Was C.S. Lewis a pluralist?

[i]Prince Caspian[/i] is coming out in theartres soon, but I wanted to point out this portion from pg176 of [i]Mere Christianity[/i]:

[b]There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example, a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain other points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position.[/b]

Though C. S. Lewis was my introduction and guide into a form of godliness which persisted for more than a decade of my life, I have distanced myself from these and other passages of his writings which seem unmistakably to reveal his un-Christian view of how one is justified - through appreciating and embracing the humble, moral teachings of Christ. He seems, at least from all I can find, to miss that it is not enough to be attracted to Christ's character; you must have faith in his death and resurrection as justly satisfying the penalty you deserve, on your behalf. "Good pagans" - did Lewis ever read Romans 3? "None is righteous, none does good. No, not one."

Thanks all for the info! I have not wanted to be part of the Narnia thing without really even looking into it. Christian fantasy seems to me as wrong. It negates Philippians 4:8 to think of things that are true. I have done some looking into it as my wife and children love the books and movies. His use of mythological creatures bothers me especially bacchus. I understand that in Prince Caspian Aslan and bacchus see some sort of river demon bound and Aslan sends bacchus to free it. This may not be exact but the idea is the same that Jesus can send a devil to free someone from a devil. This seems pretty unbiblical to me. I don't understand how it is possible to shrug this off and enjoy the "christian" movie. I know there is something to the fable passages (warnings) in scripture with this series, but only time will prove it out. Thanks again and God Bless, Barry

While I do not want to support a pluralist position, this verse is one that we would be well adviced to mediate upon before becoming too judgmental:

[color=009900]Act 10:34-35 Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: (35) But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is [b]accepted[/b] with him.[/color]

The following verses imply that God can be known by all, though His wrath is revealed against unrighteousness; I understand Paul also makes a case for universal sinfulness in Romans:

[color=009900]Rom 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; (19) Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. (20) For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:[/color]

And taking these two together, did the Lord restrict this blessing that follows to just those who had heard of Jehovah, or was it available to all?

[color=009900]Mat 5:6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.[/color]

And it is worth thinking on these verses as well, especially as it finishes where Peter, above, started.

[color=009900]Rom 2:6-11 [God] will render to every man according to his deeds: (7) To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: ... glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: (11) For there is no respect of persons with God.[/color]

It seems that Cornelius did indeed receive eternal life because of his 'continuance in well doing'.

As I said at the beginning, I'm not trying to support pluralism, or CS Lewis, but, and probably quoted completely out of context :-) , [color=009900]1Jn 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.[/color]

Kind regards

Mike

Wisevirgin quoted

TWO DAMNABLE HERESIES ARE TAUGHT HERE

To avoid misunderstanding [edit: spelling mistake], this posting is not commenting on the 'Mere Christianity' extract.

Blessings

Mike

The problem is that CS Lewis made them to be childrens stories not allegories, but as the quote from David Cloud of The Last Battle, there are many refences to "Lord" "Glorious One", "My Beloved"... These sound more spiritual than the childrens sermon at church. Confusing? Yeah! It's like saying it isn't to disarm the arguements Then you are free to make it what you want. Dan Brown did it with the DaVinci Code "Novel", but I think it's pretty sad to do it with children. If you say it's christian which is what most christians (even respected leaders) claim, then it should be subject to scrutiny. I think it's kind of shifty to be able to play both sides of the fence when convenient. C.S. Lewis mixed paganism with christianity to come up with his fables and he did it so artfully that very few will even cry foul. What or who is his first love? Jesus or Myth cannot be mixed any more that oil and water. In Christian Love, Barry

BVO wrote

These sound more spiritual than the childrens sermon at church.

If you say it's christian which is what most christians (even respected leaders) claim

Two points:

They were very popular when I was at college (a long time ago) and I enjoyed the stories. The dodgy bits did not corrupt me (you may wish to disagree :-) ), but made me think about some deeply held views. Will children be corrupted by these books; I doubt it. In the passage quoted the person confronted by Aslan only knew of Tash. It is worth bearing in mind that Paul accept a 'pagan' altar as being to the one true living God. [color=009900]Act 17:23 For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.[/color]

Do I agree whole heartedly with CS Lewis on every point, no, but then which of us has all of our doctrines perfect, not me; I'm still learning. How will God handle situations like these; I don't know, but: [color=009900]Gen 18:25 Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?[/color] Absolutely, yes!! Should we be gracious to a brother that is no longer here to defend himself, I hope that we could.

Mike

Hello…

I don’t want to comment about the extent of C. S. Lewis’ beliefs concerning certain matters. Why? For one, he isn’t here to defend himself. Secondly, much of how many believers “judge” others is based upon secondhand knowledge (usually from a book or website) rather than from first person experience. This is usually why “conspiracy theories” are so quickly spread through Christian circles. By the time someone warns about hasty judgment, the damage has already been done. Finally, what is the ultimate outcome of such a doctrinal trial? Again, Mr. Lewis isn’t around to answer his critics or further explain or clarify his words (or supposed words).

I would recommend that we use wisdom during such attempts to “expose” such individuals for what some might perceive about them. Consider the website article from which wisevirgin copied and pasted portions of an article that considers C.S. Lewis to be a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” I clicked on the link and read the article. I then explored the website further. That website is also filled with so many accusations about other supposed “wolves” – you would think that it was a website dedicated to wildlife biology! The website also accuses individuals like Martin Luther, Billy Graham, John MacArthur, Ray Comfort, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, James Robison, Catherine Booth, Jack Chick, Chuck Swindoll, President Bush – amongst many other individuals, organizations and doctrines. In fact, the website even makes accusations about the doctrines of the Assemblies of God. After reading some of the obviously incorrect assumptions about the Assemblies of God, I would imagine that if other accusatory articles should be read with the same “grain of salt” in order to avoid making such strong but false assumptions. But the website writers are staunchly opposed to the “tongues movement” (as they call it). I suppose that anyone who adheres to certain sections of such a “movement” (or even the beliefs) would, according to that website, also be “deceived.”

I guess that this is the problem with many websites that attempt to “warn” believers. They interject their opinions within the rationale. As a result, I would caution others who venture into that website from believing everything that they read – or to realize that there is a decidedly biased slant to nearly everything that I read.

That being said, I don’t know what to think of C. S. Lewis’ writings. I suppose that I would need to go through them in order to understand what he really believed. However, I was never very attracted to his books. This isn’t an indictment of his writings, but just a personal preference. I also never cared very much for the writings of Watchman Nee. I am certainly not going to become a critic of his beliefs – I just wasn’t attracted to his writings enough to properly scrutinize them. C.S. Lewis, like Watchman Nee, was an imperfect human being. He may have written something that wasn’t truly reflective of his heart (or a position or belief from which he deviated in later years). However, the same can be said of men like David Wilkerson. He certainly isn’t the man that he was in the earlier days of his ministry. He has matured and probably changed his emphasis as he focuses on and matures in Jesus Christ.

Anyway, I just thought that I would interject this into the conversation.

:-)

Here are a few of Lewis' other beliefs.

Disclaimer: The page numbers don't match up with most books sold today, but I was able to find most of these, plus some other things.

Theology Proper

On Creation: Lewis believed that evolution was true to an extent in the past, but that it will be superseded in the future (MC, p.169). "... for we have good reason to believe that animals existed long before men. ... For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself ... [Eventually,] God caused a new kind of consciousness to descend upon this organism" (PP, pp.133,77). "... Man, the highest of the animals" (MC, p.139); "... but he (man) remains still a primate and an animal" (RP, pp.115,129); "If ... you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objection" (PP, p.72) "He made an earth at first 'without form and void' and brought it by degrees to its perfection" (M, p.125). Nature's "pregnancy has been long and painful and anxious, but it has reached its climax" (MC, p.172). He held that the Genesis account came from Pagan and mythical sources -- "I have therefore no difficulty accepting, say, the view of those scholars who tell us that the account of Creation in Genesis is derived from earlier Semitic stories which were Pagan and mythical." (RP, p.110).

Anthropology

On the depravity of man: "... when the consequence is drawn that, since we are totally depraved, our idea of good is worth simply nothing -- may thus turn Christianity into a form of devil worship" (PP, pp.37-38). The divine goodness differs "from ours not as white and black but as a perfect circle from a child's first attempt to draw a wheel" (PP, p.39). Total depravity was rejected by Lewis ("I disbelieve that doctrine") because: (1) If we were totally depraved we could not know ourselves to be depraved; (2) Experience shows that there is much goodness in human nature (PP, p.66).

Soteriology

How salvation (the general scope) works: "There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it ... For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ's birth may have been in this position" (MC, pp. 176-177). God "often makes prizes of humans who have given their lives for causes He thinks bad on the monstrously sophistical ground that the humans thought them good and were following the best they knew" (SL, p.26). "There are three things that spread the Christ-life to us: baptism, belief, and that mysterious action which different Christians call by different names -- Holy Communion, the Mass, the Lord's Supper" (MC, pp.62,63). In the other world "there will be every occasion for being the sort of people that we can become only as the result of doing such acts here" (MC, p.63).

On losing salvation: "There are people (a great many of them) who are slowly ceasing to be Christians ..." (MC, p.162). "... a Christian can lose the Christ-life which has been put into him, and he has to make efforts to keep it" (MC, p.49).

On being "Born Again": "... ye must be born again. Till then, we have duty, morality, the Law. A schoolmaster, as St. Paul says.... But the schooldays, please God, are numbered" (LM, p.115). [Note: In context, to be "born again," for Lewis, is somewhere down the road yet (MC, pp.59,60).]

The Hereafter

On heaven: "All the scriptural imagery (harps, crowns, gold, etc.) is, of course, a merely symbolical attempt to express the inexpressible. Musical instruments are mentioned because for many people (not all) music is the thing known in the present life which most strongly suggests ecstasy and infinity. Crowns are mentioned to suggest the fact that those who are united with God in eternity share His splendor and power and joy. Gold is mentioned to suggest the timelessness of heaven (gold does not rust) and the preciousness of it" (MC, p.106). "The point is not that God will refuse you admission to His eternal world if you have not certain qualities of character: the point is that if people have not got at least the beginnings of those qualities inside them, then no possible external conditions could make a 'Heaven' for them ..." (MC, p.63).

On animals in heaven: "The redemptive function" of man toward animals -- "It seems to me possible that certain animals may have an immortality, not in themselves, but in the immortality of their masters" (PP, pp.136,139-140). Lewis also pictures animals in heaven as partaking of the Christ-life through a saintly woman (GD, p.108).

Bibliology

"I have the deepest respect for Pagan myths, still more for myths in the Holy Scriptures" (PP, p.71).

For one, he isn’t here to defend himself. Secondly, much of how many believers “judge” others is based upon secondhand knowledge (usually from a book or website) rather than from first person experience. This is usually why “conspiracy theories” are so quickly spread through Christian circles.

I believe that CS Lewis had and still has an important role in the academic environment. There are many fine quotes that you can draw from his work – that would be accepted more readily in the academic or liberal environments than say Billy Graham. (even though they may say the same thing)

And as far as the specific quotes posted - to ‘prove’ that he is off track – well here again, one needs to understand the context. For example – CS Lewis use of the word “myth” – but probably not in the popular way it is used: a made-up story. It should not be assumed that from his use of the word that he believes that the Bible is all made-up stories.

Also, he disagrees with total depravity. If I recall, some time ago Ron Bailey described it as this: Total depravity does not mean that every aspect of us is totally depraved, but that every part of us is affected by depravity. Let’s admit, we are not likely as bad as a human being could possibly be. Is that what CS Lewis means?

I am not a CS Lewis expert but I am aware of the easy trap of making oneself an “expert” on somebody, and yet seeing that person through pride and self-righteousness. Not only do we foolishly shot members of our own Body, but we also play right into the devil’s hands. For example, we may give our adversaries a reason to “prove” that evangelicals are just dogmatic and non-thinkers.

Before presenting the dark side of someone, it is important to realize that our enemy can use it for his purposes too – to dislodge from the Church possible means of edification.

Speaking of the devil... here is a quote from CS Lewis that I plan to use in an enviroment where the idea of "devils" is viewed by some as mere superstition.

“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive unhealthy interest in them.”
(PTL for CS Lewis!)

Diane

roadsign wrote:

For one, he isn’t here to defend himself. Secondly, much of how many believers “judge” others is based upon secondhand knowledge (usually from a book or website) rather than from first person experience. This is usually why “conspiracy theories” are so quickly spread through Christian circles.

I would like to underscore Chris’ entire post! We do need to be very careful about secondary sources, for they are filtered through someone’s views. If they are highly critical, they quite possibly do not fairly reflect a fair judgment the heart and work of the writer. They also may fail to see the person through the eyes of God - his bigger plan. After all, God uses imperfect people.

I believe that CS Lewis had and still has an important role in the academic environment. There are many fine quotes that you can draw from his work – that would be accepted more readily in the academic or liberal environments than say Billy Graham. (even though they may say the same thing)

And as far as the specific quotes posted - to ‘prove’ that he is off track – well here again, one needs to understand the context. For example – CS Lewis use of the word “myth” – but probably not in the popular way it is used: a made-up story. It should not be assumed that from his use of the word that he believes that the Bible is all made-up stories.

Also, he disagrees with total depravity. If I recall, some time ago Ron Bailey described it as this: Total depravity does not mean that every aspect of us is totally depraved, but that every part of us is affected by depravity. Let’s admit, we are not likely as bad as a human being could possibly be. Is that what CS Lewis means?

I am not a CS Lewis expert but I am aware of the easy trap of making oneself an “expert” on somebody, and yet seeing that person through pride and self-righteousness. Not only do we foolishly shot members of our own Body, but we also play right into the devil’s hands. For example, we may give our adversaries a reason to “prove” that evangelicals are just dogmatic and non-thinkers.

Before presenting the dark side of someone, it is important to realize that our enemy can use it for his purposes too – to dislodge from the Church possible means of edification.

Speaking of the devil... here is a quote from CS Lewis that I plan to use in an enviroment where the idea of "devils" is viewed by some as mere superstition.

“There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive unhealthy interest in them.”
(PTL for CS Lewis!)

Diane

I now where you're coming from and I agree with some of it, but we're told,

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Yes, I have read some great quotes by Lewis, but that doesn't cancel out his false teaching.

C.S. Lewis teaches things that are contrary to the Bible, some of which is just plain false teaching. We are to aviod him just as much as Rob Bell, Joel Osteen, or others like them.

Somehow it seems to me that this is an unfair comparison. Should there not be some deeper discernment?

Diane

Blessings, Barry, and AMEN!
"Christian movie", an oxymoronic warning if there ever was one.
Kenn
1Thessalonians 5:23

Hi HomeFree89...

C.S. Lewis teaches things that are contrary to the Bible, some of which is just plain false teaching. We are to aviod him just as much as Rob Bell, Joel Osteen, or others like them.

Yes, I have read some great quotes by Lewis, but that doesn't cancel out his false teaching.

If you believe in the Pentecostal view of "speaking in tongues," there are some who would dismiss your belief (and possibly, even your FAITH) as "heresy." Conversely, there are those who embrace Pentecostal ideas about tongues who actually dismiss contrary views as "heresy."

What I am trying to say is that it is easy to call someone a "heretic" or a "false teacher" simply because his views do not line up with our own. This seems to be an indictment on much of modern (and even classical) Christianity (to our shame). In this case, we can't completely research the statements made by C.S. Lewis because he is long dead. In fact, we can only guess what he meant in his books -- or that he continued such beliefs throughout his life (and into his other books).

If I remember correctly, David Wilkerson shared in his book [i]Beyond the Cross and the Switchblade[/i] that he enjoyed sitting down with his family to watch westerns on television. This is a vast contrast with his later books (like [i]Set the Trumpet to thy Mouth[/i]) in which Wilkerson shared an entirely different view about television. Are we to judge Brother Wilkerson at all by such things -- including by a particular set of words that he may or may not have espoused throughout his life?

I think that it would be much more helpful to discuss the notion of "plurality" rather than attributing such a belief to Mr. Lewis. Since we cannot speak with him (or even his associates or family from the times of his books), it would be difficult to make any such accurate claims about him at all. Remember, there are probably people who are as quickly willing to dismiss us based upon their own personal perspective. It is never a fun thing to endure unwarranted or misunderstood criticism.

:-)

I don't wish to judge or condemn CS Lewis as that is not my job. I would hope that he matured as David Wilkerson or hopefully myself. What I am interested in is the work (chronicles) that is currently being raved over as fantastic and valuable and christian. The work can be judged as scriptural or unscriptural and be accepted or rejected as such. I may reject a work of someone that later matured or got born again and later produced acceptable work. The problem I have is like the passion of the Christ that over and over again I heard how historically accurate and biblically accurate it was and how many people were coming to Christ when in actuality much was extra-biblical, and some was against scripture as presented. As for the second hand info, I understand how out of hand it can get. The problem again is that I can read someones review (Berit Kjos, Prince Caspian) about a Bacchus character delivering someone (river deity I think) from bondage then ask someone who has seen it and they say "yea, that's how it was, but I'm not sure I see the problem" Well, the problem is that satan cannot drive out satan especially while he was pals with Jesus. Jesus will not share His glory (BIBLE) A House divided cannot stand (BIBLE) When someone that professes Christ writes against the Bible he professes to believe as the word of God and sticks with it as good, it causes me to question his integrity. I did hear David Wilkerson some time ago say that he didn't even trust his own preaching from 20 years before (I think the year is right) because much of it wasn't from the right heart. That is truth loving, God loving humility. Thanks and God Bless, Barry

I would like to ask forgiveness for the manner in which I have said some things. After posting I wonder wether it will edify or just argue. I think I need to bow back out of the heated discussions and this subject is too personal to me as it even has the potential for division in my home. And for what? The right to watch a movie that many claim to be christian. Thanks to all for your patience and longsuffering toward me. In Christian Love, Barry

I would like to ask forgiveness for the manner in which I have said some things. After posting I wonder wether it will edify or just argue. I think I need to bow back out of the heated discussions and this subject is too personal to me as it even has the potential for division in my home. And for what? The right to watch a movie that many claim to be christian.

Funny, there is a natural tendency to believe that we can defeat the perceived enemy by trying to attack it and bring it down. In the long run, often we accomplish nothing except more interest in it, and as you say, divisiveness (polarities). Admittedly, we don’t run the world. We can’t control the way others think. People apply their own biases and world views.

However, the one thing that does make an impact is our own personal spiritual growth – yes, walk with Christ. That is the offence God has given us (see Eph. 6:10ff: the Spiritual armour of God).

To be honest, I get intensely annoyed over the lack of discretion exhibited by the Christian community. It seems that many either villainize or deify anything/anyone related to the faith – often based on superficial observations. As Carter Conlon (I think) pointed out: if the right terms are used, Christians buy it hook line and sinker. (Or vice-versa.)

Funny, a while ago a major hulaboo occurred here over the movie, “The End of the Spear”. This wasn’t so much over the actual movie itself, but over other volatile issues. I recently watched the movie for the first time, eager to see how the original story of five martyrs was portrayed. Actually, the movie was intensely lame – in MY opinion. It seemed to me that all the smoke created here over the movie did little to inform me about the movie itself.

While I will be careful not to accept CS Lewis hook, line, and sinker, I will continue to value his offerings to the Christian community. To denounce him entirely would please the atheists immensely. I refuse to give them that pleasure.

Diane