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

[Ceridwen]

Under C.S. Lewis's own dichotomy of the saved and the damned, he placed himself in the category of the damned.

C.S. Lewis described a dichotomy of the saved and the damned. The difference between these two categories of people is that the saved submit their will to the will of Yahweh, while the damned allow their will to determine their choices. “There are only two kinds of people – those who say to God, ‘thy will be done’ to God or those to whom God in the end says, ‘Thy will be done.’" (The Problem of Pain.)

C.S. Lewis refused to submit to God's will unless God's will conformed to C.S. Lewis's. Before obeying God, C.S. Lewis would ask himself if God's command's seem right to C.S. Lewis: "If God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our “black” may be His “white”, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say “God is good,” while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what”. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) “good” we shall obey, if at all, only through fear – and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend." (The Problem of Pain.)

C.S. Lewis was unwilling to unreservedly say "Thy will be done." C.S. Lewis would obey God when God's commands were consistent with C.S. Lewis's sense of good. C.S. Lewis insisted that he wanted himself to be a judge of the "black and white." The most charitable thing we could say about C.S. Lewis is that he would say to Yahweh: "OUR will be done." Which, from Yahweh's perspective and in the dichotomy that C.S. Lewis himself laid out, is another way of saying "MY will be done."

In endorsing the idea of the self-sufficient moral consciousness, C.S. Lewis shows that there is no genuine difference between him and the atheist. Both have an ethics based upon human experience as metaphysically autonomous and ethically normal. By contrast, 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. Christianity rejects the idea of human autonomy.

The one who says "Thy will be done" is the one who, like Abraham, hears Yahweh's command to do what would be a crime according to the human conscience, and obeys Yahweh, without even asking the question of whether the divine command is (in our sense) "good."

C.S. Lewis was not such a person. Instead, he was willing to doubt God's commands before he would doubt his own conscience: "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.)

C.S. Lewis never learned to make his thought subservient to the thought of Christ. Have you?

 

[Tangible]

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

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, I can't speak for Lewis (though as far as I know, I believe he was a Christian), and I have not read the work you mention.

I do know it can be difficult to submit our will totally to God's.

When it's a matter of "thou shalt not kill" ... it can be easy enough.

When it's a matter of returning money or goods given to you in error by a company that has already "ripped you off" it might be easy to some to rationalize, and a little more difficult to follow the absolute principle that it is wrong to steal, and this is stealing.

When it becomes a matter of giving up your own child, perhaps, it becomes extremely difficult, and the temptation to rationalize or even turn away becomes overwhelming for many. Perhaps many never face that level of necessary submission, because God in His mercy may not ask more than they may be able.

But it is wise to "count the cost" and realize that the right thing to do is always what God asks. Sometimes it takes a work of His Holy Spirit, and our willingness to absolutely surrender to His will, in order to reach that point.

And then ... sometimes He increases the level of difficulty when we've reached a certain level.

 

[Steeno7]

Under C.S. Lewis's own dichotomy of the saved and the damned, he placed himself in the category of the damned.

C.S. Lewis described a dichotomy of the saved and the damned. The difference between these two categories of people is that the saved submit their will to the will of Yahweh, while the damned allow their will to determine their choices. “There are only two kinds of people – those who say to God, ‘thy will be done’ to God or those to whom God in the end says, ‘Thy will be done.’" (The Problem of Pain.)

C.S. Lewis refused to submit to God's will unless God's will conformed to C.S. Lewis's. Before obeying God, C.S. Lewis would ask himself if God's command's seem right to C.S. Lewis: "If God’s moral judgement differs from ours so that our “black” may be His “white”, we can mean nothing by calling Him good; for to say “God is good,” while asserting that His goodness is wholly other than ours, is really only to say “God is we know not what”. And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him. If He is not (in our sense) “good” we shall obey, if at all, only through fear – and should be equally ready to obey an omnipotent Fiend." (The Problem of Pain.)

C.S. Lewis was unwilling to unreservedly say "Thy will be done." C.S. Lewis would obey God when God's commands were consistent with C.S. Lewis's sense of good. C.S. Lewis insisted that he wanted himself to be a judge of the "black and white." The most charitable thing we could say about C.S. Lewis is that he would say to Yahweh: "OUR will be done." Which, from Yahweh's perspective and in the dichotomy that C.S. Lewis himself laid out, is another way of saying "MY will be done."

In endorsing the idea of the self-sufficient moral consciousness, C.S. Lewis shows that there is no genuine difference between him and the atheist. Both have an ethics based upon human experience as metaphysically autonomous and ethically normal. By contrast, 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. Christianity rejects the idea of human autonomy.

The one who says "Thy will be done" is the one who, like Abraham, hears Yahweh's command to do what would be a crime according to the human conscience, and obeys Yahweh, without even asking the question of whether the divine command is (in our sense) "good."

C.S. Lewis was not such a person. Instead, he was willing to doubt God's commands before he would doubt his own conscience: "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.)

C.S. Lewis never learned to make his thought subservient to the thought of Christ. Have you?

Do you understood what he was writing about and why? Have you even actually read the book?

 

[Hetta]

So now we're deciding whether other people are in heaven or hell?

*SMH*

 

[~Anastasia~]

So now we're deciding whether other people are in heaven or hell?

*SMH*

My apologies if what was meant to be my disclaimer came across that way.

 

[Hetta]

My apologies if what was meant to be my disclaimer came across that way.

No. The OP seems to be saying that Lewis is one of the damned.

 

[Ceridwen]

Do you understood what he was writing about and why? Have you even actually read the book?

To which book are you referring? I've read almost every book he has written -- most of them multiple times. They are all behind me on the shelf as I type. And yes, I've understood them. I've read the books by George MacDonald which inspired his theology.

C.S. Lewis was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement. He also did not believe in the Biblical doctrine of God's wrath. These observations were immediately apparent to me even as a child when I read "The Great Divorce," "Mere Christianity," and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."

 

[Steeno7]

To which book are you referring? I've read almost every book he has written -- most of them multiple times. They are all behind me on the shelf as I type. And yes, I've understood them. I've read the books by George MacDonald which inspired his theology.

C.S. Lewis was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement. He also did not believe in the Biblical doctrine of God's wrath. These observations were immediately apparent to me even as a child when I read "The Great Divorce," "Mere Christianity," and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."

I would say that your conclusions are in no way supported by the writer or his books that you say you have premised those conclusions on.

 

[Ceridwen]

I would say that your conclusions are in no way supported by the writer or his books that you say you have premised those conclusions on.

Well, I certainly hope you can come back with some thoughtful analysis. Otherwise the observation that Lewis did not have saving Christian faith remains unanswered. When C.S. Lewis expresses the opinion that the penal substitutionary atonement is "immoral and silly" (Mere Christianity) he, in effect, says "My Will Be Done."

I'm certainly not the first person who have understood what C.S. Lewis was writing. Dr. John Robbins, of the Trinity Foundation is also a careful reader and thinker. He says: "Did C. S. Lewis go to Heaven? And our answer must be: Not if he believed what he wrote in his books and letters."

The Trinity Foundation - Did C. S. Lewis Go to Heaven?

 

[Steeno7]

Well, I certainly hope you can come back with some thoughtful analysis. Otherwise the observation that Lewis did not have saving Christian faith remains unanswered. When C.S. Lewis expresses the opinion that the penal substitutionary atonement is "immoral and silly" (Mere Christianity) he, in effect, says "My Will Be Done."

I'm certainly not the first person who have understood what C.S. Lewis was writing. Dr. John Robbins, of the Trinity Foundation is also a careful reader and thinker. He says: "Did C. S. Lewis go to Heaven? And our answer must be: Not if he believed what he wrote in his books and letters."

The Trinity Foundation - Did C. S. Lewis Go to Heaven?

What I think is that He has been accused of being on every side of every doctrinal issue, depending upon the personal prejudice of the one doing the accusing. Regardless, believing or not believing in "penal" substitution is not the determining factor for salvation. Not even close.

 

[Ceridwen]

Believing or not believing in "penal" substitution is not the determining factor for salvation. Not even close.

C.S. Lewis believed in the deity of Christ. The story of the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac, found in all of the synoptics, shows that even the demons believe in the deity of Christ.

 

[Steeno7]

C.S. Lewis believed in the deity of Christ. The story of the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac, found in all of the synoptics, shows that even the demons believe in the deity of Christ.

I believe in the deity of Christ. The demons believe God is One, and the demons know Jesus is the Son of God. They certainly are not believing in Christ for their salvation now are they? Do you have a point?

 

[graciesings]

How do you know Lewis was unwilling to say "thy will be done?" I missed that part...

 

[graciesings]

Guys, I wouldn't trust that article. The Trinity Foundation - Did C. S. Lewis Go to Heaven? Obviously whoever wrote it believes that the Westminster Confession is the rule of faith, and since we're saved by (that kind of) faith anyone else will go to Hell. The author does make a few good points, but in most cases I prefer Lewis' theology.

And, I can explain the atonement without using the word "justification." That isn't a very good argument!

 

[RDKirk]

To which book are you referring? I've read almost every book he has written -- most of them multiple times. They are all behind me on the shelf as I type. And yes, I've understood them. I've read the books by George MacDonald which inspired his theology.

C.S. Lewis was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement. He also did not believe in the Biblical doctrine of God's wrath. These observations were immediately apparent to me even as a child when I read "The Great Divorce," "Mere Christianity," and "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe."

Well, LWW is all about substitutionary atonement. That's why Aslan was killed on the stone table. My four-year-old daughter figured that out.

 

[Ceridwen]

Well, LWW is all about substitutionary atonement. That's why Aslan was killed on the stone table. My four-year-old daughter figured that out.

The atonement described in the Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe is the "Christus Victor" theory of the atonement and not the "penal substitution" theory. Aslan’s death, you may recall, was a victory over death, not a propitiation of divine wrath. C.S. Lewis did not have a single positive word for the explanation that Jesus suffered in our place the divine punishment that we deserved.

C.S. Lewis had this to say about the penal substitutionary theory: "On the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see." Mere Christianity. “C. S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement." Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

 

[Steeno7]

The atonement described in the Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe is the "Christus Victor" theory of the atonement and not the "penal substitution" theory. Aslan’s death, you may recall, was a victory over death, not a propitiation of divine wrath. C.S. Lewis did not have a single positive word for the explanation that Jesus suffered in our place the divine punishment that we deserved.

C.S. Lewis had this to say about the penal substitutionary theory: "On the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see." Mere Christianity. “C. S. Lewis had a defective view of salvation and was an opponent of the substitutionary and penal view of the atonement." Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

This will apparently come as a shock to you but there are many, many, Christians who do not hold to the penal substitution view of atonement.

 

[RDKirk]

The atonement described in the Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe is the "Christus Victor" theory of the atonement and not the "penal substitution" theory. Aslan’s death, you may recall, was a victory over death, not a propitiation of divine wrath. C.S. Lewis did not have a single positive word for the explanation that Jesus suffered in our place the divine punishment that we deserved.

C.S. Lewis had this to say about the penal substitutionary theory: "On the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person? None at all that I can see."

It would be helpful if you'd quote Lewis accurately. There is no period following "see." What Lewis said was:

The one most people have heard is the one about our being let off because Christ volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could the be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense.

On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of "footing the bill," then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend.

In fact, scripture continually refers to the condition of sin in "debt" and "slavery" terms rather than "crime" terms.

 

[Ceridwen]

Obviously many people reject the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement. There is a reason the Bible speaks of the "Offense of the Cross" Galatians 5:11. And as for RDKirk, please go ahead and read C.S. Lewis more broadly in context, where you read the entire books, soaking them in. It has not seemed to me that those who have received C.S. Lewis's books kindly take even now sufficient notice of what he is saying. Alarm drives me to emphasize it. So please read further.