Question on CS Lewis

[Quid est Veritas?]

When I read Mere Christianity, I also wondered why Lewis was lifted up in Christian circles. I particularly took issue with his discussion on salvation, which he said depended on baptism, belief and Eucharist (not repentence and belief). But there were many "red flags" when I read this work.

There are many websites which discuss Lewis' teachings from his books. He rejected penal substitution, Biblical inerrancy, etc.

Lewis himself rejected the notion that the Narnia books were written as a Christian allegory. "Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord" (Of Other Worlds, p. 36).

The alleged allegory Christians insist on breaks down when Aslan (the supposed Christ figure) accepts a person who worshiped Nash (the supposed Satan figure). Aslan imputes the person's lifelong worship of Nash to himself (universalism). Aslan also endorses and encourages Lucy to cast spells, and refers to the "magic" which he and all of Narnia is supposedly subject to. Aslan doesn't die for everyone--he only dies for Edmund--implying that the rest don't need forgiveness/a sacrifice.

In the first place, the Calormen god is Tash, not Nash.
Second, Aslan dies for Edmund but in so doing breaks the White Witch's hold on the world and is thus the salvation for everyone.
Third, as you pointed out, it wasn't meant to be allegory.

You have made some errors in the Narnia interpretation, but it isn't supposed to be a introduction to gospel, Lewis never intended it to be, so it doesn't follow everything to the letter. Its but a fairy tale.

Yes, Lewis was a universalist. But he discusses all the topics of theology as if a discussion between you and I. He never says this is how it is except for basic christian concepts. When it comes to universalism and its ilk, he says this is what I think and if it helps you then use it, if it doesn't then don't.

Please show me these 'red flags' in Mere Christianity for Lewis submitted the work to a Catholic Bishop, an Anglican Bishop, a Methodist, a Lutheran and a Presbytarian minister and they all agreed with it (although all wanted more stress on certain aspects). So if you find some, I fear you are probably disagreeing with most of Christianity. (Not that I am saying Mere Christianity is perfect, but its very very orthodox in its theology)

 

[Luke17:37]

In the first place, the Calormen god is Tash, not Nash.
Second, Aslan dies for Edmund but in so doing breaks the White Witch's hold on the world and is thus the salvation for everyone.
Third, as you pointed out, it wasn't meant to be allegory.

You have made some errors in the Narnia interpretation, but it isn't supposed to be a introduction to gospel, Lewis never intended it to be, so it doesn't follow everything to the letter. Its but a fairy tale.

Yes, Lewis was a universalist. But he discusses all the topics of theology as if a discussion between you and I. He never says this is how it is except for basic christian concepts. When it comes to universalism and its ilk, he says this is what I think and if it helps you then use it, if it doesn't then don't.

Please show me these 'red flags' in Mere Christianity for Lewis submitted the work to a Catholic Bishop, an Anglican Bishop, a Methodist, a Lutheran and a Presbytarian minister and they all agreed with it (although all wanted more stress on certain aspects). So if you find some, I fear you are probably disagreeing with most of Christianity. (Not that I am saying Mere Christianity is perfect, but its very very orthodox in its theology)

I read Mere Christianity a long time ago, but when I did, I'd been a Christian for nearly two decades. I read it with the Bible in mind. I'm not going to reread it today to answer this post.

Universalism is not Biblical Christianity.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I read Mere Christianity a long time ago, but when I did, I'd been a Christian for nearly two decades. I read it with the Bible in mind. I'm not going to reread it today to answer this post.

Universalism is not Biblical Christianity.

And Universalism is not in Mere Christianity my friend. Neither is any other doctrine not universally held by Christianity. The point of the book is a basic description of Christianity in general.

 

[Luke17:37]

And Universalism is not in Mere Christianity my friend. Neither is any other doctrine not universally held by Christianity. The point of the book is a basic description of Christianity in general.

I don't think he did a very good job and for the life of me I can't see how it could be that helpful for a non-believer. That's my opinion. From what I've read, Lewis' theology was lacking in many areas and that's beyond the scope of this discussion. You can Google it.

I think if someone wants to give their secular friend an introduction to the doctrines of Christianity, they would be much better off to gift them with More Than A Carpenter.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't think he did a very good job and for the life of me I can't see how it could be that helpful for a non-believer. That's my opinion. From what I've read, Lewis' theology was lacking in many areas and that's beyond the scope of this discussion. You can Google it.

I think if someone wants to give their secular friend an introduction to the doctrines of Christianity, they would be much better off to gift them with More Than A Carpenter.

I was an atheist and my ultimate conversion was started by Mere Christianity, so I respectfully disagree. But to each their own.

 

[Jipsah]

I'm glad you've found someone to agree with you.

And a published author, no less!

(Yeah, I know that was tacky of me, but I couldn't resist)

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yes, Lewis was a universalist.

Actually, he wasn't. George MacDonald, whom Lewis held in high esteem, was a universalist but Lewis ultimately didn't believe universalism "worked" and never accepted it.

In fact in The Great Divorce Lewis writes MacDonald (who had been dead for many years) into the narrative, MacDonald in Lewis' work has rejected the universalism of his past self, and MacDonald seems to be in the narrative a way for Lewis to voice some of his own thoughts on the nature and meaning of heaven and hell--in all of which universalism isn't in the equation.

For Lewis Hell was both quite real and, somewhat ironically, the opposite of real--Hell is a shrinking, what might begin with a grumbling inside ourselves which if left unchecked shrinks us to the point of being nothing more than that grumble--a grumbling machine going on forever, having lost any and all semblance of meaningful humanity. The tragedy of Hell comes not because of external punishments doled out by an angry God or by sinister cartoonish devils; but in the shrinking, shriveling up of our humanity until little--if anything--of our humanity is left. Just a motor, a machine, a buzzing, humming thing grumbling, mumbling, forever. That's hardly universalism, and arguably it's far more terrifying to contemplate than all the horrors ever dreamt by Dante.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually, he wasn't. George MacDonald, whom Lewis held in high esteem, was a universalist but Lewis ultimately didn't believe universalism "worked" and never accepted it.

In fact in The Great Divorce Lewis writes MacDonald (who had been dead for many years) into the narrative, MacDonald in Lewis' work has rejected the universalism of his past self, and MacDonald seems to be in the narrative a way for Lewis to voice some of his own thoughts on the nature and meaning of heaven and hell--in all of which universalism isn't in the equation.

For Lewis Hell was both quite real and, somewhat ironically, the opposite of real--Hell is a shrinking, what might begin with a grumbling inside ourselves which if left unchecked shrinks us to the point of being nothing more than that grumble--a grumbling machine going on forever, having lost any and all semblance of meaningful humanity. The tragedy of Hell comes not because of external punishments doled out by an angry God or by sinister cartoonish devils; but in the shrinking, shriveling up of our humanity until little--if anything--of our humanity is left. Just a motor, a machine, a buzzing, humming thing grumbling, mumbling, forever. That's hardly universalism, and arguably it's far more terrifying to contemplate than all the horrors ever dreamt by Dante.

-CryptoLutheran

Yes, I've heard this as well and read Great Divorce. However, at some point he was perhaps for we see Emeth in Last Battle who is saved despite being a Calormen Tash worshipper and certain of his written pieces tend in that direction. I am not convinced one way or the other how Lewis stood on Universalism, but I did not think it worthwhile to argue the point with Mr Luke.

 

[Goodbook]

Universalism?
I thought CS lewis was more ecumnenical, I dont know if thats meant to be the same thing, but universalism to me suggests anything goes and theres more ways to God than Jesus.

Dont universalists believe everyone will be eventually saved? In that sense its a seductive idea but sadly it isnt true. GOd judges the world and hell has enlarged for a reason. Not everyone will go to heaven, or even wants to.

 

[Goodbook]

Did any of you people actually meet him IN person or correspond with him...or you just going by what he wrote. Sorry...im not sure when he died but it must have been a while ago and everyone who read his work seems to be talking about a different era.

I know mere christianity was a radio serial and broadcast inthe 1940s or thereabouts. Thats before I was born.

 

[Goodbook]

I think theres lots of christians today that are well known that you could say also brought people to faith by something they wrote.

Even if they wrote something theologically questionable, but it got them to reading the Bible for themselves. Eg someone like Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn. I wouldnt put these famous people on a pedestal and say they are more christian or better than anyone else though.

 

[Strong in Him]

Did any of you people actually meet him IN person or correspond with him...or you just going by what he wrote. Sorry...im not sure when he died but it must have been a while ago and everyone who read his work seems to be talking about a different era.

I know mere christianity was a radio serial and broadcast inthe 1940s or thereabouts. Thats before I was born.

He died in 1965 - 51 years ago.
I don't know about anyone else here, but I was only 4 at the time. Even if I'd been 14, or 24, there's no reason why I would have corresponded with an Oxford professor.

 

[Widlast]

Even if they wrote something theologically questionable, but it got them to reading the Bible for themselves. Eg someone like Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen, Benny Hinn. I wouldnt put these famous people on a pedestal and say they are more christian or better than anyone else though.

You chose some very poor examples of "christians" to compare Lewis with.
Each of them is rich to the point of absurd (they'll need a very small camel and a very large needle), and have promoted doctrines which are well outside of what most call Christianity.

 

[Hetta]

I'm not sure I understand why CS Lewis wrote the things he did, it seemed like he was christian but then he wrote about lions and witches and wardrobes.

i remmeber seeing this movie as a child and I did not think it was actually christian. It was more fairy tale. Actually it scared me a bit when I was young because it suggested that wardrobes could be portals to this other world.

Later when I became a christian CS Lewis writings didnt make much senese either. It seemed he was advocating anglicanism as a religion rather than actually being born again.

I tried to read 'mere christianity' but nothing registered, just seemed like an out of date apologetic for religion. Screwtape letters seemed to glorify demons. I did not enjoy reading the screwtape letters, I thought, very clever, but no gospel in it.

What do other people think? Anybody actually know him personally? Why was he writing about witches etc when we are meant to avoid all appearance of evil? I would not say chronicles of narnia are christian. Its fantasy, with twisted elements of christianity in it.

Did anyone tell you that CS Lewis is long dead yet? Just curious.

I guess you would need firstly a sense of humor, and then a sense of irony, and perhaps also to have heard of The Lion of Judah (used in Revelation to represent Jesus).

If you don't like his books, don't read them. //end thread

 

[Job8]

I'm not sure I understand why CS Lewis wrote the things he did, it seemed like he was christian but then he wrote about lions and witches and wardrobes.

CS Lewis should be approached with caution. His beliefs were a mixture of truth and error.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

CS Lewis should be approached with caution. His beliefs were a mixture of truth and error.

There is far more heterodox opinion on these forums than in all the works of CS Lewis combined.
All works by human hands should be approached with caution as should all preachers etc. I think people are doing Lewis a disservice by singling him out as somehow 'dangerous'. I am sure his works have done far more good than ill.

 

[PloverWing]

Yes, I've heard this as well and read Great Divorce. However, at some point he was perhaps for we see Emeth in Last Battle who is saved despite being a Calormen Tash worshipper and certain of his written pieces tend in that direction. I am not convinced one way or the other how Lewis stood on Universalism, but I did not think it worthwhile to argue the point with Mr Luke.

The Last Battle has both the story of Emeth and the story of the dwarves who are so afraid of being taken in that they can not be taken out. Here and in some other places in his writing, I hear Lewis saying that we can separate ourselves from God if we really, persistently choose to, but it's more complicated than just whether we once prayed the sinner's prayer or were baptized.

 

[DamianWarS]

As a biblical symbol the lion is not universally evil and is used for both Christ and the enemy but the characteristics used are different. With Christ the image of the lion is a conquering and victorious lion and with the enemy the image is a preying and "taking advantage of" lion

But even if these images are not in the bible who cares? The narnia series is children's fiction and it can use whatever methaphors it wants provided they are represented well. In fiction the symbols used need to be taken in context and in the case of Narnia the lion is a good lion. It says so right in the book.

"Aslan is a lion- the Lion, the great Lion." "Ooh" said Susan. "I'd thought he was a man. Is he-quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion"..."Safe?" said Mr Beaver ..."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you."

Sent from my Passport using Tapatalk

 

[Goodbook]

Well I dont read his works anymore but I had a question thats all.

Ive only read...lion, witch and wardrobe. Mere christianity, screwtapes letters and the sequel, and thats about it. He seems to be quoted a lot. HE obviously wrote other things but from what I read I dont feel like reading anymore.

I dont think hes that popular anymore, but certainly the fantasy of narnia is still going on and it was filmed in my country. I knew a guy that was an extra in it, he played one of those centaur people.
Funny he did become a christian this guy i knew but I dont think he could attribute that to cs lewis. It really is God who reveals himself to us especially through his Word, other wise i would have become a christian a long time ago as a child watching or reading narnia. But I didnt. I just thought it was fantasy story like every other child.

 

[Goodbook]

Yea I wouldnt correspond with a (dead) professor either although there are some christian authors I could write to who are alive now and say to them, your book encouraged me.

I have done that, for example there was this book called Pills for the soul which helped me. So I emailed the author and said thank you.
They wrote back!

If a book is questionable I dont spend too much time dwelling on it. But if its really popular and people are raving about it but Im not so hot on it, sometimes I do wonder whats behind it esp if I find some of it unbiblical. Eg there was a popular book among christians called Heaven is so real or Heaven is for real.