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

[Ceridwen]

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

To be clear, I don't think that all human understanding is unholy. I think there are two kinds of human thinking -- converted human thinking and unconverted human thinking. Unconverted ideas of goodness count for nothing. The very fact that a nonbeliever thinks something good is evidence that it is really bad. The LORD knows the thoughts of man; he knows that they are futile. Psalm 94:11. "The word of the LORD is offensive to them; they find no pleasure in it." Jeremiah 6:10-19. Converted human thinking is holy. "God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." 1 Corinthians 1:18-25. Divine wisdom comes from hearing the divine revelation and believing it. Most of all, it means revising your ideas of value so that you come to love what you used to hate and vice versa. "Great peace have they who love your law." Psalm 119:165.

As far as atonement theories go, I would be happy if a Christian simply subscribed to the following ideas, regardless of what label, if any, they might place on it. I don't insist that people call it the penal substitutionary theory, so long as they read their Bible and believe it:

He was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. It was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer. Isaiah 53:5-6, 10. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Romans 3:25-26

 

[seeingeyes]

To be clear, I don't think that all human understanding is unholy. I think there are two kinds of human thinking -- converted human thinking and unconverted human thinking. Unconverted ideas of goodness count for nothing.

C.S Lewis's thinking brought him to the conclusion that God is good. How is that "unconverted thinking"?

Would "converted thinking" bring one to the conclusion that God is not good but that we must call Him good anyway?

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think there are two kinds of human thinking -- converted human thinking and unconverted human thinking. Unconverted ideas of goodness count for nothing. The very fact that a nonbeliever thinks something good is evidence that it is really bad.

I'm sorry, but I think your statement is too broad. I don't disagree with the Scripture you posted, but the conclusion drawn from it is not accurate.

If a nonbeliever thinks it is good to care lovingly for their infant, does that make the loving care "really bad"?

If a nonbeliever thinks it is good not to murder someone, it's good to provide for their family, it's good not to steal, it's good to tell the truth - does that automatically make all of these things "really bad"?

It is true that the natural man's mind is at enmity with God Himself, and finds the Gospel and the things of God foolish, but that can't be extended to say that every idea they have is opposite in terms of good/evil. The statement is simply too broad to be true.

 

[Ceridwen]

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.

There is no "actually good or evil" independent of God's commands, revelations, and character. Those are the actual. "See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders." Deuteronomy 32:39-42.

Rather than define goodness by what He commands, I would prefer to define goodness by what He is.

I'm definitely OK with the position that God's character determines goodness. "Joshua said to the people, "He is a holy God; he is a jealous God. He will not forgive your rebellion and your sins. If you forsake the LORD and serve foreign gods, he will turn and bring disaster on you and make an end of you, after he has been good to you."" Joshua 24:19-20.

 

[seeingeyes]

There is no "actually good or evil" independent of God's commands, revelations, and character. Those are the actual. "See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me. I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders." Deuteronomy 32:39-42.

So God is free to tell us to do one thing while He does another?

 

[Ceridwen]

So God is free to tell us to do one thing while He does another?

There really is no way to compare his doings to our doings, they are like apples and oranges. He is the sovereign lawgiver, and we are the creatures. What is in our hands to do is completely unlike what is in his hands to do. "My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD." Isaiah 55:8-9. "You thought that I was just like you." Psalm 50:16-21.

C.S Lewis's thinking brought him to the conclusion that God is good. How is that "unconverted thinking"? Would "converted thinking" bring one to the conclusion that God is not good but that we must call Him good anyway?

C.S. Lewis's thinking was profoundly unconverted. And there is no one who concludes that God is not good -- "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:25

By "Good," Lewis did not mean Yahweh. Instead, Lewis meant the Platonic "idea of the good" possessed by pagan thinking prior to revelation of the acts, commands, and character of Yahweh. C.S. Lewis said: "The good is uncreated; it never could have been otherwise; it has in it no shadow of contingency; it lies, as Plato said, on the other side of existence. It is the Rita of the Hindus by which the gods themselves are divine, the Tao of the Chinese from which all realities proceed." Poison of Subjectivism.

C.S. Lewis insisted that human thinking, unaided by divine revelation in Scripture, could come to worthwhile thoughts about goodness. He speaks of a general objectivity that is common between Christians and non-Christians: “This conception in all its forms, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, Christian, and Oriental alike, I shall henceforth refer to for brevity simply as ‘the Tao.’ Some of the accounts of it which I have quoted will seem, perhaps, to many of you merely quaint or even magical. But what is common to them all is something we cannot neglect. It is the doctrine of objective value, the belief that certain attitudes are really true, and others really false, to the kind of thing the universe is and the kind of things we are.” Abolition of Man.

If we seek Lewis’ standard for evaluating what a man may or may not hold to be true and right, we may read: “We must believe in the validity of rational thought, and we must not believe in anything inconsistent with its validity.” Miracles. His method of knowing was to consult his practical reason to learn what is true rather than to consult Scripture. Lewis had too high a notion of the moral consciousness of fallen man.

According to C.S. Lewis, when Yahweh's revelation was set against "the Tao," Yahweh's revelation can be criticized. C.S. Lewis judges the imprecatory Psalms to be devilesh. Lewis asserts: “It is monstrously simple-minded to read the cursings in the Psalms with no feeling except one of horror at the uncharity of the poets. They are indeed devilish.” Reflection on the Psalms. When C.S. Lewis employs human ideas of goodness to criticize Scripture, he has renounced the right to appeal to either the God or the Christ of Scripture for either help or light.

 

[Tarshish]

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.

This is interesting, if you can't say what's good or wrong, how can you tell God from a demon? How can you tell the Bible is true and not, let's say, the Eddas or Kitab i Aqdas?

 

[seeingeyes]

There really is no way to compare his doings to our doings, they are like apples and oranges. He is the sovereign lawgiver, and we are the creatures. What is in our hands to do is completely unlike what is in his hands to do.

Which means it is impossible to know Him.

C.S. Lewis's thinking was profoundly unconverted. And there is no one who concludes that God is not good -- "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:25

Will He do right? Or will He just do whatever and then call it "right?"

Is there any qualitative difference between your God and the average tyrant other than that He is more powerful? (That's a serious question...no snark at all.)

 

[Ceridwen]

that can't be extended to say that every idea they have is opposite in terms of good/evil. The statement is simply too broad to be true.

I am not going to use my imagination (as if I were a pagan mystic) to learn whether nonbelievers recognize goodness. And I'm not going to perform scientific observation (as if I were an atheistic scientist) to find out. Neither will I consult my own fallen conscience (as if I were Socrates conversing with his interlocutors). Instead, I'm going to use the Christian method of learning -- consulting Scripture. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12, 16:25. Take away the faith component, and every natural belief about right and wrong leads the wrong direction. A non-Christian following his moral compass will walk directly into the swamps of hell.

The Bible says that in a man's fallen state, "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Genesis 6:5-13. "The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Ecclesiastes 8:11. “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Romans 14:23. "The plowing of the wicked, is sin." Proverbs 21:4. Even the nonbeliever's prayers for forgiveness are a crime. "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." Proverbs 28:9.

Acts performed by nonbelievers do not proceed from obedience to God, with the purpose of glorifying God. In 1 Corinthians 10:31, Paul said, “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” But you can’t glorify God if you are dishonoring him by not obeying him or trusting him. So where there is no faith, God is being disobeyed in every action no matter how seemingly benign.

 

[seeingeyes]

I am not going to use my imagination (as if I were a pagan mystic) to learn whether nonbelievers recognize goodness. And I'm not going to perform scientific observation (as if I were an atheistic scientist) to find out. Neither will I consult my own fallen conscience (as if I were Socrates conversing with his interlocutors). Instead, I'm going to use the Christian method of learning -- consulting Scripture. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12, 16:25. Take away the faith component, and every natural belief about right and wrong leads the wrong direction. A non-Christian following his moral compass will walk directly into the swamps of hell.

How about this?:

"If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" (Matt 7)

 

[Tarshish]

I am not going to use my imagination (as if I were a pagan mystic) to learn whether nonbelievers recognize goodness.

Are you going to ignore my question? Just saying so I can know.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am not going to use my imagination (as if I were a pagan mystic) to learn whether nonbelievers recognize goodness. And I'm not going to perform scientific observation (as if I were an atheistic scientist) to find out. Neither will I consult my own fallen conscience (as if I were Socrates conversing with his interlocutors). Instead, I'm going to use the Christian method of learning -- consulting Scripture. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." Proverbs 14:12, 16:25. Take away the faith component, and every natural belief about right and wrong leads the wrong direction. A non-Christian following his moral compass will walk directly into the swamps of hell.

The Bible says that in a man's fallen state, "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time." Genesis 6:5-13. "The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil." Ecclesiastes 8:11. “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.” Romans 14:23. "The plowing of the wicked, is sin." Proverbs 21:4. Even the nonbeliever's prayers for forgiveness are a crime. "He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomination." Proverbs 28:9.

Acts performed by nonbelievers do not proceed from obedience to God, with the purpose of glorifying God. In 1 Corinthians 10:31, Paul said, “Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” But you can’t glorify God if you are dishonoring him by not obeying him or trusting him. So where there is no faith, God is being disobeyed in every action no matter how seemingly benign.

My statement was that you cannot take your idea of converted vs. unconverted thinking and by that prove that anything an unconverted person says is good is by definition evil, just because an unconverted person called it good. That is what you were claiming. I maintain that it is still a faulty conclusion.

By the way, if your conclusion from Prov 28:9 above were true, it would be impossible for anyone to pray for repentance, if that happens to be part of your theology. Perhaps it is not.

One can pull verses from here and there and make any point one wishes to make. But ... the meaning of the verse is not necessarily what is being promoted.

 

[Tzaousios]

Ceridwen, please see my reply to you in post #58. Thanks.

 

[Tarshish]

This looks like a private debate, I'm off

 

[Tzaousios]

It seems that Ceridwen is only interested in stringing together her various prooftexts to self-justify her chosen doctrine of God cursing people. This is very curious considered that people have already seen her do this on other occasions. The question becomes what actually Ceridwen's faith is actually comprised of if all she proclaims is God damning, cursing, and killing people.

 

[Harry3142]

Ceridwen-

Those who are so arrogant as to pass judgement on others due to theological differences set themselves up for a horrific judgement:

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (The Gospel of St. Matthew 7:1-5,NIV)

Do you think that you are without sin, that you have the right to judge others who have done what was in their power for the furtherance of the kingdom of God? Then you are calling God himself a liar:

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world. (I John 1:8-2:2,NIV)

Those who refuse to accept that they are sinners commit the sin that C. S. Lewis warned Christians is the most dangerous sin of all, namely, the sin of Pride. Our righteousness is a gift, not a reward (Romans 3:19-26). We did nothing to earn it; we can do nothing to keep it. Only Jesus Christ himself was righteous in-and-of himself. Never forget that.

 

[Ceridwen]

It seems that Ceridwen is only interested in stringing together her various prooftexts to self-justify her chosen doctrine of God cursing people. This is very curious considered that people have already seen her do this on other occasions. The question becomes what actually Ceridwen's faith is actually comprised of if all she proclaims is God damning, cursing, and killing people.

Don't appreciate the insinuations all over this post and other posts you sometimes add on my threads. Don't appreciate you referring to me in the third person. I also find it absurd that you would talk about "God cursing people" as if the Bible verses were written by me. I don't like you throwing red herrings about Calvinism in my threads either.

I don't mean to damn C.S. Lewis. Instead, I want to point out errors in his doctrine and to point out a kind of hypocrisy in his approach. If C.S. Lewis will be damned, it will be God and not me doing the damning.

As for the question about how we come to have faith in God rather than other potential supernatural spirits, I would say that faith is a miracle that God gives to us supernaturally. There isn't a rational step-by-step method that takes a reasoning atheist to Christianity. Instead, God miraculously places the true faith into our hearts. Most importantly, he changes our values, teaching us to love him and his good, to love obedience to him.

 

[FredVB]

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 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."

Yahweh is utterly beyond us though, we don't know what God is really doing and so we can't understand much of God's goodness in all the works being done. Yahweh is infinite in scale and transcendent, we mere limited creations are arrogant if we think we might understand Yahweh God. The goodness for us to know is tiny and dumbed down for our limitations, through what is revealed from Yahweh for us. And then our only responsibility with our capacity is to submit to God with seeking obedience to that revelation. We have our failures, and God provided for us, with Christ according to the plan from eternity coming to us for our reconciliation through redemption. Yahweh is not willing that any should perish, since the creation God's invisible attributes can be seen, so that all have opportunity and should come to repentance, with which there is faith in Christ for the salvation for this. Yet many harden themselves, so that they do not come to Christ with this faith, and they are perishing, being left with Yahweh's justice for them to face themselves.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

The problem is that Lewis .....snipped

Is not here to defend himself. He's rejecting Calvinism. nothing more.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yeah. I can understand why those who think Christianity is about the Law wouldn't understand Lewis. He believed the Gospel.

What Law are you talking about?


.