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

[Steeno7]

Obviously many people reject the penal substitutionary theory of the atonement.

It is not salvific.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

Ummm, Lewis was perfectly orthodox by not accepting penal substitution. You do realize that perfectly orthodox Christianity rejects it, right?

 

[RDKirk]

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.

That too.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

Penal Substitution is one of the newest contenders in the realm of atonement theology. Rejecting it hardly constitutes anything more than rejecting a modern theology.

I, likewise, reject Penal Substitution Theory.

By all means, let the anathemas fly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ceridwen]

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.

 

[MJohn7]

Thy will be done. Amen. C.S. Lewis should follow Davids example, as should I.

Psalm 131 Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.
2 Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.
3 Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever.

 

[Steeno7]

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.

Your doctrinal leanings are not synonymous with Christianity. Not at all. But slander is always slander, regardless of doctrinal positions.

 

[MJohn7]

Your doctrinal leanings are not synonymous with Christianity. Not at all. But slander is always slander, regardless of doctrinal positions.

C.S. Lewis is just a fallible man, hes not the Lord or even an apostle. Why get so worked up over the fallible opinions of some man? C.S. Lewis is not the Church.

 

[Steeno7]

C.S. Lewis is just a fallible man, hes not the Lord or even an apostle. Why get so worked up over the fallible opinions of some man? C.S. Lewis is not the Church.

You're confused as usual.

 

[MJohn7]

You're confused as usual.

How so?

 

[MJohn7]

How so?

Was something i said below not accurate?

C.S. Lewis is just a fallible man, hes not the Lord or even an apostle. Why get so worked up over the fallible opinions of some man? C.S. Lewis is not the Church.

 

[RDKirk]

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.)

Except that Lewis is not saying what you claim he is saying...which means to me that I can't trust you to interpret for me what scripture is saying either.

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.

Except that Lewis is not doing that--you're stretching to make that conclusion on your own--just because you can strain out parallels between some things Lewis says and some things Socrates says. I can prove by your method of argumentation that Christianity is both fascism and Communism.

 

[seeingeyes]

When the Scriptures say "God is good", what should we take that to mean? That He is good? Or that He is evil but we have to call Him "good" so that He won't kill us?

Is God just playing a cosmic shell game? Or does He actually want us to know Him?

 

[~Anastasia~]

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.

So what we are considering here is that we've found a passage of Scripture that appears to command us to do something evil - implying that if we were to "follow God" in this case, God must be evil?

The alternative is that God is in fact good, and the Scriptures must be either (a) translated with error, (b) interpreted incorrectly, or (c) applied improperly.

I'm afraid I'm with Lewis on this one, as I see the argument (and I have not read the piece, but only what you quote here). If the option is to believe what the Scriptures SEEM TO BE saying, or believe that God is good ... then I'm going to choose God's goodness.

I say the Scriptures SEEM TO BE saying something, because if in any case we believe they tell us something that makes God out NOT to be good, then obviously we are wrong about the Scriptures.

Because God IS good.

 

[RDKirk]

I'm afraid I'm with Lewis on this one, as I see the argument (and I have not read the piece, but only what you quote here). If the option is to believe what the Scriptures SEEM TO BE saying, or believe that God is good ... then I'm going to choose God's goodness.

I say the Scriptures SEEM TO BE saying something, because if in any case we believe they tell us something that makes God out NOT to be good, then obviously we are wrong about the Scriptures.

Because God IS good.

That is, in fact, what Lewis is saying in context.

The sticky point is that we must always be operating within Romans 12--with renewed minds that are in conformance with the mind of Christ--"then you can judge God's perfect will."

Reading the bible with a mind that is still conformed to the world and the flesh can wreak all sorts of nastiness...and has.

 

[Ceridwen]

The sticky point is that we must always be operating within Romans 12--with renewed minds that are in conformance with the mind of Christ--"then you can judge God's perfect will."

Agreed. The Christian must revise his conscience to conform to the mind of Christ. God calls upon a nonbeliever to reverse the dictates of his heart: "If anyone should think to himself, 'I will do well enough if I follow the dictates of my heart,' Yahweh will not pardon him. His wrath shall burn against him. And all the curses written in the book will come upon him." Deuteronomy 29:18-20 (New Jerusalem Bible) The conscience of the nonbeliever cannot see any value or logic in living the Christian life or converting to Christianity. His moral conscience tells him to remain what he is. That is why it actually takes a miracle for a nonbeliever to convert to Christianity. Because, from within his desire, conscience, and reason, there is nothing about salvation that is appealing. "What people value highly is detestable in God’s sight." Luke 16:15 New International Version (NIV)

For example, without the renewing of a human mind, the human mind will be unable to understand how it is an act of divine virtue for Yahweh to lay curses on humans:

Malachi 2:2 (New International Version)
If you do not listen, and if you do not set your heart to honor my name," says the LORD Almighty, "I will send a curse upon you."

Galatians 3:10-13 (New International Version)
"Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

 

[graceandpeace]

Penal substitution was not taught by the early Christian church. None of the early Church Fathers profess a belief in such a theory. Ideas about penal substitution didn't develop until centuries later.

So, I, along with other Christians, reject penal substitution. (And as an aside, I think in the "The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe," Lewis was modeling the ransom theory of atonement, which did exist in early Christian thought & belief.)

 

[FredVB]

The Christian must revise his conscience to conform to the mind of Christ. God calls upon a nonbeliever to reverse the dictates of his heart: "If anyone should think to himself, 'I will do well enough if I follow the dictates of my heart,' Yahweh will not pardon him. His wrath shall burn against him. And all the curses written in the book will come upon him." Deuteronomy 29:18-20 (New Jerusalem Bible) The conscience of the nonbeliever cannot see any value or logic in living the Christian life or converting to Christianity. His moral conscience tells him to remain what he is. That is why it actually takes a miracle for a nonbeliever to convert to Christianity.

There is the miraculous in being drawn to Christ and coming to reconciliation with Yahweh God with being in relationship with him. It only happens with his Spirit drawing us, we see his grace toward us, and hear something of his will for us, and the desire for his good is placed in us. It is the only way. But it is not irresistible, we must not harden ourselves to that.

 

[graciesings]

Penal substitution was not taught by the early Christian church. None of the early Church Fathers profess a belief in such a theory. Ideas about penal substitution didn't develop until centuries later.

So, I, along with other Christians, reject penal substitution. (And as an aside, I think in the "The Lion, the Witch, & the Wardrobe," Lewis was modeling the ransom theory of atonement, which did exist in early Christian thought & belief.)

Can I get you to give input on one of these threads?
http://www.christianforums.com/t7803841/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7803838/

 

[Tzaousios]

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.

First of all, can you be absolutely positive that you have not confused or conflated what you interpret "what God has said is true and right" with your particularly reformed, Calvinistic beliefs? It is quite easy to do so but quite another issue entirely to show specifically how they are the same or different.

Secondly, "Christianity rejects the idea of human autonomy" appears to reveal such a confusion or conflation when it is not explained or qualified in some fashion. It merely indicates that you believe there is an Arminian bogeyman to thrash.

The atonement described in the Lion, the Witch and Wardrobe is the "Christus Victor" theory of the atonement and not the "penal substitution" theory.

Oh? Are we to believe that you think penal substitutionary atonement is the the ONLY method described by Scripture and valid for the Christian to hold? I seem to remember you indicating in another thread that it is not.