the "Great War."
And still they couldn't decide who taught the other more.
> One of Lewis
>greatest mistakes may have been to give the non-Christian Barfield such a
>substantial influence over his literary estate.
What does this consist of?
>
>The gospel has no need to change because neither God nor human nature has
>changed.
>
>--Mike Perry
>
Don't we continue to read the Gospel with new eyes? It's an on-going
relationship, and in that I respectfully submit that the Gospel does
in fact change- though you could certainly argue degree. But it
changes not only with every person who studies it, but each _time_ any
one person studies it. There are numerous Christian denominations
which would support my claim. I write this knowing that it's probably
not what you meant at all. But that's where we all are in this world.
The Gospel lives because it is participated (a Barfield word). Part of
Barfield's point, and Lewis' too if you look at _Studies in Words_ and
various passages in _Reflections on the Psalms_ and some _Letters to
Malcolm_, is that our experience of such things depends on
imagination. The two may have warred about the generation of that
Imagination. Just passing thoughts- "Guesses, of course, only
guesses."
All the best,
Ann
"Matter enters our experience only by becoming sensation (when we
perceive it) or conception (when we understand it). That is, by
becoming soul." C. S. Lewis, _Letters to Malcolm_, XXII
I would love to hear anyone's explanation of this quote! AA
or and not mere reading and study of the Gospel
Michael J Davis
"O cuckoo! Shall I call thee bird,
or but a wandering voice?"
State the alternative preferred,
give reasons for your choice.
Mike
--
Michael J Davis Watchman Consulting Associates Ltd
Personal email replies may be made to mi...@trustsof.demon.co.uk
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| `If it doesn't make us kinder to one another, <><
| it's probably not religion.' -- Dalai Lama <><
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hal Friederichs
wrote:
>Hal Friederichs wrote:
>>
>> Methinks I spot a troll.
>
>In alt.books.cs-lewis? Never!
LOL!
Gotta say that at least this one produced some interesting and very
civilized responses.
Take care,
Hal
Julian Buczek
>
> Methinks I spot a troll.
In alt.books.cs-lewis? Never!
--
____ Julian Buczek|buc...@dns.au.com
'||_\\ _ _ ___ ___ ___ '|| _
|| \\ '|| || // \) ' // //_\) ||//
_||_// \\_// \\__, //_, \\__, _||\\
m...@x_nicholas.net
On Tue, 28 Sep 1999 19:08:11 -0700, Hal Friederichs
<hr...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Sep 1999 21:57:05 -0400, "John McKay, Th.D."
><the...@defnet.com> wrote:
>
>>Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "Because C. S. Lewis was essentially a
>>philosopher, his view of salvation was defective in two key respects: (1)
>>Lewis believed and taught one could reason oneself into Christianity, and
>>(2) he was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal theory of the
>>Atonement."
>>
>
>Methinks I spot a troll.
>
>Take care,
>Hal
More of a 'trill'. I guess it is a ligitimate theological argument.
It might have been better if J.McKay had fleshed things
out a bit more.
Premise (1) is not true.
Premise (2) ......umm....premise premorse.......
Enough. On to the fun. Special thanks to Edward Green for:
<< The Determinist Fundamentalists in the U.S. didn't like Lewis
(Clark Pinnock recounts being told Lewis was a dangerous
Liberal), >>
Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks it's funny. But I had
a good laugh. Thanks again.
" " When that which is perfect is come, then that which
is in part shall be done away." The idea of reaching
"a good life" without Christ is based on double error.
Firstly, we cannot do it; and secondly, in setting
up "a good life" as our final goal, we have missed
the very point of our existence. Morality is a mountain
which we cannot climb by our own efforts; and if we
could we should only perish in the ice and unbreath-
able air of the summit, lacking those wings with which
the rest of the journey has to be accomplished. For it
is -from- there that the real ascent begins. The ropes
and axes are "done away" and the rest is a matter
of flying. "
" God in the Dock" - "Man or Rabbit?"
Best, Max Nicholas, ACK, MA
Peter B. Juul
> > Methinks I spot a troll.
>
> In alt.books.cs-lewis? Never!
Mayhaps 'twas yonder dryad?
--
Peter B. Juul, o.-.o "Det begyndte altsammen på en planet i et fjernt
The RockBear. ((^)) solsystem. Planeten Schwab var en verden rig på
I speak only 0}._.{0 råstoffer og sodavand." (2 point)
for myself. O/ \O
Edward Green
<m@x_nicholas.net> wrote in message news:7supgt$ef0$0...@208.28.237.38...
> Howdy,
>
> Enough. On to the fun. Special thanks to Edward Green for:
>
> << The Determinist Fundamentalists in the U.S. didn't like Lewis
> (Clark Pinnock recounts being told Lewis was a dangerous
> Liberal), >>
>
> Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks it's funny. But I had
> a good laugh. Thanks again.
>
Regards
Edward
Julian Buczek
>
> In alt.books.cs-lewis? Never!
Hal Friederichs wrote:
>
> LOL!
> Gotta say that at least this one produced some interesting and very
> civilized responses.
A troll in alt.books.cs-lewis is like the Eight Wonder of the World.
... sorry, I just couldn't help myself on this one.