Was C.S Lewis a heretic? (moved from Christian Advice)

[Krillin]

Is it possible to be heretical in select areas, but still be saved?

Beware of C.S. Lewis' HERESIES - YouTube​

 

[boogalaboogala]

Is it possible to be heretical in select areas, but still be saved?

Beware of C.S. Lewis' HERESIES - YouTube​

wow, i learned something today.. i love c.s. lewis.. mere christianity, the screwtape letters.. i mean these are classics that i read a few times..
i am blown away.. anyhow, i still love him, and i am still going to enjoy his classics..
kind of sad that you had to post that.. i mean there are quite a few rock solid christians that held high regard for his works.. and still do.. and it never tarnished their faith..
just goes to show you, that it must really be true.. every party does have a party pooper..

 

[Harry3142]

Penal substitution has a major problem against its acceptance, namely, Scripture itself. In John 10:14-18 Jesus describes himself not as a condemned prisoner, but rather as a shepherd who will voluntarily lay down his life for his sheep. In Hebrews 8:1-10:14 he is described not as a condemned prisoner, but rather as the high priest of a new covenant, who initiates that new covenant via the shedding of his own blood. In Colossians 1:15-20 he is described not as a condemned prisoner, but rather as the firstborn of God, creator of all that has been created, firstborn from among the dead, and the means whereby God the Father has reconciled to himself all things.

C. S. Lewis put his own faith in salvation through accepting Christ's sacrifice as the perfect atonement for his sins. His compassion for those who did not know Christ in all likelihood led him to hope (and 'hope' is what is expressed in universalism) that they could still be saved through the Holy Spirit's working within them. And there is Scripture which would tend to support this, found in Revelation 20:11-15, which some have interpreted as describing the judgement of those who did not know Christ. I myself accept this passage as that form of judgement, rather than its being a judgement of Christians.

I have personally found that oftimes those who attack the book Mere Christianity do so primarily for two reasons.

1. The book describes homosexuality as a 'sin of the flesh', and so not to be given undue attention. We observant Christians know that homosexuality is forbidden, just as adultery, murder, theft, and other sins are forbidden. But there are many people who 'home in' on homosexuality while totally ignoring sins which are infinitely more dangerous to us Christians.

2. The book also describes a sin which is extremely dangerous to Christians, while either being overlooked completely, or even being welcomed as a sign of piety. And that sin is Pride (aka arrogance). The sin of Pride is dangerous due to its ability to enter unnoticed the church itself and affect the actions of those who believe themselves to be Christians. There is even a theology which stems from Pride, called 'the prosperity theology', whose practitioners have gone so far as to condemn those who've been the victims of natural disasters as people whom God has passed judgement on.

 

[parsley]

We all teach heretical things, and God covers the error of our ways.
Also, promoting one teacher so strongly can have its own heretical twinge. I think we are meant to draw from a variety of counselors for our wisdom, and not treat any one man as having pure words from God.

Only God is good.

Luke 18:19

And Jesus said to him, Why do you say that I am good? No one is good, but only God.

 

[Mediaeval]

Universalism was taught in the early church. Probably the best known proponent whose orthodoxy was unquestioned (in contrast with Origen) was St Gregory of Nyssa, who participated in the ecumenical Council of Constantinople.

Penal substitutionary atonement in its modern Protestant form was not prominent in the early church, if it was taught at all.

Neither universalism nor favoring an alternative view of the atonement are grounds for considering a fellow Christian beyond the pale of orthodoxy.

 

[hedrick]

The video is defining heresy as opposition to their specific sect, rather the more typical definition of violating generally agreed upon standards such as the first few ecumenical councils. The point of "Mere Christianity" was to show things that Christians agree upon.

It is simple historical fact that there have been many theories of the atonement, and still are today. Penal substitution is relatively recent, and in my opinion one of the less satisfactory. While it is often attributed to Calvin, Calvin himself used several approaches, and his main treatment of the Atonement in the Institutes was based on Rom 6, not penal atonement. If you're going to describe "mere Christianity" and not one specific flavor, it would be unwise to teach penal substitution, but rather to teach the broadest kind of substitution, and note that even that is only one theory.

They initially accused him of universalism, an accusation which is false. In the middle of the video, there was a kind of bait and switch, changing to inclusivism, which is what he actually presented. This is currently the majority view, being held by Catholics, liberal Protestants, and a surprising number of evangelicals (at least in the case of unreached people).

So the video shows that Lewis was not presenting conservative American Protestantism, which of course he never claimed to be doing, not that he was a heretic, unless of course you think that anyone who doesn't agree with your own specific brand of Christianity is a heretic.

 

[PaladinValer]

Is it possible to be heretical in select areas, but still be saved?

Beware of C.S. Lewis' HERESIES - YouTube​

People, do we all realize that video is a load of bogus nonsense?

I've said this before and I will say it again to the OP: START DOING ACTUAL REAL RESEARCH.

St. Clive Staples Lewis was NOT a Universalist. Furthermore, the idea that Christ Victorious is "unorthodox" flies in the writings of the earliest Christian witnesses that we have.

Finally, Aslan's sacrifice was not given to the Witch. Anyone who actually read those books knows that Krillin's source is a load of manure.

 

[abysmul]

I could only stand to listen for two or three minutes. Sorry the guy sounded like someone who had really never read the collection of essays (radio broadcast transcripts if I recall), let alone studied his collective works and opinions.

 

[Radagast]

Is it possible to be heretical in select areas, but still be saved?

What a stupid, stupid video. Why do people post this stuff?

The whole point about Mere Christianity is that it describes what Christians have in common; it does not describe everything that Lewis believed.

And Lewis was certainly not a Universalist.

I could only stand to listen for two or three minutes. Sorry the guy sounded like someone who had really never read the collection of essays (radio broadcast transcripts if I recall), let alone studied his collective works and opinions.

Pretty much.

 

[znr]

Todd Friel is a blowhard. The other phrase I want to use is censored.

 

[znr]

Todd must see himself as a clean version of Howard Stern, because that's how he comes across 99 percent of the time.

What a stupid, stupid video. Why do people post this stuff?

The whole point about Mere Christianity is that it describes what Christians have in common; it does not describe everything that Lewis believed.

And Lewis was certainly not a Universalist.



Pretty much.

 

[Krillin]

Yikes...

I want to clarify that I am not posting this video to make a point, but to simply ask "what do you think?".

Todd Friel has been hit or miss for me. Sometimes I have found him to be seemingly biblical as he does tend to bring up issues within the church we should be careful of, whereas other times i can hardly stand him. This isn't the only time in which I've seen this topic arise so I thought I'd discuss it here.

 

[PaladinValer]

Yikes...

I want to clarify that I am not posting this video to make a point, but to simply ask "what do you think?".

That needs to be said more clearly. I'm glad that is the case.

Todd Friel has been hit or miss for me. Sometimes I have found him to be seemingly biblical as he does tend to bring up issues within the church we should be careful of, whereas other times i can hardly stand him. This isn't the only time in which I've seen this topic arise so I thought I'd discuss it here.

The man is not worth beans. Clearly.

Furthermore, this is the Advice forum, which doesn't allow discussion. If that is the desire, then it needs to be moved to an appropriate area.

 

[znr]

His message isn't bringing you comfort, but it's creating more questions in your mind; this is a red flag. An example of good delilvery was Chuck Smith. While I might not agree with everything he said, it was very clear that sharing his deep love for Christ and God's word was his only intention. He never created consant controversy. Chuck was an upstanding example of a man preaching the good news. If Todd is a hit and miss for you, let him go. Given what you're struggling with right now, and all the questions you have, Todd doesn't seem like a good fit for where you're at. We have to protect ourselves. Sometimes that means not listening to messages that when delivered create too much controversy. Nevermind my own personal opinion of Todd, he doesn't seem to be helping you resolve your fears.

Yikes...

I want to clarify that I am not posting this video to make a point, but to simply ask "what do you think?".

Todd Friel has been hit or miss for me. Sometimes I have found him to be seemingly biblical as he does tend to bring up issues within the church we should be careful of, whereas other times i can hardly stand him. This isn't the only time in which I've seen this topic arise so I thought I'd discuss it here.

 

[seeingeyes]

We have to protect ourselves. Sometimes that means not listening to messages that when delivered create too much controversy. Nevermind my own personal opinion of Todd, he doesn't seem to be helping you resolve your fears.

Wisdom. Right here.

 

[LoricaLady]

Two contradictory statements cannot both be true. C.S. Lewis works are full of statements that contradict the truths of Scriptures.

We are told that the gods that the pagans bow down to are demons. We are told that light and darkness do not have fellowship with one another. Yet, for ex. in The Lion The Witch And The Wardrobe, we see some of the pagan dieties, or at least their offspring (centaurs and nymphs were considered to be such), dancing and cavorting with Aslan, whom some say is Messiah (but really Lewis never claimed that and Aslan is really a kind of sun god figure.) Messiah would never party with demons! They are lost souls with no hope of redemption.

We are told to have nothing to do with magic. Yet Lewis makes it the hero of the day. It is "deep magic", not the light of Messiah, that is responsible for the end of winter in the Chronicles of Narnia. Kindly don't tell me "Well, by deep magic Lewis really meant..." He meant what he said. The Bible means what it says too and it doesn't say, "Well, you can be into magic as long as you read between the invisible lines and try to make it look like it's from Me."

Some may think "Well, an evil witch was defeated...." Yeal kinda like in Harry Potter where witches "good" and bad battle it out. It is common in some witchcraft lore to believe the lie tlhat some magic and some witches are "good". This is one of satan's common deceptions.

We are told not to mix in the leaven of the world with the Truth. Doing just that was Lewis' speciality, as some of the example above show. I think he was just another man making a buck off the Bible, presenting a twisted "Gospel", while he himself shows he is ravished with pagan ideas and images.

I used to love his books until someone helped me see through them. You don't get it both ways. You don't get paganism and the Gospel. And when you try to blend them you get into big trouble with the Almighty who detests anything pagan and tells us to completely shun it.

Btw I am not going to argue about this, anyone. I know magic is evil, for ex. I know it is forbidden by YHWH. I know Lewis makes it look wonderful. That's just one example where he leaves me no choice but to avoid him.

Praying you will have wisdom on this area and all literature that "mixes it up" with paganism, witchcraft and the Word.

 

[LoricaLady]

His message isn't bringing you comfort, but it's creating more questions in your mind; this is a red flag. An example of good delilvery was Chuck Smith. While I might not agree with everything he said, it was very clear that sharing his deep love for Christ and God's word was his only intention. He never created consant controversy. Chuck was an upstanding example of a man preaching the good news. If Todd is a hit and miss for you, let him go. Given what you're struggling with right now, and all the questions you have, Todd doesn't seem like a good fit for where you're at. We have to protect ourselves. Sometimes that means not listening to messages that when delivered create too much controversy. Nevermind my own personal opinion of Todd, he doesn't seem to be helping you resolve your fears.

"We have to protect ourselves." Yes, indeed, from deception. "Sometimes that means not listening to messages that when delivered create too much controversy." Kindly show a Bible verse where any such thing is ever said!

Everywhere Messiah went, everywhere the apostles went, there was controversy, controversy, to the point of them being murdered as people would try to shut them up!

Friend, kindly read the Word carefully and thoughtfully if you have not done so before, to see what it is really saying. Do not let anything cause you to fall into the trap of disagreeing with it and offering your worldly "wisdom" in its place.

Praying for you for wisdom and deep knowledge re the Word.

 

[Radagast]

We are told to have nothing to do with magic. Yet Lewis makes it the hero of the day. It is "deep magic", not the light of Messiah, that is responsible for the end of winter in the Chronicles of Narnia.

I don't think you understood the books at all -- the "deep magic" is Lewis' term for what God has done.

Lewis' writings are in fact deeply Christian.

We are told not to mix in the leaven of the world with the Truth.

Really? I suspect you're thinking of Matthew 16:6: "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."

I think he was just another man making a buck off the Bible, presenting a twisted "Gospel", while he himself shows he is ravished with pagan ideas and images.

I consider that to be false slander, and beneath contempt.

Friend, kindly read the Word carefully and thoughtfully if you have not done so before, to see what it is really saying.

That's good advice, actually. Start with the Gospels, and then read the Epistles.

 

[LoricaLady]

I don't think you understood the books at all -- the "deep magic" is Lewis' term for what God has done.

Lewis' writings are in fact deeply Christian.



Really? I suspect you're thinking of Matthew 16:6: "Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."



I consider that to be false slander, and beneath contempt.



That's good advice, actually. Start with the Gospels, and then read the Epistles.

"Deep magic is Lewis' term" for what the Almighty has done? Where, anywhere, does he ever say that? Nowhere of course. YHWH hates magic. How do you think He likes having His works named after something He hates? "Out of the mouth [or pen] the heart speaks." Lewis said "deep magic." Period.

Show me something in the Epistles, or anything else in the Bible that says you can mix paganism with the Gospel. I ask you, too, to make a study of the Bible and see where we are told to get rid of any pagan objects and anything pagan. Lewis' works are filled with detestable (to YHWH) pagan imagery and beliefs. Yes, that is a kind of leaven. Definitely.

All I have to say.

 

[Radagast]

"Deep magic is Lewis' term" for what the Almighty has done? Where, anywhere, does he ever say that?

What do you think "Before the Dawn of Time" means?

To quote A Theological Journey Into Narnia, "The law and the gospel are the two fundamental aspects of God's word. C.S. Lewis presents this in the Narnia stories as well, where the 'law' is 'the deep magic from the dawn of time' and the gospel is 'yet deeper magic from the dawn of time'."

And Lewis is not "mixing paganism with the Gospel," he's telling the Gospel as a story. A parable, if you like.