"My Will Be Done" -- C.S. Lewis

[seeingeyes]

Doesn't every Christian think that they are following the Christian faith 'as God intended' and that everyone else is a bit lacking?

 

[RDKirk]

Doesn't every Christian think that they are following the Christian faith 'as God intended' and that everyone else is a bit lacking?

A few years ago, I began a practice of every night before going to bed, getting on my knees and asking the Holy Spirit to review my entire day with me, pointing out where I failed to act as Christ would have acted.

I didn't do that for long; it was really eating into my sleeping hours.


I know I fall short, and there are people who look to me to be doing better than I.

 

[Ceridwen]

the desire for his good is placed in us.

Absolutely correct. The problem with C.S. Lewis is that he would not submit to God's good on God's terms as God defined it. Lewis said:

“There were in the eighteenth century terrible theologians who held that ‘God did not command certain things because they are right, but certain things are right because God commanded them.’ To make the position perfectly clear, one of them even said that though God has, as it happens, commanded us to love Him and one another, He might equally well have commanded us to hate Him and one another, and hatred would then have been right. It was apparently a mere toss-up which He decided on. Such a view of course makes God a mere arbitrary tyrant. It would be better and less irreligious to believe in no God and to have no ethics than to have such an ethics and such a theology as this.” Reflection on the Psalms.

In putting the matter this way Lewis makes a caricature of the Christian view and confuses the issue. C.S. Lewis was unwilling to make room in his heart for God's good as God may choose to define it. Instead, he refused to accommodate whatever definition of good that God would define if it deviated from the definition of good that C.S. Lewis would define. Like the pagan, C.S. Lewis said "Our will be done" rather than, without qualification, say "Thy will be done."

 

[Steeno7]

Absolutely correct. The problem with C.S. Lewis is that he would not submit to God's good on God's terms as God defined it. Lewis said:

“There were in the eighteenth century terrible theologians who held that ‘God did not command certain things because they are right, but certain things are right because God commanded them.’ To make the position perfectly clear, one of them even said that though God has, as it happens, commanded us to love Him and one another, He might equally well have commanded us to hate Him and one another, and hatred would then have been right. It was apparently a mere toss-up which He decided on. Such a view of course makes God a mere arbitrary tyrant. It would be better and less irreligious to believe in no God and to have no ethics than to have such an ethics and such a theology as this.” Reflection on the Psalms.

In putting the matter this way Lewis makes a caricature of the Christian view and confuses the issue. C.S. Lewis was unwilling to make room in his heart for God's good as God may choose to define it. Instead, he refused to accommodate whatever definition of good that God would define if it deviated from the definition of good that C.S. Lewis would define. Like the pagan, C.S. Lewis said "Our will be done" rather than, without qualification, say "Thy will be done."

We get it, you are convinced Lewis was not a Christian because His views are not the same as your own...and anyone who holds to any views different from your own is not a Christian. Anything else?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Doesn't every Christian think that they are following the Christian faith 'as God intended' and that everyone else is a bit lacking?

NO!

LOL, sorry seeing.

I would agree that everyone holds the beliefs they do because they think they are right.

But I hope you were joking. At least for me ... I would say I'm doing the best I can to figure things out. But I would NEVER say that I'm better than everyone else and they are all a bit lacking though. In fact, I'm thoroughly convinced that many have been taught better or have been seeking better and/or longer than I, and have truths I can benefit from.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Absolutely correct. The problem with C.S. Lewis is that he would not submit to God's good on God's terms as God defined it. Lewis said:

“There were in the eighteenth century terrible theologians who held that ‘God did not command certain things because they are right, but certain things are right because God commanded them.’ To make the position perfectly clear, one of them even said that though God has, as it happens, commanded us to love Him and one another, He might equally well have commanded us to hate Him and one another, and hatred would then have been right. It was apparently a mere toss-up which He decided on. Such a view of course makes God a mere arbitrary tyrant. It would be better and less irreligious to believe in no God and to have no ethics than to have such an ethics and such a theology as this.” Reflection on the Psalms.

It sounds to me more than he was not willing to follow certain theologians or their interpretation of God and His will.

I would have to agree with him there. There are theologies out there (and apparently theologians behind them) that I am unwilling to follow as well.

God is good. If some theologian says God commended evil, then that man is wrong. Because God is good.

 

[bling]

Atheists and pagans object to the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement, mocking it as "divine child abuse," "unjust and immoral," and "Christian foolishness." 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. For some nonbelievers, this is the reason why they reject Christianity. So, Christians who refuse it have this in common with all non-Christians. The penal substitution atonement is approximately 2000 years old -- dating back to when Jesus died on the cross suffering the punishment for sin that we deserved. Obviously our understanding of this work grows each passing year with the development of systematic theology, but Jesus's finished work on the cross is not "new." It is no newer than Galatians 3:10-13, Isaiah 53:5-6, 10, Romans 5:8-10, Romans 3:25-26, etc. etc.

But this thread is not about atonement theories -- we have all seen enough of those thread, and that ground is well trodden. This thread is about C.S. Lewis and the fact that he would refuse God's commands before refusing C.S. Lewis's opinion of good and evil if they conflicted.

C.S. Lewis would refuse to unreservedly say to God "Thy will be done." C.S. Lewis believed that we were not obligated to obey biblical commands that appear to us to be evil. "The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible." (C.S. Lewis's letter to John Beversluis, dated July 3, 1963.)

Christian theology has always stood by the teaching that truth is true because God says it is true, and right is right because God says it is right. It was Socrates the pagan philosopher who insisted that he wanted himself to be the ultimate judge of the nature of piety, and that he did not care what God said about it. Euthyphro. Lewis is quite right in stating the issue between Christianity and non-Christianity in the terms he uses. He is, however, quite mistaken when he chooses the side of paganism against Christianity.

First off I fully agree with CS Lewis’ disagreement with Penal Substitution (PS), but I also disagree with all the other “popular” alternative theories of atonement.

CS Lewis might have been able to say: “Thy will be done” if he had realized all of God’s commands were fully consistent with God being Love (totally unselfish) and God does not fit the description some give of God the vengeful. CS Lewis was in disagreement with the “church’s” interpretation of scripture since the truth would most likely not conflict with his conscience.

He did better to stick to his conscience than try to follow the false doctrine of the church he attended.

 

[RDKirk]

First off I fully agree with CS Lewis’ disagreement with Penal Substitution (PS), but I also disagree with all the other “popular” alternative theories of atonement.

CS Lewis might have been able to say: “Thy will be done” if he had realized all of God’s commands were fully consistent with God being Love (totally unselfish) and God does not fit the description some give of God the vengeful. CS Lewis was in disagreement with the “church’s” interpretation of scripture since the truth would most likely not conflict with his conscience.

He did better to stick to his conscience than try to follow the false doctrine of the church he attended.

His disagreement was not with the doctrine of his own church (Church of England), but with Calvinism.

 

[~Anastasia~]

His disagreement was not with the doctrine of his own church (Church of England), but with Calvinism.

Ah, that makes some of the comments easier to understand then.

 

[Tzaousios]

Ceridwen, please see my reply to you in post #40. Thanks.

 

[Ceridwen]

Ceridwen, please see my reply to you in post #40. Thanks.

Happily.

I do not think that I am trying to follow any particular denomination, but instead trying to follow God and the true doctrine as it is revealed.

By "Christianity rejects the idea of human autonomy," I mean that Christianity denies that the human opinion about law determines law. It is only God's opinion about law/value/right/goodness which is true.

Finally, I would agree that there are multiple correct theories of the atonement which should be confessed by Christians. Penal substitution is one of them.

 

[seeingeyes]

Finally, I would agree that there are multiple correct theories of the atonement which should be confessed by Christians. Penal substitution is one of them.

One thing that all 'theories of atonement' have in common is that they are all extra-scriptural ways of answering the question, "what exactly happened on the cross?" They are not scripture themselves and they are not things that God said (even though they all use Scripture as a starting point). The fact is that they are all the product of human understanding of what God said.

If you find human understanding unholy, why subscribe to any of them?

 

[RDKirk]

One thing that all 'theories of atonement' have in common is that they are all extra-scriptural ways of answering the question, "what exactly happened on the cross?" They are not scripture themselves and they are not things that God said (even though they all use Scripture as a starting point). The fact is that they are all the product of human understanding of what God said.

There are certain questions that scripture does not directly or completely answer, and none of them either crucial to salvation or required to carry out the mission Christ has given us. Those things are able to be debated among believers.

But as Paul said, "...don’t argue about debatable issues" (Romans 14).

 

[Ceridwen]

It sounds to me more than he was not willing to follow certain theologians or their interpretation of God and His will.

The problem is that Lewis would list Paul with the "terrible" divine command theory theologians when the Apostle says:

"As it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will ave compassion on whom I have compassion.” It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?" -- Romans 9:13-24.

The Bible illustrates that every act and its opposite is an act of goodness when it is an act performed by Yahweh or commanded by Yahweh. That is why it is virtuous for Yahweh to bless humans and virtuous for Yahweh to curse humans. Jeremiah 17:5-7. That is why it is virtuous for Yahweh to forgive humans, and also virtuous for Yahweh to not forgive humans. Deuteronomy 29:18-23. He is the Lord, and there is no standard of goodness apart from his exercise of will. "I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:6-7.

Nothing done by God is evil. But to this, C.S. Lewis responds: "f good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the "righteous Lord."" Poison of Subjectivism.

No doubt God is good. The divine revelation is that "Yahweh is good." It was the pagan Platonists, not possessing any divine revelation, who said that "Good is God." Yahweh's goodness is a summing up, from the Christian's standpoint, of what the whole revelation set forth in Scripture tells us about its Author. This statement presupposes all the rest of the biblical witness to God. The God who pardons Christians and curses non-Christians is the God of whom John speaks when he says "God is love."

 

[~Anastasia~]

The problem is that Lewis would list Paul with the "terrible" divine command theory theologians when the Apostle says:

Would list, or did list?

If the problem is that you believe Lewis would list Paul with those theologians, then we are now conversing about what someone else might have believed, or not, and it makes much more sense to talk about what WE believe, rather than our opinions of someone else's unstated belief.

Even if someone DID have a problem with what Paul said, the truth is that some statements in the Bible are hard to understand, difficult to reconcile with what we believe to be true.

But I can't continue debating or defending (or not) a belief that someone may or may not have held taken out of context ... it's just too far afield. I responded to what I read Lewis' comments to mean, in the context you provided. I have not read the entire piece of work.

To be honest, the penal substitution theory of atonement, taken along with Calvinism (especially depending how far you take Calvinism to apply) DO imply some things about God's character that are difficult to reconcile with Scripture as a whole.

As to the statement " "f good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the "righteous Lord." ... then if I understand what Lewis is saying, it does make sense. IF good is defined by whatever God commands, regardless of whether his commands actually are good or evil, then we aren't really assigning goodness to God. We're saying whatever a god does is good, even if he were commanding evil things (I use lowercase because I am not now talking about OUR God). If we simply define good by what a god commands, then even evil commands by an evil god would be called "good" and we would owe the same allegiance to an evil god, if one existed. That seems to be what he is saying. If you take it differently, then please explain.

But that "if" is not so. Our God is in FACT good. Rather than define goodness by what He commands, I would prefer to define goodness by what He is. In that way, we can know that all of His commands ARE good, even if we don't understand why He commands them. But if we define goodness by His acts, then our understanding of goodness is limited to our understanding of His reasons, which is imperfect.

I'm not sure whether you and I are talking about the same thing.

 

[bling]

Finally, I would agree that there are multiple correct theories of the atonement which should be confessed by Christians. Penal substitution is one of them.

How can you possible say multiple correct theories? None of the ones mentioned explain everything that happened and all have huge problems.

 

[Knee V]

How can you possible say multiple correct theories? None of the ones mentioned explain everything that happened and all have huge problems.

I would argue, rather, that there are multiple *possible* and *acceptable* theories/models, none of which are full or complete, and which *may* be confessed by a Christian. Penal substitution may be one of them, provided that it is understood to be a model and not a tautology.

 

[Tzaousios]

I do not think that I am trying to follow any particular denomination, but instead trying to follow God and the true doctrine as it is revealed.

You have admitted before that you subscribe to the reformed, Calvinistic perspective. If you are not trying to follow any, than how do you explain the fact that just about everything you talk about, including your characteristic "cursing" theories, can easily be matched up with the Neocalvinist perspective? That would seem to indicate a rather pervasive coincidence, would it not?

By "Christianity rejects the idea of human autonomy," I mean that Christianity denies that the human opinion about law determines law. It is only God's opinion about law/value/right/goodness which is true.

Interesting. Should one conclude that every time you choose to comment on a particular theological issue that you in no way include even a vestige of your opinion and merely "repeat what the Bible plainly says"?

Finally, I would agree that there are multiple correct theories of the atonement which should be confessed by Christians. Penal substitution is one of them.

Thank you for this admission. Still, though, I get the distinct impression that you wish to show preference to penal substitution to the detriment of all other theories. Would this be because you come from the reformed, Calvinistic perspective?

 

[Rick Otto]

...everything you talk about, including your characteristic "cursing" theories, can easily be matched up with the Neocalvinist perspective...

Does correlation prove causation or is this... (que the thunder... ) Parallelomania?

 

[RDKirk]

I would argue, rather, that there are multiple *possible* and *acceptable* theories/models, none of which are full or complete, and which *may* be confessed by a Christian. Penal substitution may be one of them, provided that it is understood to be a model and not a tautology.

Yes. And it's also true that much of scripture has broad manifestation of truth.

Take, for example, "Don't muzzle an ox while it is threshing grain."

For those under the Mosaic Law, that did indeed mean exactly what it says: They really did have to make sure that they allowed their oxen to eat a portion of the grain they threshed.

But 1500 years later, Paul asserted:

For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. that it was always talking about people, not about oxen.

Both meanings--Moses' literal meaning and Paul's figurative interpretation are true and were always true. But God's words were deeper and broader than Moses could grasp in his time.